20th September 2004
West Pier Endgame? By Fred Gray*
Where were we in the story then?
Ah yes, it’s early in the year and England’s two most significant bodies for the historic environment have locked horns over the future of Brighton’s West Pier. Despite arson attacks and storm damage, English Heritage – the organisation with clout but no money – continued to back the restoration of what it saw as ‘the most important pleasure pier ever built’.
The National Heritage Lottery Fund – the one with the money – took an alternative view. Perhaps demonstrating its inability to wean itself from an elitist high culture perspective on the arts and heritage, it withdrew its financial support, saying that in the context of the intense competition for its funds the project was too risky and uncertain.
English Heritage set about gathering public support – for example highlighting ‘saving Brighton’s seafront treasure’ in the June edition of Heritage Today - and argued (wrongly in my view) that the pier should be restored to its early promenade form rather than the glorious pleasure pier architecture of 50 years later. Away from public view English Heritage worked on an ‘intensive review’ of how these plans might be realised.
Then on 23 June a ‘freak’ storm with 70 mph winds took the remains of the central Concert Hall into the sea. Publicly at least, for English Heritage this was a critical event. At the end of July the organisation announced:"A credible restoration of the West Pier in Brighton is no longer possible …The conclusion that the pier is beyond rescue is the result of a lengthy review process, and is also in large part due to the damage suffered by the pier in the freak storms of June this year." English Heritage brought forward its announcement, originally scheduled for September, because of the health and safety concerns surrounding the weather-damaged structure.
For the supporters of the pier, this was an immensely disappointing decision, of course. But for me the reasons given were disingenuous on a number of counts.
Despite the supposed health and safety concerns prompting the earlier than expected decision, there is still no immediate likelihood of the pier being demolished. Was the June storm damage really that significant in removing any possibility of a ‘credible restoration’ of the pier? I’m not convinced. Indeed, the advice of the Trust’s consultant engineers who have worked on the project for 15 years was that the June damage made no difference to the restoration project. A supplementary report (available at www.english-heritage.org.uk) by Richard Morrice, Inspector of Historic Buildings, says that although the storm impacted on a relatively small and already damaged part of the structure, this was important in destroying some of the last vestiges of the original Birch pier. Even so, Dr Morrice concludes: ‘re-application of the three specific Riga tests has shown that reconstruction of the West Pier, even after the storm, may be acceptable in conservation terms’. The authoritative and internationally agreed ‘Riga tests’ provide the bible for the conservation and preservation of historic buildings and, albeit rather grudgingly, the Morrice report is in effect saying that restoration of the pier would pass these rigorous tests.
So why then did English Heritage withdraw? Its press release asserts ‘it would not now be the real West Pier but largely a reproduction’. In my view this is nonsense. Leaving aside all the arguments about the considerable amount of key architectural elements from the West Pier that survive, or those about piers necessarily being structures that are endlessly renewed and restored, we only have to look at the brilliant recreation of many of Dresden’s grandest buildings to know that after restoration we would still have the ‘real West Pier’.
For me the most likely explanation is that English Heritage used the June storms as an excuse to withdraw from its contest with the Heritage Lottery Fund and escape from the horrendously difficult problem of putting together a restoration package without HLF support. This was a political decision. A scathing Daily Telegraph editorial on 31 July saw the ‘end of the pier tragedy’ as ‘a parable for everything that is wrong with Britain’ … I am not too convinced by the subsequent editorial analysis, but at very least there is something seriously wrong with the national bodies charged with protecting England’s heritage.
As I write, in mid-September, the West Pier Trust is actively examining all the avenues now open to it, while the pier itself still attracts its dozens of daily sightseers puzzled and amazed by the structure.
* Fred Gray, Honorary Historian of the West Pier Trust, writes in a personal capacity.
30th July 2004
Mugged Again! English Heritage withdraws its support for the restoration; below are the first reflections of the Chief Executive, Dr Geoff Lockwood.
I was sat on a beach with my seven year old granddaughter yesterday, secure in the knowledge that the English Heritage report was not due until September and that only the previous day I had been promised a direct personal update by EH officers. My mobile phone rang for Rachel to inform me that EH had issued a press release 'giving up' on the West Pier and its officers were en route to Brighton to brief the media. The media then quickly dominated my mobile. Yet another 'surprise attack' to add to the many the pier has suffered over the past decade from nature, gangster arsonists and public authorities; the latter being the most numerous and damaging. The pier would by now have been restored if the HLF had fulfilled its promises of 1996-2000.
All of us in the Trust need to reflect on the situation before the Board determines a line of action. I am not inclined for the Trust to 'cave in' to authorities out of touch with the popular will. However, my immediate comments are as follows.
Firstly, the English Heritage press release is yet another ex-cathedra announcement of a decision taken by elites behind closed doors in London offices. What we were promised was a setting out of options for consideration by public bodies and the public. The Falmer football stadium struggle has at least taken place in public. Further, when a planning inspector declares that the demise of Brighton & Hove Albion would not be much of a loss, his judgement can be assessed by HM Government. When heritage officers declare Brighton's West Pier should not be restored that is a decision. Officers in London knew that the Trust was preparing to hold a conference on the English Heritage report at which all of the history, options, heritage assessments, technical feasibilities etc could be debated by experts in public. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the EH surprise announcement now is an attempt at news management; to bury the decision in slack media August and kill off the intended public debate. The EH announcement gives no other satisfactory reason for its rushed and early timing.
Secondly, stepping back from the detail of the struggle over the past ten years, the current state of the West Pier amounts to cultural vandalism by public authorities. A visitor from the continent told us recently that 'in any other country a heritage asset of the global significance and interest of the West Pier would have been restored years ago as a matter of national and civic pride'. He could not believe that when the Prime Minister in 1994 had publicly singled out the West Pier for restoration, lesser authorities could obfuscate with red and pink tape whilst the pier dramatically declined in high international profile. None of the projects in the excellent BBC TV 'Restoration' programme series has anything like the national and global appeal of the West Pier. It is ironic that the West Pier could not compete in that series because until January 2004 it was officially deemed to be outside the rules of the series since the HLF had committed funding for its restoration!
Thirdly, what has changed since January, when English Heritage asked the public 'not to give up' on the West Pier, and July, when English Heritage has 'given up'. There is a claim that the June storm damage was crucial; but you only have to read Richard Morrice's technical supplement to the EH release to see through that argument. Richard asserts that even after the June damage the repair and reconstruction of the West Pier would still meet the international criteria (the 'Riga tests'); moreover he reports that the most experienced engineer in this field (Jon Orrell) had no reason to change his technical assessment following the damage in June. In reality, what happened between January and July was that English Heritage failed to convince the Department of Culture and the Heritage Lottery Fund (and possibly the Council) to fund its plans for the non-controversial 1866 option. It was decided that the fight for the West Pier was not worth upsetting all of the other deals in negotiation with the HLF. BWPT has been dealing for the past decade with a coterie of elites enmeshed in multiple projects; once the HLF pulled the plug on the West Pier, even against the advice of EH, the rest of the elites put up a token struggle but fell back into line once the fight for the West Pier was rocking too many boats.
Fourthly, the EH announcement again refers to priorities amongst scarce resources. The £15m earmarked for the West Pier by the HLF in 1998, plus the interest earned on that sum over the past six years, would more than fund the public subsidy for the restoration. The HLF is sat on hundreds of millions of pounds, contributed mainly by people who would support the restoration of the West Pier, rather than the purchase of the Churchill Papers, the 2004 purchase of 'Madonna and the Pinks' (which might or might not be by Raphael) from the Duke of Northumberland, the £20m to friends in the national trust for an ailing structure in Bristol etc. Time and time again the heritage authorities claim 'shortage of resources' but manage to come up with grants, of an amount which would secure the restoration of the West Pier, for projects supported by the closed elites at both the giving and receiving ends. The BBC TV 'Restoration' series is but a crumb in financial terms and a nod in PR terms towards the popular. The 'big money' is allocated on other criteria to serve other relationships.
I will cease commenting for now; otherwise my anger will become more obvious. I return to the comment by our continental visitor. It is a national and civic disgrace that the West Pier has been allowed to get into its current state and the public authorities charged with maintaining English heritage continue to give priority to the interests of elites.
The decisions of the DCMS, HLF and EH give the Trust every reason to cease its struggle to repair and reconstruct the West Pier; and we have little enthusiasm for a small museum commemorating what the pier used to be. We are facing the same circumstances as in 1975 i.e. do we give into the demolition of the West Pier or do we fight on for so long as retention of the site keeps open the possibility for future generations to achieve that restoration? I will give my answer to that question after further reflection.
4th July
2004
In January 2004 the Heritage Lottery
Fund decided to withdraw its funding from the West
Pier restoration project.
This was despite the advice contained within the
December 2003 English Heritage report on the viability
of restoring the pier after the fire damage. English
Heritage remains convinced of the viability of
the restoration and on hearing the news of the
HLF decision stated ‘the West Pier must be
saved’.
English Heritage asked for until September to
come up with a realistic plan to save the West
Pier. Thus, although the Trust and English Heritage
are pursuing ideas urgently, there will be no hard
news for a few more weeks.
The Trust remains optimistic. Options under active
consideration include:
The 1866 model in which the original promenade
pier will be recreated, leaving it open to future
generations to complete the restoration.
The 1920’s model, which is the one we have
been working on for the past ten years. Two private
sector companies (including St Modwen) are looking
at ways of making this model more financially feasible
by reducing its cost and increasing its yield (to
minimise the scale of the necessary enabling development).
At the time of writing, the favoured option is
the 1866 model. An 1866 restoration would include
a small amount of commercial activity (in the original
restored kiosks on the pier and in the arches on
the lower promenade). The restoration would also
include a West Pier Centre, explaining the history
of the pier and located under the root end of
the pier.
The recent
collapse of the Concert Hall during a freak summer
storm was a sad and dramatic event,
but ultimately will not affect the prospects for
the restoration of the pier. Much original material
was rescued from the pier in the 1990’s and
is held in safe storage. There is also a large
archive of pictures, plans, photographs and video
footage. All of this can be used for an authentic
restoration.
30th
June 2004
Statement by Dr. Geoff Lockwood
on the Current State of the Pier after the Collapse
of the Concert Hall and Options for Restoration
1. Given the visible decline in the
physical state of the pier and given the excruciating
delays in obtaining agreement on its restoration,
it is not surprising that more people in Brighton
and Hove are coming to favour the replacement of
the West Pier by 'something modern'; a structure
as relevant to the 21st century as the West Pier
was to Victorian Brighton.
Many schemes have been proposed in the media, and
the Chief Executive has discussed all of them with
their originators. They fall into two categories:
a) those which replace the West Pier e.g. the 'Peace
Pier' the 'Sea Pier' the 'Environmental Pier'.
The Trust exists to restore the West Pier. If it
fails then its successors can assess such proposed
uses of the site. We continue to relate to the
proposers because there is no reason why their
ideas cannot be implemented elsewhere on the Brighton & Hove
seafront if the Trust is successful in its object
and if they can raise the necessary finances and
support.
b) Those which include the restoration of the pier
in a larger sea-based development. The Trust is
working closely with developers putting forward
such proposals; but none of those proposals is
likely to become a starter on a timescale relevant
to the current English Heritage initiative to save
the West Pier.
The collapse of the remainder of
the West Pier Concert Hall into the sea last week
is a further blow to public confidence about its
eventual restoration. Looking at her now, there
is dismay and anger that only four years ago she
was largely intact, we had strengthened her structure
(repairs with only a two year lifespan because
the long-term restoration was expected to follow
quickly) and thousands of people were able to walk
on her deck after a gap of over two decades. Her
present state is a result of over-cautious public
bodies (not the Council), determined opposition
from the owners of the Palace Pier, the pink tape
of lawyers, the arson of gangsters, and the failure
of the Trust to overcome these difficulties.
Nevertheless the Trust remains confident that the
old lady will rise again. The whole of the remaining
structure could collapse into the sea without removing
that confidence. We have all of the necessary engineering
records in place to ensure repair and reconstruction
to the pier's authentic appearance, ranging from
historic documentation to recent laser studies.
We have a large stock of artefacts so that the
reconstruction will include original features.
Much of what was burnt or collapsed would have
been removed, and what is re-usable is still on
site, especially the original piles. Thus, sad
though she looks now compared to four years ago,
that deterioration has had little affect on our
technical ability to give new life to the beloved
West Pier.
The Trust, and the Council, is working closely
with English Heritage on plans to repair and reconstruct
the pier. The fate and future of the pier rests
on crucial discussions in London over the next
couple of months. It is important that we in Brighton
and Hove maintain our support for positive action
over those months. If English Heritage is to be
successful in its negotiations it needs to know
that we, far from losing faith, are ready to play
our part in the struggle to resurrect a key symbol
of our local heritage.
This English Heritage initiative represents the
last opportunity to repair and reconstruct the
West Pier from public funding. A disgraceful situation
ten years after the Prime Minister John Major publicly
cited the West Pier as a prime example of the purposes
for which the National Lottery had been created.
If English Heritage is to be successful it requires
the supporters of the West Pier, and the broader
citizenry of Brighton & Hove, to maintain and
demonstrate their determination for this one last
effort. The Trust will be organising ways in
which
that can be expressed once English Heritage has
reported.
30th March
2004
Latest News on the Restoration
by Dr. Geoff Lockwood, the Chief Executive of
the West Pier Trust
In January, English Heritage asked
for up to September to come up with a realistic
plan to save the West Pier. Thus, although the
Trust and English Heritage are pursuing ideas urgently,
there will be no hard news for a few more months.
We remain optimistic. At the end
of March three levels of options are under active
consideration:
The 1866 model in which the original
promenade pier will be recreated; leaving it open
to future generations to complete the restoration.
The 1920’s model, which is
the one we have been working on for the past ten
years. Two private sector companies (including
St Modwen) are looking at ways of making this model
more financially feasible by reducing its cost
and increasing its yield (to minimise the scale
of the enabling development).
The 21 st Century model. Two private
sector consortia have plans for major sea-based
leisure/conference facilities off or surrounding
a restored West Pier; in each case the projected
cost is circa £500m.
There will be many different preferences
as between those options, but each provides for
the authentic repair and reconstruction of the
West Pier.
The HLF’s shameful decision
in January was a knockdown but not a knockout;
and the Trust is confident that one of the above
options will be achieved
8th March 2004
Reply
from the Heritage Lottery Fund (pdf format)
16th February
2004
Letter
to Heritage Lottery Fund regarding funding decision (pdf
format)
30th
January 2004
English Heritage
Urges Renewed Efforts to Secure Future of ‘Queen
of Piers’
English Heritage today
(30 January 2004) called for new efforts to secure
the future of the West Pier.
The call comes after the latest restoration
scheme for the pier failed to secure funding. Dr
Simon Thurley, Chief Executive of English Heritage,
stated: “We cannot turn our backs on this
internationally famous Grade I listed building.
Our report of December 2003 concluded that, in
conservation terms, it is still possible to save
the pier. While there is still hope we want to
explore every viable option to restore the pier:
at this stage we believe a return to the 1866 design
for a promenade deck would be the most likely to
succeed.”
Sir Neil Cossons, Chairman of English
Heritage, has spoken personally to the Ken Bodfish,
Leader of the Brighton and Hove City Council, to
pledge English Heritage support for the West Pier.
The West Pier was the masterpiece
of Eugenius Birch, Britain’s greatest pier
engineer. It was completed in 1866 as a promenading
pier and was emulated in scores of seaside towns
and cities throughout Britain. It is one of only
two Grade I listed piers in the country (the other
is in Clevedon in Somerset).
English Heritage is proposing a series
of urgent measures to assess the viability of a
number of options including a return to the elegant
simplicity of the pier’s original design,
a design that still has a place in 21st century
Brighton. It has set a target of September 2004
to have in place fresh proposals and a new funding
package for the pier.
The proposals include commissioning
a business plan to assess how a promenade pier
could be run and a review of the most recent restoration
schemes to identify the potential obstacles. English
Heritage also plans to bring together the best
of the current generation of engineers to produce
costings, including a forward-looking maintenance
strategy. Alongside the technical preparations,
English Heritage will work with its public sector
partners and the owners of the pier to investigate
how the new proposals could be funded.
Dr Simon Thurley commented, “The
West Pier is more than just a tourist attraction.
It is an enduring symbol of Brighton and an intrinsic
part of the nation’s mental image of the
seafront there. We all know it, whether as the
spectacular backdrop to broadcasts from innumerable
party conferences, or as the setting for a first
seaside holiday or even a first kiss. Purely in
design and engineering terms, we believe it is
the most important pleasure pier ever built.
“It is for all these reasons
that between now and 1 September we will be doing
everything we can to find the partners and funding
necessary to give the pier a future.”
Show your support for the West Pier and email your views to westpiercampaign@english-heritage.org.uk.
For more information please contact
Helen Nesbitt, English Heritage Corporate Communications,
on 020 7973 3855 / 07887 631177 or helen.nesbitt@english-heritage.org.uk.
Photographs are available free on www.papicselect.com in
the English Heritage Folder.
NOTES TO EDITORS
A summary of the English Heritage
December 2003 report is available on request.
The report concluded that restoration
of Brighton’s West Pier is still appropriate
in conservation terms. English Heritage reached
its conclusion having studied the principles and
techniques applied to restoration after disasters
at historic sites such as Uppark, Windsor Castle
and Hampton Court. English Heritage has also tested
its decision against internationally recognised
conservation principles contained in the Riga Charter
of 2000.
English Heritage is the Government’s
lead body for the historic environment in England
and is responsible for protecting the best of
the country's unique legacy of historic buildings,
landscapes and archaeological sites for the benefit
of this and future generations.
You can download this press release
in pdf format by clicking
here.
11th/12th May 2003 - Concert
Hall Fire
1.
Someone or some group is trying to 'blitz' the
West Pier in order to undermine both the public
support and the physical ability to restore the
West Pier. They reckon that the more the pier
is a wreck the less will be the support for its
restoration. They have not learned the lesson
of the East End in 1940. Their actions simply
increase the will of the people to achieve the
restoration.
2. The fire does not damage our ability to restore the pier to its 1920's appearance
with significant usage of original materials and artefacts. It will be a 'restoration'
not a 'rebuild'; and that is the view of English Heritage as the statutory
body with authority in these matters. Our opponents could wreck the existing
pier much further without damaging our ability to restore it. We have full
records of the structure of the pier, laser studies of its structure, and a
plentiful store of rescued pieces and artefacts.
3. The idea of a new 21st century pier is attractive, and I would support it
as a third pier, but it is irrelevant to the need to restore the West Pier.
The funding for that restoration as a heritage project is in place, and none
of it could be transferred to a new pier scheme.
28th March 2003
- Fire in the Pavilion
The fire in the Pavilion
on 28th March was another sad day in the
long suffering of the West Pier over the past
30 years. However, on this occasion it was tempered
by the knowledge that the restoration will follow.
The seabased pier had to be abandoned two years
ago when in became uninsurable; we deeply regret
the delay in action over those years but they
have been caused by third parties outside the
control of the Trust.
Our engineers confirm the opinion of the police and fire brigade that it is
too risky to attempt to gain access to the seabased pier to check the cause
of the fire. We remain suspicious about that cause. The Trust and St Modwen
are determined that nothing will prevent the start of the restoration within
the next 12 months.
Geoff Lockwood and Rachel Clark
26th February
2003 - Brighton Planning Committee
On 26th February
the Planning Committee of Brighton & Hove
Council voted, by 9 votes to 2, to approve the
BWPT/St Modwen plans for the restoration of the
pier and the associated enabling development. English
Heritage signified its approval on 12th February.
There are smaller hurdles still to jump but Beechers
Brook is safely behind us and all of the main
parties (the Trust, St Modwen, Heritage Lottery
Fund, English Heritage and the Council) are locked
into formal agreement (albeit conditional) to
achieve the restoration.
29th December 2002
- Partial Collapse of the West Pier
The Trust has received a massive
response to the partial collapse of the pier, as
is evidenced by the extensive media coverage; many
inputs coming from North America and Europe.
The overwhelming content is support,
concern and 'please get on with it'. However, a
few negative comments have been made so I would
like to deal with them briefly.
Comment 'The project should not
be supported now that it will be a re-build rather
than a restoration'
Answer : The Trust and St Modwen are committed to restoring
the West Pier authentically to its 1920's external appearance with
as much original materials and artefacts as possible. The recent
partial collapse does not negate that commitment which will be
met.
Comment 'It would be better to build
a new 21st century pier'
Answer: If a consortium comes up with a good design and as sound
funding package for such a new pier that would be welcome as an
addition to the Brighton & Hove seafront: but the proposals
and funding package we have negotiated over the past seven years
are available only for the restoration of the West Pier as a heritage
asset.
Comment 'Why not restore the pier
to half its length which might avoid the need for
the associated enabling development.'
Answer: Our proposals provide for the authentic restoration
of the whole of the West Pier. A partial restoration would not
attract heritage funds, and would not create an enterprise capable
of long-term financial viability (unless the landside enabling
development was much larger than that contained in our proposals).
Comment 'Adjust the financing of
the project so that the enabling development is
not necessary.'
Answer: The remaining rump of SOS and the Noble Organisation,
persist in this view. I don't know which siren voices they are
listening to but they have not produced any evidence of proposals
and financial backing which would fulfil their aims. The Heritage
Lottery Fund will not provide 100% funding for the restoration
(the Trust pressed the HLF to do so for two years in 1995-7); and
even if it did, as independent consultants have validated, the
restored pier would go into another cycle of decline in the absence
of annual income from the enabling development to sustain its maintenance.
Comparisons have been made recently with Clevedon Pier. We have
followed with delight the successful restoration of this pier.
However, it involved nothing like the scale of complexity and funding
involved with the West Pier and it is not in the centre of a major
city of tourism, culture and education.
Comment 'We support the current
proposals for the restoration but the enabling
development should provide the city with distinctive
21st century architecture.
Answer: The Trust was of that view five years ago and we assisted
the production of a variety of such distinctive designs by international
architects, but that approach was rejected by English Heritage
in 1998 in favour of the design for the enabling development being
compatible but subsidiary to the restored pier.
photo coutesy of Sean Clark - www.westpierphotos.com
Comment 'Maybe it's time for new
people or authorities to take over the project.'
Answer: Time has run out for that option, even presuming that
new people could come up with better and more acceptable plans.
As the recent partial collapse has demonstrated dramatically, the
only opportunity to restore the West Pier is the current plans
of the Trust, St Modwen, the Council, English Heritage and the
Heritage Lottery Fund. The 'old lady' gave us a clear warning on
29th December that she will not survive the delays involved in
further political and organisational manoeverings.
Comment 'How can it be, with all
of the necessary funding having been in place in
principle since 1998, that at the end of 2002 the
partial collapse of the pier could occur without
the deal for the full restoration being in place?'
Answer: We agree. We can point to the successful delaying tactics
of the Noble Organisation and SOS, but the Trust and its public/private
sector partners should have made more progress as a consortium,
rather than each body trying to dot every i and cross every t
in their individual financial and political risk profiles. As with
many other similar major national projects we have been frustrated
by 'red tape' (bureaucracy) and 'pink tape' (lawyers) without a
sufficient will to focus on the common heritage and public benefit
of restoring a rapidly declining sea-based heritage asset.
In summary, we have been overwhelmed
by the supportive response since the partial collapse.
That collapse does not negate our plans, our plans
are the last opportunity to achieve the restoration
of the West Pier. It is now a matter of the various
local and national authorities to either support
those plans speedily or accept responsibility for
allowing the West Pier to sink into the sea. The
real danger is continuing to be tied down in red
and pink tape. I believe that the partial collapse
will act as a wake up call to those authorities
to clear all of the remaining technical and legal
hurdles standing in the way of the restoration;
and to do so in the next few months.
Geoff Lockwood
Chief Executive
5th January 2003
|
