RootsChat.Com

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.

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.

Thanks for this. A lot of material in here am trying to follow up. Some of the references to Bishop's Palace are the official residences of the bishops, but some very useful leads.

Many thanks for your speedy response to my enquiry. We are working on census entries at the moment but the house, along with adjacent properties, was multi-occupation in this time period, including the court at the back, and this changes from census to census (a long list at times). It was decided to post on here at earliest opportunity.

While this would hinder people researching their own families, the hope is that some may have handed-down anecdotal information or photos that might be useful. Equally we may be able to answer questions others have about this property/locality.

We have access to a lot of drawings, engravings, paintings and photographs, but almost entirely of the frontage, which is famous, and was nearly exported to America in 1898. What we lack are images of the court, rear view or interior. Also information about alterations to the house (there were a number of reconfigurations of wall and stairs).

Thanks again for replying so soon.