Asda Campaign - Hillsborough 2003


In 2003 Asda were planning to build a new supermarket on the site of the Sheffield Wednesday training ground at Middlewood Road, Hillsborough. The area is already plagued with traffic problems and the new development, if built would have destroyed the local shopping area and undermined the existing five supermarkets.


A lot of work was carried out by Sheffield Friends of the Earth, The Green Party and many local residents to stop the development.



Background Information


A public meeting was held on Friday 7th February in Hillsborough with local residents to create an action group to stop this development.


The residents at the meeting made the following points:

The land is actually owned by the Council and not Sheffield Wednesday.

The loading bay will be situated next to housing at Winn Gardens.

Gilders Car Showroom may be shutting down soon. If ASDA build a store on the training ground this would be an ideal location for an ASDA petrol station.

It was suggested that 463 car parking spaces would be provided.

Residents were not sure of store opening times and delivery times for large lorries.

At some point in the future a road may be built linking the site with Clay Wheels Lane.

In the Hillsborough area 23 of 172 shops are vacant . 11 of 53 shops are vacant around Middlewood Road. Both of these areas have above average levels of vacant shops.

If people decide not to shop at Morrisons, for example, and instead visit ASDA then it will create more traffic crossing through Hillsborough.

If people making the planning decision attend more than 15 Wednesday matches they aren’t allowed to make a decision on the proposal.

Asda recently developed a store at Handsworth. To find out how this development affected their community a couple of people had a look The development at Hillsborough could suffer similar problems. Here are the observations:

Had a look round the Asda at Handsworth the other night with Janet. It's BIG! Since it opened 3 fruit & veg shops, 2 butchers, 1 bread shop & 1 newsagents have closed in Handsworth. Asda are now moving into white goods & clothing (the original planning
permission prevents them having a chemist or post office). They have not been granted planning permission for an extension, so they are putting a mezzanine floor into the present building. There have been 3 public meetings arranged by Asda about this, but all have been poorly publicised (no posters in the shop - even the staff don't know about them). While the work is being completed they have put up a huge extension, which they say does not need planning permission as it is temporary (for 32 weeks). 

There is no £1 charge on the trolleys which leads to many being abandoned. The car park backs onto Richmond Park Crescent, with only a small evergreen shrub screen. Asda have also bought land just behind the store which had outline planning permission for a pub and McDonalds, they have applied for full planning permission, but management say the project has been shelved (objections in by end of March!) There are lorry deliveries every hour on the hour through the night, management have said they could be timed to arrive together every three hours! There is lots of litter on the pavement from the store, the lights are sequenced to allow 5 cars at a time into the car park, but were causing huge traffic jams when I visited (5.30-6). The pavement is very narrow on the far side of the road which causes problems for people with prams etc. Janet was fairly sceptical about us winning in the long term, but said
we needed to come up with terms & conditions under which we would accept the scheme & make sure that promised features - crossings, play areas,  pavement widening happened before the store was built, as she says Asda made many promises to the community which they have not kept.

Two other public meetings have been organised and well attended by residents and councillors. David Blunkett has written a letter agreeing with us. The Environment Agency are also opposed to this scheme.


Why the Development was Rejected


1 The Local Planning Authority consider that a need for the proposed store has not been demonstrated and that it also fails the sequential test laid out in national Planning Policy Guidance, Note 6 - Town Centres and Retail Development and subsequent government statements.

2 The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of Hillsborough District Centre and Middlewood Local Centre. In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policy S5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposal would result in the loss of playing fields without the provision of an acceptable alternative. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy LR7 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

4 The Local Planning Authority consider that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that traffic associated with the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the local highway and transportation system.

Site Location


1.1 The application relates to the Sheffield Wednesday Football Club (SWFC) training ground situated between Middlewood Road and the River Don, to the north west of Hillsborough. To the north of the site is the Winn Gardens housing estate. Adjoining the site to the west are the Park and Ride facilities associated with the Middlewood Supertram terminus and Thorn Lea, an elderly persons home. To the south of the site are commercial premises occupied by Gilders.

1.2 The site is currently accessed off Middlewood Road to the south of Thorn Lea, into a car parking area. Beyond this are the SWFC training facilities comprising 3 grass football pitches, an indoor training pitch covered by a dome, an artificial pitch and buildings associated with the training facilities. The site is surrounded by concrete and wire mesh fencing.

1.3 This outline planning application proposes an improved access close to the existing from which a road would run into the site to serve a proposed Asda local centre. This would be constructed mostly on the site of the existing grass pitches and buildings. The application seeks approval of the siting of the main elements of the proposal.

1.4 The proposed store would be located in the northern part of the site, adjoining Winn Gardens and the Supertram Park and Ride facilities (although not part of the application site, an area for possible extension and links to the Park and Ride is shown). The store would have a net sales area of 4,180 sq.m. (45,000 sq.ft.). A service road would feed round the perimeter of the site to a service area between Winn Gardens and the proposed store.

1.5 A total of 463 car parking spaces would be provided, mostly to the front of the store. This would include parking for disabled, expectant mothers, parent and child and staff.

1.6 The existing all-weather covered pitch would be retained and three new five-a-side pitches with changing facilities and parking for 47 cars provided. 

1.7 Existing tree screening along the River Don would be retained as much as possible and supplemented with new planting. New tree and hedge screening would also be provided around the boundary. The submitted plans also show grassed and landscaped area within the site. A proposed pedestrian link to a riverside path is also shown.

1.8 The applicants claim the proposal would create 400 jobs.


2.1 A full planning application was submitted at the time of this application for the re-siting of the SWFC training facilities to land at Nether Lane, Ecclesfield (the former Shardlows Sports and Social Club). This included a large training building.

2.2 The application for the proposed re-siting was placed on the agenda for the North and West Area Board on 25 March 2003 with a recommendation for refusal on Green Belt and amenity grounds. The applicants withdrew the application prior to the Board meeting (Ref: 03/00004/FUL).

2.3 No alternative application for re-siting of the training facilities has been received.


3.1 The application has been advertised in the press and notices posted on site. Local residents have been notified directly. There has been significant press coverage.

3.2 Objections to the proposal were received very quickly from the immediate area and Sheffield 6 in general. To date 121 letters and a petition signed by 161 people have been received on the following grounds:

- the proposal would have an impact on local shops and the Hillsborough shopping centre
- there are adequate supermarkets in the locality
- the proposal would be contrary to UDP policies and national and regional guidance
- it would lead to increased traffic in the area causing congestion and problems at major junctions in the area
- increased traffic would create a hazard for schoolchildren
- increased traffic would impact on public transport movement, especially Supertram, leading to delays
- will create more hazard for cyclists
- loss of open space
- fume, light and noise pollution from the development 
- impact on the amenity of local residents and occupiers of Thorn Lea
- other brownfield sites in the area
- SWFC should work to improve the area in view of problems caused on match days
- money raised will not solve SWFC financial situation
- SWFC supporters but not at the expense of the damage the proposal will cause in the area

3.3 Helen Jackson MP has objected on the grounds:
- potential traffic chaos and congestion in the area
- serious effect on the viability of businesses in Hillsborough.

3.4 Sheffield Chamber of Trade object on the grounds that it would have a seriously detrimental impact upon local shops and the Hillsborough District Centre.

3.5 Sport England have objected to the proposal on the grounds that the development would lead to the permanent loss of part of the existing playing field.

3.6 Initially, very few letters of support were received. However, following publicity by Asda and SWFC, including an information pack sent to supporters urging them to write in and support the proposal, 134 letters have been received to date. Of the letters 25% were from Sheffield 6, the remainder from further afield including Bury, Leicester and Norwich.

3.7 The points raised include:

- the proposal will provide a much needed cash injection to SWFC
- it will not create a significant increase in traffic
- integration with the Supertram system
- create new jobs
- provide competition to existing stores and offer more choice
- keep shoppers in the area
- will serve north Sheffield
- benefit the community
- the importance of SWFC to the City.


4.1 The application site is within an area identified as Open Space in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The surrounding area is primarily identified as residential although there is a Fringe Industry and Business Area to the south. The nearest existing shopping areas are the local centre at Middlewood Road/Catch Bar Lane junction and the Hillsborough District Shopping Centre beyond. 

4.2 The proposal has to be examined by a number of issues in the light of local and national policies and guidelines.

4.3 Retail Policy Issues

4.3.1 Policy S1 of the UDP states, amongst other things, that major new retail development (i.e. above 2,500 sq.m. gross) will be concentrated within and at the edge of the Central Shopping Area and District Shopping Centres. The current proposal clearly does not comply with that policy.
4.3.2 Policy S4 states that retail development will be promoted within District Shopping Centres and where there are no suitable sites within such Centres, at their edges. One of the main reasons for this policy is that District Centres are accessible to all sections of the community particularly those without the use of a private car. The recent completion of the mini-transport interchange at Hillsborough District Centre underlines this.

4.3.3 Policy S5 states that retail development outside of District Centres will be permitted where certain criteria are satisfied. These criteria include:

- it would not undermine the vitality and viability of the City Centre or any District Shopping Centre as a whole, either taken alone or cumulatively with other recent or proposed development; and

- it would not jeopardise private sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area or District Shopping Centres or put at risk the strategy or proposals for promotion and regeneration of those areas; and

- it would be easily accessible by public and private transport and provide satisfactory access for people with disabilities and people arriving by foot, cycle or public transport; and

- it would not have a significant harmful effect on public transport services or priority measures or on other movement on the surrounding road network as existing or, where appropriate, as proposed to be improved; and

- the traffic generated would not result in a significant increase in the number and length of customer trips; and

- it would not take up land where other uses are required nor give rise to shortages of land for those uses which are preferred.

4.3.4 Criteria a) and b) are examined further in this section. The other criteria will be examined later in the report.

4.3.5 The application should also be considered in the light of National Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Town Centres and Retail Development (PPG6) and subsequent clarification of that policy, including a statement in 1999 by the then Planning Minister, Richard Caborn.

4.3.6 The Government's clarification of PPG6 states that the proposers of development that is out of centre or not in accordance with a development plan, such as this, have to demonstrate that the development is needed and that the sequential approach has been followed. Need, Sequential Approach and Impact will be assessed below.

4.4 Need

4.4.1 The applicants' assessment of retail need concludes that a new store is needed both to remedy local deficiencies and to accommodate spending growth.

4.4.2 From calculations based on information from a household survey of north Sheffield, the applicants conclude that superstores in north Sheffield are overtrading (have higher than expected turnovers) and that there is an outflow of expenditure to stores outside the study area. A large superstore fulfilling a main food shopping function is therefore needed to reduce congestion at existing stores and reduce journey times.

4.4.3 The original study area in which the applicants considered need, covered almost half of Sheffield. Irrespective of whether a store is needed for this area, the applicants have not demonstrated that the proposed Asda is of the right scale to remedy any need. Government guidance is that the scale of proposals should be "appropriately related to the centre – whether town, district or local – the development seeks to serve" (Caborn statement). New shops "should be … of a size appropriate to the size of that centre and its catchment area". Hillsborough, the nearest centre to the proposal, does not serve a catchment as extensive as the original applicants' study area.

4.4.4 In response to officers request, the applicants examined the need for the store in the more immediate 'core area' surrounding the proposal. They calculate that in this area there is an excess of expenditure over provision (i.e. capacity) of £43.4m in 2002 – very close to the expected Asda turnover figure of £43m. However, their calculations are considered flawed since they allocate some of the existing shopping floorspace in the area to shoppers from outside the area, without making a similar allowance for people living in the area to go outside the area to shop. The applicants estimate that people living in the area currently spend only £28.8m outside it. This is less that the store's turnover of £43m. Therefore there is no current capacity for a store for the scale proposed.

4.4.5 If there were a need for a modern food store in either the original study area of the 'core area', this store is not in the right place to meet it. The area of the proposal is already well supplied with centres and food shops – Middlewood Centre, with a Netto, is 400m away and the centre of Hillsborough, with its three supermarkets, is 1.5km away.

4.4.6 Ministerial guidance says that any demonstration of need for retail floorspace should be based on the types of goods it would sell. However, the applicants' argument that the store is needed to accommodate spending growth is based on an assessment of growth in spending in convenience businesses. Growth in spending on convenience goods is almost non-existent and growth in spending in convenience businesses is due to growth in spending on the non-food goods that they sell. So the applicants are trying to justify a store that would sell convenience goods by growth in expenditure on non-food items.

4.4.7 There is therefore, no need for the store to accommodate growth in food spending and the applicants have not tried to show that it is needed to accommodate growth in non-food spending.

4.4.8 To conclude, no convincing evidence has been provided of a retail need for the store or the 'new centre' in either the original study area or the smaller 'core area'. "A failure to demonstrate both the need for such proposals and that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the application site would normally justify the refusal of planning permission unless there were weighty additional material considerations."

4.5 The Sequential Approach

4.5.1 The sequential approach means that first preference should be for town centre sites, where suitable sites or buildings suitable for conversion are available, followed by edge-of-centre sites, district and local centres and only then out-of-centre sites in locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Government guidance is that the key question for the sequential approach is not whether a shop's format can be accommodated but whether there is any reason why the goods it sells cannot be sold from town centres. Asda's product offer includes recorded music and video, toys, electrical appliances, stationery and greeting cards. Most Asda stores sell 'George' clothing. George space in-store ranges from 4,000 to 10,000 sq.m. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the non-food items could not be sold from vacant units in Hillsborough and the City Centre and from the New Retail Quarter.

4.5.2 The original study are in which the applicants assessed need, included the entire City Centre. This includes vacant units and the proposed New Retail Quarter. In terms of the 'sequential approach' the New Retail Quarter is suitable and available for retail development within a reasonable period of time. It will have sufficient floorspace to accommodate growth in spending in the study area. It is preferable to any non-central site for developments selling the type of non-food goods that Asda tend to sell and that could otherwise be sold in a City Centre location.

4.5.3 Both the original study area and the core area include Hillsborough District Shopping Centre. There are vacant units here between Morrisons and the rest of the centre where the non-food goods could be sold.

4.5.4 To conclude, although there is no alternative site for the store in the Hillsborough area, its non-food goods could be sold in vacant units in Hillsborough and in the New Retail Quarter.

4.6 Impact

4.6.1 Policy S5 criteria (a) and (b) require impact on District Centres and the City Centre to be assessed. PPG6 also requires the impact on local centres to be assessed.

4.6.2 The main concern is the proposal's impact on Hillsborough. The applicants state that the Asda would reduce overtrading in stores in the Study Area, "improving their ability to perform their proper retail functions adequately". Therefore there would be no significant adverse impact. The applicants estimate trade losses at 2007 (the design year) to be:

Impact of Asda %

Co-op, Middlewood Road, Hillsborough (DC) 14
Kwiksave, Hillsborough Arcade, Hillsborough (DC) 20
Morrisons, Hillsborough (DC) 20
Other stores in Hillsborough 12
Total 19

Local Centre Stores
Netto, Middlewood Road, Hillsborough 29
Netto, South Road, Walkley 22

Stores Outside Centres
Lidl, Halifax Road, Wadsley Bridge 27
Somerfield, Kilner Way, Halifax Road 17

4.6.3 Officers have some reservations about the assumptions in the applicants' calculations:

- The applicants increase the turnover of 6 of the 9 stores in the study area 'to more accurately reflect perceived trading conditions'. This is an arbitrary and subjective adjustment that has the effect of reducing impact.

- The applicants assume that only 44% of Asda's trade will be drawn from shops within the 'core area'. This assumption is low. It would mean that most of Asda's trade would be taken from stores outside the core area. It would be more reasonable to assume that Asda's draw would be similar to the proportion of main food shopping currently retained by shops in the core area – 58%.

4.6.4 By reversing the applicants' adjustment to the Co-op and Morrisons at Hillsborough, and making a more reasonable trade draw assumption of 58%, and adjusting individual shops' trade draws pro rata, it can be calculated that convenience shops in Hillsborough would lose 28% of their trade.

4.7 Effect on Hillsborough District Centre

4.7.1 The applicants' evidence suggests that Morrisons is already overtrading and that even with the impact of Asda, Morrisons would be operating at above 'benchmark' levels (those expected on the basis of company average sales densities). However, by making the reasonable adjustments described above it can be calculated that they would be operating at 15% below benchmark levels.

4.7.2 Even assuming the applicants' figures are correct, they do not give evidence to support their claim that trade withdrawal can benefit the Centre. The applicants acknowledge that strong pedestrian flows are encouraged through the location of the Co-op superstore at the northern end of the Centre and the Morrisons supermarket (and associated car parking) and transport interchange at the southern end. Reducing Morrisons' or the Co-op's trade is likely to have a harmful rather than beneficial effect on the Centre by reducing the likelihood of linked trips and strength of pedestrian flows. Hillsborough's vacancies tend to occur in smaller units in peripheral areas such as the Hillsborough Barracks Mall – which links Morrisons with the Centre. It is considered that loss of trade to Morrisons at Hillsborough Barracks and the consequent reduction in pedestrian flows, will increase the likelihood that these units remain vacant.

4.7.3 Therefore the proposal will have a predominantly harmful effect, contrary to Policy S5(a).

4.8 Effect on Local Centres

4.8.1 Even after adjusting the turnover figure for Netto at Middlewood Road so that it reflects company averages, the applicants project that it will lose 29% of its trade. The Netto is the anchor convenience store in the Centre. The Centre has a high vacancy rate – 20%. It is considered the proposed Asda would have a harmful impact on the Netto and consequently on Middlewood Centre itself, contrary to PPG6.

4.9 Conclusion

4.9.1 On retail policy grounds the proposal should be refused because the applicants have not demonstrated a need for the store. A failure to demonstrate need justifies refusal.

4.9.2 It also fails the sequential approach insofar as the non-food goods it is likely to sell could be sold in Hillsborough and the Central Shopping Area. It should therefore be refused as contrary to PPG6 as clarified by Government guidance in the Caborn statement of February 1999.

4.9.3 The development would have a harmful impact on Hillsborough District Centre and Middlewood Local Centre, contrary to Policy S5 criteria (a) and PPG6.

4.10 Loss of Open Space

4.10.1 Policy LR7 of the UDP states that in Open Space Areas the development of recreation space for non-recreational uses will be permitted only if, amongst other things, well-designed, new recreation space of equivalent area and facilities were created, the new recreation space was in the same catchment area or part of the city where provision of recreation space is below minimum guidelines, and provision of recreation space within the catchment area of the development site would not fall below the minimum guideline after development had taken place.

4.10.2 An open space provision calculation for the site shows that the catchment area is well below the minimum guidelines for both informal and formal open space. The overall provision of open space is 1.95 hectares per thousand population, well below the minimum guideline of 6.0 hectares per thousand population.

4.10.3 Sport England are a statutory consultee on any proposals affecting playing fields, whether in public or private ownership. They oppose the development of playing fields unless exceptional circumstances apply. In relation to the application the only exceptional circumstances which could apply relate to the replacement of the lost playing fields by an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements. As no replacement is being considered at the present time, Sport England have objected to the proposal.

4.10.4 In view of the loss of the playing fields and no replacement, the proposal would not comply with Policy LR7 and should therefore be refused. However, Members should be aware that the applicants have stated they would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to provide suitable replacement facilities if Members are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed store.

4.11 Traffic and Transportation Issues

4.11.1 Policy S5, criteria c), d) and e) makes reference to the need for any retail proposal to be easily accessible, not have a significant harmful effect on public transport or movement on the surrounding road network or result in a significant increase in the number and length of customer trips.

4.11.2 Highway Officers have examined the Transport Assessment submitted by the applicants. This involves mathematical modelling, analysing similar sized Asda stores in similar locations. From this it is possible to estimate the likely increase in traffic on the highway networks resulting from the proposed development.

4.11.3 Examples of the projected increases in traffic for the peak hour period are:

Saturday 2004 base approaching Leppings Lane southbound from Catch Bar Lane (333+196) equates to 529 vehicles.

Saturday 2004 base + development traffic approaching Leppings Lane from Catch Bar Lane (355+359) equates to 714 vehicles.

This represents an increase of 35%.

Saturday 2004 base approaching Middlewood Road from Catch Bar Lane of 510 vehicles.

Saturday 2004 base + development traffic approaching Middlewood Road from Catch Bar Lane of 704 vehicles.

This represents an increase of 38%.

4.11.4 The impact of traffic related to the proposed development on the various junctions surrounding the site has been examined using computer modelling. 

4.11.5 The applicants have commented on:

- the frequency of tram operation on Middlewood Road, 10 minute frequency in each direction which equates to 12 trams an hour with 5 minute headways;
- the tram route runs mainly on-street and controlled at major junctions by traffic signals, resulting in a reliable, regular and frequent, high quality public transport link.

4.11.6 Despite acknowledging the presence of trams on the Middlewood Road corridor, the applicants' model takes no account of their frequent movements on Middlewood Road through the Wadsley Lane and Catch Bar Lane junctions. Subsequently, the model and generated output does not represent the real on-street traffic conditions in terms of queue lengths and delay.

4.11.7 Trams have full priority through these two junctions on Middlewood Road and due to the frequency (of on average 1 every 5 minutes, although there are occasions when trams cross in either direction) there is frequent random disruption to vehicular traffic, particularly during the pm peak 1600-1800.

4.11.8 Wadsley Lane, Leppings Lane, Catch Bar Lane and Parkside Road are the key entry/exit points into the surrounding residential areas of Hillsborough, Wisewood, Loxley and Worrall.

4.11.9 During the pm peak, queue lengths on Wadsley Lane regularly extend back from the stopline at Wadsley Lane on average for 150m and during peaks within the pm peak this queue length can reach 190m. The applicants' model for the Friday 2004 base 1700-1800 identifies a queue of 20m.

4.11.10 In the same pm period, queue lengths on Parkside road regularly extend from the stopline at the junction with Middlewood Road to the junction with Catch Bar Lane i.e. 155m. The applicants' model for the Friday 2004 base 1700-1800 identifies a 45m queue.

4.11.11 There are other inaccuracies between the Friday 2004 base model and on-street conditions in terms of predicted queue lengths, the reason for these inaccuracies is the inability of the applicants' data to accurately model trams on a fixed network. A more appropriate modelling tool would be a micro-simulation package, where the random arrival of trams and reaction of the highway network can be more accurately represented to give a true picture of queue lengths and delay.

4.11.12 Because the base model does not represent the current on-street conditions, it is inappropriate to comment on the significance of development traffic on the network. In summary, without a confident and robust assessment of the highways and transportation issues (in particular surrounding Catch Bar Lane taking account of Supertram), possibly also suggesting the implementation of mitigating improvements, it is currently impossible to support t he application from a Highways point of view. Any transportation benefits of an Asda store serving the north of Sheffield have not been demonstrated.


5.1 The Local Planning Authority is fully aware of the depth of feeling this application has produced, not just among the supporters of SWFC, but also those who wish to see the fortunes of this long established club, and its place in the City, improve.

5.2 The applicants state that for such an important component of city life to be in jeopardy has very serious planning consequences. The consider the ability of the proposal to address these issues as part of SWFC's, "stability plan" is an important material consideration.

5.3 The Local Planning Authority consider, however, on balance, that the proposed development would have an adverse impact in other material areas. The conflict with retail policies at national and local level, the impact on existing shopping centres, the loss of open space and the impact on the highway and transportation network are all material planning considerations that outweigh the financial implications of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.



Example Objection Letters


The following letters were sent to the Head of Planning. These may be of use to other people campaigning against other supermarket developments.


Head of Planning

Department of Planning, Transport and Housing

Howden House

1 Union Street

Sheffield, S1 2SH


Dear Sir


Re: Proposed ASDA development at Middlewood Road

Ref: 03/00005/OUT


I am writing on behalf of Sheffield Friends of the Earth to object to this proposed development on the following grounds:

  1. The development will increase traffic the area, leading to more congestion, noise, and pollution.

  2. There is currently a thriving shopping area in Hillsborough providing services and employment for local people. The new development will draw trade away from these local shops.

  3. This development will result in Sheffield Wednesday FC moving their training ground from Middlewood Road to a green field site near Ecclesfield. While this may help their financial situation, development of green field site near to Sheffield is not in the interest of the local community.

Please could you keep me informed of the progress of this planning application.

Many thanks

Yours sincerely


Head of Planning

Planning, Transportation and Highways

Howden House

1 Union Street


S1 2SH


Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you regarding the outline planning application (03/00005/OUT) for the development of an ASDA supermarket at Sheffield Wednesday’s training ground on Middlewood Road.


I would like to formally object to the development on the following grounds:


Traffic and Pollution


I believe that the three main areas suffering from traffic pollution in Sheffield are located around the M1/Meadowhall area, the City Centre and Penistone Road. If the ASDA development is given the go-ahead it will create more traffic problems around Penistone Road and Hillsborough.


More traffic will also be created as people travel from one side of Hillsborough to reach the proposed store located at the other side of Hillsborough. This will increase traffic problems in an already congested area.


Public transport is often delayed and unpredictable in the Hillsborough area due to high levels of traffic. If Sheffield City Council is serious about reducing traffic growth to sustainable levels then good quality public transport is essential. These objectives, in my opinion, would be threatened if the ASDA store were built, as public transport would be further undermined due to increased congestion.



Loss of Shops


There are already five to six supermarkets and many local and district shops in the Hillsborough area. I feel that allowing ASDA to develop another supermarket will inevitably lead to the loss of exiting supermarkets and local community shops.


When assessing this planning application I believe that consideration should be given to the inevitable job losses that will take place in the area.


I also believe that the Hillsborough area suffers from higher than average rates of vacant shops. This suggests that further large-scale retail developments are neither required nor desired by local residents.


Loss of green space


I do not agree that the planning application should be granted, as the store will result in the loss of green space.



Quick Links