The Crooked House Historic Pub in Dudley

Faldrax said:
They were specifically given permission for a partial demolition of the section that was deemed unsafe - which means they specifically did NOT have permission for a compete demolition.
Click to expand...
It’s not a big building one whack and Woops it all fell down!
 
Form?


Plans to build houses on part of the pub's car park were thrown out by Rugby Borough Council in August last year.

It had also been hoped six upstairs bedrooms would be let out, but councillors unanimously rejected the application.

Residents claim tradespeople with diggers and skips were at the pub the following day ripping out the interiors.

(My bold)

www.thesun.co.uk

Our local was 'gutted' by Crooked House's new owner... we want it back

SHOCKED residents say their beloved local pub was “gutted” by Adam Taylor – before the Crooked House went up in flames. The businessman, 44, also owns the Sarah Mansfield pub in t…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
I don't know any more about this case than anyone else who watches the news, and make no assumptions about what happened, but I do (unfortunately) have experience, going back over many years, with planning authorities and can see why some people may be tempted to ignore the rules.

Basically, there are 3 ways of getting planning permission.
1. Have very good local political contacts
2. Hire very expensive lawyers and hope for the best
3. Bribe either planning officers or planning committee members.

People (and always the same people) often get planning permission when they shouldn't, simply because of who they know, or because they happen to be married to a councillor or similar. These people simply put in an application, which is either approved by the planning officer under delegated powers, or recommended by them to the planning committee, who simply rubber stamp it.

People who can spend a fortune on the very best specialist lawyers (who shouldn't need them for straightforward applications) improve their chances, but basically ordinary people and small firms can't afford them.

People who have lived and worked in an area for many years can usually find out which planning officials and which councillors to approach for option 3. It isn't even always necessary to ask around, some of them make it clear.

Even when there is no corruption involved, which must happen sometimes, the process takes forever and costs an enormous amount of money.

So, developers can find it much easier, quicker and cheaper simply to have a fire, knowing that the insurance companies will have to pay out unless they prove that the owner was involved in the fire, which can be difficult
 
L320Rio said:
So if the new owners do NOT make a claim on their insurance, what crime have they actually committed, and why can you not destroy your own property.
Click to expand...
Well I'mcertainly no t a lawyer but it may have breached planning laws, and almost certainly put someone at risk as the fire and rescue service were called. That might make it aggravated arson ? (being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.) Even if the fire service couldnt actually get to the scene of the fire the drive there in 999 mode puts them at some risk. Thats without any possible risk to bystanders, workers ect.
But thats all just a big guess from me as to a possible situation, and I dont think we know how the fire started yet officially. Maybe Demi Lion will come in with his proper legal input?
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't know any more about this case than anyone else who watches the news, and make no assumptions about what happened, but I do (unfortunately) have experience, going back over many years, with planning authorities and can see why some people may be tempted to ignore the rules.

Basically, there are 3 ways of getting planning permission.
1. Have very good local political contacts
2. Hire very expensive lawyers and hope for the best
3. Bribe either planning officers or planning committee members.

People (and always the same people) often get planning permission when they shouldn't, simply because of who they know, or because they happen to be married to a councillor or similar. These people simply put in an application, which is either approved by the planning officer under delegated powers, or recommended by them to the planning committee, who simply rubber stamp it.

People who can spend a fortune on the very best specialist lawyers (who shouldn't need them for straightforward applications) improve their chances, but basically ordinary people and small firms can't afford them.

People who have lived and worked in an area for many years can usually find out which planning officials and which councillors to approach for option 3. It isn't even always necessary to ask around, some of them make it clear.

Even when there is no corruption involved, which must happen sometimes, the process takes forever and costs an enormous amount of money.

So, developers can find it much easier, quicker and cheaper simply to have a fire, knowing that the insurance companies will have to pay out unless they prove that the owner was involved in the fire, which can be difficult
Click to expand...
My dad always said we have the best council money can buy! ;)
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't know any more about this case than anyone else who watches the news, and make no assumptions about what happened, but I do (unfortunately) have experience, going back over many years, with planning authorities and can see why some people may be tempted to ignore the rules.

Basically, there are 3 ways of getting planning permission.
1. Have very good local political contacts
2. Hire very expensive lawyers and hope for the best
3. Bribe either planning officers or planning committee members.

People (and always the same people) often get planning permission when they shouldn't, simply because of who they know, or because they happen to be married to a councillor or similar. These people simply put in an application, which is either approved by the planning officer under delegated powers, or recommended by them to the planning committee, who simply rubber stamp it.

People who can spend a fortune on the very best specialist lawyers (who shouldn't need them for straightforward applications) improve their chances, but basically ordinary people and small firms can't afford them.

People who have lived and worked in an area for many years can usually find out which planning officials and which councillors to approach for option 3. It isn't even always necessary to ask around, some of them make it clear.

Even when there is no corruption involved, which must happen sometimes, the process takes forever and costs an enormous amount of money.

So, developers can find it much easier, quicker and cheaper simply to have a fire, knowing that the insurance companies will have to pay out unless they prove that the owner was involved in the fire, which can be difficult
Click to expand...

Round here it feels like the default is to decline almost everything significant, so it gets bumped up a level and the local councils can then blame whichever Secretary of State is in power for over-ruling them on everything come the various elections…just drives suspicion on who gets any brown envelopes…
 
My Italian wife is always saying that Britain has moved culturally closer to Europe despite Brexit. She was talking about all the Italian and other European food in the supermarkets.

Looks like quite a few "Businessmen" have learnt a thing or two whilst on holiday in Sicily or Southern Italy about how to get around planning law problems. The useful fire is a classic.
 
L320Rio said:
So if the new owners do NOT make a claim on their insurance, what crime have they actually committed, and why can you not destroy your own property.
Click to expand...
You can not destroy a listed property. And arson is always a crime. It seems most arson is done by, or for, owners of property that will benefit in some way by its destruction.
 
It wasn't listed.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It seems most arson is done by, or for, owners of property that will benefit in some way by its destruction.
Click to expand...

Academic studies find that arson for financial gain accounts for between 2% and 6% of deliberately set fires


[Table 4, page 17]

This is consistent with a figure of 5% for insurance fraud in cases of arson in the US


[Figure 3, page 4]
 
One of our local pubs had listed status but it didn't stop them doing very strange things to it, Las Vegas style - shocking!

The Grange | Visit Norfolk

The Grange at Ormesby St Margaret near Great Yarmouth is open 7 days a week serving food and real ales/ciders. With special offers, full bar menu, rooms,
www.visitnorfolk.co.uk www.visitnorfolk.co.uk

www.tripadvisor.co.uk

THE SMOKEHOUSE, Great Yarmouth - Updated 2023 Restaurant Reviews, Photos & Phone Number - Tripadvisor

The Smokehouse, Great Yarmouth: See 1,307 unbiased reviews of The Smokehouse, rated 4.5 of 5 on Tripadvisor and ranked #12 of 362 restaurants in Great Yarmouth.
www.tripadvisor.co.uk www.tripadvisor.co.uk

....... and don't forget all the listed mills in Yorkshire that have mysteriously taken fire after getting new owners!

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

'It felt like a bereavement': Huge mill fire left Bradford in shock

ON January 28, 2016 more than 150 years of Bradford history went up in smoke when a huge fire tore through Drummond Mill.
www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk
 
Last edited:
The owners will be saying someone must have got in despite their attempts to keep it safe and set it on fire accidentally or deliberately.
Then since it is by a path it had to be made safe.

The pub trade is in desperate straights there are two large ones and several smaller ones round here been stood empty for years after the last landlords gave up after typically less than a year. That's in a good touristy area with sizeable car park could take passing coaches or do large events like weddings.
They simply can't be made to pay their way due to staffing costs, business rates and recently insane utility bills.
A similar sized one locally closed again as their power bill alone was nearly £6000 /month.
It will likely end up converted into 2 or 3 dwellings if that isn't possible you can see why owners just want rid of what has become a liability even if they can't put the site to another use.
 
Last edited:
4wd said:
The owners will be saying someone must have got in despite their attempts to keep it safe and set it on fire accidentally or deliberately.
Then since it is by a path it had to be made safe.

The pub trade is in desperate straights there are two large ones and several smaller ones round here been stood empty for years after the last landlords gave up after typically less than a year. That's in a good touristy area with sizeable car park could take passing coaches or do large events like weddings.
They simply can't be made to pay their way due to staffing costs, business rates and recently insane utility bills.
A similar sized one locally closed again as their power bill alone was nearly £6000 /month.
It will likely end up converted into 2 or 3 dwellings if that isn't possible you can see why owners just want rid of what has become a liability even if they can't put the site to another use.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

Buy a pub then within 9 days find out it won't work financially? Then a neer-do-well gets in and burns it down. And a digger hired before it burnt down is used to knock it down. And the new owners have not been seen, crying crocodile tears over the loss of their new purchase.
 
It's been empty for months/years the new owners didn't need to attempt to run it to work out it was a total money pit.
 
4wd said:
It's been empty for months/years the new owners didn't need to attempt to run it to work out it was a total money pit.
Click to expand...
So it was made sure to burn down.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You can not destroy a listed property. And arson is always a crime. It seems most arson is done by, or for, owners of property that will benefit in some way by its destruction.
Click to expand...

The Crooked House pub was NOT a listed building, other than the fact that it listed heavily to the left.


4wd said:
It's been empty for months/years the new owners didn't need to attempt to run it to work out it was a total money pit.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the pub was sold as a going concern. There was even a band (Gasoline and Matches) booked to play at the pub the night that it burned down. However the new owners of the pub had planned to change its use.

The local council had given the owners permission to demolish part of the building after the fire to stabilise the remaining structure. How fortuitous that there was a digger already on site. It’s almost as if the new owners had second sight.

It is also interesting that the new owners have not been seen in public, or given any TV/press interviews since the fire. Obviously they are far too devastated by the tragic events to face the media.
 
L320Rio said:
It is also interesting that the new owners have not been seen in public, or given any TV/press interviews since the fire. Obviously they are far too devastated by the tragic events to face the media.
Click to expand...

You are not the only one concerned for the well-being of the griveing owners :)

As for the Taylors, could the couple please present themselves before a TV camera at their earliest opportunity? After all, speaking of concern for welfare, I’m sure a nation very much wishes to check in on them.
www.theguardian.com

Why this lament for a burnt-out pub? Is it because Britain seems a bit of a Crooked House these days? | Marina Hyde

The fate of a historic landmark has certainly struck a chord: neglected and reduced to rubble. Uncanny isn’t it, asks Guardian columnist Marina Hyde
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
L320Rio said:
The Crooked House pub was NOT a listed building, other than the fact that it listed heavily to the left.




My understanding is that the pub was sold as a going concern. There was even a band (Gasoline and Matches) booked to play at the pub the night that it burned down. However the new owners of the pub had planned to change its use.

The local council had given the owners permission to demolish part of the building after the fire to stabilise the remaining structure. How fortuitous that there was a digger already on site. It’s almost as if the new owners had second sight.

It is also interesting that the new owners have not been seen in public, or given any TV/press interviews since the fire. Obviously they are far too devastated by the tragic events to face the media.
Click to expand...
Wearing my devils advocate hat for a moment . . .
They own the land each side and use diggers on it, so nothing unusual there. My family owns diggers too, and even if we didn't we could borrow or hire one very easily.
Nobody has to give media interviews, and there is usually very little benefit from doing so.

The simple fact of the matter is that although many people may be very suspicious, we only know what the media has told us.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Wearing my devils advocate hat for a moment . . .
They own the land each side and use diggers on it, so nothing unusual there.
Click to expand...
Ome woukd have to see the layout to see if there was a reasonable reason to put the rubble in that particular position blocking access. On the face of it, it was at least careless.
Garry Edwards said:
Nobody has to give media interviews, and there is usually very little benefit from doing so.
Click to expand...

Asolutely. The piece I linked was ironic, though in fact most people do give interviews.

Garry Edwards said:
The simple fact of the matter is that although many people may be very suspicious, we only know what the media has told us.
Click to expand...

Absoluetly!
 
sphexx said:
Asolutely. The piece I linked was ironic, though in fact most people do give interviews.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the one that Prince Andrew gave :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, I remember the one that Prince Andrew gave :)
Click to expand...

There have also been a few tearful interviews/appeals from murderers as I recall, before they are found out.
 
This has just appeared in my local on line news.
Source

Detectives investigating the fire at the Crooked House pub in Himley have arrested two men.
A 66-year-old man, from Dudley, and a 33-year-old man, from Milton Keynes, have been arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life.
 
Cobra said:
This has just appeared in my local on line news.
Source

Detectives investigating the fire at the Crooked House pub in Himley have arrested two men.
A 66-year-old man, from Dudley, and a 33-year-old man, from Milton Keynes, have been arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life.
Click to expand...

Ah! MK that hotbed of criminality :LOL:
 
Has or have anyone else on here beside me actually been in that pub? if so you know how weird it was inside. nothing horizontal or perpendicular it didn't feel right let alone having a drink in there.
 
Could we move this please, feels the photography conversation ended after the first couple of posts
 
realspeed said:
Has or have anyone else on here beside me actually been in that pub? if so you know how weird it was inside. nothing horizontal or perpendicular it didn't feel right let alone having a drink in there.
Click to expand...
I guess when it all started to look straight, you knew you’d had enough to drink?
 
realspeed said:
Has or have anyone else on here beside me actually been in that pub? if so you know how weird it was inside. nothing horizontal or perpendicular it didn't feel right let alone having a drink in there.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have. I recall feeling ever so slightly nauseous and unsure on my feet before my first drink - not a lot but enough for me to notice it and feel a little uncomfortable. I wear bifocals now and it felt a bit like when I first got them but wasn't used to them. I reckon if I had worn them then, the feeling would have been worse.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
Could we move this please, feels the photography conversation ended after the first couple of posts
Click to expand...

Surely discussing whether the horizon is level or not or whether it should be at crazy angle is what photography is all about … or at least that’s my impression sometimes :LOL: :exit:
 
weybourne said:
Yes, I have. I recall feeling ever so slightly nauseous and unsure on my feet before my first drink - not a lot but enough for me to notice it and feel a little uncomfortable. I wear bifocals now and it felt a bit like when I first got them but wasn't used to them. I reckon if I had worn them then, the feeling would have been worse.
Click to expand...
I forgot to say - as I recall it, walking to the bar to get my first drink, I had to concentrate to walk straight - a similar effort as what I would otherwise make after several drinks :beer:
 
weybourne said:
I forgot to say - as I recall it, walking to the bar to get my first drink, I had to concentrate to walk straight - a similar effort as what I would otherwise make after several drinks :beer:
Click to expand...
I have to say that's exactly how I felt too. The place was totally unique - well, in my experience, anyway.
 
Two have now been arrested for arson with intent to endanger life a 66 year old man from Dudley and a 33 year old man from Milton Keynes both areas where the owner has dealings. This can be found easily online as it has been reported World wide.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Two have now been arrested for arson with intent to endanger life a 66 year old man from Dudley and a 33 year old man from Milton Keynes both areas where the owner has dealings. This can be found easily online as it has been reported World wide.
Click to expand...
Post #68
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top