Plans to demolish Rare & Racy block

[ALAN 58 10]

No one wanted Jessops as it was. It had been empty and crumbling for years. The only people interested in it were the university who only wanted the site. No one else was interested. If Jessops hadn't been knocked down it would have stood as it was and continued to crumble. At some point it would have been too dangerous to leave standing.

 

The Devonshire Street block isn't in that predicament. It is all occupied.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2015 at 08:01 ----------

 

 

Planning committees have that many members. Could you imagine a planning committee made up of 84 councillors?

Then why have 84 councillors, and one decides to abstain.

[Cyclone 10]

Then why have 84 councillors, and one decides to abstain.

 

Do you imagine that planning decisions are the only thing that the council does?

[ALAN 58 10]

Then why not have the various committees, who then bring it back to the table for a full council to vote on.

[Vegas1 10]

Then why not have the various committees, who then bring it back to the table for a full council to vote on.

 

You are aware of the number of planning decisions the Council has every year, aren't you? They would get nothing else done!

 

In any case, you are clutching at straws, what makes you think the full 84 would have voted any differently?

[Cyclone 10]

Then why not have the various committees, who then bring it back to the table for a full council to vote on.

 

Because there is no need for a full council vote when the power has been delegated to a committee. That's how a lot of the councils responsibilities are discharged.

[woodmally 10]

You are aware of the number of planning decisions the Council has every year, aren't you? They would get nothing else done!

 

In any case, you are clutching at straws, what makes you think the full 84 would have voted any differently?

 

And they wouldnt anyhow as Lee Bramall said they cant accept a lot of the objections as its written in the rules and the council would be taken to court. So all that would happen is the labour councillors would be whipped (a political term for being told how to vote before anyone asks). And they would all vote to demolish.

[vincentb 10]

The same shops can apply to use the new premises. There is nothing stopping Rare and Racy renting the newly developed premises.

 

I'm not sure about that - in the original planning application, the owners wanted to change the building's planning class to A3, to put bars in instead of shops. Does anybody know if the council forced them to keep the same planning class as before i.e. A1, to make sure they stayed as shops?

[Vegas1 10]

Wouldnt A3 consent mean shops could still use the space anyway (A3 covers both A1 and A2 doesnt it?)

[Localman 10]

And they wouldnt anyhow as Lee Bramall said they cant accept a lot of the objections as its written in the rules and the council would be taken to court. So all that would happen is the labour councillors would be whipped (a political term for being told how to vote before anyone asks). And they would all vote to demolish.

 

Planning Committees are required only to consider factors that are legally relevant (ie as prescribed in planning law) and to disregard all other factors. If a legally irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, an application to the courts to have the decision quashed would inevitably succeed.

 

There is no 'whipping' in what are generally termed 'quasi-judicial committees'. These are committees which are required to make decisions on individual cases within strictly defined legal prescriptions. They include things like School Admission Appeals, Licensing Applications and Planning Committees (when considering individual planning applications). So, similarly, any evidence of whipping would inevitably result in the courts striking down a decision. This could prove very costly for the council and individual councillors.

 

As an interested observer of Planning issues over many years, I have seen no evidence of whipping. However, a few years ago, it was clear that there were some Planning Committee meetings with particular contentious applications to consider where some councillors from the minority party did not turn up, but instead made their opposing views - based on irrelevant considerations but thought to be 'popular' - public (through press releases and local leaflets). I understand that they were made aware that this conduct was being observed and that it could leave them legally and financially exposed, and they stopped.

[green 10]

Nigel Slack has made some excellent comments on his blog.

http://thepublicinterestsheffield.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/devonshire-street-demolition-approved.html

 

"The public should know all we can about the business of the decision makers that affect our lives, our wallets and our democracy. This is a record of my efforts to try and improve the levels of transparency and accountability within Sheffield City Council and others. To shine a light on how decisions are made and where the money goes. If I can also help others to find their own voice and influence along the way, then that is a bonus.

 

Many people will now be aware that the proposed demolition of numbers 62 – 70 Devonshire Street was approved by the City Council's Planning Committee today. Some will be worried that this is the end of an era for independent shops on Devonshire Street. I hope to show you that this is not necessarily the case.

 

Round one of the fight is over, round two is about to begin. The heritage groups involved in objecting to this proposal have made it clear that, if they can raise the funds, they will challenge this decision through the full extent of the planning process. This is hugely important because if today has proved one thing it is that there is a hole in the planning provisions of this city that you could drive a coach and horses through.

 

The way that planning officers today interpreted the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the National laws that govern planning processes) means that developers are now free to do almost anything they want, to any building in Sheffield, heritage asset or not, and the City Council is unlikely to oppose them through fear of litigation. The decision made today about the demolition of Devonshire Street sets a precedent that means almost any protection offered by the NPPF guidelines can be watered down so to prevent developers from threatening to challenge negative decisions.

 

Today's decision was a matter of balance. The planning officer admitted as much, the Councillors on the committee were made aware of that fact and we, as objectors tried to make it clear to them that this meant they did have a real choice. This was not a matter of the committee being unable to legitimately deny the application, it was a case of whether the committee was prepared to accept the potential of a challenge as the price of doing the right thing. They were not, at least not enough of them were.

 

The reason that this has arisen lays directly at the door of the City Council. Sheffield last legitimised it's planning guidelines in 1998 when it developed what is termed the Unitary Development Plan. This gave planners and developers details of what was and was not allowed within the city when it came to new development, demolition and other planning issues. This UDP has been amended by various other plans since. Specific plans for different quarters of the city, the city centre living strategy, guidance on the night time economy and others. The main provisions however have never been reviewed. Other overall development plans for the city have been developed and discussed but none have been adopted.

 

The UDP is now so old that the city's own planning department will no longer rely on it to protect the city or it's heritage from the ravages of profit hungry developers.

 

It's restrictions and guidelines are considered out of date and therefore almost irrelevant to the planning process. How can we expect planning officers to make the reasonable and robust decisions we need when their guidelines are almost non existent. This needs addressing and addressing soon before even more of the city's heritage is, as one Committee member commented this afternoon, “...slowly nibbled away piece by piece...”. With one notable exception the Labour ranks in the Planning Committee seem ill prepared to stand up for the city and the people that elected them.

 

Round one is over, round two is just beginning and a whole new battle is looming on the horizon. Is Sheffield up to the challenge?"

 

 

I completely agree with Nigel. Our planning dept in Sheffield are a disgrace and have been for years.

[E-Man Groovin 27]

Nigel Slack has made some excellent comments on his blog.

http://thepublicinterestsheffield.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/devonshire-street-demolition-approved.html

 

"The public should know all we can about the business of the decision makers that affect our lives, our wallets and our democracy. This is a record of my efforts to try and improve the levels of transparency and accountability within Sheffield City Council and others. To shine a light on how decisions are made and where the money goes. If I can also help others to find their own voice and influence along the way, then that is a bonus.

 

Many people will now be aware that the proposed demolition of numbers 62 – 70 Devonshire Street was approved by the City Council's Planning Committee today. Some will be worried that this is the end of an era for independent shops on Devonshire Street. I hope to show you that this is not necessarily the case.

 

Round one of the fight is over, round two is about to begin. The heritage groups involved in objecting to this proposal have made it clear that, if they can raise the funds, they will challenge this decision through the full extent of the planning process. This is hugely important because if today has proved one thing it is that there is a hole in the planning provisions of this city that you could drive a coach and horses through.

 

The way that planning officers today interpreted the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the National laws that govern planning processes) means that developers are now free to do almost anything they want, to any building in Sheffield, heritage asset or not, and the City Council is unlikely to oppose them through fear of litigation. The decision made today about the demolition of Devonshire Street sets a precedent that means almost any protection offered by the NPPF guidelines can be watered down so to prevent developers from threatening to challenge negative decisions.

 

Today's decision was a matter of balance. The planning officer admitted as much, the Councillors on the committee were made aware of that fact and we, as objectors tried to make it clear to them that this meant they did have a real choice. This was not a matter of the committee being unable to legitimately deny the application, it was a case of whether the committee was prepared to accept the potential of a challenge as the price of doing the right thing. They were not, at least not enough of them were.

 

The reason that this has arisen lays directly at the door of the City Council. Sheffield last legitimised it's planning guidelines in 1998 when it developed what is termed the Unitary Development Plan. This gave planners and developers details of what was and was not allowed within the city when it came to new development, demolition and other planning issues. This UDP has been amended by various other plans since. Specific plans for different quarters of the city, the city centre living strategy, guidance on the night time economy and others. The main provisions however have never been reviewed. Other overall development plans for the city have been developed and discussed but none have been adopted.

 

The UDP is now so old that the city's own planning department will no longer rely on it to protect the city or it's heritage from the ravages of profit hungry developers.

 

It's restrictions and guidelines are considered out of date and therefore almost irrelevant to the planning process. How can we expect planning officers to make the reasonable and robust decisions we need when their guidelines are almost non existent. This needs addressing and addressing soon before even more of the city's heritage is, as one Committee member commented this afternoon, “...slowly nibbled away piece by piece...”. With one notable exception the Labour ranks in the Planning Committee seem ill prepared to stand up for the city and the people that elected them.

 

Round one is over, round two is just beginning and a whole new battle is looming on the horizon. Is Sheffield up to the challenge?"

 

 

I completely agree with Nigel. Our planning dept in Sheffield are a disgrace and have been for years.

 

Excellent post. Time for change, principle and vision. How can people like me get more involved?

[Vegas1 10]

Haha, good luck with that.