|
20/9/2026 0 Comments Friends of Parkwood Springs committee response to Skyline following their pre-planning consultation sessionsMembers of the Friends of Parkwood Springs committee were at both the pre-planning consultation sessions. We found it helpful to be able to talk to members of the Skyline team and feel that we now have a greater understanding of the project. The provision of a clearer map was valuable; it would be helpful if it could appear on your website as soon as possible. We had an opportunity for some of the committee to meet shortly after the sessions and we’d like to put some of our further questions and views to you.
These views and questions are those of the Friends of Parkwood Springs committee. The membership of the Friends group is around 600 people. We know our members have a range of views, and we are continuing to encourage them to engage with the consultation. The extension of the time limit will be helpful in allowing more people to participate. Thank you for arranging the additional session at Abbeyfield House, we will be encouraging people to attend. The use of posters around the site is a good way to inform people who are not linked into social media. I have spoken to several regular site users who were completely unaware of the project. The Friends group committee is, by and large, happy with the overall idea of developing the former ski village. The Skyline plans have positive aspects; we like the idea of a free to use children’s play area, the fact that the site will be permeable, that paths and rights of way will be respected and that biodiversity will be increased. However, there are several areas of great concern for us. Lease boundary - This concern is shared by most people that we have spoken to. The area within the lease boundary is much greater than the area of the former ski village and encroaches onto areas which are well-used by the local community. For example, the boundary extends over a large part of our Urban Nature Park. You will remember that we spoke to you about this in our last email to you, expressing concerns about the impact on biodiversity in an area which has been designated for nature by SCC. It also stretches over a large area towards the Main Viewpoint. These areas seem to be well outside your construction outline. At the consultation your representative said that this extra land was to ‘give you flexibility in the future’. As you can appreciate this response did not engender confidence in your aspirations for Parkwood Springs. Many people will oppose your planning application if the lease boundary covers such a large and unnecessary area. The top station - This building is located within an area of woodland, in an area which is important for local people and wildlife. We would like to understand why this location was chosen. Can the top station be moved to a less sensitive area? We find it difficult to believe that the maintenance workshop needs to be located next to the top station. Besides the unnecessary intrusion into a highly valued area, a maintenance workshop suggests the possibility of vehicle access; we are concerned that this may be from Shirecliffe Road and involve vehicles travelling through the greenspace. As illustrated the top station seems to be constructed to accommodate two chairlifts, even though the second will only be installed if future demand requires it. It would reduce the impact if the station just accommodated the first chairlift, only being extended as part of the installation of a second lift. If it is not possible to move the top station it is most important that the visual impact that it has on the surrounding area is minimised. Maintaining the tree cover during construction and planting of trees to screen the building will be a necessity. Mountain-bike trails - There is mention of the need to re-route some mountain bike trails to accommodate the luge track. There is a lack of detail concerning where the new tracks will be placed and the timescale for re-instatement. We have heard that there is anxiety among our regular mountain bikers about this. Parkwood Springs attracts mountain bikers from a wide area; we also have a group (Cycling4 all) which enables disabled cyclists to use modified bikes on our tracks. Any disruption to their activity needs to be minimised. Construction phase - This will be particularly difficult for the local community. We will press that a fully developed plan for the construction phase is part of the planning application. We expect that the planning permission will be dependent on every step being taken to minimise disruption and impact on the Parkwood Springs users and wildlife during construction. These steps must be clearly set out in the planning permission and then implemented. During construction we expect that a member of the Skyline team will be in Sheffield to act as a first port of call in case of any difficulties with your contractor and sub-contractors. Members of the public will need to be able to pass on their concerns quickly and easily, so contact details must be available. At the pre-planning consultation it was mentioned that construction will take place across the whole site, and that the whole site will be fenced off for a considerable period. A timeline of 18 months to two years was mentioned. This approach will have maximum detrimental impact on wildlife and on the local community. A more sensitive, phased approach is needed, working separately on different locations, perhaps either side of the ridge walk, and only closing off what is strictly required for health and safety and efficient working at any one time. We will need clarification about which areas are not able to be preserved, and which areas are to be protected from construction impact. We realise that the management of the construction phase has not been mentioned formally in the pre-planning consultations However, it is extremely important and needs to be given careful consideration. The community needs to be aware of what it will involve. Ecological Survey - The ecological survey data should be published before the planning application, so that people are aware of the natural environment which will be impacted by the construction. SSSI - I am sure that you are aware of the extent of the Neepsend Brickworks SSSI for geology which is near to the lease boundary. This area must be protected.
0 Comments
We expressed concern about the short length of the consultation at only 20 days. Skyline said that the closing date was set to allow them time to process comments before making a formal planning application. However, they also said that they wanted to continue talking to the community throughout the process and would consider extending the duration of the public consultation.
We noted that holding both drop-in sessions in the same week and at the same time, would prevent anyone on holiday or working an afternoon shift from attending. We also mentioned that people from the Pitsmoor and Burngreave area would find it more difficult to reach Shirecliffe or Neepsend. Skyline accepted these comments and said that they would consider holding another session, possibly in the morning, and perhaps at Abbeyfield House. We reported the difficulty many people had interpreting the maps which were on the Skyline website. They said that large scale versions would be on display at the drop-in sessions but had noted these comments online and were preparing another plan which should be much easier to understand. This would also be available at the drop-ins and would be posted on the website. We pointed out the serious concerns that people had been expressing about the area of land within the red line boundary and fears that access would be restricted and the natural environment would be destroyed. Skyline reiterated that all paths and bike tracks would be preserved and that there would be minimal fencing, only a small amount needed for health and safety purposes. They said they would be aiming for a seamless connection between their area and the rest of Parkwood Springs, and that there would be an increase in the biodiversity of the area from the habitat plans which would accompany the development. Finally, we told the meeting that although neighbours had received the Skyline mailing no notices had been placed around the site for those visitors who came from further away, the only signs that have been placed on site have been from the promoters of the petitions. They acknowledged this point and said that they would bear it in mind for future engagement. The Friends Group were invited to a preliminary presentation of the public consultation and were asked for any comments and questions. The Friends Group committee has discussed the matter and these are our initial comments.
The measures that you are putting in place for public consultation look encouraging. We were pleased to see that it will be possible to participate non-digitally and that neighbours will be contacted via leaflets. It's good that you are acknowledging the importance of removing barriers to participation. We have some areas of concern. The first is the encroachment of the top-station onto the Urban Nature Park area. It seemed from the map shown on the screen that the red-line boundary of the site has altered from the boundary of the old ski village site. We were not aware of any consultation about this. This extension onto the Urban Nature Park is not welcome. To put our concerns in context, the Urban Nature Park is on the right hand side of the path which leads from the Shirecliffe Road car park and cafe towards the Ridge Walk. I think that this area was mown amenity grassland many years ago, but has been reclaimed over time and is now an area for wildlife. There are sections of longer grasses, scrub and smallish trees. It is particularly attractive to butterflies, grasshoppers and other insects. There is a population of bank voles. Nesting birds use the small trees and areas of bramble scrub. These include migrants such as whitethroats and blackcaps, not present during the winter months. The council is in the process of working out a new mowing regime for the area which will further improve biodiversity; the Friends group has spent some time sowing meadow flower seeds in one section. From our brief view of the plans it looked like a large area may be affected by your development. This is of concern to us, and is likely to be very contentious with the existing users of the site. We would like to know exactly what you want to accommodate there and how it will affect the amenity of the area. A second area of concern is how the proposed structures will affect the amenity of the Ridge Walk. We were not really able to gain a full understanding of their impact from the pictures in the presentation. We hope further information will be available as part of the consultation. Encroachment onto the Ridge Walk will cause us and our regular users some anxiety. We appreciate that the walk will remain open, and that you have assured us that all Rights of Way will be respected, however, we are concerned that the level of visual intrusion will incur a serious loss of amenity. Thirdly we would like to know more about the effect on existing mountain bike trails, both during construction and in the longer term. Also will you be incorporating additional trails within the red line boundary, and will it be possible for mountain bikers to use the gondolas to travel back up the slope? Finally, we are particularly concerned about the effect of the construction phase on existing users, wildlife and nature. We will be looking to see that at all times you are minimising the deleterious effects, and communicating effectively to existing users and neighbours. People will be fearful of long term impact even when some of the disruption is actually temporary and there are plans to landscape and enhance diversity at the end of the building phase. You will need to manage these fears and concerns. Position Statement regarding Skyline’s proposed project in Sheffield
Friends of Parkwood Springs – May 2025. We appreciate Skyline’s offers of engagement with the community, it should begin as soon as possible to influence the development of plans, not just to react to ones presented by Skyline. We would welcome a timeline of opportunities for engagement allowing partnership with local higher and further education and liaison with other groups. Our base position is that the needs of current users and the local community should be preserved, development should avoid areas that are particularly valued, and that the environment, local ecology and biodiversity should not be damaged and enhanced if possible. Our long-term aim is for a Country Park in the City - a public green space, a natural area with a countryside environment allowing people to experience nature in an informal setting. We support this project if it is done properly and meets our concerns, but not at any cost. If it is not done well we will oppose as necessary - we will not be cheerleaders. The Area between the Skyline development on the Opportunity Site and Cooks Wood Road is heavily used by the local community. There should be no boundary creep and no regular service access to the top of the site through that area. There is a need to integrate the Skyline development not just with the rest of Parkwood Springs but as part of the wider area of North Sheffield. We care about the current site ecology, including noise and lighting aspects, and the protection and increase of biodiversity. We want to promote different habitats and encourage native species. The presence of two SSSIs on the site should also be recognised. We welcome cooperation between Skyline and Valencia in enhancing the ecological value of the attenuation pond and surrounding area. We feel it could be used for environmental education as part of wider offerings by the new development. The path networks on both sites should be integrated. We understand that the core proposal is for a luge and gondola lift but would like to see more active offerings as well, leading to skills development. Skiing and snowboarding at the former village were both much valued by the people of Sheffield. We like the proposed kids activities, wider trails and quiet areas accessible to all - activities that you don't pay for. We support volunteering opportunities for local people and apprenticeships. Pricing should be accessible to local people. Particular elements of our response are: Ridge walk - full public access and continuity needs to be maintained. Existing viewpoints should be preserved. Meadows and meadow extensions around the main viewpoint should be preserved. The main infrastructure should be at the bottom of the hill, it should be aesthetically pleasing and sensitive to the overall concept of a country park. Buildings should have green roofs and or solar panels. We would like to hear about the proposed waste collection strategy and security arrangements. The development should accord with council policies including disabled access, sustainability and use of local suppliers. Current MTB tracks should be preserved. No fences - it is important permeability is maintained. Views of Parkwood Springs are visible across the city - the development needs to meld with landscape. Forest garden and its tranquillity should be preserved. Will there be a service access from Oakham Drive? The construction phase needs to be very tightly managed to minimize impact on other parts of the site. The development should recognise it is part of the wider country park and recognize the industrial and cultural heritage. The site encapsulates large parts of the history and growth of Sheffield. Aspects of history and social change include:
We would like to see interpretation boards and some art/sculpture reflecting the history of the site. 9/3/2025 0 Comments Newsletter back catalogueIn 2025, we moved to a new email system - from Mailchimp to Mailerlite. Below you will find recent editions of our newsletter (dating back to 2021).
Mailerlite: March 2025 Newsletter: https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/978141/147434898759616406 February 2025 Newsletter: https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/978141/144799783359350341 January 2025 Newsletter: https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/978141/142346809247794850 Mailchimp: https://mailchi.mp/51def8a563e3/parkwood-springs-2024-agm https://mailchi.mp/15fb772104f2/parkwood-springs-newsletter-january-2024 https://mailchi.mp/0c16ee47b135/parkwood-springs-newsletter-june-2023 https://mailchi.mp/603218e7cb34/parkwood-springs-newsletter-december-2022 https://mailchi.mp/cfd201c2a453/parkwood-springs-newsletter-february-2022 https://mailchi.mp/f04dd83406d9/ski-village-redevelopment-options-report https://mailchi.mp/888ab6892484/places-to-ride-planning-application https://mailchi.mp/cfa16f216e8e/parkwood-springs-newsletter-july https://mailchi.mp/4e52088630be/parkwood-springs-newsletter-april-2021 https://mailchi.mp/432c2ee219ea/news-from-parkwood-springs-forest-garden-update-the-monolith-colouring-sheet-and-itv-news-calendar-features-4748552 Open Meeting held at 7pm on 11th February 2025 at St Catherine’s School, Firshill Crescent, Sheffield. Attendees: 31, including Jon Dallow, Alan Seasman and Ryan Atkin (all Sheffield City Council) 1. Louise Bull, Chair of the Friends of Parkwood Springs, welcomed everyone to the meeting. 2. Peter Bull, Treasurer, reported (with photos) on the many and wide-ranging Friends Group activities since the last Open Meeting in May.Monthly Conservation Sessions
What is happening with the £19.4 million government grant 3. Alan Seasman, Sheffield City Council, reminded people of the background to the project. The project will include a new access road to the old Ski Village site and improved cycle and pedestrian access, clearing the the old Ski Village site and dealing with issues such as Japanese knot weed, and other improvements. 4. The original Levelling Up Fund (LUF) bid in 2022 was rejected, but in November 2023 the Council was told by the Government that the bid was successful. Negotiations have had to take place – delayed by the change of Government and the need to sort out governance arrangements for the Project. Funding of £19.4 million has now been agreed, but the Council still does not have the money in the bank. 5. A number of surveys have already been carried out, including a transport assessment, utility connections, topography, drainage, technical issues, unexploded ordnances (for any unexploded bombs from World War 2), trees, ecology and a preliminary archaeological survey). 6. A Parkwood Area Board has been set up to manage the LUF Project and overall developments of the whole Parkwood Springs site. This Board is chaired by Gill Furness MP and Councillor Ben Miskell, with appropriate Council officers and stakeholders, including community groups such as the Friends of Parkwood Springs, the Friends of Wardsend Cemetery, SOAR and KINCA. Sub-groups will cover particular aspects. 7. The Council has been in discussion with Skyline about the redevelopment of the Ski Village site for over 5 years. Skyline is a New Zealand company which has built recreational facilities in many parts of the world, focussing on ‘luges’. They are still interested in redeveloping the old Ski Village site, but to do that they needed the site to be cleared and access improved. The LUF project addresses this, so Skyline is now preparing a Masterplan, working towards a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council. Skyline have made a number of visits to Sheffield, and they will present their proposals to the Parkwood Area Board at the end of March. 8. Planning permission will be needed for the development, and there will be formal processes for people to comment. It is clear that a Skyline site would not be a fenced off facility – there will be things people will pay for, but it will also be possible for people just to wander across the site. The access road will be only the start of improvements. 9. The Area Board is planning a newsletter to give the project more publicity, and there will be future meetings for public engagement. But there will also be formal consultations. 10. Questions and comments a) It can be confusing whether we are talking about the old Ski Village site, or the whole of Parkwood Springs. We need to be clear that the Friends Group is concerned with the whole site. Response: Alan confirmed that the Parkwood Area Board covers the whole site, not just the old Ski Village. b) Is there a contingency plan if Skyline were to drop out? Response: If that were to happen, the Council would have to go out to the market again and see what the interest was. c) There was concern about the boundary of the development site being discussed with Skyline. d) Local people had heard about preliminary agreement for access to the old Ski Village site through the Industrial Estate. Response: Alan was not in a position to comment on that. e) Is there information about who might be Skyline’s partners on the site? Response: Skyline is talking to a number of potential partners, but no further information is available. f) Can regular users be involved on the Area Board? Response: A number of community groups are represented on the Board. . g) Can we have access to the surveys that have been carried out? Response: They will all be reflected in the eventual planning application for the old Ski Village site, and will be accessible through that. The ecological survey of the whole site will be widely available outside that process. Other developments 11. Jon Dallow is now Woodlands and Countryside Manager at Sheffield City Council. He noted that the Parkwood Area Board is an important development, helping to get things done. 12. There are now two new Rangers working on Parkwood Springs - Katy Knight, mainly focussing on the southern end of the site, and Ryan Atkin, present at the meeting and largely focussing on the northern end including Wardsend Cemetery. Together this means that there will be a ‘full-time equivalent’ Ranger just for Parkwood Springs for two years. This will really make a difference. 13. Cycling4All is starting a base on Parkwood Springs, running adapted bike sessions 2 days a week. This will build on the sessions that they have been running at Hillsborough Park for some while. Similarly Access Sport is starting to work with a number of local schools, including Watercliffe Meadow, St Catherine’s and Parkwood Academy, using the bike trails. These two developments should build up the use of the trails. 14. There is now the money to start a parkrun on Parkwood Springs, but agreement is still needed from the national parkrun organisation. It’s not possible to say yet when the parkrun will start. Other running groups are also interested in using the space. 15. There have been two issues with the Kiosk. Firstly, the electricity supply is not adequate. This will be dealt with in the next few weeks. Secondly, shelter is needed in bad weather, and that is being looked into. But Bekir, the cafe operator, is still involved, and posters will go up when the kiosk is re-opened. (We were all pleased to see Bekir at the meeting!) 16. The flooded path behind the houses on Cooks Wood Road has been investigated, and attempts made to clear out the culvert. (The culvert runs under the houses, across Cooks Wood Road and down through Burngreave. Increased rainfall due to climate change has changed the hydrology and made the situation worse.) The best solution at the moment seems to be to try to hold back the flow of water, through felling trees and creating ‘leaky dams’. The path is important and is on the planned parkrun route. 17. The problems with off-road motor-bikes are recognised, including the use of quad bikes for illegal purposes. The Council are looking to put in bigger concrete bollards in particular places, and are working with the Police off-road teams. It is important also to raise the problem with the Local Area Committee (LAC). The Council can also try to provide more positive activities. It is important for members of the public to continue to report bikes through 101, either by phone or online. 18. The Valencia site (the closed Landfill) is in the restoration phase. Lots of people are using it, but there has not been any progress on making the new paths. The Council’s Planning Department is now engaged, as it is a matter of enforcing planning conditions. 19. Questions and comments a) It is important to see some progress on the restoration of the Valencia site. Winter is obviously a bad time for work such as this, but there was no progress last summer either. Valencia do not seem to be engaged. Response: Gill Furniss MP, as Chair of the Parkwood Area Board, is writing to Valencia. b) All the improvements that are taking place are great for the community. Is it possible to monitor the increased use made by people of the site? Response: It’s important to do this, and monitoring is taking place. c) Is there a time-scale for providing a shelter at the kiosk? Couldn’t local people help? There needs to be consideration given to not attracting anti-social behaviour. Response: there is red-tape to be gone through, and it needs to be done well, but the Council recognises that it’s important. d) Is there one website for all the activities that are happening on Parkwood Springs? Response: The Area Board’s Newsletter will help with this, but a website would be a good idea. e) If you report off-road motor-bikes to the Police, they want an address. Can we get one? Response: the Council had to get an address and postcode for the kiosk. This will be shared with people. Also, the Police can accept ‘what3words’ locations. f) The new bike-track area at the north of the site is getting litter-strewn. Can anything be done? Response: the rangers will look at it, and Riverlution are also going to be working on the site regularly. g) The new paths are great, but some of the old paths are getting over-grown. Response: The Rangers can look at cutting back the vegetation on some of them. Part of the thinking for the site is to have a range of types of paths, from very easy to ‘explorer’. 20. Louise thanked Alan and Jon for coming and speaking, and everyone for their attendance. Louise and Peter were thanked for their inputs. The meeting closed at 8.30pm. The application was withdrawn in December 2024, but here are our earlier comments:
There has been a recent planning application for the construction of a Voltage Management System (VMS) on the site of the former Neepsend Power Station cooling towers. The system will be of significant size and occupy quite a large area. The site is between the industrial area and the travellers camp on Club Mill Road. The development is required to manage the effects of the increase in renewable power generation on the national electricity grid. You can see full details on https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk , look for application 24/01514/FUL. Our attention was drawn to the proposal in June, and as an interested neighbour the Friends group felt we should comment on the application. We discussed the matter with the Upper Don Trail Trust (UDTT) and the Friends of Wardsend Cemetery, and agreed to follow the lead of the UDTT in jointly objecting to the proposal. We don’t object to the need for the VMS installation, but we do feel that the proposed implementation requires the loss of a significant area of green open space and fails to fully address its location in one of the most important green-blue corridors in the city. We have sought modest mitigation measures to the proposal which would greatly increase its contribution to enhancing the Upper Don green-blue corridor and its contribution to active travel and wider amenity without affecting the operational functions of the facility. In particular we feel that such measures would be complementary to the work being proposed in connection with the Parkwood Springs LUF 3 award to continue the development of the Country Park in the City, as incorporated in the forthcoming Local Plan. The application has yet to be decided by the Planning Committee, but we understand that a similar proposal for an alternative site between the Owlerton Stadium and the Mondelez site has already been given permission and there is also an outline application being considered for the site of the car scrapyard at the end of Livesey Street. Neither of the latter two applications requires the loss of green open space, so we do not have the same objections to them, but nor do they offer the same opportunity to contribute to active travel and wider amenity. Each of these proposals is by a different organisation, we believe that they are all competing for the contract to install the equipment, and that the contract award will be decided shortly. We will monitor the situation and keep people informed about the outcome. 
 The White Poplar can reach a height of 30 metres and is a very fast growing tree, capable of adding a metre a year to its height. Spreading by suckers as well as seed it can become invasive. It thrives in poor soils including those that are salty and sandy. This has also made it a popular tree to grow under difficult conditions. It was introduced into the UK as a decorative tree for parks and gardens, probably from Holland during the 16th Century. It is native over a vast area, from the Atlas Mountains, through southern Europe to Central Asia. A shallow-rooted tree, when young the bark is smooth and silvery grey but as it ages it develops a characteristic pattern of dark, diamond-shaped pores.
|
About us |
Resources |