Renewed Denaby Application – Co-Operative Society Successful

February 1912

Mexborough and Swinton Times February 10, 1912

Renewed Denaby Application.

Co-Operative Society Successful

Thomas James Bayliss applied for a beer off licence in respect of the premises situated at Hickleton Street, Denaby Main, occupied by the Denaby Main Industrial Co-operative Society, of which he was secretary.

Applicants were represented by Mr W.M. Gichard, and Mr W.H. Castle, Barnsley, opposed on behalf of the chief landowner, Mr J.S.H. Fullerton, and the licensee of the Reresby Arms, Denaby Main, Mr A Peace.

Mr Gichard said the district of Denaby was one with which the Bench were fairly familiar. It was large and populous, and had grown rapidly during the last 10 years until it had become one of the largest districts in the Riding. No new licence had been granted there since 1895, when the Denaby Main Hotel was licenced. There were three licences existing at the present time, all on the main road, and back from the main road there had been built a large colony of houses. It was with a view to supplying the reasonable requirements of that district that the application was made. The premises in respect of which application was made were 845 yards from the Denaby Main Hotel, 915 yards from the Reresby Arms, and 519 yards from the off-licence already owned by the Co-operative Society.

There had been erected since 1896, 1185 houses, so that the present population of Denaby was 10,500. Two applications were made in 1908 for further licences, one in respect of the working man’s club, and the other in respect of the premises proposed to be built not far from the neighbourhood of Hickleton street. Since that time there had been erected in the immediate neighbourhood 103 new houses, and there were plans already passed for the erection of a further 200. With regard to the existing licences there was a good trade attached to each, and in each case the accommodation was taxed to its utmost capacity


  1. With regard to the existing licences there was a good trade attached to men, and in each case the accommodation was taxed to its utmost capacity.

A similar application to this was made a year ago, and it was then appalled by Mr AE Niel on behalf of of the debenture holders of Ind, Coope and Co., owners of the Reresby Arms, now unfortunately in liquidation. A good deal of abuse was levelled at those who supported the Denaby Co-operative movement, but no single person could be prevailed upon to support their attitude with sound evidence. He understood there was to be no opposition of that type today.

Regarding the oppositional Mr Peace, he pointed out that the licensee of the Reresby Arms had had the advantage of supplying a large area without competition for a good number of years, and must not expect to retain that monopoly indefinitely. He took it that Mr Fullerton had views of his own on licensed placed generally, but the Bench ought not to allow those used to outweigh those of the people regarded them as a public convenience.

Last year a suggestion was made by the opposition that Mr W.H. Chambers, who was managing director of the Colliery Company and also the Co-operative Society, was personally interested in the matter, that it was practically at his dictation that the application would be made, and that the effect of granting the application will be to place the district of Denaby in the hands of the Colliery Company, so far as the licences were concerned. Without backing this up with evidence, they went on to state that the Denaby Co-operative Society had shares in a certain brewery and that it would be a misrepresentation to say that it would be an untied property if the licence was granted. As a matter of fact, the Co-operative Society once had shares in the Brewery Company, when they made their last application the company was on its last legs, and a little money the Society had invested there was lost.

He assured the Bench that there would be no tying of any description is the licence was granted. He spoke rather strongly upon the subject, because Mr Chambers and scores of individual members of the Co-operative Society resented that they should have attributed to them the intention to obtain a licence by false pretences.

Mr Bailey, secretary of the applicant Society, said this the annual value of the premises in respect of which application was being made was £95. The society had 774 members, an increase of 25 on last year. With respect to the licence already existing, he said the profits made on beer did not go to the beer consumer alone, but were returned to the whole of the members the shape of a bonus on trade done in groceries and provisions.

Mr Gichard: If a licences is asked for, are you authorised to give an undertaking that it shall not be tied to any brewery? – Yes.

Last year there was mention the Crown Brewery at Sheffield? – Yes.

That was a brewery in which the Society had invested a small sum of money, and they had done some trade with the Society, but not all of it by any means? – Yes, that is so.

Last year it was on its last legs, and is now in liquidation without any hope of starting again? – Yes.

You have wiped your share off and hope to get a proportion of your money back? – Yes, we are hoping so.

Well, keep on hoping. (Laughter.) There was also a suggestion last year this licence will be in the control of the Colliery Company. Is there any truth in that?

No, they have nothing whatever to do with it.

Harry Lawton Smethurst, architect and surveyor of Conisborough, produced plans of the premises at Hickleton Street, and also plans of 200 houses proposed to be erected in the vicinity. He gave evidence in general terms as to the growing nature of the district.

Replying to Mr Castle, he admitted that he produced the plans of the 200 houses last year.

Mr Castle: Denaby is not a new colliery district, and the colliers are no longer coming in? – Oh, yes, they are.

Joseph Middleton, of 61, Tickhill Street, Denaby, ex-policeman and now porter at the Fullerton Hospital, Denaby Main said there was a general feeling in the neighbourhood in favour of the present application because it was inconvenient to have to go to the main shop in Doncaster Road.

Mr Gichard: Are the Reresby Arms, the Denaby Main Hotel, and that shop all busy places? – Yes.

Mr Castle: How often do you wish to get beer? – Not very often.

Then you are not greatly inconvenienced?

No, not myself, there are plenty who are. (Laughter.)

George Luther Robinson, builder and contractor of Denaby, said that though personally he was a teetotaller, he thought the present application reasonable.

Doctor J McArthur, of Denaby, also supported the application.

Mr Castle: I dare say they are people in the neighbourhood would like their dinner beer brought round to them? (Laughter.) – I dare say. (Laughter.)

John Soar, manager of the Doncaster Road Department, also gave evidence.

Mr Castle submitted that the evidence in favour of granting the licence was no stronger than it was a year ago. These premises were on the outskirts of Denaby, and was surrounded by a large piece of waste ground. Denaby had ceased to grow, was not a new mining district like those which were springing up around Doncaster. The probability was that there would be less facilities required than in the past. The district was very well supplied already. The membership of the Society had only increased by 25 in the past year, and that hardly justify the granting of increased facilities

After consultation the Bench decided to grant the application and adjourned the Sessions until the 18th inst.