Transformation and Sustainability

SHEFFIELD LOCAL PLAN (formerly Sheffield Development Framework)

CONSULTATION REPORT Overview of comments received and officer responses

‘City Policies and Sites and Proposals Map Consultation Draft 2010’ (June – August 2010) ‘Additional Site Allocation Options’ (January – February 2012)

Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street SHEFFIELD S1 2SH March 2013

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 1

2. The Consultations 2

3. Overall Results 5

4. Policy Comments 9

Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment 9 Serving the City Region 10 Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods 10 Opportunities and Well-Being for All 13 Transport and Movement 14 Global Environment and Natural Resources 15 Green Environment 16 Character and Heritage 17 Areas that Look Good and Work Well 18 Land Uses in Policy Areas 19

5. Area Designations and Site Allocations Comments 21

Central Community Assembly Area 21 East Community Assembly Area 25 North East Community Assembly Area 30 South West Community Assembly Area 33 South Community Assembly Area 37 South East Community Assembly Area 41 Northern Community Assembly Area 46

Appendix 1a – City Policies and Sites Consultation Draft 2010, Policies 59

Appendix 1b – City Policies and Sites Consultation Draft 2010, Sites 67

Appendix 1c – City Policies and Sites Consultation Draft 2010, Proposals 71 Map Appendix 2 – Additional Site Allocation Options Consultation 2012 75

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Total Number of Comments, Consultation Draft 2010 5

Table 2 Number of Comments by Chapter 6

Table 3 Number of Comments on Site Allocation by Community 6 Assembly Area

Table 4 Number of Comments on Area Designations by Community 6 Assembly Area

Table 5 Total Number of Comments, Additional Site Allocation Options 7 2012

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report comprises the full consultation report, incorporating and superseding Part 1 published in Autumn 2010. It summarises the key messages arising from the consultation on the City Policies and Sites Consultation Draft 2010 in 2010 and on the Additional Site Allocation Options in January-February 2012, and summarises officers’ responses.

1.2 Appendices 1 and 2 show a full breakdown of the number of comments and range of responses for policies, sites and area designations including the additional sites consulted on in 2012.

1.3 A full schedule of every comment made and officers’ responses accompanies this report and can be viewed at www.sheffield.gov.uk/sdfconsult

- 1 -

2. THE CONSULTATIONS

Draft City Policies and Sites and Proposals Map, Consultation Draft 2010 June – August 2010 2.1 The consultation on the draft City Policies and Sites document and Proposals Map (referred to hereafter as Consultation Draft 2010) aimed to secure a full range of inputs from the community and stakeholders. This included representatives from public, private, and voluntary organisations, including local residents and from groups we don’t usually hear from.

2.2 The consultation objectives were:

• To raise awareness of, and measure the level of support and objection for the overall approach and options being considered. • To measure the level of support and objection for the specific policy criteria that were being proposed. • To obtain feedback from stakeholder bodies, the general public and other consultees on the draft document and map approved for public consultation.

2.3 We invited comments on the draft City Policies and Sites document and Proposals Map, and accompanying Sustainability Appraisal during a 6-week period from 21 June but extended to 31 August 2010 to allow for difficulties for groups responding in the holiday season.

2.4 All the documents and map sheets were available for inspection:

• in the following locations during normal opening hours: o First Point receptions at Howden House, Chapeltown, Hillsborough, Crystal Peaks and Manor Top o All Sheffield Library Branches (29 in total) including the Local Studies Section of the Central Library • on our website – www.sheffield.gov.uk/sdfconsult

2.5 In addition to printed and electronic copies of the document and map, an online consultation portal was provided. The online map allowed consultees to quickly select the policies relevant to a particular area. Consultees were also able to manage their own registration, make comments online, and view comments made by other consultees.

2.6 To raise awareness of the consultation, we wrote to over 1,500 contacts on the SDF database, provided adverts in local publications and linked up with the Council’s Twitter page to share SDF news. We also produced a consultation leaflet which specified the headline issues and details on how to comment. The leaflet was available at the First Points, library branches and on our website, and handed out at public meetings and festivals.

- 2 -

City Conference 2.7 The fourth SDF City Conference was held on 25 June 2010 at Ponds Forge in the City Centre. Details of the conference were posted and emailed to all SDF contacts and published in the SDF consultation leaflet and on our website. Representatives, stakeholders and major landowners were invited.

2.8 The following workshops were held at the City Conference:

• Economy, City Region and Transport • Neighbourhoods and Quality of Life • Design and Environment

2.9 Area Surgeries at the City Conference also provided attendees the opportunity to talk with an Area Planner about a specific site, area or policy and look at the draft Proposals Map in detail.

Planning Aid 2.10 Planning Aid provides free, independent and professional planning advice to communities and individuals who cannot afford to pay professional fees. They enhanced the breadth of the consultation by organising four workshop sessions with the following groups. These groups were agreed with officers as those that we don’t usually hear from in consultation on the SDF.

• Longley Park College (06//07/2010) • Sheffield TARAs (16/07/2010) • Youth Council (11/08/2010) • BME Network (29/09/2010)

2.11 We also worked closely with the Community Assembly teams and local community groups to meet with local residents. Across the seven Community Assembly areas, we presented at 19 local community group meetings, attended 14 summer festivals and organised 5 exhibitions and drop-in events. All of the events were advertised on our website and many were well attended. Further details about the events and the range of comments are summarised under each Community Assembly Area in Chapter 5.

Additional Site Allocation Options January – February 2012 2.12 The consultation was not on Member approved proposals as previously, but part of a technical assessment of site options that will be put before Members to consider. It ran for six weeks from 16th January to 27th February

2.13 The public could view the document and share their views in the same variety of ways as in 2010. However, the smaller and more localised scope of the consultation meant that a different approach to previous consultations was appropriate. A series of drop-in sessions provided the cornerstone of the consultation and allowed officers to initiate conversations about issues and ideas for the site options.

- 3 -

2.14 In total eleven drop-in sessions were targeted at areas near the site options. The drop-in sessions required a lot of officer time but this approach, the level of interest in some of the sites and not covering strategic and city-wide policies allowed us to reach people previously unaware of the Local Plan.

2.15 The methods to advertise drop-in sessions locally varied and included posters, leaflet drops, letters to neighbours and utilising community newsletters and websites via Planning and Community Assembly contacts. Officers also attended Community Assembly and local forum meetings to raise awareness of the consultation and invite people to the drop-in events being held in their area.

2.16 The drop-in sessions were advertised online and the consultation was on the homepage of the Council’s website. The Council’s twitter account and email alert system were used to publicise the consultation which was the subject of several prominent articles in the local press and was discussed on local radio. Approximately two thousand contacts that had previously expressed an interest in planning policy consultation were written to notifying them of the consultation.

2.17 Details of each drop-in event are included under each Community Assembly Area in Chapter 5.

- 4 -

3. OVERALL RESULTS

3.1 Appendix 1 shows the number of comments and our responses for the policy representations, site allocations and area designations for the Consultation Draft 2010. Appendix 2 shows the number of comment and our responses for the Additional Site Allocation Options consultation.

3.2 The level of respondents’ support was classified as:

• Support in full • Support with conditions • Observation • Object • Other

3.3 The figures are influenced by the way each respondent made their own judgement about which part of the document to comment on, and about how to categorise their comment. For example, some of the comments classified as ‘object’ were about just one aspect of the policy or proposal. The category did not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction with the option overall, only the need to change some aspect of it.

3.4 Council officers’ responses were classified as:

• Accepted in full • Accepted in part • Agreed but not included in document • No change needed • Not accepted • Other

3.5 ‘Accepted in part’ means we did not always agree in full with the consultees. For example, a site allocation might be changed as a result of the relevant policies changing rather than for the reasons of a specific respondent’s objection.

Consultation Draft 2010 3.6 Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the overall number of comments for each part of the City Policies and Sites and Proposals Map.

Table 1 – Total Number of Comments, Consultation Draft 2010

Document Number of comments

Policies 439 Sites 227 Proposals Map 167 Total 833

- 5 -

Table 2 – Number of Comments by Chapter Chapter Number of comments Introduction 18 Introduction Economic Prosperity and Sustainable 35 Employment Serving the City Region 13 Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods 63 Opportunities and Well-being for all 33 Transport and Movement 45 Global Environment and Natural Resources 17 Green Environment 68 Character and Heritage 29 Areas that Look Good and Work Well 21 Land Uses in Policy Areas 45 General Site Allocations Policy 30 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt 22 Total 439

Table 3 – Number of Comments on Site Allocations by Community Assembly Area Community Assembly Number of comments Central 38 East 51 North East 14 Northern 72 South 6 South East 31 South West 3 General Site Comments 12 Total 227

Table 4 – Number of comments on Area Designations by Community Assembly Area

Community Assembly Number of comments City-wide 12 Central 31 East 18 North East 21 Northern 43 South 18 South East 13 South West 11 Total 167

- 6 -

Additional Site Allocation Options January – February 2010

3.7 Table 5 shows the number of comments for each Additional Site Allocation Option.

Table 5 – Total Number of Comments, Additional Site Allocation Options 2012

Site Number of comments Introduction - General comment 19 The Need for New Homes - General comment 14 P00502 - Wiggan Farm, Towngate Road, Worrall 57 P00503 - Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington 33 P00505 - Platts Lane/Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge 31 P00506 - Hawthorne Avenue/Coppice Close, Stocksbridge 37 P00507 - Worrall Hall Farm, Kirk Edge Road/Top Road, Worrall 52 New Site Suggestions - Northern Community Assembly Area 4 Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - Northern Community Assembly Area 5 New Site Suggestions - North East Community Assembly Area 4 Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - North East Community Assembly Area 1

P00500 - Infield Lane, Darnall 4 P00501 - Foley Street/Levenson Street, Attercliffe 4 P00508 - Former Sports Ground, Bawtry Road, Tinsley 65

P00131 - Darnall Works, Darnall Road, Darnall 8 New Site Suggestions - East Community Assembly Area 4

P00498 - Herries Road, Owlerton 1 P00516 - Gilders Car Showroom, Middlewood Road 4 P00499 - Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth Road 37 P00511 - Former SHU Playing Fields, Hemsworth Road 54

P00512 - Land at Norton Lane, Norton Oakes 55

- 7 -

Site Number of comments P00367 - Beighton Road, Woodhouse 38 P00509 - Scrapyard and Vacant Land at Junction Road, Woodhouse 42

P00510 - Woodhouse East (farmland area) 41 New Site Suggestions - South East Community Assembly Area 3 P00496 - Hadfield Service Reservoir, off Glebe Road/Blakeney Road, Crookes 13

P00497 - Lydgate Reservoir, Evelyn Road, Crookes 31 P00517 - Canterbury Crescent, Fulwood 34 New Site Suggestions - South West Community Assembly Area 2 Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - South West Community Assembly Area 1

Appendix A - Draft Policy J1 1 Appendix B - Further Explanation 1 Total 701

- 8 -

4. POLICY COMMENTS

4.1 This chapter summarises the comments and officer responses in relation to each topic chapter of the Consultation Draft 2010. A full breakdown can be found at Appendix 1.

Introduction

4.2 There were some general comments dealing with aspects of the scope of the document, for example:

• Requests for related national policy to be incorporated into the policies • The policies should take a broader view than the needs of Development Management. • The emphasis on distinctive heritage and high-quality buildings and the environment was welcomed.

Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment

4.3 Policy A1: Infrastructure Requirements and Developer Contributions Many of the comments, particularly the objections, tended to reflect the uncertainty over the Government’s approach to CIL, rather than the infrastructure priorities. Such comments are now out of date following the Government’s introduction of CIL.

Corus Engineering Steels (formerly Corus), Hallam land Management and Scottish Widows (owners of the Moor) expressed concerns about viability. Our response explains that under CIL legislation the charges have to be viable and will be subject to public consultation and public inquiry with an independent examiner.

Concerns on viability will be addressed by the CIL process – charges have to be viable under the CIL legislation

There was some support for Policy A1 from infrastructure providers (Yorkshire Water, SYPTE and Network Rail).

4.4 Policy A2: Requirements for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment

The Homes and Communities Agency considered that the policy should cover all Sheffield people rather than just ‘local people’. We are now proposing to use the relevant ‘urban area’ as the definition for ‘local’.

We are proposing to replace the ‘requirement’ to provide local employment with ‘promoting’ in response to comments from Forward Investments and City Estates who both felt it would place a further burden on developers at a difficult economic time.

- 9 -

Support for the policy came from Yorkshire Forward, the Youth Council, TARA Groups and at the Longley Park College workshops (Planning Aid).

Serving the City Region

4.5 Policy B1: City Centre Design The majority of comments were extremely supportive and most changes are relatively detailed and by way of updating and clarity.

Hammerson questioned the definition of ‘highest quality’ in relation to the Heart of the City Quarter, and felt that this might ultimately render schemes unviable. In response, the policy seeks to reinforce the importance and prominence of the City Centre, where high quality design will be expected. It is not necessary, however, to introduce an implicit hierarchy of design quality, which was being put forward in the draft wording.

4.6 Policy B2: Development in the City Centre Shopping Streets and the Cultural Hub The Forum on Division Street, noted apparent discrepancies in land use requirements for ‘Shopping Streets’ and Housing Areas. The owners of The Moor advocated more flexibility in assessing the required uses in shopping frontages. Changes to the policy include a sequential preference for shops in the Primary Shopping Area, locations for units selling bulky goods and some relaxation of restrictions on the proportion of non-retail uses on ground-floor frontages. A Central Shopping Area has been designated to include The Moor and other main City Centre Shopping outside the core ‘Primary Shopping Area’.

4.7 B3 Retail and Leisure Development outside Existing Centres – see policy C5

Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods

4.8 Policy C1: Access to Local Services and Community Facilities in New Residential Development The policy has been revised in consultation with South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) who supported the policy but provided further advice on standard minimum walking distances to the core public transport network, and access to employment areas and key services. Some landowners and developers asked for the standards to be applied flexibly, however we do not propose a range of distances in order to prevent the greater distance becoming the default.

CPRE South Yorkshire questioned why walking distances to local facilities were different in urban and rural areas. Whilst, in theory, it would be desirable for people in both urban and rural areas to live within easy walking distance (400m

- 10 -

or 5 minutes walk) of at least 5 local services, this is not a realistic objective in rural areas because the density of homes would generally be insufficient to sustain that level of provision.

The Access Liaison Group generally supported the policy but commented that many disabled people are unable to walk the specified distances. We agree that not all people would wish to walk (or would be able to walk) 1,200 metres or even 800 metres on a daily basis. The purpose of the policy is not to set out distances that everyone should be expected to walk to reach public transport or local services and facilities. Rather, the purpose is to set realistic maximum thresholds that will encourage a greater proportion of the population to undertake some trips on foot, thereby reducing carbon emissions and congestion.

The Homes and Communities Agency and Bovis Homes but felt that housing should be allowed in areas that lack local facilities but which have good public transport access. This would not support the creation of sustainable, walkable neighbourhoods and would potentially lead to increased use of the private car (because many trips would not be undertaken by public transport).

4.9 Policy C2: Residential Design Spawforth Associates, Strata Homes and Sheffield College objected to 30% provision of wheelchair accessible homes. They all considered the amount to be unjustified without an up-to-date Housing Needs Assessment, and excessive given that it is covered by building regulations. They thought that 5% in developments of over 20 units would be more reasonable. We propose various wording improvements and the requirement for wheelchair housing is maintained at 25% of all developments of 4 or more dwellings (as in the Unitary Development Plan), rather than increasing it to 30% of dwellings as had been proposed in the previous draft.

4.10 Policy C3: Safeguarding Sensitive Uses from Nuisance There was general support from the Sharrowvale Community Association and Endcliffe Corner Community Organisation but concerns about late-night opening in and around District Centres. They all suggested greater rather than less detail for late-night opening uses. In response, we state that subject to resources, Supplementary Planning Documents will be used to designate night time opening areas.

Broomhill Forum also supported the policy, and requested that Broomhill be designated a zone for limiting the number, scale and opening times of late night uses. We welcome the support but in Broomhill, there are a number of late night uses, which are outside the remit of Planning as they are already in existence. Therefore the scope for planning to have an impact is limited. However, Planning and Licensing will work more closely to manage the issues arising from any new late night uses. Any further localised control through planning would be in a Supplementary Planning Document for the area.

- 11 -

4.11 Policy C4: Development in District and Neighbourhood Centres There was general agreement that local shops should be supported (Broomhill Forum, Botanical Area Community Association, Green Party and Future Investments).

Some recommended that community facilities should also be supported, though in Broomhill and Ecclesall accommodation agencies and large bars should be controlled. In response, we clarify that the policy’s proposal to limit changes of use from A1 (retail) applies equally to community uses.

Objectors wanted more flexibility in allowing non-retail uses (Stocksbridge Regeneration Company and Corus Engineering Steels) and consideration of another retail site to satisfy need in the south west (Asda). 4.12 Policy C5: Shopping and leisure Development and Community Facilities Outside Existing Centres (in its amended form this is now presented as policy B3) This policy identified specific local requirements not covered in national policy on out-of-centre provision. It also prescribed a specific five-yearly ceiling on any margins of additional retail development at Meadowhall.

Constraints on out of centre retail development were either supported or thought to be insufficient by some residents and by potential developers in the City Centre such as Hammersons and Scottish Widows. Other retailers or potential developers – such as British Land, Sainsbury’s Plc. and Ikea – thought they were too onerous as they had non-central sites.

Hammersons (the developers of Sevenstone within the City Centre) and Yorkshire Forward supported the cap on development at Meadowhall while Scottish Widows, the developers of The Moor, said that it was too permissive. On the other hand British Land (the owners of Meadowhall), Standard Life Investments and Ikea criticised it on the grounds that it was neither justified nor consistent with policy.

British Land, Standard Life and Ikea also objected to the proposed 1,000 sq m threshold for impact assessment on the grounds that it was not justified in the Core Strategy nor the Sheffield Retail Study. British Land commented that too much reliance was placed on Sevenstone going ahead and that alternative scenarios to retain shoppers in the City should be considered.

It is now accepted that the quantitative evidence is lacking to define the precise margin for any new retail development. However, the Council remains firmly committed to the position adopted in the Core Strategy, of keeping the centre at its present size to promote confidence in the regeneration of the City Centre.

- 12 -

Opportunities and Well-Being for All

4.13 Policy D1: Provision for the Needs of All Users Sainsbury’s Plc. suggested the policy should be deleted on the grounds that it replicates Building Regulations and national technical guidance which is likely to change rapidly over time, and it is not the role of the planning system to seek to protect ‘valued community facilities’ that are operated on a commercial basis and which are no longer viable. The revised version of the policy focuses on requirements for disabled people at public sites and workplaces. The previous version aimed to safeguard facilities for community use but it was concluded that planning controls could not prevent closures in the absence of other initiatives.

4.14 Policy D2: Open Space in new Housing Developments Some developers requested more detail about the quality of the required open space, and suggested relaxing the 10% requirement if it would be of a high quality. We recommend that any trade-off between quantity and quality should continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The requirement has been relaxed to apply to only housing developments of 4 or more hectares recognising practical problems with providing open space on smaller sites and that funding for greenspace from the new Community Infrastructure Levy will be more limited in view of other priorities.

4.15 Policy D3: Delivering Affordable Housing There were a number of objections to a lack of evidence to support the target of 40% City Estates, Scottish Widows Investment Partnership, Bovis Homes and Sheffield College). Some also said that the target should change according to location. The issue of viability and flexibility is taken up in the proposed supporting text to the policy. This policy completes the provision for affordable housing in the Core Strategy (policy CS40), retaining a target of 40% of units to be affordable, though it is recognised that this cannot be attained under present economic circumstances. But, in the most viable locations, it is expected that this will still be achievable as well as the CIL payment in higher value areas over at least some of the period covered by the policy.

CPRE South Yorkshire argued that in rural areas the threshold for requiring affordable housing should be smaller to reflect the lack of large sites. Although there are not many sites in the rural areas, we suggest that a larger threshold will restrict delivery of affordable housing through this mechanism. However, the Affordable Housing Viability Study carried out by BNP Paribas in 2009 found that affordable housing delivery is not likely to be viable below 10 units.

We welcome the support from Stocksbridge Regeneration Company, the Homes and Communities Agency, Tata Steel Group (formerly Corus) and Sheffield Newspapers.

- 13 -

Transport and Movement

4.16 Policy E1: Development and Trip Generation Outokumpu Stainless and IKEA, amongst others, objected to the term 'excessive' in relation to congestion as it is not defined and measurable. In addition, one respondent felt that the policy may undermine development in areas where there is already congestion, e.g. near the motorway junctions, and that the policy didn’t give developers enough clarity on this issue.

We have omitted the statement about development not being permitted on trip generation grounds as this is now covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates refusal would be appropriate only if cumulative impacts were severe.

We have restructured the policy to provide clearer guidance on what is required. We have removed the term ‘prevent excessive’ in relation to congestion, replaced with a requirement to ‘reduce the impact’ of the development on congestion.

4.17 Policy E2: Parking IKEA and Outokumpu objected to the maximum parking standards as being too onerous and that they should be in line with PPG13. British Land objected for similar reasons, saying that office and leisure are more restricted than the current standards. Sainsburys Plc and Tesco Plc both said that the retail parking standards are too restrictive. The Homes and Communities Agency said the policy needs to take account of access to public transport and service frequency before determining the level of parking for individual developments. In our response we explain that the statutory documents need to include standards to support the Core Strategy policies for managing the demand to travel – these are expressed in terms of maximum levels of parking and are complemented by minimum car parking provision for disabled people, and minimum cycle parking standards. The National Planning Policy Framework expects Local Authorities to set their own local parking standards which reflect the nature of the area. A large urban area such as Sheffield generally requires tighter parking standards. However, these have been banded into three zones (City Centre, Other Urban Area and Rural) which broadly reflect the comparative accessibility and congestion of an area. Provision is now proposed for a higher level of off-street residential parking where safety or operational problems are an issue.

CPRE South Yorkshire, The Sheffield Diocese Board of Finance, the Access Liaison Group and a number of other respondents supported the car parking standards.

South Yorkshire Police felt that new car parking should incorporate ‘The Safer Parking Award Criteria’, with Park Mark certificate. We explain that policy E2 sets out standards for parking provision and that design is covered in national guidance and will be covered more specifically in local design guidance.

- 14 -

CPRE South Yorkshire said the cycle parking standards in general seemed low. Another respondent said the cycle parking standards went into too much detail and should be determined by Travel Plans. In response, we explain that minimum cycle parking standards are necessary in the parking policy (E2) to group together all parking requirements for development, which includes disabled car parking provision. The cycle standards are a minimum level and the Travel Plan will help to determine the actual provision.

4.18 Policy E3: Design for Roads and Movement Broomhill Forum, Spawforth Planning and Urban Regeneration Ltd and Sheffield Civic Trust asked for the policy to be re-titled: ‘Design for Movement and Roads’ and to require priority for pedestrians in certain parts of the city, as well as additional walking routes to be identified on the Proposals Maps. In addition, Sainsbury’s Plc. said the policy was too lengthy, lacked an evidence base and was inflexible, and that many of its requirements are contained elsewhere.

We have reduced the length of the policy to give it more focus.

The Access Liaison Group supported the policy saying it was helpful for and recognised the needs of disabled people.

Global Environment and Natural Resources

4.19 Policy F1: Pollution Control Cumulative impacts were raised and exterior lighting control zones were suggested, particularly in rural areas. Additional wording to the policy will ensure that light pollution can be dealt with on a site-by-site basis. Amendments to the policy deal with the cumulative impacts of development on air quality and the effects of light pollution.

4.20 Policy F2: Requirements for Waste Management Moss Valley Wildlife Group registered concern that part (h) should not be used to justify accepting waste facilities at the former Norton Aerodrome, and Carter Knowle and Millhouses Group opposed the clause because it does not give absolute protection from waste development in the Green Belt. We consider that it would not be consistent with national policy to word the policy more absolutely.

The Environment Agency suggested amended wording that incorporated the main objectives behind sustainable waste management, and the Highways Agency discouraged selection of sites that require significant use of the Strategic Road Network for transporting waste.

- 15 -

Green Environment

4.21 Policy G1: Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity and Features of Geological Importance Some developers and landowners refuted the justification for Local Nature Sites, including Hallam Land Management and DLP Consultants on behalf of several clients. We are required by national planning policy to identify local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of national, regional and locally designated sites of importance. Support was given by nature and wildlife groups, who suggested they that they should all be shown in Open Space Ares; we agree with this and have made changes to the Proposals Map accordingly.

Sheffield Wildlife Trust, Loxley Valley Protection Society, Moss Valley Wildlife Group objected to the policy wording as it offers too many opportunities to disregard policy. We explain in our response that the protection offered to all sites by policy G1 is commensurate with their value in biodiversity terms and their designation. So nationally, regionally and locally designated sites are offered the highest level of protection, but more flexibility is given for other sites which involve development. For any planning application relating to a LNS, justification would be expected as to why there is no other alternative and to demonstrate the mitigatory or compensatory measures proposed.

Loxley Valley Protection Society suggested that Local Nature Sites should also be designated as Open Space Areas. Our response clarifies that all Local Nature Sites over 0.4ha should be designated as either Open Space Areas, Waterway or Countryside Areas (non-Green Belt) which in addition to the LNS designation are considered to offer the appropriate level of protection. Sites under 0.4ha are not shown as Open Space on the Proposals Map, however Core Strategy Policy CS47 will afford them sufficient protection.

4.22 Policy G2: The Green Network There were some concerns about the how Green Networks could be applied consistently as each line is the same width on the map. We have concluded that setting widths would be too inflexible, and we should instead assess the impact of each proposal on the Green Network on case-by-case basis.

4.23 Policy G3: Trees, Woodland and the South Yorkshire Forest There was a lot of support for this policy (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, Loxley Valley Protection Society, Moss Valley Wildlife Group, CPRE South Yorkshire and Sheffield Wildlife Trust). There was one objection from Corus Engineering Steels that blanket application across the area would not adequately reflect the various scenarios that might arise on different sites. Whilst agreeing in principle, the policy will be applied with a degree of flexibility.

4.24 Policy G4: Water in the Landscape The Environment Agency suggested that the text should note means for species migration (using green network principles). We agree with this

- 16 -

principle and Policy G2 covers the value of the Green Network for wildlife. The exact width of the Green Network will vary, and will be determined on a case by case basis to ensure the benefits can be maximised.

Sheffield Wildlife Trust commented that the policy should indicate that, where a site has been identified as suitable for flood mitigation via habitat creation, any development should either incorporate this or strongly justify why not. We acknowledge this point and floodplains will now be referenced in the list of features in the introductory paragraph to the policy as being worthy of protection and enhancement.

Character and Heritage

4.25 Policy G5: Development and Area Character Housing density was identified as an element of character that should be covered within the policy but is already covered in the Core Strategy.

Scottish Widows suggested that there was potential conflict with the aspirations and intentions of Policy B1, City Centre Design, but this is not accepted.

4.26 Policy G6: Countryside Character Stocksbridge Regeneration Company, Corus Engineering Steels and Bovis Homes believed the policy was too restrictive, particularly in respect of not allowing for ‘exceptional circumstances’. Both developers and conservation groups (e.g. CPRE South Yorkshire) asked for clearer guidance to be provided on what is permitted development in Countryside Areas and the Green Belt. In response, the former policy G6 was subdivided into G6A and G6B to enable more specific coverage of landscape character and G6A reflects the new national policy context. Reference is no longer made to existing ‘Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt’ because the National Planning Policy Framework now sets out criteria for assessing development proposals on previously developed sites in the Green Belt.

4.27 Policy G7: Development and Heritage One respondent noted that there are heritage assets outside Conservation Areas and proposed that the UDP’s Areas of Special Character should either be retained or upgraded to Conservation Areas. In response, it is not possible to continue to designate such areas and those that are not yet Conservation Areas are not high enough on the list of priorities for fuller assessment. Local listing of buildings may help address some of the concerns.

The policy now incorporates former policy G9 protecting the city’s distinctive historic parks and gardens.

4.28 Policy G9: Historic Parks, Gardens and Cemeteries An individual supported the policy but with the conditional comment that it should cover more historic private garden areas that are at risk from development and are a distinctive heritage feature. English Heritage objected

- 17 -

to the policy, making detailed comments about potential actions for strengthening and improving it. The policy has been incorporated into Policy G7.

Areas that Look Good and Work Well

4.29 Policy G10: Design Quality Proposed changes to this policy are mainly ones of detail but they should satisfy a request for additional criteria to promote good urban, including the promotion of natural surveillance as requested by British Waterways. There was an objection against expecting the full list of criteria to be achieved as it was considered excessive but the rewording recognizes that not all criteria will be relevant in every situation.

The policy now incorporates the issue of public art (formerly policy G12) emphasising it as an integral part of design in major developments. Objections were made against the public art policy for reasons of viability but integrating with overall design requirements may help to address this.

One respondent suggested that the policy should consider sensitive boundary treatments and boundary design to ensure development respects neighbouring areas.

4.30 Policy G11: Tall Buildings One consultee considered that thresholds for tall buildings would fail the test of soundness as developments increasingly interrelate between Quarters. Others suggested that further work was needed to justify the views as well as the thresholds themselves. The revised version strengthens the table for the Quarters but continues to reflect their distinctiveness.

DLP Consultants considered that considerable further work was necessary to justify the views chosen, as well as the thresholds themselves, which in certain instances were extremely low.

In response, the policy now indicates the prevailing context in each Quarter of the City Centre in terms of a range of building heights rather than specifying single thresholds.

4.31 Policy G12: Public Art This policy has been incorporated into Policy G10. See above for comments and response.

4.32 Policy G13: Shopfront Design The detailed design of roller shutters was raised, and some felt that common features within shopping areas should be strengthened in order to create a greater sense of local distinctiveness. The policy, which is citywide, continues to set out generic criteria that can be applied locally. We propose additional detail to inform consideration of planning applications.

- 18 -

4.33 Policy G14: Advertisements The principal comment was in relation to the enforcement of signs, particularly ‘to let’ signs, that proliferate in areas where there is a concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation. But this is not a matter for planning control.

Land Uses in Policy Areas

4.34 Policy H1: Land Uses in Policy Areas There was some support for the overall policy area approach but there were concerns about the proportion of preferred uses and the amount of flexibility allowed for. Half the comments were objections and two thirds sought changes.

The broad approach of enabling sustainable patterns of development and reducing the need to travel was supported and we propose to retain it.

Many commented that there should be more flexibility in the policy and more exceptions given. We propose to amend subparagraph (b) to allow for a wider range of exceptions to the requirement for preferred uses to be dominant. However it would still be necessary to show that the proposal would give rise to significant benefits.

Some commented that the minimum percentages for Priority Office Areas and Business Areas were too high. There was particular focus on the requirement for offices in Business Areas as it could restrict viability and result in vacant development. We propose that the required minimum office floorspace in Priority Office Areas should be reduced from 70% to 60%. To remove the risk of oversupply of offices and to increase flexibility to support regeneration initiatives we propose that there should be no single preferred use in Business Areas to make other employment uses equally acceptable in principle. The character of these areas should be safeguarded by a ceiling on the amount of housing floorspace.

Some comments suggested that offices and/or open storage should be acceptable in Business and Industrial Areas. We do not accept the latter suggestion because open storage could detract from the distinctive role of Business and Industrial Areas and should not be identified as acceptable in principle. However, proposals could be left to be decided on their individual merits. Offices should be developed in accordance with the locations set out in Core Strategy policy CS3.

It was claimed that leisure uses should have more support in General Employment Areas. Our response explains that national policy gives preference for leisure uses to locations in centres where possible. The General Employment Areas are out-of-centre and it would undermine the preference for centres to state that leisure uses would be acceptable there in principle. So leisure uses in these Areas should be considered on their merits. This does not

- 19 -

preclude large-scale leisure in General Employment Areas, where they may still be appropriate.

Many also argued that retail development outside centres should not be limited to 200 sq m if it satisfies national policy. We accept that this limit did not reflect the sequential approach in national policy, which does allow for the possibility of larger retail developments outside centres if suitable locations are not available within centres.

It was suggested that in shopping centres the minimum 50% should not be taken up by a single retailer. Whist we understand the wish to safeguard the character of and diversity within existing centres, the precise figure would be too specific in limiting types of retail operation. However, the principle is supported in policy C4, which states that that the scale of shopping should be appropriate to the scale and type of centre.

One respondent requested stricter controls on ‘houses in multiple occupation’ in Housing Areas, but this is already covered in the Core Strategy by policy CS41.

4.35 Policy J1: Development on Allocated Sites

There was concern that the mainly single-use requirement on allocated sites would be too restrictive – two thirds of the comments were objections.

The objections specifically asked for more mixing of uses where there would be regeneration or operational benefits. The allocations are made specifically to safeguard enough land for particular purposes, such as housing. This means foregoing some flexibility and scope for mixing with other uses. However, more sites have been identified where the requirement for particular uses has been relaxed.

One comment asked that the 90% requirement be removed for the required use to allow flexibility to respond to market conditions. Another consultee thought the 90% would not allow for sufficient, or even necessary, open areas and ancillary uses. We propose to reduce the required minimum of the required use from 90% to 80%. This would maintain the function of the allocations in safeguarding land whilst giving a little more flexibility. But not all ancillary uses will be provided on the allocated sites.

- 20 -

5. AREA DESIGNATION AND SITE ALLOCATION REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 This chapter summarises the verbal and written comments and officer responses in relation to the area designations and site allocations on the Proposals Map Consultation Draft 2010 and the Additional Site Allocation Options. A full breakdown for the Consultation Draft 2010 can be found at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 shows a full breakdown of the Additional Site Allocation Options.

Central Community Assembly Area

Member Briefings

• 22/04/2010 – discussed consultation approach for the area. • 08/07/2010 – discussed content of the draft document and Proposals Map.

Consultation Events

Consultation Draft 2010: • Walkley Forum (07/06/10) • City Centre Forum (15/06/10) • Sheffield Hallam University - Operational Level (22/06/10) • Broomhill Forum (23/06/10) • Winter Gardens Exhibition (28/06/10-02/07/10) – Officer present during lunch time and one evening • Broomhall (19/07/10) • Sharrow (20/07/10) • Sheffield Hallam University – Strategic Level (22/07/10) • Ecclesall Road Community Groups (04/08/10)

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. The consultation drew a total of 69 written comments from external consultees, including 31 on site allocations and 38 on area designations. 19% of the comments offered support or conditional support, 65% gave outright objections and 16% were observations/other comments. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

Additional Site Allocation Options, 2012:

• Central Community Assembly Meeting – 26/01/2012

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. The additional sites consultation drew a total of 6 comments – one in support of P00498, two in support, one objection and observation in relation to P00516 and one comment suggesting a number of other sites for allocation.

- 21 -

Area Designations

5.2 Central Housing Area Sharrow residents commented that the existing businesses in the John Street Conservation Area are sustainable and are an important aspect of both the city’s heritage and the local community. They objected to the proposed change from the UDP Industry and Business Area to Central Housing Area. Sharrow Community Forum produced an audit of local business to support their argument. We propose to change the John Street Triangle to a General Employment Area largely based on the evidence provided.

Forum Café/Bar, Sakring Omsesidigt and Ashgate Commercial all commented that the Central Housing Area within the Devonshire Quarter should be changed to a Flexible Use Area which would provide greater development flexibility, protect the amenities of residents and take into account the needs of local businesses. They also objected to policy H1 Land Uses in Policy Areas, for being unclear and lacking evidence. We propose to simplify the Shopping Street and Central Housing Area at Division Street and Devonshire Street to Secondary Shopping Area only. This will provide more flexibility of uses above ground floor as requested. The supporting text for policy H1 will be clarified and further evidence and explanation provided as part of the relevant Background Reports.

5.3 Housing Areas Yorkshire Water objected to the Rivelin Bank Water Pumping Station in Walkley being within an Open Space Area. They would like to see the site changed to a Housing Area to allow for future residential development. Our response clarifies that the site is in a Housing Area in the UDP and the three buildings do not comply with the definition of an Open Space Area in Core Strategy policy. We propose that the boundary is re-drawn tightly around the land containing the buildings. Any proposals for further housing would be subject to satisfying highways and access issues.

5.4 Ecclesall Road Residents and local community groups supported the change in Policy C4, from measuring “units” to “frontage” as this will protect smaller retail units. They also supported the clear statement in Policy C3 that safeguards local residents from nuisance. Requests were made for Interim Planning Guidance to establish a boundary around Ecclesall Road which sets a closing time of 11.30pm and park-and-ride facilities to serve the Ecclesall Road Key Route. At present completing the Sheffield Local Plan is a priority. Following this, any designation of zones controlling opening hours will be consulted upon as part of a Supplementary Planning Document.

The University of Sheffield objected to the conservation designation of some of their land. We do not propose to amend the proposed Historic Garden

- 22 -

designation but agree that a more accurate description in policy G7 is Hadow House/Pisgah House and not Tapton Hall.

Sheffield Hallam University are concerned about the University and College Area boundaries (City Centre and Collegiate campuses), designations and allocations that may constrain campus expansion. There are proposed changes to designations and site allocations that will provide greater flexibility for university uses, plus these policies are intended to work alongside Core Strategy policy CS20 which highlights the importance of the universities and makes provision for campus expansion.

5.5 District Centres Attendees at the Longley Park College workshop (Planning Aid) felt that Holme Lane should be allocated for retail as an expansion of Hillsborough District Centre. A number of retail uses have closed along Holme Lane in he last 15 years and it no longer functions as a local centre as defined in national planning policy. We are therefore proposing to designate it as a Flexible Use Area to encourage the expansion of local businesses and new homes.

5.6 Business and Industrial Areas Apollo Works supported the increased flexibility of the Business and Industrial Area around Neepsend Lane.

5.7 Business Areas Turner Investments Ltd, City Estates, National Grid Property Holdings and Pullan Developments all questioned various Business Area designations around the City Centre and instead suggested either Central Housing Areas or Flexible Use Areas. We now propose that the policies are much more flexible in response to the comments, new national policy, changing economic circumstances and further research in to the amount of land needed to deliver the required office space. A number of Priority Office Areas have been changed to a more flexible Business Area designation, in particular the ones to the north of the City Centre along the Inner Relief Road. The Priority Office Areas are also more flexible and now allow for non-office uses to total 40%. Business Areas no longer have an office requirement, are aimed at supporting a broader range of business uses and instead limit residential development to 40% of the area.

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership thought that The Moor should be designated as a Mixed Use Area rather than a Business Area. It was also concerned that the minimum office requirement at Moorfoot is too specific and that there is no evidence that the requirement is viable. Instead they suggest a more flexible “regeneration zone” with masterplanning and individual applications determining the precise mix of uses. We are proposing to change the designation of The Moor to Central Shopping Area which better reflects its current retail role and provides flexibility for use above ground floor level. The office requirement at Moorfoot has also been reduced.

- 23 -

Site Allocations

5.8 New Retail Quarter (P00084) Members of the public objected to the allocation of the NRQ because of the vacant shops and the demolition of buildings with no commitment to a start date. The allocation is required to safeguard and regenerate this strategic location in the Primary Shopping Area as required by Core Strategy policy CS14. Since the consultation a Compulsory Purchase Order has been served on all owners and the Government’s New Development Deal initiative will help to forward-fund essential infrastructure. Construction of the New Retail Quarter is expected to begin in 2014.

5.9 Other Sites Yorkshire Forward expressed concern that site constraints and market conditions will make the Office allocation of site on Sheaf Square (P00083) unviable and request more flexibility for other uses. They supported other allocations such as Shoreham Street (P00039) and Digital Campus phase 1 & 2 (P00100 & P00470). Since the closure of the Regional Development Agency site ownership has passed to the HCA (Homes and Communities Agency). The Council has worked with the HCA on possible solutions for feasibility issues at Sheaf Square. Construction of the University Technical College on Shoreham Street has started.

Objections were received from landowners of sites in the North Neepsend and Hillfoot Riverside areas allocated for Business and Industrial uses (P00252, P00236 & P00253). The objections were based on a lack of flexibility to allow for a mix of higher value land uses to deal with changing circumstances, viability and environmental factors. We do not agree with these comments: P00252 is a large site (4.2ha) and is needed to maintain the supply of employment land in the city. We propose that residential and other non- industrial uses should be developed in the adjacent Business Area up to Bardwell Road before this site is considered as it is isolated from other residential areas, local services and public transport.

Tesco Plc. objected to the allocation of site P00239 and was concerned about the lack of a business case for Park and Ride in this location. SYPTE support this site allocation as an optimum location for Park and Ride on an existing key route which will complement the planned Penistone Road Smart Route.

The Environment Agency has provided advice on mitigation measures and appropriate development for site allocations P00038, P00039, P00070, P00470, which are located in flood risk zones. We explain in our response that flood defence improvements are ongoing. The risk is mitigated in site allocations by an 8m river easement stated as a condition on development. Adopted Core Strategy policy also prevents more vulnerable uses, such as housing, at ground floor level.

- 24 -

Additional Site Allocation Options

5.10 P00516, Gilders Car Showroom, Middlewood Road We received an objection from the landowner who asked for it to become a flexible use allocation to allow B1, C2 and A1 (up to 1500sqm gross floorspace) uses. Our response to this objection explains that A1 uses would be subject to the sequential and impact tests in national planning policy and the benefits of non-C2 or non-C3 uses would have to outweigh the harm it would cause to the supply of housing required by CS22. We propose to retain the allocation due to the considerable requirement for housing in the city.

East Community Assembly Area

Member Briefings • 14/07/2010 – Introduced consultation and obtained feedback and endorsement of the consultation approach in the East Area.

Consultation Events

Consultation Draft 2010: Woodthorpe Summer Fayre (19/06/2010) • There was support for the Playing Field designations on Richmond Park from the Friends of Richmond Park, who identified their aim to improve facilities on the park.

Darnall Forum / East Community Assembly Meeting (24/06/2010) • A position statement was made and subsequent discussion took place about the Gypsy and Traveller sites in Darnall. • There were several local area comments responded to by Councillors and officers present. The lack of apparent delivery of a number of regeneration frameworks and strategies was discussed.

Manor Assembly (30/06/2010) • Attendees requested the encouragement of more localised employment sites. • There was support for the Flexible Use Area Designation next to Manor Top. Attendees in general were against the idea of incorporating a large foodstore on the site, and would like to see smaller-scale retail uses (small shops or a market). A Flexible Use Area Designation, as opposed to a District Centre designation, would, in principle, allow for this.

Stradbroke Summer Fayre (03/07/2010) • At least 3 respondents supported the fact that there are no large redevelopments in Richmond, as they believe it is a nice area to live in at present. • A local resident in Manor supported the new housing allocations proposed for The Circle and other neighbouring sites.

- 25 -

Stradbroke TARA (08/07/2010) • There was no support for a supermarket at Manor Top, but the Flexible Use Area Designation at the TAVR site was supported. • There was support for the Local Nature Sites in Richmond Park. The Friends of Richmond Park believed that there should be some provision for footpaths within the park.

Handsworth Forum / East Community Assembly Meeting (12/07/2010) • No specific comments on the plan.

Wybourn Assembly (17/07/2010) • Attendees raised the need for employment sites to be protected in the local area – objections were made to the allocation and designation of Housing Area upon existing employment sites near Duke Street. • Support was given to the development next to Skye Edge to improve the surveillance of this space.

Lower Manor Fun Day (19/07/2010) • General feedback showed support for the redevelopment of cleared housing sites.

Tinsley Forum / East / South East Community (29/07/2010) • There were comments that more detail should be provided to show how the ideas in the plan will be delivered in the current economic climate.

East End Strategy Group (30/07/2010) • There was support for the addition of Tinsley Park Hill to the Green Belt, and support for the proposed Local Nature Site designation around the river and canal at Sheffield Road.

Skye Edge Festival (31/07/2010) • Several local residents said they were keen to see new housing development on cleared sites.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. The public consultation drew a total of 69 written comments from external consultees, including 51 on site allocations and 18 on area designations. 42% of the comments offered support or conditional support, 52% gave outright objections and a further 6% were observations/other comments. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

Additional Sites Allocation Options, 2012: Tinsley Community Centre Drop-in – 06/02/12 A list of concerns and questions were raised at the meeting many of which are summarised under the additional sites heading below.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. The public consultation in 2012 drew a total

- 26 -

of 85 comments, 47% of which objected to and 30% supported the allocations (23% neither).

Proposals Map

5.11 Green Belt, Open Spaces and Local Nature Sites The Duke of Norfolk (landowner) objected to the inclusion of Handsworth Hall Farm (north of Barratt's development at Quarry Lane) in the Green Belt and should be identified as a Housing Area and allocated. We do not propose any changes as a result of this comment. It is a very large site (65ha) on the eastern edge of the city that serves to separate the urban areas of Sheffield and Rotherham as set out in the NPPF paragraph 80.

Various landowners objected to Bawtry Road (former D.C Cook sports ground) being shown as an Open Space/Playing Field on the basis that it should be a Housing Area. We went on to consult on this site as an ‘Additional Site Allocation Option’ (see paragraph 5.25) but it is no longer proposed to allocate it .

Ordic (landowner) objected to parts of the Sheffield Road site around the canal being shown as Local Nature Site (LNS), as it restricts its potential as employment land. We don’t propose a change to this site; the LNS provides protection for a green corridor along the river and canal that are shown as Open Space and are protected for their ecological and wildlife value.

5.12 District Centres and Business/Retail Legal and General (landowner of B&Q site) objected to the proposed Darnall District Centre boundary by claiming that it should include their site, whereas Forward Investments (landowner within the centre) supported it. We don’t propose any changes here as Greenland Road acts as a significant barrier that would not encourage linked trips between the site and the core of the District Centre and would likely have a severe impact on the vitality of the struggling centre.

Legal and General (landowner) argued that Centertainment should be shown as an identified centre because it contains many town centre uses (as defined in national planning guidance). We do not propose to change the designation because it does not have the range of services expected in a centre to meet people’s day to day needs. Leisure and restaurant uses should be promoted in town centres as set out in national policy.

Standard Life (landowner) commented that General Employment Areas, such as Meadowhall Retail Park, should be renamed ‘General Commercial Areas’, as this better reflects the uses in the retail park. The retail park should be shown as a site to allow for its reconfiguration if required in the future. We explain in our response that policy areas are city-wide and generic and it would not normally be appropriate to create a special designation for one location in the city. The consultee’s proposal would limit the flexibility of these areas for employment generating uses; the current designation would not hinder any

- 27 -

proposed future reconfiguration of the retail park where it is consistent with national and Core Strategy policies. The retail park is not a site available for development so it would not be appropriate to show it as a site allocation.

Site Allocations

5.13 The Sheffield Youth Council supported the allocation at Manor Park Avenue (P00214) provided there is a mix of houses with a high proportion of affordable housing.

5.14 British Land (landowner) objected that the specific references to land uses at River Don District (P00127) are not consistent with the planning consent (particularly in its reference to small-scale office and the scale of allowed retail uses within Business Areas). We do not propose any changes to this allocation in response to these comments. The extant planning consent is evidence of the potential for the allocation’s delivery, not a reason for allocating. The consent allows a different quantity of retail to what would normally be allowed because, for this site, the retail element is part of a comprehensive mixed use scheme which includes provision of a new neighbourhood centre. The allocation should be consistent with the underlying policy area designation.

5.15 British Land also asked for the boundary of Alsing Road, Meadowhall coach park (P00129), to be amended to reflect their land ownership. In addition, the Environment Agency had concerns about the references to flood risk and asked for more detailed work to be undertaken before the site is allocated. We have drawn the site boundary to safeguard an area for development and exclude areas shown as Open Space on the Proposal Map which are also part of a much larger Local Nature Site that encompasses the river bank, and identified for its ecological value. This is consistent with the approach taken on other sites. A specific reference to high flood risk at this site is included within the allocation.

5.16 Garden City Scotfield (landowner) objected to the preferred business and industry uses at the Former Betafence, Sheffield Road (P00138) allocation because they would like it allocated for headquarter offices. In response, we explain that although the site is suitable for limited office development (in line with Core Strategy policy CS3), the River Don District proposal does not set a precedent for large scale office HQ development in this area.

5.17 Forward Investments (landowner) objected to the adjacent Nunnery Sidings (P00219) allocation asking that the site is designated within a Business Area and allocated for offices. We do not agree because a Business Area designation would require a scale of office development that would be inconsistent with policy CS3. Nevertheless, CS3 acknowledges that there are complementary locations outside of the City Centre that can provide a limited amount of land for other types of office development, including sites next to Supertram stops. The Business and Industry policy designation would allow offices (B1a) in principle on this site as long as the provisions of CS3 are met to ensure that at least 65% of office development takes place in the City Centre or

- 28 -

its edge. This would allow for the delivery of the 'limited amount ' of offices referred to in the Core Strategy.

5.18 Sheffield Business Park (landowner) supported the allocation of the Sheffield Airport, heliport (P00471), provided that a wider range of potential land uses is added to reflect that it is an extension to the business park.

5.19 Network Rail supported the Main Road, Darnall Centre (P00481) and Station Road, Darnall Centre (P00185) allocations and suggested that improvements to the rail station and nearby cycle routes could be negotiated as part of the delivery of these sites.

5.20 SYPTE supported the Tinsley Link (P00166) allocation. Ordic (landowner) objected as they felt delivery was too uncertain and they suggested that the Proposals Map should show an alternative public transport route along Sheffield Road. Our response concludes that since the new road now has planning consent and is accepted by the Department for Transport as part of their national Major Schemes Programme it is more appropriate to show it as a new road proposal rather than a site allocation. The requirement for a contribution has been removed from all allocation templates as the forthcoming Community Infrastructure Levy will replace S106 contributions such as this.

5.21 The Homes and Communities Agency supported the Castle College North Site (P00204) but expected it to be delivered within the next 5 years rather than the longer period stated.

Additional Site Allocation Options

5.22 P00131 Darnall Works Comments were generally supportive including support from English Heritage. The site has a complex historic importance (including a scheduled ancient monument). Our recommendation is to allocate the site as suggested. Informal planning guidance has been prepared with the assistance of English Heritage to help bring the site forward. Many of the detailed issues (e.g. ecology) are covered by the guidance.

5.23 P00500 Infield Lane Comments were generally supportive. We are proposing to allocate as suggested. Access to the site will be dealt with as part of the planning application which has recently been submitted.

5.24 P00501 Foley Street Comments were generally supportive (including comments from Environment Agency, English Heritage, Sheffield Wildlife Trust, and Natural England). Some referred to site constraints of flood risk, archaeological remains, nearby listed structure, and the Local Nature Site (river). We are proposing to retain the allocation – it is a previously developed site and many of the detailed site issues can be covered by conditions.

- 29 -

5.25 P00508 Former Sports Ground, Bawtry Road A number of objections and issues were raised, mainly by local residents. The key issues: • Loss of a widely used informal recreation space where there is no other informal open space in the locality. • The indicated flood risk zone is not big enough and in the wrong place; the southern part of the site floods regularly and development may increase this risk to existing properties close to the site. • The Local Nature Site should be extended across the site. Development would be contrary to the Council’s own biodiversity policies • Poor and narrow site access causing road safety conflict with surrounding land uses, especially large vehicles exiting the BOC plant. • Capacity of local schools including those in Rotherham. • Concerns about the site’s ownership with a large number of individual owners without any form of planning consent that would support development of the individual plots. Many thought the Financial Services Authority should be informed as to whether rules on collective investment have been breeched. • Public transport service to this site is extremely poor

The landowners supported the allocation but disputed its Local Nature site status.

We are proposing to retain the area as Open Space. An open space assessment shows that there is a severe deficiency of informal open space within the local area. Promoting the site for housing would be contrary to Core Strategy policy CS47 which is aimed at safeguarding open space to meet the needs of local people. The site also has been appraised by the City Council Ecology team who show evidence for the eastern part of the site having important wetland for associated pond and scrub habitats.

North East Community Assembly Area

Member Briefings Burngreave Ward Members – 16/07/2010 • An objection to the removal of Neighbourhood Centre on Shirecliffe Road / Longley Avenue West. • Question about future of land at Rushby Street (opposite Pakistan Advice Centre) – is it brownfield or greenfield? • The future of Parkwood Springs was raised.

Consultation Events Consultation Draft 2010: Sandstone Forum Meeting (10/06/2010) • Support for: retaining the land off Sandstone Road near the reservoir as open space; the Local Nature Sites and the Green Links along the Roman Ridge and to the south of Sandstone Drive; and some housing development next to Attercliffe and Meadowhall.

- 30 -

Burngreave Community Action Forum (12/06/2010) • Support for Tesco development; Policy A2; wheelchair accessible housing; the 40% affordable housing target. • A request for more housing and fewer commercial/office sites. • The importance of protecting greenfield sites and open spaces was highlighted. The removal of the Area of Special Character was questioned.

SOARegen Meeting, Thursday (17/06/2010) • Regeneration initiatives in the Southey Owlerton Area were supported. • Attendees were keen to see development progress.

Firth Park Festival (27/06/2010) • There was support for the housing sites in Southey Owlerton Ward and replacement sports facilities alongside the redevelopment of the Parson Cross College site. • Concern that there was no allocation for Parkwood Springs to become a city park.

Parkwood Academy and Shirecliffe Community Summer Fayre (10/07/2010) • Request for Parkwood Springs Landfill allocation to become a city park • Concerns about the impact that Tesco at Spital Hill and Asda in Chaucer will have on local shops. • Parks in Southey Owlerton should be improved. • Support for the redevelopment of housing sites in Southey Owlerton and Shirecliffe and the Flexible Use Areas next to Margetson Crescent and Southey Magnet to encourage redevelopment of these sites.

Abbeyfield Festival (11/07/2010) • Support for the public realm works as part of the Tesco development at Spital Hill.

Sanctuary Housing Neighbourhood Panel Meeting (20/07/2010) • The Shiregreen Hotel site on Sicey Avenue should have an allocation. • More reference should be made to incorporate bungalows for elderly people in allocations. • Support for the designation of Paper Mill Road shops as a Housing Area.

Pakistan Advice and Community Association - Drop-in event (22/07/2010) • There is a lack of formal open space in the Fir Vale area. • Need care facilities for the elderly. • Need better housing conditions in Page Hall. • P00019 should extend Fir Vale School to centralise local education services.

5.26 A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. The consultation drew a total of 35 written comments from external consultees, including 14 on site allocations and 21 on area designations. 14% of the comments offered support or conditional support, 71% gave outright objections and 15% were

- 31 -

observations/other comments. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

5.27 There were no additional site allocation options proposed in the North East, but a Planning Officer attended the Community Assembly meeting and Burngreave and Southey Ward meetings to raise general awareness of the consultation.

Proposals Map

5.28 Open Space Areas and Local Nature Sites The Landowner of Smithies Field objected to the Open Space and Local Nature Site. They commented that the site was poor quality land with little ecological value following the fires in June 2010. They argued that the site would be suitable for housing and would help to meet the city’s housing need. We do not propose a housing allocation because it would conflict with Core Strategy policy CS47 due to its open space and ecological value.

A local house builder objected to the designation of Open Space fronting Southey Green Road (adjacent to Hilltop Green) requesting that it should be used to develop affordable housing and improve the appearance of the local area.

Investates Developments Ltd objected to Open Space to the south of Sandstone Drive disputing its value and requesting that it be considered for housing. Planning permission for housing was refused on 2nd July 2012, upheld on appeal. The site should therefore be retained as Open Space Area.

5.29 Green Belt A developer objected to land at Midhurst Road being included within the Green Belt as it could be used for housing development to help meet Sheffield’s future housing land needs. We are bound by Core Strategy policy CS71 which states that the Green Belt will only be changed to correct untenable anomalies. Core Strategy policy CS22 states that sufficient sites will be allocated to meet the housing requirement to at least 2021. Any decision to alter the Green Belt boundary to provide more housing land should be done comprehensively in the context of a Core Strategy review and not piecemeal on an opportunistic basis.

5.30 Flexible Use Areas The owners of Kilner Way Retail Park objected to the designation of Kilner Way as a Flexible Use Area on the basis that it fails to recognise the predominantly retail use of the area. We are unable to designate this area as a Neighbourhood or District Centre because it lacks the range of facilities required by the national planning policy. Retail may be acceptable in a Flexible Use Area subject to strategic sequential and impact tests as required by national policy.

- 32 -

5.31 General Employment Area Pullan Developments objected to the General Employment Area at the Ski Village claiming that it should be a Flexible Use Area to allow element of housing. Our response explains that a General Employment Area would allow a range of uses, though not housing which would be unsuitable because it is isolated from existing facilities and services, there is no public transport and the current landfill operations make it unsuitable due to land contamination.

Site Allocations

5.32 Cherry Tree Developments requested that Spital Hill Employment Zone (P00022) should allow a greater proportion of housing. Firstly, we propose that this allocation does not specify preferred uses and should remove the condition for offices to be small-scale. Secondly, we are proposing that the Business Area designation no longer requires 30% offices but instead limits residential to 40%.

5.33 The Highways Agency requested that Colliery Road Gas Site (P00001) includes 'measures to mitigate impact of traffic on nearby motorway junctions'. We agree: we propose that the allocation includes a condition to assess the impact on nearby motorway junctions to inform mitigation measures.

5.34 With regards to Buchanan Road (P00323), the Three Parks Programme stated that an alternative Masterplan for Parson Cross Park exists, and that this development may not be the most appropriate, but they will work with the North Sheffield Regeneration Team upon commencement of the development. We have updated the allocation to reflect the latest delivery position, which differs from both the Parson Cross Masterplan and the Parson Cross Park Masterplan. It excludes hedges, Local Nature Site and Park from development.

5.35 For both the Former ROM Site (P00476) and Former William Lees Steel Works (P00477), the Highways Agency requested that potential mitigation of traffic impact on M1 J34 is included. We propose the allocation includes a condition stating that the impact on nearby motorway junctions must be assessed to inform mitigation measures.

South West Community Assembly Area

Consultation Events Consultation Draft 2010: Presentation before South West Community Assembly Area Public Meeting, 24 June Members invited. Most attendees sought clarification on the scope of the document. Key issues raised: • One respondent questioned why there were fewer Green Belt policies. • A query was raised about whether there was a policy to protect the countryside visible from the Peak Park.

- 33 -

• Concern about air quality in areas affected by increased traffic associated with new development (e.g. Tesco’s/ Sainsbury’s developments at Millhouses). • Attendees concerned about the impact of supermarkets on viability of small shops – likely to make it difficult to achieve compliance with policy C1. Recommendations for change: • Alter route of Sheaf Valley Walking Route (to reflect latest discussions on likely route). • Add Ecclesall Churchyard to list of Historic Cemeteries.

Sheffield Pride Festival, 26 June Recommendation for change: • Include Co-op in Baslow Road Neighbourhood Centre.

Crosspool Summer Festival, 10 July Recommendations for change: • Objection to the landfill site at Parkwood Springs. • Respondents requested a plan for strategic housing expansion along certain “fingers” into the Green Belt. Green Belts strangle cities and once one housing developer gets planning permission in the Green Belt, this will set a precedent. It is better to plan ahead and take some land out of the Green Belt within which housing development could take place.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. There were a total of 14 written comments from external consultees, including 3 on site allocations and 11 on area designations. 29% gave support or conditional support, 79% made outright objections and a further 14% were observations/other. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

Additional Site Allocation Options, 2012: Stephen Hill Methodist Church, Crosspool , 02/02/2012 3-8pm.

Venue: Children’s Centre multi-purpose Room at Hallam Primary School, Hallam Grange Crescent

Date: Friday 3rd February 2-7pm

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. There were a total of 81 comments submitted, of which 80% objected and 10% supported the allocations (10% were general comments).

Proposals Map

5.36 Green Belt There were comments of support and objection for a new Green Belt boundary at land to the rear of Overcroft Rise. They all stated that the boundary should follow the garden boundaries but there was uncertainty about the actual extent of the gardens. Our response explains that a new boundary is necessary because it is not possible to trace the current UDP boundary on the ground.

- 34 -

Changes have been proposed to therefore align the boundary along physical features. Some comments asked for the site at Bents Green Nursery, Muskoka Avenue to be taken out of the Green Belt because it is functionally and physically part of the urban area and should be a housing site. We have no intention of removing this site from the Green Belt because there are not the exceptional circumstances required by Core Strategy policy CS71. Dyson's requested that Dyson's Works, Totley, is designated as a ‘Major Developed Site’ in the Green Belt. We are unable to do this because the ability to formally designate a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt has been removed by the National Planning Policy Framework. It was requested that land at Parkers Lane, Dore, and sites at Lodge Moor (Bole Hill Farm and Bole Hill) are taken out of Green Belt and proposed as additional sites. We do not agree with these requests because there are not the exceptional circumstances required by Core Strategy policy CS71 to remove them from the Green Belt.

5.37 Conservation Areas Dore Village Society proposed two new Conservation Areas in Dore: the area of older houses at the lower part of Dore Road and the area of older houses on the northern side of Totley Brook Road. Our response clarifies that there is a separate legislative process for designating Conservation Areas and the Sheffield Local Plan can only reflect the ones already adopted.

5.38 Local Nature Sites Objectors disputed the ecological value of designations at Abbeydale Hall Gardens and Dyson's Works, Totley. An ecological appraisal in February 2011 shows that the site still warrants the Local Nature Site designation and this is supported by a recent planning permission. Expert geological evidence does not appear to back up geological protection of Dyson's Works. The Local Nature Site excludes the buildings, hardstanding, car parks and storage.

5.39 Open Space Areas Respondents claimed that Totley Brook playing field should be shown as playing field. Our response clarifies that the Open Space Audit 2008 classifies the site to the rear of Totley Brook Road as a "park and garden". There is no evidence in the Playing Pitch Strategy 2011 or from elsewhere that the site has marked out sports pitches.

Site Allocations

• P00403 – Former King Ecgbert’s Site, Furniss Avenue – Support for conditions on development. • P00339 – Ballard Hall – Support with clarification for more specific conditions relating to Conservation Area and Listed Building.

- 35 -

• P00404 – Land adjacent to Ranmoor Hall – Support with clarification for more specific conditions relating to Conservation Area and Listed Building.

Additional Site Allocation Options

5.40 P00496 Hadfield Service Reservoir, off Glebe Road/Blakeney Road, Crookes A number of objections were made relating to the negative effect development might have on the natural environment, the impact on local school capacity and the local highway network, and many commented that access into the site would be difficult. We consider that most of these issues could be overcome or mitigated, but we have decided to remove this allocation, explained below.

The landowner, Yorkshire Water, indicated that the reservoir is required for operational use and there is no reasonable prospect of it being made available before the end of the Plan period. We recommend that the site should not be allocated. Yorkshire Water is, however, supportive of its designation within the Housing Area.

5.41 P00497 Lydgate Reservoir, Evelyn Road, Crookes A number of comments were made relating to the site’s distance from public transport; the impact development would have on local wildlife; local school capacity and the local highway network; access parking along Evelyn Road; the health and safety concerns of the transmitter station; and the potential loss of privacy for existing adjoining properties. We consider that most of these issues would not outweigh the need to allocate more housing land in the city, but as with Hadfield Reservoir, we have decided to remove this allocation, explained below.

The landowner, Yorkshire Water, has indicated that they still need to do detailed investigations in the next 6-12 months as to the future of this reservoir. It is recommended, therefore, that this site should not be allocated because of the uncertainty of it being delivered as a housing development by the end of the Plan period.

5.42 P00517 Land at Canterbury Crescent, Fulwood A number of comments argued that the principle of the allocation was flawed because planning permission had been previously refused because it is a greenfield site. Our response explains that permission was refused previously at a time when we were able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable brownfield sites. The 5-year supply is now significantly below the required level so that would not be a reason for refusal now.

Approximately 20 respondents argued against the principle of developing greenfield land and the loss of open space. We explain that the Core Strategy target of 88% for new homes to be built on brownfield land (2004-2026) implies that some greenfield development will be needed to meet the requirement for new homes. Furthermore, even if all of the additional sites were developed, the brownfield target would still be exceeded.

- 36 -

Many also commented on the potential loss of wildlife both within the site and in the adjacent woodland.

Other issues: the impact on the surrounding highway network; the increase in demand for school places and local health services; the presence of electricity cables within the site and its steep topography. In response, we do not expect that traffic from a site this size would have a material impact on its standard road width. On-site parking would be provided in any planning application and it would be considered whether waiting restrictions were needed. The developer has not identified that there are any viability issues with regard to the development of this steep site, though dwelling capacity is estimated to be less than that required by Core Strategy policy CS26.

We are proposing to retain the allocation with conditions safeguarding the protected species visiting the site. This may affect the extent of development and may require mitigation measures.

South Community Assembly Area

Member Briefings • May and July 2010 to seek agreement for the local consultation programme and discuss content in the new document and Proposals Map.

Consultation Events Consultation Draft 2010: • Leaflets made available for the summer festivals that took place in Heeley, Woodseats and Low Edges. • All main neighbourhood groups were contacted to see if they would like to invite planning staff to attend their regular meetings.

Assembly Roadshow in Nether Edge ward (10/06/2010) & Gleadless Valley TARA’s AGM (28/07/2010): • Both events raised questions about the withdrawn options for new Gypsy and Traveller Sites. • The issue of how the document would handle ‘garden grabbing’ was raised by a roadshow attendee but no specific suggestions were advanced for changing any proposed policies or site allocations. • Individuals attending the meetings supported proposed housing site allocations at Gilder’s showroom (Banner Cross), Gaunt Road and Spring Close Mount.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. The public consultation in 2010 drew a total of 26 written comments from external consultees, including 6 comments on site allocations and 20 comments on area designations. 15% of the comments offered support or conditional support, 77% gave outright objections and a further 8% were observations/other comments. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

- 37 -

Additional Site Allocation Options, 2012: • Leaflets were distributed locally inviting people to drop-in sessions held at Norton Free and Mundella primary schools. • Above sessions were busy throughout the afternoon and early evening.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. The consultation on the Additional Site Allocation Options drew a total of 146 comments, of which 71% objected and 23% supported (6% were general comments).

The comments and officer responses are summarised below under three main headings.

Proposals Map 5.43 Open Space Areas and Green Belt CPRE South Yorkshire supported two new Open Space Areas adjoining Low Edges Fire Station and Norton Lane next to the Oakes Park Service Reservoir – the latter is seen as a valuable Green Link between Graves Park and Oakes Park. Owners of the Norton Lane site, however, opposed a re- designation from Housing Area to Open Space because they considered it had potential for housing. Given the need to identify more housing land the site was proposed for partial development in the 2012 consultation on Additional Site Allocations Options. Yorkshire Water has subsequently confirmed (outside of the consultation period) that their land will not be made available for alternative development as it is likely to be required for additional water supply infrastructure. Consequently, Yorkshire Water’s stated operational need should be balanced with the intrinsic landscape and ecological features established by subsequent surveys in determining the nature and extent of proposed policy area designations. This will provide for a viable green corridor across the western side of the site.

5.44 Graves Park ward Councillors opposed a related re-designation from Open Space to Housing Area of Norton Water Tower and the associated service reservoir because it might compromise the rural character of Norton Lane. With the exception of the woodland belt along Hemsworth Road the remaining land has a developed nature and is therefore recommended to carry a Housing Area designation.

5.45 A councillor for Graves Park suggested that the Norton Conservation Area should be extended eastwards to preserve open land adjoining the Norton Water Tower. However, such a change would be outside the scope of the document and resources are unlikely to permit reassessment and amendment of the Conservation Area boundary prior to adoption of the Map.

5.46 Open Space areas at Norton Church Glebe and university playing fields at Hemsworth Road are opposed by landowners seeking to promote housing development. The university’s pitches were not replaced in line with planning policy and they still have potential to remedy local deficiencies particularly for

- 38 -

cricket. However, it is acknowledged that in the present circumstances the re- instatement of sports pitches may not be possible without some enabling development on the site. Officers proposed an allocation involving partial development for residential in the Additional Site Allocation Options consultation in January 2012 (see below).

5.47 Owners of Green Belt sites at Beauchief Drive and the Jordanthorpe sub- station are seeking amendments to facilitate new housing and potential utilities expansion respectively. The characteristics of the Beauchief Drive site would not qualify it as an untenable anomaly in the adopted Green Belt and national planning policy no longer refers to the identification of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt as requested by National Grid to support possible expansion of the Jordanthorpe sub-station.

5.48 Open Space designations are sought at Abbeydale Grange School and in front of Woodseats Library as a way of protecting trees that might help to mitigate poor air quality on adjoining arterial roads. At Abbeydale Grange School we propose that the Open Space Area follows the fence line around the now demolished school buildings, which means the trees are now included within the Open Space Area. The landscaped strip in front of Woodseats Library is too small to register as an Open Space Area on the Proposals Map.

Site Allocations 5.49 Former Hazelbarrow School (P00357) allocation was supported by Moss Valley Wildlife Group but SYPTE suggested it should be reserved for a P&R site pending results of the INTEGR8 study. SYPTE have subsequently, after further analysis, concluded that the site is not suitable for park and ride.

5.50 MVWG also gave conditional support to the Oakes Park/Talbot School site housing allocation (P00436). English Heritage wanted an additional condition to ensure that development safeguards the character of nearby heritage assets. Such conditions are already covered by city-wide requirements but an extra condition in the site allocation statement has been added to make the required safeguarding of these assets more explicit.

5.51 SHU have argued for reviewing the housing-only allocation for its Psalter Lane site (P00350) in the light of its emerging estates strategy. The Youth Council workshop proposed that the land and buildings at the Psalter Lane Site should be used instead as an adult learning/youth centre set within parkland. Permission has subsequently been granted for 40 houses and 22 apartments to be built on this site with work on site commencing in January 2013.

5.52 Owners of land at Norton Church Glebe, Beauchief Drive and the Co-op Depot at Hemsworth Road pressed for new housing allocations for their sites. These changes were declined for the first two sites. At Norton Church Glebe the land has intrinsic open space value and contributes to the character and appearance of the Norton Conservation Area as established in a recent planning appeal. The Beauchief Drive site is situated in the adopted Green Belt and the circumstances advanced by the respondent are not sufficiently exceptional to warrant amending the boundaries in this case. Officers

- 39 -

supported a housing allocation for the Co-op Dairy Depot and put the site forward in the Additional Sites consultation (see below) subject to retention and conversion of the farmhouse complex.

5.53 Planning Aid workshops elicited support for other housing allocations at the former Abbeydale Grange 6th Form Centre (P00398), SHU’s Psalter Lane campus (P00350), Gilder’s Showroom, Banner Cross (P00343) and the former Hemsworth School (P00361).

5.54 The Park and Ride site allocation covering the existing facility at Abbeydale Drive (P00355) was supported by SYPTE and the Youth Council workshop.

Additional Site Allocation Options 5.55 P00499 - Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth Road Some 40% of respondents supported this proposal. The landowner supported the residential allocation of this property but disputed the planning or heritage justification for retaining and converting existing buildings on site. The Co-op cite the decision of English Heritage in 2009 to decline a statutory listing for the former farm buildings on the basis that they have been altered too much. Consequently the owners will not accept an unconditional requirement to retain buildings as part of an allocation.

The site has been the subject of an archaeological survey and based on its findings officers recommend amending the condition to clarify that retention/conversion should apply only to the 18th and 19th century buildings making up the former u-shaped farmhouse complex.

5.56 P00511 – SHU’s Playing Field at Hemsworth Road Following assessment of earlier comments, officers proposed a mixed use allocation comprising one-third housing and two-thirds open space. The residential element being conditional on there being an agreement to re-instate the major part of the site for a full-sized cricket oval, or other pitches of an appropriate standard, to meet needs in this district.

Just over 20% of respondents supported this proposal.

The landowner (Sheffield Hallam University) has responded via their agent that they support the residential allocation of the site but they take issue with the suggested density. The estimated dwelling capacity of 40 units was supplied as background context for the consultation and does not figure in the site allocation proposal.

There were concerns that the University will not secure a co-ordinated scheme for both uses, and upgrading the sports field may be beyond the means of the club. The viability of the current proposal may need further discussion with the University based on more feasibility work.

Sport England implied that they may have to object (as a statutory consultee) to any application along the lines of the proposed option because it would fail to

- 40 -

comply with any of the exceptions in their Playing Field Policy. Access points will largely determine the siting of housing but the allocation will ensure that the housing component can comply with the requirements of their Playing Field Policy.

Local residents were concerned that independent (of site P00499) access to the site requires demolition of two fit and occupied dwellings. They were also concerned about the impact new housing (including other committed housing proposals in South Sheffield) could have on local school capacity. Securing satisfactory access to the two different uses may require replacement of selected dwellings in the University’s control but capacity issues in local schools could be resolved through developer contributions and/or other funding. It is recommended that the site allocation be included and that the open space requirement is made more explicit.

5.57 P00512 – Norton Lane, Norton Oakes Only around 12% of respondents supported the proposal for a mixed use allocation comprising two-thirds housing and one-third open space. The principal landowner (Yorkshire Water) was in favour of the proposal although a larger development area was requested to ensure a viable development scheme. Objectors have cited concerns over ecological, landscape, ‘greenfield’ land, traffic and local services impacts.

The site has been subject to ecological and archaeological surveys recommending the retention and enhancement of several features. With consequent amendment to conditions officers were prepared to recommend including this allocation but Yorkshire Water has subsequently confirmed that the land will not be made available as it will be required for additional water supply infrastructure in the future. It is therefore recommended that the site should not be allocated. Instead it is recommended that the Plan should balance the stated operational need with the intrinsic landscape and ecological features established by survey in determining the nature and extent of Open Space Area and Housing Area policy designations.

South East Community Assembly Area

Member Briefing (04/06/2010) • Discussed the consultation approach in the South East.

Consultation Events Consultation Draft 2010: • Beighton Gala (10/07/2010) • Handsworth Forum/East Community Assembly Meeting (12/07/2010) • Crystal Peaks Consultation Day (21/07/2010) • Consultation Trailer in Base Green • Westfield Fun Day (07/08/2010)

- 41 -

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. The 2010 consultation drew a total of 51 written comments from external consultees, including 38 on site allocations and 13 on area designations. 25% were support or conditional support, 71% gave outright objections and a further 4% were observations/other. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

Additional Site Allocation Options, 2012: Woodhouse Library Drop-in – 03/02/2012 and 13/02/2012 • Many had strong objections to the proposals (particularly the Woodhouse East site), though a small number welcomed the proposals.

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. The consultation drew a total of 124 comments, of which 76% objected and 6% supported the allocations (18% were general comments).

Proposals Map 5.58 Open Space, Countryside Areas and the Green Belt Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd. Objected to part of the Open Space Area/Local Nature Site at Vine Grove Farm, Mosborough, claiming that it should be changed to Housing Area to reflect a recent planning permission. The vast majority of the Green Belt areas could only be allocated for housing as part of a comprehensive Green Belt Review via a Local Plan review. Officers maintain that development of the land to the south of Mosborough Moor (Countryside Area) would adversely affect the surrounding Local Nature Site due to new access into the site. Development would also be linear in form which would not complement the existing urban form.

CPRE South Yorkshire supported the redesignation of housing allocations to Countryside Areas at Owlthorpe, Mosborough and Beighton. They also supported the larger Open Space Area around Junction Road in Woodhouse, and supported improvements to the bridleway network in the Shirebrook Valley. We acknowledge the support for the Countryside Areas, but with regard to Junction Road we propose to return parts of the Open Space Area to a housing allocation, as in the UDP.

A number of comments were raised in relation to Green Belt land. A number of landowners argued that land at White Lane; Sheffield Road; Handsworth; and Mosborough and Owlthorpe should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing instead. Our responses to these comments clarify that a Green Belt review would only be carried out comprehensively as part of the Core Strategy review.

We welcome the support from Moss Valley Wildlife Group not to allocate land at Mosborough Moor for development.

- 42 -

5.59 Local Nature Sites and Green Network

A local resident objected to Local Nature Site or Local Nature Reserve status of an area of land close to Beighton Marsh. We agree that this was an error on the Proposals Map and it has now been corrected.

We welcome the support from Moss Valley Wildlife Group for our proposal to retain and protect the Green Links from the Moss Valley to the River Rother. We also welcome support from Turner Investments for the Flexible Use Area at Handsworth Road/Richmond Park Road.

Hammerson Retail Parks objected to the General Employment Area at Drakehouse Retail Park asking that it is designated as a "Commercial Area" instead. Officers explain that the General Employment Area caters for a range of development close to Crystal Peaks District Centre, which can provide both extra jobs and new services. There are no preferred uses but a number of acceptable uses including small-scale offices in appropriate locations (which includes around Crystal Peaks), research and development, light industry, general industry and warehouses and storage. Retail development would be considered through the application of the tests of acceptability set out in national policy and Policy B3.

Site Allocations 5.60 A local resident asked for justification for the proposed development on greenfield sites, especially at Owlthorpe. Several other local residents support them, subject to the completion of the Moorthorpe Way loop road as an essential requirement. There were also conditions to protect and enhance neighbouring greenspaces and the development of a village centre with shops and other facilities. Moss Valley Wildlife Group objected to the Owlthorpe housing allocations. In response, the Core Strategy establishes the principle of development of these sites (Policy CS24) and we will be making every effort to complete the link road although it is not an essential Highways’ requirement.

5.61 The local resident in question also objected to development at Oxclose. Our response explains that greenfield housing development at Oxclose was endorsed by a decision to dismiss the appeal by Tesco Stores Ltd for a new store on the site (March 2012). This was due to the strength of argument in favour of supplying enough housing land required by CS22.

5.62 Norton Aerodrome as Major Developed Site in the Green Belt: The Homes and Communities Agency supported the potential to change the location of park and ride if further investigation reveals a better location. Spawforth Planning objected that housing was not considered an acceptable use. Local residents and Moss Valley Wildlife Group objected to the principle of development because with some clearing up and management it could become a wonderful Local Nature Site. In response, we had been minded to propose the site as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt unless further analysis by SYPTE shows that it cannot be delivered. However, the national policy support for such designations has now been withdrawn, Any proposals for development would need to be considered against similar criteria regarding the scale of the

- 43 -

footprint of pervious development and maintaining the openness of the Green Belt.

5.63 Hermes Real Estate supported Waterthorpe Greenway (P00480) site allocation with the condition of extending the District Centre boundary to include the site. Several local residents objected to the allocation, and Hammerson Retail Parks asked for clearer justification for the potential loss of playing fields. We report in our response that a decision by Cabinet not to release this Council-owned land for development means that it can be deleted and changed to Open Space Area.

5.64 Westfield School Site (P00394) – there must be protection of the Green Belt to the north of the site allocation and protection of the Green Links from the Moss Valley through this area into the River Rother corridor via the Shortbrook and Westfield (Moss Valley Wildlife Group). There are no proposals to develop any Green Belt land to the north of the site allocation and the need to protect Green Links in this area is fully recognised.

Additional Site Allocation Options 5.65 The majority of comments on the three sites below were from Woodhouse residents and they were generally not supportive of the allocation. The following issues were raised: the impact on the capacity of local schools, doctors and recreation provision; the loss of greenfield land; the concentration of new sites in Woodhouse; the sustainability of the sites; traffic impact; and the proximity to nearby residential properties. Many also said that they did not recognise the need for more housing.

5.66 Hartwood Estates Ltd. commented on all three sites. They considered that neither site should be allocated for housing but instead a large area of predominantly Green Belt land to the north of Mosborough should be allocated instead, as well as a strip of land to the south of Mosborough Moor. We explain in our responses that a Green Belt review would only be carried out comprehensively as part of a Core Strategy review.

5.67 William Cook Properties Ltd. considered that Mosborough Wood Business Park (P00376) employment allocation, directly to the north of Holbrook Foundry, should be allocated for housing instead of each of the three proposals for housing allocations. We explain that the site at Holbrook forms part of the Holbrook Industrial Estate, which is clearly separated from, and different in character to, residential development on the other side of Eckington Way. Introducing new housing into this area would also undermine Core Strategy policies CS5 and CS13 that aim to protect employment uses in this area.

5.68 Sheffield Wildlife Trust supported a review of ecology on the sites before any decision was made to allocate it. Natural England specified that the natural environment should be protected and enhanced and any unavoidable negative effects to biodiversity are appropriately mitigated.

- 44 -

5.69 P00367 Beighton Road, Woodhouse In addition to the concerns raised by local residents, the Environment Agency stated that the developer will need to satisfy themselves of any implications that the closed landfill may have for the development of the site. In our response to this comment we explain that gas migration is monitored by a series of boreholes at the site perimeter; at this time the Council is not aware of any significant issues with gas migrating off the site. In terms of leachate, monitoring boreholes at the perimeter of the site allow the impact on groundwater to be monitored. Any migration of pollutants that does occur is not thought to be significantly impacting on sensitive receptors (flora & fauna) in the local area.

Sheffield Wildlife Trust supported a review of ecology on the site prior to any decision being made to allocate it. Natural England expressed concern about its proximity to the Shire Brook Valley but considered that any potential negative impacts may be addressed through imposing conditions at the planning application stage. We fully recognise the nature conservation value of the adjacent Shire Brook Valley, the informal and formal access ways and the health benefits, and the work that local environmental groups have carried out in the area. Archaeological and ecological surveys have been carried out and there are no overriding reasons not to allocate the site for housing subject to ensuring the protection of groups of trees and hedgerows as recommended by the ecological survey, and maintaining public access to the Shire Brook Valley.

On balance, we recommend that the site is proposed for housing subject to conditions, including the protection of groups of trees and hedgerows as recommended by the most recent ecological survey (Summer 2012), and the maintenance of public access to the Shire Brook Valley.

5.70 P00509 Junction Road, Woodhouse The Shirebrook Conservation Group objected to the allocation on a number of grounds including the impact of traffic and wildlife, but considered that a limited amount of development on the site of the former cottages (housing) and on the old scrapyard (light industry) would be acceptable. In response to the traffic concerns, Speed Indicator Devices are being introduced on a number of roads in Woodhouse and parking issues are being looked at. There are, however, no highway objections in principle to the development of the site in terms of traffic impact, highway safety or access – all issues would be covered in detail at the planning application stage.

Ensuring that we have sufficient housing land supply is the critical issue. There are no overriding reasons not to allocate the site for housing, although following a recent ecological survey in Summer 2012, the central part of the housing allocation is proposed to be deleted and redesignated as Open Space Area.

5.71 P00510 Woodhouse East The Environment Agency stated that the developer will need to satisfy themselves of any implications that the closed landfill may have for the

- 45 -

development of the site. As with P00367 Beighton Road, at this time the Council is not aware of any significant issues with gas migrating off the site.

The Shirebrook Conservation Group objected because of the loss of greenfield land, agricultural land and the impact on wildlife and community-based environmental improvement projects. It is recognised that environmental improvement works have been carried out in the area, in particular on hedgerows alongside and through the site. However, a significant proportion of the site would remain undeveloped or be improved for open space and the design and layout of any housing scheme would take all features of value into account as part of a Planning & Design Brief with the full involvement of the local community. We propose to take the allocation forward with the following conditions: the main community regeneration project areas are protected with provision of on-site open space and Green Link; hedgerows are safeguarded; environmental buffer to the Local Nature Site/ Local Nature Reserve to the east of the site is retained; and more detailed archaeological work is carried out and mitigation measures incorporated if required. The safeguarding of important hedgerows and ridge and furrow earthworks at the site will need more detailed assessments to confirm their condition and significance.

CPRE South Yorkshire objected on the grounds of visual impact and the effect it would have on the open character of the area and the Green Belt. Development would only come forward through a detailed Planning & Design Brief which would fully take into account issues such as landscape character, visual impact, the proximity to the Green Belt and the provision of open space.

Northern Community Assembly Area

Member Briefings

Northern Community Assembly Member Briefing (20/05/2010) • Discussed the consultation approach for Northern Community Assembly.

Ward Member Briefings: • Stocksbridge (20/05/2010) • East Ecclesfield (27/05/2010) • West Ecclesfield (03/06/2010)

Consultation Events

Consultation Draft 2010: Parish Partner Panel briefing (14/05/2010) The Paces Centre Partner Panel briefing (20/05/2010) The Venue, Stocksbridge (06/07/2010) The Venue, Stocksbridge TARA & Stocksbridge Community Forum (17/06/2010) Chapeltown Library, East and West Ecclesfield Wards (20/06/2010) Oughtibridge Gala, Coronation Park (26/06/2010) High Green Fun Day (03/07/2010)

- 46 -

Bradfield Village Hall – Rural Villages, Loxley and Stannington (14/07/2010)

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the 2010 consultation can be found at Appendix 1b and 1c. There was a total of 118 written comments from external consultees, including 75 comments on site allocations and 43 comments on area designations. 66 of these related to Stocksbridge and Upper Don ward, 25 to Stannington Ward, 6 to West Ecclesfield ward, 27 to East Ecclesfield Ward and 1 comment related to the Northern Community Assembly Area as a whole. Overall, 30% of comments offered support or conditional support, 59% objected outright and a further 11% were observations/other comments. Further comments were noted at Planning Aid workshops.

Additional Site Allocation Options 2012: Stocksbridge Library (Stocksbridge and Upper Don), 30th January 2pm – 6.30pm Stannington Library, Uppergate Road, 3rd February 2pm – 6.30pm Worrall Memorial Hall, Towngate Road, Worrall, 27th January 3.30pm – 7.30pm

A full breakdown of the number of comments submitted during the Additional Sites Consultation can be found at Appendix 2. There was of 214 comments submitted, of which 86% objected and 12% supported the allocations (2% were general comments).

Proposals Map

5.72 Northern Community Assembly Area (general) One local resident commented that the recent developments on brownfield land in Stocksbridge means there should be no more developments in the foreseeable future.

5.73 Business and Industrial Area One respondent made 2 objections to the Business and Industrial Area off Butterthwaite Lane, suggesting that it should be designated as a Flexible Use Area instead. We are not able to support a Flexible Use Area because it lists residential as acceptable; the majority of this land is within medium or high flood risk probability areas or functional/developed flood plain and is therefore unsuitable for land uses vulnerable to flooding.

5.74 Conservation Areas One respondent objected to the loss of the Areas of Special Character from the UDP and another would like to see the whole of the bottom of the Loxley Valley, Hilltop, Onesacre and Tofts re-assessed for their potential as Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas are adopted under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. They cannot be designated using the Development Plan preparation process and only existing Conservation Areas can be shown on the Proposals Map. A programme of appraisal and management plans for existing conservation areas is underway. However, some of the areas suggested by the objector do have merit and will be considered once resources are available. Therefore the objection was not

- 47 -

accepted.

5.75 Countryside Areas 4 respondents including Oughtibridge Village Community Association (OVCA) and Bolsterstone Community Group supported Countryside Areas at Hollin Busk and three Countryside Areas at Oughtibridge Village. Redrow Homes Ltd objected to the Countryside Area at Oughtibridge Lane adjacent to the former Silica Brick Works because it cannot be justified in market, environmental or practical terms. They also argued that the plan would not meet the housing targets set out in the Core Strategy, nor meet the objectives of PPS3 or PPS12.

The potential supply of developable 'brownfield' housing land is now more constrained and it is was necessary to consider the part of the Countryside Area objected to by Redrow Homes as an Additional Site Allocation Option (P00505 Platts Lane) alongside P00442 and P00267 (see paragraph 5.90 below). The Countryside Area designation fronting Oughtibridge Lane should now be removed and replaced by Housing Area designation to facilitate housing development.

5.76 Flexible Use Area Corus Engineering Steels (now Tata Speciality Stocksbridge) objected to the Housing, Business and Industrial Area designations covering their land, recommending that it is re-designated as a Flexible Use Area. Special designations for very small pieces of development sites are not meaningful and the issue for the land in question is whether it should be part of the Housing Area or of the Business and Industrial Area. See response for P00280 below.

5.77 Green Belt 3 respondents supported the redrawing of the Green Belt boundary to its correct position adjacent to 34 Stephen Lane, Grenoside, and one respondent supported the retention of the Green Belt at the former Hepworth’s Site, Loxley. Their support is welcomed.

Lynne Barker Ltd objected to the Green Belt between 75 and 103 Town End Road, Ecclesfield. The objection is accepted as an untenable anomaly. Planning permission has been granted for part of the site at Town End Road for residential development. The red line boundary of the planning permission granted in 2008 will form the Green Belt boundary with the site’s designation being changed to a Housing Area. The remaining land is woodland and will appropriately remain part of the Green Belt designation.

The Duke of Norfolk Estates objected to the Green Belt at Holme Lane Farm, Salt Box Lane/ Fox Hill Road, Grenoside, calling for a review of the Green Belt. The adopted SDF Core Strategy (policy CS71, paragraph 12.2) states that the Green Belt will be maintained and only changed to remove untenable anomalies. Review of the Green Belt to meet changed housing requirements should be strategic and comprehensive rather than piecemeal on an opportunistic basis and should also take account of options in neighbouring areas.

- 48 -

Individual respondents objected to Green Belt designations in several locations: An objection to the Green Belt boundary at White Lane, Chapeltown was conditionally supported as an untenable anomaly. An objection to land adjacent to Malin Bridge Sports being excluded from the Green Belt was not supported because it was seen to be an untenable anomaly. An objection to a change made to correct an untenable anomaly at Topside Farm, Grenoside was accepted, as it is unlikely that the land was originally intended to be part of the Green Belt; a view that is upheld by a Planning Inspector in a recent appeal that the site is within the envelope of Grenoside Village. An objection to the inclusion of land at Kemp Spout, Green Lane, Wharncliffe side within the definition of ‘substantially developed road frontage’ within Policy G6 was supported and Green Lane will be added to that definition. An objection to land at the Former Pinegrove Country Club on Myers Grove Lane, Stannington being designated as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt was not supported, as national planning policy no longer recognises Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the principles for managing the reuse of such sites will continue, although applied on a case-by-case basis through the consideration of planning applications. The Pine Grove site was not originally proposed, as it was too small to qualify as 'major' but now has planning permission.

Blenheim Developments Ltd objected to the Green Belt at Bankfield, Stannington Road, but there is not an untenable anomaly in the boundary here with insufficient evidence to justify an exceptional circumstance as required by national policy. The objection was therefore not accepted.

Dyson Industries objected to the Green Belt at Dyson Refractories, Griff Works, Stopes Road, Loxley, calling for the site to be designated as a major developed Site in the Green Belt. National planning policy no longer identifies Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt but the principles for managing the reuse of such sites will continue, although applied on a case-by-case basis through the consideration of planning applications. This will enable flexible responses to changing circumstances within the broad provisions of the Core Strategy. Allocation of land for housing within the Green Belt would be internally inconsistent and, therefore, unsound. Review of the Green Belt should be carried out in a strategic rather than piecemeal way and it is proposed that this should be an integral part of the Local Plan review. The particular site is detached from the main urban area and community facilities and very visible above the Loxley Valley.

An observation was made about the Green Belt designation at the former Hepworth’s Site and Dyson Refractories.

5.78 Housing Area Bolsterstone Community Group welcomed the prospect of relocating the Stocksbridge Leisure Centre to a more central location in the Valley Bottom, but would object to its closure without replacement. Two respondents and Stocksbridge Town Council objected to the proposed Housing Area designation at the site of Stocksbridge Leisure Centre. Further investigation has proved that there are no suitable alternative sites available to allocate for the relocation

- 49 -

of Stocksbridge Leisure Centre. Therefore, the site’s designation should be returned to an Open Space Area and the housing allocation deleted. This would help to ensure that development does not take place on the site without replacement of the facilities as is required by Core Strategy policy.

5.79 Open Space Areas Loxley Valley Protection society objected to the loss of Open Space Areas at Nook Lane School and Studfield Hill. The removal of some of the Open Space Area designation on the Nook Lane School site is to allow flexibility for extensions to the school buildings. Recent development has led to the alteration to designations at Studfield Hill. Jaguar Estates objected to the Open Space Area at land on Sussex Road, Chapeltown. Planning permission has been granted (11/03466/FUL) on a small part of the site for a single house where it is less environmentally sensitive and this part of the Open Space Area will be changed to a Housing Area designation. The remaining Open Space Area will be retained to protect its ecological value and its value as a buffer strip.

Wilby’s Chartered Surveyors and DLP Consultants objected to Open Space Area at Worrall Hall Farm and Wiggan Farm, Worrall, which they considered should be a Housing Area. We disagree that the land provides no viable open space function. As a private land that is predominantly open in character, it falls within the definition of open space in Core Strategy policy CS47. However, we recognise that the land has amenity value that is limited to those living immediately adjacent to the site due to its open character. The site was designated as Open Space Area on the Draft Proposals Map of 2010 in recognition of its value to those surrounding it and its importance to the character of the village. Following completion of the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2011), the option of allocating this site for housing has been given further consideration was proposed as an Additional Site Allocation Option for public consultation in January 2012. After full consideration of the comments received and further investigation of outstanding issues, we propose allocating it as a housing site within the Housing Area designation.

5.80 Local Nature Sites The Duke of Norfolk Estates objected to the Local Nature Site at Holme Lane Farm because it’s likely to sterilise future development potential. Evidence is available from the Sheffield Biological records Centre to support this particular designation. The objection was not accepted.

5.81 Playing Fields The Three Parks Programme objected to the Playing Field notation at Colley Park because they are unsuitable for pitches.

5.82 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt Dyson Industries objected to the non-allocation of the Dyson Griff Works Site as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt. National planning policy no longer identifies Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt but the principles for managing the reuse of such sites will continue, although applied on a case-by-

- 50 -

case basis through development management and consideration of planning applications. This will enable a flexible response to changing circumstances within the broad provisions of the Core Strategy. Review of the Green Belt should be carried out in a strategic rather than piecemeal way and it is proposed that this should be an integral part of the Local Plan review. The particular site is detached from the main urban area and community facilities and very visible above the Loxley Valley.

Loxley Valley Design Statement Group supported the recommendation not to allocate the former Hepworth’s site as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt. Their support is welcome.

Site Allocations

5.83 Site P00441 Whitwell Lane, Stocksbridge 17 respondents, including CPRE South Yorkshire, Angela Smith MP, Cllr Dan Lyons, Stocksbridge Town Council, Bolsterstone Community Group and Stocksbridge Design Statement Group objected to the housing allocation. Their reasons for objecting included: increased flooding; encroachment into the Green Belt; impact on the character of the area; overbearing properties and loss of privacy and light; and not contributing to the provision of local services. In response, the reservoir at this site is to be retained for the foreseeable future and land declared surplus to requirements by Yorkshire Water now has planning permission for a single house. Therefore, the site will not be allocated as a housing site but is still designated as part of the Housing Area. Issues raised by consultees on this site are not sufficient to preclude housing development.

5.84 Site P00280 Site A, Stocksbridge Steelworks off Manchester Road, Stocksbridge Both Corus Engineering Steels and Stocksbridge Regeneration Company requested flexibility to allow development of a new steel storage facility on part of the site, which was accepted in part. Special designations for very small pieces of development sites are not meaningful and the issue for the land in question is whether it should be part of the Housing Area or of the Business and Industrial Area. In view of the possible westward expansion of the works into land shown within the draft boundary for Site P00280 it would be appropriate for some westward extension of the Business and Industrial Area, including the sliver, and redrawing of the housing allocation. Designations will be redrawn to reflect recent planning permissions.

5.85 Site P00290 Land off Ford Lane, Stocksbridge There was support with conditions from Corus Engineering Steels and Stocksbridge Regeneration Company for the majority of land. The respondent stated that it is surplus to operational requirements but the market favours non- employment uses under a Flexible Use Area designation. It is accepted that the land is surplus to operational requirements but the granting of planning permission for residential use effectively establishes the need for certainty. The allocation will be changed to a housing site. Changes will be made to the

- 51 -

allocation and to the site’s designation to reflect the need to retain this land for housing development.

5.86 Site P00440 Outokumpu Site off Manchester Road Corus Engineering Steels and Stocksbridge Regeneration Company objected to the allocation, as it would prevent Corus Engineering Steels extending into the area, provided there is a satisfactory working relationship with adjacent District Centre development. We respond by explaining that in order to retain certainty through the allocation, whilst providing flexibility for the steelworks in line with policy CS33, the boundary should be altered to exclude the part of the site needed for Tata's expansion. It is accepted that community facilities (D1) as well as shops (A1) might be part of the required provision, reflecting proposed changes to policy C4 for District Centres. Nevertheless, in the same way, the retail provision is for shops (A1) and, specifically, a superstore. This will be made explicit in the required uses.

5.87 Site P00482 Site of Forge Valley Community School, the former Loxley College and Shooters Grove Primary School Rivelin Valley Conservation Group supported the designation of the site as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt and the non-designation of the former Hepworth’s site in the Loxley Valley or the King Edward VII Hospital site in the Rivelin Valley. Support for the designation is welcomed. One respondent and the Loxley Valley Design Statement Group objected citing its highly visible location in the valley and its impact on a Local Nature Site within its boundary.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework the formal designation of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt is not retained. However, the principles for managing the reuse of such sites will continue, although delivered on a case- by-case basis through consideration of planning applications.

5.88 Site P00284 Site G, Stocksbridge Steelworks, Off Manchester Road Corus Engineering Steels objected to Policy G3 Trees, Woodland and the South Yorkshire Forest, as it should not apply to this site. In response, the South Yorkshire Forest boundary cannot be changed by planning policy. Policy G3 is specific about when tree planting would be appropriate and it would not compromise business operations. The objection was not accepted.

5.89 Site P00292 Sweeney House, Alpine Close, Stocksbridge Respondents argued that housing should not replace the residential care homes at P00437; the care home should be refurbished, not demolished, and not re-located to unsuitable areas in flood risk zones. In response, the site is suitable for residential development, which may include housing or a care home, and the allocation will not prevent development of the site for a care home or refurbishment of the existing care home if that is proposed. Nevertheless, no action will be taken until all the relocation options have been fully considered and fully consulted on with residents affected. The objection was not accepted.

5.90 Site P00442 Former Silica Brick Works, Platt Lane, Oughtibridge Redrow Homes Ltd supported this allocation for housing, but objected to the

- 52 -

Countryside Area designation that fronts Oughtibridge Lane. Support for the site’s allocation is welcomed. However, the potential supply of developable 'brownfield' housing land is now more constrained and it is was necessary to consider additional greenfield options. The Platts Lane site is next to the rest of the village and to existing proposed allocations. It was therefore consulted on as an additional site allocation option. After consideration of the issues raised during consultation in January 2012 and taking into account additional survey work, we recommend that the site's development would ensure sustainable development of the adjacent Housing Sites by helping to ensure safe pedestrian links to the other side of the railway line. Issues can be mitigated at the planning application stage and some are taken up by conditions on the allocation. We therefore accepted Redrow Home’s view that the site should be allocated as part of a combined Housing Site (P00521 Oughtibridge Lane) to include the Platts Lane site and sites P00442 and P00267.

5.91 Site P00271 Former Stein’s Tip Station Road, Deepcar CPRE South Yorkshire and English Heritage objected to the allocation, which should be reviewed in the light of the Core Strategy as it could adversely impact on ecology and recreation at Wharncliffe Chase. Respondents also claimed that additional housing could congest the A6102 at Middlewood and Hillsborough and jeopardise the opportunity to re-instate rail links at the old Deepcar Station. In response, the principle of housing and mixed-use development has already been established by outline and full planning approvals for housing development on this site. The issues raised have all been addressed by applying appropriate conditions, which will also be imposed on any renewals in order to mitigate any adverse effects of development in relation to these issues. The objection was not accepted.

The Highway Agency observed that site P00271 might have to include measures to mitigate impact on traffic on nearby junctions. It is accepted that conditions may be needed but they are not yet specified and, as indicated, they would depend on further analysis which will be referred to in the Delivery section of the allocation.

5.92 Site P00437 Newton Grange Manchester Road, Stocksbridge One respondent objected to the development of housing in the place of residential care homes on the site. In response, the site is suitable for residential development, which may include housing or a care home. Nevertheless, no action on relocating the existing care home will be taken until all the relocation options have been fully considered and fully consulted on with residents affected. The objection is not accepted.

Additional Site Allocation Options

5.93 P00502 – Wiggan Farm, Towngate Road, Worrall P00507 – Worrall Hall Farm, Kirk Edge Road / Top Road, Worrall There were 102 comments received for these two sites in total. The Wiggan Farm Site (P00502) had 54 responses, which included 52 objections, 1 support and 1 observation. The Worrall hall Farm Site (P00507) had 50 responses,

- 53 -

which included 47 objections, 2 supports and 1 observation. The following key issues were raised for both of these sites: • Accessibility to services - bus services/ reliability; lack of services; vehicular access to the site • Impact on air quality from increase in traffic • Health and medical practices – only one local practice which is at capacity • Archaeology/ heritage – the setting of listed buildings and damage to local heritage • Ecology – damage to wildlife habitats and valuable flora • Education – lack of school places in local schools and increased need to travel • Employment – creation of jobs by developing brownfield land elsewhere • Flooding/ drainage – inadequate sewerage infrastructure. • Harm to the Green Belt • Housing – property values, brownfield land should be prioritised; vacant houses should be reused; Council housing attracting undesirable neighbours. • Open Space/ Countryside – retain the land as open space. • Traffic congestion – increased traffic congestion, speeds and reduced road safety. The inadequacy of the historic road layout; the increased congestion at key junctions in the village; the additional congestion that will occur at Malin Bridge, Hillsborough and other key congestion points; the damage the increased level of traffic will have on the rural character and safety of the village. • Privacy/ views – town house design creating overlooking problems and loss of views across open land. • Character – too many houses proposed for a small village • Contaminated land • Loss of agricultural land

Each of the above issues are addressed in the full schedules in Appendix 2, but we propose to reduce the estimated site capacity to reflect the site’s irregular shape and local concerns about over development and the affect on the character of the area.

5.94 P00505 – Platts Lane / Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge The Platts Lane / Oughtibridge Lane, Oughtibridge (P00505) drew 30 responses, including 26 objections, 2 supports and 2 observations. The following key issues were raised: • Accessibility to services - Traffic congestion locally but mainly on Oughtibridge Lane, hazardous pedestrian access to the site, distance to services available to serve existing/proposed additional community, extension to the tram shuttle bus service required.

- 54 -

• Impact on air quality from increase in traffic • Capacity of health / medical practices • Archaeology / heritage • Ecology – harm to flora and fauna • Education capacity • Employment – industrial land should be preserved to create local jobs. • Flooding – inadequate local sewerage system to cope with development evidenced by overflowing manhole covers at Oughtibridge Lane/ Station Lane • Housing – availability of alternative brownfield land elsewhere; the use of empty homes for sale to meet need for housing rather than building on the site; the effect on house prices; the use of the site for affordable housing or older persons housing as an acceptable alternative; no more housing in Oughtibridge as infrastructure can’t support it; development should be within the physical boundaries of the village (west of the railway line); policy context constrains deliverability of the site; beneficial use of underused fringe industrial land; site could provide comprehensive development of the area; development could help fund the delivery of the bridge link. • Open Space - Retention of the land as open space; land is Greenfield and development contrary to policy including destroying a green link; current Fringe Industry and Business Area designation is incorrect. • Traffic congestion - Road Safety issues raised by increased traffic on Oughtibridge Lane; the additional congestion that will occur at Malin Bridge, Hillsborough and other key congestion points; the harm caused to children going to the local school from increased traffic; the damage the increased level of traffic will have on the rural character of the village; increased traffic speeds/decrease in road safety. • Privacy / views • Urbanisation and loss of village character • Environmental Protection Service - Housing previously prevented because of noise levels from the adjoining factory • Site is agricultural land and should be protected from development

Each of the issues are addressed in the full schedules in Appendix 2, but we propose to retain the allocation with conditions attached to an approval to provide a bridleway bridge over the railway to improve accessibility to public transport and local services. The site is now joined with two adjacent housing allocations to form one large allocation (P00521).

5.95 P00503 – Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington The former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, Stannington (P00503) drew 34 responses, including 20 objections, 12 supports and 2 observations. The following key issues were raised: • Accessibility to services – vehicular access to the site; pressure on local parking and nurseries and lack of facilities for young people.

- 55 -

• Capacity of local health/medical practices • Ecology – badgers • Capacity of local schools • Employment – development would provide work during construction. • Inadequacy of local sewage system to cope with development. • Green Belt encroachment concerns • Housing – availability of brownfield sites elsewhere, use of empty homes. Some supported the allocation by stating the need for new housing. • Development on Open space / countryside / green link. • Traffic congestion • Two respondents supported the allocation – ‘although views across open land would be lost it is more important to make efficient use of the land for needed housing.’ • Amount of development proposed would urbanise the character of a rural village

Each of the issues are addressed in the full schedules in Appendix 2. We propose to retain the allocation but 0.73ha (50%) of site is to be improved as public open space.

5.96 P00506 – Hawthorne Avenue, Coppice Close, Stocksbridge The Hawthorne Avenue, Coppice Close, Stocksbridge site (P00506) drew 37 responses, including 24 objections, 10 support and 3 observations. The following key issues were raised:

• Accessibility / Services – No access to land due to ransom strip; access from Hawthorne Avenue and Coppice Close is impractical due to condition and topography; surrounding roads inadequate to serve development of the site; lack of local amenities within walking distance of the site; opportunity taken to provide a pedestrian link to Stocksbridge Leisure Centre via New Hall Wood. • Capacity of local health/medical practices • Ecology – New Hall Wood • Local school capacity • Inadequacy of local sewage system to cope with development. • Green Belt encroachment concerns • Housing - availability of brownfield sites elsewhere, use of empty homes, no new housing in the area because there’s already a shortage of open space. • Protection of open space requested • Traffic Congestion – inadequacy and steepness of the road network to take further development and emergency vehicles. • Privacy / views

- 56 -

• Amount of development proposed would urbanise the character of a rural village • Agricultural

We propose to retain the allocation but we do acknowledge that the cost of drainage infrastructure could delay development until later in the plan period. A recent ecology survey requires a condition to protect New Hall Wood by requiring a 15m buffer between the woodland and built development.

- 57 -

APPENDIX 1A – CITY POLICIES AND SITES CONSULTATION DRAFT 2010

Policies

Introduction

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 2 1 4 5 6 2 4 0 2 10 0 18

11% 6% 22% 28% 33% 11% 22% 0% 11% 56% 0% 100%

Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A1 Infrastructure Requirements and 3 9 0 14 1 7 12 1 1 6 0 27 Developer Contributions A2 Requirements for Economic Prosperity 1 1 0 5 0 2 3 0 0 2 0 7 and Sustainable Employment All Economic Prosperity and 4 10 1 19 1 10 15 1 1 8 0 35 Sustainable Employment 11% 29% 3% 54% 3% 29% 43% 3% 3% 22% 0% 100%

Serving the City Region

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

General Comment 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

B1 City Centre Design 5 2 0 2 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 9 B2 Development in the City Centre Shopping 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Streets and the Cultural Hub All Serving the City Region 6 2 1 4 0 9 2 0 0 2 0 13

46% 15% 8% 31% 0% 70% 15% 0% 0% 15% 0% 100%

Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

General Comment 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 C1 Access to Local Services and Community Facilities 1 6 1 6 0 3 4 0 1 6 0 14 in New Residential Developments

- 60 -

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

C2 Residential Design 1 2 1 5 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 9 C3 Safeguarding Sensitive Uses from 7 3 1 3 1 3 10 1 0 1 0 15 Nuisance C4 Development in District and 0 4 2 5 1 1 6 0 1 4 0 12 Neighbourhood Centres C5 Shopping and Leisure Development and Community 3 0 1 7 0 1 8 0 0 2 0 11 Facilities outside Existing Centres All Attractive and Sustainable 12 15 6 28 2 9 33 1 2 18 0 63 Neighbourhoods

19% 24% 10% 44% 3% 14% 52% 2% 3% 29% 0% 100%

Opportunities and Well-being for All

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 D1 Provision for the 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Needs of All Users

- 61 -

D2 Open Space in New Housing 2 3 0 4 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 9 Developments D3 Delivering 5 0 1 15 0 6 2 0 0 13 0 21 Affordable Housing

All Opportunities and 7 5 1 20 0 9 5 0 2 16 1 33 Well-being for All 21% 15% 3% 61% 0% 27% 15% 0% 7 48% 3% 100%

Transport and Movement

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 E1 Development and 3 3 2 6 0 3 9 2 0 0 0 14 Trip Generation

E2 Parking 3 1 2 9 0 3 3 0 2 7 0 15

E3 Design for Roads 0 7 1 5 1 4 7 1 2 0 0 14 and Movement

All Transport and 7 12 5 20 1 11 19 3 5 7 0 45 Movement 16% 27% 11% 44% 2% 24% 42% 7% 11% 16% 0% 100%

- 62 -

Global Environment and Natural Resources

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

F1 Pollution Control 3 4 1 1 1 4 2 0 1 3 0 10

F2 Requirements for 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 5 Waste Management All Global Environment and 4 6 1 4 2 6 4 0 1 6 0 17 Natural Resources 24% 35% 6% 24% 11% 35% 24% 0% 6% 35% 0% 100%

Green Environment

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 7 G1 Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity 6 14 0 9 0 8 3 0 1 15 2 29 and Features of Geological Importance G2 The Green 6 2 0 3 0 5 3 1 0 2 0 11 Network G3 Trees, Woodland and the South 5 4 0 2 1 6 5 0 1 0 0 12 Yorkshire Forest

- 63 -

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed G4 Water in the 2 7 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 3 0 9 Landscape All Green Environment 19 28 0 20 1 25 13 2 2 24 2 68

28% 41% 0% 29% 2% 37% 19% 3% 3% 35% 3% 100%

Character and Heritage

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed G5 Development and 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 Area Character G6 Countryside 3 1 0 10 0 3 9 0 1 1 0 14 Character G7 Development and 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 6 Heritage G9 Historic Parks, Gardens and 1 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 5 Cemeteries All Character and 7 6 0 15 1 8 14 0 1 5 1 29 Heritage 24% 21% 0% 52% 3% 28% 48% 0% 3% 18% 3% 100%

- 64 -

Areas that Look Good and Work Well

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

G10 Design Quality 3 2 0 3 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 8

G11 Tall Buildings and 1 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 Views

G12 Public Art 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

G13 Shop Front 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Design

G14 Advertisements 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

All Areas that Look 7 6 0 8 0 9 8 0 3 1 0 21 Good and Work Well 33% 29% 0% 38% 0% 43% 38% 0% 14% 5% 0% 100%

Land Uses in Policy Areas

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

General Comment 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 5

H1 Land Uses in 6 5 2 24 3 10 19 0 3 6 1 39 Policy Areas

- 65 -

All Land Uses in 7 5 2 26 5 11 20 0 3 9 1 45 Policy Areas

16% 11% 4% 58% 11% 25% 45% 0% 7% 21% 2% 100%

General Site Allocations Policy

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

General Comment 0 0 2 4 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 6

J1 Development on 1 3 1 18 3 3 9 0 2 10 2 26 Allocated Sites All Land Uses in 1 3 1 22 3 4 12 1 2 10 3 30 Policy Areas

3% 10% 3% 74& 10% 13% 34% 3% 7% 33% 10% 100%

Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed General Comment 9 2 0 9 2 7 4 3 1 7 0 22 All Major Developed Sites in the Green 9 2 0 9 2 7 4 3 1 7 0 22 Belt 41% 9% 0% 41% 9% 32% 17% 14% 5% 32% 0% 100%

- 66 -

APPENDIX 1B – CITY POLICIES AND SITES CONSULTATION DRAFT 2010

Site Allocations

By Community Assembly

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

Central 6 2 3 20 7 10 15 2 0 10 1 38

East 11 11 1 25 3 19 19 5 1 7 0 51

North East 1 3 0 5 5 8 5 0 0 1 0 14

Northern 13 7 0 43 9 13 48 1 1 9 0 72

South 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 6

South East 4 1 0 25 1 9 5 0 1 16 0 31

South West 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

General Site 0 0 1 11 0 2 1 0 0 8 1 12 Comments

All Site Allocations 37 26 6 133 25 63 95 10 4 53 2 227

16% 11% 3% 59% 11% 27% 42% 4% 2% 24% 1% 100%

- 67 -

By Ward

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

Arbourthorne 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Beauchief and 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Greenhill Beighton 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 12 0 16

Birley 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Broomhill 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Burngreave 0 0 0 4 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 6

Central 5 2 2 15 3 8 9 1 0 9 0 27

Crookes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Darnall 10 10 1 18 3 18 12 5 0 7 0 42

Dore and Totley 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

East Ecclesfield 1 1 0 8 6 10 5 1 0 0 0 16

Ecclesall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Firth Park 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

- 68 -

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

Fulwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Gleadless Valley 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graves Park 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Hillsborough 1 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 5

Manor Castle 1 1 0 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 6

Mosborough 4 1 0 8 1 9 0 0 1 4 0 14

Nether Edge 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

Richmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shiregreen and 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 Brightside Southey 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Stannington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stocksbridge and 12 6 0 35 3 3 43 0 1 9 0 56 Upper Don

Walkley 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4

West Ecclesfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Woodhouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 69 -

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

General Site 0 0 1 11 0 2 1 0 0 8 1 12 Comments

All Site Allocations 37 26 6 133 25 63 95 10 4 53 2 227

16% 11% 3% 59% 11% 27% 42% 4% 2% 24% 1% 100%

- 70 -

APPENDIX 1C – CITY POLICIES AND SITES CONSULTATION DRAFT 2010

Proposals Map

By Community Assembly Area

Comment Council’s response Total Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

City-wide 1 2 4 5 0 3 3 2 0 3 1 12

Central 5 0 0 25 1 9 12 0 0 9 1 31

East 6 1 0 11 0 8 1 0 0 9 0 18

North East 1 0 0 20 0 4 6 0 1 10 0 21

Northern 12 2 4 25 0 16 14 0 2 11 0 43

South 1 0 1 16 0 2 4 0 1 11 0 18

South East 4 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 5 0 13

South West 3 0 0 6 2 3 2 0 1 5 0 11

All Proposals Map 33 5 9 117 3 53 42 2 5 63 2 167

20% 3% 5% 70% 2% 32% 25% 1% 3% 38% 1% 100%

- 71 -

By Policy Area

Comment Council’s response Total

Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

Business and 1 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 Industrial Area Business Area 0 0 0 9 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 9

Cemetery 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Central Housing Area 1 0 0 6 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 7 Community Assembly 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 6 Area Conservation Area 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

Countryside Area 7 1 0 2 0 6 3 0 0 1 0 10

District Centre 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3

Flexible Use Area 1 0 0 5 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 6

General Employment 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 6 Area

Green Belt 6 1 0 19 0 5 7 0 0 14 0 26

Green Link 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3

Housing Area 3 0 1 15 0 10 0 0 0 9 0 19

- 72 -

Comment Council’s response Total

Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

Industrial Area 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 5

Local Nature Reserve 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

Neighbourhood Centre 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Open Space 5 0 1 17 0 8 6 0 1 8 0 23

Other Local Nature 2 1 1 10 0 3 3 0 0 8 0 14 Site

Playing Field 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 6

Priority Office Area 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Proposed or to-be- improved Walking and 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cycling route (or Bridleway) Scheduled Monument 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sheffield Local 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Planning Authority Site of Specific 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Scientific Interest South Yorkshire Forest 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 University/College 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 Area Waste Management 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Area

- 73 -

Comment Council’s response Total

Support Support Observations Object Other Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not Other with in full in part not used in change accepted conditions document needed

All Proposals Map 33 5 9 117 3 53 42 2 5 63 2 167

20% 3% 5% 70% 2% 32% 25% 1% 3% 38% 1% 100%

- 74 -

APPENDIX 2 – ADDITIONAL SITE ALLOCATION OPTIONS CONSULTATION 2012

Site Allocation Agree? Council’s response Total Yes No Neither Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not in full in part not used in change accepted document needed 2 11 6 2 0 0 7 10 19 Introduction - General comment 2 9 3 0 1 0 6 7 14 The Need for New Homes - General comment 1 54 2 3 38 0 0 16 57 P00502 - Wiggan Farm, Towngate Road, Worrall P00503 - Former Sports Ground, Greaves Lane, 12 19 2 4 11 0 0 18 33 Stannington P00505 - Platts Lane/Oughtibridge Lane, 2 27 2 1 4 1 0 25 31 Oughtibridge P00506 - Hawthorne Avenue/Coppice Close, 0 34 3 0 34 0 0 3 37 Stocksbridge P00507 - Worrall Hall Farm, Kirk Edge Road/Top 2 49 1 1 36 0 2 13 52 Road, Worrall New Site Suggestions - Northern Community 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 2 4 Assembly Area Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 5 Northern Community Assembly Area New Site Suggestions - North East Community 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 4 Assembly Area Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 North East Community Assembly Area 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 4 P00500 - Infield Lane, Darnall 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 4 P00501 - Foley Street/Levenson Street, Attercliffe P00508 - Former Sports Ground, Bawtry Road, 21 39 5 42 7 1 1 14 65 Tinsley

- 75 -

Site Allocation Agree? Council’s response Total Yes No Neither Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not in full in part not used in change accepted document needed 4 0 4 5 2 0 1 0 8 P00131 - Darnall Works, Darnall Road, Darnall New Site Suggestions - East Community Assembly 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 4 Area 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 P00498 - Herries Road, Owlerton P00516 - Gilders Car Showroom, Middlewood 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 4 Road New Site Suggestions – Central Community 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Assembly Area P00499 - Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth 14 21 2 12 6 0 0 19 37 Road P00511 - Former SHU Playing Fields, Hemsworth 12 38 4 12 3 0 0 39 54 Road 7 45 3 0 18 3 0 34 55 P00512 - Land at Norton Lane, Norton Oakes 1 29 8 3 3 1 5 26 38 P00367 - Beighton Road, Woodhouse P00509 - Scrapyard and Vacant Land at Junction 5 32 5 0 18 0 2 22 42 Road, Woodhouse 1 33 7 0 9 0 4 28 41 P00510 - Woodhouse East (farmland area) New Site Suggestions - South East Community 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 Assembly Area P00496 - Hadfield Service Reservoir, off Glebe 3 9 1 1 10 0 0 2 13 Road/Blakeney Road, Crookes P00497 - Lydgate Reservoir, Evelyn Road, 4 25 2 1 26 1 0 3 31 Crookes 1 30 3 3 7 2 1 21 34 P00517 - Canterbury Crescent, Fulwood New Site Suggestions - South West Community 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 Assembly Area

- 76 -

Site Allocation Agree? Council’s response Total Yes No Neither Accepted Accepted Agreed but No Not in full in part not used in change accepted document needed Sites previously consulted on in June/July 2010 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 South West Community Assembly Area 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Appendix A - Draft Policy J1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Appendix B - Further Explanation 98 514 89 100 236 10 35 320 702 Grand Total 14% 73% 13% 14% 34% 1% 5% 46% 100%

- 77 -