Oughtibridge paper mill development.

[Planner1]

I`m sceptical about how many people are able (or want to) use the work methods you describe. The great majority of the people I know work in such a way that they have to travel at peak time to get to work. It is debatable how many cars from that Paper Mill development will be using the roads between say 7.00AM and 9.00AM. I`d be interested to know if the planner who said the additional traffic would have "no significant effect" did any research on that..... We can make a guesstimate though. 300 homes, shall we guess at 400 cars plus ? A total of say 600 working age residents ? How many residents would be working (remember the development is not aimed at the retired, I doubt there are many bungalows there) ? Shall we guess at 400 plus ? Even if only half of those need to commute that`s 200, and most would be going at peak time into Sheffield. Does anyone disagree with those guesstimates ?

 

As to finding other ways I`m even more sceptical about that. There are no other ways which are quicker, remember even the bus is stuck in the same traffic and doesn`t go door to door anyway. If you mean bad congestion will dissuade people from travelling at all I agree with you, but it`s a bit unfair to foist that on existing communities isn`t it ?

 

Developers promoting a development of any size must produce, as part of the planning application process, a traffic impact assessment, which willl include calcualtions of traffic generated and modelling of how it will affect the highway network. So, deciding whether something will have a significant impact isn' t just guesswork.

 

People who retire don't all move directy to a specific retirement development so there will be a proportion of residents on any given development who are retired.

 

Many people who work for local or central government organisations and others have the opportunity to work flexitime and work from home at least part of the time. You also fail to recognise that not everyone uses the car (or even owns one for that matter) for commuting. Some people use public transport and some walk / cycle.

[geared]

Given the relatively short distance to the Yellow Tram line I hope most residents would take the link bus to the Tram.

 

You could even cycle to the tram stop (if you don't mind risking the bike being nicked)

[Justin Smith]

Developers promoting a development of any size must produce, as part of the planning application process, a traffic impact assessment, which willl include calcualtions of traffic generated and modelling of how it will affect the highway network. So, deciding whether something will have a significant impact isn' t just guesswork.

 

People who retire don't all move directy to a specific retirement development so there will be a proportion of residents on any given development who are retired.

 

Many people who work for local or central government organisations and others have the opportunity to work flexitime and work from home at least part of the time. You also fail to recognise that not everyone uses the car (or even owns one for that matter) for commuting. Some people use public transport and some walk / cycle.

 

Some do, but the great majority off that new development will use their cars, I`m certain of it.

I`m interested to know which model of traffic they used to conclude it would have no significant effect. They always seem to say that about new developments, which, if you think about it, can`t possibly be true.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2016 at 16:56 ----------

 

Given the relatively short distance to the Yellow Tram line I hope most residents would take the link bus to the Tram.

 

You could even cycle to the tram stop (if you don't mind risking the bike being nicked)

 

We can only hope, but I fear it`s hope in vain, particularly as the link bus will be stuck in traffic !

[geared]

The key word in it all you need to concentrate on is "Significant Impact"

 

There is no denying the development will have some kind of impact, but it has been judged to fall below a certain criteria and thus is not a problem.

 

What that criteria is and who set it is?

[the fonz]

What that criteria is and who set it is?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

 

The National Planning Policy Framework states:

 

'Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the

residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.'

 

This is what council planners have to work to, guidelines set out by the government, massively in favour of development imho as its very hard to prove severe, its about as subjective as significant.

[semerpus]

Given the relatively short distance to the Yellow Tram line I hope most residents would take the link bus to the Tram.

 

You could even cycle to the tram stop (if you don't mind risking the bike being nicked)

 

The link buses just get snarled up in the endless queues of traffic from Stockarth Lane all the way past the park and ride to Penistone Road and as a result miss the tram connection.

 

People won't use public transport if it's neither reliable or quick!

 

These 300 houses are being built before the bus enters oughtibridge en route to the park and ride,they are frequency virtually full before Oughtibridge so it'll be interesting, and frustrating , to see how many will whizz past full!

 

They should have included a bus lane from middle wood ambulance station to the park and ride as their is sufficient grass verges and lay by's to facilitate this.

 

Fact is the planners don't give a damn for current residents or commuters

 

---------- Post added 08-09-2016 at 21:16 ----------

 

I'd think it's debateable how many residents of the new development will drive through Leppings Lane area during the peak hour. Flexi-time, home working, ageing population, online shopping are alll changing the way we travel. If it's too congested, people will find other ways if they are quicker.

 

The new river crossing had previously been considered as part of potential development proposals, but the development didn't happen. Bridges aren't cheap. The potential for a new river crossing is still on the Council's radar. It might be needed for example to deal with traffic arising from the trans-pennine tunnel proposal, or any proposals for further development of Oughtibridge/Deepcar/Stocksbridge areas.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2016 at 12:23 ----------

 

 

Greater costs can be justified if the benefits are larger, ie passenger numbers are greater.

 

The Council are thinking about the next steps for mass transit in Sheffield and they are well aware of the difficutly and cost of putting in light rail. Unless significant local contributions can be raised via something like a workplace parking levy, my money would be on this being provided by buses for the short to medium term future, as the alternatives are just too costly.

 

The mass transit plans I've heard about especially around the uni & netherthorpe road are hysterical!!

 

Mass transit shouldn't be being thought about it should be a priority and an important measure in these development plans .. Prevention is better than cure.

 

No one from the planning dept or the council had the courtesy to contact me to discuss or ask for further details re my concerns when I objected to this development simply cos they don't give a damn and it's to hell with current residents

Edited September 8, 2016 by semerpus

[Planner1]

People won't use public transport if it's neither reliable or quick!

Some studies have shown the majority of drivers wouldn't use public transport even if it was free!

 

They should have included a bus lane from middle wood ambulance station to the park and ride as their is sufficient grass verges and lay by's to facilitate this.

With what money?

Grass verges often contain buried services, which can be extremely expensive to move. Converting verge / footway to carriageway is neither cheap nor simple.

Fact is the planners don't give a damn for current residents or commuters.

Fact is that the current government have changed planning law such that it heavily presumes in favour of development and planning authorities have to prove it if they think the effects will be detrimental and they want to turn the application down. It is very difficult for planning authorities to do anything about the incremental effects of development or get developers to contribute to mitigation measures.

Mass transit shouldn't be being thought about it should be a priority and an important measure in these development plans .. Prevention is better than cure.

It is a priority.

However you can't reasonably condition huge infrastructure costs on modest sized developments. Contributions have to be proportionate and in accordance with the planning guidance. If requirements and conditions are too onerous, the developer can appeal and it's costly for the planning authority. Also, in many places, developers have choices about where they build, if one authority is too hard on them, they go elsewhere if it's more profitable.

No one from the planning dept or the council had the courtesy to contact me to discuss or ask for further details re my concerns when I objected to this development simply cos they don't give a damn and it's to hell with current residents

I don't believe there is any requirement on them to contact you for further details. You should make your objection clear in the first place.

 

There's a limit to what can be done by the planning authority to mitigate many of the concerns that existing residents often have when developments come along. Change is difficult, but Councils have a legal duty to ensure an adequate land supply for development.

[semerpus]

Some studies have shown the majority of drivers wouldn't use public transport even if it was free!

 

 

With what money?

Grass verges often contain buried services, which can be extremely expensive to move. Converting verge / footway to carriageway is neither cheap nor simple.

 

Fact is that the current government have changed planning law such that it heavily presumes in favour of development and planning authorities have to prove it if they think the effects will be detrimental and they want to turn the application down. It is very difficult for planning authorities to do anything about the incremental effects of development or get developers to contribute to mitigation measures.

 

It is a priority.

However you can't reasonably condition huge infrastructure costs on modest sized developments. Contributions have to be proportionate and in accordance with the planning guidance. If requirements and conditions are too onerous, the developer can appeal and it's costly for the planning authority. Also, in many places, developers have choices about where they build, if one authority is too hard on them, they go elsewhere if it's more profitable.

 

I don't believe there is any requirement on them to contact you for further details. You should make your objection clear in the first place.

 

There's a limit to what can be done by the planning authority to mitigate many of the concerns that existing residents often have when developments come along. Change is difficult, but Councils have a legal duty to ensure an adequate land supply for development.

 

 

What money? How's about the £5 million the developers are paying?

 

With respect as a local resident who uses public transport daily I am one of people who this will impact on, one of the people who is already experiencing the long traffic delays that already exist pre this development going ahead, one of the people who will have to suffer the consequences and leave even earlier for work because as I have said already and some of your answers demonstrate the planners don't give a damn about existing residents .

 

And as an aside let's not forget there are further plans for more housing developments at Deepcar and Stocksbridge!!!

[Planner1]

What money? How's about the £5 million the developers are paying?

Paying £5m to whom for what?

With respect as a local resident who uses public transport daily I am one of people who this will impact on, one of the people who is already experiencing the long traffic delays that already exist pre this development going ahead, one of the people who will have to suffer the consequences and leave even earlier for work because as I have said already and some of your answers demonstrate the planners don't give a damn about existing residents .

The report on the application put the estimated trips towards Sheffield in morning peak hour at about 100 over the peak hour. That level of extra traffic isn't going to make that much difference

And as an aside let's not forget there are further plans for more housing developments at Deepcar and Stocksbridge!!!

As I said, the Council have to ensure sufficient supply of housing land. It has to go somewhere.

[semerpus]

Paying £5m to whom for what?

 

The report on the application put the estimated trips towards Sheffield in morning peak hour at about 100 over the peak hour. That level of extra traffic isn't going to make that much difference

 

As I said, the Council have to ensure sufficient supply of housing land. It has to go somewhere.

 

The developers are paying £5 million to the council it's in the agreement.

 

Estimated 100 cars... So a guess.. You and the planners may think that's not going to make much difference but they and you should come and try the journey at peak times for a month !

 

I agree it has to go somewhere and I don't object to them being built if they ensure proper consideration , improvements to the area facilities and infrastructure