- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Dorsetecho
Follow us for the latest news
- Find us on Facebook
Dorset Echo
Like us on Facebook
Fears over the future of Weymouth pleasure pier (From Dorset Echo)
When news happens get involved. Send your pictures, views and video to us by text and email
Fears over the future of Weymouth pleasure pier
9:31am Wednesday 30th January 2013 in News By Miriam Phillips, Chief Reporter
WEYMOUTH’S Pleasure Pier could become the latest victim of neglect.
Work to fix Weymouth Harbour’s ageing walls may not be enough to save the landmark Pleasure Pier, which could be closed off if its condition worsens.
After decades of neglect, the 81-year-old pier has been found to have significant structural defects and may have to be shut off to the public if it deteriorates further.
The council has been criticised for not investing in maintenance of the harbour.
Huge cracks appeared in the harbour wall last year forcing Condor Ferries to abandon the resort until repairs were carried out.
In its heyday, the pier was a venue for dances, swimming competitions and brass bands.
In more recent years, the elevated cafe became a tourist hotspot but has since closed.
The pier was assessed as safe to use during the Olympics when it became a focal point for visitors – and it remains a point of interest for its views of the bay and as a fishing platform.
It was surveyed along with 4km of harbour walls to help cash-strapped Weymouth and Portland Borough Council draw up a priority list of repair and maintenance works.
The management committee has now approved those works in a compromise that keeps everything safe and serviceable but without spending a fortune.
The dilapidated Pleasure Pier, built by the Great Western Railway to serve the then ferry terminal, will get a patch-up job targeting areas of ‘high safety risk’ to ensure it remains safe – this is favoured over major refurbishment, reconstruction or demolition.
But public access will be kept under close review and the pier could be closed down in less than five years.
This affects the pier structure itself and not the walkway leading up to it where the Sea Life Tower and ferry terminal car park is sited.
A summary report prepared for the council says the pier has a number of significant defects, mainly underneath the deck. Nothing has been done to it over the last few decades and it is now a matter of ‘long-term concern’ due to its poor condition.
The length of time it will be safe to use is difficult to predict but the report says the patch-up job, which will involve £20,000 being set aside in the budget each year, will keep it safe until the main structural elements begin to fail, ‘possibly in less than five years’.
The work to be carried out on the harbour walls and pier is separate to the £3.9 million worth of work on the berth, where it is hoped Condor Ferries will be sailing from later this year.
Council environment and sustainability spokesman Gill Taylor said investigations on the harbour walls and pier were conducted before the damage to the ferry terminal became clear last year, sparking a debate over why the council hadn’t put money into the harbour over the years.
She added: “We’re in the position we’re in with the Pleasure Pier and it’s a shame. To do a proper job on it would cost a lot of money.”
Work to replace all of the harbour walls would cost as much as £45million.
But the council has agreed a programme focussing on priority works targeting mainly steel sheet pile walls, which are worse off than those of concrete construction.
Just over £1million will be put into the budget next year for repairs and a further £3.6million will be ploughed into the harbour walls over the next 15 years for identified works. Investigations are under way for grant funding.
Coun Taylor added: “The work on the harbour walls has to be done before it gets any worse and it costs a lot more.
“The sad thing is we didn’t put additional money into maintenance of the port in the past so we’re getting hit by a large sum of money now. But the harbour is where it is and we’ve now got a solid plan for repairs and ongoing maintenance.”
Priority repairs list presented
AS WELL as backing harbour walls and pier work, the borough council's management committee was also presented with a list of high priority repairs and maintenance that is needed around the rest of Weymouth Harbour.
Harbour Master Peter Mole was asked to produce a list of what needed doing, other than the walls. The works, totalling more than £350,000, will be put forward for consideration as part of ongoing budget proposals for next year.
The list include things like water supply to pontoons, replacing pontoons, replacing steps and demolishing a toilet block on the Pleasure Pier.
What do you think?
What do you think? Should the landmark pier be shut off to the public? Leave your comments below or email newsdesk@dorsetecho.co.uk
Comments(24)
Islandjim
says...
10:35am Wed 30 Jan 13
UpweyGardener
says...
10:39am Wed 30 Jan 13
The Harbour Wall debacle, the Pavilion closure, the death of Weymouth town centre, and, now, the prospect of no more pleasure pier.
They'll be selling off the sand to cover the shortfall, no doubt.
The Tories can't be trusted with anything.
Isosceles
says...
10:42am Wed 30 Jan 13
Dave Aitch
says...
11:03am Wed 30 Jan 13
Lots of wealthy yacht & boat owners spending a few bob in the area. It would be another tick in the box for keeping our MCA SAR, too
Shame the hierarchy don't read these comments.
Artstudent
says...
11:30am Wed 30 Jan 13
Why not create a modern pleasure pier consisting of a gallows and rack area where errant councillors and Littlemoor residents could be disposed of.
I'd pay to see that.
rhys6669
says...
11:34am Wed 30 Jan 13
I am hoping that it can be fixed and the funds to see it at its rises again
paulst
says...
11:44am Wed 30 Jan 13
They should be taking their lead from places from like St Ives who seem to attract affluent holiday makers all year round
Sidney Hall
says...
12:49pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Build a new pier. A longer one made of stone. Dont call it the stone pier though, that name is already in use. Make it really long, then bring an arm round towards Bowleaze. That would make a great marina, great for angling, and provide a nice walk away from the bucket n spade lot with their brummie accents.
212 dorset
says...
2:22pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Simon Nicholas
says...
2:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Private developers simply cannot currently lay their hands on money, and when they do, the repayment costs are prohibitive. Allied to this is that they have to have a significant number of tenants signed up before they can start redevelopment, and this is very difficult in the current climate.
In hindsight, the current owners could have kept it open until the redevlopment was ready to begin, but its just not in a good enough condition - the roof is in a dreadful state, and major leaks into the units on the first floor were not uncommon.
Can`t blaim the council for this, just the sucession of private sector pub companies that owned the complex over the years!
I do share the concerns over the lack of maintenance at the pleasure pier over the years - there does seem to have been a breakdown in responsiblity over many years.
The Cactus Tea Rooms is much missed as well.
Simon N.
pretep
says...
3:19pm Wed 30 Jan 13
wessex-andy
says...
3:49pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Typecasting people is not constructive, although I do feel that party politics (and in that I include all parties) does seem to interfere with the way our town is managed. Perhaps a bit of co-operation within our council, regardless of which party has put the person there would not go amiss.
Presto bite
says...
5:22pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Artstudent wrote:Me 2
This site could bring in a large income for the area if used appropriately.
Why not create a modern pleasure pier consisting of a gallows and rack area where errant councillors and Littlemoor residents could be disposed of.
I'd pay to see that.
Presto bite
says...
5:26pm Wed 30 Jan 13
bedpans
says...
6:22pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Grandmaster flash
says...
6:24pm Wed 30 Jan 13
VaguelyPurple
says...
7:51pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Simon Nicholas wrote:"Brewers Quay is not derelict, merely mothballed"? Then why the hell didn't the idiot Council either make sure that the firm of cowboy developers had the wherewithal to do what they'd promised, or made sure to put in a clause that they could buy it back if the cowboy developers turned out, indeed, to be cowboys. Funny how the idiot council can never be blamed for anything, isn't it, it's always someone else (i.e. usually the Private sector)'s fault. So the Harbour fiasco is not the fault of the idiot Council eiether, then, is it? Or moving the Tourist Information Centre miles out of the way to the pavilion, and then deciding that the Pavilion will have to close too? What exactly has the Idiot council done within living memory that has been anything other than a total fiasco?
Brewers Quay is not derelict, its merely mothballed. The original business plan of the current owners (which included a hotel, a larger musuem, apartments and many other things) is in tatters due to the recession.
Private developers simply cannot currently lay their hands on money, and when they do, the repayment costs are prohibitive. Allied to this is that they have to have a significant number of tenants signed up before they can start redevelopment, and this is very difficult in the current climate.
In hindsight, the current owners could have kept it open until the redevlopment was ready to begin, but its just not in a good enough condition - the roof is in a dreadful state, and major leaks into the units on the first floor were not uncommon.
Can`t blaim the council for this, just the sucession of private sector pub companies that owned the complex over the years!
I do share the concerns over the lack of maintenance at the pleasure pier over the years - there does seem to have been a breakdown in responsiblity over many years.
The Cactus Tea Rooms is much missed as well.
Simon N.
Simon Nicholas
says...
8:48am Thu 31 Jan 13
VaguelyPurple wrote:I don`t think the local authority had any right to include clauses in anything as they had no ownership on Brewers Quay. The Current owners (Brewers Quay LLP) acquired it from the pub company, Greene King. There has been no council involvement in Brewers Quay since the early 1990s. Even if the council were offered it now, where would the money come from to buy it AND pay for the redevelopement. Remember, this is the same council that can no longer afford to run a theatre!
Simon Nicholas wrote: Brewers Quay is not derelict, its merely mothballed. The original business plan of the current owners (which included a hotel, a larger musuem, apartments and many other things) is in tatters due to the recession. Private developers simply cannot currently lay their hands on money, and when they do, the repayment costs are prohibitive. Allied to this is that they have to have a significant number of tenants signed up before they can start redevelopment, and this is very difficult in the current climate. In hindsight, the current owners could have kept it open until the redevlopment was ready to begin, but its just not in a good enough condition - the roof is in a dreadful state, and major leaks into the units on the first floor were not uncommon. Can`t blaim the council for this, just the sucession of private sector pub companies that owned the complex over the years! I do share the concerns over the lack of maintenance at the pleasure pier over the years - there does seem to have been a breakdown in responsiblity over many years. The Cactus Tea Rooms is much missed as well. Simon N."Brewers Quay is not derelict, merely mothballed"? Then why the hell didn't the idiot Council either make sure that the firm of cowboy developers had the wherewithal to do what they'd promised, or made sure to put in a clause that they could buy it back if the cowboy developers turned out, indeed, to be cowboys. Funny how the idiot council can never be blamed for anything, isn't it, it's always someone else (i.e. usually the Private sector)'s fault. So the Harbour fiasco is not the fault of the idiot Council eiether, then, is it? Or moving the Tourist Information Centre miles out of the way to the pavilion, and then deciding that the Pavilion will have to close too? What exactly has the Idiot council done within living memory that has been anything other than a total fiasco?
All the council did was grant planning permission to Brewers Quay LLP for their development - at the time, the project was due for completion before the Olympics - unfortunately, nobody at the time realised what the long term effects of the banking crisis would be.
Brewers Quay WILL eventually be redeveloped, but it will take a lot longer than anticipated, and to a different business plan.
Simon N.
bigfatlad
says...
10:45am Thu 31 Jan 13
Kaptain_Von
says...
2:27pm Thu 31 Jan 13
-Wingl-
says...
2:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Get a grip
says...
8:50pm Fri 1 Feb 13
1) Lack of maintenance.
2) Poorly managed.
3) No one to blame.
knickerlessparsons
says...
10:45am Mon 4 Feb 13
Wasn't there an article printed by the Echo recently that highlighted the HUGE profits made by the Borough Council just from parking charges alone?
Throckape
says...
1:03pm Tue 5 Feb 13
Get a grip wrote:4) Wonder where the massive rates hikes have gone each year?
Why is it that when ever we here about council property, the same story is repeated. 1) Lack of maintenance. 2) Poorly managed. 3) No one to blame.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with