Pubs closing NOW- in our time.

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Sat 01 Feb, 2014 2:18 pm

RobH wrote: Went past The Prince Of Wales on Mill Hill (opposite Spencer's, just up from The Cockpit) last night (Friday) and it was shut. I'm sure it was open a few weeks ago - is this another recent casualty? Pity if so, as it used to be a decent boozer a few years ago from what I remember. Its one that has been shut several times and then reopened. They do keep doing up the outside presumably to attract people in but seem reluctant to spend money on the interior which might add to the encouragement to come back (real ale being the only other attraction). The problem it has now is several real ale establishments have "recently" been added to the "Scabby Taps" in the near vicinity. Tapped opened just before Christmas, Friends of Ham is less than 2 years old and Leeds Brewery's Brewery Tap is 4-5 (?)years old and all within about 100 yards on busier pedestrian thoroughfares

polo · Post by **polo** » Fri 07 Feb, 2014 6:37 pm

http://tinyurl.com/nwhxwv5If the police have their way the 3 legs will be joining this list

Leodian · Post by **Leodian** » Fri 07 Feb, 2014 6:59 pm

On page 10 of the YEP today (Feb 7 2014) it reports that Tesco has "been granted permission to transform the former Smithy pub, in Westerton Road, Tingley, into a new shop...The proposals will see the existing pub extended and renovated while keeping the character and appearance of the building".

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Fri 07 Feb, 2014 9:17 pm

polo wrote: http://tinyurl.com/nwhxwv5If the police have their way the 3 legs will be joining this list To be fair, what did the police (and the council) expect?Over a period of years they've used legislation to force the closure of a series of pubs in the area due to "anti-social" behaviour, that is the activities of some of the customers, rather than actually deal with the problems.Do the authorities really think that by closing the pub that the criminal fraternity will simply mend their ways? No, in the real world they just move on and start again somewhere else. It's typical of todays politicians - rather than dealing with the problem they prefer to make a load of bluster disguised as action and kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

Leodian · Post by **Leodian** » Fri 07 Feb, 2014 9:39 pm

The 'Three Legs' looks like it is an old building and there is a 'The Three Legs Inn' there on an 1850 map that I've seen, so I wonder just how old it is and how much is original?Close it down and make it into a betting shop is what I say (very tongue in cheek ) as the Vine next door became a Paddy Power and the couple (?) of others (BetFred and William Hill) are as far away as a few seconds walk, so much too far! OK, if it may be overkill then make it a charity shop! It will though probably become a Tesco!

polo · Post by **polo** » Sat 08 Feb, 2014 6:41 pm

haha didn't nags turn into a betting shop as well?Interesting to find out if the 3 legs is a rebuild ill do some investigating.I knowhoagys was connected or used to be called the Yorkshire hussar im not sure but the 3 legs has a connection i think to a regiment dont quote me though.Looks like the duncans gonna be packed not many places will be left for the riff raff soon.

uncle mick · Post by **uncle mick** » Sat 08 Feb, 2014 7:18 pm

raveydavey wrote: polo wrote: http://tinyurl.com/nwhxwv5If the police have their way the 3 legs will be joining this list To be fair, what did the police (and the council) expect?Over a period of years they've used legislation to force the closure of a series of pubs in the area due to "anti-social" behaviour, that is the activities of some of the customers, rather than actually deal with the problems.Do the authorities really think that by closing the pub that the criminal fraternity will simply mend their ways? No, in the real world they just move on and start again somewhere else. It's typical of todays politicians - rather than dealing with the problem they prefer to make a load of bluster disguised as action and kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with. ravey,that's my sentiments, hope you don't mind but I have posted your quote on another website with credits to SL

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 08 Feb, 2014 9:16 pm

uncle mick wrote: raveydavey wrote: polo wrote: http://tinyurl.com/nwhxwv5If the police have their way the 3 legs will be joining this list To be fair, what did the police (and the council) expect?Over a period of years they've used legislation to force the closure of a series of pubs in the area due to "anti-social" behaviour, that is the activities of some of the customers, rather than actually deal with the problems.Do the authorities really think that by closing the pub that the criminal fraternity will simply mend their ways? No, in the real world they just move on and start again somewhere else. It's typical of todays politicians - rather than dealing with the problem they prefer to make a load of bluster disguised as action and kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with. ravey,that's my sentiments, hope you don't mind but I have posted your quote on another website with credits to SL No problem.

liits · Post by **liits** » Sat 08 Feb, 2014 9:30 pm

Leodian wrote: The 'Three Legs' looks like it is an old building and there is a 'The Three Legs Inn' there on an 1850 map that I've seen, so I wonder just how old it is and how much is original? The current building is a replacement of an earlier version [with a slightly different name]The original Three Legs Inn lasted until 1903 / 1904. On the 10th March 1903 the premises was granted a provisional grant of transfer of License[based on plans]to new premises to be built on the same site and to be known as the Three Legs of Man Hotel.The grant was declared final and the new premises opened for business on 16th December 1904 so there must have been a point at which the old premises finally closed but before the new one opened. That date isn’t recorded.Both old and new premises only had a six days license and I remember it being closed on Sundays so I’m guessing that it only gained the full seven days when the coming of the Licensing Act 1988 which with very few exceptions [non in Leeds] did away with the “six days” restriction - although many pubs did stick to opening on just the six days and staying closed on Sunday.I always knew the Three Legs [and the Vine] to have had a bit of a “reputation”. Although none of its Licensees were ever convicted of infringements upon the [various] Licensing Act[s], at two separate Licensing Renewal Sessions [1913 & 1931] a stipulation was added to the License;The first time, in 1913; “This License is renewed to Hannah Powney on the undertaking or Messrs Joshua Tetley & Son Ltd, the owners of the premises, given pursuant to Sec 16 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910, that the iron gates enclosing the private yard of the premises be kept locked every day between the hours of four O’clock in the afternoon and ten O’clock in the morning”. And then again, although with a slight variation, in 1931; “This License is renewed annually on an undertaking that the iron gates enclosing the private yard of the premises be kept locked every day between the hours of four O’clock in the afternoon and ten O’clock in the morning”.The first occasion is a bit of a “finger wag” from the Licensing Justices and, because they involved the owners as well as the Licensee, shows that they meant business. There is no record that, that the undertaking was ever discharged. Such undertakings tend to be upon the individual and that the undertaking is also upon the owners [Tetley’s], the undertaking was still upon them even though the Licensee – in this case, Mrs Hannah Powney, was discharged from the undertaking when she ceased to be the Licensee and tenant [15th June 1923]].The second occasion [20th November 1931] is much more serious. The fact that the License was to be renewed annually [as opposed to every three years] means that they were not going to be messed with. This time the undertaking seems only to be upon the Licensee and, again no discharge of the undertaking is recorded so, in theory, while the first undertaking upon Hannah Powney lasted only until 1923, it continued upon Tetley’s until such time as they were no longer the owners or until the Licensing Authority changed [2003] whichever was the sooner. Tetley’s undertaking would have run singularly until the similar undertaking was made by Beatrice P Grant in 1931. The two would have then been in force concurrently until Beatrice left in January 1941 although the yearly renewal part would have continued. There is no record of it ever having been discharged. [Does all that make sense?]As to why the conditions [undertakings] were made.... well, for a premises that only has one entrance / exit, why would y customers want to make a discreet exit out of the back? I couldn’t even begin to imagine........!

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Sat 08 Feb, 2014 11:22 pm

Thanks liits..........very interesting and informative piece there............can't beat a bit o'local history and the why's and wherefore's.