Price and Kensington Teapot Works, demolition? But it's listed




The ruins of Price and Kensington Teapot Works
V McGarvey cc-by



Historical England 
Price & Kensington Teapot Works
Listed BuildingGrade: I I
List Entry Number: 1290799
Date first listed: 20-Aug-1979
Date of most recent amendment: 15-Mar-1993
STOKE ON TRENT, LONGPORT, NEWCASTLE STREET (West side), Price and Kensington Teapot Works

Pottery works. Substantially early C19, though with numerous later additions and alterations reflecting continuous use. Brick with plain tiled roofs, and some C20 materials. Large working complex, with main range along street of 2 storeys and 11 bays (2-9-2). The outer bays are slightly advanced, and the lower block has pedimented gable with oculus (gable removed from upper section). Windows with flat-arched heads and stone sills. Series of buildings arranged around yards to rear, including a long 3-storeyed workshop range along the north of the site: 3-storeyed, 9 bays with windows with flat-arched stone heads and sills: these windows cut an entrance arch to ground floor relating to an earlier phase of use. A series of workshops and warehouses also line the canal, with a series of blocked arches giving access to the water. Large bottle oven in courtyard to east with wide circular hovel. - Historical England

On the weekend of 2nd November 2019 the front of " the main range along street of 2 storeys and 11 bays" and the "windows with flat-arched heads and stone sills" - ceased to be.

It is a misconception that a list entry and a grade is enough to preserve a tangible asset. It helps but when private ownership allows a heritage landmark to get into such a state of disrepair, that it threatens the health and safety of the public, classification is no barrier to demolition. Price and Kensington was on Historic England's at-risk register and this was not enough.

In an article in the local newspaper, the Sentinel, on 24th October, prosecutor Kirsty Messenger said,

"In July 2015, concerns were raised about the factory - it was one of the worst on the West Midlands at risk register."

She then proceeded to give the 3 year communication timeline with the Middlesex located owners,  which involved using legal enforcements, to impel the neglectful owners, to take responsibility to make safe this created heritage emergency. Interventions included a section 2015 notice, a notice of non-compliance, and finally a lame Charles Lewis and Co £1,000 fine, with a £100 victim surcharge and £530 council costs, which historian Fred Hughes said businesses could "pay at a click of a mouse"

I was certainly not aware of that Price and Kensington had become pottery detritus, possibly because I had succumbed to the beauty of the moss cladded outbuildings and the overgrown romanticism of the rear of the works, with its proud but decaying bottlekiln, which ceramicist Neil Brownsword refers to as ruin porn. I am equally culpable, with my many images, that contribute to the overexposure, of decaying buildings framed by the seasons with their rampantly leafed backdrops.

The rear of Price and Kensington Teapot Works
V McGarvey cc-by

As I said in one of my earlier blogs, I was born in Middleport, at home in Brindley Street, not Longport which is literally, a shards throw away.  I remember childhood excavations on the ceramic waste mounds, known as "shawdrucks" on the canal side, desperately trying to find a pot that was intact that I could gift to my mum or my nan.   When my nan moved to her retirement bungalow, I lost interest in Middleport's back streets. It was possible that I felt a passing sadness when they knocked Brindley Street down, but was optimistic because it was part of the Labour Party's now failed Pathfind urban regeneration scheme.  The cancellation of the Pathfinder scheme left parts of Middleport looking like the crushed brownfields in the opening credits of the 70s TV geordie comedy series "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?"

Oh what happened to you?
Whatever happened to me?
What became of the people we used to be?
Tomorrow's almost over, today went by so fast
It's the only thing to look forward to, the past
(Mike Hugg & Ian La Frenais)

But this was in the 21st century, not the 70s. Paul Mason wrote a compelling article in 2012, about the de-generation of Stoke after the abandoning of Pathfinder, he describes how the wasteland of

neat mounds covered in poppies and thistles demarcate where the walls of terraces used to stand.

Despite the challenges that Middleport and Longport have had to face, the area is gradually finding a new identity, in the wake, of systematic negligence. However, the destruction of the frontage of the Price and Kensington, Longport Landmark, for local people is another nail in the heritage coffin. I would argue the emotions generated by the bulldozing of Price and Kensington, are not nostalgic, it's about pride in an area and a community feeling disempowered and neglected. How do you engage with an indifferent owner of a listed building that is 154 miles away, communication channels are not the same as a member of the aristocracy, that lives in a crumbling stately home.

When I visited the site on the Monday after the demolition work, a glorious Autumn day, you could see the pots desperately peeping through the upstairs windows, calling for rescue. The people I met paying their last respects, at the site, were understandably concerned, about what was going to happen to the bricks, the ornate gates, and the rear of the factory.  But there were two main questions, one was why? the other was why so quick?  I would add to this why didn't I know until it was too late?

There is much for us to learn and to reflect upon with respect to this heritage trauma, regardless, of our role or responsibility within the city or society, and the local community has to be pivotal in any future conversation. What is certain, we all need to be aware that a classification entry on an at-risk register is no guarantee of safeguarding our tangible cultural heritage, and we need to start petitioning for policies and processes that can provide further protection.

References