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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.