Penistone999 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 and the costco around the corner i forgot about that one. It all makes a mockery of the councils planning policy though. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 18:28 ---------- I'm reliably informed that they did block IKEA on Parkway and that the Tinsley Wire location had the same planning zone designation. What changed was that NEXT won a planning appeal that cost the council millions and destroyed the council's excuses for preventing IKEA coming to Sheffield. That sounds about right where this council is concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Yeah but nothing the council could do about it though. Their hands were tied by silly rules from the Tories in Westminster. VOTE LABOUR! How so? And how does that explain all the other retail developments across the North in very red (politically) towns and cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'm reliably informed that they did block IKEA on Parkway and that the Tinsley Wire location had the same planning zone designation. What changed was that NEXT won a planning appeal that cost the council millions and destroyed the council's excuses for preventing IKEA coming to Sheffield. I think if you look it up, you will find that Ikea dropped the application after a number of objections were receved to it. There's an archive thread on here somewhre that confirms the same. How do you arrive at the conclusion that losing a planning appeal lost the Council "millions"? Would you care to provide us with some facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think if you look it up, you will find that Ikea dropped the application after a number of objections were receved to it. There's an archive thread on here somewhre that confirms the same. Objections by whom and for what reason? The context is important here. How do you arrive at the conclusion that losing a planning appeal lost the Council "millions"? Would you care to provide us with some facts? You are much better placed to provide an accurate figure of the council's direct costs of refusing NEXT's planning. Please let us see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Well the cost to the council for just the public inquiry were roughly £30,000 The authority’s costs at the public inquiry included £25,000 on retail consultant fees and £4,575 for a barrister. http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/business/lib-dems-slam-council-s-30-000-bill-for-next-store-public-inquiry-1-5820269 Not quite millions ---------- Post added 24-02-2016 at 14:25 ---------- Unfortunately the aftermath of the inquiry really dragged the councils face through the mud. Lord Wolfson said: “Sheffield City Council should stop wasting its time trying to prevent investment in the city and instead focus on revitalising the city centre. The commercial heartland of the city continues to fall further and further behind the other great industrial cities of Britain Mr Clegg said: “Only Sheffield’s Labour councillors could think spending vast sums of local taxpayers money on a legal battle against the creation of up to 120 new jobs is a good idea. “What’s more, this kind of anti-business attitude sends out a damaging message to any other potential investors who are looking for places to invest in and create new jobs. “When you consider this alongside the lukewarm reaction to Ikea and the failure to progress the Sevenstone project, Sheffield faces the very real prospect of losing out on nearly 2,000 new jobs thanks to the local Labour council.” At the inquiry, the council maintained there was a suitable alternative location in the retail park off Moorfoot and St Mary’s Gate. Labour cabinet member for business, skills and development, Coun Leigh Bramall said: “We have always welcomed a Next store and have identified a site in the city centre which would accommodate it. In July, planning inspector David Wildsmith found an alternative site backed by the council demonstrably unsuitable for the development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fonz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Objections by whom and for what reason? The context is important here. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=781123&highlight=ikea&page=3 the search function is your friend. Objections came from traders in the town centre. ---------- Post added 24-02-2016 at 14:56 ---------- cost the council millions. You might want to start questioning your 'reliable' sources Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 You might want to start questioning your 'reliable' sources Eric Eric's reliable sources are his deluded imagination and nothing else. His first thread on here was to predict that Paul Blomfield would lose his seat last year as the Greens held all the council seats in that constituency. Unfortunately Eric couldn't differentiate between Central constituency and Central ward, despite his reliable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=781123&highlight=ikea&page=3 the search function is your friend. Objections came from traders in the town centre. ---------- Post added 24-02-2016 at 14:56 ---------- You might want to start questioning your 'reliable' sources Eric Trader. Single not plural. And that was to protect Sevenstone. So one farce created to prolong another. Edited February 25, 2016 by Jonny5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 This is getting boring And Ms Dore fobbing Sheffielders off by playing the usual confidentiality card. Although this time it was 'extremely confidential'. Still progress I suppose any news yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley0 Mum Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Hearsay I know, but after a conversation with a couple of proprietors of the smaller shops potentially affected, it appears the plan as it stands is dead in the water as no developer can be found and alternative, much less ambitious, plans are being mooted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts