You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.
Its more creating a blank canvas for whatever they want to do next. As such need to get it done fast before the local council can put any restrictions in place.
Given the various extremely suspicious cases in the past with no action taken no reason for subtlety.
I do feel sorry for any developers who do get some old building and have a genuine fire. Everyone just looks and goes "yeah right".
<hr />
In the case of East Mill, the economics if converting it properly (it can be done properly if designs are thought out well - see how the 1800s and early 1900ss buildings at the Round House in Derby were sorted).
But what makes the economics of it unattractive is the Gov (yes that corrupt bunch in Westmister) over-ruling local planning and ruling to allow greedy house builders build new green field houses in a world heritage site buffer zone not 3/4 of a mile away, off the back of a bung of filthy lucre to the Tory party coffers.
It's simply a case of short term maximum profit for a private company and **** the principle of doing what is right (force PROPER conversion of old buildings first, but with less mass-profit).
I was amazed to see people wandering all over the rubble last night. Any site like that should be fully secured. Guessing the perpetrators behind this will have the book thrown at them given the publicity.
It’s simply a case of short term maximum profit for a private company and **** the principle of doing what is right (force PROPER conversion of old buildings first, but with less mass-profit).
This.
There's enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets. Developers should be forced to use them first before any greenfield development.
If thats not profitable enough, the government should use the sites to build good quality social housing.
There’s enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets
That's demonstrably untrue in large parts of the country
I cannot imagine this is a housing development site. I have lived in a similar area in the Black Country in a house that was cracking up. Across the road was a property that was as right angle adverse as the Crooked House, it has since been demolished and AFAIK the site was not used again.
There is an obvious other use for this land.
Looking at the google maps satellite view images of the pub and its surroundings, it looks like it is was rather in the way of expansion of the surrounding landfill etc activities.
Hopefully there will be some criminal charges for the unapproved demolition, and any subsequent change of use application chucked out.
The same company apparently has made applications for 'holiday park with lodges' in another quarry it owned, so it's possible they have something like this in mind eventually.
You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.
Some industries are less delicate and subtle than others, I suppose...
Hopefully there will be some criminal charges for the unapproved demolition
Does unapproved demolition fall under criminal law?
Some industries are less delicate and subtle than others, I suppose…
A point I was very tempted to make about the Landfill and Recycling industry as a whole frankly. The term I've heard used in the past was Rednecks. So that may well be appropriate this case.
The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.
I mean, I'm a local and so am biased about how nice the area is, but even I can't imagine anyone wanting to stay there on holiday. The area is not great, part of the reason the pub was failing I suspect.
An extension of the land fill/recycling site next door is much more likely.
You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.
I'd assumed they won't be making an insurance claim – they were just short-circuiting any approvals they might have needed to get by burning it out and then razing it to the ground. Can you be convicted of arson if you burn your own property down?
The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.
if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?
Can "holiday park" also mean caravan park (with pensioners ruthlessly exploited by the landlords)? Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/celebs-tv/itv-undercover-big-boss-star-6628394
if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?
Kind of what I alluded to earlier, tidy the area up and make it attractive to visitors...probably required substantial investment from somewhere - now destined to become landfill.
I live in Brum, so this isn’t too far from me. Spent a few evenings in it when I was younger. Definitely a landmark and a popular place to visit. I think it will be missed.
I definitely smell something fishy. Happens too often with older properties - where it will be difficult to get approval to demolish them and use the site for something else. It’s happened to some older houses on the Hagley Road and The Baggot Arms only few miles from me. I’d prefer the new owners be forced to re-build the previous properties to their original plans.
I've just read that the new owners own a site next door to the pub and there had been some sort of dispute over a shared access.
Plus the council gave them permission to demolish the upper storey only, for structural safety, but the owners ignored that ruling and demolished the entire thing.
Its clear their intention always was to flatten the pub and simple things like rules or rulings werent going to stop their plans.
I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson, and I'll bet my left nut thats a trail that leads right back to the new owners.
If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson, and an order to rebuild the pub back to its original condition.
I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson
If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson,
Is it arson if you burn down your own building? Assuming they don't file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren't any witnesses?
Cant believe how annoyed i am about this; all that character & history that's now gone forever...wish the National Trust or similar preserved more buildings like this if these buildings aren't able to be run as a profitable business
Assuming they don’t file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren’t any witnesses?
Maybe not for arson, HSE WILL probably be quite interested in the amateur demolition works if the upper story mind...
It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
The waste disposal industry: One of the developers who ran Hereford United as a zombie club* before going bust had previously bought another football club and buried their ground in waste.
On the day of the bankruptcy, the ground was occupied to prevent any unfortunate chemical reactions or metallic disappearances.
*kept on life support until the ground could be developed.
It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
I don't see the police being interested in that either, or a judge imposing a prison sentence.
The point is that it will be very hard to prove any criminal charge so the chance of a prison sentence is zero. The owners will have factored in that they may face some fines, but they will just see that as the cost of doing business.
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good – they can’t use their land the way they want to because other people want it to remain unchanged. Some old buildings are truly historic so they should be preserved and paid for with public money. However, most old buildings are just old buildings and are better off being demolished and replaced with more useful modern buildings. When you have a situation like that and the owners know that there is very little chance of being punished beyond a relatively modest fine, it’s completely to be expected that there will be a lot of suspiciously timed fires. The simplest way to stop this happening would be to use public money to lease the building at the value that it would generate if it was developed. This way, the public good would not be subsidized by private owners and the private owners would have an incentive to preserve the buildings, not a disincentive.
Not sure I agree here, Those with the cash to splash on historic and/or listed buildings only to then demolish or burn them down in order to build shiny modern buildings, could just as easily afford to buy new buildings or develop brown field sites instead. If you don't want to own historic or listed buildings and cover the costs that go with them, don't bloody buy them! And certainly don't set fire to them.
As for raiding the public purse to buy listed buildings, isn't that what charitable status organisations like National Trust and English heritage are already for? I'd rather public money went on things that truly address the public good like Hospitals or the fire service, while pretty old buildings are a descressionary spend for the middle classes to feel warm and fuzzy about when they get a NT membership or pay EH to visit some old pile.
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
Why do people always focus on the money? As if that's the worst possible thing, if you start fires you are endangering lives either if they spread and/or those of the fire service that have to respond. the costs are secondary to the disregard for other people's safety.
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
Yes, 2 years.
I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way. The property owner is a company, then the firesetter sets fire to the property of another person. IF they know that it is unlawful to demolish the building, then they would not have a lawful excuse to set the fire. And the circumstances of the hypothetical fire (middle of the night etc) are strongly suggestive of surreptitious conduct.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage
I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way.
Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?
Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.
Private Eye might as well create a column for him given how often his dubious dealings get reported.
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
Yes, 2 years
And, iirc, being statutory essentially there's presumptive guilt and you're required prove you're innocent not the other way around - eg we took all possible precautions and didn't endanger life when we asked John to go round and knock the top floor off with the digger, he knew exactly what he was doing had the relevant training and equipment etc etc etc
(carries a max unlimited fine these days, 6 months custodial [if imposed in a magistrate court, I assume greater if it escalates], disqualification and remedial orders. It's a toothy bit of legislation if it wants to be)
And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?
Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation on a case that will be nearly impossible to prosecute? Sure, the owners might get a fine, but that will be trivial to them.
The waste industry in the UK has been infiltrated by Organised crime. There is a lot of money to be made by illegally dumping hazardous/recyclable waste or mis-labelling. What these organisations need are places (near to urban areas) for dumping. This site is perfect for Biffa to expand into.
Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.
And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?
Then how did taking the top floor off result in the whole building falling down?
Given he (appears) to simply drive up, what precautions were in place to prevent injury to the public etc. Where is his supervisor in case of an accident whilst undertaking what is clearly (because the whole place fell down) dangerous and unpredictable work.
I'd suspect love working in this inspires enough to land them in significant bother.
All of this of course they may be able to provide, but that's the point, the onus is on them to prove they did everything, not the other way around.
Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation
Not under HSWA no, that would be the HSE...
Nothing to do with "we liked that pub", entirely because cowboy crap like knocking down unsafe buildings with a digger in your lunch hour is precisely the sort of thing the HSE exists to prevent, investigate and prosecute.
Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?
Given the seriousness of the crime(s) and that nobody investigating/prosecuting in and of itself would send a message? Yes I do think the Police will want to spend their time investigating, even if it doesn't result in prosecutions there's a likelihood that they'll identify people likely to be involved and as such candidates for similar future Arson/fraud attempts.
Suspicious events warrant investigation, just because wealthy Criminals operate like they have impunity doesn't mean the rest of society has to just let them do what they like...
Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing? No don't be silly but people are putting forward what crimes may have been committed. If the public outcry is large enough then something may well be taken forward.
Maybe to council can oppose development but I'd guess that the owners, if Dodgy, will have taken that into account and have a way around it.
Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.
Fortunately not that easy as the road has a public footpath running along it and there's another footpath running north/south right on the pub itself. I'm guessing that's why we've been seeing lots of photos of the public visiting the site and they haven't already closed the road off
Given the seriousness of the crime(s)
Somebody burnt down and then demolished an old pub that they own without permission. Nobody died, they seem unlikely to be committing insurance fraud. You may be overestimating the seriousness of the offence by quite a bit. You're searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn't really a serious criminal offence. Good prosecutors don't go trawling for things to charge people with, they ask whether the underlying offence was worth prosecuting. They will quite likely get a fine. A lengthy jail sentence is just a fantasy.
Well, it's on the BBC and it's a Great British Pub. So if Farage takes up the cause someone could be looking at a 20 year stretch. That's how it works nowadays isn't it?
Just looked at that on Google maps, blinking heck that's about the most grim location for a pub as you could ask for.
Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing?
Fire investigation starts with tbe Fire Brigade iirc, not sure at what point forensics etc move to a Police investigation.
You’re searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn’t really a serious criminal offence.
A bit like, I dunno, an MP fiddling their expenses? Not a huge amount in the scale of things, far more important things to look at, who cares what message it sends out to others?
Alfie Best?
He appears to be untouchable - despite his multiple illegal actions.
He's also the owner of a landfill site - on humberside? - with a contiuously burning underground fire.
Neither the LA nor the local fire service have been able (or willing?) to take robust enforcement action against him or his agents.
A bit like, I dunno, an MP fiddling their expenses?
Fiddling expenses is fraud. It should be prosecuted as fraud.
Countries like the U.K. have centuries of laws, including common law and statutes. Many of them are archaic and are still law just because they haven't been reviewed and struck off (furious riding, for example is still an offence in many parts of the world.) No human being can possibly know every single law, so you are probably breaking a bunch of laws every time you set foot outside your house. It's not good prosecutorial practice to decide that someone deserves to go to jail and then set about finding some technical violation to charge them with. That's exactly why the U.S. has so many problems with their policing - the police do traffic stops as a pretext to harass people who haven't committed any serious offence.
It’s not good prosecutorial practice to decide that someone deserves to go to jail and then set about finding some technical violation to charge them with.
But it is good practice to ask eg "might this be arson?"
No-> No further action
Yes - > "can we prove it was arson?"
No - >No further action
Yes - > "is a prosecution in the public interest?"
No -> No further action
Yes - > "can we identify a suspect?"
Etc etc
Or in the case of the HSWA
"does it look likely there was a significant contravention?"
"does the very public nature of that pose a continued risk?"
"is pursuit in the public interest"
It doesn't have to be a fishing expedition or a witch hunt to think the police etc might be interested in this for a multitude of reasons, I don't suppose the owner will be in court on tax evasion anytime soon though.
Whether any of that actually ends up in a court is a long long way down the list of considerations.
Must have got Sherlock Holmes on the case to deduce that was arson.
well the owners live up to the name "Crooked" anyway!
Hard pass on clicking on anything Daily Mail here.
There’s enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets
That’s demonstrably untrue in large parts of the country
I can't find the article I was originally remembering, but a quick google throws up this, and there's more recent reports from people like CPRE, who have a vested interest of course.
From the Daily Mail article.
He said officers had 'spoken to, and continue to engage, with the owners', adding that its joint investigation with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service had so far been unable to determine the cause of the fire.
Given that it was a pub, stocked with bottles of alcohol, plus the site has been bulldozed by earthmoving equipment (which can leak diesel or hydraulic fluid), there's plausible deniability that the presence of accelerants proves arson, assuming their sniffer dog detects some.
Getting an inconvenient obstacle out of the way of the surrounding landfill.
If the legal penalty is a 'Fine', it just means it costs 'this much' to do it. If you can afford it.
Which they can.
And have.
assuming their sniffer dog detects some.
I'd be surprised if they spend that much time on it to be honest. Fairly obvious the fire is suspicious the chances of establishing more than that are at this point exceedingly slim.
Fairly obvious the fire is suspicious the chances of establishing more than that are at this point exceedingly slim.
Yup. Even if shown to be arson then they can still blame the local yoof.
There is a reason mysterious fires destroying inconvenient old buildings which were blocking the preferred redevelopment keep happening.
There is a reason mysterious fires destroying inconvenient old buildings which were blocking the preferred redevelopment keep happening.
Because it's ridiculously difficult to get rid of them legitimately?
Because it’s ridiculously difficult to get rid of them legitimately?
And sadly the reason its difficult is to stop genuinely interesting/rare buildings being destroyed.
A more pragmatic appproach for many wpuld reduce the risk for the few.
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.