This relates to application 21/05085/FUL. The applicant Jaguar is the same as received planning for the much larger adjoining scheme approved under 21/00234/FUL.
In response to requests from the Upper Don Trail Trust and CycleSheffield for a Toucan Crossing at the Penistone/Herries Rd South junction the planning officer’s report accompanying that approval includes the following statement:
‘The vacant garage premises on the corner of Penistone Roadand Herries Road South remains outside the application site and is not currently available for redevelopment. A preliminary highway design has been worked up that provides extra lanes at the A61 Penistone Road/Herries Road South junction to improve capacity, that provides a signalised crossing for pedestrians/ cyclists and off-carriageway segregated cycle paths along the three sides of the development site. As with the previous scheme the applicant has agreed to accept a ‘highway improvement line’ which is indicated on the approved plans. When the garage site becomes available for re-development, it is intended that no built development will occur in front of the highway improvement line.
When the Council has secured funding to implement the scheme (which currently is not justified in planning terms on the back of the extant or this proposed development) the land required to accommodate it will be dedicated to the Council at no cost (baring legal costs). As with the previous scheme, a condition is recommended to secure this provision.
However the current application, by the same applicant and land owner, fails to show this development control line and proposes signage, boundary walls and a signage totem within the area required.
The applicant is proposing a change of use to a variety of new uses including a hot food outlet or restaurant which will undoubtedly attract significant increased pedestrian and cycle traffic across Herries Road South which currently has no cycle/pedestrian phase..
The development control line should be imposed on the approved plan and the dedication of the necessary land should be a condition of any permission for this development.
We are not convinced of the need for additional carriageway widening at this junction but a contribution from the developer to the cost of a Toucan crossing at this location should also be required.
This would go some way to remedying the miserable failure to secure co-ordinated improvements to the strategic cycleway from the previous application.
