The council decide to use compulsory purchase orders to get it back for the town

www.hpwrt.co.uk/

Something sounds very not right - the owners obviously decided the insurance payout would be bigger than a compulsory purchase order or perhaps they are going to get BOTH !!!

Yet more corruption/

Yet again BR, if you don't/cant understand it, its either a conspiracy or corruption.

news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154858123

"An 18-year-old man and a 19-year-old man... were arrested shortly after the incident on the seafront"

Toasting marshmallows in the blaze, no doubt.

BR wrote:
Something sounds very not right

Rumours still abound about the burning down of the West Pier in Brighton a few years ago; a small part of the iron frame can still be seen.

One theory was that the competition was involved - the other pier. Previously, the Palace Pier - now Brighton Pier. A highly lucrative business, as younger people and visitors seem facinated by these mainly Victorian walkways which are vanishing fast.

Hastings Pier is owned by an incomunicado Panamanian entity; there is little doubt that the pier is uninsured because of the difficulty in getting insurance for such structures and the lack of any maintenance for a number of years.

When a pier becomes loss-making and/or too expensive to maintain, it is either torched or left to the elements; the tax payer pays the clean up/emergency services costs.

To allow such ownership is foolhardy - and UK legislation has not moved with the times in relation to the ownership of such structures. Local authorities have only one option - an urealistic one. A CPO.

They always say "Follow the money"

Lets be honest closed pier with no electricity supply is not going to suddenly catch fire in the middle of the night after a day of pouring rain unless someone is intent on committing arson. These two lads if they did it HAVE to be have been asked to do it - otherwise why would they go to such lengths ? A few months in jail - but they already have their CASH in their bank accounts from a swiss acount.......

Note that the COUNCIL could not even find the OWNERS of the PIER.......shows what shady characters had brought it.

BR wrote:
why would they go to such lengths ?

the COUNCIL could not even find the OWNERS of the PIER...shows what shady characters had brought it.

Yes - why? Not, as Peter says, for the insurance money. A unmaintained/100 year old Pier would have a negative value.

Blind ownership should not be allowed for anything. Compliance becomes impossible and the tax payer is the de facto owner when the spaghetti hits the fan.

Reece wrote:
Blind ownership should not be allowed for anything

Quite true. But, in addition, a 'Fit and Proper' status check should be compulsory for Pier ownership - just like football clubs, private clinics etc. Ownership carries responsibilities but Local authorities seem to be mostly interested in only Health and Safety.

Reece wrote:
BR wrote:
why would they go to such lengths ?

the COUNCIL could not even find the OWNERS of the PIER...shows what shady characters had brought it.

Yes - why? Not, as Peter says, for the insurance money. A unmaintained/100 year old Pier would have a negative value.

Blind ownership should not be allowed for anything. Compliance becomes impossible and the tax payer is the de facto owner when the spaghetti hits the fan.



owners and property developers usually have their planned developments insured so it the property itself becomes unavilable..say a pier... they still clean up.

Just like the Aussie Westfield owner did when he bought the shopping precint at the World Trade Centre a month before 9/11 and made a motza on the payout.

But a property developer wouldn't be involved in burning the pier down as we know they are the epitome of integrity.

veritas wrote:

owners and property developers usually have their planned developments insured so it the property itself becomes unavilable..say a pier... they still clean up.



I think it would be somewhat difficult to get insurance on a disused/dilapidated/empty Pier - 138 years old.