Did Sheffield Council Mislead About The Demolition Of Historic Market Tavern?

[Longcol 607]

10 minutes ago, deejayone said:

“This is a landmark building in the heart of Castlegate with a rich history. History is important, but even in its dilapidated state we can see that this is a quality building, with rich decoration and attractive stonework.. It has been known by various names, mostly as the Rotherham House. It has actually been rebuilt twice, first opening in 1797 with this last version being built in 1914.   It was a well known building, often used for public meetings.”

From: https://www.hhbs.org.uk/2024/01/09/save-the-market-tavern/

So it was built is 1914 .Thousands of buildings in Sheffield date back to then or prior.. The facade looks nothing remarkable for Sheffield centre.

 

HHBS seem to equate "historic" with "old".

 

Hardly a "landmark" when you couldn't see it from anywhere unless you walked along part of Exchange Street.

Edited January 24 by Longcol

[DUFFEMS 56]

In the late 1950's my uncle Fred Norton who'd just finished his service in the RAF was landlord of the Old No.12 in the Haymarket near Davy's, his family helping out at weekends in the 2 bars.

One bar was used by the legal profession from the courthouse (I think they called it the "cocktail bar") and the other bar frequented by the market people, big Ada being one of them!

Fred made a good job of levelling out the tone of the pub which had acquired a bit of a reputation, so much so that the brewery then asked hm to be landlord of the Rotherham House (later became Berni Inn). Once again the family helped out, my mother was a cleaner there, grandfather and aunt helped in the bars.

Fred was then given the landlord job of the newly opened Greengate Inn at High Green which he did for number of years until his marriage broke up and he bought a bowling alley in Lee on Solent. After moving around the south Fred finally settled in Worcester running a pub frequented by cricketers.

A colourful character was Fred Norton, I'm very proud of him.

Regards,

Duffems

Edited January 25 by DUFFEMS

[spilldig 190]

12 hours ago, RollingJ said:

I don't think we are discussing HMG here, rather SCC?

They are all politicians.  So no difference as far as I am concerned, liars.

13 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Wouldn't be sad to see that go either, been derelict for decades. 

Hopefully happens soon. 

I reckon it could be opened as a museum. I think it might do well.

[RollingJ 2,043]

4 minutes ago, spilldig said:

They are all politicians.  So no difference as far as I am concerned, liars.

I reckon it could be opened as a museum. I think it might do well.

Not in its present state - demolished.

[Irene Swaine 1,072]

The council have form for misleading. Look at what they did with Leopold Street/Pinstone Street. 

[Planner1 438]

2 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

The council have form for misleading. Look at what they did with Leopold Street/Pinstone Street. 

And what exactly did they do that was “misleading”?

[Irene Swaine 1,072]

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

And what exactly did they do that was “misleading”?

They said it was being closed for "social distancing", temporarily. 4 years later, it's still closed and has worked out quite well for them with their "heart of the city development". It's almost as if it was planned all along....

[Planner1 438]

8 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

They said it was being closed for "social distancing", temporarily. 4 years later, it's still closed and has worked out quite well for them with their "heart of the city development". It's almost as if it was planned all along....

The government gave the money for temporary / trial measures, but then later gave more money for permanent schemes, so nothing wrong that I can see in making a trial scheme permanent if it works.

 

Putting things in on a trial/temporary basis is a good way of evaluating its impacts. Lets you see if there are any unexpected issues.

 

Traffic regulation orders have to be advertised and put in place, both for the temporary stuff and for the permanent works, so there has been ample scope for people to object. 
 

Also nothing wrong in having long term plans / ambitions and utilising funding streams as and when they come up to deliver them. Many schemes are done that way.

[RollingJ 2,043]

Any chance this topic can be prevented from going 'way off', like so many others?

[Irene Swaine 1,072]

39 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The government gave the money for temporary / trial measures, but then later gave more money for permanent schemes, so nothing wrong that I can see in making a trial scheme permanent if it works.

 

Putting things in on a trial/temporary basis is a good way of evaluating its impacts. Lets you see if there are any unexpected issues.

 

Traffic regulation orders have to be advertised and put in place, both for the temporary stuff and for the permanent works, so there has been ample scope for people to object. 
 

Also nothing wrong in having long term plans / ambitions and utilising funding streams as and when they come up to deliver them. Many schemes are done that way.

Anyone who uses bus routes 120, 51, 52 and 95 will say this was a bad move and definitely bad for city centre trade. But hey ho, at least we have a minibus carting fresh air along Surrey Street!

[RollingJ 2,043]

2 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

Anyone who uses bus routes 120, 51, 52 and 95 will say this was a bad move and definitely bad for city centre trade. But hey ho, at least we have a minibus carting fresh air along Surrey Street!

We don't - it has been re-routed via High Street for at least six months, if not longer.

[Irene Swaine 1,072]

5 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

We don't - it has been re-routed via High Street for at least six months, if not longer.

It's still as empty as ever.