Romsey Labour Club fire: 25 firefighters tackle ‘deliberate’ blaze in Mill Road, Cambridge
About 25 firefighters tackled a blaze at Romsey Labour Club in Cambridge that is believed to have been started deliberately.
Crews were called to the derelict building in Mill Road at about 7.15pm on Friday (15 March) and found the second floor well alight.
A fire service spokesperson said: “The second floor was well alight and crews used two hose reel jets and the aerial appliance to put out the fire. By 8.40pm the fire was out and crews were dampening down. The last crew left the scene around 9.30pm. Mill Road and Coleridge Road were closed while firefighters were at the incident.”
The hunt is now on for arsonists who are believed to have started the fire.
“The cause of the fire is believed to be deliberate,” said the fire service spokesperson. “Anyone with information about how the fire started should contact police by visiting www.cambs.police.uk to submit an online report or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.”
The red brick building was built by volunteers between 1925 and 1928,
The Labour Club closed in March 2014, although a gym and boxing club used the wings of the building for a time.
The building is due to be partly demolished and converted into 43 short-stay flats, with the historic frontage retained. A cafe, gym and community space are also planned alongside these serviced apartments.
A planning inspector gave permission for the redevelopment last September following an appeal by a developer against the city council’s refusal of the plans.
Earlier plans had been approved by the council in 2019 to convert the building into 36 serviced apartments, alongside a cafe, gym and community space.
But the developer submitted updated plans, saying they would make “better use of the site” and “regenerate this eyesore”.
Council officers recommended the plans for approval but councillors turned them down, raising concerns that the development would “fail to provide a suitable amount of communal space” needed for a “high-quality scheme”.
A planning inspector disagreed and overturned their decision.
