Plan for retirement apartments in Sheffield prompts traffic concerns
Neighbours have objected to plans to demolish a Sheffield building for several new apartments aimed at retired residents, saying they are concerned about an increase in traffic and the carbon footprint.
Bowood Developments submitted the plans for the site on 15 Brocco Bank, which was previously used for residential purposes and is subdivided into 12 bedsits and one bed apartments.
If approved by Sheffield Council, the existing building will be knocked down and a four-storey block of eight apartments with a car park and shared gardens will be built in its place. The homes would be a mix of two and three bed.
In a statement provided with the plans, Latham Davies, on behalf of Bowood Developments, said the current site was hidden and greenery is overgrown and the new development will provide quality not available elsewhere in the area.
So far there are 25 comments on the plans from members of the public, all of which object to the proposals.
Concerns raised included about traffic, it being “out of keeping” with the area, the loss of a characterful building and the carbon emissions from rebuilding.
One neighbour who said they have lived opposite the site for more than 30 years said: “The new building will not be in keeping with the general style of the area, but I think the significant issue here will be the effect on traffic along Brocco Bank, already full of vehicles, we don’t need any more.
“The plans show car parking for eight vehicles – difficult to see how eight extra cars with their constant comings and goings entering and leaving the subterranean car park will have anything other than a worsening effect on traffic here. Brocco Bank is already an extremely busy road, with long queues forming many times of day (apart from lockdown).
“Then eight more households will mean additional visitors’ cars, tradespeoples’ vehicles, etc and subsequently cause more hold-ups to traffic with the potential of making what can be a ‘difficult’ road junction to negotiate into a dangerous one.
“Surely the much safer option would be for all vehicular access to be changed to the rear of the property, as it is now?”