It is currently Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:11 am

All times are UTC






Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] 


Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:22 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:54 pm
Posts: 967
Images: 24
I can't imagine that the preservation order dictates that the Candles have to retain their original innards. I would have thought that if the lanterns do continue to be used, then the gear and lamps would have to be updated. However, if new lighting is installed for streetlighting purposes and the Candles are no longer used, then surely they would  be disconnected, remaining in situ as objet d'art for daytime eyes only.

It might be worth trying to obtain the control gear from the redundant Candles as they come down, if the hulks of the lanterns are to be retained as spares.


Top
 Profile  Personal album 
 
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 11:09 pm 
Offline
Member
Random avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Cleveleys nr Blackpool
I appreciate the concerns people have if the Candles are retained but not used that they'll fall into disrepair and be grubby. However, if this were the case, surely some action could be taken against Cambridgeshire County Council for not keeping listed items up to standard. Were it a listed building then some level of maintenance would need to be adhered to and I'm sure it's the same with the Candles. I reckon Cambridgeshire CC will look after the Candles though, after all the streetscene is important in a historic city like Cambridge, possibly hence the reason the Candles are being replaced by DW Windsor Sorrentos rather than tacky Urbis Albanys, which most other towns use for heritage lighting!  ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 10:40 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 521
Images: 11
Location: Colchester, Essex
In our area (Colchester), listed status is often seen as an inconvenient obstacle to wealth-generation, so developers won't make any effort to maintain such structures or equipment and happily let it go to rack and ruin, at which point the building has lost its architectural value, planning permission has to be granted for demolition just to clear up the eyesore, and the developers get to make lots of money by building their flats.

It's a long-running theme in Colchester that these properties are often given a helping hand on their road to dereliction with apparently suspicious fires breaking out in buildings where the (admittedly old) electrics would have been disconnected years ago. Daniel Defoe's house (planning permission for nine properties on the site of the Grade II listed building refused) has has two fires in three years - the first one in 2009 almost destroyed it - and every few months a derelict building somewhere in Colchester is destroyed by fire.

The worst example is the closed Severalls Hospital, again listed but of no value to the local health authority until the land it stands on is sold to developers. Only a token effort has been made to maintain the redundant hospital or secure the site perimeter, and since its closure the hospital has been systematically destroyed by vandals, again with fire destroying important parts. It is almost beyond repair now, i.e. at a point where developers can knock it down and start with an empty site instead of converting the existing buildings into homes. An empty site is a far cheaper and more attractive option to them.

I hope Cambridge's listed Richardson Candles aren't so much of an inconvenience that there's a suspicious increase in road traffic accidents :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 5:02 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 1528
Images: 12
York Road Library, Leeds is a G2 listed structure. It's been derelict for 30+ years and some people decided to remove every slate from the roof, it sat like that for 3 years before the council fitted black sheeting to the roof (which has now blown off). Listed in this case is the only thing stopping it from being knocked down.

Time will tell what happens to the 19 candles. Does anyone know the road they're listed on? If it's a quiet road then they may be left operational. I can't see new columns being erected and the old ones just left there. The powers that be will know the old ones are 60 years old and will become a safety risk in no time at all.


Top
 Profile  Personal album 
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:30 pm 
Offline
Site Administration
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 3256
Images: 27
Location: Salisbury
Stelmer wrote:


Does anyone know the road they're listed on? If it's a quiet road then they may be left operational. I can't see new columns being erected and the old ones just left there. The powers that be will know the old ones are 60 years old and will become a safety risk in no time at all.


Phosco152 wrote:
Simon C has updated his history of the Richardson Candles. The listing apparently applies to those on St Johns and Trinity Street, which would suggest both wall and column mounted ones would be retained.


Top
 Profile  Personal album 
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:40 pm 
Offline
Member
Random avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Cleveleys nr Blackpool
Perhaps I was a bit naive to state that I thought the Candles would be kept safe due to them being listed. However, with no offence implied to Colchester or Leeds, Cambridge is a city which trades on it's history and that was my reasoning behind my thinking that the council might maintain the Candles. I know full well what can happen to some listed buildings when developers get involved. Like poor old Fleetwood Pier which mysteriously burnt down due to an 'electrical fault' even though it had been empty for years. Coincidentally the owner of the pier had just been refused planning permission to build a large hotel on it and the fire strangely started at 4am on a Thursday when 99.9% of people in the area would be at home in bed  ;)  :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:47 pm 
Offline
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:48 am
Posts: 6227
Images: 1729
Fire Investigators will be called in to such scenes like that, and their work is very thourough in order to find the root cause of the fire. Insurance companies will also need formal reports from the investigators before any money is paid out to the owner of the destroyed property - as insurance companies will know there are people out there who will try to defraud them by setting things on fire. Whilst circumstances may seem suspicious, the fire may have been a complete accident.... either that or the building owner is just very very good at hiding their steps!

_________________
Tesco brings all the mums to the yard...
and they're like "do you have your club card"
Image


Top
 Profile  Personal album 
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:50 pm 
Offline
Member
Random avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Cleveleys nr Blackpool
Fleetwood Pier wasn't actually insured so I can categorically state there was definitely no fraud going on there in a financial sense! However, the removal of the pier would surely make a new development being put there a more likely and agreeable outcome? After all, anything is preferable to a pile of burnt rubble!  ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:54 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 1528
Images: 12
Phosco152 wrote:
Stelmer wrote:


Does anyone know the road they're listed on? If it's a quiet road then they may be left operational. I can't see new columns being erected and the old ones just left there. The powers that be will know the old ones are 60 years old and will become a safety risk in no time at all.


Phosco152 wrote:
Simon C has updated his history of the Richardson Candles. The listing apparently applies to those on St Johns and Trinity Street, which would suggest both wall and column mounted ones would be retained.


I knew that, I meant did anyone actually ''know'' St Johns and Trinity Street? If it's a pedestrian only area or limited traffic, there may be a chance that the listed lanterns would be modernised and retained along with supplemental lighting . Keeping them lit is honoring Sir Albert Richardson's unique contribution to the architecture of Cambridge.

Obviously the lanterns which come down will need to be inspected and bowls retained, if new modern replacements were either prohibited by the listing status or hard to obtain. I don't think internal work will be prohibited as it's not affecting the structure or external design of the lantern.


Top
 Profile  Personal album 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2011 11:31 pm 
Offline
Member
Random avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Cleveleys nr Blackpool
One hopes that Cambridgeshire will have the wit and foresight to retain some of the lanterns they take down so that replacement parts are easily obtained for the remaining lanterns even if it's just for replacement bowls etc.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] 

All times are UTC



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



Search for: