A more pragmatic appproach for many wpuld reduce the risk for the few.
True of so very many things.
Will they have to apply for permission to use the site as landfill?
If so, what is stopping this getting granted?
It'll need a change of use regardless given it was a pub. Change to a landfill will have a *lot* of approvals, environmental impact assessments etc to go through.
You can't just bury rubbish anywhere and it sounds as though they may have pissed off the council in the process of flattening the building at least which I can't see helping any application.
The publicity about the case won't help either.
Of course they might just do it anyway.
They gutted another local pub apparently and are willing to fight in court to remove protected status. I would like to think change of use would be rejected, but they will just chuck lawyers at it and win.
Keep an eye out for this or the next months Private Eye, they'll be all over this no doubt, they have a section devoted to listed buildings and development etc.
where were the YouTube auditors when you needed them?
where were the YouTube auditors when you needed them?
Maybe this is what they're auditing and it was a success? No one prevented them from exercising their right to enter, set fire to and then demolish the pub.
That or maybe the lack of minimum wage security guards to harass with invented legalese meant it was pointless.
where were the YouTube auditors when you needed them?
The point of being an auditor is that you yourself are the most important thing in the whole transaction - if something of actual importance is actually happening then it reduces your auditing to merely 'filming is a documentary'. How is anyone going to know how important you think you are if you do that? There mustn't be any actual content!
So its vital that whatever you are auditing is as far away as possible from any actual event of interest that might be occurring.
With the benefit of hindsight, some of the previous reporting on the BBC of the sale of the pub makes for interesting reading--from July 28th:
"A pub believed to be the wonkiest in Britain has been sold but is unlikely to "open its doors again", the venue says.
A post on the Facebook page of The Crooked House near Dudley stated Marston's had sold the site to a private buyer "for alternative use"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66337783
and from back in March, if only we knew then what was ultimately going to happen to the building...
"This week, Marston's announced it had instructed a business property adviser to sell the Crooked House along with seven other of its freehold pubs across the West Midlands.
Nik Antona, chairman of the Campaign for Real Ale, told BBC Radio WM he hoped they do not disappear completely.
"What we're concerned about, is for the properties to remain as pubs," he said."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-64912966
It's a sad end to a piece of our history.
Shame on those who destroyed it.
See also, the Robin Hood pub in Knaphill, Woking. Very similar, developers bought it, it burned down, demolished within a week despite arson suspected, so evidence lost. Former council leader and chief exec directors of development company. The same two behind the corruption of skyscraper investments and other developments that put Woking into £2.6bn debt.
Shame on those who destroyed it.
Yeah, I don’t really think these people do shame.
Plus any bad feelings, however unlikely, are easily assuaged by those millions in the bank.
Yeah, I don’t really think these people do shame.
Plus any bad feelings, however unlikely, are easily assuaged by those millions in the bank.
This is the problem. You have some land that is worth much more without the building on it than with the building on it. People who don't own the land want the landowner to keep the building as a public good, but the landowner doesn't want to subsidize the public good. If the building is neglected and has to be demolished, then the land becomes much more valuable. Same if it just happens to catch fire. If you want to preserve historic buildings, you need to make it economically worthwhile for the owners to preserve it. If you see it as a public good, then you need to spend public money to preserve it instead of hoping that private owners will do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Also, just because something's old doesn't mean it deserves to be preserved. Some old buildings are historic and deserve preservation. Most are just old buildings and should be demolished and replaced with something useful.
I do find it a bit galling though that the building was referred for assessment for a preservation order but there appears to be no way for this to be immediately implemented.
A tpo on the one right beside my house? yeah, slapped on in half an hour.
Also, just because something’s old doesn’t mean it deserves to be preserved. Some old buildings are historic and deserve preservation. Most are just old buildings and should be demolished and replaced with something useful.
Very much this.
I think our homes would be much better if we had a much faster rebuilding rate in the UK.
I do find it a bit galling though that the building was referred for assessment for a preservation order but there appears to be no way for this to be immediately implemented.
Ok, but even if it has a preservation order, what happens if it burns down and nobody can prove that it was arson? What if the owner just forgot to pay the insurance bill and it turns out to be uninsured? Or, if there the insurance company refuses to pay because it was a suspicious fire and access to the site was blocked by earthmoving equipment, but there isn't enough evidence to get a conviction on a criminal charge? Relying on private owners to preserve historic buildings is always going to end in situations like this. If you want to preserve historic buildings as a public good, you're going to need to spend public money. If it's not worth spending public money to preserve a building, is the building really worth saving?
Interesting update on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co. uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66459842
TLDR:
The owner of a hire firm that supplied the excavator used to demolish the pub said he had done nothing wrong.
Speaking to Construction News Lyndon Thomas said the firm had delivered the self-drive machinery a week and a half ago.
"We just hire a digger to a customer. I can't be responsible for what they do with the machinery," he said.
Mr Thomas also said employees had been sent "horrific" emails.
"If I knew this was going to happen I probably would have done something different, but I'm not Mystic Meg," he added.
Hmmmmm........
Most are just old buildings and should be demolished and replaced with something useful.
Like landfill, or warehouses…
Like landfill, or warehouses…
Landfill and warehouses have to go somewhere. If it's more profitable to use a piece of land for a landfill than a pub, why would you want to put a pub there, it must be a really shitty pub.
Landfill and warehouses have to go somewhere. If it’s more profitable to use a piece of land for a landfill than a pub, why would you want to put a pub there, it must be a really shitty pub.
It's more profitable to use a piece of land for housing than playing fields, so presumably you don't mind those being paved over?
I can't believe I live in a society where people think that the most appropriate use of land is that which makes them the most money, and damn everyone else.
Ok, but even if it has a preservation order, what happens if it burns down and nobody can prove that it was arson?
Oh absolutely, though "allowing harm to come to" a preserved building or tree is a breach of the order so there would potentially be some disincentive to it miraculously being destroyed by fire there.
It's more that at the point of purchase by the new owners, had they been making the same noise about a tree, the preservation order would have been in place and binding pretty much instantly, with a building they get (effectively) served written notice that we're looking at putting a BPO in place so now is the time to get rid of it.
(i.e. had they not had to give notice, I wonder if the fire wouldn't have happened until the order was put in place)
In the case here I think it's rather an irrelevance - I don't like the how*, but I broadly agree with the what and why in this case.
(FWIW, I'm very much in favour of [sites of] things like pubs, churches and schools being kept as such as they do serve a community good, the buildings themselves I've little interest in unless they're valuable enough to need to be handed over to EH or the like)
*as I mentioned re the demolition I think there's some questions to be asked about the precise how, not because old falling over building but because it's not acceptable to put staff at risk to do it. Outside appearance I would expect some big flags under HSWA, at least enough to ask some pointed questions.
Landfill and warehouses have to go somewhere. If it’s more profitable to use a piece of land for a landfill than a pub, why would you want to put a pub there, it must be a really shitty pub.
It was, but it was unique and I'm sad to see it go. Mind you, I haven't been for about 2 years so...
As for the area, it's a strange one. Anyone that knows the place will know that the immediate vicinity is a total shithole. There is a landfill, a travellers site (no judgement here, but I contact the council regularly about the fly tipping that blocks off the disused railway walk immediately adjacent to them), there is also a scrapyard just down the way, an old quarry etc.
Go 5 mins over the road and you have the Earl of Dudley's old gaf at Himley Hall, a beautiful open space that is a real asset to the community. This links to Baggeridge which is woodland and a nice cafe etc.
5 mins down the road is the village of Himley where I live, a few listed buildings and a really nice feel...right on the edge of the conurbation so nice and green.
5 mins up the Himley Road are some enormous houses, nice neighbourhood.
Yet the Crooked House sits in an unloved shithole, which was always part of the problem.
What SC said, also most of the area directly around the crooked house used to be a huge landfill site.
Another property with even more historic significance a few hundred metres away from the crooked house, holbeach house (was a nursing home) is also empty and boarded up, awaiting to see when that goes up in flames
A tpo on the one right beside my house? yeah, slapped on in half an hour.
The planning system in the UK is corrupt at all levels.
Around our way if a run of the mill householder wants to do something relatively minor and unobtrusive the planning can take agess. When the local matey boy who buys up houses cheap, screws plasterboard over the damp, fits a new bathroom and puts in all manner of horrors like huge dormer windows that overlook other houses/gardens pitches up... planning granted in a matter of hours. He probably knows how to present his stuff better than the average Joe, but approval for major works within hours vs weeks/months if Joe Bloggs wants to extend his porch etc?
just spotted this on Fb
PRESS RELEASE
10/08/2023
CAMRA pub closure figures expose ‘nationwide scandal’ in wake of unauthorised demolition of the Crooked House
Campaign group says government at all levels must stop developers flouting planning laws.
The Campaign for Real Ale has declared the unlawful conversion and demolition of pubs in England a ‘nationwide scandal’, following the high-profile case of the Crooked House in South Staffordshire.
Shortly after the pub was sold by Marston’s PLC, a fire destroyed much of the interior of the building on the weekend of 5 August. Under 48 hours later, the remaining structure of the building was demolished without planning permission. A public statement from South Staffordshire Council confirmed that the full demolition of the building was not mandated by the safety inspection that took place after the fire.
In 2017 planning law was changed so that pubs in England could not be converted or demolished without planning permission, but shocking figures published by CAMRA last week show that over 30 pubs may have been demolished or converted without planning permission in the last 6 months.
CAMRA’s Pub Campaigns Director, Gary Timmins, has now written to Rachel Maclean MP, Housing and Planning Minister, asking for central government to take action to deter unscrupulous developers and ensure that illegally demolished pubs are rebuilt ‘brick by brick’.
In the letter, Timmins wrote about the Crooked House:
“The complete destruction of this iconic pub has brought the nationwide scandal of the non-enforcement of pub protection legislation to the forefront of people’s minds.”
CAMRA Chairman, Nik Antona, added:
“This damaging practice must stop, and those found to have converted or demolished pubs against planning rules must be required to restore the original building brick by brick. If local authorities won’t provide adequate planning enforcement, then central government needs to step in to make sure that unscrupulous developers know that they will face action if they do the same.
“It is a tragedy that loved community pubs continue to be converted or demolished without planning permission in England, and that weak planning rules in Scotland and Wales allow this to happen legally. Government across the UK and at all levels needs to step up and get serious about protecting the UK’s treasured pub stock.”
Ends
Notes to editors
CAMRA’s Pub Closure Data is compiled from CAMRA’s pub database at whatpub.com and a full report can be downloaded from the CAMRA website at https://camra.org.uk/campaign_resources/camra-pub-closure-report-january-june-2023/
CAMRA’s Pub Data Team now carry out checks against reported conversions and demolitions to check whether planning permission has been granted. In 31 out of a total 95 cases in the period January to June 2023, we could not find a registered planning application in respect of the pubs, suggesting that the demolition or conversion has taken place without the required planning permission.
The full letter from Gary Timmins to Rachel Maclean, Minister for Housing and Planning reads:
Rachel Maclean MP
Minister of State (Housing and Planning)
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
10 August 2023
RE: Demolition of the Crooked House, South Staffordshire, and flouting of planning protections for pubs
Dear Rachel Maclean,
I am writing on behalf of CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, about the case of the Crooked House in Himley and the wider scandal of property developers flouting planning rules that protect pubs without serious and consistent consequences across the country.
CAMRA campaigns to support and save pubs (and social clubs) across the UK and we take a keen interest in planning matters, having been a part of the successful campaign to secure the removal of Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) relating to pubs in England in 2017.
Following the recent sale of the Crooked House by Marstons PLC, a fire destroyed much of the interior of the building on the weekend of 5 August. Under 48 hours later, the remaining structure of the building was demolished without planning permission.
From public statements by South Staffordshire Council, we now understand that the full demolition of the building was not required by the safety inspection that took place after the fire.
The complete destruction of this iconic pub has brought the nationwide scandal of the non-enforcement of pub protection legislation to the forefront of people’s minds.
Despite the removal of PDRs relating to pubs in England six years ago, we continue to see developers flouting the rules with pubs routinely converted or demolished without that permission in place. Figures compiled and released by CAMRA just last week showed that up to a third of closures and demolitions may be happening without the required planning permission, denying the local community the opportunity to save their local pub.
In the period January to June 2023, 64 pubs were converted or demolished in England with planning permission, however we are aware of a further 31 conversions or demolitions where we cannot find a planning application registered in respect of the pubs – and therefore may have taken place in contravention of planning laws.
This damaging practice must stop, and those found to have converted or demolished pubs against planning rules must be required to restore the original building brick by brick, as in the case of the Carlton Tavern in Maida Vale and the Punch Bowl in Cockfosters.
This is a widespread failure of local planning authorities to deliver their enforcement duties, partly due to fear of costly appeals or legal action from developers. Central government now needs to step in bolster planning policy if necessary, so that unscrupulous developers know that they will face action if they breach the law.
The decisive and celebrated actions that the Government took to protect pubs – a national cultural treasure – in 2017 will be undermined if this situation is allowed to continue.
We would welcome to chance to meet with you to discuss our data and how planning enforcement can be strengthened to deter developers from flouting legislation and ensure that illegally demolished or converted pubs are restored brick by brick.
Yours sincerely,
Gary Timmins
CAMRA National Director and Chair of Pub Campaigns
Ends
It’s more profitable to use a piece of land for housing than playing fields, so presumably you don’t mind those being paved over?
Do you live in a house or a field? If you live in a house, it was once wilderness that was paved over to build a house.
Turns out, the demolition equipment was hired before the fire.
Turns out, the demolition equipment was hired before the fire.
Yes, all the circumstantial evidence makes it obvious that it was planned. Problem is that landowners know that they are better to just burn things down and bulldoze the site because a conviction is unlikely and they are happy enough to just pay a fine as the cost of getting rid of a problem.
So, if you want to stop this happening, you need to make it financially attractive to own a historic building. At the moment, a historic building is a financial burden. If the building depresses the value of the site there will always be someone willing to buy it on the cheap, raze the building, then profit from the increased value. If the building really is providing a public benefit, then you need to be willing to spend some public money to protect that benefit.
I think it works both ways. Your way is the carrot, but there needs to be proper enforcement and sanction for those that deliberately destroy building in this manner. Not just a small fine on conviction, but punitive amounts, something that actively impacts a person's/corporation's bottom line. The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling; make it hurt.
I think it works both ways
Have you forgotten where you are?
But yes, if we want to preserve old buildings, owners should be supported, whether thats financially or pragmatically with use/planning/modernisation rules. And we'll have to be pragmatic about what buildings are really worth saving.
And then they need to be beaten with a very big stick if they take the piss.
Hopefully this case will be a turning point
Not just a small fine on conviction, but punitive amounts, something that actively impacts a person’s/corporation’s bottom line. The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling; make it hurt.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt who actually started the fire. Was it the owner, who happened to be out of town on a business trip the day it happened, or the junkies who squat in vacant buildings in the area and rip off anything worth stealing? The "lock em up and throw away the key" idea always sounds so great until you think about how difficult it is to convict someone who is moderately intelligent about their crimeing.
we’ll have to be pragmatic about what buildings are really worth saving.
This too. Just because something's old and the locals have an emotional attachment to it doesn't mean it has any real historical value. It's like an old Vauxhall Viva or Ford Escort - it's good to see a few of them preserved to remember heritage, but they were terrible cars and we're much better of scrapping them and driving modern cars.
It was, but it was unique and I’m sad to see it go. Mind you, I haven’t been for about 2 years so…
Neither have I, feel exactly the same...had it been a decent pub (subjective perhaps) or had better access from the wider area then I'm certain I'd have been dropping by regularly on dog walks etc.
Real shame they never did anything with the surroundings, ultimately it's location has been it's downfall.
The same could be true for things like environmental damage and tree felling
And discharging raw sewage into rivers and the sea?
Been done before and nothing happens...
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/year-on-devastating-fire-destroyed-18238673
Our ex-head of council and ex-council CEO bought a local listed working pub through one of their companies.
They closed the pub and 8 months later It mysteriously burned down then they put in a planning application from another company owned by them.
Everyone knows it was arson, everyone knows they did it - noone was investigated
Interesting story in current edition of Private Eye's "Nooks and Corners" (not crannies): the private school Framlingham College has owned White Cottage since 1861. It allowed it to fall into poor repair. The school's planning application to build two houses on the site was withdrawn in May 2023 after local opposition. White Cottage wqs extensively damaged by fire in July 2023.
White Cottage wqs extensively damaged by fire in July 2023.
Was it notable for anything beyond being old?
There's one near me - a former Victorian mansion house. I remember going there when it was a restaurant at one time - stunning building. Bought by a young property developer, had a fire and left to decay. No doubt someone is holding out to demolish it and the surrounding buildings and build a mock Tudor executive estate on it.
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/new-drone-photos-reveal-devastating-18358066
Was it notable for anything beyond being old?
Not really the point. Just because you don't agree with the reasoning of a ruling doesn’t mean it is OK to ride roughshod over it, surely?
Just because you don’t agree with the reasoning of a ruling doesn’t mean it is OK to ride roughshod over it, surely?
Do you know who burnt it down?
It was a rotten old wooden building that would have taken more work to renovate than to rebuild from new. I'm sorry to see the Crooked Pub gone, it was interesting. The White House was completely unremarkable apart from being old and decrepit.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23356781.suffolk-appeal-save-historic-framlingham-college-cottage/
However, investigations by a structural engineer found there was very little of the original building that was salvageable and therefore the decision was taken to seek to demolish the cottage and replace it with two one-bedroom homes.
READ MORE: https://www.eadt.co.uk/local-news/framlingham-news/
The aim is to reconstruct the cottage on a 'like-for-like' basis using similar materials to the original structure, including the timber-framing and weatherboarding.
A design and access statement on behalf of the developer stated that although the cottage was not a listed building, it was located within the Framlingham Conservation Area.
The statement added: "It is unlikely that much of the structure would be suitable for retention, and a vast proportion of the structure would need to be taken down to safely carry out the repairs. As a result, demolition and reconstruction is considered to be the only viable solution."
However, 12 objectors supported saving the cottage while commenting on the plans, citing the neglect of 'architectural and cultural heritage'.
READ MORE: https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23302306.suffolk-seven-schools-times-2023-school-guide/
But Mark Madden, bursar of Framlingham College, said: “Framlingham College of course acknowledges the views held by local community members regarding the historic significance of the building.
"The future of the White Cottage has been under discussion and consultation for a number of years.
"We have always been guided by professional advice to inform decisions that ensure the building can return to a functional state, appropriate for college use.
"As a result, the recommended course of action is to demolish the current structure and rebuild, retaining key architectural features and using modern materials.”
The White House was completely unremarkable apart from being old and decrepit.
Aside from being a rare survivor of that type of building yes completely unremarkable.
I think you missed your calling working for one of the councils post wwii who did more damage "rebuilding" than the Luftwaffe could have dreamed off.
Aside from being a rare survivor of that type of building yes completely unremarkable.
The college's plan was to build a replica of it rather than to replace it with something different. It seems that it was probably built as a single dwelling, then split into two, then reintegrated as a single dwelling. The college wanted to build a replica as two separate dwellings. The original structure was so badly decayed that most of the structure would have needed replacing anyway. So, as far as architecture goes, the replacement would have been the same as the original but more functional because it would have been built to modern standards. It's basically an ugly wooden box that is a rare survivor of the type because the type is a cheap, ugly wooden box that have been replaced by better things.
@RustyNissonPraire that's Horncliffe Mansion, I had my wedding reception there in 2000, was a beautiful place inside. That one is totally on the council to be honest. When it stopped being a hotel / wedding venue it was bought. The new owner applied for change of use to return it to a domestic dwelling, which was what it was built as. Council refused which was non-sensical. The arson was down to local youth after multiple spells of vandalism. So similar but not the developer at fault this time.
Kids, eh? It's amazing what happens when you leave buildings unsecured with lots of combustible materials lying around for long enough...Just ask all those unlucky developers in Glasgow and Belfast!
The college’s plan was to build a replica of it
Well, that's what they claimed. Closer examination showed it was just a pastiche new build.
Do you know who burnt it down?
Well, given that the land and the building was recently purchased by the wife of the guy who stands to benefit from the access if the building wasn't there...
And that the building was bulldozed with indecent haste, probably whilst still smoking, with machinery hired befor the fire...
And that this hired machinery was able to access the building despite the recently placed earth mounds which, coincidentally, prevented the fire service from getting to the burning building...
Let's just say I'm willing to advance a theory and I don’t think the Netflix dramatisation will run to a second series. 🙄
I will put a month's salary at any odds that it was Himley environmental who burnt it down + demolished it. So more crap can be dumped in an ever-expanding landfill site.
These jokers should be made to rebuild it, with the available materials, using Victorian working practices.
