OPINION | Hotspur Press fire is a warning cities must heed
The only surprising thing about the fire that ripped through the early 19th century Manchester mill is that it didn’t happen sooner.
Abandoned since the mid-1990s and not protected by listed status, Hotspur Press on Cambridge Street went up in flames yesterday as the cumulative impact of years of delays and dilly-dallying manifested itself in the form of an inferno.
Neighbouring apartment buildings were evacuated as the flames licked at them ominously and city centre transport was halted in the interests of public safety.
The cause of the fire is not yet known. What is clear is that it could have easily been avoided.
While the sight of a large fire and clouds of smoke in the heart of a city will always be shocking, those expressing surprise at last night’s events had clearly not seen inside the Hotspur Press.
A brief tour around the building would have been enough to alert anyone to the dangers within.
See what the inside of Hotspur Press looked like before the fire
Hotspur Press’s internal structure was comprised almost entirely of wood and the various levels of the building were strewn with litter from illegal gatherings, creating a tinder box following recent hot and dry weather.
It was lucky nobody was hurt.
There have been efforts over the last decade to redevelop the site. If any of them had been enacted, the fire would surely not have happened.
In 2018, a joint venture between Blue Dog Property and MCR Property Group secured permission to redevelop the site into a 28-storey apartment building, but the scheme did not come forward due to viability constraints.
The site currently benefits from planning permission secured by developer Manner for a 35-storey student tower behind parts of the original façade and the recognisable Percy Brothers signage.
Those plans were delayed by at least eight months due to an attempt from an anonymous individual to have the building listed. Following a ruling from the Department of Culture Media and Sport to reject that application, the scheme was further held up as the developer sought to update the planning permission amid design changes.
In the almost 30 years since the mill closed, it would appear that little effort has been made by the city or those who have owned it to ensure the building did not become a risk to public safety.
The fire could be a blessing in disguise if it marks a step change in how we – cities, the government, the development community, and landlords– approach the issue of old buildings.
There are hundreds of derelict structures across UK cities waiting to be reimagined, redeveloped or demolished.
The failure to do any of those three things in a timely manner is the reason for yesterday’s fire at Hotspur Press.
Manchester, and indeed all cities, needs to take better care of its historic buildings or act more decisively to eliminate the risks associated with abandoned ones.
If that means knocking them down, then so be it.
Manchester’s skyline has transformed over recent years, sheets of glass soaring interminably upwards while historic buildings like Hotspur Press decay and become increasingly dangerous.
While social media posts calling the loss of the building a tragedy are perhaps taking things a touch too far, the loss of a local landmark is undoubtedly sad.
However, Manchester should consider itself fortunate that the neglect of Hotspur Press did not result in something much more serious than the loss of a building that, if we are all completely honest with ourselves, nobody cared about enough.
I’ve been told earlier this place site… The GMP will ongoing investigation who did put the fire those 19th century building. But wait and see what happens soon as possible. I’m extremely angry with somebody who did this.
By G J Kitchener
Nail on the head.
By Peter
I feel this misses out the responsibility of building owners to secure their sites. There should be strict requirements on any building owner to ensure the site is safe and secure. Sure there were outside hold-ups to redevelopment but that doesn’t absolve responsibility of the developers to keep their building safe and secure in the mean time.
By Anonymous
social media detectives will be out in force to blame the developer
By Anonymous
“If that means knocking them down, then so be it.” Are you smoking the leftovers or something?
By H
This building has not been abandoned since the mid-1990s. It has been office, studio and work space, as well as irregular housing, well into the late 2010s. Although it may not have been functioning as a mill, it has been in use much more recently than reported.
It’s not clear how demolishing historic buildings would mean taking care of them; maybe the owners should make more effort, or legislation could make structural and fire safety a requirement.
By Gary Fisher
Pretty compassionless reporting. ‘Blessing in disguise’. What? for a building that has stood for well over a hundred years, 30 of which with no care and attention, to burn down to make way for another glass tower that could be in any city anywhere in the world? If we don’t have a cultural connection to the past what are we? Who are we? I’ve seen this building every week my entire life, so did my Dad, so did his Dad before him. its like losing a friend. For many many years I’ve wanted to see it be restored, but I like the majority of people in this world do not have the capital to do anything about it. What this should signal is a law to be introduced banning any building on sites of historic interest that burn down under convenient circumstances for the next 50 years. Remove the land value and I think you’ll be surprised how many of these fires stop happening. In short, what motive does the current owner have in maintaining the site and preserving what they inherited from the past? Quicker, easier and cheaper to let it rot or in this case burn. At best neglect. At worst arson. But the people to blame are those who own the keys to the site and they must not now see a profit from this.
‘nobody cared enough’….nobody with deep pockets and respect for history cared enough.
By Anonymous
Another piece of history lost for what will now be replaced with another box of glass rabbit hutches in the sky. Sigh.
By Troth
Absolute rubbish article, the audacity to say “nobody cared enough” about the building… as if to suggest the average Mancunian has the time & money to purchase a building like that and do something with it.
No, we clearly rely on the council & property developers to take care of our heritage because WE CANNOT AFFORD TO.
In terms of making the site safe, this would be easy easy easy, simply legislate that if an owned building burns down the site cannot be developed for 50 years and you’d suddenly find developers scrambling to make sites safe & secure.
The bottom line is whether it’s arson or accident the develop hasn’t bothered to keep the site safe & secure… because why would they? They don’t care. If it burns down they get the payout anyway.
By David
Needs to be a full and thorough investigation, these fires don’t start on their own. And the fact that the fire spread to a nearby tower could have been a disaster, heavy prison sentences for anyone found to be involved. But part of the blame for this is with English Heritage and the 1 person whose objection held this up. Without the delays this would have most likely have been under construction. Now its lost forever.
By Bob
History will harshly but fairly judge the obsession with soulless developments that mock a past which the city was built on.
By PLF_Cloud_Cuckoo_Land
Shocking reporting and I’m sure an opinion at odds with many who live and work in the city. Anonymous 11:07 is spot on! I’ve loved this building for years. Having worked on the conversion of the nearby Macintosh Mills and passing the Hotspur Press daily on the rail line, I’ve longed for years to see it brought back into use and regenerated. It’s unimpressive in many ways, but it’s a landmark. There was definitely something special about it. Yesterday afternoon I stood as part of a walking tour group with Jonathan Schofield, who shared his historical knowledge and love of this building. To pass by again literally an hour or two to see it as a burning inferno was devastating. I feel really sad today. I suspect that it will now be totally lost.
By Anonymous
Who owns the building? Start there
By Anonymous
Good article.
By Anonymous
What utterly pathetic reporting. Get a life Dan you twit.
By Anonymous
Hope the Council requires a good part of the building to be re-built.
By Derek
Really poor reporting there PNW, ‘opinion’ or not.
By Junior
Proposing that historic buildings at risk be immediately knocked down as per one of the options put forward this opinion piece is frankly risible. There are other means of mitigating riskmthat could’ve been enacted but weren’t. Thats the lesson tat should be taken from this rather than propose we immediately knock down all empty buildings.
By Anonymous
“However, Manchester should consider itself fortunate that the neglect of Hotspur Press did not result in something much more serious than the loss of a building that, if we are all completely honest with ourselves, nobody cared about enough.”
But somehow most comments, news articles and general public are more than happy to band together now the building is gone to explain how “the developer should rebuild”, “the owner should be persecuted” and “the building’s vacancy is a product of greed” despite the fact that no one (besides consultants) have made any money of the building yet.
Why don’t we look at our planning system that allows a building to be proposed for redevelopment numerous times in nearly a decade but somehow, not even once, be seen as “regeneration” of a literal health hazard (asbestos, invasive plant species and risk to health through access, etc (fire…)).
The conversation should not be about the “developer”, “owner” or “private market greed”, but instead point towards how our own planning system just “does not care enough” about development at opportune times.
Those responsible for the physical fire should be prosecuted, agreed, but those who enabled it (Historic England, Committee members, LPA’s) should also be held accountable, not economically, but socially.
By Voice of Un-reason
The writer clearly has no knowledge or understanding of heritage buildings and their preservation . It was the let’s knock them done attitude that resulted in the demolition of all the heritage buildings to build the Arndale Centre . That architecture masterpiece often labelled as the biggest toilet in Manchester .
By Wislon
‘If that means knocking them down?!’ Yeah like the Tommy Ducks was knocked down. Or Burning them them down like this one? Where else then? Absolutely tone deaf reporting.
By Anonymous
The issue seems to be that it was ‘too plain’ a building to be listed and it wasn’t in a conservation area which helps ordinary old buildings. Plus dithering owners always looking / greedy for another 0.1% on top of what is possible today.
By Tony
Blaming the person who requested it be listed is wild, responsibility lies with the property owner for not keeping the building secure and safe (and, if it was arson, whoever did so)
By Anonymous
The owner let it rot and was waiting for it to collapse.
By Anonymous
…so you’re essentially saying building and site owners have zero responsibility to secure their buildings and sites from trespass? Or be proactive about bringing them back into use?
Applying Dan’s flawed logic, the converted mill buildings in the background of the photo above this piece would have been knocked down due to ‘safety’ as soon as they closed, yet somehow they are still with us! Maybe write an article about that instead?
By Dan with the Plan
Excuse me, I cared enough. I live across from that building and I was living in hope that it would be turned into flats we could buy. I wasn’t too happy that it was being developed into student accommodation. I understand that we need more student accommodation but people are also wanting to set up their lives in the city centre. That building has been an important character in the area and it was my favourite building. And it is a tragedy to us because we live here and it was an important part of our landscape and heritage. Show some compassion please. If you want to blame anyone, blame developers for not taking the time or care to listen to the people in the area. Yes I want skyscrapers and yes I love that Manchester is rising high in the sky but this little gem was ours and I feel like I’ve lost a little part of me today.
By David
Totally agree with Anonymous 11.07 and David 12.09 with their comments.
My Great Grandad worked here until he retired and it’s place in this part of Manchester reminded us locals of our heritage as the leader of the industrial revolution.
A building doesn’t just lose ownership because it falls out of use, regardless of it’s age or size, and owners have a duty to maintain safety standards of that building to protect the public. What protections and risk assessments were in place here? This could have been so much worse in a built up environment.
I agree that a 50 year hold on redevelopment would be a great deterrent to landlords – or an alternative obligation to rebuild like for like before any further redevelopment can be granted.
By Anonymous
The usual top-tier reporting from Dan and PNW. A measured approach to a lesson that should have been dealt with a long time ago.
By Anonymous
I don’t agree with giving free reign to developers to do what they like with heritage buildings as an alternative to knocking them down. It’s as if this is written by a property developer.
By Anonymous
I love your reporting and PNW generally, Dan, but I think you’ve seriously mis-read the room on this one.
By Anonymous
Hotpsur press was and is a great building
What this tells us is that modern buildings get all the protection from fires! but not older disused ones!
Any disused older buildings like the Hotspur press should of been forced to install minimum sprinkler systems and fire sensors connected to greater manchester fire brigade. (The technology is there!)
Lets hope greater Manchester city council force conditions of ownership on older buildings in the city like the two conditions above!
By Northwich
So planning was granted in May 2024. The eight months delay was because of… well I can’t see any record of a Building Preservation Notice being served and requesting to have something considered for listing does NOT automatically provide any legal protection so the developer could have just got on with the job. Oh yeah, 8 months from May 2024 takes us to…December 2024…. and here we are in June 2025. Seems like someone is deflecting and PNW is gobbling it down hook line and sinker.
By Du Be Ous
Well Dan Whelan has fully exposed himself as totally uninformed and lacking in any local knowledge. If I didn’t know better I’d have assumed the article was written by an AI bot. The local community very much does care about this building. It’s ultimately the owners who have failed to care for it and enabled its destruction by neglect. The planning wrangles are no excuse for their negligence.
By Mancunian
What a load of developer bootlicking crap. You’d have to be stupid at best, or downright evil at worst, to think this is anything other than deeply suspicious. The finger is rightfully pointing at the developers.
By Percy Brothers
God, what a diabolical opinion piece this is. I’m honestly amazed.
Are we really to believe that developers like Manner are simply helpless victims of the planning process, and the fiendish, machiavellian whims of the dreaded “anonymous listed-status bidder”? If there’d been just a touch less red tape, the fire could have been prevented, and in the meantime, our sad multi-millionaire developers are powerless to protect their asset in any way whatsoever? Is that it?
What an absolute joke. Why can’t Manner secure their site? If the building is filled with litter to the point it’s a fire hazard, why can’t Manner clear it and render it safe?
The planning and listing delays are no excuse. The developers HAD permission granted and have been merrily picking apart their own proposals to cut costs, causing yet more instead of beginning work. While seemingly doing nothing to protect their precious investment.
By Neil
Pretty irresponsible to suggest knocking down buildings, when councils already have powers to ensure that owners don’t allow their sites to become magnets for anti social behaviour. Instead they allow sites to become eyesores so that local residents will accept anything else in their place. Also irresponsible to label the listing process as a delay, and attempt to blame the applicant. The owners had planning permission and if they had had any intention of implementing it, listing could have been done more quickly, Instead they started a misleading smear campaign against listing, when due process would have been to seek listed building consent for their approved plans, or amended versions of them.
By Anonymous
You’re right that Manchester needs to take better care of its historic buildings, but councils already have powers to make owners keep their sites tidy and secure, they just need to use them. Instead buildings are allowed to become magnets for antisocial behaviour and eyesores, until residents will accept anything in their place rather than put up with it any more. It’s also rubbish that the listing attempt delayed the development, if the owners had wanted to they could have started on their approved plans, and the listing process would have had to be done quicker. Instead of following due process and trying to get the council to approve listed building consent, they ran a misleading campaign against listing, which probably added more delay.
By Anonymous
So planning is to blame because, er, they granted planning permission. And local authorities are to blame because they don’t make every developer of every site keep their site secure all day every day.
Site owners and developers, meanwhile…
By Green Belt Ben
Some proper twaddle on here as ever……do you really think that funding would be available when there is a threat of listing?????
By Anonymous
This is terrible writing.
Touted as an opinion piece but sounds much more like a knee jerk reaction to the hundreds of comments blaming developers by pointing out the obvious. Timing.
By Bernard Fender
Where is your criticism of the developer and building owner? Surely it is their responsibility to make sure the site is adequately secure, protected and inaccessible to illegal raves. Why are they not maintaining the site if it is litter strewn and a potential tinder box? They should be making the building and site safe. It is completely unacceptable from Manner.
By Mr Mcr
Hi Mr Mcr, the article says that there are many parties that need to take a look at themselves in the aftermath of this situation. Including developers and landlords. Best wishes, Dan
By Dan Whelan
Message for the people upset at this report. Not every ‘heritage’ building has to be saved. Some people liked this building, some people didn’t. It’s a shame that many historic buildings become worse for wear and aren’t properly taken care of, but much more significant and beautiful buildings than this one have been lost over the years and will continue to be lost. It’s what happens in a city that is progressing and expanding. Granted, the landowners should have done more to protect this building, or demolished it and built something to replace it much sooner than this. It should not have been left to decay for this long and should absolutely in no way been allowed to catch fire, or more likely be set ablaze by thugs.
By Anonymous
Shocking journalism, though Place were a forward thinking progressive organisation, turns out your takes are just stuck in the dark ages, disappointing, don’t go organising any further events which discuss the importance of reusing existing buildings like you have done before, totally hypocritical.
By J
This opinion piece is shockingly ill-judged and unnecessarily quick off the bat, bare hours after the fire.
By Poor Show PNW
@Voice of Un-reason June 24th at 1.24pm
Absolutely agreed all your information is absolutely perfect correct that what I thought that earlier today, you were written every word you say that earlier is absolutely right I’m glad hear that and read this I’m very understanding every word of your about the fire. But we all NEED fighting for bring every each of chassic oranges brick by brick back to the building start again like yesterday that what we want heritage building did in the past…. START AGAIN PLEASE PLEASE… Don’t forget about the past, so please fight for those sake…
By G J Kitchener
While i’m all for a dynamic and fast-growing Manchester… this should not come at the full expense of the city’s history. Buildings are an important part of the City’s fabric and to discard them as something nobody cared about is very poor. There are plenty of ways building fabric can be retained while developing, it’s just a shame some developers look to retain as little (to none) as possible to maximise profit.
By Jay