Jump to content


The IKEA in Sheffield thread

Recommended Posts

I suspect the OP was referring to the total cost up until this point where the application is turned down.

 

This was the OP that said the Council had spent millions "fighting " the Ikea application, which is quite simply untrue.

 

The Council have not turned down any planning application from Ikea. This one was approved after the normal discussions you would expect of a development of this size and the previous one they made for the old YE site on Parkway Avenue was withdrawn by Ikea following a number of objections being received.

 

The Council have not "fought" the Ikea application at all. It desn't cost much to deal with a planning application, they already employ development management staff to do this, so processing an application like this doesn't cost them anything extra.

 

The application they "fought" and turned down was Next Home Store. Turning down an application doesn't cost much. As I metioned, the staff involved already work for the Council, so there is no additional cost, unless you have to pay for some specalist advice you don't have the expertise for in-house. The cost actually comes after you turn down the application, at the planning appeal, where you engage a barrister to represent you. That costs a few thousands, not "millions" or anything like it.

 

People bandy costs around and say things cost "millions" when they haven't got the faintest idea how much those things really cost. They really ought to know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was the OP that said the Council had spent millions "fighting " the Ikea application, which is quite simply untrue.

 

Oh right sorry, my bad. I should have read the OP's comments more closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was the OP that said the Council had spent millions "fighting " the Ikea application, which is quite simply untrue.

 

The Council have not turned down any planning application from Ikea. This one was approved after the normal discussions you would expect of a development of this size and the previous one they made for the old YE site on Parkway Avenue was withdrawn by Ikea following a number of objections being received.

 

The Council have not "fought" the Ikea application at all. It desn't cost much to deal with a planning application, they already employ development management staff to do this, so processing an application like this doesn't cost them anything extra.

 

The application they "fought" and turned down was Next Home Store. Turning down an application doesn't cost much. As I metioned, the staff involved already work for the Council, so there is no additional cost, unless you have to pay for some specalist advice you don't have the expertise for in-house. The cost actually comes after you turn down the application, at the planning appeal, where you engage a barrister to represent you. That costs a few thousands, not "millions" or anything like it.

 

People bandy costs around and say things cost "millions" when they haven't got the faintest idea how much those things really cost. They really ought to know better.

 

It's refreshing to see something on SF from someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sibon
The last few Saturdays the traffic to Leeds Ikea has been queuing back onto the motorway.

 

I went last Saturday lunchtime.

 

No queue, straight in and out. No problem at all.

 

Took me longer to make the bookcase than it did to buy it. I still have a bit left over if you'd like it:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolute rubbish. The Council didn't fight Ikea's planning application at this site, they approved it, despite the fact that they recognise it will make traffic conditions worse (and they've conditioned some highway improvements on the Ikea store development to mitigate this, at least partly).

 

The Next Home Store was the one they didn't approve but the decision was [/b]overturned at appeal.

 

Turning down a planning application doesn't cost "millions". A bit of officer time and maybe a lawyer to represent you at the planning inquiry. A few thousands, nothing remotely like "millions of pounds".

 

So why did SCC turn the Next application down, and why was SCC's decision overturned at appeal i.e which planning rules/guidelines etc had SCC not complied with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This story still amuses me, especially this bit:

 

 

 

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/business/sheffield-ikea-store-gets-go-ahead-1-6691563

 

Not really a laughing matter, though. The additional deaths are expected from the worsening air quality as a result of the extra traffic. At the moment, it is estimated about 500 people a year die as a result of poor air quality - NO2, etc, which is mostly from traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why did SCC turn the Next application down, and why was SCC's decision overturned at appeal i.e which planning rules/guidelines etc had SCC not complied with?

 

From what I remember, the Council wanted Next to build the store in the city centre instead and rejected it mainly on this basis, it was reversed as the decision had no basis in planning law and regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I remember, the Council wanted Next to build the store in the city centre instead and rejected it mainly on this basis, it was reversed as the decision had no basis in planning law and regulation.

 

Sheffield council lives in a dream fantasy world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone been to the Next store? I went once to the Bathstore franchise there but I noticed there seemed to be more staff than customers while I was there, I did not buy from the Bathstore or Next and never went back. Has anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why did SCC turn the Next application down, and why was SCC's decision overturned at appeal i.e which planning rules/guidelines etc had SCC not complied with?

 

SCC turned it down because they felt it did not comply with the adopted planning policy and could damage retail in the city centre. They said it did not pass the sequential test for retail. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-23182687

 

The planning inspector didn't agree with them. They said it did pass the sequential test. See: http://www.njlconsulting.co.uk/news-and-blogs/news/national-planning-policy-framework-sequential-test-more-guidance-please/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.