Crooked House rebuild hearing postponed after owners' High Court appeal
The enforcement notice requiring the pub to be rebuilt 'so as to recreate it as similar as possible to the demolished building' was served on Adam and Carly Taylor and the company secretary of Warwickshire-based ATE Farms Ltd by South Staffordshire Council in February last year.
A hearing before a planning inspector had been due to start considering an appeal against the re-build notice next month.
The council alleges that the demolition of the pub in Himley, near Dudley, two days after it was gutted by fire on August 5 2023, constituted a breach of planning controls.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the council said: 'A High Court challenge was lodged by the owners of the Crooked House to challenge the Planning Inspectorate's refusal to postpone the Planning Enforcement Public Inquiry.
'South Staffordshire Council is extremely disappointed to announce that following the High Court challenge that took place on the 5th February 2025, the Planning Inspectorate has today, 11th February 2025, confirmed that the Planning Enforcement Public Inquiry will be held in abeyance.
'This means that the Crooked House Public Inquiry for the appeal, scheduled for 11th March 2025, will now not go ahead as planned and will likely resume when the criminal investigation into the fire at the Crooked House has been concluded.
'South Staffordshire Council has worked very hard to prepare for the Public Inquiry and to defend the Enforcement Notice issued in February 2024, but has now exhausted all avenues to see this Public Inquiry go ahead as planned in March 2025.'
Staffordshire Police said in July last year that six people arrested in connection with the fire have been released from their bail, but remain under investigation.
Those arrested have not been identified but were said at the time of their arrests to be a 66-year-old man from Dudley, a 51-year-old man from Buckingham, a 33-year-old man from Milton Keynes, two men from Leicestershire aged 23 and 44, and a woman aged 34, also from Leicestershire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Parents who forced 9-year-old son to do push-ups, squats in viral video defend punishment after backlash
Katie and Dustin Maletich, Oregon parents of four, have gone viral on social media for a parenting moment that's sparked some debate. After Dustin's 9-year-old stepson, Tommy, told his mother to 'chill,' he was instructed to do several push-ups and 60 squats as a form of discipline. Advertisement The workout was met with a father-son conversation about the tone in which he should be speaking to his mother. Tommy was attentive and apologized to his mom. Dustin Maletich, who is a corrections officer at a prison, ended the confrontation with an 'I love you' and a hug. While some praised the stepfather for his approach, others were concerned about using physical exercise as a form of punishment. Dr. Dyan Hes, pediatrician and medical director at Highline Modern Medicine in New York, reacted to this discipline method in an interview with Fox News Digital, calling it a 'ridiculous punishment.' Advertisement 'If you have ever done 60 squats, you know it is painful, especially in a young prepubescent child,' she said. 'Regardless, this is still a form of corporal punishment. Exercise should invoke positive connotations, not negative ones.' 5 Katie and Dustin Maletich, Oregon parents of four, have gone viral on social media for a parenting moment that's sparked some debate. Fox News Educational psychologist and parenting expert Dr. Michele Borba shared a different perspective, stating that the stepfather approached it the 'right way' by responding calmly and enforcing a punishment that seemed familiar and doable for the child. The California-based expert was more concerned about how posting the video online could emotionally impact the child and invoke 'public shame.' Advertisement In an on-camera interview with Fox News Digital, the Maletich family shared that fitness isn't used as a punishment for their children, but as a method of teaching self-control and emotional regulation. 5 The workout was met with a father-son conversation about the tone in which he should be speaking to his mother. @raisingmaletich/Instagram 'It's never like, 'We're punishing you because you were bad,'' Katie Maletich said. 'It's, 'Hey, let's help you figure out some better self-control and a better outlet for whatever is going on.'' Dustin Maletich added, 'We try to have the consequences correlate with the inappropriate behavior. If you demonstrate the inability to control your actions, then by doing physical activity, you're showing yourself that you are in control of your actions.' Advertisement 'There are plenty of times that I get frustrated,' he went on. 'I can't lash out at my boss. I can't yell at somebody. I can't throw a tantrum. That's not the way the world works.' 5 After Dustin's 9-year-old stepson, Tommy, told his mother to 'chill,' he was instructed to do several push-ups and 60 squats as a form of discipline. @raisingmaletich/Instagram The couple shared that their oldest daughter, who is 13, chooses to walk or jog if her emotions are feeling out of control, before engaging in a conversation with her parents. '[Our daughter] said, 'I don't want to have a sit-down conversation with you when I'm cranky,' but when she goes jogging on the treadmill, she said she finds that afterward, she's able to better communicate her feelings because she's more centered,' Katie Maletich said. 'Our kids like working out. They don't do it every day, but I think overall they enjoy it, because it's such a central part of our home.' Fitness is a 'positive bonding experience' for the Maletichs, she said. 'They feel better, and they voice it afterward … They're happier, they're less frustrated. And so, to us, we see that as a win.' This approach to discipline can differ for each child and circumstance, the Maletichs shared, which involves 'intention and intuition.' Advertisement 5 While some praised the stepfather for his approach, others were concerned about using physical exercise as a form of punishment. @raisingmaletich/Instagram 'The biggest thing is just learning to respond as a parent rather than reacting,' Katie said. The couple's approach to parenting is 'we're not raising kids, we're raising adults,' Dustin shared. 'I think putting more focus on how our kids are going to be able to handle life when they're adults is more important than figuring out how to make them happy and comfortable right now,' Katie said. Advertisement 5 'It's never like, 'We're punishing you because you were bad,'' Katie Maletich said. 'It's, 'Hey, let's help you figure out some better self-control and a better outlet for whatever is going on.'' Fox News For other parents, Katie noted that physical activity has worked 'really well' when followed by 'connection and conversation.' 'That's a really essential part of this,' she said. 'You have to explain it to them afterward and make sure that connection, both emotionally and to the issue and consequence, is there.' The couple also responded to the backlash they received after posting the video, mentioning that they asked their son for consent before sharing it. He responded with hopes that it would go viral.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Housing asylum seekers at an Essex hotel is becoming a 'very serious problem' which 'could not be much worse', a council has told the High Court. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pensioner hits out at car park owner after being fined £100 for 37-minute stay
AN ANGRY pensioner has told how he was hit with a £100 fine after leaving his vehicle at a local car park for just 37 minutes. Jim Robinson was shocked to discover he had been slapped with the charge after visiting Greenock with his wife Margaret last month for an appointment. Despite paying a £2 fee to use Hunters Place car park, Mr Robinson received a fine through his letterbox from Civil Enforcement Limited, a Liverpool-based parking fine company. He was told in the letter that the fined had been levied because he and his wife had either stayed longer than the allotted four-hour time slot or that a payment has not been made 'in accordance of notified terms'. But Mr Robinson maintains that he paid for his visit and left well before the allotted time was up. The 85-year-old Ardentinny resident says he has made two appeals to Civil Enforcement Limited, but has not had any response yet, and added that he is 'frustrated' with the firm's 'poor communication'. (Image: George Munro) He told the Tele: 'I parked here with confidence that my money was accepted, and I was covered. 'I would hope that they would ask me why I am appealing because at the moment when I try to appeal, I am not hearing anything back.' Other News 'Papering over cracks': £250k IRH ward upgrades welcomed but more funding needed Couple travel 300 miles to visit the cruise ship where their love story began New retailer set to move into former Gourock Co-op store The former community councillor parked in Hunters Place as his wife struggles with mobility issues and says that spot was best for accessibility. Mr Robinson wants to make sure no one else gets 'caught out' with a fine and says he will continue to appeal his charge. He added: 'There are all of these disables parking spaces, and it doesn't count when people don't park here for fear they will be fined. 'You think you follow the correct procedure and then you get a letter through your door telling you otherwise. 'A lot of people would just pay the fine, but I am not one of those people I am afraid.' (Image: George Munro) Mr Robinson added: 'I know a few people who belong to Inverclyde and even they say locals never use this car park because they have had all sorts of problems with it.' The car park, which is primarily used by Oak Mall shoppers, is owned by the shopping centre, but is not operated by them. The Telegraph contacted both the Oak Mall and Civil Enforcement Limited for comment on Mr Robinson's fine, but at the time we went to print had not received any response.
