fox20thc Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 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 ? Most of that area is owned by the duke of norfolk who has in the past had no issues regarding the local area, for example the Glacier experimental recycling plant which we successfully had moved on, was very dirty and the DoN had no problem in hacking down great swathes of riverside woodland which were infringing on the site. Secondly the environmental report has highlighted the large amount of non indiginous species of flora in the wood including trees, the plan was to restore the woodland to its native state and manage the invasive plants such as the japanese knotweed and its friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicholasB Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Most of that area is owned by the duke of norfolk who has in the past had no issues regarding the local area, for example the Glacier experimental recycling plant which we successfully had moved on, was very dirty and the DoN had no problem in hacking down great swathes of riverside woodland which were infringing on the site. Secondly the environmental report has highlighted the large amount of non indiginous species of flora in the wood including trees, the plan was to restore the woodland to its native state and manage the invasive plants such as the japanese knotweed and its friends. If it's owned by the Duke of Norfolk it will remain unmanaged unless there's some profit to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 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......Planners and professional developers have to be very knowledgeable in order to make things happen while not falling foul of the law. Thanks for all the info Tony (and blip and fox and everyone else), I get the picture much better now. Given that the developers (Menta) are obviously (I've checked out their website) experienced developers (ie they're not just a couple of guys who thought they might buy a bit of land and make a few bob), why would they have spent all the money they already have in bringing the proposal to this stage, if all along (according to what you've said) the project was doomed to failure? Surely they'd have employed legal people (or whoever knows about these things) to advise them? I appreciate that you can't possibly answer for these particular developers (despite my question indicating that I think you can!) but the whole situation still doesn't quite stack up in my mind. Was the idea that the council were just bowled over by the proposal? Or were the developers hoping that there was some legal loophole that they'd able to use? Or what was the point of five years (I think I've read somewhere) and a considerable financial investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 The way I see it SHsheff in my uneducated way, is as follows. Yes the city want the ski village investment, and yes they want the company to invest in Claywheels Lane. No the housing wasn't in the original proposal many moons ago but after approaching business further down the valley to move to claywheels it became apparant that wasn't an option due to costs involved for the companies. A revisit of the plans to utilise the land they had already invested in brought about the housing scheme which would in turn finance some of the work taking place further down the valley. This however conflicts with the HMR Pathfinder programme with housing investment at the top of the hill owned by Mentas team, which is council land on Foxhill back edge. They have already passed that application and are fully behind the scheme. The theory is that to have two housing projects in such close vicinity will benefit neither, and the other argument is that the one which is that Menta originally applied for industrial use thats the way it should stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 If it's owned by the Duke of Norfolk it will remain unmanaged unless there's some profit to be made. Our dear landowner word has it, would be most happy with the developers plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The way I see it SHsheff in my uneducated way, is as follows. Yes the city want the ski village investment, and yes they want the company to invest in Claywheels Lane. No the housing wasn't in the original proposal many moons ago but after approaching business further down the valley to move to claywheels it became apparant that wasn't an option due to costs involved for the companies. A revisit of the plans to utilise the land they had already invested in brought about the housing scheme which would in turn finance some of the work taking place further down the valley. This however conflicts with the HMR Pathfinder programme with housing investment at the top of the hill owned by Mentas team, which is council land on Foxhill back edge. They have already passed that application and are fully behind the scheme. The theory is that to have two housing projects in such close vicinity will benefit neither, and the other argument is that the one which is that Menta originally applied for industrial use thats the way it should stay Ok, thanks for that fox. So, are you saying that (in your opinion) the council want Menta to build industrial units because that was their original application (and it complies with the UDP), even tho' there are apparently no businesses currently wanting to move there? Is that why Menta don't want to build industrial buildings? Because they think they'd be stuck with premises that no-one wants? Reference the residential developments. Is there concern that there's not enough demand for two developments relatively close together? How can that be, when house prices in Sheffield are continuing to rise, and people complain that they can't get a foot on the housing ladder? Surely increasing the supply has to be good for people wanting to buy, no matter where on the ladder they are? This is all your fault, u'know fox - if I hadn't gone to your festival, and if it hadn't been raining hard when I was there, I probably wouldn't have sought shelter in the Menta tent and looked lingeringly at the display boards, waiting for the rain to slow so we could make a dash for the tea shop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 This is all your fault, u'know fox - if I hadn't gone to your festival, and if it hadn't been raining hard when I was there, I probably wouldn't have sought shelter in the Menta tent and looked lingeringly at the display boards, waiting for the rain to slow so we could make a dash for the tea shop! Sorry I have become a bit militant about this one seeing as its on the doorstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Sorry Au contraire, my dear fox - I was more apologising (ok, I made it look like a blame-aportioning exercise rather than an apology!) for taking up Geoff's bandwidth by asking lengthy questions that you, Tony, blip, supcon etc are now most obligingly answering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snb Chick Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Upper Don Valley Regeneration Consultation Menta Development Limited Invites you to have your say on the future of the UCAR site & Claywheels Lane Please complete a questionnaire @ sheffieldskivillage.co.uk Have your say, and be entered into a free draw to win a Free Guaranteed to Ski or Snowboard Course at the Sheffield Ski Village. All those that complete a questionnaire in full, will receive by email a voucher for '2 for the price of 1 on Ski or Snowboard lessons at the Sheffield Ski Village'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipine Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Thanks for the link. I'll go and lend my support. I went to xscape at castleford last nite for the first time and loved it.. all the time I was thinking - we're so close to having something substantially bigger and better than this on our doorsteps.. so near yet so far! arrrgh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.