Daresbury Hall, fire.

[Sha]

Another Grade 11* heritage building hit by fire!

This goes on all over the country but in districts where the owners are forced to restore rather than demolish it happens rarely.

I've heard there were initially 11 fire engines and that the fire services are still working on it today.  Who pays these costs? 

 

Daresbury Hall is a beautiful building and one that is well loved locally. I'm sure there will be exceptionally keen interest in how this matter is dealt with.

 

 

[P J]

Another Grade 11* heritage building hit by fire!

This goes on all over the country but in districts where the owners are forced to restore rather than demolish it happens rarely.

I've heard there were initially 11 fire engines and that the fire services are still working on it today.  Who pays these costs? 

 

Daresbury Hall is a beautiful building and one that is well loved locally. I'm sure there will be exceptionally keen interest in how this matter is dealt with.

 

I think the fire service are paid for whether they are sat watching the Euros or putting out a fire to be fair.

[Sha]

'On call' rates will be substantially lower than actual attendance. 11 fire engines employed on one site would mean less available for accidental fires elsewhere. Other areas would possibly have to rely on fire services from further afield and the extra time for fire engines to reach them could be the difference between life and death.

[P J]

are you suggesting they should just let it burn?

[Dizzy]

Another Grade 11* heritage building hit by fire!

Yep How many is that now but i suppose it's not surprising when owners/developers are allowed to just leave then to rot not to mention leaving them

completely unsecure. There were so many access points anyone could get in to the grounds and no doubt the building too going from all the internal photo's

people have posted in the internet over the past few years

 

 

This goes on all over the country but in districts where the owners are forced to restore rather than demolish it happens rarely.

That doesn't make sense to me as I'd have thought there would be more 'accidental' fires where owners are FORCED to restore. I don't get it....

 

 

I've heard there were initially 11 fire engines and that the fire services are still working on it today.  Who pays these costs?

How many fire engines do you think should have been sent ? I'm not surprised there were 11...have you seen the aerial photo's taken today by Chris Digata that have been added to the news story Sha ?  The whole inside of the building is gutted, roof gone...it's a right mess.  It was clearly a HUGE fire. 

 

Well done to the fire brigade for getting it under control and their job and access must have been hampered as round the back is all completely overgrown and surrounded by trees not to mention adjoining buildings

 

I went up today and briefly spoke to a couple of them who were on duty there. I saw the side which faces the road and it wasn't good, you could see all the inside had gone.

They said it's really bad and it will probably have to all come down because as part of the back had all collapsed    

 

Daresbury Hall is a beautiful building and one that is well loved locally. I'm sure there will be exceptionally keen interest in how this matter is dealt with.

Well it's definately not a beautiful building now

 

Sha if you have time later have a look through the planning applications for it on Halton Councils website.  I think the last one was approved in December but there are others before that too.

I only had time for a very brief look but seems The Hall was supposed to be restored/refurbished as part of the approval to build the other homes on the land and conversion of other existing older buildings. 

 

Some of the existing more modern additions on the site were to be demolished but one thing I did notice was a statement that said the profit from the sale of the new proposed dwellings would NOT be enough to cover restoration of the Hall. 

[Sha]

are you suggesting they should just let it burn?

 

PJ, from my first post you know exactly what my stance is. I am particularly fond of that building and am really angry to see harm done to it - so if you are trying to wind me up, be prepared for the consequences.

 

I am sick and b***** tired of seeing of seeing our beautiful heritage destroyed whilst the 'authorities' just seem to allow it to continue.

How many of our lovely buildings have gone up in smoke and then provided their owners with easy development opportunities? 

As I said earlier other districts 'authorities' have better ways of dealing with such issues.

In Warrington how many buildings that have been destroyed have the owners been forced to rebuild like for like?  In the districts where this is common policy they do not have regular arson attacks or 'accidental' fires.

Owners should be made to pay for being negligent and not protecting and preserving these buildings.

Recently Mr Smith's and the Ship Inn have been lost. Both these buildings could have been restored.

Instead of allowing demolition our 'authorities' should have made them firstly, make the building safe (without demolition) and secondly make them renovate, like for like, at whatever financial cost to the owners. 

The cost of fire services and highways closure of roads, building inspectors attendance etc. etc. is most likely coming out of the public purse, which is another reason there should be a tougher stance to reduce these incidents.

[P J]

so why are you complaining about the Fire Brigades efforts to save it? Using the scare story that lives are endangered because the fire brigade attended this fire is counter productive to your professed yearning to save the building and quite frankly a slur on the professionality and planning abilities of our fire service.   If it was an accidental fire then that is plain bad luck.  If it was arson then maybe we should make arson illegal

 

I would love to see owners forced to reinstate burned buildings, have even commented so in the past. Your critical approach to the brigade is unhelpful

[Sha]

so why are you complaining about the Fire Brigades efforts to save it? Using the scare story that lives are endangered because the fire brigade attended this fire is counter productive to your professed yearning to save the building and quite frankly a slur on the professionality and planning abilities of our fire service.   If it was an accidental fire then that is plain bad luck.  If it was arson then maybe we should make arson illegal

 

I would love to see owners forced to reinstate burned buildings, have even commented so in the past. Your critical approach to the brigade is unhelpful

 

Firstly PJ, I had not criticised the fire service in my earlier posts. The criticism was directed at the owners whose negligence either in not ensuring the building was safe from accidental fire or secure enough to be safe from arson led to the need for the fire services. Also, I was criticising the authorities for not in the past having had a firmer stance with owners of buildings, which might have prevented further such fires and thus the need for fire services. 

 

However, Diz has since posted re the fire services;

......................I went up today and briefly spoke to a couple of them who were on duty there. I saw the side which faces the road and it wasn't good, you could see all the inside had gone.

They said it's really bad and it will probably have to all come down because as part of the back had all collapsed    

 

 

Whilst I respect these men for their skills in putting out fires, I don't presume that either of them are fully qualified building surveyors and worry that if once they have themselves formed this unqualified opinion they might not be so inclined to 'go gently' in doing their work and be extremely careful to prevent further damage to the building.

 

Demolition of any part of that building could not be carried out prior to an inspection by Halton Council's building inspector, who could not authorise anything but the 'absolute minimum to ensure public safety'.  As the building is nowhere near public access routes for public safety to be an issue authorising any demolition would be unnecessary.

I think it unlikely that knowing how keenly concerned Historic England is at present about the current number of fires in heritage buildings in the North West that any building inspector will want to give an opinion prior to consultation with Historic England's representative.

[P J]

 

I've heard there were initially 11 fire engines and that the fire services are still working on it today.  Who pays these costs? 

 

 

 

 

'On call' rates will be substantially lower than actual attendance. 11 fire engines employed on one site would mean less available for accidental fires elsewhere. Other areas would possibly have to rely on fire services from further afield and the extra time for fire engines to reach them could be the difference between life and death.

 

 

Firstly PJ, I had not criticised the fire service in my earlier posts. 

 

 

  Well yes you did, you implied that by attending and putting out this fire the Fire services had somehow endangered the lives of people , you actually said it could be the difference between life and death.  You started off moaning about the cost of the brigade attending the fire, when that was poopooed you went all emotive claiming that putting out the fire at the Hall could cost lives elsewhere.  Do you genuinely think the fire brigade do not give priority to life and death situations and plan so?  

[Milky]

While lives could have been in danger had something else occurred, lives were in danger because fire fighters had to tackle the fire putting them in danger.

 

However, Diz has since posted re the fire services;

Whilst I respect these men for their skills in putting out fires, I don't presume that either of them are fully qualified building surveyors and worry that if once they have themselves formed this unqualified opinion they might not be so inclined to 'go gently' in doing their work and be extremely careful to prevent further damage to the building.

 

 

The fire brigades  work is not just fire fighting but assessing and making safe buildings and rescue from buildings that have collapsed during and after fires, storms and accidents, I think they are qualified to give opinions on the state of buildings.

 

Did darsberry Hall come under under Warrington authority?

 

It is interesting that councils allow such buildings to remain unrepaired and unsecured, but as soon as someone wants to restore them their busy body departments come alive and make it hard and very expensive.

[Dizzy]

Daresbury Hall and it's grounds comes under Halton Council now Milky.  Only just though and it's only about 800 meters from the Warrington boundary.
The Hall always used to be in Warrington though, and for over 200 years,  until the borough boundaries were changed in the 70's.

[Dizzy]

Front page news story just put on.......... ARSON !   

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2016/06/27/daresbury-hall-blaze-was-arson-say-police/

[Sha]

And here's some additional information!



Just one week ago, on 19th June at 21.08pm, Fire fighters attended Daresbury Hall to put out a fire consisting of piles of rubbish inside the building.

Two fire engines attended, one from Stockton Heath and one from Warrington. A thermal imaging camera was also used at this event.



Not long ago police found a massive cannabis growing operation inside Daresbury Hall. Wouldn't one have thought that they and Halton Council would have ensured that the building was made secure to prevent further crime there?

Then after the fire on 19th June, wouldn't one have thought that Halton Council would have forced the owner to secure the building?

This week another fire which has caused massive damage to this beautiful grade 11* building and resulted in massive costs for the attendance of the fire services, which will be paid for out of the public purse.

All this damage and the resulting costs could have been prevented!

 

[Dizzy]

Two fires within a week is very sus indeed.  I agree it SHOULD have been secured better to stop people gaining entry all the time. 
If owners can't be bothered to even secure them and councils, Historic England/Eng Heritage don't force them to take action then what hope is there.

Historic England are apparently going down tomorrow to see the building Sha and to offer advice to Halton Council.   Bit late now though for any advice or action from anyone.

I wonder how the owner is feeling.  Has he issued any statement as I've not seen one anywhere or even mention of him.  Would it have been insured?  I can't imagine it would have been with it being empty, not secure and on the 'At Risk' register too.

Fancy paying just over £2.1 million for it all (Hall, other buildings and all the land) in October 2006, doing some work on it then just leaving it to decay and open to intruders.  Saying that all the land on it's own must be worth more than anyway.

Terrible shame

 

[Bazj]

Two fires within a week is very sus indeed.  I agree it SHOULD have been secured better to stop people gaining entry all the time. 

If owners can't be bothered to even secure them and councils, Historic England/Eng Heritage don't force them to take action then what hope is there.

 

Historic England are apparently going down tomorrow to see the building Sha and to offer advice to Halton Council.   Bit late now though for any advice or action from anyone.

 

I wonder how the owner is feeling.  Has he issued any statement as I've not seen one anywhere or even mention of him.  Would it have been insured?  I can't imagine it would have been with it being empty, not secure and on the 'At Risk' register too.

 

Fancy paying just over £2.1 million for it all (Hall, other buildings and all the land) in October 2006, doing some work on it then just leaving it to decay and open to intruders.  Saying that all the land on it's own must be worth more than anyway.

 

Terrible shame

 

 

 

Nail on the head moment Dizzy... he bought the land, did a bit of work and then someone in the pub told him how much his bit of greenbelt would be worth with new houses on- which no one would object if it had a crumbling old building on to knock down.... that was probably his kerrching moment!

[Sha]

This is the third fire this year! there appears to have been sustained and determined attempts to destroy Daresbury Hall!

How many of our heritage buildings have gone up in smoke already and how many more will do in the future?

The so called 'accidental' fires as well as proved arson attacks could be prevented by ensuring that these did not eventually lead to profit for the owners.
What the 'authorities' do now is crucial. What usually happens is that they do very little and when the owner puts in an application to build on the site it is accepted.

What should happen here is that Historic England & Halton Council block permission to demolish and enforce a full, like for like renovation.
As the last planning permission was only granted with the agreement that the owner preserve the main Grade 11* Hall, all present planning permission should be declared null and void. This would mean that the now damaged hall in it's green belt grounds would probably now be worth less than the original price the present owner paid for it.
Halton Council should use their powers of compulsory purchase (for the much reduced rate) Then grant themselves planning permission for enabling development to fully renovate the hall.

[Dizzy]

This is the third fire this year! there appears to have been sustained and determined attempts to destroy Daresbury Hall!

 

How many of our heritage buildings have gone up in smoke already and how many more will do in the future?

The THIRD this year...blimey it gets worse by the day

 

The so called 'accidental' fires as well as proved arson attacks could be prevented by ensuring that these did not eventually lead to profit for the owners.

What the 'authorities' do now is crucial. What usually happens is that they do very little and when the owner puts in an application to build on the site it is accepted.

Agreed, but WILL they do anything. I doubt it.

 

What should happen here is that Historic England & Halton Council block permission to demolish and enforce a full, like for like renovation.

As the last planning permission was only granted with the agreement that the owner preserve the main Grade 11* Hall, all present planning permission should be declared null and void. This would mean that the now damaged hall in it's green belt grounds would probably now be worth less than the original price the present owner paid for it.

Mmm now there's a thought and like you say Sha perhaps the council could null and void the application as permission was only given IF the Hall was restored.  I read some of the planning application documents and like you say it was stated that the only reason it was passed was that money made from the sale of the other older outer buildings after conversion into homes, and the new houses which were approved, was to be put towards revovation of the Hall. There was also a section 106 agreement being drawn up too but I'm not sure if it was completed.  If the hall had burnt down BEFORE the planning application was approved I very much doubt planning permission would have been given for the other developments.  Can approved planning applications be overturned though?  I didn't think they could be

 

Halton Council should use their powers of compulsory purchase (for the much reduced rate) Then grant themselves planning permission for enabling development to fully renovate the hall.

I very much doubt that Halton Council have that sort of money to play about with Sha let alone the interest or will to do so.

[Dizzy]

GRRRR.....from one of the Urban Exploration sites from their visit last month.
 
Report - Daresbury Hall, Warrington - May 2016
 

Another drop by while in the area, been to this place a few times, always found it very interesting because of it being part of the Zombie apocalypse game ZED so it was more interesting seeing the fake blood, chains & even fake guns that were left behind at one point. Our first ever visit was earlier hours in the morning a year or two ago and we didn't know it was part of ZED so that made it more interesting. So when we arrived there is now fencing put up, rather than just the chain linked fence that was there. Access to the site was pretty straight forward this time as there was plenty access point into the building itself. Inside the lower floors around the main hall is pretty much as it was, rooms piled up with furniture and items from the ZED game & other items that were probably from the cannabis farm. The floors inside the main hall are severely water damaged and has fallen through on many points looking like its made from straw, walking round the rooms you can just feel the soaked carpets and wooden floors moving beneath your feet. The pool section is pretty much the same, the handles are gone which is a shame was good for a photo if your into all that and it hit with graffiti as usual in most derelict places, the good old "FTM" or "420 blaze". Anyways it was a fun explore to do.
(We did have police turn up as we left the site, who were very understanding and kindly let us on our way, they just questioned what the attraction was with the place, because residents near to the property keep seeing groups going in for hours on end)

 

 

[Dizzy]

Photo from April 2007 showing the side view of the Hall which can be seen from the road.  (taken 6 months after Mr R bought the Hall and estate for just over £2.1 million).

Looks nice and in very good condition doesn't it... and liven in.   So what went wrong in the 9 years since then?

PS This photo is detailed as 'free use by anyone to use anywhere etc' by the photographer so I'm no contravening any copyright by uploading it here...




and my photo taken on Sunday from pretty much the same spot after the fire   I did ask permission by the way....  nice firemen said I could


 

[Dizzy]

One of the main side.  I think this was around 2007 too but not 100% sure

[Sha]

Diz, that Urban Exploration blog shows disgusting neglect!  It is also a great insult to the residents who have been trying to compensate for the lack of proper security!

Sadly, I think the more we dig the more s*** like this we will find.

 

I think the 'authorities' should now try to redeem themselves by ensuring that Daresbury Hall is saved and renovated.

If they think that they can allow demolition and the problem will just go away - they will be mistaken!

 

When I suggested a compulsory purchase and renovation - 

You said " I very much doubt that Halton Council have that sort of money to play about with Sha let alone the interest or will to do so".

They could get the money back through building enabling development - which would mean that the initial outlay would just be like a loan.

Or, they could force a cheap purchase and then sell in the same week for the same amount to such organisations as the National Trust or Heritage Restoration Trust who would do the renovation with enabling development for them.

There would no doubt also be other means of saving the Hall but as you noted it's whether Halton Council have the will to do it.

Perhaps Historic England will force the issue for renovation?

[Sha]

Thanks for posting the photo's Diz.

OMG! in just 9 years that fabulous building has come to this!

 

On the arial photo's on the side to the left of and behind the façade a portion of the wall on the top floor has collapsed.

Did you get any photo's of this side of the building showing this damage when you were up there?

[Dizzy]

Do you mean to the right of the main entrance and round the corner if so no sorry Sha I only got photo's of the side you can see from the public road.  I wasn't on the road though I'd walked down the tree lined drive and asked the firemen if it was ok if I just took some of that.

They said that part of the rear had collapsed so I jokingly said 'I guess I'd best not ask if I can go round there then....'   They did say I'd not have been able to get any particularly good pics from the drive leading that way anyway due to it all being overgrown at the back where the collapse was.
 
Silly me though as it was only when I got home that I realised I would have been able to see the main entrance side though if I'd have gone a little further and they would have probably allowed me to do that.

My fault not theirs