Barling Magna
President⭐🦐
Definitely not RON..... I thought that I heard you laughing.Are you REM or RON ?
Definitely not RON..... I thought that I heard you laughing.Are you REM or RON ?
Almost certainly kids / teens being pillocks. Two fires in the last week set in the fields behind my house, both along the public footpath used by the local school kids. All on the driest and hottest time of the year so far. I know kids will be kids but some of them really are very stupid. Presume it’s the same with B&L.
I used to have a tenuous work connection to a fairly well known businessman in South East Essex who shall remain nameless. Said person had apparently been trying for ages to get planning to knock down an existing elderly property he owned, and build a new one on the same plot with no success. One day it unfortunately burned to the ground. Fairly soon after, the new property he wanted was being built. I don't think insurance came into it, but it certainly did him a favour.Im no rat fan, but i can't see how he'd benefit from burning down Boots and Laces. Surely no sane insurance company is going to pay out for a derelict building that was going to be demolished in the future anyway.
Or am I being naive?
Underrated post.Ron’s defence is terrified!
I suspect that empty and abandoned buildings are unlikely to be insured.I live near a post-industrial bit of central Birmingham in the middle of being reclaimed and gentrified, and fires in abandoned buildings that currently have stalled planning applications for replacements/conversions to flats are practically a weekly event. People in Manchester, Glasgow and bits of London will tell you the same. Everyone knows what's going on but what can you do?
I'm not making any speculation about current events - we all know that a strong gust of wind could knock that place down. Dodgy electrics, kids mucking around, there are plenty of believable theories. But then, there always are...
But even that isn't relevant here. The rat is pretty much guaranteed planning permission. The only negotiation is around the number, size and type of properties. That decision won't change just because B&L has been burnt down.I used to have a tenuous work connection to a fairly well known businessman in South East Essex who shall remain nameless. Said person had apparently been trying for ages to get planning to knock down an existing elderly property he owned, and build a new one on the same plot with no success. One day it unfortunately burned to the ground. Fairly soon after, the new property he wanted was being built. I don't think insurance came into it, but it certainly did him a favour.
I think the gist was, if the old property was gone, it removed the objection to building the new one, or at very least sped things up. No one dared offer a suggestion as to who struck the match..
I have no idea if similar shenanigans have taken place at B&L but these things can happen. Alledgedly.
Just saves the demolition costsI doubt if for insurance purposes the building has any value especially if it was going to be demolished at some stage.
I know it’s a joke but could it add to demolition costs!Just saves the demolition costs, rather than any insurance money.
I hope whoever did this is locked up.
Playing it safe like that we will never win anything, have to take more risks when demolishing the structure.I know it’s a joke but could it add to demolition costs!
Part of the building may be unstable/ too risky to go in which might dictate a different (more expensive ) approach to demolition- or is it irrelevant?