top of page
Search

Troutbeck Road


River Sheaf Walk - Troutbeck Road STEPS Planning Application, AGAIN!



Dear Members and supporters, you may remember in December 2022, we asked for your help. Gladman Retirement Living Limited & STEPS Rehabilitation Centre Ltd submitted a joint application to finally deliver a missing section of the River Sheaf Walk, which was a condition of their planning permission.


The original email is attached to the bottom of this one.



The Sheaf & Porter Rivers Trust have submitted an objection to yet another attempt to block the high quality, 3m riverside walkway, intended to connect Troutbeck Road to Tesco & on to Millhouses Park. Application reference: 23/03638/FUL


Yet another new building is proposed to be squeezed against the riverside, this is in addition to "The Therapy" room, built without permission in 2020/2021.



This is addition to ongoing application 13/02019/COND3, where the developer is attempting to shrink down the 3m requirement to a 2m path boxed in by high, closed wooden fence.


The quick summary of our Objection is:


a) The extension building is relocated at least 4 m to the south east to create more space on the riverside


b) The riverside trail is widened wherever possible to achieve a general width of 3.0 metres


c) A fresh drawing is submitted showing the building and proposed trail on the same plan and in cross section


d) A standard open ballpost railing (Sheffield Riverside Railing) is provided along the rivers edge of the trail with screen fencing of the therapeutic garden area if required


e) The trail is constructed with a sealed surface and lighting


f) Its status as a public route maintained by the site owners is protected by planning condition linked to the continued use of the building"


See you our full objection below and please submit your own comments.


New:



Riverside Walk application, to submit further objections upon:




Want to help the Trust deliver the riverside walk but never done a planning response before?


Fear not, we have a guide!



"The representation is made on behalf of the Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust, an official consultee and refers to the poor standard of public access proposed to the River Sheaf.


Achievement of this part of the River Sheaf Walk unlocks a longer section immediately downstream provided by Addlington but never opened and the very real potential to connect to the TESCO site with its own well-used riverside trail, to the Park and Ride facility and to Millhouses Park, avoiding Abbeydale Road and all of immediate benefit to residents, clients and workforce at STEPS and Addlington as well as the wider community.



The Trust appreciates the valuable work which STEPS delivers at this site and why this extension may be needed, but is concerned that its footprint presses unnecessarily close to the rivers edge, further narrowing the space for promised public access to, and maintenance of the river, and for wildlife .


Looking at the plans this appears to be mainly in order to preserve two or three parking spaces. Considering the total parking requirement for STEPS set out in the Transport Report this seems like the wrong priority when a short and attractive connection to the adjoining Millhouses Park and Ride mentioned above could be achieved along the river once this link is achieved. The Trust has already discussed this with TESCO who control all the land necessary to achieve it and can see the environmental and commercial benefits.



The building as proposed would also infringe both EA and SCC policy on making room for our rivers wherever possible.



The Planning Statement claims that the riverside walk will be provided at 3.0m width, but the drawing provided is the one previously submitted in 2022 which shows it as 2.0m max and to which we objected for that reason. The previous proposal also included a solid fence on its river side, thus excluding enjoyment, stewardship or observation of the river and creating an unnecessarily unpleasant and confined space.



Moreover this plan does not show the proposed building, nor does the building plan submitted show the walk, which raises concerns about whether the two plans are entirely compatible and could result in another 'Sylvester Street situation' where the riverside space is further squeezed in construction.


The space for the trail is already constrained at its southern entrance by the unauthorised 'Garden Room' erected without planning permission by STEPS during the pandemic.



The submission takes no account of the Trust's suggested amends, discussed and we believe agreed with Jules Leahy the STEPS co-owner over twelve months ago and also shared with the case officer at the time. This compromise would at least maximise the width of the trail particularly at key pinchpoints such as where it joins the Addlington housing existing section and it also proposed more appropriate railing and boundary treatments.



In light of the above we object to the new application, but believe that the Planning Authority has it well within its power to reach a reasonable compromise solution by the following:


a) The extension is relocated at least 4 m to the south east to create more space on the riverside


b) The riverside trail is widened wherever possible to achieve a general width of 3.0 metres


c) A fresh drawing is submitted showing the building and proposed trail on the same plan and in cross section


d) A standard open ballpost railing is provided along the rivers edge of the trail with screen fencing of the therapeutic garden area if required


e) The trail is constructed with a sealed surface and lighting


f) Its status as a public route maintained by the site owners is protected by planning condition linked to the continued use of the building"



Struggle to use the planning system?


Email stewart.greenslade@sheffield.gov.uk, using case reference 23/03638/FUL, provide your address and let him know your difficulties in using the planning website.




Previous objection

111 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

1 則留言


Simon Geller
Simon Geller
2023年11月30日

Thank you, I've put in an objection. Why do developers continue try to push the boundaries of what is acceptable? Do they not realise the harm they do to their reputations? Or do they just not care?

按讚
bottom of page