MECK CG - Briefing re the Dobbin Hill Verge Issue - 8 April 2025
This is a summary of the history of this "dispute" [if that is the correct description] and the social and policy issues raised by it.
In 2023 a Planning Application for alterations to the Coach House [No 306 Dobbin Hill] was granted permission by the Planning Committee. This was for changes to the house and garden, with erection of a boundary wall. It was granted. There was no mention of the grass verge.
Later in 2023 a fresh planning application was lodged for a change of use of the grass
verge, so that it could be incorporated into the Coach House's garden; with the existing stone wall taken down and rebuilt to include the part of the verge outside it; and the addition of a fence to enclose most of the rest of the verge, with 3 trees to be planted onthe latter section. [See the attached plan and photo.]
This application was opposed by the MECK Group, by several neighbours. and by
Ecclesall Councillors Barbara Masters and Shaffaq Mohammed; on the grounds that the verge was public land, and that it contributed to the safety of both pedestrians and vehicles on that section of Dobbin Hill, which is narrow and is often parked up with vehicles on the footpath, and even on the verge.
The objections also focussed on the fact that the Applicant Mr Rusling did not own the verge. However the Committee was told that Planning permission runs with the land not the applicantl so that a planning application can be submitted for any land and no legitimate interest is needed to validate such an application. This may seem a bizarre ruling but is apparently a standard one.
The Committee was also told that the Highways Dept had indicated that they had no
reason to object to a sale of the verge to Mr Rusling, and they saw no safety implications in this sale. Disposal of irregular pockets of land such as this was a standard policy.
Early in 2024 the Application was granted but subject to two Conditions: one that the
national Department for Transport [DfT] granted a Closure [or Stopping-Up] Order to
remove the status of the verge as a part of the public Highway: and two, that the Council agree formally to sell the land comprising the verge to Mr Rusling, via the Council standard processes for such sales.
Later in 2024 local residents who had objected to the Planning Application complained to the Planning Dept about the planning approval, and the potential sale of a public open space and a visual amenity, for private use. They were told that land ownership was not a factor in the decision, that the verge did not qualify as a Public Open Space, and that it would still function as a visual amenity even inside a garden [despite Mr Rusling having cited his privacy as one the reasons for the application to enclose the verge, and that the existing high wall would be rebuilt as part of the enclosure].
Local residents had previously in 2023 asked the Council if they could plant bulbs and
flowers on the verge to improve it. They were told this was not allowed: in fact the Council had actually removed bushes that had grown on the verge. In 2024 this policy was changed and residents were encouraged to do this, so in March the same group of local residents started planting flowers on the verge.
Mr Rusling, and his father, objected strongly to this and vehicles were twice driven over the verge and destroyed the flowers. When more flowers were planted a skip was placed over them by the Ruslings and tradesmen were apparently told to park their vehicles there. On one occasion a cement-mixer was emptied out on the verge. Complaints were made to the Police about this, and they gave it an Incident No; but no action was taken. On 5 April the local residents again tried to plant flowers but were harassed by the Ruslings with arguments, some abuse and strong language. Complaints were again made to the Police, and resulted in the Ruslings having to apologise in writing for their behaviour.
Also in April the Ruslings applied to the DfT for the Closure Order to stop-up the Verge as part of the Public Highway, under the Town & Country Planning Act. Under this law there has to be a local consultation, and if any objections are received then the Applicant has to try to satisfy the objectors and persuade them to withdraw their objections. Failure to achieve this can result in a Public Enquiry, with a Government Planning Inspector hearing evidence and arguments before coming to a decision on whether or not to confirm the Draft Closure Order.
The consultation took place in July/August 2024. The first consultation period had to be aborted owing to the failure by the Applicant to publicise it correctly, so a second one was held. There have been 15 Objections, most are anonymous and only the DfT are able to read them or communicate with the authors. But several are named - including our MECK Group, one other named local resident, and our three Ecclesall Councillors: Barbara Masters, Peter Gilbert and Shaffaq Mohammed. The MECK Group objection is attached for your information.
There is also a public petition set up to ask the Council not to go through with the sale: it now has over 1700 signatures. https://www.change.org/p/save-dobbin-hill-verge-sheffield
s11-7jg This Petition counts as one Objection with the DfT.
We also contacted the Chairs of the Council's Finance and Strategy Resources
Committees to ask them to how a decision to sell the land if the DfT did approve the
Closure Order would be handled. The Chair of the Finance Committee [now the Finance
and Performance Policy Committee ] did reply confirming that if the Closure Order was approved the Property Services Dept would have to consider the matter, and it might be the case that the Committee would have to make the decision. That would require a consultation with the public and a discussion at the Committee with Councillors voting on
the matter.
The Ruslings' representative - the occupier's uncle - has already met with our 3
Councillors before Christmas to discuss how they propose to satisfy their objections. The outcome of this meeting has not been published, despite our request to do so. We have now been contacted by the representative to ask ourselves and the other named objector for a similar meeting - as described in my recent Bulletin.
It is our view that this meeting should be a public Community Meeting - rather than the Special Meeting requested by the Ruslings - for two reasons. First, the original decision to object to the DfT Closure Order and any sale was made at a public Community Meeting [in Feb 2024] so it seems appropriate that any decision to withdraw that objection should be also taken in that way.
Second, any decision to sell off grass verges, which are necessarily part of the public
highway, could have huge implications and set a worrying precedent for similar situations
in other parts of the city.
E.g. [one example] along Whirlowdale Rd at Millhouses there are continuous grass verges between houses/gardens and the foothpath on both sides of the road for the best part of 600m, accounting for the frontages of about 50 properties. Many of these are planted up by the house-owners, others have wild flowers growing on them.
There must be many many roads in the city in a similar position, especially in our part of the city. Do we really want to sell off all these bits of land, with all the construction of walls etc. that would produce, and the possibility of extra parking spaces that might result in? That would also have worrying impacts on wildlife and loss of habitat. This is a much bigger issue than just for Dobbin Hill - it does need a bigger forum for such a discussion.

DOBBIN HILL - Closure Order DRAFT Objection - Mike - 10July 2024
Reference NATTRAN/Y&H/S247/5740
To nationalcasework@dft.gov.uk

The Millhouses Ecclesall & Carter Knowle [MECK] Community Group is lodging a Formal Objection to the confirmation of this Draft Order by the Minister of State for Transport; and requests that the Minister orders a Public Enquiry into the application for the closure of the public highway affected by the draft Order.
The grounds for the Objection are set out below:
a) This is an inappropriate use of the legislation.
We would suggest that this is an inappropriate use of Section 247; which is clearly designed for use in a major development, where highway closures are envisaged for the purpose of re-aligning the highways and creating new highway as part of an overall design.
In our reading sub-section 2 of Section 247 it clearly implies that the purpose of the "stopping-up" should be to 'provide or improve the highway'; It says 'such an order may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the provision or improvement of any other highway outside Greater London'. That does seem to imply that such is the purpose of a Stopping-Up Order.
No such provision or improvement of the highway is being proposed here - quite the
contrary: we would suggest the Act clearly does NOT support or direct authorisation of an Order for the purposes of enlarging a private garden.
b) A damaging precedent.
We think such a closure approval would set an unfortunate and damaging precedent for other such applications by local residents elsewhere in the area, and across the city: [and even further afield]; for the acquisition of grass verges which are part of the public highway. This could result in the substantial loss of public land previously denominated for public use, purely for the extension of private gardens.
This has been evidenced by recent advertising by solicitors and other companies offering assistance to house-holders in making such claims.
c) Implications for road safety.
The closure would also result in the narrowing of the overall highway at a point where it is already narrow - as is accepted by the applicant in his reference to the possible prevention of excessive parking - and would give rise to an likely increase in traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians.
Dobbin Hill is frequently used during rush-hours as a local rat-run, to enable vehicles to avoid the A625 main road [Ecclesall Rd South], posing a clear threat to pedestrians and cyclists both using it and crossing it. This is particularly in relation to two local schools - Clifford All Saints Primary and High Storrs Secondary - both based on Ringinglow Rd, which forms a junction with Dobbin Hillimmediately above the verge in question. Traffic to and from the schools frequently turn at this
junction, which often has a limited field of view due to excessive parking on both its Eastern side [local residents] and more recently on its western side [due to parking of tradesmens' vehicles associated with the applicant's development of his property] Pedestrians have recently been forced onto the verge due to this parking, and even into the roadway. Loss of the verge would lead to even greater risks to pedestrians, and also to cyclists. Pupils walking to and from the schools do often turn at this junction; and many have to cross there - contributing to both increased
congestion and to increased risk. The loss and walling-in of the verge would clearly increase the risks to such users.
The existing footpath is already less than 1.5m wide - which is the recommended width for a footpath next to a highway according to official guidelines publshed by the Highways Authorities' Utilities Committee; to 'take into account the needs of children, older people and disabled people,
having particular regard for visually impaired people". An additional guideline specifies that the footpath should be able to accomodate two people walking side-by-side or passing each other. Current usage does allow pedestrians to make use of the verge to allow this, and this is clearly practised frequently.
The proposed closure, with its wall and fence, would physically restrict the footpath to a maximum of 1.4m reducing to 1.1m at its narrowest. This is clearly unacceptable; and is likely to be made even worse by any parking on the footpath on that side of the highway. Should the need for a future widening of the junction be considered, to increase safety particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, the closure of the verge and its loss as public land would considerably restrict the possibilities for this happening.
NB Junction safety, increased risks to pedestrians, and the need for future expansion of the highway are all relevant criteria under the Highways Act 1980 S 116/117 for a refusal of a Closure Order. It seems to us that similar criteria should equally apply under the TCPA provisions also.

d) Loss of green space and public amenity.
The closure would clearly result in the loss of public green space, which as it currently exists has potential as a wildlife habitat and a contribution to increased diversity; as well as making a contribution to the visual amenities in the area.
Local residents, aware of the Council's ownership of the land, have made many efforts to plant shrubs and wild flowers on the verge as a community effort to enhance its potential for such contributions. Unfortunately this has been frequently frustrated by the parking of tradesmens'vehicles on it and by the applicant's use of it to illegally place a skip.
e) The local residents are overwhelmingly opposed to this Closure Order. It also seems undemocratic to allow one individual property-owner to override the public rights of many of his
neighbours.