View Full Version : Please help stop this planning application


Allie-pie
08-10-2011, 17:19
Hi folks

Hope you don't mind me posting but I feel very strongly about this. There is a planning application going before the next council committee meeting on 17th October which seems to have had very little press but could have wide implications for the character of the city centre. This has only recently come to my attention and although it's very late in the application process, the planning officer will accept comments/objections right up until the day before the meeting and present them to the council members who sit on the planning committee.

You can email him directly: michael.johnson@sheffield.gov.uk

The application relates to the top end of The Moor, on the corner with Furnival Gate (opposite Debenhams). In many ways it's a great scheme and will have regeneration benefits for that part of the city, increasing interaction between The Moor and the Pinstone Street/Fargate shops. Unfortunately the developers know that and seem to be trying to use it as leverage to get permission to include a huge digital advertising screen in a high and prominent position. The application file can be viewed online by following this link:

http://planning.sheffield.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

and entering the application reference 11/02250. If you then click on 'click to view' followed by the 'associated documents' tab and 'view associated documents' you can see all the plans and correspondence so far.

The council's own Highways department have raised safety concerns about the screen as it's a busy road junction with lots of pedestrian movement and the screen will be a huge distraction to drivers (its whole point being to attract attention). The highways comment is available to view in the link I've given.

By this stage in the application process I would have expected some amended plans to have been submitted with the screen removed but this isn't the case, which leads me to the conclusion that the developers are refusing to take it out in the hope that the council will conclude that the overall benefits outweigh the disbenefits. I deeply believe that the council shouldn't do this. The developers themselves will want to see the land/buildings improved and brought back into use so it's just a question of who gives in to whom!

The city's Unitary Development Plan contains a policy relating to advertisements, Policy BE13. It states that an illuminated advert will only be permitted where it does not cause a hazard to motorists AND it does not impact on the character or appearance of an area. The proposed screen fails on both counts.

If we allow it to be built, we are seriously changing the character of our city centre. It will set a precedent that cannot be reversed, making it much harder to resist similar proposals in the future because we will have already allowed the character and appearance to fundamentally alter. I firmly believe that our friendly, intimate city centre is unique and special, and that moving it forwards should be about celebrating the city's cultural and industrial heritage and fantastic green spaces. I've spoken to a planning consultant who told me that if this application is granted, he expects we will see 5 or 6 digital advertising screens go up in the next 2-3 years.

There is no doubt that in all other ways the application is a good one. You may well look at the plans and decide the screen isn't really so bad, and of course you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. If all I achieve is getting people thinking about the future of our city centre then so be it! However if like me you'd prefer our council to stand their ground and push for the screen to be removed from the proposals, please let the planning officer know within the next 8 days.

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to read this.

big dinners
08-10-2011, 17:26
Sounds great to me ..:huh:
Whats the fuss,its in an already busy buisness district,its not going to affect any homes or other buisnesses.
It's a great way of generating extra income for the buildings owners and a great way for some 'maybe' local buisness to get its name seen by thousands of people.

Its the 21st centuary afterall and I dont expect it to be like Times square.

lazarus
08-10-2011, 17:31
I already know about it and I could not believe it when I saw the proposed plans, I mean we are not Hong Kong or New York its just a little shopping area and a giant screen just doesnt gell, but I suppose it will give the vandals something to throw at!

lolli_pop
08-10-2011, 17:36
The comments from Highways are pretty uncompromising. Overall it is a great scheme but the position of the screen is silly from a road safety point of view and, as you say, a bad precedent.

BHRemovals
08-10-2011, 17:40
Sounds like an awfull monstrosoty, bad as city lofts I will look at planning app

six45ive
08-10-2011, 17:43
Not sure what your point is. Have you never seen Piccadilly Circus in London?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=piccadilly+circus&hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADFA_enGB422GB422&biw=1900&bih=838&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nYqQTtGhL8W3hQezxonuDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQsAQ

Allie-pie
08-10-2011, 17:53
Not sure what your point is. Have you never seen Piccadilly Circus in London?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=piccadilly+circus&hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADFA_enGB422GB422&biw=1900&bih=838&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nYqQTtGhL8W3hQezxonuDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQsAQ

Was that reply to me? Yes of course I've seen Piccadilly Circus. It's awful. We don't have to accept that the future of every city looks like that.

big dinners
08-10-2011, 18:02
Was that reply to me? Yes of course I've seen Piccadilly Circus. It's awful. We don't have to accept that the future of every city looks like that.

And we also dont have accept a City stuck in the last centuary,its only 1 big billboard,whats the beef,the road where its planned is mainly a bus only route so I dont expect it to be much of a distraction.
Buses and cars drive past much bigger eye catching buildings and the majority of motorist will rubberneck to look at an accident on the other side of the motorway.
The novelty will wear off after a couple of week.
I can remember the first rotating billboards attracted this sort stick when they first came out,now they are as common as standard billboards,and I never had an accident while ogling the wonderbra ad:hihi:

mike208
08-10-2011, 18:02
Not sure what your point is. Have you never seen Piccadilly Circus in London?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=piccadilly+circus&hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADFA_enGB422GB422&biw=1900&bih=838&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nYqQTtGhL8W3hQezxonuDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQsAQ

Are you saying that something like Piccadilly Circus would be a good thing?! If so, I'm hoping you haven't written Sheffield's development plan.

Something like this would completely undermine the redevelopment of the Moor,something that Sheffield planners have done so well to avoid in other areas that have been redeveloped in the past.

six45ive
08-10-2011, 18:05
Was that reply to me? Yes of course I've seen Piccadilly Circus. It's awful. We don't have to accept that the future of every city looks like that.

Yes I was replying to you and although you say it's awful some may say it's vibrant and alive. I was mainly aiming at your point that it may be distracting for drivers and pedestrians crossing the road which, when compared to Picadilly Circus, makes a nonsense of your objection on that one basis.

NorthernStar
08-10-2011, 18:10
I think it'll be a great 21st century addition to that part of the city and I personally like the design including the screen.

Sorry

six45ive
08-10-2011, 18:10
Are you saying that something like Piccadilly Circus would be a good thing?! If so, I'm hoping you haven't written Sheffield's development plan.

Something like this would completely undermine the redevelopment of the Moor,something that Sheffield planners have done so well to avoid in other areas that have been redeveloped in the past.

I'm saying that if any part of the city centre is ideal for Piccadilly Circus style makeover then the top of the Moor/Furnival Gate is it. Much better there than in a much more architecturally sensitive area like the top of Fargate.

Allie-pie
08-10-2011, 18:14
And we also dont have accept a City stuck in the last centuary :hihi:

Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about holding back progress, and I've said that in all other ways the scheme is great. Why can the 21st century not be about vibrant architecture, stimulating urban environments, great spaces and public art? Why does it have to be about advertising?? That's a really lopsided view of progress!

You say it's only one billboard but it DOES set a precedent and not one which can be easily reversed, if at all.

mike208
08-10-2011, 18:15
I'm saying that if any part of the city centre is ideal for Piccadilly Circus style makeover then the top of the Moor/Furnival Gate is it. Much better there than in a much more architecturally sensitive area like the top of Fargate.

OK, fair point. I personally would prefer to keep all the Sheffield inner city redevelopment as aesthetically pleasing as what has been done in the past 10 years though.

damo
08-10-2011, 18:24
But it's going to be barely visible from the road so I think the point you're trying to make is a little far fetched.

Allie-pie
08-10-2011, 18:29
But it's going to be barely visible from the road so I think the point you're trying to make is a little far fetched.

Only if the road you're talking about is the M1

six45ive
08-10-2011, 19:17
OK, fair point. I personally would prefer to keep all the Sheffield inner city redevelopment as aesthetically pleasing as what has been done in the past 10 years though.

I think a lot of the private city centre development in the last 10/15 years has been the most crass and unimaginative since the 1960's. At least this proposed scheme brightens up a bland 1950's corner of the city centre and is probably the best we're going to get in that part of the town.

fake
08-10-2011, 19:23
Here is the Star article:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/the_moor_15m_vision_with_landmark_screen_for_sheff ield_shopping_street_1_3585853

I agree with Allie-pie on some points and I'm not against having it just against where it is to be placed.

The positioning is a bit stupid and if you look at the picture then the area of view is limited and Furnival Gate is a problem, unless they are deciding to close it. This could be a distraction to drivers that can see it and also people crossing the road.

Put it somewhere else prominent as unless it can be seen properly then its hardly of any use.

.

six45ive
08-10-2011, 19:25
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about holding back progress, and I've said that in all other ways the scheme is great. Why can the 21st century not be about vibrant architecture, stimulating urban environments, great spaces and public art? Why does it have to be about advertising?? That's a really lopsided view of progress!

You say it's only one billboard but it DOES set a precedent and not one which can be easily reversed, if at all.

My bold.
Because these schemes have to be paid for and advertising brings in revenue. On top of that, just like great spaces and public art, advertising is a part of the urban environment and as long as it's done with as much variety and imagination as possible then it's OK by me.

Allie-pie
08-10-2011, 19:58
You're underestimating the value of that site. Granting permission for the New Retail Quarter dramatically increased the viability and importance of the Moor, especially the top end. Revenue will be generated through increased commercial activity in that area, with or without a large advertising screen.

six45ive, I find it ironic that you can be opposed to 'crass and unimaginative' development but then support a big, unnecessary digital screen. Do you have a different definition of crass to the rest of us? How is this not crass? It's tacked across the most architecturally interesting part of the proposal! Can I ask - and I hope I'm not sounding argumentative or defensive - what you do value in the city centre? I'm genuinely interested.

Bludragonfly
08-10-2011, 19:59
I think it is a good idea - especially if it is going to ensure the development goes ahead

molly44
08-10-2011, 21:01
will it make any difference to the area as a whole though?. i mean as a shopping district, they had a similar screen at meadowhall, but the footfall in there as fallen as it has in the city center. i cant see that having it planted there will make any retail sense. as previuos post have said it will soon be vandalized and the costs of replacing the screen every few weeks will be significant. i do take the point about the affect on passing traffic, does anyone remember the sophie dahl ads?. they did cause a lot of incidents where the posters where sited, and where eventually banned.

six45ive
08-10-2011, 22:38
You're underestimating the value of that site. Granting permission for the New Retail Quarter dramatically increased the viability and importance of the Moor, especially the top end. Revenue will be generated through increased commercial activity in that area, with or without a large advertising screen.

That's debateable. If the NRQ is as successful as Hammersons hope then it may take people away from the Moor altogether. However if you're correct and the footfall is increased with lots more people going from the NRQ across Furnival Gate to the top of the Moor then the location of the screen is ideal.

six45ive, I find it ironic that you can be opposed to 'crass and unimaginative' development but then support a big, unnecessary digital screen. Do you have a different definition of crass to the rest of us? How is this not crass? It's tacked across the most architecturally interesting part of the proposal! Can I ask - and I hope I'm not sounding argumentative or defensive - what you do value in the city centre? I'm genuinely interested.

I just think that you would have to try pretty hard to replace the present building on that site with anything worse and if we get something that is close to the picture in the Star then I think it would be an improvement all round with or without the screen. If we were having this conversation about the Yorkshire Bank building at the top of Fargate/Surrey Street then I'd be right behind you 100%.

I'm right behind people who bemoan the fact that we never rebuilt some of the wonderful buildings we lost in the Blitz like they did in places like Dresden to return the city centre to what it should have been. Instead we got this 1960's utopian ideal of brutalist concrete that became the biggest con in architectural history and has left a legacy in Sheffield that we're still struggling to overcome today, of a city centre that's probably the most unloved in the country amongst those who have most money, the middle classes. This has resulted in the cheap bargain basement city centre that we have at present with only the top of Fargate and Barkers Pool providing shops of any quality/reknown.
On top of that I think a large problem is the piecemeal redevelopment of the city centre.....no holistic overview about what we're going to do that's fundamentally different, unique and just plain better than other cities are doing. We just seem to be passively grateful for any redevelopment at all meaning that the viscious circle of cheap build attracting bargain outlets resulting in the wealthier middle classes spending their money in Meadowhall or Chesterfield will keep on self perpetuating for many years to come.
If you wish to know more on my thoughts re the city centre or Sheffield as a whole please feel free to ask.

AndrewC
09-10-2011, 01:17
I agree with the OP;

We need to preserve the moor's victorian feel, with its grand arcades and ornate architecture.


Seriously, what's the issue? If it's because it's adverstising then it's not different to the billboards and tacky posters around the place, only infinitely cleaner and tidier. Faded and dog-eared posters and tatty billborads are probably one of The Moor's biggest problems when you're talking about 'how do we make it look less crap'.

0742Sheff
09-10-2011, 01:21
I don't see what the problem is. We seem to have half the city population staying away from town due it being dirty and out of date and then the other half fighting to keep it that way.

Just get the bloody thing modernised, digital bill board an all, and get the city center attracting a few people again.

Ghostrider
09-10-2011, 03:37
It makes me laugh how this has only just got onto here - its not as though its a new thing, the business's in the area have known about it for ages...

MZ2832
09-10-2011, 04:13
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about holding back progress, and I've said that in all other ways the scheme is great. Why can the 21st century not be about vibrant architecture, stimulating urban environments, great spaces and public art? Why does it have to be about advertising?? That's a really lopsided view of progress!

You say it's only one billboard but it DOES set a precedent and not one which can be easily reversed, if at all.

I agree that it is in the wrong place but surely this isn't just about advertising, doesn't it facilitate 'big screen' events like they have in Leeds and Manchester.

Longer term the road system would need to change but this could become a great public space with live 'arts' being streamed. It might have been better placed to have been in Barker's Pool.

Murphy Jnr
09-10-2011, 05:12
I think as cities go Sheffield seems to enjoy living in the past. It's run down and dirty and contrary to popular belief, in the true sense of the word it isn't the greenest city, currently it lies tenth below Newcastle, Leicester, Brighton, Bristol, London, Leeds, Coventry, Plymouth and Edinburgh.
If it wants to be a city i think it should stop behaving like a village and get moving.

0742Sheff
09-10-2011, 05:17
I think as cities go Sheffield seems to enjoy living in the past. It's run down and dirty and contrary to popular belief, in the true sense of the word it isn't the greenest city, currently it lies tenth below Newcastle, Leicester, Brighton, Bristol, London, Leeds, Coventry, Plymouth and Edinburgh.
If it wants to be a city i think it should stop behaving like a village and get moving.


Could you please give a link to the information leaving Sheffield behind all those cities when it comes to being green. I find it very hard to believe that London, Newcastle and Leeds are greener than Sheffield.

upinwath
09-10-2011, 06:11
I don't much give a rats either way about the area but I do know these screens.
There's a bit of a folly/fashion here at the moment so I see plenty.

They're crap.

A total waste of money that no one ever watches.

Allie-pie
09-10-2011, 07:14
I agree that it is in the wrong place but surely this isn't just about advertising, doesn't it facilitate 'big screen' events like they have in Leeds and Manchester.

Longer term the road system would need to change but this could become a great public space with live 'arts' being streamed. It might have been better placed to have been in Barker's Pool.

It would be lovely if it did! No, this doesn't facilitate big screen events. It won't show anything other than adverts. To watch it for any length of time you'd have to stand about in the road anyway, and it is not going to have any sound.

The point I was trying to get across in my op is that we can push for this application without the screen. The owners want to redevelop the site anyway, they're just playing hardball at the moment. If we accept it then we're accepting many more of them in the future and there is absolutely no reason why we can't have a thriving city centre attracting middle class shoppers without resorting to this.

Allie-pie
09-10-2011, 07:32
I'm right behind people who bemoan the fact that we never rebuilt some of the wonderful buildings we lost in the Blitz like they did in places like Dresden to return the city centre to what it should have been. Instead we got this 1960's utopian ideal of brutalist concrete that became the biggest con in architectural history and has left a legacy in Sheffield that we're still struggling to overcome today, of a city centre that's probably the most unloved in the country amongst those who have most money, the middle classes.
This has resulted in the cheap bargain basement city centre that we have at present with only the top of Fargate and Barkers Pool providing shops of any quality/reknown.
On top of that I think a large problem is the piecemeal redevelopment of the city centre.....no holistic overview about what we're going to do that's fundamentally different, unique and just plain better than other cities are doing. We just seem to be passively grateful for any redevelopment at all meaning that the viscious circle of cheap build attracting bargain outlets resulting in the wealthier middle classes spending their money in Meadowhall or Chesterfield will keep on self perpetuating for many years to come.
If you wish to know more on my thoughts re the city centre or Sheffield as a whole please feel free to ask.

I agree with you in many respects about the 1960s architecture and how it shaped the city. However the main reason the city centre is unloved by the middle classes is that we built Meadowhall, and almost every quality shop moved out there. Sheffield, fortunately, is a big enough city to recover from that but only just. It will take a long time.

The city plans/ UDP/ Core Strategy do have an overview of how it is hoped the city centre will develop but how do you expect the development itself NOT to be piecemeal? The only way to ensure that would be a compulsory purchase by the council of the entire city centre and funnily enough I don't think they have the money! So we hang tight and wait for the landowners to put planning applications in, then judge each one on its merits while securing Section 106 money to carry out public realm improvements.

Each step forward increases the vibrancy of the city and attracts new investors, and hopefully the effect snowballs.

You say 'we seem to be passively grateful for any redevelopment at all' while at the same time basically telling me we should be passively grateful for the redevelopment of the Moor and accept a big advertising screen stuck on the face of it! So which is it? Should we push for higher ideals or shouldn't we?

Murphy Jnr
09-10-2011, 08:07
Could you please give a link to the information leaving Sheffield behind all those cities when it comes to being green. I find it very hard to believe that London, Newcastle and Leeds are greener than Sheffield.

I can but first on what would you base Sheffield being greener?

duckweed
09-10-2011, 08:38
I don't know what anyones worrying about. Chances are the screen will be broke half the time and they won't get the revenue to support it like most schemes.

clublander
09-10-2011, 08:43
I dunno whether it'll make any difference, but I'm going to send in a message of support for this proposal. They look great, look modern, and will make the city look better in my opinion.

Thanks for highlighting the application, and I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye.

six45ive
09-10-2011, 11:34
I can but first on what would you base Sheffield being greener?

When Sheffielders talk about the city being the greenest they're talking about the amount of green space and trees and not about green as in recycling, carbon emissions etc.
So if you can show any other city in the UK that has more greenery then bring it on, I'd love to see it.....if only for a laugh.:D

Murphy Jnr
09-10-2011, 11:45
When Sheffielders talk about the city being the greenest they're talking about the amount of green space and trees and not about green as in recycling, carbon emissions etc.
So if you can show any other city in the UK that has more greenery then bring it on, I'd love to see it.....if only for a laugh.:D

I can't argue with facts :) but in real terms it is far from being the greenest.

Edit: It does help having a large chunk of Sheffield nestling in a national park however :thumbsup:

six45ive
09-10-2011, 12:04
I can't argue with facts :) but in real terms it is far from being the greenest.

Edit: It does help having a large chunk of Sheffield nestling in a national park however :thumbsup:

I take it you are talking about being environmentally friendly then when you talk about being green.
Even without one third of the city being in the Peak District we would still have more trees and green space per head of population than any other comparable UK city. That's how far ahead we are of everywhere else on this issue.

Lady Star
09-10-2011, 12:22
Was that reply to me? Yes of course I've seen Piccadilly Circus. It's awful. We don't have to accept that the future of every city looks like that.

Piccadilly circus is what all cities aspire to really - and that's looked like that for decades!!! Cities need all kinds of things to attract the eye - things that those who see them everyday eventually just stop seeing... Sheffield is already so far behind for its size and population - please move to a village or small sleepy town and let Sheffield grow...

Lady Star
09-10-2011, 12:26
It would be lovely if it did! No, this doesn't facilitate big screen events. It won't show anything other than adverts. To watch it for any length of time you'd have to stand about in the road anyway, and it is not going to have any sound.

The point I was trying to get across in my op is that we can push for this application without the screen. The owners want to redevelop the site anyway, they're just playing hardball at the moment. If we accept it then we're accepting many more of them in the future and there is absolutely no reason why we can't have a thriving city centre attracting middle class shoppers without resorting to this.

So pretty muchthe same as the moving billboards on West Bar? Did you not petition against those? Not aware of too many accidents there?

six45ive
09-10-2011, 13:05
I agree with you in many respects about the 1960s architecture and how it shaped the city. However the main reason the city centre is unloved by the middle classes is that we built Meadowhall, and almost every quality shop moved out there. Sheffield, fortunately, is a big enough city to recover from that but only just. It will take a long time.

Meadowhall was built precisely because it gave the middle and aspiring middle classes what they wanted.....masses of free car parking, a clean environment, under cover protection from shop to shop and a centre that is clearly zoned and controlled as to the kind of shop you're going to get in each section. None of this is available in the city centre.

The city plans/ UDP/ Core Strategy do have an overview of how it is hoped the city centre will develop but how do you expect the development itself NOT to be piecemeal? The only way to ensure that would be a compulsory purchase by the council of the entire city centre and funnily enough I don't think they have the money! So we hang tight and wait for the landowners to put planning applications in, then judge each one on its merits while securing Section 106 money to carry out public realm improvements.

My bold.
And that's the problem. You shouldn't have to rely on hope. Simply address, geographically or from an urban design position, where the city centre is weak, why it's weak and then put in a program of development ideas to make it stronger and then look for public and private funding to implement the plan.
Part of this would be to look at the layout of other similar cities to see what can be learned from their success. The thing that jumps out at me straight away is how close the retail sectors of these cities are to bus and railway stations. So immediately we should be looking at zoning an area as close to the railway station as possible for retail and encouraging occupiers of that land to find new locations. If places like Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham only targetted the people living in those cities then they would be nowhere near as successful as they are. This is a lesson that Sheffield has to learn and the first step is to bring more shops closer to the bus/railway station.

Each step forward increases the vibrancy of the city and attracts new investors, and hopefully the effect snowballs.

You're assuming that each 'step' (I assume you mean development) is a move 'forward' (whatever that means) when it may actually be a move sideways or backwards.

You say 'we seem to be passively grateful for any redevelopment at all' while at the same time basically telling me we should be passively grateful for the redevelopment of the Moor and accept a big advertising screen stuck on the face of it! So which is it? Should we push for higher ideals or shouldn't we?

Because, as I said before (which you seem to have forgotten), it's that the proposed development is an improvement on what is already there. If they were planning to build a smaller version of the Moore Street substation with a tiny screen then I would be right behind you. In fact I would want them to cover the damn thing with very large screens.:D

s2 blade
09-10-2011, 13:13
I think its a great idea can only.improve the area from what I can see . Bring it on

Murphy Jnr
09-10-2011, 15:03
I take it you are talking about being environmentally friendly then when you talk about being green.
Even without one third of the city being in the Peak District we would still have more trees and green space per head of population than any other comparable UK city. That's how far ahead we are of everywhere else on this issue.

Whether its by design is debatable so i'm not sure any credit is due to any development commitee but it's by the by. As it stands by the way Sheffield is the greenest city in Europe.
In order for the city to progress it has to take steps to do so but if each step is likely to be met with disapproval it will remain in the shadow of near neighbours. I don't deny that it would be unwise to allow every proposal without debate but as the improvements stand to be in an area which needs a refurb then why not.
Simply having more greenspace than anyone else is not enough for the people living there, quality of life is important also and that can still be achieved with fewer trees.

six45ive
09-10-2011, 15:49
Whether its by design is debatable so i'm not sure any credit is due to any development commitee but it's by the by. As it stands by the way Sheffield is the greenest city in Europe.
In order for the city to progress it has to take steps to do so but if each step is likely to be met with disapproval it will remain in the shadow of near neighbours. I don't deny that it would be unwise to allow every proposal without debate but as the improvements stand to be in an area which needs a refurb then why not.
Simply having more greenspace than anyone else is not enough for the people living there, quality of life is important also and that can still be achieved with fewer trees.

In case you hadn't noticed I'm in favour of the proposal for the top of the Moor scheme.
As a side note redevelopment doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in green space. The mistake that Sheffield keeps on making is to try and copy it's neighbours about 10 years after its neighbour has done something by which time that 'something' has gone out of fashion and the world has moved on. What I'm looking for is for Sheffield to do something entirely unique so people have no other option than to come here and experience it.....whatever 'it' is.

Adamike
09-10-2011, 15:50
I find it hard to fathom how you can find these proposals so offensive that you propose them so fervently!?
It's the city centre for gods sake a bit of investment in our city centre is long overdue. I believe that the advertising is probably quite necessary to get the investment needed.

How about we get behind the proposed improvements of our fair city for once instead of shooting them down before they've even started?

Allie-pie
09-10-2011, 15:55
Because, as I said before (which you seem to have forgotten), it's that the proposed development is an improvement on what is already there. If they were planning to build a smaller version of the Moore Street substation with a tiny screen then I would be right behind you. In fact I would want them to cover the damn thing with very large screens.:D

And the point I've made several times which YOU seem to have forgotten is that the proposal would be an even bigger improvement on what's already there without the screen! Does everyone in Sheffield really have such low expectations that they consider an advertising hoarding a welcome addition to the streetscene? Jeez, that's just so sad.

It's not about resisting progress or change, it's about setting a reasonable standard for what that should be.

Your other points about having shops closer to the station I definitely agree with, but they don't impact on this decision.

Allie-pie
09-10-2011, 16:04
Hi Adamike. The advertising is not necessary to get the investment. The money is already there to progress it.

I am 100% behind the improvements, I just don't believe a city should be designed to serve a few rich people. It's very naive to think this is somehow a necessary part of redevelopment.

Adamike
09-10-2011, 16:15
Naive to believe that money is required to redevelop? We have very different definitions of naive. Especially given the current economic climate (I hate that phrase).

Could you explain how this serves a few rich people and which rich people you are referring to. I thought your objections were to the safety issues and the aesthetics?

*Pear-Cider*
09-10-2011, 17:08
im with it if it helps advertise and support local one off Sheffield businesses NOT McDonalds or Topshop !

but no doubt city council (if they own it) will charge a lovely amount to advertise so the local businesses won't be able to afford it anyway !

Murphy Jnr
09-10-2011, 17:24
In case you hadn't noticed I'm in favour of the proposal for the top of the Moor scheme.
As a side note redevelopment doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in green space. The mistake that Sheffield keeps on making is to try and copy it's neighbours about 10 years after its neighbour has done something by which time that 'something' has gone out of fashion and the world has moved on. What I'm looking for is for Sheffield to do something entirely unique so people have no other option than to come here and experience it.....whatever 'it' is.

I am aware of your being in favour and my apologies if it feels like i'm out to convince you, call it underlining :D

six45ive
09-10-2011, 17:51
And the point I've made several times which YOU seem to have forgotten is that the proposal would be an even bigger improvement on what's already there without the screen! Does everyone in Sheffield really have such low expectations that they consider an advertising hoarding a welcome addition to the streetscene? Jeez, that's just so sad.

Yes, especially when the city doesn't have even one. The city would have low expectations if it couldn't support a prominent electronic advertisement screen. If we had a plethora of them on most buildings in the city centre then you might have a point but, personally, I think you're making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill.

It's not about resisting progress or change, it's about setting a reasonable standard for what that should be.

I agree but you haven't provided any evidence that the screen isn't the 'reasonable standard' that we should be aspiring too. You're simply making an 'appeal to emotion'.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Your other points about having shops closer to the station I definitely agree with, but they don't impact on this decision.

Agreed. I was giving a specific answer to a specific point that you raised.

six45ive
09-10-2011, 17:54
I am aware of your being in favour and my apologies if it feels like i'm out to convince you, call it underlining :D

No problem.:)

Alcoblog
09-10-2011, 18:21
I think the whole scheme's a brilliant idea! It'll match the rest of the crap that the 'City Planners' (oxmoron) have already seen fit to assault our eyes and sensibilities with. Their sensitive treatment of Park Hill Flats have already shown us what they're capable of ... why stop there?
Presuming that it's not possible to sue the planners for infringement of basic human aesthetic rights, I say let them go ahead and turn the City into the laughing stock of every other city in Britain. 'More multi coloured Lego bricks' I say ... 'Big screens' everywhere, to outdo the 92inch plasma TV's we manage to cram in our lounges, so we can watch high definition 'state of the art' crap, aimed at the lowest human common denominator, even whilst on the move. Hey! ... maybe they'll even be able to show repeats of 'X Factor' and 'Big Brother'! :loopy:

theripsaw
09-10-2011, 18:51
I think it will add interest to the area. It will surely be allowed. Should we pull down the angel of the north? If you're driving around a busy town centre you pay extra attention and you can cope with a big tv screen

mike208
09-10-2011, 19:10
I think it will add interest to the area. It will surely be allowed. Should we pull down the angel of the north? If you're driving around a busy town centre you pay extra attention and you can cope with a big tv screen

Add interest? An advertising screen? You seem (and you are not alone) to have very low expectations for the city centre.

Hook
09-10-2011, 19:14
Something like this would completely undermine the redevelopment of the Moor,something that Sheffield planners have done so well to avoid in other areas that have been redeveloped in the past.

You seem to be implying that nobody would go down the moor because of a TV screen that advertises products.

Imagine... you're walking down the street thinking about how amazing it will be to walk down to the monstrosity that is Moor Foot and then all of a sudden out of the corner of your eye you spot an advert displayed on a large TV Screen. You immediately turn around and head home because you just can't cope with how much it's undermined the development.

Stick some perspective into your head - it isn't the end of the world. It's just a shame it won't show BBC News/big sporting events/etc like other major cities have.

I'm all for it.

Hook
09-10-2011, 19:15
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about holding back progress, and I've said that in all other ways the scheme is great. Why can the 21st century not be about vibrant architecture, stimulating urban environments, great spaces and public art? Why does it have to be about advertising?? That's a really lopsided view of progress!

You say it's only one billboard but it DOES set a precedent and not one which can be easily reversed, if at all.

There are billboards all over the rest of the TV centre, including set into the pavement along the moor, along fargate and the peace gardens. It's hardly the first bit of advertising in the area...

mike208
09-10-2011, 19:23
You seem to be implying that nobody would go down the moor because of a TV screen that advertises products.

Imagine... you're walking down the street thinking about how amazing it will be to walk down to the monstrosity that is Moor Foot and then all of a sudden out of the corner of your eye you spot an advert displayed on a large TV Screen. You immediately turn around and head home because you just can't cope with how much it's undermined the development.

Stick some perspective into your head - it isn't the end of the world. It's just a shame it won't show BBC News/big sporting events/etc like other major cities have.

I'm all for it.

I don't think it implied that at all but feel free to jump to your own conclusions. I was just trying to make the point that the rest of the plans appear very tasteful and in my opinion an advertising board is not.

I wasn't saying as a shopper it would put me off enough to go home. A 1:5 scale replica of Elland Road would also not cause me to turn round and head home if I had some urgent last minute kettle shopping to do in Argos. But..... at the same time, I'd rather one wasn't built.

theripsaw
09-10-2011, 19:25
Add interest? An advertising screen? You seem (and you are not alone) to have very low expectations for the city centre.
Add visual interest yes. Is it the screen or the fact that it's an advertising screen that puts you off? A big bright tv screen is hardly surprising and the argument that it could cause accidents is ludicrous.

Hook
09-10-2011, 19:25
I don't think it implied that at all but feel free to jump to your own conclusions. I was just trying to make the point that the rest of the plans appear very tasteful and in my opinion an advertising board is not.

I wasn't saying as a shopper it would put me off enough to go home. A 1:5 scale replica of Elland Road would also not cause me to turn round and head home if I had some urgent last minute kettle shopping to do in Argos. But..... at the same time, I'd rather one wasn't built.

Logically, the purpose of the development is to encourage people to use the city centre more no? So it's only undermining the development if it undermines that purpose and it surely isn't.

Indeed, if it could be used to screen events like they do in other cities it would be seen as a draw to the city centre and could therefore actually help promote the city centre?

mike208
09-10-2011, 19:56
Add visual interest yes. Is it the screen or the fact that it's an advertising screen that puts you off? A big bright tv screen is hardly surprising and the argument that it could cause accidents is ludicrous.

Causing accidents - That was the argument of the highways department (not just the OP) who have expertise in this sort of thing. You should get on to them though, you obviously can present a balanced argument that indicates otherwise.

mike208
09-10-2011, 20:03
Logically, the purpose of the development is to encourage people to use the city centre more no? So it's only undermining the development if it undermines that purpose and it surely isn't.

Indeed, if it could be used to screen events like they do in other cities it would be seen as a draw to the city centre and could therefore actually help promote the city centre?

Your argument is totally flawed. Does an advertising board encourage people to use the city centre more? No. That's like saying television advertisements encourage you to watch more TV.

On your second point, I agree. But it's NOT going to be used to screen events so I don't see any point in discussing that aspect.

Allie-pie
09-10-2011, 20:04
Logically, the purpose of the development is to encourage people to use the city centre more no? So it's only undermining the development if it undermines that purpose and it surely isn't.

Indeed, if it could be used to screen events like they do in other cities it would be seen as a draw to the city centre and could therefore actually help promote the city centre?

Ok, for the last time... this not about screening events. That's like saying billboards are great because they could be used to display Monets or Picassos. No they couldn't, because they don't have artistic license over those images.

Adverts are not a 'draw' to the city centre, any more than they tempt to to buy a magazine so you can pore over them.

Vrsaljko
09-10-2011, 20:05
Don't see anything wrong with it personally. Looks pretty decent in The Star article.

Can't be any worse than the grotty building that's already there.

Alcoblog
09-10-2011, 20:41
Stick some perspective into your head - it isn't the end of the world. It's just a shame it won't show BBC News/big sporting events/etc like other major cities have.

I'm all for it.
I feel sorry for you. It is indeed a crying shame that you won't be able to watch the all important news and big sporting events whilst stood on the pavement on the way to Poundland for a new pair of nylon socks and BOGOF toothpaste. What's the world coming to eh? :rolleyes:

Hook
09-10-2011, 23:12
I feel sorry for you. It is indeed a crying shame that you won't be able to watch the all important news and big sporting events whilst stood on the pavement on the way to Poundland for a new pair of nylon socks and BOGOF toothpaste. What's the world coming to eh? :rolleyes:

They do BOGOF toothpaste in poundland? Meet you there tomorrow so you can show me where? ;)

Alcoblog
10-10-2011, 00:31
They do BOGOF toothpaste in poundland? Meet you there tomorrow so you can show me where? ;)
Can't make it I'm afraid! BOGOF toothpaste's next to Sheffield Planning Departments wax crayon extravaganza, featuring 'colour it in yourself for the city Centre' sketch pads (2-3yr olds) in the bargain basement.(terms and conditions apply) :rolleyes:

Nagasaki
10-10-2011, 06:31
It will be ideal for presenting subliminal images to the masses, ie "be a numpty and vote labour"

theripsaw
10-10-2011, 10:53
Causing accidents - That was the argument of the highways department (not just the OP) who have expertise in this sort of thing. You should get on to them though, you obviously can present a balanced argument that indicates otherwise.

I dont think I'll need to. It will get passed. The Highways dept have to put their two penneth in or they wouldnt be doing their job.
There's a good reason why advertising bill boards are often sited near busy roads- it's so people see them. This one will generate some additional much needed rates income for the council.

Badlittlepup
10-10-2011, 11:18
I support this, will make the area look a bit more busy, cared about, dynamic and modern and that area needs a pick me up believe me.

Paul2412
10-10-2011, 11:42
Hi Adamike. The advertising is not necessary to get the investment. The money is already there to progress it.

I am 100% behind the improvements, I just don't believe a city should be designed to serve a few rich people. It's very naive to think this is somehow a necessary part of redevelopment.

Did you oppose the advertisement screen in Meadowhall?

Local businesses wanting to promote themselves to aid them in difficult times, it's hardly something we should be foaming at the mouth about is it?

rickiethecat
10-10-2011, 12:32
I agree with the OP. I absolutely loathe big screen advertising as it brainwashes the masses into buying things they neither want nor need and is very unpleasant to look at. Whoever came up with this proposal should be sacked.

0742Sheff
10-10-2011, 15:45
I agree with the OP. I absolutely loathe big screen advertising as it brainwashes the masses into buying things they neither want nor need and is very unpleasant to look at. Whoever came up with this proposal should be sacked.

There is a small chance of it coercing people without the ability to think for themselves. For everyone else it will just be a little bit of extra light pollution.

Mark0872
10-10-2011, 16:35
This is a great redevelopment. But listen, you just have to understand that the large advertisement screen brings in so much revenue that really helps the scheme to work financially. If you want to see it go you probably you will have the sculptural glazed corner replaced by a flat standard glass frontage.
I know how these things work, believe me.
And bear in mind that the screen might go in 3-5 years but the building doesn't.
Look ahead and think smart!
MS

0742Sheff
10-10-2011, 16:47
The screen will probably bork in the first week and never be repaired anyway.

six45ive
10-10-2011, 18:24
I agree with the OP. I absolutely loathe big screen advertising as it brainwashes the masses into buying things they neither want nor need and is very unpleasant to look at. Whoever came up with this proposal should be sacked.

Unfortunately our banking and retail dominated economy rely on the brain washed/unthinking masses to buy things that they don't really want and probably don't need. If that wasn't the case the present unemployment rate would probably be tripled.

Badlittlepup
11-10-2011, 09:43
I agree with the OP. I absolutely loathe big screen advertising as it brainwashes the masses into buying things they neither want nor need and is very unpleasant to look at. Whoever came up with this proposal should be sacked.

So basically anybody who doesn't share your political views should be sacked. Riiiiiiight.....

And are you brainwashed into buying things or is it just everybody else who is 'brainwashed'. It wouldn't occur to you other people had the capability and faculties to think for themselves and make their own minds up would it? No, we all need to be told what to do by overbearing lefties.

liam1412
11-10-2011, 09:48
This thread just highlights why Sheffield is so behind!

I bet most of the people doing the objecting, are the very same ones ranting about Sheffield being behind in other threads on here. Some people just aren't happy unless they are moaning.

Nuff said!

Paul2412
11-10-2011, 11:43
I agree with the OP. I absolutely loathe big screen advertising as it brainwashes the masses into buying things they neither want nor need and is very unpleasant to look at. Whoever came up with this proposal should be sacked.

If you're "brainwashed" by an advertisement then there's something wrong with you.

clublander
11-10-2011, 12:53
Does everyone in Sheffield really have such low expectations that they consider an advertising hoarding a welcome addition to the streetscene? Jeez, that's just so sad.

YOU might THINK its sad, but it seems you are in the minority at in this thread. Some are pro, most don't care either way.

It's a bit 'sad' that you discount others opinions so rapidly in order to your own feelings on us.

rickiethecat
11-10-2011, 13:59
If you're "brainwashed" by an advertisement then there's something wrong with you.

Look how many people own iphones, ipads and ipods! Ask yourself why people will pay £20-30 more for designers label jeans when a shop's own brand is just as good. Everybody gets brainwashed by adverts into buying products they neither want nor need, otherwise no-one would bother to advertise.

Paul2412
11-10-2011, 17:28
Look how many people own iphones, ipads and ipods! Ask yourself why people will pay £20-30 more for designers label jeans when a shop's own brand is just as good. Everybody gets brainwashed by adverts into buying products they neither want nor need, otherwise no-one would bother to advertise.

It's hardly brainwashed, it's wanting to choose a brand because it's to your particular taste.

Why would this electronic display be so evil? Should we ban all forms of advertising, or is this one thing singled out for some reason?

Paul2412
11-10-2011, 18:05
Looks like the application will be granted:

"
The digital screen is not considered to be appropriate in this highly prominent location and, from an aesthetic perspective, it is considered to detract from the building’s architecture and the existing character of the area. From a highways perspective, even with mitigation works in place, the digital screen is considered to cause a distraction to both pedestrians and drivers to the detriment of public safety. However, given the wider regeneration and economic benefits of the development this element of the proposal is not sufficient to warrant a refusal of the overall scheme.

Given the central location and as the proposal will represent a reduction in gross retail floor space the scheme will not put any additional pressure on city centre car parking or public transport. The applicant will be improving the width of the footway onto Matilda Street and providing two new bus shelters onto Furnival Gate, which is welcomed.

The public art contribution for the development will be incorporated into three new kiosks within the adjacent public realm.

The scheme will boast excellent sustainability credentials, which include providing a brown roof and meeting a BREEAM rating of very good.

In light of the above the scheme is recommended for conditional approval."

Bulgarian
11-10-2011, 18:09
No wonder nobody invests anyhting in Sheffield.

woodmally
11-10-2011, 19:43
I'm very much in favour of this planning application. It makes the place look vibrant and also raises revenue for the cities coffers. I see no one complaining about adverts in Times Square so why not here.

Allie-pie
12-10-2011, 14:35
Did you oppose the advertisement screen in Meadowhall?

Local businesses wanting to promote themselves to aid them in difficult times, it's hardly something we should be foaming at the mouth about is it?

This is fundamentally different to a screen in a shopping centre like Meadowhall. Much as I dislike that one too, it's an appropriate location for such a thing as it only has pedestrians and is purely retail-driven.

To grow and develop the city centre we need to promote and balance: retail, dining, pubs/clubs, theatres, cinemas, museums, art galleries, relaxation/recreation, private industry, sports, live music, education, heritage etc all within a place which remains visually interesting and welcoming. Don't forget that people will use the city centre for a multitude of reasons other than shopping.

Some posters have made the point that we have large billboards at roadsides. Err, I'm sorry but when was the last time one of those made you get out of your car to admire a place? Yes of course businesses have to promote themselves but it's the job of planning officers to control how and where that advertising takes place. I don't see the sense in tripping over ourselves to welcome a poor quality, low class of redevelopment purely because "it'll look better than what's there now". That's not a good enough reason to say yes to something when we could be pushing for something even better.

I'm lucky to have a very good insight into the processes which take place between developers and planners and I can tell you for a FACT that the screen is not needed to make the application viable. Nobody in their right mind would put in a planning application with 5,163 square metres of retail floorspace but which depended on some advertising revenue to succeed. Nobody. That's not how the world works. The developers are just trying to wring as much profit out of it as they can and while I absolutely don't blame them for that, I think in this instance the cost is too high because the advert is not an appropriate feature in that location and just cheapens the place - offsetting the gains from the redevelopment.

Anyway, those are my reasons for opposing the screen element of the proposed scheme although I don't understand why is anyone who has an objection to one particularly ugly aspect of one particular development instantly deemed to be anti-progress and a whinger and 'the reason why Sheffield is so behind'? It's pretty tedious trying to reiterate that I don't have opinions I'm being accused of. I am not anti-progress. Big, bright adverts are not progress. Have some standards.

Bulgarian
12-10-2011, 14:39
There are loads of big animated/video billboards here, right next to the freeway, I'm sure they wouldn't have them if there was any evidence they increased accidents.

Allie-pie
12-10-2011, 14:56
There are loads of big animated/video billboards here, right next to the freeway, I'm sure they wouldn't have them if there was any evidence they increased accidents.

Lets say some very detailed research was done which took into account increased volumes of traffic and an increase in other in-vehicle distractions (eg mobile phones) and it found that, say, 3 accidents per year were attributable to animated billboards... do you think they would all be taken down?

Bulgarian
12-10-2011, 15:02
Lets say some very detailed research was done which took into account increased volumes of traffic and an increase in other in-vehicle distractions (eg mobile phones) and it found that, say, 3 accidents per year were attributable to animated billboards... do you think they would all be taken down?

If someone did that anaysis and definately proved it then they would have to take them down, or risk being sued by people having accidents "caused" by them.

Allie-pie
12-10-2011, 15:12
If that were true, would it not be possible for people to sue your billboard companies every time they had an accident? Could I not get distracted, crash my car and claim it was the billboard? It can't be proven either way, which makes me think suing the billboard companies doesn't happen. And if it doesn't happen then what motivation would they have to respond to an increase in accidents?

Bulgarian
12-10-2011, 15:26
Could I not get distracted, crash my car and claim it was the billboard?

You could but you're basically saying "I'm a bad driver, I get distracted by things and can't concentrate on the road infront of me"

Allie-pie
12-10-2011, 15:37
You could but you're basically saying "I'm a bad driver, I get distracted by things and can't concentrate on the road infront of me"

Riiiiight! So even if animated billboards cause an increase in accidents, it's not the fault of the distracting billboard, it's the fault of the driver. Thank you.

So, this assertion you made that they wouldn't be there if they cause accidents... how exactly are you backing that up?

theripsaw
12-10-2011, 15:47
Riiiiight! So even if animated billboards cause an increase in accidents, it's not the fault of the distracting billboard, it's the fault of the driver. Thank you.

So, this assertion you made that they wouldn't be there if they cause accidents... how exactly are you backing that up?

Off topic your honour. As predicted, the planning application is destined to be approved and you seem to have drummed up little support for your viewpoint, but I guess you should be commended for at least trying :)

Allie-pie
12-10-2011, 16:03
Hmm, so in a discussion about an animated advertising billboard on a road junction, what particular aspect of this "side" discussion about animated advertising billboards on roadsides do you find to be off topic? :-)

The officer recommendations are exactly what I expected. Have you read how scathing he is about the screen by the way? Nothing is 'destined' though - it's the planning committee who will decide and I might not make a difference but I'll be glad I tried. I can't help wanting something better for Sheffield than to be shafted by developers, sorry!

Bulgarian
12-10-2011, 16:06
Riiiiight! So even if animated billboards cause an increase in accidents, it's not the fault of the distracting billboard, it's the fault of the driver.

Basically, yes

So, this assertion you made that they wouldn't be there if they cause accidents... how exactly are you backing that up?

There is no proof they cause accidents or they wouldn't be there ?

how are you backing up that they do ?

theripsaw
12-10-2011, 16:16
Hmm, so in a discussion about an animated advertising billboard on a road junction, what particular aspect of this "side" discussion about animated advertising billboards on roadsides do you find to be off topic? :-)

The officer recommendations are exactly what I expected. Have you read how scathing he is about the screen by the way? Nothing is 'destined' though - it's the planning committee who will decide and I might not make a difference but I'll be glad I tried. I can't help wanting something better for Sheffield than to be shafted by developers, sorry!

It's only your opinion that Sheffield is being shafted. I think that in the current climate where speculative independent development has all but ground to a halt, Sheffield should be grateful for any developer interest at all (particularly as their planning department is well renowned for being ridiculously and deliberately obstructive and difficult to deal with).

The Oil Man
12-10-2011, 17:50
Who maintains it when it goes wrong, letters missing, not illuminated, etc, who gets rid of it when it`s out of style? forget road safety, it`s not a good idea.

ECCOnoob
12-10-2011, 19:00
Most likely the advertising company that owns it be it viacom outdoor or JC Decaux or whatever.

I really dont see the problem. A video advertising board in the middle of a proposed retail area within an urban enviornment is hardly something to start a campaign against!

lomax
12-10-2011, 20:58
I have to say that I find very little wrong with the proposed development. It's not as though the Moor and that part of town is an architectural crown jewel. I may object if there was one to appear on the Peace Gardens or Barkers Pool...but then the planners have more rigorous policies to test the application against in those areas - at a bare minimum the impact on nearby listed buildings and their setting. I doubt there's a listed building within 100 metres of this proposal.

I, for one, salute our new advertising overlords

Allie-pie
13-10-2011, 07:08
It's only your opinion that Sheffield is being shafted. I think that in the current climate where speculative independent development has all but ground to a halt, Sheffield should be grateful for any developer interest at all

This is exactly the kind of attitude I've been trying to speak out against. Why should we be pathetically 'grateful' and accept whatever kind of rubbish they want to chuck at us? It just does a disservice to other investors who've worked to a higher standard and made a more positive contribution to the urban landscape.

(particularly as their planning department is well renowned for being ridiculously and deliberately obstructive and difficult to deal with).

Do you know what percentage of applications get a refusal? Or what percentage of appeals result in an overturning of the planners' original decision? Sorry, this just sounds like one of those 'facts' which gets pulled out of thin air by someone with a personal axe to grind.

theripsaw
13-10-2011, 08:55
This is exactly the kind of attitude I've been trying to speak out against. Why should we be pathetically 'grateful' and accept whatever kind of rubbish they want to chuck at us? It just does a disservice to other investors who've worked to a higher standard and made a more positive contribution to the urban landscape.

This is the real world. Your idealogical stance is heart warming though :)

Do you know what percentage of applications get a refusal? Or what percentage of appeals result in an overturning of the planners' original decision? Sorry, this just sounds like one of those 'facts' which gets pulled out of thin air by someone with a personal axe to grind.

It's not about the number of refusals / grants, it's about the way they deal with cases. I've heard and read the tales of many developers large and small that have been dicked about almost to the point of withdrawing their applications out of pure frustration. They do everything that is asked of them, and then the planners move the goal posts, or ask for more, or change their minds.

Allie-pie
13-10-2011, 11:51
It's not about the number of refusals / grants, it's about the way they deal with cases. I've heard and read the tales of many developers large and small that have been dicked about almost to the point of withdrawing their applications out of pure frustration. They do everything that is asked of them, and then the planners move the goal posts, or ask for more, or change their minds.


I don't understand what you think is more 'real world' about saying yes to all planning applications, which is effectively what you're asking for. You don't like planners because they push for high quality development that meets certain targets in terms of design, sustainability, use etc. which means you don't like them because they do the job they're paid for. You do realise most planning regulations are national don't you? That they work to the same standards as everywhere else?

And you continue to claim that they're unhelpful and obstructive despite the fact that they look likely to grant this application, which seems a particularly perverse stance to be taking.

Just for your information... last year 2.8% of planning applications submitted to SCC were withdrawn and 4.4% were refused. Oh, and if you get a refusal you can submit a 'free go' amended scheme within 12 months without having to pay the fee again. Does that seem particularly obstructive to you? Maybe on balance you could look at those figures and say actually, there's room to toughen up a little bit - which is all I'm asking to happen.

Like I said, you obviously have your axe to grind, and I suspect your preconceptions about 'the planning department' are colouring this discussion. I'm glad I've warmed your heart though:)

Why not join me in my campaign? I suspect deep down you want to really;)

Paul2412
13-10-2011, 11:55
This is fundamentally different to a screen in a shopping centre like Meadowhall. Much as I dislike that one too, it's an appropriate location for such a thing as it only has pedestrians and is purely retail-driven.

To grow and develop the city centre we need to promote and balance: retail, dining, pubs/clubs, theatres, cinemas, museums, art galleries, relaxation/recreation, private industry, sports, live music, education, heritage etc all within a place which remains visually interesting and welcoming. Don't forget that people will use the city centre for a multitude of reasons other than shopping.

Some posters have made the point that we have large billboards at roadsides. Err, I'm sorry but when was the last time one of those made you get out of your car to admire a place? Yes of course businesses have to promote themselves but it's the job of planning officers to control how and where that advertising takes place. I don't see the sense in tripping over ourselves to welcome a poor quality, low class of redevelopment purely because "it'll look better than what's there now". That's not a good enough reason to say yes to something when we could be pushing for something even better.

I'm lucky to have a very good insight into the processes which take place between developers and planners and I can tell you for a FACT that the screen is not needed to make the application viable. Nobody in their right mind would put in a planning application with 5,163 square metres of retail floorspace but which depended on some advertising revenue to succeed. Nobody. That's not how the world works. The developers are just trying to wring as much profit out of it as they can and while I absolutely don't blame them for that, I think in this instance the cost is too high because the advert is not an appropriate feature in that location and just cheapens the place - offsetting the gains from the redevelopment.

Anyway, those are my reasons for opposing the screen element of the proposed scheme although I don't understand why is anyone who has an objection to one particularly ugly aspect of one particular development instantly deemed to be anti-progress and a whinger and 'the reason why Sheffield is so behind'? It's pretty tedious trying to reiterate that I don't have opinions I'm being accused of. I am not anti-progress. Big, bright adverts are not progress. Have some standards.

Indeed we do, and what better way to advertise their services than in a prominent position with both high footfall and high passing traffic?

theripsaw
13-10-2011, 12:47
Just for your information... last year 2.8% of planning applications submitted to SCC were withdrawn and 4.4% were refused. Oh, and if you get a refusal you can submit a 'free go' amended scheme within 12 months without having to pay the fee again. Does that seem particularly obstructive to you? Maybe on balance you could look at those figures and say actually, there's room to toughen up a little bit - which is all I'm asking to happen.

Why not join me in my campaign? I suspect deep down you want to really;)

Your figures dont prove whether or not the planners are obstructive and make life difficult for applicants. Like you say, they work to guidelines with regards what should and should not be passed, but that doesnt stop them from dithering around (possibly to keep busy and justify their jobs in these quiet times?;)) to the frustration of the applicants.

We'd all like to see quality (nice looking) development take place but one mans rose is another mans thistle! Not looking very nice is not grounds for refusal in itself.

Oh go on then, sign me up for your campaign :P

rickiethecat
13-10-2011, 12:48
Indeed we do, and what better way to advertise their services than in a prominent position with both high footfall and high passing traffic?

By making the city centre look like a cheap, tacky American theme park full of advertising screens, this scheme is more likely to drive people away from the city centre.

Allie-pie
14-10-2011, 15:30
Your figures dont prove whether or not the planners are obstructive and make life difficult for applicants. Like you say, they work to guidelines with regards what should and should not be passed, but that doesnt stop them from dithering around (possibly to keep busy and justify their jobs in these quiet times?;)) to the frustration of the applicants.

We'd all like to see quality (nice looking) development take place but one mans rose is another mans thistle! Not looking very nice is not grounds for refusal in itself.

Oh go on then, sign me up for your campaign :P

Ok, I can't help myself, I'll take a bite at this as I do love a bit of statistical accuracy. See, one of my best friends was a planning officer in Sheffield until a couple of months ago and I know that last year she dealt with 221 applications. Given that there are 52x5= 260 working days minus say 30 days holiday = 230 working days in the year, that's a lot of planning applications to get through. It would be a rare person indeed who felt the need to drag any of that work out in order to justify keeping their job! Obviously the more experienced case officers have a lower volume of applications, but deal with the more complex ones with issues which take longer to resolve. Clearly there may be certain officers who are more indecisive than others though!

All of which makes me think perhaps I shouldn't have bothered starting this thread and should just leave them to get on with their jobs:confused: But seriously, I think it does no harm to try and give a nudge on issues you feel strongly about.


Anyway, that's not important right now as I'm so excited to have recruited you, scary-sounding ripsaw-man! Together we will bestride the internet like a colossus, fighting for accurate statistics, fewer thistles, and the visual amenity of our urban environment! Hurrah!:)

Bulgarian
14-10-2011, 16:01
By making the city centre look like a cheap, tacky American theme park full of advertising screens, this scheme is more likely to drive people away from the city centre.

Yep, clean, new, modern buildings will drive people away, the Moor has got so much going for it at the moment.

theripsaw
14-10-2011, 16:23
Ok, I can't help myself, I'll take a bite at this as I do love a bit of statistical accuracy. See, one of my best friends was a planning officer in Sheffield until a couple of months ago and I know that last year she dealt with 221 applications. Given that there are 52x5= 260 working days minus say 30 days holiday = 230 working days in the year, that's a lot of planning applications to get through. It would be a rare person indeed who felt the need to drag any of that work out in order to justify keeping their job! Obviously the more experienced case officers have a lower volume of applications, but deal with the more complex ones with issues which take longer to resolve. Clearly there may be certain officers who are more indecisive than others though!

All of which makes me think perhaps I shouldn't have bothered starting this thread and should just leave them to get on with their jobs:confused: But seriously, I think it does no harm to try and give a nudge on issues you feel strongly about.


Anyway, that's not important right now as I'm so excited to have recruited you, scary-sounding ripsaw-man! Together we will bestride the internet like a colossus, fighting for accurate statistics, fewer thistles, and the visual amenity of our urban environment! Hurrah!:)

Ahhh statistics, statistics... see a wise man once said of statistics "statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital"!
221 applications sounds like a gread deal, but if 100 of them are applications to put a small illuminated sign up above a shop front on London Road, or to re-paint the front door of a listed building then your friend would plough through these in no time. Allowing her ample time to decide / realise right at the last minute, that bat boxes are required on this small housing development, and plans showing how these will be included must be submitted before a decision can possibly be made..sorry about that!

But like you say, not important anymore. There is work to be done- I hear they are planning to hang flashing coloured lights and tinsel images of some bearded guy off all the lamp posts in town very soon!! This must be stopped! unless we want our city centre to look like some tacky american theme park! :gag: ;)

PARROT91
14-10-2011, 16:47
I think they should do it. The City centre is dark, boring and still living in the 60's. About time they put money into modernising it. Maybe people will want to visit the area then.

Allie-pie
14-10-2011, 19:54
Ripsawman! Do you think bats should be systematically eliminated so we can build houses? Have you ever met the wonder which is a bat? I've gone right off you now :)

Anyway, the city ecology unit would insist upon any measures needed to protect known wildlife on a development site, not a planning officer. And to do that in your example they'd have to arrange and carry out a bat survey. Don't forget that bats hibernate during the winter, and have different habitat requirements at other time of year so surveys can only be done under certain conditions by licensed ecologists.

Oh, and fyi I don't think any development has ever required bat boxes, although they might require work to be carried out at certain non-sensitive times of year.

My fight for accuracy on internet forums continues :)

Mr Sheffield
17-10-2011, 16:01
The app for this has been granted.

http://planning.sheffield.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LODFZ0NYFY000&searchtype=WEEKLY