Tesco Planning Application -Walkley/Crookesmoor

Lets hope that the council have had a change of policy and that this is the way they will operate from now on, refusing ridiculous schemes despite big business attempts to bulldoze them through.

It's displeasing since they've allowed other Tescos to be opened elsewhere in Sheffield despite the same reasons and objections being made.

The council are nothing but two faced.

Perhaps it was the sheer weight of objections. The adjacent conservation area is also unique to that location.

Tesco aren't known for giving up. They could appeal still couldn't they? They've got deep pockets for top lawyers.

Tesco aren't known for giving up. They could appeal still couldn't they? They've got deep pockets for top lawyers.

They'll just submit an identical application in two years time. I can't see them selling the land.

Perhaps it was the sheer weight of objections. The adjacent conservation area is also unique to that location.

Anyone attend the public enquiry this week, or know the result of it?

Found a detailed report here: http://nwsheffield.org/2010/05/14/commonside-tesco-planning-appeal-%E2%80%93-final-day/

No decision yet.

any idea when a decision is due?

The decision came through today on the appeal by Tesco against Sheffield City Council’s planning decision refusing permission to erect a two-storey building on the site of 218 Springvale Road, formerly belonging to Hollies Filling Station.

The Appeal was rejected. The main grounds for the decision were road safety, parking concerns and lack of any need for such a store. Planning Inspector Wildsmith also made reference to the effect on the local economy of a further chain stiore being sited in the Walkley Commonside area. There is now a limited time for Tesco to appeal Wildsmith’s decision, if they believe they have a legal argument, by going to the Administrative Court in London.

http://nwsheffield.org/2010/06/28/commonside-tesco-appeal-decision-received/

http://nwsheffield.org/files/2010/06/commonsidetescodecision.pdf

It's a little bit hypocritical denying this store. Look at the carnage caused in Crookes by two supermarkets, coupled with the narrow minded people that absolutely positively have to park as close to the door as humanly possible, and wagons that stop with no regard for other road users.

If I was the SCC, I'd get the traffic wardens to follow a couple of these wagons around, soon earn their keep.

I was looking forward to this Tesco, as I much prefer shopping there than the overpriced co-op and cramped Sainsburys.

If local stores are complaining about loss of trade, surely you should be looking at what you do, not what others are doing. If you provide good service, good prices and are convenient...you have nothing to worry about.

The Appeal was rejected. The main grounds for the decision were road safety, parking concerns and lack of any need for such a store. Planning Inspector Wildsmith also made reference to the effect on the local economy of a further chain store being sited in the Walkley Commonside area.

Wow. Since when was "need" a planning consideration? Planning officers were always druming it into us that we weren't there to interfer with the free market, if there was no "need" the market would kill off the surplus.

Wey hey, by the way

It's a little bit hypocritical denying this store. Look at the carnage caused in Crookes by two supermarkets

The council neither permitted or considered denying the two supermarkets in Crookes. They are pre-existing properties with pre-existing planning consents. The council only has the ability to deny permission for changes of use. Sainsbury's used to be a Co-Op, so has pre-existing supermarket retail use permission, and the Co-Op used to be Kwik-Save, and so has pre-existing supermarket retail use permission.