I disagree with Viv, here. A small minority of people seem opposed to the pier's planned renovation. This goes back to before the Waterfront building, when the pier was in better condition than now. Back in 2011, councillor John Davies was quoted by the
Pioneer as saying he didn't think the renovation was "feasible". A few others have been saying the same thing, going further back, when the pier was in even better condition.
What's the basis for this "unfeasible" claim? I don't see any such basis beyond mere opinion. (But perhaps I'm wrong - please let me know of any analyses/reports which declare its unfeasibility). Even now, in its current rotting state, I'm told that the experts say the structure is still sound, and that it's perfectly feasible to renovate, given sufficient funding. This is what the lottery bid is about, no?
Hastings pier has received lottery funding to be restored. It's in a worse condition than Colwyn Bay pier, due to being burnt down:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/19/hastings-pier-lottery-grantAnd I don't understand the "uncluttered" argument. Remove any pier, and the result is less "clutter". Follow that logic, and we should get rid of all piers, so we can have uncluttered coastal vistas everywhere. Sorry, but I don't really buy it. If we wanted less clutter, why build a large new building before the fate of the pier is decided?
Sea defenses and watersports are one thing. A large, costly, unappealing dumpster-shaped building is another.