walkermark

Should Sheffield’s Green Belt be developed? This was recently debated at a council meeting held in January. Sheffield needs to identify new areas where housing could be placed. Various options were considered including allowing development of Green Belt land which has become degraded. There are ample derelict, underused and vacant areas of land within the city itself. Why can not such areas be identified and developed upon instead? The council should show more flexibility in allowing development on such sites meaning the Green Belt can be protected. Development of the Green Belt leads to more suburbs, far away from the city centre, meaning more private transport use, more reliance on cars. Such development only adds to climate change. Development of the Green Belt is contrary to the concept of biodiversity net gain, with important boundary and buffer sites between residential and countryside areas being lost. Such areas act as important corridors for wildlife to move between green areas. Once the Green Belt is developed a dangerous precedent is set. If development is allowed on one area of the Green Belt, then why not allow it on another area? Such gradual chipping away could lead to the eventual loss of most of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it could actively damage other land in the Green Belt. Landowners seeing development being permitted on ‘degraded’ areas could actively promote such degradation upon their own sites in order to gain future permission. Is the council acting in the best interests of the cities residents if it allows the Green Belt to be developed? Earlier generations showed foresight and wisdom in creating the Green Belt. Let’s not let short term greed ruin what the cities green girdle. Mark Walker

Has anyone else seen bats on the old Norton aerodrome site? I wondered if they were roosting there in the old buildings. There are loads flying round on a mild evening. Some quite big ones which could be Noctules. Mark

Does anyone else think it was a mistake to put the St. James Retail Park at Norton upon the former Norton College site? It used to be a pleasant residential area. I would often cycle around Norton Park Avenue and View on the quiet roads. Now they are busy with people parking for the retail park or ratrunners avoiding the two sets of lights on the parkway. The old college site was pleasant, most of it being green and surrounded by lovely cherry trees. This has been replaced by a wall to wall car park. So much green space has already been lost in Norton such as the playing fields on Matthews Lane and the green land surrounding the former special school. Norton is becoming so built up, Mark Walker

Has anyone seen the deer on the side of the road near the old aerodrome? Does anyone know if they ever venture onto the road itself? or do they stick on the edges?

Drug use still a problem on the Periwood Estate. I think I saw a dealer hidden in the lane running towards Sainsburys on Archer Road. He was smoking Cannabis and just hanging around. He stayed hidden for over a hour. I suppose it is a quiet corner to deal from.

Should this important historical site be preserved? The former Norton Aerodrome, off Norton Avenue, played an important role in protecting Sheffield during WWII. The site housed anti-aircraft barrage balloons and was an RAF training site. Given that the 11th of November is approaching, I thought the site would make an excellent memorial park. This would be a fitting gesture to remember those who fought both abroad and on the homefront in past conflicts. The site could made suitable for wildlife and provide a useful community amenity- also preserving the legacy of those who fought. I have started an e-petition on the Sheffield Council Website which can be signed here: http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000066 Mark

Fee were only introduced in 2015. Many other local authorities do not charge a fee. There are other sources of advice, not mentioned on the council website. Planning decisions can be emotive; to some it may appear that planning is more likely to be granted when a fee is paid.

Single householders and small developers are bearing the burden of planning department pre-application enquiry fees Those requiring help with planning applications at the Planning Department at Sheffield City Council must now go through a pre-application enquiry scheme, for which there are a set of charges. These include £85 for enquiries about whether planning approval is required or about house extensions (other), or £250 for small scale minor developments (minor). In comparison enquiries about large major applications cost 700 to 2360 pounds. Out of interest I requested through a FOI how much they were collecting. The response is below. They are collecting most revenue from those wishing to make simple changes such as build extensions or wishing to build a single or small numbers of houses. These add up considerably, see below. Few enquiries are made by large developers, although presumably these have the most financial resources. There is a shortage of new housing in Sheffield. These charges are a further deterrent to those wishing to build and add to Sheffield's housing stock. Small developers are those most being affected; although those wishing to develop small and 'windfall' sites have been identified as of importance in adding to the cities housing stock.* I thought this might be of interest. Mark Walker, Sheffield Year Apr-Mar 2017-2018 No appl 723 Fees £177,435.00 Large Major 18 Small major 96 Minor (large scale) 45 Minor 158 Other 406

What should one do if one finds syringes left by drug users? I was tidying up in our allotment plot on the Periwood site in Millhouses and came across them. The site is rather secluded and antisocial types appear to hang around at night in the local area. Is it worth reporting to the police?

Have environmental campaigners concentrated efforts too much on saving street trees when other battles need to be fought? Over the past 5 years considerable effort, and cost, has been expended on the campaign to save Sheffield street trees from felling as part of the Street's Ahead program. This has been heavily publicised and the debate has been vigorous on both sides. However, have those wishing to protect Sheffield's environment expended too much energy on this campaign at the expense of other problems? There is currently a rapid loss of open playing fields within the city. For example around Norton, former university playing fields on Hemsworth Road are currently being built upon. The former Norton College site, much of which was covered with either green fields and flowering cherry trees, has been replaced by a retail site and car park with no green space whatsoever. The playing fields of the former special school on Matthews Lane have been built upon. Many of these fields were once council owned. However, many of these developments, and the loss of trees upon them has largely gone uncommented and without protest. Why such green publicly accessible sites are developed when there are considerable numbers of brownfield and underused derelict sites around the city remains a mystery. Why does not the council identify underused green areas rather than those the public continues to use? Has too much emphasis been placed on street trees? Trees are the ultimate renewable resource; a felled tree can be replanted, but lost school playing fields are gone forever. Would not increased effort on stopping development of pleasant green sites be more productive?

A levelled playing field? Over the last few years many former school playing fields and other open green sites have been built upon. This represents an important loss of recreational green space for Sheffield's communities. Many of these sites were, originally council owned. Permission to develop such sites appears to be granted in a straightforward manner. Examples include: Abbeydale Tennis Club (15/03543/REM; Private site). Abbeydale Grange School, Hastings Road (58 houses; October 2015 ; 15/03543/REM). Fir Vale School Playing Fields on Earl Marshall Road/ Barnsley Road. (59 houses, March 2015; REF 15/00659/FUL), Greaves Lane, Stannington (39 homes; September 2017; 17/0711/FUL). King Ecgbert's School, Furniss Avenue (58 houses; May 2015; 15/01504/FUL). Park Grange: Cardock Road/ City Road. (96 houses; November 2016; REF 16/04516/FUL). Parson Cross College: (79 houses; August 2016; REF: 16/03038/FUL). Westfield School: (150 houses; August 2011; 16/00375/FUL). There are many small areas of derelict land around the city more suitable for development. Use of such unused sites would reduce the pressure to develop further sports grounds and fields. However, small developers wishing to slot houses onto such derelict land encounter problems overcoming the 'Sheffield Development Framework', also known as the 'Local Plan'. This document details which types of development proceed in specific parts of the city. However, often the rigidity of the plan means development in suitable places is hindered. A level playing field for all could ensure that precious green space in the city is preserved and derelict unsightly areas utilised to their full. A new version of the 'Sheffield Plan' is currently being drafted to direct development until 2034. Those with an interest in development should examine this plan carefully when it is published this spring. Are more playing fields and school sites being developed?