Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION VERSION
CHAPELTOWN AND STOCKSBRIDGE
BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
September 2007
CONTENTS
Chapter
1
Page
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
The Context............................................................................................................. 1
The Emerging Options ............................................................................................ 1
The Preferred Options ............................................................................................. 2
Additional Options ................................................................................................... 2
Submission Version ................................................................................................ 2
The Scope of this Report ........................................................................................ 3
Introduction to the Issues for Chapeltown/Ecclesfield ............................................. 4
Introduction to the Issues for Stocksbridge/Deepcar ............................................. 10
Introduction to the Issue for Rural Settlements ..................................................... 17
2
Jobs, Housing and Shopping in Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield ...................................... 19
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 19
Policy SCH1 Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield ................................... 19
Policy Background ................................................................................................ 19
Relationship to City Strategy ................................................................................. 25
Consistency with Other Planning Documents ....................................................... 26
Options Considered .............................................................................................. 28
Reasons for the Submitted Policy SCH1 ............................................................... 39
Implementation and Monitoring ............................................................................. 56
Flexibility and Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 58
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 59
3
Jobs, Housing and Shopping in Stocksbridge/ Deepcar ....................................... 61
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 61
Policy SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge.................................................... 61
Policy Background ................................................................................................ 61
Relationship to City Strategy ................................................................................. 64
Consistency with Other Planning Documents ....................................................... 64
Options Considered .............................................................................................. 66
Reasons for the Submitted Policy ......................................................................... 76
i
Policy SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge.................................................... 76
Implementation and Monitoring ............................................................................. 91
Flexibility and Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 93
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 94
4
Hollin Busk ............................................................................................................ 97
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 97
Policy SST2 Hollin Busk ........................................................................................ 98
Policy Background ................................................................................................ 98
Relationship to City Strategy ............................................................................... 100
Consistency with Other Planning Documents. .................................................... 100
Options Considered ............................................................................................ 102
Reasons for the Submitted Policy ....................................................................... 105
Policy SST2 Hollin Busk ...................................................................................... 105
Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................... 112
Flexibility and Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 113
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 113
5
Rural Settlements................................................................................................ 115
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 115
Policy SRS1 Affordable Housing in the Larger Rural Settlements ...................... 115
Policy Background .............................................................................................. 115
Relationship to City Strategy ............................................................................... 117
Consistency with Other Planning Documents ..................................................... 117
Options Considered ............................................................................................ 118
Reasons for the Submitted Policy ....................................................................... 120
Policy SRS1 Affordable Housing in the Larger Rural Settlements ...................... 120
Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................... 124
Flexibility and Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 124
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 125
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................... 127
ii
List of Tables
Table
Page
Table 1: North Panel Area Statistics ................................................................................ 4
Table 2: Comparison of Various Employment Land Requirement Figures .................... 43
Table 3: Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation ........................... 48
Table 4: Stocksbridge/Deepcar Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation ............................. 82
List of Figures
Figure
Page
Figure 1: Parks in Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield...................................................................... 5
Figure 2: First Overground Bus Routes to Chapeltown/Ecclesfield ................................. 6
Figure 3: Congestion in Chapeltown / Ecclesfield ........................................................... 9
Figure 4: Overground Bus Routes for Stocksbridge/Deepcar ........................................ 11
Figure 5: Parks in Stocksbridge / Deepcar .................................................................... 12
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1
This report provides background information and evidence to support the
submitted policies for the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development
Framework.
1.2
The Sheffield Development Framework is Sheffield’s Local Development
Framework, which the local planning authority is now required to produce. It will
contain all of the City’s planning policies and proposals and will replace the
outgoing Unitary Development Plan. Further information about the Sheffield
Development Framework can be found in the project programme, known as the
Local Development Scheme1.
1.3
The Core Strategy is the first of the development plan documents in the
Framework. It sets out the overall planning aims and objectives and establishes
the broad spatial framework for all the other documents.
1.4
The Core Strategy has been prepared in several stages, based on periods of
consultation. These stages were about:




Emerging Options
Preferred Options
Additional Options (for a few issues only)
Submission, for final representations and public examination.
The Emerging Options
1.5
The Emerging Options were the broad choices for the Core Strategy and they
were set out in a separate document2. They were drawn up to enable the Council
to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of drawing up
the Strategy. The City Council consulted on these options and then decided
which to take forward as Preferred Options. The other options have been
rejected but this document sets out how they were taken into account and why
the Council is proposing the Preferred Options instead.
1 Sheffield
Development Framework: The Local Development Scheme. Sheffield City Council (revised
October 2006). SDF Local Development Scheme 2006
2 Sheffield Development Framework: Emerging Options for the Core Strategy. (Sheffield City Council,
May 2005, SDF Core Strategy Emerging Options 2005. For background to the options, see Chapter 1.
-1-
The Preferred Options
1.6
The Preferred Options were published3 and consulted on as the ones that the
Council was minded to take forward to submission. However, the choice of
option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The
Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and
the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging Options had
been rejected. In most cases, these Preferred Options were taken forward as
policies in the draft submitted Core Strategy4.
Additional Options
1.7
Further work indicated that there were a few issues to be covered that had not
featured in the earlier options consultations and there were some issues that had
been considered where a new option needed to be considered. These were set
out in the Additional Options Report 5 and consulted on.
Submission Version
1.8
Much of the Submission Version follows the approach proposed in the Preferred
and Additional Options and takes account of comments made about those
documents. However, the opportunity remains in the final period for
representations to draw attention to any outstanding matters that would make the
submitted document unsound. The soundness of the document will be decided
by a Planning Inspector through a process of public examination.
1.9
The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the
Core Strategy is sound. They are prepared specifically to help consultees and
the Inspector come to a view about the Council’s position. The Core Strategy
itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies. So, the
more detailed background information and analysis there is all found in the
Background Reports.
1.10
The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Development
Framework but they clearly contribute to the statutory process of preparing it.
The regulations refer to ‘DPD [Development Plan Document] documents’ and
these may include:
3
Sheffield Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council,
(May 2005). SDF Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006
4 Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Draft for submission to the Secretary of State.
Sheffield City Council (September 2007)
5Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Additional Options. Sheffield City Council (February
2007) SDF Core Strategy Additional Options 2007
-2-
“such supporting documents as in the opinion of the authority are relevant to
the preparation of the DPD”6
1.11
The Background Reports all fall within this definition. The versions of the
Background Reports supporting the submitted Core Strategy have been made
available for inspection with the Core Strategy.
The Scope of this Report
1.12
This report supports the submitted policies for a number of settlements that
together make up the North Panel area. These settlements include the northern
towns within Sheffield, i.e. Chapeltown and Stocksbridge, the districts of
Ecclesfield, Middlewood and Stannington on the edge of the main built up area of
Sheffield, a number of small hamlets/settlements on the western side of the City
and the following freestanding villages:










1.13
Midhopestones
Bolsterstone
Ewden Village
Wharncliffe Side
Oughtibridge
Worrall
Loxley
Dungworth
Middlewood
Grenoside
The chapters are based on each of the issues covered in the chapters on
Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield, Stocksbridge/ Deepcar and the Rural Settlements in the
submission version of the Core Strategy and they deal with each of the
soundness tests in turn. A final chapter deals with issues not followed through to
the submitted Core Strategy.
Description of the North Panel Area
1.14
6
The North Panel Area, which covers almost half of the city (182 square
kilometres; 49.8% of the City’s area) and is the largest Panel area in Sheffield.
The area has boundaries with Derbyshire, Barnsley and Rotherham and a large
swathe of the area to the west with its open moorland, forests and reservoirs is
within the Peak District National Park. The North Panel area, with the exception
of the area covered by the Peak District National Park, is equivalent to the area
covered by the Northern Towns and Villages. Within the Peak District National
Park, the Peak District National Park Authority is the planning authority; therefore,
The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4)
-3-
that part of the North Panel Area that is within the Peak District National Park is
not covered by Core Strategy.
1.15
In terms of housing land identified within the Northern Towns and Villages area,
37.2 hectares of housing land has not yet been developed. This land has a
capacity for 991 dwellings (about 12% of the City’s needs) of which 97% has
planning permission, 92% is owned by the private sector and redevelopment sites
make up 74% of the sites7.
1.16
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield, Stocksbridge/Deepcar and the Rural Settlements are
convenient subdivisions of the North Panel Area (excluding that part of the North
Panel Area that is within the Peak District National Park) that have been made for
the purposes of formulating policy for the Core Strategy.
Table 1: North Panel Area Statistics8
Area (km2)
% of City Area
Population
% of City Population
Population Density
Households
% of City Households
People per household
% Population on income support
1.17
182.6
49.8%
60,187
11.7%
330
25,086
11.5%
2.40
10.3%
Each of the following four chapters examines the background behind a policy.
Two policies for Stocksbridge/Deepcar, One policy for Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield
and 1 policy for the Rural Settlements. Paragraphs 1.18 to 1.68 below give a
brief introduction to the issues addressed by policies SCH1, SST1, SST2 and
SRS1, by giving a description of the area and its neighbourhoods, by identifying
the relevant needs and opportunities for change within those areas and by
describing the areas of no change for each of the subdivisions in turn.
Introduction to the Issues for Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
The Settlements within Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Area
1.18
The Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area lies approximately seven miles due north of the
City Centre and borders on the open countryside and the M1. The area
comprises of five distinctive communities, Chapeltown, High Green, Burncross,
Ecclesfield and Grenoside, it is an area of mixed farmland, parks (see Figure 1
7
Housing Land Survey 2005, Summary Information. www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-citydevelopment/planning-documents/background-reports/housing-land-survey
8 See the north Area Action Web Page on the Sheffield City Council website www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-yourarea/area-action/north-area-action
-4-
below), housing and two industrial locations. Nine major development schemes
have been identified mainly within the industrial areas at Thorncliffe, Smithywood
and Ecclesfield Common, with investment totalling £23m to create 107,650 sq. m.
of industrial and business floor space9.
1.19
The area is served by several main roads namely the A6135 Sheffield to Barnsley
via Chapeltown, the A629 Chapeltown to Wortley, the A629 Chapeltown to
Rotherham via the M1 Junction 35, the Chapeltown to High Green local route
(Loundside/ Lane End/ Mortomley Lane/ Wortley Road) and the A61 Hillsborough
to M1 junction 3610.
Figure 1: Parks in Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield11
Parks in Chapeltown / Ecclesfield
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.20
Angram Bank,
Charlton Brook,
Chapeltown Park,
Mortomley Park,
Thorncliffe Recreation Ground,
Westwood Country Park,
Ecclesfield Park,
Grenoside Recreation Ground
Wheata Wood
The area is served by high and medium frequency bus services serving
Ecclesfield, Grenoside, Chapeltown and High Green. The medium Frequent
Services (66/77/77A/17A) serving High Green, Grenoside and Burncross (See
Figure 2 below).
Chapeltown
1.21
Chapeltown neighbourhood has a population of 9,454 people living within 5.27
km2 at a density of 1,793 people per square kilometre. There a very few sites
available for development within Chapeltown, that have not already got planning
permission. it is recognised as a small market town, densely populated with a
mix of private housing and council estates. The District Centre is vibrant,
successful and it acts a transport hub for the area. Chapeltown Railway Station
is located at its heart and with its good bus links running to Sheffield City Centre,
9
Source: Major Development Schemes in Sheffield, Sheffield City Council, published 1 April 2007.
the A6135 Sheffield to Barnsley via Chapeltown (White Lane/ Station Road/ Ecclesfield Road/
Chapeltown Road/ The Common/ Cross Hill), the A629 Chapeltown to Wortley (Penistone Road/
Hallwood Road/ Burncross Road), the A629 Chapeltown to Rotherham via the M1 Junction 35 (Cowley
Lane/ Cowley Hill), the Chapeltown to High Green local route (Loundside/ Lane End/ Mortomley Lane/
Wortley Road), A61 Hillsborough to M1 junction 36 (Penistone Road/Westwood New Road).
11 Extracted from Sheffield Parks and Green Spaces Map, available for download from
www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=58404
10
-5-
Rotherham and Barnsley, the centre is well connected. Several of the main
roads serving the area meet at the centre of Chapeltown District Centre 12.
Figure 2: First Overground Bus Routes to Chapeltown/Ecclesfield 13
1.22
There has relatively new housing and industrial development at Thorncliffe which
is to the north west of the District Centre and has accommodated a lot of housing
development over the years. The main recreation spaces for the area are
Charlton Brook and Chapeltown Park, (See Figure 1 above for locations). To the
east of the built up area is Green Belt (Hesley Wood) with the M1 between
junction 35 and junction 35A beyond. Burncross and High Green lie to the west
with Green Belt to the south and Ecclesfield beyond.
High Green
1.23
High Green is approximately 7 miles north of the City Centre adjacent to the City
boundary, North West of Chapeltown. It is made up of a large Council estate
surrounded by private housing and it is served by high frequency bus routes (See
Figure 2 above). It is densely populated at density of nearly twice the City
average. Residents enjoy good access to formal and informal recreation space
as well as open countryside (See Figure 1 above). The area has two
neighbourhood centres at Greengate Lane and Mortomley Lane / Jeffcock Road
providing everyday shopping needs.
12
The A6135 Sheffield to Barnsley via Chapeltown (White Lane/ Station Road/ Ecclesfield Road/
Chapeltown Road/ The Common/ Cross Hill), the A629 Chapeltown to Wortley (Penistone Road/
Hallwood Road/ Burncross Road), the A629 Chapeltown to Rotherham via the M1 Junction 35 (Cowley
Lane/ Cowley Hill) and the Chapeltown to High Green local route (Loundside/ Lane End/ Mortomley Lane/
Wortley Road)
13 Extract from guide to bus services in Sheffield, January 2007.
-6-
Burncross
1.24
Burncross, a residential area lies around 6½ miles from the City Centre between
High Green and Chapeltown (west of Chapeltown and south of High Green and is
served by medium frequency bus routes (See Figure 2 above). The area is
bounded by countryside with open fields and Greno Woods. The population of
Burncross is established and relatively stable in predominantly owner occupied
private houses.
Ecclesfield
1.25
Ecclesfield lies around 5 miles north of the City Centre on the A6135 Sheffield to
Barnsley Route. The area is served by high and medium frequency bus routes.
Originally, a separate village but growth over the years has blurred the
boundaries between it and urban Sheffield and it is now a district on the edge of
Sheffield. It enjoys good access to the M1 motorway and the Trans-Pennine
A628 Route. However, travel by car is often affected by heavy traffic on the
A6135, which runs through the area to Chapeltown District Centre. Ecclesfield
Neighbourhood Centre acts as a local hub at the old village centre. Morrison’s
Supermarket at Ecclesfield Common is the destination in the district for main food
shopping trips whilst Ecclesfield Neighbourhood Centre, provides for the area’s
everyday shopping needs. Ecclesfield Conservation Area is located around the
heart of the old village.
Grenoside
1.26
Grenoside is split by the A61 but is surrounded by Countryside and lies about six
miles north of the City Centre. It is a distinct community just beyond Sheffield’s
main urban area served by medium frequency bus routes. There are some local
shops, a school (that is to be rebuilt under the private finance initiative) and the
community centre. The settlement is served by recreation spaces at Grenoside
recreation ground and Wheata Wood (See Figure 1 above for locations). It also
has easy access to high value green space in Greno woods and the surrounding
countryside. .
Needs and Opportunities
1.27
Chapeltown, as a market town, provides a service centre role for its catchment,
and is the main focus for the development of housing, employment uses and
services. However, there are very few large development sites that are capable
of accommodating large scale development for housing that have not already
been identified or that have not started their development. This presents the
opportunity for the area to renew itself as the only opportunities for development
that are not already taken up are the long standing derelict brownfield sites that
are constrained and costly to develop. Maintaining the existing Green Belt
boundary will help this process of renewal by ensuring that greenfield or
brownfield sites within the Green Belt do not attract investors away from
-7-
brownfield sites within the urban area. However, increasing the density of
development to encourage growth without expansion, could lead to alteration of
the character of the town.
1.28
The main opportunity area is that of Ecclesfield Common industrial area. The
area is populated by an older stock of industrial buildings that are no longer up to
current standards for industrial premises. There are many other areas like
Thorncliffe, Smithywood, The Dearne Valley, the Lower Don and the Upper Don
valleys that can provide alternative, high standard accommodation. The area
was also been devastated by the recent floods that have caused millions of
pounds worth of damage, loss of jobs and holes in Sheffield’s Industrial supply
chain. There is therefore, a significant opportunity for change in the Ecclesfield
Common industrial area. The main question addressed by policy is should
industrial use be retained and allowed to renew itself or should alternative land
uses be allowed.
1.29
Smithywood is an opportunity area that has outline planning permission.
Construction has started on re-grading the land to create development platforms
and on creating access. Detailed planning applications for high quality B1, B2
and B8 units of various sizes are expected to be the next stage as phased
development begins.
1.30
Grenoside currently suffers from not having a group of shops and community
facilities that could form the nucleus of a neighbourhood centre. Because of its
location it is desirable that the village has a neighbourhood centre however, to
create a centre at the heart of the community (near the school) is likely to have an
adverse effect on the character of Grenoside Conservation area, especially with
the increased vehicle movements involved. Although this is the Heart of the
community, it is not likely to have sufficient footfall to attract retail investment.
Therefore, opportunities will be taken to provide shops of an appropriate scale
and in the right location to meet everyday needs within or on the edge of the
village. This will not involve the creation of a neighbourhood centre through
designation on the proposals map as an appropriate site, has not been identified
that can accommodate A1 retail and D1 Community facility uses at an
appropriate scale.
1.31
Some of the older Council housing stock in High Green has reached the end of its
useful life and will be renewed in the near future, giving the opportunity to
redesign some parts of the Council estates. This has already happened to the
Mortomley Lane old person’s home, which has been sold and redeveloped and to
a number of streets in High Green.
-8-
1.32
There is also a need to tackle the congestion problems that exist on the main
roads into Chapeltown that are making it difficult to get to and move around the
District Centre. Chapeltown District Centre is a successful shopping centre and a
travel that attracts shoppers from other catchments. However, it is difficult to get
to because of congestion at peak periods and movement on foot, by bus or by car
is difficult because of the amount of traffic that has no business there but which
has to travel through the centre. Travel into Sheffield and Rotherham from the
District Centre by road is hampered by severe congestion along the A6135 from
the Common, Ecclesfield to the A6135/A629 junctions at the district centre, and
moderate congestion on the A629 link to Rotherham (See Figure 3: Congestion in
Chapeltown / Ecclesfield below).
Figure 3: Congestion in Chapeltown / Ecclesfield
1.33
14
Opportunities have presented themselves for construction of a relief road and
implementation of a range of measures aimed at managing traffic through the
Centre. These proposals, suggested in the Plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown Study
Report15, included proposals for new links from Station Road, Ecclesfield via
Smithywood to Cowley Lane, from Cowley Lane via Hesley Wood to White Lane
and from the Cart Road at Thorncliffe through the Thorncliffe Park industrial
estate to Mortomley Lane/Loundside. These three links would together provide a
relief route for traffic wanting to get to Thorncliffe without having to go through
Chapeltown District Centre16. The Emerging Options for the Core Strategy have
considered and rejected options that would facilitate the construction of this route.
The opportunity to make the centre of Chapeltown safer to use and to get to in
the future should not be compromised by future development proposals.
14
Extract from South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2, Fig. 4.11 ITIS Congestion in South Yorkshire
Sheffield City Council Plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown Study Report, by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
Published May 2004.
16 Figure 7 Proposed Rout Hierarchy, Sheffield City Council Plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown Study Report, by
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, Published May 2004.
15
-9-
Jobs Housing and Shopping in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
1.34
The main issue for Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area is the extent to which the area’s
settlements should grow in terms of its ability to provide new jobs and new
homes, whilst securing the continued vitality and viability of Chapeltown District
Centre. The main question affecting a decision on how this should happen is,
should the area renew itself or should its settlements physically expand into the
surrounding countryside?
1.35
Continued growth of the area’s settlements by either renewal or expansion will
have repercussions for transport and although policy SCH1 cross refers to the
relevant policies within the Transport chapter of the Core Strategy that do make
provision for the issues raised, it does not make direct provision for transport
improvements.
Areas of No Change
1.36
The existing residential areas within the settlements of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
i.e. Grenoside, Burncross, Chapeltown and large parts of High Green will not
change in terms of their extent over the plan period as they are surrounded by a
maintained Green Belt Boundary under policy SE1 protection of the Countryside.
Thorncliffe Industrial area has now been substantially completed in terms of
construction. Although there have been questions asked about the possibility of
expansion of the area, its extent is constrained by the Green Belt boundary.
Introduction to the Issues for Stocksbridge/Deepcar
The Settlements within Stocksbridge/Deepcar Area
1.37
The Stocksbridge/ Deepcar area had a population of 13,316 people at the 2001
Census and the area is approximately 8 miles (13.2 kilometres) North West of the
City Centre. It consists of the neighbourhoods of Stocksbridge, Deepcar and a
part of the Rural Area neighbourhood. Within that part of the rural area
neighbourhood that is within Stocksbridge Deepcar, there are four villages that
are completely within the Green Belt, namely Midhopestones, Bolsterstone,
Brightholmlee (all three of which are conservation areas) and Ewden Village.
1.38
The area is on the northern edge of the City and borders on open countryside at
Wortley and Wharncliffe Woods, the A616 (T), Langsett in Barnsley, the Rural
Settlements and the Peak District National Park. It is an area of mixed farmland
and housing with industry and businesses located at Stockbridge and at Deepcar.
Stocksbridge District Centre is a main shopping destination for the area. There
neighbourhood centres at Knowles Avenue and Pot House Lane that provide for
the local every day shopping needs.
-10-
1.39
The area is served by 3 parks, Oxley Park, Fox Glen Recreation Ground and
Deepcar Recreation Ground (See Figure 5 below). Housing in both Stocksbridge
and Deepcar grew around the industry and now the majority of the southern side
of the slope has been developed for housing and supporting uses. The two
settlements are separated by Hollin Busk (a large area of open countryside) and
Fox Glen Recreation Ground.
1.40
There has been a demand for the redevelopment of the industrial areas for
housing and as industrial businesses have either closed or rationalised,
Stocksbridge has taken on more of a commuter role.
Figure 4: Overground Bus Routes for Stocksbridge/Deepcar
1.41
The area is served by several main roads including the A616 (T) to M1 Junction
35A, the B6088 and the A610217. In terms of congestion severe congestion at
Hillsborough does cause problems for those travelling to and from Stocksbridge
at peak times.
1.42
It is served by medium frequency bus routes from Sheffield (See Figure 4 above)
and other routes from Sheffield and Barnsley. The Woodhead Railway line runs
from Deepcar through to Nunnery Square joining with Midland Line. There is no
passenger rail service along the Woodhead Line although there is a not very
freight service running from Rotherham to Corus Engineering Steel’s
Stocksbridge Works.
17
the A616 (T) Manchester via the A628 and Upper Midhope to M1 Junction 35A (Stocksbridge Bypass),
the B6088 from the Stocksbridge Bypass at Underbank via Stocksbridge District Centre to Deepcar
(Manchester Road), the A6102 from the Wortley Road/Stocksbridge Bypass Junction to
Hillsborough/Sheffield (Wortley Road/Manchester Road/Main Road/Langsett Road North/Langsett Road
South/Middlewood Road North/Middlewood Road).
-11-
1.43
Towards the end of the 20th Century, the decline of these industries has lead to a
diversification of investment and adaptation to the changing needs of the
community. There has been a demand for the redevelopment of the industrial
areas and as industrial businesses have either closed or rationalised,
Stocksbridge / Deepcar has taken on more of a commuter role.
Figure 5: Parks in Stocksbridge / Deepcar
Parks in Stocksbridge / Deepcar
1.
2.
3.
Oxley Park
Fox Glen Recreation Ground
Deepcar Recreation Ground
Stocksbridge
1.44
Stocksbridge grew from a tiny hamlet at the crossing place (Stock’s Bridge) of the
River Little Don into a thriving industrial centre during the industrial revolution.
The River, originally known as Hunshelf water, was later given the name Little
Don and has been diverted several times near the site of the original wooden foot
bridge from which the town takes its name. A Cotton Mill was built on Stocks’
land, which Samuel Fox took over in 1842 and developed into the steel works,
which brought prosperity to the district.
1.45
Initially using waterpower, the coal seams were exploited and this eventually led
to use of steam power. Other businesses included Tile and Brick factories, pipe
works, glassware and Coal Firestone and ganister were mined at Bitholmes and
Ewden Valley. The main employers now in Stocksbridge are in the Steel
industry. Corus Engineering Steels Ltd and Outokumpu occupy the vast majority
of the industrial land in the Little Don valley bottom at Stocksbridge. Housing in
Stocksbridge grew around the industry and now occupies the majority of the
southern side of the slope has been developed for housing and supporting uses.
1.46
The decline of these industries has lead to a diversification of investment and
adaptation to the changing needs of the community. There has been a heavy
demand for redevelopment of the industrial areas as industrial businesses have
either closed or rationalised as Stocksbridge has taken on more of a commuter
role.
-12-
1.47
Stocksbridge District Centre the main shopping area is ribbon developed along
Manchester Road (B6088), which is anchored by The Co-op supermarket at the
western end and Lidl supermarket to the east. The Town Centre has had a small
section improved recently with new paving, layout and street furniture.
Deepcar
1.48
Deepcar neighbourhood had a population of 5,831 people in 200118; the latest
information shows that the population had grown to 5,994 people19. The area has
two schools, Royd Nursery and Infants School and Deepcar St Johns CE Junior
School. The Secondary school for the area is Stocksbridge High School. There
is a neighbourhood centre on the Stubbin estate at Knowle Avenue and there is a
medical centre and a chemist on Manchester Road (B6088). Some of the
industrial land at Deepcar, around Deepcar Bridge where the River Little Don
flows in to the River Don is still in operation but there is a large site straddling the
river Don to the south of Deepcar Bridge that has been vacant for some time, it’s
contaminated by industrial processes and derelict. The site is adjacent to the
Stocksbridge Waste Water Treatment Works which is located adjacent to the
A6102.
Needs and Opportunities
1.49
Stocksbridge is a market town that provides a principal service centre role for its
catchment, remaining the main focus for the development of housing,
employment uses and services. Recently Corus engineering steels announced a
rationalisation scheme which aimed to improve their standing on the world
markets. This rationalisation plan aimed to remove the steel making processes
from the works and concentrate on the finishing processes. This rationalisation
led to several parcels of the Corus land holdings becoming surplus to
requirements. Corus sought to redevelop these sites for a mixture of housing and
business uses; however, the land was designated as General industrial land on
the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map making proposals for housing
development a departure from the adopted development plan. The Corus
Development plan was prepared by Corus and approved by Sheffield City
Council. Since approval of the brief, Corus has invested in new plant for the site
retained some of the land thought to be surplus to requirements and obtained
outline planning permission for the redevelopment of their scrap metal processing
yard for residential use.
1.50
At the same time as Corus was implementing their rationalisation plans, the
neighbouring steel company, Outokumpu announced a closure of its plant at
Shepcote Lane and Stocksbridge in September 2006 saying that the sites would
be marketed in 2007.
18
19
Data Source: 2001 Census, Office of National Statistics
Data source: Population Health Register 2005.
-13-
1.51
In June 2007 the City was hit by severe flooding and Outokumpu was badly
affected.
“ July 2007, p 5 (14 cm).
Outokumpu’s Stocksbridge mill may be idle for two more weeks
Outokumpu UK has lost around two weeks of stainless steel production after
its Stocksbridge and Meadowhall plants in Sheffield were hit by floods in
June. The Stocksbridge plant was worst hit, and in mid-July Outokumpu
announced that it would remain closed for another couple of weeks while the
equipment and plant dry out. The cost of repairs is estimated at ₤1.8 million.
Production has already resumed at Meadowhall. Metal Bulletin, 16 July
2007, p 4 (5 cm).”20
1.52
As a result of these rationalisation plans, large areas of brownfield land will be
marketed for development in the future. The land represents an opportunity for
the area to renew itself. However, the flooding may impact on the site’s
development in terms of the public attention paid to the constraint and the
marketing of the land.
1.53
There is evidence to suggest that Stocksbridge District Centre which is adjacent
to the Corus and Outokumpu Works is losing trade to Chapeltown and
Hillsborough District Centres. Planning permission has also recently been
granted to Tesco for a store at Penistone Market Square in Penistone. The
Sheffield Retail Study suggested that there was no quantitative need to expand
the Stocksbridge centre. However, there is a need to improve the vitality and
viability of the centre so that it can claw back some of the trade lost to other
centres and stores. With the Centre being adjacent to the industrial land that may
become surplus to operational requirements in future, there is an opportunity to
improve the centre’s viability by attracting a high quality foodstores and shop
chains to boost the centre’s current attraction.
1.54
There is an outline planning approval for the former GR Steins site at Deepcar
(known locally as the Deepcar Site)21. The development proposal will provide
housing with some business development, open space, a new access road to the
site with a bridge over the river Don and it is conditioned on the re-siting of
Stocksbridge Waste Water Treatment Works as there is a cordon sanitaire
around it because of the smell and a fly infestation problems. Although this site
was not allocated as a City Site because of a delay in signing the legal
20
Source: International Chrome Development Association Industry News, August 2007,
http://www.icdachromium.com/industry_news.php?date=2007-0802&s_date=August%202007&newsid=1132
21 Planning Application Ref. No.: 03/00020/OUT, for Residential and mixed use development
(resubmission application), on Land at Station Road and Manchester Road, Deepcar, Sheffield; the
application was Granted Conditionally subject to a Legal Agreement, 15/06/2007.
-14-
agreement the site has now been identified as a commitment in the housing land
supply figures. Once Stocksbridge Waste Water Treatment Works is re-sited,
there is an opportunity to renew this neglected part of Deepcar.
1.55
The land that is and will become available for development in the Little Don and
the Don Valley in Stocksbridge Deepcar is constrained. Currently, industrial uses
are the preferred uses for these sites in the Unitary Development Plan and parts
of the area have been reserved for Office and Leisure development in the
approved Corus Development Brief22. The majority of Outokumpu’s land is within
a Flood Zone 3A High Probability which is a major constraint on development for
the more vulnerable residential uses23. It is recognised that industrial land at
Stocksbridge/Deepcar has to compete with more desirable locations for business
development in the Dearne and Lower Don Valley’s and that the area is difficult to
market for industrial development, especially as the sites are heavily constrained.
However, there is still a need to retain some of the employment land in the area
for employment uses in order to reduce the need to travel for local people. There
has proved to be a healthy market for small to medium size starter units in the
area. Any land retained could well supplement successful projects such as the
units built by Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise Partnership at Deepcar.
1.56
There is a need to tackle the congestion problem on the A6102 which quickly
develops from traffic backing up from congestion on the A61 Leppings Lane. The
current problems for those wishing to travel between Stocksbridge Deepcar and
the City Centre are likely to be exacerbated if the developments on the
Corus/Outokumpu and Deepcar Sites are realised. As mentioned above, there is
no passenger rail link to Stocksbridge/ Deepcar and, until recently, the area was
only served by a medium frequency bus service which gave many residents and
visitors no alternative but to use their cars. A new frequent shuttle bus service
has, however, recently been introduced during the day-time linking Stocksbridge,
via Whancliffe Side and Oughtibridge, to the Middlewood Supertram stop. It is
hoped that the proposed developments will create enough dwellings of a type that
will encourage the bus services to lay on further higher frequency bus services.
But the type and numbers of dwellings and the numbers of new passengers that
these could generate is dependent upon detailed designs and the approved
applications are all at the outline stage, with detailed or reserved matters
applications still to be determined.
1.57
The A61 Penistone Road /Upper Don Valley QBC is a major scheme in the Local
Transport Plan 2 aimed at tackling this issue. The A61 is seen as the Key Route
in the north of Sheffield, running adjacent to the Hillsborough local centre and the
Upper Don Valley, and main “non-motorway” Key Route between Sheffield and
Barnsley centres. The Proposal for bus priority is an initial stage of the Yorkshire
22
See Sites E and F, on Figure 5: Overall Masterplan, Corus Works Stocksbridge Development Brief,
approved by Sheffield City Council as a material consideration in the determination of planning
applications (or as an interim Planning document) in December 2004.
23 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Figure 008 – Stocksbridge.
-15-
Bus project, accelerated because of the pressing need to improve accessibility to
key regeneration sites within the Objective 1 programme.
1.58
Penistone Road (A61) provides core access for through traffic between Sheffield
and Barnsley centres via Hillsborough and Chapeltown linking to the M1 at
Junction 36. It also accommodates several of Sheffield’s “core” bus routes,
including some of those encompassed by two existing bus priority projects,
namely North Sheffield Better Buses and the Sheaf Valley QBC. Penistone Road
suffers from congestion and delays during weekday peak periods and at
weekends, and buses are currently caught up in this – so much so that First
Group has previously described this as their top priority route in Sheffield for
improvements to bus operations. Much of this existing congestion is
concentrated around the Leppings Lane area, and at the Hillsborough local
centre. The knock on effects of the congestion at Leppings lane affects traffic
movements from Stocksbridge/Deepcar and the Rural Settlements into and out of
the City Centre.
1.59
The scheme will ensure that the integrity of the A61 as a key route between
Barnsley and the city centre is not compromised, in line with the vision for
Sheffield City Region. It has been identified as a priority by the Regional
Transport Board because of its overall contribution to the achievement of the
Regional Economic Strategy and the under-pinning Regional Transport Strategy.
1.60
The provision of Guided Bus Lanes has been considered but ruled out because
of the resulting capacity reduction on this Key Route. A package of selective bus
priority measures is therefore proposed instead that will deliver benefits such as
improvements to peak time traffic flow, a 10 to 12% increase in bus patronage,
improvements to road safety and better accessibility to employment opportunities.
The intention is to start on site in the spring of 2008.
Jobs Housing and Shopping in Stocksbridge/Deepcar
1.61
The main issue for Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area is the extent to which the area’s
settlements should grow in terms of its ability to provide new jobs and new
homes, whilst securing the continued vitality and viability of Chapeltown District
Centre. The main question affecting a decision on how this should happen is,
should the area renew itself or should its settlements physically expand into the
surrounding countryside?
1.62
Continued growth of the area’s settlements by either renewal or expansion will
have repercussions for transport and although policy SCH1 cross refers to the
relevant policies within the Transport chapter of the Core Strategy that do make
provision for the issues raised, it does not make direct provision for transport
improvements.
-16-
Areas of No Change
1.63
The residential areas within the settlements of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield and
Stocksbridge Deepcar will not change in terms of their extent over the plan period
as they are surrounded by a maintained Green Belt Boundary under policy SE1
protection of the Countryside. Thorncliffe Industrial area has now been
substantially completed in terms of construction. Although there have been
questions asked about the possibility of expansion of the area, its extent is
constrained by the Green Belt boundary, therefore there is unlikely to be any
change in its extent.
1.64
The Rural part of the North Panel Area (including the smaller villages) is unlikely
to change as it is covered by Green Belt and the areas of countryside that outside
the green belt will also be protected from built development by policy SE1. Some
these villages are of historical importance as the have substantial sized
conservation area designations and the ability to allow change is even further
constrained.
Introduction to the Issue for Rural Settlements
1.65
The Rural Settlements Area is vast area stretching from between north of Rivelin
Valley to north of Wharncliffe Side. To the east of it is the Peak District National
Park and to the West is Wharncliffe Wood which is in Barnsley,
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Area and the south west is the urban area of Sheffield.
1.66
The vast majority of the area is rural countryside covered by Green Belt. It does
however include Middlewood, Stannington and Loxley. Middlewood has
undergone significant change in recent years with the development of the
Middlewood Hospital site which is now complete. Middlewood is unlikely to
undergo any change in the future and is now seen as a stable area. Stannington
is coming under some pressure for the development of several redundant sports
grounds. This will be dealt with through detailed policies in the City policies
document and the proposals Map. Otherwise the Stannington area is a stable
area. The Loxley area is undergoing pressure for housing development on its
borders and within the surrounding Green Belt. This issue is dealt with through
implementation of Green Belt policies and are not specific issues for the Core
Strategy as most inappropriate development proposals can be dealt with as
departures form the development plan.
1.67
The larger villages of Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side act as local
service centres for the surrounding rural area having schools, doctors surgery’s
and other local facilities. The fact that they are not covered by the Green Belt
means that there is opportunity for change within them and recent years have
seen some significant housing development proposals implemented, particularly
at Oughtibridge.
-17-
1.68
The rural setting of these villages has meant that recent housing price rises have
had a significant effect on the affordability of housing within these rural villages.
House prices have been raised significantly which has meant that local people
living in the area who wish to buy a house but stay in the area are being forced to
move elsewhere. However, the fact that the sites are either in the Green Belt in
the smaller villages or within compact villages of rural /semi rural character in the
larger villages where there are very few sites, restricts the ability to create
affordable housing. The sites that come forward are usually under the size
threshold for requiring affordable housing. This is the issue to be addressed by
the Core Strategy.
-18-
2
JOBS, HOUSING AND SHOPPING IN CHAPELTOWN/
ECCLESFIELD
Introduction
2.1
Chapeltown and High Green have grown considerably over the past 30 years and
there is very limited remaining capacity for additional new housing. Employment
areas here and in neighbouring Ecclesfield are coming under pressure for
housing but the strategy is to retain local opportunities for jobs in the area,
helping to reduce the distances local people need to travel. Policy SB4 proposes
non-office businesses and industry at Thorncliffe and Smithy Wood and policy
SB3 proposes smaller-scale office development in Chapeltown District Centre.
The life and sustainability of the settlement depends on the vitality of the District
Centre and the continuing relationship with the neighbouring main built-up area
requires good transport links.
Policy SCH1 Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
2.2
Business and industrial development will be located at Thorncliffe,
Ecclesfield Common and Smithywood on brownfield land. New housing
development will be limited to infilling within the existing residential areas
and the surrounding countryside will be protected.
The District Centre will be promoted as opportunities arise, through
redevelopment, environmental improvement and measures to remove traffic
that does not need to be in the Centre.
Policy Background
National Policy
2.3
Policy SCH1 relates solely to the future development of the Stocksbridge and
Deepcar area. There are sites within its urban area that will become available for
redevelopment in the future. The majority of these sites are within the industrial
areas and the Issue is about whether the land should be retained for industrial
purposes or whether the land should be redeveloped for Housing or other uses.
-19-
2.4
The overall aim of national planning policy guidance and statements as contained
in PPG2, PPS3, PPG4 and PPS6 is to create mixed and sustainable
communities. PPG2 is relevant to this debate because the Green Belt sets the
extent of urban development and the extent of these settlements cannot grow
significantly without change to the Green Belt Boundary. PPS3 is relevant as it
advises how to identify new locations for housing development and states how
land can be effectively and efficiently used. PPG4 is relevant because it gives
advice on the re-use of urban land that was used for industry for commercial use
and this is at the heart of the issue here. PPS6 is relevant because it advises on
the promotion and management of growth within Town Centres and also gives
advice on assessing the need for development of Town Centres.
2.5
In drafting policy SCH1, extension of the urban area by building new housing on
brownfield land, in particular at Hesley Wood, which is in the Green Belt24 was
examined. This option was rejected because it would have a detrimental impact
on the ability promote sustainable patterns of development and PPG2, paragraph
2.10, advises local authorities to consider, “the consequences for sustainable
development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the inner
Green Belt boundary”. The option would also effectively have meant exclusion of
Hesley Wood from the Green Belt and this would have been contrary to the
fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as stated in paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 “to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. This principal of
permanence applies to the entire Green Belt boundary and effectively limits
development to the urban area. By restricting development to infilling within
existing residential areas and protecting the countryside, policy SCH1 is
complying with the PPG2 aim of keeping the Green Belt permanently open by not
allowing expansion of the urban area in to it, which directs prospective
developers to the redevelopment or development of land within the urban area.
2.6
A key objective of PPS3 is that local planning authorities should continue to make
efficient use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed for
housing development25. Policy SCH1 complies with this national planning policy
advice by requiring that housing development takes place within the housing
areas on infill sites. This policy requirement ensures that land is efficiently used.
The Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area contains settlements that do not have many
large areas of vacant land within the housing area that are suitable and available
for development.
24
Emerging option CH3a, Page 225, Emerging Options for the Core Strategy, 2005, Sheffield City
Council.
25 Paragraph 40, page 15, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, Department of Communities and Local
Government, November 2006.
-20-
2.7
To illustrate this point, of the 22 sites in the North Panel Area that were
considered for allocation in the City Sites Emerging options document as City
Sites, 8 are in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield. Of those 8 sites, only three were being
considered for Housing Site Allocation on the Emerging Options Proposals Map
and two of these sites have planning permission, whilst the other one is within the
Ecclesfield Common Industrial Estate and was granted permission on appeal26.
2.8
The fact that there are no large housing developments sites available in
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield, effectively, means that Policy SCH1 limits housing
development to windfalls within the housing areas and the majority of these
windfall sites are likely to be previously developed sites.
2.9
There are two aspects of PPG 4 that are relevant to policy SCH1, the first is
concerned with the locational factors of industrial and commercial development,
the second is concerned the efficient use of land for industrial development.
2.10
In terms of locational factors Paragraph 11 of PPG4 sets out the locational factors
affecting the location of industrial development. By locating new development at
Thorncliffe, Smithywood and Ecclesfield Common, policy SCH1 complies with the
advice of PPG4, paragraph 11. It does this by placing new industrial and
commercial development in recognised locations close to existing industry and
close to housing. The locations give local people the choice and opportunity to
obtain work locally, thereby reducing the need to travel. In Ecclesfield Commons
case, the location is served by a high frequency bus route and in all three cases,
particularly Thorncliffe and Smithywood, the site is very close to the M1, thereby
reducing the need to travel through the urban area to link into the national road
network. In terms of the efficient use of land, PPG4 puts significant importance
on the reuse of the large amounts of land and buildings present within many of
the urban areas that were once used for industrial purposes. In relation to these
resources, paragraph 21 of PPG4 states;
“21. … Optimum use should be made of potential sites and existing premises
in the inner cities and other urban areas, taking into account such factors
as accessibility by public transport, particularly in the cases of labour
intensive uses. Local planning authorities should identify such areas in
their development plans, kept up to date details on available sites, and
provide information about them to potential developers.”
2.11
By specifying that industrial development will be promoted at Thorncliffe
Smithywood and Ecclesfield Common, policy SCH1 is complying with the advice
contained in paragraph 21. These sites are brownfield sites and are relatively
well located in terms of public transport and the concentration of new
development is likely to lead to improvements to bus services in the future.
26
Site 116 Regency Hotel, High Street, Ecclesfield (page 10), Site 122 Site of Former Grenoside Council
Offices, Salt Box Lane (Page 11), Site 121 Former Stanley Tools Site, The Common, Ecclesfield (page
11).
-21-
2.12
The Government’s key objective for town centres as set out in PPG6 is to
promote the vitality and viability of Town Centres by planning for the growth and
development of existing centres and by promoting and enhancing existing
centres, focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of
services in a good environment, accessible to all.
2.13
In terms of planning for growth and development of Chapeltown District Centre,
two elements were considered, first, the centre’s physical capability for growth
and second, the need for growth.
2.14
With relation to the Centre’s physical capability for growth, there is no land
available on the edge of Chapeltown Centre that is brownfield and available for
the development of town centre uses. Currently the only site that would be
suitable is unavailable as it has permission for residential development27, it is
used for the storage of fairground machinery and it is constrained, as it is within a
high risk flood zone. Therefore, any growth would have to come from higher
density development within the existing extent of the District Centre. This may
exacerbate existing congestion problems and might lead to loss of off street car
parking for the centre. At the moment, off street car parking for the Centre is
provided by Asda’s Car Park and the car park between Burncross Road and
Loundside. These car parks are vital to the successful operation of the centre
and it is intended that these will be protected by a City Policy28.
2.15
With regard to the need for Chapeltown District Centre to grow, the Sheffield
Retail Study29 used PPS6 defined indicators to assess the vitality and viability of
Sheffield’s District Centres.
“ District Centres and Non-Food Retail Provision outside the City Centre
7.02 A ‘health check’ assessment of the seventeen district centres in
Sheffield was undertaken. Overall, Crystal Peaks, Hillsborough,
Ecclesall Road, Broomhill and Chapeltown perform well in respect of the
main indicators of vitality and viability.”
2.16
The study also looked at shopping patterns for Chapeltown District Centre’s
catchment area.
“3.22 Within Zone 2 (Chapeltown/Grenoside/Ecclesfield) the vast majority of
main food shopping is carried out at the Asda in Chapeltown (50%) and
the Morrisons in Ecclesfield (35%). In terms of top-up shopping, stores
in Chapeltown District Centre account for 50% of trips (30% of which are
27
Planning Application Ref. No.: 03/02207/FUL, for Erection of a dwellinghouse (as amended by plan
received 07/08/03), at Land to the Rear of 3 Station Road, Chapeltown, Sheffield, Granted Conditionally
23.09.2003.
28 Preferred Option PS7 Car Parking in District and Neighbourhood Centres, Page 39, Sheffield
Development Framework Preferred Options For City Policies, Approved by Cabinet (11 April 2007) for
Public Consultation.
29 Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Retail Study, October 2003, by White Young Green Planning.
-22-
to Asda). The only other store attracting a significant proportion of topup shopping trips is the Morrisons at Ecclesfield (11%), with 31% of all
such trips being made to smaller local stores within the Sheffield
boundary. Overall, the survey results show that both 50% of main food
trips and 50% of top-up trips made by residents of Zone 2 are retained
within the zone’s district centres and foodstores, which is relatively high
in comparison to other Zones. As a whole, all outlets within Sheffield
account for 99% of main food shopping trips and 100% of top up
shopping trips made by residents within Zone 230.”
2.17
The two main food stores and the other stores within the area are the destination
for half of the main food shopping trips made by residents in the area and are
also the main destinations for half of the top up shopping trips made by residents.
The shopping patterns are a good indication that the stores in the area are
sufficient for the areas requirements. Quantitatively, the study found:
“5.08 On the basis of our quantitative analysis it appears that there is little or
no overall capacity within the City for additional convenience
floorspace:
 There are not significant quantities of convenience expenditure
leaking from the City;
 The level of convenience expenditure available is assessed to be
falling; and
 There is an overall pattern of undertrading amongst food retailers.
2.18
The Study summarised by the quality of foodstore in Sheffield was acceptable
apart from in North Sheffield.
“ The Need for Further Convenience Goods Retail Floorspace in
Sheffield City, 2003-2016
7.09 The study finds that overall; the quality of foodstore provision in
Sheffield is acceptable, aside from the areas north and south-east of
the City Centre. In North Sheffield in particular, there is a strong
qualitative need, backed up by the findings of the quantitative
assessment, to justify the provision of further convenience retail
provision in the North Sheffield area. Elsewhere, it is considered that
there is no current requirement for the provision of further convenience
floorspace.
30
Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Retail Study, October 2003, by White Young Green Planning, Page 18,
Paragraph 3.22.
-23-
2.19
Therefore, in drafting policy SCH1, consideration has been given to the need and
the physical capacity of the District Centre to grow. The evidence indicates that
there is no need for the Centre to grow, because the foodstores in the area are
undertrading and have capacity to accommodate growth in spending. It can be
reasonably assumed that if there is no physical capacity for growth then any
increase in retail floorspace could be accommodated within the District Centre’s
boundaries by increasing the density of retail floorspace. The approach to
drafting the policy has therefore been consistent with the key objectives and the
advice given in PPS6. As there is no need to physically expand the centre by
designation, effort has been concentrated on maintaining the centre’s vitality and
viability by ensuring that it remains as attractive and easy to use for shoppers as
possible.
Regional Policy
2.20
The Draft RSS is an important factor to be included because it places strong
emphasis on Local Development Frameworks in the Region supporting towns
and service centres as hubs for the rural economy, see policy YH3, it defines
Chapeltown as a ‘Principal Service Centre’, and it places emphasis on the
enhancement of the role of principal service centres. Policy YH3 also puts
emphasise on supporting towns as hubs for the rural economy and as service
centres.
2.21
The Draft RSS defines Principal Service Centres across the Region as varying in
size and function but fulfilling a regionally significant role as service, employment
and transport hubs for their surrounding areas. In overall terms, Policy YH6
requires a local development focus on 32 such service centres in the Region.
These settlements will provide an important focal point for services, facilities and
employment, thereby complementing and supporting the roles of the regional and
sub-regional centres.
2.22
Chapeltown is identified as one of the 10 main towns in South Yorkshire 31 and is
therefore treated as a Principal Service Centre for the purposes of the policy.
Policy YH6 Better Towns, states:
“ Away from the Region’s Regional and Sub Regional Centres and across the
Region’s rural areas Principal Service Centres will be the main local focus
for housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural
activities and facilities.
The enhancement of the roles of Principal Service Centres as accessible
and vibrant places to live, work and invest in will be achieved through spatial
planning and investment measures to:
See Figure 4.1 the Region’s Settlement Network, Page 52, The Yorkshire And Humber Plan - Draft For
Public Consultation December 2005.
31
-24-
i) Improve accessibility from surrounding areas and improve the function of
towns as hubs for transport services and interchange
ii) Improve public transport links between Principal Service Centres and with
Regional and Sub Regional Centres
iii) Ensure that towns provide the main focus for employment development in
rural areas
iv) Enhance the vitality and viability of town centres
v) Achieve a high standard of design that protects and enhances local
settings, character, distinctiveness and heritage.”
2.23
The Draft Revised RSS Panel Report did not the evidence or the opportunity to
investigate all these different proposals for Principal Service Centres (PSCs).
However it is apparent that there are considerable misgivings about the choice of
PSCs and there may be very good evidence to back the claims of different towns.
The Panel Report considered that this can only be properly assessed at the LDF
level where the choice of settlement hierarchy below Regional and Sub Regional
Centre can be determined to meet local circumstances. In the Panel’s opinion
the RSS should set down the functions of PSCs and Local Service Centres and
leave the choice of such centres to Local Planning Authorities in their LDFs /
LDDs. The Panel recommended that the revised RSS set out the functions of,
and the criteria for, identifying Principal and Local Service Centres in Local
Development Frameworks/Documents. The Government’s proposed
modifications to the RSS have yet to be published.
2.24
Policy SCH1 does focus on making Chapeltown and it’s surrounding settlements
the focal points for development with its existing industrial areas remaining the
focal points for industrial development, its housing areas being a focal point for
housing development and its District Centre being maintained as a focal point for
retail services and development. Policy SCH1 therefore has had regard to the
key objectives of the Draft RSS and is consistent with the new revised RSS for
Yorkshire and the Humber.
Relationship to City Strategy
2.25
The City Strategy sets out our vision for the City. Our vision is that:
“ Sheffield will be a successful, distinctive city of European significance at the
heart of a strong city region, with opportunities for all.”32
32
Sheffield City Strategy 2005/2010, Page 4, Sheffield First Partnership, published July 2007.
-25-
2.26
Policy SCH1 pays regard to the Strategies vision, which is built on three key
principles of Prosperity, Inclusion and Sustainability. By designating land for
business development, the policy promotes prosperity by ensuring that there is
maximum opportunity for businesses to start and grow in the city, attracting
investment and providing an environment that enables wealth to be created.
Policy SCH1 promotes inclusion by locating land for industrial development close
to new and existing homes close to the residents of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
allowing them the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of living in the
Sheffield area. The policy does these things in a sustainable way, allowing
development of the Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area in such a way that gives the
ability of future generations to improvement, inclusion and renewal in a way that
does not compromise.
2.27
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield is important to achieving that vision as many of its
residents are separated from the urban area of Sheffield and so by developing
new homes and businesses in the area through policy SCH1, the city can enjoy
increased prosperity through provision of additional choice of locations for
business / job opportunities and homes. Relatively easy access for local people
gives that increased sense of inclusion, and by providing job and business
opportunities close to homes, the need to travel is reduced thereby reducing the
City’s carbon foot print and providing a more sustainable place to live work and
play. This policy therefore contributes toward creating a more sustainable City.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents
Core Strategy Objectives
2.28
The Core Strategy has a vision of achieving sustainable transformation of the
city33, which it aims to develop by achieving a range of objectives. In order to
help to meet some of the various challenges involved in achieving this vision,
Policy SCH1 aims to contribute toward achieving the following specific objectives:

To help achieve the economic transformation of the City the policy makes
provision for new modern and high-technology manufacturing and knowledgebased services in Chapeltown Ecclesfield ( Core Strategy objective S1.2)

To better serve the City Region the policy aims to regenerate
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield as a complementary place for the major expansion of
new business (Core Strategy objective S2.1)

To create successful neighbourhoods policy SCH1 sustains and restores
existing neighbourhoods by containing new development within the areas
urban envelope thereby allowing the neighbourhood to renew itself where
33
Paragraph 3.4, page 13, Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy for Submission to the
Secretary of State, September 2007.
-26-
needed and to growth without physical expansion (Core Strategy Objective
S4.1)
2.29

To create opportunities policy SCH1 creates workplaces where they are
accessible by a range of means of transport (Core Strategy Objective S5.4)

To promote health and wellbeing by restricting development to the urban
areas of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield thereby protecting and safeguarding the
peaceful enjoyment of the areas countryside (Core Strategy Objective S6.3)

To promote the efficient use of the transport network, the policy has located
business development where it can be easily reached by bus, train and on
foot thereby promoting the efficient use of the existing transport network (Core
Strategy Objective S8.2)

To reduce the need to travel development is located close to where people
live and close to services and by locating services close together,
encouraging joint trips (objective S9.1)

To support Sustainable Transport new development that generates significant
trips is located close to public transport hubs as possible and where the trips
are intercity the uses are located close to the motorway network (Core
Strategy Objective S10.3)

To promote the sustainable use of Natural Resources the policy encourages
the use of previously developed land for new development in
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield (Objective S12.1) and significant proportions of the
land being redeveloped is contaminated industrial land which will be restored
as a result of their redevelopment (Core Strategy Objective S12.2)

To cherish and protect the City’s green environment, policy SCH1 encourages
the use of previously developed land and by doing so helps to safeguard the
green environment, the majority of which has not been previously developed
(Core Strategy Objective 13.1)

To create a city with character the policy aims to develop on previously
developed land safeguarding the character of the semi rural settlement’s
landscapes within Chapeltown/Ecclesfield (Core Strategy Objective S14.3)
Policy SCH1 is also consistent with other policies within the Draft Core Strategy,
namely policies;
 SB2
Business and Industrial Development on Brownfield and Greenfield
Land – sets priority for the development of brownfield industrial sites
before greenfield sites and sets a maximum of 5 hectares or 2.5% of all
land developed over any five-year period. Policy SCH1 locates
industrial development on brownfield industrial land which is consistent
with this policy.
-27-
 SB4
 SH2
 SH3
 SS2
Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/ Warehousing and other
Non-office Businesses – Locates Manufacturing, distribution/
warehousing and non-office businesses at Thorncliffe and Smithywood.
Policy SCH1 is consistent with this policy in that it too locates industrial
development at these two locations.
Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land –
concentrates large and medium scale housing development in existing
urban areas in the period to 2020/21 and stipulates that around 500
houses will be built in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield in that period. Policy
SCH1 is consistent with this policy in that it restricts housing
development to the housing area, which is part of the existing
settlements within Chapeltown/Ecclesfield.
Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New
Housing – prioritises housing development on previously developed
land with no more than 10% of dwellings on greenfield sites up to
2021/26. Policy SCH1 is consistent with this policy because it restricts
housing development to the housing area where the majority of the land
is previously developed.
District Centres – District Centres are encouraged to fulfil their role of
providing for the everyday needs with a range of district centre uses at
an appropriate scale and function for the Centre. Policy SCH1 is
consistent with this policy because it promotes the maintenance of the
centre’s continued vitality and viability by improving its environment and
its user friendliness.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
2.30
Rotherham shares a boundary with Chapeltown / Ecclesfield’s eastern boundary
that runs south from Thorpe Hesley. The rest of the city boundary with the area
North from Thorpe Hesley is shared with Barnsley. Both of these City’s
Development Frameworks are consistent with Sheffield’s Core Strategy and
policy SCH1 as it maintains the existing Green Belt Boundary.
Options Considered
2.31
In developing policy SCH1, a range of issues were considered at the Emerging
Options stage; for each issue several options were considered. The issues
affecting Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield that were considered are:
-
CH1
CH2
CH3
CH4
CH5
The role of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
The future use of employment land in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
The future level of housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
Chapeltown District Centre
Transport links to Chapeltown
-28-
-
CH6
Hesley Wood Tip
Issue CH1 - The Role of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
2.32
Two options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option CH1a (Accepted)
Maximise self-containment by retaining employment land to allow residents
to work locally.
2.33
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Reduces the distances local people need to travel to work.
(b) Creates opportunities for business to develop or diversify and offers a
better range of job opportunities for local people.
(c) Provides local job opportunities for the disadvantaged who can’t afford to
commute long distances.
(d) Retains land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and jobs.
(e) Offers alternative locations for business and industry to the City Centre
and Don Valley especially to those businesses that are looking for good
road links to the M1
(f) Offers jobs and services within easy travelling distance of
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield residents.
(g) Provides land use options for sites, some of which have poor living
conditions and/or are in relatively unsustainable locations for new housing.
2.34
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Chapeltown/Ecclesfield residents already take advantage of increased
mobility to choose their employment across a wider area.
(b) Requiring employment uses could leave some brownfield land on the
market at Ecclesfield Common long term.
(c) Limits the opportunities to secure regeneration of vacant or underused
land.
(d) Reduces the possibility of high quality development and environmental
improvements (e.g. on the Common, Ecclesfield).
Option CH1b (Rejected)
Accept the tendency to greater mobility and commuting from
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield, providing more housing served by high frequency
rail and bus routes.
2.35
The strengths of this option are:
-29-
(a) Creates a significant level of choice in the local housing market aimed at
attracting commuters.
(b) Takes some pressure off high demand areas within the main built-up area
of Sheffield.
(c) Places emphasis can be placed on improving the green environment in
order to maintain / improve the areas visual attractiveness.
(d) A higher population would attract investment in infrastructure, a better
range of local services and provide more support for high-frequency public
transport. (See also under the strengths identified under Option 3a).
2.36
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Greater commuter role would increase distances people need to travel to
work.
(b) Significant employment losses without replacement would make the area
unsustainable for those residents on low incomes who can’t afford to
commute.
(c) Significant peak time congestion on routes into the City Centre via the
A6135 through Firth Park/Burngreave and the A61 through Hillsborough
could make the location unattractive for commuters. Significant investment
in public transport and the road network are required to make this option
sustainable.
(d) The scope for increasing population would probably not be enough to
achieve a step change in the attractiveness of Chapeltown District Centre
and its environmental quality, which has been assessed as average.
Issue CH2 - The future use of employment land in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
2.37
Two options were considered for this Issue these were
Option CH2a (Accepted)
Continue to use the current employment areas in the Thorncliffe and
Ecclesfield areas mainly for business and industry rather than redeveloping
with housing.
2.38
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Retains land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and jobs.
(b) Offers alternative locations for business and industry to the City Centre
and Don Valley especially to those businesses that are looking for good
road links to the M1.
(c) Offers jobs and services within easy travelling distance of
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield residents (see Option CH1a).
(d) Provides land use options for sites, some of which have poor living
conditions and/or are in relatively unsustainable locations for new housing.
-30-
2.39
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Limits the opportunities to secure regeneration of vacant or underused
land.
(b) Reduces the possibility of high quality development and environmental
improvements (e.g. on the Common, Ecclesfield).
(c) Attracting more business and industrial investment to Ecclesfield than the
market demands may lead to employment land remaining on the market
long term.
Option CH2b (Rejected)
Allow significant housing in existing employment areas in Ecclesfield whilst
meeting market demand for business development where compatible with
housing.
2.40
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Reflects the current housing market and the need for housing development
to support job-creating development.
(b) Could help to make new small to medium scale business development
more viable.
(c) Could help existing businesses to rationalise and become more viable.
(d) Enables a mix of uses, helping to create more vibrant neighbourhoods.
(e) Mixing of homes and jobs gives opportunities for people to live near their
workplace.
(f) New housing could help to make the settlements more sustainable by
increasing the viability of support services and shopping centres (see
Option CH1b).
2.41
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry) that are incompatible
with housing.
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses.
(c) Discourages the expansion of existing businesses and could lead to them
closing or moving out.
Issue CH3 - The future level of housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
2.42
Three options were considered for this Issue these were
Option CH3a (Rejected)
Extend the urban area by building new housing on brownfield land, in
particular at Hesley Wood.
-31-
2.43
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Would maximise population growth that could attract investment into the
District Centre and lead to its possible expansion.
(b) Provides maximum choice for those attracted to the area as commuters.
(c) Enables provision of affordable housing of a suitable type to meet local
need.
(d) Extra patronage provided by new homes could enable public transport
service providers to viably improve public transport services.
(e) May allow the funding of a bypass for Chapeltown (see Transport options).
2.44
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) There are insufficient brownfield sites to enable major expansion.
(b) A sufficient increase in housing development to attract investors into
Chapeltown District Centre might require incursion into the Green Belt.
(c) Expansion without improvements to the transport network may not attract
commuters to the area.
(d) Expansion without improvements to the transport network would increase
traffic congestion in the District Centre.
Option CH3b (Accepted in part)
Consolidate existing settlements by concentrating housing development on
existing brownfield sites and allowing significant new house building on
land currently allocated for employment uses, e.g.:
•
•
•
2.45
At the former Stanley Tools site at The Common, Ecclesfield.
Off Green Lane and Station Road, Ecclesfield.
South of Butterthwaite Lane, Ecclesfield.
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Allows employment base to change, funded by housing development on
redundant industry and business sites (see Option 2b).
2.46
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry) that are incompatible
with housing.
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses.
(c) Not likely to provide sites suitable for family housing. More likely to provide
accommodation for single persons or young people.
(d) Where sites are within or adjacent to employment areas this may mean a
less attractive local environment.
-32-
Option CH3c (Option Rejected)
No significant new house building within or adjoining the urban area.
2.47
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Leaves brownfield sites available for employment and service generating
land use.
(b) Transport problems not increased by significant population increase.
2.48
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Sites could remain undeveloped.
(b) Population decline would deter investment into improvements to
infrastructure and services and the District Centre.
Issue CH4 – The Future of Chapeltown District Centre
2.49
Three options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option CH4a (Option Rejected)
Expand the Centre with high density housing within 200 metres of the
centre.
2.50
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Allows redundant brownfield land near the centre to be used for
compatible high-value use close to high-density housing.
(b) Major retail developers could be asked to contribute towards measures to
reduce congestion.
2.51
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Not likely to be sufficient population increase to interest the larger
supermarket chains to invest.
(b) Insufficient land available that is suitable for expansion of the shopping
facilities.
Option CH4b (Option Accepted)
Improve the areas used or seen by the public, the physical condition of the
small shops and shopping choice. Improve accessibility via public
transport; manage through traffic and car-borne visitors.
2.52
The strengths of this option are:
-33-
(a) Provision of a more vibrant, pleasant shopping experience for local
residents and visitors with improved shopping choice.
(b) Opportunities created for service and disabled/short-term visitor parking
whilst being fully accessible by high frequency public transport.
2.53
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Will not happen without intervention and major investment in the centres
infrastructure and the road network.
Option CH4c (Option Rejected)
Accept reduced role for the centre if there is little developer interest.
2.54
The strengths of this option are:
(a) The District Centre remains vibrant and viable as it is currently.
2.55
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Without improvements, people living here are more likely to travel greater
distances for shopping and other services.
Issue CH5 – Transport links to Chapeltown
2.56
Three options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option CH5a (Option Rejected as it’s covered by policy ST2)
Introduction of a Quality Bus Corridor between Chapeltown and Sheffield.
2.57
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Frequent high quality links between Chapeltown and the City Centre.
(b) Potential for flexibility in response to new development.
(c) Improve attractiveness of Chapeltown/Ecclesfield as a location for homes
and businesses.
(d) Could possibly be linked to a strategic park and ride site.
2.58
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Insufficient current demand to justify additional service. Could be offset by
building more housing.
(b) Unlikely to be commercially viable due to low levels of patronage.
(c) Could require considerable capital investment and may require on-going
subsidy (further work needed to check out implications of alternative levels
of new housing)
-34-
Option CH5b (Option Rejected as it’s covered by policy ST10)
Build a bypass to take through-traffic away from the District Centre.
2.59
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Relieves traffic into the District Centre.
(b) Improved shopping experience for local people.
(c) Additional value from the extension of the urban area to provide new
housing and a bypass could help to facilitate the viable development of a
high value outdoor leisure use of city wide significance for the Tip (e.g. a
velodrome).
(d) The Bypass could become an integral part of a new link road connection
with junction 34 and 35, as proposed in the Blackburn Valley Masterplan if
the Masterplan proposals are desirable and acceptable.
(e) More efficient link for business at Thorncliffe and Ecclesfield to Junctions
34 and 35.
2.60
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Means incursion into the Green Belt and possible housing development to
fund it.
(b) Road could naturally extend the urban area into the Green Belt forming a
clearly defined Green belt boundary.
(c) There could be negative impacts from the building of a Chapeltown
Bypass/M1 Junction 34 to Junction 35 and Junction 36 link road in
neighbouring areas as traffic re-routes to use the new road. These
impacts would also need to be addressed.
Option CH5c (Option Rejected)
Local demand-responsive transport service to provide linkages to main
stream public transport, e.g. taxi-bus.
2.61
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Provides service that meets local needs and improves access for all.
(b) Highly flexible and adaptable to peoples individual needs which are not
met by commercial operators.
(c) Demand responsive services minimise wasted expenditure on under
utilised empty trips.
2.62
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Usually requires subsidy funding, often reliant on grants to enable services
to be set up.
-35-
(b) Not a spontaneous form of transport requires preparation and advanced
notice of Journey requirements in order to be able to plan the trip.
(c) Does not address the strategic needs of the area in relation to access to
Sheffield.
Issue CH6 – The Future Use of Hesley Wood Tip
2.63
Three options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option CH6a (Option Rejected)
Continue the area’s current use.
2.64
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Landform provides screening for residents from motorway noise.
(b) Continuing the existing use of the land presents no traffic generation or
planning related issues for the local area.
(c) The site’s visual attractiveness, recreational usage and ecological value
functions are improved.
2.65
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Motorcycle nuisance would need to be addressed or land would need to
be policed to prevent injury to the amenity of neighbouring residents
(b) Land stability issues need to be addressed in the near future in order to
prevent land slippage.
(c) Opportunity lost to create added benefits for Chapeltown and the city.
Option CH6b (Option maintains Status Quo)
Creation of an informal outdoor recreational end-use on the Hesley Wood
Tip within the Green Belt.
2.66
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Landform continues to provide screening for residents from motorway
noise.
(b) Provision of links between the new land use and the District
Centre/adjacent residential areas would have benefits for the local area.
(c) The site’s visual attractiveness, recreational usage and ecological value
functions are improved.
2.67
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Limited ancillary building would be required to serve the land use.
-36-
(b) Ponds that have formed because of inadequate drainage have now formed
valuable habitats and could be lost when the land is re-graded. This could
be remedied by forming new ponds.
(c) Nuisance from motorcyclists, which is incompatible with informal and many
formal recreation uses has to be designed out of the final design scheme.
(d) Over-supply of this type of leisure use in the area could lead to lack of
resources for the efficient management of the land. Eventually could lead
to possible misuse of the area by motorbike scramblers and off-road
vehicles.
Option CH6c (Option Rejected)
Provision of a high-value outdoors formal recreational end-use for the tip
facilitated by housing development.
2.68
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Landform remodelled to create a high value, highly accessible Green Belt
compatible use of benefit to Chapeltown and the city.
(b) Remodelling of landform and development of housing would facilitate
cheaper building of a viable bypass to relieve traffic into the District Centre
(see Option CG5b).
(c) Additional housing created to provide more choice for commuters adjacent
to the M1 and Chapeltown railway centre, whilst providing the additional
benefits.
(d) Additional housing development could provide extra value to make a high
value outdoor leisure use development viable.
2.69
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Means incursion into the Green Belt.
(b) Road could lead to an extension of the urban area into the Green Belt and
pressure to build more homes.
Preferred Options merged to form policy SCH1
PCH1 - Housing and jobs in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
Land will be reserved in Chapeltown / Ecclesfield for people to find work
locally and new housing will be limited to the existing residential areas
2.70
The issues CH1, CH2 and CH3 were so interconnected and interdependent that
they were merged at the preferred options stage to form Preferred Option PCH1
Housing and jobs in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield. The emerging options driving the
preferred option PCH1 were options:
-37-
- CH1a -
Maximise self-containment by retaining employment land to
allow residents to work locally,
- CH2a -
Continue to use the current employment areas in the
Thorncliffe and Ecclesfield areas mainly for business and
industry rather than redeveloping with housing, and
- CH3b (part) - Consolidate existing settlements by concentrating housing
development on existing brownfield sites and allowing
significant new house building on land currently allocated for
employment uses, e.g.:
- At the former Stanley Tools site at The Common, Ecclesfield.
- Off Green Lane and Station Road, Ecclesfield.
- South of Butterthwaite Lane, Ecclesfield.
2.71
The following Options were rejected:
- CH1b -
Accept the tendency to greater mobility and commuting from
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield, providing more housing served by
high frequency rail and bus routes.
- CH2b -
Allow significant housing in existing employment areas in
Ecclesfield whilst meeting market demand for business
development where compatible with housing.
- CH3a -
Extend the urban area by building new housing on brownfield
land, in particular at Hesley Wood.
- CH3c -
No significant new house building within or adjoining the urban
area.
PCH2 – Chapeltown District Centre
Chapeltown District Centre will be maintained and supported mainly by
improvements to its environment and accessibility and the management of
traffic passing through it.
2.72
When considering the Issue CH4, the future of Chapeltown District Centre,
Emerging option CH4b was the emerging option carried forward to the preferred
options stage of consultation, which became Preferred Option PCH2 Chapeltown
District Centre. The following options were rejected:
- CH4a -
Expand the Centre with high density housing within 200 metres
of the centre.
-38-
- CH4c -
Allow significant housing in existing employment areas in
Ecclesfield whilst meeting market demand for business
development where compatible with housing.
2.73
Issue CH5 Transport links to Chapeltown was duplicating City wide issues dealt
with by policies in the Transport Chapter of the Core Strategy and, therefore,
cross references to the relevant policies are made in the reasons section of policy
SCH1 relating to the relevant transport issues. Options CH6a, CH6b and CH6c
were, therefore, rejected on the basis that the solutions to the issue could by
found in the Core Strategy Transport Policies. Further consideration of these
options as part of SCH1 would have resulted in the unnecessary duplication of
policy.
2.74
Issue CH6 Hesley Wood was felt to repeat in a more detailed way, the options
raised and rejected under Issue CH3, namely options CH3a and CH3b, all about
whether the City should grow by expansion into the countryside or by the efficient
use of previously developed land. The preferred option for the Core Strategy in
terms of altering the Green Belt to allow growth was to add to the Green Belt at
strategic sites and to perform an exchange of Green Belt land34. To adopt an
option of taking land out of the Green Belt at Hesley Wood without an exceptional
reason for doing so would have compromised the Preferred Options and to not
allow any development would compromise national, regional and local planning
policies. Emerging options CH6a, CH6b and CH6c were rejected. In addition the
Preferred option was also rejected for the additional option AST1 which looked to
maintain the existing Green Belt boundary and only correcting errors where
justifiable. This change in direction has made Policy SCH1 a stronger policy
because as well as maintaining the Green Belt, areas of countryside that are not
in the Green Belt are also protected.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy SCH1
Policy SCH1 Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
2.75
Business and industrial development will be located at Thorncliffe,
Ecclesfield Common and Smithywood on brownfield land. New housing
development will be limited to infilling within the existing residential areas
and the surrounding countryside will be protected.
The District Centre will be promoted as opportunities arise, through
redevelopment, environmental improvement and measures to remove traffic
that does not need to be in the Centre.
34
Preferred Options PE1 Additions to the Green Belt and PE2 Exchange of Green Belt Land, Page 46,
Sheffield Development Framework, Core Strategy: Preferred Options, approved by Cabinet on 8 February
2006 for pre-submission public consultation.
-39-
Summary of Planning Reasons
2.76
The main reasons for the policy are:











35
The Employment Land Demand Assessment35 points to a long term shortage
of industrial land. This suggests that existing employment sites should be
retained where possible.
The Thorncliffe, Smithywood and Ecclesfield Common industrial estates are
established as either existing locations for manufacturing and distribution uses
or are well located giving business locational advantages as well as being
sustainable locations for business needs the locations are close to the
neighbouring population improving on existing employment opportunities
within the local area.
There is sufficient land to meet Sheffield’s development needs for housing
without having to expand into the area’s countryside.
The lack of large sites available for Housing development within the urban
area means that future development needs for housing will be met by the
efficient use of land within the urban areas and the majority of these will be
windfalls.
The regional policy direction is to allow change without destroying the
character of the area as a collection of semi rural settlements
The Regional Spatial Strategy promotes Chapeltown which is at the heart of
the area as a Principal Service Centre providing jobs homes and service for its
semi rural catchment and acting as the focal point for development.
Chapeltown District Centre performs well against most of the PPS6 criteria
used for assessing vitality and viability.
The area has a good mix of convenience and comparison goods floorspace
and there is no shortage of either.
The main stores in the area are undertrading suggesting that they have the
capacity to accommodate growth in expenditure.
The main stores are high quality stores allowing the area to retain a high
proportion of the area’s spending.
Prosperity of the District Centre is threatened by the amount of traffic travelling
through the area that has no reason to be there, constraining pedestrian
movement and adversely affecting the attractiveness of the centre and its
operation.
Employment Land Demand Assessment for the City of Sheffield. Arup (July 2006)
-40-
Future Development of employment land
2.77
In deciding what is the best option to follow is for the future use of surplus land at
Ecclesfield Common, the evidence to support the continued use of this land for
industry is explored by first examining the demand for industrial land and asking
the question, does the land need to be retained to meet the City’s need for
employment land during the plan period? This is examined in paragraphs 2.78 to
2.88 below. The question of whether the sites are in the right place for industrial
uses is examined in paragraphs 2.89 to 2.97 below, and the question of whether
the industrial sites in the area are suitable for industrial development is examined
in paragraphs 2.98 to 2.100 below.
Future Demand for Employment Land
2.78
There is a significant issue around the potential loss of industrial land at
Ecclesfield Common. The reason there is pressure for development mainly for
housing stems from a need from occupiers to rationalise, either because of
economic forces or because premises have reached the end of their usefulness.
In both cases, higher land values can be realised by selling the land for housing
or retail land values than for existing industrial land values. In most cases, the
higher land values are required to fund rationalisation.
2.79
On the question of which is the best use for industrial land surplus to operational
requirements, there are two sides to the debate. On the one hand, the sites
represent a supply of brownfield development land that is in a potentially
sustainable location for housing development and could contribute significantly to
the City’s long-term supply of housing land. On the other hand, the Ecclesfield
Common is located in the catchment area of Chapeltown, a town that is separate
from the main urban area of Sheffield and which needs to continue to act as a
focal point for provision of services (see paragraphs 2.22 to 2.24 above),
providing employment opportunities to support their surrounding rural
catchments.
2.80
However, there is an inherent danger that by saying no to change, rationalisation
of the companies occupying the land is stopped and the companies close or
move. Leaving the area with less in the way of employment opportunities,
thereby increasing the need to travel long distances to work and leaving large
areas of derelict land, which detracts form the environmental quality of the area.
When the land becomes surplus to operational requirements at Ecclesfield
Common in particular, the surplus land is in a secondary location for the industrial
land market. In many instances, it is contaminated and needs reclaiming before it
can be redeveloped for industry or the development constraints of access, utility
supply, nature conservation, high flood risk, etc are so onerous that the sites can
become economically unviable to be developed for industry. Sites in these areas
are competing with sites in the Dearne Valley, Upper Don Valley, Lower Don
Valley, etc, that have better links, fewer constraints and possible availability of
grant funding.
-41-
2.81
In our view industrial land is required in these secondary locations because it
gives an element of choice to Sheffield’s industrial land market. However, it
leaves a dilemma that is difficult to answer, which is, ‘How much industrial land
can this area afford to be re-designated or redeveloped for housing and other
uses before they become less sustainable or unsustainable?
2.82
Policies for business and industry are one of the major contributions of the
Sheffield Development Framework to achieving regeneration and the economic
aims of the City Strategy. But land for employment uses is under pressure from a
strong housing market and there is Government guidance to release surplus
employment land for new housing. Policy SCH1 attempts to ensure that a variety
of sites in the Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area that are capable of development for
industry are reserved for industrial development and that are well served by
infrastructure as advised in PPG436.
2.83
A major study was carried out for the Regional Spatial Strategy to assess
employment land requirements and a follow-up more detailed study was
undertaken by Arup in conjunction with Donaldsons37 for Sheffield, to translate
their analysis to the City and provide specific recommendations as to the level of
demand for employment land in Sheffield. This study is the Employment Land
Demand Assessment. The consultants concluded the following: “ As a result of the analysis undertaken for this study it is recommended that
the following figures are included in policy as general targets for employment
land required from 2006 to 2016:
B1 – 187 hectares
B2 – 443 hectares
B8 – 22 hectares
It will be important to monitor closely employment land take-up and wider
trends, and review the above targets at suitable intervals.”
2.84
This gives a total figure for B1/B2/B8 development of 652 hectares, which would
represent 65.2 hectares per year for the City. This recommendation is shown in
yellow in Table 2: Comparison of Various Employment Land Requirement Figures
below.
36
Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms. DoE. (November
1992), Paragraph 6.
37 Employment Land Demand Assessment for the City of Sheffield. Arup (July 2006)
-42-
Table 2: Comparison of Various Employment Land Requirement Figures
ARUP Research on Employment Land Demand Assessment (Requirement) in Sheffield
- Projected Employment land in Hectares (2006-2016)
B1
Including
Margin of
Choice
Scenario A
3.74
Scenario B
Scenario C
Methodology
Employment Projection
method, based on REM:
Scenario D
Regional REM-based
figures (range of figures)
– as presented in draft
RSS
Based on ODPM
Commercial & Industrial
Floorspace Statistics
Based on Historic Land
Take Up Rates
Consultants'
Recommendation
SDF Core Strategy
Recommendation
B2
Including
Margin of
Choice
B8
Including
Margin of
Choice
5.61
-49.32
-32.88
-14.47
10.12
15.18
19.48
29.22
-54.81
-36.54
-39.67
-26.45
27.46
41.18
-24
-16
-73 to
-21
9 to 26
Per year
TOTAL
Including
Margin of
Choice
TOTAL
Including
Margin of
Choice
-9.65
-60.05
-36.92
-6.0
-3.7
-9.03
-6.02
-53.72
-27.38
-5.4
-2.7
2.04
3.06
-18.15
5.83
-1.8
0.6
12.37
18.56
15.83
43.74
1.6
4.4
Combined with B2
-64 to 5
-6.4 to 0.5
125
187
295
443
15
22
435
652
43.5
65.2
33
49.5
81.4
122.1
20.5
30.75
134.9
202.35
13.5
20.2
2.85
In conclusion, the evidence points to 65.2 hectares per year that needs to be
supplied between 2006 and 2016 if the City is to meet its aspirations for
economic regeneration and the Core strategy is recommending a supply of 43.5
hectares per year is attainable. The figure includes a margin for choice of 21.7
hectares per year over and above the Core Strategy recommendation. This is
therefore, clear evidence to support the claim that there is a potential long-term
shortfall in the industrial land supply.
2.86
When this Citywide long-term shortfall in the industrial land supply is considered
alongside Chapeltown’s recognised role as a service centre for its catchment and
the case for maintaining or enhancing that role (see paragraphs 2.22 to 2.24
above), there is a logical case for retention of as much industrial land in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar and Chapeltown/Ecclesfield as can be justified when
considered alongside local circumstances. This is particularly important if the City
is to provide employment opportunities in sustainable locations that meet the
needs of industry and provide additional employment opportunities close to its
residents, especial on its outskirts and for its satellites. Even more important is
the fact that the sites have been examined for their suitability to accommodate
industrial development and although they are less suitable than sites in other
areas of the city, they are suitable for industrial development (see paragraphs
2.98 to 2.100 below) as confirmed by a recent employment sites survey38 and
38
Employment Sites Survey Final Report produced by Atkins 9/3/2007
-43-
they are in the right locations (see paragraphs 2.89 to 2.97 below) as advised in
PPG4.
2.87
The preferred approach in the past was to allow some land to be redeveloped for
housing to facilitate rationalisation whilst retaining as much employment land as
possible to facilitate economic regeneration allowing investment in the
replacement of the old stock of industrial premises. This has been successfully
achieved at Thorncliffe with part of the original estate now redeveloped for
housing and is currently being implemented at Stocksbridge Works, but the local
situations will play a big part in choosing the preferred options for designating
area options on the Proposals Map and allocating City Site options at Ecclesfield
and Stocksbridge.
2.88
The choice is based on making balanced judgements on competing needs for
surplus employment land (i.e. from housing, retail and other supporting uses) and
the need to maintain the towns’ service centre role by continuing to provide
employment opportunities. Where retaining land can no longer be justified, a
flexible approach can be taken to allow other uses to compete with housing in
these areas of opportunity. But where there is no evidence to justify
redevelopment for alternative uses, then the industrial land has been retained.
Locational Criteria for designation of Employment Land
2.89
The locational advantages of existing industrial estates cannot be ignored and
policy SCH1 has taken advantage of the existing locations for industrial
development in the area. Options were considered in drafting Policy SCH1 that
involved directing development to land outside the urban area or land within the
urban area close to housing, namely option CH1b and CH2b, but these were
rejected for the following reasons:

Designating land for industry outside the built up area of Chapeltown and
Ecclesfield would mean releasing land from the Green Belt and in so doing it
would compromise the permanence of the Green Belt, when it has been
determined that there is sufficient land available to meet the City’s needs
within the urban area.

Designating land in any location close to housing for industrial development
could potentially harm living conditions for neighbouring residents

Designating land in any location close to housing for industrial development
could significantly harm the semi rural/rural character of existing housing
areas within the Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Area.

Designating land in any location close to housing for industrial development
and allowing land surplus to operational needs to change use to housing or
other uses will lead to the loss of locational advantages sought by industrial
uses such as close proximity to the highway network, etc. and will reduce
-44-
choice in the industrial land market.

The sites in question were considered to be unsuitable for alternative uses
particularly housing use in principal, due to development constraints.
2.90
In addition, PPG4 sets out several factors that development plans can take the
opportunity to realise (See paragraph 2.9 above). Each of the three locations
have been looked at in formulating the policy in relation to these factors in
paragraphs 2.91 to 2.97 below.
2.91
Thorncliffe, an existing industrial estate, has seen the completion of several
developments over recent years. Sheffield’s Industrial Land Survey identifies
three sites39 in the area that were available for development, however, these sites
have now either started on site or been substantially developed. Industrial
development in this location would reduce the number of trips made by motor
vehicles because it is close to Chapeltown District Centre, which acts as a
transport hub for the area and it is also served by a local bus service. The close
proximity to the District Centre does have its draw backs as it does mean that
some staff travelling by car will have to travel through the District Centre, which is
congested at peak times. Manufacturing, warehousing and distribution uses are
located on the estate and capitalise on the excellent link to the M1 Junction 35A
to go south and the A616/M1 Junction 36 to go north on the M1, thereby avoiding
the use of local roads. Office uses are also located on the estate (call centres,
etc) that are only reliant on the road network for staff movement. The estate is in
an excellent location and the policy of making improvements to the district centre
can help alleviate any congestion cause d in the district centre by traffic
movements.
2.92
Smithywood, a large brownfield development site that got outline planning
permission in March 200140, after several other reserved matters applications has
started construction of its first phase of development to provide new general
industrial and warehousing units in a range of sizes to meet market demand. The
site has permission for B1, B2 and B8 development, the majority of this
development will be for B2, B8 development. The site is located adjacent to M1
Junction 35 and therefore has excellent connections to the national road network
and the B2, B8 uses are more likely to not use of local roads. Local traffic can
access the site from the A6135 Key Route via Nether lane, Ecclesfield/ Cowley
Hill or via Cowley Lane, Chapeltown/Cowley Hill. The link via Cowley Lane to the
district Centre is congested at busy times and the improvements to the district
Site 1/21 Sheffield 35A Business Park, Thorncliffe, owned by St Paul’s Developments Plc; Site 1/42
Thorncliffe Park, Thorncliffe Lane & Cart Road, Chapeltown, owned by Ronseal Ltd; and Site 1/45 Land at
Thorncliffe Park Estate, Chapeltown, owned by Spire Sheffield Ltd, listed on pages 26 to 34, Sheffield
Business and Industrial Land Survey 2006. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-citydevelopment/planning-documents/background-reports/business-survey-2006.
40 Planning Application Ref. No.: 97/01261/OUT, for Class B2 (General Industrial) B8 (Storage Or
Distribution) And B1 (Business) Development, at Site Of Former Smithywood Colliery, Cowley Hill And
Nether Lane, Ecclesfield; Granted Conditionally subject to a Legal Agreement, 16.03.2001.
39
-45-
centre proposed by the policy offer a solution to those congestion problems.
Outline planning permission was granted conditionally on the basis of submission
and approval of an agreed travel plan. The relevant condition states:
“ Before the development is commenced, a framework Travel Plan for the
development as a whole to reduce dependency on the private car, which
shall include clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets,
together with a time bound programme of implementation, monitoring,
regular review and improvement, shall have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter operated. The
applicant is requested to investigate the possibility of incorporating a rail halt
on or adjacent to the site in order to comply with Unitary Development Plan
Policy T4 which states "Improvements to the local rail network, including the
provision of new stations, will be encouraged and promoted. Proposals put
forward by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority for new
stations at Ecclesfield, Heeley, Millhouses and Totley Brook will be
supported. In the interest of reducing dependence on the private car by
facilitating and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport in
accordance with Council Policy and PPG13."41
2.93
The site therefore offers an excellent commercial business location and the
opportunity for local people to find work. Thorncliffe and Smithywood together
make a significant contribution to meeting citywide needs for industry and
business development. Sheffield’s Industrial Land Survey shows the sites
involved in both locations that collectively total 47.7 hectares42.
2.94
The Ecclesfield Common area contains long established businesses in older
stock, but some of the original stock of business units has been replaced by
housing and other non-business uses because the buildings had come to the end
of their useful life. Sheffield’s Industrial Land Survey identifies 14 sites that
collectively total 13.45 hectares of land that were available for business
development. The estate is located adjacent to the housing area, which does
constrain the operation of some commercial uses but this has been the result of
earlier rationalisation plans. However, it does have the benefit of being close to
local residents thereby, potential reducing the need to travel. The area is served
by a high frequency bus route and therefore the need to travel by car is reduced.
The site is on a congested stretch of road (the Common, Ecclesfield, see Figure
3: Congestion in Chapeltown / Ecclesfield and paragraph 1.32 above),
particularly at peak times but development could help to create road
improvements to ease the flow of traffic. Being on a Key Route any businesses
requiring access to local roads have the benefit almost direct access to the Key
41
Planning Application Ref. No.: 04/00753/OUT, Renewal of outline planning permission granted on
16/03/01 subject to a legal agreement; Granted Conditionally, 10.11.2004; Condition No. 6.
42 Sites 1/17, 1/27, 1/42 and 1/45 listed on pages 26 to 34, Sheffield Business and Industrial Land Survey
2006. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/backgroundreports/business-survey-2006.
-46-
Route and there is good access to the M1 Junction 35 via Nether Lane/Cowley
Hill.
2.95
Also, some of the sites involved where within the high flood risk areas in the
Strategic Flood Risk assessment and therefore highly vulnerable uses such as
housing are not suitable for designation on those sites. For these reasons,
continued use of those sites for their less vulnerable commercial uses was the
better option. In the case of the sites used as examples in the existing options,
the Stanley Tools site (which is not in a zone with a high probability of flooding)
has had an appeal allowed for residential development. As a result, the character
of that part of the industrial area has changed from industrial to mixed use with
housing and the possibility of allowing some opportunity for the designation of a
mixed use with housing type designated will be explored when drafting the
proposals map. The preferred option was the next best performing option in
terms of sustainability.
2.96
However, the Stanley Tools site on the Common at Ecclesfield has recently been
granted planning permission for housing after having a planning appeal allowed 43.
The character of that part of the Common has effectively changed from business
uses to a mixed use area with housing in character. The Stanley Tools site has
therefore been added to the housing area whilst the remaining frontage to the
Common and Green Lane presents the opportunity to provide some housing or
add to the mixture of uses with community facilities etc. The opportunity has
been taken to explore this on the Preferred Option for the where the area has
been designated as a flexible use area which will form an environmental buffer
between the industry and the Housing Area. This area of employment land is
effectively lost to industrial development, but the only site with potential is the
Fisher’s transport depot on Green Lane.
2.97
The conclusion is that the three areas chosen for future industrial development
are suitable and sustainable locations for business and industrial development,
even if they are secondary to sites in other locations, they help to provide
additional choice of location. The question of whether the remaining industrial
sites at Ecclesfield Common, Thorncliffe and Smithywood should be retained for
employment and business development is examined below by looking at the
future demand for employment land and the suitability of the available sites for
industrial development.
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey Assessment of Site Suitability
2.98
The importance of ensuring that Thorncliffe, Smithywood and Ecclesfield
Common are not only suitable locations for employment development, but that
the sites on offer at these locations are suitable for development is important to
the implementation of the policy. There is evidence to support the need to retain
43
Planning Application Ref. No.: 05/03368/FUL, for Erection of 105 dwellings, on Land at the Common,
The Common, Ecclesfield, Sheffield, S35 9WJ, Deemed Refusal 15.11.2005.
-47-
as much industrial land as possible in order to meet longer term shortfalls in
supply (see paragraphs 2.85 to 2.88 above). However, if these sites are
unsuitable for industrial development, then alternative uses for the land should be
considered. The Sheffield Employment Sites Survey Final Report44 looked in
detail at the suitability of sites across the city.
Table 3: Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation 45
1/21
Station Road, Ecclesfield
0.7
1/28
Site 26 Station Road, Ecclesfield
0.5
1/12
1/29
1/39
1/27
Adj. to Former Hydra Tools,
Nether Lane
Former Tilcon Depot, Station
Road, Ecclesfield
G Fisher’s Transport Yard, Green
Lane
Sheffield 35A Business Park,
Thorncliffe Road
1.2
0.8
0.8
4.3
1/9
Next to Arthur Lee Works
0.9
1/44
Land off Butterthwaite Lane
3.2
1/5
Former Petrol Depot Station
Road
1.6
1/43
Loicher lane
0.6
1/40
1/41
Adj. To disused Railway line
Butterthwaite Lane
Yarra Industrial Estate, Loicher
Lane
1.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.8
4.0
69.2
3.0
5.0
3.0
4.6
4.0
78.4
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.7
4.0
74.8
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
72.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.9
3.0
71.6
2.0
5.0
3.5
3.6
3.0
68.4
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.6
4.0
66.4
4.0
3.0
1.0
4.6
4.0
66.4
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.2
5.0
64.8
3.0
5.0
2.0
3.2
3.0
64.8
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
63.2
4.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
60.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
3.4
3.0
57.6
Sites over 80% - to be reserved for
Employment uses
Sites between 60% and 80% - suitable for
industrial development with some
intervention
Sites below 60% - Unsuitable sites to be
considered for alternative uses
N.b. sites formatted bold are in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield the remaining sites are in Stocksbridge/Deepcar.
2.99
Table 3: Chapeltown/Ecclesfield Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation above
shows the results of the consultant’s findings for the sites located in
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield and Stocksbridge/Deepcar.
44
Employment Sites Survey Final Report produced by Atkins 9/3/2007
Source: Sheffield Employment Sites Survey Final Report produced by Atkins 9/3/2007 – Appendix F
Table F.2 – Available and occupied Sites Overall Suitability Score.
45
-48-
Suitability Score
Policy
Consideration
s
PX
Sustainability
SX
Core Strategy
Employment
Policies
RSS Policy E5
Size of
Opportunity
Land
Sites over 5 hectares
Prior
0.0
Industry Area
ity
Sites less than or equal to 5 hectares
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.0
0.7
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.4
0.2
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
1.2
0.0
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.0
0.8
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.0
0.8
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
1.0
0.0
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
0.9
0.0
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
2.5
0.6
ity
Area
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.9
0.0
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
0.1
0.4
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
1.5
0.0
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
1.2
0.0
ity
Area
29.5
Marketability
MX
36.1
Quality of Site
EX
Smithy Wood, Cowley Hill
Access
AX
1/17
Size of Vacant
Land
Policy Considerations
Size of Site
Name
BILS Ref.
General Site Details
2.100 Of the 13 sites located in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield that were assessed as part of
this exercise, only the Yarra Industrial estate site at Loicher Lane Ecclesfield was
considered unsuitable as an industrial site. The site’s location adjacent to other
heavy industrial uses make it an unsuitable location for housing without
redesignating neighbouring industrial uses as housing area or introducing a buffer
zone of green or alternative uses. Re-designation of surrounding sites for
alternative uses is constrained by development constraints and may not be
feasible dependent on the buffer use and would reduce the number of sites
available for industrial development. Re-designation of the site for housing or
other sensitive would compromise the operation of existing industrial uses and in
our view, would compromise the City’s longer term aspirations for the supply of
employment land. The sites identified in the study that are located in
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield should therefore be retained as industrial sites because
with the exception of the Yarra estate site, they are suitable for industrial
development.
Conclusion on the Future Development of Employment Land
2.101 The evidence to support the continued use of surplus industrial land for industry
points to a long term shortage in the supply of industrial land for the City. When
this is looked at alongside Chapeltown/Ecclesfield’s service centre role, there is a
logical case for retention of as much industrial land in Stocksbridge/Deepcar and
Chapeltown/Ecclesfield as can be justified when considered alongside local
circumstances. This is particularly important if the City is to provide employment
opportunities in sustainable locations that meet the needs of industry and provide
additional employment opportunities close to its residents, especial on its
outskirts and for its satellites.
2.102 The question of whether the sites are in the right place for industrial uses is also
examined above, and the evidence here points to the sites being ideally placed
for industrial development, increasing choice by adding alternative locations to
the City’s portfolio. These are not new locations; they are existing industrial sites
that businesses have chosen to locate within because of the locational
advantages the sites offers to business. These advantages would be lost if the
surplus land was allowed to change to alternative uses. the question of whether
the industrial sites in the area are suitable for industrial development is examined
in paragraphs 2.98 to 2.100 above and only one site from those located in the
area was found to be unsuitable. In that instance the site is within a heavy
industrial area and is a totally unsuitable area for the development of housing or
any other sensitive uses. The site would be better developed for a supporting but
acceptable use within an industrial area.
2.103 To summarise the sites are need to be retained to meet the City’s long-term need
for industrial land, to maintain the level of choice of locations for industry and to
help Chapeltown maintain its service centre role. The sites are in an acceptable
location for industry that gives businesses the locational advantages desired and
the sites on offer are suitable for industrial use with the one exception.
-49-
Demand for Housing Land and the Availability of Sites.
2.104 The demand for land to build houses is relevant to this issue because the
demand for surplus employment land is for housing development. It has already
been established that the surplus industrial sites in the area should be retained
for industry see paragraph 2.102 above. The question is should the city be
identifying more housing sites or should the area be allowed to renew itself.
2.105 The amount of land available for housing development in the area that is not
already committed for development is scarce. The overall availability of land for
housing in the Chapeltown area is covered in the Housing Background Report
(see policy SH2). It shows that, although there are a significant number of
dwellings (500 homes) with planning permission in Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield, no
further allocations are proposed in that part of the city
2.106 Chapeltown has seen a lot of housing development over recent years and the
fact that there are few opportunities is a reflection of the fact that the area is at
capacity. However, evidence gathered so far points to there being no need to
identify additional housing sites. Policy SH1 shows that there is sufficient
housing land available to meet demand within the development plan period with a
13% margin.
2.107 The fact that there are no identified opportunity sites means that the future
potential for housing development’s dependence upon windfall sites, represents
an opportunity for the area to renew itself as the only sites that it can offer will be
those sites that in the future, have come to the end of their useful life or are
surplus to operational need, i.e. windfalls. Policy SCH1 has seized that
opportunity for renewal of the area by restricting development to infill
development within the urban area and protecting the surrounding countryside
from development.
2.108 The draft RSS policy YH6 as mentioned in paragraph 2.21 above places
emphasis on the need to achieve a high standard of design that protects and
enhances local settings, character, distinctiveness and heritage within service
centres and policy SCH1 helps to achieve this goal by allowing land uses and
buildings in older housing areas within the urban area to renew themselves.
Ensuring that there’s a high quality of design for new housing development, is an
issue that is tackled in detail the City Policies document.
2.109 The option to not develop any significant housing because there were no sites
available was considered. Option CH3c, which did not allow any significant
housing development within or adjacent to the urban area was rejected. The
reason for rejecting the option was that, (assuming that the term significant
housing development was defined) it would be difficult to control. For example,
when would insignificant cumulative piecemeal development become significant
enough to trigger the need to upgrade the areas infrastructure, the development
control system could not handle the fact that e.g. a single 4 house development
scheme could have a cumulative effect on the areas infrastructure and services
-50-
as the system is designed to consider the impact of the individual application.
Also the weaknesses of the option as explained in paragraph 2.48 above are not
desirable when one of the main objectives of policy SCH1 is to maintain and
enhance Chapeltown’s role as a service centre, particularly the weakness of
deterring investment in the area. The option also performed poorly in the
sustainability appraisal for the preferred option only scoring well because it
minimised waste production and scoring as unsustainable because it did not
provide decent homes available for everyone and because it did not make
efficient use of previously developed sites and buildings.
2.110 In conclusion, there are few opportunities within the area that have not already
been realised or been committed for development. there is sufficient land
available to meet the City’s needs and there is no reason for expanding the urban
area into the Green Belt to enable the housing development. There are sufficient
windfall opportunities within the area to accommodate housing development and
this will allow the area to renew itself. It is intended, that the character of the area
will be protected from the adverse effects of new development within urban area
by City Policies.
Chapeltown District Centre
2.111 As already mentioned in paragraphs 2.12 to 2.19 above, the Centre was
incapable of being able to physically grow in size as there were no sites available
on the edge of the District Centre that could accommodate retail uses The
Sheffield Retail Study did a health check on the vitality and viability of 17 centres
in Sheffield. Chapeltown District Centre scored well in the main indicators of
vitality and viability in PPS6. The study looked at patterns of shopping in the area
and found that the existing food stores were sufficient for the areas requirements.
Quantitatively, the study found that there was no need for more convenience
floorspace in Sheffield as there was little or no capacity for additional
convenience floorspace. Qualitatively, the quality of foodstore in Sheffield was
acceptable apart from in North Sheffield.
2.112 The conclusion drawn in drafting policy SCH1 was that Chapeltown District
Centre was a vital and viable centre, it could not accommodate further growth of
district centre uses, it could not easily expand into adjacent areas and it does not
need any additional retail floorspace. Therefore, when drafting policy SCH1 it
was logical to concentrate on maintaining and if possible improving the Centre’s
vitality and viability.
2.113 There are many threats to the centres vitality that can damage the centre’s vitality
but the majority of those could be mitigated through market forces. For example,
if ASDA (the centre’s anchor store), was to close the centre would be badly
affected as ASDA is the centre’s main shopping destination. However, there are
several supermarket operators that are capable of operating the store that are not
represented in the area, who would look to be represented by a superstore (e.g.
Sainsbury’s). However, one of the main threats to the centre’s vitality and
-51-
viability is the congestion on the main roads through the centre as described in
paragraph 1.32 above in the needs and opportunities section. Market forces
could not solve the problem that could damage the centres vitality over time by
making it difficult for buses and shoppers to get in and out of the centre. Policy
SCH1 looks to make improvements as opportunities arise. Solutions have been
sought to this problem in the recently drafted Plan for Travel in Chapeltown46.
However, the solutions put forward in the Plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown document
have yet to be tested, found to be the most appropriate solution, and resources
found to implement, it would be inappropriate for the policy to give a firm
commitment in terms of time for improvements.
2.114 In conclusion, Policy SCH1 takes a holistic view of the future role of the area. In
drafting Policy SCH1, a good look has been taken of the needs of the area and
the city and the opportunities for growth and several options have been put
forward which have been examined and refined to put forward a feasible policy
with clear reasons for the choices made.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.115 Preferred Option PCH1 considered at the preferred options stage that eventually
formed the basis of policy SCH1, scored highly in the Sustainability Appraisal for
the Core Strategy Preferred options. Although it was not the most sustainable
option considered. It was particularly strong in terms of it providing a strong
economy with good opportunities available to the whole community and in terms
of its efficient use of land, which makes good use of previously developed land
and buildings. It scored positively in terms of options for providing decent
housing available to everyone, land use patterns that minimise the need to travel
or that promote sustainable forms of transport; an efficient transport network
which maximises access and minimises detrimental impacts; provides a quality
environment; maintains and enhances the quality of the natural landscape; and
makes efficient use of physical infrastructure47.
2.116 The most sustainable option assessed was that of consolidating existing housing
development on existing brownfield sites and allowing significant new house
building on land currently allocated for employment uses48. This option scored
higher than the preferred option in the Sustainability Appraisal because it
improved the environment in the industrial areas as well as providing housing
close to jobs and transport links. It was however, rejected because of the fact
that the provision of a satisfactory living environment for residents could not be
guaranteed.
Equality Appraisal
46
Sheffield City Council Plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown Study Report, by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
Published May 2004.
47 Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy Preferred Options, Appendix 2, pages 413/414 and 428.
48 Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy Preferred Options, Appendix 2, pages 413/414 and 428.
-52-
2.117 In terms of the Equality Impact Assessment at the preferred options stage, each
policy has been assessed in terms of its impact on various groups of people who
are disadvantaged in some way49. The preferred option PCH1 was found to have
distinct benefits for those with low access to public transport by making it easier
for buses to get around and in and out of the areas transport hub (Chapeltown
District Centre), the introduction of new job opportunities that are easier to get to
would also benefit those on low incomes.
2.118 The benefits to people with disabilities and the physically frail and vulnerable
people were dependent upon the detail of the schemes that are implemented
under the policy. The preferred option performed better than the other 5 options
tested. Preferred option PCH2 formed the basis of the retail content of policy
SCH1 and it had distinct benefits for all groups allowing everyone easier access
to the district centre and improving movement within it.
2.119 The option looked at for expansion of the centre option CH4a also had some
benefits as any addition to the centre would be most likely to be designed to the
highest mobility standards but it would leave the remainder of the centre
untouched. Option CH4c the other option that was rejected when looking at the
district centre, would have maintained the status quo until the development
market could intervene, until that time, access would be affected by congestion at
best maintaining existing problems, at worst forcing those with disadvantages to
shop elsewhere.
2.120 On the whole policy SCH1 has distinct advantages for those with disadvantages
over and above those offered by the options rejected.
Consultation Responses
2.121 There were 11 responses to the preferred options for Chapeltown Ecclesfield in
the consultation on the Core Strategy, each one was considered and given a
comment number. There where three responses in support of the two preferred
options (one for PCH1 comment number 971.055 and two for PCH2 comment
numbers 971.056 and 5171.068). It is assumed that there is generally support for
the submitted policy. Of the 7 points raised 3 were supported and of the 4
objections only 2 (one of which is Hepher Dixon who made 4 responses) were in
disagreement with the general approach to the policy.
2.122 The CPRE South Yorkshire (comment number 971.055) supported the emerging
option but felt that transport proposals should be integrated into the option. The
City Council agreed in full but the transport issues had been picked up in the
transport options put forward. The City Council Agreed in Full with their
comment. In order to avoid duplication, policy SCH1’s reasons section crossrefers to any relevant transport policies.
49
Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy Preferred Options, Appendix 2, pages 419.
-53-
2.123 The CPRE South Yorkshire (comment number 971.056) also expressed support
for preferred Option PCH2 by supporting the rejection the alternative emerging
options considered for the future of the District Centre. The City Council Agreed
in Full with their comment and no alterations were made to option because of
their comment. Sheffield First Health and Wellbeing Partnership (comment
number 5171.068) also expressed full support for Option PCH2. The City Council
Agreed in Full with their comment and no alterations were made to option as a
result of their comment.
2.124 There were three objections to option PCH1 (comment numbers 5186.002,
5193.066 and 5266.005).
2.125 Spawforth Associates objected to option PCH1 (comment number 5186.002), put
forward an argument for removal of land within the Green Belt to allow housing
development that would led to the building of a link road across the site that
would form part of a bypass for Chapeltown District Centre, and would facilitate
the building of a large outdoor sports venue of regional importance on Hesley
wood tip. The community had been consulted on a range of options for the site
by Renaissance South Yorkshire, including options for the proposal referred to in
Spawforth Associate’s comments. The Council disagreed with the comment as
there were no exceptional circumstances for releasing land from the Green Belt
and the option was rejected.
2.126 Development Land and Planning objected to Option PCH1 (comment number
5193.066) because of ambiguity in the option related to the wording “for people to
find work locally”, instead of “for business development”. The City Council
agreed in part with the respondent as the wording was ambiguous. The option
was rewritten to form a clearer statement of intent for policy SCH1 with relation to
business development.
2.127 JVH Planning objected to option PCH1 (comment number 5266.005) because it
reserved land for employment in the Ecclesfield area. The respondent did not
consider that there was any requirement to prevent some old/unsuitable
employment allocations being re-developed for housing, particularly in the
circumstances. The City Council agreed in part that there was no requirement to
keep land for industry, however it would be irresponsible to reallocate industrial
land for housing without evidence to support that there was no longer a need to
retain the land for industry or that the site was unsuitable for redevelopment for
industry. It was resolved to wait until the independent surveys commissioned had
been carried out and the reservations at Ecclesfield could be reassessed. Shortly
after the consultation, The Stanley Tools site on Ecclesfield Common’s planning
application for redevelopment for housing was refused but was allowed on
appeal. This changed the character of the Ecclesfield Common and Green Lane
frontages to the estate. It was decided to test use of the area as a flexible use
area on the SDF Proposals Map. But the remainder of the was later assessed
against the then complete employment assessments and the remainder of the
Ecclesfield industrial estate was kept for industrial development, meaning that
-54-
Ecclesfield Common would remain as a location for business development in
policy SCH1.
2.128 There were two expressions of support for Option PCH2 from two respondents
(comment numbers 971.056 and 5171.068). The CPRE South Yorkshire
expressed support for the rejection of the alternative emerging options and
Sheffield First for Health and Wellbeing Partnership expressed support in full for
option PCH2. The support was welcomed and no further action was taken in
relation to redrafting the option for policy SCH1.
2.129 There were five objections to option PCH2 from two respondents (comment
numbers 5193.067, 5308.026, 5308.027, 5308.028 and 5308.029).
2.130 Hepher Dixon limited objected to every paragraph relating to retail development
in the Preferred options which included those relating to option PCH2 (comment
numbers 5308.026, 5308.027, 5308.028 and 5308.029), on the basis that the
analysis did not appear to be based upon information contained in either of the
published retail studies. The Council disagreed with the respondent as the policy
option had been based on evidence in the Sheffield Retail Study and no action
was taken in relation to the option.
2.131 Development Land and Planning objected to Option PCH2 (comment number)
because a reference to Chapeltown centre in para.7.200 and PCH2 do not serve
to further any policy guidance and should be deleted. The City Council
Disagreed with the respondent as the whole premise of the option was about the
role of Chapeltown Centre as part of an option for a spatial policy relating to a
specific area in a city wide context. The reference in the policy and the reasons
section was therefore pertinent. No further Action was taken because of this
comment.
2.132 The focus and quality of Policy SCH1 has been improved as a direct result of the
contributions received from both the emerging options and preferred options
consultation exercises. All of the comments have been fully considered and the
efforts of respondents are fully appreciated.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
2.133 In conclusion, the reasons for policy SCH1 are based on the area growing in a
sustainable way. There is a long term shortage of industrial land which suggests
that existing employment sites should be retained wherever possible. Thorncliffe,
Smithywood and Ecclesfield Common industrial estates are ideally located for
manufacturing and distribution uses giving businesses locational advantages that
would be lost if the areas where allowed to change use. The locations are close
to the neighbouring population improving on existing employment opportunities
within the local area. The policy promotes business development in those
locations for those reasons.
-55-
2.134 In terms of housing development, Policy SCH1 requires infill development within
the urban area because, there is sufficient land to meet Sheffield’s development
needs for housing without having to expand into the area’s countryside and the
lack of large sites available for housing development within the urban area means
that future development needs for housing will be met by the efficient use of land
within the urban areas and the majority of these will be windfalls. The approach
can also facilitate change without destroying the character of the area as a
collection of semi rural settlements as directed in regional policy.
2.135 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy promotes Chapeltown, which is at the heart
of the area as a Principal Service Centre providing jobs homes and service for its
semi rural catchment and acting as the focal point for development. But the
Panel Report on the Draft RSS drops the identification of Principal Services
Centres and leaves their identification to the local Development Frameworks in
the region and it is our view that Chapeltown as a settlement does have a service
centre role for its catchment that should be enhanced. This is also a reason why
Policy SCH1 promotes business and housing development in this area.
2.136 Policy SCH1 looks also to promote Chapeltown District Centre through
redevelopment, environmental improvement and because, the Centre has vitality
and is viable, but it is congested and parts of its environment are old and in need
of refurbishment or replacement if it is to maintain its attractiveness as the main
shopping destination for its catchment. It has a good mix of convenience and
comparison goods floorspace and there is no shortage of either. The main stores
in the area are undertrading suggesting that they have the capacity to
accommodate growth in expenditure and the main stores are high quality stores
so there are no qualitative grounds for replacement or addition to these stores.
2.137 Policy SCH1 looks also to remove extra traffic from the district centre by
implementation of measures to remove extra traffic from it because the prosperity
of the district centre is threatened by the amount of traffic travelling through the
area that has no reason to be there, constraining pedestrian movement and
adversely affecting the attractiveness of the centre and its operation.
Implementation and Monitoring
2.138 In order to implement the three main strands of policy SCH1 of targeted business
growth, growth through renewal and maintaining and enhancing the role of
Chapeltown District Centre the following Core Strategy policies must be
implemented:

SE1 Protecting the Countryside, to ensure that development is retained within
the urban area.

SB2 Business and Industrial Development on Brownfield and Greenfield Land,
to ensure that brownfield land is the primary target for development.
-56-

SH2 Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land, (especially
part (h) Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield (around 500 homes)), to ensure that there is
an adequate supply of housing to serve the city/area.

SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/ Warehousing and other Nonoffice Businesses (especially part (g) Thorncliffe and Smithywood).

SS2 District Centres, to ensure that the district centre maintains and
enhances its attractiveness.
2.139 Implementation may be hampered when it comes to the transport related aspects
of the policy because of the competition for scarce resources and priorities in the
Local Transport Plan may mean that resources would be diverted elsewhere in
the City in the Short term whilst issues like this one wait for future Local Transport
Plans to give them priority. However, the fact that the Core Strategy sees this as
an important policy issue, a marker is placed against the issue for future Local
Transport Plans to pick up. The policy will therefore be implemented:







by making decisions on planning applications.
by the development of allocated City Sites and windfall development sites.
by active promotion of previously developed land through regeneration
strategies, masterplans and area action plans.
through the safeguarding of greenfield land through decisions on planning
applications.
by setting and meeting a target of 90% of land for non-office businesses,
industry and distribution uses to be in named locations.
by taking measures to minimise adverse effects on the life of the centre, and
through private sector investment.
2.140 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SCH1. However, policy SH2 indicates that 500 new homes will be built in
Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield over the period 2004/05 to 2020/21. Policy SH3 sets a
target for 90% of new homes to be built on previously developed land. Relevant
targets and indicators for policies SH2 and SH3 are described in the Housing
Background Report. A number of other the targets and indicators for policies in
other topic chapters are also relevant and are described in the related
Background Report:



Business and Industry Background Report – see policies SB2 and SB4.
Retail and Built Leisure Background – see policy SS2.
Environment Background Report – see policy SE1.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
-57-
2.141 The mix of new development in the locations referred to in policy SCH1 will also
be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications
database. This would not, however, be reported in the AMR but the information
will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of
the Core Strategy.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
2.142 The probability that the policy won’t be implemented are slim because of the
following factors:

Smithywood has planning permission in outline and several reserved matters
permissions that mean that the construction of an access and remodelling
work has started on site.

Thorncliffe estate is near completion as there are only a couple of sites
awaiting start of construction work.

Ecclesfield Common has many of its sites allocated as preferred options for
City Sites for industry. The only thing hampering implementation is the effects
of the floods (August 2007) which may deter any would be investors as
neighbouring businesses were badly affected by the floods and the bridge on
Butterthwaite lane did collapse.

The two sites that are allocated on the Preferred Options Proposals Map both
have planning permission for housing and windfall sites are regularly coming
forward for permission to develop dwellings.
2.143 There is sufficient demand for industrial development in the area to justify the
retention of the surplus industrial land, as proved at Thorncliffe and by the
considerable investment at Smithywood in the development of a particularly
difficult site. But in the unlikely event that after five years none of the sites had
been taken up for industrial development, and then this would be a matter for a
review of the Core Strategy.
2.144 The only real threat to implementation of the policy is the ability to implement the
improvements that remove extra traffic from the District Centre. The problem is
the proposals for a bypass put forward in the plan 4 Travel in Chapeltown
document have not yet been tested and in any event, the proposal would be
competing with other proposals across the city in the next Local Transport Plan
Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) covers the period 2006 – 2011 and the proposals
are not in LTP2. Therefore, there is a chance that the proposals will not be
tested. However, there are also traffic management proposals that have also
been proposed for the Centre and these are actively being examined for
implementation.
-58-
2.145 Traffic management plans will help the attractiveness of the centre and a bypass
would be the icing on the cake. If the bypass proposal does not go ahead then
there are always the traffic management proposals that can be implemented in a
more piecemeal fashion with reference to an overall Masterplan that will help to
wards maintaining the centres attractiveness. The alternative is to abandon that
part of the policy as the uncertainty about its implementation would render that
part of the policy useless.
2.146 The alternative option is to accept a reduction in the centre’s role if improvements
do not go ahead. Our view is that this is not an acceptable option because it is
unsustainable for residents within the area’s catchment to have to travel to the
nearest other district centre. It is better to adhere to Policy SCH1’s wording as
this acts as a marker that raises the priority of taking measures to resolve the
issue thereby helping the issue to be resolved by a traffic management or a by a
bypass or both measures.
Conclusion
2.147 Policy SCH1 is a spatial one based on a specific and distinct area of the City; it is
consistent with national and regional planning policy. Policy SCH1 also meets
the requirements of soundness test 4 having ensured that it is consistent with
national planning policy, in general conformity with the RSS for the region and it
has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies
relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
2.148 Policy SCH1 has had regard to the City Strategy, and in so doing has aimed to
contribute to the City’s long-term objectives and help to meet some of the
challenges to be faced in the coming years. How the policy does this is
described in the Relationship with the City Strategy section (from Page 25
onwards). Based on this assessment it is our view that the policy meets the
requirements of soundness test 5 because we have ensured that it has had
regard to the authority’s Community Strategy.
2.149 As a Core Strategy spatial policy, it is important that Policy SCH1 is coherent and
consistent with other relevant policies within the Core Strategy to avoid creating
conflicting Core Strategy policy. The Consistency with other Planning Polices
section explains the how the policy is consistent with relevant polices in the Core
Strategy. As a Core Strategy policy, it is important that other subordinate
Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Development Plan Documents are
consistent with it. Therefore its consistency with the City Policies, City Sites and
Proposals Map documents will be left to future background papers for those
documents and for any other supplementary planning documents produced to
supplement their policies. The policy has been checked for consistency with the
policies of neighbouring local authorities namely Rotherham and Barnsley. There
were no cross boundary issues of relevance to the policy. It is therefore our view
that Policy SCH1 is coherent and consistent within and between the development
-59-
plan documents prepared Sheffield and by neighbouring authorities, where cross
boundary issues are relevant and it therefore meets the soundness test 6.
2.150 Policy SCH1 is derived from 10 options considered for taking forward towards
submission of the Core Strategy. Of the 10 options, the most appropriate 4
options (CH1a, Ch2a, CH3b (part) and CH4b) have been reconsidered in terms
of their strengths and weaknesses and as the preferred options they have formed
the basis of policy SCH1. Their appropriateness has been determined by
consideration of robust and credible evidence in each case. It is our view that
policy SCH1 meets criterion of soundness test 7 having tested that the policy
represents the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the
relevant alternatives, and is founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
2.151 Policy SCH1 describes in its reasons section how it is intended to be
implemented. This reasoning is expanded to explain how the implementation of
related topic policies will also help the implementation of this policy in the
Implementation and Monitoring section from page 56. It is our view that the
mechanisms for implementation are clearly described and that the policy meets
the requirements of soundness test 8.
2.152 The flexibility and risk assessment section on page 58 looks in detail at what the
probability not realising key assumptions that the policy is based on. It examines
whether the policy is reasonably flexible enough to allow it to deal with changing
circumstances and that the consequences of that change will not lead to an
unacceptable situation. It is our view that Policy SCH1 is reasonably flexible
enough to deal with changes in circumstance and that the policy meets the
requirements of soundness test 9.
2.153 The first three soundness tests deal with procedure concerning the preparation of
the Core Strategy and consultation, which we believe has been carried out
correctly and in accordance with those tests. Tests 4 to 9 area specifically about
ensuring that the policy is consistent with relevant policies, strategies and
Masterplans, with the City’s plans and overall vision for the future, that within
reason all the alternative options have been considered, that the reasons for the
policy are based on sound credible evidence, that there are clear mechanisms for
implementation of the policy and that the policy is flexible enough to adapt to
change. We believe that Policy SCH1 meets these tests of soundness and
should therefore be adopted.
-60-
3
JOBS, HOUSING AND SHOPPING IN STOCKSBRIDGE/
DEEPCAR
Introduction
3.1
The choice for Stocksbridge is between seeking to support a degree of selfcontainment by attracting new jobs and services or accepting the town’s future
role as a largely commuter area, in its distinctive Pennine setting. The former
option conforms to the strategy’s objective to reduce the need to travel and
recognises the relatively constrained transport networks that presently connect
the town, with traffic congestion and only a medium-frequency bus service on the
route to Sheffield.
3.2
Policy SB4 identifies Stocksbridge as a location for manufacturing, distribution/
warehousing and non-office businesses with smaller scale offices in the District
Centre. However, this approach has to be tempered by the greater market
demand for housing than for employment-related development and the
willingness of many still to travel. This points to an increasing commuter function
and this is reflected in the identification of Stocksbridge as an area for new
housing (see policy SH2).
Policy SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge
3.3
Industrial land identified in Stocksbridge/Deepcar as surplus to operational
requirements that could still provide employment and business
opportunities for local people will be safeguarded for business
development. New housing will be limited to previously developed land
within the urban area.
Opportunities will be taken as they arise to improve the environment of
Stocksbridge District Centre and to enable its improvement and expansion
when land becomes available.
Policy Background
National Policy
3.4
Policy SST1 is about the future development of the Stocksbridge/Deepcar area.
Should it become a commuter town or should it continue to provide jobs and
services for its catchment thereby, maximising its self-sufficiency. There are sites
within the urban areas of Stocksbridge/Deepcar that will become available for
redevelopment in the future. The majority of these sites are within the industrial
-61-
areas and the debate is about whether the land should be retained for industrial
purposes or whether the land should be redeveloped for Housing or other uses.
3.5
The overall aim of national planning policy guidance and statements as contained
in PPG2, PPS3, PPG4 and PPS6 is to create mixed and sustainable
communities. PPG2 is relevant to this issue because the Green Belt sets the
extent of urban development and these settlements cannot grow significantly
without change to the Green Belt Boundary. PPS3 is relevant as it advises how
to identify new locations for housing development and states how land can be
effectively and efficiently used. PPG4 is relevant because it gives advice on the
re-use of urban land that was used for industry for commercial use and this is at
the heart of the debate. PPS6 is relevant because it advises on the promotion
and management of growth within Town Centres and gives advice on assessing
the need for development of Town Centres.
3.6
In drafting policy SST1, extension of the urban area50 was examined. This option
was rejected because it would have a detrimental impact on the ability to promote
sustainable patterns of development. This is in line with PPG2 which advises
local authorities to consider the “the consequences for sustainable development
of channelling development towards urban areas inside the inner Green Belt
boundary”51. The option would also effectively have been contrary to the
fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as quoted in paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 “to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. This principal of
permanence applies to the entire Green Belt boundary and effectively restricts
development to the urban area. By restricting housing development to previously
developed land within the urban area, policy SST1 is complying with PPG2.
3.7
A key objective of PPS3 is that local planning authorities should continue to make
efficient use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed for
housing development52. Policy SST1 complies with this national planning policy
advice by requiring that housing development takes place on previously
developed land within the urban area. This policy requirement ensures that
previously used land is efficiently re-used.
3.8
There are two aspects of PPG 4 that are relevant to policy SCH1, the first is
concerned with the locational factors of industrial and commercial development,
the second is concerned with the efficient use of land for industrial development.
3.9
In terms of locational factors Paragraph 11 of PPG4 sets out the locational factors
affecting the location of industrial development. By retaining some existing
industrial land that is surplus to operational requirements at Stocksbridge and
50
Emerging option ST1b, Page 239, Emerging Options for the Core Strategy, 2005, Sheffield City
Council.
51 Paragraph 2.10, Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts, published, January 1995 (Amended March
2001), Department for Communities and Local Government.
52 Paragraph 40, page 15, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, Department of Communities and Local
Government, November 2006.
-62-
Deepcar for industrial development, policy SST1 complies with the advice of
PPG4 paragraph 11. It does this by placing new industrial and commercial
development in existing industrial locations relatively close to housing. The
locations expand opportunities to obtain work locally, thereby reducing the need
to travel, in an area with less sustainable transport options than other areas in
Sheffield. In terms of the efficient use of land, PPG4 puts significant importance
on the re-use of the large amounts of land and buildings present within many of
our urban areas that were once used for industrial purposes. In relation to these
resources (see PPG4 paragraph 21).
3.10
By specifying that some surplus industrial land be retained for industrial
development, policy SST1 is complying with the advice contained in paragraph
21. These are brownfield sites that are relatively well located in terms of public
transport in the area and the concentration of new development is likely to lead to
improvement of existing bus services in the future.
3.11
The Government’s key objective for town centres is set out in PPG6. This is to
promote the vitality and viability of Town Centres by planning for the growth and
development of existing centres and by promoting and enhancing existing
centres, focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of
services in a good environment, accessible to all.
Regional Policy
3.12
The Draft RSS is an important issue to be included because it places strong
emphasis on Local development Frameworks in the Region supporting towns and
service centres as hubs for the rural economy53, it defines Stocksbridge as a
‘Principal Service Centre’, and it places emphasis on the enhancement of the role
of principal service centres.
3.13
With relation to local development frameworks supporting the regions towns and
service centres as focal points for their catchments, the Draft RSS targets areas
such as Stocksbridge for improvement. Policy YH3 Key Spatial Priorities
proposes that all plans, strategies, programmes and major investment decisions
should aim to transform the economic, environmental and social conditions in the
older industrial parts of South Yorkshire, and support towns as hubs for the rural
economy and as service centres. Policy YH6 requires a local development focus
on 32 principal service centres, of various sizes and functions but, all of regional
significance.
3.14
More specifically in terms of the roles and functions of places in relation to South
Yorkshire, Draft RSS Policy SY1, proposes that all plans and strategies
programmes and major investment decisions should aim to “Support the roles of
Cudworth, Goldthorpe, Hoyland, Penistone, Wombwell, Mexborough, Thorne,
53
See Policy YH3 Key Spatial Priorities, Page 39, The Yorkshire And Humber Plan - Draft For Public
Consultation December 2005.
-63-
Dinnington, Chapeltown and Stocksbridge as Main Towns”. It aims to promote
development at the ‘Main Towns’ to support their regeneration and strengthen
their service centre roles.
Sub-Regional Policy
3.15
The South Yorkshire, Second Local Transport Plan proposes a major
development scheme. The project is referred to as A61 Penistone Road /Upper
Don Valley Quality Bus Corridor. That should help to improve accessibility to
Stocksbridge and Penistone by enabling the removal of through traffic from the
Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough54.
Relationship to City Strategy
3.16
The City Strategy sets out our vision for the City. Our vision is that:
“ Sheffield will be a successful, distinctive city of European significance at the
heart of a strong city region, with opportunities for all.”55
3.17
Policy SST1 pays regard to the City Strategy’s vision, which is built on three key
principles of Prosperity, Inclusion and Sustainability. The policy promotes
prosperity by ensuring that industrial land within the area is retained for business
uses, thereby creating opportunities for employment creation and new
businesses or improvements to existing businesses. Policy SST1 promotes
inclusion by providing job opportunities close to the community and by ensuring
that new homes are provided in the area giving the opportunity for those living in
the area to enter the housing market. The policy does these things in a
sustainable way, by protecting the industrial sites from housing development, it
allows housing development within housing areas of Stocksbridge and Deepcar,
close to jobs and facilities, minimising the need to travel long distances to obtain
services and allowing the area to renew itself.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents
Core Strategy Objectives
3.18
The Core Strategy has a vision of achieving sustainable transformation of the
city56, which it aims to develop by achieving a range of objectives. In order to
Paragraphs 6.13 to 6.20, Pages 120 and 121, South Yorkshire Second Local Transport Plan, 2006 –
2011, published, March 2006.
55 Sheffield City Strategy 2005/2010, Updated 2007, Page 4, Sheffield First Partnership, published August
2007, Sheffield First Partnership.
56 Paragraph 3.4, page 13, Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy for Submission to the
Secretary of State, September 2007.
54
-64-
help to meet some of the various challenges involved in achieving this vision,
Policy SST1 aims to contribute toward achieving the following specific objectives:

To help achieve the economic transformation of the City the policy makes
provision for new modern and high-technology manufacturing and knowledgebased services in Stocksbridge/Deepcar ( Core Strategy objective S1.2)

To better serve the City Region the policy aims to regenerate
Stocksbridge/Deepcar as a complementary place for the major expansion of
new business (Core Strategy objective S2.1)

To create successful neighbourhoods policy SST1 sustains and restores
existing neighbourhoods by containing new development within the areas
urban envelope thereby allowing the neighbourhood to renew itself where
needed and to growth without physical expansion (Core Strategy Objective
S4.1)

To create opportunities policy SST1 creates workplaces where they are
accessible by a range of means of transport (Core Strategy Objective S5.4)

To promote health and well-being by restricting development to the urban
areas of Stocksbridge/Deepcar thereby protecting and safeguarding the
peaceful enjoyment of the areas countryside (Core Strategy Objective S6.3)

To promote the efficient use of the transport network, the policy has located
business development where it can be easily reached by bus, train and on
foot thereby promoting the efficient use of the existing transport network (Core
Strategy Objective S8.2)

To reduce the need to travel development is located close to where people
live and close to services and by locating services close together,
encouraging joint trips (objective S9.1)

To support Sustainable Transport new development that generates significant
trips is located close to public transport hubs as possible and where the trips
are intercity the uses are located close to the motorway network (Core
Strategy Objective S10.3)

To promote the sustainable use of Natural Resources the policy encourages
the use of previously developed land for new development in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar (Objective S12.1) and significant proportions of the
land being redeveloped is contaminated industrial land which will be restored
as a result of their redevelopment (Core Strategy Objective S12.2)

To cherish and protect the City’s green environment, policy SST1 encourages
the use of previously developed land and by doing so helps to safeguard the
green environment, the majority of which has not been previously developed
(Core Strategy Objective 13.1)
-65-

3.19
To create a city with character the policy aims to develop on previously
developed land safeguarding the character of the semi rural settlement’s
landscapes within Stocksbridge/Deepcar (Core Strategy Objective S14.3)
Policy SST1 is also consistent with other policies within the Draft Core Strategy,
namely policies;
 SB2
 SB4
 SH2
 SH3
 SS2
Business and Industrial Development on Brownfield and Greenfield
Land – sets priority for the development of brownfield industrial sites
before greenfield sites and sets a maximum of 5 hectares or 2.5% of all
land developed over any five-year period. Policy SST1 locates industrial
development on brownfield industrial land which is consistent with this
policy.
Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/ Warehousing and other
Non-office Businesses – Locates Manufacturing, distribution/
warehousing and non-office businesses at Stocksbridge. Policy SST1 is
consistent with this policy in that it too locates industrial in Stocksbridge
be retaining existing surplus land.
Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land –
concentrates large and medium scale housing development in existing
urban areas in the period to 2020/21 and stipulates that around 900
houses will be built in Stocksbridge/Deepcar in that period. Policy SST1
is consistent with this policy in that it restricts housing development to
the housing area of Stocksbridge/Deepcar.
Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New
Housing – prioritises housing development on previously developed
land with no more than 10% of dwellings on greenfield sites up to
2021/26. Policy SST1 is consistent with this policy because it restricts
housing development to the housing area where the majority of the land
is previously developed.
District Centres – District Centres are encouraged to fulfil their role of
providing for the everyday needs with a range of district centre uses at
an appropriate scale and function for the Centre. Policy SST1 is
consistent with this policy because it promotes the improvement of the
district centre by its extension as opportunities arise.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
3.20
There are no cross-boundary issues arising from Peak District National Park’s or
Barnsley’s planning policies in relation to policy SST2.
Options Considered
3.21
In developing policy SCH1, a range of issues were considered at the Emerging
Options stage; for each issue several options were considered. The issues
affecting Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield that were considered are:
-66-
-
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
Issue ST1
3.22
The role of Stocksbridge as a freestanding settlement
The future use of employment land in Stocksbridge
The future level of housing in Stocksbridge
Stocksbridge District Centre
Transport links to Stocksbridge
The Role of Stocksbridge as a Freestanding Settlement
Two options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option ST1a (Accepted)
Increase self-containment by retaining employment land to allow residents
to work locally.
3.23
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Reduces the distances people need to travel to work (it is 14 miles to the
centres of both Sheffield and Barnsley).
(b) Creates opportunities for businesses to diversify rather than close with a
better range of job opportunities for local people.
(c) Retains land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and jobs.
(d) Offers alternative locations for business and industry to the City Centre
and Don Valley especially to those businesses that are looking for good
road links to the A616 (T) and the M1.
(e) Offers jobs and services within easy travelling distance of Stocksbridge
and Deepcar residents.
(f) Provides land use options for sites some of which have poor living
conditions and/or are relatively unsustainable locations for new housing.
3.24
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Stocksbridge residents already take advantage of increased mobility to
choose their employment across a wider area.
(b) People commuting into the town, including significant numbers of people
from outside the City; take many of the jobs currently provided in
Stocksbridge.
(c) The market for business and industry in this secondary location is not
sufficient to encourage diversification. There will be pressure from
landowners for higher value use (housing) as existing uses cease.
(d) A requirement for employment uses could leave large areas of brownfield
land on the market indefinitely.
-67-
Option ST1b (Accepted in part (see options ST2b and ST3b below) – but the
option of expanding the existing built-up area to provide more housing has
been rejected)
Accept tendency to greater mobility and commuting out of Stocksbridge by
providing more housing and taking advantage of the distinctive Pennine
setting.
3.25
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Creation of significant level of choice in the local housing market aimed at
attracting commuters.
(b) Could take some pressure off high-demand areas within the main built-up
area of Sheffield.
(c) Emphasis can be placed on improving the green environment in order to
maintain / improve the rural areas’ attractiveness and accessibility.
(d) A higher population would attract investment in infrastructure and a better
range of local shops and services.
(e) Significant population increase might facilitate provision of higher
frequency public transport through increased patronage, which would
benefit existing as well as new residents.
(f) Would maximise population growth that could attract investment into the
District Centre and lead to its possible expansion.
(g) Provides maximum choice for those attracted to Stocksbridge as
commuters.
(h) Enables provision of affordable housing of a suitable type to meet local
need.
(i) Extra patronage provided by new homes could enable public transport
service providers to viably improve public transport services.
3.26
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Increased commuter role would increase distances people need to travel
to work.
(b) Significant employment losses without replacement would make the area
unsustainable for those residents on low incomes who can’t afford to
commute.
(c) Significant problems of congestion on the Stocksbridge Bypass and on the
A6102 route into the City Centre through Hillsborough make the location
less attractive for commuters. Significant investment and improvement to
public transport facilities and the road network required in order to make
this option sustainable.
(d) The scope for increasing population would probably not be enough to
achieve a step change in the range of facilities in the District Centre, e.g. a
superstore.
-68-
Issue ST2
3.27
The future use of employment land
Two options were considered for this Issue these were:
Option ST2a (Rejected)
Employment areas in the Stocksbridge and Deepcar continue to be mainly
for business and industry rather than redeveloping with housing (in line
with option ST1a).
3.28
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Retains land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and jobs.
(b) Offers alternative locations for business and industry to the City Centre
and Don Valley especially to those businesses that are looking for good
road links to the A616 (T) and the M1.
(c) Offers jobs and services within easy travelling distance of Stocksbridge
and Deepcar residents (see Option ST1a).
(d) Provides land use options for sites some of which have poor living
conditions and/or are relatively unsustainable locations for new housing.
3.29
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Limits the opportunities to secure regeneration of vacant or underused
land.
(b) Reduces the possibility of high quality development and environmental
improvements (e.g. on riverside sites).
(c) Attracting large-scale investment to what are secondary locations may lead
to employment land (some of it heavily constrained) remaining on the
market for long periods.
Option ST2b (Accepted)
Allow significant housing in the employment areas in Stocksbridge and
Deepcar whilst meeting market demand for business development where
compatible with housing (in line with Option ST1b).
3.30
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Reflects the current market and the need for housing development to
support job-creating redevelopment.
(b) Could help to make new small to medium scale business development
more viable.
(c) Opportunities for selling land for housing development could help existing
businesses to rationalise and become more viable.
(d) Enables a mix of uses, creating vibrant new neighbourhoods.
(e) Mixing of homes and jobs gives opportunities for people to live near their
workplace.
-69-
(f) New housing could help to make the town more sustainable by increasing
the market for support services and the District Centre (see Option ST1b).
3.31
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for employment-related land uses (such as industry)
that are incompatible with housing.
(b) Could constrain the expansion of existing businesses where that
expansion would harm the environment for people living nearby.
(c) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses.
(d) Discourages the expansion of existing businesses and could lead to them
closing or moving out.
Issue ST3 - The future level of housing in Stocksbridge
3.32
Three options were considered for this Issue these were
Option ST3a (Rejected)
Increase the housing stock by expansion of the urban area (in line with
Option ST1b (part)).
3.33
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Would maximise population growth that could attract investment into the
District Centre and lead to its possible expansion.
(b) Provides maximum choice for those attracted to Stocksbridge as
commuters.
(c) Enables provision of affordable housing of a suitable type to meet local
need.
(d) Extra patronage provided by new homes could enable public transport
service providers to viably improve public transport services (the extent still
needs checking out).
3.34
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) There are insufficient brownfield sites to enable major expansion without
incursion into the Green Belt or development of local employment
generating land for housing.
(b) A sufficient increase in housing development to attract investors into the
District centre would probably require incursion into open space and the
Green Belt.
-70-
Option ST3b (Accepted)
Consolidate by concentrating housing development on existing brownfield
sites.
3.35
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Provides land close to the District Centre and employment areas for new
housing thereby strengthening sustainable communities.
(b) Allows employment base to change, with redevelopment of business
premises funded by an element of housing development on redundant
industry and business sites.
(c) Reflects the current market and the need for housing development to
support job-creating redevelopment.
(d) Could help to make new small to medium scale business development
more viable.
(e) Could help existing businesses to rationalise and become more viable.
(f) Enables a mix of uses, creating vibrant new neighbourhoods.
(g) Mixing of homes and jobs gives opportunities for people to live near their
workplace.
(h) New housing could help to make the town more sustainable by increasing
the market for support services and the district and neighbourhood
centres.
3.36
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry) that are incompatible
with housing.
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses.
(c) May not provide sites suitable for family housing.
Option ST3c (Rejected)
No significant increase in housing stock.
3.37
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Leaves brownfield sites available for employment and service generating
land use.
(b) Transport problems not increased by significant population increase.
(c) Safeguards greenfield sites.
3.38
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Sites could remain undeveloped.
-71-
(b) Population decline (as smaller numbers in each house would not be
compensated by new housing) would deter investment in improvements to
infrastructure and services and the District Centre.
(c) Insufficient patronage to encourage bus operators to run high frequency
bus services without major increase in the housing stock.
Issue ST4 – The future of Stocksbridge District Centre
3.39
Three options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option ST4a (Accepted in Part)
Expand the Centre with high density housing within 200 metres of the
centre.
3.40
The strength of this option is:
(a) Allows redundant brownfield land in and around the centre to be used for
compatible high value use close to high-density housing.
3.41
The weakness of this option is:
(a) Not sufficient population increase to interest the larger supermarket chains
to invest unless housing stock is more than doubled.
Option ST4b (Accepted)
Make improvements to the public realm and improve the physical condition
of the small shops and improve shopping choice. Improve accessibility via
public transport; manage through traffic and car born visitors.
3.42
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Provision of a more vibrant, pleasant shopping experience for local
residents with improved shopping choice.
(b) Opportunities created for service and disabled/short-term visitor parking
whilst being fully accessible by high frequency public transport.
3.43
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Will not happen without intervention and major investment in the centres
infrastructure.
(b) Insufficient patronage to encourage bus operators to run high frequency
bus services without major increase in the housing stock.
-72-
Option ST4c (Rejected)
Reflect market forces.
3.44
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Limited improvements will be made to the centre through the action of
local agencies e.g. the Stocksbridge Pride project aimed at improving the
Centre’s environment (a Stocksbridge Town Council/Stocksbridge Futures
Partnership project).
3.45
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Without improvements to the centre demand for housing in Stocksbridge
would be reduced.
Issue ST5 – Transport links to Stocksbridge
3.46
Four options were considered for this Issue, these were:
Option ST5a (option carried forward in policy ST2)
Introduction of a Quality Bus Corridor between Stocksbridge and Sheffield.
3.47
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Frequent high quality links between Stocksbridge and Sheffield City
Centre.
(b) Potential for flexibility in response to new development.
(c) Improve attractiveness of Stocksbridge as a location for homes and
businesses.
(d) Could possibly be linked to a strategic park and ride site at Deepcar (see
Issue T11).
3.48
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Insufficient current demand to justify additional service without significant
growth in population (implications of different levels of growth to be
checked out).
Option ST5b (Option not taken forward – see policy ST6)
Investment in new forms of rapid transit (guided bus or extension of
Supertram from Middlewood) – note that there are no current proposals for
such a link.
3.49
The strengths of this option are:
-73-
(a) Increased attractiveness (over Quality Bus Corridors) as a location for
homes and businesses.
(b) New forms of public transport could provide a more efficient, higher quality
service than the bus links to a potential park and ride facility.
3.50
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Less flexible to respond to change.
(b) Significant land-take for new track.
(c) Insufficient current demand to justify additional service.
(d) Unlikely to be commercially viable due to insufficient levels of patronage.
(e) Would require considerable capital investment and on-going subsidy.
Option ST5c (Option partly carried forward in policy ST7)
Upgrade the rail line into Stocksbridge to take passengers.
3.51
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Potential for rail-based park-and-ride to serve new business and housing
developments.
(b) The track already exists.
3.52
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Significant and prohibitive costs associated with the upgrading of the
existing line to accommodate passengers.
(b) Lack of signalling would incur massive financial implications.
(c) The rail track is a single-track route and has minimal capacity.
(d) Impact on people living close to the existing line close to the existing line.
(e) The anticipated patronage would justify the costs.
Option ST5d (Option rejected but wider issue now covered by policy ST1)
Local demand-responsive transport services to provide linkages to main
stream public transport, e.g. taxi-bus.
3.53
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Provides service that meets local needs and improves access for all.
(b) Highly flexible and adaptable to peoples individual needs which are not
met by commercial operators.
(c) Demand responsive services minimise wasted expenditure on under
utilised empty trips.
3.54
The weaknesses of this option are:
-74-
(d) Usually requires subsidy funding, often reliant on grants to enable services
to be set up.
(e) Not a spontaneous form of transport requires preparation and advanced
notice of journey requirements in order to be able to plan the trip.
(f) Does not address the strategic needs of Stocksbridge in relation to access
to Sheffield and other neighbouring areas.
Preferred Options merged to form policy SCH1
PST1 - Housing and jobs in Stocksbridge
A proportion of surplus operational land will be safeguarded in
Stocksbridge for employment uses and new housing will be limited to
previously developed land within the urban area.
3.55
3.56
The issues ST1, ST2 and ST3 were so interconnected and interdependent that
they were merged at the preferred options stage to form Preferred Option PST1
Housing and jobs in Stocksbridge. The emerging options driving the preferred
option PST1 were options:
- ST1a -
Increase self-containment by retaining employment land to
allow residents to work locally,
- ST2b -
Allow significant housing in the employment areas in
Stocksbridge and Deepcar whilst meeting market demand for
business development where compatible with housing (in line
with Option ST1b (part)), and
- ST3b -
Consolidate by concentrating housing development on existing
brownfield sites.
The following Options were rejected:
- ST1b (in part)Accept tendency to greater mobility and commuting out of
Stocksbridge by providing more housing and taking advantage
of the distinctive Pennine setting (by building on the edge of
the existing built-up area)
- ST2a -
Employment areas in the Stocksbridge and Deepcar continue
to be mainly for business and industry rather than redeveloping
with housing (in line with option ST1a).
- ST3a -
Increase the housing stock by expansion of the urban area (in
line with Option ST1b).
- ST3c -
No significant increase in housing stock.
-75-
PST2 – Stocksbridge District Centre
Opportunities will be taken as they arise to improve the environment of
Stocksbridge District Centre and to enable limited expansion when land
becomes available.
3.57
3.58
When considering the future of Stocksbridge District Centre, Emerging option
ST4b was the emerging option carried forward to the preferred options stage of
consultation, which became Preferred Option PST2 Stocksbridge District Centre.
The following options were rejected:
- ST4a -
Expand the Centre with high density housing within 200 metres
of the centre.
- ST4c -
Reflect market forces.
Issue ST5 (Transport links to Stocksbridge) was duplicating City-wide issues
dealt with by policies in the Transport Chapter of the emerging options, preferred
options and Submissions versions of the Core Strategy. Consequently, cross
references to the relevant policies are made in the reasons section of policy
SST1 relating to the relevant transport issues. Options ST5a, ST5b, ST5c and
ST5d are therefore considered in the Core Strategy Transport Background
Report. Further consideration of these options for Transport as part of SST1
would have resulted in the unnecessary duplication of policy.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy
Policy SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge
3.59
Industrial land identified in Stocksbridge/Deepcar as surplus to operational
requirements that could still provide employment and business
opportunities for local people will be safeguarded for business
development. New housing will be limited to previously developed land
within the urban area.
Opportunities will be taken as they arise to improve the environment of
Stocksbridge District Centre and to enable its improvement and expansion
when land becomes available.
Summary of Planning Reasons
3.60
The main reasons for the policy are:
-76-









The Employment Land Demand Assessment57 points to a long term shortage
of industrial land. This suggests that existing employment sites should be
retained where possible.
The industrial locations at Stocksbridge and Deepcar are established as either
existing locations for manufacturing and distribution uses or are well located
giving businesses locational advantages as well as being sustainable
locations for business needs in Stocksbridge/Deepcar. The locations are
close to the neighbouring population improving on existing employment
opportunities within the local area.
There is sufficient land to meet Sheffield’s development needs for housing
without having to expand into the area’s countryside.
At Stocksbridge and at Deepcar, the redevelopment of land for housing or
alternative uses that is either truly surplus to operational requirements or is
economically unfeasible to redevelop for industry because of various
development constraints, will allow land to either be put back into efficient use
or will allow major employers involved to rationalise their business so that the
can remain in either Stocksbridge or in the City.
The lack of large sites available for housing development within the urban
area means that future development needs for housing will be met by the
efficient use of land within the urban areas and the majority of these will be
windfalls within the urban area.
The regional policy direction is to allow change without destroying the
character of the area as a collection of semi rural settlements.
The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy promotes Stocksbridge, which is at the
heart of the area, as a main town providing jobs homes and services for its
semi rural catchment and acting as the focal point for development.
Stocksbridge District Centre performs poorly against PPS6 criteria used for
assessing vitality and viability.
The area has sufficient convenience and comparison goods floorspace and
there is no shortage of either. However, the area is losing most of the
expenditure form its catchment to neighbouring centres, suggesting a need for
a qualitative improvement to the District Centres offer.
Planning Reasons
3.61
Some of the employment land that has become surplus to operational
requirements has been retained for business development whilst some has been
developed for housing. As explained in paragraphs 1.49 to 1.55 above, Corus
are rationalising their operations and Outokumpu are closing their factory at
Stocksbridge. These are two of the main employer’s in the Stocksbridge/Deepcar
area.
3.62
Corus Engineering Steels rationalisation plans are encapsulated in the Corus
Works, Stocksbridge Development Brief, which was approved by Council for
57
Employment Land Demand Assessment for the City of Sheffield. Arup (July 2006)
-77-
Development Control purposes in December 200458. At Deepcar, land
designated for Fringe Industry and Business development on the former GR
Steins Site has received outline planning permission for residential development
subject to signing a planning obligation. The principle for future development of
the land on the Former GR Stein’s site and in the Corus Brief is decided to a
large degree by the outline planning permission and the development brief. The
majority of this land will be redeveloped for housing. Where possible, the
proposals have been reflected on the Preferred Options Proposals Map stage.
3.63
Pre-application discussions have started with a developer on the Outokumpu
owned land incorporating some of the land included in the Corus Works
Stocksbridge Development Brief. The developer is enquiring about
redevelopment of the land for retail and residential uses.
3.64
The future of the majority of this land was uncertain at the Preferred Options
stage as the independent employment land surveys and assessments were not
available. The main issue for Policy SST1 is how much of the land that is now
surplus to requirements, should be retained for industrial use and how much
should be allowed to be developed for housing and associated land uses as
Stocksbridge fulfils and should continue to fulfil a service centre role for its
catchment.
Future Demand for Employment Land
3.65
There is a significant issue focussed around the loss of industrial land to the east
of the Corus Works. That is, how much land should be retained for future
industrial use? Answering this question has determined the direction policy SST1
should take. On the question of which is the best use for industrial land surplus
to operational requirements, there are three sides to the debate. First, the sites
represent a supply of brownfield development land that is in a potentially
sustainable location for housing development and could contribute significantly to
the City’s long-term supply of housing land. Second, Stocksbridge is a town that
is separate from the main urban area of Sheffield that needs to continue to act as
a focal point for provision of services for its rural catchment, providing
employment opportunities to support their surrounding rural catchments (see
Paragraphs 3.12 to 3.14 above).
3.66
Third, there is an inherent danger that by saying no to change, rationalisation of
the companies occupying the land is stopped and the companies close or move
out of Sheffield. Leaving the area with less in the way of employment
opportunities, thereby increasing the need to travel long distances to work and
leaving large areas of derelict land, which detracts from the environmental quality
of the area. When the land becomes surplus to operational requirements at
Stocksbridge, the surplus land is in a secondary location for the industrial land
58
Corus Works, Stocksbridge Development Brief, Approved for Development Control purposes,
December 2004, Figure 5, Overall Masterplan, page 21.
-78-
market. In many instances, it is contaminated and needs reclaiming before it can
be redeveloped for industry or the development constraints of access, utility
supply, nature conservation, high flood risk, etc are so onerous that the sites can
become economically unviable to be developed for industry. Sites in these areas
are competing with sites in the Dearne Valley, Upper Don Valley, Lower Don
Valley, etc, that have better links, fewer constraints and the possible availability of
grant funding.
3.67
Yorkshire Water has indicated during consultation that there is insufficient
capacity at the Stocksbridge Water Treatment works to accommodate further
large-scale development. A new Sewage treatment works is planned and has
planning permission for a site further down the Don Valley but there will be a
need to ensure that there is capacity at the new site to accommodate the
development for either housing or industry.
3.68
Industrial land is required in this secondary location to give an element of choice
to Sheffield’s industrial land market and increase local employment opportunities.
However, it leaves a dilemma that is difficult to answer, which is, ‘How much
industrial land can this area afford to be re-designated or redeveloped for housing
and other uses before the area becomes less sustainable or unsustainable?
3.69
Policies for business and industry are one of the major contributions of the
Sheffield Development Framework to achieving regeneration and the economic
aims of the City Strategy. However, land for employment development is under
pressure from a strong housing market and there is Government guidance to
release surplus employment land for new housing. Policy SST1 attempts to
ensure that a variety of sites in the Stocksbridge area that are capable of
development for industry are reserved for industrial development and that these
sites are well served by infrastructure, as advised in government guidance.59
3.70
A major study was carried out for the Regional Spatial Strategy to assess
employment land requirements and Arup undertook a follow-up study in
conjunction with Donaldsons for Sheffield60, to translate their analysis to the City
and provide specific recommendations as to the level of demand for employment
land in Sheffield.
3.71
This study is the Employment Land Demand Assessment. The consultants
concluded that overall, 65.2 hectares of industrial land per year needs to be
supplied between 2006 and 2016 if the City is to meet its aspirations for
economic regeneration and the Core strategy is recommending a supply of 43.5
hectares per year is attainable. The figure includes a margin for choice of 21.7
hectares per year over and above the Core Strategy recommendation. This is
59
Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms. DoE. (November
1992), Paragraph 6.
60 Employment Land Demand Assessment for the City of Sheffield. Arup (July 2006)
-79-
therefore, clear evidence to support the claim that there is a potential long-term
shortfall in the industrial land supply61.
3.72
When this Citywide long-term shortfall in the industrial land supply is considered
alongside Stockbridge’s recognised role as a service centre for its catchment and
the case for maintaining or enhancing that role (see Paragraphs 3.12 to 3.14
above), there is a logical case for retention of as much industrial land in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar and Chapeltown/Ecclesfield as can be justified when
considered alongside local circumstances. This is particularly important if the City
is to provide employment opportunities in sustainable locations that meet the
needs of industry and provide additional employment opportunities close to its
residents, especial on its outskirts and for its satellites.
3.73
The preferred approach in the past was to allow some land to be redeveloped for
housing to facilitate rationalisation whilst retaining as much employment land as
possible to facilitate economic regeneration allowing investment in the
replacement of the old stock of industrial premises. This has been successfully
achieved at Stocksbridge Works through the Corus Works Development Brief,
which has informed the emerging options of the Core Strategy.
3.74
The choice is based on making balanced judgements on competing needs for
surplus employment land (i.e. from housing, retail and other supporting uses) and
the need to maintain the town’s service centre role by continuing to provide
employment opportunities. Where retaining land can no longer be justified, a
flexible approach can be taken to allow other uses to compete with housing in
these areas of opportunity. Policy SST1 will give clear direction in the decision
making process allowing balanced decisions to be made.
Locational Criteria for designation of Employment Land
3.75
The locational advantages of existing industrial estates cannot be ignored and
policy SST1 has taken advantage of the existing locations for industrial
development in the area. Options were considered in drafting Policy SST1 that
included providing more housing on the edge of the built-up area to take
advantage of the areas distinctive Pennine setting option (ST1b (part));
continuing to use the employment areas mainly for business rather than
redeveloping the land for industry option (ST2a); Increasing the housing stock by
expansion of the area option (ST3a); and no significant increase in housing stock
option (ST3c). But these were rejected for the following reasons:
61
See Sheffield Development Framework Business and Industry Draft Background Report, Sheffield City
Council, published February 2006.
-80-

Providing housing to take advantage of the areas distinctive rural setting
implies building close to or within that setting most of this is Green Belt or
Countryside, which has a Green Belt function and is integral to the character
of the area. To build significant numbers of houses in this way will have an
adverse effect on that which makes the areas setting distinctive, its semi
rural/rural character (option ST1b (part)).

Designating land for industry outside the built up area of Stocksbridge would
mean releasing land from the Green Belt and in so doing it would compromise
the permanence of the Green Belt, when it has been determined that there is
sufficient land available to meet the City’s needs within the urban area (option
ST3a).

Retaining all of the existing industrial land for industry in what is a secondary
location for industry could lead to large areas of land remaining unused for
long periods of time. This could severely detract from the area’s character as
the sites become more derelict or dilapidated over time (option ST2a).

Not designating sites for housing in Stocksbridge/Deepcar would make it
difficult in the future to attract investment into the area for improvements to its
infrastructure, services and transport network (option ST3c). This would not
be a large problem if the areas infrastructure was adequate, however, the
area has acknowledged problems to solve e.g. the capacity of its waste water
treatment works or the fact that it is currently served by medium frequency bus
routes (see Figure 4: Overground Bus Routes for Stocksbridge/Deepcar
above).
3.76
These options being rejected, the preferred option PST1 points to the industrial
area’s surplus operational land being retained for the development of business
uses, which are within the urban area. In addition, PPG4 sets out several factors
that development plans can take the opportunity to realise (See paragraph 3.8
above). Stocksbridge and Deepcar Industrial areas have been looked at as
locations in formulating Policy SST1 in relation to these factors in paragraphs
3.77 to 3.78 below.
3.77
Both Deepcar and Stocksbridge industrial areas are close to the Stocksbridge
Bypass having excellent links to the National Road network linking to Manchester
and the M1 Junctions 35a and 36. Stocksbridge Bypass also links to the A61
giving an alternative link with the City Centre via Hillsborough to the A6102.
Stocksbridge industrial areas position adjacent to the district centre means that it
is ideally placed for potential local employees to gain access. Both areas are
existing locations for industry and business development, and they both benefit
from the locational advantages enjoyed by existing businesses.
-81-
3.78
Both industrial areas are completely covered by previously used land. When any
of this land becomes available, policy SST1 is being consistent with advice
contained in PPG4 related to efficient use of land previously used for industry for
industrial development, so that locational advantages sought by business can be
maximised for new businesses by directing potential development proposals to
this surplus operational land.
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey Assessment of Site Suitability
3.79
The importance of ensuring that Stocksbridge and Deepcar are not only suitable
locations for employment development, but that the sites on offer at these
locations are suitable for development is important to the implementation of the
policy. There is evidence to support the need to retain as much industrial land as
possible in order to meet longer term shortfalls in supply (see paragraphs 3.65 to
3.74 above). However, if these sites are unsuitable for industrial development,
then alternative uses for the land should be considered. The Sheffield
Employment Sites Survey Final Report62 looked in detail at the suitability of sites
across the city.
Table 4: Stocksbridge/Deepcar Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation 63
Quality of Site
EX
Marketability
MX
Suitability Score
Access
AX
Policy
Consideration
s
PX
Sustainability
SX
Core Strategy
Employment
Policies
RSS Policy E5
Size of
Opportunity
Land
Size of Vacant
Land
Policy Considerations
Size of Site
Name
BILS Ref.
General Site Details
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
52.8
4.0
3.0
3.5
3.2
4.0
70.8
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
4.0
68.8
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
64.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
58.0
Sites over 5 hectares
1/1
1/32
1/34
1/33
1/2
Station Road, Deepcar
Ernest Thorpe’s Lorry Park,
Station Road
Eastern End, Stocksbridge
Steelworks
Stocksbridge Steelworks’ Trailer
Park
Station Road, Deepcar
15.7
0.9
0.4
0.8
1.6
Prior
Flexible Use
ity
Area
Sites less than or equal to 5 hectares
Prior
Bus & Ind
0.0
0.9
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
0.0
0.3
ity
Area
Prior
Industrial
0.0
0.7
ity
Area
0.0
0.0
3.9
1.5
Prior
ity
Industrial
Area
Sites over 80% - to be reserved for
Employment uses
Sites between 60% and 80% - suitable for
industrial development with some
intervention
Sites below 60% - Unsuitable sites to be
considered for alternative uses
N.b. sites formatted bold are in Stocksbridge/Deepcar the remaining sites are in Stocksbridge/Deepcar.
62
Employment Sites Survey Final Report produced by Atkins 9/3/2007
Source: Sheffield Employment Sites Survey Final Report produced by Atkins 9/3/2007 – Appendix F
Table F.2 – Available and occupied Sites Overall Suitability Score.
63
-82-
3.80
Table 4: Stocksbridge/Deepcar Industrial Site Suitability Evaluation above shows
the results of the consultant’s findings for the sites located in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar. Of the 5 sites located in Stocksbridge/Deepcar that were
assessed as part of this exercise, only the two sites at Station Road Deepcar
were considered to be unsuitable for industrial development. Both sites have
been considered for alternative uses but the constraints on the site are onerous
and the designation needs to be flexible enough to allow a range of uses on the
land. The combined sites have outline planning permission for residential and
mixed use development. The preferred options Proposals Map shows site 1/1,
which is a 15.7 hectare site as a flexible use area. The planning permission also
covers site 1/2, a 1.6 hectare site that was to be developed for industrial units
under the planning permission. This site is shown under a General employment
area designation. Both designations have no preferred use for use for
redevelopment but the flexible use area includes housing as part of the range of
acceptable uses and the General Employment Area has B1, B2 and B8 uses as
part of the range of acceptable uses. This gives maximum flexibility to
developers to maximise the opportunities for viably and sustainably developing
the sites.
3.81
However, the other three sites are at the western end of Corus Works are
suitable for industrial development now. However, if the area that is about to
become available for development is developed for more housing, then these
sites will be severed from the remaining works. They will be heavily constrained
by the housing or other use. In addition, with their marginal suitability score, they
would become less suitable or even unsuitable for redevelopment for industry if
the adjacent Outokumpu land holdings are redeveloped for housing or retail use.
Unfortunately, the Outokumpu land holdings that might have become vacant were
occupied at the time that the survey work was carried out so it was not included in
the suitability assessment.
3.82
However, market demand is not expected to be sufficient to justify keeping all the
employment land that is released from operational use. So, some has been
made available for housing and related land uses if good living conditions can be
achieved without constraining adjacent industry. The revenue from the sale of
land for housing may be needed for existing businesses to continue investing in
the area. New housing development would also help to meet the need for
affordable housing for local people wishing to remain in Stocksbridge.
3.83
The recent floods have severely affected Outokumpu’s operations on the site
(See paragraph 1.51 above). But, the flood risk would make the land unsuitable
for housing redevelopment without remedial measures to reduce flood damage,
being in the High flood risk zone 3 on the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Maps.
Flood risk alone is insufficient reason to prevent housing development but if the
land is suitable for industrial development and there is evidence to show that
there may be a long-term shortage of industrial land then this would point to the
lands retention for industry. There is therefore insufficient information to justify
-83-
the release of this heavily constrained industrial land for housing or other uses in
terms of the suitability of the land for industrial development.
3.84
The conclusion is that the land at Deepcar should be released for alternative uses
although there are many constraints. The land to the east of the Main Corus
works that includes Outokumpu and should be retained for industry until there is
sufficient evidence to support its release. However, the land’s location close to
the district centre and the need for qualitative change may be sufficient to allow
retail development on the land.
Future Demand for Housing
3.85
The South Yorkshire Settlement study64 showed that Stocksbridge had significant
capacity for change having capacity for 827 dwellings. The study also showed
that that in terms of its role as a service centre:
“ The district centre and local supermarkets serve the town and surrounding
rural hinterland. Stocksbridge leisure centre is a key local facility. Schools
and medical infrastructure are provided”.
3.86
It also considered that:
“ Whilst the range and quality of services may meet day to day needs of local
people, they are unlikely to attract people from a wide catchment.
Settlements, such as Oughtibridge/Worrall and Wharncliffe side, probably
have a greater reliance on Hillsborough for services. However, small rural
settlements located in BMBC may rely on Stocksbridge for some service
provision. The steelworks may attract people into the town for work”.
3.87
The overall availability of land for housing in Stocksbridge is considered more
fully in the Housing Background Report (see policy SH2).
Stocksbridge District Centre
3.88
The Sheffield Retail Study looked at shopping patterns for Stocksbridge and
found:
“ Within Zone 1 (Stocksbridge/Oughtibridge) the principle destination for main
food shopping trips is the Morrisons store at Hillsborough which accounts for
27% of such trips. In succession, the next most favoured destinations for
main food shopping trips are the Co-op at Stocksbridge (17%) and the Asda
at Chapeltown (17%). Of note, Zone 1 exhibits the highest level of main
food shopping trips carried out outside of the city boundary (7%). This is
symptomatic of the zone’s peripheral location and proximity to other centres,
notably Barnsley. The individual store having the strongest influences on
64
-84-
top-up shopping patterns is the Co-op in Stocksbridge (24%). The bulk of
the remaining top-up market share is accounted for by smaller local retailers
in Stocksbridge, Hillsborough and elsewhere across the city. Overall, the
survey results show that 22% of main food trips and 45% of top-up trips
made by residents of Zone 1 are retained within the zone’s district centres
and large foodstores. In terms of retention within the city as a whole, the
various outlets in Sheffield account for 94% of main food and 100% of top-up
trips made by respondents in Zone 1.65”
3.89
This evidence suggests that 78% of the main shopping trips in the area are being
made to Hillsborough, Chapeltown or Barnsley. 55% of the top-up shopping trips
are made to shops outside the centres catchment. The most telling information
from the survey is that that the centre performs comparatively less well than other
centres in terms of vitality and viability but, there is no need to add more shopping
floorspace to the district centre. In terms of the viability and vitality of
Stocksbridge District Centre, the Study found:
“ 7.07 A ‘healthcheck’ assessment of the seventeen district centres in Sheffield was
undertaken. Overall, Crystal Peaks, Hillsborough, Ecclesall Road, Broomhill
and Chapeltown perform well in respect of the main indicators of vitality and
viability. Spital Hill, Manor Top, Stocksbridge, Woodhouse, Crookes and
Gleadless Townend display the lowest levels of vitality and viability relative
to other centres having regard to the key indicators.”
3.90
In terms of the need for further convenience goods retail floorspace in Sheffield,
2003-2016:
“ 7.09 The study finds that, overall; the quality of foodstore provision in Sheffield is
acceptable, aside from the areas north and south-east of the City Centre. In
North Sheffield in particular, there is a strong qualitative need, backed up by
the findings of the quantitative assessment, to justify the provision of further
convenience retail provision in the North Sheffield area. Elsewhere, it is
considered that there is no current requirement for the provision of further
convenience floorspace.”
3.91
From these findings, it can be deduced that there is a quantitative need for
additional floorspace to accommodate at least a high quality food store in
Stocksbridge District Centre. The problem is that there is no vacant land within
the district Centres boundaries to allow a high quality store to be built in the
Centre. Policy SST1 makes provision for the Centre to expand as opportunities
arise onto land adjacent to the centre. This is technically possible, even though
there is a significant height difference between Manchester Road (B6088) and
the Little Don Valley bottom.
65
Page 18, Paragraph 3.21, Sheffield Retail Study, Sheffield City Council, Published October 2003,
produced by White Young Green Planning.
-85-
3.92
With the area’s capacity for change there does appear to be scope to enhance
the area’s role as a service centre to offer services for the residents of the larger
villages of Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe side as well as the existing
services it now provides. As the closest centre to these villages, it is logical to
assume that enhancing Stocksbridge’s service centre role would be more
sustainable than these villages continuing to rely on Hillsborough as a service
centre. Policy SST1 acknowledges this potential and improves the possibility of
enhancing the District Centre’s role both in term’s of catering for new housing
development at Stocksbridge and Deepcar and enhancing its service centre role
for its hinterland and large villages close by.
3.93
In principle, new housing would increase demand for local shops and services
and this could contribute to greater self-containment of the area by reducing the
need for shopping further in neighbouring centres, for example, at Hillsborough or
Chapeltown. However, the future growth in population that could be achieved
without major incursion into the Green Belt would probably not be enough to
attract the scale of new development needed to revitalise the District Centre in a
big way, but it would have a significant impact on the centre’s vitality and viability.
The release of former employment land next to the District Centre could still help
to bring about smaller-scale improvements that would contribute to making
Stocksbridge a more sustainable community. Policy SEH2 also identifies the
need to ensure sufficient health provision here along with the new housing, which
has been partially met by the construction of the new Deepcar Surgery on
Manchester Road (B6088).
3.94
There will still be a need for significant travel between Stocksbridge and the main
built up area of Sheffield and this will be helped by recent improvements to the
frequency of bus services to Middlewood tram terminus. The area will benefit
from the Key Route status of the Manchester Road connection to Sheffield (see
policy ST2), the proposed bridge at Claywheels Lane and new connection to
Penistone Road in the Upper Don Valley within the main built-up area (see policy
SUD1), and any improvements programmed through the South Yorkshire Local
Transport Plan for that corridor. The reason for this is that the A61 Penistone
Road links with the Stocksbridge Bypass and forms an alternative route into the
City Centre. With the proposals to build a bridge link between the A6102 and the
A61, congestion in the centre of Hillsborough with the associated tailbacks along
the A6102 can be avoided. The freight line to Stocksbridge is safeguarded (see
policy ST7). Reinstatement for passengers would be very expensive but the
route beyond, via Woodhead, could still feature in long-term national rail strategy.
There is also a project run by the Don Valley Railway group for a heritage rail
service from Victoria Station to Stocksbridge, which needs funding to implement
it.
3.95
Policy SST1 makes provision for balancing demand for limited land resources in
order to help Stocksbridge enhance its role as a service centre for its catchment.
The balance between employment and housing uses will be achieved through the
City Polices and City Sites documents and Proposals Map.
-86-
Sustainability Appraisal
3.96
Six options were considered in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy
Preferred Options. The Preferred Option (formerly emerging Options ST1a, ST2b
and ST3b) was the most sustainable option tested with Option C (Option ST2a)
being the next best sustainable option. Options B (option ST1b) and Option D
(option ST3a) were the least sustainable options. Option E had a negligible effect
on sustainability.
3.97
Options B and D were effectively about extension of the urban area and
potentially damaging the surrounding green environment and the Semi rural
character of the area. Option C was slightly less sustainable than the preferred
option because it was assumed that because Stocksbridge is in a secondary
location for industry, the surplus land remains vacant for a long period of time,
which does not promote the area for business development and does not create
jobs.
3.98
The preferred option i.e. “a proportion of surplus operational land will be
safeguarded in Stocksbridge for Employment uses and new housing will be
limited to previously developed land within the urban area”, scored strongly
because it promoted:







3.99
A strong economy with good job prospects;
Provided decent housing available to everyone;
Improved safety and security for people and property;
Creates land use patterns that minimise the need to travel or which promote
the use of sustainable forms of transport;
Efficiently uses land which makes good use of previously developed land;
Promotes a quality built environment; and
Wildlife and important geological sites conserved and enhanced.
In conclusion, Policy SST1 is based on the most sustainable options available to
meet the objectives of the Core Strategy and where the best option was not the
most sustainable option the reasons for opting for it are based on the preferred
options ability to meet those objectives.
Equality Appraisal
3.100 Each of the options considered has been assessed for its impact on
disadvantaged groups66 including the preferred options PST1 and PST2, which
are the basis for Policy SST1. The following disadvantaged groups benefited the
most from the preferred option PST1 and option ST2a:


People with low access to public transport,
People on low incomes,
66
See the Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options for the Core Strategy, Appendix 2,
Sustainability Appraisal of Preferred Options, published February 2006., Sheffield City Council
-87-


People with physical disabilities,
Physically frail or vulnerable people and their carers.
The main reason for this is because it places employment opportunities close to
the residential areas, thereby reducing the need to travel.
3.101 Options ST1b and ST3a had a detrimental effect on those on low incomes and
those with low access to public transport. This is because the new homes are
further away from jobs and support services under these options. Option ST3c
maintained the status quo for all the groups tested.
3.102 The preferred option PST2 had an equally positive effect for all disadvantaged
groups tested because it provides an improved quality of service from
Stocksbridge District Centre, thereby reducing the need to travel to obtain an
increased range of goods in an improved shopping environment and makes it
easier to get around.
Consultation Responses
3.103 Of the twenty-one comments received for the preferred options for
Stocksbridge/Deepcar, eleven were related to preferred option PST1, eight were
related to preferred option PST2 and two were general comments.
3.104 Of the eleven comments received on option PST1, there were six supporting
comments of which four fully supported the option and two partially supported the
option. There were two objections and two general statements.
3.105 Stocksbridge Community Forum also commented in support of the use of the
words Upper Don Valley which they found confusing (Comment Reference
No.5275.010), The City Council agreed and replaced the wording with a clearer
description of the area referred to. Stocksbridge Community Forum commented
in support of the need for more employment in the area (Comment Reference
No.5275.005), and support for more housing leading to better facilities in the town
but the housing should be on brownfield sites (Comment Reference
No.5275.004). They also made a general comment about the negative response
to upgrading transport in the area (Comment Reference No.5275.003). The
Council’s response is that the Core Strategy supports the maintenance of a rail
link to Stocksbridge and protects that link for transport purposes through
Preferred Option PT9, now incorporated into Draft policy ST7. This will help to
protect the rail line to Stocksbridge from Sheffield. As a response to this
comment, attempts were made to incorporate a statement of intent within the
policy aimed at improvements to the network but the improvements are not within
the control of the City Council and the resources have been directed to higher
priority projects. Links have however been made in the reasons section of the
policy to current commitments and related policies.
-88-
3.106 GVA Grimley supported the option commenting that Corus is keen to ensure that
its objectives are encapsulated in the emerging policy framework and that their
comments are more related to detailed matters covered in the Proposals Map
and City Polices documents (Comment Reference No. 5184.003). The City
council welcomed their support and made no further changes to the option as a
result of their comment.
3.107 JVH Planning objected to PST1 on the grounds that significant new housing in
Stockbridge. Albeit this is on previously developed land it is considered remote,
unsustainable, poorly linked to the urban area and unattractive. The transport
infrastructure does not exist to support the Option (Comment Reference No.
5266.006). The City Council Disagrees with the respondent as Stocksbridge is in
a remote location but has a service centre role, the option is aiming to increase
self containment and boost its service centre role. The town has a function as a
service centre for its surrounding rural catchment. By increasing the number of
houses, it is hoped that patronage for bus services will increase and the
investment for the necessary improvements to infrastructure will be implemented.
No change was made to the option as a result of this comment.
3.108 Development Land and Planning objected to PST1 on the grounds that it is
completely contrary to the advice given in PPG3 Para 42(a). The only
justification for this policy could be made on the basis of an up-to-date
employment land review to justify that there is a realistic prospect of the allocation
coming forward for industrial development. The City Council disagreed with the
respondent on the grounds that an employment needs survey had been
commissioned and although there is agreement in principle to release land at
Stocksbridge for housing, it would be premature to release further land for
housing without the benefit of proof that the land was no longer required to meet
the Cities industrial needs. No further change was made to PST1 as a result of
the comment.
3.109 Yorkshire Water made a general comment on option PST1 that this settlement is
served by the Stocksbridge Waste Water Treatment Works at Deepcar. This is a
relatively small works with very limited capacity for additional growth and this
would limit the ability for Stocksbridge to grow. The City Council noted this and is
fully aware of the severity of the constraint imposed on future development and
would ensure development that could not be served by the WWTW was not given
planning permission through the development Control process.
3.110 NJL Consulting made a general comment on option PST1 that they believe
Stocksbridge is changing away from an industrial settlement to a more
appropriate mix of retail, residential and employment land uses. Priority should
be given to creating appropriate marketable, quality rather than a high quantity of
employment land. The City Council noted this comment and made no further
changes to PST1 as a result of this comment.
-89-
3.111 Of the eight comments received on option PST2, there were four comments fully
supporting the option, and four objections.
3.112 Stocksbridge Community Forum, NJL Consulting, GVA Grimley and Sheffield
First Health and Wellbeing Partnership all supported PST2. The City Council
agreed with the respondents and no further change was made to PST2 as a
result of their comments.
3.113 Hepher Dixon Ltd made objections to any paragraphs in the Preferred Options
document related to retail development this meant 4 objection s were made by
the company relating to PST2 al on the same ground which is that It is not clear
what evidence supports this analysis, but in any event, the analysis puts forward
an unresolved proposition rather than a specific spatial strategy. The text should
be reviewed as part of a general view of the overall Retail Strategy.
3.114 There were also two general comments about the options for Stocksbridge.
These comments were from Stocksbridge Community Forum, one the comments
mentioned that Stocksbridge was not mentioned under the heading of
entertainment (Comment Reference No.5275.007), the reason is that the City
Policy document directs leisure development to the Core retail area, District and
Neighbourhood Centres but outside these areas they would be subject to the
preferred option PS8 which sets conditions on retail and leisure development
outside these areas. They also asked questions about the development of the
areas heritage and the possibility of completing certain heritage projects
(Comment Reference No. 5275.006) that are outside the scope of the Core
Strategy.
3.115 In conclusion, there is a good level of support from key organisations for both
preferred options, which make up the policy SST1. The City Council disagrees
with the objections that argue that the land should not be developed as proposed
by the preferred options for the policy, as the area is unsustainable location with
insufficient resources to deal with new development. Policy SST1’s aim is not to
give up on Stocksbridge but to encourage sustainable growth that includes the
provision of the infrastructure necessary to support new development so that the
town can provide a level of support and services that make living in its catchment
more sustainable.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
3.116 The reasons for selecting the Policy SST1 are that the industrial locations at
Stocksbridge and Deepcar are established as either existing locations for
manufacturing and distribution uses or are well located giving businesses the
locational advantages they seek in line with guidance in PPG4. As well as being
sustainable locations for business needs in Stocksbridge/Deepcar, the locations
are close to the neighbouring population. Redevelopment of the surplus land for
industry will improve on existing employment opportunities within a local area that
has many jobs. The regional policy direction is to allow change without
-90-
destroying the character of the area as a collection of semi rural settlements but
change is necessary if the area is to enhance its service centre role, which was
recognised in the Draft RSS and the South Yorkshire Settlement Study. The
policy aims to enhance Stocksbridge’s service centre role in order to provided
homes, jobs and services for its catchment.
3.117 The Employment Land Demand Assessment points to a long term shortage of
industrial land, which suggests that existing employment sites should be retained
where possible. In addition the sites suggested are largely suitable for industrial
development so the available industrial land should not be used for other than
employment uses unless there is further evidence to show that the land in
question is not suitable for development for industry or there is a justifiable
reason for development that outweighs the need to keep the sites for industry.
3.118 There is sufficient land to meet Sheffield’s development needs for housing
without having to expand into the area’s countryside. At Stocksbridge and
Deepcar, the redevelopment of land for housing or alternative uses that is either
truly surplus to operational requirements or is economically unfeasible to
redevelop for industry because of various development constraints, will allow land
to either be put back into efficient use or will allow major employers involved to
rationalise their business so that the can remain in either Stocksbridge or in the
City.
3.119 The lack of large sites available for housing development within the urban area
means that future development needs for housing will be met by the efficient use
of land within the urban areas and the majority of these will be windfalls within the
urban area.
3.120 Stocksbridge District Centre performs poorly against PPS6 criteria used for
assessing vitality and viability. It is loosing trade heavily to neighbouring centres
and this is because of the quality of the District Centres offer (not the quality of its
existing shops). The area has sufficient convenience and comparison goods
floorspace and there is no shortage of either. This suggests a need for a
qualitative improvement to the District Centre’s offer and the best way of
achieving this by expansion into adjoining available land to enhance the centres
offer and allow it to enhance the town’s service centre role.
Implementation and Monitoring
3.121 In order to implement the three main strands of policy SST1 of retaining surplus
land for business growth; creating new housing on previously developed land
within the housing area; and the renewal of Stocksbridge District Centre through
expansion as opportunities arise, the following Core Strategy policies must be
implemented:
-91-

SE1 Protecting the Countryside, to ensure that development is retained within
the urban area.

SB2 Business and Industrial Development on Brownfield and Greenfield Land,
to ensure that brownfield land is the primary target for development.

SH2 Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land, (especially
part (h) Stocksbridge (around 900 homes)), to ensure that there is an
adequate supply of housing to serve the city/area.

SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/ Warehousing and other Nonoffice Businesses (especially part (g) Thorncliffe and Smithywood).

SS2 District Centres, to ensure that the district centre maintains and
enhances its attractiveness.
3.122 Surplus operational industrial land will be designated for industrial use where it is
proven that there is still a need for the land to be developed for industry on the
Sheffield Development Framework Proposals Map. Where surplus land has been
allocated for alternative uses in the approved Corus Works, Stocksbridge
Development Brief, or any other relevant development briefs or planning
approvals, the Proposals Map will reflect those approved documents and
commitments.
3.123 The Core Strategy’s performance will be the subject of an Annual Monitoring
Report. The Citywide spatial policies list targets that need to be checked on to
ensure that the strategy is working as envisaged these are good indicators to the
performance of policy Spatial policies and although the Annual Monitoring Report
will not go into area specific detail with regard to targets for specific areas, the
information gathered for the annual monitoring report will be available on an area
basis, e.g. the Sheffield Housing Urban Potential Study produces information on
the potential in the main towns, as well as for urban Sheffield.
3.124 The policy will therefore be implemented:







by making decisions on planning applications.
by the development of allocated City Sites and windfall development sites.
by active promotion of previously developed land through regeneration
strategies, masterplans and area action plans.
through the safeguarding of greenfield land through decisions on planning
applications.
by setting and meeting a target of 90% of land for non-office businesses,
industry and distribution uses to be in named locations.
by taking measures to minimise adverse effects on the life of the centre, and
through private sector investment.
-92-
3.125 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SST1. However, policy SH2 indicates that 900 new homes will be built in
Stocksbridge/ Deepcar over the period 2004/05 to 2020/21. Policy SH3 sets a
target for 90% of new homes to be built on previously developed land. Relevant
targets and indicators for policies SH2 and SH3 are described in the Housing
Background Report. A number of other the targets and indicators for policies in
other topic chapters are also relevant and are described in the related
Background Report:



Business and Industry Background Report – see policies SB2 and SB4.
Retail and Built Leisure Background – see policy SS2.
Environment Background Report – see policy SE1.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
3.126 The mix of new development Stocksbridge/ Deepcar (and more specifically in and
around Stocksbridge District Centre) will also be monitored and data recorded on
the City Council’s planning applications database. This would not, however, be
reported in the AMR but the information will be used to inform allocations in the
City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
3.127 The probability that the policy won’t be implemented are slim because of the
following factors:

The Corus Works, Stocksbridge Development Brief is in the process of being
implemented and land that has been proven to be surplus to citywide
requirements has been allowed to be reused for housing development within
the brief which has approval for development control purposes.

Greenfield sites on the edge of the urban area will continue to be protected
from development, unless there is a significant change in national planning
policy on the efficient use of land. This effectively redirects investment onto
previously developed sites in the urban area.

The permanence of the Green Belt will mean that land within the Green Belt
will continue to be protected from inappropriate development, effectively
redirecting investment onto previously developed sites in the urban area.

Negotiations are at the pre application stage on a possible extension to the
shopping centre. It is early days in the negotiations and there are many
hurdles for any proposals that do come forward in the future to overcome,
however, policy SST1’s signal to the market that there is a possibility will
mean that opportunities are likely to be seized by potential developers, to
realise the areas potential for retail development.
-93-

The two City sites that have been allocated for housing development (sites
101 and 117) that are allocated on the Preferred Options Proposals Map both
have planning permission for housing and windfall sites are regularly coming
forward for permission to develop dwellings.

If a developer can demonstrate that there is no longer a need to retain the
surplus industrial land at Stocksbridge, there is an opportunity to provide more
housing developments and this would accord with the policy.
3.128 There is a debate about whether there is sufficient demand for industrial
development in the area to justify the retention of the surplus industrial land for
industry. As proven at Deepcar, the Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise
Partnership built very successful starter units on land close to the ‘Deepcar site’.
There is sufficient demand for small starter business units in the area as there is
outline permission for such units as part of the ‘Deepcar site’ planning
permission. In addition, we believe that there is a specialist market for
businesses benefiting from locating in Stocksbridge/Deepcar. Developers of
alternative uses on the land designated for industrial use must prove that there is
lack of demand by means which include showing that the surplus land has been
effectively marketed for industrial purposes.
3.129 If there is no demand for the industrial land, the policy is flexible enough to allow
the reuse of the land for other purposes. The use of the land will be monitored as
part of the monitoring process for the Core Strategy and if there is not a demand
for industrial development the land will be redesignated for a range of alternative
uses that are compatible with existing industry and allow for the expansion of the
District Centre.
3.130 There is a dependency on the improvement of transport links to the urban area of
Sheffield for the strategy to work and these improvements are provided for by the
Core Strategy’s Transport policies. Implementation of these transport
improvements may be hampered by competition for scarce resources. Other
higher priorities in the Local Transport Plan may mean that resources would be
diverted elsewhere in the City in the Short term whilst issues like this one wait for
future Local Transport Plans to give them priority. However, the fact that the
Core Strategy gives these improved links some priority, places a marker against
the issue for future Local Transport Plans to pick up.
Conclusion
3.131 Policy SST1 is a spatial one based on the Stocksbridge/Deepcar area. Policy
SST1 meets the requirements of soundness test 4 having ensured that it is
consistent with national planning policy, in general conformity with the Draft RSS
for the region and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies
and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
-94-
3.132 Policy SST1 has had regard to the City Strategy, and in so doing has aimed to
contribute to the City’s long term objectives and help to meet some of the
challenges to be faced in the coming years. How the policy does this is
described in the Relationship with the City Strategy section (from Page 25
onwards). On the basis of this assessment it is our view that the policy meets the
requirements of soundness test 5 because we have ensured that it has had
regard to the authority’s Community Strategy.
3.133 As a Core Strategy spatial policy, it is important that Policy SST1 is coherent and
consistent with other relevant policies within the Core Strategy to avoid creating
conflicting Core Strategy policy guidance. The Consistency with other Planning
Policies section explains the how the policy is consistent with relevant policies in
the Core Strategy.
3.134 As a Core Strategy policy, it is important that other subordinate Sheffield
Development Framework Development Plan Documents are consistent with it.
Therefore its consistency with the City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map
documents will be left to future background papers for those documents and for
any other supplementary planning documents produced to supplement their
policies.
3.135 Policy SST1 has been checked for consistency with the policies of neighbouring
local authorities namely Rotherham and Barnsley and it was found that there
were no cross boundary issues of relevance to the policy. It is therefore our view
that Policy SCH1 is coherent and consistent within and between the Development
Plan Documents prepared Sheffield and by neighbouring authorities, where cross
boundary issues are relevant and it therefore meets the soundness test 6
3.136 Policy SST1 is derived from 10 options considered at previous stages of
preparation for taking forward towards submission of the Core Strategy. Of the
10 options, the most appropriate five options (ST1a, ST1b (part), ST2b, ST3b and
ST4b) have been reconsidered in terms of their strengths and weaknesses and
as the preferred options; they have formed the basis of policy SST1. Their
appropriateness has been determined by consideration of robust and credible
evidence in each case. It is our view that policy SST1 meets criterion of
soundness test 7 having tested that the policy represents the most appropriate in
all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and is founded
on a robust and credible evidence base.
3.137 Policy SST1 describes in its reasons section how it is intended to be
implemented. This reasoning is expanded to explain how the implementation of
related topic policies will also help the implementation of this policy in the
Implementation and Monitoring section on page 91. It is our view that the
mechanisms for implementation are clearly described and that the policy meets
the requirements of soundness test 8.
-95-
3.138 The Flexibility and Risk Assessment section on page 93 looks in detail at what
the probability not realising key assumptions that the policy is based on. It
examines whether the policy is reasonably flexible enough to allow it to deal with
changing circumstances and that there are contingencies if the consequences of
that change lead to an unacceptable situation. It is our view that Policy SST1 is
reasonably flexible enough to deal with changes in circumstance and that the
policy meets the requirements of soundness test 9.
3.139 The first three soundness tests deal with procedure concerning the preparation of
the Core Strategy and consultation, which we believe has been carried out
correctly and in accordance with those tests. Tests 4 to 9 are specifically about
ensuring that the policy is consistent with relevant policies, strategies and
Masterplans, with the City’s plans and overall vision for the future, that within
reason all the alternative options have been considered, that the reasons for the
policy are based on sound credible evidence, that there are clear mechanisms for
implementation of the policy and that the policy is flexible enough to adapt to
change. We believe that Policy SST1 meets these tests of soundness and
should therefore be adopted.
-96-
4
HOLLIN BUSK
Introduction
4.1
A large area of open countryside at Hollin Busk, between Stocksbridge and
Deepcar, lies outside the Green Belt. The land has been under pressure for
housing development for many years since it was excluded from the Green Belt
in the adopted Green Belt Plan of 1983. The land was unallocated in the Draft
Stocksbridge District Plan when the land was identified as a possible location for
housing development. The planning inspector for the Stocksbridge District Plan
Inquiry agreed to a figure of 400 houses on sites in Stocksbridge during the
Inquiry. Of the 400 Houses, 162 were to be provided at either Hollin Busk or
Townend Lane. After scrutiny at the Stocksbridge District Plan Inquiry the plan
was adopted in 1984 with the site unallocated. This was to allow flexibility of
housing provision after the Plan period. The site was designated as two Housing
Sites separated by an Open Space Area in the Draft Unitary Development Plan
1991.
4.2
Planning permission was submitted for residential development and construction
of roads and sewers in 1989. Permission was refused because the proposals
would result in a significant environmental intrusion and it was contrary to the
Stocksbridge District Plan Policy 3.2.8. An appeal was lodged and dismissed on
the grounds that the proposal would be severely detrimental to the quality of the
environment of the area and emphasis was placed on the Green Belt functions of
the site in the Inspector’s report.
4.3
The site was subsequently designated as an Open Space Area in the Deposit
Unitary Development Plan 1993. Objections to the site’s designation as Open
Space were heard at the Unitary Development Plan Inquiry in March 1995 to
March 1996. The objections were on two grounds, first that it should be
designated as two housing sites within a Housing Area with an Open Space Area
in the central core portion of the site between them and second, that it should be
designated as Green Belt. The planning inspector recommended no modification
to the Unitary Development Plan in response to these objections. The Unitary
Development Plan was subsequently adopted in 1998 with the site designated as
Open space area.
4.4
Local people have waged a long campaign during this period for the land to be
added to the Green Belt and its future under the Sheffield Development
Framework needs to be clarified.
-97-
Policy SST2 Hollin Busk
4.5
The green, open and rural character of greenfield land south of
Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be safeguarded through protection as open
countryside.
Policy Background
National Policy
4.6
Policy SST2 relates to the future of the Hollin Busk Site. The main issue tackled
by the policy is should the land be developed for housing or should it be protected
from built development.
4.7
The overall aim of national planning policy guidance and statements as contained
in PPS1 is to create mixed and sustainable communities. PPG2 is relevant to
this debate because the Green Belt sets the extent of urban development and the
extent of the urban area cannot grow significantly without change to the Green
Belt boundary. PPS3 is relevant as it advises how to identify new locations for
housing development and states how land can be effectively and efficiently used.
PPS7 is relevant because it sets guidance aimed at promoting more sustainable
patterns of development in rural areas and raising the quality of life and the
environment in rural areas.
4.8
PPS1 is important to the reasoning for policy SST2 because it advises local
authority’s that in order to meet the Governments planning objectives they should
pursue four aims for sustainable development in its 1999 strategy67, namely




4.9
67
social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
effective protection of the environment;
the prudent use of natural resources; and
the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and
employment.
One of the ways in which it local authorities should pursue these aims in terms of
preparing development plans is through early community involvement and early
identification of options to allow dialogue and discussion. In PPS1, paragraph 7,
page 9, the emphasis is placed on taking on board the vision for their areas as
set out in their community’s strategy. It also emphasises the need for early
engagement of all stakeholders in the plan making process and in taking forward
development proposals. This has been done through consultation on the
Emerging Options for the Core Strategy document, helping to identify the issues
and problems at an early stage.
A Better Quality of Life - A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK - CM 4345, May 1999.
-98-
4.10
PPS1, Community Involvement section, paragraph 4, emphasises that effective
community involvement requires an approach which enables communities to put
forward ideas and suggestions and participate in developing proposals and
options. It is not sufficient to invite them to simply comment once these have
been worked-up. This is main reason why a full range of reasonable and relevant
options have been tested as part of that process.
4.11
The fundamental aim of national Green Belt policy is to keep land designated as
Green Belt permanently open. Giving protection to open land on the edge of the
urban area helps to ensure that it is not developed in preference to more
constrained previously developed land allocated for development within the urban
areas
4.12
Once designated, the use of land in Green Belts has a role to play in meeting a
number of objectives: to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside
for the urban population; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor
recreation near urban areas; to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance
landscapes, near to where people live; to improve damaged and derelict land
around towns; to secure nature conservation interest; and to retain land in
agricultural, forestry and related uses.
4.13
The purposes of placing land in the Green Belt are of paramount importance, not
whether the land fulfils the objectives of Green Belt68. If the functionality of the
land being assessed for inclusion in the Green Belt fulfils the purposes of Green
Belt as stated in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2, then it is that Green Belt functionality
which makes the land worthy of being part of the Green Belt.
4.14
Once land is designated as Green Belt, it should remain permanently within the
Green Belt and the Green Belt boundary should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances.
4.15
PPS3, paragraph 33, points out that in determining levels of housing provision
local planning authorities should take account of evidence of current and future
levels of need and demand for housing and affordability.
4.16
A key principle of PPS7 is that new building development in the open countryside
away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in
development plans, should be strictly controlled. The Government’s overall aim
is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the
diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural
resources so all may enjoy it. The protection of Hollin Busk’s character as open
countryside is therefore a material consideration in the formulation of policy
SST2.
68
Paragraph 1.7, Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, published January 1995 (Amended
March 2001).
-99-
Regional Policy
4.17
The Yorkshire and Humberside Plan policy SY1 advocates that all plans,
strategies, major investment decisions and programmes for the South Yorkshire
sub area will, seek to maintain the strategic extent of the South Yorkshire Green
Belt.
4.18
After paying due heed to the advice in policy YH9 and investigating the
possibilities for change to the Green Belt at the emerging options and preferred
options stages, it is our view that there are no exceptional circumstances that
would allow the Green Belt boundary to be changed at Hollin Busk.
Relationship to City Strategy
4.19
The City Strategy sets out our vision for the City. Our vision is that:
“ Sheffield will be a successful, distinctive city of European significance at the
heart of a strong city region, with opportunities for all.”69
4.20
Policy SST2 pays regard to the Strategies vision, which is built on three key
principles of Prosperity, Inclusion and Sustainability. Policy SST2 promotes
inclusion because by protecting Hollin Busk from built development it remains
available for everyone to enjoy. The policy does this in a sustainable way
because, by protecting the site from development it allows development within
Stocksbridge and Deepcar to take place, close to jobs and facilities, minimising
their need to travel long distances to obtain services and protecting the green
environment.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents.
Core Strategy Objectives
4.21
The Core Strategy has a vision of achieving sustainable transformation of the
city70, which it aims to develop by achieving a range of objectives. In order to
help to meet some of the various challenges involved in achieving this vision,
Policy SST2 aims to contribute toward achieving the following specific objectives:

In order to create successful neighbourhoods policy SST2 sustains and
restores existing neighbourhoods by containing new development within the
areas urban envelope thereby allowing the neighbourhood to renew itself
where needed and to growth without physical expansion (Core Strategy
Objective S4.1)
69
Sheffield City Strategy 2005/2010, Page 4, Sheffield First Partnership, published July 2007.
Paragraph 3.4, page 13, Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy for Submission to the
Secretary of State, September 2007.
70
-100-
4.22

In order to promote Health and Well-Being for all, policy SST2 helps to create
a healthier environment, which includes space for physical activity and
informal recreation and does not subject people to unacceptable levels of
pollution, noise or disturbance (Core Strategy objective S6.1)

In order to promote Health and Well-Being for all, policy SST2 helps to
safeguard opportunities for peaceful enjoyment of the countryside in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar (Core Strategy objective S6.3)

In order to reduce the need to travel development is located close to where
people live and close to services and by locating services close together,
encouraging joint trips (objective S9.1)

In order to promote the sustainable use of Natural Resources policy SST2
encourages the use of previously developed land for new development in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar (Objective S12.1) and significant proportions of the
land being redeveloped is contaminated industrial land which will be restored
as a result of their redevelopment (Core Strategy Objective S12.2)

In order to cherish and protect the City’s green environment, policy SST2
encourages the use of previously developed land and by doing so helps to
safeguard the green environment, the majority of which has not been
previously developed (Core Strategy Objective 13.1)

In order to create a city with character policy SST2 aims to develop on
previously developed land safeguarding the character of the semi rural
settlement’s landscapes within Stocksbridge/Deepcar (Core Strategy
Objective S14.3)
Policy SST2 is also consistent with other policies within the Submitted Core
Strategy, namely policies:
 SE1
 SH2
Protecting the Countryside – secures the openness of the
countryside around the existing built-up areas of the city, by maintaining
the Green Belt and protecting other rural areas on the edge of the city.
While advising that development needs will be met principally through
the re-use of land and buildings rather than through expansion of the
urban areas and villages. Policy SST2 protects the Hollin Busk as an
area of open countryside and is entirely consistent with policy SE1.
Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land –
concentrates large and medium scale housing development in existing
urban areas in the period to 2020/21 and stipulates that around 800
houses will be built in Stocksbridge/Deepcar in that period. Policy SST2
is consistent with this policy in that it protects the Hollin Busk site from
housing development, effectively directing developers back to sites
within the urban area.
-101-
 SH3
Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New
Housing – prioritises housing development on previously developed
land with no more than 10% of dwellings on greenfield sites up to
2021/26. Policy SST2 is consistent with this policy because it enforces
the priority given to the use of brownfield land for housing development
in Stocksbridge Deepcar by preventing the use of a prominent greenfield
site between Stocksbridge and Deepcar.
 SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge/ Deepcar – Retains industrial land
surplus to operational requirements in Stocksbridge/Deepcar for
employment and business development and limits new housing to
previously developed land within the urban area. Policy SST2 is
consistent with this policy because it enforces the direction of new
development to land within the urban area by preventing the
development of a greenfield site in the countryside on the edge of the
urban area from being developed for housing.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
4.23
There are no cross-boundary issues involving the Peak District National Park’s or
Barnsley’s planning policies in relation to policy SST2.
Options Considered
4.24
4.25
There were four options considered during the consultation stages in drafting
policy SST2. These were:

Additional Option AST1 - The green, open and rural character of greenfield
land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be safeguarded through
protection as open countryside.

Preferred Option PST3 (formerly ST6b) - Greenfield land south of
Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be added to the Green Belt (Rejected).

Emerging Option ST6a – Use of some or all of the area for housing
development.

Emerging Option ST6c – Maintain the designation as open space (effectively
continue with the Unitary Development Plan’s approach to protecting the site.
Of the three options considered at the Emerging Options stage (ST6a, ST6b and
ST6c); ST6b formed the basis for the preferred Option PST3. The other two
options were rejected. After reconsideration of the Preferred Options, Option
PST3 was rejected and the Additional Option AST1 was used as the basis for
Policy SST2.
-102-
Option AST1
The green, open and rural character of greenfield land south of
Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be safeguarded through protection as open
countryside (Option taken forward to submission stage).
4.26
The strengths of this option are:
(a) The Hollin Busk site’s rural character is protected and ecological value is
protected from harm caused by built development.
(b) Investment is distracted from brownfield sites at Stocksbridge Steel works
and Deepcar where there are many constraints to overcome, by this
greenfield site where there are fewer constraints.
(c) The Green Belt’s permanence is not harmed while the site is protected
from development.
(d) The Green Belt functionality of the land is preserved even though the land
is not in the Green Belt.
4.27
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) The land would not be available for new housing or for other types of built
development that are inappropriate in the countryside
(b) The additional homes provided could lead to significant improvements to
the areas infrastructure when added together with other housing
development commitments and Plans and this opportunity would be lost.
Option PST3
Greenfield land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be added to the
Green Belt (Rejected at Preferred Options Stage)
4.28
The strengths of this option are:
(a) The land would be consistent with the purposes of Green Belt, assisting in
the safeguarding of countryside from encroachment and helping to prevent
the merging of the settlements of Stocksbridge and Deepcar.
(b) The area is a natural extension of the wooded valley of Fox Glen, which
separates the rest of Stocksbridge and Deepcar, is of natural history value
and physically unsuitable for development.
(c) It preserves an attractive area of open land, which has a predominantly
rural character and appearance in common with the adjoining Green Belt.
4.29
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Once designated as Green Belt it would not be possible to develop the
area even in the longer term, if it became appropriate on other grounds.
-103-
(b) It could be used to justify the case for a comprehensive Green Belt review
with corresponding deletions from the Green Belt in other locations.
(c) It would undermine the permanency of the current Green Belt boundary.
Option ST6a
Use some or all of the area for housing development (Rejected at preferred
Options Stage)
4.30
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Additional housing in an attractive area of the district could support
regeneration of Stocksbridge and take pressures off high-demand areas in
the rest of Sheffield District.
(b) The extra population could help to support improved local facilities.
4.31
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) The land is greenfield and Government planning policy is that previously
developed land should have priority. As there is considerable capacity on
previously developed land in Sheffield, housing would not be appropriate
for some time even if the location were considered acceptable.
(b) The expansion of Stocksbridge would require significant improvement to
transport services to be sustainable – the viability of these needs to be
checked out (see Issue ST5).
(c) The additional population here may not be enough to make the step
change needed in the District Centre to make housing expansion
sustainable.
Option ST6c
Maintain the designation as open space (Rejected at preferred Options
Stage)
4.32
The strengths of this option are:
(a) The site has the strengths of designation as Green Belt but without the
long-term inflexibility in the event that housing development was needed.
4.33
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Whilst, technically, open space includes privately as well as publicly owned
land, the area’s character is that of open countryside and farmland. It is
not typical of open space in the city.
(b) Open space status could encourage an expectation that the land would
eventually become available for development. If its rural character is
-104-
sufficient to rule this out, the more permanent Green Belt designation
would be more appropriate.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy
Policy SST2 Hollin Busk
4.34
The green, open and rural character of greenfield land south of
Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be safeguarded through protection as open
countryside.
Summary of Planning Reasons
4.35
The main reasons for the policy are:

National Planning guidance in PPG2 sustains that Green Belt is permanent
and that its boundaries should only be changed in exceptional circumstances.

The Draft Yorkshire and Humberside Plan policy SY1 asserts that there is no
need to change the extent of the Green Belt in South Yorkshire.

There is no exceptional case for adding the site to the Green Belt.

There is no need to develop the site for housing.

National Guidance in PPS7 asserts that development of open countryside
should be strictly controlled. The overall aim of national planning policy is to
protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the
diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural
resources so it may be enjoyed by all.
Planning Reasons
4.36
As explained in the introduction to this chapter (Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 above),
there has been a long history of pressure for housing development on the Hollin
Busk site. Land owners are calling for the site to be developed and the local
community are calling for it to be added to the Green Belt. Policy SST2 looks to
resolve this problem by protecting the land as open countryside, thereby clarifying
the future of the site. This is a slightly different position to having an open space
designation under the Unitary Development Plan.
-105-
4.37
In addition to an open space designation the site will be protected as open
countryside by policy SST2 consistent with Core Strategy policy SE1 which
maintains the extent of the Green Belt and protects other rural areas on the edge
of the city in order to protect the countryside. It also points out that development
needs will be met through re-use of urban land and buildings. The intention is to
have additional provisions in the City Policies and Proposals Map documents that
will give added protection to these areas of open countryside and identify them.
4.38
In drafting policy SST2, the emerging options considered three options and the
preferred option of these was to add the site to the Green Belt having taken into
account regional guidance to look at whether circumstances existed to strengthen
the Green Belt. However, in light of objections at the Preferred Options stage,
the City Council reconsidered the effects of the option on the Green Belt at the
Additional Options stage.
4.39
The reason for this change of direction is that the strength of the Green Belt is its
permanence and this is achieved only by making changes to the boundary in
exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, any review should be strategic and
comprehensive. On reconsideration, the partial additions originally proposed
cannot be sustained without opening up the case for a wider review of the Green
Belt boundary including deletions as well as additions. We do not consider that
the circumstances exist to justify such a full review. Our current thinking
continues to be that these areas should be protected from development and that
they potentially serve Green Belt functions.
4.40
The Planning Inspector who heard the Charlamand Enterprise’s planning
application appeal71 also felt that the land performed important Green Belt
functions. In dismissing the appeal, the inspector made some fundamental
comments relating to the site’s Green Belt functionality. In her opinion the site:
“ is a most attractive area of open land which still despite its proximity to the
urban areas exhibits a predominantly rural character and appearance. The
small fields bounded by dry stone walls and gentler undulations create a
typical hill farm landscape.”
4.41
The area still exhibits that same predominantly rural character as described in her
report. The inspector also found that the land separates the communities of
Stocksbridge and Deepcar. She felt that if the land was developed the two
settlements would merge. Preventing settlements from merging is a function of
Green Belt land72. She found that an important role of the site:
“ is the contribution it makes to the character of the landscape of the area.
71
Planning Application Reference Number: 89/0358/OUT for residential development and construction of
new roads and sewers, at land between Carr Road, Hollin Busk Lane and Broomfield Lane, Deepcar.
Refused 14/11/1990. Planning Appeal Reference Number: 90/00030/CAPEL.
72 Paragraph 1.5, Page 5, Planning Policy Guidance note 2: Green Belt, published January 1995
(Amended March 2001).
-106-
I find that from Hollin Busk Lane there are extensive views across the open
fields of the appeal site. The prominence of the appeal site in the landscape
and its role as a forefront to the valley and hills beyond is even more
pronounced when viewed from the higher land to the south.”
4.42
However, regardless of the site’s green belt functionality, which should be the
prime reason for including the land in the Green Belt, the strength of the Green
Belt is its permanence as indicated in PPG2 paragraph 1.4 (see paragraph 4.11
above).
4.43
Alterations to the Green Belt boundary should only be made in exceptional
circumstances. Such circumstances do not exist, either to warrant a
comprehensive review of the Green Belt, or to justify a local change at Hollin
Busk. The Housing Background Report shows that there is sufficient housing
development land within the urban area to meet the City’s housing needs without
having to extend the urban area into the Green Belt73. Furthermore, there are no
local reasons to justify a change.
4.44
Policy SST2 also plays its part in enabling the City to work towards its vision of
becoming a distinctive European city of significance at the heart of its region, by
promoting inclusion and sustainability and see paragraph 4.20 above.
4.45
Part of the spatial strategy for Sheffield is to achieve the objective of becoming a
City with character. It does this by on the one hand, enhancing the character and
distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting existing local character and built
and natural features to provide the context for new development. Policy SST2
helps to achieve this by the preservation of the rural/semi rural character of the
neighbourhoods adjoining Hollin Busk. On the other hand, Policy SST2 helps
facilitate the strategy of enhancing the City’s character by preservation and
enhancement of Hollin Busk, which is attractive, distinctive, and of heritage value
as part of Stocksbridge/Deepcar’s rural setting.
4.46
Benefits would be accrued by the development of the site that was purported to
have capacity for 162 dwellings in the Draft Stocksbridge District Plan of
September 1979. Development of the site would almost definitely lead to
drainage improvements, as the drains are inadequate to cope with new
development. The Stocksbridge Waste Water Treatment Works would almost
certainly need to be upgraded to allow development, bus routes would need to be
altered or new routes provided for development to be acceptable. In addition to
these direct benefits, an additional 162 homes on top of the new homes at
Stocksbridge works and Deepcar would be added incentive for developers /
commercial companies to invest in the area, by e.g. developing an extension to
the District centre, or developing business small to medium business units for
business start-ups. However, it is our considered view that none of these
benefits would be dependent on the Hollin Busk site’s development, and that
73
Sheffield Development Framework, Submitted Core Strategy, Green Belt, Background Report,
Published September 2007, Sheffield City Council
-107-
these benefits would not outweigh the loss of this area of countryside and the
damage it would do to the rural character of that part of the area.
4.47
This view was shared by the planning appeal inspector for the Charlamand
Planning application74 (see paragraph 4.40 above) who concluded in her report.
“ the appeal proposal would be severely detrimental to the character of the
area and the quality of the environment for local residents”.
4.48
The Core Strategy Housing Background Report explains that there is sufficient
land within the urban areas to satisfy the City’s need for housing land between
2004 and 2026. On the supply side of the equation there is a margin of +3,750
dwellings (13%) more dwellings than the requirement for the period. The Hollin
Busk site is not included within the supply figures. It can therefore be safely
assumed that the site is not required to meet the City’s need for housing land.
4.49
The Draft Yorkshire and Humberside Plan, has an aim of allowing change without
destroying the character of the area as a collection of semi rural settlements.
Change is happening as Stocksbridge is in transition. However, policy SST2
makes provision for the protection of a very important site for the rural/semi rural
character of the area. This is sustained by national planning guidance contained
in PPS7, which aims to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic
character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the
wealth of its natural resources so it may be enjoyed by all (see paragraph 4.16
above).
4.50
The Hollin Busk area is an important and intrinsic part of the rural setting for
Stocksbridge and Deepcar. As an option, the development of the Hollin Busk site
for housing is not needed and would intrinsically damage the character of the
land and the surrounding area for its residents and visitors. Policy SST2
adequately protects this land from development as open countryside without
adding it to the Green Belt which is the most appropriate option for the site and is
fully in line with national guidance in PPS7.
Sustainability Appraisal
4.51
Three options were considered in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core
Strategy Preferred Options. The Preferred Option PST3 (formerly emerging
Option ST6b adding the land to the Green Belt) with Option ST6c (maintaining
the land’s designation as open space) were equally the most sustainable options
tested.
4.52
Option PST3 and Option ST6c were either sustainable or maintained the status
quo. Option ST6c was unsustainable on several counts.
74
Planning Application Reference Number: 89/0358/OUT for residential development and construction of
new roads and sewers, at land between Carr Road, Hollin Busk Lane and Broomfield Lane, Deepcar.
Refused 14/11/1990. Planning Appeal Reference Number: 90/00030/CAPEL.
-108-
4.53
Option PST3 (i.e. Greenfield land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be
added to the Green Belt) and Option ST6c (i.e. Maintain the designation of the
land as open space) were sustainable because they promote:




4.54
Land use patterns that minimise the need to travel or which promote the use
of sustainable forms of transport;
Efficiently uses land which makes good use of previously developed land and
buildings;
Quality of natural landscapes maintained and enhanced;
Wildlife and important geological sites conserved and enhanced.
Option ST6a i.e. “Use some or all of the area for housing”, was sustainable in that
it promotes:



Decent Housing available to all;
Safety and security for people and property; and
A quality built environment.
The option was unsustainable in that it did not promote:





4.55
Additional Option AST1 i.e. (Greenfield land at Hollin Busk protected as open
countryside), was sustainable in that it promotes:


4.56
Land use patterns that minimise the need to travel or which promote the use
of sustainable forms of transport;
An efficient transport network which maximises access and minimises
detrimental impacts;
Efficiently uses land which makes good use of previously developed land and
buildings;
Quality of natural landscapes maintained and enhanced;
Wildlife and important geological sites conserved and enhanced.
The preservation of the character and ecology/geology of the area;
More sustainable development on previously developed land elsewhere in the
area.
In conclusion, Policy SST2 is based on a sustainable option that meets the
objectives of the Core Strategy and is therefore a sustainable approach to the
issue.
Equality Appraisal
4.57
In terms of the equality appraisal, the Additional Option, the Preferred Option and
Option C all effectively protect the land from built development and had no effect
either way on any of the disadvantaged groups tested. These options effectively
maintained the status quo. Option B ad no effect on people with low access to
public transport, but its effect on the other groups is dependent upon the details
-109-
of any approved housing proposals. For example if the housing on the proposal
in question is not affordable this would have a detrimental effect on those on low
incomes but if the scheme contained a proportion of affordable housing, then it
would be beneficial to people with low incomes.
4.58
In conclusion, policy SST2 is likely to have no discernible effect on the
disadvantaged groups tested.
Consultation Responses
4.59
Of the three comments received on option PST3, there were two supporting
comments which fully supported the option and there was one objection.
4.60
Stocksbridge Community Forum supported adding Hollin Busk to the Green Belt
(Comment Reference No. 5275.009). The City Council agreed in full and no
change was proposed to the option as a result of the comment. The CPRE South
Yorkshire comment in support saying that they very much welcome the addition
of greenfield land to increase the Green Belt at Hollin Busk. The Council agreed
and made no further change to the option as a result of their comment.
4.61
Development Land and Planning objected to the option saying that Hollin Busk
has clearly been considered a suitable long-term housing site and should be
retained for this function at this time also. The Green Belt boundaries should not
be reviewed in order to further constrain the city edges as PPG2 para2.8
suggests.
4.62
Of the thirty three comments received on Additional Option AST1, there were
three supporting statements, twenty nine objections and one observation.
4.63
Two individuals supported the option) stating that they wished to see the area
protected. The support was welcomed by the City Council and no change was
made to the additional option because of these comments. The Council for the
Protection of Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID Reference number: 60) were
disappointed that the extensions to the Green Belt were not being made but
supported the Additional Option.
4.64
One individual made and observation (ID Reference Number 184), that the fields
were used for farming and keeping livestock for years and this area is considered
an area of natural beauty and should be kept that way. No change was made to
the additional option as a result of this comment.
-110-
4.65
Of twenty two objections received calling for the site’s addition to Green Belt,
seventeen individuals objected to the Additional Option AST1 (ID Reference
numbers: 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 170, 171, 183,
185, 186, and 383) mainly on the basis that the land should be added to the
Green Belt and not be developed. There were two comments from Stocksbridge
Community Forum (ID Reference numbers: 385 and 408), making a detailed case
for the sites addition to Green Belt. North Area Panel also commented on the
Additional Option AST1 as the result of a special meeting held in Stocksbridge on
the additional option, (ID Reference Number 223). They indicated that there was
a clear preference in the meeting to designate Hollin Busk as Green Belt and
there was considerable uncertainty as to what protection would be available if the
site was designated as open space.
4.66
The seven remaining objections were from land owners, developers or their
agents. These where Haslam Homes Ltd (ID Reference Number 229), Elite
Homes Ltd (ID Reference Number 252), Duke of Norfolk's Estates (ID Reference
Number 270), Hague Plant Limited (ID Reference Number 288), George Wimpey
Ltd (ID Reference Number 308), Persimmon Homes (South Yorkshire) Ltd (ID
Reference Number 326), Kitewood Estates Ltd (ID Reference Number 344) and
Various Clients of DLP Planning Ltd (ID Reference Number 367). The all
objected to the option saying “We object to the Additional Option AST 1 which
safeguards the land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk through protection as
Open Space”.
4.67
In conclusion, there is some support for the additional option, but there are
significantly more objections on two grounds the first is that the land should be
added to the Green Belt and the second is that the land should not be protected
as open space. The City Council disagrees with all the objections as there are
not sufficient reasons put forward for either adding the site to the Green Belt or
for not protecting the site for development. Policy SST2 is based on the
Additional Option AST1 and its aim is to give the Hollin Busk site strong
protection from built development in order to protect its rural and open character,
without compromising the permanence of the City’s Green Belt.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
4.68
The aim of the policy is the clarify the future of the site after a long history of calls
for the land to be added to the Green Belt from the local community and calls for
the site to be made available for development from landowners/developers. The
protection of the land’s rural character as open countryside is the key issue for
this sites future and for policy SST2 in making provision for its future. One of the
main questions is, should the Hollin Busk site be protected from development?
The other main question for the policy is how should it be protected?
-111-
4.69
The Draft Yorkshire and Humberside Plan policy SY1 reinforces national
guidance by asserting that there is no need to change the extent of the Green
Belt in South Yorkshire. The Core Strategy Housing Background paper
demonstrates that there being no need to develop this greenfield site for housing
as there is sufficient land within the urban area to meet the City’s need for
housing land up to the year 2025/26. The land should not therefore be developed
for housing.
4.70
National Planning guidance in PPG2 sustains that Green Belt is permanent and
that its boundaries should only be changed in exceptional circumstances. To add
the site to the Green Belt would clearly compromise the Green Belt’s permanence
if it was done without exceptional reasons for doing so and such reasons have
not been demonstrated. The land should not therefore be added to the Green
Belt.
4.71
The sites value to the semi rural/rural character of the area is high and has been
recognised by a planning inspector in a planning appeal against the Council’s
decision to refuse planning permission for housing development on the land. The
Planning Inspector felt this to be such an important point that she used the lands
value to the character of the area and the detriment to that character that would
be caused by housing development for local residents, as a reason to dismiss the
planning appeal. The protection of the land’s rural character as open countryside
is the key issue for this sites future and for policy SST2 in making provision for its
future.
4.72
National Guidance in PPS7 asserts that development of open countryside should
be strictly controlled. The overall aim of national planning policy is to protect the
countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its
landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources so it may be
enjoyed by all.
4.73
Policy SST2 reasserts this regional policy advice in order to protect this important
area of rural landscape from development without compromising the permanence
of the Green Belt.
Implementation and Monitoring
4.74
In order to implement Policy SST2, it is necessary that similar land on the edge of
the urban area across the city is protected from development. This will be done
by implementing Policy SE1 Protecting the Countryside. This will ensure that
development is retained within the urban area and that a precedent is not set
elsewhere that could compromise Policy SST2 and lead to its eventual
development.
-112-
4.75
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SST2. However, the target and indicator for policy SE1 is directly relevant and
these are described in the Environment Background Report. Progress against the
target for this policy will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).
4.76
Development at Hollin Busk also be monitored and data recorded on the City
Council’s planning applications database. This would not, however, be reported
in the AMR but the information will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites
document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
4.77
Policy SST2 is a regulatory policy that is based on the key assumption that the
there is sufficient land within the urban area to meet housing needs. The policy
needs therefore to be clear rather than flexible. If the key assumption is found to
be inaccurate then this is a matter for a review of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
4.78
Policy SST2 is a spatial one based on the Stocksbridge/Deepcar area. Policy
SST1 meets the requirements of soundness test 4 having ensured that it is
consistent with national planning policy, in general conformity with the Draft RSS
for the region and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies
and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
4.79
Policy SST2 has had regard to the City Strategy, and in so doing has aimed to
contribute to the City’s long term objectives and help to meet some of the
challenges to be faced in the coming years. How the policy does this is
described in the Relationship with the City Strategy section (from Paragraphs
4.19 to 4.20 above). On the basis of this assessment it is our view that the policy
meets the requirements of soundness test 5 because we have ensured that it has
had regard to the authority’s Community Strategy.
4.80
As a Core Strategy spatial policy, it is important that Policy SST2 is coherent and
consistent with other relevant policies within the Core Strategy to avoid creating
conflicting Core Strategy policy guidance. The Consistency with other Planning
Policies section explains the how the policy is consistent with relevant policies in
the Core Strategy (See Paragraphs 4.21 to 4.22 above).
4.81
As a Core Strategy policy, it is important that other subordinate Sheffield
Development Framework Development Plan Documents are consistent with it.
Therefore its consistency with the City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map
documents will be left to future background papers for those documents and for
any other supplementary planning documents produced to supplement their
policies.
-113-
4.82
Policy SST2 has been checked for consistency with the policies of neighbouring
local authorities namely Rotherham and Barnsley and it was found that there
were no cross boundary issues of relevance to the policy. It is therefore our view
that Policy SST2 is coherent and consistent within and between the Development
Plan Documents prepared Sheffield and by neighbouring authorities, where cross
boundary issues are relevant and it therefore meets the soundness test 6.
4.83
Policy SST2 is derived from three options considered at Emerging Options stage
of preparation for taking forward towards submission of the Core Strategy. Of the
three options, the most appropriate was re written to form the Preferred Option
(PST3) have been reconsidered the preferred option as a result of consultation,
an additional option was presented for consultation Additional Option AST1 which
eventually formed the basis of Policy SST2. Their appropriateness has been
determined by consideration of robust and credible evidence in each case. It is
our view that policy SST1 meets criterion of soundness test 7 having tested that
the policy represents the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having
considered the relevant alternatives, and is founded on a robust and credible
evidence base.
4.84
Policy SST2 describes in its reasons section how it is intended to be
implemented. This reasoning is expanded to explain how the implementation of
related topic policies will also help the implementation of this policy in the
Implementation and Monitoring section in paragraphs 4.74 to 4.76 above. It is
our view that the mechanisms for implementation are clearly described and that
the policy meets the requirements of soundness test 8.
4.85
The Flexibility and Risk Assessment section in paragraph 4.77 above looks the
probability not realising a key assumptions that the policy is based on. It
examines whether the policy is flexible enough to deal with changing
circumstances and that there are contingencies if the consequences of that
change lead to an unacceptable situation. It is our view that Policy SST2 is a
regulatory policy that is designed to be clear in its provision and less flexible than
other spatial policies and that the policy meets the requirements of soundness
test 9.
4.86
The first three soundness tests deal with procedure concerning the preparation of
the Core Strategy and consultation, which we believe has been carried out
correctly and in accordance with those tests. Tests 4 to 9 are specifically about
ensuring that the policy is consistent with relevant policies, strategies and
Masterplans, with the City’s plans and overall vision for the future, that within
reason all the alternative options have been considered, that the reasons for the
policy are based on sound credible evidence, that there are clear mechanisms for
implementation of the policy and that the policy is not designed to be flexible but
change can be accommodated through. We believe that Policy SST2 meets
these tests of soundness and should therefore be adopted.
-114-
5
RURAL SETTLEMENTS
Introduction
5.1
The majority of the Rural Settlements area is covered by land designated as
Green Belt. The villages in the Rural Settlements area are wholly within the
Green Belt with the exception of the larger villages of Oughtibridge, Worrall and
Wharncliffe Side, which are inset within the Green Belt. Normally, allowing
significant change in these villages would be less than desirable as the effect of
significant change on the character of the villages and the character of the
surrounding rural area is potentially harmful. However, local people are finding it
difficult to enter the housing market in the area because of recent price rises and
the extent of the need has been borne out by the Housing Market Assessment
200775. The picturesque views and locations close to open countryside make
property within these villages very desirable and hence there has been a
corresponding effect on prices, which have risen significantly. The citywide
housing policies provide for affordable housing (see policy SH6) but local people
living in the area who are entering the housing market and who wish to stay
within the area are being forced to move because of the scarce supply of
affordable housing in the area. Circumstances warrant a larger proportion of
affordable housing in this area.
Policy SRS1 Affordable Housing in the Larger Rural Settlements
5.2
In Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side, housing development will
take place only where it would make a significant contribution towards
meeting the exceptional need for affordable housing in the area. Significant
new affordable housing is not proposed in the smaller village settlements
outside these villages.
Policy Background
National Policy
5.3
75
Policy SRS1 relates to the future development of the larger villages of
Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side in the Rural Settlements Area. The
main issue tackled by the policy in relation to national planning policies is how
new affordable housing can be built in the area without damaging the character of
the villages and the surrounding area.
Sheffield Housing Market Assessment – Draft Report as at September 2007, David Couttie Associates.
-115-
5.4
The overall aim of national planning policy guidance and statements as contained
in PPS1 is to create mixed and sustainable communities. PPG2 is relevant to
this debate because the Green Belt sets the extent of urban development and the
extent of these settlements cannot grow significantly without change to the Green
Belt Boundary. PPS3 is relevant as it advises how to identify new locations for
housing development and states how land can be effectively and efficiently used.
PPS7 is relevant because sets guidance aimed at promoting more sustainable
patterns of development in rural areas and raising the quality of life and the
environment in rural areas.
5.5
PPS3 paragraph 33 points out that in determining levels of housing provision
local planning authorities should take account of evidence of current and future
levels of need and demand for housing and affordability. Paragraph 30 says that
in terms of providing for affordable housing in rural communities where
opportunities are low, the aim should be to deliver high quality housing and that
this involves local planning authorities adopting a proactive approach informed by
evidence, with clear targets for the delivery of rural affordable housing. It also
says that local planning authorities should consider allocating and releasing sites
solely for affordable housing, including using a “Rural Exception Site Policy”.
This enables small sites to be used, specifically for affordable housing in small
rural communities76 that would not normally be used for housing because, for
example, they are subject to policies of restraint. Affordable housing created
using these policies, should seek to accommodate households who are either
current residents or have an existing family or employment connections in order
to meet the needs of the local community.
5.6
PPS7 looks to provide new affordable housing in the most sustainable locations
in the rural areas in line with PPG3. But the larger villages are not the most
sustainable locations for new affordable housing. On this issue PPS7 says that
the key aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home. The needs of
all in the community should be recognised, including those in need of affordable
and accessible, special needs housing in rural areas. Local planning authorities
must plan to meet housing requirements in rural areas, based on an up to date
assessment of local need, making better use of previously developed land, the
focus for most additional housing in rural areas should be on existing towns and
identified service centres. However, But it will also be necessary to provide for
some new housing to meet identified local need in other villages.”77
Regional Policy
5.7
Yorkshire and Humber Plan (draft RSS), policy YH3 sets out regional policy on
the provision of affordable housing. In the policy reasons, Sheffield is identified
76
Small rural settlements have been designated for enfranchisement and right to acquire purposes (under
Section 17 of the Housing Act 1996) by SI 1997/620-25 inclusive and 1999/1307.
77 Paragraph 8, Page 10, Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas),
Published August 2004, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
-116-
as a medium area of need and the policy requires that on developments of over
15 dwellings, the local authority should seek provision of 30 to 39% affordable
housing. Where opportunities for the provision of new housing are generally
limited to sites below the national threshold a lower threshold for provision should
be set and/or off-site, contributions should be sought. In rural areas where
opportunities are, limited Local Planning Authorities should identify exceptions
sites in their Development Plan Documents. The aim of regional guidance is to
ensure that affordable housing is provided to meet the need of local communities.
5.8
Policy SRS1 generally conforms to Policy YH3 and regional guidance as it aims
to direct development to the most sustainable locations within the rural area
where the level of provision required to meet local need is seen to be appropriate
and achievable.
Relationship to City Strategy
5.9
Under the Theme of Successful Neighbourhoods, the City Strategy has an
ambition for every neighbourhood to be a successful neighbourhood. In order to
meet that ambition a number of key strategies have been developed; Successful
Neighbourhoods Strategy, Crime Reduction Strategy, Housing Strategy, Sheffield
Development Framework, Green and Open Space Strategy, Accessibility
Planning Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2) and Community Engagement
Strategy.
5.10
Increasing the availability and quality of affordable housing is a future priority for
the Successful Neighbourhood strategy and policy SRS1 helps to achieve the
City’s ambition by making sure that the rural villages giving priority to the
provision of affordable housing amongst the rural communities.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents
Core Strategy Objectives
5.11
The Core Strategy is built on the themes of Transformation and Sustainability;
these are at the core of Sheffield Development Framework’s vision, which
includes creating a city that will provide for opportunities, well-being and quality of
life for everyone. This is a big challenge for the City and in order to meet this
challenge, Policy SRS1 helps the City to meet the following Core Strategy
objectives that are designed to create opportunities for all:
S5.2 The benefits of new development made available to those who are
currently excluded or vulnerable – Policy SRS1 helps to achieve this
core strategy objective by creating affordable housing in the rural areas
where market prices are high and those who live in the rural area who
-117-
wish to enter the housing market and stay in the area will be able to do
so, which would be unlikely to happen if not for the policy.
S5.3 Wider choice of housing provided through more mixing of
housing types and tenures, to meet the needs of the whole
community – Some of the affordable houses provided in the rural area
will be for sale and some for rent.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
5.12
There are no cross boundary issues of relevance to policy SRS1.
Options Considered
5.13
There were 3 options considered during the consultation stages in drafting policy
SRS1. These were:

Preferred Option PRS1 (formerly Emerging Option RS2c and also part of
Preferred Option PH1) – In Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe side, larger
infill housing development may take place where it would make a significant
contribution toward meeting needs for affordable housing.

Option RS2a (Rejected) – Consolidate new housing on brownfield sites (e.g.
Loxley Works at Storrs Lane).

Option RS2b (Rejected) – No significant increase in housing stock.
Option PRS1 (Basis of policy SRS1)
In Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe side, larger infill housing
development may take place where it would make a significant contribution
toward meeting needs for affordable housing.
5.14
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Would increase the provision of affordable housing in rural areas (where
there is an identified need).
(b) Supports development of mixed income communities in villages.
(c) Potentially contributes to increasing patronage if public transport is to be
improved.
5.15
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Villages are less sustainable locations for new house building than the
urban areas.
-118-
(b) 100% affordable housing option would significantly reduce land values and
make it less likely that landowners would be prepared to sell sites
(affordable housing providers may be unable to afford higher land prices).
(c) Potentially provides housing for people on low incomes in unsustainable
and isolated locations.
Option RS2a (Rejected)
Consolidate new house building on brownfield sites (e.g. Loxley Works at
Storrs Lane).
5.16
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Improves attractiveness of the rural settlements as a location for homes
and businesses.
(b) Could possibly be linked to a strategic park and ride site.
(c) Level of service can be varied in response to demand
5.17
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Probably insufficient additional demand to justify major improvements to
service (but needs further checking out).
Option RS2b (Rejected)
No significant increase in housing stock.
5.18
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Leaves brownfield sites available for employment and service generating
land use.
5.19
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Secondary location for large-scale manufacturing /employment uses. Sites
therefore likely to remain vacant for long periods.
(b) Declining population would weaken demand for local services.
(c) Villages are less sustainable locations for new house building than the
urban areas.
(d) 100% affordable housing option would significantly reduce land values and
make it less likely those landowners would be prepared to sell sites
(affordable housing providers may be unable to afford higher land prices).
(e) Potentially provides housing for people on low incomes in unsustainable
and isolated locations.
-119-
Reasons for the Submitted Policy
Policy SRS1 Affordable Housing in the Larger Rural Settlements
5.20
In Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side, housing development will
take place only where it would make a significant contribution towards
meeting the exceptional need for affordable housing in the area. Significant
new affordable housing is not proposed in the smaller village settlements
outside these villages.
Summary of Planning Reasons
5.21
The main reasons for the policy are:





There is a national and regional requirement to provide a level of affordable
housing to meet local needs and support local services.
Opportunities for allocating sites for development are limited and therefore the
ability to provide sufficient affordable housing to meet local needs is difficult.
However, it is expected that previously developed land will become available
in the future as long-established businesses continue to rationalise and
windfall sites become available.
Priority for the development of this land should be given to meeting the need
for affordable housing and housing for the elderly, enabling provision of new
homes within financial reach of local people who wish to stay in the area.
Provision is not proposed in the smaller villages because of the sensitivity of
the landscape and limited opportunities for infill housing.
Planning Reasons
5.22
National Planning Guidance in PPS3 aims to ensure that everyone has access to
a home and in order to ensure that this happens in rural areas, it requires
planning at local and regional level to adopt a positive and pro-active approach
which is informed by evidence, with clear targets for the delivery of rural
affordable housing (see paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 above).
5.23
The Yorkshire and Humberside Plan (Draft RSS) policy YH3 sets levels for the
provision of affordable housing across the Region and it sets a level of 30-39%
provision across South Yorkshire (see paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 above).
-120-
5.24
The opportunities for allocating sites for housing development in the rural
settlements are limited. The Sheffield Housing Potential Study78 looked at the
potential for housing on large sites outside the urban areas and on greenfield
sites within the urban areas. Although the focus of the study was on the urban
areas, it also examined the potential supply from small windfall sites in the larger
villages and rural areas. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix 4
(Table A4d) of the study.
5.25
It shows that 300 dwellings could come forward in the rural areas over that
period, mainly in the villages of Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Worrall over
the period to 2020/21.
5.26
Because these villages are encapsulated within the Green Belt, there is scope
with the villages to provide affordable housing but there are no sites currently
identified for housing development on the preferred Options Proposals Map
(Map 2). This leaves the question of where will the sources for affordable
housing come from.
5.27
Further analysis on the potential sources for these windfalls in the Sheffield
Urban Housing Potential Study showed that windfalls come from a variety of
sources including subdivision of large dwellings, intensification of existing
residential areas ,; conversions and from previously developed land and buildings
not currently in residential use..
5.28
The fact that these are windfall sites makes them difficult to predict and almost
impossible to allocate as development sites. However, it is felt that it is expected
that previously developed land will become available in the future as longestablished businesses within the rural areas continue to rationalise.
5.29
Interim Planning Guidance has been introduced by the City Council to
supplement Unitary Development Plan policy H4 Housing for People on Low
Incomes79. The guidance is interim pending adoption of policies in the SDF (see
City Policies Preferred Option PH580). It supersedes previous Affordable Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance, published in 1998, which had become out of
date.
5.30
This The Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance Guideline G2 sets the
level of provision for affordable housing in the rural areas specifically at
Oughtibridge Worrall and Wharncliffe Side at a significantly higher rate than the
rest of the City. It requires that, in rural areas, the developer’s contribution should
be equivalent to 40% of the units being provided for sale at the current affordable
price.
78
Sheffield Housing Potential Study, Sheffield City Council, 2005.
Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance, Approved by Cabinet 12th July 2006, Sheffield City
Council.
80 City Policies Preferred Options, June 2007.
79
-121-
5.31
In the rural settlements, new housing is generally less sustainable than that which
takes place in the main urban area. Consequently, the Regional Spatial
Strategy81 states that housing development should only take place in rural areas
to meet local needs and/or to support local services. On this basis, and given the
identified need and limited development opportunities in Worrall, Wharncliffe Side
and Oughtibridge, it is considered appropriate to require a higher percentage
contribution to affordable housing in those villages in order to obtain a significant
number of affordable homes in the area.
5.32
Policy SRS1 uses this reasoning to target the provision of affordable housing to
these villages within the rural area as these are the most sustainable locations
where provision can be achieved in the rural areas without damaging the areas
rural character. The City Policies document will provide more detailed guidance
as to the level of provision and the exceptions. Further justification for the
approach to affordable housing is included in the Housing Background Report
(see policy SH6).
Sustainability Appraisal
5.33
Three options were considered in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core
Strategy Preferred Options. Preferred Option PRS1 (formerly RS2C), was the
most sustainable option with option RS2a performing badly because it included
previously developed sites within the Green Belt. Option RS2b was effectively
the status quo having no or negligible effect on the sustainability of the area.
5.34
The preferred option PRS1 performed well on its ability to provide decent housing
available to everyone (including Vulnerable people and disadvantaged groups, on
safety and security for people and property, on the efficient use of land which
makes good use of previously developed sites and buildings and on providing a
quality built environment. It performed worst on the minimal production of waste
and the maximisation of reuse, recovery and recycling of waste.
5.35
Option RS2a performed well on its ability to make efficient use of land which
makes good use of previously developed sites and buildings and on providing a
quality built environment. It performed worst on creating land use patterns that
minimise the need to travel or which promote the use of sustainable forms of
transport, on its ability to enhance or maintain a quality natural landscape, its
ability to conserve and enhance wildlife and important geological sites, its ability
to minimise air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and to provide a
managed response to effects of climate change.
81
RPG12, Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber, 2001 and re iterated in the
Yorkshire and Humber Plan Draft for Public Consultation, December 2005 that in relation to the provision
of Affordable Housing sees the outcome of its measures being that Housing is provided that meets the
needs of local communities (see paragraph 13.48).
-122-
Equality Appraisal
5.36
In terms of the equality appraisal none of the options tested had a positive affect
on the disadvantaged groups they were assessed against. The best performing
option is RS2b which had no effect, i.e. it maintained the status quo. The
preferred option performed badly for people with low access to public transport
and for people with low incomes and had no effect on the other groups. Option
RS2a scored very badly on for people with low access to public transport and for
people with low incomes (worse than the preferred option) and badly for people
with disabilities and the physically frail or vulnerable people and their carers. It
had no effect on the other three groups it was tested against.
5.37
The most beneficial option other than Option RS2b (which was the status quo)
was the preferred option as it did not score as badly as the rejected option RS2a.
Consultation Responses
5.38
Of the 4 comments received for the preferred option PRS1, There was one
comment in full support and 3 comments objecting to the option.
5.39
The Council for the protection of Rural England (South Yorkshire) were in full
support of Preferred Option PRS1 subject to subject to a high requirement for
affordable housing provision to be fleshed out in Supplementary Planning
Documents(Comment Reference Number: 971.059). The City Council agreed in
full with this comment and made no change to the Preferred Option PRS1 as a
result of the respondents comment.
5.40
Of the 3 comments received objecting to Preferred Option PRS1, Two were from
Development Land and Planning, who argued in one comment that local people
living in the area would benefit from house prices increases and that the option
amounted to a tax on developers (Comment Reference Number: 5193.071). The
City Council disagreed with this comment however the respondent did point out
ambiguities in the text in relation to windfall sites and these were removed on
drafting policy SRS1. The full premise of the policy was retained. Development
Land and Planning’s second Comment called for less weight to be given to be
attached to windfall sites (Comment Reference Number: 5193.070). The City
Council disagreed with this objection and ensured that the wording of Policy
SRS1 was clear and unambiguous in its intention, which is to increase the supply
of affordable housing where there is a recognized need.
5.41
Bovis Homes Limited argued that The failure to recognise the Loxley site (the
former Hepworth’s site at Loxley) as having significant spatial aspects is
considered to be a matter that the Council should remedy when producing the
final draft of the CS. Specifically, if the Council are minded to make reference to
the site within the context of designating major developed sites in the Green Belt
(Comment Reference Number: 5193.070). The City Council disagreed with the
respondent as the City Council is minded not to designate Major Developed Sites
-123-
in the Green Belt. No change was made to Preferred Option PRS1 in the drafting
of Policy SRS1 as a result of the respondent’s comment.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
5.42
There is a national and regional requirement to provide a level of affordable
housing to meet local needs and support local services. However, opportunities
for allocating sites for development are limited and therefore the ability to provide
sufficient affordable housing to meet local needs is difficult.
5.43
It is expected that previously developed land will become available in the future
as long-established businesses continue to rationalise and windfall sites become
available. Priority for the development of this land should be given to meeting the
need for affordable housing and housing for the elderly, enabling provision of new
homes within financial reach of local people who wish to stay in the area.
5.44
Provision is not proposed in the smaller villages because of the sensitivity of the
landscape and limited opportunities for infill housing.
Implementation and Monitoring
5.45
In order to implement Policy SRS1, it is necessary that similar land on the edge of
the urban area across the city is protected from development. This will be done
by implementing Policy SE1 Protecting the Countryside. This will ensure that
development is retained within the urban area and that the character of the
villages is not damaged.
5.46
Policy SRS1 will be implemented mainly by making decisions on planning
applications.
5.47
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SRS1. However, the target and indicator for policy SH6 is directly relevant and
these are described in the Housing Background Report. Progress against the
target for this policy will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).
5.48
The provision of affordable housing in the rural settlements will also be monitored
and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This
would not, however, be reported in the AMR but the information will be used to
inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core
Strategy.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
5.49
The main risk is that the sites coming forward for development within these
compact larger villages are too small to meet the minimum requirement for
-124-
provision of affordable housing as many developments will be small infill sites.
The intention is to develop policy and guidance within the City Policies document
and relevant supplementary planning documents that sets a lower threshold
requirement for the rural areas than the urban areas, as is the case in the current
interim planning guidance on Affordable Housing82. The wording of Policy SRS1
is flexible enough to enable the threshold levels for the requirement to provide
affordable housing in the rural area to be altered to reduce the minimum
requirement in terms of size of site by reviewing dependent City Policies or
Supplementary Planning Documents as a result of subsequent Annual Monitoring
Reports.
Conclusion
5.50
Policy SRS1 is a spatial one based on the need to provide affordable housing in
rural areas without harming the character of those areas. Policy SRS1 meets the
requirements of soundness test 4 having ensured that it is consistent with
national planning policy, in general conformity with the Draft RSS for the region
and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies
relating to the area or to adjoining areas (see paragraphs 5.3 to 5.8 above).
5.51
Policy SST2 has had regard to the City Strategy, and in so doing has aimed to
contribute to the City’s long term objectives and help to meet some of the
challenges to be faced in the coming years. How the policy does this is
described in the Relationship with the City Strategy section (from Paragraphs 5.9
and 5.10 above). On the basis of this assessment it is our view that the policy
meets the requirements of soundness test 5 because we have ensured that it has
had regard to the authority’s Community Strategy.
5.52
As a Core Strategy spatial policy, it is important that Policy SRS1 is coherent and
consistent with other relevant policies within the Core Strategy to avoid creating
conflicting Core Strategy policy guidance. The ‘Consistency with other Planning
Policies’ section explains the how the policy is consistent with relevant policies in
the Core Strategy (See Paragraph 5.11 above).
5.53
As a Core Strategy policy, it is important that other subordinate Sheffield
Development Framework Development Plan Documents are consistent with it.
Therefore its consistency with the City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map
documents will be left to future background papers for those documents and for
any other supplementary planning documents produced to supplement their
policies.
82
Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance Approved by Cabinet, 12th July 2006, Page 13,
Guideline G1, Types of Site Where Affordable Housing will be Sought. Published by Sheffield City
Council.
-125-
5.54
Policy SRS1 has been checked for consistency with the policies of neighbouring
local authorities namely Rotherham and Barnsley and it was found that there
were no cross boundary issues of relevance to the policy (see paragraph 5.12
above). It is therefore our view that Policy SRS1 is coherent and consistent
within and between the Development Plan Documents prepared by Sheffield and
by neighbouring authorities, where cross boundary issues are relevant and it
therefore meets the soundness test 6.
5.55
Policy SRS1 is derived from three options considered at Emerging Options stage
of preparation for taking forward towards submission of the Core Strategy. Of the
three options, the most appropriate (RS2c) formed the basis of Preferred Option
(PRS1) which eventually formed the basis of Policy SST2. Their appropriateness
has been determined through consultation and by consideration of robust and
credible evidence in each case. It is our view that policy SRS1 meets criterion of
soundness test 7 having tested that the policy represents the most appropriate in
all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and is founded
on a robust and credible evidence base.
5.56
Policy SRS1 describes in its reasons section how it is intended to be
implemented. This reasoning is expanded to explain how the implementation and
monitoring of related topic policies will also help the implementation and
monitoring of this policy in the Implementation and Monitoring section in
paragraphs 5.45 to 5.46 above. It is our view that the mechanisms for
implementation are clearly described and that the policy meets the requirements
of soundness test 8.
5.57
The Flexibility and Risk Assessment section in paragraph 5.49 above looks the
probability not realising a key assumptions that the policy is based on. It
examines whether the policy is reasonably flexible enough to allow it to deal with
changing circumstances and that there are contingencies if the consequences of
that change lead to an unacceptable situation. It is our view that Policy SRS1 is
reasonably flexible enough to deal with changes in circumstance and that the
policy meets the requirements of soundness test 9.
5.58
The first three soundness tests deal with procedure concerning the preparation of
the Core Strategy and consultation, which we believe has been carried out
correctly and in accordance with those tests. Tests 4 to 9 are specifically about
ensuring that the policy is consistent with relevant policies, strategies and
Masterplans, with the City’s plans and overall vision for the future, that within
reason all the alternative options have been considered, that the reasons for the
policy are based on sound credible evidence, that there are clear mechanisms for
implementation of the policy and that the policy is not designed to be flexible but
change can be accommodated through. We believe that Policy SRS1 meets
these tests of soundness and should therefore be adopted.
-126-
APPENDIX A
Delivery Schedule
Policy SCH1 Jobs and Housing in Chapeltown/Ecclesfield
Business and industrial development will be located at Thorncliffe, Ecclesfield Common and Smithywood on brownfield
land. New housing development will be limited to infilling within the existing residential areas and the surrounding
countryside will be protected.
The District Centre will be promoted as opportunities arise, through redevelopment, environmental improvement and
measures to remove traffic that does not need to be in the Centre.
Actions Required
To Deliver:
Protecting the Countryside from
development, to ensure that built
development is retained within the
urban area,
Business and Industrial Development
on Brownfield and Greenfield Land, to
ensure that brownfield land is the
primary target for development.
Provision of Locations for New
Housing and Maintaining a Supply of
Land, Through policy SH2 (especially
Agencies
Timing
Sheffield City Council,
Land owners
Developers,
Sheffield City Council,
Land owners
/Developers
Sheffield City Council.
-127-
Probability
The probability of being able to protect the
countryside is high given that there will be sound
Ongoing
national, regional and local regulatory polices in
place to support policy SCH1
The probability is high as construction has started
at Smithywood on creation of new business
accommodation and Thorncliffe sites have all
Ongoing
started on site or completed. The more marginal
sites at Ecclesfield Common may take some time
to market.
The probability is high to medium helped by policy
Ongoing SH2 as there is a high dependence on windfall
housing sites in the Chapeltown/Ecclesfield area
part (h) Chapeltown/ Ecclesfield
(around 500 homes)), to ensure that
there is an adequate supply of housing
to serve the in the city/area.
which have been coming forward in recent years
and there is an opportunity to use some of the
industrial land at Ecclesfield Common for housing
development.
Sheffield City Council,
Ensure that the district centre
maintains and enhances its
attractiveness.
Actions Required
To Support:
Marketing the Thorncliffe, Smithywood
and Ecclesfield Common areas for
business development, business
accommodation and investment.
South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport
Executive.
Retailers, developers
and private sector
investors
Agencies
Probability is medium as the availability of funding
may difficult without sites to develop and projects
Ongoing to improve traffic flow and bus movement are
competing with priorities in the second and future
Local Transport Plans
Timing
Probability
Probability is high to medium as a substantial
amount of investment has already been made on
these areas by existing occupiers and the
Ongoing
developers and Sheffield first is constantly
directing new investment to sites in Sheffield
including these sites
Landowners and
Developers,
Sheffield First
Partnership
Sheffield City Council,
Ensuring that local community is
consulted on major enhancement or
investment projects
Ecclesfield Parish
Council
Ensuring the safe distribution and
movement of traffic travelling through
the Area as a result of new
development
Sheffield City Council
Highways Division,
Ongoing Probability High
Local community
Groups
The Highways Agency
South Yorkshire
-128-
Ongoing Probability High
Passenger Transport
Executive
Monitoring Indicators
There are some key targets of the spatial strategy that need to be checked on to ensure that the strategy in policy SCH1 is
working as envisaged the indicator is explained below.
 To check that 155 hectares of land mainly for industry and distribution always to be available - Employment land supply
by type.
 To Check that 97.5% of all land developed for business and industry in any five-year period is previously developed Percentage of land developed for employment which is on previously developed land
 To check that there is a five year supply of housing land - Number of years supply of deliverable sites
 90% of land for non-office businesses, industry and distribution to be in named locations - Percentage of land developed
for non-office businesses, industry and distribution which is in named locations
 To monitor release of windfall and other housing sites to check that the projected supply is forthcoming and whether or by
how much it is exceeded - Housing trajectory showing:
a) Net additional dwellings over the previous five year period or since the start of the relevant development plan
document period, whichever is the longer
b) Net additional dwellings for the current year
c) Projected net additional dwellings to RSS period end date
d) The annual net additional dwelling requirement
e) Annual average number of net additional dwellings needed to meet overall housing requirements, having
regard to previous years’ performances
 To check progress in achieving the 90% brownfield target for new housing to inform future decisions about any future
greenfield development - Percentage of new and converted dwellings on previously developed land
 To check progress in achieving the 97.5% brownfield land target for new industrial development - Percentage of land
developed for employment which is on previously developed land
Policy SST1 Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge
Industrial land identified in Stocksbridge/Deepcar as surplus to operational requirements that could still provide
-129-
employment and business opportunities for local people will be safeguarded for business development. New housing
will be limited to previously developed land within the urban area.
Opportunities will be taken as they arise to improve the environment of Stocksbridge District Centre and to enable its
improvement and expansion when land becomes available.
Actions Required
To Deliver:
Protecting the Countryside from
development, to ensure that built
development is retained within the
urban area,
Ensuring that Business and Industrial
Development is promoted on
brownfield land, to ensure that
brownfield land is the primary target
for development.
Provision of Locations for New
Housing and Maintaining a Supply of
Land, Through policy SH2, to ensure
that there is an adequate supply of
housing to serve the in the city/area.
Agencies
Timing
Sheffield City Council,
Land owners
Developers,
Sheffield City Council,
Land owners
/Developers
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Sheffield City Council.
Sheffield City Council,
Ensure that when opportunities arise
the district centre is allowed to
physically expand and enhance its
attractiveness.
South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport
Executive,
Retailers, developers
-130-
Ongoing
Probability
The probability of being able to protect the
countryside is high given that there will be sound
national, regional and local regulatory polices in
place to support policy SST1
The probability is medium to low as the future of
the sites at Stocksbridge and Deepcar are tied to
the vagaries of the international steel and money
markets. Landowners are likely to require more
than the business land market can provide.
Although this land is brownfield it some of it may
be redeveloped for other uses.
The probability is high to medium helped by policy
SH2 as the need to rationalise industry is high and
this also means realising higher land values than
the current land value. However, this is tempered
by physical constraints on development and
neighbouring industry and the need to expand the
district centre at some point in the future.
Probability is medium as there are current pre
application negotiations on a possible retail
development that would effectively expand the
centre onto brownfield industrial land. However,
the probability is tempered by the long-term need
to retain industrial land and the physical constraints
and private sector
investors
Actions Required
of the site.
Agencies
Timing
Probability
To Support
Marketing the remaining non
operational industrial land that is not
required for industry, for business
development, business
accommodation and investment.
Probability is medium as the introduction of new
alternative uses may well constrain industry
making the sites less attractive for some uses and
Ongoing
the location of the sites means that there is a
specialised market for redevelopment of the site for
a major employment use.
Landowners and
Developers,
Sheffield First
Partnership
Sheffield City Council,
Ensuring that local community is
consulted on major enhancement or
investment projects
Ensuring the safe distribution and
movement of traffic travelling through
the Area as a result of new
development
Stocksbridge Town
Council
Ongoing Probability High
Local community
Groups
Sheffield City Council
Highways Division,
The Highways Agency
Ongoing Probability High
South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport
Executive
Monitoring Indicators
There are some key targets of the spatial strategy that need to be checked on to ensure that the strategy in policy SST1 is
working as envisaged the indicator is explained below.
 To check that 155 hectares of land mainly for industry and distribution always to be available - Employment land supply
by type.
 To Check that 97.5% of all land developed for business and industry in any five-year period is previously developed -
-131-





Percentage of land developed for employment which is on previously developed land
To check that there is a five year supply of housing land - Number of years supply of deliverable sites
90% of land for non-office businesses, industry and distribution to be in named locations - Percentage of land developed
for non-office businesses, industry and distribution which is in named locations
To monitor release of windfall and other housing sites to check that the projected supply is forthcoming and whether or by
how much it is exceeded - Housing trajectory showing:
a) Net additional dwellings over the previous five year period or since the start of the relevant development plan
document period, whichever is the longer
b) Net additional dwellings for the current year
c) Projected net additional dwellings to RSS period end date
d) The annual net additional dwelling requirement
e) Annual average number of net additional dwellings needed to meet overall housing requirements, having
regard to previous years’ performances
To check progress in achieving the 90% brownfield target for new housing to inform future decisions about any future
greenfield development - Percentage of new and converted dwellings on previously developed land
To check progress in achieving the 97.5% brownfield land target for new industrial development - Percentage of land
developed for employment which is on previously developed land
Policy SST2 Hollin Busk
The green, open and rural character of greenfield land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk will be safeguarded through
protection as open countryside.
Actions Required
To Deliver:
No land in Green Belt or safeguarded
countryside at Woodhouse,
Mosborough and Hollin Busk
developed other than conversion or
infill
Agencies
Timing
Sheffield City Council
-132-
Ongoing Probability High
Probability
Monitoring Indicators
There is a key targets of the spatial strategy that needs to be checked on to ensure that the strategy in policy SST2 is working as
envisaged the indicator is explained below.
 To Check that no land in Green Belt or safeguarded countryside at Woodhouse, Mosborough and Hollin Busk developed
other than conversion or infill - Hectares of land developed for non-Green Belt uses in the Green Belt and at
Woodhouse, Mosborough and Hollin Busk
Policy SRS1 Affordable Housing in the Larger Rural Settlements
In Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side, housing development will take place only where it would make a
significant contribution towards meeting the exceptional need for affordable housing in the area. Significant new
affordable housing is not proposed in the smaller village settlements outside these villages.
Actions Required
Agencies
Timing
Probability
To Deliver:
No land in Green Belt or safeguarded
countryside at Woodhouse,
Mosborough and Hollin Busk
Sheffield City Council
Ongoing Probability High
developed other than conversion or
infill
Monitoring Indicators
There is a key target of the spatial strategy that needs to be checked on to ensure that the strategy in policy SST2 is working as
envisaged the indicator is explained below.

To check that 300 new affordable homes each year - Affordable housing completions
-133-