Proposed NEXT store Public Inquiry

[catpus]

Why not just let the SCC get on with it.. we know it is going to be a dud. We can tell them till we are blue in the face, but unless it is what they want to hear they are deaf! Let them dig themselves in as deep as they want. The proof for the future will be in these threads.

You can take a horse to water........

[Penistone999]

Why not just let the SCC get on with it.. we know it is going to be a dud. We can tell them till we are blue in the face, but unless it is what they want to hear they are deaf! Let them dig themselves in as deep as they want. The proof for the future will be in these threads.

You can take a horse to water........

 

I think the council have dug a hole so deep over this and they are frantically trying to find a way out ,but the internal council Emails submitted to the NEXT appeal made the appeal win a formality for NEXT.

[Planner1]

I think the council have dug a hole so deep over this and they are frantically trying to find a way out ,but the internal council Emails submitted to the NEXT appeal made the appeal win a formality for NEXT.

Interesting that you can now predict what a planning inspector will decide, when you hadn't even heard of planning policy a couple of weeks ago.

 

The inspector will decide whether the appeal can be allowed on planning based reasons. The planning inspector is an expert in planning law and policy and will be relying on his own opinion, that he will form after listening to ALL the arguments and considering ALL the relevant facts, in light of planning law and the adopted planning policies.

[catpus]

Interesting that you can now predict what a planning inspector will decide, when you hadn't even heard of planning policy a couple of weeks ago.

 

The inspector will decide whether the appeal can be allowed on planning based reasons. The planning inspector is an expert in planning law and policy and will be relying on his own opinion, that he will form after listening to ALL the arguments and considering ALL the relevant facts, in light of planning law and the adopted planning policies.

 

Oooo what an important expert person the Planning Inspector is.. his failure will be remembered for many years to come.....

[go4it]

Interesting that you can now predict what a planning inspector will decide, when you hadn't even heard of planning policy a couple of weeks ago.

 

The inspector will decide whether the appeal can be allowed on planning based reasons. The planning inspector is an expert in planning law and policy and will be relying on his own opinion, that he will form after listening to ALL the arguments and considering ALL the relevant facts, in light of planning law and the adopted planning policies.

 

Please don't defend SCC when the basics are there for all to see:

 

SCC don't want Next in the Meadowhall area.

 

SCC want Next by St Marys Gate in the city centre. A total fail that illustrates the incompetence of Julie Dore and her council.

 

A total flaw in basic retail knowledge from SCC. The store Next is planning is so big (providing lots of jobs) that it needs custom from Sheffield, Doncaster, Barnsley and Chesterfield to survive. The goods are large items that need cars. Hence it needs to be close to a motorway.

 

When Next get their store by the motorway, they will then upgrade their store in Sheffield City Centre, seeking larger premises and creating more jobs. This store only needs Sheffield to survive, smaller ticket items.

 

The bottom line is Sheffield is CLOSED for business.

[BoroB]

Interesting that you can now predict what a planning inspector will decide, when you hadn't even heard of planning policy a couple of weeks ago.

 

The inspector will decide whether the appeal can be allowed on planning based reasons. The planning inspector is an expert in planning law and policy and will be relying on his own opinion, that he will form after listening to ALL the arguments and considering ALL the relevant facts, in light of planning law and the adopted planning policies.

 

Lets hope the independent expert inspector does not ignore SCC's case officer, retail policy officer and GVA independent consultants like Mr Caulfield managed to do.

[Planner1]

Lets hope the independent expert inspector does not ignore SCC's case officer, retail policy officer and GVA independent consultants like Mr Caulfield managed to do.

I am sure the inspector will be considering any relevant planning based reasons that these people put forward, just like Mr Caulfield's did.

 

Why do people like yourself always trot out that people have been ignored when their view is not the one which wins he argument. There are many views and interpretations of planning policy and law. Inevitably, when decisions have to be made, some of them will be overruled. That does not mean they are ignored.

[L00b]

The inspector will decide whether the appeal can be allowed on planning based reasons. The planning inspector is an expert in planning law and policy and will be relying on his own opinion, that he will form after listening to ALL the arguments and considering ALL the relevant facts, in light of planning law and the adopted planning policies.

Is his decision open to judicial appeal? I'm pretty sure it would be, but genuine question to the specialist(s) out there, to be sure

 

I wouldn't want to prevaricate what the planning inspector's decision will be (it'd be nice if it was to overturn SCC's refusal and avoid the following course of action entirely), but it will inevitably be fraught with substantially the same element of political weight/influence, which was clearly seen in the circumstances that led to the refusal, and subsequent Appeal.

 

Not to mention, were the decision to be negative but open to judicial appeal, then -since these are civil matters and would thus fall under the ambit of the CPR- NEXT could look forward to a very tidy award of costs in case they succeeded at Court, in view of SCC/inspectorate prior behaviour

Edited May 28, 2013 by L00b

[LeMaquis]

I wouldn't want to prevaricate what the planning inspector's decision will be......

 

Prevaricate? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricate

[BoroB]

I am sure the inspector will be considering any relevant planning based reasons that these people put forward, just like Mr Caulfield's did.

 

Why do people like yourself always trot out that people have been ignored when their view is not the one which wins he argument. There are many views and interpretations of planning policy and law. Inevitably, when decisions have to be made, some of them will be overruled. That does not mean they are ignored.

 

Did Mr Caulfield take the advice offered by his in house experts?

 

Did he take the advice of GVA independent consultants or did he pressure them to change their minds because it disagreed with Mr Caulfields view?

 

The fact that Mr Caulfield tried to change GVA's view apppears to indicate that the decision had been made before GVA were instructed to pass comment.

 

There may be many views and interpretations of planning policy and law. If three experts, both internal and external to the council, say the case for rejection is weak it indicates a consistent viewpoint and that the case for acceptance is strong.

 

I'll guess we'll find out who is correct in six weeks time.