Whatever the deficiencies concerning the Darrington Hotel the company was fortunate enough to secure completion of the work and the opening before the onset of war with its shortages and restrictions affected the project. The outbreak of hostilities caused an almost immediate stoppage of work in respect of two other schemes. The construction of the new White Swan Inn at Knottingley had already progressed well beyond foundation level and arrangements were underway for obtaining a provisional removal licence to enable the transfer of the existing inn of that name to the new premises and the referral of the inn to the Compensation Authority for closure. Similarly, at Great Houghton, a move was underway to obtain a removal licence in connection with the proposal to replace the Old Hall Inn. In the latter case the existing inn was due to be demolished to enable the new premises to be built on the same site. In both cases an embargo was placed on building activity and the licences in respect of the existing properties renewed. (1)

Restrictions also applied to planned improvements to company houses and in March 1940 the board undertook a comprehensive review of the situation. Ironically, the restrictions enabled the company to build up a substantial financial reserve which was placed in a Deferred Repairs Suspense Account to fund the backlog of repairs and alterations notified by the Licensing Justices

“which cannot be proceeded with owing to war conditions.” (2)

However, the company secretary was instructed to obtain particulars to enable necessary work to be done for the basic maintenance of company houses and £1,500 was made available for immediate use. (3) An instant beneficiary was the Cross Keys Inn, Hillam, where at a cost of £40 the external walls were rendered to make the building damp proof. (4)

Cost was a significant factor for before repair or maintenance could be undertaken it was necessary to obtain a building licence which, in order to control the amount of material required for the work, when granted, specified precisely how much could be spent in accordance with estimated cost. A dichotomy arose with regard to the definition of ‘essential work’ with the police, sanitary inspectors and licensing authorities vying to secure the allocation of scarce resources in accordance with perceived priority. In a number of cases, particularly with regard to rural locations, sanitary conditions were deplorable. Many inns had earth closets and inadequate drainage. Others not only lacked baths and washing facilities to assist personal hygiene also running water to serve such. Some inns had floors and walls which posed a hazard to customers, a danger frequently made worse by inadequate lighting. An outstanding example is the King’s Head Inn, Pollington. The construction of a nearby aerodrome had increased the trade of the inn quite considerably and in October 1941 the police were sufficiently alarmed to make instant contact with the company concerning conditions at the inn.

Not only were the urinals and earth closets dilapidated but no drainage system existed and no toilet provision at all for female customers. In addition, urgent attention was required to outbuildings the walls of which needed to be rebuilt and re-roofed. Cost in the region of £200 was estimated by the company but before work could commence plans had to be submitted for approval by the Licensing Justices following approval and the granting of a licence by the Ministry of Works. Eventually a cesspit was constructed on company land to facilitate drainage and spray and flush urinals and water closets were installed, with provision for females but significantly, for private use by the tenants. (5)

Lack of adequate sanitation dogged the company throughout and beyond the war years. The womens’ lavatories at the Milnes Arms, Fryston, were two earth privies in 1940 at which time replacement by a single W.C. was mooted. In May 1943 the inadequacy of the urinal at the Chequers Inn, Monk Fryston, drew official criticism and although the work was already under consideration it was beset by bureaucratic delay while in November that year, provision of a W.C. at the Pine Apple Inn, Pontefract, had to await building approval. (6) As late as June 1944 the urinal and earth closet at the Bull & Crown, Snaith was causing a problem which resulted in a recommendation that they be demolished along with outbuildings to enable extensive alterations and rebuilding work which were, however, still pending in November 1945. (7)

In August 1946 in response to pressure from the Lower Osgoldcross Licensing Authorities, the company agreed to replace earth closets at five rural inns, installing chemical toilets as a temporary measure and providing an assurance that the outstanding work at the Bell & Crown, Snaith, would be done when a licence was received from the Ministry of Works. At the Half Moon Inn, Reedness, where male and female customers shared the same toilet facilities, plans were afoot to obtain land to enable separate toilets to be built. The matter was not fully resolved even when the building took place for in July 1948 the Local Authority sought provision of a separate indoor toilet for use by the licensee and his family who were obliged to use the public toilets. (8) In a further incident, the company assured the Justices’ Clerk that the 1d in the slot boxes placed on the toilet doors at the Creyke Arms Inn, Rawcliffe, had not been installed for profit and that the company objected to demands for their removal. (9)

Such problems were not confined to rural locations. In July 1942 the Chief Sanitary Inspector at Pontefract wrote to the company, drawing attention to deficiencies in toilet facilities at five inns within the town. The matter was placed in the hands of Samuel Jackson & Sons who replied on behalf of the company that alterations at the Hope & Anchor to enable construction of a urinal, had been carried out in 1939. The situation at the Gardeners Arms was explained while improvements to facilities at the Pine Apple Inn, Willow Park Hotel and Rose & Crown Inn were receiving attention. (10) The situation was far from unique for in addition to the provision of chemical toilets in rural areas, where lack of mains water supply was a major consideration, W.C s were installed at the Greyhound, Ferrybridge, Railway Hotel, Knottingley and the Bradley Arms, Featherstone, where, as at Reedness, the licensee had to use the public facilities. At the Royal Hotel, Norton, the urinal was enlarged. As late as 1950 £25 was spent to provide a W.C. at the Commercial Hotel, Hill Top, Knottingley. (11)

Allied to the problem in rural areas was the frequent lack of adequate drainage, waste collection usually being by means of a cesspit which in some instances such as the King’s Head, Pollington and the Shoulder of Mutton, Kirk Smeaton, had to be constructed as part of the improvement programme. (12) In the latter case delay arose while land adjacent to the inn was acquired to permit the work to be undertaken (13) The work commenced early in 1946, well over a year after it was planned to do so and given the present emphasis on environmental issues, it is of interest to note the suggestion by local council officers that the discharge of waste from the inn should be via a pipeline connected directly to the River Went. The company, however, submitted a plan for a natural soakaway which was approved without objection. (14)

A number of rural inns were dependent upon wells for their water supply while others, although having mains supply lacked hot water and bath. In April 1941this deficiency was rectified at a cost of £37-5-0 at the Royal Hotel, Norton, (15) but it was only two years later that similar work was undertaken at the King’s Head, Pollington, where neither the kitchen or bar had running water and the tenant had no bath. Even at urban Knottingley where mains water was on hand, it was not until February 1950 that hot and cold running water was installed at the Commercial Hotel and the Bay Horse Inn, costing £75 and £60 respectively. (16) In August 1950 the North Eastern Hotel, Balne, was mains connected and hot and cold running water installed. (17) In common with the King’s Head, Pollington, this inn had throughout the war provided a focal point for R.A.F. personnel stationed at a nearby airfield. It is amazing that the licensee was able to cope with inadequate toilets and lack of basic hygiene facilities and even more so that no crisis in public health occurred. In the case of the Plough Inn, Fenwick, mains water was supplied in late 1945 while at Burton Salmon mains water was supplied to company property in July 1946 following representations by the local sanitary inspector. (18)

A somewhat unusual twist to the general trend was the approach to the company by Castleford Council in May 1948 asking if the urinal outside the Airedale Hotel could be made available for use by the general public. The company acceded and the in December a draft agreement was approved whereby the company would be paid £5 p.a. with the Council assuming full responsibility for cleaning, lighting, provision of water and general maintenance. No provision was, however made for ladies. (19) In October the Council had sought further permission to construct a soakaway and short drain on a triangular piece of land in front of the hotel. While willing to cooperate, the company suggested that the Council purchase the 220 square yards of land at a price fixed by the District Valuer . (20) The following March the Council suggested that the company consider donating the land, which drew the reply that being a public limited company prevented them form doing so but that the company would sell for the nominal sum of 10 guineas, costs to be borne by the Council. The offer was accepted and an agreement was concluded in August 1949. (21)

The condition of the floors in some company houses was a cause for concern. In June 1942 the floor of the Featherstone Hotel was in such urgent need of repair that the Ministry of Works granted an immediate licence and work costing £140 was undertaken. The following year a concrete and red tiled floor was approved for the Punch Bowl Inn, Brotherton, and recovering of the floor at the Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, was also necessary. (22) On a wider commercial level, the 1938 Food & Drugs Act was invoked to compel the re-laying of two floors in a butcher’s shop belonging to the company at Cornmarket, Pontefract, in July 1949 (23)

Attention to floors was made all the more necessary in some houses because of poor lighting. The installation of electricity was often confined to ground floors for resons of safety as well as of cost. In June 1941 electricity was installed in the lower rooms of the Rose & Crown, South Kirkby, at a cost of £22-15-0. (24) Piecemeal installation was evidently undertaken at the Chequers Inn, Monk Fryston, and the Anvil Inn, Knottingley, in 1944 (25) but complete installation appears to have occurred at the King’s Head, Pollington, and the Fox & Hounds, Thorpe Audlin, in 1949 and 1950 respectively. (26)

In several instances considerations of cost resulted in the decision to demolish company properties requiring improvement but as even demolition was subject to the grant of an appropriate licence a policy of closing down such properties was adopted or where appropriate, using them for storage purposes. (27)

The subject of air quality in smoke-filled rooms in which the pevasive smell of liquor was also a permanent feature, received some, albeit slight, attention. Nowhere was this more prominent than at the New Inn, Pomtefract, where problems with ventilation resulted in the installationof a Vent Axia extractor fan in August 1945. An earlier plea for a fan had been rejected in favour of the cheaper option of air bricks (28) and it is somewhat ironic that the installation of a mechanism to solve the problem should be accompanied by instructions from the company to the tenant that the fan was to be kept at the ‘closed’ position whenever possible. Unsurprisingly, the problem persisted and late in 1950 the local firm of J. Lord & son were asked to supply details of a ventilation scheme for the inn, an estimate of £65-18-0 being accepted.(29) Ventilation problems were also a feature at the Darrington Hotel where, as previously indicated, a ‘cutprice’ solution was preferred in the face of professional advice. (30) It is significant that in both cases the problem of ventilation occurred because of design faults concerning ‘showpiece’ premises built in the late 1930s.

General maintenance of premises during the war years was of necessity of a makeshift nature although initially the painting of exteriors seems to have been conducted reasonably well. In the spring of 1941 ten licensed houses, painted as recently as 1938, were repainted by the Pontefract based decorator, R.E. Priestley, although other premises had to wait until 1945. (31)

In May 1947 in still stringent economic conditions, the secretary drew up a schedule whereby a number of inns were painted externally each year, thus allowing all the company premises to be painted in rotation with all being attended to every four years. (32)

With regard to iinternal decoration the onus was firmly placed upon the tenants during the war years. In April 1942 the secretary was instructed to examine the interiors of all company houses and where necessary inform tenants that it was their duty to maintain the same. Where additional work was deemed necessary it was suggested that Priestley undertake the task and the tenant pay the cost. (33)

Following the outbreak of the war a letter was sent to all tenants placing an embargo on any addition to their valuations. A number of houses, however, required the installation of new beer engines which were often installed at the tenants’ expense. In such cases it was decided that following fitting the company would take over the additional valuation and after making the tenants allowance for the old engines and piping, would charge the tenant 10 shillings per pull, per annum. (34) The tenants also bore the brunt of the increased cost of basic materials which were recouped by the company, in part at least, through rent increases. (35) Tenants were also responsible for taking out insurance to cover war damage whereas company houses under management had the premiums paid by the company. (36) In an extension of this policy it is of interest to note that when a local police superintendant decreed that as an incendiary precaution all public houses in Pontefract should have buckets of sand readily available, tenants were expected to furnish their own while the company supplied materials to the managed properties. (37)

The company also sought to save money on inns in need of refurbishment by an appeal to the local rating authorities and succeeded in obtaining a reduction on seven properties in the early years of the war although improvement to the Sun Inn, Featherstone, occasioned an expected increase thereafter. (38)

The backlog of general repairs consequent upon shortage of materials and the necessity to obtain permission for work to be undertaken became increasingly evident by the mid war period. In July 1943 seven properties requiring the installation of toilet and/or water supply were earmarked for urgent attention at an estimated total cost of £200. In the case of the Greyhound Inn, Ferrybridge, bureaucratic delay resulted in postponement of the work until after the war. (39) A second list, a little over a year later, named inns requiring concrete and plaster work to floors and walls while the poor condition of the floors at the Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, also drew additional notice. (40)

By mid 1946 the secretary was instructed to arrange for deferred repairs costing £1,410 to be undertaken but further delay appears to have occurred for a year later, following a series of extensive inspections by the directors, a schedule of properties most in need of repair was compiled (41) Again, bureaucratic control appears to have thwarted intent for the company was under pressure from the licensing authorities to have work done which, despite representations by the Yorkshire Brewers’ Association, it was unable to undertake for want of Ministry of Works approval. (42) In January 1947 it was decided

“Deferred repairs to be done where licences obtained, the rest to be left in abeyance.” (43)

and again, in December 1949, the company approved alterations at an estimated cost of £150-£175

“…if a building licence is granted”

by the Ministry of Works. (44)

One of the inns scheduled for large scale reconstruction was the Queens Head, Castleford. In accordance with the requirements of the local sanitary inspector the company had obtained estimates concerning preparation of plans and actual construction but upon the outbreak of war work was confined to reslating the roof and improving toilet facilities. (45) In mid 1942 when the manager of the inn was approached to allow the clubroom to be used by the local Buffalo Lodge the room was reported to be in a dilapidated state. Subject to written application, however, the company was prepared to allow the use of the room but in a touching example of ‘Old World’ courtesy the aspiring tenants were informed that before any application could be considered the company would inform Mr Ezra Taylor of the Ship Inn, Castleford, where the Buffaloes were currently resident, of the approach made by the Lodge secretary. (46)

In the context of professional courtesy it is worth mentioning in passing that at the same period in time the company took the decision to inform the advertising agency, Mills & Rockley, that rental costs for advertising boards situated on company land would be reduced by half

“while conditions remain as at present.” (47)

The gradual state of dilapidation of the Queens Head Inn is a typical example of a group of inns situated in urban or semi-urban areas. The Hope & Anchor, Pontefract, is an example of piecemeal improvement undertaken of necessity with deferment of a building licence preventing complete refurbishment until October 1952. (48) The Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, furnishes an equally long drawn out example but for other reasons. The inn had been rebuilt and upgraded in status from a beerhouse to a full licence in 1937-38, at a cost of £4,802, (49) but a dispute with the owner of the adjacent land concerning access and provision of light and air, was only settled in 1942 by a formal agreement which was revoked in 1947. (50)

The Railway Inn, Pontefract, presents yet another case of protracted delay. By the late 1930s the company was considering the rebuilding in a more centralised position on the same site. The insistence of Pontefract Borough Council that a sewer be laid in part of the site met with objection from the company, claiming land depreciation and, following overruling of the objection, modification of company plans which, owing to the war, delayed further action indefinitely. (51) In February 1949 the Licensing Justices sought submission of rebuilding plans as soon as possible to which the company replied that rebuilding was already under consideration. (52) An application by the architects, Pennington, Hustler & Taylor, for a building licence in respect of the Railway Inn and the Curriers Arms, Pontefract, was refused, however, and although the company made direct representation to the regional director of the Ministry of Works it had to settle for temporary improvements. Mr Hustler, together with legal representatives of the company, presented plans to the Licensing Justices concerning the Railway Inn and all correspondence arising from the quest for a licence to rebuild and the Justices were informed that as a result of the delay the board had

“… given up all idea of rebuilding, pro tem.” (53)

The extent to which the statement of the board was merely an expression of frustration or a deliberate ploy to elicit the support of the Licensing Justices in influencing the Ministry of Works, is conjectural. In November 1949 a schedule was drawn up by the architects summarizing all the stages through which proposals concerning the Railway Inn had passed, together with clearance of local authority bye-laws, the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1947 and the approval of the Licensing Authority. The details were submitted to the regional officer of the Ministry of Works but in vain, the application for a building licence being declined. (54) Submission at a later date was the only option but in February 1950 permission was again refused and the redesignated Railway Hotel was not constructed until 1965. (55)

Meanwhile, interest in the site had been shown by Wilkinsons of Bradford, neighbouring furniture manufacturers, who in September 1946 sought to purchase part of the inn site. Initially, the company refused to sell but after ensuring adequate provision for the eventual re-siting of the inn, reached an accommodation with the furniture makers. (56)

Alterations to the Curriers Arms presented in tandem with the plans for the Railway Inn, were also refused for an almost equal period of time, permission being granted by the Ministry in mid 1950. (57)

The Pine Apple Inn was a further Pontefract house which was the subject of protracted consideration and negotiation. The inn formed part of a property complex situated in Gillygate which in addition to the inn consisted of two shops and a dwelling house. Late in 1944 the three units drew an enquiry from Messrs Whitfields Ltd., a Huddersfield based furniture store company which was invited by the brewery company to make an offer for the property. Negotiations, however, were unsuccessful. (58)

By 1946 work had commenced on one of the company’s prestige post war developments, the Carleton Hotel and the board decided to transfer the Pine Apple licence to the new house when completed. Mr G. Hutchinson of Friarwood, Pontefract, proprietor of the Playhouse Cinema, located next to the Pine Apple Inn, sought first option on the purchase of the company premises. (59) In May 1946, in response to pressure from Hutchinson, the board asked Mr Percy Bentley to undertake a valuation based upon the inn as a delicensed property, the removal of the licence having been recently confirmed. (60) Bentley’s valuation of the entire complex was £2,200 in response to which the company sought the price of £3,500, the company being willing to share legal costs less stamp duty, with Hutchinson to furnish a deposit of £175 as the basis of bona fide intent, A time limit of five years was fixed within which activation of the agreement was to take place in accordance with the transfer of the inn licence at some indeterminate date, the contract being declared null and void and the deposit refunded in the event of the transaction not having taken place before the termination of the stipulated period. (61) A draft contract with slight amendments was finalised in November 1946 with Hutchinson and his business partner, Alfred Firth, agreeing to purchase the Gillygate property freehold for £3,500, the purchase to be completed not less than two months following the licence removal which if not undertaken before 1st January 1952 would render the agreement null and void. In such an event the sale of a portion of company owned land in Baxtergate, running behind the property would be the subject of separate negotiation between the parties. The contract also contained the usual clause preventing the sale of liquor thereby safeguarding the company interest. (62)

A removal order in respect of the Pine Apple Inn was granted in August 1947 but in April 1948 Firth sought the lease on one of the Gillygate shops, indicating that the proposed deal was in abeyance at that date, nor indeed, by September 1950, when Firth, having long withdrawn his leasehold application, the company had acquired new tenants for the lock up shop, the tenancy, however, being subject to the implementation of the proposed sale. (63) By October 1951 with the time running out, the secretary drew the attention of the board to the expiration of the provisional contract of sale on 1st January 1952. It was decided to leave the matter to be raised by the other parties to the agreement. Delays concerning construction meant that the Carleton Hotel was not opened until June 1960, fourteen years after the signing of the provisional contract of sale of the Gillygate site and eight years after its expiration. (64)

The Carleton Hotel, Pontefract, was one of five newly constructed inns built by the company in the wake of the war. Three: the White Swan, Knottingley, the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton and the Rose & Crown, South Kirkby, were ‘hangovers’ from the immediate pre war era. The Carleton Hotel and the Fryston Hotel, Castleford, were built in response to local authority post war housing development, although in the case of the latter the new inn was also built as a replacement for the Milnes Arms, Fryston, which was beset by recurrent problems concerning drainage and subsidence consequent upon coal mining.

Of the new houses the most advanced in terms of its construction was the White Swan which at the time of abandonment of building had reached first floor level. Indeed, it was the advanced stage of the building work which led the company to hope that permission would be forthcoming to allow completion and concentrated efforts were made to obtain a building licence before failure to obtain the same resulted in temporary abandonment of the project in 1941. Renewed application in September 1944 met with further refusal. (65) Meanwhile, the surplus land adjacent to the inn site belonging to the company, drew the attention of the W.R.C.C. which late in 1945 sought to purchase 1,000 square yards for the erection of a house for a policeman. The company agreed to the request, offering the land at 2s per yard. A hiatus followed but the County Council eventually agreed to pay the company price, plus all incidental costs and observance of a prohibition on the sale of alcohol. (66) Reconsideration by the Council resulted in the abandonment of the project but in March 1949 an approach was made by the W.R.C.C. Divisional Education Officer who sought the tenancy on a plot of land on which to site premises for a youth club. The approach received short shrift, the company suggesting that the club should form part of the school recently erected on the site next to the company’s land. (67)

Renewed attempts were now underway to allow recommencement of work on the White Swan, the delay of which had necessitated revision of costs to allow for the ensuing inflationary trend. In this regard the architects were requested to produce a survey of projected expenditure within the context of future development of the area surrounding the inn site. Pleading the difficulty of producing precise estimates, the architects quoted a provisional figure of £6,300 for the construction and allied features of the new inn, excluding the car park and boundary walls. One encouraging aspect was notification that the building, together with those of the Carleton Hotel and Old Hall Inn, were exempt from the development charge arising at some sites in consequence of the implementation of Section 80 of the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act. (68) In view of the uncertainty surrounding the White Swan development, however, the board decided to defer further action for a year, subject to further consideration thereafter. The matter was not entirely in the hands of the board of course, and as late as June 1950 the application for a licence to allow completion of the inn was still under official consideration. (69) The delay was not uncommon, similar delay being experienced with regard to the rebuilding plans for the Rose & Crown, South Kirkby, and the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton.

As the conclusion of hostilities became increasingly imminent local authorities began to draw up ambitious schemes for post war housing development. Naturally, such schemes were of considerable relevance to the plans of the company and in furtherance of this, in January 1945 the secretary sought to obtain particulars of new housing estates planned within districts served by the company. (70) The move anticipated action on the part of Knottingley U.D.C. and Hemsworth R.D.C. but Pontefract Borough Council already had plans prepared for the expansion of the Baghill estate, spreading throughout Chequerfield and embracing greenfiel areas to either side of the Carleton Road. (71) The Baghill area was well served by the Willow Park Hotel while the projected construction of a new inn at Hardwick Road, Carleton, provided for a company presence within that area. As the entirely new estate at Chequerfield was not as yet clearly defined the company decided to leave the matter of a possible licence removal in abeyance. (72) In a parallel action the decision was taken to look for an alternative site for the Milnes Arms, Fryston. The natural development area for Castleford U.D.C. was greenfield lying between Airedale and Fryston, to be designated as New Fryston and this was selected by the company as the site for a proposed new hotel. (73)

Early in 1946 an application was made to Pontefract Corporation for the grant of an inn site on the proposed Chequerfield estate, which drew the response that the Council had not yet considered site allocation in respect of commercial properties. (74) It was November 1948 before the company was informed that a site had been reserved on the new estate for the provision of a public house with a 99 year lease on the site. Brewery companies were invited to attend a meeting of Pontefract Council on the 19th November. The board, subsequently appraised by the secretary, decided that they were not interested in a leasehold arrangement but, that one of their number would confer with Mr Rowley of John Smith’s Brewery Co., Tadcaster, and report back to the board. Intriguingly, neither the point nor the outcome of the proposed discussion is revealed in the records of the company. (75)

The terms offered by the Council contained specific demands concerning the architectural features of the proposed inn with the onus being placed on the successful brewery company to obtain the necessary licences and planning permission, rent to be set by the District Valuer, and the Corporation reserving the power to revoke the grant of the lease in the event of undue delay in completion of the premises. The inn was to be handed over to the Council upon expiration of the lease. It was stated that 420 houses were already constructed with a further 200 due to be built within two years, by which time it was hoped the public house would have been completed. In the event the new inn was not opened until 1959, under the auspices of Beverley Bros. Brewery Co., Ltd.,. (76)

A letter from the Pontefract Town Clerk in February 1949 concerning the offer of the inn at Chequerfield included a list of company houses within the town centre which could be affected by future urban reconstruction plans and may be regarded as the not too subtle application of pressure upon the company to accept the leasehold offer. The ploy, if such it was, failed, however, the company adhering to its decision not to entertain the offer. (77) Rejection of the terms, whilst denying the company a presence on the new Chequerfield estate was made acceptable by the existent Willow Park Hotel which served the inhabitants of the Baghill estate whilst, it was hoped, attracting an element from the eastern fringe of the new estate. The potential for a parallel situation affecting the west side of Chequerfield was considered likely by the construction of the Carleton Hotel.

The genesis of the latter occurred in September 1944 when the company purchased 5,113 square yards of freehold land at Hardwick Road from the Pontefract corn merchant, Mr Horace Marshall, for £1,650. (78) Plans for the new inn on the site were commissioned from Samuel Jackson & Sons with a cost ceiling of £10,000 and initial preparations were made for the transfer of the licence of either the Rose & Crown Inn, Finkle Street, Pontefract or the Pine Apple Inn, Gillygate. (79) It was subsequently decided that the licence of the latter be transferred, that of the Rose & Crown being forfeited if necessary to enable procurement of a new licence should the Licensing Justices recommend this in place of a transfer. (80) Adding to the delay consequent upon receipt of a building licence was the necessity for the Council to construct a sewage system to serve the planned development of the Carleton Park estate, the line of the sewer encroaching upon the edge of the hotel site. As the company was hoping to benefit from the housing development it raised no objection to the sewer plan and contributed £150 toward its construction. The sewer was laid across the company site in 1947. (81) Progress was impaired, however, by bureaucratic consideration of the liability for payment of development costs in connection with the Town & Country Planning Act and exemption certificates in respect of the site, and other sites awaiting development, were sought in June 1948 and eventually obtained but not until September 1949. (82)

Of all the problems arising from the company’s proposals for construction of new inns the most complex and problematic project was that concerning the Fryston Hotel. Much of the difficulty experienced arose from the association of the new hotel with the Milnes Arms which it was scheduled to replace. Purchased in July 1889, the Milnes Arms was situated close to Fryston Colliery and consequently had a history of problems with subsidence and flooding which was the principal determinant for the decision by the company in 1945 to relocate the inn. (83)

In April that year an approach by the company was made to Messrs Fennell, Green & Bates, agents for Queens College, Oxford, concerning two parcels of land at New Fryston to provide possible sites for new licensed premises. Negotiations for the purchase of approximately threequarters of an acre of land were opened in May 1945 and by the following January had become concentrated upon 6,800 square yards of land with a 90 foot frontage alongside Wheldale Lane. (84) Simultaneous negotiations with Airedale Collieries in respect of inadequate drainage from the Fryston Colliery tip after meeting with lack of cooperation initially, were eventually successful with a new drainage system being installed at joint cost. (85)

By July 1946 Queens College had offered the desired site for £700 subject to the company paying all transaction costs including the fencing of the site and compensation for the existing tenant. These conditions the company accepted subject to there being no prohibitive clause in the deeds concerning the sale of liquor or the erection of licensed premises on the site. (86) The company’s caution in this respect, quite apart from its prime purpose in obtaining the site, had been reinforced by a scare in 1941 when the Fryston Coal Company (as it then was) had proposed to open a communal canteen with possible provision for the sale of intoxicants, thereby encroaching upon the trade of the nearby Milnes Arms. The proposed sale was in apparent contravention of a prohibitive clause in the original conveyance between G.W. Carter and the Colliery Co., but could be circumvented by designating the proposed canteen as a club. While causing no lasting damage to the trade of the Milnes Arms the episode had not unnaturally made the brewery company wary concerning the ongoing negotiations. (87)

In September 1946 the negotiated site was extended to 1,173 square yards at an extra cost of £180. Architectural sketches were amended to include provision of a sitting room and an additional bedroom for the tenant and thus enable the underlying lounge and tap room to be enlarged. (88) Further amendments followed but by November the company agents were making arrangements for submissions to the Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Milnes Arms to the new house to be named as the Fryston Hotel. Simultaneously, an approach was being made under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act 1935 (soon to be superseded by the Act of 1947) for permission to feature the name of the hotel in neon lighting on the chimney stack. (89) In February 1947 the transfer of the licence was approved subject to confirmation and an assurance that the defunct Milnes Arms premises would not be reopened as a club by any prospective owner. The land for the new hotel was also conveyed to the company at this time. (90)

A somewhat intriguing aspect concerning the negotiations for the sale of the hotel site concerns the role of the bursar of Queens College who at the outset had queried the purpose for which the company sought the land, while two years later, early in 1947, the company solicitors advised the board

“…not to attempt to obtain the approval of the Bursar [of Queens College] until the company are (sic) almost ready to erect the new premises.” (91)

The company having initially provided minimal information, took the solicitors’ advice.

The reason for the seeming subterfuge lay in connection with the second of the two plots considered by the company for the site of the new hotel. In January the company learned that a rival brewery was negotiating with the bursar and decided to oppose any rival application

“…with regard to the corner site at Fryston.” (92)

and when, shortly afterwards, the Tadcaster Tower Co., applied to the Brewster Sessions for a publicans licence in respect of the plot opposite that of the company, the board engaged the services of Mr Hylton Foster Q.C. to represent them. At the subsequent Sessions the rival application was withdrawn but the action to secure its position had cost the company £456. (93) The legal action was one of a series of events arising from the refusal by Castleford U.D.C. to allow the erection of a public house on the New Fryston site under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act, against which the company launched an appeal. The appeal was heard on the 24th April 1947 and as Hylton Foster was unavailable, the company it was represented by Mr R. Lyons. (94)

At the hearing the company plans were confirmed and the Tadcaster Tower Co., ordered to pay the legal costs of the Knottingley company. The Tower company made an appeal to the confirmation authority on the basis that a case should be made to secure reimbursement but this was ultimately withdrawn, clearing the way for formal notification to be served to all interest parties in June 1947. The following month amended plans showing changes to the front elevation of the proposed hotel were approved by Castleford Council. (95) Work on the site was exacerbated, however, due to confusion arising from the introduction of the new Town & Country Planning Act of 1947 which superseded that of 1935, hitherto applicable to the project, which was now the subject of new controls concerning land development and associated matters. Consequently protracted enquiries, consultations and legal representations concerning the validity of the permission obtained by the company resulted in further delay. (96)

In January 1950 the company was notified that the Ministry of Town & Country Planning had declined to grant a development certificate on the grounds that the plans in respect of bye-law approval had not been submitted prior to January 1947 when the new Town & Country legislation became effective. (97) The decision had implications for other company developments with the sole exception of the Old Hall Inn project at Great Houghton which had obtained approval before due date. (98) In the latter case, however, the burgeoning awareness of architectural and historic heritage had resulted in the imposition of constraints with regard to historic buildings under section 30 of the new legislation and this threatened the planned demolition of the Old Hall Inn. (99)

In respect of the Fryston hotel development a further irritation had arisen from the apparent opportunism of Mr A.J. Bullock. The provisional granting of a removal licence from the Milnes Arms to the Fryston Hotel in February 1947 was conditional on the vacated premises not being used subsequently as a club. The fact that the assurance was ratified by a solicitor representing Bullock as the prospective purchaser of the defunct inn premises ought to have made assurance doubly assured. However, when presented with a bill for £123-10-0 in October for his share of procedural costs, Bullock attempted to make the agreement not to open a club conditional upon being excused for payment of his proportion of the costs. The company stood firm, however, and the outstanding debt was paid the following January. (100)

Following the thwarted ambition of the Tadcaster Tower Co. and its withdrawal from the scene, Bullock appears to have shown interest in the site opposite that of the Fryston Hotel for in May 1947 the bursar of Queens College notified the company of an application for permission to erect a licensed house on the site opposite that of the company’s and in August the College solicitors wrote confirming an application for a club licence in respect of a community centre to be erected on the land. The College sought the views of the company which unsurprisingly, drew a strenuous objection. (101) The objection of the company resulted in Bullock being denied the permission he sought and prompted the company to make an offer for the rival plot in order to remove any potential future threat. Bullock sought £879-6-0 for the 8,793 square yard plot which the company was willing to pay. In February 1950, however, the mercurial Bullock suddenly withdrew the original sale price and submitted a revised figure of £1,600 at which juncture the company decided to proceed no further. (102)

The reconstitution of the company in 1935 allied to the changed circumstances arising from the effects of the war, promoted a change of policy concerning the acquisition and disposal of land. Basically, where the company exercised a monopoly presence in a particular area it was disposed to rest content, seeking no further extension of its land holding. Thus, in July 1946 an approach by the Pontefract Co-Operative Society offering to sell land behind the company’s Northfield Hotel, South Kirkby, was rejected. Again, in August 1947 the company declined the opportunity afforded by the Barnsley District Joint Planning Committee to develop 5 acres of land adjacent to the Greenfield Hotel, Upton. (103) The company policy was flexible, however, and where rival brewery companies threatened to encroach in monopoly areas such as New Fryston, incursions were vigorously rebuffed and where deemed necessary, steps were taken to obviate future threat. (104) Having successfully objected in May 1946 to an application by the Leeds & Wakefield Breweries to build licensed premises at Upton, the company in a bid to forestall any future threat, attempted to purchase the rival plot, albeit unsuccessfully. (105) Flexibility is clearly seen in respect of the Red Lion, Askern, when in October 1945 the company declined an opportunity to purchase two adjoining houses (106) Three years later, however, a volt face occurred when the offer was renewed and the property known as ‘Mount Pleasant’ was purchased, subject to obtaining building approval, for the sum of £800. (107) The property included a lock up shop and dwelling house, features in common with the Red Lion at Knottingley.

Apart from off licence premises, shops were quite a commonplace feature of the company’s property portfolio. The former Cross Swords Inn situated in Salter Row, Pontefract, had been subsequently transformed into a double fronted shop, while close by, in Middle Row, next to the Curriers Arms Inn, stood a further company shop. The Pine Apple Inn, Gillygate had two shops and a dwelling house adjoining, while across the street stood company owned premises used as a fish and chip shop. (108) The Gardeners Arms also had separate shop premises as did the Sydney Hotel, Goole. At Knottingley the Cherry Tree Inn had a small shop adjoining, together with a dwelling house and barber’s shop which were an integral feature of the property, while the defunct Aire Street Hotel had also previously featured a barber’s shop. (109)

In addition to the above shops the company held half a dozen off licence premises in the immediate post war period with two at Pontefract and one each at Castleford, Featherstone, South Kirkby and Low Valley. (110)

On occasion, the backlog of property improvement necessitated immediate action. In March 1948 the dilapidated condition of the former forge, used as a garage, situated at the canalside, adjacent to the Anvil Inn, Knottingley, required either urgent repair or demolition. Estimates were obtained and repairs undertaken by H & H Fairburn, the Knottingley builders, at a cost of £117-17-0, the inn was also considerably refurbished about that time. (111) The previous year the boundary wall of the Greyhound Inn, Ferrybridge, had been realigned and rebuilt at no cost to the company, by the District Council, to facilitate road widening which necessitated the purchase of a 72 yard strip of land on the inn site. (112) A two vehicle crash in June 1949 caused damage to the somewhat ill-fated New Inn, Pontefract, necessitating Immediate repair. (113) In 1946 a bulge in the boundary wall separating the Red Lion Inn, Askern, and the Miners’ Welfare led the company to offer, without prejudice, to pay half the cost of repair in an effort to forestall even more expensive collapse. The Welfare committee appear to have adopted a sanguinary attitude, however, for three years later the company wrote again to point out the responsibility of the committee for any consequent accident. (114) A more serious situation for the company was the collapse of the wall atop the canal embankment at the northern boundary of the brewery estate in September 1950, which also carried with it a section of the adjoining company road. The incident resulted in a protracted dispute with the canal navigation representatives: both parties having recourse to legal advice. British Waterways Board claimed that the collapse of the wall was due to vibration from vehicles using the company road while the brewery company contended that the responsibility for the maintenance of the wall was inherited by British Waterways from the original navigation company. (115)

Despite repeatedly unsuccessful attempts by the company to sell the defunct brewery estate including Lime Grove, to the local council, negotiations were reopened on the eve of the second world war. In May 1939 the directors met a group of councillors and officials in an attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory price. An offer of £3,000, subsequently increased to £4,000, was made by the K.U.D.C. but the board stated that the lowest acceptable sum was £6,000 and the matter was left with the Council pending further consideration. (116)

The outbreak of war placed negotiations on hold, an advantageous situation for the company which, as shown earlier, was able to capitalize on the demand for storage and allied accommodation by government agencies in pursuance of wartime objectives.

Not only were the on-site buildings of value but by 1942 the abundance of trees on the estate had attracted the attention of the appropriate government agency. The board, whether motivated by patriotic fervor, avarice, or merely resignation to bureaucratic inevitability, accepted the loss of a goodly portion of its sylvan surroundings and bent its collective mind to the maximization of potential profit. An offer of £40 for 60 lime trees and Dutch elms was held in abeyance following a conversation with an official which revealed that the cull would yield 1,000-1,200 cubic feet of timber at 1s1d and 9d per foot respectively, whereas a study of government prices indicated greater advantage for the company to sell ‘on measure’ rather than en block. The subsequent sale realized the sum of £120, leaving behind the lopped branches to be used as logs. (117)

Not all on site activity was profitable. In 1943 the dangerous condition of the brewery chimney gave rise to concern and following an inspection early in 1944 Messrs H. Hurd, steeplejacks, demolished the topmost 25 feet, grouted over the chimney top and re-fixed the lightning conductor at a cost of £49-7-0. (118)

In anticipation of the conclusion of hostilities the company, in January 1945, attempted to reopen negotiations with K.U.D.C. and a further meeting was scheduled to discuss the sale of the brewery estate. Some indication of the effect of rising inflation is seen by the offer of the company to sell the site at

“the low figure of £12,000.”

twice the pre war price. The sale was to exclude a portion of land at the corner of Forge Hill and Weeland Road and be subject to the usual prohibition on the sale of intoxicants. The right to the underlying mineral reserves was also reserved by the company. In seeking to clinch the sale the company stressed the advantage of the main road frontage and the adjacency to the canal at the northern boundary of the estate, In addition, mention was made of the artisan well as a source of private water supply. To ensure the validity of the latter, Messrs Maritz & Fuller were engaged to produce a report based upon analysis of a sample of the well water taken in February 1945, which declared it to be of good quality. (119)

In response, the Council stated that it

“could not see its way to accept the company’s offer.”

and so the matter was left in abeyance. (120) The Council was still interested, however, and in May 1946 its solicitors wrote to the board inviting a lower price which the company declined to make while also stressing that any sale was subject to the purchasers’ acceptance of eny existing tenancies in respect of brewery premises. (121)

Following the derequisition of the remaining brewery premises in May 1947 the K.U.D.C. was informed that the company intended to place newspaper advertisements offering the brewery estate for public sale but presenting the Council with a prior opportunity to purchase the site. (122) The board was requested to state a price for Council consideration but in anticipation of a more suitable outcome the company engaged Messrs Stanley Walker & Son, Leeds, to value the estate, including Lime Grove which comprised offices and two residential units. Subsequently, an advert inserted in the Yorkshire Post drew an enquiry from Flexo Capsuls, Stoke on Trent, in August 1947 leading to an inspection of the site. The price sought proved to be an obstacle, however, and negotiations aborted. (123)

Falling back on the lease of the site units, the company entered into negotiations with the National Fire Service and also, the Pontefract Box Co., the former having been placed on hold during the Flexo negotiations. Talks with the Pontefract Box Company floundered on the issue of rental charges. (124) As the result of a series of attempts to by organizations to acquire portions of the brewery estate the board briefly considered piecemeal disposal but the bulk of company tenants being satisfied with leasehold arrangements, it was decided to limit all such leases to short-time tenancies, thereby assisting the aim of the company to sell the estate intact. (125) As a result, in June 1950 Jackson, Stops & Staff were engaged to find a purchaser at a minimum price of £8,000. (126) A revival of interest by K.U.D.C. occurred at that time, the Council declaring its willingness to abide by the District Valuer’s assessment. The selling agents had also written to the board expressing their view concerning the sale when, for undisclosed reasons, both parties were informed that the company desired to retain the estate and that the offer to sell was therefore withdrawn. (127) Whatever the motive prompting the withdrawal, the action would appear to be somewhat disingenuous for when McInnes & Co., Halifax, made an enquiry the following month concerning a lease on the brewery buildings for use in the manufacture of potato crisps, the company stated it was unwilling to let the premises but was open to offers concerning the sale of the site, subject to acceptance of existing tenancies. (128)

Problems with the tenants of the company’s licensed premises which had been increasingly prevalent during the 1930s continued into the war period and beyond largely due to the difficulty of the company in obtaining suitable tenants, resulting in compromise with regard to integrity and financial stability. The effect of the war with its shortages of manpower resulted in little disruption in existing tenancies which were predominantly male, the tenants presumably being men who were either too old or unfit for active service. The pattern of tenancies during the war reveals only 11 female tenants of whom 2 were off licence proprietors. Male renancies in the period 1940-50 numbered 69 while during the same period female tenancies totaled 14. (129)

Tenants’ indebtedness to the company remained a feature of the period. In a number of cases the debt followed the perennial pattern of default on company loans which carried the burden of additional interest, in other cases the debt was more incidental, but no less traditional, arising from overdue payment for goods received from the company. The problem was exacerbated when a change of tenancy occurred. Conflict regarding the valuation resulted in a protracted dispute with the outgoing tenant of the Red Lion Inn, Askern, in January 1948 and was the subject of legal proceedings before being settled with the loss to the company of £142. The loss was not uncommon. In May 1942 a dispute with the outgoing tenant of the Rawcliffe Bridge Hotel resulted in the company deciding to forego payment of outstanding interest on a loan and likewise, in September 1944 £101 of debt incurred by the tenant of the Anvil Inn, Knottingley, was written off as bad debt. (130) The action of the company reflects the changing attitude within society, tempered by the effect of sacrifice in wartime which resulted in a changed perspective of the hardships endured by the working classes in the stringent pre war decade, particularly concerning debt, and although debt remained a criminal offence for a few more years it was decriminalised shortly thereafter. The contrast is seen in the case of a debt of £8-11-0 incurred by a tenant in 1932 which was pursued by the company who as late as mid 1945 threatened the debtor with bankruptcy. (131) In some cases involving more substantial amounts, debt was recovered over a protracted period of repayment. Such a case involved the tenant of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, who by January 1944 had reduced a debt of £812 to almost half that amount and by April had cleared the capital originally borrowed but still owed accrued interest of £516. Additional considerations arising from overdue rent and tax led the company to offer to accept the sum of £450 as a consolidated amount subject to immediate settlement which occurred in May 1945. Similarly, the landlord of the Willow Park Hotel who was pursued for £289 in April 1944 was given one month for settlement at which time the debt was paid. (132)

Criminal conduct of a more serious nature was the breaching of the Licensing Acts which carried the danger of loss of licence for the company. The attitude of the company toward its tenants was naturally governed in accordance with the nature of the offence. Thus, in January 1943 when the tenant of the Minsthorpe Hotel was charged with four counts of selling liquor ouside prescribed hours and had an additional case dismissed, he was himself dismissed. Three weeks later, the landlord of the Pine Apple Inn, Pontefract, was found guilty on a single charge of selling out of hours and was merely warned not to repeat the offence. (133) It is interesting to note that where its interests were concerned the company was not above colluding with its tenants to evade minor observances of the law. At the King’s Head, Pollington, where customers, contrary to the restrictive terms of the licence, were allowed to take their drinks for consumption in the garden not only was a blind eye turned but the company secretary told the landlord not to refer to the fact during the forthcoming visit by the Excise Officers in August 1943. (134) The stringency of the law is seen with regard to the tenant of the company’s off licence premises at Carleton Road, Pontefract, who in February 1944 was convicted of a minor offence which disqualified him from being the licence holder. An attempt to transfer the licence to his wife, while supported by the company, was rejected by the Licensing Justices and the tenancy was forfeited. (135) An even more serious situation threatened with the report in August 1944 that detectives had visited the Kings Head, Pollington, and found stolen R.A.F. property on the premises. The company solicitor was charged to keep a watching brief on events and in December the licensee’s brother-in-law was convicted on four charges of theft but luckily the landlord and therefore the company was not implicated. (136) Shortly before Xmas 1946 the tenants of the Red Lion, Askern, while having an hitherto unblemished reputation, had absconded with the proceeds of the Sick & Divide Club. Tried and convicted of embezzlement in February 1947, their action necessitated the company secretary to seek a protection order whilst steps were taken to find a new tenant. (137)

The rapid increase in wage rates which commenced with the war continued unabated in the years following its conclusion. Managers of company houses fared better than many tenants through guaranteed weekly income and in September 1946 the wage of the manager of the Rose & Crown, Pontefract, was in receipt of £4 per week. With the increase in the volume of trade, however, by July 1948 it became more profitable for him to take over the tenancy of the inn. (138) The emergent trend had been set as early as December 1944 when the manager of the Queens Head, Castleford, had taken the tenancy after the assurance of the company that he would receive a weekly income of approximately £5-10-0. (139) For some time conditions of tenancy had exercised the minds of the Yorkshire Brewers’ Association and on the 29th September 1949 a model agreement was presented for the consideration of member companies. At a meeting of the board that month it was agreed that all the Y.B.A. recommendations would be observed by the company. (140) Under the new system a licensee’s link to the brewery was confined to alcoholic drinks, leaving the publican free to purchase ancilliary products from alternative sources. Theoretically the new system offered a measure of freedom to the licensee. It has been claimed, however, that the degree of change was proscribed by market forces which minimised the beneficial effect experienced by the tenants of licensed houses. (141)

---

NOTES: Chapter 17
1. WYW 1415-3 p82 & p85
2. ibid p111 & p153
3. ibid p90 & p92
4. ibid p96
5. ibid p151 & p157. Also c.f. miscellaneous correspondence inserted pp151-52. The following year the police again insisted on immediate repair of a wall at the Kings Head c.f. ibid p185
6. ibid p90, p234 & p216
7. ibid p259, p262 & p274. The work was delayed by the necessity to obtain an easement concerning the inn yard for which the landlord agreed to pay 25s, being 1s per annum for 25 years. c.f. ibid p288
8. WYW 1415-4 p113
9. WYW 1415-3 p379, p272, p279 & p337
10. ibid p185
11. ibid p 377 & 1415-4 p185. The inn is recorded as the Commercial Inn, clearly a mistake. The Commercial Inn was located at Cow Lane, east Knottingley, the Hill Top premises were known as the Commercial Hotel.
12. WYW 1415-3 p151 & p284
13. ibid p284, p296, p299 p303 & p305
14. ibid p296
15. ibid p131 & p133
16. WYW 1415-4 p182
17. ibid p202
18. WYW 1415-3 p373
19. WYW 1415-4 p103, p121 & p131
20. ibid p125, p127 & p137
21. ibid p 142, p149 & p160. c.f. Schedule of Agreement inserted pp159-60
22. WYW 1415-3 p 188 & pp219-20
23. WYW 1415-4 p157
24. WYW 1415-3 p119 & p140. A higher estimate of £46-£47 for 11 lights and 3 plugs had previously been rejected c.f. ibid p137
25. ibid p249 & p268
26. WYW 1415-4 p176, p190, & pp214-15
27. WYW 1415-3 p89, p262, p298 & 1415-4 p113
28. ibid p103
29. ibid p319 & 1415-4 p240 & pp214-15
30. ibid p200 & p202
31. WYW 1415-3 p128 & p292
32. WYW 1415-4 p47
33. WYW 1415-3 pp175-76
34. ibid p95 & p97. A beer engine was the mechanism out of sight below the counter, which pumped the beer from the barrel to the glass. The actual pump handle on top of the counter was named ‘the pull’ for obvious reasons. The annual levy was therefore 10s for each beer pump. I am obliged to Mr G. Currie, licensee of the Wellington Inn, Great Orton, Carlisle, for this information.
35. ibid p159
36. ibid p131
37. ibid p119
38. ibid p100, p111 & p157
39. ibid p222. Four of the properties were at Knottingley where in the case of the Lamb Inn and the Duke of York Inn a total of three earth closets were to be replaced by W.C.’s.
40. ibid p265 & p269
41. ibid p272, p277 & p377 & 1415-4 p52, p55 & p57
42. ibid pp141-42 & p130
43. ibid p27
44. ibid pp177-78
45. WYW 1415-3 pp106-07
46. ibid p178. Ezra Taylor had no objections therefore the Buffaloes were free to use the company premises. The company, however, placed the onus for decorating and furnishing the room on the organisation c.f. ibid p188
47. ibid p165
48. WYW 1415-4 p303. For an outline history of the inn c.f. Spencer T.’A Brief History of the Hope & Anchor Inn, Pontefract’, in Norfolk M. (ed) Pontefract Digest No.5, July 2005 pp8-10
49. WYW 1415-3 p74
50. ibid pp 184-85 & p373. For details of the dispute which was acrimonious and involved the threat of legal action c.f. 1415-2 p328 & 1415-3 p181. Ironically, T.J. Sides who was initially assigned to settle the dispute and was the sole person with the ability and social contacts to enable him to do so, died before his influence could be brought to bear in the matter c.f. ibid p312.
51. WYW 1415-3 p95, p97 & p106
52. WYW 1415-4 pp141-42
53. ibid p159 & p166
54. ibid pp173-74
55. ibid p180 & 1415-3 p144
56. WYW 1415-4 p5
57. ibid p197
58. WYW 1415-3 p 279. Whitfields eventually acquired newly built premises in Salter Row which are currently occupied by Argos Ltd.
59. ibid p343 & p348
60. ibid p358 & p367. The Gillygate premises were held in the name of the Debenture Trustees, hence the necessity for the revaluation.
61. ibid p375 & p379. Hutchinson sought to modify the terms of the contract, albeit unsuccessfully except to obtain an assurance from the company that in the event of contract negation it would agree to sell him a piece of land approximately 100 square yards in extent, adjoining the rear of the Playhouse cinema in Baxtergate. c.f. WYW 1415-4 p4 & p7
62. ibid p15, p19 & pp24-25. The amendments made the company responsible for serving notice on the tenants and to bring the inn premises within the orbit of the Rent Restrictions Act.
63. ibid p61, p99 & p102
64. ibid p253 & 1415-5 p230
65. WYW 1415-3 p114, p119, p268 & p272
66. ibid p345, p348, pp360-61 & p365. As an interested party, Colonel Charlesworth neither discussed nor voted on the matter.
67. WYW 1415-4 p142. The W.R.C.C. site eventually housed the England Lane Junior School premises and later, Knottingley High School was also built on the site.
68. ibid p150, pp152-53, p157 & pp165-66
69. ibid pp152-53 & p197
70. WYW 1415-3 p288
71. ibid p291
72. ibid p294
73. ibid p295 & p346
74. ibid p344 & p356
75. WYW 1415-4 p129
76. WYW 1415-3 Report of meeting 19-11-1948 between brewers’ representatives and Pontefract Borough Council insert pp129-30. For details of licence re the Chequerfield Hotel c.f. Holmes, op cit, p11
77. WYW 1415-4 p139
78. WYW 1415-3 p270 & p378. The mineral rights were retained by the vendor. A sign of increased public control in the post war era was the imposition of a building line in respect of the proposed development and its relation to the highway. c.f. ibid p282
79. ibid p301, p308, p325 & p327
80. ibid p343
81. ibid p379 & items of correspondence inserted pp 343-44. Also 1415-4 p70
82. ibid p93, p106 & pp165-66
83. WYW 1415-3 p292 & p295. For details of problems with subsidence c.f. ibid p299 & p307 and for reference to drainage ibid pp318-37 passim.
84. ibid p307, p346 & p353
85. ibid p363, p366 & p373. 1415-4 p5 for reference to completion of work.
86. WYW 1415-3 p371 & p379
87. ibid p140 and correspondence on subject inserted between pp139-40
88. WYW 1415-4 p3
89. ibid p8
90. ibid p30, p35 & p40
91. 1415-3 p307 & 1415-4 p27
92. ibid p28
93. ibid p33 & p38. Hylton Foster’s fee was 35 guineas.
94. ibid p38 & p41
95. ibid pp50-51, pp60-61 & p75. c.f. correspondence on the matter inserted pp75-6
96. ibid pp80-131 passim.
97. ibid p182 & correspondence inserted between pp 181-82
98. ibid p93 & p106
99. ibid p247
100. ibid pp32-33, p68 & p86
101. ibid p46 & p63
102. ibid p186. Bullock was later involved in a scam involving the construction of a miners’ welfare using materials requisitioned from the National Coal Board as support for an underground gallery which was in fact a ‘ghost seam’, the materials being diverted for use in building the welfare. c.f. Waddington. D. ‘One Road In and One Road Out’ (1988) I am indebted to Mr R. Van Riel for this information.
103. WYW 1415-3 p377 & 1415-4 p61
104. ibid p46, & p61 also 1415-3 p351 & p353
105. ibid pp369-69 & 1415-4 p17
106. WYW 1415-3 p332
107. WYW 1415-4 p125, p179, p181, pp192-93 & p199. Following the purchase the property was assigned to the Debenture Holders’ Trustees as the Red Lion, Askern, was part of their portfolio. c.f. inserted letter pp181-82. The company records provide no indication as to the purpose concerning the purchase of the property which was probably made to facilitate expansion of the inn at some future date. The effect of rising inflation is noticeable in that the 7s6d rent paid for the shop in 1943 had risen to 12s6d by January 1947 c.f. WYW 1415-3 p232 & 1415-3 p26
108. ibid p25, p97, p102, p205, p220 & p273
109. WYW 1415-14 Account Book Freehold Houses n.p. and undated, passim.
110. ibid
111. WYW 1415-4 p95. The forge was of symbolic significance its existence being the reason for the establishment of the inn the name of which was originally the Anvil & Blacksmith c.f. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, pp33-34. The forge was demolished in recent years c.f. Spencer T ‘ Field Systems & Place-Names of Old Knottingley: Some Facts & Theories & Gazetteer of Knottingley Place- Names’, (2005) pp250-51
112. WYW 1415-4 p21 & p36
113. ibid p154
114. WYW 1415-3 p362 & 1415-4 p158
115. ibid p206 & p208
116. ibid p55. The K.U.D.C. delegation consisted of Cr J. Jackson (Chairman), Cr L. Creaser, (Vice Chairman), Mr W. Berry (Town Clerk) and Mr J. Laverick (Engineer & Surveyor)
117. WYW 1415-3 p190, pp195-96, p198 & p222
118. ibid p227 & p241
119. ibid pp288-89 & p334. For undeclared reasons the report was forwarded to the Geological Survey & Museum in March 1948 c.f. 1415-4 p96
120. WYW 1415 -3 p289
121. WYW 1415-3 p346
122. WYW 1415-4 p47 & p49
123. ibid pp58-59, p68 & p71
124. ibid pp68-69 & p140. The Pontefract Box Co., eventually purchased the Britannia Works at the junction of Denwell Terrace and Black Walk, Pontefract, formerly the liquorice confectionary factory of W. T. Wilkinson Ltd., where it established Resil Processes, a packing case subsidiary, now itself long defunct, the premises being divided into a series of small business units.
125. ibid p158, p175, p177, p194 & p200
126. ibid pp197-98
127. ibid p201
128. ibid p207
129. WYW 1415-3 & 1415-4 passim.
130. ibid p269, p178 & 1415-4 p88
131. WYW 1415-3 p311
132. ibid p221, p244, pp252-53, p256 & p258
133. ibid p204 & p218
134. ibid pp219-20
135. ibid p241
136. ibid p265, p267 & p299
137. WYW 1415-4 p27 & p30 c.f. correspondence inserted between pp29-30
138. ibid p113
139. WYW 1415-3 p283 & p297
140. WYW 1415-4 p166
141. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp440-46 for a survey re public house tenancies.

---