Bid to keep Sheffield car park open for public criticised by campaigners

A local wildlife group has criticised a business’s bid to carry on using a patch of land in Sheffield as a car park.
A local wildlife group has criticised a business’s bid to carry on using a patch of land in Sheffield as a car park.A local wildlife group has criticised a business’s bid to carry on using a patch of land in Sheffield as a car park.
A local wildlife group has criticised a business’s bid to carry on using a patch of land in Sheffield as a car park.

Representatives of the Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust have objected to the proposal for the continuous use of the existing public pay and display car park for a temporary period of five years at the site of the former Bernard Works on Sylvester Gardens.

The site has been used as a contractors’ and permit holders’ car park following previous planning permissions which have since (in 2019) expired.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The applicant, Elmsdale Estates, now wants it to be used as a public pay and display car park and the application looks to formalise this car park use for a temporary period given the “relative lack of parking” in the area.

However, the campaigners – and others submitting their objections on the planning portal – argued that the car park was operating without permission.

The group said: “Whilst it is accepted that the application is for temporary permission we would point out that the previous expired temporary permission has already stretched to 10 years.

“Therefore it cannot be assumed that the car park use will be as short as suggested, given the vicissitudes of the current market and the relative returns and lack of risk for parking use.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The group added further concern that the (former) Bernard Works site represented the remaining missing link to complete a significant portion of the proposed Porter Brook Trail.

“The trail and the access it provides to ‘green-blue space’ would address the significant lack of such amenity in this growing mixed working and living area identified in the draft local plan for much more residential development.”

One objector said it was “disappointing” that the previous temporary permission had expired but that it continued as a car park.

They said: “It looks like an encroachment by stealth hoping no one will notice. I do not approve of the renewal of the temporary expired permission.”

More details on the proposal can be found under 24/00183/FUL on the planning portal.

Officers have set March 14 as a target date for a decision.