Stoke City Council is arguing in The High Court that it is legally entitled to keep its pavement on top of The Wedgwood Big House and is therefore permitted to continue to do significant damage to the building (which will ultimately result in its destruction).
Whilst it is our belief that Stoke City Council’s legal arguments are fundamentally flawed, we are amazed that a city council could have so few morals.
Whilst we are pleased that Burslem’s iconic land mark, The Old Town Hall will be brought back into use we wonder how long it will be before Stoke City Council reveals to its creditors and its grant providers that it is being sued in the High Court for knowingly and willingly destroying an extremely rare Grade 2 Star listed building in a Conservation Area which is linked to the world famous Wedgwood pottery family.
This is a photograph of a large pile of rubbish and at the side of the pile of rubbish is a truck full of rubble.
The rubble was excavated from the trench re-opened at the side of The Big House last week as per an order obtained in the High Court.
According to Stoke City Council the rubble was taken away due to health and safety considerations, but whilst we would like to give Stoke City Council the benefit of the doubt, the three years worth of lies told by Stoke City Council would lead us to believe that Stoke City Council wanted to remove the rubble from site for other reasons – the removal of evidence.
Stoke City Council is claiming that in March 2012 it filled the exploratory trench it dug at the side of The Wedgwood Big House in March 2012 with the same sand-like materials that came out of the trench because it is wanting to argue that the offending section of pavement that is causing all the damage to The Big House has been in position for many decades and has therefore been in position sufficiently long enough for it to be allowed to remain in place causing on going damage.
Whilst the Time Team TV programme proves that the Council is lying and that the pavement at the side of The Big House was constructed at the same time as the pile of rubbish (Ceramica) at the side of The Big House was built, the truth is that the part of the pavement now causing all the damage was laid on top of The Big House and its foundations in March 2012 when the Council used new materials (rubble and tarmac) to construct it.
The Council has no excuses therefore for not removing its destructive pavement from up against and on top of The Wedgwood Big House as the rubble and tarmac were new materials used to construct a new section of pavement which we only gave Stoke City Council permission to keep in position for two weeks whilst it made arrangements to lower the level of its pavement as promised.
Even if Time Team’s film footage were to be unreliable, the fact that the new rubble and the new tarmac were laid in March 2012 when the old section of pavement was dismantled and its component parts were taken away (the pavement paving slabs were left in The Big House’s car park) means that Stoke City Council should stop trying to find legal reasons for continuing to cause damage to The Wedgwood Big House because this behaviour is morally unacceptable and legally flawed.
Stoke City Council should not be trying to argue that it has a legal right to destroy a Grade 2 Star listed building and it should not be paying a consultant (John Betty) more than one thousand pounds PER DAY to find a way to justify destroying more rare historical features inside The Wedgwood Big House.
A pavement laid after 1998 when Time Team filmed in Burslem is not legally protected anyway and even if it was the Council constructed a new section of pavement when it took away a large piece of the old pavement in 2012 and replaced it with completely new and different materials.
Why did Stoke City Council not take measures to protect The Big House as it said it would when it refilled the trench last week?
Why did the Council not line the trench with a waterproof sheet to prevent further water flowing into The Big House as it said it would?
Is Stoke City Council morally bankrupt?