Gulzar Eyes 6,500% Profit
HUGH SULLIVAN
Friends of Hastings Pier (FoHP), the group seeking return of the landmark asset to community ownership, have been told by owner Sheikh Gulzar that he wants £4m for it.
The Friends have posted on their Facebook page that this sum is “many multiple times the valuation figure” given to them by a real estate company that specialises in selling retail and leisure properties globally. If paid, it would represent a 6,500 per cent profit to the 80-year-old Mr Gulzar on the £60,000 price which he paid liquidators for the pier in 2018.
There is no apparent means of bringing his asking price down. Questions continue to be raised, however, as to whether the structure is being adequately maintained.
The pier is registered with Hastings Borough Council as an asset of community value. Following Mr Gulzar’s declaration last autumn that he wished to sell it, FoHP triggered a six-month moratorium under the Localism Act, which expired earlier this month.
During the moratorium Hastings & Rye MP Helena Dollimore organised a meeting with local councillors and community organisations to discuss “work[ing] together to protect the pier” as a community asset. She then called for Mr Gulzar to commission an independent survey detailing its current condition.
If he has responded to this directly, he hasn’t disclosed it. However, the strength and reliability of the substructure have been highlighted as an issue in a recent application lodged on Mr Gulzar’s behalf with Hastings Borough Council for retrospective planning and listed building consent. The application is for permission to retain sheds (or kiosks as he refers to them), seating area benches and the sauna unit already in place on the decking.
Structural engineers AP Sherlock Associates (APSA) have been engaged by Samphire Sauna, managers of the sauna, to demonstrate that the unit, including changing facility and office cabin, doesn’t overload the capacity of the structure to support it. Their report was followed by another from Andrew Waring Associates (AWA), another firm of structural engineers engaged by the Borough Council. The latter has identified various minor issues that need addressing in the substructure, concerning bracing, abrasion guards, columns and drainage pipes.
AWA concluded that none of these issues should lead to withholding of planning permission for structural reasons. But they do recommend that a condition be attached requiring the ongoing maintenance of the pier, given the likely deterioration of the structure “in an exposed marine environment”.
Critics have lodged objections on the planning file. In particular, campaigner Chris Hurrell has pointed out that while the APSA report claims that the structure is subject to an inspection every three months and to a rolling programme of truss and bracing replacement, there’s no evidence of this happening. The report itself expressly avoids comment on any maintenance process.
AWA had access only to the landward end of the pier where the sauna unit is located. Their inspection of the substructure seems to have been conducted from the beach when the tide was halfway in.
Ms Dollimore suggested last week to HIP that “there is quite a bit happening behind the scenes”, which she cannot divulge. The Friends say they “will continue to lobby to ensure the pier becomes the beacon of regeneration it was intended to be, and brings jobs and tourists to our town.”
In the meantime, even on a sunny spring weekend, the pier remains largely devoid of activity. The only hospitality offered between the long stretches of timber decking, besides the ragged sauna unit in one corner, are three scattered sheds which offer, variously, ice-cream, coffee or take-away snacks. Is that it for the summer ahead?
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply