Maxwell’s Ghost, online: You couldn’t save the West Pier when there was a pier to save, so why should anyone have any confidence in schemes you are involved with?

Glynn Jones: Dear Maxwell’s Ghost, I can understand your frustration, I share it, but I need to remind you that restoration of the sea- based pier was about to start, lottery funding was in place as was planning permission and an agreement reached with a developer when in 2003 arsonists destroyed the greater part of the West Pier and the culprits were never found.

Subsequent schemes for the rebuilding of a sea-based pier were unsuccessful because they either failed to gain public support, get planning permission or they were too large and not in keeping with the rest of the seafront development or because funding did not materialise.

Funding problems for major projects in the city are not unusual, the Circus Street project has been under consideration for more than ten years, Preston Barracks for about the same period and the King Alfred development for even longer.

We are emerging from the worst recession in living memory and funding for major projects is still very difficult. However, the greater part of the funding for the i360 is in place and secure and Marks Barfield the architects have invested over £4million of their own money into the scheme.

It still has the full support of the city council as well as maintaining overwhelming public support. With the economy beginning to strengthen, now is not the time to lose our nerve.

 

The Argus:

 

Evasio, online: I’d love to know what your top three priorities are for the regeneration of Brighton seafront in general?

Glynn Jones: Dear Evasio, I take some pride in the fact that whilst I was chief executive of the former Brighton Borough Council, we commenced, at a time of financial constraint, to invest heavily in the regeneration of the seafront and that work continues today.

My first priority would be the completion of the i360 because, like the original West Pier, it will be iconic, represent the best in design and will signal that the city is once again re-inventing itself and open for business.

It will also facilitate the regeneration of that part of the city and in particular the areas around Preston Street, which have been struggling for years.

My second would, naturally, be a sea-based pier which would complement the i360 design, be sustainable, have total public access and be a “bridge to the future”, a centre for creative tourism and reflect the diverse nature of the new economies in the city.

My third would be to see the completion of the excellent work being continued by the city council in its “vision” for the seafront, incorporating both first rate design and improving public access for all.

Naturally we want to continue to work with the Regency Square Association and other groups to tidy up the root end where the pier kiosks once stood until building work starts.

 

Hove Actually, online: How long will it take to get the investment back if the i360 is built and how will this raise the millions needed to replace the West Pier?

Glynn Jones: Dear Hove Actually, once the i360 is up and running, the developers, Marks Barfield will be paying the trust, who own the land, an annual rental and also a percentage of the income it receives.

This money will be used by the trust in conjunction with the local museum and the Fishing Museum to support its continuing educational work in perpetuating and understanding of the history of piers and their importance in the development of seaside resorts.

It will also help fund any costs incurred by the trust in working with future partners on the development of a sea-based pier.

The trust never has had enough funds itself to fund a new sea-based pier by itself, that money will need to come from it working in partnership with others and a mixture of public [e.g. lottery funding] and or private commercial investors.

 

The Argus:

 

Ben Lyons, Hove: What conditions have Marks Barfield stipulated in return for its financial support of the West Pier Trust?

Glynn Jones: Dear Ben, because of the delay in the i360 project, the trust sources of income from the market and other activities reduced dramatically.

The trust has not received deferred income from Marks Barfield but it has received payments to cover the continuing operation of the trust in view of the income it has lost because of the cessation of activities from which it derived income.

Under normal circumstances, the trust would expect that these pay||ments would be deducted from income finally paid to the trust once the scheme gets under way.

In the unlikely event of the i360 not going ahead, the matter of payments made to the trust would be a matter for negotiation.

Siobhan, Worthing: The West Pier Trust recorded a deficit last year. How long can it continue to run its funds down?

Glynn Jones: Dear Siobhan, as can be seen from the annual fully audited accounts which were presented to its annual general meeting last week and which are a matter for public record, the trust remains a going concern and has both assets and income which allow it to continue to trade quite properly.

We take our financial responsibilities and position very seriously and our financial position is reviewed regularly at every board meeting.

Clearly the trust’s financial position will be greatly strengthened once the i360 is up and operating. Until then we will continue to operate very prudently and explore all means of generating income so that we can continue our work and remain a going concern.