Planning officer’s report
Prior to the planning committee meeting on Tuesday, the planning officer’s report recommends that the committee refuse planning permission for the convenience store application 10/02657/FUL on the grounds of unsuitable/unsufficient car parking accommodation and inadequate on-site servicing provision and servicing from the highway.
A decision by the planning committee is expected at the meeting on Tuesday.
Planning application report for committee – see pages 34-42 (PDF, 3.7MB)
Agenda for 2 November 2010 meeting
Wanted: your feedback on the presentation
A presentation is still to be made to the planning committee at the meeting on Tuesday 2 November at 2pm at the Town Hall on Pinstone Street.
You are invited to give your feedback on the presentation by leaving a comment below before it is finalised on Sunday 31 October.
Crosspool News - crosspool.info 
I am sure there will be an update but the planning application was rejected at todays Planning Board by a majority of 5 votes to 3 with one abstension. The key to rejecting the application was down to parking and access as we were all aware.
The developers put in a robust defence, whilst I opted for a short presentation given the Planning Officers recommendation. There was considerable debate and I have to say I was concerned that my short presentation may have been insufficient.
However I suspect there may well be an appeal at which point we will have to deploy all our arguments. Watch this space!
The Planning Officers Report has gone further than I expected in detailing the reasons for rejecting the planning application. In light of the report we have decided to keep the presentation brief and to the point reinforcing the key points.
There is little value in repeating the same points. Thanks for all your support.
Iain
The planning presentation looks fine. I think you need to concentrate on the highway aspects as this is the reason the planning officer has recommended refusal, particularly the lack of parking facilities. The only other comment I have is that I’m not convinced the gate posts are original. There is a picture in the Sheffield Archives that appears to show the gates, and they are of solid stone with a cross on, not build of stone bricks!
Good luck.
David Kirkham