Dizzy Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 Now I'm not sure but I reckon they're building two houses there instead? Or have you approved more than two? The original planning application was to convert the existing Ship Inn into 2 x 3 bedroom homes, the new application is for the building of 2 x new 4 bedroom homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Dizzy, The police have been called umpteen times. Despite CCTV, a good pic of two culprits, the helicopter, and dogs, no-one's been arrested. They want it down as do the fire service. Now this will annoy the conspiracy theorists but we're not saying where the immediate dangers are in case it attracts the vandals. The old industrial school is the one "that seems in quite good condition" but the operative word is "seems" as I'm told it's a wreck inside - a pity as for me it is the most interesting building on the site (with a bit of a mystery over the date on the plaque on the chimney stack - which might just be the date they built the chimney...) Quote Steve; "amid all the conspiracy theories" Maybe the two lads were James Bond and Superman, it is a bit worrying that all these resources were put in and they could not catch two lads. Have their photos ever been published? This building also has a frontage on Barbauld Street, where the access for demolition is much better than that in Cairo Street. The Industrial School building could be left standing. Very true, there seems to be an entrance to the factory between the restaurant and the building in Barbauld St. It seems obvious that the building that will be demolished is the one facing Cairo St M Meanwhile it has been quite windy over the last week or so, what has fell down during this period?. These two lads must have had some throwing ability, how exactly can debris be dropped on cars in the street from the tower? Anyone seen this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rf02jhVNtY&feature=youtu.be Amazing view of the Cabinet Works and the town. The cabinet Works is so much larger then I thought? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hill Cliffe walker Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Now here is one for all of you - supposing that WBC wanted to demolish the Parr Hall !! Now, there's a thought - a spanking new multi-purpose concert hall and theatre could be built on this very site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Maybe the two lads were James Bond and Superman, it is a bit worrying that all these resources were put in and they could not catch two lads. Have their photos ever been published? YES These two lads must have had some throwing ability, how exactly can debris be dropped on cars in the street from the tower? Dropped from the Barbauld Street works Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Steve While you're here, I see that Walton Parish Council also appear to be conspiracy theorists when it comes to the sudden collapse of historic buildings on sites where a four bedroomed detached house will probably be worth over £500,000. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Now here is one for all of you - supposing that WBC wanted to demolish the Parr Hall !! Now, there's a thought - a spanking new multi-purpose concert hall and theatre could be built on this very site. By "this very site" I assume you mean the Cabinet Works. If there was any remote chance that it was commercially a goer, that would be brilliant (though not sure where that would leave the finances of the Parr Hall). But there would be no council subsidy and even established regional theatres are struggling - e.g. at Coventry, with 50% more people than Warrington, and only one major city nearby with rival theatres (we have two) http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/belgrade-theatre-could-forced-replace-10313191 Does the Brindley pay its way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Chester's deliberations: http://connect.cheshirewestandchester.public-i.tv/document/20101103_ex_item9.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Steve While you're here, I see that Walton Parish Council also appear to be conspiracy theorists when it comes to the sudden collapse of historic buildings on sites where a four bedroomed detached house will probably be worth over £500,000. If you mean that with no evidence the parish council publicly accuse the developer of 'professional disregard' for the Ship Inn, then maybe they've just been spending too much time on here. For the record, the developer says, “The ‘soft strip out’ works being undertaken at the time of the collapse were the second stage of the structural assessment, which would only have been possible when the internal walls / ceilings and lintels were exposed for inspection. Unfortunately circumstances have now moved on. In terms of the collapse of the original building, as I have explained previously, all investigations suggest that the collapse commenced with one of the chimneys, which then fell through the upper ceilings/lower floors/roof of the single storey lean-to, causing the front elevation to be ‘blown out’ into the nearside carriageway of Chester Road. Following the initial collapse, the precarious condition of the remaining sections of the building and its immediate proximity to the main road /footpath, the remainder of the building had to be demolished due to the obvious health and safety risks. As you know this had to be done within 2 hours of the initial collapse. Unfortunately, as the building was no longer available for inspection, it has not been possible to pinpoint the precise mechanism for the original collapse, but it has been suggested that the following may have been contributory factors: • The age of the building; • Deterioration of the historical construction materials; • The extent of previous internal adaptations carried out when the building was a restaurant; • Traffic vibration [from main road and construction traffic]; • Changes in the integrity of internal walls during soft strip out works. Hopefully this planning application package goes some way to demonstrate that the collapse of the building was by no means intentional and shows our commitment to try and re-establish the character of the site frontage in a sympathetic way. The proposals aim to replicate the historical architecture and character of the original Ship Inn.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why would anybody be interested in what the developer says? Even they admit there is no evidence why the building collapsed. And why? Because they destroyed it. By the way, if you agree they are right in suggesting that road traffic vibrations were partially responsible for the collapse, why are you allowing them to build near the road? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Now here is one for all of you - supposing that WBC wanted to demolish the Parr Hall !! Now, there's a thought - a spanking new multi-purpose concert hall and theatre could be built on this very site. I am very much against demolition!!! It is environmentally damaging and it robs future generations of history. Where were the photos published out of interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 In terms of the collapse of the original building, as I have explained previously, all investigations suggest that the collapse commenced with one of the chimneys, which then fell through the upper ceilings/lower floors/roof of the single storey lean-to, causing the front elevation to be ‘blown out’ into the nearside carriageway of Chester Road. I think they are going to film a new set of Carry ON films, maybe they can have one entitled Carry on Building and use this as a script. These accidents seem quite common Following the initial collapse, the precarious condition of the remaining sections of the building and its immediate proximity to the main road /footpath, the remainder of the building had to be demolished due to the obvious health and safety risks. As you know this had to be done within 2 hours of the initial collapse Just like the cabinet works there was a rush to demolish, why did the building need to be demolished within two hours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why would anybody be interested in what the developer says? Even they admit there is no evidence why the building collapsed. And why? Because they destroyed it. By the way, if you agree they are right in suggesting that road traffic vibrations were partially responsible for the collapse, why are you allowing them to build near the road? Modern foundations are better, and designed for 44-ton lorries going past. And back on topic, no-one knows how deep the foundations of the Garnett tower go, or don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Modern foundations are better, and designed for 44-ton lorries going past. And back on topic, no-one knows how deep the foundations of the Garnett tower go, or don't. Are they??? I am not sure what your point is? The tower has stood for a hundred years for decades without maintenance, seems to be reasonably well built and no 44 ton lorry has ever gone past it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 The point is that structural strengthening would be needed for the tower if free-standing, so effectively a steel skeleton might need to be built within it (in a nine-foot wide space). It looks like two sides of the tower replaced a corner of the original 1860s works, and (in the absence of plans) it may rest on the foundations of a building half the height. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_On_The_Green Now this is a Victorian factory obviously with saving - and NB the original collapsed, so I'd not be confident that they got things right in that era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Steve.... why don't you just admit that you lot in the council have no interest whatsoever in saving any of the historic buildings within the town and get it over with. Your posts on here all seem to side with the developers/builders, you have no imagination when it comes to finding a use for the cabinet works - all of it, not just a token bit of the tower while a developer gets to make millions building on the site. Everything you seem to say entails putting obstacles in the way; "no-one knows how deep the foundations of the Garnett tower go, or don't".... have you never watched Time Team? Ground penetrating radar will tell you how far the foundations go for a start.... let's just face it, your attitude says to me and many others, "why bother wasting money trying to save the cabinet works when you can have a tower (unless it happens to fall over or if it burns down) and another new shopping centre or even a car park if you're lucky" Thank god Shakespeares house isn't in Warrington, that would have fell down years ago..... and that Stonehenge thing, its just a pile of stones that would make good hard core for a car park 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Modern foundations are better, and designed for 44-ton lorries going past. And back on topic, no-one knows how deep the foundations of the Garnett tower go, or don't. In which case every single building anywhere near a road built before (let's say) the 1970s is at risk of imminent collapse. Is that what you're saying? What baffles me Steve is why you are so quick to side with the justifications of a developer who has just literally torn down one of the town's historic buildings and another that has allowed another heritage building rot. Even the Walton developer admits there's no evidence for his version of events and yet here you are suggesting it's Walton Parish Council that are making things up. I'll say it again, if I were a developer I'd just conclude that I could do whatever the hell I wanted in the town and the elected so-called representatives of the town's people would go on the attack on my behalf the moment anybody had any problems with it. Here's a couple of questions for you. What is the evidence that the explanation for the collapse of The Ship Inn is correct? (Clue: we already know the answer to this one). Why hasn't Andy Farrall enforced his own notice on the owners of The Cabinet Works? Before you refuse to answer, please remember WBC is completely open and transparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Even if the foundations are shallow the only way is not to build a steel skeleton, you can drive pylons into the ground or you can support the building while concrete is poured. But it has stood for over a hundred years, many of these neglected, not surprisingly it is showing signs of ware, but are there any cracks in the brick work, any parting, suggest the foundations are not so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Grey_man, this is getting silly. The developer suggested that traffic - or other things - "may have been contributory factors". You say in that case why allow new build in the same location. I say modern foundations are better. And you respond, "In which case every single building anywhere near a road built before (let's say) the 1970s is at risk of imminent collapse. Is that what you're saying?" No of course it isn't - that's a crazy jump in logic. But if a building next to a busy road collapses, people can blame the traffic. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/darwen/8184556.display/ Technically, road vibrations should not cause structural damage (unless there's some fault in the building already): http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/47/ian.htm I think this quote is a combination of science and speculation but: "Ground-borne vibrations caused by HGVs have been measured at less than 0.5mm/s at a 15m distance with good road surface conditions, however figures as high as 7 times that level have been reported at closer distances. It would appear somewhat unlikely that road vehicle generated vibration will cause significant damage. However, size and weight, speed of vehicle and quality of road surface all play a part, and frequency of traffic over extended time may also change the conclusions. in fact, buildings close to heavily trafficked roads may be exposed to many thousands of stress cycles each day so the vibration dose over many years could be considerable." http://www.captiondata.com/can-traffic-induced-vibration-damage-buildings/ Try also http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/d46.pdf You ask a question that can't be answered, "What is the evidence that the explanation for the collapse of The Ship Inn is correct?", because there is no explanation. "It has not been possible to pinpoint the precise mechanism for the original collapse." They've described what happened but can only guess at the cause. That does not justify the parish council's accusation of "professional disregard" by the developer. It's not like the Bay Horse, a deliberate act and a criminal offence. Nor am I seeking to side with the developers who bought the cabinet works as a speculative venture. Whether they or previous owners could have done more to protect it, and whether it would have been possible to enforce repairs on an unlisted building (not as easy as some think) are arguments to be had, but it doesn't help the present situation. Unless it was done some years ago, I doubt that GPR was done when it was last assessed (by PTS's appointed engineer) but I'll check, and, as previously indicated, no engineer has been in for a full survey in a long while. By and large, developers are willing (as with the Ship) to retain heritage assets. There have been a couple of recent appeals where non-designated heritage assets have been refused demolition, but I'm not sure whether they're the norm. See http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/locally-listed-buildings.html for one consultant's view of how little protection a "local list" gives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 By and large, developers are willing (as with the Ship) to retain heritage assets. Well they are going to say that aren't they? otherwise planning would usually be thrown out at stage 1 of the process Its like looking online to buy a TV.... everywhere you look they are £500.... and then you see a site offering them at £300, so you go to that site only to find they are out of stock. Did they ever have any? Did they ever sell any for £300? Will they still be £300 if they ever come back into stock? Probably not... it's just a game to get you to their site where hopefully you'll buy something else. Smoke and mirrors, con job, call it what you will..... but they may well win over in the end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Grey_man, this is getting silly. The developer suggested that traffic - or other things - "may have been contributory factors". You say in that case why allow new build in the same location. I say modern foundations are better. And you respond, "In which case every single building anywhere near a road built before (let's say) the 1970s is at risk of imminent collapse. Is that what you're saying?" No of course it isn't - that's a crazy jump in logic. But if a building next to a busy road collapses, people can blame the traffic. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/darwen/8184556.display/ Technically, road vibrations should not cause structural damage (unless there's some fault in the building already): http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/47/ian.htm I think this quote is a combination of science and speculation but: "Ground-borne vibrations caused by HGVs have been measured at less than 0.5mm/s at a 15m distance with good road surface conditions, however figures as high as 7 times that level have been reported at closer distances. It would appear somewhat unlikely that road vehicle generated vibration will cause significant damage. However, size and weight, speed of vehicle and quality of road surface all play a part, and frequency of traffic over extended time may also change the conclusions. in fact, buildings close to heavily trafficked roads may be exposed to many thousands of stress cycles each day so the vibration dose over many years could be considerable." http://www.captiondata.com/can-traffic-induced-vibration-damage-buildings/ Try also http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/d46.pdf You ask a question that can't be answered, "What is the evidence that the explanation for the collapse of The Ship Inn is correct?", because there is no explanation. "It has not been possible to pinpoint the precise mechanism for the original collapse." They've described what happened but can only guess at the cause. That does not justify the parish council's accusation of "professional disregard" by the developer. It's not like the Bay Horse, a deliberate act and a criminal offence. Nor am I seeking to side with the developers who bought the cabinet works as a speculative venture. Whether they or previous owners could have done more to protect it, and whether it would have been possible to enforce repairs on an unlisted building (not as easy as some think) are arguments to be had, but it doesn't help the present situation. Unless it was done some years ago, I doubt that GPR was done when it was last assessed (by PTS's appointed engineer) but I'll check, and, as previously indicated, no engineer has been in for a full survey in a long while. By and large, developers are willing (as with the Ship) to retain heritage assets. There have been a couple of recent appeals where non-designated heritage assets have been refused demolition, but I'm not sure whether they're the norm. See http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/locally-listed-buildings.html for one consultant's view of how little protection a "local list" gives. It got silly the moment you started calling 'conspiracy theory'. I posed that unanswerable question precisely because it is unanswerable. One thing I do know is that if I asked a builder to refurbish a previously sound building and they ended up demolishing it, I would be asking some rather more serious questions than the council is. It would go legal very quickly. You're supposed to protect the bloody heritage of the town, not shrug. I'd also suggest that if a resident decided to tear down a building the council had told them they needed to preserve as part of the town's heritage, they would not be allowed to say that its collapse was probably because of nearby traffic. It's only developers who get cut this slack and it's only developers who get councillors making their case for them. In this case, when you say 'it's not a deliberate act, a criminal offence', you just don't know. Do you? You're quite happy to accuse other people of making stuff up, but you're doing exactly the same thing. It strikes me the Parish Council has as much evidence to support their position as you have yours. Perhaps more so if you follow the money. As for The Cabinet Works, you again attempt to shrug off the council's role in failing to enforce its own notices on the owner. You may not be able to do anything in this particular case, but you can certainly ask why the council has allowed this situation to develop so that it doesn't happen again. Either Andy Farrall has turned a blind eye to what has happened or he's managed it incompetently. Either way, the council continues to fail as an organisation, not least because councillors refuse to ask awkward questions of both developers and council staff. This is why the town needs a civic society and why it has always needed to residents to do things the council should be doing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I In this case, when you say 'it's not a deliberate act, a criminal offence', you just don't know. Do you? It strikes me the Parish Council has as much evidence to support their position as you have yours. Well, I don't know if you're a burglar but I'm not going to accuse you without evidence. The parish council has no evidence. There is no evidence of the developer not wanting to preserve the Ship Inn (but some evidence to the contrary - because that's what they applied to do rather than seek demolition), no evidence of prior warning of collapse. In fact, you've got nothing. I'd advise Gary to consult his lawyers on corporate defamation. For an out of town example of what happens to old buildings which developers intend to retain, here's my photo of an old pub in Manchester. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/129484 Urban Splash planned to use it as a central feature of New Islington, but it was burned down. Nothing "suspicious" behind the arson itself; it happens to empty buildings (the Howley pub survived an arson attack). "Convenient fires" may give rise to suspicions - it's reckoned somewhere between 10 and 20% of fires in the UK are insurance fraud - but evidence and successful prosecution is something else, and evidence-less accusations can lead to defamation cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I haven't defamed anybody though Steve. You're just looking increasingly desperate in making yet more nonsense up. Frankly, I've always defended you for having the courage of your convictions and arguing your case but this is just pathetic. The Parish Council has as much evidence as you do. None. Yet here you are asserting your view as the only possible truth and anybody who disagrees is subject to legal action. The truth is that the council routinely fails the town's heritage. Commercial companies will be commercial companies but you're supposed to have broader objectives for the town. Yet this kind of thing happens all the time which is why nobody trusts the organisation. I just wish that councillors remembered more frequently who it is they're supposed to represent. On this subject you're coming across as a spokesman for the developer. As for 'evidence', then there is a pile of rubble where a building used to be. Either this has come about by accident or not, but something happened which shouldn't have. So your comparison with accusing me of something that never happened in the first place is just bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hill Cliffe walker Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 PLANNING chiefs at Warrington have given the go-ahead for a pair of semi-detached houses on the site of the old Ship Inn at Walton – despite strong opposition from local people. http://www.warringto...toric-pub-site/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Yet this kind of thing happens all the time .... Oh no it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 The problem is Steve you come across as the chief cheerleader for the developers, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in excuses for them. Let use start with the Ship Inn, they haven't any idea how it could happen so you come up with excuses for them. The developers were guilty of the very minimum of negligence, the building should have been thoroughly inspected before hand, chimneys do not just collapse. They had a responsibility to their workers and public to ensure the building was safe. Even if it were true that the chimney fell, hitting a outbuilding buckling the front, why could the front not be rebuilt? The developers are hardly going to say we demolished it on purpose because we can make more money from new builds. Cabinet Works. I was involved with the Ancoats Preservation Trust when the old mills were still derelict and the developers were desperate to pull them down. True, they were in poor state, for many years they had huge machinery shacking the building, then years of dereliction, many were buckling out and in danger if falling over. Emergency measures had to be taken to tie the buildings and support them to stop them falling over (so they were in worse state then the Cabinet Works). The council compulsory purchased them and a £12 million pound grant was made to save them, suddenly the developers all wanted to save the buildings. Why can a rich council like Warrington not do something similar? I will see if I can get some before and after pics of Ancoats. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.