This report compares two potential development options for the Hove seafront in Brighton and Hove: an observation tower called i360 or a new pier. It analyzes the options' costs, environmental impacts, and social impacts. For costs, the tower requires more public funding while shares of the pier were quickly purchased. Both aim to operate sustainably. Socially, the pier generates more profit per visitor. The report recommends the new pier as the most cost-effective option.

1. Recommendation Report Comparing Two Potential
Developments for the Hove Seafront
Module: Skills for Study 2
25th Feb 2014
(c) Yusskei, http://yusskei.net

2. Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Presentation of the Options
4. Requirements
5. Comparison of Options
6. Conclusion
7. Recommendation
8. References
Student Number: 13831640
2

3. 1. Introduction
Although Brighton and Hove city have been acclaimed for vigorous tourism industry, further
development in tourist destination in the Hove seafront is projected. It contains two potential plans
as follows; observation tower and new pier (Visit Brighton, 2012; Brighton & Hove City Council,
n.d.; BBC, 2012). This report will examine these two blueprints from financial, environmental and
social perspective, and finally suggest which idea is more preferable.
2. Background
Brighton and Hove is a coastal city in Sussex, southern England, the United Kingdom, which has
slightly over 270,000 population as of 2011 (Brighton & Hove City Council, 2011). Since the city
locates relatively close to London, its tourism industry considerably contributes to local economy,
attracting approximately 8 million domestic and oversea tourists every year (Visit Brighton, 2012).
However, one potential tourist destination area has been controversial for a decade. In the Hove
seafront, the West Pier was opened in 1866 as a landmark for tourists. Nonetheless, it was shut
down in 1975 due to safety concern and burnt out in 2003 for unknown reasons, then split into two
parts in 2014 because of a devastating storm. Since the pier had be closed and destroyed,
reanimation of this area has been argued over 10 years, raising two construction schemes as
follows; observation tower and new pier (BBC, 2012; The Argus, 2014).
3. Presentation of the Options
3-1. Observation Tower
Observation tower, named i360, is drafted by a recognised architect Marks Barfield, creator of
London Eye. As a symbol for tourist, the tower is planned to have 175 meters height above sea
level, and its observation space rise by 141 meters. The space can accommodate over 100 visitors
concurrently and offer them distinctive experience of 360 degree view of south England. At the foot
of the tower, shops, cafes and restaurants are suppose to be arranged. This scenario was submitted
to and confirmed by the City Council in 2006 and is scheduled to complete whole construction by
June 2015 (Ridgway and James, 2014; i360, n.d.; Brighton & Hove City Council, n.d.).
3-2. New Pier
Installation of a new pier is another possible plan. In fact, a developer stated his concern with
rebuilding West Pier (BBC, 2012), and according to The Argus, 44% of respondents, who read a
Student Number: 13831640
3

4. article regarding destruction of the West Pier and voted online, answered that they desire rebuilding
of the West Pier (The Argus, 2014). In addition, although 99 piers were build and 58 piers among
them have been operated since then in the UK (National Piers Society, 2013), one future restoration
is scheduled in Hastings, England (Milligan, 2013). Since Hastings and Brighton and Hove are
similar in location, coastal area in south England, and renowned tourism industries, this Hastings
case is applicable sample to a development of the Hove seafront.
The Hastings case aims to refurbish a entire basement and create a spacious pier for flexible use. It
is designed to contain pavilion, visitor centre, opens paces, shops and restaurants. The spacious pier
allows to hold various events all the year around, such as music festival, outdoor cinema, summer
and winter celebrations (Milligan, 2012; Hastings Pier Charity, n.d.).
4. Requirements
4-1. Cost
When it comes to construction cost, investment and running cost should be considered. For
instance, appropriate investment allows a venue to be durable and reusable for a long time. Also,
running cost, such as energy consumption, is a issue to be addressed (Kohler, 1999).
4-2. Environmental Impact
Ding, G (2008) claimed that “construction has been accused of causing environmental problems
ranging from excessive consumption of global resources both in terms of construction and building
operation to the pollution of the surrounding environment”. Therefore, to be sustainably operated,
protection of resources and ecosystem should be coped with (Kohler, 1999).
4-3. Social Impact
Development of tourism considerably affects local community, as King et al (1993) found out that
residents express concern about negative aspect, such as alcoholism and substance abuse, and
simultaneously expect positive aspect, such as employment, financial benefit, quality of life and
confidence among local people. Thus, social impact should be concerned about.
Student Number: 13831640
4

5. 5. Comparison of Options
5-1. Cost
Development cost of the tower is estimated at £35 million, which consists of £18 million from
various investors, £3 million from the government's national Growing Places Fund and £14 million
from local council tax payer (Brighton & Hove City Council, n.d.; Ridgway and James, 2014). In
terms of financial scale, based on Revenue Budget Book 2012/13 and Capital Programme that was
issued by Brighton & Hove City Council (n.d.), the cost roughly comprises 15% of annual budget
of the city.
On the other hand, counterpart of Hastings Pier is calculated at £14 million, which came from the
Heritage Lottery Fund at £11.4 million, also from other public and institutional sources at 2 million,
and gap amount will be raised by means of selling share to citizen (Milligan, 2013; Hastings Pier
Charity, n.d.).
Both total construction costs are vast. However, factual costs that city and afterwords citizen load
in the future are vary. Tower Case mandatorily requires £14 million to local taxpayer whilst
Hastings case does not at all. In addition, the latter proposed to pubic to buy £600,000 of share, the
seles seemed to be successful as £70,000 had been bargained in 10 days, according to BBC (2013).
Meanwhile, operational costs of each plan are incalculable.
5-2. Environmental Impact
The tower case is planned to be environmental friendly. Firstly, it reuse a foundation of the West
Pier. Also, fresh water consumption is reduced as much as it can by means of water-efficient
equipment. In addition, ethical sourcing will be arranged, such as bargaining from local and fair-
trade suppler of organic food and drink. Furthermore, electricity is only energy to operate the tower,
mostly flow from renewable energy supplier and rest is derived from energy that generated from
wind turbine generator at the top of the tower (i360 Brighton, n.d.).
Also, the Hastings Pier will promotes reuse for construction as Simon Opie, CEO of the Hastings
Pier Charity, said as follows: “We want a new pier as well as to restore the old, using sustainable
materials wherever we can” (Hastings Pier Charity, 2013). Although it appears to have a policy to
be environmental conscious, specific initiative is not presented.
Student Number: 13831640
5

6. Thus, although both plans address environmental issue, precise comparison of their initiatives is
incalculable since the Hastings case does not unveil its detailed plan so far.
5-3. Social Impact
As for the tower case, it is estimated that the tower attracts 800,000 visitors per year, generate £5
million annually and employs 150 jobs directly and over 400 spin-off jobs elsewhere (Brighton &
Hove City Council, n.d.).
As to new pier, Hastings pier is estimated that it generats 325,000 visitors annually and generates
£2.45 million per year for local businesses, which means that it allows 5,200 local jobs to access to
visitors (Hastings Pier Charity, n.d.).
These figures show that the tower case generates considerably vast amounts of visitors and financial
benefit compared with the Hastings case. However, in terms of estimated profit per capita, Hastings
case surpass the tower case at approximately £7.5 and £6.25 respectively, which illustrates high
efficiency of Hastings case.
6. Conclusion
To sum up, two potential developments are comparable as follows. Firstly, Hasting case noticeably
costs less than the tower case in terms of a burden of citizen. Secondly, both options will handle
environmental issue. Finally, Hastings case generate higher profit per head than the tower case.
Therefore, this essay concludes that construction of a new pier is considerably cost effective rather
than the counterpart of tower.
7. Recommendation
Comparing two developments from financial, environmental and social point dimension above, this
report recommend an investment for a new pier because it is highly cost effective and therefore, it is
preferable for the Hove seafront.
Student Number: 13831640
6

7. 8. References
BBC (2012). Developer Mike Holland in Brighton West Pier rebuild plan. BBC [Online]. Available
at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16815979 (Accessed: 17 February 2014)
BBC (2013). Hastings Pier shares sales total more than £70k. BBC [Online]. Available at: http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-24521359 (Accessed at: 17 February 2014)
Brighton & Hove City Council (2011). Census 2011. Available at: http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/community-and-life-events/census-2011 (Accessed: 23 February 2014)
Brighton & Hove City Council (n.d.). 'i360' West Pier Observation Tower and Heritage Centre.
Available at: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/major-developments/i360-west-
pier-observation-tower-and-heritage-centre (Accessed: 17 February 2014)
Brighton & Hove City Council (n.d.). Revenue Budget Book 2012/13 and Capital Programme.
Available at: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/
Budget_Book_2012-13_v.4.pdf (Accessed: 19 February 2014)
Ding, G. (2008). Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of
environmental management, 86. 451-464.
Hastings Pier Charity (n.d.). About the Shares Scheme. Available at: http://www.hpcharity.co.uk/
shares/shares-scheme/ (Accessed: 20 February 2014)
Hastings Pier Charity (n.d.). Business Investment Club. Available at: http://www.hpcharity.co.uk/
fundraising/business-investment-club/ (Accessed: 20 February 2014)
Hastings Pier Charity (2013). Press Release – Tide Turns For Hastings Pier – Press. Available at:
http://www.hpcharity.co.uk/2013/08/press-release-tide-turns-for-hastings-pier-press/ (Accessed: 20
February 2014)
Hastings Pier Charity (n.d.). The Architects. Available at: http://www.hpcharity.co.uk/media-centre/
the-architects/ (Accessed: 23 February 2014)
Student Number: 13831640
7

8. i360 Brighton (n.d.). Sustainability. Available at http://www.brightoni360.co.uk/sustainability.html
(Accessed: 20 February 2014)
i360 Brighton (n.d.). Universal Appeal. Available at http://www.brightoni360.co.uk/ (Accessed: 23
February 2014)
King, B., Pizam, A., Milman, A. (1993). Social impact of toursim. Annals of tourism research, 20,
4, 650-665.
Kohler, N. (1999). The relevance of green building challenge: An observer's perspective. Building
Research & Information, 27, 4/5, 309-320.
Milligan, P. (2013). 'The peerless pier' of Hastings to be brought back to life with £11.4m lottery
grant to re-build fire-hit listed structure. Daily Mail [Online]. Available at: http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235365/The-peerless-pier-Hastings-brought-life-11-4m-lottery-
grant-build-hit-listed-structure.html (Accessed: 17 February 2014)
National Piers Society (2013). Piers. Available at: http://www.piers.org.uk/pierpages/
NPS0regionslost.html (Accessed: 19 February 2014)
Ridgway, T., James, B. (2014). i360 back on track. The Argus [Online]. Available at: http://
www.theargus.co.uk/news/10946857.i360_back_on_track/ (Accessed: 17 February 2014)
The Argus (2014). Large chunk of Brighton's West Pier falls victim to the sea. The Argus [Online].
Available at: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/
10987392.Large_chunk_of_Brighton_s_West_Pier_falls_victim_to_the_sea/ (Accessed: 23
February 2014)
Visit Brighton (2012). Economic Impact of Tourism. Available at: http://www.visitbrighton.com/
partners/strategy-and-research/tourism-research (Accessed: 23 February 2014)
Visit Brighton (n.d.) Toursim Information. Available at: http://www.visitbrighton.com/xsdbimgs/
Tourism%20Statistics.pdf (Accessed: 21 February 2014)
Student Number: 13831640
8