SHEFFIELD LOCAL PLAN
Consultation Report
Overview of comments and officer responses
‘City Policies and Sites and Proposals Map Pre-Submission 2013’
(June – September 2013)
Regeneration & Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
July 2014
Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.
The Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.
Overall Results ................................................................................................................................ 7
4.
Schedule of Comments ................................................................................................................ 11
1.
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 11
Part 1: City Wide Polices ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.
Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment ........................................................ 11
A1 Infrastructure Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
A2 Requirements for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment................................................................................................................................ 19
3.
Serving the City Region ................................................................................................... 20
General ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
B1 City Centre Design ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
B2 Development in the Central Shopping Area and the Cultural Hub....................................................................................................................................... 21
B3 Shopping and Leisure Development and Community Facilities outside Existing Centres .................................................................................................. 21
4.
Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods ................................................................ 22
C1 Access to Local Services and Community Facilities in New Residential Developments..................................................................................................... 22
C2 Residential Layout, Space Standards and Accessible Housing .......................................................................................................................................... 24
C3 Safeguarding Sensitive Uses from Nuisance....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
C4 Development in District and Neighbourhood Centres .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
5.
Opportunities and Well-Being for All ............................................................................. 27
Gypsies and Travellers (para.5.4) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
D1 Inclusive Design in Public Buildings and Places of Work .................................................................................................................................................... 27
D2 Open Space in Large New Housing Developments ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
D3 Delivering Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
1
6.
Movement and Sustainable Transport ........................................................................... 30
E1 Development and Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
E2 Parking ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
E3 Design for Roads and Movement ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
7.
Global Environment and Natural Resources ................................................................. 35
F1 Pollution Control ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
F2 Requirements for Waste Management ................................................................................................................................................................................. 36
F3 Safeguarding Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
8.
Green Environment .......................................................................................................... 38
Duty to Cooperate ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Ecology ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
G1 Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity and Features of Geological Importance ........................................................................................................... 39
G2 The Green Network .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
G3 Trees, Woodland and the South Yorkshire Forest............................................................................................................................................................... 45
G4 Water in the Landscape ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
9.
Character and Heritage .................................................................................................... 48
G6A Development in Countryside Areas including the Green Belt ........................................................................................................................................... 48
G6B Landscape Character ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
G7 Development and Heritage Assets ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
10.
Areas that Look Good and Work Well ............................................................................ 51
G10 Design Quality .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
G11 Tall Buildings and Views .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
G13 Shop Front Design ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
G14 Advertisements .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
PART 2: CITY-WIDE POLICY AREAS ........................................................................................................ 55
11.
H1 Land Uses in Policy Areas ......................................................................................... 55
General ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Business Areas & Business and Industrial Areas ...................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Central Housing Area ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
District Centres .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Flexible Use Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
2
Hospital Area ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67
Open Space ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Retail .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Retail - Meadowhall ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
University/ College Area ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72
PART 3: SITE ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................................... 74
12.
General Site Allocations Policy ...................................................................................... 74
Duty to Co-operate .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Ecology/ Green Infrastructure/ Open space .............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Drainage / Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76
Flooding ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Green Belt Review (para. 12.17) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Housing Supply .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Sport England ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84
Central Local Area Partnership .................................................................................................. 84
Additional Housing Site Suggestions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Business and Industry ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Drainage/sewerage .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Flood Risk .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87
Geological Nature Site ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Heritage ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Housing ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Open Space ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 92
Retail .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 92
Transport.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 94
University and College Areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
South Local Area Partnership ..................................................................................................... 97
Additional Housing Site Suggestions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 97
Drainage/Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Economic Development – Business and Employment Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 99
Housing Site Allocation P00499 Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth Road, Norton ............................................................................................................. 99
Open Space ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Playing Pitches ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 101
3
Retail ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 102
Transport.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 102
South East Local Area Partnership .......................................................................................... 103
Additional Housing Site Suggestions ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 103
Business and Industry ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 103
Drainage/Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104
Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 105
Green Belt ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 105
Heritage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105
Playing Pitches ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 106
Residential ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106
South West Local Area Partnership ......................................................................................... 108
Additional Housing Site Suggestions ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Housing Site Allocation P00403 King Ecgbert’s Upper School, Furniss Avenue, Dore .......................................................................................................... 109
Drainage/Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 109
Green Belt ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 109
Heritage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110
Housing Site Allocation P00517 Canterbury Crescent ............................................................................................................................................................ 110
Housing Site Allocation P00357 Former Hazlebarrow School, Jordanthorpe ......................................................................................................................... 111
Open Space ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111
Retail ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 112
East Local Area Partnership ..................................................................................................... 113
Economic Development – Business and Employment Areas ................................................................................................................................................. 113
Bawtry Road - Additional Housing Site Suggestion ................................................................................................................................................................ 118
Handsworth Hall Farm - Additional Housing Site Suggestion ................................................................................................................................................. 118
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00195 Spartan Works, Attercliffe Road, Attercliffe ................................................................................................................... 119
Playing Pitches ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 119
Drainage/Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122
Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 124
Ecology .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125
Heritage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125
Transport.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 126
4
North East Local Area Partnership ........................................................................................... 128
Additional Housing Site Suggestion ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 128
Drainage/Sewerage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 129
Business and Industry ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 130
Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 130
Heritage ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130
Retail ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 131
Residential Allocations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131
Northern Local Area Partnership .............................................................................................. 133
Additional Housing Site Suggestions ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 133
Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
Business or Industrial Site Allocation P00266 Ernest Thorpe's Lorry Park, Station Road, Deepcar ...................................................................................... 136
Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 137
Housing Site Allocation P00271 Former Stein's Tip, Station Road, Deepcar ......................................................................................................................... 138
Housing Site Allocation P00280 Site A, Stocksbridge Steel Works, off Manchester Road, Stocksbridge .............................................................................. 139
Housing Site Allocation P00290 Ford Lane, Stocksbridge ...................................................................................................................................................... 139
Housing Site Allocation P00292 Sweeney House, Alpine Close ............................................................................................................................................. 140
Housing Site Allocations P00502 Wiggan Farm and P00507 Worrall Hall Farm, both in Worrall ........................................................................................... 141
Housing and Open Space Site Allocation P00503 Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington ............................................................................... 144
Housing Site Allocation P00506 Hawthorne Avenue/Coppice Close, Stocksbridge ............................................................................................................... 145
Housing Site Allocation P00521 Platts Lane/Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge ...................................................................................................................... 145
Retail ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 147
Retail/Mixed Use Site Allocation P00440 Outokumpu Site, Off Manchester Road, Stocksbridge .......................................................................................... 148
Transport.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 149
Figures
Figure 1 Word Cloud ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2 Total number of comments ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3 Number of comments of the legal compliance and soundness of the City Policies and Sites ........................................................................................ 10
5
1.
Introduction
1.1
This report summarises the key messages and officers’ responses arising from the call for representations on the Pre-Submission City
Policies and Sites and Proposals Map 2013.
2.
The Consultation
2.1
The Call for Representations is a statutory stage on the soundness of the Pre-Submission City Policies and Sites document and
Proposals Map (referred to hereafter as Pre-Submission version).
2.2
We invited representations from 10 June to 6 September 2013.
2.3
The publication of the Pre-Submission version had been informed by earlier extensive public consultation, so the call for representations
asked consultees to focus on its legal compliance and soundness and we provided representation forms and accompanying notes to
assist.
2.4
All the documents and map sheets were available for inspection:


in the following locations during normal opening hours:
o
First Point receptions at Howden House, Chapeltown, Hillsborough, Crystal Peaks and Manor Top
o
All Sheffield Library Branches (29 in total) including the Local Studies Section of the Central Library
on our website – www.sheffield.gov.uk/localplanconsult
2.5
An online consultation portal was provided which allowed consultees to quickly select and comment on the policies relevant to a
particular area. Consultees were also able to manage their own registration, make comments online, and view comments made by
other consultees.
2.6
To raise awareness of the call for representations, we wrote to over 1,500 contacts on the Local Plan database, contacted Community
Assemblies, issued a press release and advertised in libraries and First Point receptions.
6
3.
Overall Results
3.1
Respondents were asked two questions:


Do you consider the City Policies and Sites is legally compliant?
Do you consider the City Policies and Sites is sound?
3.2
If respondents did not consider it to be sound they were asked to tick up to four boxes stating why – positively prepared, justified,
effective, consistent with national policy.
3.3
The respondents were then asked to detail their comments and state specifically the changes required and whether they considered it
necessary for them to participate at the oral examination.
3.4
Council officers’ responses have been broadly classified as:






3.5
Accept (fully agree with the comment)
Minded to accept (current evidence supports the objector’s view but may need to consider again in light of other evidence)
Not minded to accept (current evidence does not support the objector’s view but may need to consider again in light of other
evidence)
No change needed in response to this comment (current evidence does not support the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of other evidence)
Neither accepted nor rejected (where we are currently unable to come to a view – further consideration or additional evidence
needed)
Other – e.g. support noted, observation noted
Figure 1 is a ‘word cloud’ which visually represents the most common issues expressed by consultees. Figure 2 shows the number of
comments categorised by Proposals Map, Chapters and Local Area Partnerships, and Figure 3 shows the number of responses to
whether the or not the Pre-Submission version is legally compliant or sound.
7
Figure 1: Word Cloud
8
Figure 2: Total number of comments
Number of comments
categorised by Chapter
Introduction (15)
Economic Prosperity &
Sustainable Employment
(32)
Serving the City Region
(33)
Attractive and Sustainable
neighbourhoods (33)
Opportunities and
Well-being for all (32)
Movement and
Sustainable Transport (28)
Global Environment and
Natural Resources (16)
Green Environment (55)
Character and Heritage
(26)
Areas That Look Good and
Work Well (25)
Land Use in Policy Area
(44)
General Site Allocations
Policy (38)
Number of comments
categorised by Local Area
Partnership
Central (64)
East (89)
North (65)
North East (34)
Number of comments on the
Proposals Map
Countryside Area - Green Belt (14)
Open Space (29)
University/College Area (7)
Other Layers e.g. Business, Shopping,
Housing (44)
South (12)
South East (18)
South West (6)
General Site Comments (23)
9
Figure 3: Number of comments of the legal compliance and soundness of the
City Policies and Sites
Is it legally compliant? (All categories)
Is it sound? (All categories)
162
162
162
494
116
184
211
Yes
Yes
No
No
Not answered
Not answered
377
10
4.
Schedule of Comments
4.1
The comments and officer responses are grouped under the chapter headings of the Pre-Submission City Policies and Sites document
2013.
1.
Introduction
Summary of Comment
Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The Plan does not
conform with national planning
guidance; not in accordance with its
own Core Strategy; not positively
prepared; does not demonstrate
effective cross-boundary cooperation; not justified; nor effective.
Not legally compliant: A concise
and flexible telecommunications
policy should be included.
Bovis Homes (PCPS348)
Part accept. Some of the objections
have merit, in particular those about
the five year housing supply.
Instead of submitting the City Policies
and Sites document and Proposals
Map to Government, it will be
incorporated into the new Local Plan.
Mobile Operators Association
(PCPS58)
Minded to accept. Infrastructure
supporting economic development
should be planned for.
Consider as part of infrastructure
planning policy.
Part 1: City Wide Polices
2.
Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment
Summary of Comment
A1 Infrastructure Requirements
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Flood risk and flood
defences should be included under
the ‘Infrastructure’ definition so that it
ties in with paragraph 2.9.
Environment Agency (PCPS495)
Accepted.
A specific reference to ‘flood
defences’ will be added to the
Definition of Infrastructure.
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Policy A1 should be
deleted because it is prejudging the
outcome of the CIL projects and the
schedule of objectives required under
Regulation 123. If CIL is to be
progressed it should be set out in a
strategic Local Plan policy.
DLP Planning Consultants on behalf
of Ackroyd and Abbott, Bawtry Road
Clients, Chip (Two) Ltd, Bovis
Homes, Harron Homes, Redwall
Estates (PCPS647, PCPS626,
PCPS610, PCPS578, PCPS598,
PCPS661, PCPS349).
Not minded to accept: Current
Council policy does not support the
objector’s view. The policy builds on
the infrastructure priorities set out in
the adopted Core Strategy, so is
already based on a strategic local
plan policy. The decision to pursue a
CIL and publish a Preliminary Draft
Charging Schedule was based on
evidence from a CIL Viability Study
undertaken by independent specialist
consultants. Omitting a policy on
developer contributions would fail to
support the Council’s decision to
implement a CIL (September 2011
and December 2012), which should
be based on infrastructure
requirements and priorities set out in
the local plan (NPPF paragraph 175
and CIL Guidance paragraph 4).
Omitting priorities would create
uncertainty and erode confidence
about commitment to provide for
transport, schools, green
infrastructure and carbon reduction.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
12
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: The use of planning
obligations and CIL as a way of
securing the provision of new or
enhanced places for sport and a
contribution towards their future
maintenance, to meet the needs
arising from new development. The
CIL charging schedule should look at
the potential for adapting any existing
standard charge approaches to sport,
currently used for section 106
agreements. Consider how lists of
appropriate projects, in areas
affected by development, can be
established and prioritised for
implementation.
Unsound: The Policy refers to
Green Infrastructure and defines it
but there is not a mechanism to
ensure that new development helps
to enhance the network and that
development does not have a
negative impact upon the spatial
proposals identified in the SY Green
Infrastructure Strategy.
Sound: The identification of new
Green Infrastructure and public
spaces as a specific priority.
Unsound: The continued
enhancement of the City Centre’s
public realm should be included as
a specific priority.
Sport England (PCPS22)
Support noted. The CIL Charging
Schedule does not include
infrastructure projects, but the
Council will publish a CIL ‘Regulation
123 List’ that will set out priorities for
spending CIL receipts.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Dennis Patton (PCPS61)
Policy A1 sets out a clear mechanism
for assessing infrastructure priorities
and specifically prioritises green
infrastructure. These priorities are
based on the Core Strategy.
The current policy does not warrant a
change in approach and the Council
is unlikely to change its view in light
of other evidence. No change
needed in response to this comment
Consultation Service, Natural
England (PCPS169)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment
English Heritage (PCPS127)
Not accepted: The mechanism for
prioritising infrastructure projects set
out in Policy A1 includes criteria in e.
to j. that would prioritise public realm
improvements in the City Centre.
This is reflected in the Draft
Community Infrastructure Levy
‘Regulation 123 List’ that specifically
refers to City Centre public realm
projects.
The current policy does not warrant a
change in approach and the Council
is unlikely to change its view in light
of other evidence. No change
needed in response to this comment.
13
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: The definition of the
Transport Network in relation to the
funding of improvements in capacity
and quality through the Community
Infrastructure Levy, and therefore
considers the policy to be sound.
Support the priority given to
measures to improve the provision
and quality of the cycling and
pedestrian elements of the transport
network.
Sound: The inclusion of transport
within the CIL and support the CIL
priorities in Policy A1. Welcome the
strong links between CIL priorities
and the Sheffield City Region
Transport Strategy in paragraph 2.8
and that viability will be a key
consideration when developing the
CIL (paragraph 2.10). Ultimately,
planning gain should provide for the
effective mitigation of the negative
impacts of development.
Unsound: Serious concerns about
the charging structure. Objects to
the imposition of CIL to fund
infrastructure but there is no agreed
Draft Charging Schedule.
Highways Agency (PCPS547)
Canal & River Trust (PCPS278.
National Trust. (PCPS307)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive
(PCPS226, 227, & 228)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment
NJL Consulting LLP. JVH Town
Planning Consultants Limited (client
Sheffield College) (PCPS261,
PCPS293)
The current policy does not warrant a
change in approach and the Council
is unlikely to change its view in light
of other evidence. No change
needed in response to this comment.
Unsound: Criteria (c) indicates CIL
receipts will only be used to fund
infrastructure which could not be
financed from other sources. The
Core Strategy identifies a wide range
of infrastructure requirements but no
clarity upon which forms of
Gleeson Homes and Home Builders
Federation (PCPS340, PCPS346,
PCPS113).
Not accepted: The Community
Infrastructure Levy Charging
Schedule is subject to separate
consultation and the rates charged
do not impact on the Policy that is
appropriate to guide decisions on
developer contributions and
infrastructure priorities.
Not accepted: There is no need for
the policy to specify how S.278 and
S.106 contributions will be used, nor
to repeat the 3 statutory tests for
S.106, as this is covered by national
Guidance and Legislation. Most of
the comments concern the CIL,
No change needed in response to
this comment
14
Summary of Comment
infrastructure will be provided
through which mechanism. This is
important given that the 2013 CIL
Viability Study indicates that, in some
areas of Sheffield, a zero CIL rate
should be applied due to existing
viability concerns. The assumption
that £1,000 per unit has been
assessed to deal with both Section
278 and Section 106 requirements is
questionable, given the list of
infrastructure types identified. The
requirement to achieve Lifetime
Homes within Policy C2 would use
up most of this sum alone. There is
no overview of the cumulative impact
of all plan policies and requirements,
so the validity of the study is
questioned. Once CIL is adopted
this should be the only tool for
collecting funds for infrastructure, so
the policy should explain that any
funds received through section 106
should meet the 3 NPPF Tests.
Paragraph 182 requires the plan to
be prepared in accordance with the
Duty to Cooperate, legal and
procedural requirements, and to be
sound, namely that it is: Positively
prepared, justified, effective and
consistent with national policy. A1 is
considered unsound as it is not
justified. A full appraisal of the
cumulative impact of all plan policies
and obligations as required by NPPF
paragraph 174 should be undertaken
and the policy reviewed in light of this
work. In its current format this policy
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
which is part of a separate
consultation. Existing SPG and IPG
will be updated in a Developer
Contributions Supplementary
Planning Document that will cover all
elements of the local plan and the
CIL. A CIL and S.106 Statement will
also be produced to support the CIL
Draft Charging Schedule. CIL can
only be used for infrastructure and
there will be other requirements for
contributions such as affordable
housing. The policy is not
incompatible with Policy D3 and
more guidance on how affordable
housing requirements and CIL will
work together will be produced as a
Supplementary Planning Document.
15
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
is incompatible with Policy D3 and
therefore the Council will need to
identify its infrastructure priorities and
address these in light of the
economic viability evidence. This is
likely to require a significant
reduction in both the affordable
housing contribution and
contributions sought via this policy.
The amended policy should clearly
set out, either within the policy or
background text, how CIL and
Section 106 Agreements will work
together so as to avoid any double
dipping and provide certainty for
developers.
16
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: The approach to
prioritise infrastructure for
regeneration projects, and those that
meet housing and employment land
targets is wholly supported, and is in
line with the NPPF (paragraph 7),
which sets out that planning policies
should seek to address potential
barriers to investment including lack
of infrastructure. It is welcomed that
within the supporting text at
paragraph 2.5 there is recognition
that CIL needs to be at a level that
will not have an undue impact on the
economic viability of development
and therefore the assessment of
viability will be taken into account.
This approach is consistent with the
provisions of 173 of the NPPF which
advises that the scale of
contributions and policy burdens
should ensure that development
viability is not threatened. However,
this recognition should be included
within the body of main text and form
part of Policy A1. The Council will
need to ensure that Policy A1 is
capable of being appropriately
applied, and that the policy correctly
reflects the CIL Regulations and the
Council's intentions in relation to the
adoption of CIL.
Unsound: There is a degree of
prematurity built into the priority
funding through the CIL. The Council
is looking to have CIL adopted with
the detailed spending arrangements
for the levy funds still to be
Turley Associates (Client TATA Steel
(UK) Ltd). Turley Associates (Client
Sheffield Business Park Limited).
(PCPS92, PCPS477)
Not Accepted: There is no need for
the policy to repeat the NPPF. In any
case, the comment is about the CIL
charging schedule, which is subject
to a separate consultation. The
reference to viability in paragraph 2.5
is for information as it is covered in
the CIL Legislation so does not need
to be included in the policy itself.
No change needed in response to
this comment
University of Sheffield (PCPS689)
Not Accepted: The viability work
required to justify a CIL charge needs
to demonstrate that there is a funding
gap and that the proposed rates are
affordable and would not significantly
adversely impact on levels of
No change needed in response to
this comment
17
Summary of Comment
determined. The charging schedule
for CIL has not been through an
Examination and detailed viability
work is being undertaken by the
Council to inform the proposed
charging schedule. Policy A1 prejudges the findings of those
investigations as to what would be an
appropriate balance between raising
sufficient funds and retaining an
appropriate return to developers.
Policy A1 does not substantially add
to the understanding or the
application of CIL in respect of what it
sets out in the Charging Schedule
and fails to be specific in respect of
the criteria K), L), M) and N). The
references to these features appear
to be prejudging the outcome of the
CIL projects and the schedule of
objectives required under Regulation
123. Given that the intention to adopt
CIL is a strategic policy, this should
be set out in the CS. While the CIL
details had not emerged at the time
of the CS being adopted in Sheffield,
this goes to demonstrate that is out
of date and needs to be reviewed in
the context of current national
guidance. Paragraph 175 of The
Framework is clear that where
practical, Community Infrastructure
Levy charges should be worked up
and tested alongside the Local Plan.
Given these documents are
progressing alongside each other it is
far from clear as to why this advice is
not being used to inform the
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
development in the City. At the next
consultation stage for the CIL, the
Council will publish a Draft
‘Regulation 123 List’, setting out
potential projects to receive future
CIL funding. This will be drawn up
using the criteria in Policy A1, as the
CIL should deliver the infrastructure
required by the local plan, and A1
reflects the Core Strategy
infrastructure requirements. For this
reason the Policy is not premature.
The decision to adopt CIL is based
on an infrastructure need and the
levels of the charges have been
drawn up using viability assessments
of both the CIL and affordable
housing, including allowances for the
costs of delivering the other local
plan policies.
18
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
preparation of both CIL and an
appropriate Local Plan at the same
time.
A2 Requirements for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment
Sound: This policy aligns with Policy
I of the SCR Transport Strategy and
aligns with the principles of Land Use
and Transport Integration (LUTI).
Welcome the commitment to local
employment as this will greatly
reduce the need to travel long
distances, therefore ensuring that
public transport, walking and cycling
become competitive travel options.
Sound: Welcome the policy but
suggests strengthening by a similar
commitment to the converse i.e. that
industrial or other uses should not be
developed close to sensitive uses.
Unsound: Policy A2 is too restrictive
– it does not take into account the
ability to put in place mitigation
measures for sensitive uses and it
is difficult to see how employing local
people will be applied in practice.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS229).
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Turley Associates (Client Sheffield
Business Park Limited) (PCPS478).
Support noted. Policy C3 will also
protect the amenity of sensitive uses
from nuisance from industrial uses.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Turley Associates (Client TATA Steel
(UK) Ltd) (PCPS94).
Not Minded to Accept: Policy A2
sets out one of the guiding principles,
that sensitive uses should not be
located where they would frustrate
the strategic objectives for economic
development and employment.
Experience in the city and in other
areas indicate that measures to
promote local employment do not
place an unreasonable burden on
developers or occupiers of new
development; it should, in fact lead to
economic benefits to both
businesses and local residents.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view.
19
3.
Serving the City Region
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS230)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership (PCPS267 and
PCPS262)
Observation noted
Current evidence supports the
objector’s view but may need to
consider again in light of other
evidence (may need to consider as
an option).
Carillion Regeneration (PCPS121)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
English Heritage (PCPS128)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS231, 233,
234)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
General
Observation: Paragraph 3.2 The
Sheffield City Region Local
Enterprise Partnership is leading the
development of an SCR Growth
Plan. It is important that there are
direct links between the Sheffield
Economic Masterplan and City
Centre Masterplan.
B1 City Centre Design
Observation: The Moor should not
be referred to as an office area in
Policy B1. The policy should refer to
‘The Moor and Moorfoot’ not just ‘the
Moor’ so that they are not viewed as
separate entities.
Sound: the need to ‘repair and
recover' the Castlegate/Victoria
Quays Quarter through the
conservation and enhancement of
connections between the castle and
wider area.
Sound: Policy clearly identifies the
locations and approaches which will
be taken to promote high-quality
design and reinforce the distinctive
character of the various parts of the
City Centre.
Sound: Support policy B1 and
supporting text.
20
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not accepted: This is an editorial
issue. It makes no substantive
difference whether it is at B2 or H1
that uses in the Central Shopping
Area are considered but a distinct
policy (B2) is better because more
detail can be incorporated and the
policy can be justified without
recourse to long footnotes.
Not accepted: Retail needs to be
consolidated more centrally in the
City. The Square should be afforded
no greater flexibility than other
accessible locations in the City
Centre.
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
B2 Development in the Central Shopping Area and the Cultural Hub
Unsound: Remove the part of the
policy that deals with consideration of
uses in the Central Shopping Area.
Instead, rely on Policy H1 (as
amended). Policy H1 demonstrates
flexibility in accordance with the tests
of soundness in the NPPF. See
‘Shopping’ comment under in Policy
H1.
Unsound: The undeveloped sites in
The Square are compliant with the
criteria for retail and leisure
development in policy CS5 (now B3).
So the Plan should be more flexible
in the uses it allows here.
Sound: Policy B2
Henry Boot Estates Ltd. (PCPS79)
Carillion Regeneration Ltd.
(PCPS122)
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS232)
Carry policy B3 forward as part of the
Local Plan.
No change needed in response to
this comment
B3 Shopping and Leisure Development and Community Facilities outside Existing Centres
Sound: Policy B3
Unsound: Policy B3 requires out of
centre development to be subject to
a sequential test, which is welcomed.
However it could be worded more
strongly. New policy is suggested to
make the town centre preference
more explicit and strengthen the
policy in the face of proposals for
large out of centre retail and leisure
development.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS235)
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership, John Lewis (PCPS264,
& 486)
Support noted
Neither accepted nor rejected: The
CPSD must be read in the context of
the Core Strategy. It is the Core
Strategy that has the strong wording
and it need not be repeated here.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Ensure that the Core Strategy’s
strong wording is carried forward.
However may need to be more
explicit about how the sequential
approach is to be undertaken,
reconsidering wording proposed by
John Lewis.
21
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Lack of clarity over the
threshold for development and
criteria that would require a retail
impact assessment (RIA): whether
the size threshold refers to existing
as well as proposed development
and the extent of the sequential test.
The criteria for requiring RIAs relate
to the determination of a planning
application rather than the size
thresholds specified in the NPPF.
They should therefore be removed.
Unsound: Support the sequential
approach but Policy B3 should
encourage foodstores in residential
areas. These reduce trip lengths and
car borne journeys.
Unsound: The DPD retail policies
will not be supported by evidence,
viz. the Retail Study update since it
will not have been produced in time.
Sheffield City Trust;
Derwent Construction Ltd.;
Colliers International;
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
Aldi Stores Ltd. (PCPS56, 86, 290,
304, 329)
Minded to agree. Whether
development includes extensions,
changes of use and repeat
applications should be clarified.
Clarify when RIAs are needed. While
not specified in the NPPF, the
Practice Guidance says the B3 RIA
criteria will be important in
determining thresholds. But we may
need to reconsider size thresholds
for RIAs based on further evidence
about shop sizes etc. Depends on
the requirements of the new Practice
Guidance.
Aldi Stores Ltd. (PCPS56 and 57)
Not accepted: Town centre
development should be preferred.
No change needed in response to
this comment
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS326)
Not minded to accept: There is
enough evidence to justify the policy
without the Retail Study Update.
Although we are confident about our
evidence, we need to ensure that
future retail studies are available in
time for them to inform policy.
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
4.
Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
C1 Access to Local Services and Community Facilities in New Residential Developments
Unsound: Applying the policy to
80% of new homes in a scheme may
lead to poor design in order to cluster
homes near facilities. The threshold
for walking distance should be
consistent between urban and rural
sites at 15 minutes and the policy
does not recognise that large
developments may provide some
facilities on site.
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS649 and
PCPS628)
Redwall Estates (PCPS612)
Harron Homes (PCPS580)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS600)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS663)
Bovis Homes (PCPS357)
Neither accepted or rejected:
Further consideration will be given to
how this policy should be
implemented, as part of the Local
Plan review.
Retain general policy approach but it
may be appropriate to revise the
policy wording to take account of
services and facilities to be provided
as part of the development.
22
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: Change of use should be
allowed to ensure derelict land does
not affect residential areas.
Other: Playing fields and sports
facilities should be included in the list
of community facilities.
Dr and Mrs M Walker (PCPS4)
This would not require a change to
the current approach.
Sound: Welcome the reference to
public transport criteria which is
reflected in LUTI methodology.
Unsound: The policy is too
prescriptive for small development
sites. It should only apply to larger
schemes of, for example, 50 or 80 or
more homes. The policy should be
more flexible to allow for exceptions.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS236)
Accept that change of use should be
allowed where it is not required to be
retained for open space purposes.
Accept that playing fields and sports
pitches are valuable community
assets and should be readily
accessible to the community.
However, the issue of access to
sports facilities is covered within
open space policy and has a wider
catchment area than the walking
distance defined within policy C1,
therefore it is not appropriate to add
these uses to the list of key local
services in the policy.
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Unsound: Specifying a number of
local services and facilities to be
within walking distance of new
housing may not reflect its location,
restricting development of some
sites. Development can support
viability of local services and larger
developments can provide new
services. Meeting the NPPF test of
sustainable development should be
sufficient.
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS273)
Not minded to accept. It is
important to ensure that new housing
is sustainably located and that new
residents have good access to
services and facilities. The list of key
local services is wide ranging and
about 85% of allocated sites would
meet the criteria.
Not minded to accept. See
comment above.
Sport England (PCPS24)
Sheffield College (PCPS294)
No change needed in response to
this comment.
No change needed in response to
this comment in Local Plan review.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
23
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The policy is inflexible. It
should allow other sustainability
considerations such as remediation
of brownfield land to be taken into
account where accessibility criteria
cannot be met. The acceptable
walking distance for rural areas
should be increased to 1km to a bus
route and 2km to shops and services.
Unsound: The definition of ‘readily
accessible’ implies a degree of
flexibility which is supported, but
there is no mention of cycling within
the policy or definition. Cycling
should be included to ensure
consistency with the aim of the policy
and NPPF.
Dyson Group PLC and St Modwen
(PCPS53)
Not minded to accept. It is
important to ensure that new housing
is sustainably located and that new
residents have good access to
services and facilities. Acceptable
walking distances are already greater
in rural areas, and take account of
less frequent public transport
services.
Not accepted. The distances to
services and facilities given in
relation to the definition of ‘readily
accessible’ relate to walking
distance. Cycling is supported,
however the definition should not
include cycling as this would increase
the distance that could be travelled to
access services, which would
disadvantage those without access to
a bike.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Further consideration of this issue is
needed.
A design policy review to inform the
Local Plan review will look at the
viability of applying the suite of
policies for housing design.
TATA Steel (UK) Ltd (PCPS95)
No change needed in response to
this comment.
C2 Residential Layout, Space Standards and Accessible Housing
Unsound: Requiring 100% Lifetime
Homes would make houses
unaffordable due to size, and may be
replaced as part of the new National
Housing Standards. Requirement for
wheelchair housing will make social
housing unaffordable and
accommodation can be made
suitable more cheaply.
Mr Roger Southworth (PCPS104)
24
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The impact of the policy
on development viability has not
been assessed, and the Council
should not create standards that
impact on development costs.
Lifetime Homes and wheelchair
housing requirements add significant
costs to developments. Also the
impact of the policy cannot be fully
understood as space standards are
to be included in SPD rather than the
policy. Excessive garden standards
will impact on density. The policy
should encourage such requirements
but not make them mandatory.
Unsound: It would be more
appropriate to encourage all
development types have easy and
convenient access to outdoor space
or gardens rather than prescribing
the means of access. There is no
justification to support the
requirement for 25% wheelchair
homes.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS114);
Gleeson (PCPS343);
Strata (PCPS337).
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Further consideration of this issue is
needed.
A design policy review to inform the
Local Plan review will look at the
viability of applying the suite of
policies for housing design.
TATA Steel (UK) Ltd (PCPS96)
Accept the comment relating to
access to outdoor space. Not
minded to accept the objection to
25% wheelchair housing: there is
robust evidence to support the
requirement based on a city wide
assessment of the number of
households containing people with
disabilities.
The wording around access to
outdoor space will be reviewed.
A design policy review to inform the
Local Plan review will look at the
viability of applying the suite of
policies for housing design including
wheelchair homes.
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
C3 Safeguarding Sensitive Uses from Nuisance
Sound: The definitions around
background noise levels.
Sport England (PCPS25)
25
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not minded to accept: The policy is
about shopping centres at street level
frontage. Sports facilities are not
appropriate here.
Community facilities are referred to
frequently in the CPSD but generally
without being defined. The only
definitions are at C1, where they are
defined broadly (but still excluding
sports venues). Elsewhere the words
‘community facilities’ are followed by
‘D1’ in brackets – a narrower
definition. More thought should be
given to what community facilities are
and the particular circumstances of
each policy.
C4 Development in District and Neighbourhood Centres
Unsound: Playing fields and sports
facilities should be considered as
community facilities and afforded the
same protection. Community
facilities should include D2 as well as
D1 to include gyms.
Unsound: The proposed test for
development in the District and
Neighbourhood Centres is flawed. If
a site is located closer to the edge of
the centre than 50m then the test has
restricted the number of units against
which the proposed use would be
tested.
Unsound: The requirement for
developments to be "appropriate to
the scale and type of the Centre" is
too vague. An RIA should be
required if concerns are raised during
consultation that a development
could have a significant adverse
impact on the district or
neighbourhood centre.
Sport England (PCPS23)
Bovis Homes (PCPS650)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS581)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS631)
Harron Homes (PCPS613)
Chip (Two) Ltd. (PCPS664)
Redwall Estates (PCPS360)
Mr Jason Leman (PCPS546)
Not minded to accept: B3 considers
just the units within the centre, not
those beyond. So it is true that fewer
units will be considered in the
calculation. But, the proportion of
units in different uses will not be
affected by the site being at the edge
of the centre.
Minded to agree: Agree that the
words “appropriate to the scale and
type of the Centre” need
reconsidering. They echo wording in
PPS4 which is no longer present in
the NPPF. The NPPF does not
require RIAs for in-centre
development.
We should also have a general policy
that gives protection to a wide range
of community facilities.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
May need to reconsider whether, and
if so how, development within a
centre can be assessed for its impact
on the same centre or on nearby
centres.
26
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: CS39 defines
Neighbourhood Centres as local
shopping and community facilities
that have an important community
role. Policy C4 should include all
such uses.
Dore Village Society (PSPM63)
Neither accepted or rejected: C4
already protects such D1 and A1
facilities. Response to the second
half of the representation is in the
South West section.
No change needed in response to
this comment
5.
Opportunities and Well-Being for All
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
The Gypsy and Traveller site
allocations should be considered
alongside all other allocations as part
of an integrated piece of work.
As part of the Local Plan Review land
will be identified to meet the housing
requirement as well as the need for
additional Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation.
Sport England (PCPS27)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to this
comment
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS479)
Agree that there needs to be a clear
distinction made concerning what the
policy intends to achieve, over and
above Building Regs.
Further consideration of the objectives
of the policy, greater clarity in the
policy criteria to set out the difference
to Building Regs.
Gypsies and Travellers (para.5.4)
Sound: It is disappointing that the
opportunity to integrate the
accommodation needs of Gypsies
and Travellers with other
allocations. The Gypsy and
Traveller allocation document
should be brought forward
quickly.
National Federation of Gypsy
Liaison Groups (PCPS168)
D1 Inclusive Design in Public Buildings and Places of Work
Observation: Designs relating to
sports facilities should reflect the
needs of users, including BME and
disabled users.
Unsound: The policy is
unnecessary because it is unclear
what it will achieve over and above
Part M of the Building Regulations.
It will not be responsive to changes
in legislation and operational
requirements. The policy should be
either redrafted to account for this,
or deleted.
27
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not Minded to Accept. The evidence
underpinning Policy D2 is explained in
detail in the Opportunities and
Wellbeing Background Report.
Current evidence does not support the
objectors’ views, but the issue may
need further consideration in light of
other evidence.
D2 Open Space in Large New Housing Developments
Unsound: Policy D2, or the
evidence underpinning it, are
insufficiently clear
Bovis Homes (PCPS367)
Sheffield College (PCPS295)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS602)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS651,
632)
Harron Homes (PCPS582)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS665)
Redwall Estates (PCPS614)
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS274)
28
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: requests to reduce the
4ha threshold (PCPS545), whilst
others questioned its viability and
suggested using the number of
dwellings rather than the site area
as the threshold.
Mr Jason Leman (PCPS545)
Sheffield College (PCPS295)
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS274)
Current evidence does not support the
objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to changes its view in light of
other evidence.
Unsound: The need for “bespoke
children’s play facilities” is not
demonstrated either in the policy or
justified within the supporting text.
Appropriate children’s play can be
provided through standard
children’s play equipment.
Harron Homes (PCPS582)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS651,
632)
Redwall Estates (PCPS614)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS602)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS665)
Bovis Homes (PCPS367)
Not minded to accept. Policy D2
would only apply in areas of open
space shortage, as does the current
policy referred to the in the comment.
Given the density ranges advocated
by the Core Strategy, a 4 hectare
housing site could support between
120 and 320 dwellings. Therefore in
areas where there is a quantitative
shortage of open space, the increase
in local population would be significant
enough to require direct provision of
open space on the site to avoid
compromising existing open spaces,
and to provide for the immediate
recreational needs of residents. 4
hectares is the threshold because
sites of this size will provide a credible
opportunity to create sizeable open
spaces that will provide genuine
opportunities for recreation, without
creating too large a number of smaller
open spaces and associated
management/ maintenance issues and
costs; providing open space requires
an initial capital cost from developers,
but also a longer term cost in terms of
the maintenance of the site. Sites in
excess of 4 hectares will be more able
to cope with these costs and so are
more likely to be deliverable.
Minded to accept
Consider removing the reference as
the policy states that play provision
should be appropriate to the site and
local context.
29
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: In some cases it may
be better to provide playing pitches
off-site as part of new housing
development.
Sport England (PCPS28)
Observation noted
The location of any new pitches
needed as a result of housing
development would be dealt with on a
site-by-site basis.
Minded to Accept. Early discussion
has been had about setting different
targets for Affordable Housing in
different housing market areas. These
would more closely reflect the likely
level of viability in each area.
Look at setting different targets for
Affordable Housing in different market
areas.
D3 Delivering Affordable Housing
Unsound: Policy D3 on viability
grounds.
6.
University of Sheffield (PCPS688)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS656,
633)
Harron Homes (PCPS583)
Redwall Estates (PCPS615)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS603)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS666)
Sheffield College (PCPS296)
Bovis Homes (PCPS370)
University of Sheffield (PCPS690)
Strata (PCPS339)
Gleeson (PCPS345)
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS115)
Movement and Sustainable Transport
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: SYPTE would welcome a
direct reference to the SCR
Transport Strategy in this section.
The content that follows aligns with
the principles contained in the
Transport Strategy, for instance an
emphasis of making best use of
existing transport infrastructure.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS237)
Minded to accept
Consider including a reference to the
SCR Transport Strategy in the
transport section of the document.
Support noted.
Carry forward Policy E1.
E1 Development and Trip Generation
Sound: Support Policy E1.
SYPTE (PCPS238)
Highways Agency (PCPS548)
National Trust (PCPS308)
30
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Although a lower
service frequency may be accepted
in Rural Areas, We would hope that
this would not prevent development
in areas that have suffered from a
lack of investment.
Unsound: The approach appears to
apply to developers in spite of the
proposed use of CIL contributions. In
respect of criteria b), this could be
beyond the control of a developer.
Although Policy E1 refers to the
provision of new infrastructure only
being where this is necessary, there
is no definition of how this would be
judged. The thresholds for Transport
Statements / Assessments and
Travel Plans are welcomed.
NFU (PCPS222)
Observation noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Harron Homes (PCPS584)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS653,
PCPS635)
Redwall Estates (PCPS616)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS604)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS667)
Bovis Homes (PCPS371)
University of Sheffield (PCPS691)
Not minded to accept. The policy is
about ensuring that developers take
proportionate action to address the
impact of the development and its
operations, informed by a Transport
Assessment. CIL contributions will
be targeted towards specific
infrastructure priorities.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
31
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Indigo Planning
recommend that criteria (b) is
reworded to “generate low carbon
emissions, air pollution, noise and
visual intrusion and contribute to
strategies to address known health
problems.” It is also recommended
that the ‘definitions’ section is
amended so the definition of
‘minimum service frequency
standards’ to reflect the definition of
‘readily accessible by public
transport’ in Policy B3. In relation to
criterion (d), it is recommend that the
word ‘increase’ is replaced by
‘encourage’ thus making it read as
follows: “increase encourage
opportunities for walking and cycling,
in ways that provide safe, convenient
and viable travel to and from the
development.”
Unsound: The use of arbitrary
thresholds to determine whether
Transport Assessments etc. are
necessary will not assist in
consideration of the issue. The
thresholds and references to them
should be deleted.
Indigo Planning (IKEA) (PCPS303)
Minded to accept in part. The
difference between ‘lower’ and ‘low’
in criterion (b) is not significant
enough to warrant a change.
Consider reviewing the definitions
section to align with Policy B3
A review of the definitions will be
considered.
Opportunities for walking and cycling
must be provided before their use
can be encouraged, therefore the
word ‘increase’ in criterion (d) is
necessary.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS480)
Not accepted: The NPPF (para. 32)
requires that ‘all developments that
generate significant amounts of
movement should be supported by a
Transport Statement or Transport
Assessment’.
It is however for local authorities to
set their own definition of ‘significant’
movements and consequent
thresholds. The Background Report
accompanying E1 explains in detail
how the thresholds were determined.
No change needed in response to
this comment
32
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: To make this policy more
robust, there should be varying
degrees of parking standards in
relation to the access to public
transport.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (PCPS239)
No change needed in response to
this comment
Sound: Support policy E2.
Highways Agency (PCPS549)
University of Sheffield (PCPS679)
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS481)
Not minded to accept: The car
parking standards in policy E2 have
been banded into three zones (City
Centre, Other parts of the Urban
Areas, and Rural Areas), and the
parking standards set to broadly
reflect the relative accessibility of
these areas. The policy is very
closely linked with E1 which makes
provision for more detailed
assessment of the individual
development location. The parking
standards are maximums, which
allows for variation and flexibility
depending on specific location.
Support noted.
Not minded to accept: The car
parking standards depend on the
location of development, and are
more generous where public
transport is not as frequent. Travel
Plans would highlight site-specific
needs and potential solutions, such
as sharing car parking with
businesses that do not operate at
night.
No change needed in response to
this comment
E2 Parking
Unsound: Allowance should be
made for uses and development
types that operate on a permanent
basis while making provision for shift
working and antisocial working
practices. The policy should allow for
this by building in flexibility into the
application of parking standards.
Carry forward policy E2
33
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: We request that
justification be provided outlining the
change in parking standards. In
addition, we request that a sentence
be reintroduced indicating that there
will be some flexibility applied in the
application of the standards on a site
by site basis. This flexibility should
apply to leisure schemes as well as
retail, therefore, increased flexibility
may be required in certain
circumstances which is currently not
catered for.
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
Limited (PCPS330)
Not minded to accept: Detailed
explanation of the parking standards
can be found in the Background
Report accompanying the policy.
No change needed in response to
this comment
The car parking standards are
general, and negotiation for schemes
outside of the categories will provide
flexibility.
E3 Design for Roads and Movement
Sound: An additional bullet point to
pick up the relationship between
detailed treatments and local
character could be included.
National Trust (PCPS309). Additional
support from University of Sheffield
(PCPS680).
Support noted
Carry forward Policy E3
34
7.
Global Environment and Natural Resources
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Applications involving
floodlights should have robust
lighting reports and strategies.
Sport England (PCPS29)
Observation noted
Sound: Welcome the addition of
canals in the definition of
watercourses in Policy F1.
Sound: Welcome addition of “Water
quality is enhanced” in F1
Unsound: criterion (b) is inconsistent
with the NPPF
Canal and River Trust (PCPS277)
Support noted
Reducing the impact of external flood
lighting is part of policy F1 and will
need to be assessed on a site by site
basis.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Environment Agency (PCPS496)
Support noted
Indigo Planning Ltd (IKEA)
(PCPS305)
Not accepted
Sound: Support but include
reference to reduced parking
measures and use of travel plans
Mr Chris Hardie
(PCPS550)
Not accepted
Sound: The inclusion of a specific
criterion within policy F1, which
requires land instability issues to be
remediated when new development
is proposed, is supported.
Observation: An SPD on air quality
assessment guidance is needed to
ensure the most appropriate
methodology is needed.
Mr David Berry (Coal Authority)
(PCPS248)
Support noted
Mr Neil Parry
(PCPSS2)
Observation noted
F1 Pollution Control
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Policy F1 is consistent with the NPPF
including criterion (b) which is based
on national guidance for transport
assessment – selected as suitable
triggers for air quality impact
assessment and site by site
negotiation on suitable mitigation
measures identified within the local
AQAP.
The generalised reference to
mitigation measures is unnecessary
as measures for significant
development will be included; by
default insignificant measures are not
deemed necessary.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Consideration of an air quality SPD is
underway and planned as part of the
Air Quality Action Plan for Summer
2014.
35
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Include a requirement in
para 7.5 for a Coal Mining Risk
Assessment when new development
is proposed in defined Coal Mining
Development High Risk Areas, in line
with para121 (bullet 3) of the NPPF.
Coal Authority (PCPS250)
Minded to accept
Include a requirement for a Coal
Mining Risk Assessment in para 7.5
for all new development in areas
where land is identified as unstable
as a result of former mining in order
to ensure the land is made stable
through appropriate mitigation and
remediation measures.
Minded to accept
Policy F2 should safeguard Waste
Management Areas, Bernard Road /
Lumley Street and Parkwood Springs
and promote waste management,
including energy-from-waste
technology and ancillary activities
together with other types of waste
development (excluding landfill and
open windrow composting) in
suitable locations. The suitability of
sites will be assessed according to
criterion c) to h) and suggest include
i) facilitate direct connection to the
District Heating Network. [para.24 of
updated national waste planning
policy (July 2013) encourages LPAs
to consider siting EFW facilities in
areas which allow them to use heat
as an alternative energy source to
electricity. Para.25 steers LPAs
towards considering locating new
EFW facilities alongside existing
sewerage treatment works given the
potential benefits of co-locating such
facilities.
F2 Requirements for Waste Management
Unsound: Concern that this policy
will prevent the diversification of rural
businesses into renewable
energy/heat project such as
Anaerobic Digestion or composting.
NFU (PCPS223)
36
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: F2 could be more positive
to emphasise the contribution of
strategic waste management to
resource efficiency and sustainability.
Environment Agency (PCPS497)
Minded to accept
Sound
Highways Agency (PCPS551)
Support welcome
Policy F2 needs to reflect the
strategic waste management plan for
Sheffield and the waste hierarchy in
terms of safeguarding land for waste
management and promoting use of
land / sites for development.
Maintain the emphasis of policy F2
criteria (e and f) and management of
development in line with C3, E1 and
F1.
F3 Safeguarding Mineral Resources
Unsound: The Coal Authority does
not consider that Policy F3 provides
a robust framework for assessing
proposals for non-minerals
development within the MSA. In
order to enable decisions to be taken
on such proposals, The Coal
Authority considers that more clear
decision making criteria are required.
Sound: The Coal Authority supports
the designation of the whole Local
Plan area as a Minerals
Safeguarding Area.
Unsound: The Core Strategy
contains no minerals policies,
consequently no assessment of the
potential adverse effects of minerals
policy within the Local Plan upon
Natura 2000 sites has been
undertaken. Therefore this policy will
require a screening of likely
significant effects upon internationally
protected nature conservation sites.
Coal Authority (PCPS245)
Not minded to accept. The policy as
worded meets the NPPF requirement
to ensure that known locations of
specific minerals resources are not
needlessly sterilised by non-mineral
development.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Coal Authority (PCPS252)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Natural England (PCPS170)
Not accepted. There are no Natura
2000 sites within Sheffield therefore
a full Appropriate Assessment was
not required. This has previously
been agreed with Natural England.
No change needed in response to
this comment
37
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The British Geological
Society has identified a number of
historic building and roofing stone
quarries in Sheffield which, although
no longer in use, nonetheless,
potentially still could provide stone
needed for the repair of heritage
assets in the area. Suggest
amending the beginning of the
second Paragraph to read:- "Where a
site is likely to have surface coal or
other important mineral resources,
...etc" (2) Paragraph 7.16 line 1
amend to read:- "... although other
mineral , such as building stone, may
be present"
English Heritage (PCPS129)
Minded to accept. Evidence cited
supports the objector’s view but may
need to consider again in light of
other evidence.
Consider amending the policy and
supporting text as suggested.
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Dennis Patton (PCPS59, 314, 468)
Minded to accept. This will be
considered as part of the Local Plan
Review.
Consider whether the Duty to
Cooperate has been fulfilled
sufficiently for Green Infrastructure.
8.
Green Environment
Summary of Comment
Duty to Cooperate
Unsound: The Council has not
demonstrated it has undertaken any
work on the duty to cooperate
regarding Green Infrastructure. There
is also no policy or mechanism
relating to Green Infrastructure.
38
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Dennis Patton (PCPS71)
Not minded to accept: Policy G2
covers the Green Network, which
includes ecological corridors, and
includes criteria relating to enhancing
the network. Development
Management will use the policy to
deal with ecological corridors and
enhancements.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Natural England (PCPS176)
Neither accepted nor rejected: We
expected that the HRA done at the
time of the Core Strategy would
cover the City Policies and Sites.
Ensure new Local Plan compliant
with regulations which relate to the
HRA.
Natural England (PCPS75)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Natural England (PCPS177)
Mind to accept: The interests of the
Pennine Moors SSSI do need to be
accounted for.
Check whether this should be done
as part of Sustainability Assessment
as suggested or as part of the
Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Ecology
Unsound: Greater emphasis is
needed on ecological corridors
including planning strategically to
enhance existing corridors and
restore lost connections. SCC has
not demonstrated how Development
Management will include ecological
corridors in its advice to applicants
and how it will seek buffer zones and
seek enhancements.
Not legally compliant with
regulation 102 regarding the Habitats
Regulations Assessment (HRA). The
HRA of the Core Strategy cannot be
solely relied upon to reach a
determination on the need for an
appropriate assessment.
Considers the plan to be legally
compliant and in accordance with
the relevant tests of soundness.
Observation: Concurs with the
Sustainability Appraisal, but it should
also assess recreational disturbance
upon the interests of the Pennine
Moors SSSI.
G1 Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity and Features of Geological Importance
Sound: Support policy G1
Environment Agency (PCPS498)
Support noted
Unsound: Policy G1 does not
demonstrate how environmental net
gain will be ensured and in particular
biodiversity.
Dennis Patton (PCPS62, 64, 314)
Minded to accept
No change needed in response to
this comment
Add reference to net gain for
biodiversity in policy G1.
39
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The NPPF requires an
‘avoid – mitigate – compensate’
approach. Policy G1 is not strong
enough with regard to avoiding
damage. It’s quite strong on mitigate
and compensate. There are no
mechanisms identified for appraising
applications e.g. a biodiversity
checklist which applicants would
complete, made available to the
public and included in the annual
monitoring report.
Unsound: SCC has not
demonstrated how the mechanism
for minimising impacts on biodiversity
will be carried out, including
identifying and mapping components
of the local ecological networks.
Dennis Patton (PCPS63, 66, 70)
Natural England (PCPS171)
Not minded to accept: The first and
third paragraphs of policy G1 set out
a presumption against development
that would damage biodiversity or
features of geological importance,
thus setting the context for ‘avoiding’
in the first instance.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Unsound: Can SCC demonstrate
how protected species have been
taken into account and have any
sites been identified where
deliverability has become an issue
due to protected species present?
How will developers and
Development Management know
what species might or might not be
on any given site?
Dennis Patton (PCPS69, 74)
Paragraph 8.8 refers to the
mechanisms by which applications
would be appraised.
Dennis Patton (PCPS65)
Not minded to accept: Policy G1
sets out the mechanism for
minimising impacts on biodiversity.
The Green Network is shown on the
Proposals Map, and covered under
Policy G2, which refers to its value
for wildlife.
Not minded to accept: Policy G1
covers protected species in
subparagraph (b). Ecological
surveys have been undertaken for
site allocations deemed likely to have
significant ecological value. Of
these, none had protected species
which would make development an
issue. Ecological surveys are
requested with planning applications
where appropriate.
No change needed in response to
this comment
No change needed in response to
this comment
40
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The policy would be
difficult to monitor as there appears
to be no structures in place to
capture the information for providing
an annual report.
There is a lack of a Biodiversity
Policy in the adopted Core Strategy
and Policy G1 relies on the Core
Strategy vision and objectives text for
compliance.
There are no timescales or targets
identified for biodiversity – takes no
account of Biodiversity 2020.
Dennis Patton (PCPS314)
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (PCPS468)
No change needed in response to
this comment
Unsound: The final sentence of the
policy should be deleted. It is not
appropriate to encourage wildlife in
all developments and to do is
irresponsible and damaging to the
relationship between the urban
human population and wildlife which
is suited to a rural environment.
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS654, 636)
Harron Homes (PCPS585)
Redwall Estates (PCPS617)
Bawtry Road (PCPS605)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS668)
Bovis Homes (PCPS372)
Not minded to accept: Biodiversity
monitoring is undertaken by the
Ecology Unit. The Core Strategy is
not lacking a biodiversity policy; it is
too high level and strategic a
document to contain one. The
objectives provide the hook on which
to hang the detailed policy.
G1, and the site allocations and
accompanying sustainability
appraisals, are in line with the aims
of Biodiversity 2020. Timescales and
targets would come through the
Ecology Unit.
Not minded to accept: All
developments should be capable of
accommodating features to
encourage some type of wildlife, for
instance a bird or bat box. Wildlife is
still important in an urban
environment.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
41
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: A number of changes to
the policy are suggested
(underlined):
c. provide net gains in biodiversity
where possible (new sub-para)
d. provide new areas of habitat as
part of new open space, or features
to encourage wildlife, as appropriate
to the location including establishing
coherent ecological networks that are
more resilient to current and future
pressures
Wherever possible, features to
encourage wildlife should be included
as part of all developments.
Biodiversity enhancement should be
proportionate to the size and scale of
the development and take into
account the nature conservation
value of the habitat or species of the
site or nearby.
Unsound: The NPPF requires a
distinction is made between the
protection afforded internationally,
nationally and locally designated
sites. As worded policy G1 applies
the same policy of minimising harm
to all designated sites, national or
local. Consequently the approach to
protecting nationally protected SSSI's
is weaker than that promoted within
the NPPF (paragraph 118).
Consultee suggests a number of
amendments.
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (PCPS468)
Minded to accept: The suggested
changes will be considered for
inclusion as part of the Local Plan
review.
Consider changes as part of Local
Plan review.
Natural England (PCPS171)
Minded to accept: Revised wording
which distinguishes more clearly
between designated sites will be
considered as part of the Local Plan
review.
Consider revised wording as part of
Local Plan review.
42
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The LPA has not
demonstrated how it has taken into
account biodiversity when assessing
the viability of allocating sites and in
assessing planning applications by
Development Management, and how
Developers will provide evidence with
regard to species and viability
combined.
Unsound: The land situated to the
south west of the Octagon Centre
has been identified as a geological
local nature site. The University has
received no information on the site in
question or seen any reports
prepared by the council as part of
this allocation.
Dennis Patton (PCPS73)
Not minded to accept: It is not
possible to assess the viability of all
site allocations with regard to
biodiversity, as this would require a
detailed level of survey work and
subsequent analysis for each site.
For planning applications, viability will
be assessed on a site-by-site basis
as necessary.
Minded to accept: The geological
LNS designation is a mapping error
as this is a candidate site rather than
a designated site.
No change needed in response to
this comment
University of Sheffield (PCPS681)
Remove geological LNS designation,
unless the site has been officially
designated.
43
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The British Geological
Society has identified a number of
historic building and roofing stone
quarries in Sheffield which, although
no longer in use, nonetheless,
potentially still could provide stone
needed for the repair of heritage
assets in the area. Some of these
could, conceivably, be within sites
identified as being of geological
importance. Paragraph 8.7 add the
following to the end of the Paragraph:
"Some of the sites of geological
importance may originally have been
building stone quarries. Where such
stone is needed for the repairs of
historic buildings in the area
consideration will be given to the
limited extraction of stone from such
site where it is needed for the repair
of historic buildings in the area and
there is no viable alternative source
available"
English Heritage (PCPS130)
Minded to accept.
Consider incorporating suggested
change.
Sport England (PCPS30)
Not minded to accept: It is
recognised that the Green Network
has multiple functions, with benefits
for both wildlife and humans.
Paragraph 8.12 states that where
possible and desirable, green links
should serve other purposes for
human movement and enjoyment.
This would not preclude formalised
sports such as those mentioned by
Sport England, as long as they did
not cause harm to the Network.
No change needed in response to
this comment
G2 The Green Network
Observation: The Council should
take a more positive stance on
formalised sport within the Green
Network (such as orienteering and
BMX-ing).
44
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: Support policy G2.
National Trust (PCPS311)
Support noted
Unsound: Policy G2 does not, as
explained in the Green Environment
Network Background paper, cover
Green Infrastructure. Also it seems
that the Sites document does not
identify the creation of any natural
areas but the Core Strategy
document does allude to the creation
of new sites.
Unsound: This policy is unsound as
it is neither quite Green Infrastructure
nor Ecological networks, but a bit of
both, but not quite fulfilling the
planning expectations of either as set
out in the NPPF. Ecological
networks and Green Infrastructure
should be separated. There should
be a separate layer to show wildlife
only Green Corridors rather than
mixing them in with those that can
have a more multi - functional use.
Sound: Natural England support
policy G2. The boundaries of the
strategic network, listed in Core
Strategy CS73 and Key Diagram
should be identified on the proposals
map or on a separate map within the
plan.
Dennis Patton (PCPS67)
Not minded to accept: The
definition of the Green Network
accompanying policy G2 is
comparable to the definition of Green
Infrastructure in the NPPF.
New areas of open space would be
created as a result of policy D2.
No change needed in response to
this comment
No change needed in response to
this comment
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (PCPS467,
220)
Dennis Patton (PCPS317)
Minded to accept: Consider whether
a separation of ecological networks
and Green Infrastructure is more
appropriate.
Consider separating ecological
networks and Green Infrastructure in
the Local Plan.
Natural England (PCPS172)
Support noted: The strategic Green
Network is shown in more detail on
the Proposals Map, but is not
differentiated from the rest of the
Green Network. The Core Strategy
and Proposals Map should be used
together in interpreting the Green
Network.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
G3 Trees, Woodland and the South Yorkshire Forest
Sound: Support policy G3
Natural England (PCPS173)
Mr Nick Sandford (PCPS260)
45
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Requiring woodland
planting on areas where currently
there is no woodland setting or
character, such as the existing Tata
Steel operational works, is
inappropriate and unnecessary.
Therefore, Policy G3 is not
considered to be justified, as it is
inconsistent with the evidence base.
TATA Steel UK (PCPS98)
Not minded to accept: Part (a) of
the policy refers to ‘appropriate’ tree
planting. This is to acknowledge that
the area covered by the Forest is
large and that not all of it is wooded
by character. There are areas within
its boundary where planting new
woodland is not appropriate, which
may include industrial areas.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Sound: Support policy G4
Sport England (PCPS31)
Support noted
Unsound: Policy G4 does not take
account of the Wetland Habitat
Action Plan. Policy G4 should make it
clear that under the terms of the
Water Framework Directive, river,
lake or groundwater quality, water
based habitats, and water resources
cannot in any way be detrimentally
affected. Policy G4 is too passive,
and should require development
adjacent to rivers to restore the
rivers, or enhance them to a more
natural state, wherever possible.
Sound: Natural England supports
policy G4. As with policy G1, dams
should be removed as they are not
ecological features. The reservoirs
and mill ponds are the ecological
features dams create.
Dennis Patton (PCPS72)
Not minded to accept: Water
quality is covered in Policy F1
Pollution Control. The first part of the
policy states that watercourses
should be protected and enhanced
as natural features.
Take forward policies G4 in the new
Local Plan
No change needed in response to
this comment
Natural England (PCPS174)
Support noted
G4 Water in the Landscape
Retain policy but consider removal of
reference to damns as suggested.
46
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The general requirement
for the 5 metre set back is not
evidence-based as it fails to take into
account the Trust’s role and
responsibility as owner for
maintaining the canal and towpath,
which is dealt with on a site by site
basis.
Canal & River Trust (PCPS279)
Minded to accept
Unsound: Suggests amendment to
policy relating to setting back of
footpaths.
Unsound: Concerned about the
impact that of riverside
walking/cycling route for health and
safety, and security reasons.
Landowners must be consulted and
clear connectivity and need must be
demonstrated.
Unsound: Evidence is needed to
show that the potential for hydroelectric power is available from the
watercourses in the Sheffield area if
this policy is to remain as worded.
Environment Agency (PCPS499)
Not minded to accept. The setting
back of footpaths would be dealt with
on a site-by-site basis
Not minded to accept. Walking and
cycling routes would be designed
and located appropriately to ensure
they are safe. Landowners would be
consulted on any new routes.
Amend definition of setback as
follows:
Set back' - according to
Environment Agency
requirements. This is 8 metres in
the case of Main Rivers as defined
by the Environment Agency and
up to 5 metres in the case of other
watercourses (excluding canals).
No change needed in response to
this comment
Harron Homes (PCPS586)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS655,
PCPS637)
Redwall Estates (PCPS619)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS606)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS669)
Bovis Homes (PCPS373)
Not minded to accept. The 2006
Renewable Energy Scoping and
Feasibility Study identified potential
sites for hydro-electric power, and
other locations may come to light in
the future.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Unsound: Policies should reflect the
advice and resources provided on
flood risk management. See full
comment for information.
Environment Agency (PCPS494)
Not minded to accept. The policy
links to some of the flood risk
management issues in CS67 e.g.
providing set back and encouraging
wetlands in particular will help to
ensure that efforts are made to
mitigate flood risk as part of new
developments. Care has been taken
to ensure G4 does not duplicate
CS67.
No change needed in response to
this comment
NFU (PCPS224)
No change needed in response to
this comment
47
9.
Character and Heritage
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS607)
Ackroyd & Abbott (PCPS656 and
PCPS638)
Bovis Homes (PCPS374)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS670)
Redwall Estates (PCPS620)
Harron Homes (PCPS587)
Dyson Group PLC and St Modwen
(PCPS55)
Minded to accept. This issue is
covered within the National Planning
Policy Framework and may not
require further detail in the Local
Plan.
As part of the Local Plan Review
consideration will be given to whether
further guidance to deal with this issue
should be included in local policy to
help implement the NPPF.
Not minded to accept. Policy G6A
is consistent with the NPPF which
only allows for limited new
development in the Green Belt.
As part of the Local Plan review,
ensure that the policy is positive as far
as possible within the spirit of NPPF
guidance on Green Belt development.
Sport England (PCPS32)
The level of protection given to
sports pitches in the Green Belt will
take account of Green Belt policy
and an assessment of the site’s
value based on the Playing Pitch
Strategy and Open Space Audit.
Any redundant site’s use will be
considered against potential for reuse by other sports. The definition
of previously developed land is
included within the NPPF and is not
set locally.
No change needed in response to this
comment in the Local Plan.
G6A Development in Countryside Areas including the Green Belt
Unsound: Policy G6A does not
reflect the potential for replacement
housing or redevelopment of
brownfield sites in the Green Belt.
Unsound: Policy G6A is too
negative and should be more
supportive of what type of
development would be appropriate
in the Green Belt.
Other: Sports grounds in the Green
Belt should be supported and
protected, and appropriate buildings
and lighting allowed as necessary.
These buildings should not be
considered previously developed
land making them vulnerable to
redevelopment.
48
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Other: Clarification of ‘urbanising
effect’ required, assuming the
intention is not to disadvantage the
rural population.
NFU (PCPS225)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
The reference to the urbanising
effect relates to the issue of visual
impact on the Green Belt of
redevelopment of agricultural
dwellings. This is not to
disadvantage the rural population
but to ensure high design quality to
minimise negative visual impacts on
the Green Belt.
No change needed in response to this
comment.
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS608)
Ackroyd & Abbott (PCPS640 and
PCPS657)
Bovis Homes
(PCPS375)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS671)
Redwall Estates (PCPS622)
Harron Homes (PCPS588)
Duke of Norfolk’s Estates
(PCPS319)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Accept that the landscape character
assessment is preliminary and that
further work is required in order to
be able to assess the relative
sensitivity of different areas to
development.
Further work is required as part of the
Local Plan review to further develop
the landscape character assessment
as part of a review of the Green Belt.
Mr Dennis Patton (PCPS318)
Neither accepted or rejected. The
policy is not intended to deal with
issues relating to biodiversity, rather
it relates to landscape character.
Accept that further cross-boundary
working on Green Belt issues is
required, although the landscape
character assessment on which this
policy was based did take account of
other local as well as Natural
England work.
Further work is required as part of the
Local Plan review to further develop
the landscape character assessment
as part of a review of the Green Belt.
Cross boundary working will take place
to consider Green Belt review issues.
G6B Landscape Character
Unsound: The landscape character
assessment is preliminary and is not
therefore a robust and credible
evidence base to justify and inform
implementation of policy G6B.
Application of the same levels of
protection to land as that in the Peak
District National Park is unjustified.
Policy G6B should be deleted until a
full assessment has been carried
out.
Unsound: Policy G6B does not
comply with the NPPF and therefore
will not deliver protection and
enhancement of biodiversity. The
benefits of biodiversity have not
been identified, and the policy is not
universally supported. There is no
evidence of cross boundary working
or the duty to co-operate regarding
landscape character policies. It
would be difficult to monitor, and
without a Core Strategy landscape
policy, G6B relies on the Core
Strategy and Vision. The policy
does not take account of Natural
49
Summary of Comment
England’s National Character
Assessments.
Sound: Welcome recognition of the
relationship between the city and the
landscape of the Peak District
National Park. The appearance of
built development can have an
impact on the valued characteristics
of the national park and avoiding
adverse impacts and ensuring
landscape distinctiveness are
necessary to protect the nationally
designated landscape.
Sound: Support the policy,
specifically ensuring that
development conspicuous from the
Peak District National Park does not
harm its valued characteristics.
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
National Trust (PCPS312)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to this
comment.
Mr Ian Smith, English Heritage
(PCPS133)
Support noted
No change needed in response to this
comment.
Neither accepted or rejected. The
policy currently states that protection
will be consistent with the assets’
importance. However, further
guidance may be required on how
the significance is balanced with
harm and public benefit.
Review the policy wording to ensure
compliance with the NPPF.
G7 Development and Heritage Assets
Unsound: The approach taken will
be onerous, costly and hinder
development as it would require
conservation even where the
significance of the asset does not
warrant it. The NPPF states that the
significance of the asset should be
balanced with the extent of any
harm and potential public benefit
and G7 should reflect this.
Dyson Group PLC and St Modwen
(PCPS54)
University of Sheffield (PCPS682)
50
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Policy G7 does not add
much to guidance in the NPPF or
Core Strategy and therefore does
not give enough detail for
determining the impact of
development on heritage assets. It
does not comply with the
requirements of the NPPF as it does
not provide certainty, does not set
out how the presumption in favour of
sustainable development will be
applied in terms of conservation and
does not provide clear policy on
what will be permitted. Suggested
re-wording is provided.
Sound: The policy reflects NPPF
guidance about the importance of
good design.
Support: for policy G7 (University of
Sheffield); for site allocations
P00013, P00501, P00154, P00195,
P00202, P00235 (English Heritage).
English Heritage (PCPS134)
Minded to accept. Further
guidance is needed within the policy
on how the presumption in favour of
sustainable development will be
applied.
Review the policy wording to ensure
compliance with the NPPF.
English Heritage (PCPS132)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to this
comment.
University of Sheffield; English
Heritage
Support noted.
No change needed in response to this
comment.
10.
Areas that Look Good and Work Well
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Support
Sport England (PCPS33)
SYPTE (PCPS240)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Observation: delivery of this policy
should be discussed with the
landowners in each location.
University of Sheffield (PCPS683)
Observation noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
G10 Design Quality
51
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The requirement for public
art is not consistent with national
policy and nor is it justified. There is
no recognition that public art may not
be appropriate or necessary (e.g.
where development itself is of high
design quality). Requiring public art
should not be a reason to withhold
planning permission. This is
supported by both the CIL
Regulations and para. 204 of the
NPPF which highlights that planning
obligations should only be sought
where they are necessary, directly
related to the development, and fairly
and reasonably related in scale and
kind to the development.
Unsound: Secured by Design should
be given greater inclusion in the
policies.
IKEA (PCPS306)
Not minded to accept: The use of
public art is not intended to make
unacceptable development
acceptable, and therefore has not
been viewed in terms of conditions or
obligations.
The Council has integrated public art
within the broader policy on design
quality because it sees the
integration of public art into the
design process as a key means of
ensuring that development is high
quality and responds to its location.
No action required
Architectural Liaison Officer South
Yorkshire Police (PCPS258)
No action required.
Unsound: To serve a specific
purpose or function, not all criteria
are appropriate nor can they be met
in their entirety. The policy should
allow flexibility for some schemes to
be judged on their merits and
context, e.g. development that serves
a specific function and is of a strong
functional design e.g. large scale
distribution uses.
Support for an exceptional standard
of design in the City Centre, at key
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS482)
Not minded to accept: Safety and
security is of paramount importance
in the design of new development.
While there are strong elements to
Secured by Design, the inclusion of
the document within the policies
might stifle innovation and creativity
or, in certain circumstances
contradict sound urban design.
Not accepted: The policy states;
‘All development should, where
relevant to the scheme:’
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
English Heritage (PCPS135)
No action required
52
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
English Heritage (PCPS136 &
PCPS138)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Unsound: The storey heights in the
table are too rigid; there are other
design criteria that will ensure a
development reflects the character of
an area.
University of Sheffield (PCPS693)
No action required
Unsound: The description
“exceptional architectural quality” is
not consistent with recent decisions
and pre-application discussions with
Development Management for red
brick to be a dominant material in the
city centre, nor with the requirement
for tall buildings in the St Vincent’s
Quarter to be “quiet” or perform the
function of a “background building”.
The table setting out storey heights
should be deleted.
Unsound: Developments greater
than 5 storeys within The Square
(Castlegate/Victoria Quays Quarter)
should be considered acceptable
because recent developments are
already at 6 and 7 storeys and would
have a positive relationship with
these buildings.
Sound: Support for the identification
of the most important views across
the city.
Harron Homes (PCPS589), Ackroyd
and Abbott (PCPS658), Redwall
Estates (PCPS623), Bawtry Road
Clients (PCPS609), CHIP (Two)
(PCPS672)
Neither accepted nor rejected: The
table does not refer to storey heights
for development. It sets out the
prevailing context within the Quarter,
against which the evaluation of a tall
building may be assessed.
Not minded to accept: The term
‘exceptional design quality’ is not at
odds with a building being ‘quiet’, nor
is it in conflict with the use of red
brick as a facing material.
Carillion Regeneration (PCPS123)
Neither accepted nor rejected: The
policy does not prevent this.
No action required
English Heritage (PCPS137)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
gateway locations and frontages
along major routes.
Observation: Paragraphs 10.1,
10.16, 10.21 and 10.22 should refer
to Policy G7.
G11 Tall Buildings and Views
No action required
53
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
English Heritage (PCPS139)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
English Heritage (PCPS139)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
G13 Shop Front Design
Sound: Support for criteria c
G14 Advertisements
Sound
54
PART 2: CITY-WIDE POLICY AREAS
11.
H1 Land Uses in Policy Areas
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Dr & Mrs M Walker (PCPS5, PCPS6,
PCPS7, & PCPS9)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Observations noted and the policy
wording will be checked to ensure
clarity.
General
Observations: No provision is made
for temporal changes in the nature of
development. For example an area of
formerly useful open space may
become derelict with no realistic
chance of it being used for recreation
again.
Who decides on the appropriate mix
and proportion in the 'menu' of land
uses? Land owners should have an
input.
Designation of preferred land uses in
a policy area is arbitrary with no
definition provided.
The site allocation process is
deemed to unfairly discriminate
against landowners with potential for
smaller housing sites because they
do not have the capacity to
accommodate supporting uses to the
main residential use. Smaller sites
can nevertheless be beneficial in
achieving the broad housing
objectives of the SDF.
55
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Unsound: Policy H1 is unsound as it
is not effective, justified or consistent
with national policy. The policy is
overly restrictive in protecting
allocated sites from other uses. The
policy identifies that development
proposals will be in accordance with
the preferred use identified on the
proposals map. Table H1 further
expands upon the preferred uses by
indicating other acceptable uses and
unacceptable uses dependent upon
the allocation. This does not provide
any flexibility for changing
circumstances and requirements.
Policy H1 should be amended to
include criteria to assess applications
for alternative uses to those
preferred, or deemed acceptable in
Table H1, on their merits having
regard to market signals and the
relative need for different land uses
to support sustainable local
communities.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS116)
Neither accepted nor rejected: We
will review policy H1 including
whether it should be more explicit on
which uses are to be judged on their
merit.
Approach in the new Local Plan
Note concerns when reviewing
the policy H1.
56
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Unsound: Whilst a range of uses
can be accommodated in specific
policy areas, in order that they are
not occupied by a single use (in
accordance with paragraph 11.2), the
approach taken to establishing
appropriate mixes of use is overly
complicated and lacks clarity or
certainty. The approach taken to the
“menu of land uses” appears broadly
acceptable in respect of the different
uses that may be compatible with the
preferred function in that policy area.
However there are concerns in
respect of some of the designations.
It is suggested that alterations be
made to Table H1 to remove
reference to the percentage of
developments allowed.
Unsound: Objections are made to
Policy H1 not being positively
prepared, justified, effective or in
accordance with national policy. H1
is too restrictive and does not allow
for the flexibility required to ensure
that development can respond
positively and efficiently to market
forces and local demand.
Bovis Homes (PCPS382)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Bolsterstone Group plc (PCPS464);
Neither accepted nor rejected:
Objection relates to the fundamental
question on providing enough
certainty on future land uses verses
enough flexibility.
Gleeson (PCPS342);
Strata (PCPS336).
Approach in the new Local Plan
Consider suggestion when
reviewing policy H1.
Review whether policy H1 is too
restrictive.
57
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Unsound: Various objections with
regard to a lack of clarity and
certainty about the proposed mix of
land uses within Table H1.
Bawtry Road Clients (land at Bawtry
Road) (PCPS594);
Ackroyd and Abbott (land at
Blackbrook Road, Lodge Moor)
(PCPS642);
Harron Homes (land at Rodney Hill,
Loxley) (PCPS591);
CHIP (Two) Ltd. (land at Portland
Business Park, Handsworth)
(PCPS674);
Redwall Estates (land at Smith’s
Field, Burngreave) (PCPS629).
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS483)
Neither accepted nor rejected: We
made changes in response to similar
concerns raised during the previous
consultation. Comments indicate we
have not gone far enough.
Unsound: Unclear as to why Table
H1 sets out a preferred minimum
level of 70% B class uses in
Business Areas, while Policy J1
proposes 80% minimum level (or
60% minimum levels in the case of
office sites). This is an inconsistency
within the plan that should be
corrected.
Not minded to accept: Paragraph
11.6 in policy H1 identifies site
allocations as at one end of a
spectrum of policy tools which
provide certainty or flexibility. Site
allocations provide more certainty
which explains the higher minimum
requirement. Also, the J1 minimum
requirement is usually over a smaller
area and where the development
potential has been assessed in
greater detail.
There is no requirement for any
specific use in Business Areas. The
70% requirement in Policy H1 refers
to Business and Industrial Areas and
Industry Areas only. The justification
for the 70% requirement and the
difference to the 60% requirement in
Priority Office Areas is explained in
the Economy and City Region Policy
Background Report in paragraphs
7.217 to 7.225. In summary it is the
need to deliver sufficient employment
land and the nature of office sites
means they are better suited than
Approach in the new Local Plan
Review the clarity of policy H1.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
58
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
industrial areas to a slightly wider mix
of uses.
Accepted in part
We agree that it is appropriate for
other uses in business parks and
they are often complementary. This
is recognised in the Economy and
City Region Policy Background
Report in paragraphs 7.226 to 7.229.
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: While policy H1 sets out
expectation that preferred uses will
be dominant, it should also be
acknowledged that in the cases of
larger business parks appropriate
complementary uses should also be
permitted.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS483)
Support in principle for the proposed
policy approach of not allowing uses
that could potentially be prejudicial to
continued business activity in those
areas.
Unsound: Support the flexibility
provided by policy H1, whereby land
uses other than those identified as
‘preferred’ will be considered where
there are significant regeneration or
other benefits arising from the
proposals
Unsound: The baseline data used to
support the Policy Area designations
is very weak. The Monitoring Report
notes that data for new floorspace
developed has not been collected for
smaller developments. It is clear that
the Council does not have sufficient
resources to enable the policy to be
implemented and the burden should
not be passed to developers.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS483)
Support noted.
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS275)
Support noted.
No change in response to this
comment.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
The Policy Area designations do not
rely on the collection of data for the
Annual Monitoring Report (which is
concerned with annual levels of
development and uses planning
application data). A separate data
set (Business Rates from the
Valuation Office Agency) was used to
obtain existing floorspace data to
check the dominance of existing uses
in the Policy Areas.
Where appropriate, further analysis
of current levels of preferred,
acceptable and unacceptable uses in
each type of Policy Area should be
undertaken as part of compiling the
evidence base for the new Local
Plan. All Priority Office Areas,
Business Areas, Business and
Industrial Areas and Industry Areas
have been individually assessed for
dominance.
No change is needed in the wording
of the policy in response to this
comment, but the complementary
role of certain uses could be further
recognised by adding a reference to
‘complementary’ uses in the
Definition of ‘Acceptable Uses’ (page
100).
No change needed in response to
this comment
59
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Paragraph 11.5 suggests
that 'where it is not critical to secure
a particular dominant use.... It would
be preferable for the masterplanning
process to determine the precise mix
and distribution of land uses. This
statement is inconsistent with the
plan-led approach required by the
NPPF.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
No fundamental change to the Policy
Area approach should be made but
all main Use Classes that are
acceptable in a Policy Area, in
principle, should be listed (i.e.
Include uses which do not generally
define the main character of the
Policy Area but which are,
nevertheless, acceptable, subject to
other policies in the plan).
Unsound: Policy Area approach is
over-complicated and it is difficult to
interpret respective areas.
Sheffield City Trust (PCPS291);
Sheffield College (PCPS297)
Unsound: The policy is overcomplicated because it sets %
thresholds which have to be
achieved for preferred uses, either in
terms of floorspace or area. How will
this be monitored or calculated (e.g.
how will vacant floorspace be
counted)? Will the local authority
provide this information? It is unclear
what demonstrable harm would be
caused by breaching the thresholds.
Unsound: Policy H1 is too
prescriptive and needs to be more
flexible. It should not set rigid %
thresholds for preferred uses and
should be amended to include criteria
to assess applications for alternative
uses to those preferred, or deemed
acceptable in Table H1, on their
merits having regard to market
signals and the relative need for
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
The policy defines, in broad terms,
what uses are appropriate in different
areas - not all uses are acceptable.
This is consistent with the plan-led
approach but in some area,
especially regeneration areas,
master plans (which are consistent
with the Local Plan) may be helpful in
providing a level of detail that would
not be appropriate to include in the
Local Plan.
The Policy Areas are clearly shown
on the Proposals Map. The map can
be viewed at larger scales on the
Council's website where detailed
interpretation of boundaries is
necessary.
Neither accepted nor rejected:
How the % thresholds will be
monitored and calculated by the local
authority is set out in the background
report.
Neither accepted nor rejected:
Objection relates to the
fundamental question on
providing enough certainty on
future land uses verses enough
flexibility.
Review whether policy H1 is too
restrictive and consider
suggestion to not set %
thresholds.
Sheffield City Trust (PCPS291);
Sheffield College (PCPS297);
Ackroyd & Abbott (PCPS642,
PCPS643; PCPS659; PCPS660);
Harron Homes (PCPS590;
PCPS591); CHIP (Two) Ltd CLIENT
(PCPS673; PCPS674); Redwall
Estates (PCPS625; PCPS629); Bovis
Homes (PCPS382); Gleeson
(PCPS342); Bolsterstone Group
No change in response to this
comment - but see other
recommendations in response to
comments about the general Policy
Area approach.
Review whether policy H1 is too
complicated.
60
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
different land uses to support
sustainable local communities.
PLC (PCPS464); Strata (PCPS336);
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS116); DLP Planning Ltd on
behalf of Bawtry Road clients
(PCPS593; PCPS594); University Of
Sheffield (PCPS694).
Highways Agency (PCPS552)
Support noted
TATA Steel Limited (PCPS99)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
No change needed in response to
this comment
Warborough Investments Ltd
(PCPS322)
Neither accepted nor rejected:
Objection relates to the fundamental
question on providing enough
certainty on future land uses verses
enough flexibility.
Not accepted: The Sheffield
Employment Land Review (2013)
identifies that Sheffield has a shortfall
of available employment land in
quantitative terms over the period
2013-2031, and recommends that
the Council takes a proactive
approach to managing and improving
the existing portfolio of employment
sites to facilitate future growth.
Considers policy to be sound.
Welcome fact that Policy H1
recognises that Table H1 does not
include an exhaustive list of uses and
that other uses, such as sui generis,
will be decided on their individual
merits. Also welcome criterion (b) of
the policy which allows exceptions to
be made where there are significant
regeneration or other benefits arising
from the proposal. This is consistent
with the provisions of the NPPF
(paragraph 21 and 157).
Unsound: The need for an
assessment of the proportion of uses
across an area appears to be overly
complex and could obstruct
sustainable development.
Unsound: The minimum levels of
preferred uses for employment
designations in Table H1 are too
restrictive by not providing flexibility
for changing circumstances; sites
that are no longer viable will remain
vacant. One of the objections
specifically relates to P00138 which
is a site without required uses.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS116);
IKEA (PCPS116);
Strata (PCPS336).
Review whether policy H1 is too
complicated and restrictive.
The minimum levels will remain
though they may be reviewed in light
of new evidence; on viability for
example.
61
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sport England supports the clarity of
acceptable uses as set out in Table
H1.
The supporting text to Policy H1
regarding the exceptions test should
be updated to include a definition of
what constitutes ‘other benefits from
the proposal'
Sport England (PCPS34)
Support noted.
No change in response to this
comment.
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS275)
It would be difficult to define every
circumstance where this exception
might apply.
No change in response to this
comment.
Not minded to accept: Limiting
residential uses to 40% will ensure
employment uses are promoted, in
line with the Core Strategy’s purpose
for these areas. There may be
situations where the 40% figure is not
rigidly adhered to in line with the
exceptions stated in Policy H1. The
detailed justification for restricting
housing in Business Areas is set out
in the Economy and City Region
Policy Background Report in
paragraphs 7.147 to 7.150.
Not minded to accept: In the large
majority of the Business and
Industrial Areas the preferred uses
are already present in the required
proportions (63 out of 83, or 76%).
This shows that the policy is
appropriate for most of these areas.
In the 20 areas where the required
proportion is not currently being
achieved, it may be appropriate to
review the designations. If
redesignation was appropriate, Policy
H1 already includes General
Employment Areas, where a range of
employment uses are appropriate.
Review the 40% restriction on
residential.
Business Areas & Business and Industrial Areas
Unsound: In Business Areas, there
should be no restriction on the % of
the gross floor space that can be
used for residential use. The level of
residential floorspace allowed in
Business Areas should therefore be
determined by market demand and
local need and not upon an arbitrary,
rigid and inflexible maximum
percentage.
Sheffield College (PCPS297);
Bolsterstone Group (PCPS461),
Sheffield College (PCPS297),
Devonshire Green Holdings
(PCPS108), Sheffield City Trust
(PCPS291)
Unsound: The Policy Area should be
renamed ‘General Commercial Area’
to more accurately reflect the type of
land uses within these areas.
Standard Life Investments Retail
Park Trust (PCPS288)
The 20 Business and Industrial Areas
that are not currently achieving the
required proportion of preferred uses
could be reviewed and an alternative
designation (such as a General
Employment Area) investigated.
62
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Unsound: A footnote should be
added to Table H1 as follows: “Retail
development is acceptable at
Meadowhall Retail Park where it
meets the criteria of Policy B3 of the
City Policies and Sites Document
and is in accordance with the
National Planning Policy
Framework”.
Unsound: Business Areas allow
leisure and recreation facilities
subject to the sequential approach
but it’s unclear how this applies to
existing facilities and proposed
extensions to them.
Unsound: Residential uses should
be listed as acceptable in Business
and Industrial Areas. Excluding these
uses is contrary to national policy
which states that planning policies
should avoid the long term protection
of sites where there is no reasonable
prospect of a site being used for that
purpose.
Retail uses should be listed as
acceptable in Business and Industrial
Areas.
Standard Life Investments
(PCPS288)
Not accepted. Policy B3 and NPPF
guidance apply to any out of centre
retail development and it is
superfluous to re-state this. So no
special reference to Meadowhall
Retail Park is needed.
Sheffield City Trust (PCPS291)
Accept. Agree clarification is needed
on how to apply the sequential
approach. The practice guidance will
make clear how this is to be applied
in the City.
Consider how the Practice Guidance
will clarify how the sequential
approach is to be applied.
Specifically whether it will apply to
extensions.
Bolsterstone Group PLC (PCPS461
& PCPS464)
Not accepted. These areas contain
(or need to be reserved for) types of
industrial use which are incompatible
with residential uses. However,
where there is evidence to show that
land is no longer needed for
industrial use it could be
redesignated as a different Policy
Area.
Accept but subject to a footnote
which limits this to small shops
unless development is permitted
through the sequential test under
national planning policy.
Review whether some Industrial and
Business Areas could be
redesignated as a different Policy
Area which includes housing as a
preferred or acceptable use.
Support for no preferred uses in
Business Areas. The policy supports
a mix of uses in town centres which
is consistent with national policy.
Bolsterstone Group PLC (PCPS461)
Bolsterstone Group PLC (PCPS461;
PCPS464)
Support noted. But note response
to comment from the University of
Sheffield (PCPS694) about the
potential for Business Areas to be
developed for uses other than offices
Approach in the new Local Plan
Add shops (A1) to the list of
acceptable uses but include a
footnote which states 'only small
convenience shop development
(unless development permitted
through the application of the tests of
acceptability set out in national policy
and policy B3).'
No change needed in response to
this comment
63
Summary of Comment
Observation: Business & Industrial
and Business Areas are located
around the existing core public
transport and the key transport
routes (private and public transport
routes) so transportation implications
relating to growth in the areas will be
focused around the resilience of the
existing network and supporting
infrastructure. The anticipated
increase in economic activities in
these areas must be supported by
continued investment to ensure that
growth is not constrained by the
highway capacity. This will be
particularly important in relation to
the Lower Don Valley.
Observation: Sheffield's Planning
department should acknowledge that
commercial sports (not retail) are a
Bona Fide use on Industrial and
Business parks creating employment
as well as inputting into the local
economy. And therefore should be
treated like any other business when
applying for planning permission for
change of use or new development
on sites covered in this table.
Support the inclusion of D2 uses in
Business Areas due to the economic
benefits of such uses.
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
SYPTE (PSPM52, 54)
(B1a).
Observation noted
Approach in the new Local Plan
No change needed in response to
this comment
Sport England (PCPS34)
Agree that commercial sports could
be acceptable in Business and
Industrial Areas and provide valuable
jobs. However, commercial sports
are covered under Use Class D2
which includes a wide range of
leisure uses, some of which are town
centre uses covered by the
sequential test.
Add leisure and recreation facilities to
the list of acceptable uses in
Business and Industrial Areas but
include a footnote which states that
this is 'subject to the tests of
acceptability set out in national policy
and policy B3).
Sport England (PCPS34)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
64
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: If the Policy Area
designation north of Denby Street is
not altered, then Table H1 should be
amended to provide an additional
footnote to the Business Area policy
reference to a maximum of 40% of
residential uses. The footnote should
refer to densities of use to be
considered in Business Areas to
reflect the situations (as at the north
of Denby Street) where the
development of high density student
accommodation in low density single
storey employment uses occurs.
Cross refer to Central Local Area
Partnership below.
Unsound: In Business Areas, there
is no preferred use and the range of
acceptable uses means that some
areas could have no offices at all.
Flexible Use Areas appear to have
the same menu of uses as Business
Areas, although hotels(C1) and open
space have been included in the
former without a restriction on the
upper limit of housing. This
demonstrates that Business Areas
could be redesignated as Flexible
Use Areas, offering flexibility in more
areas of the City Centre.
Landtask (PCPS323)
It is accepted that there is an issue
with delivering the policy aim in this
area. This is addressed in the
Economy and City Region Policy
Background Report, paragraphs
7.199 to 7.201. It is considered that
the designation is appropriate, but if
this was reconsidered it would be
more appropriate to redesignate the
area than to change Policy H1. See
PSPM55.
Consider an alternative designation
at this location.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
Whilst all the Business Areas already
have some offices (B1a) within them,
it is agreed that the name of the
Policy Area could be misleading.
Redesignation of some areas could
also provide more flexibility.
Consider renaming Business Areas
as Mixed Use Areas or redesignate
some or all as Flexible Use Areas.
Devonshire Green Holdings
(PCPS108)
Not minded to accept: Such uses
are to be judged on their merits.
No change needed
Central Housing Area
Unsound: Table H1 needs to make it
clear that leisure uses will be
acceptable in the Central Housing
Areas as part of housing-led mixed
use developments.
65
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
University of Sheffield (PCPS680)
National Trust (PCPS309)
Ruth Granger (Health Improvement
Team) INTERNAL (PCPS194, 191)
Support noted.
Carry forward policy E3
Ruth Granger (Health Improvement
Team) INTERNAL (PCPS192)
Support noted.
Carry forward paragraph 6.17
Unsound: The approach taken to the
“menu of land uses” appears broadly
acceptable but in Flexible Use Areas
the list of acceptable uses should be
expanded to include non-Residential
Institutions (D1) Financial and
Professional Services (A2)
Restaurants and Cafes (A3) Drinking
Establishments (A4) Hot food
Takeaways (A5). This would provide
greater certainty for applicants.
Warborough Investments Ltd.
(PCPS322) and Canal & River Trust
(PCPS280)
Unlike the UDP, the City Policies and
Sites document does not list all the
main uses that are potentially
acceptable in a Policy Area. Instead,
it focuses on those uses which are
most likely to support the preferred
uses or which define the character of
the area. However, it is apparent
that some respondents feel that this
has created uncertainty - it would
therefore be better list all the main
Use Classes which are acceptable in
all Policy Areas, including Flexible
Use Areas.
In Flexible Use Areas expand the list
of acceptable uses to include nonResidential Institutions (D1) Financial
and Professional Services (A2)
Restaurants and Cafes (A3) Drinking
Establishments (A4) Hot food
Takeaways (A5).
Unsound: The list of unacceptable
uses should be expanded to include,
for example, scrapyards.
Canal and River Trust (PCPS280)
District Centres
Sound: Support policy E3
An additional bullet point to pick up
the relationship between detailed
treatments and local character would
not be amiss (NT).
Sound: Support paragraph 6.17
Flexible Use Area
66
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Support for the change that has
been made to A1 shop restrictions in
‘Flexible Use Areas' - i.e. ‘Only small
convenience shop development
(<200 sq. m. gross floor area) that is
associated with existing or proposed
housing (unless development
permitted through the application of
the tests of acceptability set out in
national policy and policy B3).' This is
consistent with national policy.
Support for the flexible nature of
Flexible Use Areas to provide a
range of uses including housing and
retail development.
Canal and River Trust (PCPS280)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Bolsterstone Group PLC (PCPS463)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
SYPTE (PSPM51)
Observation noted
No change in response to this
comment.
Hospital Area
Observation: Hospital Areas are a
priority for public transport services
as there is a high dependence on
bus and tram services for staff and
patients. As these locations are in
areas of established travel behaviour,
development should be sympathetic
to existing transport and highway
problems and strive to reduce the
reliance on the private car. Also,
these areas should be developed to
enforce new development to have
positive impacts on the local air
quality and environment (taking the
form of increased public transport
use, sustainable development and
design). This will help mitigate the
local air quality problems, particularly
in the Brook Hill area.
67
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sheffield College (PCPS297);
Sheffield City Trust (PCPS291).
Not accepted: Table H1 shows that
open space is the main characteristic
of Open Space Areas, but this does
not mean open space is the only use.
The table states that development
proposals will be determined in
accordance with Core Strategy policy
CS47, although the table formatting
is not overly clear.
Ensure Table H1 formatting is clear.
Henry Boot Estates Ltd. (PCPS78)
Not accepted. The areas do not
differ in what uses are appropriate
but only in the proportion of A1`and
A2 uses required.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Canal and River Trust
Colliers International (PCPS280)
Not accepted: Paragraph 6.49 of the
Economic Prosperity and City Region
Policy Background Report notes that
200m2 “is the size of a corner shop
and is in fact over twice the median
shop size in Sheffield of 67m 2”.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Open Space
Unsound: Table H1 implies that only
open space can be developed in
Open Space Areas - this is too
restrictive.
Retail
Unsound: Table H1 should separate
out the appropriate uses within the
Primary Shopping Area and Central
Shopping Area to make it easier to
distinguish between these areas.
Unsound: Objection to numerous
facets of Table H1. In relation to A1
shops there is a proposed restriction
of 200 square metres floor space and
a restriction to convenience goods
shopping. We consider there may be
circumstances where it may be
acceptable to allow a higher level of
floor space (e.g. 400sqm) and a
wider range of goods.
68
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: This policy states that
Meadowhall should remain at around
its present size. To remove ambiguity
the size of Meadowhall should be
specified and the policy should
specify the maximum size increase
that will be allowed - suggest no
more existing store to increase by
more than 500sqm and no
cumulative increase above
2,500sqm.
Unsound: Retail uses should be
listed as acceptable in Business and
Industrial Areas
Unsound: The footnote to Table H 1
should be redrafted to read as
follows: Only small convenience shop
developments (less than 400 sq m
gross floor area) that are associated
with existing or proposed uses
(unless development is permitted
through the tests of acceptability set
out in national policy and Policy B3).
There is continuing growth in the
convenience market at the present
time for stores up to 400 sq m which
can provide a comprehensive
convenience store offer but still at
very much a local or neighbourhood
level to serve the needs of the local
population.
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership (PCPS265)
Not accepted. There is not enough
evidence to distinguish amounts of
floorspace that could be allowable
from those that could not.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Bolsterstone Group PLC (PCPS464)
Not accepted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Colliers International (PCPS321)
Not accepted. The limit of 200 sqm
is larger than the average Sheffield
shop and should be adequate to
provide local services.
69
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Footnote 8 to Table H1
needs to be updated to reflect latest
developments regarding the New
Retail Quarter. The note is not helpful
and would be seen to prevent other
appropriate retail and town centre
development from coming forward on
other town centre sites such as the
Moor etc.
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS331)
Not accepted. The Council still
prioritises development of the NRQ
so development that prejudiced this
would be unacceptable.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
SYPTE (PSPM49)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS331)
Not accepted. There is neither a
need nor a commercial demand for
top-up retail development in areas
other than housing areas. It is
unnecessary to cross refer to the
NPPF or other policies in the Plan
No change needed in response to
this comment
Retail - Meadowhall
Observation: Meadowhall Shopping
Area performs a dual function as a
district centre and also a regional
shopping and leisure centre.
Meadowhall is highly accessible by
public transport of many forms,
including national links to rail and
coach networks. Any large scale
expansion of the centre or
surrounding area would place
increasing pressure on the already
saturated road network, particularly
the motorway junctions.
Unsound: Retail uses larger than
200sqm should be permitted on the
Business Area and General
Employment Area adjacent to
Meadowhall - retail development
should be subject to the tests as
outlined in the NPPF and Policy B3.
Footnote 1 in Table 1 should
therefore be deleted.
70
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Warehouse and storage
space and retail to support existing
retail should be acceptable in the
Business Area and General
Employment Area surrounding
Meadowhall and particularly in
relation to the M1 Distribution site
and the River Don District (P00127
and P00129).
Unsound: Footnote 14 to Table H1
need to be updated to reflect
National Planning Policy. We retain
our objection in principle to the Core
Strategy Policy CS7. Consistent with
National Planning Policy in the NPPF
and Policy B3, all retail development
outside of existing centres needs to
be tested again key policies related
to impact and the sequential
approach. Note 14 and CS7 place a
cap on retail floorspace at
Meadowhall.
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS331)
Not accepted. There is neither a
need nor a commercial demand for
top-up retail development in areas
other than housing areas. It is
unnecessary to cross refer to the
NPPF or other policies in the Plan
No change needed in response to
this comment
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS331)
Not accepted. There is no need to
replicate Core Strategy policies and it
is unnecessary to cross refer to the
NPPF or other policies in the Plan
No change needed in response to
this comment
71
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
University of Sheffield (PCPS694 &
PCPS696)
Unlike the UDP, the City Policies and
Sites document does not list all the
main uses that are potentially
acceptable in a Policy Area. Instead,
it focuses on those uses which are
most likely to support the preferred
uses or which define the character of
the area. However, it is apparent
that some respondents feel that this
has created uncertainty - it would
therefore be better list all the main
Use Classes which are acceptable in
all Policy Areas, including the
University/ College Areas.
All the main Use Classes which are
acceptable, in principle, in a Policy
Area should be listed. In University/
College Areas expand the list of
acceptable uses to include financial
and professional services (A2),
restaurants and cafes (A3), light
industry (B1c), hotels (C1) and
assembly and leisure (D2). For Use
Classes A3, C1 and D2, a footnote
would be needed limiting
development to that which is
permitted through the tests of
acceptability set out in national policy
and policy B3.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694;
PCPS696)
New offices within the University of
Sheffield's campus in the City Centre
would be consistent with Core
Strategy Policy CS3. However, this is
not the case for all University/
College Areas.
CS20 allows the universities to
expand their campus and
supersedes policy H1.
Exceptions to policy area
designations can be made where
“there are significant regeneration or
other benefits arising from the
proposal”.
Retain offices (B1a) in the list of
'acceptable' uses in
University/College Areas and retain
footnote 3 - 'In locations set out in
Core Strategy policy CS3 - otherwise
small-scale only (less than 250sqm)'.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
University/ College Area
Unsound: The list of acceptable
uses in the University/ College Areas
is too narrow and would reduce the
ability of the University to adapt to
changing higher education demands
and the economic climate. The list of
acceptable uses should be expanded
to include other uses which would
support the preferred uses or which
are compatible with that use and
cause no harm. It appears that the
vast majority of development
proposals are being left to be
considered on their merits at the
planning application stage. The
following uses should be added to
the acceptable list: financial and
professional services (A2),
restaurants and cafes (A3), light
industry (B1c), hotels (C1) and
assembly and leisure (D2).
Unsound: Offices (B1a) should be
listed as a preferred use in
University/College Areas. This can
be an important feature in the
expansion of the University's
ancillary functions.
Unsound: The placement of the
University College area is in line with
current land use patterns and so it is
unclear how future growth of
Universities will be defined.
SYPTE (PSPM50)
72
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: In University College
Areas, there should be no
requirement for the preferred uses to
cover at least 50% of the area.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
The plan aims to strike a balance
between certainty and flexibility. The
preferred uses define the character
of the area and it is therefore
appropriate for them to be dominant.
The policy provides flexibility by
setting out the circumstances where
exceptions to the usual minimum
percentages may be made. It should
also be noted that the dominant uses
are 'preferred' not 'required'.
Further consideration should be
given to whether it is necessary to
specify % thresholds or whether a
criteria based approach could be
used.
73
PART 3: SITE ALLOCATIONS
12.
General Site Allocations Policy
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Sheffield should
confirm whether or not it is their
understanding that any cross
boundary issues arising from
insufficient provision of housing
allocations (as indicated at the
section headed Scale of Allocations
for Housing and covered by
paragraphs 12.14 to 12.18) will be
met in the Sheffield/Rotherham
Housing Market Area or elsewhere
other than in Barnsley.
Barnsley MBC (PCPS487)
The Local Plan Review will allocate
sufficient housing land to meet the
objectively assessed housing
requirement, subject to the strategic
distribution of housing delivery
across the Sheffield City Region.
Unsound: No evidence is provided
to indicate that neighbouring
authorities have agreed to take the
continued undersupply of housing
from Sheffield. Unless such an
agreement can be made this City
Policies and Sites DPD should be
withdrawn pending a full review of
the Local Plan to be undertaken
immediately.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS116);
Bovis Homes (PCPS116);
Gleeson (PCPS116);
Strata (PCPS336).
Other: The Local Plan Review will
involve a re-assessment of the
housing requirement for the city, and
consideration of how many additional
allocations will be required to support
this. A strategic Sheffield City
Region approach ensure that
distribution of housing meets needs,
ensures jobs growth and is
sustainably located. There is no
current confirmation that all growth
will be met in the
Sheffield/Rotherham Housing Market
Area.
Minded to Accept: A Memorandum
of Understanding is in place between
Sheffield and Rotherham, which
describes the approach to distribution
of housing supply across the housing
market area. This recognises that
there is likely to be a shortfall of land
in relation to more up to date figures.
The Council has now decided to
move directly to a Local Plan Review
rather than continuing work on the
City Policies and Sites document,
and this will include an update to the
housing requirement for Sheffield
taking account of the spatial
distribution of new housing required
across the Sheffield City Region.
Duty to Co-operate
The Local Plan Review will include a
review of the housing requirement
taking account of the spatial
distribution of new housing required
across the Sheffield City Region.
74
Summary of Comment
Unsound: There is no evidence
that SCC has co-operated with
neighbouring authorities when it
comes to housing delivery.
Name of Respondent(s)
Spawforths (PCPS335) &
Gleeson (PCPS341)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Minded to Accept: A Memorandum
of Understanding is in place between
Sheffield and Rotherham, which
describes the approach to distribution
of housing supply across the housing
market area. This recognises that
there is likely to be a shortfall of land
in relation to more up to date figures.
The Council has now decided to
move directly to a Local Plan Review
rather than continuing work on the
City Policies and Sites document,
and this will include an update to the
housing requirement for Sheffield
taking account of the spatial
distribution of new housing required
across the Sheffield City Region.
The Local Plan Review will include a
review of the housing requirement
taking account of the spatial
distribution of new housing required
across the Sheffield City Region.
Not minded to accept: See relevant
Background Reports and
Sustainability Appraisals. Also,
ecological surveys were undertaken
for the sites which
Support welcomed: All sites have
been subject to Sustainability
Appraisal. The approach to Habitats
Regulations Assessment is described
in the Sustainability Appraisal Report.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Ecology/ Green Infrastructure/ Open space
Unsound: SCC has not
demonstrated how biodiversity and
ecological issues have been
considered in the site selection
processes.
Unsound: General support for site
allocations. They should be subject
to Sustainability Appraisal and
Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Dennis Patton (PCPS68, 70, 60, 314)
Natural England (PCPS175)
No change needed in response to
this comment
75
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The Proposals Map
should define all open space within
the Sheffield Green Belt. This will
ensure the Core Strategy Policies
and Management Plans will apply
equally to all open space within the
City.
Dore Village Society (PSPM64)
Not minded to accept: The Green
Belt affords a higher level of
protection than the Open Space
Designation, therefore open spaces
within the Green Belt do not need to
be shown separately. However, if a
Green Belt review results in an open
space being removed from the Green
Belt, then an Open Space Area
designation would be applied.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Yorkshire Water (various comments)
Observation noted: Whilst no major
issues, information provided needs to
be considered in relation to viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Yorkshire Water (PCPS90)
Minded to accept. This is an editing
issue which will be dealt with through
the Local Plan Review.
Suggest that housing allocations
shown within the Local Plan review
also include information about
potential capacity.
Drainage / Sewerage
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations.
Observation: Yorkshire Water use
land use allocations to help plan the
future provision of water and
wastewater services within Local
Authority areas over the plan period.
Unfortunately the City Policies and
Sites Document fails to demonstrate
deliverable housing yields for each
site which makes it difficult for
Yorkshire Water to effectively plan for
each developments infrastructure
needs.
76
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Environment Agency (PCPS490)
Observations noted.
No major issues. The Council will
ensure the allocations process for all
uses will be informed by the flood risk
sequential test and Core Strategy
Policy CS67 Flood Risk
Management.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Environment Agency (PCPS500)
Canal & River Trust (PCPS279)
Minded to accept
Clarify wording in policy J1
Flooding
Observation: Information that must
be taken into account when
development is proposed on various
site allocations, which varies
depending on whether and to what
extent the site allocation lies within
Floodzone 2 or 3 (Environment
Agency)
Information setting out the process
that must be undertaken when
seeking to allocate sites and
formulate flooding policy, in relation
to Chapter 1 – Introduction and
Chapter 12 – General Site Allocation
Policy (Environment Agency)
Unsound: Policy J1 - clarification on
whether the threshold represents the
development type or the site area is
required. Lack of clarity could
compromise, for example,
developments that require flood
storage areas or a need of a buffer
zone to a watercourse (Environment
Agency)
77
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: A Green Belt review is
required to meet housing needs.
Early release of Green Belt sites is
justified based on an evidence base
showing insufficient housing land to
meet the Core Strategy requirement.
Unconstrained Green Belt land that is
suitable, available and deliverable
should be released to address the
shortfall in five year supply of
housing land. Currently both housing
requirement and site selection are
constrained by the extent of the
Green Belt and there will be no
confidence in the permanence of the
Green Belt boundary until it has been
reviewed to deal with this issue.
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS644,
PCPS645 and PCPCS618)
Bovis Homes (PCPS687)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS675)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
University of Sheffield (PCPS695)
Mr Russell Hinton (PCPS300)
Duke of Norfolk Estates (PCPS320)
Hartwood Estates (PCPS325)
The Girls Day School Trust
(PCPS259)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS595 and
PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS630 and
PCPS634)
Accept that there is currently a
shortfall of deliverable housing land
to meet the 5-year supply
requirement. As part of the Local
plan review an assessment will be
made of potential additional land for
housing. This will include a review of
sites in the Green Belt, on the basis
of criteria to be determined through
the Local Plan Review. Any review
of the Green Belt in order to allocate
additional land for housing would be
carried out using robust methodology
to be developed in collaboration with
other local authorities in the Sheffield
City Region.
The Local Plan review will include a
review of the Green Belt boundary in
order to identify additional land to
meet the housing requirement.
Unsound: Additional housing sites
should not be in areas specifically
protected by Core Strategy policy
CS72.
Mr Richard Pearson (PCPS327)
Not minded to accept. In order to
meet an increased housing
requirement it will be necessary to
carry out a review of the Green Belt
and Countryside Areas. Additional
housing sites may therefore be in
areas that are protected by Core
Strategy policy CS72.
The Local Plan review will include a
review of the Green Belt boundary in
order to identify additional land to
meet the housing requirement.
Green Belt Review (para. 12.17)
78
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Mr Matthew Good (PCPS111);
Sheffield College (PCPS298);
Medlock Close (PCPS84);
Bovis Homes (PCPS387);
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS675);
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS272);
John Wilson (It’s a Goal) (PCPS88);
Hartwood Estates Ltd (PCPS325)
Mr Russell Hinton (PCPS300);
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS595);
Harron Homes (PCPS577);
Redwall Estates (PCPS630);
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS618 &
PCPS644);
Strata (PCPS338);
Gleeson (PCPS344);
The Girls Day School Trust
(PCPS259);
University of Sheffield (PCPS695);
Duke of Norfolk Estates (PCPS320).
Mr Matthew Good, Home Builders
Federation (PCPS117)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS634)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
University of Sheffield (PCPS686)
Hartwood Estates Ltd (PCPS325)
Minded to accept. Accept that there
is a shortfall in the 5-year housing
land supply.
It is recognised that more recent
projections of population growth and
household formation, as well as the
impact of economic growth are likely
to require a higher housing target to
be set through the Local Plan Review
than is included in the Core Strategy.
In order to resolve the issue of the
shortfall in deliverable 5-year housing
land supply, and potentially a higher
housing target, the Local Plan
Review will appraise options for
additional housing allocations.
Proposed sites will be considered at
that time against the criteria set for
allocation of housing sites.
The Local Plan review will include
work to set a housing requirement
based on an up-to-date, objective
assessment of need. In addition, a
Green Belt review will be carried out
as part of this process to ensure that
sufficient land is made available
across the city to meet housing
needs throughout the plan period.
Minded to accept. A Local Plan
review will be carried out in place of
further work on the City Policies and
Sites document. This will include a
review of the Green Belt, with the
objective of providing sufficient land
whilst creating a defensible Green
Belt boundary that will last beyond
the plan period.
As part of the Local Plan review a
Green Belt review will be carried out
to ensure that sufficient land is made
available across the city to meet
housing needs throughout the plan
period.
Housing Supply
Unsound: The plan does not provide
a 5 year supply of deliverable sites.
Insufficient Housing allocations which
will lead to significant under
provision, won’t deliver the plan
(Core Strategy) requirement. Neither
will the plan meet objectively
assessed housing requirements
based on more up-to-date projections
of need. More sites, and a wider
range of available sites, need to be
allocated to provide 5 year supply
and boost overall housing delivery.
See Local Area Partnership Areas in
this report for details of suggestions
for new site allocations.
Unsound: Requiring a review of the
plan immediately to deal with the
issue of housing supply is contrary to
the NPPF, is ineffective, and will lead
to a significant shortfall in housing
provision. Cross boundary work and
Green Belt review should not be left
for future reviews of the plan.
Designations should be reviewed at
this stage in order to identify the
additional sites necessary for growth.
The proposed approach gives no
confidence that the proposals map
Green Belt boundary is permanent.
79
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The plan acknowledges
that it does not allocate sufficient
land to meet the Core Strategy
requirement, based in part on
deliverability issues linked to poor
market conditions. Lower than
expected completion rates are due to
the burden of the Core Strategy
Affordable Housing policy, and the
nature of proposed allocations.
Many proposed allocations are in
areas of lower demand, including the
City Centre. More land needs to be
released in areas where the market
is attractive to buyers. This will
require a review of the Green Belt.
Sound: In order to increase the
supply of housing land, the Council
should be more aware of the
potential and availability of privately
owned sites which could be
developed for housing.
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS634)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
Bovis Homes (PCPS347)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Accept that there are deliverability
issues with some of the allocated
sites, linked to market conditions and
location. As part of the Local Plan
review, a Green Belt review will be
carried out to identify additional land
which would be attractive for
development and meet the needs of
Sheffield’s households. However,
previously developed sites in
regeneration areas will still be a key
element of the strategy for delivering
a wide range of housing in all parts of
the city to meet needs.
As part of the Local Plan review a
Green Belt review will be carried out
to ensure that sufficient land is made
available across the city to meet
housing needs throughout the plan
period. Further work will be carried
out to assess what mechanisms
might be used to improve
deliverability of existing allocations.
Dr and Mrs M Walker (PCPS8)
Minded to accept. The Council
welcomes proposals of additional
sites for new housing, regardless of
ownership. Any new sites proposed
would be assessed for suitability for
housing as part of the SHLAA
process.
As part of the Local Plan review,
additional sites proposed by
landowners will be assessed for
suitability.
80
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The housing allocations
are not based on up-to-date
evidence. It is not appropriate to use
the revoked RSS housing
requirement and its evidence base.
The evidence used to calculate
Sheffield’s housing requirement
should consider Government
population and household
projections, migration, meeting needs
across the housing market area, and
labour supply. A calculation of the
potential housing requirement for
Sheffield, using the Chelmer model,
is offered, which is significantly
higher than the current Core Strategy
target. A critique is also given of
recent Sheffield City Region work to
look at population projections,
relating to how it dealt with the issue
of employment growth. The SHMA is
out of date and needs to look at
whole housing market area and
monitoring through the SHLAA and
BILS is not regular enough.
Continuation with current housing
requirement will lead to significant
under provision, will not further boost
the supply of housing as it does not
identify sufficient deliverable sites
and is not aspirational in terms of
increasing housing growth. Some
housing sites are in weak housing
market areas and therefore will
require intervention to be deliverable.
Reasons for non-implementation of
planning permission on allocated
sites needs to be understood.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS111)
CHIP (Two) Ltd (PCPS675)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS595)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS618 &
PCPS644)
Strata (PCPS338)
Gleeson (PCPS344)
University of Sheffield (PCPS686 &
PCPS695)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS634)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
Bovis Homes (PCPS348)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Housing allocations set out in the
pre-submission City Policies and
Sites document are based on the
housing target contained within the
adopted Core Strategy. This was
based on relevant RSS policy and
household projections at the time.
We recognise that more recent
projections of population growth and
household formation, as well as the
impact of economic growth are likely
to require a higher housing target to
be set through the Local Plan
Review. This will also involve
working with other local authorities in
the Sheffield City Region to ensure
that housing targets are consistently
set using robust and up to date
evidence. Economic growth and job
growth assumptions will be taken into
account as part of this work.
The recently published 2013 SHMA
is robust and up to date and will
contribute towards work to set a new
housing target through the Local Plan
Review.
Further work is taking place to
identify issues around deliverability of
housing sites, and where possible to
develop mechanisms to unlock
delivery of complex sites.
The Local Plan review will include
work to set a housing requirement
based on an up-to-date, objective
assessment of need. This will take
account of most recent household
projections, aspirations for
employment growth and strategy for
housing delivery across the Sheffield
City Region.
81
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Allocated housing sites
should show the capacity for the
number of homes on the site.
Mr Matt Gibson, Yorkshire Water
Minded to accept. This is an editing
issue which will be dealt with through
the Local Plan Review.
Suggest that housing allocations
shown within the Local Plan review
also include information about
potential capacity.
Unsound: Student accommodation
needs to be considered
appropriately. It is inappropriate to
include student housing within the
overall completions figure as the
requirements for student housing
have not been taken into account.
The completions have been inflated
by student completions which should
only be counted where an
assessment of the requirement for
student accommodation has been
carried out. Sheffield’s housing
requirement did not take account of
recent university expansion, and the
2011 household projections show
fewer under 35 year olds forming
households. Removing student
housing from the completions figure
increases the shortfall against the
Core Strategy housing requirement.
There is potential for conflict between
requirements for market and student
housing in some areas.
University of Sheffield (PCPS686 &
PCPS687)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS595 &
PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS630 &
PCPS634)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS645 &
PCPS618 & PCPS644)
Not accepted. It is an acceptable
approach to include purpose built
student accommodation within
housing completions figures as the
housing requirement takes account
of this group. Accept that further
work may be required to better
understand the needs of the student
accommodation market. The
recently published 2013 SHMA
includes analysis of student housing.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
82
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The duty to co-operate
has not been discharged despite the
Memorandum of Understanding with
Rotherham, as there is no agreement
about the objectively assessed need
for new housing. Housing growth is
a strategic issue where joint working
needs to be evidenced. Sheffield is
not planning to meet its own
objectively assessed needs, so the
question is how will they be met
when there is no agreement to
neighbouring authorities meeting this
need? Rotherham have proposed a
lower level of housing than the RSS
figure which increases the
undersupply of housing in relation to
up-to-date projections, and would
result in Sheffield needing to meet all
its housing needs. There is no up to
date SHMA for the Housing Market
Area.
Unsound: The document is not
positively prepared as it does not
take account of local economic
growth aspirations and the economic
needs of the wider housing market.
It is important to the University of
Sheffield that the supply of labour is
able to support economic expansion.
The objectively assessed need is too
low, and insufficient sites are
allocated to meet this need. Low
levels of housing delivery will impact
on jobs growth and result in an
ageing workforce.
Home Builders Federation
(PCPS112)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS597)
Redwall Estates (PCPS634)
Harron Homes (PCPS577)
Bovis Homes (PCPS347)
Minded to accept. There is
currently no single agreed housing
target across the joint housing
market area with Rotherham.
Further work needs to be carried out
to objectively assess the appropriate
housing requirement for Sheffield
taking account of the relationship
with Rotherham in terms of need and
land supply.
The Local Plan review will include
work to set a housing requirement
based on an up-to-date, objective
assessment of need, ensuring cooperation with Rotherham and other
local planning authorities within the
Sheffield City Region.
University of Sheffield (PCPS686 &
PCPS697)
Minded to accept. It is important
that the objective assessment of
housing need takes account of
economic growth.
An assessment of housing need will
be carried out to feed in to the Local
Plan review, taking account of factors
including economic growth scenarios.
83
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Opportunities to allocate
land for housing within the urban
area have been missed, for example
the site at Hemsworth Road should
be allocated for housing in its
entirety.
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS272)
Not minded to accept. Current
evidence does not suggest that the
playing field area of this site is
surplus to requirement and therefore
not all of the site is available to
allocate for new housing.
No change needed in response to
this comment in Local Plan review.
Unsound: There are insufficient
allocations to meet the Core Strategy
housing requirement. A wider
portfolio of sites is needed to meet
the 5-year housing requirement
therefore additional sites need to be
allocated including allowing sites to
come forwards for housing from other
designations such as business areas.
Sites should be added now rather
than waiting to review the plan once
adopted.
Sheffield College (PCPS298)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Accept that there are insufficient
allocations and that a wider portfolio
of sites is needed. The 2013
Employment Land Review
considered the need for employment
land in the city as well as supply and
there is a need to ensure that
sufficient employment land is
retained in order to meet economic
growth requirements.
As part of the Local Plan review, a
range of potential locations will be
assessed to identify additional
allocations. Land will be assessed to
consider whether it may be suitable
for housing allocation. No decision
has yet been made about whether
this will include re-designation of any
business areas.
Sport England (PCPS36)
Observation noted.
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sport England
Observation: Sport England cannot
and will not support the release of
any land for development, which is
currently used or was formerly used
for sport unless the land in question
is identified as surplus in the
Sheffield Playing Pitch Strategy or
unless it was replaced in an area
which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
Central Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
84
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Bolsterstone PLC (PCPS461 &
PCPS464)
Not minded to accept: Such an
allocation would be too specific and
restrictive. A housing allocation is
possible but student accommodation
would need to consider CS41 or any
update to the policy.
Consider as housing allocation
and if reviewing CS41.
Unsound: The 60% requirement for
offices for sites P00070 and P00045
is too restrictive given their highly
accessible and central locations.
Also relates to Policy J1.
HCA (PCPS125) and Carillion
Regeneration (PCPS124)
respectively.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view.
Support for the range of alternative
uses in Priority Office Areas which
may be considered appropriate at
The Square (bound by Commercial
Street to the south, Exchange Place
to the east and Exchange Street to
the north and west). Also relates to
Policy B3 as a ‘Shopping’ issue.
Sound: Support the Business Area
designation of the Recycling Centre,
Broad Lane and 64 Garden Street.
Sound: Support the proposed
Bramall Lane/ John Street Business
Area as referred to in the Core
Strategy (para 8.34).
Carillion Regeneration Ltd.
(PCPS120)
Not accepted: Priority Office Areas
are a vital part of the required land
supply for offices which is outlined in
policy CS1a Land for Employment
and Economic Development.
Following representations on the
draft in 2010 we have reduced the
percentage from 70% to 60% due to
concerns about viability.
Support noted
University of Sheffield (PSPM79)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Landtask (PSPM55)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Additional Housing Site Suggestions
Unsound: The Brassfounders site
and Matilda Street should be
allocated for student accommodation
- there is high demand for such
accommodation and the site is
actively being promoted for such a
use. The site is available for
development now and is in a
sustainable city centre location
Business and Industry
No change needed in response to
this comment.
85
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sound: Support the proposed
Business Area designation to the
south of Denby Street.
Unsound: The area to the north of
Denby Street should be identified as
a Central Housing Area to better
reflect the existing uses and avoid
conflict with Policy H1. High density
student accommodation already
present in the northern part of the
Business Area designation which
means the proportion of floorspace
for housing is already well in excess
of the 40% maximum in Business
Areas specified in the policy. Cross
refer to Policy H1 above.
Support the proposed Business
Area designation to the south of
Denby Street.
Support the proposed Bramall Lane/
John Street Business Area as
referred to in the Core Strategy (para
8.34).
Unsound: Allocation P00073 should
emphasise the housing requirement
more than the office requirement, but
not suitable for family housing as
noted under allocation Justification.
The underlying Business Area
designation on part of the site should
be changed so that whole site is
designated within a Central Housing
Area.
Landtask (PSPM55)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Landtask (PCPS323 & PSPM55)
Neither Accepted or Rejected
Consider changing as proposed
Landtask (PCPS323)
Support noted
Landtask (PCPS323)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment in response to this
comment.
No change needed.
Devonshire Green Holdings
(PCPS110 & PSPM44)
Neither Accepted or Rejected:
Accept that mix of designations and
allocation is convoluted. No
evidence provided that “not suitable
for family housing”.
Reconsider policy areas.
86
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Yorkshire Water: PCPS363,
PCPS361, PCPS466, PCPS359,
PCPS362, PCPS427, PCPS429,
PCPS400, PCPS401, PCPS402,
PCPS403, PCPS46.
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Environment Agency (PCPS491);
Canal & River Trust (PCPS280)
Accepted: Site P00089 – the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones.
Fully agree with the comment – it
should be taken forward in the Local
Plan as proposed by the respondent.
Drainage/sewerage
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00121 West Bar Triangle; P00084
New Retail Quarter; P00527 St
Mary’s Gate; P00044 Castle
Market; P00089 Chatham Street,
Bridgehouses; P00346 Holiday
Inn, Manchester Road (Central);
P00353 Tapton Halls of Residence
(Central); P00241 Clay Wheels
Lane; P00252 Neepsend Gas
Works Tip; P00256 Site of
Doncaster’s, Neepsend; P00259
Niagara Forge, Clay Wheels Lane;
P00516 Gilders Car Showroom,
Middlewood Road.
Flood Risk
Unsound: Site P00089 (Chatham
Street, Bridgehouses) - the site is in
Flood Zone 2; therefore the
conditions will need to mention flood
mitigation consistent with other site
conditions in Flood Zones
(Environment Agency)
87
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Sites P00237 (Gas
Holder Site, Neepsend Lane,
Parkwood Road, Neepsend) and
P00241 (Clay Wheels Lane) - the
southern boundary of site P00237
lies in Flood Zone 2, whereas
P00241 is in Flood Zone 1. The flood
risk information under the conditions
will need to be switched over.
Information that must be taken into
account when development is
proposed on multiple site allocations,
which varies depending on whether
and to what extent the site allocation
lies within Floodzone 2 or 3: P00045
Castlegate, The Square; P00070
Sheaf Square; P00100 Sheaf
Street/ Pond Hill; P00470 Harmer
Lane/ Sheaf Street; P00121 West
Bar Triangle; P00527 St Mary’s
Gate; P00528 Eyre Street
(Decathlon); P00044 Castle
Market; P00242 Club Mill Road,
Neepsend; P00244 Herries Road
South; P00252 Neepsend
Gasworks; P00256 Site of
Doncaster’s, Neepsend; P00259
Niagara Forge, Clay Wheels Lane;
P00430 Rawson Spring Road;
P00236 Former Clifton Steelworks,
Club Mill Road; P00239 Herries
Road South; P00251 Livesey
Street, Hillsborough.
Environment Agency (PCPS492)
Accepted: Sites P00237 and
P00241 – the conditions on
development wording will need to be
updated to reflect the changes in the
comprehensive flood review
modelling and flood zones.
Fully agree with the comment – it
should be taken forward in the Local
Plan as proposed by the respondent.
Environment Agency: PCPS505,
PCPS506, PCPS507, PCPS537,
PCPS509, PCPS542, PCPS543,
PCPS50, PCPS508, PCPS538,
PCPS544, PCPS508, PCPS53,
PCPS493, PCPS517, PCPS518,
PCPS520, PCPS521, PCPS522,
PCPS535, PCPS516, PCPS515,
PCPS519.
Observations noted. No major
issues. Where appropriate, the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
88
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
University of Sheffield (PSPM77)
Accepted: Should not have been
shown as a Geological Local Nature
Site. It is a candidate for such a
designation, but requires further
discussion, not least with University
of Sheffield (UoS).
Change as proposed
Observation: Heritage information
about P00346 Holiday Inn,
Manchester Road recommending a
standard approach to referring to the
need to respect Conservation Areas.
English Heritage (PCPS210)
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Sound: Support for heritage
reference in site allocations P00235
Former British Glass Labs,
Northumberland Road; P00043
Carver Lane/ Holly Street; P00045
Castlegate; P00100 Sheaf
Street/Pond Hill; P00073 Hanover
Way/Milton Street; P00353 Tapton
Halls of Residence, Crookes Road.
English Heritage (PCPS209,
PCPS143, PCPS144, PCPS146,
PCPS147, PCPS212)
Observation Noted: No major
issues. The Council will ensure that
the amendments listed are made to
reflect the presence of Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and
other matters noted, and that these
will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Support Noted
Geological Nature Site
Unsound: The Octagon grass verge
on Clarkson Street should not be
designated as a Geological Local
Nature Site as it does not meet
criteria of policy G1 Safeguarding
and Enhancing Biodiversity and
Features of Geological Importance.
Heritage
No change needed in response to
this comment.
89
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Heritage information
about other site allocations not listed
above, recommending various
amendments to text, including the
need to refer to the presence of
Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas as necessary. Reference
should also be made to policy G7 in
a number of paragraphs within
Chapter 10 (English Heritage). Sites
include: P00070 Sheaf Square;
P00083 Pond Street/ Sheaf Street;
P00084 New Retail Quarter;
P00528 Eyre Street; P00044 Castle
Market; P00087 Paradise Square;
P00242 Club Mill Road; P00236
Former Clifton Steelworks, Club
Mill Road.
English Heritage (PCPS145,
PCPS148, PCPS150, PCPS151,
PCPS152,PCPS160, PCPS161)
Observation Noted: No major
issues. The Council will ensure that
the amendments listed are made to
reflect the presence of Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and
other matters noted, and that these
will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
University of Sheffield (PSPM84)
Minded to Accept: We will assess
the preferred use dominance for the
sub area and discuss with the UoS,
the flexibility, or lack of it, afforded by
the Housing Area designation.
Consider University/College Area
designation.
University of Sheffield (PCPS678,
PSPM75 & PSPM76)
Not Minded to Accept: We will take
new evidence in to account when we
reassess site allocations in any Local
Plan review, such as UoS interest in
developing the site for non-residential
uses.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view but may need to
consider again in light of other
evidence.
Housing
Unsound: SITRAN/Central Garage
Education Housing Area designation
should be University/College Area or
Flexible Use. Housing Area
designation could affect UoS ability
to redevelop the Central Garage site.
Unsound: UoS is the freeholder of
the Northumberland Road site
(P00235) and it should not be
allocated for housing. The site and
the adjacent UoS Goodwin Sports
Centre should be designated as a
Flexible Use Area instead of a
Housing Area.
90
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
It is a concern that the Central
Housing Area wraps so tightly around
the University of Sheffield's City
Centre campus. This could constrain
the preferred uses in the University
College Area which may not always
be compatible with residential uses.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
Not minded to accept: 1. CS20
allows the UoS to expand their
campus and supersedes the Central
Housing designation. 2. Exceptions
to policy area designations can be
made where “there are significant
regeneration or other benefits arising
from the proposal”. 3. The 30%
requirement for residential use
applies to a sub area not each
proposal and for the West Street subarea residential dominance is >50%,
so there is a lot of potential for
development before the 30%
requirement becomes relevant.
No change needed in response to
this comment
University of Sheffield (PSPM72)
Accept
Change as proposed.
University of Sheffield (PSPM73)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
University of Sheffield (PSPM78)
Support noted.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Miscellaneous
Unsound: The Gold Route at the
junction with Regent Street and
Glossop Road (on the Proposals
Map and the CCMP) differs to that in
the UoS Master Plan July 2013, page
15 which goes along Hounsfield
Road.
Sound: Support the Proposed or to
be Improved Walking Route
designation which will have a positive
impact on the safety of their students.
Sound: Support the Flexible Use
Area designation of the 50 Upper
Hanover Street (Sainsbury’s).
91
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Does not support the
release of any land for development,
which is currently used or was
formerly used for sport unless the
land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing
Pitch Strategy or unless it was
replaced in an area which was
geographically as accessible as the
current site and at least in having the
same or quantity and quality.
Sport England (PCPS37, 38 & 39) re:
Business & Industry, Retail and
Housing site allocations.
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
University of Sheffield (PSPM85)
Not Accepted: Meets definition of
Open Space in Core Strategy policy
CS47.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Landtask (PSPM58)
Not minded to accept: National
planning policy excludes small
parades of shops of purely
neighbourhood significance from the
definition of local centres; Holme
Lane and Dykes Lane have very few
A1 uses and no longer function as
local centres. Small convenience A1
uses are listed as acceptable in
principle in Housing Areas and
Flexible Use Areas.
The current evidence does not
support the objector’s view but may
need to consider again in light of
other evidence.
Open Space
Unsound: Tapton Court/Shore Lane
should not include an Open Space
designation. It is too restrictive and
should all be designated as Housing
Area.
Retail
Unsound: Objection to the lack of
Neighbourhood Centres in the Holme
Lane area (at Holme Lane, and
Dykes Lane). A Neighbourhood
Centre should be retained at the
western end of Holme Lane to serve
an identified need in that part of
Hillsborough.
92
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Edgar Allen House, 241
Glossop Road should have a Flexible
Use designation instead of a Central
Housing Allocation which does not
permit enough commercial use.
University of Sheffield (PSPM83)
No change needed in response to
this comment
Unsound: The current designations
for office and bulky goods retail use
(P00526 & P00527) at Moorfoot will
not forge links with the rest of the city
centre and could unduly restrict the
area’s redevelopment. Moorfoot
should be branded as a retail, office
and mixed use area overall with an
emphasis on creating linkages
between the three areas and The
Moor as a whole. In particular,
references to bulky goods should be
removed because the existing
floorspace is not restricted in that
manner.
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership (PCPS267 & PCPS268)
Not minded to accept: 1. CS20
allows the UoS to expand their
campus and supersedes the Central
Housing designation. 2. Exceptions
to policy area designations can be
made where “there are significant
regeneration or other benefits arising
from the proposal”. 3. The 30%
requirement for residential use
applies to a sub area not each
proposal and for the West Street subarea residential dominance is >50%,
so there is a lot of potential for
development before the 30%
requirement becomes relevant.
Accepted in part: Agree that the
Primary Shopping Area and Retail
Warehouse Allocations needed to be
reviewed in light of both the
Inspector’s findings at the Next
appeal and the end of the NRQ
partnership with Hammersons. The
future direction of the NRQ and the
decision on the Ikea application will
inform this review.
The Local Plan review will include a
review of retail strategy and
designations.
93
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The Moor’s presence
within the Central Shopping Area is
welcomed. However, the whole of the
Moor should be included within the
Primary Shopping area.
Furthermore, the site specific
designation of the NRQ places it
above The Moor in terms of the retail
hierarchy and as a location for
regeneration. Given the respective
prospects of both for regeneration
this is not realistic.
Unsound: The extent of the Primary
Shopping Area of Hillsborough
District Centre should be reviewed
and altered to include Hillsborough
Barracks and the Morrisons store
because it attracts a large number of
shoppers from the wider District
Centre, contributing significantly to its
vitality and viability.
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership (PCPS263)
Accepted in part: Agree that the
Primary Shopping Area and Retail
Warehouse Allocations needed to be
reviewed in light of both the
Inspectors findings at the Next
appeal and the end of the NRQ
partnership with Hammersons. The
future direction of the NRQ and the
decision on the Ikea application will
inform this review.
The Local Plan review will include a
review of retail strategy and
designations.
Wm. Morrison Supermarket plc
(PSPM60)
Not minded to accept: the Primary
Shopping Area has been drawn to
support the vitality of the centre of
Hillsborough.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view but may need to
consider again in light of other
evidence
SYPTE (PCPS257)
Further evidence needed to show
that a new passenger transport
facility should be a condition on
development.
Seek further evidence from
respondent.
Transport
Unsound: The New Retail Quarter
will be a main trip generator within
the city centre that will promote a
shift in travel behaviour from existing
locations. As a result, there will be a
need for a passenger transport
facility within the area and previous
plans have provided a mini
interchange facility on Charter
Square. This remains a practical
solution and should be mentioned
within the conditions of development.
P00084
94
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: The Beeleywood Site
has potential to be a significant place
of employment and a catalyst for
further investment within the Upper
Don Valley/Clay Wheels Lane area.
This location is currently not served
by public transport, however, there
are various options available. If
development were to go ahead with a
bridge to connect the site over the
River Don than accessibility would be
greatly increased and access to the
tram network would be available.
Also, the potential (currently being
investigated) Stocksbridge tram
extension would run along the
northern boundary of the site, if
development would produce
significant traffic levels, it may be
possible to locate a stop here.
P00258
SYPTE (PCPS251)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
University of Sheffield (PSPM80,
PSPM81 & PSPM82 respectively)
Not Minded to Accept: We will
assess the preferred use dominance
for the sub area and discuss with the
UoS, the flexibility, or lack of it,
afforded by the University/College
Area designation.
Investigate as part of Local Plan
review.
University and College Areas
Unsound: North Campus; Northgate
House, West Street; and Health
Centre, Glossop Road - the proposed
University/ College Area designation
would fit with the use of the sites.
However the restrictive nature of the
University/ College Area policy would
reduce options on the sites for the
University.
95
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The University/College
Area designation should be changed
so there is: (i) no minimum
requirement for Preferred Uses; (ii)
Offices (B1a) included as a Preferred
Use; (iii) Financial & Professional
Services (A2), Restaurants & Cafes
(A3), Light Industry (B1c), Hotels
(C1) and Assembly and Leisure (D2)
included as Acceptable Uses.
Unsound: The University/College
Area designation should be as
flexible as the UDP Educational Area
designation. The UDP placed
greater emphasis on university spin
out businesses and the need to
accommodate this is now greater
rather than less.
Unsound: For the University/College
Areas (i) consider expanding in St
George’s and St Vincent’s (ii) allow
masterplanning to come forward.
University of Sheffield (PSPM70)
Not minded to accept: We will
assess the existing Preferred Use
dominance and discuss with the
UoS, the flexibility, or lack of it,
afforded by the University/College
Area designation.
Investigate as part of Local Plan
review.
University of Sheffield (PSPM88)
Not minded to accept: We will
assess the existing Preferred Use
dominance and discuss with the
UoS, the flexibility, or lack of it,
afforded by the University/College
Area designation.
Investigate as part of Local Plan
review.
University of Sheffield (PSPM89)
Investigate as part of Local Plan
review.
Unsound: North Campus; Northgate
House, West Street; and Health
Centre, Glossop Road - the proposed
University/ College Area designation
would fit with the use of the sites.
However the restrictive nature of the
University/ College Area policy would
reduce options on the sites for the
University.
University of Sheffield (PCPS694)
Not minded to accept: (i) No
indication from UoS of plans to
expand their campus at this location.
However, Core Strategy CS20
provides the flexibility for this
possibility. (ii) Agree that
masterplanning should come forward
where change is planned.
Not minded to accept: We will
assess the existing Preferred Use
dominance and discuss with the
UoS, the flexibility, or lack of it,
afforded by the University/College
Area designation.
Investigate as part of Local Plan
review.
96
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: The business case for
the Penistone Road Smart Route
provided confidence of reduced
journey times and increased
punctuality and reliability for bus
services. As part of this, it was
proposed that in order to help reduce
the number of vehicle trips along
Penistone Road, a Park and Ride
site is required. It has been a desire
from SYPTE to have a park and ride
at this location given its proximity to
Penistone Road and the integration
of existing high frequency bus
services. Funding problems have
meant that this scheme has not
progressed in recent years; it is still
an objective of SYPTE and SCC.
P00239
SYPTE (PCPS249)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
proposal will be considered during
the preparation of a revised Local
Plan which will assess a range of
options for finding new housing land
including a review of Green Belt
boundaries if necessary.
The Local Plan review will include a
review of the Green Belt boundary in
order to identify additional land to
meet the housing requirement.
South Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Additional Housing Site Suggestions
Unsound: Review of Green Belt and
Open Space designations needed to
allocate additional housing land. The
site at Beauchief Drive, Bradway
should therefore be removed from
the Green Belt and allocated for
housing. The land is in a sustainable
location for residential development,
it is free from other constraints and it
can be made available to provide
good quality homes.
Mr R. Hinton (PCPS300)
97
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Norton College Campus
should be a housing site allocation
Sheffield College (PCPS299)
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
proposal will be considered during
the preparation of a revised Local
Plan which will assess options for
finding new housing land together
with land for other needs such as
business and leisure facilities.
All options for new housing sites will
be considered as part of a Local Plan
Review.
Yorkshire Water (PCPS428,
PCPS431, PCPS432, PCPS462,
PCPS430, PCPS452)
Observation noted: Whilst no major
issues, information provided needs to
be considered in relation to viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
English Heritage (PCPS211,
PCPS214, PCPS208)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Drainage/Sewerage
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00350 Sheffield Hallam Uni
Campus; P00360 Gaunt Road,
Hemsworth; P00361, Former
Hemsworth Primary School,
Blackstock Road; P00511 Former
SHU Playing Fields; P00357
Former Hazlebarrow School,
Jordanthorpe; P00436 Former
Oakes Park and Talbot School,
Norton.
Support for heritage reference on
site allocations P00350 Sheffield
Hallam Uni Campus; P00436
Former Oaks Park and Talbot
School; P00355 Abbeydale Drive
98
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Neither accepted nor rejected.
Consider as part of new Local Plan
Economic Development – Business and Employment Areas
Observation: The Employment Land
Review confirms that the Low Edges
area needs more help to combat
deprivation which is becoming
worse. There also needs to be more
openness and accountability of
relevant council officers and local
politicians in efforts to achieve the
necessary improvements.
Mr M. Brighton (PCPS677)
Housing Site Allocation P00499 Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth Road, Norton
Unsound: A bat survey should have
been carried out prior to proposing
the site as a housing allocation.
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (PCPS471)
The site was added later in the
process and the document was
finalised outside of the optimal
survey period for collecting this type
of evidence. A detailed survey will be
required prior to determination of any
resulting application to evaluate the
presence of and impact on any
protected species.
Collect this evidence if it is not
provided as part of a successful
planning consent in the near future.
Dr and Mrs M Walker (PSPM68) and
K. Anderson (PSPM90)
Re derelict private allotments off
Periwood Lane.
Not accepted. Part of the land at
Periwood Lane owned by Mrs Walker
was held to have an important visual
function as green space in a recent
unsuccessful planning appeal for a
small residential development. The
Council’s assessment also shows
that the local area lacks sufficient
open space to meet the need for
outdoor sport. Core Strategy policy
CS47 presumes that the land should
not be used for development as it is
considered suitable for meeting other
unsatisfied open space needs.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Open Space
Unsound: The designation of land as
open space is incorrect.
99
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Land at Brincliffe
Towers should not be changed from
Housing Area to Open Space Area.
There is plenty of public open space
(Chelsea Park and land south east of
that on Brincliffe Road).
Parts of Brincliffe Towers grounds
should be within the Housing Area,
as at Banner Cross Hall.
Mr Alistair Haxton (PSPM2)
Mr Pavanjit Sall (PSPM9)
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Unsound: Policy H1 as it applies to
land zoned as Open Space around
the Graves Tennis and Leisure
Centre is considered to be too
confusing and could hinder
appropriate redevelopment of those
recreation areas. To avoid any
conflict, and to facilitate future
development and improvement of the
site, these outdoor spaces should be
zoned under the same Business
Area notation as the Centre building
or an alternative that lends the same
type of support.
Sheffield City Trust (PCPS292)
Not accepted. The Historic Garden
designation on the Proposals Map of
Chelsea Park/Brincliffe Tower
reflects it’s identification and
protection as a Historic Garden since
1998 (see Sheffield’s Historic Parks
and Gardens: UDP Policy
Background Paper No 4. 1998) and
in planning policy since then –
currently via Core Strategy policy
CS47. This is irrespective of
ownership. The grounds of Brincliffe
Towers are different from those of
Banner Cross Hall, which does not
have a Historic Garden designation.
Not accepted: These outdoor
spaces currently contribute to the
provision of local recreation space
serving the area and the Plan’s
Proposals Map should continue to
acknowledge this value. This is
particularly important as there is a
quantitative shortage of open space
in this locality based on the minimum
guidelines set out in Core Strategy
policy CS47. However an open
space designation would not prevent
development for some alternative
built sports and recreational provision
that better meets the strategic needs
of the area.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
100
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: objects to the inclusion of
the pavilion adjoining its Norton
Playing Fields within an Open
Space Area as this is inconsistent
with how other non-pitch
accommodation is treated elsewhere
on the university’s estate e.g.
Goodwin Sports Centre. It is
suggested that the pavilion should
instead be designated within a
Housing Area or a Flexible Use Area.
The Group objects to proposals to
improve part of the Sheffield Round
Walk to accommodate cycling from
Beauchief Drive through Parkbank
Woods to Bocking Lane. The
proposal is unsound on safety and
ecological grounds and may lead the
Group to withdraw its voluntary work
in maintaining this woodland footpath
route.
University of Sheffield (PSPM87)
Not accepted: Unlike the Goodwin
Centre the pavilion at Warminster
Road is clearly an ancillary building
that is mainly used in conjunction
with the adjoining sports pitches. As
such it qualifies as open space
because it falls within the definition
set out in Core Strategy policy CS47.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Beauchief Environment Group
(PCPM45)
Neither accepted nor rejected.
If cycling element through the woods
cannot be justified that section could
revert to the ‘Proposed or to be
improved Walking Route’ designation
Sheffield Hallam University
(PCPS276)
Not accepted: It is disputed that the
playing field is surplus to
requirements as an audit of pitches
carried out for the Council’s Playing
Pitch Strategy (2011) states that it
has potential to meet latent demand
for cricket and other team games in
this sector of the city. The site should
not therefore be promoted
exclusively for housing as this would
not comply with national and local
policy on development of playing
fields.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence
Playing Pitches
Unsound: Objects to the mixed use
allocation (P00511) affecting its
disused playing field at
Hemsworth Road. In its present
form the allocation is neither justified
nor effective as the open space is
surplus to requirements and the
proposal cannot be delivered by any
interested parties. It is recommended
that the entire site should instead be
allocated for housing to meet
identified housing need with a
financial contribution if necessary to
improve other open space in the
locality.
101
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Does not support the
release of any land for development,
which is currently used or was
formerly used for sport unless the
land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing Pitch
Strategy or unless it was replaced in
an area which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
Sport England
(PCPS45, site P00361 Former
Hemsworth Primary School;
PCPS46, site P00357 Former
Hazlebarrow Primary School)
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (SYPTE)
(PSPM48)
Neither accepted nor rejected: The
development of housing at the former
Abbeydale Grange School site and
Bannerdale Centre is expected to
support the vitality and viability of the
existing shops and services at
Millhouses Neighbourhood Centre
and there are no proposals for
expansion.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
SYPTE (PCPS255)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Retail
Observation: It appears that the
District Centres reflect the current
situation without much consideration
into the impact of how the city will
look at the end of the plan period e.g.
Millhouses Neighbourhood Centre
could classified as a District
Centre in order to support better
infrastructure as a result of the
proposed Abbeydale development.
Transport
Sound: Support site allocation
P00355 Abbeydale Drive, Carter
Knowle
102
South East Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not accepted: the land is
appropriately designated as Open
Space Area and Housing Area to
reflect the current uses of the site
and the adjacent residential area.
Not accepted: All options for new
housing sites will be considered as
part of a Local Plan Review.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Not accepted: The site was
assessed as being appropriately
allocated for employment use in the
2013 Employment Land Review, and
general industry and non-office
business uses would be consistent
with the area’s character.
Not accepted: Employment uses are
acceptable but there is no
requirement for them in General
Employment Areas which means
other uses would be decided on their
merits, including national policy with
regards to retail.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Additional Housing Site Suggestions
Unsound: Land at Station Road,
Mosborough should be designated
as Flexible Use Area and shown as a
Flexible Use allocation.
Warborough Investments Ltd.
(PCPS324)
Unsound: Land at Portland Business
Park, Handsworth should be
allocated for housing.
CHIP (Two) Ltd. (PCPS676)
All options for new housing sites will
be considered as part of a Local Plan
Review.
Business and Industry
Unsound: Site P00376 is too
restrictive by requiring industrial
uses. Other uses should be allowed
to come forward.
William Cook Properties (PCPS85)
Unsound: Objection to the
acceptability of employment uses
(B1, 2 and 8) for General
Employment Areas in Table H1. Also
relates to South East LAP – The
General Employment Area at Crystal
Peaks should allow retail uses.
Hammerson Retail Parks (PCPS126)
There is unlikely to be a change to
General Employment Areas in
relation to this comment.
103
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Yorkshire Water (PCPS350,
PCPS456, PCPS445, PCPS446,
PCPS447, PCPS434, PCPS440,
PCPS433, PCPS435, PCPS436,
PCPS437, PCPS438, PCPS439,
PCPS441, PCPS442, PCPS443,
PCPS459, PCPS460).
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Drainage/Sewerage
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00001 Colliery Road; P00477
Former Arthur Lees Steel Works,
Blackburn Valley; P00415 Hinde
House School Lower Playing Field,
Wincobank; P00417 Woodbury
Road, Wincobank, P00419 Woolley
Wood School, Shiregreen; P00376
Mosborough Wood Business Park,
Holbrook; P00386 Rotherham
Road, Beighton; P00367 Beighton
Road, Woodhouse; P00379
Newstead Estate, Birley; P00380
Owlthorpe C; P00381 Owlthorpe
D; P00382 Owlthorpe E; P00384
Oxclose Farm; P00387
Scowerdons Estate,
Hackenthorpe; P00393 Weakland
Estate, Hackenthorpe; P00394
Former Westfield School; P00509
Junction Road, Woodhouse;
P00510 Woodhouse East, north of
Beighton Road.
104
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Environment Agency: PCPS501,
PCPS539, PCPS534, PCPS533.
Observations noted. No major
issues. Where appropriate, the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
J. White (PCPS289)
Not accepted: uses that have been
granted planning permission on the
land are agricultural and compatible
with the Green Belt designation.
There will be a citywide,
comprehensive review of the Green
Belt as part of the Local Plan Review.
English Heritage (PCPS163)
Observation Noted: No major
issues. The Council will ensure that
the amendments listed are made to
reflect the presence of Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and
other matters noted, and that these
will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Flood Risk
Information that must be taken into
account when development is
proposed on multiple site allocations,
which varies depending on whether
and to what extent the site allocation
lies within Floodzone 2 or 3: P00001
Colliery Road, P00477 Former Arthur
Lees Steel Works; P00417
Woodbury Wincobank; P00386
Rotherham Road, Beighton.
Information setting out the process
that must be undertaken when
seeking to allocate sites and
formulate flooding policy, in relation
to Chapter 1 – Introduction and
Chapter 12 – General Site Allocation
Policy (Environment Agency).
Green Belt
Unsound: Land at Station Road,
Holbrook, designated as Green Belt,
should be included within the
adjacent employment area.
Heritage
Observation: Heritage information
about P00001 Colliery Road should
reference a Condition on
Development relating to the need to
safeguard the setting of the Circus
Training Centre on Holywell Road.
105
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Sport England (PCPS47)
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
Mr C. Faulkner (PCPS87)
Not accepted: an ecological survey
of the site has been carried out and
there are no reasons not to allocate
the site for housing. The area of the
site allocation has previously been
reduced from that shown in earlier
drafts due to the presence of a rare
plant.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Playing Pitches
Observation: Site P00394 Former
Westfield School - Does not support
the release of any land for
development, which is currently used
or was formerly used for sport unless
the land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing Pitch
Strategy or unless it was replaced in
an area which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
Residential
Unsound: Land at Junction Road,
Woodhouse (P00509) should not be
allocated for housing because it has
wildlife value.
106
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Land at Woodhouse East
should not be allocated for housing
as a Hedgerow Survey has not first
been undertaken.
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (PCPS472)
Not accepted: an ecological survey
has been carried out and there are
no reasons not to allocate the site for
housing. Under the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities
(NERC) Act 2006 - Habitats and
Species of Principal Importance in
England, hedgerows should be
afforded priority when applying the
requirements of Planning Policy
Statement 9 (PPS9, now NPPF) to
maintain, restore and enhance
species and habitats and to identify
the species and habitats that require
specific consideration in dealing with
planning and development control. It
is therefore expected that a
Hedgerow Regulations Survey would
be carried out as part of any planning
application process.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
107
South West Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
proposal will be considered during
the preparation of a revised Local
Plan which will assess a range of
options for finding new housing land
including a review of Green Belt
boundaries if necessary.
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
proposal will be considered during
the preparation of a revised Local
Plan which will assess a range of
options for finding new housing land
including a review of Green Belt
boundaries if necessary.
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
proposal will be considered during
the preparation of a revised Local
Plan which will assess a range of
options for finding new housing land
including a review of Green Belt
boundaries if necessary.
All options for new housing sites will
considered as part of the review of
the Local Plan.
Additional Housing Site Suggestions
Land off the A57
The land should be released from the
Green Belt, as it doesn’t serve Green
Belt purposes, and in order to
contribute towards the city’s housing
land supply
The Girls Day School Trust
(PCPS259)
Land at Lodge Moor Road, Lodge
Moor. Land at Lodge Moor Road,
Lodge Moor should be released from
the green belt and allocated for
housing in order to meet the city’s
housing land supply.
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS646)
Land at Blackbrook Road, Lodge
Moor. The plan fails to deliver
sufficient development sites so more
housing land must be allocated. Land
at Blackbrook Road, Lodge Moor
should be released from the green
belt and allocated for housing.
Ackroyd and Abbott (PCPS621)
All options for new housing sites will
considered as part of the review of
the Local Plan.
All options for new housing sites will
considered as part of the review of
the Local Plan.
108
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Housing Site Allocation P00403 King Ecgbert’s Upper School, Furniss Avenue, Dore
The condition stated in 2010 should
be reinstated, which requires a car
park to be provided to serve
community users of the adjoining
school playing field. Not providing
such a car park would increase onstreet car parking, cause traffic
congestion, highway danger and be
detrimental to local residents'
amenity. The provision of car parking
will enable the proposed
development to comply with Core
Strategy Policy CS53 (h) City
Policies E1 and E2.
Dore Village Society (PCPS10)
Not accepted. Such a condition
would not be essential to enable the
development to occur (para. 3.19 of
the South West Community
Assembly Area Background Report).
It could prejudice the viability of the
proposed development and would be
contrary to para. 173 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
Not Accepted: National planning
policy would not allow consideration
of the objection raised. The Council
is unlikely to change its view in light
of evidence.
Yorkshire Water: PCPS428,
PCPS444.
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Dore Village Society (PSPM65)
Not accepted. Sheffield Local Plan
is compliant with national Green Belt
policy. Dore, Bradway and Totley are
all part of one urban area separated
from the rest of Sheffield urban area
by Green Belt (except at Bradway
Road) and are not distinct
neighbouring towns.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Drainage/Sewerage
Observation: There is adequate
capacity in the public foul sewer
network to take reasonably
anticipated foul water flows from sites
P00350 Sheffield Hallam Uni
Campus, Psalter Lane, and P00403
King Ecgbert’s Upper School,
Dore.
Green Belt
Poynton Wood should be shown as
Sheffield Green Belt, as well as Open
Space Area, to provide the strongest
protection from development and to
prevent the merging of adjoining
urban areas of Bradway and Totley
with the built-up area of Dore Village.
This would make the Local Plan
compliant with NPPF advice on
Green Belt.
109
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
English Heritage (PCPS213)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Not accepted. Prior to adoption of
the City Policies and Sites
Document, the planning application
has been determined against the
Unitary Development Plan, which
designates the site as a Housing
Area. The Area Background Report
relating to the allocation outlines the
correct reasons for refusal of the
previous planning application
(Sufficient brownfield supply meant
greenfield sites couldn’t be
developed); consideration of whether
the site has open space value and
the ecological and badger surveys
has been undertaken. (See also
response to PCPS470 for availability
of surveys and more detail).
Not accepted. The Area Background
Report accompanying the allocation
refers to badger surveys, the ecology
survey undertaken for the planning
application on the site and the City
Ecologist’s assessment of them – the
site has not become undevelopable
as a result, although specific
conditions on the allocation have
been recommended.
Current evidence will continue to
support Council’s approach to site
taken so far.
Heritage
Support for heritage reference in site
allocation P00403 King Ecgbert’s
Upper School.
Housing Site Allocation P00517 Canterbury Crescent
How can a planning application
(13/00155/FUL) be considered for
P00517 Canterbury Crescent when
the consultation is underway on the
principle of it being designated as
housing? We understand that a
previous refusal was on the basis
that the site warranted protection as
open space. Is there an assessment
proving that the open space is
surplus to requirements, in line with
para. 74 of the National Planning
Policy Framework. What replacement
open space has been identified? If an
ecological survey has been done,
please point us to the findings. It is
illegal to disturb badger setts.
Committee Member, Planning,
Friends of the Porter Valley
(PCPS14)
Not justified because it “should be
founded on a robust and credible
evidence base” and an ecology
survey is not available, as requested
previously by Sheffield Wildlife Trust.
So there is insufficient evidence to
assess the appropriateness of the
allocation.
South Yorkshire Biodiversity Coordinator, Sheffield Wildlife Trust
(PCPS470)
Current evidence will continue to
support Council’s approach to site
taken so far.
110
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Canterbury Crescent is narrow,
needing repair and the development
will result in increased traffic, with a
detrimental effect on residential
amenity. Previous new developments
have led to an increase in on-street
parking with further disruption to
traffic flow.
Dr Nigel Bird (PCPS17)
Not accepted. The traffic and
highways issue were considered in
Area Background Report
accompanying the allocation. The
scale of the highways issue raised is
not significant enough to prevent
development. Paragraph 3.40 states
that the on-street parking issue would
be dealt with at the time of a planning
application, in conjunction with Local
Plan policies.
Current evidence does not support
the objector’s view and the Council is
unlikely to change its view in light of
other evidence.
Housing Site Allocation P00357 Former Hazlebarrow School, Jordanthorpe
Observation: Does not support the
release of any land for development,
which is currently used or was
formerly used for sport unless the
land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing Pitch
Strategy or unless it was replaced in
an area which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
Sport England (PCPS46)
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
Unsound: The Open Space
designation at Tapton Court/Shore
Lane is incorrect
University of Sheffield (PSPM85)
Not accepted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Unsound: The Endcliffe Vale Road
Open Space should not cover the
buildings on the site and should be
redrawn.
University of Sheffield (PSPM86)
Accept
Fully agree with the comment and it
should be taken forward in the Local
Plan as proposed by the respondent.
Open Space
111
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Abbeydale Hall, Abbeydale Road
South. The former formal garden of
the listed Abbeydale Hall should be
designated as Housing Area to
reflect the planning permission of
twelve apartments and the ponds in
the garden approved for restoration.
The ecological importance of this site
will be lost.
Dore Village Society (PSPM1)
Not accepted. This has already
been considered in the South West
Area Background Report. The
conclusion at paragraph 2.189 states
“the site should continue to be
designated within the Open Space
Policy Area, due to the ecological
value being reflected in an Open
Space Area designation, whereas a
Housing Area designation would
have implied that development was
preferred if the current planning
permission lapsed.”
No new evidence has been provided.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Dore Village Society (PSPM63)
Not accepted. Some of the uses
proposed for inclusion in the
Neighbourhood Centre designation
are detached from the centre, in
large grounds or not on the shopping
frontage. Inclusion in the
Neighbourhood Centre would
undermine the implementation of
Policy C4, which focuses on the
length of the frontage of units within
50 metres of the property for which
change of use from A1 or D1 is being
assessed.
Response to the other half of the
representation is in Chapter 4.
No new evidence has been provided.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Retail
Unsound: Dore Neighbourhood
Centre should be drawn to include
the places of worship; Christ Church
and Dore Methodist Church, the Old
School, Christ Church Hall and Youth
Centre, Dore Club, the Scout
Headquarters, butcher's shop, dental
surgery in Causeway Head Road and
Dore Grill.
112
East Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Canal & River Trust (PCPS284)
Not minded to accept: There has
not been any change made to the
Proposals Map at this location, it is
shown as Flexible Use Area.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS333)
Neither accepted or rejected: Land
to the south of Meadowhall is
designated as Business Area to
support the delivery of a mixed
business and housing scheme
consistent with the River Don District
landowner ambitions. A Business
Area, which allows for sensitive uses,
would not be suitable for the area
north of Meadowhall at Alsing Road
because this area is in a high flood
risk area, close to the viaduct (noise),
and close to the Blackburn Meadows
WWT Plant. An alternative
employment led designation that
promotes employment uses but does
not include housing, is more suitable.
This would not prevent proposals for
permanent car park use coming
forward.
No change to policy area needed,
discuss with landowner whether
allocation still necessary.
Economic Development – Business and Employment Areas
Unsound: Site P00154 Fitzalan
Works should be designated as
Flexible Use Area instead of a
Business and Industrial Area in order
to bring forward a range of alternative
uses that would not be restricted by
the need to ensure a dominance of
preferred uses.
Unsound: The site allocation should
be removed and the policy area
changed to Business Area. The area
should be allocated as a Business
Area in line with the remainder of the
land surrounding Meadowhall.
Business Areas include leisure as an
acceptable use whereas General
Employment Area does not. This is a
move away from the 2010 draft
version which stated that in General
Employment Areas leisure was to be
decided in its own merits. In addition,
this does not comply with Policy CS7
or Draft Policy B3 which states that
leisure uses that cannot be
accommodated in the City Centre
would be acceptable around
Meadowhall and that leisure
developments should be readily
accessible by public transport. The
Alsing Road site (P00129) meets
both these criteria and the policy
designation should be changed to
reflect this. Furthermore, we consider
that the site (P00129) does not
As an employment led policy area,
General Employment Area is
consistent with CS7 where it says
‘the predominant land use will be for
employment’. General Employment
113
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
requires a specific site allocation, it
does not provide any detail above
what is set out in the policy area as
detailed in Table H1.
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Area is also consistent with CS15
which deals with locations for large
scale leisure, and specifically
mentions the Lower Don Valley if no
sites are suitable or available in the
city centre.
In the 2010 draft version, the table at
policy H1 included reference to uses
to be determined on their merits.
This is omitted from the presubmission version. Where uses are
not listed (in this case leisure) the
assumption is made that they are
decided on their merits; and for
leisure in accordance with CS15.
Observation: Meadowhall Shopping
Area performs a dual function as a
district and regional leisure and
shopping centre. Meadowhall is
highly accessible by public transport,
including national links to rail and
coach networks. Any large scale
expansion of the centre or
surrounding area would place
increasing pressure on the already
saturated road network, particularly
the motorway junctions.
South Yorkshire Passenger
Transport Executive (SYPTE)
(PSPM49)
The allocation was included in
agreement with the landowner,
however circumstances may have
changed and this would provide a
context for review of this allocation.
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
114
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: P00138 should be located
within a Business Area with a flexible
allocation that reflects the type of
land use in the area, and promotes a
mix of uses subject to compliance
with national and local planning
policy. Object to the requirement for
preferred uses to take up 70% of the
area - imposing such a restriction is
overly restrictive and will impact on
the viability of the site. The
statements on highways impact in
both the conditions of development
and justification should be amended
to recognise that there is ‘potential’
for some highway impact without
predetermining the extent of such
impacts.
Observation: The designation of the
area around Meadowhall as
‘Business Uses’ should be looked at
to try and avoid retail development
being classed as an acceptable use.
Any expansion of retail facilities in
the Meadowhall area will have a
detrimental effect upon investor and
retailer confidence in the City Centre.
Expansion here should be resisted,
and the designation of the area
around Meadowhall as ‘Business
Uses’ should avoid retail being
classed as an acceptable use.
IKEA (PCPS316 & PCPS310)
The site allocation is already shown
as flexible (without required uses) the
issue for the respondent is with the
underlying policy area designation.
Business Area as an alternative
option for this area and site is
addressed in the East background
report, see paragraphs 2.53 and
3.91. Retail uses are subject to the
tests set out in national policy, the
Meadowhall Retail park is not a town
centre (NPPF Appendix 2) so the
sequential approach would apply.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Scottish Widows Investment
Partnership (PCPS270)
CS7 and CS14 and the Meadowhall
Policy Area all refer to the shopping
Centre remaining at its present size.
The Business Area around
Meadowhall includes small scale
retail as an acceptable use (for
convenience shopping). Other retail
development is not classed as
acceptable, but is subject to the tests
set out in national policy. Meadowhall
is not classed as a town centre
(NPPF Appendix 2) so the sequential
approach applies to any retail
proposal.
No change to policy area needed
115
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
The supporting text for P00127
should be updated to reflect the
additional retail floorspace approved
under the recent consent for a Next
Home and Garden development at
land at Vulcan Road (12/01017/FUL)
alongside the planning permissions
for the River Don District
(08/02594/0UT) and car showroom
(07/02074/FUL).
MSC Property Intermediate Holdings
(PCPS332)
Discuss site intentions with site
owner. If work starts on site for the
retail scheme we would revise the
site boundary accordingly.
Support: P00127 is considered
sound with a range of measures to
deliver infrastructure and services
including a contribution to the Tinsley
Link and travel planning.
Unsound: whilst they support the
principle of P00471 further land
should be released by allocating land
to the south to offer a new and visible
gateway.
Highways Agency (PCPS558)
The appeal decision granting this
permission was made on 3/7/2013
after approval of CP&S by Cabinet.
The site allocation as drafted is
consistent with but not intended to
reflect the planning application. It
was intended to reflect landowner
ambitions for River Don District to
create a mixed development at this
site (see East Background Report
paragraph 3.43ff). Landowner site
intentions evolved during plan
preparation and the site now has
planning permission for a mixed use
scheme (primarily business and
housing), car showrooms, and now
the Next retail and car showrooms
proposal. The permissions at this
site are referred to in the delivery
section, and the new permission can
be added into the next version.
Support Noted
Neither accepted nor rejected: This
would be likely to affect land currently
within the Green Belt and this should
be undertaken as part of a strategic
review of the purposes of including
land within the Green Belt across the
whole City.
Include this area as part of any future
review.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS474)
No change needed in response to
this comment.
116
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: The Proposals Map
designations around the Sheffield
Business Park (P00191) should be
reviewed against the published
preferred route for HS2 and
additional development land
identified to compensate for land and
premises that may be lost as a result.
Formal safeguarding of the route is
expected within the plan period,
therefore the plan should account for
this.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS475)
Include this area as part of any future
review.
Unsound: The proposed allocation is
supported in principle; however,
additional land should be released at
SBP to support it as a key economic
location. Land here could provide a
location for an “AMP north”, enhance
access to the approved Sheffield
Business Park Phase 2a, and form a
gateway site to Sheffield by offering
an attractive addition to the
employment land portfolio in the
area. Provision of additional land will
also equalise any loss of land which
is likely to arise as a result of the
HS2 route dissecting this site, and
resulting in the loss of existing
business space.
Sheffield Business Park (PCPS476)
Neither accepted nor rejected: The
consultation on the Phase2 preferred
route is ongoing until January 2014,
and as a result land areas
safeguarded for HS2 may change. It
is logical, though, to explore the
potential impacts and opportunities
for Sheffield in relation to the HS2
project. However, where this affects
Green Belt, this should be
undertaken as part of a strategic
review of the purposes of including
land within the Green Belt across the
whole City, and balanced against the
arguments around the economic
needs of the City Region.
The strategic importance of the AMP
for the City Region is accepted, and
the potential for its expansion should
be explored in a City Region context.
However, where this affects Green
Belt, this should be undertaken as
part of a strategic review of the
Green Belt across the whole City,
and balanced against: the existing
available supply of employment land
on this side of the city, the need to
balance supply of good quality sites
across the city where there is need
identified, and the identified
economic needs of the City Region.
Include this area as part of any future
review, but check against existing
supply of sites already located within
this general area, and need for
additional land.
117
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Bawtry Road - Additional Housing Site Suggestion
Unsound: Allocate Bawtry Road site
to help address the shortfall in the 5
year supply of deliverable housing
land. The plot owners disputed the
site’s alleged ecological value, flood
risk and important open space
function.
Mr Barry Laden (PSPM17)
Sahira Qaiyum (PSPM18)
Shazad Malik (PSPM19)
Mr Mohammed Riaz (PSPM20)
Mr Malik Tassadiz Hussain
(PSPM22)
Mrs Naseem Khalil (PSPM23)
Mr Aslam Karim (PSPM24)
Nigel (PSPM25)
Dr A Rahman (PSPM26)
Dr M Yaqub (PSPM27)
Mrs Jyotsna Patel (PSPM28)
Dr Atul and Shraddha Agarwal
(PSPM29)
Mohammed Aslam (PSPM30)
Mr Lee Pidgeon (PSPM31)
Mr Barrey Allen (PSPM32)
Mr Clive Allen (PSPM33)
Mr Wajid Malik (PSPM34)
Mr M Aslam (PSPM35)
Ms Jennifer Rahman (PSPM37)
Mr M Najeib (PSPM38)
Bawtry Road Clients (PCPS596)
Material expanding on the city wide
issues of housing land supply and
suggestions on how to address is
provided here and is responded to
elsewhere. Accept that there is a
shortfall in the 5-year housing land
supply, but no new evidence on the
specific suitability of the site is
provided.
The consultation report for Additional
Sites (2012) published on the
website states that 21 responses
supporting a proposal to allocate the
site at Bawtry Road were received.
This includes a submission made by
agents representing an unknown
number of landowners. The decision
to retain the site as Open Space was
not made on the basis of number of
comments received, but on evidence
collected.
Revisit the issues with regard to the
site.
Handsworth Hall Farm - Additional Housing Site Suggestion
Land at Handsworth Hall Farm…
Duke of Norfolk Estates (PCPS320)
Neither accepted nor rejected
All options for new housing sites will
be considered as part of the Local
Plan review.
118
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Part of land at Tinsley Wire Ferrars
Rd Sports Ground (excluding the
existing business and football
pitch).
The Plan is unsound in relation to
housing allocations. It should set out
how it will meet the full requirement
for housing as required by the Core
Strategy (Policy CS22).
John Wilson (It’s a Goal) (PCPS88)
We accept that there is a shortfall in
the 5-year housing land supply. A
Local Plan Review will enable the
Council to appraise options for
additional housing
allocations. Proposed sites will be
considered at that time against the
criteria set for allocation of housing
sites.
Site to be considered against criteria
to be issued.
Land at Medlock Close,
Handsworth, currently designated
as Countryside Area: Green Belt
should be proposed for housing.
Landowner – Medlock Close
(PCPS84)
Accept that there is a shortfall in the
5-year housing land supply. A Local
Plan Review will enable the Council
to appraise options for additional
housing allocations. Proposed sites
will be considered at that time
against the criteria set for allocation
of housing sites.
Site to be considered against criteria
to be issued.
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00195 Spartan Works, Attercliffe Road, Attercliffe
Reference to objection to Policy G4
Canal & River Trust (PCPS279)
Minded to accept
Amend definition of setback as
follows:
Set back' - according to
Environment Agency
requirements. This is 8 metres in
the case of Main Rivers as defined
by the Environment Agency and
up to 5 metres in the case of other
watercourses (excluding canals).
Sport England
(PCPS42, site P00162 Former
Handsworth First School)
(PCPS43, site P00204 Castle
College North)
(PCPS44, site P00230 St. John’s
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
Playing Pitches
Observation: Does not support the
release of any land for development,
which is currently used or was
formerly used for sport unless the
land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing Pitch
119
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
School)
Strategy or unless it was replaced in
an area which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00154 Fitzalan Works, Effingham Street, Attercliffe
Unsound: The condition on
Canal & River Trust (PCPS284)
Minded to Accept
development requiring ‘Development
to be set back 5 metres from the
Canal' originates from an
Environment Agency requirement for
watercourses, and the responsibility
for the canal at this location lies with
the Canal & River Trust. The Trust
reviews matters of set- back from the
canal edge on a site by site basis
having regard to structural integrity
and maintenance matters. The
wording should be amended to
reflect the requirements of the Trust.
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00184 Pinfold Works, Staniforth Road, Attercliffe
Amend justification wording as
follows:
‘Canal-side development to have
full regard to any measures
needed to safeguard the structural
integrity of the canal and allow any
access requirement for
maintenance purposes.'
Unsound: The condition on
development requiring ‘Development
to be set back 5 metres from the
Canal' originates from an
Environment Agency requirement for
watercourses, and the responsibility
for the canal at this location lies with
the Canal & River Trust. The Trust
reviews matters of set- back from the
canal edge on a site by site basis
having regard to structural integrity
and maintenance matters. The
wording should be amended to
reflect the requirements of the Trust.
Amend justification wording as
follows:
‘Canal-side development to have
full regard to any measures
needed to safeguard the structural
integrity of the canal and allow any
access requirement for
maintenance purposes.'
Canal & River Trust (PCPS281)
Minded to Accept
120
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00194 Pinfold Works, Staniforth Road, Attercliffe
Unsound: The condition on
development requiring ‘Development
to be set back 5 metres from the
Canal' originates from an
Environment Agency requirement for
watercourses, and the responsibility
for the canal at this location lies with
the Canal & River Trust. The Trust
reviews matters of set- back from the
canal edge on a site by site basis
having regard to structural integrity
and maintenance matters. The
wording should be amended to
reflect the requirements of the Trust.
Canal & River Trust (PCPS282)
Minded to Accept
Amend justification wording as
follows:
‘Canal-side development to have
full regard to any measures
needed to safeguard the structural
integrity of the canal and allow any
access requirement for
maintenance purposes.'
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00195 Spartan Works, Attercliffe Road, Attercliffe
Unsound: The condition on
development requiring ‘Development
to be set back 5 metres from the
Canal' originates from an
Environment Agency requirement for
watercourses, and the responsibility
for the canal at this location lies with
the Canal & River Trust. The Trust
reviews matters of set- back from the
canal edge on a site by site basis
having regard to structural integrity
and maintenance matters. The
wording should be amended to
reflect the requirements of the Trust.
Canal & River Trust (PCPS285)
Minded to Accept
Amend justification wording as
follows:
‘Canal-side development to have
full regard to any measures
needed to safeguard the structural
integrity of the canal and allow any
access requirement for
maintenance purposes.'
Minded to Accept
Amend justification wording as
Flexible Use Site Allocation P00202 Westways, Attercliffe Road, Attercliffe
Unsound: The condition on
Canal & River Trust (PCPS286)
121
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
development requiring ‘Development
to be set back 5 metres from the
Canal' originates from an
Environment Agency requirement for
watercourses, and the responsibility
for the canal at this location lies with
the Canal & River Trust. The Trust
reviews matters of set- back from the
canal edge on a site by site basis
having regard to structural integrity
and maintenance matters. The
wording should be amended to
reflect the requirements of the Trust.
Approach in the new Local Plan
follows:
‘Canal-side development to have
full regard to any measures
needed to safeguard the structural
integrity of the canal and allow any
access requirement for
maintenance purposes.'
Drainage/Sewerage
Unsound: P00129, Alsing Road,
Meadowhall because of the proximity
of Sewage Treatment Works at
Blackburn Meadows
Yorkshire Water (PCPS91)
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00136 Rear of Davy Steels,
Darnall; P00174 Lumley Street,
Attercliffe; P00182 Outokumpu
Site, Darnall; P00473 Former
Tinsley Marshalling Yard (West
Site); P00474 Former Tinsley
Yorkshire Water (PCPS369,
PCPS379, PCPS380, PCPS454,
PCPS455, PCPS364, PCPS378,
PCPS396, PCPS383, PCPS457,
PCPS384, PCPS377, PCPS366,
PCPS368, PCPS381, PCPS385,
PCPS386, PCPS388, PCPS389,
PCPS390, PCPS391, PCPS392,
PCPS393, PCPS394, PCPS395,
PCPS397, PCPS398, PCPS399,
PCPS422, PCPS423, PCPS424,
PCPS425, PCPS426)
Not Accepted:
P00129 Alsing Road. The site is
within a General Employment Area,
where housing is an unacceptable
use. The site is allocated for
employment uses, but as it is within a
high risk flood zone any development
here is subject to agreement with the
Environment Agency on future flood
risk modelling.
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
No change to allocation needed, but
discuss with landowner whether
allocation still necessary.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
122
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Marshalling Yard (East), P00127
Weedon Street/ Meadowhall Way;
P00164 Former Sheffield Tippers
Site, Tinsley; P00219 Nunnery
Sidings (East); P00185 Station
Road, Darnall; P00500 Infield Lane,
Darnall; P00196 Attercliffe
Canalside (Staniforth Road
Transport Depot), P00141
Broadlands, Lumley Street;
P00131 Darnall Works; P00134
Attercliffe Canalside; P00183
Pinfold Works; P00203 Blagden
Street (land to the rear of Manor
Oaks Park); P00204 Castle College
North Site, Norfolk Park; P00205
Site of Claywood Tower Blocks;
P00206 Cricket Inn Road; P00208
Fretson Road/ Motehall Road,
Manor; P00209 Harborough
Avenue/ Vikinglea Drive, Manor;
P00210 Harborough Road/
Harborough Rise, Manor; P00212
Manor Gateway Site; P00214
Manor Park Avenue; P00215 Manor
Site 8; P00222 Park Hill Flats;
P00223 Phase D, Stonecliffe Road;
P00228 Skye Edge Avenue A
Wybourn; P00330 Daresbury Drive,
Newfield Green; P00333
Kenninghall Drive, Norfolk Park;
P00335 Park Grange Drive, Norfolk
Park; P00336 Park Spring Drive A,
Norfolk Park; P00337 Park Spring
Drive B, Norfolk Park; P00424
Former Bluestones Primary
School; P00433 Errington
Crescent/Errington Road,
123
Summary of Comment
Arbourthorne; P00434 Berners
Road/Berners Place,
Arbourthorne; P00435 Algar
Place/Algar Road, Arbourthorne.
Unsound: P00129 Alsing Road,
Meadowhall because of the
proximity of Sewage Treatment
Works (Yorkshire Water).
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Yorkshire Water (PCPS91 &
PCPS365)
Not Accepted: P00129 Alsing Road.
The site is within a General
Employment Area, where housing is
an unacceptable use. The site is
allocated for employment uses, but
as it is within a high risk flood zone
any development here is subject to
agreement with the Environment
Agency on future flood risk
modelling.
Take forward these site allocations.
Environment Agency (PCPS512,
PCPS541, PCPS510, PCPS489,
PCPS513, PCPS514, PCPS540,
PCPS511)
Observations noted. No major
issues. Where appropriate, the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Flood Risk
Information that must be taken into
account when development is
proposed on multiple site allocations,
which varies depending on whether
and to what extent the site allocation
lies within Floodzone 2 or 3: P00153
Faraday Road/ Trent Street,
Attercliffe; P00501 Foley Street/
Levenson Street; P00127 Weedon
Street/ Meadowhall Way; P00129
Alsing Road; P00164 Former
Sheffield Tippers Site, Tinsley;
P00185 Station Road Darnall;
P00500 Infield Lane, Darnall;
P00131 Darnall Works, Darnall
Road.
Information setting out the process
that must be undertaken when
seeking to allocate sites and
formulate flooding policy, in relation
to Chapter 1 – Introduction and
124
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
South Yorkshire Biodiversity
Coordinator Sheffield Wildlife Trust
(PSPM66)
The ecology survey was part of
evidence gathered to help inform
whether this site was suitable for
housing development as part of the
search for additional housing sites. It
is proposed that this site remains
Open Space and is not designated
as a housing site. The Local Wildlife
site was outside of the boundary of
the proposed housing site, and the
report clarifies how far ecological
importance adjacent to the Local
Wildlife Site stretches into the site.
The report acknowledges that
additional work is needed to inform
any potential future planning
application.
See Bawtry Road Clients below
under ‘Suggested new site
allocations’.
English Heritage (PCPS153,
PCPS156, PCPS166)
Observation Noted: No major
issues. The Council will ensure that
the amendments listed are made to
reflect the presence of Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and
other matters noted, and that these
will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan review.
Chapter 12 – General Site Allocation
Policy (Environment Agency).
Ecology
Unsound: It is not clear what the
recommendations are for P00508 to
comply with NPPF policy on
ecological considerations. The
ecological report does not refer to the
adjacent Local Wildlife Site, does not
mention any Local Record Centre
search, and it does not look like an
appropriate Great Crested Newt
survey has been carried out as
recommended in the Phase 1 report.
Heritage
Observation: Heritage information
about other site allocations not listed
above, recommending various
amendments to text, including the
need to refer to the presence of
Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas as necessary. Reference
should also be made to policy G7 in
a number of paragraphs within
Chapter 10 (English Heritage). Sites
include: P00137 Barleywood Road,
P00131 Darnall Works, P00204
Castle College North Site.
125
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Support for listed building references
in P00127 Weedon
Street/Meadowhall Way; P00501
Foley Street/Levenson Street;
P00154 Fitzalan Works, Effingham
Street; P00195 Spartan Works,
Attercliffe Road; P00202 Westaways,
Attercliffe Road; P00205 Site of
Claywood Tower Block, Norfolk Park;
P00214 Manor Park Avenue; P00222
Park Hill Flats;
English Heritage (PCPS155,
PCPS154, PCPS157, PCPS158,
PCPS167, PCPS204, PCPS205)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Highways Agency
(PCPS554)
(PCPS558)
(PCPS559)
(PCPS560)
(PCPS555); SYPTE (PCPS247)
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Highways Agency (PCPS556, 557)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
SYPTE (PCPS246)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
Transport
Sound: Support site allocations:
P00182 (Outokumpu Site, Tinsley);
P00127 (Weedon Street/
Meadowhall Way; P00129 Alsing
Road, Meadowhalll; P00138
Former Betafence, Carbrook;
P00191 Sheffield Business Park
Phase 2.
Observation: The Agency previously
raised concerns over the following
wording: 'the site is close to good
road connections and national road
network'. This justification for the
allocation has not been removed or
amended. The statement could
encourage development of a site that
would generate local trips on the
SRN.
P00472 Europa Link, Darnall;
P00473 Former Tinsley
Marshalling Yard.
Observation: This site will benefit
directly from Bus Rapid Transport
and the associated trip generation is
mitigated through the Tinsley Link.
126
Summary of Comment
Development of this site without the
completed Tinsley Link will add to
local traffic congestion and put
further pressure on the nearby
motorway junctions. The site is
located within access of a range of
public transport services and where
possible, site design should
encourage public transport use
through reduced levels of car parking
and integration of smarter
infrastructure (cycle and walking
facilities).
P00127
Sound: Condition for mitigation of
traffic impact on nearby motorway
junction is acceptable - however,
further analysis is required to
determine likely impact on SRN and
mitigation requirements.
P00471 Sheffield Business Park
(Heliport)
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Highways Agency (PCPS561)
Support welcome
No change needed in response to
this comment
127
North East Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not minded to accept: The site is
designated Open Space which is
valued locally and has ecological
value.
The Local Plan review will consider
all options in order to identify
additional land to meet the housing
requirement.
Additional Housing Site Suggestion
Unsound: Smith’s Field in
Burngreave should be allocated for
housing to address the shortfall in the
5 year supply.
Redwall Estates (PCPS639)
128
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Yorkshire Water (PCPS352,
PCPS356, PCPS351, PCPS358,
PCPS414, PCPS418, PCPS419,
PCPS420, PCPS353, PCPS354,
PCPS421, PCPS404, PCPS407,
PCPS409, PCPS412, PCPS410,
PCPS405, PCPS453, PCPS406,
PCPS408, PCPS411)
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Drainage/Sewerage
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00017 Prospects Business Park
Carlisle Street; P00028 West of
Crown Hill; Petre Street; P00011
Earl Marshal Road, Firvale; P00029
Woodside redevelopment site,
Pitsmoor Road; P00299 Buchanan
Crescent, Parson Cross; P00309
Fox Hill Crescent; P00314 Lytton
Road/ Buchanan Road/
Wordsworth Avenue, Parson
Cross; P00320, Former Parson
Cross College, Remington Road;
P00022 Spital Hill; P00026 Rutland
Road, P00321 Former Parson
Cross College, Monteney Road;
P00506 Hawthorn Avenue/ coppice
Close, Stocksbridge; P00297 100120 Buchanan Crescent, Parson
Cross; P00303 Falstaff Crescent,
Parson Cross; P00304 Falstaff
Road/ Adrian Crescent, Parson
Cross; P00305 Falstaff Road/
Symons Crescent/ Murdoch Road.
129
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Pullan Homes (PSPM69)
Not accepted: Designating the Ski
Village as a Waste Management
Area would undermine the ‘City Park’
vision for the area as set out in Core
Strategy policy CS50.
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Environment Agency: PCPS502,
PCPS503.
Observations noted. No major
issues. Where appropriate, the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
English Heritage (PCPS164)
Support Noted
No change needed in response to
this comment.
Business and Industry
Unsound: The General Employment
Area is not an effective policy for the
Ski Village and land to the south. It
should be designated a Waste
Management Area if there is no
realistic prospect of restoring the
area to open space and recreation.
Flood Risk
Information that must be taken into
account when development is
proposed on multiple site allocations,
which varies depending on whether
and to what extent the site allocation
lies within Floodzone 2 or 3: P00013
Former Hartwell’s Site (Tesco
corner, Spital Hill) , P00022 Spital
Hill
Information setting out the process
that must be undertaken when
seeking to allocate sites and
formulate flooding policy, in relation
to Chapter 1 – Introduction and
Chapter 12 – General Site Allocation
Policy (Environment Agency).
Heritage
Support for heritage reference in
office site allocation P00013 Former
Hartwell’s Site, Burngreave
130
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Heritage information
about P00022 Spital Hill Burngreave,
recommending the need to refer to
the presence of Listed Buildings.
English Heritage (PCPS165)
Observation Noted
No major issues. The Council will
ensure that the amendments listed
are made to reflect the presence of
Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas
and other matters noted, and that
these will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Derwent Construction Ltd. (PSPM41)
The Flexible Use Area allows a
variety of uses and additional retail
development is subject to the tests of
acceptability under national planning
policy.
There is unlikely to be a change to
Flexible Areas in relation to this
comment. Retail designations away
from town centres are unlikely to
conform with The Town Centre First
policy.
Sport England (PCPS40)
Observation noted
Ensure that the Playing Pitch
Strategy is used as part of the
assessment of development potential
of playing fields.
Retail
Unsound: The Flexible Use Area is
neither justified nor effective for
Kilner Way because it is currently
being developed as a new retail park.
Either the Flexible Use Area is
expanded to include non-food retail
warehouse use (A1) as acceptable,
or a new policy area is created for
retail parks.
Residential Allocations
Observation: Site P00310 Foxhill
Masterplan Area. Sport England
Does not and will not support the
release of any land for development,
which is currently used or was
formerly used for sport unless the
land in question is identified as
surplus in the Sheffield Playing Pitch
Strategy or unless it was replaced in
an area which was geographically as
accessible as the current site and at
least in having the same or quantity
and quality.
131
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Site P00414 Steel
City Sports Ground. Sport England
accepts the argument that there are
sufficient tennis courts in the area but
would encourage the LPA to secure
some funding through the
redevelopment of the site for some
improvements to one or more tennis
court centres in the area.
Sport England (PCPS41)
Observation noted
Development Management matter
132
Northern Local Area Partnership
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Additional Housing Site Suggestions
Unsound: More housing land is
needed to address the shortfall in the
5 year supply, suggestion to allocate
land relating to Hepworth’s.
Bovis Homes (PSPM61)
Not accepted: All options for new
housing sites will be considered as
part of a Local Plan Review.
All options for new housing sites will
be considered as part of a Local Plan
Review.
Unsound: More housing land is
needed to address the shortfall in the
5 year supply, suggestion to allocate
land at Rodney Hill, Loxley.
Harron Homes (PCPS592)
Not accepted: All options for new
housing sites will be considered as
part of a Local Plan Review.
All options for new housing sites will
be considered as part of a Local Plan
Review.
133
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Yorkshire Water: PCPS404,
PCPS407, PCPS409, PCPS412,
PCPS410, PCPS405, PCPS453,
PCPS406, PCPS408, PCPS411.
Observation Noted: Whilst no
major issues, information provided
needs to be considered in relation to
viability.
Include in evidence base when reassessing sites as part of the Local
Plan Review.
Infrastructure
Observation: Drainage/sewerage
infrastructure information about
specific site allocations, some of
which will incur additional costs
relating to connection to the public
sewer network and/or design and
access considerations. Sites include:
P00262 next to disused railway
line, Butterthwaite Lane,
Ecclesfield; P00279 Next to Arthur
Lee Works; P00287 Smithy Wood
Chapeltown; P00295 Yarra
Industrial Estate, Loicher Lane,
Ecclesfield; P00288 South
Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit
site, High Green; P00266 Ernest
Thrope’s Lorry Park, Station Road,
Deepcar; P00440 Outokumpu site
off Manchester Road,
Stocksbridge; P00271 Former
Steins Tip, Station Road, Deepcar;
P00280 Site A Stocksbridge
Steelworks, off Manchester Road,
Stocksbridge; P00290 Ford Lane,
Stocksbridge.
134
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: P00506 Hawthorn
Avenue/Coppice Close and P00292
Sweeney House, Alpine Close, in
Stocksbridge because of potential
drainage problems (Stocksbridge
Town Council).
Yorkshire Water (PCPS12 &
PCPS13)
P00506, Hawthorn Avenue/Coppice
Close, Stocksbridge. A suitable
drainage system can be achieved,
including by use of sustainable urban
drainage systems (SUDS) as
required by Core Strategy policy. The
site is within a low flood risk area and
any flooding issues local to the site
can be partially solved by the use of
sustainable design techniques.
Requiring a developer to solve
existing flooding issues that are not a
result of proposed development on
the site would be unreasonable. With
regard to the sewer connection, a
rising main could be installed by the
developer together with pipe
widening if necessary.
Take forward these site allocations.
P00292, Sweeney House, Alpine
Close, Stocksbridge. The
redeveloped site’s capacity in relation
to the new sewage treatment works
has already been factored into the
design for the New Morehall WWTW.
Existing pipes on the site would need
to be taken into account and any
sewer pipe capacity issues would
need to be resolved at the
developer’s cost. The policy
requirement to use SUDs and reduce
runoff from the site will ensure that
the site’s development does not
worsen any local surface water
flooding issues.
135
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Business or Industrial Site Allocation P00266 Ernest Thorpe's Lorry Park, Station Road, Deepcar
Unsound: The access to the national
roadways is not suitable as it is now.
Mr Ian Richmond (PCPS1)
Not Accepted: The site allocation's
delivery section makes it clear that
the impact of proposed development
of the site on the highway network
would be assessed on submission of
a planning application. The
assessment will inform any mitigation
necessary to facilitate delivery of the
site.
A site allocation in the new plan will
ensure that the impact of the site's
development on the highway network
is assessed and the assessment is
used to determine what
improvements are required to the
highway to facilitate development.
136
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Environment Agency: PCPS523,
PCPS526, PCPS530, PCPS532,
PCPS525, PCPS529, PCPS536,
PCPS524, PCPS527, PCPS531,
PCPS528.
Observations noted. No major
issues. Where appropriate, the
conditions on development wording
will need to be updated to reflect the
changes in the comprehensive flood
review modelling and flood zones.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Flood Risk
Information that must be taken into
account when development is
proposed on multiple site allocations,
which varies depending on whether
and to what extent the site allocation
lies within Floodzone 2 or 3: P00262
Next to disused railway line, near
Butterthwaite Lane; P00276
Loicher Lane, Ecclesfield; P00287
Smithy Wood, Chapel Hill,
Chapeltown; P00295 Yarra
Industrial Estate, Loicher Lane,
Ecclesfield; P00273 G Fishers
Transport Yard, Green Lane,
Ecclesfield; P00285 26 Station
Road, Ecclesfield; P00440
Outokumpu site, off Manchester
Road, Stocksbridge; P00271
Former Steins Tip, Station Road,
Deepcar; P00280 Site A
Stocksbridge Steelworks, off
Manchester Road, Stocksbridge;
P00290 Ford Lane, Stocksbridge;
P00284 Site G Stocksbridge
Steelworks, off Manchester Road,
Stocksbridge.
Information setting out the process
that must be undertaken when
seeking to allocate sites and
formulate flooding policy, in relation
to Chapter 1 – Introduction and
Chapter 12 – General Site Allocation
Policy (Environment Agency).
137
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Housing Site Allocation P00271 Former Stein's Tip, Station Road, Deepcar
Unsound: Re-designation of the site
as a housing site is unjustified in an
area where the infrastructure is
already stretched by housing
development currently proposed.
Mrs Teresa Bisatt, Stocksbridge
Town Council (PCPS11)
Not Accepted: This site has
planning permission for Housing
development that is being
implemented. The principle of
Housing development is established
by the granting of planning
permission and this reflected in the
site's housing designation in the
Local Plan.
The site's development will add
considerably to the traffic on the main
roads into Sheffield, which are
congested at peak times and will
exacerbate delays and cause
accidents. Local amenities are
already stretched to breaking point.
Mrs A Anderson (PCPS50)
Not Accepted: The site allocation's
delivery section makes it clear that
the impact of proposed development
on the highway network will be
assessed on submission of a
planning application. This has been
done and resulted in the granting of
planning permission. The
assessment of proposed
development has informed mitigation
measures necessary to facilitate
development that will be
implemented as conditions on the
planning permission are discharged.
It is proposed to continue to reflect
the site's planning permission for
Housing development by designating
the site as part of a Housing Area in
the new Local Plan. Infrastructure
necessary to facilitate development
will be conditioned on any planning
permissions or site allocations. Any
wider infrastructure issues will be
prioritised for resolution via the CIL.
A site allocation in the new plan will
ensure that the impact of the site's
development on the highway network
is assessed and the assessment is
used to determine what
improvements are required to the
highway to facilitate development.
138
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Housing Site Allocation P00280 Site A, Stocksbridge Steel Works, off Manchester Road, Stocksbridge
Unsound: The amendments to the
site boundary to allow TATA's
expansion are supported. However
further revision is required which
removes land within the eastern
boundary P00280 and redefines it as
either flexible use Area or as a
Business and Industrial Area.
TATA Steel (UK) Ltd CLIENT
(PCPS101 and PSPM43)
Accepted: The Local Plan aims to
retain employment land in
Stocksbridge/Deepcar and TATA
retaining part of the Site for Industrial
use is consistent with the Core
Strategy's objectives. The Council
should discuss with Tata, an
amendment to the site allocation
boundary which allows for further
expansion of the Tata's operations in
this location.
Support for heritage reference
English Heritage (PCPS215)
Support noted
Minded to allow an extension of the
Industrial Area designation and a
corresponding reduction of the
Housing Area. Start negotiations
with TATA to determine the new
boundaries. Negotiations must
include an environmental buffer
between the two policy areas. The
Riverside Walk and vehicular
connection to Manchester Road at
the east of the Housing site should
also be retained.
No change needed in response to
this comment
Housing Site Allocation P00290 Ford Lane, Stocksbridge
Unsound: The inclusion of
residential institutions (C2) in the
allocation is supported. However, the
site area has increased from
previous while the allocation
boundary has not changed.
Furthermore, a sliver of land in the
south eastern corner of the allocation
should be included within the
allocation boundary. Similarly, the
allocation should be extended to the
east to include a further parcel of low
grade land in the Green Belt that
completes the Outokumpu land
holding.
TATA Steel (UK) Ltd CLIENT
(PCPS102)
Accepted in Part: The site
measurement was made to correct a
text error not to reflect a change in
the boundary. Including the area to
the south of the River Little Don (Site
1 on your plan) is consistent with the
site's planning permission and should
be reflected in the site's boundary.
The Area to the North of the River
Little Don (Site 2 on your plan) is in
the Green Belt and is designated as
a local nature site; it is a wooded
area as well as being in the Green
Belt removing this land from the
Green Belt will be considered as part
of the Local Plan review.
Add Site 1 to the Site Allocation
boundary and consider the removal
of Site 2 from the Green Belt and
Local Nature Site Designation.
139
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not Accepted: The site will remain
part of the Housing Area, which
means it could be developed for
market housing or for older person's
accommodation and may not
necessarily lead to the loss of
accommodation for older people.
Any development proposals for the
site will be subject to a transport
statement that will identify any
access issues and suggest mitigation
measures. Drainage issues can also
be identified and resolved at the
planning application stage.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
Housing Site Allocation P00292 Sweeney House, Alpine Close
Unsound: The Town Council have
concerns regarding the loss of
facilities for the elderly population,
potential drainage problems and
access issues housing would create
on this site.
Mrs Teresa Bisatt Stocksbridge Town
Council (PCPS12)
140
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Housing Site Allocations P00502 Wiggan Farm and P00507 Worrall Hall Farm, both in Worrall
Unsound: 1. Holistic approach
required re infrastructure concerns.
2. Can the Dyson site, the Hanson
Road site and the Loxley College
sites be a replacement for one of the
sites in Worrall? 3. Local Health
Service is not likely to cope with
increased housing demands. 4.
Education is on-going problem area
as local schools are already
oversubscribed with no provision for
additional capacity.
Bradfield Parish Council (PCPS20,
PCPS21)
Not Accepted: Infrastructure
required to enable the site's
development will be provided by the
developer. A holistic approach will
be taken to dealing with outstanding
infrastructure issues via the CIL. The
local health and education issues
have been fully responded to in the
additional sites consultation, via the
General Response to Comment
ASAO278. The Loxley College and
Hanson Road sites have already
been taken into account when
calculating the housing land supply
and therefore would not be a
replacement for any of the allocated
sites. The Dyson’s site is in an
unsustainable location in the Green
Belt and can only be treated as a
new site if very special
circumstances are proven to secure
planning permission. In any event,
the City requires additional sites over
and above those proposed in the
Local Plan to meet the Housing Land
Supply and these will be considered
as part of a Local Plan Review.
Allocate the sites for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
141
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Houses on this site will
change the character of Worrall by
significantly increasing the
population. Worrall Environmental
Group believes:
1. This site should remain as open
space for environmental reasons. 2.
If developed, a significant number of
houses should be affordable houses
and the numbers on this site should
be reduced. 3. There will be
problems with school placements
and with medical services. 4. The
houses should be built with local,
natural stone and locally traditional
roofing materials in order to maintain
the character of the village. 5. If
developed, homes should be built
using local, natural stone and
traditional roofing materials to
maintain the character of the village.
Unsound: The allocation is not clear
what recommendations of the site's
ecology report have been included
within the allocation.
Mr Ray Battye (PCPS51, PCPS52)
Not Accepted: Most of the issues
raised have been fully responded to
in the additional sites consultation
(ref. ASAO278). With respect to the
affordable housing provision issue,
affordable housing will be required at
30 - 40% of the proposed units
subject to viability, in line with policy
CS40. No other issues have been
raised that would prevent the site’s
allocation.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
Dr Nicola Rivers (PCPS469)
Accepted: The recommendations
from the ecological report are no
specified because they may be out of
date or incomplete by the time a
planning application is submitted, at
which point the survey would be
updated. However, The Council
agrees that there is no harm in
signalling that there are ecological
issues to be resolved prior to
development.
Retain the Housing Site allocation
and Housing Area but include a
condition that ensures the need for
an application to update the ecology
report.
142
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Objection to housing site
allocations P00502 (Wiggan Farm)
and P00507 (Worrall Hall Farm).
Current facilities/amenities such as
doctor’s surgery and local schools
are already stretched. Worrall itself
has poor facilities i.e. a very small
Post Office and two Public Houses.
In addition, a basic transport risk
assessment would highlight major
areas of concern regarding increased
traffic and congestion problems at
Malin Bridge and Hillsborough.
Mrs Debbie Summerfield (PCPS48,
PCPS49);
Mr John Herbert (PCPS15,
PCPS16).
Not Accepted: The issues raised
have been fully responded to in the
Additional Site Allocation Options
consultation (2012), via the general
response to comment ASAO278. No
new information has been presented
and none of the issues raised would
prevent conditional allocation of the
site. This site allocation will be
retained and additional new sites will
be considered across the City as part
of a Local Plan Review.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
Ms Judith Bailey (PCPS105,
PCPS106)
Not Accepted: The issues raised
have been fully responded to in the
Additional Site Allocation Options
consultation (2012), via the general
response to comment ASAO278. No
new information has been presented
and none of the issues raised would
prevent conditional allocation of the
site. This site allocation will be
retained and additional new sites will
be considered across the City as part
of a Local Plan Review.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
The land is agricultural land that has
been used for grazing and there are
a number of brownfield sites across
the city that could be alternatively redeveloped.
Not Legally Compliant: The site
should not be developed for a
number of reasons:
1. Access roads to the site are
inadequate and traffic volume will
increase significantly. 2. Wildlife will
be affected. 3. Insufficient capacity
in local schools - Number of
dwellings proposed is too high. 4.
Light and noise pollution. 5.
Provision of affordable housing/
houses would be too expensive.
143
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Heritage information
about P00507 Worrall Hall Farm
Former Steins Tip, Deepcar, should
reference a Condition on
Development relating to the need to
safeguard the setting of Fox House a
Grade II listed building.
English Heritage (PCPS217)
Observation Noted
No major issues. The Council will
ensure that the amendments listed
are made to reflect the presence of
Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas
and other matters noted, and that
these will be taken into account in the
determination of any development
proposals in their vicinity. Reference
will also be made to policy G7 in the
paragraphs noted within Chapter 10.
Include as part of evidence base
when re-assessing sites as part of
the Local Plan Review.
Housing and Open Space Site Allocation P00503 Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington
Unsound: 1. Holistic approach
required re infrastructure concerns.
2. Can the Dyson site, the Hanson
Road site and the Loxley College
sites be a replacement for one of the
sites in Worrall? 3. Local Health
Service is not likely to cope with
increased housing demands. 4.
Education is on-going problem area
as local school are already oversubscribed with no provision for
additional capacity.
Bradfield Parish Council (PCPS18)
Unsound: Greenfield/ open space
land should not be allocated for
housing development
Mrs B Pepper (PCPS80), Mr Paul
Hunt (PCPS82)
Not Accepted: Infrastructure
required to enable the site's
development will be provided by the
developer. A holistic approach will
be taken to dealing with outstanding
infrastructure issues via the
Community Infrastructure Levy. The
local health and education issues
have been fully responded to in the
Additional Site Allocation Options
consultation (2012), via the General
Response to Comment ASAO278.
The Loxley College, Hanson Road
and Dyson’s sites could not be
replacements for any of the allocated
sites because the scale of the
shortage of housing land is such that
we need to consider all of the sites
mentioned and more.
Not Accepted: The issues raised
have been fully responded to in the
Additional Site Allocation Options
consultation (2012, via the general
response to comment ASAO473.
Allocate the site for housing and
open space as per the PreSubmission City Policies and Sites
Document.
Allocation will be retained and
additional new sites will be
considered across the City as part of
a Local Plan Review.
144
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Housing Site Allocation P00506 Hawthorne Avenue/Coppice Close, Stocksbridge
Unsound: Potential drainage
problems could arise from any
development on this site. Vehicular
access issues are already apparent
in the area which has limited access.
Mrs Teresa Bisatt Stocksbridge Town
Council (PCPS13)
Not Accepted: The Council's Land
Drainage Section has assured that
drainage issues that may arise from
the site's development are
resolvable. Any planning
applications will require a
transport/highways study that will
highlight potential issues including
journeys to school, bus stops and the
condition of surrounding roads, and
will suggest mitigation.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document
Housing Site Allocation P00521 Platts Lane/Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge
As for P00502 and P00507 (PCPS20
and PCPS21 respectively)
Bradfield Parish Council (PCPS19)
As for P00502 and P00507 above;
Additional Site Allocation consultation
(2012) reference: ASAO468.
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
145
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Not Legally Compliant: The site
should not be developed for housing
for a number of reasons:
- Wildlife will be affected
- The site lies within a floodplain
- Insufficient capacity in local schools
- Traffic congestion
- Provision of affordable housing
would be too expensive.
Ms Judith Bailey (PCPS107)
Allocate the site for housing as per
the Pre-Submission City Policies and
Sites Document.
Support for heritage reference
English Heritage (PCPS216)
Not accepted: The issues raised
have been fully responded to in the
Additional Site Allocation consultation
(2012), via the general response to
comment ASAO468. Affordable
housing will be required at 30 - 40%
of the proposed units subject to
viability in line with policy CS40.
Apart from the affordable housing
issue, no new information has been
presented and none of the issues
raised would prevent conditional
allocation of the site. This site
allocation will be retained and
additional new sites will be
considered across the City as part of
a Local Plan Review.
The site is within an area with a low
probability of flooding and any
flooding issues local to the site
caused by increased surface water
run-off can be addressed by the use
of sustainable urban drainage
systems (SUDS) as required by Core
Strategy policy.
Support noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
146
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
TATA Steel UK Ltd (PSPM42)
Minded to accept: We recognise
the need to support the expansion of
a big local employer, but this has to
be considered in light of the
proposed extension to the District
Centre. Land associated with TATA
Steel’s operations should be
designated as part of the General
Employment Area, providing certainty
of the need for employment uses with
a degree of flexibility.
Place TATA operational land in the
General Employment Area while
Retail
Unsound: Land associated with
TATA Steel’s new industrial test
facility in Stocksbridge should be
removed from the District Centre and
designated General Employment
Area or Business and Industrial Area.
147
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Retail/Mixed Use Site Allocation P00440 Outokumpu Site, Off Manchester Road, Stocksbridge
Unsound - Not Positively Prepared
and Unjustified: We support the
removal of land associated with Tata
Steel’s new industrial test facility from
the site allocation P00440. However,
there is no justification why remaining
TATA operational land should be
designated within the District Centre.
The designation places unnecessary
restrictions on the delivery of Tata’s
future expansion plans. The land
would be more appropriately
designated to reflect B1a, B1b, B1c
uses as ‘preferred’. An appropriate
relationship with adjacent District
Centre development can be achieved
without restricting uses in this area to
District Centre uses only.
TATA Steel (UK) Ltd CLIENT
(PSPM42)
Accepted: The area to the east of
Hunshelf Road when approaching
P00440 from Manchester Road is
crucial to maintaining the connectivity
between the primary shopping area
and the rest of the District Centre and
also contains land reserved for a
Future Rail halt. However, it is
acknowledged that the District Centre
designation covering TATA's
adjacent Test Centre related
development constrains TATA's
future expansion. Therefore the
District Centre designation next to
Hunshelf Road will be retained while
the designation covering the test
centre and TATA car parks will be
changed to a General Employment
Area, which will make test centre
related uses acceptable in principle
while retail is decided on its merits,
giving TATA the flexibility it needs
without compromising the District
Centre's connectivity or environment.
Remove the District Centre
designation from TATA operational
land and extend the General
Employment Area to cover TATA's
Test Centre related development.
Make no changes to the Site
Allocation.
148
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Highways Agency
(PCPS568, PCPS572, PCPS566,
PCPS567, PCPS569, PCPS570
PCPS573, PCPS574, PCPS571)
Further evidence required to
determine likely impact.
Seek further evidence from
respondent.
Transport
Unsound: Concern over wording
‘conveniently located for accessing
the motorway’ for these sites. This
could encourage development of
sites that would generate local trips
on the Strategic Road Network. A
condition for mitigation may be
required for these allocations;
however, further analysis is required
to determine likely impact on the
SRN.P00272 Former Tilscan depot,
Station Road; P00289 Station
Road; P00262 Next to disused
railway line near Butterthwaite
Lane, Ecclesfield; P00270 Former
Petrol Depot, Johnson Lane,
Station Road, Ecclesfield; P00276
Loicher Lane, Ecclesfield; P00279
Next to Arthur Lee Works, Loicher
Lane, Ecclesfield; P00295 Yarra
Industrial Estate, Loicher Lane;
P00273 G Fishers Transport Yard,
Green Lane, Ecclesfield; P00285
26 Station Road, Ecclesfield.
149
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Observation: Previous appraisals of
this allocation have revealed that the
site has a red LUTI scoring and not
supported by public transport.
However, since the beginning of the
Sheffield Bus Partnership, there has
been a change to the commercial
bus network and the site is now
supported by the Stagecoach 88 (a
high frequency service terminating at
Smithy Wood). The continued use of
this area is uncertain, however, any
growth of the area and derived trip
generation will provide demand that
could retain this arrangement.
The site now has outline planning
consent for business and industrial
development.
P00287
Unsound: The condition relating to
the Strategic Road Network has been
changed following the Agency's
previous comments, to read: 'The
impact of traffic on the SRN,
including nearby motorway junction,
to be assessed to inform mitigation
measures' Suggest this should be a
condition of development rather than
a statement of how the site will be
delivered.
P00266
P00271
SYPTE (PCPS254)
Highways Agency (PCPS656)
Observation noted
Consider amending as the site now
has outline planning permission.
Highways Agency (PCPS576, 575)
Observation noted
Consider whether the suggested
wording should be a condition on
development.
150
Summary of Comment
Name of Respondent(s)
Council Response
Approach in the new Local Plan
Unsound: Conditions on
Development must include the
retention of the existing rail halt
facility. There are ambitions to
reopen the facility as a tram
extensions and the retention of this
facility will ensure that the future
protection of this rail alignment is
secured.
P00440
Observation: This is an allocation of
sufficient size to deliver a large
number of housing and therefore it is
vitally important that public transport
is connected. The site is located
adjacent to the A6102 Manchester
Road with high frequency tram
connector services. It must also be
noted that SYPTE is currently
investigating potential new tram
extensions with a possible route
along the Penistone line towards
Stocksbridge. The route will bypass
this site to the north following the
existing rail alignment; however,
there may be scope for a stop
location on the north of site.
P00271
SYPTE (PCPS256)
Minded to accept
Include retention of rail halt facility as
a condition on development.
SYPTE (PCPS253)
Observation noted
No change needed in response to
this comment
151