Carnforth Coal and Ash tower at risk.

Carnforth coal and ash tower are now listed "at risk" http://www.thebay.co.uk/news/local-news/former-steam-town-site-added-to-at-risk-register/

Will outside money be found to help save them from the concrete cancer, and if so the site will have to be open to Jo Public at least once a year to see where the grant money has gone.

 

Mods: might be an idea to spell Carnforth properly!

Concrete cancer is rather costly and difficult to address if it is advanced. If the pillars have it, then I wouldn't be very surprised if the towers require reconstruction, rather than restoration- you've only got to look at the condition of Battersea Power Station's chimneys were in to see what restorers would be up against; and then there's the question of access to a working environment, and whether the high command at WCRC would be amenable to this.

 

Indeed - I believe that the developers at Battersea actually had the chimneys demolished then built replicas rather than repair them (though that may not have even been a option). Of course said developers didn't have to worry too much about the cost of doing this thanks to the vast quantity of posh apartments they have been allowed to build around the ex power station. Carnforth doesn't have the same revenue generating potential....

 

The developers at Battersea did indeed demolish the four chimneys. One has been rebuilt, from the original plans, and a second is under construction.

 

Is it concrete cancer? I seem to recall that is a specific problem involving chemical reactions between aggregates and cement components. I would have expected it to have occurred long ago. It seems more likely the problem is corrosion of reinforcement due to the salt laden atmosphere, low cover to bars and poor quality concrete. If that is the case repair may be viable, though expensive.

 

Always thought it was a collective name for all processes which happen out of sight within the concrete casting, and only make themselves known via spalling. Either way, there looks to be some issues with the rebars coming to the surface on the corners- the ash plant looks particularly vulnerable due to its sloping pillars.

 

The rebar was probably always close to the surface due to either poor design or errors in spacing the rebar off the shutters during construction. In that exposed situation it should be in the region of 2" below the surface even with good concrete. Once it rots it spalls the surface off and looks to be even closer to the surface than it was originally.

 

Just for the record it appears to be the Carnforth Conservation Area which has been added to the at risk register not the structures themselves, as grade II structures are not eligible for inclusion in the HE Heritage at Risk Register, Lancaster City Council may have its own listed buildings at risk register, I don't know.

In terms of potential grant funding grade II structures on a private site have very little chance of any money (especially in the present climate) so no idea what the solution is to be honest, the City Council do have the potential statutory powers to force Urgent Works but may have concluded not to do so (hasn't their condition been common knowledge for years?) - possibly because no one has a practical idea how to repair them, apart from rebuilding from scratch which opens a whole new ethical debate about pastiche etc?

 

If they get to a point where they are deemed unsafe then being on private land & not eligible for any grants would lead me to think WCRC will just demolish them.

Why wouldn't they, they are of no practical use to WCRC.

Another case of nostalgia versus financial reality & the modern word I'm afraid

 

Again just for clarity the owners would need consent to demolish them as a listed building.

Taking note of their long standing deteriorating condition (I am sure it was common knowledge in the 80's that they were not great structurally) I do wonder what provision was held in documentation when Steamtown was sold to WCRC as they were essentially buying a huge liability?

 

Indeed, how would you stand if you owned a listed structure, left it to deteriorate to an unsafe point & then argued the safest option left was to demolish?

Presumably on taking ownership you have a legal responsibility to ensure the structure does not get to an unsafe condition, but if you inherit an already decaying structure possibly beyond salvation........................???

 

According to public record Steamtown Museums Limited was bought by William Smith (Wakefield) Limited not WCRC.

 

From regular reading of the "Piloti" column in Private Eye over the years, I think it depends on who blinks first, the landowner or the local authority. In the context of a tower that has no alternative function, and an operating railway depot, I know where I'd put my money

 

As someone who has worked directly in the sector on both sides of the fence (both for the Council and for land owners) for nearly 20 years remember that the views of "Piloti" reflect the opinions of the writer and thus an interpretation of matters from a single viewpoint and to be understandable to the layman, he is often completely on the ball but sometimes it can be a little biased in interpretation - (entirely in my opinion).

However in answer to the points raised above...

Indeed, how would you stand if you owned a listed structure, left it to deteriorate to an unsafe point & then argued the safest option left was to demolish? - Government policy specifically says (para 130 of the NPPF) 'Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.' I cannot be bothered to go into the case law but the key issue will be 'evidence of deliberate'.

Presumably on taking ownership you have a legal responsibility to ensure the structure does not get to an unsafe condition, but if you inherit an already decaying structure possibly beyond salvation........................??? - Liability for damage/alteration to a listed building lasts for perpetuity so if one buys a listed structure with unauthorised works even if you didn't undertake them you are still liable (or more likely your layer will be liable for not advising you at the date of purchase of the potential liability. With this in mind, as noted above, I suspect (completely hypothetically I must emphasise) that some indemnity was taken as part of the change of ownership?

Returning to @35B point above they key is whether the LPA have the stomach (or financial ability) to raise the issue, plus also bearing in mind that WCRC are a reasonably large employer in the district, I have always found Lancaster CC to be fairly heritage savvy but there may be degree of politics involved. Ultimately they are structures with no potential viable use going forward which could swallow a huge amount of money?

 

I did not say that I agree with him in all respects (his comments on matters ecclesiastical in the Penshurst area, in which his editor also lives, were rather acidly commented on by those with knowledge of Rochester diocese...); merely that he has highlighted the difficulties faced by councils in response to intransigent landowners who can't or won't repair the listed structures on their land.

Thank you for the clarifications as to the law, and corroborating my less informed viewpoint.

 

Thank to GWR4707 for some excellent responses.

Sadly doesn't read too positively for the structures in question.

 

What obligations would the owners / councils have in terms of managing the demolition if it was sanctioned?

 

The LPA would have the ability to impose Conditions, so could be anything. Off the top of my head (so entirely hypothetical) I would expect some manner of building recording condition (probably using HE methodology including photography and scaled drawings),possibly something about removable machinery/fittings being retained and possibly lodged with a suitable organisation, a demolition method statement, a requirement for the site to be left tidy afterwards - could be just about anything really. In terms of the owners there would be all manner of H&S obligations I imagine (way outside my area of expertise).

 

Very difficult buildings to demolish safely (i.e. expensive). If they were mine I might hope they fell down of their own accord. Preferably out of normal working hours of course. I don't imagine any company is going to be thrilled about spending six figure sums on buildings that are of no use and can provide no payback whether standing or demolished.

 

Yes, if they were doing so as part of a planned process, No if the structure presents a danger to the general public or workers in the vicinity (and they cannot be kept clear of the structure).

For example a Mill somewhere near Oldham suffered a severe fire (arson) and even though it was listed the walls of the structure were flattened within 48hrs of the fire being put out - the structure being deemed to unsafe for anyone to go near it - even to fit props to keep it standing.

With the structures at Carnforth, were they to suffer a structural failure such that it was too dangerous for anyone to approch them then demolition could be carried out ASAP, without requiring permission - though obviously there would be questions as to why the owners let the structural failure occur in the first place.

Also while it doesn't necessarily apply to the Carnforth site, there are also cases where developers have calculated its better to pay the fine and knock something down than repair it, particularly if said structure is in an awkward place and restricts the sites development potential. The same is true when it comes to tree preservation - one developer I know of deliberately waited until a bank holiday when no council staff would be in to send in the chainsaws because the fine was nothing compared to what they would get from the enhanced development potential of the site.