West Pier work to start

If all goes well, the Grade I listed building could be restored by October or November 2005.

Developer St Modwen and the Brighton West Pier Trust were given permission in principle to restore the 137-year-old pier and put up three new shoreline pavilions in a £30 million project.

The 9-2 decision was made after a tense and passionate two-hour meeting of the city planning committee at Hove Town Hall.

Opponents are now asking the Government to call it in for a public inquiry as happened with the community stadium for Brighton and Hove Albion at Falmer.

The Government Office for the South-East has already blocked an immediate grant of permission by Brighton and Hove City Council while it considers the scheme.

This was also done last year with the Brighton station development but in the end there was no inquiry into that.

Before any work can start, the developers will have to sign a complicated and onerous legal agreement with the city council.

After that, some emergency work is likely to take place later this year to secure the pier which has suffered two collapses during the past three months.

The rival Palace Pier has already challenged the right of the Heritage Lottery Fund to give what it calls public money for the West Pier restoration.

This has yet to go before the European Court but councillors were told it has a slim chance of success.

Dr Geoff Lockwood, chief executive of the trust, said it would not stop work from proceeding on the pier.

He was now 90 per cent certain the pier would be restored. There were still obstacles to be overcome but he was heartened by the majority in favour of the scheme.

Dr Lockwood said: "It has taken seven and a half years so far even to reach this stage."

St Modwen chief executive Anthony Glossop said he was delighted with the planning decision.

He said: "The scheme is viable. It will get built and we will build it."

Clive Buxton from the opposition group Save Our Seafront (SOS) said he was asking the Government to call in the scheme and added it would fight on.

David Biestefield, director of the Noble Organisation, which runs the Palace Pier, is also asking for the scheme to go before an inquiry.

More than 100 people attended yesterday's planning meeting in the council chamber of the town hall.

Most of them were opponents of the St Modwen scheme who cheered every speaker against it.

The 12 planning committee members had already paid a site visit to the pier and been given an extensive briefing. They had also read a detailed 88-page council report.

At the end of the meeting, Liberal Democrat Jenny Barnard-Langston and Labour councillor Francis Tonks opposed the scheme while the rest voted for it apart from Regency ward Labour councillor Roy Pennington who abstained.

Planning officer Hamish Walke outlined the scheme first submitted in April and said it had been revised in September to meet objections.

Some of it would be more than 7m above the level of King's Road and one eastern building would be up to 9.3m above.

Mr Walke said the shoreline, or enabling, development would undoubtedly have a negative impact on the seafront heritage and views.

But he said: "It will secure restoration of the Grade I listed pier and on balance we feel the advantages outweigh the negative aspects."

Solicitor Bob Bruce said the Palace Pier had challenged the National Lottery funding but this had been approved by the European Commission.

The matter was now being taken to appeal but Mr Bruce said the chances of that succeeding were extremely remote.

He said St Modwen and the trust had the full support of the Lottery Fund and any other development did not.

Objectors and supporters of the scheme each had a total of 15 minutes to put their case to councillors.

Clive Buxton, from SOS, concentrated on the economic aspects of the St Modwen scheme and said there were serious questions about whether it would be viable.

He said inflation would easily add a seven-figure sum to the building costs, which would make restoration out of order.

Mr Buxton said SOS accepted an enabling development was needed but not one that would ruin the seafront.

Sue Paskins, for the Regency Square Area Society, said the conservation area would be ruined by the shoreline development for years to come.

She said: "We don't want it and the city doesn't want it. We want to see the West Pier restored but not at any price."

Mrs Paskins said the leisure element of the scheme would be as big as the Goldstone Retail Park in Old Shoreham Road, Hove.

Buildings would tower above King's Road and block beautiful views people enjoyed of the sun setting behind the West Pier.

Mrs Paskins said the council report almost ignored the views of 3,000 people who had written to say they opposed the development.

Duncan Field, for the Palace Pier, said although English Heritage had recommended approval of the scheme, the conservation watchdog sometimes got it wrong and had done so this time.

He said few details had been given about how the pier would be restored or rebuilt under the scheme.

Malcolm Lewis appeared for Birch Restorations, the consortium which has put in a rival scheme for restoration of the pier.

He said detailed costings had proved it was possible to rebuild the pier for less than previous estimates and this meant the enabling development could be smaller.

The development then need not rise above King's Road as detailed in the St Modwen application.

Only Mr Glossop spoke for the application. He said two previous private sector partners had failed to restore the pier.

However, St Modwen had entered into a binding legal agreement that meant, provided all the consents were obtained, it would go ahead and build the scheme.

Mr Glossop said there was a lack of detail about the restored pier because that was not really an issue. It would be restored to how it was in the Twenties but made higher to cope with rising sea levels.

The enabling development needed to be an all-the-year-round attraction so people made the trip along to the pier regularly and not just in the summer.

He said the St Modwen scheme had been approved by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Amid jeers from the public, he said that when people had been independently asked what they thought of the scheme after seeing it at exhibitions, most had been in favour.

St Modwen was the only developer not prepared to put a building on the pier itself. There would be full views of it from Regency Square.

He told councillors: "You can either save the West Pier or you can consign it to oblivion."

Regency ward councillor John Warmington praised SOS for raising points which had forced St Modwen to improve the original scheme.

However, Coun Warmington said the scale of the enabling development was still excessive and needed reducing.

The first committee member to speak, Tory planning spokeswoman Carol Theobald, was critical about details of the scheme, including the height of the enabling development and the lack of a fishing platform.

She said: "I would like to see the pier saved and this is the only chance we have."

Labour councillor Francis Tonks said: "The seafront is already a bit of a mess and I don't want to see any more horrible buildings."

He described two of the pavilions as being flat roofed sheds and the third as being like an enormous egg.

Councillor Barnard-Langston said: "I'm worried that the enabling development will severely damage the setting of the West Pier."

It would also set a precedent for development on other parts of the seafront.

There was opposition from 15 amenity societies to the scheme and changes were needed before it could be approved.

Tory councillor Lynda Hyde said: "We have had nearly three decades with no decision and we can see the result. I really could not allow the pier to disappear into the sea."

She said the pier and the three pavilions would be four attractions on that part of the seafront.

Labour councillor Jack Hazelgrove said: "I think we can have confidence in St Modwen who already have a substantial stake in the city.

"Now they will stand and fall by the success of this development."

Tory councillor David Bennett was worried about rapidly rising costs of restoring the West Pier.

Acting planning chairman Bob Carden said: "The council's officers, past and present, have worked with the West Pier Trust over a period of 25 years to bring forward viable alternatives for its restoration.

"This development will secure the restoration of one of the finest piers in the world and ensure its ongoing maintenance."

Council leader Ken Bodfish said: "The West Pier is one of the most important buildings in the UK.Its restoration will be a further boost to an already thriving tourism scene and the crowning glory of our seafront regeneration."

St Modwen director Nick Doyle said: "This is great news for Brighton and the start of a new era for the West Pier.

"The council's positive decision means that we can now put in hand emergency works on the pier and start on detailed designs for the enabling development.

"We have had excellent support from the public and we are now keen to move forward so the West Pier can once again be a popular destination and focal point for visitors and the local community."

The planning committee's decision sparked many more mixed reactions from leading figures in Brighton and Hove.

Simon Fanshawe, the writer and broadcaster who headed the campaign for city status, hailed the decision as brave and said it heralded a new future for Brighton and Hove.

He said: "It seems to me this is one of the most optimistic gestures. This is a cornerstone for the development of the whole of the seafront of Brighton for the 21st Century."

Roger Marlowe, chairman of the Brighton and Hove Hotel and Guesthouse Association, said hoteliers in the city were split on the issue.

He said: "In most areas we tend to have a common viewpoint but on this matter there are strong views on both sides.

"My own personal view is that the biggest issue is the quality of the building of the enabling development. What is all important for Brighton is the quality of the architecture.

"We in Brighton shouldn't build anything ever again that is ordinary.

"We desperately need the West Pier but I say let's have a modern pier, like the bridge at Gateshead.

"The ideal would be to have a high quality enabling development and a fantastic 21st Century pier with the same money - it would be the first pier of the new century and would really make Brighton a must to visit.

"It was always going to be a very difficult decision. Whatever decision they made would be considered wrong.

"The big thing is they have made a decision so congratulations to them."

Tony Mernagh, spokesman for City Centre Business Forum, was delighted.

He said: "I think the pier is worth saving. I think we have to accept there is a price to be paid for saving it and in modern times that price includes the enabling development, which in itself will help to make that part of the seafront more lively, more attractive and have a better leisure offer.

"So I'm pleased that it has got the go-ahead and I sincerely hope that no more obstacles are put in its way.

"I think business people here in general realise if you are going to have an undertaking of that size, with that kind of money, you are going to have to have a reasonable size of enabling development and activity on the pier itself will not be enough.

"Importantly, this will also pay for the upkeep of the pier for the next 125 years."

Rodney Posner, who runs the Meeting Place cafe a short distance from the pier, was thrilled with a decision he believed would boost business.

He said: "It's about time too. It's about time they stopped talking about it and got on with it.

"It might mean a bit more competition but it will be good for business.

"Most people I speak to at the cafe seem to be in favour of it."