Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

NewBiz

Members
  • Content Count

    2,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NewBiz

  1. No idea. I'd google it for you but i can't be arsed either!
  2. I'm delighted. Well done SCC Planning dept and Committee!!
  3. It is indeed an exemplar if money wasting ineptitude is what you're after
  4. That's interesting, why you were discussing 'the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally' on a thread solely about a cycle lanes at Shalesmoor? What is evident is that you and SCC will call black white in an attempt to save face. What's sad is that not only does it not work, but it stifles any chance of an open culture where people genuinely learn from their mistakes. So there's no accountability, so the money keeps getting wasted, and the taxpayer keeps ponying up, and nothing changes.
  5. That's interesting Planner1, but is completely at odds with what you stated in your post of 7th July cut and pasted below. Perhaps you could explain the dichotomy between your statement above, and the one below please Motorists are not the only highway users. This improvement is for non-motorised modes. In a constrained network, you can't promote a step change in travel mode choice without inconveniencing some types of highway user. It's fairly obvious that many car drivers will not change mode unless they are made to. Making car drivers trips slower, more difficult and more costly are all tools of demand management and that is what you are seeing here. It is policy at national government and local government levels to get huge increases in the numbers of people walking and cycling over coming years. That won't be achieved by just letting car drivers continue as normal. The government and local councils have seen big increases in cycling and walking in lockdown and they want to keep those people travelling sustainably as we come out of lockdown. The government are telling local councils to introduce measures to facilitate this and are giving them the money to do it. Thats why you are seeing measures like this emerging in all towns and cities. If the policy aims are to be delivered, its just the start and you are going to see a lot more.
  6. So am I understanding you correctly? You appear to be saying that before installing the lanes, SCC had decided that if at any point the traffic returned to 80%or above of pre-covid levels then the cycle lanes would be removed. Could you therefore please provide the research/scientific/advisory sources they were working from that led them to think there was any possibility traffic wouldn't return to at least 80% of pre-covid levels at some stage, particularly given the fairly predictable reluctance of people to use public transport during a pandemic. Thanks
  7. So Planner1 ''They had criteria for removing the temporary measures which related to queue lengths and traffic levels ( relative to pre-Covid levels). It was the increase in traffic levels which triggered the decision to remove it'' So you're saying the traffic levels triggered the decision to remove it? Could you elucidate please. Obviously queue lengths, which you also mention, were going to lengthen when you cut an arterial road's capacity in half (even given the mitigating factors of lockdown ) So what exactly about the traffic levels was it that 'triggered the decision to remove it' ?
  8. Another very good question. Where's Planner1 when you need him?
  9. Surely any organisation fit to be in charge of public funds has a clear set of criteria by which they measure the merits or otherwise of any proposed schemes?
  10. What I'd like to know, and hopefully Planner1 will be able to help here, is what metrics SCC have been measuring during the trial (ie number of cyclists using the lane, reduction in vehicular transport as a result of greater cycle use, impact on traffic flow, journey times etc) and what criteria would have to be met for it to be declared a success. Specifically what outcomes, agreed before the trial would need to be seen for SCC to make the cycle lane permanent.
  11. The explanation for removing it is laughable. However the appalling waste of taxpayer's ie our money is far from funny, it's a disgrace
  12. My bold, but that sums it up nicely. You couldn't make it up
  13. I don't blame SCC for taking the money, obviously, but given almost certainly the'scheme' is going to be removed then it's a waste of money. If SCC are incapable of understanding that as a basic concept then we're on a hiding to nothing. I'm not going to waste any more time or effort trying to get this very basic idea across. All very depressing.
  14. What makes me want to weep is that because it's central government money it's treated as though it doesn't matter. It's this arrogant stance that I find so disgraceful. Each and everyone of us is paying for it, end of chat. If a white elephant/load of nonsense cost £5 it's £5 too much., and it's £5 that can't be spent on something useful. If only SCC could take this on board Sheffield might ultimately be a much better place.
  15. That's because : a) It's the summer holidays when traffic is hugely reduced b) the majority of people are still working from home (I've just got back from my 1st trip to town since March, and the place is virtually deserted. I'd guess around 10% of the people you'd normally expect shopping, many shops shut, and few offices occupied) All that said, my nephew took 45 mins to get through the area the other day at about 11am, and having been held up many times, has now started trying to avoid it (that's easier said than done when you work, and many of your meetings are in and around about a 5 mile radius of the city centre)
  16. Surely it would only have taken a moments thought to realise that halving the capacity of an already heavily congested ring road, to which so much traffic has been channelled would create a chaotic mess? And just because it's central government money doesn't make it acceptable to waste it. Finally just to say I know of several anecdotal cases (me included) of people taking longer routes, burning more fossil fuel, just to avoid the mess round Shalesmoor, which isn't going to help the recently declared SCC climate change emergency.
  17. I saw literally one 7 days ago when I used the road. Exactly the same as the number of bearded vultures I've seen this summer. I had plenty of time to try to spot them as well, being as I was stuck in standing traffic on Shalesmoor for quite some time, and this in mid morning, during the school holidays, with half the world working from home. What it would be like in a normal rush hour I can't imagine (it's my route to work normally, and is a snarled up horrible stretch of road that crawls at a snails pace in rush hour when it's 2 lane).
  18. Oh good phew so it's only temporary! So when the ensuing mayhem finally permeates through to the masterminds who dreamt this scheme up, they will remove it, and allow the city to get back to work. That's the best news I heard in a while
  19. That's right Planner 1 I do prefer the derelict factory. I would love to see the Council's rationale when they approve the 300 or so houses (which let's be honest, they're going to do despite huge opposition from local people, peak Park, CPRE, and others) and how it marries up with their announcement of a climate change emergency. I suspect it will be entertaining, but ultimately will see the destruction of a beautiful valley, treasured by 1000's and be an utter disgrace. As for where else i think the Council should build, well perhaps take a rein check anyway given the current economic climate, but if there is still a need for housing why not start with the acres and acres of wasteland stretching from Leppings lane to virtually town, all served by public transport, cycle lanes and much of it within very easy walking distance of town, railway station, bus interchange, tram etc etc?
  20. Given the Council's stance on use of cars, one can assume they will not therefore be giving the go ahead to the proposed 300 houses stuck out up the Loxley Valley, nearly in the Peak District, miles from any shops, schools, GP surgeries or decent public transport. So that at least is an upside!
  21. There's been over 550 objections to this inc from Campaign for Protection of Rural England ( CPRE) Bradfield Parish Council, several councillors, SY Bat Group among others, but you've only got until Monday to have your say. I hadn't realised the wealth and variety of wildlife on and around the site. I knew there were deer, kingfishers and heron, but apparently it's also a nesting/roosting site for barn owls and bats, and is also home to badgers, dippers and foxes. It may strictly speaking be a brownfield site, however in the 30 yrs since it was operational nature has taken over, it's also completely surrounded by Green Belt and is so so close to Peak National Park.
  22. Which if they are, then the least they could do would be honest when giving their reasons for granting applications ie not asserting that they did so because of the amount of affordable housing/community amenities included in the development etc etc, because if Planner 1 is right, then all the 'goodies' included in an application will never actually materialise
  23. Indeed, there are too many to mention, and some less than a mile from this proposed development
  24. Forgive me Planner 1, but councillors for the most part have little to no indepth understanding of the NPPF, have had no training in town planning, spend very little of their time involved in planning matters, and are therefore hardly best placed to pass judgement on planning law, and its application or weighting. Plus let's be honest any 'survey' (particularly when it's a survey commissioned by a party with a vested interest, which so many surveys are, and you don't quote a source for the one you use to illustrate your point, so I can't comment on this particular one) can usually be countered by another 'survey' commissioned by another party with an opposing view. As for half of 1200 councillors polled claiming 'sites that are not in line with the local plan are being approved for new housing' can you provide evidence that this happening where a local plan is up to date, as opposed to a plan from the last century (which I believe Sheffield's local plan to be, unless it's been updated recently, in which case I stand corrected, but would still be very interested in seeing occasions when an uptodate plan has been ignored) It's a case of 'Don't believe everything you read' I think
  25. Oh please, don't come that one! LPA's being bullied by the big bad developers. LPA's unable (or is it unwilling) to enforce the law. If that's the case then what you're in effect saying is that the LPA isn't in control of planning locally, in which case what's the point of the Planning Dept?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.