Summerland 40Th Anniversary

[Torry loon]

Concerns raised by people either before or after dont really come into it, the building must have compiled with the Building Regulations at the time or it would not have opened to the public.

 

Blade Runner, you have got your Über Establishment head on yet again. That is a ridiculous statement. Why do you come out with such rubbish?

 

For example, the flying staircase did not comply with Theatre Regulations in that they were too narrow although this was said to be acceptable by the authorities.

 

There was a certain amount of criticism of the Building Regulations and the way Building Control was administered. From Dr Phillips Report of the inquiry Chapter 6

 

“The regulations cannot guard against incompetence on the part of architects, designers, engineers or builders unless there is an adequate system of independent inspection by Building Control Officers. This was certainly not the case in the Isle of Man”.

[Blade Runner]

 

When I was a student, all the building surveyor students asked me about Summerland as it marked a watershed in UK building and fire regs and was something of a case study.

 

The revision of these regulations is a more fitting and lasting memorial to those who perished than any plaque, garden or statue.

 

Very good post Gladys totally agree.

[Lonan3]

I know what you mean. There were many reasons why people died; it wasn't just the fabric of the building, the LOCKED FIRE EXITS, poor management-communication and panic also contributed to the death-toll. As did the inadequate fire-fighting equipment.

The last thing on everyones mind was that a tragedy would occur- this possibility never really entered into the equation so was ignored, perhaps wilfully.

It is said that the Summerland fire instigated change in the perception of risk-management of such projects.

It was a hard way to learn for some, though...

IIRC there had also been numerous 'false alarms' which led to an 'adjustment' of the system.

[manxman1980]

Gladys - I certainly agree with that! It would have been even more of an insult to those who died if the regulations did not change as a result.

 

Bladerunner - The reason I posed the question about whether the general public had any concerns about the building was because a few of the survivors have said that it was evident that the building was not safe. This is without making reference to the locked fire-exits. They seemed to be suggesting that there was something that obviously made it a fire risk.

 

I was just wondering if anyone who had used the building prior to the fire ever thought it was unsafe? It is easy to say that the Titanic's design was inherently unsafe after the disaster, however, it appears that most people really did believe she was unsinkable. Was the same true of Summerland to some extent?

 

I was not alive at the time but think that it is an awful tragedy, especially for the Isle of Man, I pushed my MHK for a memorial and I am pleased something has been done. I, as said above, agree with Gladys the most important memorial to the victims is the building regulations changed and lessons were learnt.

[Torry loon]

"Lessons were learnt"

"Move on"

..and all the rest of the platitudes that come out of the Isle of Man authorities. Although obviously that stance is not confined to the Manx way of doing things.

 

OK, I was too young to give a damn other than getting down stairs to the rolling skating ring. But you are asking was there anything obvious? Well yes there was, to a reporter (as I have stated before in this thread) who posed the question what would happen in a fire. That is not the usual sort of question that would be asked when a new building is show-cased.

 

An example of an obvious/apparent design fault: the infamous flying stairway was 3' 6" wide in places. The Theatre Regulations required 5'.

 

Now, I'm not wanting to rake all this stuff up, but I am certainly not going to get the 5 gallon drum of whitewash out. Which seems to be the intention of some on here.

 

"Lessons were learnt". They certainly f-cking well were.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Torry loon

[quilp]

When I was a student, all the building surveyor students asked me about Summerland as it marked a watershed in UK building and fire regs and was something of a case study.

 

The revision of these regulations is a more fitting and lasting memorial to those who perished than any plaque, garden or statue.

 

 

''One day i will find the right words, and they will be simple''. Jack kerouac.

 

Spot on Gladys, you got it...

[Blade Runner]

 

When I was a student, all the building surveyor students asked me about Summerland as it marked a watershed in UK building and fire regs and was something of a case study.

 

The revision of these regulations is a more fitting and lasting memorial to those who perished than any plaque, garden or statue.

 

 

''One day i will find the right words, and they will be simple''. Jack kerouac.

 

Spot on Gladys, you got it...

 

+1

[Torry loon]

So it was the Regulations what done it?

 

There were sufficient Regulations in place.

[Gladys]

"Lessons were learnt"

"Move on"

..and all the rest of the platitudes that come out of the Isle of Man authorities. Although obviously that stance is not confined to the Manx way of doing things.

 

OK, I was too young to give a damn other than getting down stairs to the rolling skating ring. But you are asking was there anything obvious? Well yes there was, to a reporter (as I have stated before in this thread) who posed the question what would happen in a fire. That is not the usual sort of question that would be asked when a new building is show-cased.

 

An example of an obvious/apparent design fault: the infamous flying stairway was 3' 6" wide in places. The Theatre Regulations required 5'.

 

Now, I'm not wanting to rake all this stuff up, but I am certainly not going to get the 5 gallon drum of whitewash out. Which seems to be the intention of some on here.

 

"Lessons were learnt". They certainly f-cking well were.

But lessons were learnt; even more so, Iives have surely been saved. What would you rather have? It isn't a whitewash, you have to put it in the context of the time. You say there were people showing concern at the the safety at the time, but how much of that was before the fire? It was a hugely ambitious project for the time and, yes, ambition possibly caused blind spots. But no greater blind spots than were taken as the norm for the time. That is no comfort for the victims, survivors or relatives - that I fully accept. After the investigations building and fire regs were overhauled and rightly so. But do you really think anyone involved, or even of an age able to comprehend what was happening at the time feels smug or wipes their brow with a shrug happy to have 'got away with it'?

 

It was a terrible event, absolutely and unforgettably; I shall take it and the aftermath with me to my dying day and I wasn't in there. Lord knows how the survivors deal with it.

 

But, I want to make two very strong points: firstly, the fire had a deep, deep impact on the whole of the island for a very long time. In the first days it was the impact of a terrible horror and practical stuff like the phone lines being clogged all the time and the continual call for blood donors, volunteers to do this, that or the other. Then it was just an assimilation of what had happened and having the reminder of the twisted body remain for a long, long time (it was quite some years until the thing had been reduced to the concrete base and re-opened for your roller skating etc). I am sure other posters on here will have more vivid and lasting memories. There was no 'let's move on' sentiment at all.

 

Secondly, your baying for blood, and shame we should all feel over an event that you have no first hand knowledge of, is ignorant of how the island actually responded at the time with instances of heroism, compassion and just getting stuck in that followed.

 

As for your point on the stairs, as I can recall the flying staircase was very wide and only (possibly) narrowed up to the solarium level. There were other staircases on the MER side that were narrow, but they were not intended or used as the main access. There could be criticism of the stairs but in use they seemed to work OK.

 

A lasting memory was a picture in the local press of a person on the flying staircase silhouetted against the fire with an arm upraised as though shielding themselves from the flames while firemen 'played water' on them in the hope of saving them. That image epitomises summerland.

[Gladys]

So it was the Regulations what done it?

 

There were sufficient Regulations in place.

Torry, it was a different time and obviously the regulations in place were not sufficient, but that was only apparent after the fire.

[IOMRS97]

BladeRunner has pretty much got the point I was making. Was the building recognised as being unsafe only after the events or were concerns raised by people before?

 

IOMRS97 -What you say about a tour of the building for the emergency services makes sense. Was this done for any other building at that time?

Not that I was ever aware of Manxman1980. It was often the case that various dignitaries got to look over buildings that had been refurbished or newly built, often with suitable refreshments provided, but they were hardly going to be the ones to respond in an emergency. The only time I ever got a guided tour of anywhere was as a result of my own initiative. Having said that, in the case of Summerland, I doubt that I would have been much more effective even if I had known my way around the building. By the time I got there the only obvious way in (at least to me) was from the Port Jack side, up the concrete stairway, but the conditions even there were pretty bad. Looking through the gaps between the doors, it was just a mass of flame the other side and it was obvious that the fire was beyond control. I don't think I have ever felt so helpless in any situation before or since.

[Torry loon]

.

You say there were people showing concern at the the safety at the time, but how much of that was before the fire? It was a hugely ambitious project for the time and, yes, ambition possibly caused blind spots.

.

There was enough concern shown before the fire. To quantify that concern is pointless and irrelevant. So, a handful of people raised concern against huge numbers of professional people and people in authority who did not express concern. Righto.

 

But no greater blind spots than were taken as the norm for the time.

Really? So it was normal to ignore Regulations and seek to have them relaxed. It was normal to cut costs. You are being 'manx' Gladys. It was 'the norm for the time'. Really?

 

That is no comfort for the victims, survivors or relatives - that I fully accept. After the investigations building and fire regs were overhauled and rightly so. But do you really think anyone involved, or even of an age able to comprehend what was happening at the time feels smug or wipes their brow with a shrug happy to have 'got away with it'?

 

Why would anyone want to relax Regulations, or cut corners on costs?

 

Why?

 

There would have been many people who 'felt smug and wiped their brow with a shrug, happy to have got away with it'. Oh don't worry, there would have been sighs of relief followed by woops of joy each time there was an inspection on site or a set of drawings got through Building Control and a relaxation was given. And there would have been much smugness when they 'got away with it'. But that of course...of course....would have been before the tradegy. I obviously realise that that smugness would have turmed to horror.

 

There was no 'let's move on' sentiment at all.

The 'let's move on' sentiment was from emanating from your previous post and then Blade Runner and Quilp with their +1

 

Regarding Summerland, I did not say that was the sentiment at the time.

 

 

Secondly, your baying for blood, and shame we should all feel over an event that you have no first hand knowledge of, is ignorant of how the island actually responded at the time with instances of heroism, compassion and just getting stuck in that followed.

 

Oh is that how you treat people who are looking for a balanced and hopefully truthful account? They are just "baying for blood" and "making people feel shameful". Really. Now that is 'manx', that really is.

 

What makes you think I had no first hand knowledge, and how is that relevant anyway? Or is that just another tool to dispel someone who does not toe the establishment line on a matter. It really is 'manx' that one.

 

As for your point on the stairs, as I can recall the flying staircase was very wide and only (possibly) narrowed up to the solarium level. There were other staircases on the MER side that were narrow, but they were not intended or used as the main access. There could be criticism of the stairs but in use they seemed to work OK.

 

My criticism of the stairs was that there were Regulations in place that dictated, or should have dictated, that a particular (and now infamous) staircase should have been wider than it was. They got away with that one though.

[14Brighton]

Can I urge everyone who is interested in the Summerland fire to please read the 'Report of The Summerland Fire Commission'? It's available from Tynwald Library at £2.00 From reading some of the previous posts it seems there has been a lot of speculation. The facts are in the report. Many mistakes were made by many people. As a result, 50 people died at the time but that figure doesn't take into account the people who died later as a direct result of the injuries suffered, 80 were seriously injured and many more have suffered what we now know to be post traumatic stress (which wasn't invented at the time). They received little, if any, counselling. I have set up a Facebook page called Summerland Fire for the people who were directly involved or witnessed horrific scenes to be able to make contact with each other and perhaps be able to lay some of the ghosts. I've discovered many people have for 40 years been unable to even talk of the events and are only now able to write (through PM's) about what happened to them, many have made contact with people they worked with there on the night. This has led on to my starting a petition to try to get the Summerland site properly recognised for what it is. 40 years ago 3,000 people walked into what was a plastic hangar. They trusted they would be safe. They were let down. The people I've met and stories told to me from people all over the UK make me ashamed that my government of the time (who didn't have in place proper fire legislation), the Douglas Corporation of the time (the owners of Summerland who issued waivers to their own bye-laws in order to build using cheap, combustible materials), the architects Philips Lomas (who had never buit anything more than domestic housing before and were given free rein in an 'old boy' network), and Trust Houses Forte (the operators who didn't give their staff proper fire safety procedures or staff training in the event of a fire) caused so much death, pain and suffering to innocent people. For too long we have been silent and I suspect successive government and certainly this government would be happy to keep it that way. If you feel strongly (as I do) that the time has come to speak up, please sign my online petition http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/summerland-for-commemorative-gardens.html. Thank you

[Lonan3]

I agreed with every word of your post until I clicked on the link. Without going over what I - and others - have said, I really would not like to see the entire area devoted to a memorial garden.

[manxman1980]

Not that I was ever aware of Manxman1980. It was often the case that various dignitaries got to look over buildings that had been refurbished or newly built, often with suitable refreshments provided, but they were hardly going to be the ones to respond in an emergency. The only time I ever got a guided tour of anywhere was as a result of my own initiative. Having said that, in the case of Summerland, I doubt that I would have been much more effective even if I had known my way around the building. By the time I got there the only obvious way in (at least to me) was from the Port Jack side, up the concrete stairway, but the conditions even there were pretty bad. Looking through the gaps between the doors, it was just a mass of flame the other side and it was obvious that the fire was beyond control. I don't think I have ever felt so helpless in any situation before or since.

 

Thanks for the reply. My general impression is that Summerland may have a few similarities with the Titanic (and other similar events). Generally built in accordance with the regulations in force at the time and considered to be a marvel of modern technology and construction techniques. In the design, however, some risks are over looked or assessed to be very unlikely and therefore additional safety precautions are not put in place. Once built and in use a tragic sequence of events leads to the design flaws being laid bare and people losing their lives as a result.

 

Following the event realisation dawns about just how dangerous a sequence of events can be (see also Piper Alpha Disaster) and then the regulations see a massive overhaul to improve safety in design, construction and operation.

 

What led to the loss of life in all these tragedies was not one single event. It was a sequence of events that interacted with each other and multiplied the original problem and it is with hindsight we can look back and say IF that had not been allowed then the whole sequence would have been stopped. This is why I have been asking the questions about whether anything was clearly evident to the general public that made them think Summerland was unsafe. Torry Loon points to a journalist who asked a question about fire safety, others point to corners being cut in the design and construction yet still the general public at the time chose to go to Summerland on a regular basis. That seems to suggest that many people felt it was safe and felt that the risk was within acceptable standards, however, in some of the survivors accounts they talk about the building as being obviously unsafe and a fire risk. I am suggesting that this is a view taken with experience of the horrors of the fire and the benefit of hindsight.

 

As an aside you mentioned earlier about the removal of the Oroglass for testing well my grandfather took some of the Oroglass away to the UK with the Civil Defence for testing. I cannot recall where it was taken too but I am sure I could find out.