You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A Belfast based development company would like to refurbish the 80s shopping centre opposite my house in Sheffield with "a new hub for the community to live, meet and shop"... Oh and they'd like to build "78 new high-quality homes on the upper floors".
The developers own site suggest a footfall of 99,000 per week but to advertise the refurbishment they are having a 3 hour exhibition, after the centre has closed, in an empty shop down the road. So presumably this is their bare minimum legal obligation to interact with the community.
I'm all for more affordable, high quality housing but 78 in a new build on top of a shopping centre, replacing a car park smells like a load of generic flats to me and we know that they'll fudge the numbers so that they don't have to provide affordable housing.
This particular area of Sheffield struggles with traffic as it is, locals have to pay to park on their own street and we have problems with air quality however one of the local councillors has already voiced their support as the development is on a tram line.
Where do I start with opposing all this?
Go to the exhibition, ask your questions and get the facts of the development, read the application and start from there.
Perhaps make sure it is in the conditions to be affordable housing, if you are on the tram line perhaps they will attract people who don't want to own a car if the developments have no allocated parking and restrictions elsewhere.
Best approach is to demonstrate where it doesn't comply with specific planning policies. They should hvae done a highways assessment that should be part of the application so as that's a concern you have I'd start there.
"I’m all for more affordable, high quality housing but..."
Classic NIMBYism.
The only way this will be rejected is if you can get one or more local political parties involved in rejecting it when it goes to the planning committee or you can find specific reasons why it does not fit in with the councils stated plan for development (density, parking,. affordables etc). As an individual you can write in and object and try and get as many of your neighbours too as well.
My experience currently with a proposal to replace a small single story industrial unit with 29 flats over 4 floors at the end of our road with 40 out of 70 local home owners writing to ask for the plans to be rejected or toned down is that it's a waste of time. And we've just received notice they want to build 106 more flats on the site of a car sales place a 1/4 of a mile away - I'm not even thinking about putting time into writing an objection.
So, realistically? Don't bother it'll happen anyway and you'll just expend a lot of energy to feel frustrated.
“I’m all for more affordable, high quality housing but…”
Classic NIMBYism.
Have you actually read the rest of the paragraph?
First step is don't be an arse.
By that I mean object on reaonable grounds, so many objections to planning applications that I see essentially have no basis other than people don't like change/don't want anything built, and planners have to just disregard them, it doesn't matter if you've got 500 or 5000 signatures in support of an objection if the objection itself isn't valid.
You need to do your homework, get all the facts about the proposal, find out what local and national policy is, compare the two, then point out where the proposal falls short. Yes, that is the planners job, but it doesn't hurt to help them along, most councils are understaffed in planning, their officers are up against it and are only human, so things do get missed.
Surely a development of flats in a sustainable location replacing a car park will reduce existing congestion and improve air quality.
i wouldn’t waste your time objecting to the principle of the development as it sounds exactly the type of development that local authorities are being encouraged to approve. You should engage with the developer to ensure the final scheme improves the existing neighbourhood and provides financial contributions towards local infrastructure.
My advice would be, if you don’t want to live opposite a development of affordable housing, then move.
Your objections don’t matter to the people making the decisions, as there’s money involved.
so, you can expend a lot of effort for, ultimately, **** all, or you can move.
you’ll be happier if you move buddy, life is too short to get caught up in this shit.
By that I mean object on reaonable grounds
+1
As someone who has had a lot of personal and professional involvement with planning applications I'm always amazed at how little understood this is. Not liking something isn't a valid reason (from the planners standpoint) for the consent to be refused / revoked.
Edit
In reply to the actual question, start by going along to the consultation to find out information and potentially get some questions answered. After that, and after looking in detail at the various local, regional and national development plans, if you feel there is a valid planning reason for refusal then go on the planning portal and lay out your concerns in neutral language.
@Mogrim yes I did thank you for asking.
Still not quite sure why it's nimbyism, though. It's a bunch of new flats on top of a new shopping centre while removing the parking. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, still YMMV.
Work on the items that make the business case more risky.
When writing in say great scheme, just what the town needs etc etc then make a few suggestions to improve it.
Start with noise - ask for a noise assessment from the Environment side. Suggest some sensible restrictions on the business hours so it's not open until 10 pm or midnight. 6pm for that size of shopping centre is reasonable.
Also you'll not object if the shops are only stocked during core business hours so not 2 am every night with that ****ing annoying beeping from large trucks reversing at all hours...
Request more cycle, bus stops etc. This at the detriment of parking. A shopping needs cars (like it or not) and anyone in the retail game knows this. Foot fall analysis will suffer so shops won't be interested in taking them up...
A shorter set of core hours you could try the "it would lower pollution levels".
I wish I could express how much accusations of NIMBYism wind me up. Such a lazy, pointless, pathetic thing to say! Grr,
Council website https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/sheffield/home/planning-development/search-view-comment.html
is a good place,
Doh ! Beaten to it by Rickos
but they will give full details of the application etc.
my advice would be to draft your objections in word , then when happy with everything copy and paste into the online form.
be prepared to lose some of the formatting, and if you have supporting files to your objection e mail them direct to the case officer
@leggyblonde - so you live in the same area as the OP and don't oppose the development plans? If not, you should shut the **** up.
We had a professional housing development application being squeezed into a neighbours back-garden.
The back garden is triangular ... and 100' back from the road with single lane access and .. about 50,000 other reasons why it was a bad idea.
Our local council has its own planning guidelines of which it contravened a whole load....
An amazing amount of the planning permission application was just bordering on false (certainly presented to mislead). Downloading all the different plans and putting them together and illustrating how this breached the councils own guidelines did the job for now.
Some of the misleading stuff was having all the drawings at different scales and North points and missing detail from some diagrams. (For example the windows and a folding door were so close to the fence they wouldn't actually open when they were transferred from the scale drawing that missed out the fence. Photo's were submitted cropped in specific directions for example... and then incorrectly used in terms of reference form plans.
It amazed me that the architects thought this would go unspotted... but weirdly (or not) they were correct and no-one in planning actually bothered to check simple stuff like access for bins/fire etc.
Hi Dezb - what is so offensive about the term Not In My Back Yard ?
Good luck but the brown envelopes will have changed hands long ago.
Still not quite sure why it’s nimbyism, though. It’s a bunch of new flats on top of a new shopping centre while removing the parking. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, still YMMV.
We need houses and housing in a lot of locations, if there are jobs that are available on the existing tram line then it sounds perfect if people are aware that there is no parking with some of the properties. The alternative is to build property further out and compound traffic by people trying to get in or to build less houses (bigger) with parking - not affordable then.
Most inner city developments will have little car parking as people who live and work in the city can manage without owning a car, if there is provison for secure bike storage, shared bike parking, car share parking and electric recharge then it would go a long way to being a much better development.
As for why it's NIMBY... the OP sees there may be a need but then decides that before seeing any evidence that the development is wrong and will bend/break all sorts of rules. Making your mind up before examining the evidence and then trying to work out how to object.
Out of interest where about is this in Sheffield?
Don’t bother it’ll happen anyway and you’ll just expend a lot of energy to feel frustrated.
My experience exactly. They will have put in for a lot more than they actually need in the expectation of being knocked back. Deals will be done and agreements made and the developers will win, I'm afraid.
Hi Dezb – what is so offensive about the term Not In My Back Yard ?
Because Nimby is a hall of mirrors!
Quite often the ones calling the Nimby's would be twice as put out if it was THEIR back yard.
Quite often the ones calling the Nimby’s would be twice as put out if it was THEIR back yard.
I have no back yard, I'd like somewhere to live though...
Which is why if there are no grounds to object suck it up or move.
Stevextc - I would rather development took place in sustainable locations like existing backyards than sprawling into truly exceptional countryside, in this case the Peak National Park.
The other alternatives are to redevelop under used employment sites, the loss of which effect people’s livelihoods or do nothing because you are alright as you have a home.
in truth a combination of reusing and intensifying existing sites and release of edge of settlement land is required to keep up with the need for more housing. The increasing need for housing should not be viewed as a bad thing - it is a result of us living longer and being more wealthy than in the past.
This thread is hilarious.
Thanks for all the helpful comments.
I look forward to page two of people on the internet pointlessly arguing.
No matter what the subject, most threads will be hijacked by somebody desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials. It's a bit like competitive piety, another scourge of the times.
be hijacked by somebody desperate to demonstrate their impeccable PC credentials.
Proper lol....