muddycoffee Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I am originally from close to the area although I haven't been up claywheels lane for 15 years or so. In general I think a mix of housing is essential with a protected proportion of lower cost housing so that younger people will be able to afford to move in who don't earn huge wages. If developers are left to their own devices they will build standard 3 or 4 bedroom semis with tiny bedrooms, en suite shower rooms and a garage not big enough for a car for sale for 250 grand each. What would be more appropriate would be 1 and 2 bedroom houses with a bit of garden and a parking space for sale at 60 - 80 grand. I am in favour of a certain level of light industrial units as long as they don't allow 24 hour warehouses which would disturb local residents with haulage during the night, up to 4 or 5000 sq ft max and you need some provision for retail down there like a convenience shops etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 I am originally from close to the area although I haven't been up claywheels lane for 15 years or so. In general I think a mix of housing is essential with a protected proportion of lower cost housing so that younger people will be able to afford to move in who don't earn huge wages. If developers are left to their own devices they will build standard 3 or 4 bedroom semis with tiny bedrooms, en suite shower rooms and a garage not big enough for a car for sale for 250 grand each. What would be more appropriate would be 1 and 2 bedroom houses with a bit of garden and a parking space for sale at 60 - 80 grand. I am in favour of a certain level of light industrial units as long as they don't allow 24 hour warehouses which would disturb local residents with haulage during the night, up to 4 or 5000 sq ft max and you need some provision for retail down there like a convenience shops etc. You would be right that it woul be a mix with a proportion of the housing being affordable housing as required with any new development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Internetowl Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Stay brownfield. Sheffield Wednesday and Bloor Homes had a recent plan turned down by the council for affordable housing on the Middlewood Road training ground site. They suggested there was no need for further housing as the transport system wouldn't be able to cope. So I don't see why they would give it a go ahead for housing so close and so soon after rejecting a prefectly feasible project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Unlike SWFC and Bloor homes though, the developers have already been given planning consent to put in the road infrastructures which cause such a problem for bloor. Thus diverting traffic away from hillsborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BW_resident Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Aha, so should the housing development (if it gets the go ahead) be subject to the new bridge being built before work even starts on the housing? Judging from the discussion at the council planning meeting last week this is certainly something the council might consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Aha, so should the housing development (if it gets the go ahead) be subject to the new bridge being built before work even starts on the housing? Judging from the discussion at the council planning meeting last week this is certainly something the council might consider. I would assume so. It makes sense to have the infrastructure in place before they do any further developments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Would Beely Woods be affected do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Internetowl Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Got to save the ancient woodlands eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Leaving Beely Wood aside for the moment I was under the impression it was council policy to keep industrial sites separate from residential housing. Would the OP like to comment on that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Beely Wood aside for the moment I was under the impression it was council policy to keep industrial sites separate from residential housing. Would the OP like to comment on that please. Certainly I would, in my basic understanding of the project being a residential neighbour myself. The site is quite large and the industrial plans which are combined with housing are small light industry units, very unlike the current and previous climate of waste management and the previous union carbide operation, therefore the very definition of 'industry' is different. Residential units are also planned for the back edge of Foxhill and will directly overlook any development industrial or otherwise and would be on the doorstep. Which leads me to believe this is not the councils current standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.