Sheffield Local Plan (Formerly Sheffield Development Framework)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sheffield Local Plan (formerly Sheffield Development Framework) Consultation Schedule – Additional Site Allocation Options Full Schedule of individual comments and Council responses on the Additional Site Allocation Options and Sustainability Appraisal – January/February 2012 Representations on Additional Site Allocation Options………..................................................................2 Representations on Sustainability Appraisal………………………………………………………………..103 General Response A P00497 Lydgate Reservoir, Evelyn Road…………………………………...104 General Response B P00517 Canterbury Crescent………………………………………………...105 General Response C P00367 Beighton Road………………………………………………………..106 General Response D P00509 Junction Road, Woodhouse………………………………………...108 General Response E P00508 Former Sports Ground, Bawtry Road, Tinsley……………………110 General Response F P00502 Wiggan Farm…………………………………………………………112 General Response G P00517 Canterbury Crescent………………………………………………...114 General Response H P00505 Platts Lane/Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge…………………….115 General Response I P00507 Worrall Hall Farm…………………………………………………….117 General Response J P00503 Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington…………….119 General Response K P00506 Hawthorn Avenue, Stocksbridge/Coppice Close…………………121 Representations on Additional Site Allocation Options Document Section Comment Name of individual/ Nature of Summary of Comment Council response Recommendation ID organisation comment Introduction - General ASAO-10 Mr Ian Richmond Disagree comment Introduction - General ASAO-39 Mr Richard Pearson Disagree Developers should develop small brownfield sites across the city The National Planning Policy Framework requires allocated No change proposed. comment before greenfield land - including scarce arable land and housing sites to be deliverable during the plan period and says protected countryside areas - are considered or sold off by the that they must, therefore, be economically viable. It says Council for development. Woodhouse should not have a development should offer competitive returns to a willing land disproportionate number of additional sites which will put a strain owner and a willing developer. Our analysis shows that not all on local services, and land at Junciton Road should be used for the identified supply is likely to be deliverable during the plan light industry or park & ride so as not to affect its function as a period because much of the supply is concentrated in certain green link with housing. areas and many sites are not economically viable. The Core Strategy sets a target for at least 88% of new housing to be built on brownfield sites but even if all the additional greenfield sites were to be allocated, this target would still be comfortably exceeded. The three proposed sites in the Woodhouse area have potential to deliver about 350 dwellings which equates to less than 2% of the total identified housing land supply in the city. Environmentally sensitive areas within the Junction Road (P00509) and Woodhouse East (P00510) sites will be protected as open space. There is a much greater need for housing land than for land for light industry and the Junction Road site is not in a suitable location for Park & Ride because it is not located on a main arterial road into Sheffield. Introduction - General ASAO-46 Mr Robinson Disagree comment Introduction - General ASAO-56 Mr Matthew Reynolds, Agree The inclusion of public transport within the site assessments is Support noted. Public transport accessibility has been given No change proposed. comment South Yorkshire supported by the LUTI Steering Group of the Sheffield City significant weight in determining the suitability of sites but the Passenger Transport Region Transport Strategy and numerous policies of the SDF. potential shortage of deliverable housing sites over the plan Executive Request that the assessments are given strong weighting in period has meant that a small number of sites have had to be decisions about the suitability of the additional sites. proposed where access to public transport is less than ideal and improvements to services may be necessary. Introduction - General ASAO- Mr Andrew Powell Disagree Increased traffic will cause disruption on already cogested road Highways assessments have concluded that development of the No change proposed. comment 128 at peak times and close to schools which are already over- proposed sites will not cause unacceptable levels of congestion subscribed. or can be adequately mitigated through conditions on development. Additional classrooms will be provided where it is necessary to do so and depending on the level of demand at the time a planning is submitted. This would take account of funding options including the Community Infrastructure Levy. Introduction - General ASAO- Powell Disagree Increased traffic will cause disruption on already cogested road Highways assessments have concluded that development of the No change proposed. comment 129 at peak times. Local schools are already over-subscribed. proposed sites will not cause unacceptable levels of congestion or can be adequately mitigated through conditions on development. Additional classrooms will be provided where it is necessary to do so and depending on the level of demand at the time a planning is submitted. This would take account of funding options including the Community Infrastructure Levy. Introduction - General ASAO- S Auckland Neither agree There seems to be a lot of housing across a small number of The proposed additional housing sites make up less than 5% of No change proposed. comment 168 nor disagree sites. Agrees that some development is needed but has the total land proposed for new housing. The other sites are concerns about density and provision of community facilities and shown on the revised Proposals Map. The Local Plan Core services, increased traffic, and wildlife destruction. Suggests Strategy (2009) already sets out guidelines on density and payback from developers to the community. requires development to take into account the character of the area. The implications for community services such as schools and health facilities will be matters for the providers to respond to (e.g. by providing additional classrooms or opening new surgeries) but the providers have advised that there are currently no grounds for not allocating land. The position will need to be reviewed as planning applications are submitted and to take account of changes in demand. This would take account of funding options including the Community Infrastructure Levy 2 Document Section Comment Name of individual/ Nature of Summary of Comment Council response Recommendation ID organisation comment (a local tax that developers will be required to pay towards new infrastructure). Introduction - General ASAO- Mr David Mell Neither agree Requests an explanation for why house builders are not Apartments have seen some of the steepest falls in house No change proposed. comment 255 nor disagree developing sites in the city centre. If it's cost then the Council or prices since the 'credit crunch' in 2007 and this means that many Government should do something to encourage the developers developments would not provide sufficient profit for the to use the city centre and brownfield sites. Families should be landowner or developer. Consequently, banks are reluctant to encouraged into the city centre and more should be done to lend to the developers. Many of the schemes that were redevelop unused housing and buildings and transform them developed in the period prior to the recession were bought by into decent homes. institutional investors for the private rented market but the institutions now perceive apartments as a riskier investment offering limited potential for capital growth and so have generally ceased buying the properties. Although the Government has provided grants or loans through schemes such as the Get Britain Building Fund to support stalled housing developments, the austerity measures mean there is only limited public funding available to support new development. The Council is using money received through the Government's New Homes Bonus for projects which aim to speed up housing delivery or reduce the number of empty properties. Introduction - General ASAO- Councillor Ian Auckland Disagree Graves Park Ward Cllrs disagree that allocating greenfield sites Weak economic conditions and bank lending (both of which are No change proposed. comment 330 will solve the state of the housing market; it will just result in loss outside the control of the planning system) are currently of open space and green belt and put pressure on local services suppressing demand for new homes but the economy is such as schools. Existing former school sites (e.g. Matthews expected to recover over time and the Local Plan has to take a Lane) are available and every effort should be made to long-term view. The National Planning Policy Framework maximise the delivery and density of present allocations e.g. requires sufficient deliverable and developable housing sites to investigate reallocation of land to housing/mixed use, encourage be allocated in the Local Plan to meet the housing requirement family housing in city centre and include windfall sites in official that has already been set by the Sheffield Local Plan Core figures. The urban fringes should also be protected which may Strategy. To be deliverable, the NPPF says sites have to be add to the setting of the Green Belt (e.g. Norton Water Tower). economically viable