RECAR & COATHAM PIERS – The Proposed Piers
Accreditation The Redcar and Saltburn-by-the-Sea Gazette 10/03/1871
The Proposed Piers.
To place the public intercession of the exact facts of the case, so far as they have transpired, we subjoin the report of the board of trade to the House of Commons on the applications made on behalf of “the Redcar Pier Company, Limited,” and “the Coatham Victoria Pier Company, Ltd.” From this report it will be seen that the board of trade, “as at present advised, are of the opinion that there is no necessity for two promenade piers within 800 yards of each other in the same locality; but have not yet decided which of the proposed schemes they are prepared to recommend to Parliament.”
The chief objection raised by the promoters of the Coatham scheme against the Redcar pier company, but the company now have and never have had more than a nominal existence, at once forced to the ground before the published prospectus of the company, which abundantly demonstrates the reality of its existence.
The promoters are “the Redcar Pier Company (Ltd),” who in 1866 obtained an order, enabling them to construct a pier and the necessary works at Redcar.
Those powers have never been exercised, and will, in accordance with the General Pier and Harbour Acts, expire on 6 August 1871, five years from the date of the confirmation by Parliament of the order of 1866.
The company now apply for an extension of the time for the completion of the works authorised by the “The Redcar Pier Order, 1866,” and of the various powers contained therein, to 3 years from the confirmation of the present order.
They also desire to alter the site of the pier.
Objections have been made to this application by the Coatham Victoria Pier Company (Ltd), who have made application this session to the board for a provisional order for the erection of a pier at Coatham.
The objections are to the effect that the Redcar company now have, and never have had, more than nominal existence, and have no local support, and have failed to exercise their powers.
This application is, with the one in the case of Coatham, still under consideration.
The promoters are “The Coatham Victoria Pier Company (Ltd),” who apply for power –
1. to construct a Pier, Jetty and landing place at East Coatham near Redcar, in the North Riding of York, commencing from Newcomen Promenade, opposite Newcomen Street, extending seawards 750 yards, and terminating beyond the West scar rocks.
2. To direct upon or near the pier and works or approaches, toll houses, shops, saloons, bazaars, and reading, refreshment, and other rooms; also floating and other baths.
3. To levy rates.
The estimated cost of the works is £9500.
Objections have been received from certain fishermen and pilots of Redcar, and from the coxswain of the Redcar lifeboat, to the effect that whenever the wind lies between North and East the pier would prove dangerous to boats passing from Redcar to the mouth of the Tees, and no less dangerous to boats returning from the Tees with a northerly, Westerly, or north-westerly wind; that at present the channel between the West scar rocks and the land can be navigated with safety when it is above half tide, but that the construction of the pier would render the use of the channel impossible, except in very calm weather and would render necessary a long circuit outside the seaward end of the pier; that the lifeboat station that Redcar within half a mile of the proposed site, will be liable to be dashed against the pier when going to the rescue of vessels striking against the scar rocks, that in addition the protection of the pier beyond the rocks would be dangerous to the general navigation; that for trading purposes the pier would prove inefficient; that the vagueness of the proposal to place a floating bats and landing stages is objectionable; and that considering the proximity of Redcar and Coatham and that appear has been authorised at the former place, a pier at the latter place is wholly unnecessary.
The promoters have, beside joining issues upon statement of danger to navigation, and questioning the general accuracy of these objections, called attention to the alleged fact that the Redcar company had merely nominal existence, and was originally promoted by a London engineer, since deceased; that they have till very recently received little or no local support; having in 1866 obtained powers for the construction of a pier, they have permitted their powers to expire without commencing their pier; that they now apply for, practically, a new order with a new site; and that if an election is to be made between the two schemes the Coatham pier should be sanctioned in preference to the Redcar pier, both on account of the site of the former being more accessible and convenient than the now proposed for the latter, and because it is supported by a large number of the gentry and other inhabitants of the locality, who are stated to have subscribed the whole of the capital £10,000.
The village of Coatham and the town of Redcar, practically, form now one town, the chief feature of which is a watering place; and the board of trade as at present advised, are of the opinion that there is no necessity for two promenade piers within 800 yards of each other in the same locality; but they have not yet decided which of the proposed schemes they are prepared to recommend to Parliament.
Lol Hansom September 19, 2013 Coatham Pier, Editorial, Letters and other., Redcar Pier