emmaaaaa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I was at the meeting yesterday and they agreed with the recommendation to refuse the store because it's meant to be used for housing, though all councillors expressed regret that it means those 450 or so jobs won't be created... It was quite nice seeing the residents that had turned out, I don't live anywhere near the proposed site but everyone that opposed the store must be feeling pretty happy! Nice to see some community spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichJay Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Perhaps there's now some issues regarding infrastructur that the council can't afford or won't assist with during the recession. Rotherham council have also denied the multi million £ development @ Rother Valley Oh no even worse, more houses to be potentially built instead. Rotherham Council wanted the development at Rother Valley. The contract was terminated because the developer couldn't fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeSmith92 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hi Im a Journalism student at University of Sheffield and I've been covering this story. As some of you may or may not know the council have decided to reject the proposal as of yesterday (28th Feb). I'm looking for people to do telephone or email interviews from the Halfway area and was wondering if anyone could spare a few minutes for me to ask a few questions about what you think? Thanks Aimee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miwinter Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Aimee, I'd be happy to contribute if I can - PM me about it if you wish. Bear with me if I take a few days to come back to you though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
master jedi Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Looks like its Game Over for Tesco at Halfway. Been turned down by Sheffield Council planning. Tesco has made an appeal against the councils decision , which was made then by the Lib Dems . Hopefully the new Labour council will grant permission this time . Good luck Tesco . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMike Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Actually, the appeal is not reviewed by the council. The appeal is made to the secretary of state to see if they will overrule the council's decision and is heard at a public enquiry. And, at the various meetings of the campaign to oppose the planning application there were labour councillors present and in support of the no campaign, it was not a party issue. The council rejected on the grounds of the council's long term housing development plans, not on the basis of party politics. Hopefully the secretary of state will continue to oppose the application so we won't have two million supermarkets within a short distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dink Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Actually, the appeal is not reviewed by the council. The appeal is made to the secretary of state to see if they will overrule the council's decision and is heard at a public enquiry. And, at the various meetings of the campaign to oppose the planning application there were labour councillors present and in support of the no campaign, it was not a party issue. The council rejected on the grounds of the council's long term housing development plans, not on the basis of party politics. Hopefully the secretary of state will continue to oppose the application so we won't have two million supermarkets within a short distance So to get this correct, the people who argued against development due to adverse effects on wildlife most notable the watercrest newt! will soon be fighting again as plans are for housing on the land?? my guess is nothing will be said as the agrument for effects of wildlife where for own selfish gains they just didnt want a tesco they didnt care about wildlife really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMike Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 People objected on a large number of grounds, including the ecological ones. There was impact on local properties and so forth too, and traffic in the area and effects on local business. However, the ONLY reason stated in the ruling that turned down the application was the plans for the council to reserve the land for housing. Previously, it was zoned for light industrial, the council plans to have that land developed, just not as tesco. So I guess the people who objected due to the newts might have to try again one day for something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dink Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 People objected on a large number of grounds, including the ecological ones. There was impact on local properties and so forth too, and traffic in the area and effects on local business. However, the ONLY reason stated in the ruling that turned down the application was the plans for the council to reserve the land for housing. Previously, it was zoned for light industrial, the council plans to have that land developed, just not as tesco. So I guess the people who objected due to the newts might have to try again one day for something else I cant see people objecting, i live at Halfway, and it was mainly the old uns moaning about the Newts, yet they would be happier with housing than industrial or commercial premises they said! Um one minute you are concerned a tesco will squash a newts nest, next its okay as long as it isnt a Tesco being built, Hypocrites! I know you may not know the answer but the land is reserved by council plans for housing, would this mean private housing, or council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEMike Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 TBH I think the newts was a desperate ploy as most people local to the site don't want a tesco there. All the documentation about it is available here: http://planningdocs.sheffield.gov.uk/WAM/findCaseFile.do?action=show&appName=planning&appNumber=10/02077/FUL Including the full decision and the various bits of application and counter evidence etc. Noting an objection noted from Clive Betts, Labour councillor that I just happened to see on there The rejection states that it the land is needed to meet the council's 5 year plan of providing land for housing development. Given the state of the national council housing situation, it's incredibly unlikely that council properties will be built on the land, they're just reserving it to allow private developments to go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.