Up in smoke

2
1908

The mobile home left for months in the lay-by on the outskirts of Winchelsea burnt down on Friday, July 4. Emergency services were called to the scene next to Winchelsea Lodge during the afternoon, with the abandoned home alight for several hours.

Smoke from the blaze was seen for miles. The wreckage is still in place in the layby.

The mobile home used to belong to the Winchelsea Lodge but was sold to new owners three and a half months ago. The new owners failed to collect it from the layby on the A259.

Lee Stillwell, the owner of Winchelsea Lodge, says the mobile home was fully paid for by the new owners and is no longer his responsibility. “It’s like when you sell a car and get a parking ticket from a few days after the sale. I’ve reported this to the council and police but no one has been interested in moving it.”

He says his main worry was whether there was anyone inside the mobile home when it caught light. “There was a homeless lady who used it for a few days, but luckily she wasn’t there during the fire.”

Concerns were also raised that the fire could spread, damaging nearby fields an hedgerows.

Waiting for recovery

Rother District Council says it has been working to move the mobile home. “Arrangements were being made with a local recovery operator to remove it however it has since been set on fire. We are now working with the same recovery operation to remove the remains.”

Burnt out mobile home

Image Credits: Natasha Robinson .

Previous articleNews in brief July 11
Next articleToilets blocked

2 COMMENTS

  1. A question is, but why was it in the lay-by to begin with? Someone apparently moved it from Winchelsea Lodge to the lay-by and it doesn’t seem lawful to have left it there for collection.

  2. Logic would suggest this is a matter for police investigation.
    1) Who placed it in the lay-by? Not only is that act probably an offence in itself, but also put it at risk of damage. It’s equivalent to fly tipping.
    2) Establish the identity of the “new owners” , Winchelsea Lodge presumably there must be a name & phone number.
    3) Depending on the outcome of the above, costs of clearance should be borne by whoever is deemed responsible at the time, along with any appropriate criminal conviction.
    In this case I am happy to be proved wrong.

Leave a Reply to Kate Humphreys Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here