URGENT talks over the future of Warrington’s historic Garnett’s Cabinet Works which took place between the borough council and the town’s Civic Society and other interested parties, have been described as “constructive.”
The meeting which was called due to the building becoming an immediate danger to human life due to its dilapidated condition involved council officers, councillors, members of the Warrington Civic Society and a representative from the neighbouring Cairo St Chapel.
Pete Astley, assistant director for regulation and public protection, said: “Following a constructive meeting with various stakeholders including the Civic Society last night, the council will be continuing to work with them and other parties to ensure that the building is made safe and that all possible options for its future are looked at and explored.
“We are grateful for their input last night and hopefully this is the start of constructive dialogue on this issue.”
Civic Society Chairman John Shipley said: “It was a very useful meeting and Warrington Civic Society appreciate being invited.
“It will hopefully be the first in an ongoing process and highlighted the importance of the site as a precedent for other heritage at risk in the town was stressed.
“The recent past of the site was touched upon but the focus from all parties was on what could be done now, in particular to remove the immediate dangers, which have been recently highlighted by a council commissioned drone survey in December of last year.
“More details will follow further discussions.”
As reported earlier this week work is set to start on demolishing the cabinet works “within the month” due to “very real dangers to human life.”
The demolition could eventually include the iconic Garnett’s water tower which has been a feature of Warrington’s skyline for more than a century – but only after heritage and conservation issues are fully considered by the Council’s planning committee before any decision is taken.
The council have taken emergency measures under the Building Act 1984 and the building’s owners PTS in Glasgow, will be responsible for the costs.
10 Comments
Quote John Shipley;
“The recent past of the site was touched upon but the focus from all parties was on what could be done now, in particular to remove the immediate dangers, which have been recently highlighted by a council commissioned drone survey in December of last year.”
The focus of WBC, as reported, is to demolish the Cabinet Works “within the month” is this the “focus from all parties” now?
Can we have some ‘plain speak’ please. What is the Civic Societies stance on this – are you for or against demolition? Have any proposals been made to save this building?
Good questions Sha……another one would also be, were the owners, PTS, at the meeting, and if so what is their stance, and if they weren’t at the meeting, why not. I notice on the PTS website, the site is being offered as a development opportunity…….”We will either dispose of the Cabinet Works or partner with a developer to build a scheme on the site. If you have any interest in the site please call our Property Director……….”
Interesting to note that on PTS’s website page about the Cabinet Works that you mention Paul they [PTS] actually have a link direct to one of the Urban Exploration Groups websites showing photos of the inside of the building (the direct link photos are from 2011) and they [PTS] openly state that it has been explored many times. Yes it has and further down on this exploration link page are many other visits from 2014 and of course the same links have been posted on the forum pages and elsewhere many times over the past years.
So fully knowing that Urban Groups are easily gaining access (they don’t tend to trash things by the way and on their site they too mention the rapid deterioration and obvious vandalism being caused by others) then surely the owners and council were aware and could have done something to make it a hell of a lot more secure before now or the owners been made too. One photo shows bricks and one of two large coping stones which was impaled in the church yard lawn too (July 2015) and quite shocking how far in it has gone in. The urban group said it was all fast deteriorating and that CCTV had been out up on approaches and also it was a mystery to them how the heavy coping stones had been launched that far. I do not condone these groups going into empty abandoned buildings by the way as it’s very dangerous but I do find their reports extremely interesting and they clearly have a great interest in old local history and buildings and at least they take photos, give detailed info about buildings pasts etc and take photos as a record for the future.
PTS website page here for anyone who may have not yet seen it… http://www.pts.co.uk/mixed-use/garnetts-cabinet-works-warrington/
I was one of the four Civic Society representatives at last night’s meeting and there seems to be no play at all to start demolition within the next month, or at any point in the immediate future. The first and most important action must be to make the site and surrounding properties an streets safe by undertaking work on the building. This would, of course, involve some demolition but the future of the tower, and the rest of the site must be considered as part of the regeneration of the town centre. There will clearly need to be much wider talks to consider this. My personal view is that we ought to work to retain the tower as a key landmark that can serve to draw people to the town centre.
I don’t wish to sound like the prophet of doom, especially as a member of the Civic Society.
But the council’s very own statement BEFORE the meeting, makes it pretty clear demolition will take place within the month – and while the Tower is not included in the immediate action I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I fear the costs involved in retaining the tower will not be feasible.
Council quote: “We have long been concerned about the integrity of the buildings and surveys undertaken before Christmas 2015 confirmed our worst fears. Detailed structural and drone surveys identified many dangerous areas, making demolition of some if not all of the building urgent and unavoidable.
“We have taken emergency measures under the Building Act 1984 and PTS will be responsible for the costs. Work is likely to begin within a month, and we will be consulting with local businesses, residents and the Civic Society on the demolition programme and related issues. No part of the site is heritage listed.
“The water tower has been a feature of the Warrington skyline and the town centre for more than one hundred years, but we have to balance the risk of losing a historic building against the very real danger posed to human life if we fail to act.”
The spokesperson added: “Whilst there are some structural issues with the Water Tower caused by decay and vandalism, we will not be requesting the demolition under our emergency Building Control powers.
“Instead options will subsequently be considered through the Planning Process, subject to the owner of the Building submitting a valid planning application, thus ensuring that heritage and conservation issues are fully considered by the Council before any decision is taken on the future of the remaining part of the Building”.
This also poses the question: why was a building over 100 years old in a conservation area (as the original council statement described it) not listed as an heritage asset? If WBC or its cultural co-partner Culture Warrington did not act to put it forward for such status, we can hardly blame Heritage England for the oversight. And with several other valued buildings biting regularly biting the dust, as Sha mentioned previously, the average man in the street would not have been aware or cared that anyone can put forward buildings for heritage consideration, believing that to be a council responsibility.
That said surely buildings in conservation areas should have been subject to greater scrutiny insofar as regular maintenance and preservation are concerned? Otherwise you end up with a situation where the building owner will take what action or lack thereof to achieve what he wants regardless of that building’s heritage contribution to the town.
SHA, the focus of the meeting was on the immediate actions, which do not necessarily have to be demolition, but which do need to remove the dangers to people and property. The Civic Society opposes the loss of the town’s heritage where there is a viable alternative (legal, financial, political etc). This is why we will be scrutinising the council’s approach to the urgent concerns as they are clarified to us. If the council intended for the whole site to be demolished within the month we would obviously be opposed, however this is not what we have been told, and where possible we want to work alongside the council who after all are the ones with the legal enforcement powers. As I’m sure you can appreciate, given the short timescale, we are in many ways still fact finding.
For the rest of site, we will look at any proposals as they arise and I can’t really speak for the members in the future other than in the general way above. How the situation ended up where it is, is obviously a question that needs addressing but wasn’t the main point of the meeting.
Paul, PTS were not at the meeting last night, I don’t think they were invited. They have been meeting with the council though.
Both of you are of course welcome to get in touch if you would like to get involved with this (or with the Crosfield Bell campaign). You both would bring valuable experience that would be incredibly useful, and I take it you share most of our general aims?
There seems to be come conflicts on comments her as to whether or not any demolition is to take place.
From what I have so far read on all the various news stories the council do imply that some form of demolition WILL take place imminently. As much as I wanted to attend last nights meeting and hear/see for myself it turned out that interested members of the public could not attend after all. I still think that it should have been open to the public but I guess they had their reasons.
For those who did go to the meeting….. could you please tell me exactly which parts of the building are deemed to be unsafe and ‘pose a real danger to life’ and need immediate action. I presume this was discussed in detail given this was the aim of the meeting.
Also who else was there apart from council members and the Civic Society?
It seems ridiculous that PTS were not there, or invited if that’s the case, as they are the owners so any discussions on the way forward or possible solution by other ‘interested parties’ affects them too so surely they would want to know or have some input too.
I’m sorry but from the info given so far about last nights meeting it sounds to me like it was nothing more than a council box ticking exercise so further down the line they can say ‘relevant parties were consulted’.
Were minutes or detailed notes taken at the meeting by either the council or civic members attending?
John, your answer,…. ” the focus of the meeting was on the immediate actions, which do not necessarily have to be demolition, but which do need to remove the dangers to people and property”.
I want to know what exactly the “immediate actions” are going to be. You say they “do not necessarily have to be demolition” . No of course they don’t but will they or won’t they? Yes or No?
As Gary has clearly pointed out “the council’s very own statement BEFORE the meeting, makes it pretty clear demolition will take place within the month”. So, at the meeting have you had positive confirmation that demolition will NOT take place before other options have been considered?
You write, “If the council intended for the whole site to be demolished within the month we would obviously be opposed”. Does this mean you are aware that some part will be demolished within the month? If so exactly which part or parts? and does any planned course of demolition of any part have the backing of the civic society? Could you try to be a little more specific?
Have you challenged the claim that the site poses a dire risk to life? As I’ve said before, the river Mersey poses a risk to life for those stupid enough to jump in it, but nobody’s expecting it to be filled in!
Also, any building in the town poses a risk if some idiot climbs up it and throws objects from it.
The risk to life of the proposed new town centre glass and metal developments will be far greater and cause far more casualties if some idiot bombs it. Breathing in the pollution in the town centre poses a more widespread risk to life! So WHO has done the ‘dramatic’ risk assessment on the cabinet works and don’t you think it should be challenged?
You say, “where possible we want to work alongside the council who after all are the ones with the legal enforcement powers.” If the council had used the legal enforcement powers they have to proper effect in the first place the building wouldn’t be in such a state of disrepair! What makes you think things will be any different now?
We have seen so many buildings demolished which needn’t have been by playing the ‘health & safety’ card, most recently Mr Smiths and the Ship Inn. How many more will go down before this is challenged?
Lastly, It seems to me that the Civic Society’s invitation to this meeting has been merely so that WBC can tick the boxes for their ‘consultation procedure’ as in having represented the public. But you do not represent the public’s views and any consultation wherein the public is excluded is not democratic.
I am sceptical of the conclusion coming from the meeting that a “site adding ‘civic value’ to the town could be developed at the location of the historic Cabinet Works building.” That is an ambiguous and subjective conclusion. One person’s civic value is another’s horror story. We want to tangibly celebrate our heritage. Heaven knows we have already lost a lot of it under one administration or another, due either to indifference or disregard. We should not be trying to bury or incorporate vestiges of what little remains in a glazed post modern architectural construction, the like of which you will find in most towns, where developers have been given free rein. Several very old heritage soaked buildings have been retained, preserved and put to beneficial use in Liverpool and in Manchester, why should those in Warrington be destroyed after they were deliberately left to decay?