Is anyone aware that there are proposals to regenerate the union carbide site and claywheels lane?

Plans are afoot for 550 aspirational houses on the site, new light industry, a new bypass from middlewood road over the don down to penistone road and a footpath running down the side of the winn gardens estate to a footbridge over the don.

It all looks very swish.

Oooh, can we see some plans online? Sounds like a brownfield regeneration site at last! Hurrah!!

Originally posted by fox20thc
Is anyone aware that there are proposals to regenerate the union carbide site and claywheels lane?

Plans are afoot for 550 aspirational houses on the site, new light industry, a new bypass from middlewood road over the don down to penistone road and a footpath running down the side of the winn gardens estate to a footbridge over the don.

It all looks very swish.

No, what else do you know about this? How long will it take to implement?

No plans online, but... there is a public consultation tonight, and the local area E guys are holding a meeting about it on thursday. The will be showing everyone the plans there.

Hurray for brown field development (maybe thats why SWFC are having such a hard time?)

If people are prepared to pay good money to live next to a toxic waste dump at Shirecliffe, they might be prepared to pay even more to live on a former Union Carbide site.

God knows what's buried underground :roll:

Originally posted by Abdul
If people are prepared to pay good money to live next to a toxic waste dump at Shirecliffe, they might be prepared to pay even more to live on a former Union Carbide site.

God knows what's buried underground :roll:

The developers have been on site for a year already doing a cleanup operation. Incidentally its the same guys who are doing the ski village thingy with the big snow dome.

There is some background reading here:

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/area-panels/owlertonsouthey-green/agenda-24th-november-2004/minutes-11th-october-2004

Plans have changed significantly since this meeting in October. The original proposals to relocate industry to the site have been rejected by Upper Don Renaissance in favour of the housing scheme and light industry instead.

Originally posted by fox20thc
.. there is a public consultation tonight, and the local area E guys are holding a meeting about it tomorrow. The will be showing everyone the plans there.



This appears to be the Area Panel meeting.

NETHERTHORPE/WALKLEY/HILLSBOROUGH AREA PANEL

Meeting to be held on Thursday, 22nd September, 2005 from 7.00 – 9.00 p.m.
at the Middlewood Pavilion, 109 Winn Grove, off Middlewood Road

A G E N D A
.........
2. UPPER DON VALLEY MASTER PLAN
Lucia Lorente-Arnau, City Development Unit to report.

3. CLAYWHEELS LANE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Kathy Parsons, Planning Service to report
..........

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/area-panels/netherthorpe--hillsborough--walkley/agenda-22-september-2005

Can you tell us what and where the meetings are tonight and tomorrow that you refer to?

Originally posted by cgksheff
This appears to be the Area Panel meeting.

NETHERTHORPE/WALKLEY/HILLSBOROUGH AREA PANEL

Meeting to be held on Thursday, 22nd September, 2005 from 7.00 – 9.00 p.m.
at the Middlewood Pavilion, 109 Winn Grove, off Middlewood Road

A G E N D A
.........
2. UPPER DON VALLEY MASTER PLAN
Lucia Lorente-Arnau, City Development Unit to report.

3. CLAYWHEELS LANE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Kathy Parsons, Planning Service to report
..........

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/area-panels/netherthorpe--hillsborough--walkley/agenda-22-september-2005

Can you tell us what and where the meetings are tonight and tomorrow that you refer to?

Exactly where you have posted. The public consultation and presentation by UDR is in the pavilion this evening 6.30-8.30.

Area panel will have the presentation on Thursday. Directions to the building can be found by going here pavilion (http://www.geocities.com/middlewooduk/) and clicking on 'How to Get Here'

Aspirational?

"aspirational

adjective UK

showing that you want to have more money and a higher social position than you now have"

*roffle*
:confused:

JUst thought you may like to know that the planning notices for the road/ footbridge and housing have been posted locally.

For more information see this article regeneration (http://www.looklocal.org.uk/news.php?id=918)

Just as a matter of interest, what is the Black Path mentioned in the article you're linking to?

It sounds very sinister, like something out of Twin Peaks.

Originally posted by metalman
Just as a matter of interest, what is the Black Path mentioned in the article you're linking to?

It sounds very sinister, like something out of Twin Peaks.

:hihi:

Well its a path...

and its very black.

Actually its a path that runs down the side of Winn Gardens by the wednesday training ground avalanche and is quite badly lit. As this is the proposed route to a footbridge over the river the planners are proposing to make it safe, light and bright and pleasant to the eye.

Originally posted by metalman
Just as a matter of interest, what is the Black Path mentioned in the article you're linking to?

It sounds very sinister, like something out of Twin Peaks.

I was going to ask that too!

"You baiten't be from round ere or ye wouldn't have strayed onto ye ole black path"

... and so on.

There you go Jo, question answered :thumbsup:

Originally posted by fox20thc
There you go Jo, question answered :thumbsup:

Thank you :D

I am de-boggled now!

was there a school on limestone cottage lane just off claywheels lane??

Originally posted by subliminal
was there a school on limestone cottage lane just off claywheels lane??

Don't know? I've walked/cycled down there a few times and can't recall a school.

Hi,

I'm new to sheffield forum - actually joined just 'cos I thought some of you would be interested to know that this development is not all on 'Brown Field site' .... there is a plan to demolish some residential properties and the residents of these didn't know anything about the public consultation meetings- strange eh?

And they call it 'Beeley Wood Susutainable community development' well they don't seem to be sustaining our community!

Originally posted by BW_resident
Hi,

I'm new to sheffield forum - actually joined just 'cos I thought some of you would be interested to know that this development is not all on 'Brown Field site' .... there is a plan to demolish some residential properties and the residents of these didn't know anything about the public consultation meetings- strange eh?

And they call it 'Beeley Wood Susutainable community development' well they don't seem to be sustaining our community!

Surely any properties earmarked to demolition would have been notified a long time ago? Is it to make way for the bypass?

No, where our houses currently stand will be offices (according to the 'master plan'). Although the additional traffic will go right past our front garden (if its still there).

It appears that there are no rules about who you do and don't have to consult prior to putting in a planning appliaction which is how we seem to have slipped through the net. Once the planning application for the road went in we all got letters about that and visited the council to see the plans, that is how we found aout about the planned offices! Now we know we are trying to get our point of view across :rant: but we seem to be playing catch-up!

The planning applications are now available to view on line:

Residential Development (http://libplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/planning/details.asp?id=21607)
and Business Units (http://libplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/planning/details.asp?id=21608)

If you want to see exactly what they are requesting permission for.

That seems like a lot of property to sqeeze into the site. :confused:

Originally posted by BW_resident
...this development is not all on 'Brown Field site' .... there is a plan to demolish some residential properties

That's what 'brown field' means. Land on which there has already been buildings. In contrast to 'green field' - land on which there has never been buildings. Both completely different to 'green belt', which contains both brownfield sites and greenfield sites.

--
JGH

Originally posted by jgharston
That's what 'brown field' means. Land on which there has already been buildings. In contrast to 'green field' - land on which there has never been buildings. Both completely different to 'green belt', which contains both brownfield sites and greenfield sites.

--
JGH

The actual definition of 'brownfield' is a site that has previously been used for industrial (or some commercial) purposes. Any such land that has subsequently been reclaimed for residential purposes is no longer brownfield.
Don't worry though, anywhere within about 10 miles of a Union Carbide site is definitely brownfield. In fact, it's probably unsuitable for human habitation for the next 1000 years and you'd fare better jumping on the next plane to Chernobyl.

Originally posted by BW_resident
.... there is a plan to demolish some residential properties and the residents of these didn't know anything about the public consultation meetings- strange eh?

And they call it 'Beeley Wood Susutainable community development' well they don't seem to be sustaining our community!

And I thought that in the case of a proposed or planned development affecting residential property the occupants of that property had to be notified in writing at an early stage in the procedure and kept informed at each stage of the process so that they had the opportunity to object ?

Is this not the case ? What do your local city councillors have to say ?

Nope. Anyone can submit a planning application for any piece of land to do anything with it.

At the time of submission it is necessary to inform the owner, but only at that point. There is no further responsibility to write to them, inform them of anything or ask for any permissions.

Originally posted by defstef
The actual definition of 'brownfield' is a site that has previously been used for industrial (or some commercial) purposes. Any such land that has subsequently been reclaimed for residential purposes is no longer brownfield.
When I had Planning Training I was instructed that brownfield is land that has have development on. Not industrial, not commercial, just buildings. That's how so many developments in the South West are classed as brownfield where the owner demolishes a big Victorian house and builds 50 brownfield flats on the site.

Originally posted by jgharston
When I had Planning Training I was instructed that brownfield is land that has have development on. Not industrial, not commercial, just buildings. That's how so many developments in the South West are classed as brownfield where the owner demolishes a big Victorian house and builds 50 brownfield flats on the site.

Not necessarily true, I was reading that was the argument with the swfc training ground planning, they said that as some of the land has had changing rooms ect. on it the site qualifies as brownfield, the planners say otherwise.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Is this not the case ? What do your local city councillors have to say?

The three local Area Panels that border on Claywheels (Hillsborough/Walkley/Netherthorpe, Southey/Owlerton and North) are currently involved in a review of land uses of the Upper Don Valley. Members of the three panels are currently of the view that the Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane corridor represents a valuable employment-generation, light industrial/commercial asset and should be and/or remain designated as land for light industrial/commercial development; and the value of that asset would be greatly increased (and the pressure of through-traffic through Hillsborough reduced) by the construction of a bridge across the Don somewhere north of Middlewood Park and the improvement and upgrading of Beeley Wood Lane/Claywheels Lane to Penistone Road.

JGH, Chair Hillsborough/Walkley/Netherthorpe Area Panel

Originally posted by fox20thc
Not necessarily true, I was reading that was the argument with the swfc training ground planning, they said that as some of the land has had changing rooms ect. on it the site qualifies as brownfield, the planners say otherwise.

Yes, there's occasional fuzziness at the edges like that. I once had one planner tell me a site that had a brick shed on it was brownfield, and another say it was greenfield.

But, a house is definitely makes it brownfield. Councillors then have arguments with planners over whether that means the garden is also brownfield.

With the exception that poor BW-Res has a home in the middle of the planned development, I am wholeheartedly in favour.

In addition to the much needed housing and employment the site will bring, Menta and UDR Beeleywood are planning to invest in the surrounding area.

This includes cleaning up the riverside and niagra wier, making it more accessible and improving the local environment.

Originally posted by Greybeard
And I thought that in the case of a proposed or planned development affecting residential property the occupants of that property had to be notified in writing at an early stage in the procedure and kept informed at each stage of the process so that they had the opportunity to object ?

Is this not the case ? What do your local city councillors have to say ?

Neighbouring/Adjacent residents should be notified by Planning Officers that an application has been made. There is no obligation to do more than this as the applications are advertised publicly.

You are now aware of these applications, can see all the details and comments regarding the applications, and can submit any objections that you may have.

Originally posted by cgksheff
You are now aware of these applications, can see all the details and comments regarding the applications,

The application itself is 23 inches of A4.

Originally posted by jgharston
The application itself is 23 inches of A4.

I pity everyone who has to actually read them both! :o

I have seen artistic representations of the planned development and it looks very.. european. I liked it nice large community spaces and lots of trees. The footbridge will be a bonus for everyone who needs to get to work/school on the penistone road side as well.

Originally posted by jgharston
The application itself is 23 inches of A4.

... or as thin as your computer screen:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=834325#post834325

Originally posted by cgksheff
... or as thin as your computer screen:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=834325#post834325

Thanks for that :thumbsup: really interesting..well if yr local (http://planningdocs.sheffield.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=05/04613/OUT)

Just had a quick scan through the documents and believe it or not... Sheffield Forum gets a mention as being part of the consultation awareness :hihi:

Originally posted by fox20thc
I am wholeheartedly in favour

Aah, these are the plans which have been in planning - by 'Menta' - for over a year, yet which residents have only been informed about very recently? Are these the plans reported to be 'welcomed by residents living nearby', despite a majority of said residents signing a petition opposing the proposal of the new path and bridge across the Don?
Are you in favour of the potentially vast amount of trouble the bridge will bring to the Winn Gardens estate? Do you look forward to being 'really put on the map' with regards to an increase in crime for the immediate area? :suspect:

Originally posted by i_8_1_2
Aah, these are the plans which have been in planning - by 'Menta' - for over a year, yet which residents have only been informed about very recently? Are these the plans reported to be 'welcomed by residents living nearby', despite a majority of said residents signing a petition opposing the proposal of the new path and bridge across the Don?
Are you in favour of the potentially vast amount of trouble the bridge will bring to the Winn Gardens estate? Do you look forward to being 'really put on the map' with regards to an increase in crime for the immediate area? :suspect:

No disrespect but do you really think a little footbridge is going to bring about an increase in crime?

Regarding the petition, if it is representative of the majority of residents please let me know why when I have asked people in passing if they have been approached to sign, quite a few had no clue what petition I was speaking of.

I am aware of the petition and as a resident have not seen it either. The reasoning behind this was due to me being at work. Surely if a petition is representative of the people it should be made acessible to us all, (perhaps put in a local shop or tenants office?) therefore giving EVERYONE a chance to read the opposition statement and make a decison. It appears that the petition reflects the views of the people approached and not the views of the whole community.

In addition, it appears in your post that you choose to highlight a footbridge and nothing else. The footbridge will be key to investment in the estate as a whole and without it the whole thing would collapse.

Thanks for your pm, however it wasn't neccessary to duplicate your post.
Originally posted by fox20thc
do you really think a little footbridge is going to bring about an increase in crime?
Do you really think it won't?

No I don't the bridge will in effect create a larger cul-de-sac as it will only lead to the new development and no further.

You still didn't answer my question regarding the 'so called' representative petition.

Originally posted by i_8_1_2
Thanks for your pm, however it wasn't neccessary to duplicate your post.

I pm'd the post as I wasn't sure you would be back. Only having one post, I assumed you only registered to state your view on this subject.

Originally posted by fox20thc
I am aware of the petition and as a resident have not seen it either.
I am aware of a petition re the SWFC training ground, but not of any petition about Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane. If there is one I should have ensured I was aware of it as the Chair of the Area Panel (nb: not the Area Planning Board, sorry the names are so similar). If this is a different petition I shall try and find out about it.

Regarding the bridge, again, there are two proposed bridges. A footbridge south of Winn Gardens (town side) linking the Tram Terminus with Claywheels Lane neare Niagra. The other a road bridge somewhere to the north of Middlewood Park linking Middlewood Road North with Beeley Wood Lane, effectively creating a trough-traffic bypass link to Penistone Road. I beleive this would be a good thing, especially for the residents of Winn Gardens, as it would move the through traffic away from running past Winn Gardens's windows and squeezing down past Hillsborough School over onto the other side of the river.

As long as the build the bridge properly. The plans propose a 'T' junction which would just result in south-bound traffic hurtling straight across the junction and continue striaght into Middlewood. It needs to be a 'Y' junction with the natural flow acorss the bridge and a stop, pause, think, signal, turn junction into Middlewood.

Does this map (http://mdfs.net/temp/claywheels.gif) make it any clearer? (229K)

Fully aware of the plans jgh, unfortunately some of those in opposition are not. There is a fear factor on the estate that they have been isolated for so long, the idea of people walking through the estate is worrying.

The petition has been raised by some older residents of the estate who have been collecting signatures ad-hoc. But as I said before, a random selection of people asked does not offer fair representation as to how people feel. I for one have not seen it at all.

Originally posted by fox20thc
Fully aware of the plans jgh, unfortunately some of those in opposition are not. There is a fear factor on the estate that they have been isolated for so long, the idea of people walking through the estate is worrying.

From what I've seen of the plans - and I only spent 90 minutes reading them, so I may have missed something - the footbridge is proposed to go from the tram terminus/park & ride, running south of Winn Gardens. I didn;t see any suggestion that there would be a link from Winn Gardens itself to a point along the route of the footbridge. Pedestrians would not be able to get to it by walkling through Winn. They would have to go the the tram terminus.

You have a valid point, though. Tell planners that if there is a pedestrian bridge, residents of Winn Gardens feel that there should be no access to it directly from the Gardesn itself to prevent non-residents wandering through Winn as a shortcut to the bridge.

I can see your point about the traffic flow being better for Winn gardens residents, although obviously worse for Beeley Wood Residents (but there are fewer of us and if we get demolished we won't be there to complain)!


But the roundabout at Leppings lane is already very busy with long queues on both halifax and Penistone roads, surely this will push more traffic (going to and from town) onto that roundabout possibly creating grid lock?

Any plans for solving that?

Originally posted by jgharston I didn't see any suggestion that there would be a link from Winn Gardens itself to a point along the route of the footbridge. Pedestrians would not be able to get to it by walking through Winn. They would have to go the the tram terminus. ...You have a valid point, though. Tell planners that if there is a pedestrian bridge, residents of Winn Gardens feel that there should be no access to it directly from the Gardens itself to prevent non-residents wandering through Winn as a shortcut to the bridge.

Herein lies the confusion. Why then, the need for regeneration on the black path? Personally, I would support a path which does not open the estate up. But one which connects the other side of the river directly to the estate - I truly feel is inviting trouble.

Originally posted by i_8_1_2
Herein lies the confusion. Why then, the need for regeneration on the black path?

The black path will be the new pathway to the bridge.

So... the footbridge will run off the estate, as opposed to behind the tram terminus? Presumably somewhere between the end of the black path and Niagra? :confused:

Originally posted by i_8_1_2
So... the footbridge will run off the estate, as opposed to behind the tram terminus? Presumably somewhere between the end of the black path and Niagra? :confused:

The path which runs parallel to the estate at the far side will be the linkage between the tram and the footbridge, yes as far as the plans reveal. From what I understand it will however have a barrier to seperate it from the estate. I may be reading the drawings wrong. If you use the links provided earlier on in the thread you can look at the drawing yourself.

Originally posted by fox20thc If you use the links provided earlier on in the thread you can look at the drawing yourself Yes, I have - and it makes things no clearer. I was interested however to find this quote
"They have directly used resident's feedback for this planned development. We have all felt involved from the start."Who is this 'we', exactly? Are they a 'select' few chosen to 'represent' the views of everybody on the estate? When did this 'consulting' take place, over the last twelve months that this has been in the planning?

Originally posted by i_8_1_2
Yes, I have - and it makes things no clearer. I was interested however to find this quote
Who is this 'we', exactly? Are they a 'select' few chosen to 'represent' the views of everybody on the estate? When did this 'consulting' take place, over the last twelve months that this has been in the planning?

Well, they have been in consultation with residents and the development team from sheffield city council.

Granted public consultation did not start in earnest until september 05, and meetings have been held since then. Did you attend either of the public meetings which took place in November or the inital group of residents who saw the plans first?

I know that a cross section of the community did see them including the older members of the community.

Just to let anyone who has an interest in this issue, the Winn website is online now and I am hoping to get a contribution for the NO debate to the development, especially the proposed bridge.

If you would like to put forward a NO statement via the website I will certainly include it and will also include it in the forthcoming newsletter.

I would like to offer a balanced argument, you may leave it anonymously if you choose.

Thanks in advance.

http://www.winntara.ik.com

In addition if you would like your views to be given to the tenants association to be read out at the next meeting please do the same.

So based on the none reaction to my last post nobody has anything to contribute regarding this debate. I am planning to meet with some local people shortly to discuss the plans and was hoping to have some valid contributions.

If you still want to contribute please send any via PM or the link.

Cheers

I have plenty to say but as I'm waiting for responses to a number of questions which have been put to the developers, at this time my opinions are probably ill informed ;)

Also as any reduced traffic flow past winn gardens will mean increased traffic flow past Beeley Wood Houses - foxy and I are unlikely to ever agree on this!

But the good news is our houses are (probably) safe as it was an architects error that offices were drawn where our houses should be :loopy:, so all we have to worry about is a quiet backwater turning into a main road :rant:

IAlso as any reduced traffic flow past winn gardens will mean increased traffic flow past Beeley Wood Houses - foxy and I are unlikely to ever agree on this!

But the good news is our houses are (probably) safe as it was an architects error that offices were drawn where our houses should be :loopy:, so all we have to worry about is a quiet backwater turning into a main road :rant:

Glad to hear that your house is probably safe, however your opinion is valid.

I agree :o that decreased traffic on MW road will increase traffic down beeleywood to claywheels, (thought thats why they were building the bypass).

The reason for asking for opinion is so I can put across representative views of anyone affected be them positive or negative, so please feel free to share your thoughts. :)

Now I'm really angry. The cherry picked petition, which I never saw has been filed by the tenants association to the planning board. How do I email my feelings on the development.

The planning website says click on submit comments but I can't find the flippin button :rant:

Now I'm really angry. The cherry picked petition, which I never saw has been filed by the tenants association to the planning board. How do I email my feelings on the development.

The planning website says click on submit comments but I can't find the flippin button :rant:


Its on this page (http://planning.sheffield.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=IR4WOCNY79000).

Just be aware that all your details, including e-mail address will be included in a document posted on the website.
I have created a new Hotmail address solely for this kind of thing.

Its on this page (http://planning.sheffield.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=IR4WOCNY79000).

Just be aware that all your details, including e-mail address will be included in a document posted on the website.
I have created a new Hotmail address solely for this kind of thing.

Thats fine, they can print the lot! :D

p.s : cheers

Application Summary
-------------------
Application Number:
05/04613/OUT

Address:
Ucar Ltd Site
Beeley Wood Lane/Claywheels Lane
Sheffield
S6 1NF


Proposal:
Residential Development for 550 dwellinghouses and flats with private and communal gardens - this application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement

Case Officer:
Bob Turner

Comments
--------
Submission Type:
Customer does not object to the Planning Application.

Comments:
As a resident bordering on the proposed development and mother of two small children I feel that the benefits of this project far outweigh any obstacles currently highlighted in planning objections.

The winn estate has since its inception been an isolated cul-de-sac, one way in and one way out. The proposal to include a footbridge across the river will enhance our situation greatly. This will give pedestrian access from the estate to employment opportunities which will surely follow the development of light industrial units and housing.

I am aware that concerns have been raised about such a pedestrian bridge being a hazard to our children giving access to all comers from the other side of the river. This is not a concern of mine as should any undesirable people wish to access the estate there are other entry points should they be so determined.

I believe this objection to the bridge formed part of a petition by the local residents of the Winn Estate. If it would please the board I would like it to be known that this petition is formed by the cherry picking of certain properties and is not wholly representative, I myself was never given the opportunity to sign the document or even see it.

My children will soon as many others do, go to Chaucer school and at present have a 20 minute walk around the leppings lane area before they can even tackle Halifax road. This will shorten their journey time and also provide a safer route to school.

In addition the proposed road bridge will deflect the heavy congestion currently a hazard on Middlewood Road for children attending local primary schools.

I am aware the development company have gone to great lengths to consult with its immediate neighbours and have infact altered at some expense to themselves the design to take into consideration the needs of the community and their concerns.

Therefore I would like it to be noted that I support this planning application.

What I don't quite understand is where all the traffic's going to go. Tonight's Star reports that Sheffield Wednesday have withdrawn their training ground planning application, and, apart from the fact that it's a greenfield site, one of the major objections from local residents was the increased amount of traffic through Hillsborough. How is this development going to be any different in that respect? It's no good saying that they'll all go out towards Stocksbridge or up Halifax Rd to the motorway because they obviously won't - a lot of them will want to go into town.

Down the new road, onto penistone road (which will hopefully be free'd up by the new improvements at shalesmoor)

Well that's the slightly worrying aspect for me, because all the extra traffic will be funneling down onto the already congested Penistone Road; they may be doing it down the new road rather than down Catchbar Lane but the end result will be the same. I had a quick glance through the traffic documents and the developers don't seem to be predicting much of an increase on any of the roads, but they're introducing (I would guess) at least 500 extra cars into the equation.

And I think you're going to end up with a nightmare junction at Claywheels Lane/Halifax Road with it being so close to Leppings Lane roundabout.

Incidentally I don't quite understand why you're so upset that you didn't see the petition; presumably if you had seen it you wouldn't have signed it anyway, so the end result is the same surely? I should say that I don't live there so I have no axe to grind anyway, but I don't see how you can object to a concerned group of residents putting in a petition - it's the number of people who have signed it that matters, not the number who haven't. If there's a petition with x names on it, there are x people concerned enough to sign it. They should be allowed to put their views forward too.

Hi,

I've got the planning officer's email address somewhere - I'll find it and PM you.

Fox20thc, I've been off line for a few days so haven't had time to reply to your post the other day - essentially I am worried that this will not solve the traffic problems on Middlewood road/Catch bar lane/Parkside road but move them to Claywheels lane/halifax road and the Leppings lane roundabout which is already a nightmare. And then if Middlewood road does get a little quieter, people who currently use public transport to avoid the traffic jams may go back to their cars, and so we are back to square one!

Admittedly, I'm being a bit of a NIMBY, because I chose to buy a house in a quiet area and NOT on a main road, which it will be once the bridge is built. But I do genuinely think this is moving the problem and not solving it! There are other problems such as the road not being wide enough for fletchers lorries to turn at the moment (whilst there is little traffic) how will they ever get in and out when it is a busy road? They want to make the don an 'amenity' but how many people are going to want to go for a walk along a busy road? My neighbours with dogs are begining to think they will have to drive to the woods to walk the dog instead of the usual walk to the woods....

I'm sure I could think of more to say but unfortunately I have to do some work now so I will stop this rant!

Ooops..... Managed to miss a couple of posts there - it looks like fox20thc doesn't need the email address, sorry my mistake:confused:

walk the dog

There's enough dogsh*t being left lying around the place, without inviting more owners to come and let their dogs join in too! :mad:

And, with a proposed 500 extra households, how many extra children does that add to the mix? Are they planning to create either new schools, or to fund more teachers = more classes to accommodate the additional influx of children to the already full local schools??!!!

There's enough dogsh*t being left lying around the place, without inviting more owners to come and let their dogs join in too! :mad:



I'm sure walking dogs along the current scrub land on Claywheels lane does no harm at all. Although I would agree with you that parks and playgrounds should be dogsh*t free. But the developers say they are very keen on improving public ammenities, so maybe if they remove the scrub land they will give us new area designated as a 'dog toilet' away from childrens play areas :rolleyes:

They can provide, but whether they are used is another matter. Same with the red dog waste bins, and even normal litter bins.. Horse to water, and all that. :(

They can provide, but whether they are used is another matter. Same with the red dog waste bins, and even normal litter bins.. Horse to water, and all that. :(

I couldn't agree more Henrietta. Middlewood Park has a dog waste bin and its well used. If you have a dog, pick up after it!

It has been our understanding that Menta’s development plans incorporate mixed usage of housing,light industry and offices.

I have now discovered that due to conflicting development plans at Foxhill this may not be the final outcome.

" I think there is little doubt that the proposals for new business and industry on some of the land, and a new bridge link to Middlewood Rd will be seen as beneficial to the need to ensure a continuing supply of suitable land to provide jobs and investment which are so critical to the City's future. Jobs in modern industries and offices offer local employment with control over potential nuisance to existing residents.

The proposal to build new houses and apartments at UCAR is a relatively recent one, which differs from the initial vision, but which potentially offers to inject some funds into bringing forward infrastructure for business as well as houses. Generally Sheffield has a very adequate supply of land for housing, and the Housing Market Renewal Initiative recognises that if we are to regenerate areas of low demand and market failure, there is a need to shift housing investment to new areas to underpin community renewal. The issue with the UCAR housing proposals is whether the potential benefits are outweighed by potential harm to the other objectives of creating sustainable well served communities, tackling weak demand in the areas which suffer from it, and ensuring an adequate supply of land for modern business so that jobs are not lost through lack of sites that meet developers needs. It is also important that any new housing is located well for access to public transport, shops, schools etc. Until there are major improvements to the infrastructure this site does not meet this criteria."

So residents of wadsley park village, beeleywood and Middlewood what do you want to see there. Mixed usage of housing, light industry and offices or The city needs a range of business sites in all areas to meet the needs of existing and new enterprises, and maximise inward or internal investment. Too many firms have to occupy outdated and poor premises, or find the choice of new premises too restricted. all commercial/industrial units.

Lets see you walk your dog through an industrial park instead? The investigating officers are to give their opinion to the board of what type of construction should be our neighbour on 11th April. Menta still want to include housing, it appears certain people do not.

Hi,

Seeing as we already walk the dogs in an industrial area (i.e. claywheels lane as it currently stands) it will make no difference.

Unfortunately the road bridge bringing traffic chaos is still planned - I doubt a queue of 60 or more cars and the associated noise, pollution and accident rates will make it a plesant place to walk whatever the usage. :( Not a particularly safe route to school for your children elither fox?

(The number 60 comes from menta's transport assessment and in my opinion is an under estimate - given that the same survey says that the queue of cars on Penistone road at leppings lane roundabout is not more than 4 cars currently!)

Nope. Anyone can submit a planning application for any piece of land to do anything with it.

At the time of submission it is necessary to inform the owner, but only at that point. There is no further responsibility to write to them, inform them of anything or ask for any permissions.

I thought that you could only plan to do anything with any piece of land at its OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION stage; which is slightly different to Planning Permission?

No, what I said is correct.

You require a detail consent before you can build anything but you can make an outline application for various reasons, including cost, testing the water, flushing out opponents, etc.

A site with an outline consent still has consent, but it must then go have its detail consented before legal construction. There's then another derivitive which uses conditions, but we're getting into the real meat and bone of Planning Legislation adn procedure and it's always very application / site specific.

You can make either type of application on any land, whether you own it or not.

Hi,

Seeing as we already walk the dogs in an industrial area (i.e. claywheels lane as it currently stands) it will make no difference.

Unfortunately the road bridge bringing traffic chaos is still planned - I doubt a queue of 60 or more cars and the associated noise, pollution and accident rates will make it a plesant place to walk whatever the usage. :( Not a particularly safe route to school for your children elither fox?

(The number 60 comes from menta's transport assessment and in my opinion is an under estimate - given that the same survey says that the queue of cars on Penistone road at leppings lane roundabout is not more than 4 cars currently!)

But would it not be more important to ensure the road bridge and subsequent traffic is managed if residential areas are there rather that industrial who have no issues with traffic noise ect? If the site is purely commercial/industrial would that not increase traffic flow even more?

I expect that the impact of additional traffic from industrial or residential uses of Clay Wheels Lane will be minor compared to that from the bridge. And lets not forget the impact that has on existing residents.

If the bridge were not built the aditional traffic from industrial uses would have least impact on current residents as this traffic would be concentrated during the day (not at evenings, weekends and bank hols when traffic is currently very quiet) but the traffic from the bridge and residential properties would be all day every day. Unfortunately Menta see the bridge as essential and have not been able to make any suggestions as to how this additional traffic could make less of an impact on current residents.

Unfortunately Menta see the bridge as essential and have not been able to make any suggestions as to how this additional traffic could make less of an impact on current residents.

I think you may find that the city council is quite keen on the bridge also.

BW-Res + anyone else who is interested.

Just thought you may like to know they are discussing the 'road' at the planning meeting tomorrow (25th) at 2pm (town hall)

Strangely my last few posts on this subject seem to have been deleted. Perhaps that's because I was rather less than enthusiastic on the development.

Nothing has been deleted from this thread metalman.

Oops, you're right, it was the other thread on the same subject where I posted them! Sorry. If you like you can delete that post then!

No problem :) It happens.

:help: apology for being a pain but I was at the hospital all day and didn't get to the planning meeting. Surely somebody knows if it was a yes or no!

???

Just one question. I left Foxhill in 1959, and I have a defective memory (among other parts). Is the Union Carbide place what used to be BICC (British Insulated Callenders Company)? BICC was next to Batchelors across the railway line.

Surely somebody knows if it was a yes or no!
In the free paper (Journal?) yesterday, it said it had got planning permission. Not sure how reliable that publication is though!

In the free paper (Journal?) yesterday, it said it had got planning permission. Not sure how reliable that publication is though!

Yes I had it delivered last night.. thread here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=107004)

Thanks :)

Media information: For immediate release.
28 April 2006

Sheffield’s Upper Don Valley regeneration to commence

The long awaited regeneration of the Upper Don Valley is set to start.

Regeneration experts Menta have secured planning consent from Sheffield City Council for the long-awaited infrastructure into the Claywheels Lane industrial backwater.

After five years of background work by Menta, councillors gave a unanimous thumbs up to proposals involving a new road bridge from Middlewood Road across the River Don into the Claywheels Lane area and a pedestrian bridge linking Claywheels to the Supertram terminus at Hillsborough.

The plans will create around 660 jobs on two sites at Claywheels Lane which have remained derelict and unused for a number of years.

The proposals are an integral part of the masterplan being promoted by Menta for the Beeley Wood Sustainable Community which will complete the transformation of this area of Sheffield.

Menta director Craig Marks said: “This is a huge step forward for the Claywheels Lane area, and illustrates our commitment to ensuring that we deliver a comprehensive regeneration package for Sheffield as part of the regeneration proposals for the Upper Don Valley.”

The council deferred the second part of Menta’s proposals to a north and west planning board meeting scheduled on May 23 in order to reassess the planning case and regeneration benefits of Menta’s proposals and how the manner in which they might support the entire regeneration of the Upper Don Valley.

Talking about this proposal Craig Marks added: “We remain committed to ensuring that our proposals at Claywheels, which are a departure from the current and dated unitary development plan, are brought forward in a manner which fully align our interests with Sheffield City Councils to regenerate the Upper Don Valley and safeguard the important Housing Market Renewal programme.

“The Councillors agreed to pass this first application unanimously and saw the benefits of securing £5m worth of European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) for Sheffield. The developers also agreed to work closely with local residents and the area panels to take the project forward given the concerns of a handful of residents on traffic generation at Claywheels.”

The agreed scheme is just one of four planning applications that Menta has within the Upper Don Valley.

Planning consent for the Snow Mountain Leisure complex at the Sheffield Ski Village and the gondola cable way transport link between Supertram and the Shirecliffe area has already been agreed by councillors, which subject to grant assistance, and will deliver more than 1,500 new jobs in the area.

A further application for 100,000 sq ft of business and starter units at Parkwood Springs which will specifically be targeted towards sports related businesses to create a sports “hub” of activity has also been submitted.

However the Beeley Wood plans submitted by Cushman & Wakefield on behalf of Menta have been viewed extremely favourably by the local MP, David Blunkett, and the residents living nearby in Middlewood, Wadley Park, Hillsborough and in particular Winn Gardens who say the plans are a long-awaited solution to transforming a forgotten area.

ENDS

UPDATE:

Menta are tomorrow going to represent this application to the planning board, they are not giving up.

further update: the fat lady has yet to sing :hihi: ;)