Tyseley Wharf buildings under threat by CRT " Development manager"

[Laurence Hogg]

Tyseley wharf was sold to Birmingham City council by BW. It has now been purchased back by CRT. In a statement recently released it was stated that there are no buildings of historic importance on the site and that CRT heritage advisors had stated thus. Well the only remaining covered wharfage is what is there, some of it is roofless but it is easily restorable and is a unique feature of the canal. Having checked with Nigel Crowe head of heritage he was suprised to learn of this statement and is now investigating. Behind this is I believe a CRT employee named Cheryl Blount-Powell "Development manager".

 

Having met this person recently at Warwick wharf in Sampson rd Birmingham I for one are not impressed with her attitude. She considered the roofless concrete wharf building to be of "no value" and stated it could be pulled down and part of the cost regained by selling the scrap steel!!! The lovely 19th century rooflighted building next door was also described as probably not worth keeping too.

 

This CRT'er is totally blind to re use of building structures in my opinion, she claims that properties are "marketed" but when questioned wasnt able to say where.

Maybe this is why the property list on CRT hasnt been updated for a year or more.

 

So much of the heritage has been lost every effort should be made to retain that which remains, and in the case of Tyseley it should be restored.

 

Please write or email CRT's head of heritage (nigel.crowe@canalrivertrust.org.uk) emphasising the need to RETAIN our heritage!

Edited May 14, 2013 by Laurence Hogg

[alan_fincher]

The initial development plans for Marsworth Yard, (Grand Union), declared that the stone built ex carpenter's workshop there was of no architectural significance, and the plans involved demolishing it.

 

The initial public meetings stressed the poor condition of the stonework, although to the layman's eye this seemed to mean no more than that pointing work had been clumsily carried out.

 

After much protest the revised plans now retain this interesting building, albeit converted to housing. A wharf-side crane will now also be retained in a place it would actually have been used, (and was until recently), rather than dumping it in an inappropriate location elsewhere on the site, where it never would have been as a working wharf crane.

Unfortunately the kind of attitude you describe seems all to prevalent. I'm expecting similar issues to come to the fore at the former lock-gate workshops at Bulbourne yard, just a few miles away, very shortly.

The main objective seems to be to pack too many housing units of an inappropriate style onto these sites. However I have to be fair to BW/CRT and say that this requirement does seem to come from central government, (at least in the London commuter belt), where high density housing seems to be mandated in many of the developments, to the extent that if plans don't show units packed in lightly they get told to squeeze more in.

[Pluto]

Is that the high density housing built by high density developers authorised by high density planners supported by high density politicians?

[Derek R.]

Only place they are not so dense is in the desire to be seen to be actively engaged in developing their ability to climb corporate ladders and in personal salaries and pensions.

 

Cynical but true.

[Tuscan]

The initial development plans for Marsworth Yard, (Grand Union), declared that the stone built ex carpenter's workshop there was of no architectural significance, and the plans involved demolishing it.

 

The initial public meetings stressed the poor condition of the stonework, although to the layman's eye this seemed to mean no more than that pointing work had been clumsily carried out.

 

After much protest the revised plans now retain this interesting building, albeit converted to housing. A wharf-side crane will now also be retained in a place it would actually have been used, (and was until recently), rather than dumping it in an inappropriate location elsewhere on the site, where it never would have been as a working wharf crane.

Unfortunately the kind of attitude you describe seems all to prevalent. I'm expecting similar issues to come to the fore at the former lock-gate workshops at Bulbourne yard, just a few miles away, very shortly.

The main objective seems to be to pack too many housing units of an inappropriate style onto these sites. However I have to be fair to BW/CRT and say that this requirement does seem to come from central government, (at least in the London commuter belt), where high density housing seems to be mandated in many of the developments, to the extent that if plans don't show units packed in lightly they get told to squeeze more in.

 

 

Very true I wonder how long the current services will stay at the site once the houses are built and the self pump outs etc start. No doubt they will be forced to move to the next bridge at signficant cost to CRT. There most the strong grounds I hope to object to concentrated housing because of the difficult housing. It's a shame that CRT can't see the opportunity of making it a living museum or similar.

[Heartland]

Returning to the subject of Sampson Road and Tyseley Wharf, there seems to be a genuine concerns for their future. As to the 19th Century structure adjacent to the 1939 GUCCCo Warehouse, this belonged to the Birmingham Bedstead Factory at one time and is a survivor of a once thriving local industry.

 

Ray Shill