Old building in Chester city centre

[Jo Harding]

The building is Dee House and it became the Ursuline Convent School. It dates from 1730 and was built as a town house for John Comberbach, a former mayor of Chester. There is more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_House

I thought this was a listed building, so would be surprised if they can demolish it for a car park. Developers were keen to convert it into flats and houses at one time. I don't know what happened to their plans.

Jo.

[silvery]

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/dangerous-dee-house-chester-put-8581034

or

http://www.chesterwalls.info/amphitheatre01.html

[longshanks]

Interesting to read other people's take on this building. For those not familiar it sits over the south side of the Roman Amphitheatre just west of St John's Church. Because it is listed Grade II, but has lain empty for 25 years, and needs a lot done to it, it has been very difficult to get anyone to take it on. They are trying to get someone this year. As has been pointed out it was the Convent School founded here in 1854.

The belief that the central portion was built in 1730 depends on de Lavaux's plan of Chester in 1747 which has written down the outside of the east boundary of the plot "Mr Comberback". James Comberbach in his will in 1736 left two new built houses in or near St John Street near to St John's Church, which had tenants, and the large house in which he lived on St John Street. However these are not Dee House. His nephew might be the Mr Comberback of 1747, but his will also left a house on the west side of St John Street, which later became the Mechanics Institute, the City Library and was rebuilt as "Cruise" nightclub.

So who did build it? I ask because I'm trying to find out, so some readers may know something. It certainly means going back before 1854 - there aren't any answers in books or on websites, other than speculations already quoted. It is likely to be part of the land of the Bishop of Chester that was leased to Sir Robert Cunliffe (son of Foster Cunliffe the 18th century shipping magnate in Liverpool) and to his son Sir Foster Cunliffe, until the latter bought Acton Park near Wrexham in 1783. It was afterwards let, and when advertised for sale in 1831 was a sizeable building (the drawing room alone was longer than the central section of the Convent School, and it was more like 1760s in date.

In 1858 the Convent School erected a new building, and in 1866 Edmund Kirby, the Liverpool architect, designed the east wing with its distinctive brickwork, and the chapel mentioned by others. At the time there was no sign of the building claimed now to be a Georgian House. It is possible that Kirby connected the new building to the old re-using materials from the old.

So why make a fuss? Well a lot of the pressure to restore it exactly as it is stems from claiming it is based on a Georgian mansion. If it isn't, and is merely fragments of one neatly incorporated in 1860s building work, it wouldn't be so crucial to restore it to such an extent, and something more affordable and more attractive could be attempted. There is little use demolishing it to recover the amphitheatre as cellars are recorded, and the chapel block foundations were dug down ten feet. But it might fair better if a less exacting restoration were possible and it could be made into something usefully complimentary to Chester.

[silvery]

I think it's too far gone to be restored.   And the council built that stupid court at the back - who knows why. 
An article here from this amazing site of Steve Howe
http://www.chesterwalls.info/amphitheatre01.html

[longshanks]

Maybe so, but as long as it is Grade II listed, and Historic England sticks to its guidelines that the whole structure must be preserved, it is there to stay.

This is a common problem in many towns and cities - there are buildings with strict preservation orders on them that have reached a point where no-one can do anything to save them, because they've lain empty so long, but the authorities won't change the preservation requirement. The longer they stay empty the harder it gets to restore them, and the harder it gets to persuade anyone to take them on. The problem is while Historical England can insist on preservation, they aren't involved in paying for it.

In the Dee House case the claim that the central part is a Georgian mansion is what prevents anything being demolished, although Kirby's very elegant chapel of 1866-68 is probably a valid element of the listing. The trouble with listings is that it is all or nothing.

What I've suggested is that it was a very large house built in the 1760s by the Cunliffes and didn't survive the conversion to a Convent School. I've based that on a lot of research through original documents. But though I can present a lot of evidence for that, it counts for nothing, as original listing arguments are almost impossible to reverse. The entire actual case that it was built for one of the Comberbach family is an ambiguous attribution on one map printed in 1747.

The ChesterWalls website charts the amazing history of unresolved issues from the 1970s (it was Listed in 1972). It is truly amazing that after years of argument we've still got a deteriorating and unattractive empty ruin that is supposed to be glorious Georgian. I don't think so.

[silvery]

I did read recently that no-one has thought of applying to de-list it.   But for that site the court is now the problem.   

When Chester was first vandalised in the 60s they pulled down a lot of Georgian housing to put in the so-called 'ring road.'   All of Northgate Street Georgian and most of Nicholas Street went.   Wasn't a problem then.   It's a pity they weren't listed. 

Dee House is now an eyesore and a blot on the landscape.   Personally I don't think it's Georgian either.

[longshanks]

The de-list story is a bit of a myth. Getting a Listing revoked is incredibly difficult and can take a year or more with little likelihood of success. Granted someone should have tried, but the chances are they wouldn't have succeeded.

The only way you can get something de-listed is to make an unassailable case. Otherwise Historic England will just point out the weaknesses and insist their view of things hasn't changed. They will usually require a case to be made involving photographic evidence as proof to the contrary, even excavation evidence (as if you are likely to get permission to do so in the first place) I've done a lot of research on Dee House, but not enough to de-list it. It is a national problem - the basis of listing is often poorly substantiated but once set up, it is impossible to object.

To my mind a better outcome would be some flexibility in the conditions for re-use that made it easier to take on a restoration, and also made it possible to get good use out of it. One of the problems is that the rooms are small for modern needs, and disabled access would be a nightmare.

Also, as has been pointed out, it was where many people had their schooldays. It might be valuable if some of it remained standing.

With the ghastly Trident House court facility behind it, which has an ugly blank wall to the north, demolishing Dee House would leave us with something worse to look at, so keeping most of Dee House is kinder, if only someone would take it on. The joke about heritage is that Trident House went ahead because archaeologists had already excavated that part of the amphitheatre it overlaps. So its construction didn't bother archaeologists.

What is really needed is reform of the listing system. It got this way precisely because of the mass destruction of streets in the 60s, but now it has gone too far the other way - though in the normal way of things it does its work, there's no flexibility when something goes wrong.

Hope the moderators don't mind this digression, but buildings are a key part of family history, and many people do have links with heritage buildings where their ancestors lived, visited or worked.