Repo rt of the Select Co m m ittee on
QUEENS PIER RAMSEY
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON QUEENS PIER RAMSEY
At a sitting of Tynwald Court in May 2005 it was resolved that a Select Committee of three Members be established
(i) to update the last report on the Pier;
(ii) to seek professional advice upon a possible phased refurbishment, based on a realistic specification and programme of work, using local resources and extending over several financial years;
(iii) to recommend who would be responsible for the repair, re-commissioning and operation of the Pier; and
(iv) to report to the October 2005 sitting of Tynwald.
Mr P Karran (Onchan) Chairman/Caairliagh
Mr W E Tearè MHK (Ayre)
Mr D M W Butt MLC
The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.
Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IMI 3PW (Tel 01624 685516, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www. tynwald.org.im
All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IMI 3PW
To: The Honourable Noel Q Cringle MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Honourable Members of the Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled
Report of the Select Committee on QUEENS PIER RAMSEY
PARTI
The Select Committee's remit
1.1 At a sitting of Tynwald Court held on 18th May 2005 it was resolved that
this Honourable Court, being concerned at the derelict state of the Queen's Pier in Ramsey and viewing with concern the continuing decay of the structure, is of the opinion that a review of the implications for its future is long overdue and appoints a select Committee of three Members with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 for the following purposes:
(i) to update the last report on the Pier;
(ii) to seek professional advice upon a possible phased refurbishment, based on a realistic specification and programme of work, using local resources and extending over several financial years;
(iii) to recommend who would be responsible for the repair, re-commissioning and operation of the Pier; and (iv) to report to the October 2005 sitting of Tynwald. Meetings of the Committee
1.2 Your Committee met on eleven occasions, of which two included public hearings. 1.3 At its inaugural meeting held on 28th June 2005 Mr Karran was elected as Chairman.
Historical and Current Situation
1.4 The Pier was opened in August 1886, one of three built on the Island in that era, the others located at the bottom of Broadway, Douglas, and at Derby Castle, Douglas, no longer in existence. It is interesting to note that the Queens Pier Ramsey is longer in length than Snaefell is in height and reportedly one of the longest still in existence.
1.5 Your Committee is aware that there have been several reports undertaken since the early 80's by the owners of the Pier (the Department of Transport, formerly the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties) to consider its future. There appears to have been neither the available funding nor the political will to progress restoration. We understand that Manx National Heritage would only show interest in the structure in relation to its heritage integrity and restoration to former state.
1.6 The Pier was closed to public access in 1991 due to deterioration and entered onto the Register of Protected Buildings in 1995> under provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. There had been open days when the public were permitted access. In evidence Mr Hodgson of the Friends of Queens Pier said,
"the last time we had a Day of the Pier was about 2003. We were not allowed on it in 2004 and 2005 but we did actually open as far as the first bay."
He said that in 2003 about 1000 people had attended. Stewards had been arranged to ensure that only 50 people at a time were admitted.
2 1.7 Your Committee noted the comments of the Department of Transport in its submission dated 9 August 2005 which stated, in respect of the Current State of the Pier -
"The legs of the pier remain in a reasonable structural condition but everything above the pile caps, i.e. the deck and its supporting joists and girders, is severely deteriorated. This is little different to the condition when it was closed to the public in 1991, although the deck has deteriorated further since that time."
PART 2
STRATEGY
Public Comment
2.1 Your Committee agreed to issue a press notice inviting written suggestions from individuals and organisations for potential use of the Pier and to seek written submissions from the Friends of the Pier, Manx National Heritage and the Department of Transport.
Updating the last Report on the Pier.
2.2 Your Committee was aware of several Reports on the Pier. A Report of the Working Party on the Future of the Queens Pier was published in December 1993. A Report was undertaken by the Morton Partnership on behalf of the Department of Transport and presented to Tynwald in October 2001. We were also aware that the Department commissioned a Structural Appraisal Report by BWB Ltd, dated August 2004, which was circulated to Members of Tynwald. We therefore agreed to take account of all Reports.
3 Professional advice.
2.3 A further report was undertaken by Mandall Engineering Ltd on behalf of Friends of the Pier in February 2003.
2.4 Your Committee considered that the authors of the Morton and Mandall Reports could provide an update on those Reports and a balanced professional view, the former having advised the owner and the latter having advised a support group. We agreed to invite each to meet the Committee to provide an overview of their professional opinion and a preliminary report based upon a realistic refurbishment using modern materials. Both preliminary reports are attached at
Appendix A
2.5 Given the volume of written evidence, the need to seek professional advice upon a possible refurbishment and the need to take evidence from witnesses, we agreed that it was impractical to report to the October sitting in accordance with the Motion. Consequently the Chairman made a statement to the October 2005 sitting advising that the Committee would not be able to report until its investigations were complete.
Oral Evidence
2.6 Your Committee agreed to take evidence in public from Mr A Pass Architect, Mr F Hodgson of the Friends of the Pier and Mr I McCauley, Director of Planning.
4 PART 3
ACTIONS Public Comment
3.1 A press notice was placed in June 2005 inviting suggestions for potential use of the Pier and the Committee also requested the views of the Friends of the Pier, Manx National Heritage and the Department of Transport. This resulted in 28 written submissions. Included in the submission from Friends of the Pier was a list of comments from over 70 members of the public and supporters following an exhibition staged by them. From these submissions we conclude that there is an overall consensus for refurbishment of the Pier. Reasons giving support ranged from establishing the Pier as a public amenity for walking, recreation and activities such as fishing, to reinstating the Pier as a functioning jetty to receiA^e pleasure steamers.
Written Evidence
3.2 There were 28 responses to the press notice inviting comments and suggestions for potential use of a refurbished Pier. These responses and other submissions are listed in this Report and are available for inspection in the Tynwald Library. Appendix B
3.3 The overwhelming view was in favour of the restoration of an example of the Victorian age and to preserve the historical value of the Pier for future generations. This may be best summed up with an extract (which refers to other examples of national treasures such as Laxey Wheel, Cregneash and Peel Castle and Castle Rushen) from the submission by the Isle of Man Victorian Society -
"Today none of these examples serve the purpose for which they were built yet they all share the same very important purpose - they are all there to show both present and future generations of island residents and visitors alike how we used
5 to live. Their purpose doesn't stop therefor it is only by looking back we can see how far we have come and prepare ourselves properly for the future."
Oral Evidence
3.4 Your Committee took evidence in public from the following
27 October 2005 Mr A Pass, Architect Mr F Hodgson, Friends of the Queens Pier 26 January 2006 Mr I McCauley, Director of Planning, DLGE
copies of the Hansard record are shown at Appendix C
Registered Status
3.5 The Pier was entered onto the Register of Protected Buildings in January 1995 which means that it is recognised by the Department of Local Government and the Environment as being a building of special architectural or historical interest.
3.6 In evidence Mr McCauley, Director of Planning, made it clear that his comments were of a general nature and could not be directed at the issue of the Pier specifically in the absence of any specific proposal concerning the structure placed before his Department. It would be for the Planning Committee to consider any proposals but he indicated that any application which retained the character and appearance of a building, and retaining as much original material as possible, would be considered favourably. He said
"... in general terms the closer the appearance is to the existing appearance the more acceptable it is in registered building terms."
6 3.7 He said that the onus for repair and maintenance of a Registered Building lay with the owner. His Department however were empowered to take action against the owner if there was evidence of neglect to the extent that the building was in danger. In the case of the Pier his Department had been involved in discussions with the Department of Transport in the commissioning of both the Morton and BWB Reports with a view to seeking a solution to the future of the Pier.
3.8 Your Committee noted the conclusions of the Report on the Queens Pier Ramsey dated October 2001 which contained three options which were essentially Option 1 to replace original elements that are capable of refurbishment and continued life and to replace them with modem materials and technologies Option 2 the disassembly of the main structural elements before cleaning, painting and refixing Option 3 a conservation approach which maintains the historic structure with replacement of components found to have failed or likely to fail during the intended lifespan
The Report concluded that Option 3 was the only realistic option for a scheme involving full refurbishment of the Pier and envisaged transfer of ownership to Manx National Heritage subject to the approval of Treasury for provision of all necessary capital revenue and personnel.
3.9 We consider that the preferred option at that time for a full restoration had been sufficiently researched and debated by Tynwald. We agreed to pursue Option 1 in that Report and investigate the merits, or not, of refurbishment of the Pier as an amenity, using modern materials and technology if necessary.
7 Feasibility of economic refurbishment
3.10 Your Committee agreed to meet with Mr B Morton, Morton Partnership Ltd, and Mr P Lawton, Mandall Engineering Ltd. Both meetings were held separately on 30 November 2005. Both were asked if a phased refurbishment rather than restoration would be feasible using modern materials whilst retaining the historical character of the structure and at a more economic cost than suggested in previous reports.
3.11 Mr Morton is the author of a Report submitted to Tynwald in October 2001. He agreed that refurbishment is practical and favoured the replacement of girders which supported decking with stainless steel fabric beams. He agreed that the legs of the Pier were in a sound structural condition.
3.12 Mr Lawton is the author of a Report undertaken on behalf of the Friends of the Pier in 2003. His Company has undertaken successful refurbishment on piers at Southport in 2002 and at Saltburn near Whitby in 2001 which he stated had been in a worse condition than the Queens Pier. He agreed that refurbishment is practical and favoured replacement of wrought iron girders where necessary.
3.13 Following those meetings Mr Morton and Mr Lawton were asked to submit preliminary costings based upon those discussions and are attached at Appendix A
3.14 Your Committee agreed to visit the Pier to determine at first hand the level of deterioration. However following the advice of the Chief Harbourmaster and having regard to health and safety factors due to inclement weather the proposed visit was aborted.
3.15 We agreed to invite the elected Members for Ramsey for discussion on 26 January 2006. Whilst we acknowledge that the Pier is not within the town boundary, nor is the responsibility of the local authority, a refurbished Pier
8 would impact on the town and as such the views of Mrs Craine and Mr Bell were considered useful.
Financial Consideration
3.16 Your Committee invited Mr Colin Kniveton, Financial Controller of the Treasury, to discuss the basis of a financial structure and source of funding. He advised of the General Development Fund which could provide capital funding for particular developments. However we feel that it should not be up to Government to provide the total funding. In this case we feel that the public interest and support should be seen to manifest itself by creating a significant private contribution toward any funding and towards the ongoing maintenance costs of a refurbished Pier. Mr Hodgson said, "We (Friends of the Pier) would raise, and put our resources at the disposal of any body that is going to restore the Pier, and we are quite confident, from our membership and our correspondence that we receive monthly, that we could raise the money by selli?ig planks, and all the other things that they have done at Southwold, and things like that."
3.17 Suggestions were made in submissions that income could be generated by various means such as fishing fees, a turnstile, sale of redundant planks, etc. Whilst such enthusiasm is commendable we are not convinced that these would generate sufficient income to make a significant contribution to the capital cost or to revenue but could nevertheless contribute in some part to ongoing maintenance costs.
9 Administration and Ownetship
3.18 Your Committee is satisfied that the Department of Transport does not consider the Pier as having value as a marine/harbour facility capable of use for mooring or berthing. We are also satisfied that Manx National Heritage would only consider taking responsibility for the Pier if the historic and heritage integrity is retained. Consequently we believe that consideration could be given to a refurbished Pier being administered by a separate body.
3.19 We took the advice of the Attorney General with regard to establishing a body such as a Statutory Board or Charitable Trust with suggested representation from Government, Ramsey Town Commissioners, charitable or support groups and with a political Chair. We were advised that the favoured option would be to form a Company limited either by shares or by guarantee.
Consideration of Demolition
3.20 Your Committee considered the option of demolition but dismissed this on the following basis: • The structure is included on the Register of Protected Buildings and as such is protected. • Deregistration is not an option for consideration. Deregistration should only be a consideration if there is evidence that the building/structure is no longer regarded as a building of special architectural or historical interest, and should not be used as a means of facilitating demolition. • As a registered building the owner has an obligation to maintain the building. • The Department of Transport has acknowledged that the legs of the Pier remain in a reasonable structural condition and little different to their condition when the Pier was closed to the public in 1991, some 15 years ago, indicating a solid base for refurbishment.
10 • The cost of total demolition was estimated at £l.lm in the 1993 Report of the Working Party and at £1.5m in the 2004 BWB Report, figures which are likely to have increased, if only by inflation. The Report suggested that on Island contractors would be unsuitable for this work. The Report stated that the contractors did not visit the site to provide the estimate. We suggest that the actual cost is likely to be in excess of that figure. • The overwhelming depth of feeling is to preserve rather than destroy
PART 4 CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 The Queens Pier is included on the Protected Buildings Register, being of special architectural or historic interest, under provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. As such it is afforded protection to secure its future.
4.2 There is an obligation placed upon the owner of a Registered Building to maintain and preserve the building. Your Committee feels that a failure by Government to ensure protection and preservation of a Registered building in its ownership would undermine the credibility of the legislation.
4.3 Your Committee is concerned that there has been an apparent reluctance by the Department of Transport to maintain the Pier in accordance with its registered status. Previous proposals by the Department have not received support, because of prohibitive cost and unrealistic specification. Expenditure by the Department has been limited to retaining a "mothballed" status, in accordance with the approval of Tynwald to option R(4) in the Working Party Report of 1993. In written evidence the Department stated
"The Department's annual expenditure depends on what minimal work is required to retain the "mothballed" status. Expenditure has also been incurred
11 facilitating limited public access until this became too dangerous. This work varied but amounted to about £2,000 per annum. In 2004 it was necessary to remove loose deck boards and secure various fittings, so as to minimise the danger to the public and this cost £8,879." and “current annual expenditure is about £1,500for two diving inspections plus a few hundred pounds if storm damage occurs.”
4.4 The estimated annual cost of mothballing in the 1993 Working Party Report was £40,000. The Report stated that it would difficult to justify such expenditure in excess of ten years unless another option was considered. There is no maintenance budget for the Pier specifically but a nominal £40,000 per annum is available from the Harbours Division maintenance budget for necessary work. The actual annual expenditure appears to have been considerably less than the sum available.
4.5 Your Committee considers that demolition is not a matter for discussion and deregistration not an option. We feel that Government should lead by example and implement legislation which it has put into place and acknowledge its liabilities.
4.6 We are concerned that the Department of Local Government and the Environment does not appear to have taken appropriate action in respect of the registered status. We heard in evidence from Mr McCauley that “the Department (DLGE) tries to proceed on the basis of working with owners to find solutions to the problems that they have got with registered buildings and in the majority of cases that is best done by working with them rather than taking action against them ".
In this case Mr McCauley felt that the building is not in imminent danger of collapse and that the owner is taking reasonable steps to safeguard public safety. Your Committee feels that working with the owner to find a solution has been ineffective and that the DLGE should be more proactive.
12 4.7 Your Committee is conscious of the number of Reports compiled over the years and were determined to present a feasible and viable proposal for consideration by Honourable Members. Previous reports have indicated substantial funding options. A full restoration option which includes de-riveting, cleaning and reassembly, is unrealistic both practically and financially. We do not agree with comments (in the Department of Transport Report presented to Tynwald in October 2001) that the unique architectural and historic character of the Pier would be lost if a refurbished Pier was no longer entirely original and our view appears to be supported by Mr McCauley (3.6).
4.8 The preliminary reports submitted by Mr Morton and Mr Lawton indicated a refurbishment cost of between £3.6 and £4.5m which is substantially less than options in previous reports.
4.9 Your Committee concludes that consideration should be given to establishing or identifying a body outside Government to run a refurbished Pier based upon an economic proposal with adequate safeguards, and charged with looking at future uses for the pier and with the generation of revenue.
4.10 We conclude that it is feasible to establish a Charitable Company limited by guarantee (the "Pier Company") based upon the following suggested structure • A political Chair • A representative from Treasury • A representative from Ramsey Town Commissioners • A representative from Friends of the Pier • Representation from the business community
We suggest that the Pier Company has a specific remit to ensure that the public has access to the Pier as a leisure attraction for the future. Ownership of the Pier to be vested in the Pier Company.
13 4.11 Your Committee suggests that Honourable Members may deem it appropriate for the mover of the Motion to be appointed as Chairperson of a proposed Pier Company.
4.12 Your Committee suggests that the approval of this Honourable House be sought to provide funding of a maximum of £4.5m and that the Pier Company be required to provide additional confirmed private funding of a minimum of £0.5m, ringfenced for contingencies, repairs and maintenance, thus taking away any future financial responsibility from Government.
4.13 We were led to believe that funding may be available from Treasury for certain capital projects.
4.14 We suggest that the Pier Company be responsible for • submission of a planning application and obtaining registered building consent • design of a three year phased refurbishment project • identifying the project managers, obtaining tenders, engaging contractors • ensuring the maximum use of local labour and resources.
It may be that those Companies involved in previous reports and appraisals of the structure are best suited to provide expert project management.
4.15 If approval is given to provision of the capital funding and the Pier Company fails to confirm private funding of a minimum of £0.5m within a period of thirty months, the Department of Transport will be required to present to Tynwald a proposal for the continuing future of the Pier.
14 PART 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Your Committee recommends that: (a) a Pier Company is established as described in 4.10 (b) ownership of the Pier is transferred to the Pier Company upon confirmation by Treasury of the source of private funding of a minimum of £0.5m within thirty months of its formation and confirmation of capital funding of a maximum of £4.5m from Government funding, such as the General Development Fund. (c) the responsibility for maintenance remains with the Department of Transport until transfer of ownership to the Pier Company .is confirmed (d) the Pier Company is responsible for the design of a phased three year refurbishment scheme and submission of a Planning Application in respect of that refurbishment scheme with any costs sourced from the Department of Transport maintenance budget provision. (e) the Pier Company is responsible for the appointment of the project management team, obtaining tenders, engaging contractors and ensuring the maximum use of local labour and resources. (f) the Pier Company is responsible for the administration of a refurbished Pier, the ongoing maintenance costs, determination of suitable uses and generation of revenue. (g) ownership of the Pier remains with the Department of Transport in the event that the Pier Company fails to confirm private funding of £0.5m within thirty months of its formation, after which time that Department presents to Tynwald specific proposals for the continuing future of the Pier.
P Karran MHK (Chairman)
W E Teare MHK
D M W Butt MLC June 2006
l.S
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY REPORTS
MORTON PARTNERSHIP
MANDALL ENGINEERING
The Morton Partnership
jistered in England No. 2727193 THE MORTON PARTNERSHIP LTD. CONSULTING CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, HISTORIC BUILDING SPECIALISTS Arcadia House, 19 Market Place, Halesworth, Suffolk. 1P19 8BB Tel: 01986 875651 Fax: 01986 875085 email: [email protected] www.themortonpartnership.co.uk
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN
Client: Select Committee of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW
Date: December 2005
Our ref: BAM\BEB\7514tynwaldrept
1
Registered Office: Arcadia House, 19 Market Place, Halesworth, Suffolk. IP19 8BB Tel: 01986 875651 Fax: 01986 875085 ndon Office: Old Timber Yard House, 55 The Timber Yard, Drysdale Street, London N1 6ND Tel: 020 7324 7270 Fax: 020 7729 1196 Essex Office: 8 Church Street, Coggeshall, Essex. C06 1T(I TaI- ni37R RR'iosn ra v n n v « QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
1.0 ORIGINS OF THIS REPORT
1.1 The Morton Partnership were, in 2001, asked to prepare a report on the condition of Queens Pier, Ramsey related to its possible restoration and refurbishment.
1.2 A report was subsequently prepared for the Department of Transport and presented in September 2001. Although we were acting for the Department of Transport, pur Brief was prepared by the Director of Manx Heritage Museum strictly specifying that the project was to be assessed on a clear conservation brief, not at that time allowing us to put forward alternative possibilities for the retention of the Pier.
1.3 From the beginning of our involvement I had felt that there are alternative approaches to retaining the Pier, indeed I wrote to the Friends of Queens Pier some time ago offering to address them with regard to an alternative approach.
1.4 In November 2005 I was asked by a Select Committee appointed by Tynwald to meet them informally to discuss the possibilities. This Report is prepared following a letter from the Clerk of Tynwald, dated 6 December 2005, asking me to present a realistic option to Tynwald for consideration by the Committee, thus this brief Report has been prepared.
2.0 THE MORTON PARTNERSHIP LTD 2.1 The Morton Partnership is a Consulting Engineering Practice employing some 20 people with a worldwide reputation related to their expertise associated with their vast experience of restoring historic buildings and structures.
2.2 The basis of our approach is one of minimum interference to existing structures whilst also being aware of economic considerations. If this project is considered using absolute conservation techniques it would be so expensive that work would never be implemented.
2.3 Specifically with regard to work associated with piers, The Morton Partnership were responsible for the structural design of the new Southwold Pier, in Suffolk, QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
which won the Annual Competition for the Best Pier about two years ago. Another of our projects, Cromer Pier in Norfolk, is also mentioned in the awards. The restoration of Gravesend Pier was also one of our projects and we have been acting as experts on behalf of the Heritage Lottery Fund with regard to resolving problems during the repair contract on Southport Pier.
3.0 PREVIOUS REPORT 3.1 Our reported dated September 2001 was based on an absolute Conservation Brief which involved us carrying out a very detailed, on site investigation of the form of construction of the Pier. We carried out inspections from a scaffolding and by boat and effectively took apart three bays of the existing construction allowing us to draw up three different proposals for the conservation restoration of the Pier. Although our original Brief from Manx Heritage Museum was to provide only one solution, it became apparent that this would be so expensive, the work would never be carried through to completion.
3.2 We reported providing three proposals all of which assumed there were common works necessary to the substructure beneath the deck of the Pier. The three alternatives relate to the methodology of dealing with the upper structure which was clearly the biggest problem associated with the restoration of the structure.
3.3 The three proposals were: 1. Complete conservation taking the upper deck structure of the Pier completely apart, even down to taking apart existing girders and repairing them and putting them back together, and then replacing the whole structure with the refurbished items. The problem with this proposal was, of course, cost but also the structure would be open to similar deterioration that has occurred to the Pier at the present time.
2. Taking apart and repairing the Pier structure of the deck only as necessary, repairing the girders etc on site without major interference to the elements other than the repair found necessary.
•i The Morton Partnershi QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN______7514tynwaldrept
3. A conservation approach, watered down, where we proposed to replace the existing steel girders as necessary using new steel fabricated girders to exactly match the existing. The potential problem associated with this approach was that the maintenance costs would still be high because the form of construction of the existing Pier is such that it leaves itself open to corrosion at the interfaces at all junctions.
4.0 PRINCIPLES OF COST SAVINGS 4.1 In simplistic terms there is a particular cost associated with the repair and the refurbishment of the below deck structure and the fixtures and fittings on the Pier, ie lamps, chairs, balustrades etc. This will be common to any proposals but rather than replace cast iron elements in cast iron, it would be possible to replace these in cast aluminium at significantly reduced cost.
4.2 In considering cost savings, it is essential that not only capital costs are considered because if the structure is rebuilt using particularly the lattice girders and connection details as oh the Pier at the present time, it is certain that the structure will deteriorate again albeit over a slightly longer period related to the use of modern paint finishes and protection.
4.3 We have considered, based on our experience, that it will be possible to simplify the structure of the Pier incorporating structural forms and fixing details that will not deteriorate so rapidly. The solution, in our opinion, is fairly simple in that we need to consider proposals for as few joints, ie interfaces, particularly within the beams, to reduce the deterioration rate
4.4 Our proposals put before the Select Committee suggests the use of structural castellated beams which are made up as one complete unit without any riveted, or bolted, connections within the beams themselves. I left with the Committee an illustration of castellated beams which are steel beams with holes in them which reduces weight significantly but, more importantly, reduces the enormous costs of fabricating girder beams as existing, whilst also not having the maintenance problems caused by water
4 QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
penetrating the joints in the girders that the existing construction has revealed. Preliminary investigations carried out by The Morton Partnership suggest that these new steel beams would cost perhaps 20% of the cost of new fabricated lattice girders to match existing. Preliminary calculation of the number of girders, or steel elements within the deck of the Pier which has 54 bays, suggests that the total number of steel components is of the order of 1,200 - it can be seen that the cost saving is going to be very significant
4.5 The Report has stressed the importance of there not being fixed interfaces between the components. Thus, with regard to the timber beams and deck of the Pier, the introduction of spacers between the steei beams and the timber beams, as well as between the timber beams and the timber decking, would allow the structure to breathe and very significantly reduce the rate of deterioration caused by water penetrating these joints as in the existing construction.
4.6 TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE MATTERS RAISED IN THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE CAPITAL COST SAVINGS WHILST THE COST OF MAINTENANCE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED.
4.7 Our original report proposals suggested that we would introduce a tracked, under-deck maintenance mechanism to give operatives access to the underside of the Pier using the tramway rails as a basis for this maintenance vehicle, again reducing the maintenance costs.
4.8 As a broad based indication of the principles of our proposals, it should be appreciated that in the existing construction there are of the order of 94,000 rivets and 50,000 connections. Alt of the rivets will not be required and connections will only be between major structural elements.
The Morton partnership QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
5.0 HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 I have briefly discussed the heritage considerations with Steven Moore, the Isle of Man Conservation Officer, and Tony Pass, until recently looking after Conservation for Manx National Heritage, and in principle it is believed that the proposals to alter the components of the deck construction would be acceptable because they will follow the existing layout of beams, etc in the bays. The only change to the appearance of the Pier will be that the lattice girders will be replaced by the castellated beams, the beams being of the same depth as the originals in the same positions.
5.2 In discussion with Steven Moore, I have suggested that during the refurbishment work we take the existing components that are in the best condition and re-create one bay of the Pier exactly as the original construction, this bay being towards the promenade end to reduce the affects of sea water, whilst also leaving this bay with reduced maintenance. This bay will allow visitors to see the original form of construction. It will be the intention to make use of oil rig technology to provide the best protective coatings to the steel structure, not only in this bay but throughout the replacement construction.
5.3 In heritage terms, it has to be said that the iron girders that were originally used were not provided for aesthetic effect but were simply, at that time, with labour costs very low the most economic form of construction. Technology was not available to make the castellated beams. It is a certainty that if castellated beams had been available at the time of the original construction they would have been used.
5.4 The simple proposals for providing open joints between the new stee! beams the timber deck, and the timber beams and the decking boards are simply based on experience gained in considering the construction of the new Pier at Southwold. This proposal has no heritage implications.
5.5 The replacement of cast iron components - handrails, chairs and lamps - again has no heritage implication but there will be some discussions
6 QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
necessary with the Conservation Officer with regard to the use of wire safety protection to the handrails that run the length of the Pier.
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 The major factors associated with the construction relate to the time required to carry out the work and the capital cost involved associated with the time period required for this work. The capital costs can be controlled by phasing the work.
6.2 The length of the Pier is 2,152’ overall from the promenade to the end, it is envisaged that work would not be possible during at least four months of each year due to the weather. Thus, my thought is that the Pier could be split into three sections, or periods of construction, with the third of the Pier closest to the promenade carried out as an initial project. This would perhaps take eight months providing there is adequate pre-contract time to resource and put together the proposals. Work would then either stop completely, or the work could stop for four months and the next phase carried on when the weather improves.
6.3 The section of the Pier completed could be opened to the Public which would act as, in my opinion, a great boost for possible future funding whilst giving an insight into how the completed Pier would look.
6.4 My thoughts are based, in general terms, around the fact that the Southwold Pier that was designed by The Morton Partnership is only a little over 600’ long, about the length of the first third of the Pier, and it would thus not be money wasted because the structure would be usable, of course, the remainder of the Pier would either have to form part of a future refurbishment programme or ultimately be demolished. Perhaps a further fact to consider here is the maintenance cost of a structure only a third of the original length would be much less.
7 QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
7.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY 7.1 The pavilions at the promenade end of the Pier are at the end of their useful life, being constructed of reinforced concrete with rusting reinforcement causing potential failure of the structures, thus these buildings would be removed as the first stage of the contract.
7.2 The work to be carried out involves the need for a scaffold to the underside of the Pier to allow the treatment of the ironwork below the deck, but also at this stage consideration needs to be given to using a mobile system beneath the Pier without the need for a scaffold from the beach, simply perhaps a suspended scaffold from the Pier structure.
7.3 The way forward would be for temporary strengthening of each bay of the Pier, forming a runway for a crane which would be used to lift out the deck timbers and the beams on a bay by bay basis working from the seaward end of the first third, gradually working back to the promenade leaving a skeleton structure which would be refurbished before the new deck structure was constructed on the existing skeleton framework. The girder components and iron deck construction will not be reused for the Pier but can simply be cut up on site and removed in comparatively small sections. The wrought iron used in these girder is of value and it is expected that there will not be a great cost involvement in disposal of this wrought iron because it can be reused, probably paying the transport costs to the UK from its value.
7.4 With regard to the timber deck structure, this will be inspected on a bay by bay basis and decisions made as to the extent of replacement timber necessary and of possible splicing new timber into the original using traditional techniques.
7.5 The Select Committee suggested that the timber for replacement of the deck beams and deck boards could be resourced on the Island and it is understood there is a good source for Douglas Fir which is a timber that we would like to use in the reconstruction.
8
■ QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 75l4tynwaldrept
7.6 We are also aware of a company on the Island that has specialised skills in protective treatment to structures, they could well be used in the construction process.
7.7 One of the first stages with regard to the construction process will be to remove the handrails and chairs from the site for these to be refurbished and new components to be made where appropriate. This will be an ongoing process during the remainder of the dismantling period.
7.8 The new construction would commence by the construction of the steel deck which would have been pre-protected off site, but would be further protected on site and then the timber deck would be laid over the steel framework working from the promenade outwards. The tramway rail installation would be incorporated in this together with consideration being given to a gantry not only for future maintenance but also for possible use during the construction period.
7.9 It is anticipated that it would be cost effective to erect on the promenade a substantial shed for carrying out, particularly repairs to the timber components of the structure.
7.10 The ironwork railings, lamps and chairs will by this time in the contract have been repaired, re-made or restored and will be fixed back into position. Decisions during the pre-planning period will need to be made with regard to the possibility of a new entrance building in simplistic form rather like that at Southwold Pier, seen below. QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
8.0 THOUGHTS ON POSSIBLE USES FOR THE PIER 8.1 Without any doubt, based on my experience of the Southwold Pier situation, the Queens Pier, Ramsey will be a tourist attraction but also Island people will almost certainly enjoy its simple facilities and I can see that the tramway will be a significant attraction whatever the ultimate length of the Pier.
8.2 I believe that the Southwold experience has shown that simple attractions, with perhaps buildings at the end of the Pier and at the promenade entrance providing tea and meal facilities, would work well. Simple steel framed and timber clad buildings seem to work very well. Surprisingly, the local people at Southwold have used the meal facilities for comparatively simple food allowing the restaurant\cafe to be opened throughout the year, although during the winter just from Friday night to Sunday night. Part of the buildings could be used for selling, again by experience, high quality gifts.
8.3 I believe ultimately it would be good for the Select Committee to see the situation at Southwold.
9.0 PRELIMINARY INDICATIONS OF COST
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION OF REPORT ARE SPECIFICALLY ONLY COST INDICATORS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY FURTHER COST INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THEY CAN BE RELIED UPON.
9.1 Cost estimates given in The Morton Partnership Report of September 2001 and the BWP\ETP Report of July 2004, suggest updated costs for the complete Pier restoration, using the existing structural elements.
9.2 The common costs associated with each of the proposals which includes the work to the structure below the deck, restoring all the handrails, chairs and lights, providing power supply, water supply and the tramway installation, whilst also allowing for the provision of new buildings at either end of the Pier, suggests from The Morton Partnership’s report a cost of the order of £1.3million. The original
10 QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
report has as a common cost the work to the timber deck included, giving an overall figure of £2.3million but I have now taken this out of common costs because I believe with locally resourced timber the timber deck cost can be reduced.
9.3 The limited amount of work carried out at the time of this preliminary report, with the very much simplified deck structure and locally resourced timber, suggests to me a likely cost for the whole Pier to be of the order of £4 million - 4.5million as an absolute maximum figure, plus VAT if appropriate. A more detailed investigation carried out with the original advisers who helped with The Morton Partnership report may well reduce these costs further.
9.4 With the idea of working on the Pier in three stages with an overall programme of three years for the work, it can be assumed for present purposes that each third section of the Pier would take about eight months to complete. Thus, eight months after commencement the first third would be usable with the facilities described above, ie a simple entrance building and cafe\restaurant with the tramway operating.
9.4 It is believed that there will be rather more costs involved in the first stage than there will be on the following stages and, thus, a budget of £1.5million - 2million is thought to be appropriate for this first section of the Pier. It has to be emphasised that more work is necessary to consolidate these cost estimates.
10.0 THE WAY FORWARD
I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR IN THIS REPORT THAT MORE WORK IS REQUIRED TO CONSOLIDATE THE COSTS BEFORE FINAL DECISIONS CAN BE MADE FOR EXAMPLE. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT DOUGLAS FIR TIMBER CAN BE RESOURCED ON THE ISLAND, THIS NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY INVESTIGATED TO CLARIFY COSTS.
11 QUEENS PIER, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN 7514tynwaldrept
10.1 It is envisaged that the steelwork will be provided from specialist contractors in the UK although costs of supply in the UK can easily be established, transports costs will need to be taken into account.
10.2 The costs for taking apart the structure and disposing of the comparatively valuable wrought iron needs to be considered.
10.3 It is envisaged that the contract will be supervised in a not dissimilar way to that of the work to the Laxey Wheel which seems to have worked very satisfactorily.
10.4 The cost of work to the balustrades, handrailing, chairs and lamps needs to be established as part of this process. Thus, I see the way forward requiring the above investigations to be carried out as a first stage and I would anticipate thè fee cost associated with this investigation of between £2,500 - £4,000 plus VAT to allow us to present to the Select Committee very much more accurate costs which can be put before Tynwald.
11.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
1. Assume that the way forward is to restore Pier over a three year period with the initial contract being for only one-third of the length of the Pier.
2. Confirm the costs of this first stage after a more detailed investigation.
3. The total cost of restoring the whole length of the Pier can be established from the further investigation and can be used in the decision making process.
4. As part of this, investigate the uses of the Pier with possible visits to the UK to look at similar situations related to pier use.
5. Decision by Tynwald based on more accurate information.
Brian A. Morton MBE C.Eng FICE Dip Conservation (AA) IHBC
12
The Morton Partnar; QUEENS PIER RAMSEY ISLE of MAN mandali ENGINEERING LIMITED INTRODUCTION TO MANDALL
Provider of specialist and innovative solutions to the Waterways, Highways and Marine industries
> Established 50 Years Ago > Design, Manufacture and installation >45 employees including chartered engineers > Knowledge of sea and water structures >Operating to ISO 9001 > Manufacture in both Steel & Timber Constructions
ENGINEERING LIMITED MANDALL ENGINEERING LTD Previous Similar Works Saltburn Pier
Design Manufacture Install OBJECTIVE OF THE RESTORATION To Restore a Beautiful Victorian Pier built in 1886 “To Allow Future Generations to walk Over the Sea” Pier Inspections Carried out 20th February 2003 & 1st December 2005
>The first inspection was specifically chosen for the very low tide, one of the lowest for the year. > First impressions was that the pier was in excellent condition for its age, and far better condition than Saltburn Pier was!
ENGINEERING LIMITED INSPECTION OF THE PIER (Steel Structure)
The majority of the wrought iron structure is in very good condition with an estimated life approx. another 100 years +.
Wrought Iron has exceptional good aging qualities with good examples from as far back as the 15th Centaury can still be seen. m andali ENGINEERING LIMITED STEEL WORK CONDITION
Approximately the first 3 bays of lattice girders next to the promenade have suffer from the ‘wind and waterline’ erosion and will need to be replaced
û é
Replacement of cross tie bars where erosion is heavy m andali ENGINEERING lim iteo TIMBER DECKING CONDITION As access to the pier was not permited only inspection from the promenade could be undertaken. However it was clear to see that both the decking and timber support beam would all need to be replaced.
; jU
Balustrade post could possibly be used again with new rails where required m andall ENGINEERING 11MI T E D Method of Refurbishment Our initial recommendation would be to refurbish the pier in stages say in 48m (4 bays) sections starting at the promenade to achieve the following - > Quick visual result > Provided Access for tracked crane to avoid working on tides. > Provides achievable goals not overwhelming. > Public access may be achieved at an early stage. > Learning curves achieved in best & safer working area >Funding can be better controlled and forecasted during the contract m andali ENGINEERING LIMITED WHAT WILL IT COST!
Major Material and costs (£) Decking Ekki Hardwood approx: 200 M3 £ 241,500
Hardwood Ekki timber joist and battens 310 M3 £ 378,000
Balustrade repair approx 1350 I/m & new seating £ 201,250
Re-new lattice girders approx. 20 off 12m long £ 92,000 Tie Bars £ 25,000 Blasting and painting £ 207,000
Labour on site £ 2,221800 Plant on site £ 92,000
Site accommodation £ 34,500 Provisional sum £ 50,000 Professional fees £ 115,000
Grand Total £ 3,658,005
m andali ENGINEERING LIMITED OTHER PIERS - WORTH TAKING A LOOK!
SOUTHPORT PIER 1864 Refurbished 2002
Over 2,000 bronze plaques were purchased by supporters to help fund the works and were installed on the new decking jflrmandall OTHER PIERS
Work included stabilising the foundations, replacing the decaying steel beams with hardwood, and re-laying over 5 miles of decking. It was officially re-opened to the public on 13th July 2001. BY MANDALLS
SALTBURN PIER BUILT 1869 - RESTORED 2000-2001
m5 * andali 7 ÉNGtNEEftlNG LIMITED APPENDIX B
LIST OF THOSE PROVIDING WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Mr P Fisher C and D Sugden Mr S Easthope Sulby and Lezayre Heritage Mr R Windsor Trust L I Singer MLC Peel Angling Club Mrs V Pixton Department of Transport Friends of Queens Pier Ramsey Isle of Man Victorian Society Mr A J Pass Ramsey Town Commissioners Manx National Heritage W Tomlinson Ms P Newton Mrs } Kinley Mr K Walmsley Ramsey Heritage Trust Mrs W Livingstone Mrs A V Craine MHK Hon A R Bell MHK Mr J Grimson Mr S A Kneale Mr N Clague I i
! APPENDIX C
Official Hansard Report of Oral Evidence
Thursday 27 October 2005
Mr A Pass
Mr F Hodgson
Thursday 26 January 2006
Mr I McCauley
PP40/06 GÈ? TQP, No. 1
TYNWALD COURT OFFICIAL REPORT
RECORTYS OIKOIL QUAIYL TINVAAL
PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN (HANSARD)
SELECT COMMITTEE ON QUEEN’S PIER RAMSEY
BING ER-LHEH MYCHIONE KEIY YN VEN-REIN RHUMSAA
Douglas, Thursday, 27th October 2005
Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwaid, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2006 Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man Price Band B 2 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005
Members Present:
Chairman (Caarliagh) Mr P Karr an MHK Mr E Teare MHK M r D Butt MLC
Clerk: M r L Crellin
Business transacted
Page
Procedural...... 3 Evidence of Mr A Pass, Architect...... 3
M r Hodgson was called at 10.50 a.m.
Evidence of Mr F Hodgson, Friends of the P ier...... 9
Procedural...... 15
The Committee sat in private at 11.2] a.m. Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 3TQP
So, to begin with Ramsey Pier. As we know, it dates from Tynwald Select Committee on the 1880s and it is one of the early mainstream generation Queen’s Pier, Ramsey of pier structures. At 2,150 feet it is the fourth longest in the British Isles, and to illustrate its scale, it is longer, it projects further into the Irish Sea than Snaefell is above sea level. So The Committee sat in public at 10.02 a.m. that gives some idea of its scale. in the Millennium Conference Room, Ramsey is rare, if not unique, in being a landing pier Legislative Buildings, Douglas only, as most of, if not all, the others had amusements and buildings as their principal attraction. In a sense, that is what makes Ramsey Pier such a difficult conservation problem. It [MR KARRAN in the Chair] was built solely for landing, and now landing is impractical, and virtually impossible for large or medium-sized ships. Another problem is that, unlike the successfully restored piers at places like Bangor and Cromer and Southwoid, it has Procedural a very small catchment area, and this is what, I think, affects many attractions on the Isle of Man. All these other places are within an hour’s drive of more than a million people and, Yn Caarliagh (Mr Karran): Moghrey mie, welcome. As of course, we do not have that catchment area. you are no doubt aware, this sitting of the Select Committee And, unlike them, we have no access to the National of Tynwald is to hear evidence in public. The Committee was Lottery fund, which has been extremely useful with major established by Tynwald in May 2005, a sitting to review the civil engineering conservation projects in the adjacent future of the Queen’s Pier, and the motion was as follows: island. ‘To update the last report on the Pier; to seek professional advice on the Against that, however, there are positive factors. The possibility of a phased refurbishment, based on realistic specifications degree of public support for its restoration, as evidenced and a programme of work using local resources and extending over by the submissions of this Select Committee, is very several financial years; and to recommend who would be responsible considerable. The Island has a good, but not perfect, record to repair, to rccommission and operate the Pier.’ of preserving its treasures. We have some considerable charitable resources, and possibly even the National Heritage Fund may eventually be tapped for some major projects. But at the back of all our minds is the massive cost to the EVIDENCE OF MR A PASS enterprise, and I have no magic solutions. We must remember that this is a structure as large as Blackpool Tower, with M r K arran: May I introduce my colleagues, Mr Butt and nearly as much steelwork in it as the railways and tramways MrTeare, and may I thank the first witness, Mr Pass. If you of the Island put together. And, of course, seaside piers are would like to introduce yourself and explain your interests high-risk structures, subject to the natural elements and and involvement with the Pier, and whatever you would very accident-prone, as the recent disasters at Brighton and like... give us a statement on your views on the subject. Cromer and, in the last few weeks, at Southend illustrate. Although I have a fair amount of professional experience Mr Pass: Thank you, Chairman. and a lot of interest in piers, I am not a civil engineer or I am Tony Pass. I am a chartered architect and town a structural engineer, but I have had contact with experts planner and I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor who are, and I can comment from my own perspective and of Architecture and Master of Arts from Manchester experience, University and 1 am a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries I would just make an aside that Queen’s Pier, in my view, of London. I have about 35 years’ experience as an architect, has not been treated well in the last 20 or 30 years as the much of it in the field of building conservation, maintenance responsible department, DoT, showed little commitment to and heritage. For 10 years I was Conservation Officer of its preservation and no discernible professionalism in setting Greater Manchester and, more recently, Head of Properties up a maintenance programme, at least until fairly recently. for Manx National Heritage between 1997 and 2004. I think the attitude was that DoT was there to facilitate and The significant jobs that I have been involved in included care for roads and harbours in use and not for moribund the first stage of the restoration of Liverpool Road Station in seaside piers. Castlefield to become the Museum of Science and Industry, In my view, the DoT and its predecessors fell short of the conversion of parts of Wigan Pier and, here on the what could have been expected, in defining its role to the Island, I took part in the rescue of the Rushen Abbey site, Manx people in a way that largely excluded the Pier. Even the long-term repair of Castle Rushen and many of the other the meagre funds that were made available were not wisely artefacts of Manx National Heritage and, of course, the major spent; and some would say they were not spent on the Pier restoration of Laxey Wheel before its 150th anniversary. at all. I was involved with the DoT/MNH report of October Well, that takes us up to about the year 2000 and to the 2001, and I am familiar with some of the representations joint DoT/MNH survey and report which was presented to made to Government by the Friends and others and with the Tynwald in October 2001. As a then official of MNH, I was reports made by Mr Morton, the DoT, BWB and others. concerned to ensure that the best expertise was deployed and As an aside, I have lectured to the Victorian Society that strict objectivity was observed, hence the appointment and others on seaside piers in the British Isles and so I have of Brian Morton MBE, who first came to the Island to work a view of the significance of Queen’s Pier in history and with Marlene Hendy as an expert consultant on conservation engineering importance. work.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass 4TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence
Mr Morton is the only man living to have restored obviously, things that would facilitate public access - a café, several piers, and actually designed and built a new one at restaurant, that sort of thing - but one thought that occurred Southwold, and his report was totally reliable and, in many to me was that we are about to see, very regrettably, the loss ways, innovative. of the marine biological station at Port Erin and it is some However, although the author of the report is, in my view, years since the marine biological station provided access to beyond reproach, the report itself was subject to some inter its own sort of aquarium exhibition. departmental politics. DoT wanted to be rid of the Pier and This would be, I think, almost impossible to recreate by Manx National Heritage, with all its other cherished projects, modem standards because you would, effectively, be creating did not wish to take it on. Consequently, there was a bit of a a zoo, but one thought was that - and it just occurred to me game of pass the parcel that went on at the time. - possibly the Pier itself, the undersea part of the Pier, could Manx National Heritage made much of the need for a be used, with modem technology, for viewing the waters complete and faithful and authentic restoration, which was under the Isle of Man. right in terms of a heritage organisation; but it also just Extending that, bearing in mind that Ramsey is not happened to jack up the cost by a few million pounds, and necessarily the best or the most interesting part of the marine the result was that no-one would countenance the transfer biology of the Island, you could have cameras dotted around or find the money, and thus the project was really kicked the Isle of Man with some sort of a link, either by landline into the long grass. or satellite, back to the Pier itself. This could be the core of The subsequent BWB report, per contra, took the a marine exhibition, which would be very much tied in with opposite approach and proposed an almost total renewal of the Pier and could be ever-changing, which is something the structure. In my view, this went too far. that many of our heritage attractions do not do on the Isle So, where do we go from here? My recommendation of Man. would be that Brian Morton be invited to redraft his report, So, that is one possibility. The other possibility is free from the constraint that every element, down to the moorings for much smaller pleasure craft. The days of million rivets, should be as they were originally. In other providing facilities for vessels between 1,500 and 3,000 words, his brief should be to restore the Pier sensibly for gross tonnes have gone, but there is a demand for pleasure the long term, conserving the main elements and retaining craft, and, indeed, this may tie in with the marina proposals sound structural components where they exist. across the Isle of Man. I would suggest, from my own observation, that this Finally, I recognise that the Q ueen’s Pier is a textbook would involve the retention of the two hundred or so conservation dilemma. It is really, for the Isle of Man, muck stanchions which are generally sound, give or take one or two or nettles. In one respect, if the Island committed itself to a that have been damaged. The big difference would be that, rescue, it would be extremely costly. If it did not, it would after lifting the decking, the badly corroded girder supports lose the Pier for all time, and lose the Pier at a considerable could be replaced with simple modem steelwork, section by cost, which could be the cost of, perhaps, £1.5 million or section, and protected by a modem anti-corrosion means that £2 million. would not have been available to the Victorians. So, I am here, if I can, to help, but I have no perfect I would see the Pier tramway as an important constructional solution. Thank you, Chairman. advantage to future maintenance and also to the construction process. M r Karran: Thank you very much, Mr Pass. Nobody has a magic wand to wave away the formidable Would you like to ask any questions? cost, but it could, and should, be phased over several years. Indeed, there is probably no alternative, given the frequency M r Butt: Can I just ask some questions, initially, on of the winter storms in Ramsey Bay. I could foresee that your statement? You said you were a Fellow of the Society in the first summer, the top could be stripped and the of something? substructure made right. In the second year, one, two or three main bays could actually be restructured and decked, M r Pass: Antiquaries of London. ready for access. In essence, the work would be a repetitive steel erection M r B utt: Antiquaries. So, that is an interest in historical job, which would be well within the capacity of Island firms. buildings, et cetera? Winter would be the time to fettle up the edge castings, of which there are literally 5,000 feet, and to prepare the M r Pass: That is correct, yes. decking. Having dealt with the structural restoration, what of the M r Butt: Are you still working as a conservation officer after use? Here, of course, we hit another problem because with anybody or are you retired? Ramsey Pier’s main reason disappeared in 1970 with the departure of TSS Manxman, which, of course, is also subject to M r Pass: I do consultancy work for the conservation a rescue attempt at the moment. Any attempt to put buildings section in the Department of Local Government on on would add to the cost and the complexity of the job. occasions, and also off-Island. I would suggest that the two best and most appropriate sites for any buildings would be the end of the Pier and at M r Butt: You are not involved with Manx National the entrance, where, of course, there is firm ground to build Heritage? on. The entrance was modified in the 1950s and I think, by general consensus, the entrance building is of no great M r Pass: No, no. significance and could be replaced. As for potential uses, this is a difficult one. There are, M r Butt: Okay.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 5TQP
The report in October 2001 which Mr Morton played a like cafés, et cetera, at the end? Would it have the strength part in, you said you were part of that inquiry as well in your and stability to do that? role as an MNH officer? Mr Pass: In certain places there are... I think the old M r Pass; Correct. terminology was ‘swellings’ in the Pier, the bits that come out. We would have seen them yesterday on the visit. I think M r Butt: So what part did you actually play in that? probably the best place to do it is at the far end. Also, from the point of view of the public, that is where they aim for, M r Pass: Well, it was a question, really, of finding the end of the Pier, anyway. somebody with the requisite experience to undertake the At that point you have got, as I recall, about eight sets of report I took part in some of the surveys, with the help of stanchions. It did at one time have a single storey structure DoT and the harbour facilities, but it was really, I think, in the on it, and my understanding from the structural engineers is appointment of Mr Morton and his colleagues to undertake that it is possible to modify it, without too much difficulty, the report, and I believe we probably chose the one person in to put a superstructure on. the British Isles with the most experience. M r Butt: So we could put a building, a café, or whatever, M r Butt: And would you recommend that we still stay at the end? with Mr Morton for further advice? M r Pass: Yes. M r Pass: Certainly. I do know that, without any prompting from the Isle of Man, he has regarded this as a continuing M r Butt: And that would be safe? {Laughter) intellectual problem which he has teased away at, and I know that he has a sequel that he would like to report to you. So, M r Pass: All piers, as I have said, are accident-prone; whether you appoint him or merely seek his evidence... I they are very exposed. But I am sure that, structurally, it is would certainly recommend the latter. not too difficult to do. I have also drawn attention to the other end of the Pier, M r Butt: Just one thing I was interested in, in your of course, the entrance, where there is firm ground. I would statement, in effect, although you are interested in restoration see that as another possibility; either or both. and the history of buildings, from what you said, you do not favour a nut-and-bolt total restoration? If it was possible, Mr Butt: You said that on the second report in 2004, obviously, if we had the money, it would be a good idea, but which was almost a complete rebuild, that cost several extra you do not think there is any compromise or reduction of the million pounds to what it could cost. Have you any idea, in value of the Pier by having modem structures put in there to terms of numbers, how much extra that would be? make it viable? M r Pass: I always avoid quoting numbers. First of all, M r Pass: I think every one of the 50 or so piers around I have never really vetted that in any great detail, but I do the United Kingdom that survive, out of the 80 or 90 that were know that it went a long way further than a conservation built, has changed over the years. I think to restore a pier is repair of the Pier. While we have just had this discussion rather different to restoring an oil painting, where you would about how far could you go to modify the Pier, my view go over the oil painting very, very carefully and restore it. is that was going too far and it was also spending a lot of I think this was the kind of mindset of MNH at the time, money unnecessarily. that we want the Pier restored exactly in every detail. Well, My understanding is that the main supports of the Pier that meant that you would have to have people hand-forging are, in the main, although they do not look terribly good, in a million rivets, and I do not think that is practical. a pretty good condition. I think that what the people of the Isle of Man want, if they want to retain the Pier, is a Pier which retains its essential M r B utt: These are the main legs? character, but they would not be unduly disturbed if the main beams which are under the Pier were modem steelwork, for M r Pass: Yes, the legs. instance, and there are a number of other shortcuts that might be made. M r Butt: So, you say you could retain 200 stanchions? If you look at the North Pier at Blackpool, which is a pier of similar significance, you will see that there have been Mr Pass: I think there are about 230 of them and, considerable changes made to it and yet it is, as far as I know, probably, 220 you could retain. a grade I or a grade II* listed building structure. Mr Butt: So you need to replace 20 or 30 of the main M r Butt: Would that change the status of the Pier if we stanchions? did do modem innovation? M r Pass: Maybe, yes. M r Pass; I do not believe so. I think that it would be a step well worth taking. M r Biitt: Would that be a huge expense?
M r Butt: Right. We have been told - and you have sort Mr Pass: It would be expensive, but it would be a of confirmed this today - that it is purely a landing pier and considerable saving on the replacement that was largely nothing else, so would it be possible to put structures on, envisaged in the later reports.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass 6TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence
M r Butt: Another technical question, from what you have and, therefore, would have to go through the planning said. You said in the winter you could do the edge castings. process. I would be rather anticipating how the Department What are the edge castings? of Local Government and their planning committee would be looking at it, but I would think that the drive to save the M r Pass: There are decorative balustrades, particularly at structure so that, to all intents and purposes, its appearance the swellings, in the Pier which are rather attractive. There is and everything would be retained would be so important, a lot of cast-iron work on there and it would seem to me that such an imperative, that I doubt whether they would wish that could be taken off-site, fettled up, prepared and decorated to resist it. and put back in the summer. Obviously, a change such as the changes that have I was suggesting that, although the process of working occurred with, I think, the Rank Organisation, the South Pier on-site would stop in September, you could carry on with at Blackpool, which has the ferris wheel on it and goodness conservation work throughout the winter and have it ready knows what, and huge,.. It looks like... for later. That sort of thing would totally wreck the Pier; but I do not think anybody that I know of is suggesting that for M r Butt: Okay. And you mention at the end the use for it Ramsey Pier. This would be a substructural alteration and I would be moorings for pleasure craft. Do you mean visiting think it would make very little difference to the appearance yachts and people like that? of the Pier. But it would, certainly, be an issue and it would, certainly, require registered building consent. M r Pass: I think it is worth looking at. I really do not know, because I am not a sailor, but there may be a demand for that M r Teare: Then, would it be your advice that the and it would be a shame to lose the landing possibilities. Committee should take evidence from DoLGE?
Mr Butt: I wondered if the likes of the Karina of Steve M r Pass: I think so. If this is a serious possibility, yes, Carter, and the Balmoral or Waver ley, would it be sufficiently I would say so. strong enough for those to moor? M r Teare: Going on to the use o f the Pier, possibly for M r Pass: Depending on what was built, I think the Karina, berthing small vessels, I would assume, because of the tidal Stephen Carter’s vessel, probably could. I think it is unlikely flow up there, the tidal rise and fall, that would be pontoon- that a vessel of... I mean, the Balmoral and the Waverley are based, would it not? about 700 to 800 tonnes, and I suspect that would be a major operation. M r Pass: Yes, and that would tend to limit its size. The There is also another thing that 1 am not too sure of, and landing heads at one time had several levels that you could maybe the harbour representatives could tell you about, and go out on. They were fixed. A pontoon would seem to be a that is, of course, the landing heads were demolished, I do sensible way of dealing with that for small vessels of, say, not know how far down they were demolished, whether they up to 20 metres, or something like that. were taken just below the waterline or whether, in fact, they were taken up completely. If they are below the waterline, M r Teare: Would it be a danger in the severe weather in they would be a hazard to any kind of navigation. So, that is the winter that the pontoon might impact against the Pier? a question I cannot really answer. M r Pass: I think this would be a matter of design. Another M r Butt: Okay. possibility would be to actually have the pontoon there and Just as a matter of comment, I can remember as a young be able to tow it away when not in use. It would be no larger, child going to Ramsey for the day and catching the boat back it would actually be smaller, than some of the vessels that from Ramsey to Douglas. It was cheaper than the bus, and would be attached to it, so it could be taken away. quicker; but those days are gone, I presume, I think a competent designer could probably cope with that hazard to a large extent. We do, unfortunately, have a Mr Pass: I can remember as a youngster being on the climate that is becoming more and more unpredictable. MER tram and seeing the Lady of Mann pass us, because we were going round the glens and the Lady of Mann was M r Teare: If we get over the refurbishment phase, what going straight. do you see as the on-going maintenance costs?
Mr Butt: It was then about 20 minutes; it was much M r Pass: I think part of the brief for any designer would quicker. be, as happened in the 2001 report, to have a design life. I Okay, those are my only questions at the moment on your think, realistically, you could not give it more than, perhaps, statement. Mr Teare might put some questions, then we will 20 to 30 years. I think that, in that time, the intention would come back to you later on, on other matters. be to make the maintenance commitment relatively small. Obviously, I cannot put a figure on that but the intention Mr Teare: Right, thanks, Mr Chairman. would be that all the steelwork on the structure would require Mr Pass, the Pier is a listed structure. Would the alterations, little or no maintenance other than painting, In fact, with the repairs, the refurbishment, could it be done whilst still modem corrosion and protection techniques, you probably retaining that listing? Could it be done within that listing? would not need very much during that time. Longer than that, I think, almost nobody would put a... they cannot make Mr Pass: Anything which changes the character or the life indefinite. appearance of a registered building would require approval We have to remember that the Victorians themselves
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 7 TQP probably would not have given the Ramsey Pier a life of I am doubtful whether the sorts of species that are grown 125 years, which is what it has had. So, very often, design up on the hills would be of the same category. I am not really lives go on longer than they are stated. If they say 20 years, a timber expert but I think you would have to be looking for it could be 40 years before major work is needed again. some hardwood or for some resinous, long-lasting pine. Hopefully, with a conservative maintenance programme, that could be eased over a period of time. What we are seeing M r Butt: We will probably take further advice on that now is an accumulation of decay and damage that has not (M r Pass: Yes.) because there is a lot of surplus timber, that really been attended to in the last half century. probably would be very low cost, but we will look at that. There was a suggestion from some people that the Pier M r Teare: Could you comment upon the deterioration could be shortened. Would you see any merit in that? and damage which has taken place since 2001 when the DoT report was prepared? M r Pass: Well, let us say, halve the Pier. In very round terms, it is going to cost, probably, £500,000 to £750,000 to Mr Pass: Of course, nobody has been allowed access. get rid of the end. You were asking about the impact in terms Since I left MNH, obviously, I have no status to go on and of a registered building of these changes. I think to shorten look around, and I believe you have not had access so far. the Pier would certainly be a major issue. My feeling is that it is probably not in such a bad state as Strangely enough, it is what happened at Southwold has been made out. We are in the era of health and safety and in Suffolk until Brian Morton restored it. It was shortened people shut things down faster than they need to be simply and shortened and shortened and, in the end, about 50 feet to get out of a legal problem. I do not think it has decayed projected out from the shore and the whole reason to be massively. I think, obviously, without any money being there went. spent on it, the decking and the under-supports are going to Obviously, it would be half the cost, or near enough continue to decay, but I would doubt whether there has been half the cost, of restoring, but you would have an awful lot anything that is thus far irreparable. of removal to do. I think the whole impact would be lost. I would certainly be very much against that. I think that a Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr Chairman. decision has to be made to retain it or not.
M r B utt: Could I... M r Butt: You mentioned in your statement about the Manxman being restored. Are you involved with that at M r Karran: Yes, certainly, cany on. all?
Mr Butt: Could I just ask you, on that last thing about M r Pass: I am a Steam Packet anorak and I think it would the decking, the actual timber on the decks is hardwood, I be lovely if this Manxman was restored. She is a large vessel. believe? I understand the state that she is in is very, very poor, but, by a strange coincidence, this Brian Morton, the engineer, M r Pass: Yes. is also a member of the main board of the national Heritage Lottery Fund in the UK which disburses the money, and he M r Butt: How thick is it? Do you know? was sent up to Sunderland to see the Manxman. His view was that, although superficially she is in a terrible state, she Mr Pass: It has - is far better than some of the reports would suggest. The problem with the 2,500-tonne vessel is that to M r Butt: Is it like railway sleeper thickness or..,? associate it in Ramsey Bay, without major civil engineering w orks... Queen Mary was put in a dock in, was it Long Mr Pass: No, no. Well, there are subsidiary supports, Beach? which are railway sleeper thickness, but the actual decking All these things can be done. It would be wonderful to itself, I think, would be probably in the order of about two see the outline of an Isle of Man vessel, particularly now that to three inches. the classic vessels like that are all gone, but it would be a tremendous long shot, and I think it would double the cost, Mr Butt: I am being very naive here, because during at least, of the whole enterprise. January, 1 think, a year and a half’s worth of felling happened up in the forestry department, through the winds, and there M r B utt: So you see the Manxman project as not being is a lot of timber to be got rid of. At the forestry yard they a working boat using the Pier, perhaps, as a landing stage have a tanalising machine which can vacuum-seal tanalising but as a permanent structure, fixed with... into the timber. Would that sort of timber be suitable, i.e. pine? I presume not. M r Pass: Yes, yes. Again, I am no expert on marine architecture but I do happen to know that the recent M r Pass: Certain types of pine are very good, bccause restoration of Waverley in working order cost, I think, £7 one of the things we did at Laxey Wheel on the viewing million; and, by extrapolation, Manxman is three times that. deck, which you go on on the top level, was to replace the So, we are talking about £15 million to £20 million, probably, pine timbers that were put on in 1968-09 with pitch-pine to do the restoration. because pitch-pine is like gold these days but we actually found some, reclaimed from a mill in Yorkshire, and DoT M r Butt: One of the things, Mr Pass, you mentioned did the processing of them. That pitch-pine will last for 50 was the tramway. You said it would be useful for the actual or 60 years. restoration of the Pier?
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass 8TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence
M r Pass: Yes. expectations of what to find on a pier. If there is not much in it cost-wise or in terms of life, then you would want to go for Mr Butt: In what way? the traditional wood.
Mr Pass: And the maintenance. Well, in the sense that M r Butt: Okay, thank you. Chairman. it would be possible to use that as the supply line and a crane way, so you could have a travelling crane actually M r K arran: Thank you, Mr Pass. It was interesting to hear using that. you say that the Victorians would work towards making the I have talked to the engineers and the experts about the improvements in the building work, and it was interesting that possibility, after the restoration, you could have some sort you said, on the conservation issue, that Blackpool Pier, which of a rig that was actually mounted on the rails which could has been substantially changed, is still a listed building. then go under the... you could do the necessary under So, the issue is that, obviously, that would be the argument maintenance without having to scaffold or work from a boat. that we would be using when the conservationists, via the I would see that as an advantage, as well as an attraction Government, are arguing, ‘You cannot be allowed to do it.’ when the Pier is in use. That would be the vessel for us to use: custom and practice on conservation areas in other areas, even though we know M r B utt: So, you would restore the railway when it was how inconsistent they are with them, just knocking down two finished, you would restore the railway as well? registered buildings and saying, ‘Oh, the owners have got another registered building on the Prom, which will, most M r Pass: Very much so, yes. The Isle of Man has got a likely, go the same way.’ good record when you think that we have recently re-opened So, that would be our argument, to try and make sure that the mines railway in Laxey, and this would be yet another we can argue that there would be change, this needs to be changed, with the building, allowing for modem technology Mr Butt: You mentioned the political considerations, and that. where the Pier fell between two stools, between the MNH and the DoT. What was your opinion at the time about the M r Pass: I referred very briefly to the projects that I had attitude by those Departments to the Pier? Were they keen been involved in, particularly across. For instance, Liverpool to keep it going or not? Road, the first passenger railway station in the world. We carried out... The warehouse was in a similarly decrepit state Mr Pass: I think there was little commitment. I think as Ramsey Pier and some of the things that we inserted there that MNH would have been quite happy if somebody else in order to bring the thing back were certainly non-traditional; had done it up. but if you go around now, you would not be aware of them. Therefore, I think - I do not want to speak for the Mr Butt: Would they be happy if it was knocked planning committee and DoLGE - the sorts of changes that down? I am suggesting to the Pier would not really be a serious contentious issue, because in all major restorations and rescue Mr Pass: Hmm... jobs, these things do happen. Modem technology is not there to be avoided, although the original has to be respected where M r B utt: Is it on their agenda as a thing that, if they had possible. the money, they would restore? Mr Karran: What sort of body would you see the Pier Mr Pass: I think if they had the money; but the being run by? Would you see it being a statutory board, would negotiations would have been very hard and they would have you see it by Manx National Heritage, the DoT? Have you attempted to cover... naturally, it would be an extremely got any views on that? large object to take on. I would say it is a bit like asking the National Gallery for Scotland to take on the Forth Bridge. M r Pass: I think, given the past record, something which It is that sort of scale, isn’t it? It can be done. is a rather different vehicle to the ones that have so far failed I think the line at MNH was that the money should be to take it any further would be a good thing. made available, but there was no great enthusiasm. I felt it I am very intrigued with the experience at Southwold was sad, because we had the very best report but then there Pier in Suffolk, where this was actually a private enterprise were political undercurrents that were shifting the thing operation, albeit helped by the National Lottery fund. I would this way and that, which is a great shame. I think joined-up see, maybe, something that drew in both public and private, Government could have achieved more. and some volunteer action. The scale of the whole thing is very, very different but I M r Butt: Maybe that will happen one day. (Laughter) have been very impressed with the restoration of the Camera Can I just ask another technical question. The wooden Obscura and its subsequent operation, where the Victorian decking, it has been mentioned this morning by somebody Society are involved and provide the manpower. I think that that they actually have metal decking on their... it might is an example of the Isle of Man at its best: people pulling be cheaper and longer lasting. Is that a thing that has been things in from different angles to make it work. Unfortunately, considered by you or Mr Morton? the camera cost an awful lot more money than it should have done. Mr Pass: It has never been used on a pier that I am aware of. I do not know. I would think, probably, there is M r Karran: That was not the blame of the Victorian very little in it. I think, also, there is a question of people’s Society?
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr A Pass Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 9TQP
M r Pass: That was not the blam e... by no means was it be just a continuous process. the blame of the Victorian Society. 1 do not know in what sort of size it could be done but I The operation could well be... there is a tremendous think I am right in saying it falls into about eight sections. groundswell of support locally and I am absolutely sure If you look at it, it is that sort of thing. Maybe you do one a that they could assist in its operation; but I think it would winter, or two, something like that, and after, perhaps, two or have to be a separate entity, certainly, to the departments of three years, you have got part of the Pier which is walkable Government that we have referred to. on and in a reasonable state.
M r Karran: Would you suggest that, maybe, if we did Mr Butt: So you replace wood with wood, and you set up a body, we should get the body up and going before replace some of the cast-iron with steel? we start on the renovation work, so that we do not end up with the situation with the likes of the Camera Obscura where M r Pass: Some of the wrought iron and the steelwork, they paid out, I think, something like £250,000 because yes, with modem steel. two departments could not make up their minds who was in charge of it? M r Butt: Okay, thanks. Maybe we would have more control over the refurbishment by having some sort of statutory body, with people on it who M r K arran : Thank you for your time, sir. Is there are experts, who are outside the Government, perhaps, and anything you want to ask any Members of the Committee? its system. M r Pass: No. I would just like to make a comment, and M r Pass: I think I would agree with that entirely. I I am sure that many people who support the Pier would say think the experience with the Camera was that it was very the same thing. regrettable that there was no agreement, and that is what I listened to the debate, was it 4th June, or whatever, and delayed it. In a sense, if the Victorian Society would have I would like to commend the Committee’s work and say I come in, it would have helped to rescue the situation. was very disappointed to hear that there were a few people, I think, in Tynwald who were very cynical. That emerged M r Karran: You might be aware that we have raised even in the radio broadcast, that they were making rather questions on the issue of access to the UK fund for historical snide comments about this report. buildings and that, and the Chief Minister is going to raise I think the real heroic thing is trying to grapple with it, the issue, and that we have already written to the DoT - well, which is what you are doing. I wish you well and will offer I have - about the money that has been spent over the years any help that I can, or suggest anybody else to help you, and can we have some sort of ordered way of finding out because anybody can make comments that the Pier is spent, what has actually been spent there, but I am unaware that but that is not the issue. I have had a reply to that, even though that letter has gone Somebody has got to grasp... even if the Pier is removed, several weeks ago. they have got to grasp all the horrors of doing that. It is Are there any other questions? not just something that can be dismissed in an airy bit of comment in the Tynwald Chamber. M r Teare: No thank you, Mr Chairman. So, I.would like to thank you for your commitment and offer mine, if I may. M r Butt: Can I just have one more? M r K arran : We thank you for that, sir. We understand M r Karran: Certainly, the problems, of course, with the fact that I am not the most popular Member of Tynwald, to put it mildly, {Laughter) M r Butt: I just wonder, for clarity, could you give us and we have had a summer of shenanigans. a two-minute potted version of how you would restore it, We will try our best to make sure that it is not killed phase by phase, your ideal way? I presume it is along the by the dead hand of the executive, or would-be executive, lines of Mr Morton's report, (Mr Pass: Yes.) but how would Members of Tynwald, which outweigh, by far, the majority you do it? in Tynwald itself, never mind the House of Keys. Thank you very much, sir. Mr Pass: I think the thing I would draw attention to now is the possibility of phasing, which was not referred to, Mr Pass: Thank you, Chairman. really, very much in the Morton report, or any that I know of. I think that would also enable tranches of money to be made available over a period of time. I think, for the general boosting of morale, it would be Mr Hodgson was called at J0.50 a.m. good, at some point, if the Pier were to be re-opened to an extent; in other words, it did not remain a building site EVIDENCE O F M R F HODGSON for a decade, that people actually saw something for the investment. M r Karran: Would you... ? I think, initially, you would be talking about the first summer carrying out the demolitions, the removals of the Mr Hodgson: Good morning, Mr Chairman. things, or the temporary removals for repair. The second... And during the winter, as I have said, you would be doing the M r K arran: Yes, my apologies that we have been a bit fettling up and preparing of timberwork, and then it would longer, sir.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of M r A Pass Evidence of M r F Hodgson 10TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence
Mr Hodgson: You can take 20 years... Mr Chairman. are a heritage concern and they do not see why they should (Laughter) It has already. (Laughter) make up for 20 years of past neglect, and neither do I. The DoT own it, whether they want to or not, and they M r Karran: 1 wondered if you would like to introduce have got a responsibility to face up to under the planning yourself, explain your interest and your involvement as far regulations that I will come on to. It is a registered building. as the Pier is concerned, for the record. Buildings in Government ownership have a duty... the owners of the building shall show a duty to restore those using best M r Hodgson: I’ll just be a moment. practice, as a good example to the rest of the people who own registered buildings. M r K arran: Certainly, sir. It is no good the Government saying to some chap with a nice warehouse somewhere in Laxey, ‘You have got to comply Mr Hodgson: I am Fred Hodgson. I am Chairman of the with the registered building legislation’ when the Government Friends of Queen’s Pier. I have been Chairman now since the is not doing it. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) The Government late president died, Jack May, who set this going when the have to do this. It is in their own document on conservation Pier was closed in 1981. We have always taken the view that of the historic environment, which I have already commended the Pier was a fundamental part of the Ramsey landscape, and to the Committee. we knew once it was closed what was going to happen. So, That is me. I am not going to get on my soapbox. Would we thought, there is no restoration body out there taking the you like to ask me roughly the same questions you have slightest bit of interest. Jack decided he would start it. Jack asked Mr Pass and I can, maybe, give you the same answers went on to chair it, and unfortunately met with ill-health, and or different ones? I took over about seven years ago. My own personal history: I am a comeover, a stopover; I M r Butt: I have a... not many. have only been here 15 years, you know. But I was involved The Friends of Queen’s Pier, do you have any finance or before. I was quite interested in Mr Pass’s submission. I resources? was quite involved in the canal restoration movement in the United Kingdom, and, again, I am seeing... I have been to M r Hodgson: It has never been our remit to raise the this cinema before, because 40 years ago, 50 years ago they money to give the Government a cheque for £6 million. There were filling canals in. They were pulling down warehouses is just no way we could do that. We are realistic; we are not next to the Liverpool Road railway station. tree-huggers or rose-tinted glasses people. We have said we Go to Manchester now and see the canal system: it is open, would help. it is running. The River Irwell that goes through Manchester The Pier restoration could be done in ... quite simply, you has all been restored. We held rallies down there. We pressured could have people walking on the Pier within six months. All the Salford City Council. We pressured Manchester City you have to do - and I think Mr Pass is welcome to come back Council to do something about their canal heritage. and argue this - the ironwork is sound. One or two little bits We now... not me personally, but the canal movement has have corroded where the spray comes up from the sea, and gone on great strides in the last 20 years. I am quite confident salt water and the atmosphere do not get on well together with that the heritage movement, in particular, is slowly gathering iron. Had it been properly painted over the last 20 years, the momentum as people realise that once it is gone, it is gone situation would have been different... for good. Whether it costs £10 million or £5 million to pull Basically, if they stripped off the decking and the timber it down, is it not better to spend £15 million to enjoy it for substructure, i.e. the beams, the joists, whatever you want to future generations and to preserve it? call them, and put that back without touching the metalwork, That is basically my history. I have been involved, and still you could be walking on the Pier for a cost of less than £1 am, in the Montgomery Canal, which runs from the Ellesmere million. No problems. That is all that is wrong with it. area out into south-west Wales. The Prince of Wales opened But the economic part of me says, yes, but wouldn’t it be II miles of it about 10 years ago. Other lengths have been silly, then, to have to lift that decking that you have just spent opened and it is slowly but surely getting there. I have always £1 million on in five years’ time to have to pay attention to been a heritage enthusiast, whether it was steam engines, canal some of the corrosion that is going on underneath it? In other boats, canal systems, bridges. words, it is not very good having a good roof if the walls are So, that is my background. I do not think I can tell you not up to it. So, you have got to... anything else. I am married with no children, I am in fine That is where the cost comes in. You have got to make it health... good for once and it would then be good for 50 years. This I have got no prepared notes, unlike Mr Pass. I have final report and the. previous one before that by BWB all brought, simply, my correspondence. It occurs to me that give a life of 50 years once the refurbishment is carried out, it may be cost-effective and time-effective if you simply and that is with minimal maintenance of less than £30,000 ask me the questions that you want to ask me. I can get on per annum. my soapbox for 90 minutes and keep you here well into the afternoon, telling you about the Pier and how the DoT has M r Butt: Okay. Well, I asked the question about your neglected its duty to the Manx taxpayer and the world at large finances. (Laughter) Would you like to answer it? over the last 20 years. I will add on to that - having said I will not talk - the DoT M r Hodgson: Sorry. have always said it does not fit with them: it is a marine pier, it always has been a landing pier, they have no interest in a non M r Butt: Just for - marine structure, and I can sympathise with that. MNH, again, have said that, yes, if it is restored, they will take it, but they M r Hodgson: We would comc back... If I can just
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr F Hodgson Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 11TQP
finish, then? (M r Butt: Yes.) I do get off the point because M r Butt: But would they be interested in carrying on I get wound up! the conservation in the years that come?
M r K arran : That is all right. M r Hodgson: I think as they mature... you know, 15- year-olds cannot think to 21.1 am not being disrespectful to M r H odgson: Let us call it ‘passion’, then. the younger generation, but as they mature, as we all have, We would raise, and put our resources at the disposal of we will then realise what we have got, and they will do the any body that is going to restore the Pier, and we are quite same. Probably at their age 1 did not give a... confident, from our membership and our correspondence that we receive monthly, that we could raise the money by M r Butt: The other thing I would say, another devil’s selling planks, and all the other things that they have done advocate question, if the people of Ramsey were given, say, at Southwold, and things like that. a lump sum of £8 million, where would they spend it first? We could probably sell enough planks, at £10 a plank... Do you really think they would say, ‘Let’s have Ramsey and you only have to count the planks out there, 2,000-odd Queen’s Pier restored’, or would they say, ‘Let’s have a feet of it. We could raise enough to probably pay for the better hospital’? That is going to be the argument from a decking. The decking would be self-financing. We cannot lot of people. promise that; nobody would make a promise. But, from enquiries we have made and offers we have received, it is M r Hodgson: It does not come down to that, though, highly likely that we could go a long way to offset the cost does it, bccause the pot is not finite, whatever we say. Alan of the decking part. Bell has gone on record, the Treasury Minister, if Tynwald direct him to find the funds for the Pier, he will find it. M r Butt: I was asking the question, in a way, to go on Richard Corkill before said that it is up to the Department to say if it was restored and back in use, do you envisage of Transport, at the moment, to approach Treasury for the the Friends being able to in any way run the Pier, maybe funds, draw up a plan, send it to Treasury. If Tynwald asks take a franchise out to... like the Camera Obscura, the him to do it, he will have to do it. It is as easy as that. Victorian Society help run that. Have you given that any How much is it for the railways: £2.5 million for two thought at all? miles of railway? It has got to be found. The finance should not be a problem. M r Hodgson: We have, and if 1 can go back to what As I said, it should not be given to the populous of Mr Chairman was asking Mr Pass the last time. We would Ramsey, or the Town Commissioners, or whatever, bless envisage some sort of a conservation trust. them, because it is an Island thing. It does not belong to Again, back to the canal experiences, there is now a Ramsey. It happens to be there, but it is no more a Ramsey Montgomery Restoration Canal Trust, which is a charitable thing than the Gaiety Theatre is a Douglas thing, or the MER body, it has seats on the board from the local authorities, or the steam railway is a Port St Mary thing. It is not. It is Shropshire County Council, I think it is Clwyd - or one an Island heritage. All of us are part of it, and I say that as of the Welsh-sounding names; anyway, it used to be a stopover. Monmouthshire - they are on it; the north-west England development council is on it; and also canal enthusiasts, M r Butt: Okay, thanks. canal bodies and other people are all on; the Shropshire Union Canal Society. M r Teare: Just give us a feel of the support that the Some sort of a conservation mist was formed for the Friends have. How many members have you got? specific purpose of restoring that canal. There are others for the Lancaster Canal, there are others for the Anderton M r Hodgson: Last count, it is in to four figures. You will Boat Lift on the Trent and Mersey, which is subject to a have to ask the Treasurer but I would suggest about between huge restoration programme at the moment, built around 1,200 and 1,500. the same time. We would play our part, but we could not do it... We M r Teare: Are'they all paid up? are only a bunch of volunteers; professional looking and conducting, but we are still volunteers and we are all M r Hodgson: Yes. finite. M r Teare: And the annual fee is £10 a year? M r Butt: And that is the problem. I will raise that now, as a devil’s advocate, really. You are finite. People of your M r Hodgson: £2. generation, even my generation, have used the Pier in the past, may be supporters of it. Do you see any evidence of M r Teare: £2 a year. a younger generation being at all interested in things like Ramsey Queen’s Pier, or some of the ancient buildings? Do M r Hodgson: £2 a year. Some of them are from across, you see any evidence of young people being involved? you know, it is a...
Mr Hodgson: I think you only have to go across to M r Teare: Yes, that leads on to the next question. What Blackpool and see how their piers are used by the young is the geographical spread? You said that this is an Island children. I am not saying that they are used in methods that facility. Have you got all-island members? we would advocate, but they are well used by the younger generations. Southport Pier, Southend Pier... Mr Hodgson: Yes, we have all-island members.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr F Hodgson 12TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence
Obviously, on a demographic basis, it is much more north I am surprised they would not let you on because - east focused becausc of the... Ramsey Pier means a lot more to people in Ramsey than it does to Port St Mary; but there M r B utt: Well, we are hoping to get there eventually. are members from Port St Mary. There are members from Sussex, Lancashire, people who M r Hodgson: Believe you me, I will take you out if come on holiday. ‘Wow, you have got a pier like we have in nobody else will. (Laughter) Blackpool. What are you doing about it? You cannot walk on it. How do we join?’ M r Teare: I am surprised that they have not let us go on We have had some very successful open days until we because I think that - were stopped from walking on the Pier two years ago. So we now have an under the Pier party, but it is still well supported. M r Hodgson: They do not want you to see how good We have a fair take every year in cash from new members. it is! The support is there. But back to Mr Butt’s question, if the Ramsey population, M r Teare: I think that, in their eyes, we are probably per se, were asked, ‘Here is your £8 million. How do you regarded as being expendable, anyway! (Laughter) want to spend it?’ you would have eight million different suggestions. M r Hodgson: Maybe you could put that, maybe the whole Select Committee; they would see you off the end. M r Teare: What was the last time the Pier was used? (Laughter) There was some function about two or three years ago? M r Teare: You said that when you had your open day M r Hodgson: Yes, the last time we had a Day of the Pier there was a very substantial demand. Would you regard that was about 2003. We were not allowed on it in 2004 and 2005 as being a flash in the pan, or an indication of a longer-term but we did actually open as far as the first bay - 1 call them and a sustained interest in the Pier? bays, Mr Pass called them swellings, or whatever - we did walk on it as far as that. M r Hodgson: There is a sustained interest in the Pier, One of the reasons for the deterioration of the decking and there would be; but we have got to be realistic, to say, is that the DoT. for trip hazard reasons, put down plywood, when you are only allowed on for four hours, once a year, shuttering ply, 8 by 4 sheets, where we could walk on it, you are going to have a bottleneck. ‘I am going on there. It but, of course, then they ripped them up again. So, every might be my last chance’ sort of thing. time those boards have gone down and been ripped up, I would say there is a sustained... there always was. the decking has got damaged, and this is one of these self- People always used the Pier. People used to come up on fulfilling things. It just goes on, the MER. It could be part of the regeneration in that part of Ramsey, because there are precious few tourist attractions in Mr Teare: How many people went on the Pier that Ramsey. To come up on the tram and then visit the Pier would day? be part of a day out, part of the Protours itinerary, if you like. Protours still bring people to Ramsey on a market day. M r Hodgson: Nobody counted but we would guess But you would not get 600 people a day, 52 weeks of 1,000. It does get very crowded. We have to have stewards the year, 120-odd days a year; you would not do it. Weather there because we are only allowing, maybe, 50 people on at would stop them for a start. 1 would not go out there in any one time, and believe you me, they were queuing up at Sunday night’s breeze. But people would be there. It is like half past nine. Maybe some of the people in the public space Laxey Wheel. How many people visit Laxey Wheel? could come up with that, they could show they were there. We kept going from half past ten until half past four, M r Butt: As a person interested in restoration of dead on our feet, controlling the numbers who wanted to historical buildings and things, and canals, whatever, you be on. It is busy. People want to use it, and the sooner they would have no objection, I take it, to the restoration being can, the better. with modem materials and not being exactly as it is now?
M r Butt: We have problems getting three of us on the M r Hodgson: We advocated it. WTten the Morton report Pier, don’t we? (Laughter) came out and they were going to the nth degree, taking out every rivet and splitting the piles, just to have a look to see M r Hodgson: Well, yes - if they had not corroded, and then putting them back again, we said, ‘This is crazy.’ They actually went and analysed M r Butt: Health and safety. the paint to see if it was white on the top and black on the bottom. We could tell them that. M r Hodgson: I was personally last on last year, just But, basically, no. We advocated the use of modem before the DoT decided we could not go on the Pier, because materials, which they have done in Llandudno Pier, done in Martin Bell, the Harbourmaster, took me out there and said, Bangor Pier and they have done in parts of Blackpool Pier, ‘Have a look at this’, and I had to agree with him the boards as we have heard. They use a welded steel angle bracket that are a bit springy now. is just put up there, and it looks no different to a wrought- You go in an old house, the floorboards are a bit springy. iron angle bracket. Paint it black, who knows what... If you It is safe enough. The fire brigade went out a few weeks back. do modem cars, or antique cars, a bit of fibreglass here and It is safe enough, but I would not like to put the public on it, there, nobody knows, do they? (M r Teare: Yes, yes.) I am not saying it should be a plastic pier, but modem
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr F Hodgson Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 13TQP materials used in a sensitive manner would not detract from so again. They have to use the beach on the Mooragh now the Victorian heritage appearance. We advocated it, and have and it is not half as good. been every time DoT have come up with silly numbers to do it Rolls-Royce standard. We have said, ‘Hey, you do not M r Butt: Okay, thank you. need that. We want a pier that is fit for use. We can achieve that much cheaper.’ M r Karran: Any other questions?
Mr Butt: Can I carry on? M r Teare: No, I am content, Mr Chairman, thank you.
M r K arran: Yes, certainly. M r K arran: I welcome your thinking. I am very pleased to hear you say about the flexibility of the Friends because Mr Butt: Yes, sorry. One of the main remits of this that has been one of our concerns. If we were to end up with, Committee is to find what are the future uses of the Pier. maybe, a two-storey building at the entrance and a much Supposing it is restored, how would you envisage it being bigger building at the end... used in the future? I know you have got lots of suggestions, I sympathise with your ideas about these outcrops, but how would you practically see it being used day to day putting some sort of shelter up or something. I thought they or through the summer months, say? would be handy for people like local artists or local potters, you know what I mean. There are issues like, maybe, being M r Hodgson: BWB, our engineers, that have been latterly able to form some sort of structure so that people could, if adopted by DoT as well, have always advocated concession they are into the likes of sculpture, be able to do a sculpture stalls at the widenings. They do not have to be very big, they park along the Pier. will not be there year on, but at the widenings you could have You feel that you would not have too much resentment a couple of seaside souvenir stalls, postcards... and objection for us to look at ways of making it so that Do it as a concession; they pay the owners of the Pier it is not a revenue deficit as far as future generations are for the concession. It does not cost any money to... a daily concerned? admission fee. It would not pay the m an’s wages to stand at the door and collect 10 bob to walk on the Pier. It just M r Hodgson: I cannot speak for all the members but I would not happen. am sure, as far as i am concerned and my committee, all we But concession stalls, an ice cream stall, a little café have ever advocated is the restoration of the Pier open for at the end, or a café at the landward end, which could public use. I think I would draw the line at a Ferris wheel, then control the out-of-hours access for vandalism... A but the structure would not take it anyway. restaurant in that horrible old building, it has got to go. A Basically, pottery, art collections... you know, you can go nice, proper restaurant, blocking the access to the Pier unless on Jesmond bridge in Newcastle and all the local artists are the restaurateur is on-site, it will pay. there every Sunday morning with their wares, the Bayswater But I could not see, as I say... it may make money, it may Road in London with their wares, and people walk down not; but that is not the object of the exercise. The Mona Lisa and pick a painting. Thank you for that. It never even came does not make money, it just hangs on the wall; but I do not to me, but yes. think anybody would tear it up, would they? We have no objection whatsoever to commercialising, with a small ‘c ’. Mr Butt: The Mona Lisa of Laxey makes money. (Laughter and interjections) Mr Karran: We would be interested - if it is possible, when you have your next committee meeting - in your M r Hodgson: You know what I am getting at. Laxey views as far as some sort of statutory body being set up Wheel does not make money. It breaks even and that is about to see the refurbishment and the running of the Pier. We it. And what do they do? They walk up there, üp the stairs. I would be interested in what your views are, and maybe have been there, I love it; but it would not have the attraction your organisation’s views are, of how we would elect these of walking 600 metres out to sea and looking down into the people to it. clear water of Ramsey Bay. One of the things that I am concerned about is that, far too often, it is not what you know, it is who you know, and Mr Butt: Would you expect people would use the Pier, increasingly over the last couple of years it has been going though? Would they walk out there? ■ in reverse in Government circles. So, would you have an idea of who you would like to M r Hodgson: Oh, yes. There is no point in having a pier see on a statutory board? if you are not going to walk on it. What else does - Mr Hodgson: Well, somebody from Ramsey Town M r Biitt: Was it used in the 1980s very much? Commissioners, a couple of... Let us say there are 10 mythical seats, I do not know. Two from Ramsey Town M r Hodgson: Yes, it was. There was an outcry. The Commissioners, as the local authority whose Parish it lives fishermen used it. in, two from the heritage movement, MNH, two from Friends Again, you could have a fishing licence revenue there. of Queen’s Pier. I do not know who would own it by now, It would not be a problem. I think one of the reports said do whether... maybe a Government - not allow fishermen, historically they cause vandalism and damage, but I am not going to go down that route. Fishermen M r Karran: The idea would be, if we can get access, used to hold fishing competitions on it, and they would do if we can get it away from Government, then it would be
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr F Hodgson 14 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 Oral Evidence easier to get more independent funding, because, as you Eventually, under our pressure, because we almost will be aware, unfortunately, my lot have managed to turn refused to turn up without DoLGE being there, when Ian it into an art form how to waste public money, and the day McCauley and Steve Moore turned up, they immediately of reckoning is coming. (Interjections) said they would not stand in the way of the use of modern I do think we arc going to, unfortunately, have to look materials. Their prime interest is to see the landscape value at ways of independently raising it, and one of the ways is, of the Pier and Ramsey Bay preserved, and the use of modem obviously, by setting up some sort of independence, through materials would not in any way affect their judgement on either a statutory board or independent charitable trust. that. They could not give a specific case because, until you Mr Hodgson: These charitable trusts, by their very submit plans, they cannot comment on them. You know, a definition, they are charitable, but they are eligible for tax chicken and egg situation. But, basically, DoLGE would be in relief. Donations from the bigger, more propertied people, favour, or certainly not against, the use of modem materials, both here and across, sponsorship from the local firms would providing it was used in a sensitive manner. all be charitable. That is where you would get your funding So, yes, I think you should be taking evidence from the from once you have - Chief Planning Officer and the heritage officer in the next 10 minutes... Sorry! M r Butt: I was going to ask, the charity thing that you are involved with, the canals, et cetera, could you send us, M r Karran: Well, we have nobody in the next 10 from the Friends, the structure of that sort of organisation, minutes, but if there is anybody else that your organisation how it works? feels that we should be taking advice from, or evidence from, you would be - M r Hodgson: Yes, sure. M r Hodgson: You could do worse than to summon the M r Butt: It might be useful to us. authors of these reports. BWB from Nottingham, who did our reports and the latest DoT one. We have mentioned Brian M r Hodgson: Yes, sure. No problem. Morton from -
M r Karran: Right. Are there any points that you want M r B utt: Yes, he is the one you... to ask us, sir? M r Hodgson: - the Morton Partnership. Mr Hodgson: I was hoping you were going to ask me the same questions that you asked Mr Pass, but I do not want Mr Karran: Yes, we are very keen on seeing Mr to take your time up. Morton.
M r K arran: No, no... M r Hodgson: They only have limited experience. I am not knocking Brian Morton’s outfit. They have done flax Mr Hodgson: I do not have questions as such. I know mills in Shrewsbury. They are very much heritage orientated. your remit. I was interested to see, at long last, it is back on They do not have a lot of marine expertise. the floor of Tynwald because it felt... and we are going back BWB came to us because they were responsible, and to this constitution of the so-called Restoration Trust. still are, for Bangor, Llandudno and the three Blackpool We want to get it away from the dead hand of Government. piers. They do all the... for the... I think it is the leisure They do not want to know, and I would think, in civil service parks company, or whatever it is, that own them. You could speak, they have not got the time to properly discharge their do worse... duties with respect to them. And also the firm in Sheffield who restored Saltbum It has got to be run by enthusiasts, people who are Pier two years ago, which is now one of the important... committed to the project, and do it that way as a charitable Saltbum Pier was actually built and designed by the same trust. But, yes, I was heartened by last... too many reports firm, Head Wrightson, and the same architects as Ramsey are cropping up in a certain office in the Sea Terminal Pier, and the similarities are astounding. So, I can let you building - have a copy of that. If you summon them, or whoever, for expert opinions, Mr Karran: Is there anybody you feel that we should they said it would take six months to repair over one winter. take evidence from? They were quite confident because they had done Saltbum Pier - which is in the north-east of England for those who M r Hodgson: Yes, thank you for that, Mr Chairman. I are... where England is a foreign country. You can tell from am surprised you have not already, but Mr Pass mentioned my accent that I am a bit more familiar with Saltbum and it to me. I think you should have the Chief Planning Officer that. from DoLGE here, because I can now, if I may, fill in some But Saltbum Pier is designed by Head Wrightson of of the gaps that Mr Pass left. Thomaby, exactly the same as Ramsey Pier, and it has just We have had them at these steering meetings that won a heritage award. Minister Shimmin held last year. We kept saying, ‘Where arc DoLGE?’ They were drawing up plans. They were going M r Karran: Maybe we could have that information from to have so many painted lamp-posts, and they were going do you after the meeting. this, and I said, ‘You cannot get that past DoLGE.’ ‘Well, they will be alright.’ I said, ‘You need them at the meeting.’ M r Hodgson: Anything you want, you just have to ask.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey — Evidence of Mr F Hodgson Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 27th OCTOBER 2005 15TQP
(Mr Karran: Okay.) Our archives are like that. I could do Thank you very much and my - with my front room back now! M r Hodgson: You are already in touch with the National M r Karran: If there are no other points... Has anyone Heritage across for the Lottery, which is where the money got any other points? would come from.
M r Teare: No. M r Karran: We have raised the question in Keys last week, M r B utt: I do not think so, unless - M r Hodgson: If I could just go back to demolition. We M r Karran: I agree with you. There are people from had a figure bandied about and it is in these reports. Nobody outside Ramsey that are members of your charity, me being visited the site; this £1.5 million for demolition is just pie one of them. I do think that raising the point that was raised in the sky. Nobody visited the site, it was off the top of their about Laxey Wheel... I know I can always remember as a head on the end of a phone call, and the specification was to child somebody, one of the neighbours, complaining that saw the legs off, where accessible, at low water. We have just they should chop it up, and me working out how do you been talking about navigation. There is no way they would get to the top of that wheel to start chopping up the wood do it for £1.5 million. It would be £10 million, and then you for timber. have got to shift the scrap. Today, if somebody was to say that, for the elderly, there Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. would be outrage, and I am sure that your organisation is in the vanguard of saying that the next generation will thank M r K arran: Thank you for your time. this generation for preserving this, This generation might not value it very much, like my generation as a child did not value Laxey Wheel, but today Laxey Wheel is recognised and - Procedural Mr Hodgson: Where would that turn, as you come around in the tram, be without that view? (Mr Karran: M r Karran: Thank you for turning up this morning. Absolutely.) It is exactly the same when you get farther Gura mie mooar eu. north, there is Ramsey Pier stretching before you as you We will have the public evidence from the likes of the come around the Head. conservation officer and others. We appreciate the public’s support by showing up today, and if there is anything that M r Karran: But there is one thing that we are going to you, in the audience, have got concerns about, please do not have a problem with, as a Select Committee. Obviously, as hesitate to write to the Select Committee with any views you know, it has been very difficult this summer and, as you that you have got. can see from the debate, there are many who are just dying At the end of the day, a good MHK picks everybody for us to fail. The issue of income, ways of raising money, if else’s brains. Thank you very much. there are any other ideas as far as raising revenue to have it refurbished, we will be very interested to hear from you. The Committee sat in private at 11.2! a.m.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr F Hodgson I PP49/06 TQP, No. 2
TYNWALD COURT OFFICIAL REPORT
RECORTYS OIKOIL QUAIYL TINVAAL
PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN (HANSARD)
SELECT COMMITTEE ON QUEEN’S PIER RAMSEY
BING ER-LHEH MYCHIONE KEIY YN VEN-REIN RHUMSAA
Douglas, Thursday, 26th January 2006
Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2006 Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man Price Band B 18TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006
Members Present:
Chairman (Caairliagh) Mr P Karr an MHK Mr E Teare MHK Mr D Butt MLC
Clerk: Mr L Crellin
Business transacted
Page
Procedural...... 19
Evidence of Mr I McCauley, Director of Planning and Building Control...... 19
The Committee sat in private at 11.37 a.m. Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 19TQP
Tynwald Select Committee on First of all, can you tell us who actually owns the Pier? Queen’s Pier, Ramsey M r M cCauley: My understanding is that it is owned by the Department of Transport, but that understanding is based on the fact that they are the people that have commissioned The Committee sat in public at 10.35 a.m. the reports to date. in the Millennium Conference Room, Legislative Buildings, Douglas M r Butt: And it is a registered building?
M r M cCauley: It is. [MR KARRAN in the Chair] M r Butt: What does that actually mean?
M r McCauley: It means that it has been recognised by Procedural the Department as being a building -
Yn Caairliagh (Mr Karran): Failt erriu dys yn chaglym M r Butt: Sony, which Department? shoh. Gura mie eu son cheet, moghrey jiu. Welcome to this meeting this morning and thank you for coming, and that M r McCauley: Right. It is recognised by the Department includes both Mr McCauley and the guests. of Local Government and the Environment as being a building May I remind you that you are giving evidence today of special architectural or historical interest within the terms and the proceedings are being recorded for Hansard so all of our legislation. It was registered some time ago, and as contributions... we will try not to interrupt one another or such, because the building is registered - or the structure is speak at the same time to help the Hansard Clerk. registered, to be more correct in this case - consent is required As everyone this morning will be aware, this sitting of for any works that materially affect its appearance. the Select Committee of Tynwald is to hear evidence in public. The Committee was established by Tynwald at its M r Butt: So, it is registered for what reason, to preserve May 2005 sitting to review the future of the Queen’s Pier, its structure or to... ? and the actual motion is as follows: M r McCauley: It is registered as a way of recognising ‘To update the last report on the Pier; to seek professional advice upon that it is a structure of special architectural or historical a possible phased refurbishment based on a realistic specification and a interest, and, as a consequence, is afforded a higher level of programme of work using local resources and extending over several financial years; and to recommend who would be responsible for the protection necessarily than other structures or buildings. repair, recommissioning and operation of the Pier.’ M r Butt: So, once a building has been registered, or a structure has been registered, what obligations does that put on the owner of the building or the structure? EVIDENCE OF MR I MCCAULEY M r M cCauley: It puts an onus on the owner to maintain Mr Karran: May I welcome Mr McCauley here today the property. The issue that we have always got with to hear his evidence of what he feels first, and then we will registered buildings is if they happen to be buildings that do ask questions afterwards. not have a use at that point in time, and therefore the question becomes what level of maintenance should be carried out to M r McCauley: Thank you, Chairman. maintain the structure. I have not actually prepared anything in terms of evidence because, in simple terms, my role in the consideration of M r Butt: So should that level then be to preserve the Queen’s Pier is as and when anybody comes forward with structure as it was registered, on the day it was registered, or a specific proposal which may require registered building is there some allowance for deterioration or ageing? consent, either for the carrying out of works or for the demolition of the structure, whichever the case may be. M r McCauley: There is allowance for deterioration or Our involvement to date has been by way of giving pre ageing, but it is a matter of fact or degree as to whether or application advice and entering into discussions with the not it gets to the point where, in the Department’s opinion, Department of Transport and other parties in terms of the it may have to take some action. The action it can take in commissioning of the latest report by BWB. respect of any registered building is that if it considers the Really, Chairman and Members, I am here to answer building is being neglected to the extent that it is in danger, any questions you have got. There is not a formal position then the Department can issue a repairs notice and specify from the Department's point of view in respect of Queen’s the nature of the repairs to be carried out. Pier at the moment. Mr Butt: And if those repairs are not carried out, is M r Karran: Right, are there any questions anyone wants there any legal sanction that the Department has against to ask from the Committee? Mr Butt? the owner?
Mr Butt: Yes. If I can start, Mr McCauley. Good Mr McCauley: There is. The Department can take morning. action against the owner and, if needs be, in particular
Procedural Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley 20 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 Oral Evidence circumstances, it can carry out the works itself. by the Department of Transport and was considered by Tynwald, which looked at three options. One of those options M r Butt: It can do? was the best conservation approach and the cost implications associated with that. With all of these things, it is a question M r McCauley: It can. of striking a balance, so, at this stage, all I could say is that we would look at any application on the basis of what it was M r Butt: Looking at the Queen’s Pier in particular, it proposing, what the implications were and, to a large extent was built in 1865,1 think. If it was to be refurbished in any as well, with a situation like this, how much is being retained way now, using modem materials, would that breach the of the original fabric, because clearly, where original fabric registered buildings rules or... ? cannot be retained, it has to be replaced. The question then becomes how it is replaced. Mr McCauley: There are no registered building rules In simple terms, if you are looking at a building and at as such. What happens is that any application for works to the moment it has got Welsh slate roof and some of it needs a registered building has to take into account a number of replacing, then you look for it to be replaced with Welsh slate. factors. One is the existing condition of the building; the If the whole roof has gone, or, in fact, if it is an old registered other is the reasons why it was registered in the first place, building, which may not have a roof, then you may look to what works are proposed to be carried out and what the alternative types of slate which are acceptable. implications of those works are for the character that led to Clearly, you cannot replace them with the same materials, the registration in the first place. because of age. It is trying to see what the implication is of that balance between trying to retain the character and M r Butt: On the reasons for registering, you said it was appearance and what materials are being proposed and why either historical or architectural. Do we know in this particular they are being proposed. case with the Queen’s Pier which it is, or is it both? In some cases, we may look at an application and say the balance, in our opinion, is correct. In others, we may say, no, M r M cCauley: I think in this case it is a combination we think that you are going too far in terms of introducing of factors. There are a range of criteria that are used for modem materials, there is no reason why you are introducing registration, one of which is uniqueness. Well, it is the only a modem material. surviving pier on the Island. Another is whether or not it is a Let us give an extreme example, if somebody introduces landmark; it clearly is a landmark. The other reason is that, plastic guttering by way of replacement for cast iron when in terms of pier development itself, it is one of the longest the rest of the building is cast iron, that will not look the remaining ones. same and will not retain the character of the building, and So there are a range of factors that led to the registration. we may well say that the building is such that the cast iron There was not just one particular one. should be replaced as cast iron, not as plastic. That is the nearest analogy I can give with what is being proposed in M r Butt: Okay. 1 can carry on if you wish, Chairman. terms of the Pier at the moment.
M r K arran: Yes, certainly. M r Butt: Without making you commit to any decision now, basically you are saying that as long as the character Mr Butt: We have had proposals for refurbishment of and the appearance is maintained and the majority of the the Pier, one of which involves using modem materials, structure is kept as original, it may be looked upon more which would not be particularly noticeable, but they would favourably than if you changed it radically? be modem materials. What would be the planning view of that? Or the fact that it is a registered building, how would M r McCauley: The principle would always be, yes, that affect that registration? to strike that balance between retaining the character and appearance and a radical difference. As I say, if somebody M r McCauley: Right. I have to be careful in my choice came along and it was radically different, then... of words at this stage because the simple fact is we have I am sorry to have to do it this way but, at the end of the not had a proposal in front of us to evaluate in terms of an day, the decision does not rest with me. It is a decision by application. So, all I can talk about is in general terms, and the Planning Committee on the basis of an application that it is more or less as I spelt out in the letter that I sent in a has been submitted. But you are right, we would need to while ago. make that assessment and, in general terms, the closer the The normal procedure is to look at the building, the state appearance is to the existing appearance, the more acceptable of it, its inherent character and value, and then to look at it is in registered building terms. the proposal. With registered buildings, it is the proposal of the applicant or the owner; it is not for the Department to M r B utt: Okay, thanks. Just a couple more points before actually carry out the design work itself. I go. So, that is the starting point. We have not designed What would your view be if the option was taken to anything - and in many ways it would not be right for us to demolish the Pier? design something because we do not own the building and we do not have to take on the future liability - but we have to M r McCauley: I think that decision could only be taken consider proposals that are put to us. With a registered building, if we followed through the steps that we would normally the issue is always the extent to which the works retain the follow through with any registered building if we had an character and appearance of the registered building. application to demolish, and that is that, in the majority of I am aware of the earlier report that was commissioned cases, registered buildings can be retained as long as a viable
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 21 TQP
use is found for them. M r Teare: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I know that is the first issue that we have got with the Going back to your original comments about the Pier, because when we are looking at viable alternative obligations falling upon the owners of a registered uses on other buildings, we will look at uses which may building, you quite rightly said that the objectives were be commercial or may generate a capital receipt which is for the protection of the structure. How do you enforce the sufficient to actually carry out the works, in which case, what maintenance obligation? How do you supervise that? may have been a house in the past, it may be acceptable to allow a commercial use because that would generate enough M r M cCauley: As I have said, a way of dealing with it money to actually carry out the works. On the other hand, would be that if the Department considered that a building it may well be that just its refurbishment as a house would was being neglected to the stage where it was in danger, then generate enough money for those works to be carried out. the option is available to us to serve a repairs notice. Clearly, in the case of the Pier, the potential for generating income from the Pier is fairly low, would be my opinion. M r Teare: You said when a building was in danger, not that you were trying to maintain a certain standard with the M r Butt: So, it may not be viable? It might have a use building. I would suggest that there is a dichotomy between but not be a viable use? the two here.
Mr McCauley: Yes. The steps we would need to go M r M cCauley: Well, I think in all of these things - and through, then, are to demonstrate that no party was prepared I keep coming back to this word ‘balance1 - a balance has to come forward to take it on - because it may well be that to be struck between the attempts of an owner to maintain a another party might be prepared to take on the liability - and building and secure its long-term maintenance and the point clearly, at the moment, it is seen as being a liability. at which the Department considers it, as a public body, has Again, the analogy with a registered building, if an owner ’ to step in and take some action against that owner. was saying, ‘It is not viable for me to do anything with The liability and the responsibility rests with the owner. this building and [ want to knock it down', we would look The responsibility rests with the Department to decide for evidence that the building had actually been marketed at what point it is appropriate to take action against any and only accept an argument that it could not be put to an particular owner. alternative use if it was clear that people were not coming forward with solutions. Mr Teare: Let us be specific now and talk about the We would be looking for all avenues to be explored, not Queen’s Pier. In earlier evidence before this Committee just a sale to a commercial organisation but possibly a trust today, you mentioned the word ‘supervise’. How many times being set up to take over the building and maintain it in a has the Department actually had a look at the Queen’s Pier particular way. during the last five years?
M r Butt: Just one more point, Chairman? Mr McCauley: It has been involved in the various surveys that have been commissioned. It was... I am trying M r K arran: Yes. to think of the exact role, particularly with the earlier one. I was not here at the time but my understanding was that M r Butt: You have said about the character and officers of the Department were aware of the process that appearance being retained. If, say, the option was, because was being gone through in terms of the structural surveys that of finance etc, that maybe only a third of it was retained and were being carried out and the character of the people who two thirds was demolished, that would obviously not fit in were carrying out the work on behalf of the Department of with retaining the character and appearance, would it? Transport in the original report of 2001. So, from that point of view, they have been involved. M r McCauley: No, but again i am sorry to come back We have been involved in the discussions with the to hypothesizing, but as you are, I have to. Department of Transport and others about commissioning That is part of the judgement which, I am afraid to say, the latest report by BWB. We have a facility, if necessary, has to be made on the basis of what is put in front of you. to instruct our own structural engineers who specialise in Clearly, the objective would be to see that the Pier was this, but again, we only do that in a case where we consider retained in its entirety. that the owner is not taking sufficient notice of the problems If, for example, there was a storm tomorrow and a far associated with the building and, therefore, again consider section or a middle section of the Pier just completely that we have to intervene at some stage. disappeared, then there may be a question as to whether or not that can be replaced and the economics of replacing it. Mr Teare: Then would you describe your approach So, yes, there may be a situation arising where consideration towards the Queen’s Pier as being proactive or reactive? would have to be given to a proposal that foreshortened the Pier. It still retains elements of the structure, strong elements M r McCauley: I would say that it has been neither one nor of the appearance and everything else, but it may not be the the other. The reason I say that is that we have been involved length that was originally talked about. in the discussions that have led to the commissioning of both reports, and certainly involved in the discussions leading to M r Butt: Thank you. the commissioning of the first report. Therefore, we have been looking to see that, yes, steps M r Karran: Mr Teare, is there anything you would were being taken to evaluate whether or not works could like to ask? be carried out and a package put together which could be
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley 22 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 Oral Evidence subsequently funded and would enable the works to be M r McCauley: I can appreciate your difficulty, Mr Teare, carried out. By the nature of it, and by the nature of a structure but I have got the same difficulty, which is I have not got an such as the Pier, that is not a quick thing to do. application in front of me which actually tells me what it is The 2001 report was commissioned to try and see whether that is being proposed. Therefore, it is very difficult for me or not agreement could be reached on which option to pursue to speculate as to what my recommendation would be when in terms of the long-term retention of the Pier. That report, as I do not have an application in front of me. I understand it, was not accepted. Therefore, the owner had What I can do is to refer back to the BWB report and to go back and look at ways of dealing with it again, which it is clear from that that an argument is being put forward they have been doing. that it is not possible to replace with the same materials. I The Department has been keeping a watching brief, or think that principle has been established quite a while ago a watching eye, on the state of the Pier, and certainly has, because it was effectively established in the initial report that through the other part of the Department, Health and Safety, was undertaken on behalf of the Department of Transport been involved when issues of safety have arisen. We have and came up with the three options: completely replace in been involved in consultation over what steps should be taken modern materials, do the complete conservation approach, to abate any public safety issues that have arisen, on the basis or do the repair and retain what you can. that the Department of Transport was commissioning work Until such time as it is clear to what extent the replacement and that assessment was being carried out. is in modem but matching materials, it is actually difficult for me to make a recommendation. M r Teare: Just to move on, then, you used the analogy But, in general terms, the process I would go through is to some time ago about cast iron guttering and how you would set out the history of the developments of these reports, the not want plastic put on the same building. There is an issue various issues that have been addressed over time and - and with the Queen’s Pier. There is a considerable amount of cast I have to put it this way - the applicant’s proposals in terms iron. Some of it has deteriorated beyond the point at which of what they are saying, in their opinion, they can now carry it is now possibly unsafe. out in terms of retaining the building and repairing it and The proposal has been put to this Committee that bringing it back into some form of use. alternative materials be used which, from a distance, would The evaluation would be based on, yes, what is the look very similar to cast iron. In your briefing paper to the practicality of using existing materials, and if it is impractical Planning Committee, would that be an issue to you? to use those existing materials, for a range of reasons, then alternative materials would be the next step that you would M r McCauley: It would be an issue that would need to look at. If those alternative materials are modem but look be addressed. Clearly, it was one that was addressed in the the same, then there is an advantage in going with modem first report that was carried out because the pure conservation but looking the same because you are maintaining the approach would be, as explained in that report, almost, appearance of it. effectively, to dismantle the building. But, by the very nature Is that more helpful? of putting it together again... I cannot remember what the figure was, something like 400,000 rivets are involved in M r Teare: When you talk about practical considerations, putting the structure back together again? We do not rivet would cost considerations form part of your deliberations, these days, it would have to be expansion nuts and bolts. because cast iron is, we understand, very expensive and we So, even that approach has an implication for this are led to believe that there are much cheaper materials which particular structure, and it is the unique character of the Pier would certainly fit in and perform the function expected of structure that makes it one of the most difficult ones to deal them? with. I think it is almost certain that some parts would have to be replaced. M r McCauley: I think, in the case of a structure like I do not think there is any argument about that and it is... Queen’s Pier, and given the scale of what we are talking about well, it is almost certain that they could not be replicated as and the overall cost of what is being talked about, clearly, such because of the problems associated with it and the fact cost would need to be considered. It should not necessarily that the replication could not actually match what is there be the determining issue, but it would be a factor that would at the moment. Therefore, there will need to be a degree of need to be taken into account, yes. change and it is a question of how much that change is and how far it affects the character of the structure itself. M r Teare: Taken into account by yourself when you are preparing your paper for the Planning Committee? Mr Teare: At the moment, though, 1 appreciate the constraints under which you are operating, but I have to say M r M cCauley: Yes, but do not forget that is a paper that that, from my perspective on the Committee, I am not getting is prepared for the Planning Committee as part of its role a firm steer as to what might or might not be acceptable. I in dealing with the application. At the end of the day, if the appreciate your position. You, as Director of Planning, would applicant is not satisfied with the decision that the Planning prepare a briefing paper to go to the Planning Committee - Committee reaches, then the applicant is perfectly entitled to appeal against that condition. M r M cCauley: With a recommendation as to - It makes it more complicated when it is a Government Department, but the principle is simple and straightforward. M r Teare: With a recommendation. That is right. Really, Any decision by the executive, whoever is the applicant, what we need to do is to get an idea of your recommendations has to have a right of appeal, and the view of the Planning because, quite obviously, they are going to carry considerable Committee, one way or the other, whether it is in favour of the weight with the Committee in their deliberations. application or against it, can be tested on appeal. Again, those
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 23 TQP
factors would be considered by the relevant independent at all. In dealing with a registered building - it is the point I person who is appointed to carry out that appeal. made to Mr Teare - we have to deal with the owners, whoever the owners are, and we have to deal with the applicants, Mr Teare: Okay, just one last question, please, Mr whoever the applicants are. We have to decide at what point Chairman, if you will bear with me. it is reasonable for the Department to intervene in a situation Would you seek the input of Manx National Heritage? where the property is owned by somebody else. In doing that, the legislation, yes, gives us the powers, M r McCauley: Manx National Heritage comment on the but, like any statutory powers, we have to exercise them vast majority of applications, yes. So, yes, I would. I would with discretion. expcct them to be consulted on the application. In this case, it has been a long, drawn-out situation, but the fact is that it is a complicated structure. Steps have been M r Teare: Thank you, Mr Chairman. taken in the past to try and find a way in which funding can be agreed by the owners of the property and, as I say, Tynwald M r Karran: Right, thanks very much, Mr Teare. resolved not to approve the initial document. It has been interesting to hear what you have to say, but we have got some recommendations. We had consultants Mr Karran: To be fair, the original proposal was a who said that replacing the lattice beamwork under the political sop, the original proposal of the... whatever it decking with more modem corrosive-resistant beams would was. I have forgotten what the report was of Manx National be a major cost saving. How would you be recommending to Heritage. It was ridiculous. the Planning Committee as far as that is concerned? Would you approve of such a proposal? M r McCauley: Mr Karran, you are entitled to make that comment. I cannot. M r McCauley: I find myself back in the same difficulty, Mr Karran. I do not have a proposal in front of me. M r K arran: Yes, certainly, sir, I understand. You said in one of my colleagues’ input that your Mr Karran: But with the greatest respect, that actually Department has the power to go in and do the works itself. came out of one of the reports. That has been in one of the Has it ever done that on a registered building? reports and what we are... We understand the problem you have got, but these are things that have been recommended M r McCauley: Not yet, no, not in my knowledge. in the past as ways forward to try and save money. I would like you to, maybe, consider that, have a look Mr Karran: Is that because the problem is, because it at that, and come back to the Committee at a later time, if is an arm of Government, would it have an embarrassment that is at all possible. If you could do that and come back, I because of the lack of a structure being independent of would appreciate that, Mr McCauley. Government, having to be audited, maybe, by the Planning The Pier is a registered building, we have heard that Committee at the end of the day? That if you do it to you have said it is a unique structure. Could you tell us how somebody in the private sector then they might argue that many of the 20,000 or 30,000 buildings and structures on you should be putting an order on the Ramsey Pier or other the Island are registered at the present time? structures that are owned by Government? M r McCauley : There are just over 200. Mr McCauley: No, I think it is more a case that the Mr Karran: So to get registration, we are talking about Department tries to proceed on the basis of working with what, less than 1 per cent of the buildings in the Island are owners to find solutions to the problems that they have got registered? with registered buildings, and in the majority of cases that is best done by working with them rather than taking action M r McCauley: Something like that, yes, Chairman. against them. We only take action against owners where we consider M r K arran: Yes. You said to one of my colleagues that that damage is being done to the property and in a case where the Department has not been proactive or reactive. Would it we consider that it has gone so far as purposeful neglect and be a fair proposal to say that the Department has been 'no- is leading to a situation where the building may actually active’ as far as the Pier is concerned? collapse or get to the point where it is so structurally unsound Would you find that you are in a very difficult position that it has to be demolished. because you are here from the DLGE, a Department of The advice that we have had to date, both from the people Government? Does the highlighting of the lack of any action who have been employed by the Department of Transport but as far as registered buildings are concerned mean that, really, also by the Department’s own Health and Safety people, is registered buildings should be an independent body from a that, yes, there have been elements of public safety problems Government Department, and the final arbiter would be that relating to the structure but it has not got to the point where independent body would come to the Planning Committee it is in imminent danger of collapse. and argue its case for its registration, or whatever? I have to say we have to consider whether or not the Would you not feel, at the present time, that one of the owner - and I have to keep saying this because the principle reasons why the Ramsey Pier has not been dealt with is applies both ways - is taking reasonable steps. In my opinion, because you are, basically, a Government Department, and to date, the owner has taken reasonable steps. you are judge and jury, and you have got an interest in it? Whether or not, at the end of the day, funding can be secured to actually carry out a proposal that has been M r McCauley: I would not accept the latter statement developed is a matter that, I am afraid, again I have got to
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey — Evidence of Mr I McCauley 24 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 Oral Evidence say, the owner has to take forward with those who fund the end of the day, they were unsuccessful with that, and coming owner. back to the question as to whether or not anybody was to I think if the registration and consideration of registered make an application to demolish the building, as I said at buildings was separated out from the Department, it would the beginning, we would need to consider whether or not not change the dilemma that that organisation would offering the ownership to somebody else may be a way of face - and it is the dilemma that is faced by English Heritage securing its long-term future. That would be the same if it across - which is that at what point does the public body was a private owner or a public owner. intervene in a situation where the property is owned by somebody else. Mr Karran: Would you think that it would be very difficult with one Government Minister having a problem Mr K arran: But you have already told us that you do not with something, with another Government Minister who is ever intervene, because it has never happened that you have supposed to administrate it, and docs that not highlight that intervened to force a repairs notice on somebody. one of the problems with a registered building, when it is owned by Government, is has it got less protection than the Mr McCauley: No, and I have explained that the reason very little protection a registered building has on the Island, for that is that we try and work with the owners to find a with our track record? solution that will work. M r McCauley: I would not agree with that latter Mr Karran: But would you not agree that - no disrespect statement you have made. That is your opinion and I do not to you; at the end of the day, you are an officer, and it is up think it stands up to examination. to us, as the politicians, where these things are not right... But really, the present registration, the present structure, Mr Karran: Well, I think, then, you should talk to because of the fact that it is all within Government, if you Save Mann’s Heritage, to local conservationists, who have kick somebody outside, they would turn around and say, criticised the system, the present structure, of the way the ‘Well, you’ve got the likes of the Ramsey Pier being a conservation system of registered buildings is at the present registered building. How can you argue that they should put time. a repairs notice on someone else when you don’t practise what you preach?’ M r McCauley: The system is as enacted by Tynwald. I am operating the system as enacted by Tynwald and, in Mr McCauley: Well, I would not find any difficulty particular, Tynwald decided that, in the case of registration if somebody actually said that to me. in my experience to of buildings, in fact, the registration can be challenged at date, nobody has actually said ‘Because you don’t do it to the outset. Government, you shouldn’t do it to me.’ I have not had that So from that point of view, the system on the island used against me. is different from elsewhere, but takes into account the considerations that we have on the Island and the importance Mr Karran: Would you not agree that, actually, we do that we attach to people being able to challenge a decision of it to no one, so, quite frankly - the executive to have an interest in their property rights.
Mr McCauley: No, we do serve repairs notices or, on Mr Karran: When you say about Tynwald, obviously occasion, we have said that we will serve a repairs notice there was a Private Member’s Bill to try to depoliticisc unless something is done, and quite often saying that we the registration section of the Bill, which failed. It was my will serve a repairs notice is sufficient to get somebody to Private Member’s Bill in order to get it depoliticised and do something. less vested interests, so that people who have an interest in conservation can have some confidence in the present M r K arran : Well, you know, we look at a number legislation at the present time. of issues: Victoria Street, the likes of Castletown Square, What parts of the structure of the building are covered by and places like this. Obviously, they are ongoing. Well, the registered status? Is it the whole lot or is it part of it? Victoria Street is lost, anyway, but Castletown Square is ongoing maybe. How could we, as a Select Committee, have Mr McCauley: it is the structure, it is the whole confidence that the legislation that Tynwald and the branches structure. have passed actually is effective today? Is it effective, is it resourced right, would you say, as the boss of the Planning Mr Karran: One of the major problems with the Department? building is the lack of attractions to the Pier, some would claim. Do you envisage any significant objections to the Mr McCauley: if you ask anybody that administers alterations of the Pier to, say, accommodate a small café any process, they will tell you that they could do with more or an exhibition area at the end of the Pier? Would you see resources. Within the resources that we have got available, that as a problem? we prioritise, and if we consider that steps are not being taken to secure a registered building and work towards a Mr McCauley: Are you talking at the far end of the suitable long-term use for it, then we will prioritise it and Pier? do the work. My position to date is that the Department of Transport M r K arran: The far end. has commissioned a report and was in the process of securing, or attempting to secure, funding for that. If, at the M r McCauley: If that was part of the package that was
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 25 TQP
put forward and part of the argument for generating a use and Yes, we would look sympathetically on anything that long-tcim maintenance, then I would not see an objection in assisted the use of the Pier from a very practical point of principle to providing a facility on it, no. view, in terms of the provision of public conveniences and anything else for the public, in terms of protection and M r Karran: Thank you for that. shelter, because the original Pier used to have shelters on the The entrance to the Pier was built in the 1950s and is not bays as you went out, and whatever is being put on the far really a very sympathetic addition. What would the Planning end to replace what was there originally. So, yes, we would Authority feel as far as its possible demolition? Would they look sympathetically on it. feel that if it came with a package, would you feel that we could get away with demolishing the 1950s structure? M r Karran: Are there any other questions?
M r McCauley: Well, I would not say it was a question M r Butt: Yes. of ‘getting away’ with anything. Buildings are registered in their entirety and it is quite often the case that later additions M r Karran: Yes, certainly, sir. are part of the registration. By the nature of it, you cannot go round and say, well, we will keep that bit but not that bit. M r Butt: Chairman, just two more specific questions, if The principle is that the whole structure or building is I can, Mr McCauley. registered. Clearly, you recognise whether or not there are Going on what Mr Karran said earlier on about the any later additions that are unsympathetic or... well, let us replacement of parts of the structure, from what we have just leave it as unsympathetic. I do not think that the 1950s seen of the reports, the main legs which go into the sea, structure that you are referring to does any great things for the main supporting structure, unless they find something the Pier at the moment, so I could give a straight answer seriously wrong when they examine it properly, they are to that one, which is that 1 do not think that there would be okay and they will stay as they are, so that appearance will objections to replacing that element of it. be maintained. Some people may object to it. The reason that I always The bits that may need changing are the structures give these caveats is that the way in which the planning underneath the decking, which are largely hidden but may system and the registered buildings system on the Island need to be replaced with more modern materials. operate is not only that people are entitled to make I know you cannot commit yourself but would that, representations but, unusually, they can obtain interested perhaps, make you more sympathetic, shall we say, to an party status in a decision and can challenge that decision. application, where the main structure itself that is visible Therefore, it is right and proper that those representations are looks the same, it is the underlying support for the decking considered before the Planning Committee makes a decision, that is being changed? and, therefore, part of any report that a planning officer does has to evaluate those representations and put forward the M r McCauley: I am starting to get the feeling that, by arguments backwards and forwards. the repetition of the questions, I am obviously not being as So my answer is that, in terms of removal of certain parts helpful as I should be. of the Pier, it may well be that they are negative factors in terms of the overall appearance of the Pier and would be M r Butt: I am just pointing out that we are not talking better replaced with something else. about changing the main legs and the main structure, it is the support level for the decking. M r K arran: Right, so maybe it is the wrong word to say ‘getting away with’ the changing. The problem, as you M r McCauley: It is the great difficulty of the nature will be aware, is that, like we saw in the original proposal of the structure itself. In simple terms, and coming back to by Manx National Heritage, there have been a number of what Mr Karran asked, I cannot say here and now that the people saying you could not change it in any way. That is straight answer is yes, it would be fine, because we would part of the architecture for the destruction of the Pier, in my need to look at the implications of it. It is nice to describe opinion, but that is an opinion, I agree. it in words; it is considerably different when you actually What would be the attitude if we were to put a new see an engineering drawing as to what it is that you end up entrance block on the landward end of the Pier in an getting. appropriate design, in order to be part of a package of What I would say is that we would give very, very careful measures to create the revenue income in order to make sure consideration to any replacement materials, the principle that it was not another white elephant, as are, unfortunately, being that (a) that part of the structure needed replacing a lot of issues that Government ends up developing? anyway because it got to the point where it was not going You would look sympathetically towards that, so long to survive for much longer... as it was something that was in keeping? There would be no And, of course, the difficulty is that, even with the earlier veto from the Planning Committee? reports, we were only really looking at a 50-year life before you have got to do something else; in which case, it is well past M r M cCauley: There would not be a veto per se. I like most of us, but it is still a problem for future generations. the expression you use, ‘look sympathetically’, because I The building has only been around for 120-odd years think that is the way that it would be viewed. as it is at the moment, so these things, when we are talking If the proposal was to restore the Pier in a particular about a 120-year-old building, as opposed to a 15th century way, but as part of that to do x , y and z, then you look at it building which has been through several things... from the point of view of what is being proposed, why it is In simple terms, and to answer the point that you have being proposed. got, and to use an expression that Mr Karran used, I am sure
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley 26 TQP SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 Oral Evidence we would look sympathetically on replacement if that was M r Butt: That sounds more encouraging, actually, but the way of securing the majority of the structure, if it turns there is an option to deregister it? There is legislation to out, through the detailed examination, that the majority of deregister or apply for deregistration? the structure can be retained. M r M cCauley: Yes, but as I say, I go back to the one M r Butt: Okay. One final question from me, if you do that, in considering the deregistration, we would expect the not mind. owner, whoever the owner is, to have gone to the nth degree Supposing that the finances were too crippling to actually before applying to deregister, unless they came up with an redevelop it or refurbish it and the option was to demolish, argument that said you based it on the fact that it was built would there be an option to deregister the building so that a in 1886 and it wasn’t, it was built last year. building or a pier could be re-done with modem materials That clearly is not the case, so it is the last resort. as an unregistered building? Is deregistration an option? Possibly as a last resort, perhaps, but... Mr Butt: Thanks.
M r McCauley: I think it is, as a last resort, but I think M r K arran : I would just like to ask you, you mentioned the process of looking at the registered building application the issue of deregistration - I must say that I am very should enable that situation to be evaluated. encouraged with your sensible approach about the building The original report never got to that stage, it was a and having to live in the real world - the costs of demolition, three-option report, and a view was taken that the costings has anybody been in touch with your Department about the that were indicated were too excessive. What we have got possibility of deregistration? Have any figures been given now is an attempt to try and find not a least-cost solution, to your ¡Department, rough figures even, of what it would because the least-cost solution is to demolish, in simple cost to demolish this structure? terms, but to try and find a solution which will retain the Mr McCauley: Can I ask whether or not the Select character and appearance of the structure without necessarily Committee has seen the BWB Report? Has that been replicating it. submitted in evidence? The only evidence I have got on If I have not made it clear, I understand and appreciate demolition is what is set out in the BWB Report. the argument why replication will not happen because of the overall costs involved. Therefore, from my point of view, I M r K arran: So nothing else came from the Department have always seen that there would be an element of change of Transport to your Department on that issue? taking place. The question is how great the change was. The judgement to be made at the end of the day - and it is Mr McCauley: No, and my understanding is that any a judgement, it is not clear-cut one way or the other - is a progress that they were making was effectively stopped by judgement to be taken on the balance of what is in front of the appointment of the Select Committee to look into the you at the time that you are doing it. matter. I appreciate that you have the difficulty that you are We had got to the point where the Report had been having to look at it from the point of view at the beginning produced and circulated and we were awaiting a proposal of the process, and I am still saying, at the end of the day, from the Department of Transport as to how they considered I can only really look at it at the end of the process, but in they were going to take it forward. between the two of us, or in between those two points, clearly, As is the case with registered buildings generally and jt is recognised things need replacing. something like this, putting an application together will take The cost of replacing them automatically in what they quite a long period of time before we get all the necessary were before not only is very expensive but also is practically information, but... very difficult. As has been tested through the original report, at the end of the day, you cannot replace it as it was, anyway; Mr Karran: So have any of these nice polite letters it was something that was built as it was built. that you have sent out to people who own registered If you cannot replace it as it was, then you move to the buildings... have you ever sent any nice polite letters out to stage of saying, well, again, the appearance of the structure the Department of Transport for the registered structure of and the ability to use it is probably the most important thing Ramsey Pier? Has anything been from your Department to from the public’s point of view, and that is what should be ask them to do their job a little bit better with this, one of a afforded the greatest priority. couple of hundred out of 30,000-odd buildings? If we cannot do a full conservation approach for practical and financial reasons, then you look at alternatives and, as Mr McCauley: No, because, as I say, we have been I have said, when looking at a building, we would look at a working with the Department and looking at the steps and the range of alternatives. process that they were going through, and it is a reasonable Looking at this, I suppose what I am saying is that, process. instead of looking at alternative uses, actually, the issue At the end of the day, if the Department of Transport becomes looking at alternative materials and how much can found that they could not fund what was being proposed, it be saved, and reasonably saved, so that future generations would still be up to them to decide what option to take. If can say, yes, something happened to the Pier in 2007 or that was the case, then at that stage, the Department would 2008 and it changed, but actually, those sections there, you have to consider whether or not to serve a repairs notice. can go to the Museum and you can find out those sections are the original sections, and you can see how close the 21st M r K arran: So are you aware of what they have actually century generations got to getting something that looked like spent in real terms on the building itself, as the Department the original one that their forefathers built. of Transport? Have they ever told you how much they have
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 26th JANUARY 2006 27 TQP
spent.on it, as one of those 200 or 300 registered buildings? M r Karran: Any liability on the costs as far as the Are you aware how much they have spent on it over the building is concerned...? last 10 years? M r McCauley: I am not aware that that would be an issue, M r McCauley: No, I am not aware of how much they but I am afraid that is outside my sphere of knowledge. have spent on it. M r Karran: Thank you for your attendance today. We Mr Karran: Thank you for your attendance today. I appreciate your time, and we appreciate that we now know appreciate you coming to the Select Committee. It has been that at least one of the hurdles of the reasons for non-action very useful. as far as Ramsey Pier is concerned is not there, as far as a Is there anything that you would like to tell us that you reasonably flexible approach from the registered building feel we should be looking at, as you are supposed to be our status is concerned. guru as far as registered buildings are concerned, and this being a very significantly important one? Is there something M r McCauley: I would say that I have tried to make you feel that the Committee should be thinking about as a that clear to anybody that I have spoken to about, the Pier Select Committee? over the last two or three years. I know the issue does come up, and will continue to come up, and will still arise as Mr McCauley: No. Looking at the terms of reference and when any application is submitted for whatever works that the Committee has got, I can understand the concern end up being proposed. We have still got that to face, so I that Tynwald has about progress that is being made on the appreciate that. building. As I have said before, my view is that, to date, the Can I just check that the latter answers that 1 gave in terms process that was put in hand was a reasonable process. of replacement materials do not require me to write that letter 1 hope that, from the evidence that you get, you will be about the reference that you made earlier on? able to assist those who have to decide whether or not they can make resources available to bring the building back into M r Karran: Well, I think we have taken it that you see a reasonable condition and secure its long-term maintenance, it as being not unreasonable if there was a'substantial... so I think that has to be the objective for everybody in this. long as it was reasonably in keeping, the flexibility would be there. Mr Karran: I am just wondering, the Pier is outside the I must say, as Chairman of the Committee, it is very local authority’s boundaries, does that have any.effect as far handy to know that one finger on the dead hand of the as the local authority being involved, as far as the issue is executive is not wanting to see the destruction of the Ramsey concerned? Pier, and I appreciate your time this morning, sir. Thank you very much. Mr McCauley: I am not sure what the implication for the local authority would be. The Committee sat in private at 11.37 a.m.
Tynwald Select Committee on Queen’s Pier, Ramsey - Evidence of Mr I McCauley I I Parliamentary Copyright
Available from:
The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles ^une 2006 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail [email protected] Price: £3.90
Classic DFS> 6 m for 31-6C sheets 547 ww.bindofiatic.ccm i