Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dizzy

Warrington Transporter Bridge (BBC news)

Recommended Posts

The council even refused permission for a mural on the Mill building which resulted in the Pink Eye.  Makes you wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfie don't forget it's Grade II* Listed too which is higher that grade II not that it seems to count for much.

English Heritage are at fault too in my opinion as they should be ensuring it's not just left to rot by persuing the owners/lease holder.  I wonder if they do actually do that once something goes on the 'At Risk'.

register. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had got rid of just 2 councillors, and please don't anyone try to justify 57 of them, say they were a husband and wife team, in the time that the council has been in stewardship of the bridge that would have saved the town 1.6 million pounds at todays rates.  Enough to make the bridge into a better state

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The council even refused permission for a mural on the Mill building which resulted in the Pink Eye.  Makes you wonder

I'm glad they did as I rather like the pink eye building and it's certainly been a talking point over the years especially because of how it came about. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we had got rid of just 2 councillors, and please don't anyone try to justify 57 of them, say they were a husband and wife team, in the time that the council has been in stewardship of the bridge that would have saved the town 1.6 million pounds at todays rates.  Enough to make the bridge into a better state

No point in looking back in the money saving respect now though PJ...we need to look forward.

  If we got rid of 4 now (4 came immediately to mind) how long would it take to save the money that's needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad they did as I rather like the pink eye building and it's certainly been a talking point over the years especially because of how it came about. 

me too but I know the artist had a much more ambitious plan which the council blocked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends which 4,  if we lose o'Neil, Carey, Hannon and Bowden, not long at all :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more the merrier in my opinion !! 

I wonder where Clr Parish has gone as I've still not had any answers to my questions.  Hopefully his absence means he's still trying to find out rather than he's gone awol with the heat being turned up a little :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beyond shocked at that response. I always suspected WBC didn't care about the town's history and heritage but it's absolutely shocking to see it confirmed so brazenly. An elected representative willing to commit that attitude to writing in a public space?? 

 

Let's get that screen grabbed (in case the Councillor regrets what he's said and deletes his comments) and in the local press. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where Clr Parish has gone as I've still not had any answers to my questions.  

 

He came, he saw, he scarpered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He came, he read, he scarpered.

I noticed that he was here too..... probably gone to get advice on how to proceed from the party Schutzhaftlagerfuhrer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would I go about getting access to the bridge to photograph it?  Probably can't but worth a try, photos may be all we end up with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Sid but the BBC filmed from outside the fence from the animal welfare place.  I was hoping to get up close

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Baz, I have seen those and love them but I would still like to get in to photograph it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will ask about the terms of the lease, and the chances of external funding, but I resent the nonsense that my reply was "callous", a "disgrace" or in any way showed a disregard for the town's heritage (especially from those unwilling to answer my simple question about how much of your money you want your council to throw at it). In just one case, I've spent time researching the history of a Victorian terrace (not listed) that's under threat, trying to retain it. But I'm a realist, and frankly it's easier to get heritage funding when repairs become urgent (i.e. you can get funding to prevent its loss but not to maintain it in the first place).

 

The Council's policy is "to recognise the significance and value of historic assets by identifying their positive influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place; their ability to contribute to economic activity and act as a catalyst for regeneration; and their ability to inspire the design of new development". That's the policy but I see no way that the bridge "could contribute to economic activity and act as a catalyst for regeneration", which means millions would be spent to conserve it merely for its own sake (and then to maintain it at an annual cost to the good citizens of Warrington). All suggestions for some use that will not make it forever a burden to us will be gratefully received. Just keep it real.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council that you represent have a history of callous disregard for the towns history and despite you resenting it being pointed out, callous and disgraceful is how your reply read.  You cannot say in any certainty that the bridge could not ever contribute to economic activity nor can you say for certain that it can never act as a catalyst for regeneration.  You and your predecessors haven't tried, the bridge has simply been left to rot for decades under your stewardship.  Why, if all you wanted was to destroy it, did the Council take on such a thing? You clearly aren't up to the task.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Steve Parish to a point although it is strange that the council would want to lease a bridge that has no purpose? However pressure should be put on the owners to restore it,

 

Good point and you'd think they'd have been pushing the council to do to something about it too over th years.  Maybe they should demand the lease back off the council seeing as though WBC took it on and the responsibility to preserve it in 1977 and looks what's happened !!  It would be interesting to see just twat clauses are in the lease but I guess they may not be willing to say.

The lease expires in 2027 though so I wonder what will happen then.  Will just be renewed or will WBC will wipe their hands of it too as it's too much trouble.

Mmm just a though but I wonder what Andy Farrel meant when he said, and I quote, "The issue is that we really need to undertake the wider regeneration of the area to bring it [the bridge] out in it's true glory" .  How can they be waiting to regenerate the area and what regeneration could they do anyway with Levers/Crosfields/Unilever/Ineos (are they all the same company now?) still on the land that surrounds the transporter.

All very strange.............

 

Lever Brothers and, Crosfields are part of Unilever (a company with a €50 billion turnover), Ineos is separate, privately owned by a Canadian guy.

 

I think the other two transporter bridges in  Britain have similar protection but this hasn't stopped their repair and upkeep being performed

 

 the other two are in use according to the web?

 

How come the Warrington Bridges stopped being used and why has this one surveyed while the other two doid not, anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The council that you represent have a history of callous disregard for the towns history and despite you resenting it being pointed out, callous and disgraceful is how your reply read.  You cannot say in any certainty that the bridge could not ever contribute to economic activity nor can you say for certain that it can never act as a catalyst for regeneration.  You and your predecessors haven't tried, the bridge has simply been left to rot for decades under your stewardship.  Why, if all you wanted was to destroy it, did the Council take on such a thing? You clearly aren't up to the task.

Sorry folks, but once again serious debate descends into abuse - I said I couldn't see a way the bridge could be of use, and while I'm not certain it seems PJ can't think of a way either. So I've given on this thread; I'll engage instead with the group trying to save the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come the Warrington Bridges stopped being used and why has this one surveyed while the other two doid not, anyone know?

The first one was further and on the the bend of the river and was built around 1905 Coffee.  That one was used for light goods and passenger transport to the site on the south side of the river.  It soon became evident that it was too small so the existing much larger one was built in 1914 further down and opened in 1915.  The current one carried rail vehicles at first and according to google 'up to  a weight of 18 tons and was converted for road vehicles in 1940.Then In 1953 it was modified to carry loads up to 30 tons'

 

I've got a couple of old photo's of the two somewhere so will upload them later if I can find them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Parish

 

I'm sad to see that you "can't see any way in which the bridge could be of use".  My ideal future for it would be similar to Newport's with the added benefit for Warrington in that is the only rail transporter bridge in the world and would, therefore, draw rail enthusiasts as well as other visitors, such as those with an interest in industrial heritage, school and college groups and folk like me that just have a wide-ranging interest in our past.  Incidentally I live in the far west of Cornwall and would love to be able to visit a working rail transport bridge.  I've been to the Middlesbrough one and plan to see the Newport one on a trip to South Wales next spring.  I'd also be please to donate some money to a fund to help to restore it, as I'm sure many folk would.  

 

The facebook page that has been set up seems to be growing in momentum.  I only liked it less than a month ago when my like made it 26...it's now over 500 and growing.

 

A good opportunity for fundraising would be doing something to celebrate the centenary of its opening next year - or the centenary of its completion, which would be this year.

 

I also have to say that I was rather taken aback when I contacted WBC to ask if it had any plans for the centenary.  The council's reply was to direct me to Halton Borough Council for the Widnes/Runcorn Transporter Bridge!  Funny, but pretty poor show!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will ask about the terms of the lease, and the chances of external funding, but I resent the nonsense that my reply was "callous", a "disgrace" or in any way showed a disregard for the town's heritage (especially from those unwilling to answer my simple question about how much of your money you want your council to throw at it). In just one case, I've spent time researching the history of a Victorian terrace (not listed) that's under threat, trying to retain it. But I'm a realist, and frankly it's easier to get heritage funding when repairs become urgent (i.e. you can get funding to prevent its loss but not to maintain it in the first place).

Thanks re the lease and when you are asking about external funding can you also ask if the council (or anyone else) has ever put in for any in the past too.  Re the backlash you got after your comments they did come across that you couldn't care less and that the bridge was a burdon and of no importance at all.  I did actually reply re the money by the way.

 

It does seem a bit daft if heritage funding is only available to prevent loss but as it's been on the At Risk register for a long time now then presumably with it having so much importance in EH's eyes then funding should be available.  Marvelous.

 

The Council's policy is "to recognise the significance and value of historic assets by identifying their positive influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place; their ability to contribute to economic activity and act as a catalyst for regeneration; and their ability to inspire the design of new development".

That's the policy but I see no way that the bridge "could contribute to economic activity and act as a catalyst for regeneration", which means millions would be spent to conserve it merely for its own sake (and then to maintain it at an annual cost to the good citizens of Warrington). All suggestions for some use that will not make it forever a burden to us will be gratefully received. Just keep it real.

But the council also have a responsibility and duty to PROTECT listed buildings and isn't it also set out as a legal requirement in some Act or other?  Just because the council feel that something isn;t in the right place now or is of no use to their vision and regeneration schemes doesn't mean it then becomes less important and can just be disgarded on their say so. Listing status doesn't work like that !!

 

Surely as this one is also in their ownership (well by way of a lease) they should have been sending themselves warning letters that the Grade II* building, or structure in this case, is falling into a state of disrepair and now classed as 'At Risk'.  Have they received any letters of themselves yet ? :lol::wink:    

 

Also where buildings/structures are Grade II* or Grade I* English Heritage say councils sometimes have "an amount of money available for works to buildings of architectural or historic interest. It is advisable to contact your local authority as to whether grant is available".  Obviously if WBC do have a pot for that there wouldn't be enough in it to cover the transporter bridge but I'd be interested to know if they do have a funding pot for grants like that and if so how much is in it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×