Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Peterborough City Council website

Pubs rush to beat ban on smoking

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
19 June 2007
Publicans who fear the July 1 smoking ban will hit their profits are scrambling to get planning permission for smokers' shelters.
Many licensees are running scared of getting their fingers burned when smoking in public places is outlawed. They fear customers who like a cigarette with their drink will simply stay at home instead.

In Ireland and Scotland, where lighting up bans are already in place, some pubs have had to close, and across the board profits were down by 10 per cent in the first six months.

Now, city planners are dealing with a rush of last-minute applications from pubs for permission to erect everything from canvas and glazed canopies, to heated patio areas, where people can light up.

Brewery firm Greene King is lavishing £50,000 on building a heated outdoor area for smokers at the Harrier, in Gunthorpe Road, and more tables and chairs have been provided in the beer garden.

What do you think? Add your comments below, email our news team: news@peterboroughtoday.co.uk or telephone our newsdesk 01733 555111

Today, manager Ray Gradwell, who estimated that about a third of his customers were smokers, said: "If I lose just five per cent of that total, it will be bad. I am scared of losing trade and I have a number of staff who are local that I do not want to lay off."

Harrier regulars Annette and Robert Avery, of Richmond Avenue, Walton, both smoke.

Robert said: "We are both looking to kick the habit on July 1, but we feel this ban is a form of social control."

Meanwhile, city centre bar Yates's is trying to persuade the city council to give the thumbs-up to putting six tables and 12 chairs on the pavement in Broadway.

Manager Spencer Lloyd said: "It's going to be hard, and some pubs may go out of business because of it. At first we could see 200 fewer people on a typical weekend night."

Four city pubs – The Boathouse, in Thorpe Meadows, The Woodman, in Thorpe Wood, The Coopers, in Copeland, Bretton, and The Crab and Winkle, in Loxley, Werrington – have already been given permission for shelters.

Far from being downhearted, city centre director Annette Joyce, whose aim is to encourage a busy nightlife scene, said the ban was an opportunity to attract a wave of new customers.

She said: "Experiences in Scotland and Ireland show that there could be an initial dip in trade, but that has been followed by an upturn. many non-smokers could become new customers."

City council spokesman Mike Lennox claimed surveys in places where the ban was already in force showed it was welcomed by smokers and non-smokers alike.

He said: "Many local pubs have already submitted planning applications for outdoor canopies to accommodate smokers, and in almost every case these can be dealt with swiftly under powers delegated to officers."

Anyone caught flouting the ban could be hit with £50 fines.

Mixed views from drinkers over ban

Customers at the Harrier pub in Gunthorpe have different views on their local going smoke free.

Non-smoker Aaran Townsend (20), of The Pentlands, Gunthorpe, said: "I am pleased by the ban. Some of my friends who smoke are planning to quit by the time of the ban.

"It is a good idea that the pub is doing all this stuff for smokers, though."

John Swallow (45) and his wife Maxine (31), of Donaldson Drive, Paston, use the non-smoking area.

John said: "It's not nice going somewhere and there is smoke everywhere. I think smokers should have a shelter and that's it."

Smoker Mark hazel (40), who retired on medical grounds, said: "It has come to the point where we are being dictated to."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 June 2007 12:07 PM
  • Source: Peterborough ET
  • Location: Peterborough
 
Prev
1
2 3
1

Anoymous,

Peterborough 19/06/2007 12:33:39
I have said it before and will say it again. Where is the freedom of choice? was anyone asked before a ban came in what they thought? pubs, clubs, smokers? What was wrong with smoking and non smoking areas? smokers pay taxes too! cant smoke in the street as get a fine if you drop a fag butt but no where to put them either and now cant smoke when out! it may be a filthy habit but it is still someones choice too
2

Anoymous,

peterborough 19/06/2007 12:35:56
police being undercover in venues to see if the ban is being used!!! sorry have we forgotten about crime? rape murder robbery car crime? but no money is to be made in fines isnt it.........
3

A Confirmed smoker,

19/06/2007 19:00:37
Quote "Smoker Mark hazel (40), who retired on medical grounds". Was this due to smoking? If it's the Mark Hazel I know then it most certainly was not. Why was this not made clear in the article? Or is this yet another example of Anti-smokers "Do as we say, it does not matter if we lie about the facts or at least be economical with the truth brigade" propaganda?
4

Simon Barnes,

Peterborough 19/06/2007 19:30:05
Anyone who claims our pubs won't be hit hard by this detestable legislation is totally nuts. In Scotland, pubs have been closing in their dozens. In Ireland, in their hundreds. England is a bigger nation than either of them - no prizes for guessing how many pubs WE'LL see crash and burn because of this intolerant, hateful, fascist diktat. To answer "Anonymous" above: there was nothing wrong with smoking and non-smoking rooms and venues. This law isn't about protection of anyone: it's about making smokers' social lives as uncomfortable as possible by REMOVING their freedom of choice. Instead of choosing between smoking rooms or smoking venues, smokers now have to choose between the least wet and windswept BUS SHELTERS or STREET PAVEMENTS! "I think smokers should have a shelter and that's it", says John Swallow, even though a sealed smoking room or dedicated smoking venue would never bother him, seeing as he would never enter one; but, since the law is kicking smokers outside anyway, hey, why not happily voice my bigoted opinion to a local newspaper? On 1st July, hundreds, perhaps thousands of pubs will be flouting the ban. Look up the Swan in Bolton and the Happy Scots in Blackpool for the most publicised examples. If you resent this ban, and the ugly precedent it sets for future restrictions of individual and property rights, join us at freedom2choose (dot co dot uk); together we can FIGHT the ban and restore freedom of choice to this country.
5

Danger Mouse,

Peterborough 19/06/2007 21:44:42
I went into the Harrier once with my family for a meal and was driven out by the cigarette smoke. With reference to item 1 above, where is the freedom of choice for non-smokers to eat a meal or take a drink in a smoke free atmosphere. What gives anyone the right to poison my 5-year old daughter just because they don't have the courtesy or common sense to be considerate. This ban has been introduced as a necessity in response to the majority of smokers who, in seeking to quench the thirst for nicotine, give little thought to their actions and how they affect other people. The smoking ban is perhaps the best piece of legislation I could have hoped for in safeguarding the future health of my children. Having lost someone to lung cancer (small cell cancer caused by smoking) last year, I would receommend a trip to Sue Ryder Care at Thorpe Hall to all smokers. If it doesn't put them off, at least they will get an opportunity to familiarise themselves with their future home!
6

Simon Barnes,

Peterborough 20/06/2007 00:04:19
I'm now replying to Danger Mouse, someone who has a very unguarded view of smokers (all 15 million of them) based on a few anecdotal examples. ... Firstly, why did you go to the Harrier for a meal with your family? Did you not realise it was a PUB, and a smoke-friendly one at that? If you wanted to be able to go there again, why didn't you complain to the manager about the smoke? If enough of you did that, they would've had grounds to install effective ventilation or create separate smoking and non-smoking sections, if your custom were that valuable. Clearly though, they preferred the custom of smokers, who more than likely pay them more in daily custom than any family out for a meal every 6 months ever will. Simple solution? Don't go back there. ... Secondly, what on EARTH do you mean, non-smokers have no freedom of choice to eat in a smoke-free atmosphere? I'll suggest a few places: McDonalds, Burger King, Tohos, Papa Luigi, Deep Pan Pizza Co, Gastons, all the takeaways in town... the list goes on. If you want a pub atmosphere with your family meal, try Harvesters (we have 2 of them), or The Draper's Arms (great place but strangely empty for over a year). And yet, that's not enough for you; the pub round the corner serving the microwaved Sunday lunch has to be smoke-free too. ... Thirdly, don't blame smokers for "poisoning" your 5-year-old (although if you actually knew your facts you'd see that it does no such thing); the landlord permitted smoking in his pub, so it's only natural that smokers are going to take advantage of that permission. It's nothing about "being considerate", or "giving thought to their actions", it boils down to the simple fact that THEY were smoking in a pub that allowed smoking, whereas YOU made the mistaken assumption that you'd brought your children into a non-smoking pub. Admit it - you cocked up. ... Fourthly, following up my previous point: if you consider the smoking ban "the best piece of legislation I could've hoped for in safeguar
7

Simon Barnes,

Peterborough 20/06/2007 00:05:25
...safeguarding the health of my children", I wonder how prepared you are to be a parent. If you can bring your children into smoking pubs without prior thought of what they might be breathing in, what else? Would you let them ride their bikes on the parkway, then blame a driver for causing them injury? Would you drop them inside the lion's enclosure at the zoo to play with the cubs and then blame the zookeeper when limbs went missing? If you can't make such SIMPLE choices concerning the safety of your own children, and instead rely on Government legislation to remove the opportunity for you to make such mistakes, quite frankly, you need help. ... And finally, save your patronising scare stories about the possible results of smoking - you act like it's revolutionary news. NO death is pretty, no matter what causes it. All smokers are fully aware of the risks of smoking, just as all drivers, skydivers, test pilots, stuntmen, professional soldiers etc. are all aware of the risks of their activities. But that's what they are - RISKS. The world's OLDEST woman, Jeanne Calmet, was a heavy smoker until her 117th year - maybe one of these smokers you're predicting to be a future resident of Thorpe Hall will soon be outliving YOU.
8

Squealer,

Notts 20/06/2007 00:15:19
Danger mouse:..........If you cared THAT much about your 5 year old daughter then you would not take her into a pub in the first place.
9

Stef,

Edinburgh 20/06/2007 03:01:30
# Simon 4&6&7 Excellent comments, and right on the nail. It is late, and off to bed,but I had to say that I live in Scotland.. Its horrible all that I am seeing all around me. Its not just all the bust business's and all that involves... Its more the glue of our communities are disolving... Its really horrible to bear witness too.. I wish you well, your perceptions are spot on...Do not believe the propoganda..This is a wicked and failed legislation,,, instigated by failed politicians motivated by greed and position.
10

Stef,

Edinburgh 20/06/2007 03:01:46
# Simon 4&6&7 Excellent comments, and right on the nail. It is late, and off to bed,but I had to say that I live in Scotland.. Its horrible all that I am seeing all around me. Its not just all the bust business's and all that involves... Its more the glue of our communities are disolving... Its really horrible to bear witness too.. I wish you well, your perceptions are spot on...Do not believe the propoganda..This is a wicked and failed legislation,,, instigated by failed politicians motivated by greed and position.
Prev
1
2 3

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.