Broken Spinnaker Tower lift set to be finally removed later this year
LIFT OFF The Spinnaker Tower
PORTSMOUTH City Council plans to finally remove the troubled external lift on the Spinnaker Tower.
Work is set to start later this year after the decision was taken last year to drop plans to make the lift work.
The removal will take place more than six years after the tower opened, during which time the glass attraction has never worked properly.
A council spokeswoman said: ‘Various parties are being consulted, and when an agreement has been made, then action will be taken to remove the lift. We expect this to happen some time this year.’
Problems with the lift first became clear when it got stuck two weeks before the tower opened and again on its opening day when its passengers were suspended 40ft in the air.
Although lift company Cotswold Lifts said it had fixed the fault, Continuum, which took over the running of the tower from a company called Heritage, said it was too unreliable to use as it could be expected to get stuck up to twice a day.
Other problems with the glass lift included a short period in which its doors were found to open wide enough for a person to fall out while it was moving.
The council decided that a replacement lift would be too expensive at an estimated £1m. In 2008 it was estimated the lift being out of action had cost Continuum and the council up to £3.5m in lost revenue.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 19 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Scourge
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 09:15 AMIn summary: Council Officers who would not survive one week in the private sector and Councillors drawn from the ranks of the unemployed and unemployable, @ 18, I read somewhere that the 151 Officer retired at the age of 60 on an index linked pension in excess of £75,000 a year. That this theft from the taxpayer was allowed to happen shows where the real priorities of PCC lie, and, is a clear example of the incompetence of our councillors who allowed it to happen.
Little Al
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 06:16 PMThe chief financial officer section 151 officer, who over saw this and the Northerrn Quarter, Roger Ker Ching has just recently been paid off.
Little Al
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 05:41 PMThe Audit Commission report into the debacle of the Tower, aimed most of the critcism at senior councillors and officers of the council. One of those councillors was Leo Madden, who was highlighted at withholding information from the members of the council. This whole fiasco, has been repeated with the Northern Quarter. The majority of senior council officers were still there for this white elephant, where for some inexplicable reason these same councillors and officers gave acres of prime retail land away for virtually nothing, to a developer, who was as documented been giving gifts and hospitality to key personnel at PCC. As Cllrs Hugh Mason and Leader of Portsmouth City Council said, you have to pay these rates of money to get the best. Ermm, how come we a bunch of imcompetants who have failed to deliver one major project after another. The best? No a bunch of deluded councillors, who are way out of their depth, which reflects on their recruitment of second rate material. Who are to blame, us for not seriously testing and challenging the issues and letting this newspaper gloss over the issues, without drilling down to the major issues.
Yocal
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 04:58 PMsome simple maths.... The lift has cost the councilcompany £3.5 million in lost revenue over 6 years. New design of working lift will cost £1m. So the cost of installing a new working lift will be repaid in just under 2 years from the lost income and then after that they will be making more profit on what they are now. But they don't want that extra income??.... Ok either The News has got everything wrong again (not surprising) or the council et al are incompetent (also not surprising).
Pompey BD
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 12:51 PMWhy not get a DECENT life company in to FIX the lift? Surely that's got to be cheaper than removing the entire lift that was installed by the Cotswold Cowboys! The people that run and maintain this attraction are a joke. Only a council project is treated in this way and over-charged in the way that this or any other project is. If you or I were to commission this building privately, it would cost half the original quote and be completed on time and within budget agreed. Why is it when a council is involved, the costs continually spiral and work is never completed on time? Is it because of all the back-handers that have to be issued? The whole thing in respect of council commissions stinks. If you were asking for an annex to your home to be built, you wouldn't expect the builder to keep coming back endlessly asking for more money.
Graham Wheatley
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 01:53 AMCBear (5), my understanding is that there was c. £14m of taxpayers' money invested in the scheme when there was not originally going to be a single penny - it was all to have come from the Lottery Heritage Fund. I'm not sure what the current turnover or operating profit is (...I'm sure someone will have those audited figures and can post them here), but in the past PCC have generally reckoned on around £500,000 p.a. With the tower having opened on 18th October 2005 we're probably looking at c.£4,000,000 come Oct 2012. That's another £10,000,000 and a further 20 years before it ACTUALLY turns a penny in real profit for the tax-payer then? (I suppose we could factor-in the broader income to the area in terms of other businesses but that would introduce an element of what might be termed 'creative accountancy'). --- Perhaps the lift should remain (much like our shiny bus-stops) as a testament to the incompetency of the project managers? --- It is without doubt a very impressive structure and it does bring visitors to the area. However, I think we missed a much bigger opportunity in its construction. We only have three floors whereas there could have been eleven! --- Capacity for a restaurant, cafeteria, conference rooms, Function Suites, a permanent gift-shop instead of a huddle in one corner, an unglazed lower viewing platform for photography, perhaps even accommodation with harbour views? Now that would have been much more impressive.
The Watcher....
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 12:03 AMHaving read the comments of others in relation to TST I am unmoved in my opinion. It is a fantastic piece of architecture and a credit to the City. I would rather my taxes spent on something like this than social housing, the work shy or drug rehab! Portsmouth is devoid of culture so be grateful that there is at least one thing to feel proud of!
southseabeach
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 10:23 PMI have visits from friends from all over the UK, and all bar none are always extremely complimentary about the Spinnaker Tower. Likewise if you ever catch a ferry back from France, listen out to the comments of passengers - most are hugely impressed. The Guildhall IS an iconic building, but so is the Spinnaker Tower. Please stop whingeing and support our great city.
Tman
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:16 PM#8 you speak for "most" people of Portsmouth, now then? For all the snivelling and whining about it by the ignorant, it has, and continues to bring in shoppers to Gunwharf and visitors to the Historic Dockyard, etc . Cetain other "local" authorities would love something even half as iconic (remember the various suggestions of laser light shows, Spitfire sculptures, Ferris wheels, etc?) but budgetary constraints mean those will never happen now. Funny how often the biggest and sternest critics of the Tower live in places like Waterlooville, Fareham etc and have had no financial input anyway....
old man of the sea
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:12 PMComment removed by moderator
FrankScot
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 08:37 PM'Broken' implies something that once worked and has now ceased to function. The correct term for this would be 'total waste of taxpayers money, how could they have designed, manufactured and built something that was never going to work'. FOI request on the terms of Maspero's contract anyone??
Portsea Islander
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 08:17 PMin all honesty it is not something the people of Portsmouth generally regard as "iconic" or in any way a representation of the city. It is seen by most Portsmouthians as a joke and a complete farce. The true icon of the city is the Guildhall; a beautiful building that was nearly destroyed in the blitz but stood defiantly
lammie
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 06:08 PMThe project was over budget, with an overall cost of £35.6 million for the tower alone. Taxpayers were not meant to fund the tower, but Portsmouth City Council eventually contributed £11.1 million towards construction. In March 2004, Portsmouth Council's former leader Cllr Leo Madden resigned from leading the Labour Group on the Council after a highly critical report of the council's handling of the project and failure to exploit revenue opportunities, such as the Millennium. Barry Smith, the project's legal advisor, also retired after being suspended on full pay,[6] mostly due to controversy over the contract with the builders, which at one point would have cost the council more to cancel than to complete. In 2009 as Tower Revenues drop the council has again lost out as its income is linked to the tower's profits which have fallen significantly in 20089[7] The tower has had a number of issues since opening, including a malfunctioning external glass lift.[8] During the late construction a protester from the rights group Fathers 4 Justice scaled the tower wearing a high-visibility jacket unfurling a banner in the process.[9] Another incident happened a year later when a base jumper managed to get past site security and base jump off the Spinnaker Tower, he quickly ran off site after parachuting down.[10] The tower was dedicated on 16 October 2005 and opened two days later. On opening day, the Tower's project manager, David Greenhalgh, and representatives for Mowlem and Maspero were stranded in the tower's malfunctioning external lift (built by Maspero) for an hour and a half. Abseiling engineers were called to rescue them.[11][12][13] Some, including the franchise's chief executive, felt it was rather fitting that these particular people were trapped.[14] ...from Wikipedia
Richard B
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 06:00 PMIf the lift never worked properly then it was never "fit for purpose" and PCC should get the cost of it back from the contractor, plus consequential costs, i.e. removal. Why isn't PCC making that happen?
CBear
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 05:50 PMWhilst I agree with some of the comments, the tower has been hugely successful in terms of bringing in money, and I believe that the debts have been paid and the tower is now bringing in profit. I do agree it was very poorly managed though!
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.