Sheffield Eckington Way travellers’ site plan “a back of a fag packet proposal”
The controversial plan to locate a travellers’ site and industrial units on land off Eckington Way near Crystal Peaks, Sheffield has been described as “a back of a fag packet proposal”.
Labour MP Clive Betts, two LibDem councillors and local residents were united today (October 9) in their opposition to the proposals for the land, which they believe will add to traffic chaos on Eckington Way.
They spoke at a Planning Inspectorate public hearing on the Sheffield Local Plan, which designates the land as a site for travelling showpeople plus industrial units.
The Sheffield City Council plan outlines what kinds of developments can take place across the city over the next 15 years. The Eckington Way proposal has caused an outcry, with more than 4,000 people voicing their opposition.
Beighton ward Coun Ian Horner said: “This is adding traffic to an overloaded road with no clear plan for traffic mitigation or even remotely funded.
“It’s a back of a fag packet proposal which has not been thought out.”
Meaningful
South East Sheffield MP Clive Betts told the hearing at Sheffield Town Hall, chaired by Katie Child, that council consultation on the proposals for Eckington Way wasn’t meaningful. “The idea is for gaps and concerns to be exposed.
“The planners can think ‘that needs modification and adjustment’.
“The Local Plan was late. Because of that, the council were on a very tight timetable.
“The council thought the draft Local Plan, whatever the consultation or views, they can’t change it because that would be a matter of significant alteration. They would have to go back to square one and the whole process was going to be delayed.
“The council weren’t going to listen to concerns.”
Beighton ward Coun Kurtis Crossland said: “This is the first time I’m going to say I agree with Clive Betts. Both Coun Horner and I are sitting on the same side as Mr Betts.”
Investigation
Coun Horner also pointed out that he had fought the May council election and found himself agreeing with the Labour candidate on the issue. He said that LibDems hadn’t been able to win a council vote against including Eckington Way in the Local Plan and Labour councillors who also opposed it were thrown out of the party.
Council officials told the hearing that they are in discussions with the Yorkshire Showmen’s Guild about which one of three areas of the council-owned land they want to purchase for their use.
The industrial aspects are not yet fully developed but will involve providing industrial units for companies to relocate to.
Michael Johnson said: “The capital costs are not fully known. The council is committed to delivering the site and will look at different options through the capital programme if that’s deemed necessary.”
He also said that the council might talk to companies about taking on the industrial unit project.
Council head of strategic transport Tom Finnegan-Smith told the hearing that the junction of Eckington Way and Mosborough Parkway is one of 41 in the city that require detailed investigation.
Investment
He said that assessments showed that the proposals would increase traffic flow by less than 10%. By 2029, forecasts showed the road would be at 101-102% of capacity, rising in the evening peak to 109-115%.
A decade later, that could rise as high as 114 or 118% in the evening peak.
Mr Finnegan-Smith stressed that was a “worst case scenario”.
A more detailed assessment of highways issues would be made as part of the planning application for the site, he added.
Mr Finnegan-Smith pointed to the need for investment in strategic and local transport structure, such as improvements to public transport and better facilities for walking, wheeling and cycling, to help cut road traffic levels.
In response to a question from Ms Child, he said there was no plan to bring in road improvement schemes, either on Eckington Way or in the local area.
Unacceptable
Barrister Chris Young KC, acting for the objectors, responded: “I have never heard in 25 years of anybody promoting sites where you’re talking about traffic capacity of 109, 114 or 118%. Those measurements are completely unacceptable.”
He said it was not feasible to introduce substantial developments that will increase traffic in an area where the roads are already so congested. Mr Young said that residents of the Springwell estate whose homes adjoin the site already face significant delays leaving their homes.
Gemma Hinson said: “As residents we were absolutely astounded that, in a 368-kilometre area of Sheffield, it would be a site proposed for travelling showpeople.” She pointed out that they only need 1.5 hectares of land.
She said the exposed nature of the site would mean the showpeople would not have the privacy they are entitled to.
Ms Hinson said she was worried that the disruption caused by the industrial plans could be akin to the Abbey Glen laundry firm in Westfield, where residents have been “heavily impacted because of the traffic that was going in and out”. That includes articulated lorries.
Enormous
Referring to the showpeople’s machines, Mr Young said: “These are enormous pieces of equipment. They have to effectively just fold out largely and be capable of being assembled” because they move from site to site.
He said some of the rides are 20 metres high and designed to be highly visible. Mr Young said that the topography of the site would not be suitable and a proposed environmental barrier would not protect residents, whose homes are up against the boundary of the land, from all the noise and disturbance.
The inspector’s preliminary report on the hearings is expected in early 2025. There will be further public consultation if there are any major modifications recommended before the Plan is adopted.
To watch the hearings online, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-c8f17dMw4