Development Services Report to Cabinet
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL Development, Environment and Leisure Directorate REPORT TO CABINET DATE 11 July 2007 REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ITEM DEL SUBJECT SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY: SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY OF STATE SUMMARY Approval is sought to submit the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) to the Government with a view to adoption by the beginning of 2009 having received the Inspector’s binding recommendations. The Core Strategy contains the vision and objectives for the SDF and its main spatial policies. Major strategic issues concern the supply of land for housing and employment and the potential to provide for the increased number of trips that will result from new development. RECOMMENDATIONS That: The Cabinet agree that the Core Strategy be submitted for independent examination to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as required by Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 The Core Strategy be referred to the full meeting of the City Council on 25 July 2007 for approval Future non-statutory draft area action plans and other planning documents issued for public consultation be in broad conformity with the submitted Core Strategy, unless representations or further evidence for the public examination indicate otherwise The submitted Core Strategy be used to inform planning decisions in the period up to publication of the Inspector’s Report in 2008, unless representations or further evidence for the public examination indicate otherwise. RELEVANT SCRUTINY BOARD IF DECISION CALLED IN Culture, Economy and Sustainability FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS YES NO PARAGRAPHS 13.1 CLEARED BY Paul Schofield BACKGROUND PAPERS Document for approval: SDF Core Strategy CONTACT POINT FOR ACCESS Peter Rainford TEL NO: 273 5897 AREA(S) AFFECTED All Panel Areas CATEGORY OF REPORT OPEN CLOSED Paragraphs(s) Statutory and Council Policy Checklist Category of Report OPEN Financial Implications NO – para. 13.1 [still to be verified by Paul Schofield] Equal Opportunities Implications YES Area Panel(s) Affected All Environmental Sustainability YES Community Safety Implications NO Human Rights Implications NO Relevant Scrutiny Board if decision called in Culture, Economy and Sustainability Press Release YES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT TO CABINET 11 JULY 2007 SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY: SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY OF STATE 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To seek Cabinet’s agreement to refer the Core Strategy to the full City Council for approval of submission of the document to the Secretary of State for independent examination with a view to eventual statutory adoption. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The Sheffield Development Framework sets out planning policy and spatial strategy for the city. The main citywide documents are the Core Strategy, which sets out the overall objectives and the spatial policies, City Policies, which contains policies to guide design and the development control process and City Sites, which allocates sites for specific land uses. 2.2 The citywide documents now being prepared will carry statutory weight once they are formally adopted. But, to allow them to be adopted, the Council has to follow a process set out in regulations and the documents have to be submitted to the Government for independent scrutiny by a Planning Inspector. 2.3 The process for preparation requires early consultation on alternative options followed by a formal stage of public consultation on Preferred Options before the documents are completed. Preferred Options for the Core Strategy were consulted on in February/April last year. More recently (11 April 2007) Cabinet approved Preferred Options for the other citywide documents for consultation (from 8 June to 20 July). A further consultation occurred in February/ March this year to deal with Additional Options that had not been consulted on earlier in the process. 2.4 The Core Strategy will soon be ready for the next stage of the process, which is submission to the Government. This version will be the Council’s last opportunity to shape its contents. 2.5 The Core Strategy will be accompanied by a key diagram, which illustrates the text of the Core Strategy. 3. CHANGES SINCE THE PREFERRED OPTIONS 3.1 The broad shape of the Core Strategy remains as it was at the Preferred Options stage. The objectives and spatial strategy received significant support and the changes now recommended are mainly by way of elaboration, strengthening and updating of the evidence base, consideration of the means of delivery and amendments to reflect more specific Government guidance and decisions by Planning Inspectors about the earliest documents that they have scrutinised. 3.2 To satisfy the Inspector the Council will have to demonstrate that the Core Strategy is ‘sound’ and that means complying with nine tests that are set out in Government guidance. We have consulted the Government Office in Leeds about a draft version of the Core Strategy and made changes to enhance the soundness of the text. The main issue that they have suggested we check out to ensure soundness is the adequacy of the provision for housing and whether there is enough flexibility to respond to unforeseen changes in circumstances. This is not an isolated issue and there are major implications for other strategic issues including housing densities, provision for jobs and the protection of the Green Belt. These issues are considered in turn below. 4. ADEQUACY OF HOUSING LAND 4.1 Provision of sufficient land for housing is a major current concern of Government and new national guidance has been issued since the Preferred Options were prepared. The requirement to be met within the city is set down in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which has now been prepared in draft and examined by a Panel. The Panel have issued their recommendations and the Government will report their proposed changes to the Strategy in September. The Sheffield Core Strategy Preferred Options had anticipated a requirement for 24,600 dwellings from 2004 to 2021 but this figure was based on the Draft Revised RSS and, for various reasons, has had to be increased. 4.2 The RSS Panel Report recommends increasing Sheffield’s housing requirement up to 2021 but it does not include a recommendation on what the housing requirement should be for the period 2021 to 2026. It notes, however, that, ideally, the RSS should look ahead to 2026 on the grounds that the latest national planning policy requires LDFs to plan for at least 15 years housing growth. This matter will need to be addressed by the Government in their proposed changes to the RSS but it means there is still some uncertainty about what the total requirement for new housing will be for the longer period. However, if the Panel Report figures up to 2021 were rolled forward the total housing requirement would be around 33,350 dwellings over the period 2004 to 2026. 4.3 Sufficient land has been identified to meet this requirement, with capacity for 37,100 dwellings. This leaves a net margin equivalent to 3,750 dwellings, which is around 13% of the overall requirement not already met by completions. But this depends on ‘windfall’ sites becoming available that it is not yet possible to identify specifically or allocate. A key question is whether this is a wide enough margin to allow for unforeseen changes. One of the soundness tests is about the strategy’s ability to respond to changes in circumstances. We do not yet know what changes the Government may propose to the Regional Spatial Strategy (they are due in July 2007) but there is evidence from the latest official household projections (postdating the RSS Public Examination) that future requirements for the region (including Sheffield) will increase again. The issues for the Sheffield Core Strategy are: Should additional flexibility be incorporated at this stage and, if so, how much flexibility would be appropriate? How robust are the present land supply figures? What would be the implications for other uses of extra flexibility for housing and would these implications be acceptable? What would be the implications of not increasing the level of flexibility? What would be the most sustainable way of proceeding? 4.4 These questions are explored in the following sections. 5. FLEXIBILITY AND THE PLAN-MAKING PROCESS 5.1 The answer to the first question above is influenced by the statutory process for preparing and consulting on the new-style planning documents. This process requires the consideration of alternative options in the early stages of document preparation. Major changes (such as those that might follow provision of significant additional margins of housing land) introduced late in the process could lead to one of two outcomes. The first is that the document would be ruled unsound, because late changes went beyond the scope of the options that had been consulted on. The second is that the document would be submitted late, in order to allow additional consultation and related policy work to be carried out. Both considerations would mean delay in getting the Core Strategy adopted and this itself would have planning consequences that need to be taken into account. This would support not making significant changes at this stage if they are not essential to make the Core Strategy sound. 6. ROBUSTNESS OF THE HOUSING LAND FIGURES 6.1 The housing land figures are considered robust and likely to be achieved. More than half of the total of 37,100 dwellings is already provided for by completions since 2004, sites under construction and sites already having planning permission. Nearly 9,000 further dwellings are expected from allocations proposed for the City Sites document, at least 2,900 dwellings could be provided on other land in transition areas and nearly 6,000 dwellings are anticipated on small windfall sites. The policies reflect the initiatives being taken by the Transform South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder and this will make a major contribution to releasing suitable sites.