Proposed NEXT store Public Inquiry

[Penistone999]

The reasons for recommending refusal and the reasons the Councillors gave for actually refusing are given in the report to the planning committee and the minutes of the meeting which discussed it.

 

Interesting that you have so many opinions on a decision you have clearly never even read.

 

Clearly i havnt read the full report ,and no doubt many others havnt either. But i base my questions and opinions on the findings that were reported from the appeal . What is clear and beyond any doubt is that the councils case for refusing the application is "Weak" , the head of planning ignored three, yes three experts who all recommended the planning be granted and the only objection to the scheme was withdrawn. The are facts ,and the council has to be held accountable for these decisions.

[Planner1]

Clearly i havnt read the full report ,and no doubt many others havnt either. But i base my questions and opinions on the findings that were reported from the appeal . What is clear and beyond any doubt is that the councils case for refusing the application is "Weak" , the head of planning ignored three, yes three experts who all recommended the planning be granted and the only objection to the scheme was withdrawn. The are facts ,and the council has to be held accountable for these decisions.

 

So presumably you are basing your views on reports in the Star? Which is of course renowned for its comprehensive and unbiased reporting.

[andygardener]

The reasons for recommending refusal and the reasons the Councillors gave for actually refusing are given in the report to the planning committee and the minutes of the meeting which discussed it.

 

Interesting that you have so many opinions on a decision you have clearly never even read.

 

The decision was based on a) The lie that staples was a suitable site, so thus b) The holy PLAN says refuse permission.

 

Using a blatant lie to invoke an outdated plan which is now pure fantasy. They must be so proud.

[Planner1]

Somehow I dont think I need to read it as I KNOW it will be an exercise in covering asses

 

So, another one who is not exactly criticising from an informed position.

[Penistone999]

So presumably you are basing your views on reports in the Star? Which is of course renowned for its comprehensive and unbiased reporting.

 

Are you claiming the internal council Emails presented to the appeal were false/ fake emails. ?

 

Are you claiming the councils head of planning didnt ignore two experts employed by the councils and a third expert from GVA who ALL recommended the planning application should be approved. ?

 

Are you claiming the councils head of planning didnt concede the case for refusing the planning permission was "Weak" ?

[Planner1]

The decision was based on a) The lie that staples was a suitable site, so thus b) The holy PLAN says refuse permission.

 

Using a blatant lie to invoke an outdated plan which is now pure fantasy. They must be so proud.

Planning decisions have to be based on planning law and the local policies. There is a legal framework that planning authorities have to work within when drawing up, changing or applying planning policies.

 

That is the law. I you don't like it, you need to contact your representatives in parliament and ask them to get it changed.

[andygardener]

Planning decisions have to be based on planning law and the local policies. There is a legal framework that planning authorities have to work within when drawing up, changing or applying planning policies.

 

That is the law. I you don't like it, you need to contact your representatives in parliament and ask them to get it changed.

 

The law doesn't need changing, the decision process was based on a lie, not on law. Hence it's been castigated by all the councils advisors and hopefully council heads will roll as a result.

 

The decision is lawful if the staples/mothercare site was suitable, sequencial national policy framework and all that, but it was not (by the way has anyone told the people that work there the council keep trying to shut them down as they both seem to be trading?).

 

You are defending a decision based on a barefaced lie by councilors who have incompetently got in hock to a developer with no intention of developing anything and are desperate to do anything to avoid being held to account for their incompetence and will happily sacrifice as many jobs for the people of Sheffield as it takes to pathetically hang onto their own.

 

They are a disgrace and anyone who continues to slavishly defend these traitors to the city is a disgrace and should hang their head in shame.

[go4it]

Planning decisions have to be based on planning law and the local policies.

 

And the local policy is the belief that the store should be by St Marys Gate!

 

This is not law, it was a decision made by Sheffield councillors.

 

We are the laughing stock of the UK. The store has to be by Meadowhall for many reasons, and this entire farce has kept 150 people on the dole.

 

There is land out by Meadowhall, disused. It can be built on. There is no law against that. The decision is whether the council allow it.

[Planner1]

Are you claiming the internal council Emails presented to the appeal were false/ fake emails. ?

 

Are you claiming the councils head of planning didnt ignore two experts employed by the councils and a third expert from GVA who ALL recommended the planning application should be approved. ?

 

Are you claiming the councils head of planning didnt concede the case for refusing the planning permission was "Weak" ?

If the emails were provided under an FOI request, they will be correct.

 

However, it is absolutely fine for a head of service to have an open and robust debate with people who work for him. As I have said before, planning policy and law are open to interpretation and debate and a good decision maker will want to hear all the arguments before forming a view.

 

Also, as I have said innumerable times, but you continue to IGNORE, all views expressed are listened to, but one person must decide which recommendation should be made. They will consider all the views and opinions before making a decision. The people whose views did not carry the argument haven't been ignored, they have been overruled, there's a big difference.

 

The head of planning can only make a recommendation in cases like this, it's the Councillors who take the final decision.

[go4it]

 

They are a disgrace and anyone who continues to slavishly defend these traitors to the city is a disgrace and should hang their head in shame.

 

And the same people will soon approve a 15000 seater rugby stadium for a club that gets no more than 1000 attending their games.

 

It doesn't get any better.