ad

‘Urban explorers’ risking their lives

Published date: 22 February 2012 |
Published by: Matt Jones

 

THRILL-seeking trespassers are targeting disused buildings across the county.

Urban exploration groups dedicated to breaking in and photographing off-limits buildings are ‘risking their lives’ by entering the former Lluesty Hospital in Holywell and the former John Summers steelworks clocktower in Shotton.

Warnings have now been issued about the dangers associated with illegal access to abandoned buildings.

Members of an urban exploration group entered the Grade II listed Lluesty Hospital last month and have posted pictures on their website.

The report read: “Expecting a nice relaxed explore, we jumped the gate and climbed in through a broken window on a small part of the building.

“We walked straight upstairs and immediately heard a van pull up outside. We froze. They stood there talking for a minute then left, and with that we bailed over to the main building.

“After the initial encounter with security, we had no problem exploring the main block.

“We started off in a modern area, but upon crossing to another building it was like a time warp.”

Another urban explorer posted his experience of accessing the site, also in January.

He wrote: “Total spur of the moment visit. Not a guard, nosey neighbour or dog in sight. However, there were fresh dog prints in the mud, so there are patrols going on.”

Another wrote: “This place is becoming quite popular at the moment.”

The hospital, which started life in the 1830s as a Victorian workhouse, closed when the new Holywell Community Hospital on Halkyn Road opened in 2008.

It was bought by property developers at auction in London last year for £275,000.
Plans for a hotel conference centre have been drawn up but no formal application has been made.

Holywell councillor Gareth Hughes said: “If people get hurt, especially if they are on their own it could take a long time for help to arrive.”

Cllr Hughes said he supported plans for a hotel on the site.

Holywell councillor Peter Curtis said: “They are not doing themselves or anyone else a service and are putting themselves in possible danger.”

The John Summers steel works building has been repeatedly entered by urban explorers with various online reports dating back to April last year with the most recent in December.

Sealand councillor Christine Jones said: “Anyone going in there is risking their lives. So much has been taken out of there, such as pipes and flooring.

“We have been trying to keep people out of there. Just because they give themselves the name ‘urban explorers’ does not make it legal. It is still trespassing, it is breaking and entering.”

You must be a registered user to leave a comment. Register or login here.

  1. Posted by: bored at 13:59 on 22 February 2012 Report

    No mention of the fact that the John Summers building is used for airsoft and is perfectly safe, Been in a few times and taken the odd snap.

  2. Posted by: griffo at 17:52 on 22 February 2012 Report

    urban explorers............don t you mean vandals????and what exactly is the point in what they are doing??

  3. Posted by: griffo at 17:52 on 22 February 2012 Report

    urban explorers............don t you mean vandals????and what exactly is the point in what they are doing??

  4. Posted by: bornacorn at 18:30 on 22 February 2012 Report

    They climb over fences, take photos of interesting places, and put them on the internet. No crime except trespass.

  5. Posted by: oh dear at 18:42 on 22 February 2012 Report

    they dont touch nothing..so they cant be vandals,they only take photographs,and bloody good ones at that to,they show people whats going on where we cant see,all good!!

  6. Posted by: JerryFish at 18:44 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Councillor Jones should be careful about the statements she makes. There was no breaking and entering. Walking through open doorways is entering, but in no sense is it breaking, and in no sense is trespassing a criminal offence. "don t you mean vandals????" No. "and what exactly is the point in what they are doing??" It's fun.

  7. Posted by: bored at 18:49 on 22 February 2012 Report

    I have never damaged any property in any of the places I have entered to photograph. The point in what I do is to take photographs of buildings that are left to ruin and will never be the same again. Denbigh asylum being a classic example of this.

  8. Posted by: klingpin at 19:52 on 22 February 2012 Report

    wether civil tresspassing is illegal or not, the people should not be there in the first place. the high fences and keep out signs and guards patroll this site signs tells anyone that! what gives any one the right to go snooping around these buildings, someone owns these and its there perogative to keep people out. how would these urban explorers like it if people just came around to house and walked around the garden taking pictures and then posting them on the net???

  9. Posted by: urban at 20:17 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Wow, where do we start with this then..?! “If people get hurt, especially if they are on their own it could take a long time for help to arrive.” - Surely the same would apply to hikers, mountain climbers, fell runners, etc... "They are not doing themselves or anyone else a service" - Perhaps other than documenting historical sites that would be otherwise lost and forgotten in time. Sort of reinforced by this quote: "Cllr Hughes said he supported plans for a hotel on the site."

  10. Posted by: urban at 20:17 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Wow, where do we start with this then..?! “If people get hurt, especially if they are on their own it could take a long time for help to arrive.” - Surely the same would apply to hikers, mountain climbers, fell runners, etc... "They are not doing themselves or anyone else a service" - Perhaps other than documenting historical sites that would be otherwise lost and forgotten in time. Sort of reinforced by this quote: "Cllr Hughes said he supported plans for a hotel on the site."

  11. Posted by: liberty1 at 20:18 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Good to see there are still people with a spirit of adventure, take no notice of the old farts.

  12. Posted by: urban at 20:23 on 22 February 2012 Report

    "Just because they give themselves the name ‘urban explorers’ does not make it legal. It is still trespassing, it is breaking and entering.” - Firstly, trespass is a CIVIL offence (opposed to a criminal offence). It is not illegal. Secondly, who says we break and enter? The Lluesty explorers accessed the hospital via a broken window (which was already broken). Explorers are not keen on the prospect of getting a criminal record, and they do have morals.

  13. Posted by: urban at 20:24 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Onto the comments then. Griffo - "urban explorers............don t you mean vandals????and what exactly is the point in what they are doing??" - Read the above - explorers aren't vandals or criminals. They enter a site, take photos and leave. Why would they go into a site and trash the place, destroying the places they love to visit? As for the point of urban exploration - I'm not going to even go into that as you're clearly too narrow-minded to work it out..

  14. Posted by: JerryFish at 20:25 on 22 February 2012 Report

    My garden is significantly less interesting than Lluesty Hospital, but if snooping round it is what turns you on, then go for it. Just be careful not to trample on any of my snowdrops that came through last week. But as soon as I tell you to leave, you'd better leave. Or else it becomes aggravated trespass, which is a different matter entirely from the initial trespass. I'm happy to live by the same rules that I observe while exploring.

  15. Posted by: JerryFish at 20:28 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Ah, my last comment was in response to klingpin's 'how would you like it if I came snooping round your garden'. Just in case anyone cares. klingpin, if my front door's open, you're welcome to have a wander round my kitchen if you like, just don't go drinking my milk, and be sure to leave as soon as I tell you to.

  16. Posted by: klingpin at 20:34 on 22 February 2012 Report

    come on then mr fish, post your address and ill gladly come around for a snoop and take a few pics!

  17. Posted by: klingpin at 20:38 on 22 February 2012 Report

    cant see how you would mind posting your address on a website, you have no problems posting other peoples properties and pictures on websites for everyone else to see!

  18. Posted by: JerryFish at 20:41 on 22 February 2012 Report

    "come on then mr fish, post your address" - that would make things too easy. Half the fun of exploring is finding places for yourself. You could be methodical about it, start in south west Wrexham and sweep the whole town in a strict grid, or else just try houses at random. Good luck, have fun, and see you in a few hours, no doubt!

  19. Posted by: urban at 20:41 on 22 February 2012 Report

    "Just because they give themselves the name ‘urban explorers’ does not make it legal. It is still trespassing, it is breaking and entering.” - Firstly, trespass is a CIVIL offence (opposed to a criminal offence). It is not illegal. Secondly, who says we break and enter? The Lluesty explorers accessed the hospital via a broken window (which was already broken). Explorers are not keen on the prospect of getting a criminal record, and they do have morals.

  20. Posted by: liberty1 at 20:46 on 22 February 2012 Report

    kp, to make things fair you post your address first just to show you are a honest and upstanding citizen.

  21. Posted by: klingpin at 20:47 on 22 February 2012 Report

    kind of proves my point, its ok for you posting pictures and where abouts of other peoples properties but not so willing for people to come and enjoy the wonders of your properties!

  22. Posted by: griffo at 20:58 on 22 February 2012 Report

    if there is security guards and keep out signs.....then it is for a reason.access is gained through a broken window......says it all!!!!

  23. Posted by: klingpin at 20:58 on 22 February 2012 Report

    lib 1, a few points for you my friend, 1. the point im making here is dont think its right for these people to be posting pics and addresses of other properties. 2. believe it or not, even some dishonest and unsavoury characters have home addresses, so even if i was to post mine on here it would prove nothing in regards to how honest or dishonest i was would it??

  24. Posted by: liberty1 at 21:20 on 22 February 2012 Report

    "come on then mr fish, post your address and ill gladly come around for a snoop and take a few pics!" "cant see how you would mind posting your address on a website", whats good for the goose etc etc etc.

  25. Posted by: klingpin at 21:29 on 22 February 2012 Report

    lib, what part of it dont you get???? im not the one who is going round putting pictures of other peoples properties and addresses on websites! mr jerryfish on the other hand seems to think its ok, so i asked him how he would like it and then to put his address on here to prove he doesnt have double standards!!! obviously he does not because hes gone all silent now! for someone who tries to come across so clever your being a bit slow tonight???

  26. Posted by: liberty1 at 21:37 on 22 February 2012 Report

    So of all the things happening in the UK/Europe and the world in general you are more concerned about people going into "disused buildings", now do you get my point.

  27. Posted by: JerryFish at 21:43 on 22 February 2012 Report

    klingpin, you're missing the point in so many ways, and I only have 500 characters at a time in this comment box (and only a small amount of interest in clearing up your misunderstandings). 1. My house is occupied, the places I explore are not. There are no double standards. 2. No-one has posted any addresses. Do you honestly think that no-one knew that Lluesty Hospital existed before photos were 'posted online'? After this very paper posts news about it closing, being up for sale etc?

  28. Posted by: klingpin at 21:43 on 22 February 2012 Report

    well in that case the same could be said of you, or why else would you be reading this article then bothering to spend time reading and writing comments on a subject which you claim to have no interest in?

  29. Posted by: klingpin at 21:49 on 22 February 2012 Report

    mr fish, regardless if its empty or not, someone still owns the property and you dont which means you do not have the right to be going in! legally i dont know the laws regarding this but morally you all know you shouldnt be there otherwise you would not be sneaking in through fences and broken windows! end of. and come on how many of these explorers do actually break in the claim "it was already open officer i swear"

  30. Posted by: liberty1 at 21:50 on 22 February 2012 Report

    Poor kps dummy has come so far out of his pram that he has gone to the road race article to look for it and find solace with Conhill, there there little thing.

  31. Posted by: JerryFish at 21:55 on 22 February 2012 Report

    "you do not have the right to be going in!" - Yes I do. "legally i dont know the laws regarding this" - Maybe not, but fortunately I do. "and come on how many of these explorers do actually break in" - Do you want me to give you an exact figure? Hard to say, because I haven't met them all. But to the nearest dozen, I'd say 'none'.

  32. Posted by: klingpin at 21:58 on 22 February 2012 Report

    “We walked straight upstairs and immediately heard a van pull up outside. We froze. They stood there talking for a minute then left, and with that we bailed over to the main building. “After the initial encounter with security, we had no problem exploring the main block.

  33. Posted by: klingpin at 22:00 on 22 February 2012 Report

    that is a paragraph from the article involving the explorers, that to me doesnt sound like the actions of people who believe they have the right to be in the building!

  34. Posted by: klingpin at 22:02 on 22 February 2012 Report

    good old lib 1 article hopping now so he can leave comments on stories he claims to have no interest in, as hes too busy with the rest of the eu and the world!

  35. Posted by: liberty1 at 22:13 on 22 February 2012 Report

    kp, you started it sunny boy.

  36. Posted by: klingpin at 22:24 on 22 February 2012 Report

    night night lib, ill leave you now to ponder the financial state of the uk and eu, and the ever increasing threat of global warming on our climate, so next time try and rise above it and dont get dragged in to lower level than what you truly claim to be in, for a bright man you have let yoursel getf down tonight!

  37. Posted by: liberty1 at 22:37 on 22 February 2012 Report

    night night klingpin

  38. Posted by: JerryFish at 10:12 on 23 February 2012 Report

    klingpin, I'll try and make this as clear as I can: they have a legal right to enter the building (assuming it's open, which it was), and the owners/guardians of said building have a legal right to tell them to leave. So it makes sense to avoid security, because otherwise they won't have chance to see anything before they have to leave. You have a legal right to walk through my front gate, but having done so, I also have a right to tell you to clear off.

  39. Posted by: Klingpin at 13:59 on 23 February 2012 Report

    Mr jerry fish, I get the point of it technically not being illegal I have not disputed that, but you just use the same law that applies to squatters, so while it may not be illegal by the court of law it is still MORALLY wrong what you are doing! So what part of it don't you understand!!! High fences around abandoned or unoccupied houses means keep out!

  40. Posted by: lindopski at 14:26 on 23 February 2012 Report

    I'm all for urban explorers, quite interesting photography to be had. Big warning signs don't prevent waste of property, I'm sure there were nice big keep out signs on the lovely hunting lodge at the top of the Denbigh moors for many years. It was beautiful, have you seen it now? I would have loved for some photos of it for posterity. The steelworks offices etc will go the same way - or end up knocked down like RAF Sealands gorgeous buildings.

  41. Posted by: JerryFish at 15:27 on 23 February 2012 Report

    "[what you're doing is] MORALLY wrong" -- Hooray, an objectivist! That gives me a line on my blog comment bingo card, which nets me a four pack of Babycham. Thanks!

  42. Posted by: Y FFin at 22:07 on 23 February 2012 Report

    Sounds like a great way to draw attention to our unique and threatened local architectural heritage. Society and planners need to pressure owners to restore and re-use these buildings or sell them to people who will. Instead we just give the go-ahead to builders to put up sheds and boring little boxes on greenfield sites. Time for some imagination amongst planners and developers!!

  43. Posted by: Takeittotheabsoluteend at 20:47 on 03 March 2012 Report

    As a collective 'Urban Explorers' keep being deemed as vandals, but why? The main idea is "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints" they show the general public historic buildings that once would have been a thriving workplace or entertainment venue. if it's somewhere on the verge of demolition I think urbexers are providing a vital part in remembering our heritage however insignificant some people may see them to be!

  44. Posted by: Takeittotheabsoluteend at 20:47 on 03 March 2012 Report

    As a collective 'Urban Explorers' keep being deemed as vandals, but why? The main idea is "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints" they show the general public historic buildings that once would have been a thriving workplace or entertainment venue. if it's somewhere on the verge of demolition I think urbexers are providing a vital part in remembering our heritage however insignificant some people may see them to be!

  45. Posted by: Takeittotheabsoluteend at 20:48 on 03 March 2012 Report

    As a collective 'Urban Explorers' keep being deemed as vandals, but why? The main idea is "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints" they show the general public historic buildings that once would have been a thriving workplace or entertainment venue. if it's somewhere on the verge of demolition I think urbexers are providing a vital part in remembering our heritage however insignificant some people may see them to be!

  46. Posted by: rectory-rat urbex at 12:34 on 11 May 2012 Report

    Comments made by your article, and by Cllr Jones, that refer to urbex as involving any form of breaking and entering, or criminal activity, are untrue and unfounded. Not only do we NEVER damage a property to access or explore it, there is no element of illegality to our activities. We are photographers and architectural/social historians with a lot more respect for these buildings than most councillors, owners or developers who complain about our presence.

 

Related Stories

Local vouchers

View all vouchers


prev
next

Featured Businesses

View all adverts