Sampson Rd wharf buildings now directly at risk from an uncaring C&RT development team

[Laurence Hogg]

Canal and River Trust are planning to demolish the buildings marked 1 & 2 on my overview image (see below) in January. These are steel framed buildings which constitute part of the collection of structures on this site and are a valuable asset to the completeness of this unique waterway site.

Canal and River Trust are saying the buildings are unsafe and a risk to the public, this we believe to not be true as similar near identical buildings in the same state have just been refurbished by Canal and River Trust in what remains of the Brentford wharfs at the southern end of the Grand Union Canal and are now known as "Brentford sheds", however the site in Brentford although originally larger than the one in Birmingham is now very incomplete whereas the Sampson Rd site is complete and represents the complete period history of the waterway function in this area.

 

Ariel view:

 

 

This image shows the complete area of Sampson depot rd with both the early and modern buildings, little has been lost apart from the infilled canal arms (marked 8).

The site has examples of early wharf buildings (1,2,3 & 9) and the latter 1930's modernisation build (marked 4,5 & 6). Most of the 1930's buildings are totally intact and even retain their electric unloading cranes at the wharfage doors.

 

The site presents a fully intact example of how canal carrying developed from the earliest days until the present. It is also a example of a early mechanised fully integrated transport system bringing together road and waterway transport.

 

At the west end of the site is a steel framed covered dock which has been allowed to deteriorate this is what CRT want to demolish. They claim it is dangerous!

 

Recent pictures:

 

 

 

They also claim "it has been marketed" with no takers, just where it was advertised they couldn't say, certainly not in any waterway publication I am familiar with.

There are obvious uses for this structure within the boat industry and I cannot believe there would not be a taker.

 

To make matters worse there seems a divide of interests from one end of the grand Union Canal to the other! Davies & Brithers of Wolverhampton erected these steel framed building for the Grand Union Canal Co in the early 1930's both at Brentford and in Birmingham, most of Brentford has gone but look what CRT allowed to happen to the same structure in Brentford, this is now known as "Brentford sheds" and is seriously good looking, why cant this happen in Birmingham??

 

Brentford sheds

 

 

The Sampson rd site is complete in the main, only a lock cottage (marked 7) on the overview and the cement silo (replaced with boaters services) have gone, to remove the covered dock building is sacrilege.

 

The CRT development team is headed by one Cheryl Blount-Powell at Northwich (01606 723859 Cheryl.blount-powell@canalrivertrust.org.uk), she is adamant that this structure is dangerous and has no historic value. She clearly showed a complete lack of understanding of the site when I met with her in 2012 to assess the site.

A report she commissioned by Grover Lewis Associates did not properly investigate the heritage value of the site and missed out or overlooked many principal points.

 

Our own Ray Shill has produced a report on the site which fully assesses the true value of everything which is there.

 

This report together with a request for full listing of the whole site has been lodged yesterday with English Heritage together with a request to have a "spot listing" undertaken in regard to the warehouse and covered dock immediately at risk. I do not know whether listing of this site will be granted but if we don't try we never know.

 

In this case CRT needs to be taken to task, they are out of order, clearly taking no appreciation of our waterway heritage of which so little remains.

One other thing CRT have failed to do is to inform us what they intend to do with the site that makes removal of this structure so urgent.

 

If you care about waterways heritage please tell CRT what you think rather than just adding to this thread, direct responses would add weight to the already heavy effort being made to stop this latest blight on the waterway heritage.

 

Thank you,

Laurence Hogg

Edited December 15, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[b0atman]

CRT have the same mentality as the Government i.e new is best on Green field sites out with the old.

[Heartland]

To reiterate what Laurence has said the structure intended to be demolished forms the first Grand Union Canal development on the site and was followed by the warehouses of 1937 and 1938, now not owned by CRT and the roadside office block (1939) also not now owned by CRT. The 1935 cement wharf was a mechanised facility that enabled GUCCCo boats to quickly unload cement brought from the Kaye's Arm at Stockton. This efficient operation was essential for Birmingham to prepare for war through the building of shadow factories and other facilities needed to prepare for the looming conflict with Ger,many.

 

Demolition of these structures would be a sad loss. Also as all four structures compliment themselves as a unit, demolition of the 1935 cement buildings would weaken any listing application for the remaining 3.

 

A further structure is the gatehouse to the Cement Wharf, which I believe, is intended to be kept, and again may be included into the listing process.

 

However there are strong reasons for their removal. To look at them it is easy to say demolition is best. It is also an issue that is further compounded by the fact that a practical use for these structures is difficult to find. So suggestions for their preservation would be of use.

 

It also important to note the comparison with Albion Wharf at Wolverhampton, which was demolished to make way for new housing. Wolverhampton at that time had the only complete range of "narrowboat" canal warehouses which dated from the 1780's, 1800's, 1810's, 1830's and 1860's. The removal of the 1830's buildings destroyed any case for promoting this area. With Sampson Road any future plans for a unified site could be equally compromised.

 

Ray Shill

[Derek R.]

Our industrial heritage such as it stands surrounding the canals has to be the most debated issue as to what can it be used for? It was built for a purpose. It fulfilled that purpose for its economic existence. Once that economic existence is no more, and the traffic moved elsewhere, what can it be used for? We may see the structures as historically important, but they are important to a timespan that has passed - unless like at Stoke Bruerne they can be utilised into something educational in the form of a museum/shop. Otherwise, unless it can be utilised by a boat building/repair yard, to what use can such a structure be put? Would you buy it? What would you do with the buildings? How much would it cost to establish their continued use with the regulations and restrictions currently surrounding workplaces in any guise?

 

Whilst CRT have continued in the fashion of BW towards such structures, the bottom line comes down to money every time. The Brentford 'sheds' are in full view of the flats and moorings opposite. But those buildings at Samson Road are - sadly - unseen, partially hidden, and under the control of accountants. Not so much a site 'in view' of potential residents, but a site for potential residents.

 

Take as many pictures of them as you can while they still stand to tell what has been lost.

[Pluto]

I know that the warehouses are of local importance to the Birmingham area, but compared to the warehouses on the L&LC they did not handle a great deal of traffic. If you include coal, around a quarter of a million tons of goods passed Tring summit at its busiest period, while at the same time the figures for Wigan flight were around one and half million tons, six times greater. I am not saying the Sampson Road warehouses are not important, merely suggesting that they are not the most important collection of warehouses on the British canal system. I would certainly hope that a use can be found for them.

[Machpoint005]

Our industrial heritage such as it stands surrounding the canals has to be the most debated issue as to what can it be used for? It was built for a purpose. It fulfilled that purpose for its economic existence. Once that economic existence is no more, and the traffic moved elsewhere, what can it be used for? We may see the structures as historically important, but they are important to a timespan that has passed - unless like at Stoke Bruerne they can be utilised into something educational in the form of a museum/shop. Otherwise, unless it can be utilised by a boat building/repair yard, to what use can such a structure be put? Would you buy it? What would you do with the buildings? How much would it cost to establish their continued use with the regulations and restrictions currently surrounding workplaces in any guise?

 

Whilst CRT have continued in the fashion of BW towards such structures, the bottom line comes down to money every time. The Brentford 'sheds' are in full view of the flats and moorings opposite. But those buildings at Samson Road are - sadly - unseen, partially hidden, and under the control of accountants. Not so much a site 'in view' of potential residents, but a site for potential residents.

 

Take as many pictures of them as you can while they still stand to tell what has been lost.

 

I agree with you. If CRT is cash-strapped (and it inevitably must be in today's economic climate) it can hardly be surprising that the Trust would rather use its resources to keep waterways open to navigation rather than preserve decaying buildings of little architectural merit. It must always be a question of priorities.

Grover Lewis is a highly reputable company and I would be reluctant to disagree with their expert view.

If I say anything to CRT it will be to support its stance.

[Heartland]

I was disappointed with the Grover Lewis report, and felt that they did not portray the historical aspects completely, although, I suppose that they were handicapped through the closure of the time of the Birmingham Library Archives.

 

Mike is correct that the Sampson Road complex is a modern development, and with Tyseley Wharf, a late effort for motor boat transport into Birmingham, it does not however provide the reason for destroying what was done.

 

It must be admitted also that CRT have to manage their assets as best as they can, but the question remains can a use be suggested to ensure an economically viable scheme. On reading the Grover Lewis report and their recommendations, I felt that they had decided total obliteration was required, despite what history they could discover. And with this clearance the historic Birmingham Bedstead factory would suffer the same fate.

 

Now this sentiment is quite in keeping with a policy of seek and destroy and would no doubt be ripe pickings for any predatory developers who would build a row of modern back to backs or tenements to suit the modern theme of canal side properties. One which could reap huge rewards for them, little for the CRT and little for any prospective residents. To see these modern values just go up to Lodge Road and the end of the Birmingham Heath Branch where the former woodyard and former glassworks site and the canal bed have been crammed with modern dwellings on such a constricted site that they might one day fall over on to the railway lines below.

 

Unfortunately time is running out for Sampson Road North Cement Depot and no doubt this fragment of canal history will be consigned to the fate of many other former heritage sites- a car wash!

 

Ray Shill

[Machpoint005]

I didn't know there were any heritage former petrol stations!

[Laurence Hogg]

The Grover Lewis report is seriously flawed in my opinion. It lacks the depth of investigation needed on such a site and in its lack of interpretation that proves a scant job was undertaken. Nowhere is the mention of "Birmingham Quay", the marketing name chosen by the Grand Union Company to promote its northern expansion into Birmingham with a modern fleet. The report runs to some 40 odd pages, Ray's equivalent to some 19, but Ray exposes far more truths and facts than Grover Lewis. I was there when they were on the site, no one asked any questions about the buildings despite there being knowledgeable people on site. The report simply sounds downbeat and helps to do nothing more than provide a peg for CRT to hang a demolition sign on.

 

Look at what has been done with the same buildings at Brentford, they were in a similar state but are now a work of art. CRT haven't marketed the site either in the right quarters, how many boat fitters and painters would there be queuing to get a chance to operate in an covered wet dock? simply needing recladding.

 

CRT are not looking after our heritage, I learnt this week that their "Heritage Advisory Group" will only consider listed structures and no others! How many buildings are out there that need to be looked at for conservation that are not listed, I cite one example, the art deco warehouse of Fellows, Morton & Clayton in Fazeley street, that is not listed and would pass CRT's HAG by!

Edited December 17, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[Laurence Hogg]

I know that the warehouses are of local importance to the Birmingham area, but compared to the warehouses on the L&LC they did not handle a great deal of traffic. If you include coal, around a quarter of a million tons of goods passed Tring summit at its busiest period, while at the same time the figures for Wigan flight were around one and half million tons, six times greater. I am not saying the Sampson Road warehouses are not important, merely suggesting that they are not the most important collection of warehouses on the British canal system. I would certainly hope that a use can be found for them.

 

The important aspect of the Sampson Rd site is that it is essentially complete spanning a huge number of years with a very interesting blend of buildings and construction techniques. It also represents one of the first mechanised integrated transport facilities to be purpose built.

[David Mack]

I didn't know there were any heritage former petrol stations!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9719000/9719285.stm

[Derek R.]

I remember stopping to re-fuel at Markham Moor in 1971, and indeed that journey in a 425cc 2cv taking two days to the Scottish Highlands in Winter - was a motoring adventure. No cafe there then.

[matty40s]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9719000/9719285.stm

The ones in Leicester are now the BP canopies

[Machpoint005]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9719000/9719285.stm

 

Splitting hairs maybe, but it's just the canopies that are listed (despite the BBC headline). And neither one is a car wash.

I remember stopping to re-fuel at Markham Moor in 1971, and indeed that journey in a 425cc 2cv taking two days to the Scottish Highlands in Winter - was a motoring adventure. No cafe there then.

 

Yes, I remember it as a Shell station too.

[Pluto]

Grover Lewis is a highly reputable company and I would be reluctant to disagree with their expert view.

If I say anything to CRT it will be to support its stance.

Although I have not seen this report, I have seen other canal-related ones done by large national firms, some of which were of very dubious quality. Anyone involved with heritage/history should be happy to have their views challenged. It certainly seems to be the case here that conclusions need to be reviewed, as it seems some material was not available in the short time period given to a large firm, who would not have the detailed local knowledge of people who have been involved in research of a specific area for many years. That is the real problem of having large firms do this type of work - they rarely contact the local expert.

 

That said, they can bring in a broader overview, but this needs to be founded on detailed knowledge of the particular site. As I have mentioned in my previous posting, to me there are more historically important canal warehouse sites looking at the issue from a national perspective, but this IS an important site with regard to Birmingham and the Grand Union, and nationally representing the attempt by a few canal companies to reinvigorate their trade in the post First World War period. Not too much has been published on the history of canals in this period, but in the future it will probably be regarded as the time when lack of effective government support finally succeeded in bringing canal carrying to an end. Sampson Road is an opportunity to ensure that this crucial period in canal history is effectively remembered by suitable conservation of the site.

[Heartland]

In Birmingham, Wolverhampton and elsewhere in this region there have been factories, pubs and buildings of heritage value demolished creating modern unsightly wastelands waiting their fate. Short term occupations have included either the car wash entrepreneurs, or nature as shrubs and weeds reclaim the bulldozed land. That fate would be an unworthy one for vision Wilfrid Curtis had that led to the Grand Union Improvements.

 

I should also recognise Laurence's contribution as to the supplier of the ironworks was the Crown Works, Wolverhampton. This was a works north of Cannock Road Bridge on the 21 locks.

 

Ray Shill

To be fair the Grover Lewis, it would be useful to known what else they have done and what influence they have had on the preservation or destruction of canal heritage throughout the network.

 

Ray Shill

[matty40s]

 

this building a little further down the GU is a part of canal history, windows bricked up, roof gone inside and concrete overhang starting to fall into the canal.

until someone comes up with a way to use the canals for transport again, places like this are going to be lost.

[Laurence Hogg]

 

this building a little further down the GU is a part of canal history, windows bricked up, roof gone inside and concrete overhang starting to fall into the canal.

until someone comes up with a way to use the canals for transport again, places like this are going to be lost.

 

That is Tyseley wharfs, at present being redeveloped by CRT.

This will be gone soon under the direction of Cheryl Blount-Powell the "development" manager for CRT same person who is trying to demolish Sampson rd, no foresight or caring for heritage at all as far as I can make out.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[Machpoint005]

 

That is Tyseley wharfs, at present being redeveloped by CRT.

This will be gone soon under the direction of Cheryl Blount-Powell the "development" manager for CRT same person who is trying to demolish Sampson rd, no foresight or caring for heritage at all as far as I can make out.

 

What would be an acceptable 'heritage-friendly' way of using the buildings at Tyseley, then? They don't exactly shout 'architectural merit' at me.

[Laurence Hogg]

 

What would be an acceptable 'heritage-friendly' way of using the buildings at Tyseley, then? They don't exactly shout 'architectural merit' at me.

 

I am not directly involved with this but those canopies I believe are unique, however as they are now with no supporting structure behind them begs the question of how safe? I wouldn't moor underneath one!

As incorrectly stated in the below link the principal commodity here was timber, the zinc and steel being more a Sampson Rd traffic, but as usual CRT couldn't get facts right.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/development-plans-for-tyseley-wharf

Edited December 18, 2014 by Laurence Hogg

[Pluto]

 

What would be an acceptable 'heritage-friendly' way of using the buildings at Tyseley, then? They don't exactly shout 'architectural merit' at me.

Suggesting that buildings have to have 'architectural merit' is not the way a professional should look at heritage conservation. If we did, then all the small features which add so much to the whole canal visitor experience would be lost. You have to use all historic structures to interpret canal history correctly, and to provide an interesting historic environment, otherwise you would just end up with a meaningless pastiche. Just look at the dessert of the wharfs at Sheffield, which are now a featureless expanse, difficult for the visitor to imagine as the bustling port it once was, and lacking any charm to encourage visitors back.

 

I can envisage several ways in which canal-associated business could use the GU warehouses, but of course they would not bring a large amount of money, merely save the existing canal buildings for future generations.

[Machpoint005]

But the point remains that there isn't a bottomless purse to support that objective -- decisions have to be made and inevitably they'll be unpopular in some quarters.

 

It is quite possible to go too far in the opposite direction, such as when a listed building (a listed building) cannot be adapted for any useful purpose in today's world, so instead of decaying, it decays slightly more slowly. I just can't see a benefit, I'm afraid.

[Pluto]

Don't get me going on listed buildings! Some of the information on them is terrible. I wrote a report on South Dock Bridge at Goole where the listing described the bridge replaced circa 1910, rather than the one existing in the 1990s. Trying to change the information is also difficult; I have been trying to rectify the listing for the canal warehouses at Wigan for twenty years and seem to keep hitting a brick wall at English Heritage.

 

What distresses me on canal buildings is that there are sometimes people who would like to use a building for a short term, but at a low rent. Instead, hanging on for a higher rent means the building remains unoccupied and deteriorating. What is needed is to identify the most important buildings and ensure their future safety. A survey was done twenty years or so ago, but canal history research has come a long way since then, and there should be a reassessment of what survives, and how each historic site should be allowed to develop in the future. From what I have seen over the last fifteen or twenty years, there have been some questionable decisions made based on poor quality heritage reports.

[Laurence Hogg]

But the point remains that there isn't a bottomless purse to support that objective -- decisions have to be made and inevitably they'll be unpopular in some quarters.

 

It is quite possible to go too far in the opposite direction, such as when a listed building (a listed building) cannot be adapted for any useful purpose in today's world, so instead of decaying, it decays slightly more slowly. I just can't see a benefit, I'm afraid.

 

"Cannot be adapted" - You seem blind to the obvious (or maybe work for the CRT development team). This collection of structures represents a complete picture of waterway history. Secondly NO ATTEMPT has been made to find a use or tenant within the waterways trade, a fact that does seem a bit odd to me. Covered wet docks are at a premium, volunteer labour could restore and re clad these structures easily, yet CRT seem blind to this with "demolition" as the only option. Does that really make sense?

 

And why have CRT restored exactly the same structure in Brentford? Or is that because its in the London area??

[Heartland]

There are schemes that may be sympathetic to the redevelopment of Tyseley and Sampson Road Road, but whether anybody wants to finance them depends in part in providing reasons for their continued existence. Talking about them on this website is part of the process.

 

Alan Faulkener helped with some of the notes, I believe he is looking for a positive result. Alan wrote the George and Mary with is about the Grand Union Canal Carrying Boats. Many of these craft remain, it would nice to recall how many. Each and every one of them owe their existence to the trade along the GU to places like Sampson Road and Tyseley.

 

Ray Shill