Journal articles
The Shoreham Society journal, distributed free to all members, is
packed with news, pictures, information and topical comment about local
issues.
Here are just a few sample articles from recent issues. To be sure
of getting your own copy of the journals when they are published, join the society.
Adur District Council's proposal to
redevelop the Pond Road area is
proving to be a potentially more controversial development than even
Ropetackle had been.
Their scheme appears to have been
precipitated by two factors: the
pressure on local authorities to meet housing targets and NHS trust
plans for a larger and better Shoreham medical centre at Pond Road. It
may also have emerged from a perception that there is ‘wasted space’ at
Pond Road crying out for development.
The buildings around Pond Road are
owned by three separate
authorities. The community centre is owned by Adur District Council,
the library and Burrscrofte are owned by West Sussex County Council
(which also has responsibility for the roads in and around Pond Road)
and the health centre is owned by the NHS Trust. North Street car park
is run by a private company on behalf of the local authority, which
owns the site.
The council’s scheme offers plans
that propose to replace the
community centre and the library with reduced facilities and replace
Burrscrofte by constructing ‘assisted living’ accommodation. Crucially,
there would be a private housing development utilising the space gained
from eradicating the North Street car park. Replacement parking would,
it is said, “be found elsewhere”.
Reportedly, the medical centre
building is causing concern because
it is deteriorating badly, with penetrating damp and mildew. There is
no reference to similar reports about the library or the community
centre, though a council source claims that the community centre is
unsatisfactory because it offers limited expansion, despite the fact
that there is space on at least two sides for extensions.
The exact condition of the
buildings is said to be contained in a
structural survey that so far is available only to the council, but the
Shoreham Society’s architects and structural surveyors have doubts
about whether any defects are impossible to rectify. Anyone living in a
house that has such problems, for example, is unlikely to solve them by
demolishing and rebuilding. If the problems with buildings that are
only four decades old prove to be as serious as claimed, it does raise
questions about how well they have been maintained.
Although the council says that the
new community buildings would be
financed from the proceeds of the private housing development, the
Shoreham Society has questioned the council’s figures. One of our
architects, Robin Spence, is constantly working with building volume
figures used for practical calculations by architects and the building
industry, and these do not match the figures used by the council. ADC
has produced a figure of £5 millions to cover the community buildings,
but Robin’s calculations suggest that it should be nearer £9 millions.
If, when the development proceeds, the council’s figures prove to be
wrong, it is unclear where the additional funds could be found other
than through council taxes, so this is an important point to clarify.
In mid December, Shoreham Society
representatives met Stephen
Jacques, Adur’s Major Projects Officer, to discuss the scheme and
present a Shoreham Society response with a document compiled by Robin
Spence with his suggestions for an alternative plan. The mismatch in
calculations was discussed with Mr Jacques who promised to investigate
this thoroughly.
In addition to reservations about
the nature of the plans, there are
also concerns about the effect of increasing the density in such a
confined area and the serious traffic flow problems that the
development would create. It would pedestrianise Pond Road, creating
something akin to a town square and removing Pond Road as a
thoroughfare.
Together with the pedestrianisation
of East Street, this would have
a detrimental effect upon traffic flow in the narrow roads of an
already constricted town, creating even more bottlenecks. Traffic
seeking to avoid the level crossing barrier uses the railway arch
between Southdown Road and Western Road, emerging to reach the A259
either via Western Road or through Pond Road.
With traffic routes through
Shoreham already difficult, this is
something that deeply concerns Michael Norman, another of the Society’s
four architects and chairman of the society’s Town Development
Sub-Committee. His experience of the many errors in planning for
traffic over several decades compels him to the view that it has always
been a story of failure to produce an effective solution through
tinkering rather than bold planning.
It is also far from clear whether
the traders of East Street are
happy about pedestrianisation and since we have no indication of the
whereabouts of the car park to replace North Street, it’s doubtful
whether traders or shoppers will emerge better served. Traders may like
the higher density, but the infrastructure will be strained.
The Shoreham Society would
therefore prefer to see a less draconian
scheme at Pond Road, retaining the thoroughfare and upgrading rather
than demolishing the community buildings. In the current financial
climate, and with greater financial pain still to come, it would seem
to be more desirable to take this recycling measure.
Indeed, recycling buildings would
also meet the needs of reducing
CO2 emissions, since constructing new buildings contributes
surprisingly large amounts of carbon through the production of
materials, running equipment and transportation.
However, the funding that could be
produced through a private
development deal is likely to be too much of a temptation for the
council. Robin Spence’s document detailing his alternative suggestions
was conceived in anticipation that the council would proceed with their
scheme, whatever the public opposition.
Even if the plans have to be set
aside because of financial
cutbacks, the medical centre already has its funding from NHS
allocations, which may be part of the problem. Since the health centre
is partially conjoined with the library, it may have appeared to be a
better option to re-site it, and each other community facility, in
order to phase construction so that the health centre can continue to
operate whilst re-building takes place.
But it does seem extravagant in
these hard-pressed times to jettison
buildings that still serve well just to satisfy the urge to have new
ones. It’s an approach that fits in with this Huxleyesque Brave
New World of planned obsolescence, where the market is wants
people to buy everything new rather than mend what can be repaired.
The initial public consultation on
the project took place between
23rd November and 4th January, but we understand that in general the
public response has not been in favour of the council’s plan whilst the
Shoreham Society also urges the council to give the proposal and its
likely consequences very much more careful consideration.
Back to sample articles list
The owners of the Marlipins Museum, the
Sussex Archaeological
Society, want to improve the way the museum is operated as a local
resource and is holding a public meeting to consider setting up a new
organisation, Friends of Marlipins Museum.
There are a number of current problems
that need to be addressed,
including the arrangements between the Archaeological Society and the
Shoreham Society for day-to-day running of the museum and general
maintenance. In December, members of the SAS met the Shoreham Society’s
chairman , Beryl Ferrers-Guy, and one other committee member to clarify
the relationship.
Beryl explained that the Shoreham
Society is fully engaged in its
civic society commitments as set out in our constitution and that there
are insufficient volunteers to spare to enable us to continue providing
the services that have been vital in keeping the museum open for many
years.
The Shoreham Society has provided over
four fifths of the custodians
and a Society member carries out the essential work of co-ordinating
the custodians’ timetables to maintain cover when custodians are absent
whilst alsoproviding an emergency key-holder. This is a job that
requires a local co-coordinator, as no SAS personnel live locally. The
Shoreham Society has also provided working parties to clean the museum
and to carry out practical tasks such as mounting paintings or make
minor repairs.
The SAS appoints one of its officers as
curator, to take overall
control of the Museum and ensure the integrity of the museum and its
collections, but this person is able to attend in person on only one
day per week, although he also appears for additional special
functions. The SAS doubts whether such arrangements can guarantee an
expansion of use of the museum by the local population.
The pressure on the Shoreham Society
generated by an unprecedented
number of major planning proposals in Shoreham has caused general
communication between it and the SAS to fade away and, as the SAS have
noted, neither the Shoreham Society nor the SAS is in a position to
provide greater financial support for the museum.
The SAS has been able to obtain grant
funding for expanding the
museum to include the new gallery and has put up new signs outside.
However, the museum is still a charge on the Sussex Archaeological
Society to the extent of several thousand pounds per year. In the
current financial situation, the SAS, as a charity, is obliged by law
to balance its books and to husband its reserves. It is currently
attempting to do this.
It is therefore proposed to set up a
new organisation to be called
The Friends of the Marlipins Museum. The organisation would take a
larger and more constructive part in the running of the museum than the
current volunteer custodians and would draw its membership from
Shoreham as a whole. It is intended that the public meeting to be held
at the museum on Tuesday February 16 at 7pm should agree to the
foundation of the group and organise its function in time for the start
of the 2010 season.
The aim of the friends is to support
the museum in every reasonable
way, but especially by organising volunteer custodians to oversee it
during opening hours, by raising funds to support the museum, by
publicising the facilities, and by helping to organise the displays to
keep them up-to-date and attractive. They would also provide help in
cataloguing the contents.
Membership of the friends will be open
to all members of the public
with an interest in the museum for a small annual fee, and associate
membership will similarly be open to local organisations and to local
schools. The schools will not be expected to pay a membership fee.
Friends and volunteer custodians will be entitled to free entry to the
museum, as will be members of the Sussex Archaeological Society.
(The above is an abbreviated and
slightly modified version of a
document circulated by Prof Jeffery Leigh, a trustee of the Sussex
Archaeological Society).
Back to sample articles list
Considered by many to have originated
around 1840, the vinery was a
Shoreham landmark for well over a hundred years until it was removed in
1987. The conservatory-like structure was a barrel-roof glass canopy,
made from cast iron plates with wrought iron ribs and glass panels,
which extended out from Brighton House (alongside St Mary's House). It
formed an impressive feature with vines growing under the glass which
must have been magnificent in its prime.
Gradually it declined until the vines
became extinct, the sides were
weather-sealed with asphalt and the interior boarded to become a shop
known as 'The Dairy'. This was in effect a grocery, with its milk
bottling and distribution carried out in their Brunswick Road premises,
the two outlets connected at the rear. The Brunswick Road outlet housed
a milk bar shortly before World War II. By the time developers wanted
to demolish it to make way for their building, it housed a
photographer's studio, an advertising and publicity agency and a shop.
The development that produced the shops
now standing on that corner
(a charity shop, opticians Edminson Butler and estate agents Fox &
Co) caused a considerable outcry. Brighton Evening Argus of October 28
1987 carried the following story:
A bitter battle is on to save an
historic building from the
bulldozers. The Department of the Environment is being asked to protect
the vinery at the corner of Brunswick Road and St. Mary's Road,
Shoreham. Conservationists are fuming because plans to demolish the
property and replace it with a modern building were passed on the
chairman's casting vote at a meeting of Adur Council Planning
Committee. Now the race is on to overturn the application and save the
vinery, which features an early Victorian conservatory, for posterity.
The call to Whitehall has been made by Shoreham Society member Mr
Michael Norman, and Historic Shoreham Trust chairman Mr Reg Leggett has
called on Shoreham people to join the fight. Mr Norman said: "We have
so little left in Shoreham and this is why we are up in arms." He says
the vinery, which is in a conservation area, is late Regency or early
Victorian and has several historic links.
Originally a large house, possibly
built by architect John
Rebecca, it once accommodated Woodard pupils before their move to
Ardingly. Mary Downey, widow of one of the W. and D. Downey brothers
(society photographers who had taken portraits of Queen Victoria) also
lived there and for many years the property was the Devonshire Dairy
run by the Batten family.
The vinery, which was more recently
a photographic shop, has
been altered over the years but both conservation groups want it
restored to its former glory. Mr Norman said: "If it could be restored
it could be a wonderful building."
District planners have come under
fire for the way the
application was dealt with. Mr Norman said: "The local Conservation
Area Advisory Committee was very strongly against the plans to demolish
it. The committee vote was evenly split. It is indefensible that
something that has aroused so much feeling should be decided on the
chairman's casting vote."
No reprieve arrived, so the Shoreham
Society launched an operation
to rescue the canopy, with the idea of finding a site for it, perhaps
incorporating it into some other development. At a cost of around
£2,000, a very substantial figure 20 years ago, the Shoreham Society
arranged for the structure to be dismantled and, in two sections,
removed to a council-provided storage space.
In time, the council wanted the space
and offered an alternative
location, though not under cover, in Lancing. However, this
accommodation was also withdrawn when the site was needed for a
lorry-park. Again the notice given was short, so short that there was
no time to arrange proper lifting gear to get the structure to a
hastily arranged rented space in a builder's yard. It was so heavy to
lift that, in desperation, the glass was smashed to lighten it.
A year or two later the builder offered
to buy it, so what was left
of the vinery became privately owned and then sold on to Urban Life
Ltd, who offered to incorporate it into their design for their
"Waterside" development (the present Parcel Force building). As far as
we know, the vinery still sits in the Parcel Force building, though we
have been unable to obtain confirmation of this.
Before the development that caused its
demise, Michael Norman had
tried to obtain listed status for the vinery, but having failed, he
felt that the best alternative to demolition would have been careful
re-assembly at either Singleton Weald and Downland Museum or at
Amberley Working Museum.
Although the metal of the vinery
remains in the possession of Urban
Life Ltd, without its glass it would take a miracle to bring it back to
life in some appropriate location. Society member Christopher Harris
continues to hope for this, suggesting that an ideal site would be
where Tarmount Studios currently stands, alongside the Halcyon Centre.
He says that it would make a pleasant little café and would be visible
from the level crossing in Buckingham Road. To achieve that, it would
require a developer with a sense of place and a sense of community.
Such developers seem to be very thin on the ground.
Back to sample articles list
An environmental reflection by Tony
Vinicombe
Adur Council is hoping to eradicate car
parking from Shoreham town
despite the aims of its Renaissance Plan to improve business prospects
in the town. Besides the prospective removal of public parking areas,
two recently rejected Shoreham planning applications offered little or
no parking provision. The proposed hotel near Norfolk House would have
provided only 17 car spaces for a 72-room hotel and the block of flats
at St Mary's Church Hall allowed for no car spaces at all. Those
restrictions were the result of local planning officers following a
central government guideline.
The main thrust of that government
guideline is for local
authorities "to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce
reliance on the car for work and other journeys". One part of Planning
Policy Guideline 13 (PPG13) says that local authorities should set
maximum levels of parking provision. The intention is to squeeze out
the motorcar and encourage people to walk, use cycles, buses and trains
as part of the UK's attempt to reach its Kyoto target.
It sounds a reasonable measure. Out of 72
visitors to the proposed
motel-style Norfolk House Hotel, 55 might have arrived by train and the
flats could have attracted non-motorists. However, let's put PPG13 into
a national and global context.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation at
the United Nations
calculates that carbon emissions from human activity are actually
responsible for only one part (17%) of the 'greenhouse effect'.
Deforestation is in fact the major problem. The human population has
been growing at astonishing rates since 1800 and vast areas of the
Earth's woodlands have been destroyed to grow crops for all those extra
mouths.
Trees form carbon "sinks", which absorb
carbon gases and give off
oxygen. This once kept the Earth's natural production of carbons in
balance, but not only have we been destroying those sinks, we also have
been burning fossil fuels that have added to the Earth's naturally
produced carbons.
To meet our Kyoto Protocol carbon
reduction target, Parliament
passed various energy conservation acts, providing some 200 regulations
and orders. PPG13 is one very small part of one of those many
instruments. The idea is that all these small measures will add up to
overall savings. Regulations about washing machines, refrigerators and
lamps, about capital allowances on energy-saving plant and equipment,
as well as home insulation grants, all are intended to enable us to
reach our Kyoto target without creating too much public outcry.
Whilst these measures sound sensible,
they just meet a negotiated
international target by some of the world's nations. There is
insufficient effort to tackle deforestation and, in the UK, after
decades of talking about it, the Department of Energy and Climate
Change (Decc) published their ideas about serious reduction measures
only three months ago. Even this does not provide plans to promote
alternative energy or provide viable public transport.
It is true that the increase in motorcar
ownership is one of several
very large contributors to human carbon emissions. In 1971 road vehicle
registrations were 19 millions, but in 2007 this had risen to 33
millions. An RAC study in October last year concluded that if growth
continues on the same linear basis, by 2020 there will be over 37
million vehicles in the UK. Other projections based on accelerating
population growth suggest that the figure could be 44 millions. To
counter such growth we urgently need an affordable, reliable and
convenient public transport system. In the 1960s the growth of road
transport led to the closure of vast numbers of rail branch lines ('the
Beeching axe'), a measure that, with hindsight, is now as deeply
regretted as many other ideas that once held sway - or still do.
Historically, the motorcar has created
and aided widespread social
change. It has enabled people to travel independently, carrying
possessions that would be difficult to take on a bus or train. It
assisted social mobility and opened up the country (and the continent)
to many people with limited horizons. It enables the frail, the elderly
and the disabled to get out and about.
However, besides being one of the most
polluting of mankind's
inventions, the motor vehicle is also (so far) dependent on dwindling
fossil fuels and has assisted in the creation of other environmental
problems, such as prolific food packaging. One-stop weekly shopping in
large supermarkets was possible because shoppers could easily carry a
whole week's supply of groceries. This extended to larger out-of-town
retail parks selling many other products, which further increased not
only car usage, but also fleets of supply juggernauts - yet there is no
Public Policy Guideline within the energy saving legislation about
building new out-of-town retail parks. Huge developments like Bluewater
Shopping Centre were allowed to happen two years after the UK signed
the Kyoto protocol.
Another social advantage for car users is
commuting. Motorists can
consider taking jobs within a wide radius where trains or buses provide
no suitable routes. Indeed, many local council workers are themselves
commuters using cars, yet some of them are in the invidious position of
having to implement PPG13's restrictions on other people's parking
space provision. So, as with one-stop shopping, one social advantage is
offset by an emissions disadvantage.
One reason many people object to the
restriction of car space in new
planning applications is its seeming pettiness within the larger scheme
of things. Greater yields of carbon reduction could be obtained from
bolder reduction measures and from alternative energy sources, but
governments have been reluctant to legislate for enforcement of
unpopular fundamental carbon-saving measures or serious backing for
alternative energy. Incentives are timid and slow to appear whilst
commercial pressures continue to ignore the need for carbon reductions.
For example, six years ago Royal Mail abandoned rail for transporting
its post and increased its fleet of road vehicles accordingly - one
demonstration of how public policy and market forces are often in
conflict.
It now seems almost impossible to return
to the days when shops
could flourish by selling food produced entirely locally (or even
nationally), but our consumer expectations contribute to huge carbon
emissions when we continue to buy out-of-season produce from across the
globe. Kyoto did not address that problem and it seems unlikely that
upcoming Copenhagen will do so either.
Meanwhile, we tinker at the edges and
even if a planning officer
believed that the PPG13 car space restrictions were worth implementing,
this particular measure has doubtful value when scrutinised.
If you build a block of flats with no car
spaces, will that
inevitably make residents abandon their car ownership? If it doesn't,
those cars will be added to on-street parking. Nothing will be gained
and it will simply add to an existing problem.
Even if a resident does sell his or her
car, what would happen to
the car? Unless it is scrapped, it will create another car owner, so
there will still be no overall gain. And if the developers sell the
flats to people who don't possess cars, how does that reduce car usage?
To be effective, a car somewhere must be scrapped and not replaced, or
a car must be used much less often. Dispensing with car parks in
Shoreham will not necessarily make people take the bus; it will more
probably send them to Holmbush or Lyons Farm.
This October, David Kennedy of the
Climate Change Committee again
referred to evidence that 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be
saved each year simply by stricter enforcement of the 70mph speed
limit. That suggestion had been put forward in 2005, but ministers
rejected it. Increased police supervision would cost money . . . PPG13
costs almost nothing.
Back to sample articles list
When Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III,
assumed the title Emperor of
France in 1852, there were renewed anxieties about French power, so the
Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, ordered defences to be built at
exposed places on the Channel coast. Shoreham port was being used by
over 1,200 ships a year, and the sloping shingle adjacent to such a
harbour offered a suitable landing site for invasion.
Technical innovations were also changing
the feasibility of
invasion, such as the invention of rifled gun barrels, which increased
the power and range of heavy guns, and the launch of the first fully
iron-clad warship in 1859 by the French a year before the superior HMS
Warrior. Two Royal Commissions, in 1859 and 1860, urged the building of
many more defences: a string of other "Palmerston Forts" along the
coast, including some to encircle Portsmouth. Littlehampton fort had
already been built in September 1854 (now largely covered by sand
dunes) and Shoreham fort (also known as Kingston Redoubt) was completed
in June 1857.
In its edition of 14th May 1857, the
Brighton Gazette published the
following report:
SHOREHAM - The mouth of this harbour is
about 5 miles distant
from Brighton. A battery was begun here about 12 months ago and in the
course of next week the finishing stroke will be put to it. It has been
erected in the most substantial manner, superior if possible to the
Littlehampton defence, by Messrs Smith of Woolwich who have built some
of the largest fortifications in the Isle of Wight, the largest indeed
in England, which is a guarantee of the stability of the Shoreham
Battery. It is situated immediately on the west of the mouth of the
harbour, it will mount six guns of the heaviest calibre, and there is
barrack accommodation for about 60 troops. There is a barrack yard. It
enfilades the beach east and west and the range of the guns will be
about 4,500 yards so that an enemy could be kept at bay for some time.
Much on the same principle as this, every commercial harbour in the
kingdom is to be fortified - a very wise step on the part of the
Government. Immediately after the completion, the guns will be mounted
and the place is expected to be garrisoned in less than a month from
this period by troops from Woolwich.
Shoreham Fort and its smaller neighbour at
Littlehampton are
examples of a type of coastal gun battery not represented elsewhere in
Sussex or in the slightly later, and much larger, forts around
Portsmouth. The site at Shoreham to the west of the harbour gave the
guns command of both the harbour and its approaches.
When built, Shoreham Fort was under the
command of the 1st Sussex
Artillery Corps, stationed at Brighton, but it was also garrisoned by
local volunteers. A public meeting at the Bridge Hotel in July of 1860
saw the formation of the 4th Sussex Artillery Corps. The West Sussex
Gazette of 19th July 1860, reporting on the meeting, had Lt. Brammell
of 1st Sussex Artillery Corps saying: "If any town in the kingdom
required an Artillery Corps, it was Shoreham. It was stated by the Duke
of Wellington that, from the North Foreland to Selsey Bill there was
not a place but what was open to the enemy; and this was the central
point. Shoreham harbour would be an important feature in the
calculation of an invader; for here was every facility for
communication and sheltering transports; and if Shoreham people did not
come forward themselves to protect their shores who was to do it?".
The Corps, numbering between 30 and 40
members, mustered in January
1861 to collect their uniforms, supplied by Messrs Gilpin of London,
reportedly "exceedingly neat without gaudiness".
The troops occupied a fort with a ground
plan in the shape of a
lunette, or rectangular half moon, with earthen ramparts on which the
guns were mounted. At the rear was a defensible barrack block.
The ramparts were surrounded by a ditch
with a device known as a
carnot wall along the bottom. This protected defenders against attack
and allowed them to fire through loopholes at the enemy. At the three
corners were covered bastions or 'caponiers' which could be entered
from inside the fort and allowed defenders to fire along the outside of
the carnot wall. Buried beneath the two ends of the rampart are the two
magazines - one now beneath the 20th century coastguard station. These
ramparts are built of brick and comprise stores for 360 barrels of
gunpowder and 'shifting rooms' where the shells and cartridges were
loaded. Piles of iron shot were placed by each gun; the expense
magazines, where small supplies of ammunition were maintained, lie
adjacent. There were no hoists, and shells were carried to the guns by
hand.
The guns were 64-pounders weighing nearly 3
tons each and there were
two 80-pounder guns of 5 tons each. These were mounted on traversing
platforms with rails to enable the guns to swivel. They were all muzzle
loaded, had rifled barrels and were each capable of firing one round a
minute to a little over a mile. Each gun was manned by at least seven
men and was manoeuvred using wedges, levers and block and tackle. In
addition there were infantry to fire muskets at enemy troops
approaching up the beach.
The barrack block, of which only the
footings survive, accommodated
officers and men and, with external rifle slits, formed part of the
fort's defences. A central area served as a parade ground and beneath
this was a cistern to supply water. This still contains nearly six feet
of water.
Although the perceived threat from the
French 'Second Empire'
evaporated, the fort continued to be manned by volunteers at least
until about 1896. After this date, the fort's role is hazy, but during
the Second World War a battery of six inch guns and a searchlight unit
were erected there. During the period when Shoreham's 'Bungalow Town'
had active silent movie studios, the barrack block was sometimes used
for filming, but then became a private dwelling until demolished around
1960.
Neglected, the fort fell into decay and
became engulfed by shingle,
but from 1977 to 1979 West Sussex County Council sponsored a programme
of restoration on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission, through
their job creation and Special Temporary Employment Programmes.
Financial support was also received from the Department of the
Environment, Adur District Council, the County Council and Shoreham
Port Authority, with work supervised by the County Planning Officer.
Initial clearance of the site was
undertaken by 'volunteers' from
the Royal Navy and a careful study made of what survived before
restoration began. Over a period of two years a small team of
unemployed people undertook the restoration of brick and stonework that
had been rapidly deteriorating from weathering and vandalism.
It is designated a scheduled ancient
monument, and as such is
covered by the provisions of the 1979 Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act, but it is not a listed building and in the
intervening years, the structure has once more been allowed to
deteriorate. Nearly thirty years after that painstaking restoration the
brickwork is once more weatherbeaten and crumbling whilst the shingle
is again engulfing it. The condition of the fort is recognised by
English Heritage as a matter of concern, so it has for some years been
included in the English Heritage 'Buildings at Risk' Register.
However, some young people have emerged who
are enthusiastic about
restoring it again. For 15 years, 29-year-old Gary Baines has been
itching to do something about the old fort, spurred by memories of his
grandfather, who used to take Gary there to play when he was a child.
"I see it as a memorial to my grandfather", says Gary, now heavily
involved in organising work parties to clear the site and arrange
restoration work. He set up a group called Friends of Shoreham Fort,
which is working with English Heritage and the Port Authority as part
of a Future Management Plan. Gary has found volunteers who have agreed
to help him on a regular basis, but he needs more. They started work in
September, clearing the gun emplacements and the steps and one of the
shell recesses. They have now made a start on the east gun emplacement
and once this has been cleared the whole terreplein may be shingled to
bring the fort back to viewable standard.
Besides volunteers, they also need
donations of garden tools such as
wheelbarrows, spades, forks and if possible a petrol-driven strimmer.
The Shoreham Port Authority has provided insurance for the working
team, safety gear and the keys to the eastern magazine, to use as a
base and also to show the public where the garrison would have stored
the barrels of gunpowder and shells.
Meanwhile, for the last two years,
Elizabeth and Ole Mienert have
been engaged in trying to find funding to convert the coastguard tower
(see page 6). Their 'Old Fort Trust' is happy to co-exist with Friends
of Shoreham Fort and, where their interests overlap, to work in harmony.
For several years, Gary Baines has operated
a web site devoted to
Shoreham Fort and he appeared on BBC "South Today" in September to show
the fort's condition and highlight the campaign. With tourism now an
important element in our economy, it doesn't take a lot of imagination
to see the value to be obtained from a restored fort as a tourist
attraction. There is, however, a huge task awaiting conservationists,
but it is heartening for the ageing campaigners around Shoreham to
witness young people getting involved and energetically pursuing this
cause.
They need help, so if you can offer
something, contact: Gary Baines
(Friends of Shoreham Fort) 18 Lynchmere Avenue, Lancing BN15 0PD; email
garyclio@hotmail.com or phone 07787994815. Gary's web site is
www.shorehamfort.co.uk.
With thanks to Michael Norman for
access to his archives,
material from Adur District Council, West Sussex County Council and
Sussex Heritage News.
Back to sample articles list
A personal reflection by
long-time Shoreham resident Ray Chandler
The biggest housing project ever
envisaged for the Sussex coast –
the proposed residential development at Shoreham Harbour – is being
pushed forward with as much commercial and political determination as
ever. The recession may delay it, but this proposal is not going away.
And in the meantime it's being hyped up in a way that is clouding the
true implications. So what are the implications?
Anyone who has lived in the Shoreham
area for more than a few years
knows very well how the increasing population density has affected our
lives. The strains on our local infrastructure and services are clear
for all to see and experience.
Well, we ain't seen nothin' yet! The
total of all the local
developments over the past decade pale into insignificance compared
with what is planned for Shoreham Harbour. Adding some 25,000 people to
the local population won't just make things a bit busier – we are
talking about dramatic and far-reaching changes which will have a major
impact on all aspects of the local community and the lives of the
people living here.
The feasibility studies lack
credibility because they are being
funded by people with vested interests – the South East England
Development Agency (SEEDA), whose brief is regional expansion
regardless of whether more balanced growth across the country would be
sensible for long-term national interests. And much of the political
pressure is spurred by commercial interests – developers who much
prefer building in the south east because the higher prices here mean
bigger profits than in other regions.
The spin about economic regeneration
is very selective, highlighting
potential economic boosts (many of them short-term) but ignoring the
longer-term negative effects on sustainable economic health. It
conveniently ignores, for example, such warnings as the recent report
from the British Chambers of Commerce that road congestion is costing
every Sussex business an average £22,460 a year, draining millions of
pounds from the regional economy. Or the warnings about the
irreversible knock-on costs to society of over-development.
Another half-truth is the promise of
new jobs, ignoring the fact
that even the most optimistic job estimates amount to no more than this
population growth would need anyway – so there's no net gain, only a
risk of making local unemployment actually worse.
Then there are the fairy tales about
how huge investment in
infrastructure will make everything fine. Even if it's true that such a
major scheme would bring unprecedented investment (a promise far easier
made than kept) it beggars belief that the improvements could entirely
meet the challenges from adding 25,000 people to this community.
It's the degree of change
to the lives of existing
residents that is skirted over to the point of deceit. The massive
increase in population density that is proposed by the harbour plans
will change the entire nature of this community, and we deserve much
more honesty about it.
In the spin so far we've even had the
preposterous assertion that
this development will “improve our quality of life”. Our roads are
already gridlocked on a daily basis, our water supply, waste disposal,
education, health and social services are under severe strain,
pollution levels are dangerously high, and we are seriously asked
to believe that cramming even more people into our overcrowded patch
will make things better!
Opposing the development brings the
inevitable cries of “NIMBY”,
because England does need more housing. But it is good national
planning, not back-yard selfishness, that suggests expanding regions
where the growth would be more beneficial and easier to service, rather
than jamming it into already over-developed areas.
Perhaps as a start we should demand
that as the public consultation
progresses it must not take the usual route of persuasion and
patronising reassurance. Let's have full, frank and honest descriptions
of what the end results will really be like and what the motivations
really are. Then perhaps we might hope for genuine debate about whether
this area is the right place for it.
Back to sample articles list
