Brighton - shelter accommodation to meet invasion risks

[John]

Whitehall 8100

The Shelter Officer, Tunbridge Wells.

The following is an extract from a note concerning the visit paid by the Minister to Brighton on the 26th August:-

"Provision of Shelters.

It was thought that invasion and a "blitz" on Brighton were likely to come together and that people would flock towards the Downs where there was a limited amount of space between them built up area and the military wire ring.  The Committee had been invited by Region to prepare for a survey of the possibilities of providing shelter for the people.  There was some doubt as to what was expected and it was explained that no limitt was placed on the scope of the proposals which they might make.  The survey would no doubt include some assessment of the needs and of the available resources and the extent to which the gap could be breached by improvisation, for example, by the use of railway tunnels, etc.  It was stated that there would be a great deficiency which probably could only be met by the digging of slit trenches.  The Committee contemplated an appeal to all persons of whatever degree to use a pick and shovel and thought that such an appeal would be generally acceptable.  They were told that the proposal should be embodied in their report to Region.

The Minister said that he was glad to hear of the problems and the views of the Committee.  He could give no decision on the spot; other Departments were concerned and other places had similar problems.  The Committee's representations would, however, receive full consideration."

[John]

Document, source and recipient unknown, probably briefing notes for a Minister or Committee.

BRIGHTON SHELTER POSITION

Brighton have raised, both with the Regional Commissioner and with the Minister, the question of providing additional shelter to meet invasion risks.  The immediate cause of their interest in the matter was the Prime Minister's direction to have everything ready by the 1st September.

They have a population of 70,000 in what they call the "fire area" in the heart of the town, and they think that this 70,000 would be driven out of shelter in that area and would flock in panic towards the wire fence on the downs.

There is a certain amount of shelter in the less densely populated area of town between the "fire area" and the downs and this shelter could be crowded to take an extra 30,000 people.  This leaves 40,000 for whom Brighton consider additional provision must be made.  The first idea was to dig trenches on the downs near the wire fence; but (a) to make room for 40,000 would mean dangerous concentration and (b) the downs are themselves quite likely to be a battleground if the enemy lands parachute troops.

Brighton have contended that the only solution is the provision of Anderson shelter in the area between the "fire area" and the downs.  The objection to this is that Anderson shelters have gone out of production.  At the most we can raise about 7000 Andersons from stocks held by local authorities etc. and it is by no means certain that all of these ought to go to Brighton - see below.

Morrison shelters are being allocated to Brighton is fast as supplies permit.  The local authority do not regard this as a solution, however, because they do not think that householders in the outer area would be prepared to shelter their fellow townspeople inside their own houses.  As regards surface shelters the difficulty is, of course, labour.  We have suggested that a certain amount of trench digging on the downs is practicable and that there should also be scope for garden trenches.  It must be recognized, however, that at this juncture there is no possibility of carrying out in Brighton, on orthodox lines, anything in the nature of a large scale shelter scheme.

As regards invasion risks, there seems to have been a certain amount of confusion about the priorities of different classes of (illegible).  Places of military importance include:-

1.  Nodal points, which are likely to be isolated and besieged and have been fortified accordingly; category A nodal points are intended to hold out for a week and category B nodal points for two days.

2.  Defiles, which are not necessarily liable to siege, but are likely to experience heavy bombing designed to block Lines of supply and communications.

A nodal point is probably always also a defile, but a defile is not necessarily a nodal point.  Brighton is not classed either as a nodal point or as a defile by the military authorities themselves, but they have "agreed to regard it as a category A nodal point at the request of the Regional Commissioner" along with several other coastal towns.

The whole question of Civil Defence priorities as between these different classes of place is in need of clearing up and we have asked the Home Defence Executive to give us a firm assessment of their relative importance from a military point of view.  Until we have this assessment it would be unwise to consider the single case of Brighton too far or to promise them too much.

(Signed) illegible
21/10/41

[John]

BRIGHTON EMERGENCY SHELTERS

General.
The Borough Surveyor's report is an interesting document!  He still harps on the idea that the shelters are required in the event of blitz or invasion conditions, although he has been informed both the verbally and in writing that this is not the case.  He seems to base his plans on the former contingency just as much as the latter is therefore to adopt such niceties as canteens, Rest Centres, bunks etc.  This, even if finance and labour made it possible, is an entirely unnecessary extravagance when one realises that under invasion conditions it is primarily a case of shelter for by no means protracted periods and where one of the forms advocated by the Ministry has been slit trenches where no such niceties are possible.  Even in our well considered preparations for Nodal Points, of which they claimed to be one, no such provisions are allowed for.  His statement that it was not until he had complained of the lack of co-operation on the part of the railway that any progress could be made is a distinct misrepresentation of facts as it is known that he was continuously asking the railway for more and (sic) they had already stated that they were prepared to allow and it was more than the Ministry's required.  His last paragraph that the responsibility for "any further delay" occasioned will not rest with the local authority is interesting in view of the fact that he was instructed clearly, as long ago as November, to get ahead with the scheme outlined by Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and the first proposals submitted to us had not been received until the 10th February!

The item shown in your statement "work to complete programme" for 6,115 persons, amounting to £30,000 and for which the type of shelter has not yet been settled, should definitely remained untouched until the work indicated below has been completed, unless it is possible only to continue a small portion of that programme without detriment either financially or to the labour question to the works now under consideration.

In a letter dated 17.2.42. from Sir Harold Scott to Mr. Shawcross, he particularly asks

(1) that the works on the Kemp Town Tunnel should be got ahead with and that it should be confined to such work as can be completed without causing interference with the Railway Company's use of the tunnel. (There is an insinuation in paragraph 4 of the Borough Surveyor's report that the tunnel would be used for shelter prior to the arising of an emergency.)

(2) that Brighton should be discouraged from using Andersons for centering for concrete shelters on account of the difficulty of materials and that this work should be deferred indefinitely, especially as he is not yet in a position to state to what extent he can meet your demand for 750 Anderson shelters in view of the requirements of 'A' Nodal Points.

Sir Harold Scott omits all reference to surface shelters and does not presumably suppose that we are submitting any proposals for them; if and when they are they will definitely be turned down.

Turning to the various sub-heads of the report:-

Kemp Town Tunnel
They should be told definitely to get ahead with this work at once subject to the following conditions:-

Bunking should be postponed temporarily at any rate in view of the M. of H's remarks about shortage.  Their remark that the proposals are too elaborate and expensive to be justified needs further clarification.  In fact I very much doubt the necessity for bunks at all in view of the emergency conditions, under which the tunnel will be used.

Track and Lighting.
I quite agree with the M of H and the Borough Surveyor should be informed accordingly.

Ventilation.
There is no necessity for the vertical shaft suggested.  It may be assumed that occupation is not likely to be "prolonged".

D. Macfarlane
D.P.O.

25.2.42