This kind of follows on from the 'Greater Leeds' thread that someone started the other week.

I think the draft planning document that the Yorkshire Post's article referred to is a Spacial Planning Consultation posted on the website of the Yorkshire and Humberside Assembly, the unelected quango formerly known as Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside.

http://www.yhassembly.gov.uk/p_contentDocs/227_3.pdf


Anyway, looking very briefly at this document (baring in mind it is at consultation stage, so comments are invited!), it basically seems to think of urban Yorks and Humber as one great big Leeds, with peripheral towns acting as ports (Hull, etc.) or Gateways (Donny) for the Leeds region.

It states that whilst the vision for Leeds is yet more jobs and growth, South Yorks population should be stabilised at 2001 levels, insinuating that is the best that can be hoped for even after promised massive economic regeneration.

It points to the fact that S Yorks' is polycentric, with currently underdeveloped major sub-regional urban centre(s), but rather a spread out population often living in isolated unattractive villages loacted near the former pits they once served. The less viable of these towns/villages would have to undergo a period of managed decline (shrinkage / obliteration), with the population concentrating to more viable Sheffield and Donny.

Rotherham, it says, should basically become a commuter town for Sheff and Donny, whilst Barnsley should become a '21st century market town', but principally a commuter town for Leeds - despite being nearer to Sheffield.

Sheffield's sphere of strategic planning influence would be tiny. This is beacuse of the vision for such a mighty Leeds region to the North, unviable pit villages to the East and the West being returned to countryside and the South and West being in a different region altogether (East Midlands) over which the Yorks and Humber assembly can exercise no influence - in other words the East Mids assembly will probably make all of the land in North Derbys and North Notts on Sheffield's boundaries (including places as close as Killamarsh, Dronfield, Chesterfield, Worksop, etc.) come under the planning of Nottingham!

What do others think of all this?

Hey,

This really winds me up.

I don't understand why we have to constantly put up with the arrogant strivings of Leeds based agencies. It sometimes seems as if our generally useless city council is fighting its corner without any backing from regional development agencies or central government.

And what I don't understand is that all aspects of development or change seem to be focused on Leeds. From my own experiences, both personal and professional, everyone seems to be pulling for their team. Perhaps we need to get more ambitious people into the city council to really shout Sheffield's case.

At least I will play my small part and move back in 18 months time, bringing a young family + regular visitors from Prague (who love Sheffield but hate Leeds! Result!)

M

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl
It points to the fact that S Yorks' is polycentric, with currently underdeveloped major sub-regional urban centre(s), but rather a spread out population often living in isolated unattractive villages loacted near the former pits they once served. The less viable of these towns/villages would have to undergo a period of managed decline (shrinkage / obliteration), with the population concentrating to more viable Sheffield and Donny.

I think it's time to face the facts. As much as I love South Yorkshire (well, the Sheffield part of it), it ain't gonna be as great as it was.

Like it or not, the horrific vision presented in NewcastleOwls' post above may yet come true. Once the major employers leave town, then jobs, confidence and money usually go with them.

Ultimately, if you want to do something with your life, you have to move or commute to where the work is. Harping on about the past won't pay the bills.

Don't forget that a generation ago, thousands of immigrants arrived in the UK to work on the docks, the textile mills and the steel factories. They had to leave their roots behind. Why should anything be different for the indigineous (sp?) population?

I think it's a pile of crap. Market forces will decide what will happen, not some consultancy. Is someone going to ride into Grimethorpe (for e.g.) and say 'bugger off, we're going to manage your decline'? Shouldn't have thought so.
The old primary industries were located where they were to be close to energy sources (rivers, coal) and raw materials (iron, wool). People had to move to the work. In the globalistically interwebbed techno era the location of industries is less relevant and more often to do with cheap labour and taxes, and as most people work in the service sector, other people.
There's no more reason why Leeds should develop than Sheffield. In fact you could put forward an argument for Sheffield being a regional hub: it's closer to the capital and the cities of the Midlands and it has a major conurbation to its North which Leeds does not. Then there's Finningley Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Leeds Friar Tuck International airport.

Originally posted by PaulV
Market forces will decide what will happen, not some consultancy. Is someone going to ride into Grimethorpe (for e.g.) and say 'bugger off, we're going to manage your decline'? Shouldn't have thought so.
The old primary industries were located where they were to be close to energy sources (rivers, coal) and raw materials (iron, wool). People had to move to the work. In the globalistically interwebbed techno era the location of industries is less relevant and more often to do with cheap labour and taxes, and as most people work in the service sector, other people.


I'm trying to be realistic. The days of local, heavy industry are long gone. Do you think that an ex-coal miner could be retrained as a C++ programmer or system administrator? You could probably get him working in a callcentre...with little promotion prospects and certainly no job for life, now even those jobs are being outsourced to the Far East.


Originally posted by PaulV
There's no more reason why Leeds should develop than Sheffield. In fact you could put forward an argument for Sheffield being a regional hub: it's closer to the capital and the cities of the Midlands and it has a major conurbation to its North which Leeds does not. Then there's Finningley Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Leeds Friar Tuck International airport.

Have you worked in Leeds? It's years ahead of Sheffield when it comes to attracting big firms. Most of the international finance, insurance and legal firms have their Northern headquarters there. And why not? You've got good motorway access (M62 going East / West and M1 going North / South) as well as the Leeds / Bradford airport.

Have you ever tried driving from Sheffield to Manchester? If you don't want to gamble on the Snake and Woodhead Passes being closed, the next best route is probably to drive up the M1 to Leeds...and down the M62 to Manchester.

Honestly Paul, I don't like promoting Leeds above Sheffield, but this is the way I see it.

Abdul, it's not like you to generalise but that comment about miners and call centres was uncalled for. It's up there with the Sheffield United (I think) chairman who said that opening an Asda at Hillsboro' would give employment to the all the steelworkers who had lost their jobs.

I know several miners who have retrained, or even just left the pits, and now work in IT.

Mining is a job not a measure of intelligence.

south yorkshire has always seemed unviable to me; I came to sheffield to university, because it was such an amazing suprise to visit it and find green hills, friendly people, and some sort of special spirit that I still can't put my finger on

but south yorkshire is depressing; having worked in Rotherham I know that there is literally nothing there, that the biggest thing is the council and the technology college. outside of towns like rotherham, in rawmarsh and swinton, the sense of a pointless mass of people gathered around nothing is even worse.

I think I agree with Abdul to an extent: these towns are too big today for the role they play. Regeneration that has taken place has been cheap and cheerful, car lots, bingo halls, cheap supermarkets. And the money that is available seems to be spent on 'buidling capacity'; trying desperately to get people retrained for non-existent IT jobs, whilst on a daily basis they're still presented with the physical dereliction of their towns. So maybe we should look at building up sheffield and donny to attract these people.

But I think as well that regeneration could work in a much more effective way. First, authorities have to make sure their strategies make sense; they have to stop killing themselves off outside of towns. Rotherham was dying because of meadowhall and is dead because of parkgate, two recent developments pulling shoppers, workers and people out of the town and into soulless, false sheds of shopping outside it. It's always jobs in the short term, and a reason to live there, or any organic ideas for jobs, are left to rot. Rotherham is actually quite an attractive town around the church.

Second, rather than money for capacity and for local embittered groups to try to spend on themselves, the money should fund really dramatic physical programmes. Rotherham, for instance, has to try something different: knocking down the council core next to the river and opening it up as public space might be a good place to start. Improving links with sheffield (the supertram and a railway station near the centre) would also help.

regeneration that gives jobs in bingo halls, car lots, cheap supermarkets, is only useful to give people money to spend in bingo halls, car lots, cheap supermarkets. They don't help reverse decline. I don't think we just have to sit here and watch towns die. You have to have balls and commitment to new ideas to do that.

yo paul, alright?

Originally posted by max
Abdul, it's not like you to generalise but that comment about miners and call centres was uncalled for. It's up there with the Sheffield United (I think) chairman who said that opening an Asda at Hillsboro' would give employment to the all the steelworkers who had lost their jobs.

I know several miners who have retrained, or even just left the pits, and now work in IT.

Mining is a job not a measure of intelligence.

Point taken :blush:

But I stand by the rest of my posts.

Firstly, just a quick clarification on something PaulV said:

The document in my link is at draft/consultation stage, but is produced by the Yorks and Humberside assembly - not a firm of consultants, but a government body!. When adopted, it will dictate STATUTORY policy to all local planning authorities in Yorks and Humber (including Sheff City Council, Rotherham MBC, etc.) as to how to formulate their own planning guidelines. So this document has real power - its vision WILL become reality. If anyone disagrees with it, NOW is the time to speak up and try to have it amended.

If for example, PaulV's hypothetical company wanted to relocate in Grimesthorpe in a few years time, the policy set out in this document could force Barnsley MBC to (for instance) say "no, we are not allowed under regional planning guidelines to allow you to build a new warehouse this far away from our Capital - Leeds. Please try to find a site in Wakefield, Leeds or Bradford."


My second point is that it must be so frustrating to the people trying so hard to redevlop Sheffield as a city of 'European significance' (SCC, Sheffield One, Sheffield First, etc.), to find that the draft legislation is proposing to somewhat sideline them as of secondary importance to the Leeds city-region. For decades Leeds has had many advantages over Sheffield through sheer luck alone; to list a few:

1. Leeds has good transpennine road links to Greater Manchester, whereas Sheff is restricted by the Peak District to the west, meaning no chance of a Motorway to Manc. The Highways Agency is too stingy and unambitious to ever tunnel a motorway under the National Park (as would be two-a-penny in Switzerland, Austria or Norway, between much smaller towns).

2. Leeds has good transpennine rail links to Greater Manchester (whereas Sheff has the misfortune of the country's first intercity electrified line, the Victoria-Deepcar-Woodhead-Manc. line, being permanently closed due to massive fire damage in the Woodhead tunnel

3. Leeds occupies a central position in the Yorks Humberside region, whereas Sheffield practically spills off the edge. But who decided way back when in the European Parliament to have a Yorks and Humber region?
Sheffield's region is just as much about the North Midlands as South Western Yorkshire - if the region had been defined differently Sheffield would be at the heart. It is about to lose it's great advantage of being at the centre of England and at the centre of the population spread for the whole of mainland Britain, by being sidelined onto the edge of a region that no-one was ever consulted about.

I don't disagree with the document's grim vision for the isolated pit towns of South Yorks, there is no point throwing good money after bad at areas of low housing demand and dire economic regeneration prospects. But I do object to the idea that all these displaced people would be best catered for in an ever-expanding super-Leeds and that the whole district of Barnsley belongs in Greater Leeds, despite it's people's much closer political leanings to those of the other people of S. Yorks.

If we're not careful urban Yorkshire will develop all the problems of London and the South East, namely a collection of boring, facility-less commuter towns/cities for a massive Leeds, everyone working in Leeds with a stressful two hour commute every day from their dormatory town and with Leeds city itself being so expnsive that only millionaire could aford to live there!

City regions and development through investing in "core cities" is all the rage, but may make sense.

Just to correct one thing

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl

3. Leeds occupies a central position in the Yorks Humberside region, whereas Sheffield practically spills off the edge. But who decided way back when in the European Parliament to have a Yorks and Humber region?


The European Parliament did not decide to have a Yorks and Humber region. A British government suggested the regions and has the power to change them at any time. Another Euro myth which needs to be broken. And Sheffield has been a part of Yorkshire for over a thousand years ;-)

But getting back to the subject.

Sheffield is a great place but just isn't the economic power house that Leeds has become. Why?
- Transport: Slow road links to Manchester, rubbish train links to Manchester and esp. Leeds. No HST link to London
- Education: Sheffield's population is not well qualified is comparison to other cities.
- Geography: Even before "regions" were made official there was the North and the Midlands. Ever since the battle of Dore Sheffield has been a border town. Cities at the centre of regions do better, like Leeds, Nottingham, Manchester.

But IMHO what Sheffield suffers from is lack of infrastructure.

Abdul,you have got it one my friend.

Originally posted by fhain29
City regions and development through investing in "core cities" is all the rage, but may make sense.

Yes, 'core cities' seem to be the latest thing in English planning / regeneration circles. There are 8 English Core cities, including Leeds, Nottingham (after begging to join the group as the late-commer) and SHEFFIELD.

IMHO this Yorks and Humber Assembly regional spatial planning document, almost fails to observe this.

If you look at the many official documents produced by the core cities group, like for example each core cities' 'prospectus' published for the benefit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Sheffield City Region (1.6M population) is defined as including Barnsley Metropolitan Borough as well as all the rest of South Yorkshire and a few local authorities in Northen Derbyshire and Northern Notts. Logical, because Sheffield sits in the middle of these areas.

So with this in mind, why have the Yorks and Humber assembly put Barnsley in the Greater Leeds area and why have they not included a Greater Sheffield area anywhere?


Originally posted by fhain29
- Geography: Even before "regions" were made official there was the North and the Midlands. Ever since the battle of Dore Sheffield has been a border town. Cities at the centre of regions do better, like Leeds, Nottingham, Manchester.


I agree that city regions are the way forward for our large core cities. It's ludicrous that historical arbitrary local authority boundaries make it so difficult to plan strategically across a city's true catchment area or to levy council tax over neighbouring authorities whose people use the citiy's facilities.

But if the concensus is to start thinking of the potential economic drivers of England outside London as being core cities and their city-regions, then surely Sheffield (like the other 7 core cities) should be put at the centre of a region, irrespective of historical regional boundaries.

Dore marked the junction between the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia (to the south) and Northumbria (to the North), but that was donkey's years ago. Yorkshire has been around for a thousand years, but many parts of the current City of Sheffield used to be in Derbyshire - Derbyshire County Cricket Club even used to play some of their home games at the Abbeydale ground decades ago. How many people in Sheffield, spend their entire weekend in the Derbyshire part of the Peak District? - loads of them.

So whatever historical Yorks / E. Mids boundary might have run just south of Sheffield is meaningless compared to the importance of establishing a Sheffield City Region covering all S.Yorks and the Extreme N. Mids, so that Sheffield can plan and develop strtegically to benefit all who live in the entire region. Just like Leeds is to be allowed to further North.

You are absolutely right fhain29 to say that cities at the centre of regions do better than those on the edge - that's precisely my point.

Originally posted by fhain29
- Education: Sheffield's population is not well qualified is comparison to other cities.

What is that information based on? I ask because that is a claim that I've not heard before.

Don't forget the proposal for a high speed rail link that goes through Sheffield.

http://www.central-railway.co.uk/

But that got snubbed by the Government.

I think there are a lot of people (with money) who see Sheffield as a good place (to make more money). But for some reason central and regional government and quangos see this diffrently.

Add to this the councils traditional lack of ambition and general business nous. For example, Sheffield Airport being too small, a Tram system thats not big enough, and a Winter Garden thats really a patio.

And Sheffield does have a public profile problem. In that it doesn't have one. From not appearing on Look North (Leeds), Harrogate appers more often, to not appearing on the Weather map after the news.

Originally posted by chill
What is that information based on? I ask because that is a claim that I've not heard before.

Yeah I'm confused too. What happened to Sheffield having the highest 'staying on and living' rate after university?

And seeing as we have such large areas of affluence - those people must be well-qualified.

Originally posted by noseyrosie

And seeing as we have such large areas of affluence - those people must be well-qualified.

Yes - Sheffield Hallam constituency has the highest percentage of adults educated to degree level over any other constituency in the country.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
And seeing as we have such large areas of affluence - those people must be well-qualified.

Originally posted by t020
Yes - Sheffield Hallam constituency has the highest percentage of adults educated to degree level over any other constituency in the country.

But!

Do they work in Sheffield? Or Leeds?

What I've heard, from a former work colleague who lives in that area, is that there are many who choose to live in the former and work in the latter, getting the double benefit of lower house prices and higher salaries.

For Channel 6 news, this is Kent Brockman...reporting...

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl
Yes, 'core cities' seem to be the latest thing in English planning / regeneration circles. There are 8 English Core cities, including Leeds, Nottingham (after begging to join the group as the late-commer) and SHEFFIELD.

IMHO this Yorks and Humber Assembly regional spatial planning document, almost fails to observe this.

If you look at the many official documents produced by the core cities group, like for example each core cities' 'prospectus' published for the benefit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Sheffield City Region (1.6M population) is defined as including Barnsley Metropolitan Borough as well as all the rest of South Yorkshire and a few local authorities in Northen Derbyshire and Northern Notts. Logical, because Sheffield sits in the middle of these areas.

So with this in mind, why have the Yorks and Humber assembly put Barnsley in the Greater Leeds area and why have they not included a Greater Sheffield area anywhere?

I agree that city regions are the way forward for our large core cities. It's ludicrous that historical arbitrary local authority boundaries make it so difficult to plan strategically across a city's true catchment area or to levy council tax over neighbouring authorities whose people use the citiy's facilities.

But if the concensus is to start thinking of the potential economic drivers of England outside London as being core cities and their city-regions, then surely Sheffield (like the other 7 core cities) should be put at the centre of a region, irrespective of historical regional boundaries.

So whatever historical Yorks / E. Mids boundary might have run just south of Sheffield is meaningless compared to the importance of establishing a Sheffield City Region covering all S.Yorks and the Extreme N. Mids, so that Sheffield can plan and develop strtegically to benefit all who live in the entire region.

Just like Leeds is to be allowed to further North.

You are absolutely right fhain29 to say that cities at the centre of regions do better than those on the edge - that's precisely my point.

Couldnt agree more with your comments, Sheffield should be given its own redefined Greater Sheffield city area.

I wonder what the Sheffield City Council seriously think of this?

I have always been annoyed about the arrogance of Leeds and it's people toward Sheffiled. I used to visit lots of customers up there and most believed that Sheff is a blackened industrial eyesore. And if they had last visited in the 70s that's what they would have found as they passed through the satanic mills of tinsley and meadowhall.

I fear that this general Leeds attitude is the fault of sheffield though, for being happy to sit back and be England's "biggest village". Leeds and its people are just more pushy and ultimately a little more successful.

Despite what the report says and the planners try. If the sheffield universities continue to grow, then it's inevitable that the general population will too. As one who was born, raised, went to university in sheff. More than half of my friends are from elswhere, and have made their home here

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl
Y
If you look at the many official documents produced by the core cities group, like for example each core cities' 'prospectus' published for the benefit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Sheffield City Region (1.6M population) is defined as including Barnsley Metropolitan Borough as well as all the rest of South Yorkshire and a few local authorities in Northen Derbyshire and Northern Notts. Logical, because Sheffield sits in the middle of these areas.

So whatever historical Yorks / E. Mids boundary might have run just south of Sheffield is meaningless compared to the importance of establishing a Sheffield City Region covering all S.Yorks and the Extreme N. Mids, so that Sheffield can plan and develop strtegically to benefit all who live in the entire region. Just like Leeds is to be allowed to further North.



I would say Sheffield is on the edge of the North Midlands and that the "north" begins from North Yorskhire upwards - it seems that as you are on the edge of SY/Derbs/Notts - that you get forgotten a bit.

Originally posted by noseyrosie:

And seeing as we have such large areas of affluence - those people must be well-qualified.


Quote:
Originally posted by t020:

Yes - Sheffield Hallam constituency has the highest percentage of adults educated to degree level over any other constituency in the country.

Quote:
Originally posted by Abdul:
But!

Do they work in Sheffield? Or Leeds?


Surely, there are more opportunities in Leeds - hence why they will go there, whereas Sheffield is nicer to live in - so they get the best of both worlds.

Alex

Originally posted by NewcastleOwl

The document in my link is at draft/consultation stage, but is produced by the Yorks and Humberside assembly - not a firm of consultants, but a government body!. When adopted, it will dictate STATUTORY policy to all local planning authorities in Yorks and Humber (including Sheff City Council, Rotherham MBC, etc.) as to how to formulate their own planning guidelines.

So this unelected body has the power to overrule local authorities. And they wonder why nobody bothers voting in council elections...