Oughtibridge paper mill development.

[Justin Smith]

If you follow the planning rules to their logical conclusion it's probably beneficial for the developers to build small(ish) developments of a couple of hundred homes rather than large 1000+ developments.

 

Each smaller one can claim to have no significant difference on current traffic levels, even if there is a cumulative effect.

 

Exactly....................

 

---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 17:01 ----------

 

There is the problem, you don't think its acceptable, others do. I would suggest that with most developments someone thinks its unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

Its ultimately up to the planners and councillors on the planning committee to decide on the application, the decision date should be soon I think.

 

I thought the problem was that the guidelines form the govt effectively mean it`s not really that much to do with SCC ? That`s the implication of what`s been said.

[Penistone999]

The council didn't block IKEA. They gave them consent at the planned site and the application which IKEA made a few years ago at Parkway Avenue was withdrawn by them, probably because of the objections which were made.

 

 

They needlessly blocked Next which cost the tax payer thousands

[The Joker]

They needlessly blocked Next which cost the tax payer thousands

 

Hiya Penny, you alright flower

 

How much has your tax-dodging cost the taxpayer ?

[LeMaquis]

Hiya Penny, you alright flower

 

How much has your tax-dodging cost the taxpayer ?

 

Too right. If Penistone999 paid his taxes the council could afford to block loads of proposed developments, I think some parking charge increases are overdue to offset his tax evasion.

[Justin Smith]

Yes, nobody (with a brain, who thinks about stuff to any depth) likes tax evaders.

On the subject of the Oughtibridge development and road congestion. This morning it took me just over 10 minutes to do less than one mile (from just past Stockarth Lane to getting through the lights at Leppings Lane). So, plenty of spare capacity there then, not........

We need a Middlewood to Claywheels bypass !

[MrSkinner]

Have to agree with that last point, stuck there myself this morning.

 

No surprise that they're likely to redevelop the old Mill as housing, and I'm comfortable enough with that rather than it remaining a run down industrial usage area. I'd massively object to the provision of further housing on the playing fields - that's just ridiculous. Thankfully it's merely pointed out that it's owned by the developer and hopefully they won't build on there, would be a proper kick in the nuts if they were to do so - it's a really lovely piece of land used for many a recreational pursuit (football, fishing, canoeing etc).

[Justin Smith]

The theoretical saturation flow of a single lane is circa 1900 vehicles per hour, so adding around 5% [100 cars per minute, the estimated additional vehicles from the Oughtibridge paper mill development] 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.

 

In this context, as in many others, "significant" is a meaningless word. Sheffield City Council`s planning department, much less the Government, and even less the developers, would have a very different definition of significant than the drivers stuck in the queueus......

 

I spent 10 minutes today (from 08.30AM) counting the cars passing the junction of Darwin Rd and Middlewoood Rd. I chose that point specifically because I`d have thought it`d be the busiest on Middlewood Rd, after the extra traffic from the Middlewood estate and Langsett Ave has joined, but before it splits off onto Middelwood Rd & Leppings Lane & Catchbar Lane.

I accept it was only 10 minutes (at that time in the morning one is very short of time, particularly as one wastes so much of it in traffic Qs......) but even so the results were very disturbing. It took 9 minutes for 100 cars to go past, that`s only 666 per hour, rather less than the 1900 quoted. An extra 100 cars on top of 666 is 15%, not 5%. And it was a busy morning, the Middlewood Rd queue was back to Stockarth lane. What was interesting was the Park & Ride lights seemed to be the big problem, there were huge gaps with no vehicles in them despite the queue being visible on the other side of the P&R junction. The lights seemed to be on red for ages with no cars or trams using the junction, very inefficient. Whether this makes any significant difference because of the Leppings Lane junction further down (it`d be pointless easing the P&R junction for the traffic to just back up from Leppings lane) requires a bit of research on that junc.

 

Shouldn`t the Council planning office have done this ? If they did what were the results ? Why weren`t they quoted in the report presented to the council (and the public) ?

 

Added 16 Sept 16.

I did a bit of research at the Leppings Lane junction. It`s actually as bad as I`d feared.

The light cycle there takes about 1min 20 seconds, for that time Middlewood Rd is on green for about 25 seconds. The highest number of vehicles which got through (to go straight on down Parkside Rd lane) was 13, and generally it was about 10, sometimes as low as 5 or 6. I`d say an average of 10 would be about right. Again, just like the survey above, there were significant gaps between vehicles because the lights at the P&R were restricting the flow. So, at 1 min 20 seconds per change you get about 46 light change cycles per hour, thus, at 10 cars (average) per change, the maximum capacity of the junction (for straight on) is about 460 vehicles per hour. You do, of course, have to add to that the vehicles turning left down Leppings Lane and bearing right (at the earlier junc) to go straight on along Middlewood Rd. That requires more research, but I`d be surprised in the total capacity of Middlewood Rd was much higher than about 750 vehicle per hour. An extra 100 per hour would be a 13% increase.

 

I have also put this post on the thread about a potential bypass from Middlewood to Claywheels lane because it`s probably even more relevant on that.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Justin Smith

[Planner1]

In this context, as in many others, "significant" is a meaningless word. Sheffield City Council`s planning department, much less the Government, and even less the developers, would have a very different definition of significant than the drivers stuck in the queueus......

 

I spent 10 minutes today (from 08.30AM) counting the cars passing the junction of Darwin Rd and Middlewoood Rd. I chose that point specifically because I`d have thought it`d be the busiest on Middlewood Rd, after the extra traffic from the Middlewood estate and Langsett Ave has joined, but before it splits off onto Middelwood Rd & Leppings Lane & Catchbar Lane.

I accept it was only 10 minutes (at that time in the morning one is very short of time, particularly as one wastes so much of it in traffic Qs......) but even so the results were very disturbing. It took 9 minutes for 100 cars to go past, that`s only 666 per hour, rather less than the 1900 quoted. An extra 100 cars on top of 666 is 15%, not 5%. And it was a busy morning, the Middlewood Rd queue was back to Stockarth lane. What was interesting was the Park & Ride lights seemed to be the big problem, there were huge gaps with no vehicles in them despite the queue being visible on the other side of the P&R junction. The lights seemed to be on red for ages with no cars or trams using the junction, very inefficient. Whether this makes any significant difference because of the Leppings Lane junction further down (it`d be pointless easing the P&R junction for the traffic to just back up from Leppings lane) requires a bit of research on that junc. I`ll do that when I get some time. I do know that the light cycle on Leppings Lane is one minute, I timed it when I used to walk over it everyday, so all we need to know is how many cars get through (on average) per light change.

 

Shouldn`t the Council planning office have done this ? If they did what were the results ? Why weren`t they quoted in the report presented to the council (and the public) ?

 

I have also put this post on the thread about a potential bypass from Middlewood to Claywheels lane because it`s probably even more relevant on that.

If you actually spent some time researching the planning application which has been submitted, you might save yourself some time.

 

Go on the Sheffield planning portal (google it ) and search for Oughtibridge Mill. The Transport Assessment submitted by the developer is on there, which will show you exactly what traffic is estimated to be generated by the development and what effects it will have on the local highway network. The developer agrees the scope of the transport assessment with the council planners before submission.

[Justin Smith]

If you actually spent some time researching the planning application which has been submitted, you might save yourself some time.

 

Go on the Sheffield planning portal (google it ) and search for Oughtibridge Mill. The Transport Assessment submitted by the developer is on there, which will show you exactly what traffic is estimated to be generated by the development and what effects it will have on the local highway network. The developer agrees the scope of the transport assessment with the council planners before submission.

 

Links to Oughtibridge Mill development Traffic Assessments :

 

Part One

 

Part Two

 

Part Three

 

I don`t actually have time to trawl through all those, certainly at the moment. But in the time I spent I couldn`t find any assessment of the impact on the Leppings Lane car park, sorry junction.

 

When you say save time, I wouldn`t consider any research I do as wasted time, I trust my own figures more than anything else. After all, didn`t you say than assumption of 1900 vehicle per hour along Middlewood Rd ? I`m fairly sure that`s way off the mark.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Justin Smith

[semerpus]

If you actually spent some time researching the planning application which has been submitted, you might save yourself some time.

 

Go on the Sheffield planning portal (google it ) and search for Oughtibridge Mill. The Transport Assessment submitted by the developer is on there, which will show you exactly what traffic is estimated to be generated by the development and what effects it will have on the local highway network. The developer agrees the scope of the transport assessment with the council planners before submission.

 

Planner1 what you seem to fail to comprehend or even respect that a lot of existing residents, myself included, don't give a damn out the 'statistics ' when it is them who are already experiencing congestion and traffic jams and know what the reality will be based on their current experiences

 

And as for one of your earlier posts about working flexi time.. I DO work flexi time but still get caught up in traffic as I like to get to work by 8.30, this meaning I can have a work/life balance.

I already leave 10 mins a day earlier than I did a year ago as traffic means the link bus I used to catch no longer connects with the tram it should.

 

That for all your bluster,spin, statistics and BS is the reality of someone who is already living here prior to this being built.