Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
algy

Another building allowed to deteriorate to the point where it has had to be demolished.

Recommended Posts

Another building allowed to deteriorate to the point where it has had to be demolished.

19th century Sunday School next to Cairo Street Unitarian Chapel

The now demolished Sunday School building - viewed from above

Planners frustrated by loss of historic building

 

 

BY DAVID SKENTELBERY ON  9TH JUNE 2018 7:00 AMNEWS

PLANNING bosses have expressed their frustration at having to decide whether one of Warrington’s historic buildings should be demolished – when in fact the bulldozers had already done their work.
The borough council’s development management committee were left with no choice but approve the demolition of the 19th century Sunday School next to Cairo Street Unitarian Chapel because it had already been demolished.
Chairman Cllr Tony McCarthy said all members of the committee were frustrated.
Another of Warrington’s historic buildings had been lost – and there was nothing they could do about it.
The Sunday School building – which adjoined the former Cabinet Works and Garnett’s Tower, also already demolished – had deteriorated through years of neglect, vandalism and weather to the extent that it could not be saved.
After the meeting, Cllr McCarthy said: “We need a list of Warrington’s historic buildings, whether in public or private ownership, together with their owners so that we can do something to prevent them reaching the state that they are a health and safety hazard and beyond economic repair.
“If not, we will lose more buildings.”
Historic England had indicated it could not support the loss of the Sunday School as it added to the significance of the adjoining chapel, which dates from 1745 and is the second oldest place of worship in Warrington.
But they did not object to the demolition because of the dilapidated condition of the building.
Planning officers said the loss of the building was “highly regrettable.”A structural report had indicated the building was in a dangerous condition.

 

Unitarian-Sunday-School-aerial.jpg

The now demolished Sunday School building - viewed from above

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you hear that banging? It's the stable doors being slammed!

The borough council’s development management committee were left with no choice but approve the demolition of the 19th century Sunday School next to Cairo Street Unitarian Chapel because it had already been demolished.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clear pattern of behaviour. Developers know they can either allow buildings to decay or simply pull them down and the council will just express their regret. It would come as no surprise to discover that developers are given the nod off the record to just do as they like. I know councillors worry when the council is described as 'officer led' but it would be more accurate to describe it as 'developer led' in these cases. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing about this incident neither shocks nor surprises me what does astound me is the council don't seem to know how many listed buildings we have in the area otherwise this statement would not have been made. 

"After the meeting, Cllr McCarthy said: “We need a list of Warrington’s historic buildings, whether in public or private ownership, together with their owners so that we can do something to prevent them reaching the state that they are a health and safety hazard and beyond economic repair. “If not, we will lose more buildings.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, algy said:

Nothing about this incident neither shocks nor surprises me what does astound me is the council don't seem to know how many listed buildings we have in the area otherwise this statement would not have been made. 

"After the meeting, Cllr McCarthy said: “We need a list of Warrington’s historic buildings, whether in public or private ownership, together with their owners so that we can do something to prevent them reaching the state that they are a health and safety hazard and beyond economic repair. “If not, we will lose more buildings.”

That list exists. It's perfectly easy to find it online, including a full roster of locally listed buildings. You also have to wonder what use it would be, given that the council does absolutely nothing to protect the buildings anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wikipedia states there are 141 listed buildings in the warrington area. actually now 140 as they list the now defunct church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of any political vision or plan, financial expediency rules, with the piecemeal leadership of developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Observer II said:

In the absence of any political vision or plan, financial expediency rules, with the piecemeal leadership of developers.

I had to read that 3 times before I realised it was a sentence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asp, it isn't a sentence since there is no verb and I wouldn't like to guess who the implied subject is! It gets a message across though, even if it is a somewhat despairing one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This building was owned by Warrington & Co at the time of demolition - says it all!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it's the council tearing down its own listed buildings and applying retrospective consent? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Sunday school was a dilapidated and dangerous building.  Permission to demolish it was granted way back in 2008.  Historic England did not object to the demolition due to its state.  Since the evaluation and permission to demolish was granted the buildings condition  had degenerated further.  I don't recall any public outcry back in 2008.  Any owner of the building stood at risk of liability should anybody be harmed by falling masonry etc. As sad as it is to lose old buildings this place had become a death trap and the decision to knock it down, in my opinion, was the correct one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed, sealed and delivered, well! that's the end of that PJ.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Algy,  short of inventing a time machine and travelling back to when it was in decent nick, buying it and keeping it in good condition for the present I don't know what else could be done, unless you have a better plan :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in decent nick PJ when the council bought it off the church (the Church needed some money at the time so they sold that building).  It must have been in good condition because the council used it as offices for a some time.....and then they (council bods) moved out leaving it unused and then I guess PTS then acquired it with the other Cabinet works buildings and ALL were left to rot away or allowed to be vandalised and the council did bugger all to stop them (the owners PTS)  letting that happen.  Surely the council had powers and a duty to stop that happening...mmmm
And then once in a completely delapidated state the council do take action....and BUY it all back for a small fortune and then they give themselves permission to bulldoze it all to make way for new development that they had wanted many years ago.  Like something out of a story book don't you think ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we need a time machine to go back and make our protestations heard when the building is still in good nick,  as no one did anything at the time. If you come across one, give me a shout, I'll join you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed to me the place was ready to fall down on it's own and If kids every got in there and ended up getting injured then there'd be hell to pay. If nobody has the money to take on and maintain places like this then for me it makes more sense to demolish them rather than leaving them to become a derelict eyesores.

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 12:04 AM, Dizzy said:

It was in decent nick PJ when the council bought it off the church (the Church needed some money at the time so they sold that building).  It must have been in good condition because the council used it as offices for a some time.....and then they (council bods) moved out leaving it unused and then I guess PTS then acquired it with the other Cabinet works buildings and ALL were left to rot away or allowed to be vandalised and the council did bugger all to stop them (the owners PTS)  letting that happen.  Surely the council had powers and a duty to stop that happening...mmmm
And then once in a completely delapidated state the council do take action....and BUY it all back for a small fortune and then they give themselves permission to bulldoze it all to make way for new development that they had wanted many years ago.  Like something out of a story book don't you think ??

I think you may be confusing the Sunday School building with the industrial school, which is still there. The Council had refused permission for any redevelopment of the Cabinet Works which did not retain the tower though I became in favour of demolition several years ago as I thought the risk to the public outweighed the remote chance of any viable scheme to retain the buildings. None of the buildings was a designated "listed building" (so powers to compel the owner to do anything were limited). It was only with the vandalism and deterioration of the tower (a distinct lean at high level as the steel work of the tank corroded into the masonry) that any chance of saving it disappeared. Personally, and given the evident aesthetic doubts about the tower when it was first built (1906), I think it's not a bad thing that the town clock is now once again the most prominent feature on the skyline in the conservation area.

On the "local list", it's entirely optional for a council to maintain such a list - many councils don't because it causes confusion between a "designated heritage asset" (on the national list) and an "undesignated heritage asset" (e.g. one on a local list but it can include any building that may have local interest not worth national designation). Undesignated heritage assets have much less protection than those on the national list.  I think the only buildings on the national list that we've lost in Warrington in the last 30 years are the old villa opposite the Kings Head (next to Greenwoods), and the Bay Horse, demolished "by mistake" (at least that's what the magistrates believed when they fined the developers a mere £16,000).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fined £16k?, IMO they should have paid the demolition crew that much for ridding the town of a dump of a building. The whole of that area was a complete eyesore and dosn't look that much better now.

No building is ever going to last forever and I wouldn't expect the council to use it's limited resources trying to make it so, especially for a place that has no major significance to the town's history or so visually unattractive. The only thing that this place had going for it was the weeds growing out of the gutters, which brought a little splash of colour to an otherwise grey and depressing area.
 
 
Bill :)
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Steve P and yes I was getting the two confused again, sorry. 

I did drive past the day after seeing the post and was glad to see the other old Industrial School was still standing but sad to see the other had completely gone.  Understandable really as it had pretty much fallen down anyway but I stand by what I said re the council buying that one from the church because the church needed to raise money and couldn't afford the upkeep at the time...and the council did use it as offices ...and then they allowed it to away (presumably after selling on again when they no longer had a use or desire for it due to bigger plans??  )
I had a lovely chat with people associated with the church a while back who told me all about it and how it became to be in such a state..sad considering it;s history and how the church though they were passing it on to safeguard it.  Ahh well .....

I am of course aware of the difference between statutory listing, and local listing etc etc and it does seem slightly pointless to have a locally listed 'status' and list when really it serves as no protection at all to the buildings listed on it.  It's a shame really as these locally listed building, if safeguarded and maintained, would probably become nationally listed if time allowed and the council did more to safeguard them.  They way things are going there will soon be nothing left other than modern day new buildings which are built with a life span expectation of 30 years if that before scrapping and replacing.  Sad eh :( 

A prime example of where the 'locally listed..of importance...but we will knock it down anyway' happens was the lovely, well built and sound Edwardian Stockton Heath Primary School building dating from 1910.  But hey don't get me started on that farce again.  Safe to say the council had plans..they wanted it gone and replaced...and so it went.   <Dizzy now sits on hands to stop fingers taking over the keyboard saying what her mind is really wanting to say and takes deep calming breaths> 

I have my bet placed on the very old Packet House building (bottom of Bridge Street) being the next one to go to it's rubble grave..then after that my bet in on a few other Locally Listed which I wont name for fear of  giving the council or prospective developers ideas eek !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look k at the top of the Packet House the masonary and brickwork are already becoming unsafe.  The whole frontage seems to be deteriorating.  But there is still time to save it but it won’t save itself.  I foresee a lot of gum gnashing in the future once it’s gone by folk who sat on their hands when they could have done something.  Watch this space 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Steve Parish.  Who owns the Packet House at present?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Packet House is another eyesore that I wouldn't mind seeing go. As far as I know it was just one of the many drinking establisments that has failed and no alternative use found for the it, so why is that? Anyone care to enlighten me?


Surley the land/building has value but after such a long period of time the asking price is probabley too high. Whoever owns properties like this should be forced to at least maintain the appearance and if they can't do that then to sell it on at whatever price they can get. Leaving a property derelict in the hope that the vandals will sort it out shouldn't be allowed. 

 


Bill :)
 

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  

×