Decision awaits on £175m investment plan for Upper Don Valley

[fox20thc]

I agree re the other thread, but I can't remember which one it was..

 

ask and ye shall receive the other thread

[fox20thc]

claywheels lane needs sorting out but do you want to loose beeley woods ?

 

No, Beeley Woods would not be lost. It is an ancient woodland and far from losing the wood Menta have done environmental surveys and plans were in place to return native trees back to the wood, thus improving it.

[NicholasB]

So... I ask the question again (it's not a loaded question, I don't know the answer) - why did Sheffield Council turn it down?

 

What did they see in it that they didn't think was good for the people of Sheffield? No-one on the thread (and doesn't SF have a wide-reaching membership?) has yet come up with any argument against, have they?

 

 

Because it's contrary to the Unitary Development Plan and the city shouldn't be held hostage by developers? E.g. "We must demolish these historical buildings to make the scheme financially viable". Heart of the city / NRQ. I'm pretty neutral about Menta's proposals - if the extension to the ski village will make money surely they'll do it housing scheme or no housing scheme? Maybe it would give them an excuse to not install the cable cars (which seem like a bit of a long shot at best to me anyway).

[SHsheff]

It's quite straightforward SHSheff. All the documents relating to the proposal, including the reasons for refusal, are provided on SCC's website. There are two reasons, which I summarise:

 

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of employment land.

2. The proposed development would result in an unsustainable residential development.

 

Reason number one is tricky, I understand the land is allocated for employment, and there has got to be a VERY good reason for a Council to change a UDP allocation. Reason number 2 is much easier to deal with, clearly the developer's transport planners just weren't up to the job! The developer will now presumably appeal the decision.

 

 

Thank you blip, and thanks too for the link. What a lot of available information (via the link)! I had no idea there was so much that could be discovered by interested members of the public.

 

Y'know what I don't quite get? - the 'Council' are made up of elected members of the public, aren't they? (I'm willing to stand corrected on this one!) In which case, given the weight of public opinion that seems to be behind the development, why would SCC not be able to act according to the wishes of the majority of the public? From reading various theads relating to the Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood development, even the people who have said that they agree with the Council's decision are basing their rationale on the fact that the land is designated UDP, rather than arguing that more industrial capacity is actually required.

 

You said that there has to be a 'very good' reason for a Council to change a UDP allocation. So that means that it's not impossible? What sort of reasons would be 'very good'? It just seems mad to me that the Council would turn down the opportunity to have the area improved, when they don't have the cash (or a viable proposal) to do anything else with it.

 

Just in case anyone's wondering why I'm bothered when I live the other side of town - my sis walks her dogs in Beeley Woods so I'm familiar with the eyesore and general nastiness of the area in question. I also used to work at Batchelors a long, long time ago!

 

I also appreciate the effort fox put into the Middlewood Festival and the rest of the improvements that she and the team have been responsible for in their local area, and I'm curious - as a lay person - why something she felt so passionate about, put so much time and effort into and which seemingly had the support of so many local residents, was turned down.

[Tony]

You said that there has to be a 'very good' reason for a Council to change a UDP allocation. So that means that it's not impossible? What sort of reasons would be 'very good'? It just seems mad to me that the Council would turn down the opportunity to have the area improved, when they don't have the cash (or a viable proposal) to do anything else with it.

 

They require reasons that would stand up in court in a judicial review of a bad decision. Departures from the UDP require substantial justification when they are as wholesale as this. Planning isn't a democracy and the legislation isn't designed for it to be.

 

To be honest, IMO there was little chance of any other outcome within the current planning framework, and the attempts to combine it with the Ski Village were little more than coercion. these two sites are completely unrelated and unless there is adopted Local Planing Guidance that includes both sites for the proposed use then there is no reason to depart from the UDP that I can see.

[SHsheff]

They require reasons that would stand up in court in a judicial review of a bad decision. Departures from the UDP require substantial justification when they are as wholesale as this. Planning isn't a democracy and the legislation isn't designed for it to be.

 

To be honest, IMO there was little chance of any other outcome within the current planning framework, and the attempts to combine it with the Ski Village were little more than coercion. these two sites are completely unrelated and unless there is adopted Local Planing Guidance that includes both sites for the proposed use then there is no reason to depart from the UDP that I can see.

 

Who sets the UDP in the first place? How long ago was it set?

 

Uh, would you mind explaining "adopted Local Planing Guidance" please Tony?

 

Thanks.

[SHsheff]

ask and ye shall receive the other thread

 

That was interesting background fox, thank you.

[blip]

Who sets the UDP in the first place? How long ago was it set?

 

You can go to the Planning Portal direct, but it's perhaps easier to click this:

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/udp

 

From there click the "Unitary Development Plan" link within the text which takes you to the Sheffield section of the Planning Portal. From there you will see a menu on the left, within which you will discover what the UDP is, when it was adopted, when it is to be superseded, etc. This will also inform you of the detail of all the local planning policies.

 

It's all really dull stuff, unless it's affecting YOU!

[Tony]

SHsheff, just to expand a bit on what blip's said, the UDP is the "Unitary Development Plan" which is a document (weighty tome ) that typically has a 10 year life cycle. It is put together after extensive consultation and tries to set out the framework for a LA's planning / development policy for the next 10 years.

 

There are inherent flaws in the UDP process, not least of which is that the property / economic cycle makes them out of date the moment that they are published never mind 10 years down the line, therefore the future framework system will be different, but that's another topic to this really.

 

Anyway, the UDP zones the entire LA area and is backed up with local policies that are implemented in zones. districts and on individual sites. Each LA is (was) obliged to produce one. These inch thick policies documents and the dozen plans that go with it are bought by dull people like me who use it as guidance for broadly what is and what is not acceptable.

 

UDP's are by their very nature completely unwieldy and often useless, yet incredibly expensive pieces of work that hamper real development. SO! Local Authorities can introduce what is called Local Planning Guidance which generally deals with smaller areas in detail and these are used to 'break' or 'enhance' the UDP. They are subject to nearly the same consultations and approvals as UDP's but in a more localised and targeted way.

 

For instance... Devonshire Green is predominantly a "Fringe Business Use" area, but LPG's have been used to create a planning opening for the regeneration that you see down there today.

 

Now, some land uses are usually pretty sacrosanct, and Employment Use is one of them because it's seen as a bad thing to remove commercial / industrial land from the pot for use as residential... see how we're getting back to Claywheels Lane here? Bodies like Sheffield 1st are charged with retaining and promoting employment uses for the benefit of the city economy and that's why they object to huge swathes of industrial land being turned over to residential in this case.

 

In my opinion (for what it's worth) I can see little reason why the Planners or S1 would support a change for land at Claywheels Lane to residential, especially when there are LPG style strategies in place and being formulated to promote the employment use. The only winners would be the land owners because of the enhanced land value that would arise from residential consent.

 

By trying to link the Claywheels Lane site and the Ski Village site the promoters are creating a fog that has no legal validity in planning, therefore it simply cannot be considered. Remember that Planning is not just a bunch of opinions, it's a huge set of really quite complex legislation and precedent, so it's not undertaken lightly. Planners and professional developers have to be very knowledgeable in order to make things happen while not falling foul of the law. I actually feel a bit sorry for Councillors and MP's that are called upon to get involved in things that they really know bugger all about by the Public that know even less of the process and the implications.

 

Planners and their Boards have to look at site planning Applications in isolation, and to do otherwise would leave them open to a Judicial Review where a decision could be overturned at immense cost to the LA, and possible criminal action against Councillors on the Board.

 

So... in a nutshell, that's a big part of why it was turned down.

[depoix]

No, Beeley Woods would not be lost. It is an ancient woodland and far from losing the wood Menta have done environmental surveys and plans were in place to return native trees back to the wood, thus improving it.

that sounds ominous, ive been in the wood today watching the grey heron and the two kingfishers,for some one to plant more trees it would probably entail cutting down established trees as it is a very dense wood,some one during the last fortnight has been in,cutting and lopping off branches these were cut from healthy trees,im not meaning small branches either,these were thick top limbs ,there are plenty of oak and beech trees,chestnut and the odd sycamore,what other trees would you think they would want to plant, and isnt it privatly owned ?