I’m just going to run through the points as they appear in the article.
‘Mrs Dhugga said: “The Cooperage is without a doubt one of the most charming and architecturally significant buildings in the city – and we welcome this opportunity to update you on its condition.’
Must have been shuddering with anticipation behind their wall of silence to tell us all these long months!
‘“The Apartment Group has considerable experience in working with listed buildings, and has spent more than £10m in recent years taking abandoned, neglected buildings and sensitively restoring them into award winning ventures - saving buildings and creating considerable employment.’
Whoopee doo! I acknowledge your blatant PR… but can we stick to the point?
‘“However, The Cooperage project is taking longer than most projects due to its historical significance and challenging location.’
Yes… a decade!
‘“When we acquired The Cooperage site it was in a state of considerable disrepair, with holes in the roof, burst water pipes, broken windows and derelict guttering just the start of the problem. We rectified all these issues immediately, both in the interests of protecting this architecturally and historically important building, and to make it secure.’
Repairs would have had to be made, initially, to bring it to standard to be opened as a pub; however… remedial maintenance was evidently not a priority for many years and, only when this campaign began kicking up a stink last year, were hasty repairs made to a broken window pane; possibly some roof tiles; and approx.10ft of downpipe on the gable end overlooking Long Stairs, which had been left to pour rainwater down the wall for months , if not years.
‘ the support wasn’t there and with the decline in footfall to this part of the Quayside area, it became economically unviable and was forced to close.’
So, no mention of the noise complaints from the nearby apartments that led directly to the closure?
‘..the building is continually inspected and assessed on a weekly basis, as this enables even the smallest deterioration to be dealt with instantly.’
Weekly basis! For a structure that is claimed to be in such a good condition to have a monthly inspection would be , commendable, if not of slight concern; but for a council inspector to come out every week to survey a property they saw only a few days ago? ??
Does that sound like it couldn’t fall over at any moment?
Why would they waste their time and resources on a stable property?
It sound to me like Apartment Group have been given a kick up the arse! Call me an old cycnic…
‘“Far from abandoning this much-loved building, The Apartment Group is working with a number of agencies and experts to ensure that The Cooperage remains structurally sound and safe, but also to develop an exciting and ambitious scheme so that it can once again welcome residents and visitors to the city.”’
The claim that the building hasn’t been abandoned, unlike the poor old thing herself, doesn’t hold water at all; based on it’s decade of neglect to date. What possible assurance is there in that statement?
Conclusion:
I must admit I was taken aback when I heard on the radio, and read in the Chronicle article that the Apartment Group had managed to emerge from their hidey hole to release a statement. My first thoughts were positive; at least they are now acknowledging the issue raised by our campaign; then that quickly faded because what they said just simply doesn’t stack up.
All the agencies we’ve been in touch with: Historic England, English Heritage, Tyne and Wear Building Preservation… have said they’ve had little to no contact with the owner, save to say that they announced to the press this time last year that they ‘ have no plans for it’s future’.
Now, does that sound like a company that has been proactive all these years to put its money into restoring and maintaining a building it’s no longer confident it’ll make a return for them?
This is what I think, based on the story so far….
Apartment Group bought The Cooperage to run as a pub/club. Neighbouring residents, despite a conscious decision to live nextdoor to a busy pub, managed to have it closed down simply because they didn’t like the sound of folk enjoying themselves, and most likely had some weight with the council.
Apartment Group gets an ultimatum: get the place soundproofed or close the doors.
The quote for said works proves too much and The Cooperage is mothballed… for years and years… while the owner figure how to make a return on the White Elephant it’s inherited.
To the present….. We, Save The Cooperage’; concerned citizens of the city and beyond, take up the cause because of the blindingly obvious state of the building; as much as can be viewed for the outside.
I believe the hasty ‘maintenance’ carried out last year was as a direct result of our intervention and awareness campaign; however, shoving a length of pvc pipe (non matching!) up the side of the gable end and replacing a small window pane surely couldn’t have been sufficient to address the years of rain ingress, damp and vermin?
Now we’re thankfully in strength enough to be listened to seriously, and I believe the Apartment Group are on the defensive with, in my opinion, not a very convincing reposte which, if I didn’t know better, sounds very much like being fobbed off with no evidence to support the claims made or even an invitation to soothe our fears.
With an acknowledgment to the patronising tone, Apartment Group still has a long way to go to convince me of it’s honourable intentions because, a few not very well considered words in the paper doesn’t explain the glaring evidence to the contrary myself, and thousands of others in the city, have born firsthand witness to since it was left closed.
At this point in time I have no plans to end this campaign despite of what has been said.
I’m not prepared to take my eye off The Cooperage because I just don’t trust what I’ve heard; it contradicts what I’ve seen so fa...
A fact still remains to be challenged... .
Why are such endangered building even left to private ownership to sort out?
According to Heritage England, private owners aren’t event legally obliged to maintain them?
Am I a baffoon?
Have I missed something, perhaps?
The Law, as it stands, is weighted completely in the favour of the developer; enabling them to purchase cheap, run down burdens on the City Council coffers, to let crumble to dust so the land, worth more vacant, can be flogged for a nice little earner.
Angry? Frustrated?
