Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CITY POLICIES AND SITES DOCUMENT
CHARACTER AND HERITAGE BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street SHEFFIELD S1 2SH June 2013
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. Introduction 1
2. G5 Development and Area Character 5
3. G6A Development in Countryside Areas including the Green 17 Belt
4. G6B Landscape Character 39
5. G7 Development and Heritage Assets 49
6. Policy Areas: 61
- Countryside Areas (Green Belt)
- Countryside Areas (Non-Green Belt)
7. Other Options not Taken Forward 67
Appendices
1. Villages and Substantially Developed Road Frontages in the 69 Green Belt – Extent of Development
2 Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Green Belt Boundary 81
1 INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1 This report provides evidence to support the published policies for the City Policies and Sites document of the Sheffield Local Plan.
1.2 The Sheffield Local Plan is the new name, as used by the Government, for what was known as the Sheffield Development Framework. It is Sheffield’s statutory development plan, which the local planning authority is required by law to produce. .
1.3 The Local Plan includes the Core Strategy, which has already been adopted, having been subject to formal public examination. It sets out the vision and objectives for the Local Plan and establishes its broad spatial strategy.
1.4 The City Policies and Sites document now supplements this, containing:
- Criteria-based policies to inform development management and design guidance - Policy on land uses appropriate to a range of area types across the city - Allocations of particular sites for specific uses
1.5 The document was originally proposed to be two, City Policies and City Sites. Both of these have already been subject to two stages of consultation:
- Emerging Options - Preferred Options
1.6 The Emerging Options comprised the broad choices, which were drawn up to enable the Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of drawing up the document1. Having consulted on these options the Council decided which to take forward as Preferred Options.
1.7 The Preferred Options were published and consulted on as the ones that the Council was minded to take forward to submission2. However, the choice of option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging Options had been rejected and why.
1 Emerging Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) and Emerging Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) – see Sheffield City Council - Emerging Options 2006 2 Preferred Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) and Preferred Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) – see Sheffield City Council - Preferred Options 2007
-1-
1.8 Work following the Preferred Options was delayed whilst priority was given to the public examination of the Core Strategy. In the subsequent version, the Consultation Draft3, the section on policies was much shorter than in the Preferred Options report, reflecting the transfer of some issues to the Core Strategy, the condensing of many policy options and the proposed transfer of other matters to Supplementary Planning Documents.
1.9 The present version of the City Policies and Sites document has been published as the Council’s final version, for final representations by stakeholders and other members of the public followed by submission to the Government and public examination. A schedule of changes may be produced following representations and a final chapter will be added to each Background Report to explain why the changes have been proposed.
1.10 The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the policies are sound. That is the issue on which representations are invited, in line with national policy. The policy document itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies. So, the more detailed evidence and analysis is found in the Background Reports.
1.11 The Background Reports are not part of the Sheffield Local Plan but they contribute to the process of preparing it. So they are not published as the subject for representations though comments on the soundness of the policies may well take up evidence or conclusions set out in the Reports.
1.12 This report supports the published policies in the chapter titled Character and Heritage. The chapters in this report are based on each of the policies:
G5 Development and Area Character G6A Development in Countryside Areas including the Green Belt G6B Landscape Character G7 Development and Heritage Assets
1.13 The chapters deal with each of the soundness considerations in turn:
- Consistency with national and other strategic policy - Justification - Effectiveness - Conclusions on Soundness – drawing together the strands under the four criteria for soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
1.14 A further chapter deals with related policy areas and the final chapter covers options not followed through to the current draft version.
3 City Policies and Sites: Consultation Draft (May 2010) – see Sheffield City Council - City Policies and Sites
-2-
1.15 The policies dealt with in this background report directly support the Core Strategy aim that says Sheffield will prize, protect and enhance its natural environment and distinctive heritage and promote high quality buildings and spaces.
1.16 This Background Report does not deal with matters that have already been covered in the Core Strategy and the background reports associated with that document4. The chapter on Prizing, Protecting and Enhancing Sheffield’s Natural Environment and in the Core Strategy contains a number of strategic policies which are relevant to the issues coved in this background report. Those policies are:
CS71 Protecting the Green Belt CS72 Protecting Countryside not in the Green Belt CS74 Design Principles
1.17 Issues relating to design are covered in the Design Background Report. Some features which can affect the character of the city (water in the landscape, trees, woodland and wildlife) are dealt with in the Green Environment Background Report.
4 Available at http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/sdf- background-reports/core-strategy-background-reports
-3-
2 DEVELOPMENT AND AREA CHARACTER
Introduction
2.1 Policy G5 establishes a number of key design principles for design and character that are required to deliver the Core Strategy vision for prizing, protecting and enhancing its natural environment and distinctive heritage and promoting high- quality buildings and spaces. It does not cover more generic design matters, which are dealt with in other policies in the Core Strategy and Local Plan documents.
2.2 The Core Strategy includes a number of policies on design, in particular on overall design principles (CS74), on Improvements to Gateway Routes (CS75) and Tall Buildings (CS76). Character is also an issue for the density of housing (see policy CS26)
2.3 Policy G5 identifies the detailed aspects of character in relation to design quality within Sheffield.
2.4 This policy is closely associated with policy G10, Design Quality, which sets out a series of design criteria to ensure a high standard of development throughout the city. In addition, it is also related to policy B1, which sets out the character and design intentions for the various city centre Quarters. Other policies within the current document dealing with aspects of design are G11, Tall Buildings, G13, Shopfront Design and G14, Advertisements.
Policy G5
Development and Area Character
Development should respond to, take advantage of and where appropriate, conserve the architectural, historic and landscape character of the site, its surroundings and the wider neighbourhood. In particular, it should address:
a. the city’s distinctive topography and landforms; and
b. the prevailing townscape character, including the street width, enclosure and boundary characteristics, garden size, and the pattern and arrangement of surrounding streets and spaces; and
c. significant features such as corner buildings, open spaces, street trees and boundary walls; and
d. important views into and out of the development; and
-5-
e. the scale, height, massing and form of neighbouring buildings; and
f. the particular building styles, proportions, materials and details; and
g. the characteristic parking arrangements.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
2.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 7 highlights the environmental role of the planning system, which includes contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. Local character is an important aspect of this and policy G5 assists by identifying the elements of character within Sheffield that should inform the delivery of quality development.
2.6 Paragraph 57 highlights the importance of achieving high quality design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Policy G5 outlines the elements of character that need to be considered in developing proposals across the city, in relation to the broad context and landscape (e.g. in its criteria a, b, c, d, e and g) and the design of buildings (e.g. in criteria f).
2.7 Paragraph 58 states that local plans should set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area, based on an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics, and ensure that developments, amongst other things, establish a strong sense of place; respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. Policy G5 sets out the characteristics that help to define ‘sense of place’ within Sheffield, relating to the arrangement of streets and spaces (e.g. criteria b, c and g) and the design quality of buildings and landscaping (e.g. criteria e and f).
2.8 Paragraph 59 states that design should ‘concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.’ Policy G5 assists this by requiring development to connect well to its surroundings (e.g. criterion b), for buildings to retain important views (e.g. criterion d), and to respond to neighbouring buildings (e.g. criterion e).
2.9 Paragraph 60 indicates that planning policies should not impose architectural styles or stifle innovation, but that it is appropriate to seek or promote and reinforce local distinctiveness. The criteria are, therefore, set out in broad terms, allowing considerable scope for creativity and innovation. Policy G5 supports this
-6-
by setting out what the various aspects of character are across Sheffield that contribute to local distinctiveness.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
2.10 The Core Strategy sets out the Local Plan objectives for prizing, protecting and enhancing the natural environment and distinctive heritage and promoting high quality buildings and spaces. Policy G5 directly relates to the delivery of six of these:
S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created.
S14.1 Enhanced character and distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting existing local character and built and natural features to provide the context for new development.
S14.2 Preservation and enhancement of buildings and areas that are attractive, distinctive or of heritage value in urban and rural settings.
S15.1 High-quality and inclusiveness in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the spaces around and between them, with provision for everyone wishing to use them.
S15.2 The built environment maintained and safeguarded in neighbourhoods where it is already acceptable.
S15.3 New character and improved design and townscape in neighbourhoods where the environment has become run down.
The policy has an important role in achieving these objectives by setting out those different aspects of character that need to be responded to in order to take advantage of or conserve distinctiveness.
2.11 Core Strategy Policy CS74 Design Principles sets out the city-wide design principles, indicating the overarching requirements for all development within the city. It draws out some of the distinctive components of the townscape and landscape of Sheffield but only at a citywide level. Policy G5 develops these principles further, reflecting the importance of character and local distinctiveness in reinforcing the qualities of different parts of the city. This contributes to a number of the criteria of policy CS74, in particular: helping contribute to place- making that promotes the city’s transformation (part e), transforming the character of physical environments (part f) and contributing towards achieving attractive, sustainable and successful neighbourhoods (part h). This reflects the importance of preserving and reinforcing character, as well as seeking to introduce a different character where the current environment is run down.
-7-
Other Strategies
2.12 The Sheffield Economic Masterplan recognises maximising Sheffield’s Image and Identity as a key component in delivering one of the key strategic themes of Productive and Competitive Businesses5. It highlights the need for Sheffield to develop a clear brand identity and sets out a series of targets for achieving this. It identifies a series of ‘city products’ that define the city, one of which is the image/ quality of life of the city as a whole, and what makes Sheffield a distinctive investment and visitor destination. Policy G5 contributes towards achieving the distinctiveness theme in these targets.
Justification for the Policy
Issues that the Policy addresses
2.13 Character is a central theme of good design, helping to ensure that a place is successful and responsive to its environment and community. This has been clearly outlined in planning policy guidance6, where character is defined as ‘a place with its own identity’.
2.14 Character is also recognised as a fundamental component in achieving quality in terms of residential design, as set out in the Building for Life standards developed by CABE in association with Design for Homes and the Home Builders Federation. The associated checklist provides a series of questions that need to be addressed specifically in relation to character, to ensure that schemes are successful. This policy expands upon those national components and provides specific Sheffield specific elements to ensure this.
2.15 Whilst there has been much successful development across the city, there are instances where it has failed to respond to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding neighbourhood, leading to a broad suppression of character within a particular area, which undermines local distinctiveness and the unique qualities of different parts of the city.
2.16 Sheffield has a varied topography, and successful development needs to respond to it, both to create a successful relationship with the street, but also to reinforce the hills themselves. There are instances where development has failed to respond to the city’s topography, which results in a reduced appreciation of the hills and valleys throughout the city, as well as potentially a loss of views.
2.17 Secondly, reinforcing local distinctiveness helps to retain a sense of place, both in comparison with other towns and cities, but also between neighbourhoods within the city. This recognises and reinforces the distinctive qualities of different areas,
5 Sheffield Economic Masterplan Creative Sheffield p11 6 By design: urban design in the planning system: towards best practice (CABE 2000)
-8-
and can have a strong bearing on social well-being of communities who have a strong association with a particular area. Retaining character can have a direct impact on the image of an area or neighbourhood, and can help to strengthen identity and also assist in wayfinding and ease of navigation.
2.18 Character is a dynamic concept, and whilst there are parts of the city with a strong, intact character that needs to be respected, there are also areas where the existing character is poor and change should be encouraged. Policy G5 outlines the different elements of character that need to be evaluated in determining the correct development approach to respond to this context.
Alternative Options for the Policy
2.19 Policy G5 is a new policy, which amalgamates two drafts in previous Emerging and Preferred Options, one relating to development and its setting, the other to design that is clear and easy to understand.
(a) The policy includes a number of different criteria relating to various aspects of character, and for most of the criteria there are no real alternatives other than not having a policy at all. Therefore, the only alternative considered is:
• No specific policy on character
2.20 The main strength of this option is:
(a) Not responding to character across the city might reduce costs of, or other constraints on, development.
2.21 The main weaknesses of this option are:
It would not ensure that development responds to the qualities of the city, and would fail to reinforce the detailed characteristics of particular areas, which is important in retaining a sense of place.
(a) Core Strategy CS74, together with other policies within this document, would not be sufficient to achieve the appropriate level of design quality across the city. Appreciating and responding to local character and distinctiveness is an essential component in ensuring that development is appropriate in its particular location and responds to the surrounding scale, massing, materials and features.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
2.22 This option was rejected because the need to ensure that development reinforced character and distinctiveness outweighed the potential for additional development that might be gained through only having general policies on design. This is a clear requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework, which urges local
-9-
planning authorities to include comprehensive policies on design (see paragraph 58), which states that planning policies should aim to ensure that developments establish a strong sense of place and respond to local character and history.
2.23 An important issue that flows from the option is the concern that too great an emphasis on character would overshadow the local economic need for development, a point made in one of the consultation responses (dcps 554). This is not the intention of the policy, and the wording has been clarified to reflect the greater flexibility requested, as outlined in paragraph 2.18 above. An appreciation and understanding of character remains an essential component of good design, which should ensure that new development responds appropriately to its surroundings, either through reinforcing the existing character or by seeking to introduce new character where it is not of sufficient quality or coherence to justify its reinforcement. Whilst this requires sensitive balance, the importance of character as a principal consideration should be the principal starting point in determining the appropriate approach.
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
2.24 The policy seeks to ensure that character is recognised and responded to, but indicates that development should respond to it, take advantage of it and where appropriate conserve it. As indicated in paragraphs 2.18 and 2.23 above, the policy recognises that the correct approach may vary across the city. This flows from Core Strategy policy CS74, which seeks to reinforce place-making (criterion e) and also help transform the character of physical environments that have become run down and are lacking in distinctiveness (criteria f)
2.25 Criterion (a) highlights the importance of topography and landform to Sheffield. The series of hills and valleys that characterise the city comprise a unique backdrop, and the aim is to ensure that development retains this characteristic; being at a scale that does not flatten the topography and through stepping to reinforce the hills. ‘Stepping’ of buildings to respond to the topography is a characteristic unique to the city, which has the added advantage that it also helps to ensure that buildings relate well to the street, avoiding large expanses of blank frontage at ground level, which is a key element in helping to ensure an attractive and safe pedestrian environment.
2.26 Criterion (b) seeks to ensure that the particular characteristics of the local street pattern are recognised and understood, and help to either reinforce or alter the character of an area. . Different parts of the city exhibit wholly different street arrangements, patterns and widths, which generally relate to the age and type of buildings within the area. In a number of instances, these characteristics reflect particular historic aspirations, such as pre-war garden suburb estates such as at the Manor, or related to particular industries, such as at Walkley, where distinctive housing and plot sizes developed by Land Societies linked to the city’s Metal Trades.
-10-
2.27 The response to character also has a strong interrelationship with design quality. In areas where there is an attractive existing character, with a strong arrangement of interconnected streets and a logical hierarchy, this should be continued and reinforced. In certain parts of the city, however, the street width and enclosure is poor, with no discernible hierarchy, poor boundary treatments and a fragmented layout. In these circumstances, policy G5 would not discourage a more transformational approach, that would seek to provide a greater degree of enclosure and a stronger hierarchy, which would assist in creating a more distinctive and understandable environment.
2.28 Criterion (c) highlights the importance of recognising significant features within the local area. These could be natural features, such as hills and associated views or river valleys, or man-made features or objects of interest, such as boundary walls, historic gas lamps or landmark buildings. In the case of boundary walls, these generic elements can cumulatively produce a coherent characteristic within the area, as illustrated in large parts of the city where boundary walls form a key element of the streetscene and provide character for the street. Relating to complementary policy G10 (c), boundary walls also have a particular role in good design through providing clear definition of private space.
2.29 Criterion (d) recognises the importance of views, which is intimately linked to the natural topography of the city and the numerous vantage points from which to enjoy both panoramic views across the city or across particular valleys. This is a particularly distinctive aspect of the city, and serves to connect and visually unify often disparate elements of the city into a cohesive whole.
2.30 Criterion (e) highlights the importance of scale of the surrounding area. Differences in scale, height, massing and form can significantly alter the character of an area. Whilst, in some instances, this can bring a welcome change in scale, such as along Campo Lane within the Cathedral Quarter, there can also be instances where it can represent an unwelcome change that alters the strong character of a Quarter, such as West One in Devonshire Green. The criterion seeks to ensure that development recognises the importance of scale, proportions and massing as a mechanism in ensuring that development makes an appropriate contribution towards an area’s character. This has a clear relationship with the need to retain views, highlighted in criterion G10d.
2.31 Criterion (f) sets out the need to take account of the detailed components of construction, such as building materials and styles, which are distinctive to architecture in Sheffield. There are certain building materials and styles that are particularly distinctive to Sheffield. These include the use of natural stone or a dark red brick, together with the use of stone heads and sills, along with slate roofs is characteristic of large parts of the city. The incorporation of these materials, together with the wider style and proportions, even in more contemporary designs, helps to reinforce the image and identity of the city, and create development that is distinctive to the city.
-11-
2.32 Criterion (g) seeks to ensure that parking solutions respond to the prevailing response within the wider area. Parking is often a key issue in determining developments, but often there is conflict between meeting standard parking requirements and achieving a development that reinforces local character, particularly in infill developments. There are numerous instances where the choice of parking solution has a particularly negative impact on the streetscene, such as the introduction of a series of integral garages along a street, resulting in a sterilisation of the ground floor environment by virtue of the loss of ground floor rooms, resulting in a poor relationship between the buildings and the street. The policy seeks to address this though promoting the predominant parking arrangements
2.33 The treatment and arrangement of parking is often a fundamental aspect of the character of an area in the case of older parts of the city where there are significant areas of terraced housing. Although it is acknowledged that this type of housing predated car ownership, the prevailing solution – on-street parking – has become a significant aspect of the character of these areas in itself, whilst also helping to retain other key aspects of character such as boundary walls and small front gardens.
2.34 Associated with this, on street parking also exhibits a number of strong design features particularly supported in national best practice guidance PPG37 companion guide: it acts as a buffer between the road and the pavement, and reduces the movement of vehicles across the pavement. Alternative solutions, such as the introduction of integral garages or paved front gardens tend to remove traditional features such as boundary walls and front gardens.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.35 The Sustainability Appraisal indicated that the policy would assist in realising a number of the sustainability objectives, particularly those relating to a quality built environment, protection of the historic environment and maintenance and enhancement of quality natural landscapes. The Appraisal confirmed that the extent and scope of the policy was appropriate and that the aspects of character set out were important and helped to realise sustainable development within the city.
Equality Appraisal
2.36 The Equality Appraisal showed that the policy would have a positive impact upon a number of the planning impact groups, particularly in relation to people with low access to private transport, people on low incomes and people with physical disabilities or infirmities or physical ill health. Both options achieved a positive score for these groups, but the policy was more effective because the focus on understanding and reinforcing character within local areas resulted in an
7 Better Places to live by design: A companion guide to PPG3
-12-
attractive and pleasant environment within local areas for those who are often unable to travel outside their local environment.
Consultee Preferences
2.37 There were seven consultee comments on the draft policy as consulted on in 2010, of which there was one objection. This was from Scottish Widow Investment (dcps554) who inferred a conflict between the aspiration of this policy and the effective realisation of policy B1 on the character of specific Quarters in the City Centre. This was not the intention and the wording has been altered to clarify by indicating that development should respond to rather than respect aspects of character. This was considered to provide sufficient flexibility to encourage regeneration in areas that are run down, whilst achieving the principal objective of the policy to respect elements of character to reinforce local distinctiveness.
2.38 Consultation responses have consistently supported the need to ensure that the policy is Sheffield specific, and therefore locally relevant. Representations made on previous draft policy have indicated the importance of ensuring that policy is locally grounded and necessary in the context of the city. The policy has been drafted, therefore, in terms of the specific distinctive qualities that manifest themselves across the city, that need to be responded to at a local level.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
Viability
2.39 The implementation of a number of criteria within policy G5 will not necessarily affect viability as they deal with aspects of layout (e.g. criterion b), features within the surrounding area (e.g. criterion c) and the retention of views (e.g. criterion d), which should inform the design of development. There is some implication for development costs in the relation to the use of materials (e.g. criterion f), although this will be offset by increased value through improved design quality.
2.40 The approach to costs is outlined in paragraph 2.23 above, and it is considered that this offers sufficient flexibility to ensure that the objective of character and local distinctiveness is balanced successfully with the need to ensure development and economic growth.
2.41 Accommodating parking ‘off-plot’ can have significant implications for viability, as well as impacting on design and character of a particular area. Achieving a set number of parking spaces per plot can have an overbearing impact on the layout and directly impact on density. The policy seeks to promote a flexible approach which has a positive impact on viability. Although on-street parking does not
-13-
directly deliver set numbers, it is inherently flexible in that it mediates between levels of car ownership across the site and wider area.
Mechanism and Agency
2.42 Delivery of the policy will be primarily through the development management process and by imposing conditions on development. For residential development, a Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document will set out in detail how the criteria in the policy will be satisfied. Planning Briefs for key sites will also be prepared which will spell out how specific criteria can be met on a particular site.
2.43 As part of their planning application, developers will be expected to submit a Design and Access Statement – see the Council’s web-site and Background Report on Design (see policy G10)8. An understanding of context and character will be expected to be demonstrated within the proposals, as evidenced within the Design and Access Statement. Specific details that require conditions will be agreed during negotiation discussions.
2.44 For larger developments, or those on prominent or significant sites, a streetscene elevation should be provided that can help to provide information on how the proposal sits within its context. The drawings, dwelling plans and written element of the statement read together should demonstrate compliance with the policy and SPD.
2.45 Internal design advice on both pre-applications and planning applications will be provided by urban design, conservation and landscape design specialists as part of the development management process and in the development and production of Briefs and Masterplans. The Design Team will seek to engage in discussions concerning sites at the earliest possible stage to ensure that the issues about character are addressed.
2.46 The Council has set up an independent Sustainable Development and Design Panel, which offers expert design advice on strategic as well as important schemes within the city. The Panel includes representation from both English Heritage and the local Conservation Advisory Group. The work of the Panel will be strengthened through the introduction of strong design policies for development across the city.
2.47 The implementation of the policy will involve working with other agencies on facilitating, funding and undertaking regeneration across the city. These bodies include the Sheffield First Partnership, the Local Enterprise Partnership and English Heritage.
8 http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/applicaions/making-an- application/lpar/design-and-access-statements
-14-
Resources
2.48 As the policy will be implemented through the development management process, there are no obvious direct resource constraints on delivery. The main risks arising from the policy relate to any increased build-costs for developers, already considered in relation to viability.
2.49 The Council’s in-house Urban and Environmental Design Team has significant expertise in the design of public spaces, landscaping, streets and routes throughout the City Centre. The Team will have a role in commenting on and, where appropriate contributing to consideration of how character informs local design, and the appropriate manner in which local distinctiveness might be reinforced in a contemporary development.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
2.50 Policy G5 sets out, in broad terms what is required in terms of development and character across the city. The policy provides flexibility in terms of the design response to character, which may vary depending on the qualities of the existing area; in terms of how to respond to the current character and what might need to be conserved. The criteria provide detail on the aspects of character that need to be considered, each of which provides some flexibility depending on its degree of applicability to the site in question. There is, however, considerable flexibility as to how this would be achieved in practice. The approach taken provides scope for interpretation that builds in flexibility, rather than a prescriptive area-based approach.
2.51 There is little risk of the policy not being implemented, as it will be dealt with through the statutory development management process. The City Council employs urban designers and conservation officers who advise developers on development and design quality.
2.52 Not delivering the policy will run the risk of development becoming homogenous and not contributing to the detailed qualities of individual areas, reducing the sense of belonging that communities have for their own part of the city.
Conclusions on Soundness
2.53 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons:
2.54 It is positively prepared:
• It relates directly to the Core Strategy by expanding on the design principles established in policy CS74; • It identifies aspects of character that contribute directly to local distinctiveness across the City;
-15-
2.55 It is justified:
• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives such as creating environments to attract business, prizing its green environment, enhancing character and distinctiveness and preserving buildings of heritage value already in the Core Strategy; • It is the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives, balancing economic growth with the need to respond to local character; • The evidence is proportionate; which establishes the principle that development should contribute to place-making and take advantage of the townscape and landscape character of the city’s districts, neighbourhoods and quarters.
2.56 It is effective:
• It is deliverable over the plan period, taking into account considerations of viability and would not hinder the delivery of required development; • It encourages a range of different development, responding to the prevailing character;
2.57 It is consistent with national policy by: • Helping to ensure a high standard of design through setting out the aspects of character across the city, helping to establish a strong sense of place, respond to local character and reflect local identity whilst not discouraging innovation; • Elaborating on what constitutes good design (NPPF para 56);
-16-
3 G6A DEVELOPMENT IN COUNTRYSIDE AREAS INCLUDING THE GREEN BELT
Introduction
3.1 The Core Strategy sets out the city’s overall approach to the Green Belt and other areas of countryside in Sheffield. Most of the countryside in the district is currently designated as Green Belt in the adopted Unitary Development Plan9. The Local Plan Core Strategy confirms that the Green Belt boundary in the UDP should be maintained virtually unchanged. There are, however, a few small areas of countryside on the edge of the urban areas that are not designated as Green Belt. In the UDP, several of these areas are shown as Open Space Areas but their rural character has led to confusion about their value and purpose. In a small number of other cases, they cover agricultural land that is allocated for housing in the UDP but which is proposed to be de-allocated in the Local Plan because of new evidence about the environmental impact or sustainability.
3.2 Policy G6A expands on the Core Strategy policy by setting out, more specifically, what types of development are appropriate in the Countryside Areas. It applies to areas designated as Green Belt, as well as the other limited areas of land on the edge of the urban area which are rural in character. The policy does not repeat national policy on Green Belts but provides necessary clarification on how and where the national policy will be applied in Sheffield.
3.3 Chapter 6 sets out the justification for the Countryside Policy Areas (Green Belt and non-Green Belt), as well as explaining the limited changes to the existing adopted Green Belt boundary (as shown on the current Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map).
Policy G6A
Development in Countryside Areas including the Green Belt
The openness, distinctive character and quality of the countryside around the city will be protected and where possible enhanced. In Countryside Areas:
a. development will only be permitted for uses that are appropriate in rural areas and which would not harm the rural character of the area or lead to unsustainable patterns of development;
b. extensions or alterations to existing buildings will be permitted provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; and
9 Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998.
-17-
c. the re-use of buildings for other uses will only be permitted where:
i the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and it does not require significant structural re-building; and ii it would not require disproportionate additions to the original building
d. infilling of single house plots will be permitted in:
i the villages of Bolsterstone, Brightholmlee, Dungworth, Ewden Village, Midhopestones, Ringinglow and Whitley; or ii substantially developed road frontages at Green Lane/Cockshutt Lane10/Owler Gate/Hilltop Drive at Wharncliffe Side; Chapeltown Road; Whiteley Wood Road; Long Line;
e. exceptionally, development of small sites for housing will be permitted within, or at the edge of the villages listed in part (c)(i) where it would be used for affordable housing in perpetuity to meet local needs.
For Countryside Areas that are also in the Green Belt, the overriding objective is to protect the openness of the area and development that is inappropriate in principle in Green Belt will only be permitted where very special circumstances exist to justify the development.
Definitions
‘Countryside Areas’ and ‘Green Belt’ – as shown on the Proposals Map.
‘Appropriate in rural areas’ and ‘inappropriate development’ – as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
‘Unsustainable patterns of development’ – likely to lead to a significant increase in the need to travel and high reliance on use of the private car for travel to and from the development.
‘Disproportionate additions’ – usually not more than 30% of the gross floor space of the original building but up to a maximum of 40 sq. m. Larger extensions may, exceptionally, be permitted where there would be no adverse impact on the character of the area or openness of the Green Belt.
‘Single house plots’ – between two existing dwellings or buildings on a road frontage (i.e. excluding ‘plots’ to the rear of existing houses or a plot on the end of row of houses or buildings).
10 Dcps267
-18-
‘Small sites’ – usually less than 0.4 hectares.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
3.4 One of the Core Planning Principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning should:
Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belt around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.
Policy G6A embraces this by identifying a role for Countryside Areas that complements the strong emphasis on development and regeneration in much of the rest of the city.
3.5 Section 3 of the NPPF deals with ‘Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy’. Paragraph 28 states that plans should:
Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings;
Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land- based rural businesses;
Support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside….
Promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.
This provides a clear statement on the types of development that are appropriate in rural areas and generally there is no need for the Local Plan to repeat or expand on this. However, parts (b) and (c) of policy G6A provide more specific policy regarding the conversion of existing buildings and set out the Council’s position in relation to extensions (which is not dealt with in the NPPF).
3.6 Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the NPPF deal with housing in rural areas. Paragraph 54 states that:
-19-
In rural areas, …local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate
3.7 Paragraph 55 states that:
To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in another village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
• the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or
• where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or
• where the development would reuse redundant or disused buildings and lead to the enhancement to the immediate setting; or
• The exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwellings…
3.8 It is clear from the NPPF that new housing in rural areas should be strongly controlled and should be focussed on existing settlements. Part (d) of policy G6A is consistent with the national policy in that is effectively directs new housing to locations that would enhance or maintain the vitality of established rural communities. It limits new development in the Countryside Areas to infilling of single plots within established villages or substantially developed road frontages. The policy defines where this policy applies. It is, however, unnecessary for the policy to repeat paragraph 55 of the NPPF, including the ‘special circumstances’ test for isolated dwellings in the countryside.
3.9 G6A, part (e) implements paragraph 55 of the NPPF by providing potential to deliver more affordable homes within and on the edge of existing villages if a need is identified. However, given that the rural areas in Sheffield are generally close to the urban areas, it is not expected that there will be a significant need for new affordable housing in Countryside Areas during the plan period. Most needs for new affordable homes can be met in the existing urban areas.
-20-
3.10 Section 9 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s policies for the protection of Green Belt land. It largely takes forward previous Government policy11, though with less detail and changes to specific aspects (for example, in relation to the designation of existing ‘major developed sites’ in the Green Belt).
3.11 The Government continues to attach great importance to Green Belts and highlights the fact that their essential characteristics are their openness and their permanence (NPPF, paragraph 79). The final sentence of policy G6A makes specific reference to protection of openness as the overriding consideration when considering development proposals in Countryside Areas, which are predominantly Green Belt.
3.12 Paragraph 86 of the NPPF states that:
If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt.
Part (d) of policy G6A lists the villages in Sheffield’s Green Belt that are already washed over by the Green Belt where limited infilling will be permitted.
3.13 Paragraphs 87 to 92 of the NPPF set out the types of developments that are appropriate in Green Belts. It states (paragraph 87) that, as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 clarifies how the very special circumstances test should be applied.
3.14 Paragraphs 89 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate development but also lists the exceptions to this rule, including the redevelopment of previously-developed sites (brownfield land). National planning policy is, therefore, generally clear on what types of development are appropriate and inappropriate in the Green Belt. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the Local Plan to repeat the national policy.
3.15 Although it is unnecessary for the Local Plan to repeat most aspects of the national policy, many of the principles relating to development in Green Belt are also helpful in guiding development in those Countryside Areas that are not in the Green Belt. This applies particularly to extensions to, and reuse of, existing buildings, both of which are types of development that are frequently proposed in the rural areas within Sheffield.
11 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, Green Belts (January 1995).
-21-
3.16 The NPPF, paragraph 89, fourth bullet point says that development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt if it involves
The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
Part (b) of the policy utilises this wording exactly and means that ‘disproportionate additions can be defined in the Local Plan. This facilitates consistent and objective application of the policy through the development management process.
3.17 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF deals with certain other types of development, including the reuse of buildings. It says that development is not inappropriate if it relates to:
The reuse of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction
Again, part (c)(i) of the policy draws on this wording but, for clarity, it also states that the development should not involve substantial rebuilding. For consistency with paragraph 89 of the NPPF and for the avoidance of doubt, part (c)(ii) also states that reuse should not require disproportionate additions to the original building. Again, this allows ‘disproportionate additions’ to be defined.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
3.18 Challenge 14 is ‘a city with character’ and a further objective under this challenge is:
S14.3: The landscape and character of the villages and countryside, including the urban/rural fringe, protected and enhanced.
3.19 Policy CS23 states that in the larger villages of Oughtibridge, Worrall and Wharncliffe Side, housing development will be limited to suitable, sustainable sites within the existing built-up areas. Outside the urban areas and larger villages, it says that housing development will be limited to that which is consistent with policies for the Green Belt and countryside areas. Policy G6A is therefore needed to spell out in more detail how the Core Strategy policy regarding the location of new housing will be implemented in the rural areas of the district.
3.20 Policy CS71, Protecting the Green Belt, states that the countryside and other open land around the existing built-up areas of the city will be safeguarded by maintaining the Green Belt. Paragraph 12.5 indicates that the policy will be implemented through the development management process, in accordance with
-22-
national policy for Green Belts. The Green Belt is shown on the Proposals Map and Chapter 6 below deals with issues relating to the Green Belt boundary.
3.21 Paragraph 12.5 of the Core Strategy indicates that sustainably located developed sites in the Green Belt will be designated on the Proposals Map as Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. The NPPF has, however, superseded PPG2 and has removed this designation. In principle, paragraph 89 of the NPPF now allows the limited infilling or complete redevelopment of all previously developed sites (brownfield land), providing the development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
3.22 Policy CS72, Protecting Countryside not in the Green Belt, deals with areas which are rural in character but which are not currently designated as Green Belt. It states that:
The green, open and rural character of areas on the edge of the built-up areas but not in the Green Belt will be safeguarded through protection as open countryside, including the following locations:
a. To the east of Woodhouse
b. To the south-west and north of Mosborough Village (at Mosborough Moor and Moor Valley
c. At the former Holbrook Colliery
d. South of Stocksbridge (at Hollin Busk)
3.23 Paragraph 12.9 states that protection of areas of countryside that are not in the Green Belt will be achieved through designation as open countryside on the Local Plan Proposals Map, and the consideration of any applications for permission to develop. Policy G6A provides the framework for considering applications in the Countryside Areas both within and outside the Green Belt.
3.24 The need to provide more deliverable housing land has meant that some of the land to the east of Woodhouse that was originally proposed as a Countryside Area (non-Green Belt) in accordance with policy CS72 has had to be retained as a Housing Site. The entire area is allocated for housing in the current UDP but both the Local Plan Preferred Options (2007) and Draft Proposals Map (2010) had proposed its de-allocation. The pre-Submission Draft Proposals Map does, however, still show a reduced area of land as Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt). This issue is discussed in more detail in the South East Area Background Report.
-23-
Corporate Plan
3.25 The Council’s Corporate Plan, A City of Opportunity 2010-2013, recognises the contribution and issues facing the rural communities in Sheffield and acknowledges that they should have a higher profile in its work.
Other policies/ proposals
3.26 Sheffield City Council adopted a Rural Communities Strategy in 20012 following consultation with local communities in the rural areas of the district. This highlights the need for firm planning regulations for building in rural areas. The Strategy also states that:
Planning policy to safeguard open space means that the development of new homes in the deeper rural areas is much more restricted and new homes in these areas will largely be provided through infill sites and conversions of existing buildings. We will work hard to identify affordable housing opportunities and work with communities to deliver the right type of homes to meet local needs.
This statement reflects the policy in the current UDP but also confirms the desire to deliver more affordable homes to meet local needs, an issue dealt with in part (e) of Policy G6A.
Justification
Issues that the Policy addresses
3.27 National planning policy (see paragraphs 3.4 to 3.17 above) generally provides a clear framework for considering development proposals in the Green Belt and rural areas. However, Policy G6A:
- provides a link to national policy - clarifies what types of development will be permitted in those Countryside Areas that are not designated as Green Belt - confirms and elaborates on national policies relating to the extension, alteration and reuse of rural buildings - sets out where and how much infill housing development will be permitted - clarifies when affordable housing may be permitted via a ‘rural exceptions’ policy
Alternative Options
3.28 National policy limits the scope for significant alternative options in terms of the types of development which can be permitted in Countryside Areas. The Core
12 A Fair Deal for Rural Communities: Rural Communities Strategy 2010-2013, Sheffield City Council.
-24-
Strategy also defines the broad areas which are to be designated as Green Belt and countryside. Policy G6A draws together a number of detailed policy options relating to the Green Belt and Countryside which were considered at the Emerging Options13 and Preferred Options14 stages (Emerging Options EGB1, EGB2 and EGB3 and Preferred Options PGB1, PGB2, PGB3 and PGB5). Several respondents to the consultation on the Preferred Options commented on the duplication with the national planning policy which applied at the time (principally, PPG215 and PPS716).
3.29 The options relating to the detailed wording are discussed further in paragraphs 3.35 to 3.38 below but because they were not significant options, they were not subject to sustainability appraisal. The key choice is whether to include a suite of policies that repeat national policy (the current UDP approach) or merely focus on those issues where elaboration or interpretation of national policy is needed at the local level.
Alternatives Considered
3.30 The only alternative option to G6A that was considered was therefore:
G6A(a) Continue with the UDP approach which involved a number of policies that largely repeated national planning policy (though the UDP did not refer to countryside areas which were not designated as Green Belt)
3.31 The strengths of this option are:
(a) There is less risk of misunderstanding about what development is permitted in the areas designated as Green Belt on the Proposals Map (members of the public are not always aware of national planning policy)
3.32 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It would be unclear what types of development are permitted in Countryside Areas which are not in the Green Belt
(b) It would unnecessarily lengthen the document
(c) There could be differences in interpretation between the national and local policy if the wording is not exactly the same
13 City Policies: Emerging Options, February 2006 - see EGB1 to EGB6 14 City Policies Preferred Options, June 2007 – see PGB1 to PGB6 15 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, Green Belts, January 1995 16 Planning Policy Statement 7, The Countryside and the Rural Economy 1992
-25-
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
3.33 The choice between the two options has involved weighing up the arguments between those who were concerned about duplication with national policy (mainly landowners, agents and developers) and those (mainly local environmental groups) who considered that, for clarity, it was important to set out policies for protection of the countryside in the Local Plan.
3.34 DLP Planning (for various clients)17felt that several of the Preferred Options (PGB1, PGB2, PGB3, PGB5) failed to reflect national policy and that this had led to internal consistencies within the document. They also considered that none of the Preferred Options were supported by local evidence. They argued that, as with other chapters, the policies were too generalised, were not locally distinctive and merely repeated national policy. They made similar points on the draft policy G6 published in 2010 (dcps327). Stocksbridge Regeneration Company Limited (dcps99) and Corus Engineering Steels (dcps89) also suggested that draft policy G6 was inconsistent with national policy with regards to the circumstances where housing development is permitted.
3.35 Preferred Option PGB5 dealt with development is the countryside that was not designated as Green Belt. DLP Planning (for various clients) (dcps327) suggested that the policy should set out what are acceptable uses in Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt). The Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID1932) felt it was unclear where the policy was intended to apply.
3.36 The Government Office18 commented that local policies on Green Belt were not needed and suggested that the document should only include a brief explanation of the national and regional context. However, Rivelin Valley Conservation Group (dcps16) presented the opposite view and contended that is was important to re- iterate national policy. A similar point was made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (dcps441) who suggested that the document should at least summarise what development is appropriate and inappropriate development under national policy.
3.37 The Preferred Options relating to the Green Belt and countryside were, however, generally supported by environmental organisations including Loxley Valley Protection Society19, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire)20, Moss Valley Wildlife Group21, Totley Residents Association22 and the National Trust23.
17 See Preferred Options comments ID2381 – ID2384, ID2407 – ID2409 and ID2411 18 See Preferred Options comments ID2035 – ID2038 19 See Preferred Options comments ID1120, ID1121, ID1122 and ID1128 20 See Preferred Options comments ID1928-ID1930 and ID1932 21 See Preferred Options comments ID1353 – ID1355 and ID1357 22 See Preferred Options comments ID749 – ID751 and ID754 23 See Preferred Options comments IDID648 and ID649
-26-
3.38 In drafting policy G6A, the Government Office’s view has been given significant weight. The various options considered at the Preferred Options stage have been substantially rationalised in the revised policy. The new policy retains only those elements that are considered essential to applying Core Strategy policies CS71 and CS72 or which are needed to clarify how national policy will be applied locally. A clear cross reference is now made to the Countryside Areas (Green Belt) and Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) on the Proposals Map (see Chapter 6 below). Continuing with the current UDP approach would, at best, have meant duplicating national policy and, at worst, could have led to ambiguity or different interpretations about what development is permitted within the countryside in Sheffield district.
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
3.39 All the various sections of the policy flow directly from national policy on rural areas and Green Belt, so much of the justification has already been covered in the paragraphs above. However, the following paragraphs provide further explanation of the wording or definitions used in the policy.
3.40 The policy clarifies what types of development are likely to be permitted in areas of the countryside that are not protected as Green Belt. As the characteristics of those areas are essentially the same as many Green Belt areas, it is logical to treat them in broadly the same way. The ‘very special circumstances test’ used to justify inappropriate development (paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF) would, however, not apply to areas that are not designated as Green Belt (see paragraphs 3.68 to 3.69 below).
Protecting the Openness and Distinctive Character of the Green Belt and Countryside Areas
3.41 The countryside around Sheffield is one of the most valued of the City’s assets and is a key feature which defines the character of the city. Consultation on the Sheffield First City Strategy, the Core Strategy and City Policies Emerging and Preferred Options showed that Sheffield’s ‘golden frame’ continues to be greatly appreciated by residents and visitors to the city.
Appropriate Uses in Rural Areas and Sustainable Patterns of Development (part (a))
3.42 Part (a) of the policy provides the main link to national policy. The definition of ‘appropriate uses’ cross-refers to the NPPF, relevant sections of which are set out in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.17 above.
3.43 This part of the policy also states that development will only be permitted in Countryside Areas for uses which would not harm the rural character of the area. ‘Rural character’ would depend on the Landscape Character Area in which the site lies. Each character area has a series of key characteristics or features
-27-
which make it different from all other areas. This is discussed further in Chapter 4 below.
3.44 Part (a) also says that development in Countryside Areas should not lead to unsustainable patterns of development. This reflects the fact that that many rural areas, particularly those on the west of the district are relatively poorly served by public transport and development that that took place in those areas which generated high numbers of trips would be likely to be highly car dependent. One the Core Strategy’s two underlying themes, is sustainability and it is therefore appropriate to include specific policy safeguards to prevent development that would conflict with that aim. ‘Unsustainable patterns of development’ are defined in Policy G6A as being likely to lead to a significant increase in the need to travel and high reliance on use of the private car for travel to and from the development. This also helps to implement two policies in the Core Strategy:
CS51 Transport Priorities – two of the strategic priorities for transport are listed as (a) promoting choice by developing alternatives to the car and (b) maximising accessibility
CS63 Responses to Climate Change - states that action to reduce the city’s impact on climate change will include giving priority to development in the City Centre and other areas that are well served by sustainable forms of transport.
3.45 In terms of sustainable patterns of development, part (a) should also be read in conjunction with two other policies in the City Policies and Sites document:
E1 Development and Trip Generation – indicates that travel demand arising from new development will be accommodated by existing transport infrastructure and only where necessary through new infrastructure. Significant development is areas of countryside that are remote from the urban area would be likely to require substantial investment in new infrastructure to make it sustainable and would, therefore, be in conflict with this policy.
C1 Access to Local Services and Community Facilities in New Residential Developments – this requires most of the new homes in developments of 10 or more dwellings to be located where public transport, a convenience shop and at least five other key local services and community facilities would be readily accessible by walking routes that are safe, attractive and convenient. This policy therefore provides a basis for assessing whether larger residential developments are sustainably located.
3.46 In commenting on the Preferred Options, Moss Valley Wildlife Group (ID1357), and Rivelin Valley Conservation Group (ID448) both expressed concerns about the impact of wind turbines and wind farms on the landscape. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID1932) was, however, supportive of
-28-
Preferred Option PGB5 which referred to renewable energy developments specifically. Hallam Land Management Limited (ID1417) suggested that PGB1 should list renewable energy developments as an appropriate use in the Green Belt. These issues are, however, now largely address by the NPPF (paragraph 91) which makes clear that elements of many renewable energy projects will be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Given that most of the countryside areas in Sheffield are designated as Green Belt, very special circumstances would need to be demonstrated to justify such development.
3.47 Sheffield Wildlife Trust (dcps293) commented on the 2010 draft policy G6. They considered that any development within the Green Belt should respect the distinctive character of the area and be built to the highest standard including consideration of impacts on surrounding areas. They suggested that the policy should apply to any changes to current development and replacement building, not just new development.
Extension, Alteration and Reuse to Existing Buildings (parts (b) and (c))
3.48 Part (b) of the policy deals with extensions or alterations to existing buildings in countryside areas. It states that extensions or alterations to existing buildings will be permitted provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This element of the policy essentially repeats the fourth bullet point in paragraph 89 of the NPPF but a key benefit is that it enables ‘disproportionate additions’ to be defined. This allows consistent application of the policy through the development management process. The definition is as follows:
‘Usually not more than 30% of the gross floor space of the original building but up to a maximum of 40 sq. m. Larger extensions may, exceptionally, be permitted where there would be no adverse impact on the character of the area or openness of the Green Belt’
3.49 Under part (c) of the policy, the reuse of buildings in Countryside Areas is permitted, in principle, subject to certain criteria. First, the building should be of permanent and substantial construction and, secondly, it should not require disproportionate additions to the original building. This element of the policy essentially repeats the fourth bullet point of paragraph 90 of the NPPF. As with part (b), it allows ‘disproportionate additions’ to be defined.
3.50 The 30% threshold should ensure that the original building remains the dominant element of the building. For existing dwellings, this would, for example, usually allow a very small rural cottage (of say, 50-60sqm) to be increased in size sufficiently to provide a decent standard of facilities. The 40 sq. m cut off point prevents large extensions that would impact on the openness of the Green Belt. 40sqm still provides considerable flexibility and would enable a 120sqm dwelling (a typical 3-4 bedroom house) to be extended by 30%. There is, in addition, further flexibility in the policy to allow larger extensions where it can be
-29-
demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the area or openness of the Green Belt’. This might be, for example where the building to be extended is situated between existing buildings or is very well-screened by mature trees and is not visible for roads or other public rights of way.
3.51 At the Preferred Options stage, Loxley Valley Protection Society (ID1121) argued that, for larger buildings, a 'significant extension' should be defined as less than a third of the building's original volume. The 40sqm cut-off included in the pre- submission version is consistent with this view in that the percentage increase in size of buildings over 120sqm would be less than 30%.
3.52 Sport England (ID1055) suggested including an additional criterion which would allow the reuse of buildings in the Green Belt only where it is surplus to requirements and the proposed use fulfils an identified need. However, this would be at odds with paragraph 90 of the NPPF which requires only that buildings are of ‘permanent and substantial construction’.
3.53 Preferred Option PGB3, which dealt specifically with the reuse, adaptation and extension of non-residential buildings in the Green Belt, was supported by English Nature (ID1650) who supported the reference to diversifying the rural economy. This wording has, however, been omitted from the pre-submission version of the grounds that it would add nothing to national policy (NPPF, paragraph 28).
3.54 Preferred Option PGB3 also made reference to the need for reuse and conversion to protect the character of historic buildings but English Heritage suggested that it should refer to Listed Buildings rather than ‘historic buildings’ unless the latter term is clearly defined. However, this wording has not been taken forward in the pre-submission draft because it would effectively duplicate part of policy G7 (Development and Heritage Assets).
Infilling of Single House Plots (part (d))
3.55 Part (d) of the policy is needed to clarify where paragraph 89 (5th bullet point) of the NPPF applies. All the villages referred to in part (d)(i) (Bolsterstone, Brightholmlee, Dungworth, Ewden Village, Midhopestones, Ringinglow and Whitley) are washed over by the Green Belt. All the villages are in the north or north west of the district and are little more than loose clusters of dwellings or farms, with significant open gaps between buildings which are important to maintain. Appendix 1 below includes maps showing the current extent of development in each village In all these villages, local services and facilities are either limited or totally absent. Anything more than infilling of single plots would potentially be detrimental to their character and harm the openness of the Green Belt. In practice, however, few single plots actually remain in these villages, so it is unlikely that the policy will lead to significant numbers of new dwellings.
-30-
3.56 The villages of Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Worrall are significantly larger than the other villages and have been inset in the Green Belt. Consequently, they are not covered by policy G6A because they are covered by other types of Policy Area. This continues the approach in the current UDP. Further details are provided in the North Area Background Report.
3.57 As noted in paragraph 3.7 above, national planning policy strongly restricts the building of new dwellings in open countryside away from existing settlements. However, the Sheffield Green Belt includes a number of roads outside the existing urban areas where ‘ribbon development’ took place prior to the formal establishment of the Green Belt in 1983. These roads are listed in part (d)(ii) of the policy as:
(a) Green Lane, Cockshutt Lane/Owler Gate/Hilltop Drive at Wharncliffe Side (b) Chapeltown Road [at Ecclesfield] (c) Whiteley Wood Road [at Fulwood] (d) Long Line [near Dore]
These roads are all close to the existing urban areas but are washed over by the Green Belt. Appendix 1 also includes maps showing the extent of ribbon development along each of the roads. Since 1983, successive development plans24 have allowed infilling of single plots on these roads because of the minimal impact it has on the openness of the Green Belt. There is no obvious justification for altering this approach as there has been no fundamental change to national Green Belt policy since that date. As with the small villages, few single plots now remain along these roads, so there is, in any case, little potential for significant new house building.
3.58 The supporting text to policy G6A defines single house plots as being ‘between two existing dwellings or buildings on a road frontage (i.e. excluding ‘plots to the rear of existing houses or a plot on the end of row of houses or buildings). This clarification is needed to enable consistent application of the policy through the development management process. It also ensures that any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt is minimal. Dwellings built at the end or to the rear of a row of houses would generally have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
Exception Sites for Affordable Housing
3.59 Policy D3 sets the target for delivery of affordable housing on open market housing schemes. However, in the very rural areas, where opportunities for new housing delivery are limited, and restricted by environmental considerations, an additional approach is required which will, exceptionally, allow very small
24 Sheffield Green Belt Local Plan applied from 1983 to 1998. The Sheffield UDP has applied from 1998 onwards.
-31-
developments of solely affordable housing. Where used, part (e) of the policy will therefore enable delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs in situations where open market housing would not be permitted.
3.60 Sheffield’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment was completed in 2007. It identified a high overall need for affordable housing within the city. The work was carried out on the basis of 12 housing market areas, and the ‘North West Rural Area’ covers a large part of the area within the Green Belt. The Assessment found that only 13% of stock in that area is social housing, which is around half the level in the city as a whole.
3.61 Paragraph 3.26 above refers to the Rural Communities Strategy (2010). As part of the evidence base for this, consultants carried out a research project in 2009 which examined sustainability in the rural and small settlements of Sheffield. This included work on affordable housing25. The study looked at the East Peak Innovation Partnership (EPIP) area, which includes more urban parts of Sheffield such as Chapeltown and Stocksbridge, as well as the area of Sheffield within the Peak District National Park. Several settlements were identified for qualitative study, including Bradfield Parish which covers a large area of the Sheffield Green Belt, as well as the villages of High and Low Bradfield which are in the Peak Park.
3.62 The study found that in Bradfield Parish there may be a need for smaller properties, as the prevalent property type is detached housing, with high sales values, very few entry level properties and low turnover of housing stock generally. Specifically, residents were also concerned about the lack of affordable housing for older residents wishing to downsize. There was support for a small housing scheme to meet local needs if this would be in keeping with local character.
3.63 The impact of any new affordable housing on the character of the Green Belt would be considered, and any opportunities for development will be small. Therefore the benefits of implementing draft policy G6c(ii) in exceptional circumstances outweigh any considerations that affordable housing would be better developed only in the urban area.
3.64 The policy limits development to small sites (less than 0.4 hectares). This strikes a balance between the need for affordable housing and the need to safeguard the openness of the Green Belt and the character of the countryside more generally. At a density of 30 dwellings to the hectare, this would, in principle allow up to 12 affordable homes to be delivered within or at the edge of the villages listed in part (c)(i) of the policy. In practice, given the small scale of the villages that are listed in the policy, it is unlikely that the need for affordable homes would ever be of the order of 12 dwellings. However, the policy provides flexibility both in terms of the
25 Housing and Sustainability in the Rural and Smaller Settlements of Sheffield – Research Project for Sheffield City Council, B.Line Housing Information, December 2009
-32-
number of homes that can be provided and the density of development that would be achieved.
3.65 Several respondents to the Preferred Options raised concerns about making exceptions for affordable housing. Rivelin Valley Conservation Group (ID446) felt it was unnecessary to make exceptions because all the villages in Sheffield are near the urban areas where affordable housing is available. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID1929) suggested a tightening of the wording so that housing development would only be allowed in the Green Belt where there were no alternative sites available and the development was solely for affordable housing. Although it could be argued that affordable housing needs can more easily be met in adjacent urban areas than by developing in Green Belt villages, affordable housing performs a key function in enabling social sustainability of small settlements.
3.66 Sheffield Hallam University (ID1533) argued that the policy should require a higher percentage of affordable housing on sites in the Green Belt than in other areas. However, as now worded, the policy only allows sites to be developed solely for affordable housing and it is likely that such developments would be undertaken by Housing Associations rather than private house builders.
3.67 Moss Valley Wildlife Group (ID1354) were concerned that it might not be possible to keep new homes affordable in perpetuity. However, the fact that affordable homes would only be permitted in the areas defined as ‘rural areas’ by statute means there is no ‘right to buy’ in those areas.
Countryside Areas in the Green Belt: ‘Very Special Circumstances’ Test
3.68 In commenting on the Preferred Options, Planning Propects Limited (ID482 - ID484) suggested that the policy should make clear that normally inappropriate development may be justified in the Green Belt when very special circumstances can be demonstrated. This issues is now picked up in the final sentence of the pre-submission policy and echos the wording used in the NPPF.
3.69 The final sentence of the policy is needed in order to distinguish between how the policy will be applied in Countryside Areas (Green Belt) and Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt). It emphasises that the overriding objective in the Green Belt is to protect the openness of the area. It also makes clear that development that is inappropriate in principle in Green Belt will only be permitted where ‘very special circumstances’ exist to justify the development. As already noted in paragraph 3.40 above, development that is normally unacceptable in Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) will not have to pass this ‘very special circumstances’ test and less weight would be given to safeguarding the openness in considering the pros and cons of the development. In principle, therefore, the policy is less restrictive in Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) than in Countryside Areas (Green Belt) but this is considered reasonable given that all the non-Green Belt Countryside Areas are located in the urban fringe.
-33-
Sustainability Appraisal
3.70 The policy clarifies how and where national planning policy will be applied but it means there is little difference between the two options. However, policy G6A potentially allows affordable housing on small sites in, or at the edge of, a village where there is an identified need.
3.71 The restrictions on development in the Green Belt imposed by national planning policy inevitably rule out housing, employment and community facilities that would benefit disadvantaged groups but in practice there are few of these groups living in the Green Belt. Allowing a small amount of affordable housing, to meet local needs in perpetuity would improve the housing choices open to people in rural areas. The policy scores highly on environmental criteria, especially those criteria relating to the protection of the landscape, historic environment and wildlife. Protection of countryside and open land on the edge of the urban area also provides opportunities for outdoor recreation which has health benefits.
Equality Appraisal
3.72 The policy would have a negative impact on certain groups of people living in rural areas. People with low incomes, people with low access to private transport and young people are likely to be adversely affected because of the restrictions on development in the Green Belt, although allowing small amounts of affordable housing in exceptional circumstances will help some families. On the other hand, limiting building in the countryside also means that new development, including new affordable housing, is concentrated in urban areas where larger numbers of people on low incomes live. The urban areas also generally have better access to public transport and services.
3.73 Cultural minority groups would also be negatively impacted by policy G6 based on restrictions on type of buildings and architecture, which would need to fit in with the open character. However, the low population generally, and of cultural minority groups in particular, means that demand for facilities in rural areas will also be very low.
3.74 Part (e) would serve to mitigate the potential impacts on people on low incomes because it allows small-scale affordable housing to be developed where a local need is identified. The restrictions could have a mixed impact on people requiring personal support services in so far that it would disadvantage those requiring institutional care but might not for those living in social-rented housing as a household (e.g. people with learning disabilities).
Consultee Preferences
3.75 Many of the comments made by consultees on the detailed wording of the Emerging and Preferred Options are no longer relevant because of the decision
-34-
3.76 Sheffield and Peak Against City Encroachment (SPACE) (dcps793) were concerned about the erosion of the Green Belt surrounding Sheffield, especially that area abutting the Peak District National Park. However, the Core Strategy makes clear that the current Green Belt is to be maintained virtually unchanged in the Local Plan (see Chapter 6 below).
3.77 DLP Planning (for various clients) (ID2381-ID2384) argued that the Preferred Options would not deliver the required level of housing and employment. Their objection, however, related more to the issue of overall housing land supply and requirements, not to any fundamental objection about the type of development that is appropriate in rural areas or Green Belt. The issue of the housing requirement and land supply is a matter for strategic policy and, therefore, the Core Strategy. It would not be appropriate to reopen it in the City Policies and Site document though it will be revisited in the comprehensive Local Plan Review.
3.78 One respondent on the Preferred Options (ID704 and ID705), suggested it was necessary to firmly control replacement dwellings in the Green Belt to prevent new buildings that were out of character with the area. This issue is, however, now covered under paragraph 89 (fourth bullet point) of the NPPF and there is no need to set out additional local criteria. Furthermore, all development in Countryside Areas would need to comply with policy G6B as well as G6A.
3.79 Pullan Developments (ID684) and Bovis Homes (dcps80) suggested that the document should specifically identify existing Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt where the demolition and replacement of existing buildings will be allowed. Pullan Developments suggested that this principle should also apply to smaller existing developed sites because very special circumstances exist on such sites. This approach has not been taken forward in the City Policies and Sites document because the NPPF (paragraph 89) means it is no longer necessary to designate such sites in the Local Plan. In principle, infilling and partial redevelopment of all previously developed (brownfield) sites is now permitted, providing it has no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
3.80 Preferred Option PGB5 also stated that development would not be permitted where it would lead to the encroachment of urban development into open countryside. Planning Prospects Limited (ID487) suggested that it should be reworded so that it referred to ‘unacceptable encroachment’. However, the significant recasting of the policy to place the emphasis on national policy and sustainable patterns of development now makes this wording superfluous.
3.81 Hallam Land Management Limited (ID1418) considered that PGB5 was perverse in seeking to prevent encroachment of building into open countryside whilst, at
-35-
the same time, promoting housing development on greenfield land at Owlthorpe. They suggested greenfield land at Oxclose, which was proposed for industry, could be developed for housing without encroachment into the countryside. However, the Core Strategy now confirms Owlthorpe as a suitable location for greenfield housing development and the land at Oxclose has also been reallocated for housing.
3.82 At the Preferred Options stage, Natural England (ID1652) suggested adding a criterion to facilitate development in Countryside Areas that would help to diversify the rural economy. However, as already mentioned in paragraph 3.5 above, that issue if now adequately covered by the NPPF.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
3.83 The policy would mainly be delivered though the Development Management process.
3.84 A Supplementary Planning Document on Designing House Extensions will provide further advice on how to comply with parts (b) and (c) of the policy.
Viability
3.85 The policy does not impose any specific planning obligations or burdens on developers.
Mechanism and Agency
3.86 Affordable housing delivered using part (e) of the policy would be delivered by a Registered Provider. It is likely that the skills of a rural housing enabler would be used to work with communities to identify whether any land would be suitable for this use, and what specific local needs could be met.
Resources
3.87 Affordable housing provided under part (e) of the policy would be funded by either the Affordable Housing Programme or developer contributions. The policy does not have any other direct resource implications.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
3.88 Part (a) of the policy provides the connection to national policy which sets out, in general terms, what type of development is appropriate in the Green Belt and rural areas. In that sense the policy has the same flexibility as the NPPF.
-36-
3.89 The flexibility inherent in the application of parts (b) and (c) of the policy has already been outlined in paragraph 3.50 above. This highlights the potential to allow larger extensions to existing buildings than would usually be permitted under certain circumstances.
3.90 Part (d) of the policy sets out rather more precise requirements in terms of where new housing may be permitted. The policy is intentionally restrictive in order to be consistent with national planning policy.
3.91 Part (e) provides considerable flexibility in terms of the ability to meet any likely need for affordable housing in the villages that are washed over by the Green Belt. It provides considerable scope to react to changing housing market conditions over the period covered by the Local Plan. It does not rely on open market housing to subsidise affordable housing, and is therefore not reliant on housing demand, private finance or trends in the development industry. .
3.92 There is no risk of the policy not being implemented as its delivery is primarily through the Development Management process.
Monitoring
3.93 The target for this policy has already been established through the Core Strategy26 and is:
No land in the Green Belt developed for inappropriate uses in the period to 2026
3.94 The associated indicator is:
Hectares of land in the Green Belt developed each year for inappropriate Green Belt uses.
3.95 Progress against the target will be reported regularly on the Council’s web-site in monitoring bulletins.
Conclusions on Soundness
3.96 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
3.97 It is positively prepared:
• It is needed to implement policies CS71 and CS72 in the Core Strategy by setting out what development is permitted in Countryside Areas (both Green Belt and non-Green Belt) – see paragraphs 3.20 to 3.23 above).
26 See SDF Core Strategy, Appendix 2, target and indicator for policy CS71.
-37-
3.98 It is justified:
• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives S14.3 which states that the landscape and character of the villages and countryside, including the urban/rural fringe, protected and enhanced (see paragraph 3.19 above) • It is the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives which would be to repeat national planning policies (see paragraphs 3.28 to 3.38 above).
3.99 It is effective:
• It is deliverable over the plan period and does not have any direct impact on the viability of development. • The evidence is proportionate and the policy is flexible within the constraints imposed by national policy. There is further flexibility in terms of the scale of extensions that will be permitted to existing buildings and the need to provide affordable housing in rural areas (see paragraphs 3.88 to 3.92).
3.100 It is consistent with national policy:
• The scope of policy G6A is largely determined by national planning policy. Only limited local policy is needed to control development in the Countryside Areas (Green Belt and non-Green Belt) because most development proposals can be determined with reference to the NPPF. • Part (a) of the policy provides the connection in the document with the Countryside Areas (Green Belt and non-Green Belt) Policy Area shown the Proposals Map (see paragraphs 3.42 to 3.47). • It enables consistent implementation of national policy relating to the reuse, extension and alteration of existing buildings in rural areas (see paragraphs 3.48 to 3.54) • It expands on national planning policy and are locally specific by identifying the villages and substantially developed road frontages where infilling of single plots may be permitted (paragraphs 3.55 to 3.58) • The ‘exceptions policy’ for affordable housing takes into account the likely need for affordable homes in the rural areas of Sheffield and the scale and character of villages that are washed over by the Green Belt (paragraphs 3.59 to 3.67). • The policy has been subject to both sustainability and equality appraisals which highlight the benefits in terms of protection of the environment. There are some negative impacts for low incomes groups and for people who do not have access to private transport but these impacts stem from national planning policy rather than from policy G6 (paragraphs 3.70 to 3.74).
-38-
4 G6B LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Introduction
4.1 The policy aims to safeguard the specific character of the countryside and undeveloped land outside the urban areas of Sheffield. It is underpinned by a Landscape Character Assessment undertaken in 2011.
4.2 The countryside in Sheffield ranges from exposed moorland fringes and deep valleys to the west to rolling wooded farmlands and gentler slopes of the landscapes to the east. These landscapes have been shaped by variations in geology and landform as well as the city’s industrial history. Over a third of the district lies within the Peak District National Park and much of the Green Belt to the west of the main urban area and to the south and west of Stocksbridge is highly visible from the National Park.
Policy G6B
Landscape Character
Development within, or conspicuous from, Countryside Areas, will only be permitted where it would safeguard the identified character and features of the following landscape character areas:
Upland Character Areas a. Moorland Ridge b. Pastoral Hills and Ridges c. Upland Rolling Slopes and Valleys to the West d. Upland Rolling Slopes and Valleys to the East e. Upland Wooded Ridges and Slopes
Valley Character Areas f. Upland River Valleys and Reservoirs g. Wooded Upland River Valleys h. Pastoral Upland River Valleys i. Upland Valley Sides Above Urban and Industrial Areas j. Encapsulated River Valleys to the West
Lowland Character Areas k. Encapsulated River Valleys to the East l. Lowland Rolling Slopes and Valleys m. Lowland Broad River Valleys n. Lowland Wooded Valley Sides Above Urban or Suburban Areas o. Encapsulated Farmland
-39-
Highly Maintained Landscape Areas p. Highly Maintained Landscapes
Where development takes place in Despoiled Land/Fragmented Landscape Areas it should improve the character of the area.
Development on land which is conspicuous from the Peak District National Park should protect and enhance the Park’s landscape and scenic beauty and not conflict with its purposes or harm its valued characteristics.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
4.3 As already noted in the previous chapter, one of the core planning principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers to the need to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
4.4 Section 11 of the NPPF sets out policies for conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 109 state that, amongst other things:
The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
• protecting and enhancing valued landscape, geological conservation interests and soils
4.5 Paragraph 113 goes on to say that :
Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged.
National planning policy does not identify the character and features which define different areas of the landscape at the local level. Policy G6B is a criteria-based policy dealing with locally important landscape areas and is therefore consistent with, and elaborates on, the NPPF. ‘Landscape areas’, as referred to in paragraph 113, are understood to be identified in terms of their landscape character, as in policy G6B, rather than policy areas with a presumption against development. The national presumption in favour of sustainable development supports the approach of considering the design of development in the light of landscape issues rather than whether the development should be allowed at all (the scope of policy G6A).
-40-
4.6 Paragraph 115 refers to National Parks. It says that:
Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks..., which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas and should be given great weight in National Parks....
The final sentence of policy G6B deals directly with the relationship between the Peak District National Park and the Countryside Areas on the western side of the city.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
4.7 Part 7 of the Core Strategy Spatial Vision is:
A city that will prize, protect and enhance its natural environment and distinctive heritage and promote high-quality buildings and spaces.
4.8 Two of the objectives are:
S13.1 Natural and landscape features, including valley, woodland, tree, watercourses and wetlands, safeguarded and enhanced
S14.3 The landscape and character of villages and countryside, including the urban/ rural fringe, protected and enhanced.
4.9 Policy G6B therefore flows directly from the Core Strategy Spatial vision, objectives and policies. However, the Core Strategy does not specifically define specific Landscape Character Areas or set out criteria to ensure that their defining characteristics and features are protected and enhanced. Policy G6B takes up these issues.
Justification
Issues that the Policy addresses
4.10 The policy aims to safeguard the intrinsic character of the rural areas of the district. It covers all the areas designated as Countryside Areas (Green Belt and non-Green Belt) on the Proposals Map, including areas adjoining, and highly visible from, the Peak District National Park. The policy is needed to inform the assessment of planning applications in those areas.
-41-
4.11 Policy G6B is informed by the Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character Assessment (2011). The Assessment identifies the different Character Areas referred to in the policy and identifies the features and characteristics in each area which make each area unique.
Alternative Options
4.12 One alternative to policy G6B is to omit a specific policy on landscape character but his would not address national policy for protecting and enhancing valued landscape.
4.13 A further option could have been to identify Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV). This requires a value judgement about whether some areas are more important to safeguard than others. AHLVs are designated on the current UDP Proposals Map but previous Government advice (prior to publication of the National Planning Policy Framework) had been to avoid using local landscape designations, except where a special case could be made. The NPPF is silent on the issue of local designations but, as already mentioned in paragraph 4.5 above, it continues to state that local planning authorities should set out criteria based policies against which proposals affecting landscape areas will be judged. If it had intended areas to be designated where the presumption in favour of development would be less, then this would have been made clear.
Alternatives Considered
Policy G6B
4.14 The strengths of the policy are:
(a) It provides a ‘signpost’ for developers to the Landscape Character Assessment which sets out key landscape features that should be protected or improved in each Character Area (b) It highlights the sensitivity of areas that are conspicuous from the Peak District National Park.
4.15 The weakness of the policy is:
(a) It is only based on a preliminary Landscape Character Assessment which does not make value judgements about whether some Character Areas are more important than others and does not specify the capacity of each area to accommodate development.
Option G6B(a)
Do not have a policy dealing with landscape character
-42-
4.16 The strength of this option is:
(a) Some development might be cheaper because, for example, there would be no requirement to use expensive materials such as stone in construction.
4.17 The weakness of this option is:
(a) Development could take place in rural areas with little or no regard to the character of the area
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
4.18 Omission of a policy on landscape character would clearly conflict with the NPPF. As already noted, paragraph 113 requires the Local Plan to set out criteria based policies against which development proposals which affect landscape areas can be judged.
4.19 In commenting on policy G6 in the 2010 version of the document, Natural England (dcps529) stated that they were pleased to note the requirement in the policy for development to consider the impact on views from the Peak District National Park.
4.20 The aims of Preferred Option PGB6, which dealt with areas bordering the Peak National Park, were supported by English Heritage (ID2134). The Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID1934) also supported the Preferred Option because it referred to the purposes of the National Park and the need to protect and enhance its appearance and character. However, they commented that the potential role of Landscape Character Assessment should be acknowledged. This latter issue is now addressed in policy G6B.
4.21 The need for a Landscape Character Assessment was also raised by Sheffield and Peak Against City Encroachment (SPACE). They supported draft policy G6 (2010), particularly the requirement for "development on land conspicuous from the Peak National Park to protect and enhance the Park's appearance and character and not conflict with its purpose or harm its valued characteristics". However, they felt that the Green Belt designation and the 'Countryside Character' policy did not provide sufficient protection. They asked the Council to undertake a 'landscape character assessment' to provide guidance to developers and planning officers when determining if an application complies with G6. They also suggested the Council should conduct a study of the character of Sheffield's urban image where it joins the Peak National Park and formulate specific policies for that area. Again, policy G6B and the Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character Assessment, to which the policy cross refers) responds to these suggestions.
-43-
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
Landscape Character Areas
4.22 The Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character Assessment was specifically commissioned to inform the Local Plan City Policies and Sites document. It forms a Technical Annex to this background report. As time and resources were limited, some aspects which would be expected in a full assessment have not been included in any depth in the preliminary study. In particular, geology and soils are only touched on briefly and specialist contributions on ecology and archaeology will be required to complete the assessment. However, the preliminary study identifies the different ‘Character Areas’ in Sheffield and, in doing so, provides a sufficient level of detail to enable policy G6B to be drafted.
4.23 Subject to sufficient resources being available, a second stage study will include a landscape strategy for both management and enhancement including planting and management guidelines for the individual character types. At that point the document would be the tool by which to assess the inherent sensitivity of the Landscape Character Areas, further informing decisions as to the capacity to accommodate change or development.
4.24 Policy G6B lists the 16 ‘Character Areas’ which listed in the Landscape Character Assessment. The Character Areas are grouped into four broad categories:
• Upland Character Areas • Valley Character Areas • Lowland Character Areas • Highly Maintained Landscape Areas
4.25 The Character Areas are locally specific but are also consistent with the approach in adjoining districts. Pages 8-11 describe the context for the Sheffield assessment and describe how it aligns with the broad Landscape Characterisation and Assessment undertaken by Natural England and those carried out by neighbouring authorities. A key consideration in defining the Character Areas was ensuring consistency with the approach in adjoining districts, as well as those parts of Sheffield district which are in the Peak District National Park.
Development in Despoiled/ Fragmented Landscape
4.26 There are a small number of sites within the rural areas of Sheffield where the landscape is despoiled or fragmented as a result of former mining, quarrying or industrial activity. This includes:
• two major sites within and at the edge of the Loxley Valley • Hesley Wood to the east of Chapeltown, adjoining the M1 motorway
-44-
• Land to the north of Stocksbridge • Parts of the Rother Valley, east of Beighton • Areas within the Shirtcliffe Valley between Woodhouse and Beighton
Development on Land which is Conspicuous from the Peak District National Park
4.27 The Peak District National Park is of national significance and their protection is given great weight by national planning policy (see paragraph 4.6 above). However, development that is conspicuous from the National Park can be detrimental to it and therefore needs to be carried out sensitively. Much of the land between the western edge of Sheffield and the Peak District National Park is itself also of high landscape quality. The policy highlights the need for developers to take this into account.
4.28 This approach is consistent with the approach that has been in place in Sheffield since 1983. Both the Sheffield Green Belt Plan and UDP have highlighted the need for development to take into account its impact on the visual quality of the National Park.
Sustainability Appraisal
4.29 The policy scores highly on environmental criteria, which are the overriding priority in the countryside areas. It indirectly helps to safeguard wildlife habitats and geological features which also contribute to the character of the area. It also indirectly helps to safeguard farmland (and therefore valuable soil resources) from development. If the policy was omitted, some issues could, therefore, be addressed by other policies (principally policies G1-G4).
4.30 By protecting attractive landscapes the policy also contribute to mental well-being and, therefore, health.
4.31 The appraisal highlights a potential tension between safeguarding valuable landscapes and meeting recreation objectives. However, without the policy (option G6B(a)) there is a risk that more weight could be given to recreational, rather than landscape, considerations.
4.32 By encouraging the improvement of despoiled and fragmented landscapes, the policy potentially supports reclamation of brownfield sites in rural areas. The alternative option may or may not lead to reclamation of despoiled sites in rural areas. Much would depend on the details of specific development scheme.
Equality Appraisal
4.33 The policy has no real impact on any particular people group.
-45-
Consultee Preferences
4.34 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (ID1928) were concerned that Preferred Option PGB1, which dealt with development in the Green Belt, did not take forward the Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) designation that was used in the UDP. They suggested including an additional criterion to safeguard visual amenity. Preferred Option PGB6 was strongly supported by a range of environmental and voluntary organisations, including Totley Residents Association (ID754) and a committee member for the National Trust (ID649). Loxley Valley Protection Society (ID1128) agreed with the reasons for the Preferrred Option that describes the land between the western edge of Shefffield and the Peak National Park as 'high landscape quality'. However, Moss Valley Wildlife Group (ID1358) considered it would also be desirable to designate areas not immediately adjoining the National Park as Areas of High Landscape Value.
4.35 The scope for retaining the Areas of High Landscape Value designation has been given some consideration but identification of the different character areas potentially provides a more flexible approach which focuses on safeguarding and enhancing the key characteristics which define the landscape of the area. Having a specific ‘High Landscape Value’ designation involves making value judgements but may be feasible when stage two of the Landscape Character Assessment has been completed. However, a combination of Stage 2 and the criteria base proposed in the NPPF provide a sound safeguard against inappropriate development and this, coupled with policy G6A and related national policy for Green Belt should be sufficient. Given that the NPPF is silent on local landscape designations, the case for making such designations is judged to be weak.
4.36 One respondent (ID813) suggested it would be helpful to make clear that Sheffield City Council is not the local planning authority for the National Park. However, it is clear from the Key Diagram and Proposals Map what areas are covered by the Local Plan.
4.37 Another respondent (ID710), commenting on the Preferred Options considered PGB6 to be of major significance for the housing development proposed by Bovis Homes on the Hepworths Refractories Site at Loxley because the impact of such a large development would be detrimental both to the quality of the Green Belt and the Peak District National Park.
4.38 The only objection to PGB6 was from DLP Planning Limited (ID2412) on the grounds that it was not locally specific or adequately justified. As already noted above, completion of the Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character Assessment has enabled a locally specific policy to be produced.
4.39 The Peak District National Park Authority were consulted at each stage of preparing the City Policies and Sites document but did not specifically comment on Preferred Option PGB6 or the draft policy G6 published in 2010.
-46-
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
4.40 The policy will be implemented through the development management process, mainly through the use of planning conditions. Design and Access Statements submitted by applicants will, where relevant, be expected to set out how the proposed development would impact on important landscape features and what steps are proposed to mitigate any adverse impacts. It might, for example, require specific boundary treatments or tree planting as part of a landscaping scheme.
4.41 The policy will be implemented with reference to the Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character Assessment.
Viability
4.42 The policy does not have any significant impact on the viability of development.
Mechanism and Agency
4.43 The City Council will be primarily responsible for ensuring that development proposals in the Countryside Areas comply with the policy. The Peak District National Park Authority will be consulted for applications that are potentially conspicuous from the National Park.
Resources
4.44 The only resource implications are for the Council in terms of undertaking the second stage of the Landscape Character assessment.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
4.45 The policy is inherently flexible in that it is not specific about the type of development that will be permitted in each Landscape Character Areas.
Monitoring
4.46 No specific targets or indicators are proposed for this policy. However, the value of the policy will be reassessed when the Local Plan is reviewed.
-47-
Conclusions on Soundness
4.47 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
4.48 It is positively prepared:
• It relates to the Core Strategy spatial vision for a city which prizes, protects and enhances its natural environment (see paragraph 4.7 above).
4.49 It is justified:
• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives already in the Core Strategy which relate to the safeguarding and enhancement of natural areas, landscape features and the countryside (see paragraph 4.8 above). • It is the most appropriate when considered against the alternative option of not having a policy which sets out criteria for the protection of landscape character (paragraphs (4.12-4.21 above). • The evidence is proportionate and is locally specific, reflecting the outcome of the Sheffield Preliminary Landscape Character assessment (see paragraphs 4.22 to 4.25 above and the relationship with the Peak District National Park (see paragraphs 4.27-4.28 above). • The policy has been subject to both sustainability and equality appraisals which highlight the benefits in terms of protection of the environment, though recognising the tensions with recreational objectives (paragraph 4.29-4.33 above). • The approach is supported by voluntary and environmental organisations and there was little objection to the draft policy (see paragraphs 4.19-4.21 and paragraphs 4.34-4.39 above).
4.50 It is effective:
• It is deliverable over the plan period through the development management process and through liaison with the Peak District National Park Authority (see paragraphs 4.40-4.41 above). • It will not affect the viability of development or hinder the delivery of required development.
4.51 It is consistent with national policy:
• It is needed to implement paragraph 113 of the NPPF and supports paragraphs 11 and 115 (see paragraphs 4.3-4.6 above)
-48-
5 DEVELOPMENT AND HERITAGE ASSETS
Introduction
5.1 Policy G7 establishes a number of key design principles for heritage assets that are required to take forward Core Strategy policy CS74 on Design Principles and particularly the vision for prizing, protecting and enhancing its natural environment and distinctive heritage and promoting high quality buildings and spaces. The Core Strategy highlights the importance of distinctive heritage within the city, and this policy establishes the detailed criteria for the protection of heritage assets across the city, in order to protect and reinforce local distinctiveness.
5.2 Specifically it establishes the principle of design quality in relation to heritage assets;
Policy G7
Development and Heritage Assets
Heritage assets including the conservation areas, nationally and locally important historic buildings and landscapes and other heritage features that contribute to the distinct identity of Sheffield, will be conserved by the developer through:
a. Protection and, where appropriate, restoration and repair of features of heritage significance, using designs, materials, techniques and detailing traditional to Sheffield, consistent with the asset’s age and significance; and:
b. Protection and, where appropriate, recording and interpretation of archaeological evidence and retention of remains that help an understanding of how the city has developed or, in the exceptional circumstances that any harm to the remains could be justified, investigation and publication of the resulting evidence; and
c. Protection of the character and setting of heritage assets, and ensuring that development affecting them respects, enhances or better reveals their significance.
Historic parks, gardens and cemeteries will be protected and their restoration and enhancement will be encouraged. Development should not damage their features, character, appearance, setting or views in or out or prejudice future restoration.
-49-
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
5.3 The more general links between national policy and the Local Plan’s principles for design are outlined in the context of policy G5 (see chapter 2).
5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out clearly the importance of the historic environment, and the Government’s objectives for it, particularly recognising that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is a key part of the environmental role that should be played by the planning system, in terms of delivering sustainable development27. This is the focus of policy G7. More proactively, national policy states28 that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the historic environment. The enhancing of the setting of heritage assets is provided for in criterion c of the policy.
5.5 Paragraph 17 sets out the core planning principles that should underpin plan- making, which include the requirement that planning should ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’29. The concluding words of criteria a and c take account of different levels of significance, and appropriateness is recognised as an issue in criteria a and b.
5.6 Paragraph 58 states that local plans should set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area, respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. Policy G7 follows up these themes in its reference to the distinct identity of Sheffield, of what is traditional to Sheffield (criterion a) and protection of the setting of heritage assets (criterion c) .
5.7 Section 12 of the NPPF deals with conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Paragraph 126 states that planning authorities should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, and recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. This is reflected in the scope of policy G7.
5.8 Paragraph 156 sets out the strategic policies that should be included in the local plan, which includes conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. This includes a requirement for local planning authorities to look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas or within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Policy G7 supports this positive approach, specifically applying to Conservation Areas and in its regard for the setting of heritage assets (criterion c).
27 NPPF, paragraph 7 28 NPPF, paragraph 9 29 NPPF, paragraph 17
-50-
5.9 Paragraph 157 states that the key themes in the NPPF, which policy G7 adds depth to, are in relation to improvement and enhancement of heritage assets, priorities for managing all forms of archaeological heritage assets and associated research information, and how to manage locally significant heritage assets and their settings. The NPPF states that Local Plans should contain a clear strategy for enhancing the historic environment30. Policy G7 responds to this by setting out how improvements to heritage assets will be made, with a clear message that techniques and detailing used in restoration should be consistent with the age and significance of the asset. It also requires new development to enhance heritage assets where appropriate.
5.10 Policy G7 is consistent with national policy as it prioritises safeguarding heritage assets, and considers also features that are locally distinctive to Sheffield. The policy is also a proactive strategy for improving heritage assets and enhancing and better revealing their significance. Paragraph 132 highlights the importance of setting to the significance of heritage assets, and policy G7 in criterion c expands on this further as a crucial aspect of the historic environment in Sheffield in need of protection.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
5.11 The Core Strategy sets out the Local Plan objectives for prizing, protecting and enhancing the natural environment and distinctive heritage and promoting high quality buildings and spaces. Linked to this are objectives for a city with character including objective S14.2 ‘preservation and enhancement of buildings and areas that are attractive, distinctive or of heritage value in urban and rural settings’. Policy G7 is needed to deliver this through the Local Plan.
5.12 Core Strategy policy CS74 Design Principles sets out the city-wide design principles, indicating the overarching requirements for all development within the city. It highlights four particular elements of built heritage which are distinctive to Sheffield, including metal trades; the City Centre; Victorian, Edwardian and Garden City suburbs; and historic village centres and the city’s rural setting. This policy provides further detail in relation to how these heritage assets will be safeguarded, and makes specific reference to archaeological evidence being particularly important where it relates to how the city developed. This contributes to a number of the Core Strategy criteria, in particular: helping contribute to place- making that promotes the city’s transformation (part e), transforming the character of physical environments (part f) and contributing towards achieving attractive, sustainable and successful neighbourhoods (part g).
30 NPPF, paragraph 157
-51-
Other Strategies
5.13 The Sheffield City Strategy highlights the city’s industrial heritage as one part of what makes Sheffield distinctive. Policy G7 supports the realisation of the City Strategy ambitions by prioritising protection of the distinctive heritage assets in the city, and ensuring that where possible there is restoration and repair of historic buildings. Heritage assets are an integral element of the character of many areas of the city and new development and their conservation will have benefits for the wider culture and economy of the city as well as creating a more individual sense of place.
Justification for the Policy
Issues that the Policy addresses
5.14 Sheffield currently has 35 Conservation Areas (a further 4 are administered by the Peak Park Planning Authority) and over 1100 Listed buildings, as well as scheduled ancient monuments, archaeological remains and areas and buildings of locally historic importance. There are various threats to these assets, such as dereliction and proposals for new development, and policy G7 states how these assets should be repaired and restored, highlighting the importance being placed locally on proactive improvement of the built environment. It also adds specific requirements in relation to the priorities for managing all forms of archaeological heritage assets and associated research information, and how to manage locally significant heritage assets and their settings.
5.15 The role of G7 is to provide the strategy for conservation of the historic environment in Sheffield, responding to issues relevant to its distinctive character, and link conservation to the overall spatial vision as set out in the Core Strategy. A further role of G7 is to add to the generic development management approach outlined in the NPPF, by referring to the distinctive heritage assets in Sheffield, and the approach to dealing with issues specific to Sheffield.
5.16 Although the Core Strategy refers to preservation of the historic environment in its objectives, further detail is required to translate this into policy that can be used in the development management process. Policy CS74 identifies specific heritage features to be safeguarded but does not indicate how these should be weighed against other considerations and what might be acceptable forms of mitigation and therefore the further policy is required in the City Polices and Sites document.
5.17 Policy G7 combines previously proposed options for policies dealing with the historic environment. At the preferred options stage of the City Policies document, a number of policies were drafted which covered criteria for designating conservation areas, as well as demolition of listed buildings. The current approach reflects the publication of new Government policy, which brings
-52-
all heritage assets together, and provides development management policies which can be used to determine issues such as demolition of listed buildings. The previous draft policies would duplicate national policy and are therefore no longer needed. However, policy G7 adds more detail by indicating how restoration and repair to Sheffield’s heritage assets will be carried out, which will form the basis for considering how protection of the historic environment can be proactive.
5.18 Policy G7 also addresses the understanding of archaeological assets. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF gives guidance about the process that is required to take place when a planning application site includes or has potential to include archaeological assets, but further detail is required given the development pressure that will be faced as the city will continue to be the focus for regeneration and redevelopment within the City Region. Policy G7 sets out the priorities in Sheffield for the protection of archaeological assets and, if they cannot be retained in situ as a direct result of new development, how a record of the understanding of the asset and its significance should be maintained. 31.
5.19 The NPPF includes within the definition of heritage assets those buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes which are not nationally designated. Policy G7 builds on this recognition of non-designated heritage assets and the significance that they can have in place making through their contribution to local distinctiveness. It states specifically that protection will be given to both the character and setting of Sheffield’s locally important historic buildings, landscapes and heritage features, including parks, gardens and cemeteries.
5.20 Historic parks, gardens and cemeteries are an important component of what makes Sheffield distinctive, and contribute to Core Strategy objectives for heritage, open space and habitats. Whilst they fall within the broad definition of heritage assets, the NPPF does not specifically refer to them, and this policy is necessary to reflect their importance to the city, and respond to matters concerning their protection, restoration and the preservation of views.
5.21 The policy does not include reference to the ‘Areas of Special Character’ designated in the UDP. They will not be carried forwards into the City Policies and Sites document as they were designed to provide interim protection for areas rather than a substitute for Conservation Area designation. The UDP Inspector’s Report was clear that the Council should re-assess the Areas of Special Character with a view to designating as Conservation Areas those which qualify and removing enhanced protection from those which do not justify it (this was included in the supporting text of UDP policy BE15). There were originally 48 Areas of Special Character, some of which are now Conservation Areas, or within Conservation Areas, or are registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Some other Areas of Special Character may be considered in future as potential Conservation
31 NPPF, paragraph 141
-53-
Areas, but this will depend on their merits as well as the resources available to carry out assessments. The 'Area of Special Character' will not apply once the new document is adopted. However, policy G7 will conserve historic areas that contribute to the distinct identity of Sheffield, which could potentially include areas other than conservation areas, as non-designated heritage assets.
5.22 Policy G7 proposes alterations to incorporate a reference to protecting the character and setting of Sheffield’s locally important historic buildings. This is an important addition to the policy, which builds on the definition of heritage assets in the Glossary of the NPPF by identifying the buildings and structures of local architectural and historic interest as non-designated heritage assets. The local list adds to paragraph 126 of the NPPF by identifying specific elements of the historic environment which make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The list is to be maintained by the local planning authority with the initial phase, compiled through public nomination, in place by the end of 2013. The local list will be subject to regular review.
Alternative Options
5.23 Policy G7 includes a number of different criteria relating to heritage assets and for most of the criteria there are no real alternative options other than not having a policy at all. The previous approach taken, in both the UDP and more recently in the City Policies Emerging and Preferred Options involved a suite of policies to deal with different aspects of development and heritage. National policy relating to development and heritage, however, limits these options as the broad principles were the same as is now covered in the NPPF. A genuine option, which would be more inflexible, would be a policy approach that simply protects heritage assets in their current form, and does not promote improvement.
5.24 The Emerging Options in spring 2006 set out seven options relating to heritage for consultation, none of which were proposed with alternative approaches. These seven themes are listed below, and all are now incorporated within policy G7, with the exception of issues now covered in national policy.
EBH1 Conservation Areas EBH2 Development Affecting Conservation Areas EBH3 Buildings in Conservation Areas EBH4 Development Affecting Listed Buildings EBH5 Historic Buildings of Local Importance EBH6 Historic Parks, Gardens and Cemeteries EBH7 Archaeological Sites and Monuments
Option G11a: The approach in policy G7
5.25 The strength of this option is:
(a) It is proactive in promoting re-use, restoration and repair of heritage assets
-54-
5.26 The weakness of this option is:
(b) In some circumstances development will be allowed which may harm archaeological heritage assets
Option G11b: Option G7b as consulted in Summer 2010)
Areas, buildings and features of special heritage value will be safeguarded by: (a) restoring and repairing buildings unless, exceptionally, there would be benefits to the community or for sustainable development that would decisively outweigh the historic and architectural value of the building; and (b) preserving, protecting and enhancing archaeological remains and their settings, including sites in former metal trades areas and the City Centre, unless, in the case of remains that are not nationally significant: i. damage would be limited, leaving remains in situ: or, where this is not justifiable or feasible, ii. adequate archaeological recording would offset any damage caused.
5.27 The strengths of this option are: (a) There would be the highest possible protection for heritage assets, with only exceptional loss allowed
5.28 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Could lead to dereliction of historic buildings as development would not be allowed to include loss of any historic buildings and therefore may not go ahead at all (b) The policy would be inflexible and therefore potentially stifle regeneration
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
5.29 Option G7a was considered to be the most appropriate option because it allows flexibility and is proactive in the conservation and management of historic assets and the overriding need to bring them back into productive use.
5.30 Option G7b was rejected because it would be too inflexible and could even work against the objectives it was intended to achieve by raising standards impossibly high.
Other Planning Justification for the Overall Policy
5.31 The policy seeks to ensure that heritage assets that contribute to the distinctive character of Sheffield are protected and conserved, as an essential aspect of the city’s identity.
-55-
5.32 Criterion (a) seeks to ensure that heritage assets are protected, consistent with their age and significance. An important element of this involves ensuring that procedures and techniques, as well as materials, are appropriate for the age and style of the asset. There has been examples of inappropriate materials, such as upvc windows in Victorian suburbs, and of workmanship, for example poor quality pointing; and this criterion
5.33 Criterion (b) seeks to ensure that archaeological evidence is properly accounted for as a key means of understanding the development of the city.
5.34 Criterion (c) recognises the importance of the character and setting of heritage assets, and seeks to ensure that any development taking place that affects an asset has a positive contribution and enhances or better reveals their significance.
Sustainability and Equality Appraisal
5.35 The sustainability appraisal indicated that the policy would assist in achieving a number of the sustainability objectives, in particular, the delivery of a quality built environment through retaining buildings and finding uses that will bring them back into productive use. There are no significant issues for equal opportunities.
Consultee Preferences
5.36 There were 12 representations made on the draft policy, of which there was broad support, although two areas of concern were identified in particular: that the policy did not reflect the change to the NPPF; and that, flowing from this, the policy needed to reflect Sheffield’s specific heritage issues. English Heritage (dcps 750 and dcps 751) had significant involvement in the revisions to the policy wording to respond to these comments, so that policy G7 identifies heritage assets specific to Sheffield and sets out how they will be protected.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery of the Policy
Mechanism and Agency
5.37 Specifically, the policy would be able to influence restoration of heritage assets in the following ways: • It would apply at the time of a planning application • It could assist in levering in grants, and many of these would require traditional materials and techniques as a pre-requisite • It would indicate the appropriate way to restore or repair (repairing a listed building in a non-traditional way would be an alteration, and therefore
-56-
could not happen without consent, and the policy would thus preclude this, so it would be refused). • In the case of Repairs Notices to Listed Buildings, the requirement is to return the building to the condition it was in at the time of listing, and/or to make appropriate repairs if were already in poor condition when listed. Thus the traditional approach would have to be adopted. Including the words "where appropriate" allows for non-traditional techniques, particularly in the case of unlisted historic buildings, depending on "significance". This adds flexibility to the policy whilst retaining the highest level of integrity in the most significant heritage assets.
5.38 The forerunner policy to G7(d) which has been in the UDP since 1998 has had a track record of protecting historic parks and gardens, with over 10% of applications covering historic parks and gardens being refused since 2000.
Resources
5.39 The main risks arising from the policy relate to the increased build-costs for developers. The implications for viability and delivery are taken up in the next section.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
5.40 The policy seeks to protect heritage assets, which are finite resources, and therefore it does not contain the same degree of flexibility as some other policies. However, the policy is proactive and flexible in how new development might relate to heritage assets and their settings. The policy encourages a range of different approaches commensurate with the significance of the asset: either to respect, enhance or better reveal its significance, which provides robustness and flexibility in the scale of response to afford protection whilst remaining proactive, depending on circumstances. The policy is also flexible as it allows the techniques, materials and detailing to respond to the age and significance of the asset.
5.41 The policy is also flexible in protecting archaeological remains. Whilst the protection and retention of archaeological remains is the overriding priority, the policy provides scope – in exceptional circumstances – for loss or harm to archaeological assets providing that investigation of the asset is carried out and resulting evidence is published.
5.42 Conservation does not automatically preclude change, and the policy introduces flexibility by encouraging repair and restoration. Historic buildings and areas are conserved best when they are in active use, and new uses and development may sometimes need to be introduced in order to keep them alive and help support conservation work. Whilst this could mean that assets are not restored on the basis of financial viability for instance, the policy would not allow future restoration
-57-
to be jeopardised by inappropriate development, so opportunities for restoration in the future will remain.
5.43 Funding not being available to support restoration and repair work to buildings, and to fund the protection and recording of archaeological remains, is a key risk. This could prejudice their future protection, or mean that developments are viewed as unviable, which could have a negative impact on regeneration. This may have a pronounced impact within some parts of the City Centre, where there is a significant cluster of heritage assets (particularly related to metal trades) that are in need of regeneration, and where there is a key objective to ensure economic regeneration.
5.44 A further risk relates to the achievement of restoration and enhancement of heritage assets, which depends on managers and owners of sites undertaking works. Associated with this, there is also a risk of owners failing to carry out maintenance (perhaps deliberately), which might lead to an asset deteriorating beyond a point where restoration is achievable. In practice it is difficult to prevent this, although the NPPF provides some guidance. This is linked to the concern that the cost of re-using historic buildings or restoring them may render projects financially unviable, leading to dereliction.
5.45 A significant number of historic parks, gardens and cemeteries are in private ownership, and there is a risk of failing to prevent development on these sites that would harm their character. Where planning permission is not required for works this may damage the character of a historic garden, or render restoration in the future not possible. There is also the risk of such sites falling into dereliction, particularly if they contain important features such as buildings, walls or gates that are not maintained. Council-owned sites are in a better position now than was the case before the value of historic landscapes was recognised, and before Friends groups were set up. Voluntary ‘Friends Groups’ will play a key role in championing preservation and enhancement of this group of heritage assets.
5.46 Public funding for delivering the element of the policy relating to recording and interpreting archaeological evidence is a high risk. During consultation on the draft policies, Sheffield Museums and Galleries Trust made representations about issues relating to storage capacity for archaeological remains and the associated costs. This has been highlighted as part of work on the CIL, but is likely to be a low priority for funding.
Monitoring
5.47 As this is a policy relating to qualitative issues, it would not be useful to set targets relating to the policy, as these might not provide a clear and accurate picture of how successful the policy is. For example, although the number of applications relating to heritage assets refused could be measured, it would not definitively answer the question about whether these assets had been protected
-58-
by that refusal, or indeed whether applications granted had caused damage. Therefore no policy-specific indicator is proposed.
5.48 English Heritage’s annual Heritage at Risk document is a useful more general indicator of the state of the historic environment at risk, including conservation areas, and other heritage assets such as historic parks. Tracking the improvement or decline in the number and condition of assets at risk will be important in assessing how well the historic environment is being protected in Sheffield. This resource is used by the Conservation team to assist in the prioritisation for resources.
5.49 In addition, qualitative monitoring is carried out in the form of a review of heritage assets as part of Conservation Area Appraisals and Management plans.
Conclusions on Soundness
5.50 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons:
5.51 It is positively prepared:
• It relates directly to the Core Strategy by expanding on the design principles established in policy CS74; • It is based on evidence of the quality of heritage assets within Sheffield, through Conservation Areas, listed buildings and the sites and monuments record.
5.52 It is justified:
• It is needed to deliver the Local Plan objective of enhancing character and distinctiveness and preserving buildings of heritage value, already set out in the Core Strategy; • It relates to the specific needs of Sheffield with its distinctive heritage and regeneration challenges • It is realistic about the resources required even though dealing with unique assets.
5.53 It is effective:
• It is deliverable over the plan period, taking into account considerations of viability and would not hinder the delivery of required development; • It provides strong support for protection of the historic environment, whilst allowing some flexibility to enable change to happen in the form of improvement and new development; • It is proactive in promoting restoration and repair of heritage assets.
-59-
5.54 It is consistent with national policy by:
• Helping to ensure a high standard of design through helping to establish a strong sense of place, responding to local character and history and reflecting local identity, whilst not discouraging innovation • Departing from earlier options to reflect the new provisions of the NPPF.
-60-
6 POLICY AREAS
Introduction
6.1 The Policy Areas are a vehicle for expressing the broad spatial policies of the Core Strategy in more detail, showing how they apply on an Ordnance Survey map base and identifying implications for a wide range of uses. Every part of the city lies in one or other Policy Areas and their boundaries are shown on the Proposals Map.
6.2 Most Policy Area types have a preferred use or uses and these determine the character of the area. Other acceptable and unacceptable uses are also listed. The approach in Countryside Areas is, however, different in that national planning policy is largely used to determine what types of development will be permitted. This is supplemented by policy G6A (see chapter 3 above).
6.3 Two types of Countryside Policy Area are identified on the Proposals Map:
- Countryside Areas (Green Belt) – this covers most of the areas of the district that that are not built up - Countryside Areas (Non-Green Belt) – this covers relatively limited areas of land in the South East and North Community Assembly Areas.
Countryside Areas (Green Belt)
Consistency with national policy
6.4 As already outlined in paragraph 3.4 and 3.10 to 3.17 above, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out national planning policy on Green Belts. However, the following paragraphs highlight the key paragraphs in the NPPF relating to amendments to the Green Belt boundary.
6.5 The NPPF (paragraph 83 states that:
Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
6.6 Paragraph 85 says that when defining Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should:
Define boundaries clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
Consistency with the Core Strategy
6.7 The question of whether any exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes Sheffield’s Green Belt was considered at the Core Strategy Public Examination. The need to provide additional land for housing or other
-61-
development can constitute exceptional circumstances but the Core Strategy Inspector concluded that such circumstances did not exist in Sheffield. She concluded that enough land had been identified in the city to meet the foreseeable needs for housing development. Provision for added flexibility or for land in excess of the requirement in the now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy was not considered to be exceptional grounds for reviewing the Green Belt.
6.8 Although the Core Strategy rules out the need for a full-scale Green Belt review as part of the current plan, it recognises that there are locations where untenable anomalies create the exceptional circumstances needed to justify changes to the Green Belt boundary. Policy CS71 of the Core Strategy, ‘Protecting the Green Belt’, says:
‘Countryside and other areas of open land around the existing built-up areas of the city will be safeguarded by maintaining the Green Belt, which will not be subject to strategic or local review. Exceptionally, changes may be made to remove untenable anomalies where the change would not undermine the purposes or objectives of Green Belt in that area. Development needs will be met principally through the re- use of land and buildings rather than through expansion of the urban areas and villages.’
6.9 The supporting text (paragraph 12.4) says: ‘untenable anomalies will be taken to comprise such circumstances, for example, where it is no longer possible to trace the boundary on the ground, as required by national policy’. It goes on to say that the only non-minor change that should be made is at the former airport runway. It says that this should be resolved by a land swap, excluding land on the runway and adding a larger area to the south, which also satisfies the purposes of Green Belt.
Proposed Changes to the Green Belt Boundary
6.10 A number of ‘ground rules’ have been used in deciding on where changes to the Green Belt boundary are appropriate. The main guiding principles are:
(a) With the exception of the change at the airport, changes should be minor and in all cases should be the minimum necessary to achieve a sensible, defensible boundary;
(b) Land added to the Green Belt should contribute to at least one of the purposes of Green Belts (as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF);
(c) For land removed from the Green Belt, it should not be necessary for that land to be kept permanently open (and it may already be in use for ‘inappropriate’ Green Belt uses)
6.11 In addition to these guiding principles, a number of other ‘rules of thumb’ have been used to determine precisely how existing anomalies in the Green Belt boundary should be dealt with:
-62-
(a) As far a possible, the realigned boundary should follow a readily recognisable feature on the ground (usually a fence, wall, hedge, road, stream, belt of trees or woodland edge);
(b) Where it is not possible for the boundary to follow an identifiable feature on the ground, the line has been redrawn to follow the shortest straight line route between clearly identifiable points;
(c) Where the boundary does not follow an identifiable feature on the ground but there is no obvious way of altering the boundary without making a significant change, the boundary has been left unchanged.
6.12 The current adopted Green Belt boundary is defined by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998). The relevant parts of the UDP Proposals Map are presented at a 1:10,000 scale. In some places, this can make it difficult to precisely define the boundary and it can be open to different interpretations on the ground. The Local Plan Proposals Map will also be published at a 1:10,000 scale but the data on which it is based has been plotted at a larger scale using the Ordnance Survey Master Map base and will be available on the Council’s web-site in electronic format at a much larger-scale. This allows a much greater level of precision than was possible with the UDP but also means that the Green Belt boundary can be defined much more precisely.
6.13 The proposed Green Belt changes are listed in Appendix 2 below. Maps showing the changes are in two separate annexes to this report. 47 changes are proposed and the majority of these are small-scale, involving less than 0.5 hectares of land. Overall, it is proposed to add 49.09 hectares to the Green Belt and delete 13.55 hectares. This gives a net addition of 35.54 hectares.
6.14 The land swap at the Airport32 involves deleting 6.9 hectares of land from the Green Belt, so that the boundary follows the southern edge of the runway. 38.7 hectares of open space at Tinsley Park are proposed as an addition to the Green Belt in compensation. Further detail on this is set out in the Lower Don Valley Area Background Report.
6.15 The only other change that could be regarded as non-minor is at Stradbroke33 in the South East Urban Area. Here, it is proposed to delete 4.75 hectares of land that has been developed for housing since the UDP was adopted. The development was a departure from the UDP but was granted permission on the grounds that the new housing was developed on an area equivalent to that formerly occupied by Stradbroke College. The former College buildings, which have been demolished, were originally located further from the edge of the built-up area than the new housing. This change is not specifically referred to in the Core Strategy because it corrects what is essentially a local anomaly in the boundary and removes land from the Green Belt which evidently no longer performs a Green Belt function. The change does not create any new land with potential for development.
32 Green Belt changes 7 and 8. 33 Green Belt change 2
-63-
6.16 If changes at the Airport and the former Stradbroke College are excluded, the other changes amount to a total addition of 10.40 hectares of land to the Green Belt and the deletion 1.95 hectares.
6.17 The other 44 changes are small-scale and their average size is just 0.28 hectares34. They have only been made where it is necessary to ensure that the boundary follows an identifiable boundary on the ground. These anomalies are the result of a number of factors:
(a) The original Green Belt boundary (1983) was drawn at a relatively small scale and errors were made in copying it onto the UDP maps, at the larger scale of 1:10,000.
(b) Boundaries can now be plotted electronically much more accurately and checked on air photos. This raises questions of definition that had not needed resolving before.
(c) In some cases, the Green Belt boundary was drawn in advance of new development and the boundary does not coincide with the curtilage of the completed development (e.g. at Overcroft Rise, Totley).
6.18 19 of the proposed changes which involve an addition to the Green Belt relate to Council-owned open spaces on the edge of the Green Belt where there is no identifiable feature on the ground between Green Belt and the Open Space or another Policy Area. A further 12 additions relate to open land or agricultural land in private ownership.
6.19 18 of the proposed changes involve the deletion of land from the Green Belt, usually as a result of subsequent development extending into the Green Belt, with a few examples of the boundary cutting through a garden or even a building. Two of the changes (other than at the Airport) involve both an addition to, and deletion from, the Green Belt.
6.20 None of the proposed changes have been made with the purpose of creating development sites though there are a very small number where this is a side- effect. The swap at the airport does result in additional development land but the deletion of land has been kept to a minimum in line with the ‘ground rules’ above.
Effectiveness
6.21 Development proposals in the Green Belt will be considered through the development management process having regard to paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF and policy G6A. The developer would need to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As already noted, paragraph 88 of the NPPF explains how this test should be applied.
34 10.40ha plus 1.95 ha = 12.35ha. 12.35ha divided by 44 sites = 0.28ha.
-64-
6.22 As noted in paragraph 6.5 above, exceptional circumstances have to be demonstrated to change the Green Belt boundary. A review of the Green Belt should not happen without a review of overall needs for new development, especially housing. This should take place in co-operation with other local authorities in Sheffield City Region, to understand how long term needs will be distributed between districts. Green Belt review is, therefore, a matter for a new Local Plan but the City Council has indicated its intention to start work on a new Plan as soon as the City Policies and Sites document has been adopted35. An early review is needed because the economic downturn has seriously affected demand for building new homes on many of the sites where the Core Strategy envisaged and promoted development.
Countryside Areas (Non-Green Belt)
Consistency with national policy and other strategies
6.23 Chapter 3 above has already set out national policy in relation to rural areas. It also explains how national policy, supplemented by policy G6A will be used to determine what types of development are acceptable in Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt).
Consistency with the Core Strategy
6.24 Relevant Core Strategy policies relating to Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) are also set out in Chapter 3.
6.25 Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) are designated to safeguard valued areas of countryside on the edge of the urban areas which are not shown as Green Belt in the current UDP. These sites cannot be added to the Green Belt other than as part of a full-scale review. Some are currently allocated for housing in the UDP but are no longer considered suitable sites for new house building. The main locations are identified in Core Strategy Policy CS72. A fuller justification for each one is provided in the relevant Area Background Report.
6.26 All the Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) are currently used for agriculture, grazing land or woodland. The only exception is the re-vegetated colliery spoil heap at Holbrook, which is a Local Nature Site with informal public access. Any land between the edge of the built-up area and the Green Belt that is in recreational use has been shown on the Proposals Map as Open Space, as different policies need to be applied to these areas.
6.27 Policy G6A essentially treats these Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) in a similar way to Countryside Areas (Green Belt), in so far as planning applications for development will largely be determined with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework. As with the Green Belt, it is
35 Cabinet Report 27 February 2013: Sheffield Local Plan (formerly Sheffield Development Framework): Pre-Submission Version of City Policies and Sites Document and Proposals Map
-65-
unnecessary for the Local Plan to set out preferred, acceptable and unacceptable uses.
Effectiveness
6.28 In the same way as Countryside Areas (Green Belt), development proposals in the Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) will be considered through the development management process, having regard to the NPPF and policy G6A.
6.29 Review of the Local Plan (see paragraph 6.22 above) will include a review of the Green Belt boundary and some of the Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) could potentially be added to the Green Belt where it can be demonstrated that they perform the purposes of Green Belt and are not required to meet long-term development needs. Equally, they, like Green Belt, will need reviewing in the light of development requirements.
-66-
7 OTHER OPTIONS NOT TAKEN FORWARD
Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt
Introduction
7.1 Two sites were originally proposed as existing Major Developed Sites in Green Belt in accordance with national Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2, Green Belts. However, publication of the National Planning Framework in March 2012 has made this unnecessary because the principles now apply to all previously developed sites in the Green Belt (i.e. regardless of size). The NPPF, paragraph 89 (6th bullet point), states that the following type of development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt:
Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
Development proposals on such sites would be assessed against policy G6A and other relevant policies.
7.2 For the record, the two sites that were originally proposed as Major Developed Sites were:
• Site of Forge Valley Community School, the former Loxley College and Shooters Grove Primary School (South and West Urban Area) • Site of Norton Aerodrome (see South East Urban Area)
-67-
APPENDIX 1 Villages and Substantially Developed Road Frontages in the Green Belt – Extent of Development
(a) Villages Washed over by the Green Belt
Bolsterstone
-69-
Brightholmlee
-70-
Dungworth
-71-
Ewden Village
-72-
Midhopestones
-73-
Ringinglow
-74-
Whitley
-75-
(b) Substantially Developed Road Frontages
Green Lane/ Cockshutt Lane/Owler Gate/Hilltop Drive at Wharncliffe Side
-76-
Chapeltown Road at Ecclesfield
-77-
Whiteley Wood Road at Fulwood
-78-
Long Line, Dore
-79-
APPENDIX 2
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GREEN BELT BOUNDARY
Purposes of Green Belts (National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 80)
(a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large urban areas. (b) To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another (c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns (not relevant to Sheffield District) (e) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 1 East West of Stradbroke 440379 Boundary follows a feature that no longer exists. Deletion 0.00 0.071 School, Richmond 384881
2 East Site of former 440044 Area of former Stradbroke College now redeveloped Deletion 0.00 4.7511 Stradbroke College, 385735 for housing in a different location. Richmond 3 East East of Castlebeck 439287 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.45 0 Avenue, Manor 385857 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e)
4 East Between 17 and 19 439287 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.05 0 Danewood Avenue, 385857 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Manor area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e) 5 East Saxonlea Avenue, 439069 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 1.11 0 Manor 386374 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e)
6 East Willow Drive, 440516 Green Belt boundary drawn erroneously to include Deletion 0.00 0.4191 Handsworth 387374 11 houses on east side of Willow Drive.
-81-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 7 East Airport 441132 Green Belt boundary obliterated by airport Deletion 0.00 6.847 388863 construction, changed to follow edge of runway.
8 East Airport 402000 Land to the south of the Airport runway is open in Addition 38.69 0 885000 character and performs Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (e).
9 North Smithy Moor open 425557 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Deletion 0 0.0213 space, Stocksbridge 398675 so Green Belt changed to exclude all open space area. 10 North West of Ridal Croft, 426200 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.0264 0 Stocksbridge 398621 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area. Performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e)
11 North Hunshelf Park, 427362 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.2918 0 Stocksbridge 398700 so Green Belt extended to include all open space/garden area. Land performs Green Belt functions (a) and (e).
12 North North of river at Old 428234 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 1.2021 0 Haywoods, Deepcar 398343 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e). 13 North Off School Lane, 429733 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.1445 0 Wharncliffe Side 394393 so Green Belt extended to include all agricultural area north of stream. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
14 North Spring Grove 429895 Green Belt changed to exclude land developed for Deletion 0 0.1927 Gardens, Wharncliffe 394228 housing. Side 15 North 38-48 Hawksley 430610 Green Belt changed to exclude land developed for Deletion 0 0.214 Rise, Oughtibridge 392838 housing.
-82-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 16 North Rear of 98 Church 430296 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.0453 0 Lane, Oughtibridge 393187 so Green Belt extended to include all agricultural area west of river. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e). 17 North Stockarth Close, 431887 Green Belt changed to exclude land developed for Deletion 0 0.0746 Middlewood 391703 housing.
18 North North of Loxley 431587 Green Belt boundary changed to follow rear garden Addition 0.0334 0 House Farm, 390395 boundaries. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), Wadsley (c) and (e).
19 North Sports Club, Malin 432424 Green Belt boundary changed to follow edge of built- Deletion 0 0.206 Bridge 389303 up area.
20 North Rear of 56-62 High 430966 Green Belt boundary changed to follow rear garden Deletion 0 0.0601 Matlock Road, 389189 boundaries of later development. Stannington
21 North Rear of 127-163 436222 Boundary adjusted to exclude 163a. Deletion 0.00 0.0556 Cross Hill, 393085 Ecclesfield 22 North Rear of 117-126 436115 Green Belt includes a house and part of one so Deletion 0.00 0.0745 Cross Hill, 393402 moved back to follow rear of buildings. Ecclesfield 23 North Rear of 3-5 Cross 436195 Green Belt boundary follows no feature on ground, Deletion 0.00 0.0536 Hill, Ecclesfield 393722 adjusted to follow rear garden boundaries.
24 North West of Thorncliffe 435133 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition/ 2.30 0.3315 Road, Warren, 397865 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Deletion Chapeltown area and Local Nature Site. Land added to the Green Belt performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
-83-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 25 North Warren Lane railway 435682 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.11 0 tunnel, Warren, 397623 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Chapeltown area. Land performs Green Belt functions (a), (c) and (e).
26 North Rear of 39 and 41 434239 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.07 0 Taverner Way, High 398017 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Green area. Land added to the Green Belt performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
27 North Rear of 23 of 433988 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.10 0 Merbeck Drive, High 398030 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Green area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e).
28 North 29 Bracken Hill, 433718 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Deletion 0.00 0.04 Burncross 396009 across domestic garden so Green Belt changed to exclude all domestic curtilage.
29 North Land to the west of 432858 Corrects a cartographic error. Green Belt boundary Addition 0.38 0 34 Stephen Lane, 393855 follows no identifiable feature across agricultural land Grenoside so extended to edge of domestic curtilages. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
30 North Land to the rear of 1- 432959 Green Belt boundary follows no identifiable feature Addition 0.31 0 11 Cross House 393720 across agricultural land so extended to follow edge Close, Grenoside of domestic curtilages. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
31 North West of 159 Warren 435451 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.35 0 Lane, Warren, 397757 so Green Belt extended to include all woodland and Chapeltown Local Nature Site. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
32 North Robin Hood Chase, 430584 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.27 0 Stannington 389077 so Green Belt extended to include all open space
-84-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion area and LNS. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
33 North Acorn Drive, 430359 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.26 0 Stannington 389126 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area and LNS. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e). 34 South East South of Hall 443928 Green Belt boundary changed to follow rear garden Addition 1.47 0 Meadow Drive, 380319 boundaries of later development. Land performs Deepwell Avenue Green Belt purposes (a) and (e). and Bright Meadow, Oxclose
35 South East North of Woodhouse 442706 Boundary standardised along east side of railway Addition 0.42 0 Station, Woodhouse 385573 track. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
36 South East Corner Moss 442466 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.29 0 Way/Ochre Dike, 382732 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Owlthorpe area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
37 South East Viaduct north of 444144 Boundary makes no sense at large scale as small Addition 0.04 0 Starbuck Farm, 384260 area of business/industrial area on north side of Beighton road. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
38 South East 61 Vicar Lane, 441803 UDP Green Belt boundary was wrongly drawn, to Addition 0.05 0 Woodhouse 385204 include open space/LNS in Housing Area. Green Belt extended to follow LNS boundary. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
-85-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 39 South East South of 32 Bramley 440630 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.10 0 Park Close, 385855 so Green Belt extended to include all open space Handsworth area/LNS. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
40 South East East of Beaver Hill 442118 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.06 0 Road, Woodhouse 385303 so Green Belt extended to include all open space area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
41 South West Land to the rear of 432907 Boundary follows no identifiable feature on ground Addition 0.0879 0 132-138 Northfield 388145 so Green Belt has been extended to include all open Road, Crookes space area. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e).
42 South West Oakbrook Road, 431961 Green Belt extended to include open space on north Addition 0.108 0 Nether Green 385799 side of Porter Brook. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e).
43 South West Rear of 42 and 44 431905 Green Belt changed to follow rear garden Deletion 0 0.0637 Dore Road, Dore 381563 boundaries.
44 South West Chapel House, 430563 Boundary changed to correct a cartographic error. Addition/ 0.02 0.0135 Chapel Lane, Totley 379961 Land added to the Green Belt performs Green Belt Deletion purposes (a), (c) and (e).
45 South West Rear of 23-29 430555 Green Belt boundary changed to follow rear garden Addition 0.14 0 Overcroft Rise, rear 379644 boundaries of later development. Land performs of 7-17 Oldwell Green Belt purposes (a), (c) and (e). Close and rear of 4,5 and 7 Stocks Green Court, Totley
-86-
Ref Community Address/location Grid Justification Addition Addition Deletion Number Assembly Ref or Area (ha) Area (ha) Area Deletion 46 South West Whinfell Quarry 431108 Part of public gardens shown as Housing Area, no Addition 0.14 0 Gardens, Whirlow 382724 identifiable feature on ground so Green Belt extended to include all open space area/ Historic Park. Land performs Green Belt purposes (a) and (e).
47 South West 1-3 Sandringham 428500 Boundary changed to reflect boundary of residential Deletion 0 0.06 Place, Lodge Moor 385990 development permitted as part of redevelopment of the former hospital site
Totals 49.09 13.55
-87-
MAPS SHOWING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GREEN BELT BOUNDARY
These are presented as two separate Annexes
1. North Sheffield 2. East, South East and South West Areas
-89-