feargal Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 why was nobody listening there is two sides to every story. and why is,nt land suitable for housing IMO a nice little village type constuction will fit nicely in that neck of the woods would be very nice (pun intended) There's a thread on here somewhere. One of the main concerns is access and increased traffic, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris@25 Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 why was nobody listening there is two sides to every story. and why is,nt land suitable for housing IMO a nice little village type constuction will fit nicely in that neck of the woods would be very nice (pun intended) Details here: http://www.menta.co.uk/Pages/ucar_sheffield.php http://www.menta.co.uk/Pages/beeley_wood_05.pdf http://www.menta.co.uk/Pages/upperdon_valley.php Personally I can't understand the council's insistence that their plan to build some council houses up the road at Foxhill would suffer if the UCAR site was houses. Most people would prefer a view of some more houses than a view of a run down industrial site. But then I don't really know what planet the SCC planning department live on (but I bet the sky's the same colour as the planet where the SCC transport prevention department live). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoaty Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 why was nobody listening there is two sides to every story. and why is,nt land suitable for housing IMO a nice little village type constuction will fit nicely in that neck of the woods would be very nice (pun intended) I agree but SCC seem to believe Beeley Woods is better for industry / commerce type of uses and not housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I seem to remember was it something to do with a access bridge over the river from middlewood road I cannot see it being a problem if it was accessed from claywheels lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leg-end Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Looking at the front of the Telegraph, it looks like the council are once again doing their best to stop something good happening to that end of town... Why isn't the Sheffield Telegraph on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 probably because the scc objected to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm with butchill 100% on this one, what sort of left wing ill concieved garbage is this? Investment requires a return metalman, pension funds invest heavilly in companies that attempt to make millions, I presume that you would wish them to make a loss. Irrelevant drivel. You cant buy planning permission (legally). If they think the ski development would provide an adequate return they would do it. If it needs subsidising by the profits of another development then their business plan is all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 you live in a different world all planning permissions of this type require payment (illegally) face reality. what about a little piece about 106 funds collected ove rthe years and never spent also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm with butchill 100% on this one, what sort of left wing ill concieved garbage is this? Investment requires a return metalman, pension funds invest heavilly in companies that attempt to make millions, I presume that you would wish them to make a loss. I'm not against anybody making a profit, but as Feargal points out, there's no earthly reason to link the Beeley Wood development to the Ski Village at all... the two applications should be completely separate. If they can't make any money from the revamped Ski Village on its own, why are they building it? This is just them trying to force the councils hand by saying 'If you won't let us make millions by building a little boxworld in an unsuitable place, we'll take our ball home'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richynomates Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 It seems the Council have made the right decision for once - why should they be held to ransom? I'm sure Fleetham's already-approved developments on Ecclesall Road South would more than bridge any funding gap. With the figures quoted - if the new Ski Village proposals cannot generate profits as a standalone project, then it's a short-term prospect doomed to fail, so maybe best if it just stays as it is, which I assume does make some profits? In relation to the development proposals for Beeley Woods - what's the chances that, assuming they eventually get planning approval, they'll find some other hurdle to blame the Snow Mountain not going ahead, but the houses will be up before you know it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.