You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66434719
What's going on here then? A few weeks after sale of the pub (??), It catches fire, the road to it is blocked so the fire brigade can't get there, loads of soil is found at the scene and 2 days later it's been flattened and no-one knows by whom (before the cause of fire has been established)..
New owners want a big house on a nice plot?
Disgruntled ex employee seeks revenge?
Ghosts?
Complete coincidence?
A band called Gasoline and Matches were booked to play on the night it burned down too, obviously cancelled a few months prior as the pub shut/was sold.
It's just down the road from me, it definitely seems a bit suspicious. I was surprised to see it wasn't actually a listed building given its novelty.
Fixed - "New owners want a big houseS on a nice plot"
Expect the planning application next!
See also Hardy's Well in Manchester. Site owned by a developer. Left to ruin, second fire kills the building, developer stands in front on ruins smiling.
Listed buildings need more protection.
Funny how the developers have funds to sort out the issues in the immediate aftermath of a fire...
Certainly something crooked going on
There would have been significant local resistance to any planning application so even though it wasn’t listed the new owners would have struggled to get permission to knock it down.
This smells like the fishiest fish in fish town harbour.
I hope an investigation is done properly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the new owner is a friend of someone that could make that go away and that will be it.
It’s a real shame, it’s not far from me, I’ve never been personally but it’s very famous, I’m also shocked that it wasn’t listed, I’m also shocked that it wasn’t turning enough of a profit for the brewery to keep it. There were work outings there from a couple of places I’ve worked.
There seems to be far too many suspicious fires on buildings like these, I'd like to think there was a law you could use against the owners to make them rebuild as was but I'm buggered if I can think of anything workable.
It was a pub I could walk to, but the road in was such a shithole I rarely did. Such a shame, it was the kind of place that you'd feel pissed up in before you'd had a pint. Would have been a massive hit at the Black Country museum.
Road blocked on night of fire (we could see the smoke) which adds to the suspicion of foul play...
Exactly housing.
Burn it down, so can claim/ declare it is derelict. It bypasses loads of local planning rules and time-based limits for change of use etc.
Total **** (London based natch) who bought a pub near me did exactly the same (great views over the Derwent valley, large car park provides space for 2 more houses to be built on).
The Gov can't be arsed to close the loophole as it allows their London property investor cronies to ride roughshod over planning consent.
Wasn't there a case of this in the last couple of years where the developer was made to rebuild it?
Edit - Ah ^ the one in the above post /Edit
Around here the site would sit derelict for several years until eventually the property developer who plans to put houses on it is seen as the saviour because it sorts the eyesore!
No smoke with out fire......
Does sound off though.
I also used to live pretty close to it.
Such a shame it's been lost.
Really unique building.
What I don't understand is why anyone would go to the trouble of burning it down to build a house there.
It's between a landfill site and some industrial wasteland.
There's not even any view as it's in the bottom of a small valley that can flood pretty badly.
If houses are built there, what will the subsidence insurance be like...
I thought it suspicious when I heard about the new owner/fire, but not the blocked road and it being bulldozed already.
It’s between a landfill site and some industrial wasteland.
So basically a metaphor for the Black Country as a whole then..... Sounds like it would have made an excellent site for a Black Country museum 😉
Hedge fund lightning
I was surprised to see it wasn’t actually a listed building given its novelty.
The Express & Star reported that it was grade 2 listed.
Regardless of how that fire started, everybody now thinks that it was started deliberately.
I'm relatively local and there's quite a lot of uproar about it.
I think there's an acceptance that developers do dodgy things but this seems so blatant. The fire being so close after it was bought, the blocked drive to get there and then the whole site bulldozed within 2 days of the fire being put out.
As a pub, it was always good fun but I can understand the location putting off visitors and it not being viable. A rebuild in The Black Country Museum always seemed like a good idea, but I'm not sure how feasible that would have been.
What the developers might do with the land is a different question, it's not in a great location and whilst there's a lot of space for houses it'd take some serious work to make the area appealing. I could see a care home there though, maybe that's the plan.
It's a pretty obvious mechanism for removing the pub without any local complaints or legal difficulties.
I have no idea why they want it gone but they've done a pretty good job of getting rid of it.
I will be very surprised if there's a proper investigation and/or legal action but we shall have to wait and see.
There is a local builder/developer round here who buys nice properties which promptly go up in smoke, to the point that when the old school went up the pub sang "Firestarter" when he walked in. He went very red and left sharpish.
Numerous nice individual houses have been replaced by his cookie cutter Executive Des Res's, council doesn't seem to care.
<p>Dirt piled to stop travellers from pitching up?</p><p>Copper thieves got into the property and caused a fire?</p><p>Bulldozed early by mistake?</p>
What's the solution to a disused building that no-one can afford to use for its previous purpose, and for which planning permission is routinely denied for any change of use that's commercially viable?
There are a few of these near my mum's house. One is finally getting converted to accommodation (and some small office space too I think) and another couple are just sitting getting more derelict year by year. One has been burnt. Just eyesores.
Similarly, there are dozens of shitty derelict barns in fields round here, that cost a small fortune to convert into unsuitable houses (or a large fortune to make into a slightly more usable house). Wouldn't it be more sensible to just knock them down and build sensible houses that are pleasant to live in, even if they look a bit different from the outside?
I thought if the structure is unstable it is the Fire Brigade or Council or someone that orders you to knock it down immediately...?
London property investor cronies
Excuse me, I think you'll find Glasgow, Belfast and Liverpool developers have all been suffering unfortunate incidents where their buildings "go on fire" for decades. Have a look at the Nooks and Crannies column of Private Eye.
The Telegraph reporting that listed status was requested for it shortly before it burnt down
One week before the fire on Aug 5, Historic England received a submission from experts requesting that the pub – built in 1765 – be given protection as a listed building, officials from the heritage body told The Telegraph.
The Georgian Group, a campaign organisation of which the King is patron, was also examining the suitability of the site for listed status prior to the “suspicious” fire currently being investigated by police.
Was Muriel Gray visiting the pub?
there was a case of this where i grew up - wanted rid of the grand old seafront hotel for some exec beach front flats.
the place caught fire while the owner was "on holiday abroad" back in 2006
The ruin stood while they put in application after application for flats.
eventually the council ordered the clean up of the site and said it would only ever be civic space.
Its now grass land.
recently someone wanted to put a hotel on - combined with a petrol station and coffee shop which was provisionally accepted - then they removed the hotel from the plans. The petrol station and coffee shop was then rejected.
More councils need to act like that but the developers know the councils rarely get a cohesive action together and they will force it through eventually.
At the risk of allegations of libel, as a former insurance claims manager, we'd be crawling all over that.
Obviously accidents happen, sadly we had a fatal house fire round the corner from me over the weekend.
A band called Gasoline and Matches were booked to play on the night it burned down too
I thought this was a joke when I first read it, but it's not!
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/band-unfortunate-name-address-awful-27469552
Surely the course of events is so incredibly suspicious that it invites investigation? If you really wanted to get away with flattening it and building something else would it not be better to be a bit more subtle about it?
At the risk of allegations of libel, as a former insurance claims manager, we’d be crawling all over that.
I suspect they have no intention of making an insurance claim. They wanted the land cleared and the building was in the way, this was a cheap way to do so. They're not doing it to claim insurance money, just to get the building out of way.
More suspicious if they didn't put an insurance claim in though, isn't it?
They’re not doing it to claim insurance money, just to get the building out of way.
Whilst obviously if proved after you filled in the paperwork that would add a fraud charge, it's still not a legit thing to do. You don't get to deliberately burn your own property down, endangering emergency services lives and (but maybe not in this specific case) other properties and the environmental impact and everybody say, well it was to do with what you like, do you?
lungeFull Member
At the risk of allegations of libel, as a former insurance claims manager, we’d be crawling all over that.
I suspect they have no intention of making an insurance claim. They wanted the land cleared and the building was in the way, this was a cheap way to do so. They’re not doing it to claim insurance money, just to get the building out of way.
As a current insurance Underwriter, it wouldn't be the first time that I'd been asked to insure a building for full rebuild value that had already been earmarked for demolition. I've recently started at a new place and there was a recent bulletin telling people to be aware of this very thing too.
Greedy property developers are cash rich greedy, not necessarily smart.
not independently verified, so pinch of salt etc
https://twitter.com/Dadgey/status/1688829090403381248
You don’t get to deliberately burn your own property down, endangering emergency services lives and (but maybe not in this specific case) other properties and the environmental impact and everybody say, well it was to do with what you like, do you?
What laws have been broken?
Arson! It's a crime!
Is it arson if it's your own property and you intend to destroy it by fire?
Honest question, I don't know the answer, but I have seen buildings intentionally burned down ahead of clearing sites before.
Arson! It’s a crime!
I am not sure it is since thats causing criminal damage via fire.
So if you arent claiming on insurance and its not a protected building then the criminal damage bit seems to be missing.
Probably breach H&S and environmental laws though.
Would be interesting to understand if the utilities were turned off / capped before it was started.
Ah yes your own property is different. However it's still reckless endangerment with the fire brigade involved (unless they had been warned before and the safety of neighbouring buildings ensured, which doesn't seem to be the case).
However it’s still reckless endangerment with the fire brigade involved
Maybe blocking the drive was their attempt at reducing that 🤷♂️
its a breach of planning laws to remove a building without permission, no?
What laws have been broken?
There are laws on fires.
Big problem in cases like this is proving that it was deliberately burned by the owner. Let's face it, all you need to do is buy some cans of paint and paint thinner, and coil up some electrical leads and old power tools, and it will be impossible to prove much - it could well have been some kids up to mischief.
The owner will file an insurance claim if they are smart, to make it look like they are genuine. If the insurance company can prove that it was deliberate, that would be fraud, but what will happen is the claim will be denied, the owner will write some angry letters and then drop it.
Very unlikely to get more than a minor fine.
there was a recent bulletin telling people to be aware of this very thing too.
Lots more of this will be happening soon. Golf clubs at 2-3am will be a favourite as inflation bites.
Arson is deliberate fire raising with nefarious purposes. So you can damage stuff by fire (Fred Dibnah?) but it's the purpose behind it that's key. Like insurance fraud or damaging the property of another.
I wonder if the neighbours (other side of railway walk) bought it with a view to expand. Be interesting to see where those excavator tracks lead to.
Be interesting to see where those excavator tracks lead to.
The tracks just go round and round the little wheels in the middle, that's how they work.
its a breach of planning laws to remove a building without permission, no?
It would appear so, not least because it was a pub
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/demolition/planning-permission
Around the corner from me too, real shame they never made the most of it but as others have said it's a victim of its location.
That and the brewery who previously owned it seemingly have no clue.
I always thought they could do much better with the area as a whole with significant investment, link it up with Himley/Baggeridge and the old railway lines.
Lots more of this will be happening soon.
I can think of several cases round here in the last few years where the fire has been, shall we say, convenient?
Its quicker than the alternate of a bit of roof damage to let water in and then let it decay sufficiently it can be claimed its no longer viable and best to knock it down.
Really depressing - blatant corruption, and you know they'll not only get away with it, but will even profit handily. See also, sewage in rivers, ripping off the NHS with dodgy PPE, etc.
This one was about 200m from my house - developer applied to demolish and build 74 flats. Then Historic England decided it should assess whether it was worth preserving. Timings couldn't be more suspicious -
19 May 2023 - “Bristol City Council has today issued a Building Preservation Notice, enabling Historic England the time to fully assess it."
4 June 2023 - "Homes in Bristol have been evacuated after a huge fire broke out at a disused building. "
This kind of thing is so depressing – blatant corruption, and you just know that not only will people get away with it, but they’ll actually profit handily. See also, sewage in rivers, ripping off the NHS with dodgy PPE, etc etc.
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good - they can't use their land the way they want to because other people want it to remain unchanged. Some old buildings are truly historic so they should be preserved and paid for with public money. However, most old buildings are just old buildings and are better off being demolished and replaced with more useful modern buildings. When you have a situation like that and the owners know that there is very little chance of being punished beyond a relatively modest fine, it's completely to be expected that there will be a lot of suspiciously timed fires. The simplest way to stop this happening would be to use public money to lease the building at the value that it would generate if it was developed. This way, the public good would not be subsidized by private owners and the private owners would have an incentive to preserve the buildings, not a disincentive.
Tipping sewage in rivers, ripping off the NHS, etc. are completely the opposite. That's a private individual being subsidized by public money, not a public good being subsidized by a private owner.
Saw the news about it being sold, then burning down and the fact its now been demolished before an investigation can take place and the roads to it blocked seems ever so slightly suspicious!
We stayed on holiday in Northumberland once near an old mill building that had been sold and then planning permission to turn it into flats turned down. That weirdly caught fire too...
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good
Bit difficult to argue that when you've only just bought the place.
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good – they can’t use their land the way they want to because other people want it to remain unchanged.
That's fair, though it's not always true to characterize it as having minimal impact on the public purse. The wonky pub, maybe.
The one I linked, closed off an A road (a key artery for the city, causing detours for emergency vehicles) for 24 hours, causing commuter gridlock the next day, and caused several streets of houses and a block of flats to be evacuated. Not to mention the various fire/police responses. It's in a densely built up area, and 60 metres from a pesticide factory! It could have been an awful lot worse, and then public costs would have been much more substantial.
And what often seems to happen anyway (round here at least) is they get planning permission but have to keep the facade or other key element. So it adds n% to their costs but doesn't actually prevent the development altogether.
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good
This is a real issue thats needs resolving. There's a balance between keeping a building of historic importance in a fit and usable state and pricing any owner out of being able to afford to do anything with it. If "the state" puts excessive restrictions on such properties, it seems fair that "the state" helps pay for it's upkeep.
One of the big Derbyshire estate villages is covered by a strict conservation area ruling. To be fair to the evil bastard landowner, he replaced any windows that were not visible from the road with UPVC, in breach of the rules, to try and help his tenants as much as he could.
One of the big Derbyshire estate villages is covered by a strict conservation area ruling.
And in two other cases in Derbyshire - Belper East Mill and Wingfield Manor. Both are 'protected' by conservation areas around these two historic buildings.
The buildings the conservation areas are protecting - sod them - let them rot, fall into decay and collapse. 🤷♂️
@the-muffin-man
East Mill was the one I was particularly thinking of. It should be an amazing building with scope for accomodation and/or small businesses, but absolutely buggered by restrictions. It will just deteriorate till it collapses at this rate. Just be pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Same with houses in conservation areas.
Thing I don't understand is why did they set it on fire?
Why not just knock it down with the digger?
Looks like post-fire the walls were still standing and it could have been refurbished, so the fire didn't finish it off.
To then come in with a digger and flatten it... Well why not just do that in the first place and not get the fire brigade involved.
Unless the fire didn't do as much damage as hoped.
Thing I don’t understand is why did they set it on fire?
Why not just knock it down with the digger?
Can you prove they set it on fire? It gives them plausible deniability, they will claim that it must have been an accident or delinquent youths, or something. Nobody will believe them, but possession is 9/10ths of the law and now they are free from one impediment to developing the land.
It's a pretty poor location for housing. My bet is the landfill site nextdoor wants to expand. There is a lot of money in waste and huge criminality in the UK now.
Standard practice down here, let them fall into disrepair, then burn em to the ground.
New builds rise like Phoenix from the flames , with planning consent given in a fairly short time.
I did read that someone demolished a pub , and was made to rebuild it exactly how it was.
Quite how you would do that in the case of the wonky pub I don't know, but judging by the state of some of the new buiolds i have seen they could probably get a gang of shoddy builders together to do it.
Oh here it is
IIRC it was wonky because it had partly subsided into an old mine. Not much incentive to buy a house on the site
I’m also shocked that it wasn’t turning enough of a profit for the brewery to keep it.
The Owners from a few years ago started off really well, they have a pub near the Severn near Kiddrminster which has a good food reputation , they started doing the same with the Crooked House, it was really busy, especially on a Sunday, then Covid came, and they seemed to lose the plot. We went 2 years ago once pubs could reopen, we asked if we could have sunday dinner , no was the answer, ‘why not, the pub is empty’, we’ve got a party of 10 booked in an hour, we cant cope with too many people.
We thought they were joking, but no, they were serious. If the Owner was there, he would have gone mad at them. We did go back a few weeks later, after booking. We were the only people there, and they were saying how quiet it was, not remembering how they had turned us (and others, no doubt) away a few weeks previous. Friends said the same, turned away as the kitchen couldnt cope, when only a few people were in the pub. The last time we went, the queue was out the door for drinks, we didnt bother waiting, soemone told us it was a young woman on her own behind the bar, and she hadnt got a clue what to do, so every order was taking an age.
So, basically very poor management, the place could have been a great attraction,and made money. Just remembered, I think the access road was closed for a few weeks once, so they had to shut down, so maybe that was the final straw for those Owners.
Was always busy when I lived in the Black Country. There is a piece in the Guardian claiming that the new purchasers are a company with the same address as the nearby landfill company and that goons are turning away folk trying to use the public footpath on the access road.
Anyone know of any issues using the railway path? I know it’s sketchy around that part of the path at best of times
Tommy Ducks all over again, innit?
I miss that place......
Yeah, nice bulding suddenly demolished, this is a good read, I drove in one morning it was there, I drove home late one evening and it was gone.
https://www.modernism-in-metroland.co.uk/blog/the-life-and-death-of-the-firestone-factory
Friends of mine run this place now but the owner had a bit of a mad mood that cost him:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jan/03/martinwainwright
and this:
During a party in the early hours of New Year's Day 2003 Robert Tyrrell, the then landlord of the North Star pub in Steventon, bulldozed part of his own pub after his barman refused to serve him. Tyrrell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined more than £3,000.[13] The pub was repaired and re-opened by December 2003. The 17th-century timber-framed building is Grade II listed,[14] and its restoration cost Tyrrell more than £100,000. In 2007 the work won a Vale of White Horse Design Scheme Award for Andrew Townsend, a local architect from Faringdon who designed the pub's restoration.[15]
Anyone know of any issues using the railway path? I know it’s sketchy around that part of the path at best of times
It was fine the other day, we t all the way to near the cream no problem
However it’s still reckless endangerment with the fire brigade involved
i think reckless endangerment is a Scottish crime, I don’t think there is a direct equivalent in England.
Maybe blocking the drive was their attempt at reducing that
i saw the pics of the blocked driveway - to be honest that looks like fairly standard practice up here with vacant sites to keep travellers etc out. If you were going to use it to stop the fire brigade it seems a bit suspicious to do it days before the fire - when it would make almost no difference to the entire redevelopment time line to wait a few months.
What laws have been broken?
s33, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974...?
That's assuming hypothetically the burning was done or authorised by the owner/occupant of the hypothetical building. You can't just set fire to a building in the middle of the night and wander off, even if you owned it and were allowed to knock it down.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good – they can’t use their land the way they want to because other people want it to remain unchanged.
Not really. It might well be worth less than its most profitable use in an unregulated market, but that's true of all property. If I could put a petrol station, nuclear reactor and 24 hour disco in my house, it would be worth much more. But I can't, because of pesky rules.
If you want to be able to afford the conservation costs, don't overpay for the property in the first place.
Can you prove they set it on fire? It gives them plausible deniability, they will claim that it must have been an accident or delinquent youths, or something. Nobody will believe them, but possession is 9/10ths of the law and now they are free from one impediment to developing the land.
No but it's going to be easier to find a digger and driver than to find out who set a fire.
Be interesting to see where those excavator tracks lead to.
There is signwriting on the back and the boom seen in this video, might be able to identify from that even if there's no higher resolution photo/video available. Maybe the person speaking to the driver took some photos.
If there is a law against this, I wouldn't be surprised if it was worded like "causing thing to happen" thus IIRC any and all of the customer, digger company, and driver can be prosecuted.
The Guardian has learned that the new buyer was a property firm called ATE Farms Ltd, owned by Carly Taylor, 34, a director of multiple companies.
ATE Farms is registered to the same address as Himley Environmental Ltd, which runs the 15-hectare (37-acre) quarry and landfill site next to the pub.
That'll be where the digger is from then.
Nope, nothing suspicious, all totally normal.
https://twitter.com/swazzle2000/status/1689028163748184064
Totally no shenaigans going on there, no sir'e.
You'd think if someone were going to do an 'insurance job', they'd be a little more subtle about it.