• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Landmark Klaxon!

No idea, cars, concrete blocks, lorry trailers who knows? Some reports say it was blocked and the fire brigade couldn’t get there in time
 
I believe it to be the case that as the "work" (in this case, the fire) was not carried out by the owners (or proven to be...) then they cannot be subject to an enforcement order.
All cynical speculation of course.
 
Blocked with what? A tank?
I've seen a photo of the access lane blocked by a massive mound of rubble. Wonder if the brickwork can be salvaged and rebuilt at the Black Country Museum?
 
Lots of divs on social media saying they’re boycotting Marsdens because of them being responsible for allowing the pub to burn down, have been pointing out it’s nothing to do with them, but may as well try to explain Norway to a dog
 
Lots of divs on social media saying they’re boycotting Marsdens because of them being responsible for allowing the pub to burn down, have been pointing out it’s nothing to do with them, but may as well try to explain Norway to a dog
Ah, it's the same people who blame "the council" for any empty shops in the privately owned Mander Centre, or the (former) state of the privately owned Eye Infirmary.

Funnily enough, the same people would be very upset if "the council" decided that they needed to tidy up their house or garden.
 
Day 2 after the fireIMG_1192.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1193.jpeg
    IMG_1193.jpeg
    75.1 KB · Views: 12
Speedy turn around on a Section 80 application! Unless there are ways to work around such legislation if a structure is deemed particularly unsafe?
 
I’m very surprised the fire brigade have allowed that. When we had our factory fire we weren’t allowed to touch it until after their investigators did a fine toothcomb job. Flattening it won’t stop them going in and probably finding the cause either. Accelerant doesn’t just evaporate.
 
I’m not convinced that is the same site actually. Treeline looks off and where is the building to the right that wasn’t gutted.
 
Just heard about this five mins ago. How sad.
Sounds dodgy alright.
 
Ignore me above! Just seen the Beeb story on the demolition. There will never be a more obvious insurance job. I can only assume the new owners don’t care about the insurance pay out for the building as much as unencumbered re-use of the land. Doesn’t stop arson being a rather serious offence though.
 
Back
Top