Planner1 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Good result!!! But where is planner1 to admit he was wrong? Some of us have a life outside SF you know. Wrong about what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 I would have thought that in granting Next permission, any hopes the council has of saying no to Ikea have been well and truly put to bed. Correct........... the excuses the council trotted out in refusing NEXT wont wash with the IKEA application. The councils planning policy on out of town retail development is flawed and a failure, we all knew that , and now its been confirmed by a government planning inspector . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Quote: Originally Posted by andygardener Good result!!! But where is planner1 to admit he was wrong? Some of us have a life outside SF you know. Wrong about what exactly? flawed planning policy, that has now been shown to be worthless, will the people in planning now re-evaluate or will they just carry on regardless, and cost us more money when the next appeal comes in because they made the wrong decision legally Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Correct........... the excuses the council trotted out in refusing NEXT wont wash with the IKEA application. The councils planning policy on out of town retail development is flawed and a failure, we all knew that , and now its been confirmed by a government planning inspector . To be fair, the council themselves know that their planning policy is flawed, they just dont want to admit it ---------- Post added 05-07-2013 at 08:27 ---------- That's the most insane paranoid post I've ever seen on here! Nice one Julie. You have to admit, its one of the better off topic rants. Totally wrong of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 flawed planning policy, that has now been shown to be worthless, will the people in planning now re-evaluate or will they just carry on regardless, and cost us more money when the next appeal comes in because they made the wrong decision legally Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I am not involved in the formulation of planning policy, or its application, so why would I "admit that I was wrong"? I have not seen the planning inspectors decision in full, so I have no idea what it says. Of course SCC's planers will evaluate what the decision means in policy terms and take appropriate action. If you are expecting their planning policy to be changed overnight, think again. There is a framework within which planning policy must be developed and it takes years and a huge amount of effort and money to make major changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Quote: Originally Posted by dawny1970 flawed planning policy, that has now been shown to be worthless, will the people in planning now re-evaluate or will they just carry on regardless, and cost us more money when the next appeal comes in because they made the wrong decision legally Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I am not involved in the formulation of planning policy, or its application, so why would I "admit that I was wrong"? I have not seen the planning inspectors decision in full, so I have no idea what it says. Of course SCC's planers will evaluate what the decision means in policy terms and take appropriate action. If you are expecting their planning policy to be changed overnight, think again. There is a framework within which planning policy must be developed and it takes years and a huge amount of effort and money to make major changes. in that case, the framework is wrong then and was a huge waste of taxpayers money, tho i would be amazed if anybody was fired over this, it will be the appeal inspectors fault and not scc planning framework of course!!! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 in that case, the framework is wrong then and was a huge waste of taxpayers money, tho i would be amazed if anybody was fired over this, it will be the appeal inspectors fault and not scc planning framework of course!!! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android The planning inspector didn't say that though, did he? From the extracts I have seen, he said that the Council had valid policies and had stuck to them. The point he differed on was whether the application passed the sequential test, which is part of the application of the policies. He felt it was unreasonable to require them to use the Staples site as it would have meant them compromising their application. The fact that the Staples site wasn't available immediately also was a factor. So, as is often the case, these decisions are down to interpretation of policies. “Taking account of all the above points I conclude that the proposed development would pass the sequential test for the provision of retail uses, detailed in the Framework and would not have any unacceptable impact on investor or retail confidence, or on the vitality and viability of Sheffield City Centre. “It would therefore accord with CS Policies CS7 and CS14, dealing with development at Meadowhall and the city-wide distribution of shopping, and would constitute sustainable development in the terms set out in the Framework. “Accordingly, it should be granted planning permission, unless there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise.” From: http://www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2013/july/bl-wins-sheffield-next-appeal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 The planning inspector didn't say that though, did he? From the extracts I have seen, he said that the Council had valid policies and had stuck to them. The point he differed on was whether the application passed the sequential test, which is part of the application of the policies. He felt it was unreasonable to require them to use the Staples site as it would have meant them compromising their application. The fact that the Staples site wasn't available immediately also was a factor. So, as is often the case, these decisions are down to interpretation of policies. “Taking account of all the above points I conclude that the proposed development would pass the sequential test for the provision of retail uses, detailed in the Framework and would not have any unacceptable impact on investor or retail confidence, or on the vitality and viability of Sheffield City Centre. “It would therefore accord with CS Policies CS7 and CS14, dealing with development at Meadowhall and the city-wide distribution of shopping, and would constitute sustainable development in the terms set out in the Framework. “Accordingly, it should be granted planning permission, unless there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise.” From: http://www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2013/july/bl-wins-sheffield-next-appeal/ So, surprise, surprise, an independent review has found that the councils actions were unreasonable. What a shame we can not get council officials who are able to correctly interpret policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sproutbum Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Perhaps we need to start offering proper salaries to get the right people instead of these poverty line amounts http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=jobs.item&jobid=8326 I mean, what self-respecting Director of Regeneration would work for a paltry £83,000 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Perhaps we need to start offering proper salaries to get the right people instead of these poverty line amounts http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?...tem&jobid=8326 I mean, what self-respecting Director of Regeneration would work for a paltry £83,000 ... could be worse, they could be pain upon results, then it would be 83p!!!!! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android ---------- Post added 05-07-2013 at 14:25 ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by Sproutbum Perhaps we need to start offering proper salaries to get the right people instead of these poverty line amounts http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?...tem&jobid=8326 I mean, what self-respecting Director of Regeneration would work for a paltry £83,000 ... could be worse, they could be paid upon results, then it would be 83p!!!!! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now