Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Hodson's avatar

A useful explanation Sue - many thanks for that. The Millhouses Ecclesall & Carter Knowle [MECK] Community Group objected to the Planning Application by the property-owner, and is still concerned that the implications for traffic safety and the loss of local green space were not adequately considered.

We have written to the Chairs of the Finance and Strategy & Resources Committees to object to the stopping-up of this part of the highway, and to the sale of the verge to the property-owner, on the grounds that

a) the legislation [the Town and County Planning Act, 1990] does not compel the Secretary of State to approve such an order, but "may" do so; and only for the purpose of improving or extending the highway. That does not cover such a land-grabas this, purely for the sake of extending someone's garden!

b) the Council does not have to sell the verge in such a case: and doing so purely fo that purpose does have considerable implications for the thousands of other sections of grass-verge around the city - implications that we feel have not been considered, and which should be discussed by the relevant Committee and approved as part of a general Council Policy.

Mike Hodson, MECK CG Secretary.

Expand full comment
Bridget Ingle's avatar

Great pieces as usual. I always thought the City of Rivers Waterways Strategy was an inspired piece of work - more than a decade old now https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-development/conservation/Sheffield%20Waterways%20Strategy.pdf

It seems to be that SCC has forgotten about their collaborative work when it comes to planning applications. Great that Simon, Andy and all the volunteers are still chipping away at all the small waterways connections while keeping an eye on the bigger picture.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts