Week two: the seafront shelters

The shock withdrawal of the design competition winners left the Council with no choice but to fall back on the runners-up. Many Observer readers have protested; here, Save Our Seafront chairman Ron Storkey and project Sponsor Cllr Christopher Starnes defend their corners...

The Protestors View - Ron Storkey

The proposal is to demolish the existing brick built kiosk and the five shelters on the estern promenade and replace them with a kiosk and four shelters all of a new design.

The internal design of the kiosk will be for the current lessees to agree with the architects. They certainly need more space than at present.

The cost of replacing the existing shelters and the free-standing kiosk is being funded from part of the 1m grant from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). CABE required that a competition to select the winning designs be organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).

A Jury Panel of 11 members, including three councillors and three council officers, was set up by Rother District Council (RDC) to judge the 149 entries that were received.

The RIBA briefing document lists 11 "design requirements" for the shelters that all the entrants were required to meet. I list below, verbatim, four that are very relevant:

- Each shelter must provide an attractive, safe environment for between 20 and 24 people to sit. (It should be noted that whilst such a high degree of occupation is not anticipated, this figure takes into account the desirability of seating facing different directions in different wind conditions.)

- Though essentially open in form and character, the shelters should provide protection from rain, sun and from winds from different directions (though prevailing wind direction should be taken into account).

- The shelters should enable seated views over the sea and along the promenade, offering the visitor a choice of facing direction depending on weather conditions.

- Seats should be designed to be comfortable, both in their shape and their size, (e.g. back support) and in the material choice.

The winner of the competition has now withdrawn, but the second placed entry in the competition, which has now taken the place of the winner, doesn't fulfil any of these "design requirements".

RDC's own Jury Panel even stated in its report, presented to the Cabinet at its meeting on December 7, 2009: "The judges concluded that this was not the right scheme for this specific location."

We wholeheartedly agree with the Jury Panel's opinion, as did many visitors to the recent exhibition.

In spite of all of the above, Cabinet, at their following meeting on December 22, voted for this shelter to be approved for our seafront.

At the end of that meeting I requested permission from the leader of the council to address the meeting. I said I had sent a letter to every member of the Cabinet to bring to their attention their own Jury Panel's opinion: "and yet you have still voted for it!" There was no response.

The grant process means that RDC has to dance to the piper's tune in seeking an appropriate shelter design. The acceptance of this design, as the winner by default, really smacks of the desperation caused by CABE's insistence on setting strict deadlines for decisions and completion. These deadlines mean that the architects must be appointed by January 31, and construction completed by June 30, 2010, otherwise CABE will reduce its grant by 220,000.

As the outcome of the expensive RIBA competition was not exactly a resounding success, we now suggest that RDC should request CABE to extend its deadlines. This would give RDC the time to employ an architect in whom it has confidence and who must be required to conform to the design brief.

The existing shelters meet all of the above "design requirements" and so must the new shelters. After all it is our seafront not CABE's, and Bexhill will have to live with the result of these decisions for decades to come.

The Council's Reply - Cllr Christopher Starnes

Again Mr Storkey is in general agreement on an aspect of the Next Wave scheme and an improved kiosk is indeed being provided, along with new shelters for the seafront.

It was always the council's intention to provide a set of shelters which are architecturally striking and unique to Bexhill. The best way of achieving this was through a RIBA-run competition. By employing this method we gained a large number of extremely high quality entries from some of the UK's best young architects.

We should not forget that the current shelters are not unique to Bexhill seafront '“ other examples can be found in Egerton Park and they were not designed with just Bexhill in mind, but were ordered in by our amenities division from a supplier. They are certainly not Edwardian as some people (though not Mr Storkey), have previously suggested. Bexhill's Edwardian shelters, which should be treasured and preserved, are being left untouched on the eastern parade which is not a part of the Next Wave project.

We are wholly satisfied these designs meet the criteria set out for the judging panel. We recognise though that the designs are at the concept stage and need refining. That is why we are going through a process, normal to any such scheme, with the architects to make sure the shelters meet the specific needs of Bexhill residents and visitors.

As ever, the council values public opinion. That is why the design competition included public comments within its judging criteria. We have also asked the public to view the model and suggest their refinements. By taking these suggestions back to the architects we will be able to ensure their architecturally stunning piece also works functionally for residents and visitors.

It is incorrect to say we are led by CABE. The council set out with the intention of creating a scheme with high architectural merit and the shelters form a key part of that. It is necessary and desirable therefore for CABE and RIBA, the experts in this field, to be a part of the process.

We have full confidence in the chosen architects, who have won numerous awards for their work. The council would disagree with Mr Storkey and view the competition as a success; we received 149 entries and ended up with a shortlist of architecturally unique and impressive designs.

Neither should this shelter be seen as a fall-back option. While we were disappointed the original competition winners dropped out, the reality is that the judging between the two designs was incredibly close and the current plans by Duggan Morris Architects would have been just as worthy a winner.

Mr Storkey should be careful in taking the jury panel's quotes out of context. They also said about the three shortlisted designs, "The next stage proved difficult. All three schemes were very different, with strong supporters amongst the panel."

By the conclusion of this project, I am confident that Bexhill seafront will have shelters which are functional, useable and can't be found anywhere else in the world.

Do you agree? Disagree? What is your viewpoint? If you have an opinion or questions about the scheme, join the debate by commenting below. The website is checked regularly by Ron Storkey as well as the Observer, and questions are welcomed.