Proposed NEXT store Public Inquiry

[dawny1970]

The government inspector overturned this one too.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/show....php?t=1186660

 

oops planner1 "forgot" about that 1!!!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Jonny5]

No, Sheffield only looks miserable because the Tories are in power and we know they're responsible for all the bad things which happen in Sheffield!

Ahhh, for the Halcyon days of Labour and National Centre for Popular music!

[alchresearch]

Hey, how else would the cash strapped uni have got such a great building for a knock-down price? £15 million to build, £2 million spent on a relaunch, then sold for £1.8 million!

[Blackbeard]

Has anyone read the governments recommendations to councils on out of town shopping? These are the guidelines the government has set out to try to halt the decline in city centres. OK is long and sometimes hard to understand but worth a try.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-high-streets-and-town-centres

 

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn01106

 

And comments about the policy

 

"The Town Centre First planning policy, which came into effect last March, is supposed to require planning authorities to encourage development within town centres before looking out at out-of-town sites.

 

This data suggests councils are not always implementing the new strategy.

 

There is increasing concern that the policy is not being put into practice by enough local councils”

 

Edward Cooke

British Council of Shopping Centres

According to Estate Gazettes, in 2012 there were 17 applications for either out-of-town or edge-of-town-centre developments, in contrast with just seven town centre schemes.

 

Of the 10 out-of-town developments, four have already received consent, one has a recommendation to grant approval and the other five remain undecided."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23010313

 

I may be misinterpreting this but it seems the council were trying to do what the government wanted.

[alchemist]

How many more times?

 

The officers don't make the decisions. It's the COUNCILLORS!

 

On the advice of the OFFICERS!!!!

 

If the officers deliberately give the councillors misinformation to get a decision decided by the senior officer then it needs to be questioned as to WHY????

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2013 at 15:54 ----------

 

Do you think that on a significant application like this, the only thing the planning committee see or hear is the officers report? They will have been well briefed.

 

By the very same officer who prepared the report.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2013 at 15:57 ----------

 

I think a more accurate assumption would be that David Caulfield may be taking the criticism for a decision not neccessarily of his choosing.

 

 

He wrote the report and chose to ignore/disagree with the advice the THREE experts gave him. To me that implies that he chose the decision he wanted

[L00b]

He wrote the report and chose to ignore/disagree with the advice the THREE experts gave him. To me that implies that he chose the decision he wanted

The point quietly made and understood by a few on here, is that Mr Caulfield 'chose' the decision he was told to choose, by those who would eventually make it on 'his' recommendation.

 

It's called politics (or, less cryptically, engineering deniability into a decision ), and this is just one example in point of case.

 

HM's Inspector, not constrained by local politics, was then at liberty to turn the decision around. Relevant parties at SCC (sitting higher than Caulfield, the fall guy...even if at least in media/profile terms) can now turn back to their paymasters (the Sevenstone brigade, probably others too) and tell them that they did what they could, but in the end it was taken off their hands.

 

Considering John Lewis' submissions on the IKEA application, recently topped up by British Land submissions about IKEA's traffic analyses, I now fully expect IKEA's application to go the same way it did for NEXT (i.e. refused).

Edited July 11, 2013 by L00b

[LeMaquis]

You know as well as I that they have this council forever.

 

If by they you mean Labour then bear in mind that Labour have only controlled SCC for 6 of the last 14 years. There will be elections next year when you can stand as an independent if you want to do more than moan on here.

[Penistone999]

No, Sheffield only looks miserable because the Tories are in power and we know they're responsible for all the bad things which happen in Sheffield!

 

Im afraid the only people you can blame for the farce in sheffield is Labour, as they are the ones running the show in sheffield.

[larven]

I may be misinterpreting this but it seems the council were trying to do what the government wanted.

 

Yes they were, and SCC's policies in the Core Strategy are also designed to steer all appropriate development into the centre, specifically retail.

 

However it is not as simple as that. Next Home and Ikea will never build stores in the city centre, and if that is the only option they are given then they won't build them in Sheffield at all. There are numerous examples around the country of 'out of town' Next Home and Ikea stores operating perfectly well alongside successful nearby city centres like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. If they can do it then why can't we? I would suggest that they look at things on a 'city region' level, where the council just seem to be focusing on the city. What benefits one doesn't neccessarily benefit the other. Connectivity to the wider city region is much greater at Meadowhall than it is in the city centre and the council will always have an uphill battle with potential investors who require maximum coverage for their business or operations in this respect i.e. Ikea and NH. That is the main reason why Meadowhall was chosen as the location for the HS2 station, in terms of connectivity to the Sheffield city region it is the perfect location.

 

The town centre first strategy is clearly designed to steer development into centres as far as possible, but where that it is not possible it is not intended to kill off all development full stop. I really don't think pursuing such an overbearing strategy where you refuse all major retail unless its in the centre is best for the city, do you?

Edited July 11, 2013 by larven

[Blackbeard]

Yes they were, and SCC's policies in the Core Strategy are also designed to steer all appropriate development into the centre, specifically retail.

 

However it is not as simple as that. Next Home and Ikea will never build stores in the city centre, and if that is the only option they are given then they won't build them in Sheffield at all. There are numerous examples around the country of 'out of town' Next Home and Ikea stores operating perfectly well alongside successful nearby city centres like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. If they can do it then why can't we?

 

The town centre first strategy is clearly designed to steer development into centres as far as possible, but where that it is not possible it is not intended to kill off all development full stop. I really don't think pursuing such an overbearing strategy where you refuse all major retail unless its in the centre is best for the city, do you?

 

So let me get this right, the government make the rules but they don't apply to Next or Ikea? Did the government tell Sheffield that they were special and exempt, what about BMW and a coffee shop, BMW will be moving from the city where they are already established?