Catford Bridge Tavern plans rejected by Lewisham Council planning

News Shopper: Catford Bridge Tavern plans rejected by Lewisham Council planning Catford Bridge Tavern plans rejected by Lewisham Council planning

LEWISHAM Council planning officers have rejected turning the Catford Bridge Tavern into a supermarket.

The popular venue, previously a problem boozer in the area before it was taken over by pub chain Antic, was closed last week following an application by its landlord to turn it into flats and a retail unit.

Councillors, local MP Heidi Alexander and thousands of customers had all campaigned against the change, with more than 2,000 signing an online petition to keep it open and 440 people sending objections to Catford Town Hall. 

Officers cited the loss of a "vital and valued community facility" for this week's decision to reject the plans.

Other reasons were the negative impact on the town centre, and the "substandard" size of the proposed flats.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:21pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Marty1979 says...

So it won't be a supermarket

What happens now?
So it won't be a supermarket What happens now? Marty1979

5:26pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott says...

The problem with this particular pub is exactly the same one that has affected every other boozer in Britian - the smoking ban.

The smoking ban barred the regular drinkers from putting their cash over the bar because no one wants to £4 for a pint of wallop and then have to go outside into the cold, wind and rain in order to enjoy a fag.

And who can blame smokers for boycotting pubs when they have been treated like second class citizens?

You might like to consider that pubs only became 'trouble' establishments when the smoking regulars moved out and left room for the scummy, yobbo drug dealers to move in.

The smoking ban should have been put to the public vote, just as capital punishment should. We all know why the government won't give the public the vote on hanging - because they would vote to have it back. The same goes for smoking in pubs.

The do-gooders can pussyfoot around and come out with their nonsense for all eternity but the simple fact remains that the smoking ban killed the great British pub stone dead the very day it was forced upon us.
The problem with this particular pub is exactly the same one that has affected every other boozer in Britian - the smoking ban. The smoking ban barred the regular drinkers from putting their cash over the bar because no one wants to £4 for a pint of wallop and then have to go outside into the cold, wind and rain in order to enjoy a fag. And who can blame smokers for boycotting pubs when they have been treated like second class citizens? You might like to consider that pubs only became 'trouble' establishments when the smoking regulars moved out and left room for the scummy, yobbo drug dealers to move in. The smoking ban should have been put to the public vote, just as capital punishment should. We all know why the government won't give the public the vote on hanging - because they would vote to have it back. The same goes for smoking in pubs. The do-gooders can pussyfoot around and come out with their nonsense for all eternity but the simple fact remains that the smoking ban killed the great British pub stone dead the very day it was forced upon us. Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott

5:28pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott says...

Apologies for my typo: 'wants to PAY £4 for a pint'.

I feel so strongly about this subject that I couldn't put the words down fast enough!
Apologies for my typo: 'wants to PAY £4 for a pint'. I feel so strongly about this subject that I couldn't put the words down fast enough! Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott

5:31pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott says...

Oh, and if anyone wants to start on about hanging, then yes, I WOULD be prepared to pull the handle!
Oh, and if anyone wants to start on about hanging, then yes, I WOULD be prepared to pull the handle! Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott

5:32pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott says...

If I am ever feeling a bit low, I cheer myself up by watching the last scenes in the drama called, The Execution of Gary Glitter.

I laugh all the way through it!
If I am ever feeling a bit low, I cheer myself up by watching the last scenes in the drama called, The Execution of Gary Glitter. I laugh all the way through it! Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott

5:50pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Donna_T says...

Marty1979 wrote:
So it won't be a supermarket

What happens now?
Turn it into one of them African churches.
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: So it won't be a supermarket What happens now?[/p][/quote]Turn it into one of them African churches. Donna_T

6:17pm Mon 26 Nov 12

katicus12 says...

Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has
(temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post.
Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has (temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post. katicus12

9:46pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Guess who ;) AGAIN ! says...

Why can't they turn it into flats above and just leave the pub alone ?
Why can't they turn it into flats above and just leave the pub alone ? Guess who ;) AGAIN !

10:27am Tue 27 Nov 12

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott says...

katicus12 wrote:
Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has
(temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post.
You have completely missed the point of what I said. I really can't be bothered to explain it to you as everyone else seems to understand.

I suggest you read my comment again and think about it before you post.
[quote][p][bold]katicus12[/bold] wrote: Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has (temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post.[/p][/quote]You have completely missed the point of what I said. I really can't be bothered to explain it to you as everyone else seems to understand. I suggest you read my comment again and think about it before you post. Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott

3:50pm Tue 27 Nov 12

katicus12 says...

Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott wrote:
katicus12 wrote:
Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has
(temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post.
You have completely missed the point of what I said. I really can't be bothered to explain it to you as everyone else seems to understand.

I suggest you read my comment again and think about it before you post.
One last time:

You said "The problem with this particular pub is...the smoking ban"

No. It is not.

I am not commenting on the smoking ban, I am merely correcting your faulty statement. Read the reply from Cllr Liam Curran on your other postings on this site: this pub is under threat because of the value of the property not because of any failings of the pub.

The pub is not a problem pub, and is very successful with lots of regulars. It is at the heart of our community, and brings people together in Catford. It's amazing what a huge impact it's had on this community since its opening in March.

Previously it was a problem pub but I'm not sure the smoking ban affected it. Most of its regulars during the problem years were smokers -only they smoked marijuana!

If you actually read the articles you post on about Catford Bridge Tavern you'd know this cannot be applied to your theory of smoking ban issues. If you visited this pub you'd know you can't apply your theory about the smoking ban either.

Save your smoking ban theory for an article where your comments are actually relevant.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Erastus Theobald Piggott[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]katicus12[/bold] wrote: Lord Erastus no it wasn't the smoking ban that was at fault..... please get your facts straight. The pub has (temporarily) closed because the freeholder wished to make more money from the property by kicking out the pub in favour of converting the upstairs into flats and a supermarket downstairs. The actual pub was doing perfectly fine -it had loads of custom, and loads of smokers and non smokers went there. It was a highly successful pub. The pub owners are currently trying to get a new lease with the freeholder. Please read the article before you post.[/p][/quote]You have completely missed the point of what I said. I really can't be bothered to explain it to you as everyone else seems to understand. I suggest you read my comment again and think about it before you post.[/p][/quote]One last time: You said "The problem with this particular pub is...the smoking ban" No. It is not. I am not commenting on the smoking ban, I am merely correcting your faulty statement. Read the reply from Cllr Liam Curran on your other postings on this site: this pub is under threat because of the value of the property not because of any failings of the pub. The pub is not a problem pub, and is very successful with lots of regulars. It is at the heart of our community, and brings people together in Catford. It's amazing what a huge impact it's had on this community since its opening in March. Previously it was a problem pub but I'm not sure the smoking ban affected it. Most of its regulars during the problem years were smokers -only they smoked marijuana! If you actually read the articles you post on about Catford Bridge Tavern you'd know this cannot be applied to your theory of smoking ban issues. If you visited this pub you'd know you can't apply your theory about the smoking ban either. Save your smoking ban theory for an article where your comments are actually relevant. katicus12

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree