Recommendation Letter for East Sussex County Council for Two Comparative Development Projects - Case Study Example

RECCOMENDATION REPORT By Recommendation Report for East Sussex County Council for Two Comparative Development Projects Introduction The East Sussex County Council is considering development projects that could cost it more of a fortune. For proper decisions on this project, consideration of both the two projects requires critical analysis of a number of factors. The county aims at developing a Pier for one of the different locations either Eastbourne or Brighton. The development of a pier and the reconstruction of an existing one are among the many options that the Sussex County Council is considering. In developing a new pier, a number of options and costs require considering which could make the project costly to the county government. In reconstructing an existing pier, one requires considering the level of rot in the old one and the costs needed to redevelop the project to the specifications of the county. In this quest, it is therefore necessary to consider a number of options to arrive at a well thought through decision regarding the project. Considering the social impact that the project will have the business viability and the cultural significance of the project to the people of Sussex County. The details of the study aim at unveiling the information with regard to these that will help the county government arrive at a decision in relation to the two projects. Background The two projects under consideration are part of the development plan of the East Sussex County Council and ensuring that these are achieved provides for the county a good reputation and an improved livelihood for the locals. The county has interests in this project for a number of reasons but most of all because of the need to provide credible services for the people of East Sussex County. Banking on the renewed debate over the proposal of whether to build a new pier or reconstruct the old one, many of the Sussex County residents would like to see a new pier. According to the polls conducted by Argus, 44% of the people considered a new pier while 35% considered the remainder being left and 21% would want the pier demolished. According to these reports, the government is considering options in either reconstructing the old pier or developing a new one in another location (Fletcher, 2014). The county government seeks to make a decision that best applies resource application needs and ensures that the resources are utilized well and provide value for money for the people of Sussex. It is basing on these grounds that the government seeks to obtain information on the recommendations on which pier project option to consider as a viable one for the locals. Presentation of options The two options that the county has are as aligned below. Finding one of the two projects to consider which benefits, the county best is the basis of this study. Brighton Pier: the Brighton pier option considers the reconstruction of an already existing pier. This option seeks to develop the once existent pier and consider reconstructing it to the standards of the people of East Sussex. The option might take fewer resources and prove easier to develop compared to putting up a new one all together. The difficulty of this option is that the pier is older and more resource consuming compared to the Eastbourne pier. The pier having suffered destruction from a fire in 2003 has the remainder of its skeletons that have seen much of the decline of the commercial activity on it (Culture: Brighton’s pier, n.d). Eastbourne Pier: The second option considers the reconstruction of the Eastbourne pier. The option will require employment of resources from the starting levels to ensure that the project is established and the pier is set as per the requirements of the county. The pier has been functional for some time until the arson attacks earlier this year that destroyed it (Gover, 2014). Requirements Social impacts: The requirements of the social aspects in developing any of the projects consider the different social impacts that the project will have on the locals in the community. The social impacts rotate around the negative state that the destroyed piers will have on the community. The consumption of the pier and the social life of the county require analysis before consideration of any projects. The project will require considering comments from the community and the effect that the pier will have on them. Considering the regulations too in the development of the project is vital in ensuring safety and environmental protection for both projects (South park bridge project, 2005, p4). Business viability: The business viability of the piers needs considering any reconstruction works to commence on the pier. The business sense of the construction of the pier considers all sides including the effects that the project will have on the competition in the market in relation to other piers. Considering this option, an evaluation on the commercial ability is a requirement. Cultural significance: Among the many aspects that influence the voting of many people, 35% for the maintenance of the old pier indicate a cultural connection that the locals hold onto in relation to the existence of the pier. The cultural connection that the pier has had in the community and its existence for a longtime are at the center of the voting. Having existed since 1866, the Brighton pier has grown to connect to a cultural sense to the people compared to the Eastbourne pier (Bainbridge, 1866). The pier having been closed since the 1975 years has awaited for long for renovations to start on it that would see it redeveloped into its old glory. These have not commenced and the government now considers doing the renovations on it or doing them on the recently destroyed Eastbourne pier. Among the many reasons that have held the pier’s renovations, these include protests by the people to have fail the renovation aspects (The Argus, 2004). Most of the reasons surrounding these claims included the commercial viability of the plan to renovate the pier. Comparison of options Social impact: In relation to social aspects, the options of redevelopment of the Eastbourne pier and the Briton pier vary. The people having protested several times about the Briton pier with the signs of negativity in the community relating to the fires and the negative attitude show they would favor the Eastbourne pier more as an option. The development of the Eastbourne pier would give more societal impacts making people of East Sussex County more appreciative compared to if the Briton pier was redeveloped. Business viability: Based on the competition levels that the trusties of the Briton pier expect if it is reconstructed, the business validity of this pier is questionable. The fact that it has stayed in this condition for a longer time would also cost more reviving it creating a cost impact that the government of East Sussex can save if they concentrate on the Eastbourne pier. The business validity of the Eastbourne pier is more realistic and viable. The fact that this pier has operated at the most recent of times makes it more viable for business since it already has customers making it a better option. The Brighton pier having suffered the fire in 2003 and had parts of it destroyed (Mitchell, 2014). Cultural significance: The cultural significance of the two piers creates a difference. The Briton pier has existed for a longer time and that explains why the locals would not consider having it demolished but rather maintained as a cultural symbol. Based on the statistics collected as in the requirements part of cultural significance, it shows that they would want to have another pier operate rather than it. In development of piers, the public plays a role that includes the state and the navy too (Bermant, 2014). Conclusion Considering all the requirements developed in the study, the social aspects, the business validity aspects and the cultural aspects indicate the need to develop the Eastbourne pier. The different literature provided yields to better indications and business advantages for many people if the Eastbourne pier is redeveloped. The Briton pier according to the statistics gathered is one that centers on the cultural content more and does not show any business viability or is not considered one of social impact to the community. Recommendation Based on the information gathered above and the considerations made relating the two piers, the redevelopment of the Eastbourne pier is recommended as the best development project that the County Council of East Sussex should consider investing in. the decision would prove more viable socially, culturally and of more business sense compared to the reconstruction of the Briton pier. Reference List Bermant, C. (2014). Pit-To-Pier Draft Environmental Impact Statement Draws Some 260 Comments. Retrieved from http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140813/NEWS/308139982/pit-to-pier-draft-environmental-impact-statement-draws-some-260 Culture: Brighton’s Pier. N.D. The West Pier. Retrieved from http://www.thisbrighton.co.uk/culturepiers2.htm Fletcher, P. 2014. It is Very Unlikely That Brighton’s West Pier will be rebuilt As a Replica. Retrieved from http://www.paulfletcherphotography.co.uk/photoblog/2014/02/inlikely-brighton-west-pier-will-be-rebuilt-as-a-replica/ Gover, D. 2014. Eastbourne Pier Reopens Just Two Months After Fire Gutted Seaside Landmark. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eastbourne-pier-reopens-just-two-months-after-fire-gutted-seaside-landmark-1466549 Mitchell, E. 2014. Brighton’s Ruined West Pier Pavilion Split into Two by Storm. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-26046379 South Park Bridge Project, 2005. South Park Bridge Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section (4f) Evaluation. Retrieved from http://your.kingcounty.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/addlContent/documents/files/300197_DEIS_Exec-Eng.pdf The Argus, 2004. The Argus. Retrieved from http://www.theargus.co.uk/archive/2004/08/11/The+Argus+Archive/6712677.Noble__Don_t_blame_us_for_West_pier_s_downfall/ Read More