The post war era was one in which the company, faced with the backlog of essential work and inflationary costs, was compelled to divest itself of land and non-licensed properties in order to subsidise the repair and refurbishment of some licensed premises and the replacement of others. Implementation of the policy was, however, far from easy for, as shown, the myriad layers of bureaucracy arising from post war legislation imposed constraints on all aspects of business practice. One of the most irksome legislative enactments exercising a direct influence on company policy was that concerning the control of the use of land.

Under the terms of the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act all land had to be registered with an area Land Board the purpose of which was to assess all land and produce an estimation of its undeveloped and developmental value. A proposal for private development of any site was subject to planning permission which if granted, involved payment of a development charge to the area Land Board, the fee usually being based on the differential between the two valuations. (1)

The imposition of the development charge in respect of the numerous sites which featured in the redevelopment plans of the company was an additional burden on financial expenditure and one which was often at variance with the company’s own valuation and therefore doubly punitive. The board of directors therefore took the decision to make full use of the appeals procedure of the Act. (2) In June 1949 Pennington, Hustler & Taylor lodged 9 claims on behalf of the company while Samuel Jackson & Son lodged 11, the company making no claim in respect of 45 additional sites. (3) Adjudication occurred throughout the year from January 1951 resulting in the presentation of the following schedule and its acceptance by the company. (4)

The assessment concerning the land at Morley Close, Knottiingley, proved to be contentious. The site was the location of the partially constructed and abandoned White Swan Inn, awaiting planning permission for the resumption of building. The Land Board’s evaluation was therefore confined to the area remaining, producing a development cost of £350. The directors declared the sum as “fantastic” and it was referred back for reassessment, albeit unsuccessfully. (5) A further referral was also made with regard to the site of the Fryston Hotel, at Wheldale Lane, New Fryston, plans for which had been submitted to Castleford U.D.C. by January 1947 and was therefore considered to pre-date the remit of the Land Board. The company was again overruled, however, and compelled to accept the initial assessment. (6)

The 1947 Act also vested local authorities with power concerning the preservation of buildings, monuments and sites of historic and/or architectural interest. In September 1951 Hemsworth R.D.C. retrospectively withdrew permission granted to the company in 1939 to demolish the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton and build replacement premises on the same site. Simultaneously, an injunction was served concerning the Black Boy Inn, Pontefract. (7)

The prospect of substantial development costs was a necessary evil for the company as far as prestigious new inns on sites at Knottingley, New Fryston and Carleton Pontefract, were concerned at which proposed construction was in the planning stage. At other well developed locations with surplus land for which the company envisaged no foreseeable use, the decision to sell was made. In April 1952 an approach by the National Coal Board to purchase 1,670 square yards of land at Field Head, Upton, for construction of a miners’ welfare hall, was favourably received by the company. The company offered the land for £455 which was the sum paid when the land was obtained in 1925, thereby

“…not taking advantage of post war inflated prices.”

but subject to the usual restraint on the sale of intoxicating liquor on the site

“…by all and any means.” (8)

The development fee or refusal of building permission may have inhibited purchase of the land, however, for no further detail concerning the sale is recorded. In September 1955, however, the land was officially derequisitioned by the government and Hemsworth R.D.C. sought a lease on behalf of Upton Parish Council. The company felt unable to grant a lease but stated its willingness to sell the complete site and invited an offer for the same but the Council declined to purchase. (9) An offer of £400 by a Mr J. Saul in March 1963 was rejected by the company (10) and in an effort to enhance the value and sale of the land the company obtained planning permission in spring 1967. At that time Pennington, Hustler & Taylor were engaged to act as selling agents but the absence of further detail suggests that the site was still unsold when the company became defunct the following year. (11)

An enquiry was made in March 1951 concerning the company’s willingness to sell land adjoining The Grange, the former residence of John Carter’s widow at Hill Top, Knottingley, until her death in 1907. The company, however, declined to sell. (12) Another throwback to the days pre 1921, when the Carters held extensive plots of land at Knottingley, was also the subject of an approach in1951 when in October, Pennington, Hustler & Taylor acting on behalf of an unidentified client, sought to obtain company land at the junction of Headlands Lane and Weeland Road on which stood a garage and three cottages. As early as 1945 the land had been occupied by G.T. Glasby, a local motor mechanic, who in May that year had sought a lease of the site or, alternatively, to purchase the same. The company agreed to a 5 year lease at £30 p.a., plus rates and the cost of any alterations or repairs to the garage premises which Glasby was to occupy. The leasehold carried no renewal clause but Glasby was assured of the first refusal in the event of any extension. (13) As a concession, for the duration of the lease, Glasby was granted the rental money from the advertising board standing on the site. (14) Upon expiration the lease was not renewed and in response to the approach made in 1951 the company stated its willingness to sell the site for £1,000 but not to bargain concerning the price. The site was bought by Chester & McLauchlan Ltd., of Knottingley, builders and contractors, subject to acknowledgement of the cottage tenancies and the prohibition concerning the construction of licensed premises and the retail of intoxicants. (15)

A letter in June 1955 from a firm of Castleford solicitors contained an enquiry concerning the sale of a strip of land lying between the Kings Mills and Manor Farm, Knottingley, located to the rear of the soon to become defunct White Swan Inn. The clients of the solicitors were so keen to obtain the portion of land sought that they were prepared if necessary to purchase the entire enclosure of which the strip was merely the upper portion and offered £100 for the same. The company, however, declined to sell the field or any part of it. (16) The offer had been made at the behest of Donovan Bros., proprietors of the Kings Mills, access to which by vehicular traffic was restricted to a single route via Forge Hill Lane and further constrained by the existence of a narrow canal bridge with a limited weight capacity. The proposed purchase was to enable a new unrestricted access road constructed to the east of Kings Mills.

A personal letter followed by an interview in October confirmed that Donovans’ were willing to pay £2,000 for the field providing that the brewery company was prepared to grant an option upon payment of 10% down. The company gave tacit approval to the proposal but in February 1956 a letter from the Donovans’ solicitor requested reconsideration of the price which was refused by the company. (17) Direct contact by Mr P.L. Donovan brought an assurance of the desire of his company to purchase the land subject to the agreement of the tenant of the field, Mr Murgatroyde of Manor Farm, agreeing to the use of a small strip as a roadway and the willingness of the brewery company to accept £1,000 on purchase and £1,000 12 months thereafter. The company complied but sought 5% interest on the outstanding balance. A subsequent plea for the interest to be waived was rejected and in July 1956 the purchase was agreed subject to the regular prohibition concerning alcohol and an agreement that the purchaser would erect a post and wire fence.(18) The sale was placed in jeopardy by a delay in payment of the deposit, causing the brewery company to threaten to withdraw from the sale but in October £200 or 10% of the deposit was paid, followed by further delay so that it was not until January 1957 that the sale was completed.(19)

A further tranch of company land was sold in response to an offer by Mr Richardson, tenant of the Plough Inn, Kellington, who in April 1957 made a bid for the unlicensed inn premises with the attached land and farm buildings. Mr Ray Brown of Doncaster was engaged by the company to make an independent valuation followed up by a site inspection by the company chairman. (20) As a result, the company offered to sell all but 26.5 acres in Far Kellington for £1,200. The retained land was kept for future contingency but was available in the meantime for lease at a rent of £1 per acre. The inn was offered as licensed premises but if desired the company was willing to retain the licence and sell the farm land and buildings for £1,000 (21) Following negotiation the purchaser chose the first option, promising the company the first option in the event of future disposal of the licence. The contracts were exchanged in November 1957 and the sale completed the following month. (22)

Simultaneously, land adjoining the Featherstone Hotel, originally purchased by T.J. Sides and used as a recreation ground during his tenancy of the inn but subsequently disused, was the subject of negotiation. In April 1957 Fr Backhouse of St John’s Presbytery, Pontefract, wrote to the company concerning the possibility of purchasing the land but following a site inspection, was informed that the land was not for sale. (23) As a result of further representations, the prelate and the chairman met to discuss the matter and by December 1957 an agreement to sell had been reached, subject to the approval of the purchase by the diocesan bishop. (24) The sale was confirmed in January 1958 but it was not until November that year that the conveyance of the 466 square yards of land was signed. (25)

In addition to the above transaction myriad smaller plots were the subject of negotiations throughout the period under review. A number of such negotiations arose from approaches by local authorities in furtherance of housing developments and allied aspects such as road improvements and the provision of civic amenities, While the prime consideration of the company was the perceived likelihood of future expansion to licensed premises a degree of pragmatism was exercised in order to foster good public relations and simultaneously ensuring the goodwill of the civic bodies in future planning and licence applications. Thus, in June 1955 the company gifted a small piece of its land in Gillygate, Pontefract, to the local council to facilitate the bonding of a retaining wall to an extension of the town hall. (26) Similarly, an easement was granted to Hemsworth R.D.C. to site a bus shelter in front of the Old Crown Inn, Great Houghton, and an application by K.U.D.C. to purchase a small plot at the west corner of the brewery estate lying adjacent to council owned houses at Forge Hill Lane, was favourably received although in the event the council decided not to proceed. (27) A favourable attitude also prevailed when in February 1952 Pontefract Corporation sought to buy 150 square yards of land forming part of the Willow Park dog track for the erection of a public toilet. The reaction of the company was obviously influenced by the awareness of the benefit to punters attending race meetings. Invited to state a price, the company requested Mr Hustler to value the land and negotiate with the council. Hustler’s valuation of £100 with the council to pay all legal expenses and the cost of fencing the site was self-defeating for the terms were adjudged “unreasonable”

prompting the immediate termination of negotiations by the council to the detriment of the company’s interests. (28) In late 1960 K.U.D.C., contemplating further housing development in the vicinity of the White Swan Inn at England Lane, Knottiingley, was naturally assured of the co-operation of the company which offered the sale of land

“subject to a satisfactory price.”

The plan was, however, abandoned. (29) The following year Hemsworth R.D.C. sought to purchase an acre of company land at the rear of the Minsthorpe Hotel, South Kirkby, providing clearance was given for a planned housing development. Again, the company asked Pennington, Hustler & Taylor to deal with the council but to ensure the retention of a portion of land for future development by the company. An offer of £200 by the council was initially rejected by the company but eventually accepted following reconsideration. (30)

Contact with the higher tier of local government yielded variable outcomes. In September 1958 a request by the W.R.C.C. Education Department for the sale of land at the rear of the Royal Hotel, Norton, met with refusal by the company but nine years on the attitude of the company was altered by the change of circumstance and the sale took place. (31) Similarly, in 1965 the County Council requested the sale of 2.12 acres of land adjacent to the White Swan Inn as the site for construction of Knottingley High School. As noted, the land had originally been sought for the extension of the Knottingley Council housing estate and the company anticipating the commercial benefit had indicated its willingness to sell. In the light of the school project the company prevaricated, claiming the need to conduct a survey in order to ascertain its requirement with regard to the future development of the White Swan site before any decision could be made concerning disposal of surplus land. In May 1966, however, with the company in the throes of reorganisation, Messrs Oliver, Kitchen & Flynn were appointed to negotiate a price and in October the company accepted £2,250 for the acreage sought. (32) Less successful was the 1962 bid by the W.R.C.C. for the purchase of a parcel of the brewery estate for the erection of a new fire station on the existing site. While there were historic antecedents, the company which was striving to sell the estate intact at that time, refused to sell a separate portion to the County Council. (33)

Attempts to purchase company land were also made by private contractors, usually for private residential development with the lure that such projects were likely to enhance the trade at nearby licensed premises belonging to the company. Early in 1959 McLauchlan Ltd., made an offer of £200 for the old White Swan site but a decision by the board was deferred pending clearance of the site which was, however, eventually sold to the Roman Catholic Church. (34) Gibson Bros., Upton, also made an abortive attempt to purchase land at Field Lane, Upton in June 1960, a move which was also paralleled by an individual attempt to buy a plot on the same site, presumably for the construction of a private residence. (35) In 1959 the board had obtained the deeds from the company solicitors in the wake of a letter enquiring if the land was for sale, but had decided to retain the land for possible future development. (36) More positively, in January 1965 Oliver, Kitchen & Flynn undertook negotiations with Gibson Bros., on behalf of the company concerning the sale of two plots at Thorpe Audlin, valued at £1, 500 per acre, required for residential development. As a result of negotiation the land, 5 acres in extent, was sold for £1,400 the following month. (37) The situation surrounding this transaction had its origin the previous May when an approach by Gibsons to purchase 5.39 acres

“subject to it been made as though planning permission had been granted.”

was approved by the company. (38)

A number of applications by individuals seeking to obtain small plots for private dwellings were considered by the company with varying outcomes. The former Lamb Inn at Knottingley was sold to Mr G.H. Cockroft early in 1959 as a quid pro quo for assisting the company’s acquisition of nearby land as the site for the new inn of the same name. Cockroft demolished the old inn premises and built a pair of houses on the site. (39) Less fortunate was the tenant of the Foresters Arms Inn, Norton, seeking to buy 1,500 square yards of land at the rear of the inn. (40) Likewise, applications for land behind the Airedale Hotel, the Red Lion, Knottingley and the Greyhound Inn, Ferrybridge, were all rejected in the early 1960s on grounds of requirement for future site development. (41) Conversely, plots at the Greenfield Hotel, Upton, Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton, Creyke Arms Inn, Rawcliffe, Cross Keys Inn, Hillam,, and Low Street, Brotherton, were sold, future development by the company not being a consideration. (42)

Company land was also sold to quasi-government organizations, to local authorities for road improvement schemes. (43) and also to other companies for commercial use, such as the purchase by Meredew Ltd., of land at the rear of the Railway Hotel, Pontefract, for business expansion. (44) In addition, from the 1960s a number of local councils embarked upon urban regeneration schemes involving areas in which company houses were located. A precursor to such development was evinced early in the post war era by progress in telecommunications accompanied by increased provision of electricity consequent on public housing development, industrial expansion and population growth.

In 1951 the company was approached by the General Post Office which sought to obtain a parcel of land 70ft x 120ft at the north-east corner of Brewery Lane as the site for an automated telephone exchange. The company declined to sell but came under intense pressure from the G.P.O., backed by the local council and the Ministry of Works which claimed that the site was the only suitable one available. Faced with the threat of a compulsory purchase order and the consequent likelihood of damage to its public image, the company, reiterating its reluctance to sell, agreed under protest to sell for the sum of £150. (45) Negotiations were concluded in September 1953 with the conveyance of a plot 85ft x 160ft for £125, the G.P.O. paying all legal fees and agreeing to erect a fence or wall along all exposed boundaries to the satisfaction of the company. (46) An entry in the records of the company indicates payment from the Postmaster General of £140 plus interest in respect of 1,500 square yards of brewery estate, suggesting a later extension of the G.P.O. site. (47)

A similar approach had also been made by the Ministry of Works in February 1953 for land at Field Lane, Upton, as the site for an automated telephone exchange. Realising the futility of resistance, the company nevertheless baulked at the proffered price of 5s6d per square yard for land which had cost the same sum almost quarter of a century earlier, and therefore declined to sell. No comeback ensued, presumably due to an alternative site being available and the desire of the Ministry of Works to obviate delay arising from an appeal by the company. (48)

Successful incursion into the brewery estate occurred initially in August 1949 when the Yorkshire Electricity Board sought the lease of a small plot on which to build a sub-station and a 5 year lease at £10 p.a. was agreed. (49) The agreement was subject to reinstatement of the land and repair of any damage upon termination of the lease. The enforced sale for the construction of the telephone exchange rendered the surrender of the Y.E.B. lease less imperative, however, and consequently the leasehold was renewed throughout the ensuing decades. (50) Initial approval allowing the Y.E.B to erect two poles and a transformer on land adjoining the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton, was given in March 1955. Proposed realignment of the poles resulted in withdrawal of company permission but a subsequent compromise which left the field free of obstruction was reached in May.(51) The Y.E.B. had previously obtained company permission to lay underground cables and site two poles at the north side of Blackwalk alongside the Railway Inn, Pontefract, in August 1949 while a similar concession was granted in respect of the Fryston Hotel site in September 1955. (52) The Y.E.B. also sought to erect a sub-station on land adjoining the Greyhound Inn, Ferrybridge, in November 1956 but with probable future development of the site in mind, the company suggested that construction take place at a less prominent place. No compromise appears to have been reached, however, for a subsequent suggestion by the Electricity Board for location at the rear of the inn was rejected by the company. (53)

Income obtained from letting out company land was supplemented by small annual fees from advertising agencies. Prior to the increasingly sophisticated advertising promoted by the advent of commercial television in1955 an important element of product placement had been the use of billboards bearing huge posters, located on roadside plots or the gable ends and facades of buildings occupying prominent positions in public streets.

The location and design of a number of company properties made them ideally suited to such use, particularly as the existence of the public limited company was paralleled by the development of mass consumerism. The Aire Street Hotel, Knottingley, occupying a central position in the town’s principal thoroughfare at the edge of an open public space and therefore presenting an open vista to passers-by, was a valuable advertising site. Similarly, open field sites adjacent to public houses gained increasing importance in the inter-war years.

In May 1954 Mills & Rockley signed a renewal of their lease of the three boards attached to the east side of the Aire Street Hotel, at an annual rent of £12, subject to three months notice by either party and the permission of the local authority following the necessary application under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act. (54) When the K.U.D.C. asked the company to consider the demolition of the defunct hotel in mid 1958, the company responded by asking the Council to make an offer for the property. (55) The Council declined the offer and the onus was placed upon the company. It was not until well into the following decade, however, that the site was acquired by the Council as part of its Aire Street Redevelopment Scheme, thereby prolonging the advertising revenue and sparing the company cost of eventual demolition. (56) Meanwhile, in August 1958, Mills & Rockley had sought to attach three advertising boards to the company’s property in Gillygate, Pontefract, but the bid was rejected. (57) A further prime site at Knottingley was alongside the Weeland Road on land owned by Mr G.H. Cockroft and sold to the company in 1958 as the site of the new Lamb Inn. (58) An agreement of September 1961 gave the advertising agency permission to enter the land adjoining the building site while another agency, More, O’Farrell, whose billboards were on the actual inn site, were given permission to continue using the site until the opening of the inn in November 1960 and it became necessary to remove the hoardings to allow access to the car park. (59)

Throughout the ‘Fifties and ‘Sixties the company was involved in the acquisition of land which would assist the development of its licensed premises. From the middle of the 1950s the years of post war austerity quickly dispersed, giving way to a period of general prosperity which was the precursor of a social and economic revolution during the following decade the effect of which shaped and is still influencing society today. An important aspect of such change was the increase in vehicle ownership which, allied to a reduction in working hours and improvements in the conditions of labour, created a demand for an increase in leisure activites and promoted social mobility.

The ascendancy of the motor car carried implications for company policy, not only in respect of its newer, more prestigious houses but also concerning inns located in rural areas. Previously reliant on sparse local custom such inns, presenting an ambience of decrepitude, were now perceived as exemplars of ‘Olde Worlde’ charm by transient customers seeking refreshment whilst enjoying vehicular access to the surrounding countryside. Consequently, a car park was an invaluable asset which in a short time became an essential feature of all company houses. (60) A typical example is the Shoulder of Mutton Inn, Kirk Smeaton, where from May 1954 steps were taken to acquire adjacent land for conversion to a car park. Initial overtures to a local farmer were rejected and it was not until June 1957 that a plot adjoining the inn was obtained at a cost of £112 (61) and was ready for use the following January. (62) The following year saw repairs to existing car parks at the Westfield, Greenfield and Minsthorpe hotels and construction of one at the Greyhound, Ferrybridge in 1959 when outhouses were demolished to provide a parking facility for travelers along the A1 road. (63) The same year saw the extension and resurfacing of the car park at the Darrington Hotel a few miles south along the same road and also the creation of a car park at the Railway Inn, Hensall. (64) In 1962 a plot of land alongside the Sun Inn, Featherstone, was purchased at a cost of £250 to provide a car park (65) While in 1964 negotiantions with hemsworth R.D.C. for 272 sq. yards of land behind the Minsthorpe Hotel resulted in its purchase for £140 for car park development.(66) Land was also acquired for car park extensions in 1964. At the Cross Keys Inn, Hillam, a plot was purchased at 10s per square yard on condition that the tenant of the on-site cottage was dispossessed in order to allow demolition of the premises to allow the car park to be constructed. A further block of land was also required to allow extension of the car park at the Shoulder of Mutton. Kirk Smeaton. (67) By the late 1960s when the company paid £160 for 170 square yards of land adjoining the Punch Bowl, Brotherton, adequate parking facilities existed at most of the company’s licensed houses. (68)

Offers of land often occurred as a result of the growing awareness of the company’s car parking policy. Not all were accepted, however, an offer on behalf of Barnsley Co-operative Society to sell land adjoining the Northfield Hotel, South Kirkby, for £300 being regarded as too expensive when made in March 1964 . Even when reoffered in September with the company being invited to name a price the opportunity to buy was still declined. (69) Two years earlier the company had purchased 2,300 square yards of land containing two cottages and a shop lying adjacent to the Old Crown Inn, Great Houghton. The land was bought from the executors of Mr Frank Swift with the proviso that there were no restrictions to prevent it being used for the rebuilding of the inn at any future date. The fact that Barnsley Co-operative Society were the tenants of the on-site shop made them aware of the company’s quest to obtain land at favourable locations and may have fuelled the approach made by the Socitey with regard to the South Kirkby site. (70)

In addition to parcels of undeveloped land the company owned several plots containing houses and shops. With regard to houses, the company continued with the long established practice of individual tenancies for weekly rent, although local authority demands for structural and sanitary improvements increasingly nullified any financial gain to the company. The reluctance of the company to demolish the largely decrepit dwellings in the early post war era was influenced by the severe shortage of housing which ensured that all company properties, however outdated and lacking in modern facilities were in demand. Thus, early in 1951 when following the death of the occupier, a cottage at Burton Salmon became vacant, the company had no difficulty in re-letting the property for £5 per week, an weekly increase of £2. (71) Even where decreptitude, shortage of materials and bureaucratic control prevented the updating of dwellings to a state fit for human habitation alternative uses were found for such units, demolition being a last resort. In 1952 an offer to demolish two of a group of four cottages adjacent to the Punch Bowl Inn, Brotherton, the contractor retaining the salvaged material, was rejected by the company. The tenants of all the cottages had been re-housed by the Osgoldcross R.D.C. which, seeking to avoid invoking statutory procedure, had previously sought an assurance from the company that the cottages would be demolished. Two of the cottages abutted the inn, however, leading the company to suggest their retention as storage units. The Council insisted upon total demolition, leaving the company to undertake partial but substantial reconstruction of the inn, a wash house and coal place being added at a cost of £275 (72) and the company having to bear the additional cost of demolition and site clearance. (73) The company learned a costly lesson and when the same local authority later sought the demolition of three empty cottages near the Anchor Inn, Brotherton, the company arranged demolition and site clearance in return for donation of the rubble. (74) Easement of the housing shortage and relaxation of bureaucratic controls by the mid 1950s was accompanied by a more relaxed attitude by the company regarding demolition and when in May 1954 a demolition order was placed on a dwelling in Chapel Yard, Burton Salmon, the remaining element of the former brewery, demolished in 1943, the company raised no objection. (75) Similarly, in October 1956, the company favoured the demolition of a cottage near the Royal Hotel, Norton, rather than spend a disproportionate amount of money refurbishing the premises. (76) A further cottage at Brotherton, condemned by the local council, was demolished in 1959, the company paying 25 for site clearance, (77) while the following year a dwelling house which had formerly been the Willow Tree Inn, Ferrybridge, and a cottage at the nearby Greyhound inn, were sold to Knottingley U.D.C. for demolition in connection with the proposed realignment of the main (A1) road. (78) Similarly, negotiations were opened in 1961 for the sale of the mineral water factory and two cottages at Burton Salmon to enable clearance for redevelopment of the site. As a result the site was sold for £1,500 in 1963. (79) Between times, gales had severely damaged a cottage at Fenwick, rendering it uninhabitable, resulting in its demolition. (80)

Not all was given over to abandonment, however, repairs being undertaken to a cottage at the Half Moon Inn, Reedness, in June 1957, while a decade later tenders were obtained for alterations to two cottages at the Red Lion, Knottingley, action only being deferred by the belated consideration that the inn itself might have to be rebuilt in the near future. (81)

During the ‘50s the company’s commercial properties at Pontefract were the subject of offers from potential purchasers. In February 1951 a double fronted shop in Salter Row, formerly the Cross Swords Inn, now used as a lock-up grocer’s shop, was offered by the company to the sitting tenant, Mr A. Cohen for £1,400, although the company was prepared to sell for £1,350 if necessary. (82) Cohen was given a month to decide whether to buy but was unable to obtain a mortgage due to the age of the premises. (83) In January 1952 Cohen sought company permission to reside at the shop and was allowed to do so subject to local council approval and his willingness to pay for necessary alterations. (84) In May 1954 , Mr A. Conway, a Leeds solicitor, acting for Cohen, offered £1,200 for the premises. The company sought £1,350, but to facilitate the sale, stated its willingness to loan the difference at 4% p.a. interest. Obtaining no response, the company agreed to accept the price offered if Cohen would pay the legal fees (while being willing to pay its own costs if necessary) (85) Cohen was, however, again unable to raise the capital required and therefore, in October, the company agreed to pay the legal fees, accept a cash deposit of £400 and offer a mortgage loan at 4% p.a. interest on the balance. (86) Again, no progress ensued and in March 1956 Cohen sought and obtained, company permission to undertake extensive internal alterations at his own expense, leaving the likelihood of purchase in abeyance for several years. (87) When, in November 1961 Cohen & Son offered £1,500 for the property the matter was deferred by the company pending the publication of Pontefract Borough Council’s town centre development plan. (88) By October 1965 the company was in negotiation with the Council concerning the sale of the property and in May 1967 it was sold to the council for £4,500. (89) The conditions of sale included the routine prohibition with regard to the sale of liquor on the site although the previous month the company had been asked to accept a limited restrictive covenant and had insisted upon completely restrictive terms as a condition of sale. (90)

The company also owned premises in Pontefract trading as ‘Gillygate Fisheries’ which were the subject of substantial alterations at the tenant’s expense in 1952. No record has been found of the disposal by the company of this property. (91) A further shop in Cornmarket was requisitioned in connection with Pontefract Council’s redevelopment scheme. Attempts by the company to surrender a portion of the premises and make good the remaining element proved unsuccessful and the entire property was ultimately demolished but not before a long rearguard action by the company to keep possession of the part of the site not required for road improvement. (92) The council finally served a compulsory purchase notice concerning acquisition of the site which, at no cost to the company, was obtained in October 1967. (93)

Urban regeneration was a common feature of civic life in most towns throughout the land from the late 1950s onward and the area served by the company was no exception. A letter from Knottingley U.D.C. in November 1959 requesting details of the building plans of the company during the next two years resulted in a meeting of the board with council officers who outlined the council’s regeneration plan for the central areas of Knottingley and Ferrybridge. It was as a result of implementation of the plan that the council made an offer of £250 for the ex Willow Tree Inn which was accepted by the company in January 1960. (94) At a board meeting on the 24th February 1960 a comprehensive discussion took place concerning company houses in the two districts, resulting in specific decisions regarding future work to be undertaken under the aegis of the Pontefract architects, Pennington, Hustler & Taylor affecting seven licensed premises. (95)

Basic improvements to sanitation at the Red Lion, Lime Keel and Commercial Hotel, Hill Top, together with the Boat Inn, were scheduled but in the latter case were to be left in abeyance until work on the other properties was completed. In the case of the Commercial Hotel improvement was minimal, being undertaken solely in response to K.U.D.C. demand for it was decided to make an application to the council enabling the company to purchase a site on the “Warren Avenue Estate” (ultimately designated as the Warwick Estate) the development of which had recently commenced, and transfer the licence from the Commercial Hotel to the new site

“…when the estate is developed sufficiently to warrant the removal.” (sic) (96)

Likewise, in view of the clearance of property at Ferrybridge in consequence of the re-routing of the A1 and the construction of the flyover across the River Aire, it was decided that a survey be taken of the Greyhound Inn with a view to the demolition of outhouses and the creation of a car park which, together with other improvements would give

“…a more pleasing and attractive appearance to the property.”

Similarly, with regard to the Cherry Tree Inn, sketch plans were to be prepared for a new building to replace the existing premises to be constructed on the same site and incorporate a smoke room, public bar, music room and off-sales area,

“the work to proceed forthwith.”

Estimates were to be obtained for work already approved at the Anvil Inn, allowing complete refurbishment to be undertaken, while two sites beyond Knottingley which were given consideration were the Fox & Hounds Inn, Thorpe Audlin, which was to be rebuilt pending approval by the Licensing Justices. In the case of the Old Crown Inn, Great Houghton, however, it was considered

“…unwise to attempt any major improvement to the Present structure”

due to the age and structural condition of the building. It was therefore decided to maintain the status quo pending rebuilding when the ongoing scheduled rebuilding programme was either completed or at least well advanced. (97)

Apart from housing the expanding local population the development of the Warwick Estate provided accommodation for the substantial influx of migrant labour from Scotland and the north-east of England drawn from the defunct coal mines in those areas to settle with their families at Knottingley by the new coalfield east of the town. Aware of the commercial benefits arising from the development the company placed its plan for new premises on the Warwick Estate in motion. (98) In October 1962 K.U.D.C. approached the company seeking an offer for a plot of land at Simpsons Lane and requesting details concerning the type of house the company planned to build upon the site. In response, the company offered £5,000 and submitted no less than seven different plans regarded as being suitable for the site. (99) In February 1964, however, following an inspection of the proffered site, the board deemed it to be “unsatisfactory”. It was therefore decided that the company would avail itself of an alternative site privately offered by B & G Glasby. Discussions were opened and in July 1964 the company agreed to pay £6,000 for the plot, subject to planning permission being granted in respect of licensed premises. (100) Approval was obtained and in March 1965 the company exercised its right to buy, again, subject to agreement by the Osgoldcross licensing committee to approve the transfer of the licence from the Boat Inn to the new premises. (101) Confident of approval , Pennington, Hustler & Taylor were requested to prepare plans and approval for the removal of the licence was granted in October. (102) From that point the project appears to have been abandoned, no further reference being made in company records. It seems probable, however, that the abandonment was due to the company being outmanoeuvred by the rival brewery chain, William Stones Ltd. In 1964. With the sanction of K.U.D.C. Stones had built the Wallbottle Inn on land in nearby Hazel Road. The premises opened in November the following year, thus upstaging the Knottingley company. (103) The purchase of the land from Glasbys went ahead, enabling the company to monitor future developments whist preventing acquisition of the site by any rival company. (104)

An indication of the company’s desire for a new inn on a site at the western edge of Knottingley is seen in October 1962 when the company secretary informed the board of the availability of ‘Cheret House’ (sic). Chevet House stood alongside the A1 at Knottingley crossroads at the junction with the A64 Wakefield – Goole road. The house had previously been the residence of Mr Oxley the proprietor of a garage and filling station on the site. As the result of the A1 road widening scheme the garage was demolished leaving Chevet House close to the realigned road. The location was ideal for the establishment of licensed premises but considering the uncertainty of the situation

“in view of the developments taking place”

the board decided against purchasing the site and, as shown, turned its attention to a site on or near the Warwick Estate. (105)

The abortive attempt to establish a new inn on the western fringe of Knottingley in the early 1960s had been preceded a decade earlier by an equally abortive attempt to the north at Byram Park. The former country estate of the Ramsden family had served as an army camp during the war. In the immediate post war years ‘squatter’ families in need of housing had taken illegal possession of the ex army base and established a temporary miniature village. The consequence of this action was that by 1952 Osgoldcross R.D.C. was considering the establishment of a housing estate with possible industrial development on the site. In August 1952 the company enquired of the council whether any provision had been made for the establishment of public house on the proposed estate and staked its claim for first consideration. The following month the council replied that it was not prepared to allocate a site until the estate was more fully developed. (106) Full development of the proposed estate never reached maturity, however, and in consequence the possibility of licensed premises was never realised.

Yet a third attempt to open new premises was to prove abortive, this time at Pontefract in the mid 1960s. In October 1965 Pontefract Borough Council notified the company of its desire to acquire the Curriers Arms as part of the town centre redevelopment plan. In return for its cooperation the company was offered an alternative site on the Chequerfield estate. The company expressed interest and requested further details of the site before opening negotiations for the sale of the Curriers Arms. (107) By August representatives of both parties had met to discuss the removal of the licence from the Curriers Arms to a leasehold plot 1,000 square yards in extent on the expanding housing estate. It was agreed that the company would submit a plan for the approval of the council and the firm of Oliver, King & Franks was appointed to negotiate the terms of the leasehold, rent and compensation to be received by the company for the Curriers Arms premises, the details to be submitted to the board for approval. (108) The plan for the proposed inn which was to be built in Hospital Lane, was drawn by Pennington, Hustler & Taylor and duly submitted for council approval. Meanwhile consideration was being given to the leasehold arrangements, the company having the option of paying a premium followed by a nominal rent or merely paying a normal rent. (109) Negotiations were jeopardised, however, by the subsequent corruption scandal involving J.G.L. Poulson, the consultants of the Pontefract town centre regeneration plan, resulting in the eventual implementation of a much modified scheme which did not involve the purchase and demolition of the Curriers Arms Inn.

By the mid 1950s austerity had given way to public affluence. The advent of commercial television whetted the appetites of a public with greater mobility arising from the increase in private vehicle ownership and time and money available for personal indulgence in leisure pursuits. Jaded tastes in traditional fare was evident in declining attendances at cinemas, theatres and sporting events, heralding the closure of many venues during the ensuing decade. An early victim was Mr Armin who in June 1954 decided to discontinue greyhound racing at the Old Hall Inn site, Great Houghton. Thereafter the field, although an integral feature of the inn tenancy was not used as dog track. (110) The fate of the Greenfield Hotel track is unrecorded but as early as August 1947 formal notification by the company to an enquiry from the Area Planning Officer that it had no plans to develop the one acre site suggests that it was no longer being used for greyhound racing. (111) The more urban location of the Willow Park stadium with its unbroken professional administration, ensured the survival of that venue. In April 1956 the proprietors, Smith, Penty and Loynes, (Firth having left the partnership in 1945 due to temporary financial difficulties,) sought a further seven year extension of their lease from August that year. (112) The continuing commercial viability of the track ensured a further five year extension of the lease from August 1963. The proximity and popularity of the Willow Park Hotel was an undoubted factor assisting the success of the track while the clause in the lease prohibiting the sale of liquor aided the trade of the inn, the prosperity of which is seen in the renovation and refurbishment which was undertaken by Askam & Son in 1966 at a cost to the company of £18,354, an amount in excess of the total cost of some of the company’s new hotels. (113) Mutual prosperity seemed assured with provision for a further extension of the lease from August 1968. In January 1964, however, following the merger of the company with B.Y.B. Ltd., two years earlier, the company resolved to sell the Willow Park site. A provisional agreement was reached with the Tees Land Investment Co., Ltd. subject to vacant possession and the granting of building permission. (114) Permission was obtained and the company agreed to pay £3,000 compensation to the proprietors of the dog track for the severance of the lease. (115) The site was vacated by the end of 1969 and on Monday 22nd December the cheque was paid, formally ending the 30 year tenancy. (116) Shortly thereafter the Willow Park stadium was demolished and the houses and arcade of shops which occupy the site today were built.

A legacy of the recent war was the baleful shadow of the nuclear bomb made all the more fearful by the escalation of the ‘Cold War.’ As a result of the Civil Defence Act 1948, the onus was placed upon local authorities for defence training and allied preparations. In December 1950 K.U.D.C. approached the brewery company seeking a lease on the former wine & spirit store, the former bottling store, the brewing room and five cellars. The company, buoyed by a recent enquiry concerning the sale price of the brewery estate, would only agree to a quarterly tenancy subject to termination by either party at three months notice from any date, in order that the company was not

“prejudiced by anything they desire to do later.”

On this basis the council took the lease, agreeing to pay the rates and take responsibility for all maintenance and repairs. (117) The purpose of the lease is evident from a telephone call from British Road Services on behalf of the Ministry of Food on the 14th June 1951. The caller required storage space for up to 1,000 tons of goods with adjoining cellars, presumably to stockpile items contingent upon a nuclear emergency. The company indicated its willingness to lease out the former brewing room and cellars at a cost of £200 per year, the tenant to undertake payment of rates and the cost of repairs. (118). It is unclear whether the enquiry was made in conjunction with the K.U.D.C. plan or as a separate government initiative, most probably the former as the council plans were subject to government approval. Either way, it was the council which undertook the lease of the premises from November 1951.

The perennial problem of disposing of Lime Grove continued to exercise the collective mind of the board throughout the period under review. In January 1951 a dwelling unit, part of the sub-divided element of Lime Grove became vacant. The residence had recently been occupied by Mrs Cherry, the widow of the former manager of the company’s wine & spirit department prior to the closure of the brewery in 1935. The vacancy gave rise to protracted dealings with the local council concerning the application of rent control under the terms of recent legislation. (119) As noted above, following the death of J.C. Harvey in 1905 Lime Grove and the lodge at the brewery entrance was leased to Mr Tom Jackson at £55 p.a. between 1913 and 1924. The house was then empty for four years during which time it was sub-divided into two separate dwellings to be rented to company employees. Mr Arthur Cherry occupied one unit and the other was taken by the company brewer, Mr Turner. When Turner left in December 1929, Cherry switched occupancy and Mr Hutchinson, the incoming brewer, occupied Cherry’s former abode. Cherry and Turner had each paid 10s per week rent, the company paying the rates, but Hutchinson lived rent free, the accommodation being part of his salary. Hutchinson stayed until 1935 and following his departure his former residence was let to Mr R Birdsall, a self-employed painter and decorator, who paid 15s per week rent plus rates, for his tenancy which included the garden in front of his portion of Lime Grove. (120)

As a result of consideration of the above details, in 1951 the property was assessed by K.U.D.C. and entered on the council register of properties subject to the Rent & Mortgage Restrictions Amendment Act 1933. However, as one part of Lime Grove had always been let to a company employee (or dependant), there was no record of the application of measures of rent control. Consequently, the 15s per week paid by Birdsall was regarded as an initial letting and the amount was accepted as a standardised rent applicable to both residential units. (121) In August 1957 the rent was increased by 5s per week under the terms of the new Rent Act. (122)

Demographic expansion at Knottingley in the post war era, allied to civil defence measures, necessitated similar expansion by the local fire service, based on the site of the brewery. In March 1952 the County Council sought to purchase garages and buildings on the site. The reluctance of the company to sell resulted in a 21 year lease of the land and premises sought, the rent being based on an assessment by the Valuation Officer. Despite the long term agreement the W.R.C.C. made a further bid to purchase the property in May 1957 which again met with the company’s refusal to sell. (123) Five years later, the County Council again made a bid to acquire the land and property for a proposed new fire station but the application was again rebuffed by the company. (124)

Throughout the ‘50s and ‘60s attempts by commercial organizations to rent or purchase parts of the brewery site continued. In April 1952 Spring & Co., Ltd., a Lincolnshire firm, sought garage accommodation for its mineral water subsidiary company. Representatives visited the site in May, desiring to rent 750 - 1,000 square yards of space with easy access for lorries, but the omission of any subsequent report in the brewery company’s records suggests that no further action occurred. (125) K.U.D.C., seeking to purchase the former loading bay and adjacent space to adapt as a base for council vehicles, were offered the leasehold for £100 p.a., plus rates and repairs, in September 1952 but subsequently decided the site was not required. (126) The following month Wilkinsons of Bradford Ltd., owners of the furniture factory at Mill Dam Lane, Pontefract, rented the entire floor of the old maltkiln, paying £80.p.a. rent. (127)

Third party involvement had health and safety implications, particularly with regard to fire hazard. A petrol store was demolished in November 1953 when the roof was found to be unsafe, while early in 1958, following a report by the County Fire Officer, a petrol storage tank was decommissioned. (128) It is unsurprising that a subsequent application by Mr R.H. Birdsall, resident at Lime Grove, to store petrol on the site, was refused. (129) Such potential hazards, allied to the increased utilisation of on-site amenities and content value required a proportionate increase in insurance cover. The cover for the company offices and garages was doubled to £2,000 and £1,500 respectively in September 1958 and the Lime Grove residences were each increased from £1,000 to £1,500. Yet, with characteristic parsimony where third party goods were concerned, the leasehold properties were left at the existing rates. (130) When, in May 1952, the board sanctioned the rent free storage of cases containing the church organ, together with seating, during the rebuilding of St Andrew’s Church, Ferrybridge, the Rev. C.H. Branch was required to take out separate insurance cover to that of the company. (131)

A future portent occurred in March 1953 when the County Council Planning Department notified the company that land lying at the front of the brewery estate had been earmarked for inclusion in its housing development scheme. An objection by the company resulted in the brewery land being withdrawn from the plan, having been erroneously included as part of the schedule. (132) The threat of requisition failed to erode the resolve of the board not to sell the brewery estate piecemeal and bids by the Knottingley based companies Electrical Industries and Synthetic Chemicals Ltd., met with refusal as did several approaches made by local solicitors on behalf of anonymous clients. (133) The latter bids were thinly disguised attempts by property speculators to acquire the site as cheaply as possible in order to develop it at maximum profit, as shown by an offer of £8,000 subject to planning approval, in 1961, which met with outright rejection. The offer was promptly increased to £12,000 but still to no avail. (134) A bid of £300 by K.U.D.C. for 4.3 acres in April 1968 was also rejected as “unacceptable”. (135)

Early in 1963 the local council revived its interest in obtaining the entire site and the company was invited to name a price. No agreement was concluded, however, for in November the company sought outline planning permission for residential development with provision for licensed premises on the site, which was refused by the council. (136) An appeal was lodged with the Ministry of Housing & Local Government and the resultant public enquiry, held in Knottingley town Hall on the 25th February 1964, led to the appeal being allowed. (137)

The development plan appears to have been a company initiative rather than undertaken on behalf of a ‘hidden’ contractor for following the success of the appeal an approach was made to the company in October by McLauchlan & Co., Ltd., concerning the future development of the site. In response, the company supplied a site plan, indicating the portion to be retained for a proposed licensed house, and seeking an offer for the remaining area. In response to a request for further details the brewery company solicitors were asked to prepare a draft for approval by the board but negotiations appear to have broken down at that point. (138) As a result, Oliver, Kitchen & Flynn, Leeds, were engaged to value the estate which was then offered at public auction the following month with a reserve price of £12,000. (139) An auction was conducted at the Queens Hotel, Pontefract, on Tuesday 9th March 1965 when the estate was sold for £20,000. The sale was completed on the 31st October 1965 when the sum of £20,298-8-3 which included interest at 5% was credited to the Debenture Holders’ Trustees’ Account, prior to being reassigned to finance the building of the Old Crown Inn, Great Houghton. (140)

---

NOTES: Chapter 18
1. WYW 1415-4 p253
2. ibid p135 & p151.
3. ibid p155. Also photocopied list of all 20 sites upon which claims were made inserted between pp155-56
4. WYW 1415-14. (n.p.) Undated schedule of Land Board valuations. &WYW 1415-4 pp220-28 passim & photocopied list of claims inserted between pp 155-56
5. ibid p239
6. ibid p242 & p253
7. ibid p247. The Old Hall Inn was included in the Ministry of Housing list of buildings of special architectural interest on 6th July 1952 c.f. ibid p292 & photocopied insert pp291-92
8. ibid p280
9. WYW 1415-5 p53, p56 & p60
10. Ibid p307. Somewhat puzzlingly the land is valued at £387 in the list of company land and property in 1415-14 which although having no date is believed to have been compiled circa 1955 c.f. WYW 1415-5 p46
11. WYW 1415-6 p50
12. ibid p226. For details of The Grange c.f. Brewery History, Vol I pp40-41. Also Spencer T. ‘Knottingley Field Systems & Place-Names’, (2005) p53 & p161
13. WYW 1415-3 p305, p312 & p317
14. ibid p331 & p335
15. WYW 1415-4 p252, p257 & p268. The site named as Watt House Close a corruption of Watch House Close, became a replacement builders’ yard for the one previously occupied by Chester & McLauchlan at the Raddings, Morley House, Knottingley. For reference to Glasby’s tenancy c.f. WYW 1415-3 p305, p310 & p317
16. WYW 1415-5 p44
17. ibid p54, p56 & p72
18. ibid p84 & p92
19. ibid p94, p97, p105, p108 & p111
20. ibid pp120-21
21. ibid p121 & p124
22. ibid p129, p134, p145 & p148
23. ibid pp120-21
24. ibid p124, p127, p135 & p146
25. ibid p148 & p179
26. ibid p45 & p53. The land, a mere 14 ins x 9ins, was sold for 1d.
27. ibid p53, p56 & p68. The houses at Forge Hill Lane stood on land formerly part of the brewery estate.
28. ibid p71, p75, p85 & p87
29. ibid p243
30. ibid p274, p292 & p298
31. ibid p172 & 1415-6 p65
32. ibid p26, p37 & p41
33. WYW 1415-5 p278. For reference to the historic connection of the local fire service with the brewery site c.f. Brewery History, Vol I pp96-7. The town’s new fire station was eventually built at Hazel Road, Simpsons Lane.
34. ibid p189 & p216
35. ibid p231 & p233
36. ibid p162
37. WYW 1415-6 pp12-13
38. WYW 1415 p334
39. ibid pp179-80 &p186
40. ibid p201 & p203
41. ibid p207, pp257-58 & p271
42. ibid p261 & p337 & WYW 1415-6 p33, p36 & p54
43. WYW 1415-5 p207 &209 & WYW 1415-6 p4, p6 & p60
44. ibid p49
45. WYW 1415-5 p260. A similar impasse in 1958 involving 74 square yards of company land in Long Lane had resulted in a compulsory purchase c.f. ibid p176
46. WYW 1415-4 p322, p329 & p341
47. WYW 1415-5 p54. To claim payment it was necessary to complete a form issued in accordance with the Town & Country planning Act 1954, Part 1, an indication of the likely delay consequent upon bureaucratic control.
48. WYW 1415-4 p318 & p320
49. ibid p163 & p175
50. WYW 1415-4 p185 & 1415-5 p21- p270 passim. Between 1950-56 the rental fee doubled to £20
51. WYW 1415-5 pp37-38 & p41
52. WYW 1415-4 p163 & 1415-5 p54
53. ibid p103 & p116
54. ibid p7
55. ibid p166
56. ibid p219 & p170
57. ibid
58. ibid pp179-80
59. ibid p267, p205 & p272
60. ibid pp7-8, p28 & p121
61. ibid p124, p127 & p131. The plot was offered for £150 but the company responded by offering to pay £125, justifying that amount on the grounds of cost involved in having to fence off the adjoining field. The argument was somewhat disingenuous given that three years earlier the company had secretly been prepared to pay £200 for the same plot.
62. ibid p135 & p148. For subsequent improvements c.f. ibid p207
63. ibid p209, p212 & photocopied insert pp223-24 & p259
64. ibid p271
65. ibid p296 & p300
66. ibid p326 & 1415-6 p4 & p6
67. 1415-5 p331 & 1415-6 p4
68. ibid p27 & p46. A few inns located in the built-up areas of town centres lacked space to construct car parks.
69. WYW 1415-5 p330 & WYW 1415-6 pp2-3
70. WYW 1415-5 p288, p292, p295 & p297
71. WYW 1415-4 p221 & p234
72. ibid p343 & 1415-5 p22
73. WYW 1415-4 p296, p306, p322 & WYW 1415-5 p22. A reference in 1415-14 (n.p.) suggests that the inn and four cottages were demolished in 1952 but as references to the inn post date that reference it is only applicable to the cottages.
74. WYW 1415-4 p288
75. WYW 1415-5 p6 & 1415-14 (n.p.)
76. WYW 1415-5 p99, p102, p113 & p137
77. ibid p199 & p216
78. ibid p129, p221 & p278
79. ibid p261, p282, p301 & p318
80. ibid p280. The cottage was one of several adjacent to the Plough Inn which had been repainted at the same time as the inn in 1958 c.f. ibid p169
81. WYW 1415-6 p50
82. WYW 1415-4 p222. For details of the company’s ownership of the Cross Swords Inn c.f. Brewery History Vol I p30
83. WYW 1415-4 p225
84. ibid p268
85. WYW 1415-5 pp9-11 passim
86. ibid p19 & p25
87. ibid p77 & p154
88. ibid p274
89. WYW 1415-6 p23, pp29-30 & p52
90. ibid p50
91. WYW 1415-4 p273
92. WYW 1415-6 p32 & p37
93. ibid p57
94. WYW 1415-5 p217 & p221
95. Mr C.B. Hustler was in attendance at the board meeting and two days later summarised the decisions reached in a letter to the company secretary a copy of which is inserted between pp223-24 ibid
96. ibid p239
97. ibid insert pp223-24
98. ibid p224
99. ibid pp296-97
100. ibid pp328-29, p331, p333 & p337
101. WYW 1415-6 p4 & p21.The original dimensions of the plot were 110’x 150’ but between July 1964 and March 1965 a slight alteration was made. The licence of the Boat Inn was chosen for transfer in preference to that of the Commercial Hotel, Hill Top which was originally intended.
102. ibid pp18-19 & p22
103. William Stones Ltd., had obtained a provisional licence in November 1964 pending approval of plans. A final order was granted in November 1965 c.f. Spencer T. ‘Knottingley Public Houses ...’ p63 & p123
104. WYW 1415-14 (n.p.) Undated note recording deposit of conveyance and allied documentation with the Midland Bank, Pontefract, 11th February 1966
105. WYW 1414-10 p268. Whether the said developments referred to the ongoing roadworks, incorporation of the company into B.Y.B. Ltd., or more general urban regeneration programmes in the surrounding towns is unspecified. Chevet House became a conference centre but was ultimately demolished when the crossroads was replaced by the A64 flyover. I am indebted to Mr R. Gosney for his assistance in identifying Chevet House as the ‘Charet’ House recorded in the company minute book.
106. WYW 1415-4 p292
107. WYW 1415-6 pp22-23
108. ibid p6 & p39
109. ibid p42 & p45
110. WYW 1415-5 p12 & 1415-14 (n.p.) records the Land Board valuation merely as 5.30 acres in June 1952. There is no reference to the dog track.
111. WYW 1415-4 p61
112. WYW 1415-5 p80 & pp83-84. For reference to Firth’s financial difficulties c.f. 1415-3 p253 & p258
113. WYW 1415-6 p40
114. WYW 1414-11 p166
115. ibid p184
116. ibid inserts pp183-84
117. WYW 1415-4 p214 & pp252-53
118. ibid p235
119. ibid pp21-22 & inserted photocopies of items of correspondence.
120. In December 1956 Birdsall painted the Lime Grove premises at a cost of £157 c.f. WYW 1415-5 p106
121. 1415-4. Summary of Lime Grove residence, unpaginated and undated, inserted between pp121-22. The Birdsall family continued in residence until the sale of the property in March 1965
122. WYW 1415-5 p134
123. WYW 1415-4 pp276-77 & 1415-5 p123
124. ibid p278. The idea of utilising the brewery site, opening onto the increasingly busy Weeland Road was an ill considered thought. A new fire station was eventually built at Hazel Road on the Warwick Estate and a proposal to relocate to a site at Pontefract Road is currently under consideration and is the subject of public controversy.
125. ibid p281 & p283
126. ibid pp295-96
127. ibid p107
128. ibid p349 & 1415-5 p150 & p239
129. ibid
130. ibid p173
131. 1415-4 p285
132. ibid pp323-24
133. WYW 1415-5 p137 & p166
134. ibid p264 & p266. The letter containing the initial offer refers to “the enormous cost of demolition” and cites the W.R.C.C. Development Plan – revised edition 1955, which designated 2 acres of the brewery estate lying to the east of the Hill Top (Weeland Road) entrance, as a playground for the Ropewalk Primary School. c.f. copies of correspondence ibid inserted between pp263-64
135. ibid p160 & p166
136. ibid p322
137. ibid p325 & p333
138. WYW 1415-6 p5 & p7
139. ibid p9 & p11
140. ibid p13 & pp26-27.

---