The facade of the Market Tavern -lets call it by its old name -which it should have kept -The Old No 12- could and should have been saved. My recent letter to the Star reflects my argument so I won't repeat it.Sheffield City Council, Councillors and Officers in the main don't regard heritage conservation as a vote winner and therefore not a priority.That's why we only have 1 -yes 1 conservation officer- hardly adequate for a city even which -according to a recent book on Sheffield [Fine's History and Guide to Sheffield] has lost most of its heritage- isn't adequate by any means - anyone interested in what is or should be an issue central to municipal planning seems not to stay long with the Council these days.Where is the Heritage Strategy and the championing of heritage in a situation like this? How many of the said Councillors will attend the Heritage Fair this weekend with one or two noble exceptions ? And the Civic Trust -have they a voice on such matters.Castlegate even with all its archaelogical and associated potential is the loser not forgetting ourselves for the loss of probably the finest public house facade in the city which survived the Luftwaffe but not a regeneration supposedly based on heritage.
Hi Ron. Yeah, I agree that we don't spend enough on this stuff but I also know that the council has almost no money for it anymore. I would imagine they only have one conservation officer because that's all they can afford. And there are councillors who are passionate about this -- Janet Ridler and Brian Holmshaw spring to mind. I know from following him on Twitter that new leader Tom Hunt is well, but the authority have big bills for things like social care which tend to take priority.
It breaks my heart, all the old buildings that are falling down. Sheffield needs more money, not the kind that wealthy property owners make from abusing their tenants but the kind that actually supports the city and makes things better for everyone.
In other news, I want that water tower house, please.
Yeah, it's definitely sad. But like you say the council has very little money to spend on this kind of thing (repair bill of £250m+ against a budget of £8m). The water tower was sent to me by a reader. It's way more expensive than the ones we normally feature but I just thought it was interesting! Lovely views but some strange features inside!
Quirky! I like it. Not such a fan of the tennis courts, I'd rather have woods and wildflowers - and that's what I look out over now, so I shouldn't be hankering for anything else. My view is better than any other view already.
I am disapointed Dan that you appear to dismiss heritage in the rather superficial comment 'this sort of thing'- I can imagine -sadly- that many councillors would make the same trite observation.And defending the council?
Come on, Ron. I find the idea that either me or The Tribune are indifferent to heritage a little bit offensive. How many pieces have we done about the city's heritage over the last three years? In terms of defending the council, I just think it's important to understand the financial constraints they are working within, having lost 40% of their budget over the last 13 years. Inevitably they have to prioritise statutory functions and things like heritage suffer.
The problem in Sheffield is that buildings which could have been saved at a relatively low cost many years ago, have been left to deteriorate to a point where they cannot be saved due to excessive costs. Part of me suspects some of these instances may actually suit the council as demolition leaves a nice developer friendly site. The central library building has been in trouble for over half of my 81 years. A lot of money and effort went in to courting a Chinese rescue that could have been spent on the actual building.
Unfortunately, Elaine, allowing time and the elements to take their toll is a very powerful weapon in the hands of landowners. All they need to do is nothing, so long as they do it for long enough. It might be deliberate, it might not. That's the thing - we'll never really know. We could perhaps strengthen the law to impute, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, knowledge and intention. That's the only thing that comes to mind.
As a relatively new Sheffielder, I’m not qualified to express anything but a fairly superficial opinion. However, I’m pleased to know that the old castle area is having archaeology done to it (is there a proper verb for that??), as having roots going back further than the steam-powered era is so inspiring.
I agree that people should express a view though, but we’d need to be aware of the approximate cost (both in cash terms and in terms of local disruption) of saving or renewing the built environment. It’s one of the ironies of the so-called Conservatives that their “austerity” means that we’re forced to choose between preserving our heritage and caring for our fellow citizens, be they children, the elderly, people with disabilities and so on. How do you compare the cost of an old building and the well-being of a child? As such a wealthy country, why do we even have to choose?
For me, preserving heritage IS one way of caring for our fellow citizens - if it means creating a built environment that allows people to feel connected to where they live and provides them with a sense of how their own lives are keyed in chronologically with their forebears. That allows for a more richly rooted sense of being 'here' and is necessary to psychological wellbeing, or 'a life well lived'. Idealistic I know! Still, difficult 'choices' like the one the article is about we create ourselves by not valuing the right things when planning our cities.
I completely agree with you Mr P. A sense of belonging, and of having a past is germane to one’s wellbeing, and consequently to the healthy functioning of a community. Being forced by financial restrictions into neglecting physical surroundings in order to save people is a cruelty inflicted for ideological reasons, not economic ones (and I speak as someone with an economics degree). It makes me so angry that recent governments have seen alienation as a personal weakness rather than their own failure to provide an environment where we can all flourish, regardless of our background.
It’s a public nominated list of places that people value. The nominations need to meet certain criteria be eligible but you can email the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (who manage it) for assistance.
The LHL is excellent (as is the fact that officer time to support it has now been properly funded). Not only does it provide welcome recognition for those historic gems that are beneath the notice of Historic England, it also does seem to have some role in protection. The Highfield Cocoa and Coffee House was saved from summary demolition, something that may have been helped by the fact that it was going through the LHL process. The owners of the 18th century barn across from me wanted to demolish it for housing, and although permission was refused I fully expected further applications. Its addition to the LHL will have helped to persuade them that the chances of demolition were receding - and now as I write they are putting on a brand new slate roof.
I think this is really hard. Councils are hard pressed for cash and £200m to fix-up getting on for 300 buildings...something’s got to give. It’d be nice to see an assessment that says ‘these are the 300, we could put aside £x over X years, that’ll cover 100/50/2/250 of them so X many need to go’. I’d like to see councillors debate that. It’d be better than letting time and water damage decide which stay!
There seems a thread going back decades of allowing buildings to decline to the point where suddenly they are unsafe, inconvenient and simply have to go. It will be a matter of time before the Salvation Army building is swept away.
The Market Tavern was part of the plans for Castlegate, so why wasn't essential repairs carried out.
We have a time limited window to spend the levelling up funds, to date we have knocked down a pub, refused to fully daylight the Sheaf and not so much as a portacabin on site.
I do hope there can be a Cambridge Steet style u-turn and the facade can be preserved.
'This stuff' Dan really ! I don't think the pub could have been saved but the facade could have been.The Old No 12 was seen as being dispensable some years ago and I recollect protesting about it via a letter to the local press. I look forward to Robin Hughes comments in due course.Hope you are going to attend the heritage fair this weekend - come and have a hat-Ron
Sorry to say this, Dan, but this article is quite a shallow dive into a deep and complex question. It'll take me a while to put together my personal view, but I'd like to share it with you once I have done so.
It is so difficult trying to make decisions about these buildings. If it had survived could the building have been put to a viable use? The old town hall has stood empty for 25 years! Do we just leave it if nobody expressed an interest in using it? I do not know the answer.
The facade of the Market Tavern -lets call it by its old name -which it should have kept -The Old No 12- could and should have been saved. My recent letter to the Star reflects my argument so I won't repeat it.Sheffield City Council, Councillors and Officers in the main don't regard heritage conservation as a vote winner and therefore not a priority.That's why we only have 1 -yes 1 conservation officer- hardly adequate for a city even which -according to a recent book on Sheffield [Fine's History and Guide to Sheffield] has lost most of its heritage- isn't adequate by any means - anyone interested in what is or should be an issue central to municipal planning seems not to stay long with the Council these days.Where is the Heritage Strategy and the championing of heritage in a situation like this? How many of the said Councillors will attend the Heritage Fair this weekend with one or two noble exceptions ? And the Civic Trust -have they a voice on such matters.Castlegate even with all its archaelogical and associated potential is the loser not forgetting ourselves for the loss of probably the finest public house facade in the city which survived the Luftwaffe but not a regeneration supposedly based on heritage.
Hi Ron. Yeah, I agree that we don't spend enough on this stuff but I also know that the council has almost no money for it anymore. I would imagine they only have one conservation officer because that's all they can afford. And there are councillors who are passionate about this -- Janet Ridler and Brian Holmshaw spring to mind. I know from following him on Twitter that new leader Tom Hunt is well, but the authority have big bills for things like social care which tend to take priority.
I saw your letter in The Sheffield Star, Ron! And I knew the identity of the other Sheffield news outlet 😁
Great stuff!
It breaks my heart, all the old buildings that are falling down. Sheffield needs more money, not the kind that wealthy property owners make from abusing their tenants but the kind that actually supports the city and makes things better for everyone.
In other news, I want that water tower house, please.
Yeah, it's definitely sad. But like you say the council has very little money to spend on this kind of thing (repair bill of £250m+ against a budget of £8m). The water tower was sent to me by a reader. It's way more expensive than the ones we normally feature but I just thought it was interesting! Lovely views but some strange features inside!
Quirky! I like it. Not such a fan of the tennis courts, I'd rather have woods and wildflowers - and that's what I look out over now, so I shouldn't be hankering for anything else. My view is better than any other view already.
I am disapointed Dan that you appear to dismiss heritage in the rather superficial comment 'this sort of thing'- I can imagine -sadly- that many councillors would make the same trite observation.And defending the council?
Come on, Ron. I find the idea that either me or The Tribune are indifferent to heritage a little bit offensive. How many pieces have we done about the city's heritage over the last three years? In terms of defending the council, I just think it's important to understand the financial constraints they are working within, having lost 40% of their budget over the last 13 years. Inevitably they have to prioritise statutory functions and things like heritage suffer.
The problem in Sheffield is that buildings which could have been saved at a relatively low cost many years ago, have been left to deteriorate to a point where they cannot be saved due to excessive costs. Part of me suspects some of these instances may actually suit the council as demolition leaves a nice developer friendly site. The central library building has been in trouble for over half of my 81 years. A lot of money and effort went in to courting a Chinese rescue that could have been spent on the actual building.
Unfortunately, Elaine, allowing time and the elements to take their toll is a very powerful weapon in the hands of landowners. All they need to do is nothing, so long as they do it for long enough. It might be deliberate, it might not. That's the thing - we'll never really know. We could perhaps strengthen the law to impute, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, knowledge and intention. That's the only thing that comes to mind.
As a relatively new Sheffielder, I’m not qualified to express anything but a fairly superficial opinion. However, I’m pleased to know that the old castle area is having archaeology done to it (is there a proper verb for that??), as having roots going back further than the steam-powered era is so inspiring.
I agree that people should express a view though, but we’d need to be aware of the approximate cost (both in cash terms and in terms of local disruption) of saving or renewing the built environment. It’s one of the ironies of the so-called Conservatives that their “austerity” means that we’re forced to choose between preserving our heritage and caring for our fellow citizens, be they children, the elderly, people with disabilities and so on. How do you compare the cost of an old building and the well-being of a child? As such a wealthy country, why do we even have to choose?
For me, preserving heritage IS one way of caring for our fellow citizens - if it means creating a built environment that allows people to feel connected to where they live and provides them with a sense of how their own lives are keyed in chronologically with their forebears. That allows for a more richly rooted sense of being 'here' and is necessary to psychological wellbeing, or 'a life well lived'. Idealistic I know! Still, difficult 'choices' like the one the article is about we create ourselves by not valuing the right things when planning our cities.
Thank you for that perfect summary of the value of heritage and the reason that campaigners like me do what we do.
I completely agree with you Mr P. A sense of belonging, and of having a past is germane to one’s wellbeing, and consequently to the healthy functioning of a community. Being forced by financial restrictions into neglecting physical surroundings in order to save people is a cruelty inflicted for ideological reasons, not economic ones (and I speak as someone with an economics degree). It makes me so angry that recent governments have seen alienation as a personal weakness rather than their own failure to provide an environment where we can all flourish, regardless of our background.
I know Brian and Janet well -hence my comments about 'noble exxceptions' -why do other local authorities ie NE Derbys have 3 conservation officers?
The Local List mentioned is found here: https://local-heritage-list.org.uk/south-yorkshire
It’s a public nominated list of places that people value. The nominations need to meet certain criteria be eligible but you can email the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (who manage it) for assistance.
The LHL is excellent (as is the fact that officer time to support it has now been properly funded). Not only does it provide welcome recognition for those historic gems that are beneath the notice of Historic England, it also does seem to have some role in protection. The Highfield Cocoa and Coffee House was saved from summary demolition, something that may have been helped by the fact that it was going through the LHL process. The owners of the 18th century barn across from me wanted to demolish it for housing, and although permission was refused I fully expected further applications. Its addition to the LHL will have helped to persuade them that the chances of demolition were receding - and now as I write they are putting on a brand new slate roof.
I think this is really hard. Councils are hard pressed for cash and £200m to fix-up getting on for 300 buildings...something’s got to give. It’d be nice to see an assessment that says ‘these are the 300, we could put aside £x over X years, that’ll cover 100/50/2/250 of them so X many need to go’. I’d like to see councillors debate that. It’d be better than letting time and water damage decide which stay!
There seems a thread going back decades of allowing buildings to decline to the point where suddenly they are unsafe, inconvenient and simply have to go. It will be a matter of time before the Salvation Army building is swept away.
The Market Tavern was part of the plans for Castlegate, so why wasn't essential repairs carried out.
We have a time limited window to spend the levelling up funds, to date we have knocked down a pub, refused to fully daylight the Sheaf and not so much as a portacabin on site.
I do hope there can be a Cambridge Steet style u-turn and the facade can be preserved.
'This stuff' Dan really ! I don't think the pub could have been saved but the facade could have been.The Old No 12 was seen as being dispensable some years ago and I recollect protesting about it via a letter to the local press. I look forward to Robin Hughes comments in due course.Hope you are going to attend the heritage fair this weekend - come and have a hat-Ron
Sorry to say this, Dan, but this article is quite a shallow dive into a deep and complex question. It'll take me a while to put together my personal view, but I'd like to share it with you once I have done so.
Asking us all 'which building do you hate right now do you hate and think we can knock down?' is how you end up with Euston Station!
If a building of interest has to come down, my question is always "What is going to take its place?"
"Little Boxes on the Hillside 🎼🎵🎶🎵🎶" - Malvina Reynolds
It is so difficult trying to make decisions about these buildings. If it had survived could the building have been put to a viable use? The old town hall has stood empty for 25 years! Do we just leave it if nobody expressed an interest in using it? I do not know the answer.
It could - it was actually in line to be restored as part of the Castlegate regeneration.