Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary

Another landmark building set to bite the dust

Recommended Posts

I'll not say too much about the selection process (as you couldn't make it up) but I do live in the new Chapelford & Old Hall ward.

 

 

So is that how the new selection process works then? Move the councillors we have to the wards where they actually live?

 

That works :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dizzy will be pleased to know that the industrial school didn't have to be demolished to get at the chimney that needed to be taken down. Whether it's just a temporary reprieve is another matter. http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2016/02/15/council-praised-and-urged-to-preserve-historic-cabinet-works/

 

It was a bit odd as I'm in the photo and everyone else wants to save it (well, I would, but just think it's unrealistic and it's too dangerous to wait for some unlikely financial package of rescue).

Yes I'm glad it's lived to see another day...or week...or month.....or so Steve.  Like you say though possibly just be a temporary reprieve though but we will see once the details of the new planning application that's now been submitted are in the public eye.

 

Speaking about things being in the 'public eye' do you have any idea why the council wont release details of the site survey and why they say it will not have relevance to, or be included, in the new planning application or any decision made.  So much for the council being open and transparent as how can people make an informed objection either against or for a planning application when they don't know the full facts or overall condition.

 

Pretty pathetic if you ask me but hey nobody did.....

 

PS I thought you'd joined the Civic Society and had had a change of heart about the Garnets building coming down when I saw you in the photo :D  Ah well but at least you are honest about your own views and you post on here which is a lot more than can be said for other councilors who simply hide away saying nothing :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the drone survey (which was shown privately to the Civic Society) may have eventually to be in the public domain but it's for the owners to apply for consent to demolish and it's not their survey, so (I'm guessing here) for the Council to release it might be seen as prejudging an application that hasn't yet been made. Given the other possibility of court action, I think I'll leave that a guess rather than give a definitive answer from our officers and legal team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, you have already 'prejudged' the building as a 'danger to life' - without any clear evidence. 

 

And what 'possibility of court action' are you talking about?

 

I think you are right in keeping any further guesswork to yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was then, based on a ridiculously optimistic consultant's "masterplan" that (1) couldn't even get the dates of the buildings right and (2) never addressed the viability of converting the existing buildings. Contrary to the general impression on here, they told councillors what they thought they wanted to hear, that all the buildings could be saved.

 

 

Also, with regard to such 'guesswork' as above, it might be worth your while getting some coaching re 'being mindful of the laws of slander and libel'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/property/ashton-old-baths-make-splash-7359439

 

Some councils manage to save their historic buildings.

 

I am sure if it was in Warrington  would have put it on the demolish list ages ago.

 

 

Wow that's one impressive looking building both inside and out Milky.

 

 

Well, there you go - spot the difference with the Cabinet Works!   No hammerbeam roof for a start. https://twitter.com/PlaceFirstLtd/status/709431394934595585/photo/1

 

Similarity: "The building has been vandalised and allowed to deteriorate " (from one of the urban explorer sites)  NB  the baths were in control of the local council - Tameside not Manchester - but it sounds from the Evening News report that a developer acquired them and did nothing (see Manchester Fire Station as another example).

 

Difference: "The £3m project is being funded in part by Tameside council and  the English Regional Development Fund. PlaceFirst is working in  partnership with the council on a Stage 2 Heritage Lottery Funding bid."  It's a much finer building than the Cabinet Works, is listed, so got lottery funding for restoration - and that of course should be the European Regional Development Fund - so that's EU money helped save it. They are funding sources just not available for the Cabinet Works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Difference: "The £3m project is being funded in part by Tameside council and  the English Regional Development Fund. PlaceFirst is working in  partnership with the council on a Stage 2 Heritage Lottery Funding bid."  It's a much finer building than the Cabinet Works, is listed, so got lottery funding for restoration - and that of course should be the European Regional Development Fund - so that's EU money helped save it. They are funding sources just not available for the Cabinet Works.

 

So this Council is either lacking the will or the nouse to successfully apply for funding which other Councils, as you point out, prove to be available.  Lets face it £3 million is an awful lot of money, its around 10% of what is due to be pissed up the wall invested in the vanity project to house our wonderful council in its new palatial offices which befits their magnificence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there you go - spot the difference with the Cabinet Works!   No hammerbeam roof for a start. https://twitter.com/PlaceFirstLtd/status/709431394934595585/photo/1

 

Similarity: "The building has been vandalised and allowed to deteriorate " (from one of the urban explorer sites)  NB  the baths were in control of the local council - Tameside not Manchester - but it sounds from the Evening News report that a developer acquired them and did nothing (see Manchester Fire Station as another example).

 

Difference: "The £3m project is being funded in part by Tameside council and  the English Regional Development Fund. PlaceFirst is working in  partnership with the council on a Stage 2 Heritage Lottery Funding bid."  It's a much finer building than the Cabinet Works, is listed, so got lottery funding for restoration - and that of course should be the European Regional Development Fund - so that's EU money helped save it. They are funding sources just not available for the Cabinet Works.

 

So what happened to the Warrington Baths and the Grammar School Steve. Have the council just noticed the cabinet works, do you not realize it has being neglected?

 

So there is no lottery money available for the cabinet works, how much money are the council getting towards the new offices? Look upon it as regeneration of Bridge St, £3 million is only 3% of what you are spending on that, how much is the temp market building?

 

£3 million is only a couple of sets of traffic lights.

 

There have been many pointless projects in Warrington, the improvement of Manchester Rd, Kingsway traffic light, pedestrianizing of Cairo St (these are probably a few years old now but pop into my head without research).

 

Were there is a will there is usually a way.

 

Personal question Steve, which buildings in Warrington would you not like to see Bulldozed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this Council is either lacking the will or the nouse to successfully apply for funding which other Councils, as you point out, prove to be available.  Lets face it £3 million is an awful lot of money, its around 10% of what is due to be pissed up the wall invested in the vanity project to house our wonderful council in its new palatial offices which befits their magnificence

 

To be fair we don't know that because the council is compounding the issue by hiding the cost from the people paying for it, just to cement their reputation for lies and secrecy*. We can agree on £30 million for now but the cost could easily be £60 million, which would also explain the budget for the Bridge Street development leaping from £52 million to £110 million.  

 

*BTW, I notice Russ Bowden hasn't been crowing about the council's 'open culture' for some time. Not since they decided to keep quiet about the tens of millions they are spending on Broomhead House, the location of the travellers' site and whatever else we are about to find out after the elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever have the feeling that someone isn't quite listening to what you're saying?

 

I dunno. For example: what's the budget for the new council offices Steve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever have the feeling that someone isn't quite listening to what you're saying?

With this council and it's officers and councillors, all the time.

 

P.s. Listening to me is your job for which you are financially rewarded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happened to the Warrington Baths and the Grammar School Steve. Have the council just noticed the cabinet works, do you not realize it has being neglected?

 

So there is no lottery money available for the cabinet works, how much money are the council getting towards the new offices? Look upon it as regeneration of Bridge St, £3 million is only 3% of what you are spending on that, how much is the temp market building?

 

£3 million is only a couple of sets of traffic lights.

 

There have been many pointless projects in Warrington, the improvement of Manchester Rd, Kingsway traffic light, pedestrianizing of Cairo St (these are probably a few years old now but pop into my head without research).

 

Were there is a will there is usually a way.

 

Personal question Steve, which buildings in Warrington would you not like to see Bulldozed?

We do seem to be going over old ground. Baths and grammar school were not listed and therefore little chance of getting grants for restoration. I'm not quite sure how to answer the last question. The only building I'd like to see bulldozed is New Town House (and think even that could be reclad to look good).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do seem to be going over old ground. Baths and grammar school were not listed and therefore little chance of getting grants for restoration. I'm not quite sure how to answer the last question. The only building I'd like to see bulldozed is New Town House (and think even that could be reclad to look good).

 

Why not take out a loan to preserve the town's heritage? I would suggest that would be better for the town than a loan to build houses in St Helens or a loan for your own offices and the retail park you're landing in the town centre.

 

While you're here, what's the budget for the council's offices? I promise you I won't get bored of asking councillors this question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference: "The £3m project is being funded in part by Tameside council and  the English Regional Development Fund. PlaceFirst is working in  partnership with the council on a Stage 2 Heritage Lottery Funding bid."  It's a much finer building than the Cabinet Works, is listed, so got lottery funding for restoration - and that of course should be the European Regional Development Fund - so that's EU money helped save it. They are funding sources just not available for the Cabinet Works.

 

Steve, either you are deliberately trying to mislead or you are ignorant of available funding sources, neither of which is acceptable from a borough councillor. 

There are plenty of funding sources to which an application could be made to renovate the Cabinet Works.

THI - The Heritage Initiative, CARS - Conservation Area Regeneration. etc. etc. etc.

Also, Industrial Heritage regeneration is extremely popular with funders at the moment, strongly backed by European directives.

Sarah Hilton from the Heritage Lottery fund outlined the trend in reusing old industrial buildings and gave examples of where this had been done to great effect.

Funding is not the problem.  I think the problem in Warrington is that there are those who would rather work with developers rather than conservationists.

 

When the Town Centre Regeneration Project was initiated and misleadingly called 'The Bridge Street Regeneration Project', why was the renovation of the Victorian buildings in Bridge Street not included?

As it stands, it seems to me to be wasting £millions replacing a perfectly adequate car park and adequate market place and building unnecessary council offices. Also, the building of a cinema seems pretty foolhardy when for years now attendance levels countrywide have been continually falling and many cinemas elsewhere have closed down.

 

Can you please answer these questions for me;

1)  £110 million has been given as the cost of the Town Centre Project, can you please tell me where exactly this money is coming from? and if there is to be any additional funding, from private sources or other which will be additional to this sum? 

2) Can you explain why, if the total cost of the project is £110 million, WBC has sold in bonds (in effect - borrowed) £150 million?

3)  How do WBC hope to recoup the £150million and how long will it take?

4)  Is WBC loaning money to any developers re the town centre project? If so who?

5) Can you give a breakdown of costs of each building - and who will be paying for what?

6) Have businesses (please supply names)  been found to buy or rent any of the proposed buildings? Or are they just building and 'living in hope'?

and lastly 7) Exactly which Lottery Heritage funding programme have Culture Warrington applied for to get the town centre library converted into a hub?

 

Please don't give the standard 'this information is confidential' response.  For the public to ensure the laws of procurement are being properly complied with this information should be freely available.

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I'm not changing the subject onto the whole business of the "invest to save" schemes like Bridge Street where we look for a commercial return - and I did provide an answer weeks ago on the cost of the offices, from published committee papers (even if there is now some reluctance to put a firm figure on it prior to going to tender).

 

Re funding, the only Conservation Area Regeneration scheme I know about is the Scottish one. I'd had a conversation a long time ago with English Heritage re funding but understood repairing an unlisted building in private hands was not going to attract any grant. HLF schemes might offer a glimmer (especially with the relatively recent industrial heritage emphasis) but it's still in private hands and it has to be a non-profit organisation making the running. That could be a council, but resources are stretched and I wouldn't want to commit officers' time to trying to make it happen (not now). If all of you who want to save the Cabinet Works had formed a Friends of the Cabinet Works years ago, something might have been done (I might have joined). And if HLF had to choose an industrial heritage project in Warrington, then frankly I would not want to have them try and save the Cabinet Works if that meant prejudicing the chance of funding for the Transporter Bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we should have known it would be the fault of the people of the town rather than the organisation that is actually responsible. However, as I recall, questions have been asked about the site for years. 

 

As for the commercial aspects of the Bridge Street development, how much commercial return will the council's offices provide and how much would have been provided by using the space they'll take up for commercial, residential or retail use?

 

You did throw a number around about the cost of the offices, but didn't specify if it was just for construction or included fit-out and furnishing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do seem to be going over old ground. Baths and grammar school were not listed and therefore little chance of getting grants for restoration. I'm not quite sure how to answer the last question. The only building I'd like to see bulldozed is New Town House (and think even that could be reclad to look good).

 

We are going over old ground because no one has really answered the questions regarding them. In your answer you said the baths in Ashton were maintained, so now I am wondering why the buildings in Warrington were not maintained?

 

And again why was a new, inadequate facility built instead of refurbishing the old baths? The council has replaced four pools with one, were is the gala pool? The pools are forever busy with swimming lessons, aerobic lessons, woman only, family only, lane swimming in between being closed for events and schools.

 

Yet again Steve as a Councillor fails to understand that they may have not been important nationally to be listed by some London based administration.

 

It is also possible to take the cabinet works out of private hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...