​

Could the Battle of Troutbeck Road be Close to a Result?

​

Short Summary

​

The Trust is hoping that a three day public enquiry held recently 4th– 6th August may finally decide the fate of a long running dispute over non-provision of a section of the River Sheaf Trail between Troutbeck Rd and the well-used path at Millhouses Tesco with links beyond to Millhouses Park.

​

It concerns a second appeal by STEPS Rehabilitation and Gladman Retirement Living this time against a Council Enforcement Notice to comply with a planning condition to provide the path going back to at least 2018 and arguably 2014.  Completion of this path would leave just some 30 metres of missing path on land controlled by Tesco which we have been discussing with Tesco for seven years and are confident could be funded.

​

Without going into the very obscure legal gymnastics deployed by their barrister, the proceedings notably revealed a baffling hostility to public benefit from two businesses that you might expect to see the value of safe, public traffic-free walking , cycling and wheeling, access to public transport and shopping and contact with nature for at least their own clients, residents and staff.

​

Instead they advanced a series of what the council’s brief described as ‘unattractive

arguments’ which included:

​

They saw ‘no commercial benefit’ for them in a riverside walk – a view clearly not shared by numerous other developers in the city who have supported such

improvements from Deepcar to Meadowhall

​

There was no evidence of demand – an assertion swept away by a recent poll of Jacobs Gate home owners presented to the enquiry showing 60 to 4 in favour of the path not to mention the clear support of the local community Association MECK.

​

Even if compelled to construct a path they threatened to lock it up. Gladman would also increase service charges on their elderly residents to pay for it. Many residents recalled sales staff telling them the path was already part of the development.

​

STEPS’ Planning consultant made much of the risk of occasional flooding on the

riverside path (something quite common and to be expected) but was apparently not

aware that accommodation for 65 vulnerable households and clients and staff at the

two businesses were at the same risk.

​

In a telling last minute loss of nerve they offered a cash contribution of £100k to the

council for some other part of the trail, a sum described by the council’s brief as ‘back

of a fag packet calculation based on 2007 prices’ and significantly less than the £500k

they previously claimed, without evidence, they would need to spend to provide the

path at STEPS.

​

None of this is surely a good look for the reputation of either party or indeed for the

effectiveness of the planning system. The points were robustly rebutted by council planners and witnesses from the Trust, Jacobs Gate residents, local councillor Barbara Masters and MECK.

​

The inspectors decision will be available in a few weeks.