Neighbours who spent years contesting housing proposals lose fight as councillors approve plans

Members of Sheffield City Council’s planning and highways committee, which met on Tuesday, October 10, approved the plans to build two detached homes on Wheel Lane, Grenoside. Coun Bernard Little voted against and Coun Tim Huggan abstained.

Four people whose homes are beside the site and West Ecclesfield ward councillor Alan Hooper spoke at the meeting to oppose the plan. The proposal attracted 19 letters of objection.

Neighbours have fought a long series of applications by the developer. Two were granted conditionally and did not go ahead, another was approved then quashed, three more were refused and two appeals were rejected.

An enforcement notice was also served in June 2021, relating to a breach of planning control for storage of materials, shipping containers and equipment on the site and and the construction of footings or foundations on the land.

Committee members were advised during the meeting that legally they must look at the current application on its own merits, unrelated to the past planning history of the site.

The site is within an area where housing development is allowed. It does not encroach on adjoining green belt land. It is a sloping site that housed a covered reservoir.

Planning officer Sarah Hull said that the application made prior to the current one was rejected on design, amenity and overdevelopment grounds, a decision that was upheld on appeal.

“The key differences relate to the scale and design of the proposals. A large single-storey extension was removed,” said Ms Hull.

“The overall height, scale and massing were much greater than proposed now. It was much higher than proposed now and higher than number 94. It didn’t reflect the character of the street scene.”

Objector Mark Barlow told the committee that an application by the developer five years ago was passed using officers’ delegated powers and officers acted outside their authority. Neighbours had to go to a judicial review to stop it, he said, adding: “The cost of the judicial review was an unacceptable burden to us but a necessary one”.

He said that the questionable actions of planning officers over more than five years had created distrust with the objectors and the applicant was benefiting from their actions to such an extent that he now expects the officers will do him a favour.

“We have the same lack of judgement again. The officer said there are significant changes. In reality there are not.”

Mr Barlow said that illegal footings still in place call into question whether the reduced height conditions will be adhered to. He added: “We don’t believe the developer will adhere to the plans you approve and neither will officers enforce them.”

He said overshadowing from a boundary fence is a major issue for him, as is rear car parking reached by an access route higher than neighbouring homes. “Headlights will be at the level of our homes. No amount of screening can prevent it,” said Mr Barlow.

Mark Ellis told the committee: “It is a travesty of justice that the builder can refuse to move illegally-lain foundations and be allowed to bring a new plan. How can this be allowed to happen?”

He said he was worried about issues related to height, especially as many surrounding homes are single-storey or dormer roof bungalows. He said that having higher homes in close proximity will be “unbearable”.

Mr Ellis was also concerned about traffic access on to a busy road, especially if the developer returns to change his plans into homes in multiple occupation, as objectors fear.

He added: “The builder has run roughshod over the neighbours over the past five years. He has not taken on board any of our serious objections or those of the planning inspector.

“Two smaller houses or bungalows with their own drives or garages at the front would leave ample space for gardens at the rear.”

Cheryl Ball said that support for the objectors has grown, not reduced, as it would have done if there was a sense of fairness in play in the process.

She said that the plans have been designed to become homes in multiple occupation, pointing to the lack of family bathrooms, the fact that front access to one house is only possible by walking in front of the other house and the rear parking, which is also adjacent to neighbours’ gardens.

Paul Salt, whose garden on Wheel Lane adjoins the site, said he believed the houses would be disproportionate to the adjoining homes because of the effect of a huge amount of material brought on to the site to fill in the reservoir by a previous owner.

He said that several gardens will now be looking at a car park. “I understand the officers don’t see this as a problem,” he said. “They will not have to live with it, will they?”

Mr Salt added: “Over the history of this ongoing saga the developer has had numerous plans submitted. The current plan has five amended drawings, showing nothing has been learned.

“He wants maximum profit for a small area with total disregard to neighbours who will have to live with it.”

Ward councillor Alan Hooper thanked the residents for coming to the meeting, the fifth or sixth time they have done so. He said he was speaking on behalf of other ward councillors and Ecclesfield Parish Council, which he also serves on, to voice their objections.

He said: “Because the footings are still there I think they will be used.” He called for monitoring to make sure that the applicant adheres to what is laid down in the planning application on height.

Cllr Mike Chaplin asked: “What assurance can you give to the people here that this will not be bigger than what’s planned? What can we do? Once they’re up, it’s too late.”

Cllr Peter Price said: “We have to judge the application on its current merits, not on the past. To be honest, I can’t see any planning grounds for refusing it from what’s on here.”

He added: “I hope that the planning officers ensure that this developer ensures that what is on paper is followed through.”