Decision awaits on £175m investment plan for Upper Don Valley

THE first phase of major regeneration in Sheffield’s Upper Don Valley is hanging in the balance.

Regeneration experts Menta are hopeful that planning officers will recommend approval for the £175m mixed use Beeley Wood Sustainable Community scheme.

Menta have been working to find a solution to unlock the Upper Don Valley’s regeneration for approximately 5 years. They have already secured planning consent for the Snow Mountain leisure complex at the Sheffield Ski Village, and the Gondola Cableway transport link between Supertram and the Shirecliffe area which will deliver over 1,500 new jobs to the area as part of what will be a nationally significant new sports and leisure facility.

Menta are holding their breath to see if the council’s planning officers’ recommendations will support the project going forward enabling the regeneration process to start in the Upper Don Valley including the Snow Mountain project.

Director Craig Marks said, “We are encouraged by the support we have received from the city council so far and in the appreciation of our commitment and investment to date in the proposals to regenerate the Upper Don Valley. We are hoping that this commitment by all parties will result in our plans for the derelict Claywheels area being supported by the council.

“The opportunity exists within the proposals to create more than 600 jobs and to deliver major infrastructure, lifestyle and economic benefits to the immediate area and surrounding communities of Winn Gardens, Hillsborough and Wadsley Park Village,” added Craig.

Menta’s masterplan for the Beeley Wood Sustainable Community includes the development of 160,000 sq ft of employment space alongside 550 new homes and major new infrastructure and transport improvements to link the Claywheels Lane area into the surrounding community with new bridges and pedestrian links to Supertram.

The plans, submitted by Cushman and Wakefield on behalf Menta, have been viewed extremely favourably by residents living nearby in Middlewood, Hillsborough and in particular, Winn Gardens who say the plans are a long–awaited solution to kick starting the regeneration of the area.

Jane the local development worker, has written to Sheffield City Council saying: “As a resident of 19 years it with great interest I have watched these proposals unfold. In the past local residents had views of dirty smoking chimneys, noise producing factories, a river that had turned orange from years of factory waste and fly-tipping – all providing environmental pollution and having an impact on the quality of life for people living nearby. I, for one, have not forgotten this and having seen the plans would relish the new development. The next proposal may well take us back in time not forward.

“People need to think to the future and have a vision of the positive things that can come only as a direct result of this quality development.”

Should Menta’s plans receive the backing of the Council, it will unlock the potential for a total of more than £300m of investment in the Valley in the two projects which the Company have brought forward to date in the area. The Upper Don Valley’s regeneration is part of a council and Yorkshire Forward-led initiative to transform the area from its current derelict and under-utilised state.

Members of Sheffield City Council’s North and West planning board are expected to hear the Beeley Wood plans, to be funded by a combination of public and private funding, on April 25th

(press release)

Is'nt any investment in north sheffield long over due?

The council should back these plans to the hilt!

Is'nt any investment in north sheffield long over due?

The council should back these plans to the hilt!

Too true. However... there is another development in the air under the HMR Pathfinder scheme. To build housing on the backedge of foxhill. With this in mind MENTA are being told that to develop housing and light industry at their sight would saturate the area and is not necessary. The planners want MENTA to put just industry there instead.

This scheme looks fabulous.

Why can't they have housing on both sites? I'm sure if I were to buy a home at the top of the hill I would like to look down on a nicely planned area, not factories!

Fingers crossed they get the planning consent

I like the ideas for the ski village and wanted to support this proposal as well despite it being contrary to the Unitary Development Plan. That was when I thought that 'Sustainable Community' actually meant something. I was envisaging environmentally friendly accommodation - super-insulated, warmed by a ground heat source, catching rain water for flushing toilets, sending run off through a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme rather than down the sewers etc. etc.

Menta appear to be abusing an in vogue term just to curry favour. How is this community sustainable? Does it allow current development without compromising the economic, social and environmental future of our children?

Or does sustainable community just mean that when people move out of the houses other people will move in - ie the same as everywhere else.

Menta appear to be abusing an in vogue term just to curry favour. How is this community sustainable? Does it allow current development without compromising the economic, social and environmental future of our children?

 

Or does sustainable community just mean that when people move out of the houses other people will move in - ie the same as everywhere else.

Sustainable community?

Well with the mixture of quality housing, and low level light industry and offices on the site along with improved transport links ect. I would say that was heading towards sustainability. What I wouldnt like to see is the area being reduced back to an industrial cul-de-sac where people only ever venture there to do a job. The development would bring some life to that area, not to mention get rid of the disgusting eyesore that is the derelict UCAR site.

The plans include cleaning up the river and planting more trees. Investing in other local areas (including mine) to ensure that there is a cohesion between the new and the old.

Since you seem to be acting as the mouthpiece for this scheme on the forum, Fox, could you tell us whether you have any vested interest i.e. are you on the payroll of Menta or deriving any benefit from them?

I can see that you're all in favour of lots of housing as that will in turn mean lots of children to go to your nursery, but is there more to it? I see you were very dismissive of the idea that only industrial units should go there, even though this seemed to be on the grounds of lack of transport infrastructure, no bus services, and so on.

Personally I'm not convinced that this scheme is any better than the Sheffield Wednesday training ground one, especially in terms of traffic management.

Since you seem to be acting as the mouthpiece for this scheme on the forum, Fox, could you tell us whether you have any vested interest i.e. are you on the payroll of Menta or deriving any benefit from them?

 

I can see that you're all in favour of lots of housing as that will in turn mean lots of children to go to your nursery, but is there more to it? I see you were very dismissive of the idea that only industrial units should go there, even though this seemed to be on the grounds of lack of transport infrastructure, no bus services, and so on.

 

Personally I'm not convinced that this scheme is any better than the Sheffield Wednesday training ground one, especially in terms of traffic management.

Erm, no I'm not on the payroll the nursery is a neighbourhood nursery and not mine at all, though it is very close to my heart.

I am dismissive of industrial use because it is on my doorstep. I am one of its closest neighbours so that is where my interest lies. The transport infrastructure is built into the business plan with bridge to public transport and the new road (plans available online).

I don't want big industry in my back yard. Yes that is nimbyism but the scheme menta propose is a happy compromise and good for our local community.

As a community we fought for 2 years to have Glacier ARM a dirty operation removed from the neighbouring site on the premise that it interfered with our health and peace of mind. They went, we won. Why would I support a suggestion that we replace one factory setting with another?

Sustainable community?

 

Well with the mixture of quality housing, and low level light industry and offices on the site along with improved transport links ect. I would say that was heading towards sustainability. What I wouldnt like to see is the area being reduced back to an industrial cul-de-sac where people only ever venture there to do a job. The development would bring some life to that area, not to mention get rid of the disgusting eyesore that is the derelict UCAR site.

 

The plans include cleaning up the river and planting more trees. Investing in other local areas (including mine) to ensure that there is a cohesion between the new and the old.

That is all well and good, but I ask again in what way is this a sustainable community?

Just thought I'd ask since you seem to be singing its praises at every possible opportunity.

There is of course a third option, which is just leave it as it is. Then you wouldn't have a load of houses or factories (or at least only the ones that are there now), and the people living on Beeley Wood Road would still be able to walk their dogs. And we'd still be able to get round the Leppings Lane roundabout.