six45ive Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm wondering what people think about the article in tonight's Star about the sites allocated for new housing, most of which are greenfield sites (not greenbelt). Here's the article. http://www.thestar.co.uk/community/green-scene/18_sites_earmarked_for_1_000_homes_1_4131582 Here's the planning document. How does it affect you? (Click the links on the left to see the plans for your area). http://sheffield-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/sdfcps/additional_sites/additional_sites?pointId=2060064#document-2060064 For me the most controversial is the Worrall developments and the large area of farmland between Woodhouse and Beighton. The most ridiculous is the reservoir near Lydgate Lane.....who would want to live directly under all those transmitters/mobile phone masts up there? Also the proposed industrial sites on Holbrook Rise and Herries Road look like tokenism to me. For me the big YES of the proposals is Infield Lane Darnall. Should be an attractive location when the industry is removed and replaced by houses with the allotments on one side and High Hazel's Park on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Personally I thought http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=53.388131&lon=-1.543793&z=16.2&r=0&src=msl between Stannington and the Rivelin Valley might have been allocated for housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Though I'm sure there'll be some local oposition, these additional sites seem to be mainly a sensible use of quite small bits of in-fill land. There are quite a few of these sorts of part derelict/overgrown land around the city. If houses are needed they're needed. We can only hope we're not going to be lumbered with hundreds of useless empty "apartments" which nobody wants to live in... oh too late. Seriously though, I can't see what the opposition can be to high quality sensitive development. We just need the council to make sure we get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Actually, I'm surprised here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.398249,-1.506532&spn=0.005015,0.013937&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6 and here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.410286,-1.524096&spn=0.005014,0.013937&t=h&vpsrc=6&z=17 aren't on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 For me the most controversial is the Worrall developments and the large area of farmland between Woodhouse and Beighton. The first one on Beighton Road I couldn't see as being too bad. The last time I saw it used was for the fair in the early 80's. I'm not happy about the Junction Road ones, there are some fantastic apple and pear trees there that yielded me sacks of fruit last year and the nicest pies for years. That farmland would be a significant green space loss. But we've already lost so much in Woodhouse and the surrounding areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The most ridiculous is the reservoir near Lydgate Lane.....who would want to live directly under all those transmitters/mobile phone masts up there? The mast doesn't seem to deter people on Hallgate Road and Tapton Bank who virtually have it in their back gardens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Actually, I'm surprised here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.398249,-1.506532&spn=0.005015,0.013937&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6 and here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.410286,-1.524096&spn=0.005014,0.013937&t=h&vpsrc=6&z=17 aren't on there. I would guess that they're not in areas designated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan. Personally prefer small in - fill developments (providing they don't take up too much local green space) to building on larger new sites which have always been fields etc. and aren't currently surrounded by housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Though I'm sure there'll be some local oposition, these additional sites seem to be mainly a sensible use of quite small bits of in-fill land. There are quite a few of these sorts of part derelict/overgrown land around the city. If houses are needed they're needed. We can only hope we're not going to be lumbered with hundreds of useless empty "apartments" which nobody wants to live in... oh too late. Seriously though, I can't see what the opposition can be to high quality sensitive development. We just need the council to make sure we get it. Spot on biotechpete. The problem is that 'high quality sensitive development' is a very subjective term atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Actually, I'm surprised here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.410286,-1.524096&spn=0.005014,0.013937&t=h&vpsrc=6&z=17 aren't on there. I think a lot of the land around Wadsley is in the green belt as opposed to just green field. On top of that, with all the controversy surrounding the closure of Wisewood school, to then bring more housing into the area which may have made the school 'sustainable' would be politically naive if not stupidly suicidal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 The mast doesn't seem to deter people on Hallgate Road and Tapton Bank who virtually have it in their back gardens. That's why I was wondering what kind of person would live so close to one. You wouldn't catch me living within half a mile of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.