The i360 is preparing to file for administration still owing £51 million to taxpayers, the council has announced.
Brighton and Hove City Council says it has received notice from Brighton i-360 Limited, of the board’s intention to appoint administrators.
The council therefore expects the company to enter administration in the near future.
It is now going to be put up for sale and administrtors Interpath say that, unless it finds a buyer, there’s a real risk it will close.
Charlie Carter, from Interpath, who is leading the sales process, said: “The Brighton i360 has become an iconic visitor attraction, welcoming hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, but unfortunately is now at real risk of closure unless a buyer can be found.”
The council says it understands that, once the company is in administration, the administrators from Interpath will review their options.
These include continuing to keep the attraction open for the short to medium-term while the administrators attempt to find a buyer to rescue the Brighton i360 – if financially viable and sufficient visitor demand exists.
Brighton i-360 Limited is a private limited company, which the council loaned money to in 2014 – the council remains the major creditor.
As of this month, the total amount outstanding from the Brighton i360 under the financing agreement is about £51 million.
This consists of the government loan brokered by the council at a commercially agreed interest rate, and about £4 million originally lent by the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership. This is now owed to the council.
The last payment to the council was made in June 2023.
The actual loss to the council relates to the underlying loan debt and interest repayable to the government which stands at about £32 million.
Deputy council leader Jacob Taylor said: “It is extremely disappointing that the Brighton i360 is filing for administration. This leaves a large unpaid amount to the city council, which will have an impact on the overall budget.
“I think it is important that the council and the city reflects on the decisions that have led us to this point – and learn lessons for the future.”
The Green leader of the opposition, Councillor Steve Davis, said: “This is a sad day for our city and our thoughts go out to the staff at the i360 especially, who now face uncertainty about their future.
“The i360’s history spans nearly two decades across both Green and Labour administrations. Alongside the i360 came a huge amount of regeneration for a long-neglected part of the city, the benefits of which are still being felt today, and there is collective responsibility for both the positives and downsides to this investment in our city.
“It’s in the interests of the council and everyone in the city that we see the best possible outcome from this and the council should be doing whatever it can to support that.”
Council leader Bella Sankey said: “Today is a day of shame for the Green Party and a sad day for Brighton and Hove.
“Their calamitous decision to loan a vast sum of public money to this failed business venture has left the residents of Brighton and Hove £51 million out of pocket.
“This will be their enduring legacy to the city – a huge debt that will be left to generations of residents to repay.
“Our council must now repay their folly amounting to over £2 million each year for the foreseeable future – money that could’ve been spent on nurseries, play areas, public toilets, preventing homelessness, road repairs, transitioning to net zero and dozens of other vital local services.”
“Lessons will be learned”
As if
Kitcat should serve time in prison for his role in this… A long long time
“learn lessons for the future” Mr Jacob Taylor?! What a great lesson when no one wanted this eye sore built in the first place. No consultation with the public was made at the time, or at least nothing more than a pretend go at one. Why should the people living in Brighton pay for this, when individuals in the (mostly Green) council agreed to it at the time. They should personally be responsible for it. An absolute disgrace.
Totally agree! Hold the Green Party buffoons personally liable!!
It’s time Jason Kitcat and Geoffrey Theobold were hauled in front of a scrutiny committee and are held to account for this terrible decision. Questions should also be asked of the interim Finance Director who with Kitcat made this whole sorry mess happen.
I’m not sure who should come out of this worst, the Greens for their hubris when the visitor numbers didn’t stack up and previous similar ventures has already failed. Or the Tories who only voted for it because they wanted to score points over Labour who always opposed it.
Either way the public should be very clear who is to blame and it’s time the city got an apology.
B&H news can you please clarify what the actual loss to the council tax player is please.
The council borrowed an amount from the PWLB to lend to the i360 at a low interest rate which it then lent to the i360 at a higher rate. The difference in the interest was to be spenr on improving the sea front.
I understand the big wheel towards the Marina had to be removed as part of the i360 plan.
What would have been the income to the council if the i360 was not built, and the big wheel remained?
The Council told me the wheel would stay. I questioned if Brighton could support both. They were adamant it could. Later they changed their mind and didn’t renew the lease on the wheel.
Those who made the decision to borrow the £36m should be held accountable and/or the taxpayers of Brighton should bring a civil case against them.
The ‘attraction’ was never going to be profitable. The numbers just didn’t add up. I was given by the Council a heavily redacted report justifying the project. It was heavily redacted, they said, because to reveal the figures would jeopardise the project. Presumably the jeopardy lay in revealing how shaky the numbers were.
How about Simon Burgess who pushed the project at the outset along with others from Labour who championed it the idea when it was first proposed. The project had cross party backing during its history and I find it astonishing that the current administration’s first response is a blame game trying to deflect away from themselves. Each political party who played a role in any poor decision-making needs to hold their hands up and own it – this includes Labour – and their loud protestations stink of deflection and political game playing.
It’s a dreadful situation, but the old saying about those who shout the loudest feels like it probably rings true in this sense. The comment from Bella Sankey in the Argus is shocking when her job is to create the best outcomes for the city – rather than being fixated with her political point scoring.
The deciding vote was all Green Councilors bar 1, 4 Tories and NO Labour councilors. How are they too blame? I recal Cllt Morgan being very anti the whole project. Blame here sits with the Greens, The Chief Exec and 4 Tory councilors.
There weren’t any Green councillors on the planning committee when it got given permission in the first place.
Valerie below says that Labour abstained on the finance vote – not vote against. The Labour government also changed national legislation to allow the i360 to progress. There were multiple decisions over many years that led to things getting to this point.
I’ve not seen Greens not accepting they played a role, all I have seen is Labour scream loudly that they are nothing to do with the i360 when that’s clearly not the case. Their leader supported the idea when it came up decades ago, Labour councillors gave it planning, there’s loads more they did over the years to ensure the project moved forward. They have VERY selective memories!
Yes Labour were initially for the project and did help with some complicated planning issues at Planning Committee BUT once it became apparent that private finance would not fund the project , they opposed the whole idea.Ttey voted AGAINST the loan secured by the council from the PWB and any further continuence . This was backed by every Green Councilor bar one and four Tories. I’m sorry but the blame is with the Green administration led by KitKat and the then CEO Burgess.
Planning is not a political committee. It’s governed by laws and processes set by Westminster, which the sitting councillors had to follow.
The Greens and Tories own this expensive mess.
Just think of the public services that could have been saved if the Greens and Tories hadn’t forced this on the city.
So says you as a fully paid up Labour Party member and activist. Can we haul Labour politicians before the International Court of Justice at the Hague for the Iraq war and human whilst we’re at it – asking for a friend.
Hi Cathy, I stopped being a councillor in 2018. Im really not sure what the i360 has to do with Iraq? You and your friend seem a little confused.
Totally agree! In what alternative universe was this EVER a good decision??
All the incompetents who made/approved this decision should be made personally liable – not us, the council tax payers who blindingly obviously didn’t want it!!!
Anybody with a brain knew where this was going when Jason Kitcat and his ship of fools pushed this through. He was actually a director of Coast to capital, The intermediary between treasury and the local authority. This was an enormous conflict of interest but nobody was interested in that. Not sure how much Jason is only these days but he is rather senior at the Cabinet office now fixing their IT . An attachment on his wages would definitely help a little bit.
As usual, the people have Brighton and Hove will have to shoulder the mess that the local amateur politicians bring upon them🤬
Tom Druitt when he was a councillor and on some soft of finance team insisted on seeing a credible business plan before the council continued to bail it out. He was overruled.
Tom Druitt wasn’t a councillor in 2014, so I’m not sure how that would help.
Once the insolvency practitioners get involved this debt will escalate upwards. Better for the council to take it over now !
51 Million
Yet they rise Council Tax by 5% each year to help support Social Care, this could of contributed towards it couldn’t it.
thats earmarked for social without it it ASS would collapse
This whole debacle is disgraceful. The fact that many of the people involved are now promoted into other positions where they can inflict further financial harm in other areas/on other councils/residents is absolutely mind-blowing.
Never been on it, no interest in going on it.
Turn it on its side and run a shuttle between the piers
Or a zipline from the top of it all the way to the marina
Should of saved the West Pier.
Bring back the Daddy Longlegs!
I have to remind everyone that Greens, Labour and Tories all voted to borrow to lend Marks Barfield Top-up money to get the i360 erected. Only when all the private financing evaporated and Marks Barfield came again with the begging bowl – and needing full financing – did Labour hang back. What did labour do? Labour abstained!!!! Not even a refusal to approve by voting against. It was a canny move! Labour was in up to their eyeballs for a long time backing the i360 just as the Tories and Greens did.
The council gambled and the council lost big time. It was always going to be a risky loan, a high risk loan But they needed to earn money for the council somehow. The interest payments were expected to be 1 million £ a year. Private finance did not withdraw backing without reason! This is a sad outcome.
Sorry, but this is a green party mess from the moment the pen touched the paper. Why, because KitKat was a clown. His term in power was calamity after calamity
‘ An iconic attraction’. I think not, have never thought so. You’ve done it once, no need to do it again. Bring back the big wheel! Now that was iconic and profitable too!
So when the Labour Leader of the council said is 2006 that “It is going to transform the city. The i360 will be a familiar picture postcard image – recognisable throughout the world. It will generate huge amounts of cash and benefit the city’s economy all year round.” the Greens made him say it did they? Of course they didn’t, Labour supported the project from the off, and only changed tack a year before the local elections in 2014.
Not saying the Greens come out of the saga well, but Labour trying to erase themselves from the history of what happened and when is quite incredible imo.
Trevor P, I think it’s important to distinguish between whether building a privately-financed new attraction on the seafront was ‘a good idea’, and the second issue, which was ‘should the council be the main funder of this project?’
As a privately-funded project the council had nothing to lose, and the ‘West Pier problem’ would finally be solved, with the new distraction of a viewing tower build at the land end. This would be a bit like Portsmouth’s Spinnaker Tower – although, in my view, so much uglier.
Most councillors in 2006 enthusiastically supported the project, and helped push through the planning issues. I remember that English Heritage were even brought in, to encourage the project ‘as a good idea’ .
But then a financial crash happened in 2007/8 and Marks Barfield suddenly came cap in hand saying they only had half the money for the build. It was initially agreed that private money was still backing the scheme, and so the council could match fund the rest, using public loan facitilites. This was agreed in 2012, as the build was already underway.
It was shortly later, when the rest of the private finance collapsed that the alarm bells began to ring. And, for sure, the underlying issue was that the projected attendance figures for the i360 never stacked up.
At that point, Labour councillors withdrew support for any council funding. By 2014, they were still on board for the tower to be built, but not one financed by a public loan for which we would be ultimately responsible.
The financial mess is entirely down the the Greens – who were desperate to make their mark in their first term in office – plus they gained the help of votes from the Torys, some of whom were happy to join in on this spiteful defeat of the Labour view.
The council then spent years, trying to suppress what the true projected visitor figures actually were, knowing this was already a disastrous decision.
Labour councillors did know between 2008-2014 that public finance would be needed. They are on record recognising this. It was only a year before the local elections they changed their mind – could be coincidence the timing, could have been a genuine concern – that be we will never know for sure.
Either way, it’s not accurate what Jacob Taylor has been saying in his media rounds this week – Labour councillors did know after the financial crash that the project may need some public finance support, and they were for this initially. The wording Labour are using now fails to reflect they were aware of this.
I live opposite the i360, residents told the council they would not get the estimated visitor numbers. Even in summer the area is deserted on bad weather days. This time of year you don’t see many visitors. The council is to blame for funding part of the project. Its also badly managed and in darkness early evening even in the summer. The buildings around the i360 should be used around the clock to help fund it with bars/nightclub/restaurants etc. The pod could be used as a bar at night doing hours takeoffs( a porta loo could easily be added it already has a bar). Or the whole complex could be made a Star Wars attraction, Basically what i am saying is the i360 opted for the upper market weddings etc so the buildings around it are not used enough.
I have been on the i360 a few times and enjoyed it, its built now so it needs to be used to its full potential.
Council should take it over and make all members of staff redundant who are not actually key to working the thing. They have an office with tons of staff doing marketing blablabla, cut those costs right out strait away and it probably would be profitable
Another “Black hole” to be quoted against us when increasing council tax over inflation.
Public consultation could’ve been key to this. The Kemptown ‘eye’ was enough for most residents (and no doubt) tourists. Still missed by many. Hmmm…
If it ain’t broke, create a project to scratch your business associates backs… See-through self-serving money making projects! Power corrupts… etc… Greed will lead us towards near plutocracies eg Russia and America.
A council meeting was reportedly held a few months ago to discuss removing the pebbles and replace with sand! Tax-payers money paying for pointless jollies and expensive follies again?! Ridiculous! People rise up!!!???
“An ideal moment” to halt VG3 ?
Charlie Carter from Interpath, who is leading the sales process said: “The Brighton i360 has become an iconic visitor attraction, welcoming hundreds of thousands of visitors each year….” NO IT ISN’T AND NO IT DOESN’T!!!
Can we ask Charlie Carter to show us the audited figures which prove the Ugly Stick In The Sky welcomes “hundreds of thousands of visitors each year”?
It would be nice to see some of these claims supported by FACTS RATHER THAN MARKETING SPEAK!!!
Residents told the council the visitor numbers would not be met before it was built, bad weather in the summer and the winter months no one is around. Not only that the council took over the demolition of the hotel after the fire and kept the road closed for months when it could have been opened rapidly making the area near the road safe. The pier lost millions and had to start to charge to enter. Even this time of year the council do not support the i360 Christmas markets etc could be held around it ( would be easy to build a fence to protect from the elements.)
So the council are to blame quite a lot for its failure plus poor management of the i360 which is in darkness early evening even in summer months. The building around the i360 need to be used around the clock for bars/restaurants and perhaps a nightclub.
This is a video of the Brighton Council meeting where the decision to approve the i360 was made. https://youtu.be/g5V4VrFfPnQ?si=_ccc1RfXCNfJLVDc
thanks for the link. Cllr Warren Morgan was absolutely right and the projections that the others saw as ‘robust’ did indeed prove to be woefully optimistic.
That council meeting is so shocking to watch, with the hindsight we have now!
Warren Morgan’s speech (at 58.02 mins) was spot on.
The presentation stuff at the beginning, talking up the project, was completely over the top and so obviously bullshit. The very idea, that extra people will come to Brighton just to go on the i360, is an idea from cloud cuckoo land.
It’s worth reminding ourselves how this mess was created – and why we residents might feel angry.
1) The problem started with the West Pier falling into disrepair and becoming economically unviable, in terms of its likely revenue paying for its maintenance and running costs. The i360 is now in exactly that same position, but made worse because the initial build costs have yet to be paid back.
2) The West Pier was sold on by the council to the West Pier Trust, and the Trust’s role basically ended when the old pier burnt down and Lottery funding was lost. It’s not entirely clear why the Trust continues to exist, and why it continues to soak up money, including ground rent paid by the i360.
3) There’s a lot of political fallout here, but all councillors were initially in favour of the 1360 as one solution to the ‘West Pier problem’, and to help regenerate that section of seafront area, which had become so run down. The company behind the ‘London Eye’ seemed like a safe bet to bring their success to Brighton, and the designs were drawn up. Initially there was all sorts of spin and green gobbledegook about the i360 being a ‘vertical pier’, and that the descending pod would create enough energy to power local lighting. Spot the schoolboy error.
4) These big schemes often become like a juggernaut you can’t hope to stop, and it was only when the i360 failed to get private finance for the build that alarm bells began to ring. Labour soon stood back, on the basis that the visitor figures simply didn’t stack up. But the Greens and the Torys combined to outvote the Labour group. That political coup is exactly why the city is now saddled with debt, and is one of the creditors for this busted business.
5) The Greens are now backing away from any responsibility, saying that the area was regenerated because of the i360. But of course all those businesses under the i360 footprint are clearly not doing well, if they can’t pay their debts and monthly outings. Is this the biggest financial faux-pas the council have ever made?
6) I watched the i360 being built, and was initially fascinated by the engineering. But as each section of tube was pushed into place, and jacked upwards to make space for the next section, I was horrified to see the tall stick that was emerging. Where was the architectural merit we had been promised? And this ugliness had never appeared on any of the drawing we had been shown – a bit like the VG3 road plans show trees and pedestrians but no traffic.
7) How do we fall for these lies? How can our elected representatives have such poor financial judgement? And why is there no authority in the background, overseeing public expenditure on this sort of scale?
Please print the names of each and every councillor who voted for this mad project
We all said this over 5 years ago when they started regularly missing payments but hey no lessons were learned there. Council got themselves to thank for absolutely dragging their feet and not being strict with them
I see from their accounts:
1. They made a positive EBITDA (underlying profit, with no loan repayments) of £170k in 2023. Not a huge amount, but not loss making. Significantly down on 2022 but we are in a cost of living crisis.
2. The council’s loan was secured on the asset, so I assume the council can take ownership of the i360 via the administration process if they wish. It’s valued at £10m.
3. Visitor numbers for 2023 were 220,000. This isn’t an insignificant number. Suggests there is potential for a new owner / the council.
1) £170,000 is tiny and as you stated BEFORE any debt is paid off, the increase in Employer NI/ Minimum will wipe a great deal of this off. 2) The council will take the assest if nothing is secured by the administrators but why continue running it at a loss each year? 3) 220,000 is not bad for visitors but how many were paying and how many using the free tickets?
The council had no right to spend taxpayers money on this white elephant. At the very least, those who did so should be prosecuted. It’s an absolute disgrace.
BHCC agreed to back this disastrous project. Why? The city of London which has hundreds of billions to invest in worth while and potentially profitable projects wouldn’t go anywhere near this half baked scheme . But clearly BHCC and its elected council thought they knew better. But they didn’t did they and we the local suffering rate payers are now stuck with the consequences. Please don’t use argument of benefit of hindsight. Their was a lot of people and various bodies warning about this project long before the the deal was ever signed!
It is incumbent on the current administration to stop blaming others and set about finding a think-outside-the-box solution to this problem!
Standby for s suspicious fire and subsequent insurance claim !
Have seen reports in other media that i360 employs 150 people who are expected to be made redundant. Surely this can’t be right. 150 people doing what. Does anybody know the exact number who currently work at the i360?
My partner was the director of the i360 between 2017-19. It became apparent as soon as he started that the financial position and repayment plan of the attraction was unachievable and the original business case targets overinflated. He encouraged the board to renegotiate the loan. Unfortunately the board were not willing to listen to his advice and guidance. He loved that attraction and spearheaded some great initiatives, charity events and social corporate responsibility. I think it’s sad it has filed for administration though the board were too emotionally involved to operate it as a commercial business and as a result made poor decisions.