You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Turns out, the demolition equipment was hired before the fire.
Turns out, the demolition equipment was hired before the fire.
Yes, all the circumstantial evidence makes it obvious that it was planned. Problem is that landowners know that they are better to just burn things down and bulldoze the site because a conviction is unlikely and they are happy enough to just pay a fine as the cost of getting rid of a problem.
So, if you want to stop this happening, you need to make it financially attractive to own a historic building. At the moment, a historic building is a financial burden. If the building depresses the value of the site there will always be someone willing to buy it on the cheap, raze the building, then profit from the increased value. If the building really is providing a public benefit, then you need to be willing to spend some public money to protect that benefit.
I think it works both ways. Your way is the carrot, but there needs to be proper enforcement and sanction for those that deliberately destroy building in this manner. Not just a small fine on conviction, but punitive amounts, something that actively impacts a person's/corporation's bottom line. The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling; make it hurt.
I think it works both ways
Have you forgotten where you are?
But yes, if we want to preserve old buildings, owners should be supported, whether thats financially or pragmatically with use/planning/modernisation rules. And we'll have to be pragmatic about what buildings are really worth saving.
And then they need to be beaten with a very big stick if they take the piss.
Hopefully this case will be a turning point
Not just a small fine on conviction, but punitive amounts, something that actively impacts a person’s/corporation’s bottom line. The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling; make it hurt.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt who actually started the fire. Was it the owner, who happened to be out of town on a business trip the day it happened, or the junkies who squat in vacant buildings in the area and rip off anything worth stealing? The "lock em up and throw away the key" idea always sounds so great until you think about how difficult it is to convict someone who is moderately intelligent about their crimeing.
we’ll have to be pragmatic about what buildings are really worth saving.
This too. Just because something's old and the locals have an emotional attachment to it doesn't mean it has any real historical value. It's like an old Vauxhall Viva or Ford Escort - it's good to see a few of them preserved to remember heritage, but they were terrible cars and we're much better of scrapping them and driving modern cars.
It was, but it was unique and I’m sad to see it go. Mind you, I haven’t been for about 2 years so…
Neither have I, feel exactly the same...had it been a decent pub (subjective perhaps) or had better access from the wider area then I'm certain I'd have been dropping by regularly on dog walks etc.
Real shame they never did anything with the surroundings, ultimately it's location has been it's downfall.
The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling
And discharging raw sewage into rivers and the sea?
Been done before and nothing happens...
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/year-on-devastating-fire-destroyed-18238673
Our ex-head of council and ex-council CEO bought a local listed working pub through one of their companies.
They closed the pub and 8 months later It mysteriously burned down then they put in a planning application from another company owned by them.
Everyone knows it was arson, everyone knows they did it - noone was investigated
Interesting story in current edition of Private Eye's "Nooks and Corners" (not crannies): the private school Framlingham College has owned White Cottage since 1861. It allowed it to fall into poor repair. The school's planning application to build two houses on the site was withdrawn in May 2023 after local opposition. White Cottage wqs extensively damaged by fire in July 2023.
White Cottage wqs extensively damaged by fire in July 2023.
Was it notable for anything beyond being old?
There's one near me - a former Victorian mansion house. I remember going there when it was a restaurant at one time - stunning building. Bought by a young property developer, had a fire and left to decay. No doubt someone is holding out to demolish it and the surrounding buildings and build a mock Tudor executive estate on it.
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/new-drone-photos-reveal-devastating-18358066
Was it notable for anything beyond being old?
Not really the point. Just because you don't agree with the reasoning of a ruling doesn’t mean it is OK to ride roughshod over it, surely?
Just because you don’t agree with the reasoning of a ruling doesn’t mean it is OK to ride roughshod over it, surely?
Do you know who burnt it down?
It was a rotten old wooden building that would have taken more work to renovate than to rebuild from new. I'm sorry to see the Crooked Pub gone, it was interesting. The White House was completely unremarkable apart from being old and decrepit.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23356781.suffolk-appeal-save-historic-framlingham-college-cottage/
However, investigations by a structural engineer found there was very little of the original building that was salvageable and therefore the decision was taken to seek to demolish the cottage and replace it with two one-bedroom homes.
READ MORE: https://www.eadt.co.uk/local-news/framlingham-news/
The aim is to reconstruct the cottage on a 'like-for-like' basis using similar materials to the original structure, including the timber-framing and weatherboarding.
A design and access statement on behalf of the developer stated that although the cottage was not a listed building, it was located within the Framlingham Conservation Area.
The statement added: "It is unlikely that much of the structure would be suitable for retention, and a vast proportion of the structure would need to be taken down to safely carry out the repairs. As a result, demolition and reconstruction is considered to be the only viable solution."
However, 12 objectors supported saving the cottage while commenting on the plans, citing the neglect of 'architectural and cultural heritage'.
READ MORE: https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23302306.suffolk-seven-schools-times-2023-school-guide/
But Mark Madden, bursar of Framlingham College, said: “Framlingham College of course acknowledges the views held by local community members regarding the historic significance of the building.
"The future of the White Cottage has been under discussion and consultation for a number of years.
"We have always been guided by professional advice to inform decisions that ensure the building can return to a functional state, appropriate for college use.
"As a result, the recommended course of action is to demolish the current structure and rebuild, retaining key architectural features and using modern materials.”
The White House was completely unremarkable apart from being old and decrepit.
Aside from being a rare survivor of that type of building yes completely unremarkable.
I think you missed your calling working for one of the councils post wwii who did more damage "rebuilding" than the Luftwaffe could have dreamed off.
Aside from being a rare survivor of that type of building yes completely unremarkable.
The college's plan was to build a replica of it rather than to replace it with something different. It seems that it was probably built as a single dwelling, then split into two, then reintegrated as a single dwelling. The college wanted to build a replica as two separate dwellings. The original structure was so badly decayed that most of the structure would have needed replacing anyway. So, as far as architecture goes, the replacement would have been the same as the original but more functional because it would have been built to modern standards. It's basically an ugly wooden box that is a rare survivor of the type because the type is a cheap, ugly wooden box that have been replaced by better things.
@RustyNissonPraire that's Horncliffe Mansion, I had my wedding reception there in 2000, was a beautiful place inside. That one is totally on the council to be honest. When it stopped being a hotel / wedding venue it was bought. The new owner applied for change of use to return it to a domestic dwelling, which was what it was built as. Council refused which was non-sensical. The arson was down to local youth after multiple spells of vandalism. So similar but not the developer at fault this time.
Kids, eh? It's amazing what happens when you leave buildings unsecured with lots of combustible materials lying around for long enough...Just ask all those unlucky developers in Glasgow and Belfast!
The college’s plan was to build a replica of it
Well, that's what they claimed. Closer examination showed it was just a pastiche new build.
Do you know who burnt it down?
Well, given that the land and the building was recently purchased by the wife of the guy who stands to benefit from the access if the building wasn't there...
And that the building was bulldozed with indecent haste, probably whilst still smoking, with machinery hired befor the fire...
And that this hired machinery was able to access the building despite the recently placed earth mounds which, coincidentally, prevented the fire service from getting to the burning building...
Let's just say I'm willing to advance a theory and I don’t think the Netflix dramatisation will run to a second series. 🙄
I will put a month's salary at any odds that it was Himley environmental who burnt it down + demolished it. So more crap can be dumped in an ever-expanding landfill site.
These jokers should be made to rebuild it, with the available materials, using Victorian working practices.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/11/crooked-house-burnt-out-pub-historic-landmark
Marina Hyde in the Grauniad is having some fun with it too.
I don’t think we'll be end up calling in the
Belgian or deerstalkered detectives
Anytime soon.
Just been on BBC national news. Mayor of West Midlands calling for rebuilding if dodgy practices uncovered. Report clearly pointing the finger at the landfill company.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt who actually started the fire.
A minor change in the law is required, vis:
The owner of any nationally important or historically recognised building is responsible for it. Once the listing is in and the building is in anyway damaged the owner has to re-instate it to listed condition.
I realise that this will effectively lead to nationalising of some historically important buildings and can see no problem with this.
Well, given that the land and the building was recently purchased by the wife of the guy who stands to benefit from the access if the building wasn’t there…
And that the building was bulldozed with indecent haste, probably whilst still smoking, with machinery hired befor the fire…
@pullinger
We're talking about a completely different building. This one, to be exact. Do you know who burnt it down?
wzzzz
Free MemberTurns out, the demolition equipment was hired before the fire.
Yup but, in fairness- it was also apparently spotted on the landfill/quarry site. There could be a legitimate reason or at least a plausible excuse why they hired a 360. For instance, they may simply have hired it in order to put down those large mounds of dirt that hindered the fire brigade.
In other words, yeah obviously they planned it all but it's not proof.
I will put a month’s salary at any odds that it was Himley environmental who burnt it down + demolished it.
In the news footage, the digger clearly had the name of the company right across the back, although the only video I can find seems lower resolution and the name isn’t as clear. It certainly looked like Himley.
CZ - see first on this page.
In the news footage, the digger clearly had the name of the company right across the back
@CountZero
The question was, do you know who burnt down the White Cottage? This building:
There could be a legitimate reason or at least a plausible excuse why they hired a 360. For instance, they may simply have hired it in order to put down those large mounds of dirt that hindered the fire brigade.
I'm not a betting man but if I were, I'd go with happy coincidence to be honest, those earth mounds etc would have been planned definitely.
The fire was obviously "convenient" but I think the public reaction and national news coverage was probably unexpected. The subsequent demolition I'd expect to be a result of that rather than planning*.
*given planning is likely to be the biggest hurdle here, not the fire. As mentioned plenty of times in this thread, buildings spontaneously combusting as a result of exchange of contracts is just a potential side effect of the process for old buildings. I assume it's a spark from all the rapid movement of paper.
Them subsequently falling down of their own accord much less so and potentially a costly problem without planning.
The question was, do you know who burnt down the White Cottage? This building
Crappy old timber building like that? It'll have been either so rotten it wouldn't burn or dry enough that a stray spark from a cigarette would have reduced it to ash in minutes.
On the plus side, it was bloody ugly and of about as much architectural importance as a concrete slab prefab garage. 55 Broadway it was not.
On the plus side, it was bloody ugly and of about as much architectural importance as a concrete slab prefab garage. 55 Broadway it was not.
I completely agree, but apparently being old makes it special. Also, nobody can tell me who burnt it down so I don't know who should I should be angry at.
who should I should be angry at.
It's the 2020s choose any of all of:
Big oil
Big pharma
Big banks
Big state
I'm most angry at Big Lasagne, it's the cause of my most pressing problems.
Do you live in a house or a field? If you live in a house, it was once wilderness that was paved over to build a house.
Actually my house is built on a brown-field site, so technically neither.
Actually my house is built on a brown-field site, so technically neither.
That brown-field site was once wilderness. Everywhere was once wilderness. All houses are built on sites that were once wilderness.
I completely agree, but apparently being old makes it special. Also, nobody can tell me who burnt it down so I don’t know who should I should be angry at.
What did the fire investigation conclude (if there was one)?
Other than that, the timing is interesting - just after the school withdrew the application having had it turned down several times. I'd be starting with the people/thing that benefit most - i.e. the school. But, posh school, lots of contacts, former pupiks in positions of influence etc. I can see a situation developing where the consensus is that it is better for all if the issue just goes away.
When everything just seems a bit too convenient... 9 times out of 10 the answer is the obvious one.
Made it to the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/world/europe/crooked-house-pub-fire.html?smid=em-share
I completely agree, but apparently being old makes it special.
Well that's not what made it special according to the preservation order, so that's not really a valid point.
Argue for removal of the protection and win - then crack on.
When everything just seems a bit too convenient… 9 times out of 10 the answer is the obvious one.
You should offer your services to the CPS. I see a bright future for you in prosecuting criminal cases: "The prosecution will call no witnesses, nor present any evidence. However, we assert that the defendant is the obvious suspect and that works out 9 times out of 10. I rest my case."
No-one is suggesting that anyone should be sent to prison without being properly convicted.
No-one is suggesting that anyone should be sent to prison without being properly convicted.
So, do you know who burnt down the White Cottage beyond "9 times out of 10 the answer is the obvious one"?
So, do you know who burnt down the White Cottage beyond “9 times out of 10 the answer is the obvious one”?
Nope. And I have to say, finding out that the pope is actually an atheist came as a shock too. 😂
So, do you know who burnt down the White Cottage beyond “9 times out of 10 the answer is the obvious one”?
No, you've summarised the situation perfectly. In fact, someone above said:
I do feel sorry for any developers who do get some old building and have a genuine fire. Everyone just looks and goes “yeah right”.
...and that fire surely falls into that category.
I'm sure it's just coincidence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66514759
The police have just arrested a couple of dodgies over starting the blaze. It will be interesting to see if they are known associates of the owners, or whether they are willing to dob in whoever employed them(if that is the case). One is 66 years old. who the *** does such things as a pensioner ??
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/two-men-arrested-over-arson-30781336
Kids, eh? It’s amazing what happens when you leave buildings unsecured with lots of combustible materials lying around for long enough…Just ask all those unlucky developers in Glasgow and Belfast!
Similar story in Ayr: Station Hotel was a fine old building. Offshore landlord doesn't want to restore it. Wrapped in scaffolding to prevent further decline for 5 years...and yup it went on fire.
Obviously nothing as squalid as suggesting the developer set the fire. But if you leave a building in a certain state, sooner or later some neds will be around to burn the thing and give you an easy pathway to demolition. 🤷♂️
Wowser, how likely are they to be actually made to do this? As you hear about stuff "planning enforcement" that the owner just seem to get away with ignoring. Great news though, I'd thought this was dead and gone now & I'm local(ish)
going to be costly
I'm sure the contractors will ask for a premium to find bricklayers who can make crooked walls.
A similar one in London was enforced and rebuilt.
they've got 3 years to comply, after which theres an unlimited maximum fine if it goes to crown court (which I suspect a case like this would). The fine can be repeated until the notice is complied with (ie an unlimited number of unlimited fines)
Someone round here illegally felled a whole load of trees in a woodland, ended up with a massive fine and had to sell the land on at low cost to someone who'd replant it all
A similar one in London was enforced and rebuilt.
Funny as hell.
Another is Punch Bowl Inn in Lancashire but the developers seem to be still fighting that one.
I'm local and there's a lot of celebration about this ruling. I however, am less convinced.
The rebuild simply can't recreate the pub, I can't see how they'll rebuild it with the crooked walls and the old nuances of the original building. It'd never get past safety regs if nothing else.
And then, even if it was rebuilt, the reason it closed in the first place was that no-one went. It was in an odd area, with no passing trade and no repeat business. People visited once, made a ball seemingly go uphill in a ledge, laughed and never returned. It'll be busy for the first 3 months it's open and then die a slow death again.
The only save for it was for it to be rebuilt in the Black Country Museum, who have already said they don't want it.
I'm all for preservation of historic buildings, but unless you're going to turn it into a museum then I don't get what they're hoping to achieve.
I’m all for preservation of historic buildings, but unless you’re going to turn it into a museum then I don’t get what they’re hoping to achieve.
To remind rich folk / developers that they can't simply do as they please.
I’m all for preservation of historic buildings, but unless you’re going to turn it into a museum then I don’t get what they’re hoping to achieve.
Punishment of the owners for breaking the law plus deterrence to others not to do the same.
To remind rich folk / developers that they can’t simply do as they please.
Give them a whacking great fine? Block any future planning plans they might have?
I get that's it's a deterrent for future developers to do anything dodgy, but I don't see how rebuilding it is going to fix this or anything else.
I get that’s it’s a deterrent for future developers to do anything dodgy, but I don’t see how rebuilding it is going to fix this or anything else.
A fine can be considered just the cost of doing business.
Whereas having to rebuild it means not only do they have to pay but they cant then use the land for whatever they were wanting to do with it.
I’m sure the contractors will ask for a premium to find bricklayers who can make crooked walls.
...they'll just pop to the nearest Persimmon Homes building site! 🤣
How enforaceable/realistic is this, would they actually build it wonky or (as I suspect) something 'in the spirit of' the original?
I get the idea that the order serves as a deterrent to others but could they maybe argue it's unsustainable and get it overturned on appeal. As @lunge says it's in an odd little area surrounded by landfill, I'd love someone to make a go of it and link it in with Himley/Baggeridge somehow...even if it's new form differs from the original.
I suppose you could just build it back in any old wonky fashion and no one would really know if the specifications are correct or not.
Good few builders I've worked with in past could do it with their eyes shut.
More importantly, does anyone actually want the building?
they’ve got 3 years to comply, after which theres an unlimited maximum fine if it goes to crown court (which I suspect a case like this would). The fine can be repeated until the notice is complied with (ie an unlimited number of unlimited fines)
presumably its got a couple of rounds of appeal first! Then can the owners offload it to a Ltd Co - liquidate it and presumably forfeit the land? I'll be pretty amazed if an actual wonky pub on that site actually reopens. I'm all for penalising those who ignore planning but I'm not convinced reinstatement is the best way.
Good few builders I’ve worked with in past could do it with their eyes shut.
We've had some that have had a go with their eyes open....
The Carlton Tavern was the only building on the street to survive the Blitz. Whilst I welcome the punishment here, I wonder if they'll win on appeal. Was it really THAT special? See also the Firestone factory next to where I work. The perimeter wall is still Grade 2 listed, but the building was demolished over a weekend when word got out that it would be listed!
Was it really THAT special?
No it was pretty shite as a pub, run by a crap brewery who appear to excel in shutting don the local boozers..
But it was obviously unique, quirky and had plenty of potential.
Unfortunately it really needs a regeneration of the immediate surrounding area to be successful, but can't really see that happening.
More importantly, does anyone actually want the building?
That's a key question, and based on the fact there wasn't a huge queue to buy it when Marston's sold it I'm going to say no.
Rebuild it, great. Then what you you going to do with it? It's not viable as a pub or it'd still be open, it's in a dive of an area that's off the beaten track. Lots of people mourned the loss of the building, very few will have visited it recently. It's 5 miles from me and I don't think I've been there for 20 years.
As I say, I completely support punishment of those who knocked it down, but I'm not convinced this is the right course of action.
As is so often the case. Round here we have expensive renovation of derelict barns into poorly designed super-expensive houses (often with idiotic restrictions like no garden and you have to pretend to run a business from home) when they could much more sensibly be replaced by proper housing that’s fit for purpose. Or just removed if the view is really that important.
Because national park, and planning.
I wonder if 200 years from now people will be protecting corrugated metal farm sheds because of posterity.
Good luck to them in getting a wonky rebuild through building control...