Proposed NEXT store Public Inquiry

[dawny1970]

interesting that in the origional r3asom for refusal, he is quoted as stating that negotiations with severnatone is in a fragile state and granting planning would jepardise this!!!!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[BoroB]

Something not right about it is there.

 

David Caulfield sounds a bit dodgy.

 

As post 77 says, the barrister for Next said that everything David Caulfield appeared to go against National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 187), namely:

 

187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

[WallBuilder]

I do think the arguement that it is not an extension to Meadowhall is a bit weak. It's in the immediate vicinity I assume people who park in either car park are going to be able to quite easily navigate their way on foot from the new development to the old or vice versa. Any new development whether that be housing, shops, or industrial should be geared up to get people out of their reliance upon cars and this new development doesn't do this.

[dawny1970]

I do think the arguement that it is not an extension to Meadowhall is a bit weak. It's in the immediate vicinity I assume people who park in either car park are going to be able to quite easily navigate their way on foot from the new development to the old or vice versa. Any new development whether that be housing, shops, or industrial should be geared up to get people out of their reliance upon cars and this new development doesn't do this.

 

the problem being is people have the right to have a car, or do you seem to think that is wrong?

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[lil-minx92]

I do think the arguement that it is not an extension to Meadowhall is a bit weak. It's in the immediate vicinity I assume people who park in either car park are going to be able to quite easily navigate their way on foot from the new development to the old or vice versa. Any new development whether that be housing, shops, or industrial should be geared up to get people out of their reliance upon cars and this new development doesn't do this.

 

If you build a house next to your house it isnt an extension to your house!

 

I dont agree that any new development should be anti-car either. In case you hadnt noticed quite a few people still rely on them to get around.

[syne]

Why would they do that? Of what direct benefit is it to them if there are more shoppers in town? Their prime concern is their budget and making ends meet. Surely they should only adjust the pricing if it increases their revenue. And lower cost parking in the centre during the middle of the day is still more expensive than Meadowhall.

 

Since when should the councils priority be about increasing revenue?

That's not how you 'make ends meet' and that's not thier prime concern either

It should not be run like a for profit business, screwing as much as possible till the pips squeak.

It should be run with the aim providing the most desired services fairly to the most people possible.

council parking charges should only be there as a deterrent for people leaving their car all day in close proximity to a busy shopping centre where easy access and lots of short stays are needed.

 

places like Next/ikea are the exact opposite you need a big carpark right next to the store 'cos the chances are your gonna be there for a while.

[WallBuilder]

the problem being is people have the right to have a car, or do you seem to think that is wrong?

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

The problem though is that the cost of private car ownership just goes up and up so building things that cater to people who drive is not going to be a good idea long term. Also in the last twenty years I assume everyone has noticed the relentless increase in road traffic this is going to get worse as time goes on and traffic jams become longer and longer, apparently there are problems with standing ttraffic at times round meadowhall which I don't remember being such an issue in the first couple of years after the place was built.

[syne]

I do think the arguement that it is not an extension to Meadowhall is a bit weak. It's in the immediate vicinity I assume people who park in either car park are going to be able to quite easily navigate their way on foot from the new development to the old or vice versa. Any new development whether that be housing, shops, or industrial should be geared up to get people out of their reliance upon cars and this new development doesn't do this.

 

what difference should it make if it is or isn't an ext to meadowhall?

the area is literally an industrial wasteland that once provided work for thousands of people.

If there was a queue of business lined up to build on those areas then yeah the council should be a bit choosy and carefull about what goes where.

 

There isn't. there is square mile after square mile of industrial wasteland with no takers it's better to be used by next than to be used by no-one and you'd expect the council to be encouraging employment in the area after all it is a waste of land otherwise

[WallBuilder]

If you build a house next to your house it isnt an extension to your house!

 

I dont agree that any new development should be anti-car either. In case you hadnt noticed quite a few people still rely on them to get around.

 

Should new developments be anti pedestrian or sited so that you can only get to them easily by car? I don't know what the bus system is like going past that site I know meadowhall is well served . There was a series on TV recently about planners and a new housing development got the knock back until there was better pedestrian access to the nearby village shops. On a personal note as I've stated on the forum I dislike large single storey buildings with large windswept exposed car parks they're un-attractive to look at and are user unfriendly especially when you consider our rather dodgy weather

[syne]

The problem though is that the cost of private car ownership just goes up and up so building things that cater to people who drive is not going to be a good idea long term. Also in the last twenty years I assume everyone has noticed the relentless increase in road traffic this is going to get worse as time goes on and traffic jams become longer and longer, apparently there are problems with standing ttraffic at times round meadowhall which I don't remember being such an issue in the first couple of years after the place was built.

 

your post implies, that as the cost of car ownership is going to rise the use of cars will fall due but at the same time implies there will be more cars??

 

these 'long term' buildings are just sheds they go up within a few months and down within a few weeks, they're not of any substance so thats not really an issue.

 

edit,

anti pedestrian? we live in a city some twenty odd miles long and built on seven hills, the whole place is anti pedestrian.

Edited May 24, 2013 by syne