Crooked House

[Simon]

It stinks doesn't it?

Facts:

Burnt down to a shell despite surviving for decades through wars and previous fire.
Firefighters unable to attend properly as local access roads blocked with soil and rubble (I've seen photos but unable to confirm authenticity)
Demolished quickly with no proper RA, fences etc and against the agreement of the local council.

Unconfirmed:

Sold to an unknown property developer just last month in Warwickshire
Demolition crew booked before the fire even took place.

It's so blatant.

[Simon]

Good reporting by The Times here, naming the new owners and their links to waste management companies.

[Simon]

Amazing coincidence, not.

[Jobbo]

Having been born a couple of miles away from it, and with a close friend having had her wedding reception there, I’m incredibly sad that it’s been lost. But realistically this was obviously going to happen when Marstons closed it and put it up for sale.

I’m not sure if anyone else on here went to it but it was down a rough track entirely surrounded by old quarries which are now landfill. It’s not a valuable site for housing development. It’s not a great location for a pub, to be brutally honest.

It wasn’t listed - perhaps it should have been, and perhaps the buyer got wind of an intention to list it, but it wasn’t. There’s no general law preventing you from demolishing a building you own, and it’s not in a conservation area. So I don’t see that the new owner has committed any sort of offence.

So sad as it is, I’m sure it was bought to be incorporated into the larger landfill area surrounding it. The access track, car park etc probably made it quite valuable to the owner of the surrounding land because it unlocked previously awkward areas.

I’m amazed that so many people (including the mayor of Birmingham) seem to think it’s a big conspiracy. You could have written what I did above as a prediction without difficulty.

[Explosive Newt]

To quote from Bromwell High "it's amazing what burns down in the right economic circumstances"

On the one hand, it sounds like it was financially unviable as a pub and may well have been pulled down at some point in the future but the short space of time in which it burnt down not long after the sale and was then demolished extremely rapidly after that (against the council's wishes and while a police investigation was ongoing?) suggests that the new owner saw some sort of listing / conservation order on the horizon and saw a neat way to head that off at the pass and claim on the insurance.

My guess is that little will come of this as while the circumstances are fishy there would have been no legal impediment to demolishing it.

[speedingfine]

I'd heard it was grade 2 listed, was that not the case?

[GG.]

It wasn’t listed - perhaps it should have been, and perhaps the buyer got wind of an intention to list it, but it wasn’t. There’s no general law preventing you from demolishing a building you own, and it’s not in a conservation area. So I don’t see that the new owner has committed any sort of offence.

I was under the impression that you needed to apply for planning permission to demolish (hence why these suspicious "accidents" happen)? There was a case in London (Carlton Tavern) where no pemission was sought and a pending application was in play for Grade II listed status - the owner demolished it and was forced to rebuild exactly as it stood before. The commentary on that that I saw wasn't particularly detailed on the legal analysis however...

[Jobbo]

I'd heard it was grade 2 listed, was that not the case?

No; I checked straight away. Definitely not, sadly.

[Jobbo]

It wasn’t listed - perhaps it should have been, and perhaps the buyer got wind of an intention to list it, but it wasn’t. There’s no general law preventing you from demolishing a building you own, and it’s not in a conservation area. So I don’t see that the new owner has committed any sort of offence.

I was under the impression that you needed to apply for planning permission to demolish (hence why these suspicious "accidents" happen)? There was a case in London (Carlton Tavern) where no pemission was sought and a pending application was in play for Grade II listed status - the owner demolished it and was forced to rebuild exactly as it stood before. The commentary on that that I saw wasn't particularly detailed on the legal analysis however...

Generally demolition does not require planning consent. That Carlton Tavern one is odd because it wasn’t listed when demolished, I believe, so I would like to find out the facts.

[GG.]

I saw something else that just referred to needing 6 weeks pre-notification so maybe it was that they breached and was enough for the council to take enforcement action... apparently it was due to be formally listed only two days after the demolition took place so perhaps that was relevant.

[Explosive Newt]

The mayor has, on this basis of this precident, written to the local council urging them to demand it is rebuilt like the Carlton.

[Simon]

Reading through it seems like you can't just demolish something just because it's yours @Jobbo, as the council themselves have quoted?

[Jobbo]

Seems there is a specific provision for pubs so perhaps there is hope: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permis ... permission

But if you want to demolish your house and it’s not listed or in a conservation area, you’re all good.

[Explosive Newt]

Seems there is a specific provision for pubs so perhaps there is hope: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permis ... permission

But if you want to demolish your house and it’s not listed or in a conservation area, you’re all good.

And to be clear, if you don't want to demolish your house, you don't have to.

[Mito Man]

I guess it would be wise to obtain planning permission for the thing you wish to replace your existing building before you do demolish it otherwise that could be very awkward

[Swervin_Mervin]

It wasn’t listed - perhaps it should have been, and perhaps the buyer got wind of an intention to list it, but it wasn’t. There’s no general law preventing you from demolishing a building you own, and it’s not in a conservation area. So I don’t see that the new owner has committed any sort of offence.

I was under the impression that you needed to apply for planning permission to demolish (hence why these suspicious "accidents" happen)? There was a case in London (Carlton Tavern) where no pemission was sought and a pending application was in play for Grade II listed status - the owner demolished it and was forced to rebuild exactly as it stood before. The commentary on that that I saw wasn't particularly detailed on the legal analysis however...

Generally demolition does not require planning consent. That Carlton Tavern one is odd because it wasn’t listed when demolished, I believe, so I would like to find out the facts.

Planning permission would be required if the building has been rendered unsafe or uninhabitable.

They've fucked themselves twice over here. They run the real risk of having to rebuild the building brick by brick. And they also run the very real risk of making any future planning decisions relating to quarrying/landfill operations very difficult. If there is one thing that Planning Authorities do not like it's people/organisations taking the piss with them. See Tesco and Stockport - Stockport made Tesco's life very very difficult for well over a decade after they took the piss with their then new store nr the M60.

They're bloody idiots, essentially. Anyone with half a brain would have left it to rot for a good while, let it become unsafe, and then take the appropriate routes to secure demolition.

[Simon]

I see their Google reviews are getting decimated. LOL.

As for the fire, one wonders if they thought they could get some money the other way by a bit of old fashioned insurance fraud.

[IanF]

[Rich B]

So I don’t see that the new owner has committed any sort of offence.

there we go. Presumably they got advice from a local lawyer like Jobbo before doing it?

[Sundayjumper]

...and while a police investigation was ongoing?

That angle doesn't seem to be getting enough attention. Sounds like scope for some kind of "destroying evidence" charge ?