Asbestos warning in WW1 airfield fire
Firefighters battled a major blaze at a historic First World War airfield overnight.
Residents near the Old Sarum Airfield in Salisbury, Wiltshire, were warned to stay indoors because it was feared that there was asbestos in the smoke.
Crews were called at 6.38pm on Thursday after a fire broke out at Grade II-listed Hangar 3 – one of several buildings at the site.
Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service said: 'Due to the potential for unknown chemicals, please stay inside and keep your windows closed to avoid the smoke.'
By 8.30pm, the building had partially collapsed and the flames had spread to an adjacent structure.
No casualties have been reported.
The service added at 10pm: 'A further relief crew have been brought in from Amesbury and firefighters are continuing to tackle the blaze which is affecting two partially derelict buildings.
'They are using ground monitors and an aerial ladder platform to extinguish.
'Due to the age of the building, we suspect the smoke plume may contain asbestos but investigations are ongoing.'
Multiple crews from Amesbury, Salisbury, Ludgershall, Andover and Ringwood attended the scene.
The blaze comes just a week after plans to build up to 315 homes on the site were approved following a lengthy planning dispute.
The airfield, which is located within a scheduled monument, is recognised by the Government as a nationally important archaeological site.
Planning approval had included a requirement for the airfield operators to repair Hangar 3, which suffered structural damage during Storm Isha in January.
In its decision, the Planning Inspectorate said the heritage benefits of the scheme 'outweighed' the potential harm.
Hangar 3 is one of seven at the Old Sarum site, which initially served as a training depot station for day bombing raids during the First World War.
By 1919, it was also home to the School of Army Co-Operation.
'Don't cross safety cordons'
Wiltshire Police, who are assisting at the scene, warned the public not to cross safety cordons.
A spokesman said: 'Several people have been obstructing emergency workers in an attempt to take photos of the burning building.
'Please avoid the area and respect cordons – they are in place to protect you.'
Officers are urging anyone who was in the area between 6pm and 6.30pm to contact 101, quoting log 262 of 17 April, as inquiries into the cause of the fire continue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
13 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Look out for these 5 coins in circulation worth over £3,000
You may not realise you could have a small fortune sitting in your wallet or coin jar. An expert has urged Brits to check their change for five of the rarest UK coins still in circulation. Collectively, these coins could be worth over £3,000 to collectors. When paying with cash, many of us are happy to use up whatever change we've got in our wallets or pockets without a second glance. However, it could be worth double-checking before parting with certain coins due to their potential value. In a video uploaded to social media platform TikTok, an expert who is known online as the Coin Collecting Wizard explained exactly what to look for. 'Most valuable coins you can find in your change revealed,' he said. The first coin he mentioned was a 50 pence piece from 2009. This coin features the image of the iconic pagoda at Kew Gardens on its reverse (tail) side. He said: 'Let's start with a 50 pence coin and of course it is the 2009 Kew Gardens 50p. This coin is so hard to find with only 210,000 ever released and is worth around £140 today.' Another 50p collectors 'want to get their hands on' is known as the Atlantic salmon. This coin is dated 2023. He continued: 'Even less were released than the Kew at 200,000. And if you find one of these in your change, you are looking at around £80.' However, it is only versions of this coin that is missing a tiny mark that is particularly sought after. 'But remember, it's only the one without a privy mark dated 2023 that is rare and valuable,' he said. Far more valuable is a specific £2 coin with an error. The expert said: 'Now, let's move on to a £2 coin and this one is known as the Lord Kitchener.' Minted in 2014 to mark 100 years since the start of the First World War, this piece features the image of Lord Kitchener on its reverse. To be particularly valuable it needs to be missing the words 'two pounds' on its heads side. The expert said this could make it worth more than £1,000. He then moved on to a 2p coin with an incredible value of £2,000. He said: 'This is the 'new pence' two pence coin from 1983 and whilst it is unlikely you would find this in your change, it is possible.' Instead of reading 'two pence' on its reverse side, it says 'new pence'. The Coin Collecting Wizard said: 'This coin from 1983 was in Royal Mint sets and a mistake was made with the words 'new pence' instead of 'two pence'. 'If you find it, keep it because it's valued at around £2,000.' Lastly he revealed that a 20p coin with no date could be valued at £50. He added: 'And finally, let's discuss a 20p coin with no date. If you find a 20 pence which was minted in 2008 but it has no date on the coin, then you have found a rare mule error 20p coin worth around £50.'
Sky News
a day ago
- Sky News
Prisoners to be transferred to lower security jails to ease overcrowding
Prisoners are to be transferred to lower security jails in an effort to ease overcrowding, as part of a new measure quietly unveiled by the government. Sky News understands that as of Monday, offenders serving standard sentences can be transferred to open or category D prisons up to three years earlier than previously, to free up space in higher security jails. Open prisons have minimal security and allow eligible prisoners to spend time on day release away from the prison on licence conditions to carry out work or education. It's unclear how many prisoners this will apply to, but the majority of those in prison custody serve standard determinate sentences. This is an extension of a policy which previously existed, as the prison service is warned of urgent capacity pressures. Exemptions will include sex offenders, terrorists, violent criminals, those convicted of stalking, and prisoners serving a sentence of over four years. It could mean those convicted of domestic abuse-related crimes are eligible for transfer to open prisons. The Prison Governors Association told Sky News it has "concerns" about the measure. "This would still mean that after just two weeks in prison a man serving a seven and a half year prison sentence could be moved to an open prison, where there are no physical barriers like high walls, fences, secure gates and minimal staff supervision that could prevent prisoners from simply walking out," the association said in a statement. Prison governors will have some discretion to judge the risk of the move, but it's understood the "presumption" will be that the transfer should take place. Despite early release measures, prisons in England and Wales continue to face chronic overcrowding. The male estate is currently operating at around 98% capacity. This latest measure comes after the government accepted recommendations made in the sentencing review, which will see almost 10,000 fewer people sent to prison in the next three years. However, these measures will take time to become legislation. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We are building new prisons and are on track for 14,000 places by 2031 - the largest expansion since the Victorians. Our sentencing reforms will also force prisoners to earn their way to release or face longer in jail for bad behaviour, while ensuring the most dangerous offenders can be kept off the street. "Only certain thoroughly risk-assessed offenders are eligible for moves to open prison and anyone found breaching the rules can be immediately returned to a closed prison."
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
The burqa is inconsistent with integration
Churchill once said, 'Nothing can save England, if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.' Let those words settle – less as a relic of the past than as a stern admonition for the present. As we reopen a debate many in Westminster have long preferred to bury, we must ask: has Britain still the will to save herself? Or will we, through cowardice and confusion, allow our national story to end not with a bang, but a whimper? The question of banning the burqa and niqab is not a trivial sideshow in the culture wars. It is a litmus test of national self-belief. It goes to the heart of whether Britain has a solution to the complex problems caused by rapid population increase and demographic change. Starmer, predictably, has neither the inclination nor the courage to approach this subject. But a new government with spine, conviction, and a willingness to take the slings and arrows of metropolitan outrage might yet do so. And it must – for the issue before us is no longer about fabric and facial coverings. Are we, or are we not, a society confident in our values? And if the answer is yes – if we are to stem the disintegration of national cohesion and restore a shared civic space – then we must start by outlawing one of the most visible symbols of separation: the full-face veil. Libertarian objections, while intellectually consistent, fall short of lived reality. It is true that in a free society, individuals ought generally to wear what they wish. But there are limits to freedom, and always have been – limits defined by the need to preserve what the French, with admirable clarity, call le vivre ensemble: the capacity to live together. France and Belgium, far from authoritarian states, understood this when they enacted bans in 2010. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights – an institution I criticise more often than not – nevertheless ruled correctly in S.A.S. v France. The court unanimously acknowledged that the ban infringed individual freedoms of religion and private life, but held that the interference was justified in order to protect a broader societal good: the integrity of social life in an open, liberal democracy. Interestingly, the court rejected the public safety rationale, instead identifying the core issue as one of cultural compatibility. In a Western, pluralist society, being able to see and be seen, to look one another in the face without impediment, is not merely a nicety. It is a necessity. It underpins trust, empathy, and the social contract itself. The burqa and niqab are not akin to turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or motorcycle helmets. They are garments of erasure – of identity, of individualism, and of the mutual recognition that life in community demands. No law compelling British Sikhs to remove their turbans, or Orthodox Jewish women to discard sheitels, has ever been proposed – because those traditions do not negate the possibility of social interaction. Full facial coverings do and any ban could reasonably make exceptions for sporting, health or professional reasons or for riding a motorbike (as in France). There is also a deeper hypocrisy. When I have travelled in Middle Eastern or Catholic countries, I have covered my shoulders, legs, and hair when asked. I have done so not under duress, but in a spirit of respect. I have entered women-only spaces and abstained from alcohol when custom required it. Is it so outlandish to expect that those who come to Britain might return the courtesy? Other nations are unapologetic in defending their ways of life. Why are we so ready to abandon ours at the first hint of discomfort? Our culture – rooted in Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment reason, and the hard-won principle of sexual equality – has made this country one of the most tolerant and liberal on earth. But tolerance cannot mean indifference. A society that tolerates everything, even its own erosion, will not survive. The answer must now be: no more. Not because we are intolerant – but because we wish to remain a society worth integrating into. A society with the courage to demand participation, not parallelism. A society with the clarity to say: there are lines, and they matter. Churchill warned us that if we lose faith in ourselves, then indeed, our story is told. That warning echoes now more than ever.
