bickster Posted February 28 Moderator Share Posted February 28 How do you rebuild a building to a state that wouldn't currently pass building regulations? Given that the crooked House was in it's crooked state because of mining subsidence, surely they'd have to do some sort of work on securing the ground before any rebuilding work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, bickster said: How do you rebuild a building to a state that wouldn't currently pass building regulations? Given that the crooked House was in it's crooked state because of mining subsidence, surely they'd have to do some sort of work on securing the ground before any rebuilding work? It seems like a really stupid thing to ask the owners to do. To make it crooked, but also safe, would mean it would have to be built quite differently to how it was… so what’s the point? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Perfectly possible to do it, both practically, and within the regs (that big folder of green diagrams and illustrations, tables, and compliance stuff is all just suggestions). Rebuilding it to be similar to the original is sending a message, it’s expensive, its inconvenient, its less suitable for future conversion to multiple residential occupancy without more financial outlay. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 28 VT Supporter Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Genie said: They should have been charged with fraud and had all the insurance money seized. Well, we don't know about all the additional action being taken. This is just the council. There were 6 arrests for arson, but the article doesn't say anything about charges. Yet. With this council action, it may be that the police will look at other aspects (criminal damage, conspiracy to do whatever), and/or that the insurance companies might take a closer look, which could in turn lead to police looking at the financial aspect too (fraud) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 4 hours ago, sidcow said: I think they burned both just to get the land cleared. I would think at best they had removal of debris cover (but probably not even that as they wouldn't have had insurers authority to demolish it within 24 hours. If they did have full cover (well Fire Lightning Explosion cover only which is max on an empty property) they would have been in breach of cover demolishing the remains before a loss adjustor been out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 28 VT Supporter Share Posted February 28 4 hours ago, bickster said: How do you rebuild a building to a state that wouldn't currently pass building regulations? Given that the crooked House was in it's crooked state because of mining subsidence, surely they'd have to do some sort of work on securing the ground before any rebuilding work? That's the best bit though. It's the offender's problem to solve. It's going to cost them everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I'm glad something is happening with the Crooked House, but it'll never be the same again. If its built new, and deliberately leaning, then it loses its charm. Plus the fact, no one used the pub anyway, hence why is was sold by Marstons. @sidcow has the best idea... get it built back at the Black Country museum, using the original bricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) Its been done before Quote Carlton Tavern: The Pub That Was Reborn From Rubble Carlton Tavern in Kilburn, London, was the heart of the community for nearly a hundred years until it ceased to exist one spring morning in 2015. It’s owners had it demolished to make way for a block of flats. The demolition had taken place without permit. The developers thought they could get away with the infraction with a slap on the wrist and a fine, but not this time. The city council ordered the developers to rebuild the pub “brick by brick”. Six years later, when the Carlton Tavern reopened, it became simultaneously brand-new and a hundred years old. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2022/07/carlton-tavern-pub-that-was-reborn-from.html Edited February 28 by Xela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted February 29 VT Supporter Share Posted February 29 17 hours ago, Xela said: Plus the fact, no one used the pub anyway, hence why is was sold by Marstons. @sidcow has the best idea... get it built back at the Black Country museum, using the original bricks. I was in there once and wanted to go again, but getting there without a car was a pain. My situation wasn't exactly isolated as seen in sales. As said, rebuild but it a better spot as the original charm is gone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 29 VT Supporter Share Posted February 29 22 hours ago, Genie said: It seems like a really stupid thing to ask the owners to do. To make it crooked, but also safe, would mean it would have to be built quite differently to how it was… so what’s the point? If RIpley's can do this then anything is possible 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 29 Moderator Share Posted February 29 19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: If RIpley's can do this then anything is possible I don't believe it! 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dog Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The thing with the Crooked House, what's the point in rebuilding when it was because it was so quiet? Granted, it shouldn't have been burnt down, but I live 20 mins away from it and can name a number of better pubs to go to within that radius. Once the novelty had worn off, it was just a pub, a particularly remote one, with limited drinks, that didn't serve great food. It wasn't even one of those 'nice in the summer' places. It was literally somewhere you would go once to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 It’s not sentimentally for a pub’s food offering that is being played out here. It’s punishment for taking the piss out of planning laws. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dog Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: It’s not sentimentally for a pub’s food offering that is being played out here. It’s punishment for taking the piss out of planning laws. I get that, but didn't the pub shut down anyway because it was shite? It definitely shouldn't have been burnt down and the people behind it should be jailed, but what is the point in rebuilding it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 36 minutes ago, T-Dog said: I get that, but didn't the pub shut down anyway because it was shite? It definitely shouldn't have been burnt down and the people behind it should be jailed, but what is the point in rebuilding it now? So you have proof the arsonist was the owner? I thought the police were still investigating having let people out on bail? If the arsonist was the owner, they might well end up in prison, in the meantime they can spend their money rebuilding as a punishment to them and a warning to others. Again, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with whether it was a pub, or whether the pub was shite, or won prizes, that’s irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dog Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: So you have proof the arsonist was the owner? I thought the police were still investigating having let people out on bail? If the arsonist was the owner, they might well end up in prison, in the meantime they can spend their money rebuilding as a punishment to them and a warning to others. Again, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with whether it was a pub, or whether the pub was shite, or won prizes, that’s irrelevant. No, I have no proof of anything - I just don't understand the notion of rebuilding it as it was. Send whoever was involved to prison, completely, but why rebuild it? I can't help but think it'll only be knocked down again at some point soon for flats anyway? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 4 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It’s not sentimentally for a pub’s food offering that is being played out here. It’s punishment for taking the piss out of planning laws. I'd rather the new owners were jailed or hugely fined. I guess the cost of rebuilding it will cover the latter, but they could just liquidate the company that owns the pub/land ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 22 minutes ago, Xela said: I'd rather the new owners were jailed or hugely fined. I guess the cost of rebuilding it will cover the latter, but they could just liquidate the company that owns the pub/land ? The owners might yet end up in court, and the company ownership has already changed hands between a couple of family members attempting to complicate the paper chase. Having an order that they need to rebuild prevents the easy development or the easy sale of the land. It means any profit in that site is now years away, sending a message to all manner of other developers with nuisance buildings on their land. We deal with developers that want, in an ideal world, a nice empty site with planning permission for flats. That’s the quick money, selling empty land with planning. This land is now useless to the quick profit brigade. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 29 VT Supporter Share Posted February 29 3 hours ago, T-Dog said: No, I have no proof of anything - I just don't understand the notion of rebuilding it as it was. Send whoever was involved to prison, completely, but why rebuild it? I can't help but think it'll only be knocked down again at some point soon for flats anyway? I expect it's harder to prove criminal intent. To put them in prison you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt they've carried out a criminal offence. Making them rebuild is a civil matter which only needs a balance of probability to prove. Forcing them to rebuild provides a deterrent to others and sends a strong message that you can't just do this and get away for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 I keep intermittently chuckling to myself whenever I think about that Willy Wonka event in Glasgow. Especially the concept and presentation of ‘The Unknown’, the completely made up evil chocolate maker that lives in the walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts