Oughtibridge paper mill development.

[Planner1]

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

The developer contribution will be covering many things. Got a link?

 

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 !

If the road is already congested, 100 per hour won't make any significant difference. It was modelled as part of the transport assessment, so it's as educated a guess as they can make.

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

The problem is that you are wanting major infrastructure improvements because of a development which only produces minor increases in traffic flows. It can't be justified and the developer would take the council to an appeal and win if they tried to impose unreasonable conditions.

[semerpus]

The developer contribution will be covering many things. Got a link?

 

 

If the road is already congested, 100 per hour won't make any significant difference. It was modelled as part of the transport assessment, so it's as educated a guess as they can make.

 

The problem is that you are wanting major infrastructure improvements because of a development which only produces minor increases in traffic flows. It can't be justified and the developer would take the council to an appeal and win if they tried to impose unreasonable conditions.

 

The/My problem is... the planners not giving a damn.There is already significant congestion..and while you/the assessments may not think 100 per hour won't make a difference it's not you/them who have to live with it.

 

There's already a traffic problem that needs sorting, but hey lets chuck some more vehicles into the mix rather than take a sensible approach and see what we can do to alleviate the current problem before allowing the properties to be built.

 

NO..lets do nothing..lets just let the issue grow worse slowly over time/years until we realize actually we need to sort this and then spend several more years trying to work out how to sort it

 

The only thing they did do was drop plans for a convenience store at the site cos the few (over priced cos they have a monopoly) village shops complained.

 

TBH it's not even worth debating..they've decided and to hell with the residents and knock on effects..keep screwing them for the council tax..we don't give a damn it takes 15/20 mins to travel a mile to catch the 'green' transport Supertram..and you won't connect with the timetabled service because you'll be stuck in traffic, as now, so allow another 10 mins...,

we don't give a damn that when you want a drs appointment you'll have to wait more than a week as you do currently.. (how on earth the surgery can say it has spare capacity when you have to wait 5/7 days to see a GP is beyond me)..just all trot off to A&E and clog that up instead.

Money does indeed talk

[geared]

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

 

and there is an abolste ton of spare land along the bottom of the valley between Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge.

All un-used ex-industrial land, construction of homes has already started around Stocksbridge, I can see it just continuing on the rest of the land.

 

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

 

 

There is quite a case for a workplace levy I guess, you can't have people pig-headily sticking in their cars when a decent alternative exists!

[the fonz]

the planners not giving a damn.

 

Planners don't set housing targets the govt does, the govt also sets the guidance of allowing planning permission can you really blame planners?

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:54 ----------

 

There's already a traffic problem that needs sorting, but hey lets chuck some more vehicles into the mix rather than take a sensible approach and see what we can do to alleviate the current problem before allowing the properties to be built.

 

What would you propose? Bear in mind that money from developers doest just go on roads its goes to schools, drs surgery, flood alleviation, green spaces etc etc. Is you sitting for an extra few seconds in your car more important that a school place for a child?

 

Also bear in mind my point above, the govt sets housing targets the council has to meet these, if developers find schemes uneconomic they will go elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:56 ----------

 

NO..lets do nothing..lets just let the issue grow worse slowly over time/years.....

 

The issue is that there are too many cars on the roads, politically limiting car use is unpopular so it wont happen.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:58 ----------

 

TBH it's not even worth debating..

 

It is always worth debating.

[semerpus]

Planners don't set housing targets the govt does, the govt also sets the guidance of allowing planning permission can you really blame planners?

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:54 ----------

 

 

What would you propose? Bear in mind that money from developers doest just go on roads its goes to schools, drs surgery, flood alleviation, green spaces etc etc. Is you sitting for an extra few seconds in your car more important that a school place for a child?

 

Also bear in mind my point above, the govt sets housing targets the council has to meet these, if developers find schemes uneconomic they will go elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:56 ----------

 

 

The issue is that there are too many cars on the roads, politically limiting car use is unpopular so it wont happen.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 13:58 ----------

 

 

It is always worth debating.

 

You clearly haven't read my posts as I have repeatedly said I use public transport

 

Is sitting In my car (I don't own one) more important than a child's school place ?

 

Well being as you ask .. That's my point it's the overall impact on everything from this scheme therefore all issues should be addressed and financed by the developers who stand to make money at the expense of current residents

[Justin Smith]

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

That just about sums it up.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 18:59 ----------

 

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.

 

Using guesstimates I reckon between 100 and 200 over the 2 hours, so fairly similar. How do you define "much difference" ? Is an extra minute on everyones commute "much difference" ? How about two minutes ? The traffic light cycle at Leppings lane is one minute. I haven`t actually checked it but I`d be surprised if much more than 10 cars on average get out per cycle. 200 cars would be 20 light cycles where no traffic would be getting through that was before. When the traffic is at or close to gridlock a relatively small increase (or decease) in traffic can make a big difference.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 19:05 ----------

 

If the road is already congested, 100 per hour won't make any significant difference. It was modelled as part of the transport assessment, so it's as educated a guess as they can make .

 

I would have thought the opposite applied, if the road was not congested then an extra 100 cars per hour may not make a significant difference. Though, as I`ve already asked, what, in actual time terms, is "a significant difference" ?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Justin Smith

[Planner1]

I would have thought the opposite applied, if the road was not congested then an extra 100 cars per hour may not make a significant difference. Though, as I`ve already asked, what, in actual time terms, is "a significant difference" ?

The theoretical saturation flow of a single lane is circa 1900 vehicles per hour, so adding around 5% of that to the existing flow won't make a great deal of difference.

 

Significant is a subjective judgement. If you already have a 20 minute delay, I can't see how anyone could argue that a minute extra is significant. Doubling the delay would be significant.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 21:05 ----------

 

That just about sums it up?

As myself and others have said, the planners have to operate within the policy and legal framework which is set by the government. If they set unreasonable conditions or block development unreasonably, the applicant will appeal and win and that will cost you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 21:11 ----------

 

Money does indeed talk

Indeed. That is exactly what I and others have been saying.

 

The government has changed planning law to heavily presume in favour of development and they have limited what can be asked of the developer in terms of mitigation.

 

The planners do their best with the tools they have got.

[tzijlstra]

Snip.

 

I am very curious about this as a Dutchman, are these generally/globally accepted statistics? In my old homecity of Groningen they improved all infrastructure surrounding a new development of scale.

 

This neighbourhood, which has around 1000 houses if memory serves me well, led to a complete rethink of not only the spur roads, but also the ring-road that it would feed into.

 

Not only did they introduce a flyover roundabout, they also improved a known bottleneck on the ring road further south as the pressure would lead to extra congestion.

 

This was largely paid for by the local authorities because they were in charge of developing the Reitdiep area and bought the land to parcel it up and resell to developers. I can't get my head around the fact that this does not seem to happen in the UK?

 

It doesn't take a lot to increase the pressure on the (rather horrible) Catchbar Lane/Leppings Lane/Parkside Road traffic to a point where people will not spend a minute a day extra but in fact much longer. Gridlock already occurs, in particular with the tram coming through and getting preferential lights.

[Justin Smith]

The theoretical saturation flow of a single lane is circa 1900 vehicles per hour, so adding around 5% of that to the existing flow won't make a great deal of difference.

 

Significant is a subjective judgement. If you already have a 20 minute delay, I can't see how anyone could argue that a minute extra is significant. Doubling the delay would be significant.

 

That`s interesting an extra 100 cars out of 1900 per hour is about 5%, I`d say that was significant.

Personally I`d say an extra 1 minute a day was significant, that`s two minutes for two journeys, that`s 10 minutes a week. I could read my lad a few short stories in that time. Ten minutes week is about 8 hours a year, a full working day in fact. But there`s a deeper point here. Each time an extra minute is added it`s regarded as being insignificant, yet we`re already at the stage where it takes up to 20 minutes to drive a distance which should take about 7. At what point do the totals of all these "insignificant" increases suddenly become significant ?

[Penistone999]

[/color]

As myself and others have said, the planners have to operate within the policy and legal framework which is set by the government. If they set unreasonable conditions or block development unreasonably, the applicant will appeal and win and that will cost you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

 

It didnt stop them when they needlessly blocked the NEXT store next to Meadowhall.