Market Tavern Independent Investigation

A formal, independent investigation was commissioned by Sheffield City Council (SCC) in April 2024 in line with the disciplinary policy and procedure into concerns regarding the demolition of the Market Tavern public house. 

In particular, the investigation focussed upon the actions and communications from SCC officers that led to misinformation being provided to the local media and external stakeholders following the collapse of the building’s façade on 10 January 2024. 

Several individuals were confidentially interviewed and other documentary evidence reviewed as part of the process. A report detailing the findings was submitted to the council on 10 June 2024. 

Executive summary/findings

The evidence clearly identified that there were several fundamental communication breakdowns which cumulatively led to misinformation being provided to both internal and external stakeholders. An earlier commissioned report authored by the Director ICT and Digital Innovation detailed that the structure as well as the asbestos elements of the Market Tavern posed a risk to public health and safety. The investigation delved deeper into this and was satisfied that from a professional standpoint there was nothing else that could have been done to have saved the building. The assessments undertaken were consistent in that demolishment was the only way forward. It is reasonable to conclude that leading up to early January communication around the matter was robust and as it should be.

The main issues appear to have arisen following on from when representatives of heritage groups were invited to discuss the matter with senior council representatives on 9 January 2024. At this meeting it was agreed that the demolishment would be ‘paused’ until Midday on 10 January to allow them to source an independent structural engineer to provide a second opinion to see if the Market Tavern could be saved. On reflection, several parties interviewed felt that this decision was made in the interests of wanting to appease interested groups as opposed in hindsight to being the best way forward. It would have helped to have the heritage groups involved and engaged at a much earlier stage so they could have been better informed of the risks that the disrepair of the building posed to the public.

The email sent at 11:53am on 10 January to the contractor to restart the demolishment just prior to the deadline set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to the investigation being commissioned. Upon review there did not appear to be any malicious intent underpinning the decision to recommence the work and the investigation was satisfied on 2 points relating to this. 

Firstly, the structural engineer who made the decision at the time was in an appropriate position to have authorised the recommencement of the work. Secondly, the decision was made in the interest of public safety. The email sent by a representative of the heritage group at 11:56am was only mailed to the Director of Regeneration and Development and was not copied into any other key parties, which unfortunately delayed subsequent communications. Upon review, the return email from the contractor at 2:16pm detailed that, at this stage, the front façade had already come down due to their machinery touching it. The investigation concluded that there was no consistency to those who were copied into the various emails and at no time in or around this crucial period were all  the key parties informed at the same time of what was happening. Had there been a consistent chain of command and communication in place whereby everybody was updated at the same time, it is highly likely that the subsequent misinformation would not have occurred.

The investigation concluded that that senior leads were unaware of the reality of the situation until the video footage from the local media publication ‘Now Then’ was shared with the council on 2 February and the emails as to what had been communicated on the day surfaced. A review of the timeline of events matched alongside the email and documentary evidence as well as the investigatory interviews was undertaken. It shows there is nothing to suggest that what was reported to the Castlegate Area Board on 15 January and in the subsequent communications with the press was anything other than what was genuinely believed to be the case. This was consistently portrayed by the communications team with appropriate oversight in their dialogue with the media until the reality of the situation came to light on 5 February. Immediately following this on 6 February a press release was issued correcting the oversight. The evidence does not find that there was any level of cover up in this respect.

It is of critical importance that the structural engineer admitted that he hadn’t in hindsight updated the key senior leads concerned as he should have done throughout this period as to his decision to recommence the demolition as instructed to the contractor. Neither did he update them as to the fact the contractor had emailed him at 2:16pm the same day to reveal that machinery had caused the façade to collapse and not that it had fallen in on itself as was reported. The investigation concludes there is nothing contained within the communications he had with senior leads that explicitly stated these 2 important factors. No reasonable inference be made from them either to this effect. When questioned, he admitted that this was a mistake on his behalf, explaining that he not had not picked up on the detail of the 2:16pm email until it came to light again following a review of documentation on 5 February. In defence of this, he stated he honestly believed as reported that the building had fallen in on itself and he had not set out to deceive anyone. He rationalised this was due to a lot happening on the day itself that included a personal site visit he had undertaken and there being heavy email traffic where he had missed this crucial detail.

The investigation concludes that, although there was a clear miscommunication of facts, there was no evidence which suggests that there was a deliberate cover up of the facts by anyone. It is without doubt an oversight from the structural engineer to have not included his decision to recommence the demolition in his communications following the event. It is undoubted that his communications weren’t as comprehensive or transparent as they could have been. However, it is reasonable to believe the explanation that he just didn’t pick up on the wording of one email in amongst the various other emails and everything else that was happening that day as being plausible in nature. He recognised this was a mistake. It is clear it was a fast-moving, rapidly developing situation with a lot of moving parts so the chances of this happening were increased exponentially compared to it being the only correspondence he'd received on the day. Similarly, 2 colleagues who were copied into the critical emails on 10 January, with their respective workloads and other priorities, did not pick up on these factors in the subsequent communications that they were copied into. It was reasonably concluded by the investigation that this, even though a lesser oversight, was understandable as they would have no reason to query the minutiae of what had been communicated with the majority of it being factual.

It is understandable that there is an ongoing level of consternation regarding this matter due to the reputational damage it may have caused in relation to public trust and confidence in the council and its officers. However, the investigation has not found any evidence to suggest that any parties deliberately misinformed or took deviant steps in this respect to cover matters up in regard to the subsequent communications with other stakeholders such as councilors, MPs, the heritage groups, the media or the local community. The evidence points to the decisions and the actions taken on the day and following this at the Castlegate Area Board on 15 January had the interests of public safety at their core. From reviewing the Code of Conduct and Values, the investigation also reasonably concluded that there has been no deliberate or malicious breach of these frameworks by any one or group of individuals. Similarly, the investigation did not identify that any other council policies and procedures were breached.

In summary it appears that the eventual demolishment of the Market Tavern, although disappointing to the council, local heritage groups and the wider community, was inevitable. Regardless of the actions on the 10 January, no other outcome seems feasible based on the evidence of the investigation. Upon review, the investigation concurred fully with the findings and recommendations of Director ICT and Digital Innovation’s earlier report. It should also be noted that all of this could have been avoided had the communications on the day been fed through to everyone at the same time from all parties. Unfortunately, the mechanism to do this was not in place and due to a number of factors the investigation concluded everyone was either not aware or hadn’t picked up sufficiently enough to query the specific detail of some of what had been reported and/or omitted. The investigation concludes that this was down to genuine oversights and mistakes as opposed to any concerted efforts to hide the facts. In terms of authority to recommence the demolishment, the investigation does not find that a highly experienced structural engineer acted outside of his scope of authority to do this. Had he waited only several minutes later until after Midday, this would not have created such an issue. The fact that the heritage groups email was sent just 4 minutes prior to the deadline only exacerbated matters and set in motion a sequence of events that resulted in the subsequent miscommunication that occurred. It should also be noted that the investigation did not find that anyone else acted outside of their scope of authority or that any decisions weren’t made by the right people throughout.
 

Summarised recommendations

The following recommendations for ease of reference as detailed above were made as part of the investigation:

• No further formal action to be taken in respect of any of the key individuals subject to the allegations. This outcome be fed back to them through appropriate channels.        
• Consideration given to an integrated system email management system to be introduced that collates all emails in relation to such projects going forward. This will encourage oversight from all key parties as opposed to being privy to only certain recipients and within individual email sent/received item folders.
• Agree clear reporting/communication/authority structures from outset in respect of any future projects.
• Involve heritage groups at the earliest stage possible in relation to projects that involve any council assets that may have cultural/historical importance to the local community regardless of whether or not they have ‘listed’ status.
• Consider developing and adopting a council wide Heritage Strategy with an associated board/specified Heritage Officer to provide an effective governance structure to support the strategic management of relevant community assets and projects going forward.