Saving Face
Facade-retention methods in Liverpool's derelict terraces
Ian Weir
 |
| 71 Shaw Street: this once fine Regency terraced house had been destroyed by decay following vandalism and years of
neglect. Saving even the facade was a challenge. |
Despite a century of industrial decline and
heavy bombing in World War II, Liverpool
has retained a rich heritage. With over
2,500 listed buildings, it is one of Britain’s finest
Victorian cities, and in 2004 its mercantile,
maritime core was accorded World Heritage
Site status. However, in 1991 English Heritage’s
buildings at risk survey had revealed that over
one third of Liverpool’s listed building stock was
either in poor condition or vacant and therefore
at risk, or at best vulnerable to becoming so. In
the economic circumstances that then prevailed,
private owners in many parts of the city found
property values too low and redevelopment
options were simply not viable.
The Planning (Listed Building and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 provide local
authorities with enforcement powers to require
owners to undertake works to listed buildings
that are falling into disrepair. However, local
authorities are often reluctant to use these
powers, particularly in such difficult economic
circumstances, as noncompliance requires the
authority to undertake the works in default. Few
authorities consider that they have the financial
resources to commit to such action.
Nevertheless, for the past few years
Liverpool City Council has been taking its
responsibility very seriously, turning to external
funding agencies for help. Its strategy attracted
the support of the government through its
regional development agency, the Heritage
Lottery Fund through a Townscape Heritage
Initiative, and English Heritage through HELP,
the Historic Environment of Liverpool Project.
The strategy was also supported by notable local
community leaders and the local press, which
ran a campaign entitled ‘Stop the Rot’. Formed
in March 2001, this integrated initiative gave the
city council the confidence to deliver the ‘urgent
works’ notices required.
Technical design support was given by
2020 Liverpool, an organisation set up in 2003
by Liverpool City Council in partnership with
Mouchel to provide property and professional
services to the City of Liverpool.
An initial ‘rapid assessment’ was
undertaken to prioritise which properties on
the register of buildings at risk warranted
urgent attention. Liverpool City Council then
served a number of Section 54 (urgent works)
notices together with Section 55 (cost recovery)
notices. In a few cases, owners incapable of
complying with the notices have negotiated for
the works to be undertaken by the city council.
In two cases the city council served a Section 48
(repairs) notice in the knowledge that the
owners would continue to default, and that
ultimately a compulsory purchase order (CPO)
would be required.
The following two case studies illustrate
two projects which, sadly, had decayed to the
point where only the facades could be saved.
These were retained with the cooperation of the
property owners and considerable ingenuity.
64-72 SEEL STREET, LIVERPOOL
This Grade II listed terrace of Georgian town
houses on the south-west side of Seel Street
was constructed in the late 18th century. The
properties are of traditional load bearing
masonry construction, comprising three storeys
constructed over basements.
The houses had been vacant for many
years and parts had been gutted by fire. The
terrace had been reported to be in a dangerous
condition threatening a public highway.
Consideration was given to the need to serve
a Section 77 (dangerous structures) notice on
the owners, but it was agreed that the future
of the buildings would be better protected if
the buildings at risk protocol was adopted.
Following the initial assessment of its current
condition, an urgent works notice was compiled
in consultation with the buildings at risk officer
from Liverpool City Council.
Structural surveys and condition appraisal
reports carried out at that time had noted
that these buildings were in a severe state of
deterioration. Decay had led to the progressive
collapse of roof structures followed by internal
floors, together with several external load
bearing walls to the rear. The reports concluded
that the buildings were in such poor condition
that internal access was not permissible. This
presented a problem, not only for its inspection,
but also for its conservation, and it was
concluded that only a facade retention scheme
was viable. This would enable safe, phased
access from the rear to permit the removal
of the debris from various collapses and the
lowering of unstable party walls.
2020 Liverpool was instructed by the city
council to assess the feasibility of saving the
front facade.
At higher levels, the masonry facade of 70
and 72 Seel Street had been exposed to water
ingress for so long that it had become unstable:
it had to be taken down. Prior to removal, a
complete photographic record was taken for future reference, and the gutters, stone lintols
and handmade brick features were retained for
reuse.
Number 68 had been subjected to fire
damage as well as water ingress. The roof
members that were supported by the front wall
were cut back to the first purlin to allow the
condition of the fire-damaged fabric and the
extent of timber decay to be assessed from a
mobile access platform. Dangerous fabric was
removed using man baskets.
2020 Liverpool assessed that the masonry
was now capable of being restrained, so the
next task was to design an independent facade
retention system that could be installed
without requiring access within the building.
This was done by the company that installed
it, RMD Kwikform Engineering. Once 2020
Liverpool had determined the lines of support
necessary to maintain the integrity of the wall
under vertical dead loads and horizontal wind
loads, RMD set about designing the waling
(the horizontal shores) and cantilever support
frames required to provide the defined support
requirements.
The kentledge (the dead-weight required
to resist the overturning of the frames) was
positioned away from the building to avoid
surcharging the basement retaining walls,
cellar lights and coal chutes, and the building
foundations. The retention system uses
horizontal steel waling members positioned
against the external and internal faces of
the wall, bolted together through structural
openings to effectively clamp the wall. Vertical
timber packers were used to accommodate
differences in alignment along the elevation of
the wall. The size of the braced support frames
and kentledge were purposely limited so that
the projection into the public highway did not
necessitate a complete road closure notice or the
requirement for any temporary traffic signalling.

64-72 Seel Street: the facade-retention steelwork and its
weights (kentledge) had to be installed without access
into the existing buildings. |
 |
| |
71 Shaw Street: the front elevation with its restraint
scaffolding in place |
71 SHAW STREET, LIVERPOOL
Dating from c1830, 71 Shaw Street is the last
in a long terrace of Regency brick houses and
is Grade II listed. The house commands an
elevated position on the rise of Everton, which is
exposed to the prevailing winds.
Following localised collapse of the masonry
walls and internal floors, 2020 Liverpool
was requested by the city council’s planning
department to advise on the property’s stability.
The survey revealed significant bowing and
timber lintol failure at each floor level. The
central section of the wall was ready to collapse
imminently and was losing lateral support from
the timber floor and roof construction, which
were rotting severely throughout. The condition
of the outrigger adjacent to William Henry
Street was very poor (although not as poor
as the main property), with loose brickwork
overhanging the public footpath. Parts of it
required demolition or dismantling for safety.
Internal inspections revealed that the timber
joisted, ground and upper floor construction
was on the verge of collapse in several places,
particularly to the rear of the property.
The extent of internal collapse and
the dangerous condition of the structure
necessitated demolition to protect the public
and neighbouring properties. However, due to
the prominence of the building, its context with
the remaining terrace and its listed status, it was
agreed that the facade of the property should
be retained. A scheme was therefore prepared
for a temporary supporting structure and
foundations which would allow the remainder
of the building to be safely removed.
The load bearing capacity of the arched
brick cellar below the public footpath at
the front of Number 71 was unknown.
Consequently, props were erected inside the
cellar to ensure the stability of the facade
retention structure. These were positioned
directly under the pilasters on either side of the
front entrance portico to support the large stone
top step and base of each pilaster.
Above ground concrete foundations were
formed in the light well and on the public
footpath to support the legs of a structural
scaffold and to act as kentledge against
overturning of the cantilever framework. A
structural facade-retention scaffold was erected
to the front wall on the public footpath and
in the lightwell in front of Number 71. The
sandstone parapet along the top of the front
elevation was repointed and temporarily
restrained with steel straps and resin set dowels.
Site works commenced in March 2006 and
were completed by the end of May.
EVALUATION
These two cases studied illustrate the same
fundamental problem: the buildings had
decayed to the point where safe access was no
longer achievable, so none of the interiors could
be saved. It is unusual to carry out a facade
retention without access to the interior, and the
solutions adopted by 2020 Liverpool are subtly
different and structurally innovative. In both
cases work was completed without entering the
buildings, only urgent works were undertaken,
and the potential for redevelopment by the
owner was not compromised.
The RMD Slimshore solution at Seel Street
was chosen because total road closure was not
desirable. To confine the works to the footpath
and the immediate width of the parking bays,
a robust cantilever braced frame was required
that could transmit the applied loads safely. The
method of restraining the facade was developed
to enable additional whaling to be added to
the system at a later date if the redevelopment
of the buildings required the removal of the
party walls. Consideration was also given to
the potential length of time the works could be
in place. It was anticipated, and subsequently
proven, that the owner of the properties would
use the opportunity to move his planning
application forward. This suggested a short
timescale between erection and dismantling.
The solution was therefore considered to be
technically viable and financially the most cost-effective.
The structural scaffold solution adopted at
Shaw Street went through a similar feasibility
process. Highway constraints were not as
relevant as at Seel Street. Pavement closures
and partial road closure could be implemented
with traffic management. It was also anticipated
that the system would remain in place for an
undefined period. Financially, the outright
purchase of the scaffold, when installed, was
consequently most cost-effective.
These two different approaches have the
same outcome: important facades of townscape
importance have been retained for the present,
whilst permitting future redevelopment.
Both will require further investigation and
assessment once reconstruction works are commenced, so there is still the potential that
further investigations will conclude that the
facades cannot be saved. Only time will tell.
~~~
Recommended
Reading
- M Bussell et al, Retention of Masonry Facades –
Best Practice Guide, CIRIA Report C579, 2003
- M Bussell et al, Retention of Masonry Facades – Best Practice Site Handbook, CIRIA Report
C589, 2003
- HSE Guidance Note GS51 Facade Retention,
Health & Safety Executive, 1992
- Stopping the Rot, English Heritage, London, 1998
|