You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.

Its more creating a blank canvas for whatever they want to do next. As such need to get it done fast before the local council can put any restrictions in place.
Given the various extremely suspicious cases in the past with no action taken no reason for subtlety.

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”.

<hr />

In the case of East Mill, the economics if converting it properly (it can be done properly if designs are thought out well – see how the 1800s and early 1900ss buildings at the Round House in Derby were sorted).

But what makes the economics of it unattractive  is the Gov (yes that corrupt bunch in Westmister) over-ruling local planning and ruling to allow greedy house builders build new green field houses in a world heritage site buffer zone not 3/4 of a mile away, off the back of a bung of filthy lucre to the Tory party coffers.

It’s simply a case of short term maximum profit for a private company and **** the principle of doing what is right (force PROPER conversion of old buildings first, but with less mass-profit).

I was amazed to see people wandering all over the rubble last night. Any site like that should be fully secured. Guessing the perpetrators behind this will have the book thrown at them given the publicity.

It’s simply a case of short term maximum profit for a private company and **** the principle of doing what is right (force PROPER conversion of old buildings first, but with less mass-profit).

This.

There’s enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets. Developers should be forced to use them first before any greenfield development.

If thats not profitable enough, the government should use the sites to build good quality social housing.

There’s enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets

That’s demonstrably untrue in large parts of the country

I cannot imagine this is a housing development site. I have lived in a similar area in the Black Country in a house that was cracking up.  Across the road was a property that was as right angle adverse as the Crooked House, it has since been demolished and AFAIK the site was not used again.

There is an obvious other use for this land.

Looking at the google maps satellite view images of the pub and its surroundings, it looks like it is was rather in the way of expansion of the surrounding landfill etc activities.

Hopefully there will be some criminal charges for the unapproved demolition, and any subsequent change of use application chucked out.

The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.

You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.

Some industries are less delicate and subtle than others, I suppose…

Hopefully there will be some criminal charges for the unapproved demolition

Does unapproved demolition fall under criminal law?

Some industries are less delicate and subtle than others, I suppose…

A point I was very tempted to make about the Landfill and Recycling industry as a whole frankly. The term I’ve heard used in the past was Rednecks. So that may well be appropriate this case.

The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.

I mean, I’m a local and so am biased about how nice the area is, but even I can’t imagine anyone wanting to stay there on holiday. The area is not great, part of the reason the pub was failing I suspect.

An extension of the land fill/recycling site next door is much more likely.

You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.

I’d assumed they won’t be making an insurance claim – they were just short-circuiting any approvals they might have needed to get by burning it out and then razing it to the ground. Can you be convicted of arson if you burn your own property down?

The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.

if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?

Can “holiday park” also mean caravan park (with pensioners ruthlessly exploited by the landlords)? Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/celebs-tv/itv-undercover-big-boss-star-6628394

if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?

Kind of what I alluded to earlier, tidy the area up and make it attractive to visitors…probably required substantial investment from somewhere – now destined to become landfill.

I live in Brum, so this isn’t too far from me. Spent a few evenings in it when I was younger. Definitely a landmark and a popular place to visit. I think it will be missed.

I definitely smell something fishy. Happens too often with older properties – where it will be difficult to get approval to demolish them and use the site for something else. It’s happened to some older houses on the Hagley Road and The Baggot Arms only few miles from me. I’d prefer the new owners be forced to re-build the previous properties to their original plans.

I’ve just read that the new owners own a site next door to the pub and there had been some sort of dispute over a shared access.

Plus the council gave them permission to demolish the upper storey only, for structural safety, but the owners ignored that ruling and demolished the entire thing.

Its clear their intention always was to flatten the pub and simple things like rules or rulings werent going to stop their plans.

I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson, and I’ll bet my left nut thats a trail that leads right back to the new owners.

If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson, and an order to rebuild the pub back to its original condition.

I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson

If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson,

Is it arson if you burn down your own building? Assuming they don’t file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren’t any witnesses?

Cant believe how annoyed i am about this; all that character & history that’s now gone forever…wish the National Trust or similar preserved more buildings like this if these buildings aren’t able to be run as a profitable business

Assuming they don’t file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren’t any witnesses?

Maybe not for arson, HSE WILL probably be quite interested in the amateur demolition works if the upper story mind…

It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974

If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out

The waste disposal industry:  One of the developers who ran Hereford United as a zombie club* before going bust had previously bought another football club and buried their ground in waste.

On the day of the bankruptcy, the ground was occupied to prevent any unfortunate chemical reactions or metallic disappearances.

*kept on life support until the ground could be developed.

It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974

Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?

If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out

I don’t see the police being interested in that either, or a judge imposing a prison sentence.

The point is that it will be very hard to prove any criminal charge so the chance of a prison sentence is zero. The owners will have factored in that they may face some fines, but they will just see that as the cost of doing business.

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.

Not sure I agree here, Those with the cash to splash on historic and/or listed buildings only to then demolish or burn them down in order to build shiny modern buildings, could just as easily afford to buy new buildings or develop brown field sites instead. If you don’t want to own historic or listed buildings and cover the costs that go with them, don’t bloody buy them! And certainly don’t set fire to them.

As for raiding the public purse to buy listed buildings, isn’t that what charitable status organisations like National Trust and English heritage are already for? I’d rather public money went on things that truly address the public good like Hospitals or the fire service, while pretty old buildings are a descressionary spend for the middle classes to feel warm and fuzzy about when they get a NT membership or pay EH to visit some old pile.

If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out

Why do people always focus on the money? As if that’s the worst possible thing, if you start fires you are endangering lives either if they spread and/or those of the fire service that have to respond. the costs are secondary to the disregard for other people’s safety.

Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?

Yes, 2 years.

I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way. The property owner is a company, then the firesetter sets fire to the property of another person. IF they know that it is unlawful to demolish the building, then they would not have a lawful excuse to set the fire. And the circumstances of the hypothetical fire (middle of the night etc) are strongly suggestive of surreptitious conduct.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way.

Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?

Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.

Private Eye might as well create a column for him given how often his dubious dealings get reported.

Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?

Yes, 2 years

And, iirc, being statutory essentially there’s presumptive guilt and you’re required prove you’re innocent not the other way around – eg we took all possible precautions and didn’t endanger life when we asked John to go round and knock the top floor off with the digger, he knew exactly what he was doing had the relevant training and equipment etc etc etc

(carries a max unlimited fine these days, 6 months custodial [if imposed in a magistrate court, I assume greater if it escalates], disqualification and remedial orders. It’s a toothy bit of legislation if it wants to be)

And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?

Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation on a case that will be nearly impossible to prosecute? Sure, the owners might get a fine, but that will be trivial to them.

The waste industry in the UK has been infiltrated by Organised crime. There is a lot of money to be made by illegally dumping hazardous/recyclable waste or mis-labelling. What these organisations need are places (near to urban areas) for dumping. This site is perfect for Biffa to expand into.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/915937/waste-crime-review-2018-final-report.pdf

Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.

And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?

Then how did taking the top floor off result in the whole building falling down?

Given he (appears) to simply drive up, what precautions were in place to prevent injury to the public etc. Where is his supervisor in case of an accident whilst undertaking what is clearly (because the whole place fell down) dangerous and unpredictable work.
I’d suspect love working in this inspires enough to land them in significant bother.

All of this of course they may be able to provide, but that’s the point, the onus is on them to prove they did everything, not the other way around.

Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation

Not under HSWA no, that would be the HSE…

Nothing to do with “we liked that pub”, entirely because cowboy crap like knocking down unsafe buildings with a digger in your lunch hour is precisely the sort of thing the HSE exists to prevent, investigate and prosecute.

Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?

Given the seriousness of the crime(s) and that nobody investigating/prosecuting in and of itself would send a message? Yes I do think the Police will want to spend their time investigating, even if it doesn’t result in prosecutions there’s a likelihood that they’ll identify people likely to be involved and as such candidates for similar future Arson/fraud attempts.

Suspicious events warrant investigation, just because wealthy Criminals operate like they have impunity doesn’t mean the rest of society has to just let them do what they like…

Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing? No don’t be silly but people are putting forward what crimes may have been committed. If the public outcry is large enough then something may well be taken forward.

Maybe to council can oppose development but I’d guess that the owners, if Dodgy, will have taken that into account and have a way around it.

Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.

Fortunately not that easy as the road has a public footpath running along it and there’s another footpath running north/south right on the pub itself. I’m guessing that’s why we’ve been seeing lots of photos of the public visiting the site and they haven’t already closed the road off

Given the seriousness of the crime(s)

Somebody burnt down and then demolished an old pub that they own without permission. Nobody died, they seem unlikely to be committing insurance fraud. You may be overestimating the seriousness of the offence by quite a bit. You’re searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn’t really a serious criminal offence. Good prosecutors don’t go trawling for things to charge people with, they ask whether the underlying offence was worth prosecuting. They will quite likely get a fine. A lengthy jail sentence is just a fantasy.

Well, it’s on the BBC and it’s a Great British Pub. So if Farage takes up the cause someone could be looking at a 20 year stretch.  That’s how it works nowadays isn’t it?

Just looked at that on Google maps, blinking heck that’s about the most grim location for a pub as you could ask for.

Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing?

Fire investigation starts with tbe Fire Brigade iirc, not sure at what point forensics etc move to a Police investigation.

You’re searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn’t really a serious criminal offence.

A bit like, I dunno, an MP fiddling their expenses? Not a huge amount in the scale of things, far more important things to look at, who cares what message it sends out to others?