Green Belt Blueprint Key issues for the future of and its countryside Summary

For most people in Sheffield, the Green Belt protects the countryside that is on their doorstep. Preventing suburban sprawl focuses new development in accessible urban neighbourhoods, makes better use of brownfield sites, and keeps the countryside within reach of the city. Green Belt policies are essential to making that happen. In Sheffield the Green Belt also connects the city with the Peak District National Park, and ensures that urban development doesn’t harm the setting of that unique landscape. That’s why releasing Green Belt should never be a quick-fix for urban growth.

Sheffield’s Green Belt boundaries should only change if:

• effective means and resources for re-using urban brownfield sites and re- modelling run-down urban areas are in place; • there has been a comprehensive review for the whole Sheffield City Region to confirm the most sustainable locations for urban expansion; • the changes are accompanied by binding masterplans to make sustainable places and give communities confidence that Green Belt will not be lost to generic suburban developments.

Brownfield sites in the Green Belt should only be developed for housing if they are sustainably located and fit with the overall strategy of the Local Plan. Planning policies should focus on building the right homes in the right places, not fixate on numerical supply. In particular:

• developers should be required to build sites within an agreed timescale, and not hold the 5-year land supply to ransom; • housing targets should be broken down by the size, type and tenure of housing that is needed, so that the release of development sites only takes place if the right mix of housing is being built; • Local and Neighbourhood Plans should set target densities for neighbourhoods - not just for new developments within them.

Better planning policies could strengthen the role of Green Belt in defending and making space for green infrastructure. Where the environmental quality of Green Belt land is low, this shouldn’t make it fair game for built development; instead it offers potential for an enhanced environment.

1 Introduction

It was CPRE that mapped and set out CPRE campaigns for the right development the Sheffield Green Belt back in 1938. in the right places. Green Belt helps to Nearly 80 years later the surrounding focus new development in the right places countryside is a major economic asset for and prevent urban sprawl. In turn, this Sheffield, now recast as the Outdoor City. protects the countryside on the edge of This depends on the Green Belt to keep towns and cities, so it’s available for food the countryside close and accessible for and farming, nature and recreation. everyone. We want people’s housing needs to be CPRE wants to see Northern met, and local communities to have a fair prosper sustainably. The Peak District and say in shaping their neighbourhoods and South Pennines form a green heart shared countryside. Yet our Green Belt is currently by the huge urban populations of South under renewed threat, mainly from , West Yorkshire and Greater unattainable housing targets. The planning Manchester in a way that is unique across process is set up to fail, and that problem Europe. Green Belts connect the towns and must be tackled. cities to the countryside by keeping land open and protecting it from damaging developments.

Rivelin Valley 2 Our Green Belt is under threat from flawed targets

The UK needs more housing, but there is mounting evidence that making more land available to volume housebuilders neither increases the number of homes being built, nor produces those homes that are most needed. Despite some encouraging signs in the Housing White Paper, the Government has been ignoring this evidence and pressurising local authorities to provide more and more sites. In other words, Green Belt is not so much under pressure from the real need for housing, but from chasing unrealistic and unattainable targets.

Green Belts exist to prevent towns and cities Secondly, a chronic shortage of public from sprawling outwards into the countryside, investment is making it hard to and from merging into one another. They also support urban regeneration, so it is provide countryside for nature and recreation understandable that local authorities to thrive close to urban areas. Ironically it is look to greenfield and Green Belt sites cities like Sheffield, who have been successful where developers are eager to build. The for decades in containing urban sprawl and Government persists in trying to fix these regenerating brownfield sites, who are now problems not with investment, but by under greatest pressure to relax their Green relaxing the planning system. It makes Belts. no sense, and it won’t work, but it does cause damaging urban sprawl. Nationwide, we are seeing a marked increase in planning permissions in the Green Belt, but by A strong Green Belt helps to focus far the greatest challenge is coming from Local development where it will deliver Plan reviews. Eighty percent of local planning most benefit. That’s why, if the Green authorities who have Green Belts are reviewing Belt boundaries do have to change to them during the current round of Local Plans. accommodate growth, those changes This suggests that changes to the Green Belt must be relevant and positive changes to boundaries are becoming the norm, rather than Sheffield and its countryside. We have yet the exception that national policy envisages. to see a method for Green Belt review that rises to that challenge. Simply unpeeling The economic growth ambitions of the City bits of the Green Belt like layers of an Regions bring with them a move to greatly onion, especially when there is much increase housebuilding. This should create an under-used land within the urban area, opportunity for real urban regeneration and cannot be good for Sheffield. place-making, but that isn’t happening, for two reasons. Firstly, there is no City Region- wide land-use planning (although this has begun in Greater Manchester) so the local authorities within the Sheffield City Region are wastefully competing with each other to provide development sites, instead of working together.

3 National policy dictates that there must In campaigning on Local Plans, we have be exceptional circumstances for any repeatedly asked that housing targets should change to Green Belts. We believe that be broken down by the size, type and tenure could only be demonstrated if the benefits of housing that is needed, so that the release of the change will be exceptional. In other of development sites only takes place if the words that the new development taking right mix of housing is being built. There place as a result will make a genuine is nothing in national planning policy to contribution to the future of Sheffield and preclude Local Plans from doing this, yet no its City Region, in terms of tackling climate local authority or Planning Inspector has yet change, providing homes that the people risen to our challenge on this point. who need them can afford, and making sustainable, walkable neighbhourhoods CPRE also wants local authorities to have that improve health and wellbeing. Unless the power to require developers to complete there is a real prospect of achieving schemes within an agreed timescale, or face that, then there are no exceptional financial penalties on uncompleted houses. circumstances for changing the Green Belt. Sheffield has live planning permissions for several thousand homes that have not National research for CPRE recently yet been built. The Housing White Paper showed how Local Plans are pursuing recognises this issue, yet perversely it unrealistic housing targets that are set up proposes to penalise local authorities, to fail. The biggest problem is a fixation rather than developers, for delays in housing on a 5-year land supply. Big developers delivery. are able to manipulate the flow of sites and force local authorities to allocate ever 1 more sites to try – often in vain – to show Unrealistic housing targets a 5-year supply. As a result, Local Plans are set 2 are undermined and the Green Belt is Councils are 8 forced to allocate threatened for no good reason. And round we large amounts go again ... of land to meet targets Worse still, the homes that are built are often the wrong ones. Set up to fail: 3 Housebuilders are routinely 7 Developers Developers why housing targets cherry-pick the most refusing to provide affordable again target the profitable sites - homes on their sites. As a result, most profitable based on made-up usually greenfield, sites ignoring valuable land is being used up for numbers threaten brownfield larger and more expensive houses, while the main housing problem we our countryside 6 4 face – affordability – is not being Councils are Building rates addressed. This is a tragedy in the forced to allocate are kept slow by even more developers to keep making. land 5 prices high Housing targets are inevitably missed

4 City growth options

The new Sheffield Plan will be adopted in 2018, setting out what should be developed where up to 2034. Sheffield has an opportunity to harness its growth ambitions sustainably and with real vision, but there is a great danger of failure, because the planning system lacks the tools to make it happen.

Sheffield needs to grow, though the scale The problem, as URBED themselves of growth remains a matter for debate. The acknowledge, is that the planning system emerging Sheffield Plan proposes a target of and local authorities lack the tools to 43,000 more homes by 2034. In 2015 Sheffield implement sustainable, sequential growth. City Council commissioned a consultancy, If sites are removed from the Green Belt to URBED, to produce some visionary ideas for how provide a source of supply, there is a huge the city can grow and improve: not sprawling, risk that these will become the developer’s congested suburbs, but better places, better first choice for where they wish to build, connected to the city by green spaces, walking and brownfield sites will be left untouched and cycling routes and public transport. URBED for decades. proposed that Sheffield, along with a number of other UK cities, should actually grow much CPRE wants Sheffield to offer sustainable faster in order to redress the ever-more locations for people’s housing and London-centred economy. There is much to employment needs, and not to create commend this idea, though currently there commuter dormitories. We need to are no national policies to support it. From see genuinely plan-led developments CPRE’s perspective, the question is not how that give communities confidence in much growth is appropriate, but how to secure what will be built. If for example, the the right growth in the right places and to not Upper Don Valley from to squander our precious environmental and evolved into a chain of compact landscape assets. neighbourhoods connected by tram-train, they could be great places to live, easily URBED propose a rational sequence for where accessible to the city centre and a stone’s growth should be located: concentrating first throw from beautiful open countryside. on existing urban areas; then re-modelling run-down areas; and only then looking to take For this to happen there would need to be ‘confident bites’ from the Green Belt in places a genuine place-making agenda, a binding that can be made sustainable. Their study masterplan for sustainable development identified the Upper Don Valley corridor from and a commitment to early provision of Stocksbridge all the way down to Neepsend transport services, amenities and green as being an area where the growth could be infrastructure. And the supply of sites accommodated sustainably. We broadly agree. elsewhere will need to be constrained in order to focus development in the right Cities have always grown outwards, but there places. is no point in them spreading out further when there are huge wasted spaces within them. CPRE supports URBED’s approach, because it should avoid the piecemeal loss of countryside to suburban sprawl.

5 Case study: Mill, Upper Don Valley

The former paper mill site recently gained outline planning permission for 320, low density, suburban homes, which CPRE believes will be a wasted regeneration opportunity. Before any new development takes place in Stocksbridge, , or Oughtibridge, there must be a proper masterplan for the whole valley, showing where the housing, shops and services and additional schools will be, how the public transport will work, and how the river can be enhanced as a green link for people and nature. There may also be renewable energy (hydro) opportunities on the river. The current proposals seem very unlikely to fit the bill, and the developer is also trying to avoid making a contribution to affordable housing. That is not a recipe for sustainable development.

Oughtibridge Mill Site

6 Making the most of our urban areas

We urgently need to increase the density of new housing. This isn’t just about saving land, it’s about making places lively and sustainable. Communities sometimes associate higher densities with cramped housing estates or tower blocks, yet the hearts of most cities, towns and villages were built much more densely than people generally realise, and that’s often why they work much better as places. Usually, if a neighbourhood feels cramped it is a result of poor design, not high density.

There is an ever-growing body of evidence for CPRE’s report ‘Compact Sustainable the need to build neighbourhoods at higher Communities’ showed that high density densities. In 1991, the influential architect and high quality can go hand-in-hand. planner Harley Sherlock demonstrated that This echoed CABE’s findings that higher some of the most popular, successful housing densities make better neighbourhoods, in London had net densities of 80-100 dwellings because: per hectare (dpha). In 2005 the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) • much of the more desirable housing in suggested that a ‘sustainable urban density’ urban areas is at higher densities; should be around 69 dpha, as this supports • higher densities create vibrant vibrant neighbourhoods with local shops and neighbourhoods due to the number parks, plus significant benefits such as viable and variety of people who live there; buses and trams. By contrast, most new-build • not all housing in a higher density housing only achieves around 30 dpha. We neighbourhood need be the same, as believe this is wasteful and doesn’t make for a combination of different designs good places to live. allows for different needs; • higher densities allow for both private We want Local and Neighbourhood Plans to outdoor spaces and also for shared set target densities for neighbourhoods - not spaces such as parks and playgrounds. just for new developments within them. We recommend that in inner urban areas these The Green Belt can assist urban should be at least 70 dpha; and in other areas regeneration, but only if urban areas are at least 45 dpha. Sites being proposed for new planned and developed well. Green Belt development should be assessed for their protection should go hand-in-hand with capacity and suitability to provide increased investment in compact, high-quality residential density for the neighbourhood. neighbourhoods.

7 High rise - low coverage

Low rise - high coverage

Medium rise - medium coverage

These three very different architectural forms are built to exactly the same density of 75 dwellings to the hectare. Illustration reproduced from ‘Compact Sustainable Communities’ (CPRE 2006) 8 Examples of higher density neighbourhoods in Sheffield

Steel Bank, : pre-1910 housing in very popular neighbourhood (55 dwellings per hectare)

This very high-demand part of Sheffield of consists mainly mid-sized 3-storey Victorian terraced houses, interspersed with semi-detached and detached houses but very few flats. Most have rear gardens and are popular with small families. Most of the streets benefit from trees and small front gardens. A few front gardens and basements have been adapted for off-street parking, but most parking is on-street. There is a diverse mixture of owner-occupied, private-rented and student tenure, excellent access to local parks, and two vibrant local shopping areas within five minutes’ walk. The average density of around 55 dpha includes some low density streets, while most streets are closer to 70 dpha.

Steel Bank

9 Little Kelham: new inner urban housing by CITU Developments (80 dwellings per hectare)

Little Kelham is a brilliant example of the type of new development that should be happening much more in Sheffield. Re-using a challenging brownfield site, combining restoration of a historic building with a series of new build houses and flats and achieving Passivhaus standards of energy performance, the scheme is set to become a huge enhancement to the neighbourhood and an exemplar of good urban development. The density is around 80 dwellings per hectare, and provides all the homes with good internal spaces and both private and communal open spaces. The scheme is also a great example of why small, innovative builders are needed to tackle gaps and shortcomings in the types and locations of housing being built.

Little Kelham

10 Brownfield sites in the Green Belt

CPRE supports a ‘brownfield first’ approach to development, which not only avoids unnecessary use of greenfield sites but recycles land that needs to be restored and re-used. Neglected sites blight their neighbourhoods, constraining quality of life and limiting private investment. But what if some of those sites are in the Green Belt?

Sheffield has a number of former industrial CPRE wants to see Sheffield pursue an sites standing out in open countryside that ‘urban brownfield first’ approach, while is protected by Green Belt. These sites need also taking an innovative approach to to be restored and re-used appropriately, but Green Belt sites that are suffering neglect at present they are under severe threat from and dereliction. suburbanisation. There are two key problems. When any large brownfield site becomes Firstly, planning policy doesn’t distinguish available for development, but especially between brownfield sites in urban areas and those in the Green Belt, the first step those in the countryside. Sheffield’s emerging should be a master planning exercise Local Plan has already suggested that large conducted in full partnership between brownfield sites in the Green Belt could be the local authority, the local community developed for housing without having to (Parish Council or Neighbourhood Forum if review Green Belt boundaries or demonstrate they exist in the area) and the landowner. very special circumstances for development. CPRE believes this is wrong, because housing Once the master plan is agreed, developments are a major change of use in an ‘permission in principle’ could be provided otherwise rural landscape, and create pressure for the site, giving a developer a clear for the gaps between those developments and indication of what is expected, and existing residential areas to be filled in. fast-tracking proposals that fulfil the communities’ expectations. Proposals that Secondly, it’s essential that when large or vary from the master plan would need prominent brownfield sites are re-developed, full planning permission and any pre- they make a really positive contribution to the application discussions would make clear character, vitality and sustainability of the that permission for a departure from the area they’re in. This means including a high master plan is unlikely to be granted. proportion of affordable homes and state- of-the-art energy performance, design and The type and mix of development on a quality of the buildings, their surroundings site must be appropriate to its location, and open spaces. Yet at present, developers irrespective of its brownfield status. This are gaining planning permissions on such should include, for example, the site’s sites, specifically citing the increased costs of accessibility to public transport and other clearing up the brownfield site as a justification infrastructure, compatibility with the Local to provide few or no affordable homes and to Plan’s settlement hierarchy, capacity of drive down the contributions the development local schools, healthcare etc, affordable makes to the community. This is short-sighted housing needs, and green infrastructure and wrong, and means that sites are being opportunities. wasted. 11 Case study: former Hepworth’s refractory, Loxley Valley

This huge derelict site has blighted the otherwise beautiful Loxley Valley for over a decade. It is in stark contrast to the Rivelin and Porter Valleys, where the relics of a heavy industrial past have been incorporated into green corridors offering highly-valued space for recreation and outdoor learning. Plans to put 500 homes at Hepworth’s first emerged in 2006, and CPRE was deeply concerned by its likely impacts and the precedent it might set. We proposed ten exacting tests for judging whether developing a brownfield site in Green Belt is appropriate; and no proposals have yet come forward that would meet those tests. We fear that a more laissez faire approach to brownfield developments, which seems to be emerging nationally and locally, could result in a very bad outcome for the Loxley Valley – namely a large, suburban housing estate in open countryside.

Hepworth’s

12 Green Belt, Green Infrastructure

The Green Belt is not empty space – it is full of environmental assets, and for most people in Sheffield it contains their local countryside. Green Belt must not only be protected, but lead to the creation of more green infrastructure to capitalise on the environmental characteristics and potential. The role of planning is essential to developing successful sustainable neighbourhoods that are compact, and have countryside on their doorstep.

Although Green Belt is not an environmental Green infrastructure is defined as a designation, it creates a space in which natural network of multi-functional green space, and recreational assets can flourish. It’s easy urban and rural, providing a wide range of to see this process in action in Sheffield. Whilst environmental and quality of life benefits the original intention was to prevent the city for local communities. This can include spreading out into the countryside, what has parks, gardens, amenity green space, also happened is the converse: the countryside woodland, scrub, rivers and green corridors. reaches deep into the city along the river It also provides an essential resource for corridors and through many urban parks, tackling major challenges, including climate earning Sheffield the title of the greenest city in change response and public health. Europe. It is crucial that the community have a In Sheffield the Green Belt has been used over real voice in how green infrastructure many decades, to give continuous protection is managed and enhanced. When to both open countryside and to the green communities rail against loss of Green Belt, wedges that bring the countryside to within a it is very often because of the impacts on mile of at least half of the city’s inhabitants. wildlife, recreation and the countryside The Green Belt directly connects urban Sheffield on their doorstep. Across Sheffield and with the Peak District National Park, and the , the vast majority of green permanent openness of the Green Belt is crucial infrastructure enjoys the protection from to maintaining the unique landscape and inappropriate development that its Green cultural relationship that Sheffield enjoys with Belt status provides. the National Park. CPRE wants to see planning policies This is a far cry from the notion of Green Belts strengthen the role of Green Belt in as a crude delineation or a dogmatic defence of defending and making space for green low-quality countryside, as portrayed by some infrastructure. Where the environmental commentators. Sheffield benefits enormously in quality of Green Belt land is low, this economic terms from its green image at national doesn’t necessarily make it fair game for and global scales, marketing itself as the built development; it may offer potential Outdoor City and enjoying very high graduate for an enhanced environment. Where retention rates across all disciplines. This could changes to the Green Belt are proposed, not have been achieved without the direct these must be justified not only on connection to open countryside that the Green the basis of development land supply Belt has enabled. arguments, but also by a comprehensive, strategic approach to green infrastructure opportunities. 13 Case study: Porter Valley

The Green Belt boundary was originally drawn around the Porter Valley to prevent further westward spread of the suburban districts of Fulwood and Bents Green, and it provides an essential buffer between the built-up area of Sheffield and the Peak District National Park. As a result, the Green Belt now delineates a green wedge along the Porter Valley, reaching deep into the city. This brings thousands of homes within easy reach of the countryside, and the valley – once heavily industrialised – is now bustling with recreational walking and cycling routes, parks and playgrounds and industrial heritage sites, and is teeming with wildlife and local food production. Had this area not been protected by Green Belt status it is very unlikely that it could have evolved into such an important asset for Sheffield.

The Porter Valley, Sheffield

14 This report draws on a number of national Keep up to date with our CPRE publications: campaigns through signing up for Planning Reforms 2016 - what’s the problem? our newsletter: (April 2016) http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaignsupdate https://goo.gl/yYoPNR Donating: Set up to fail: why housing targets based on http://www.cpre.org.uk/donate flawed numbers threaten our countryside (November 2015) Joining us: http://www.cpre.org.uk/join https://goo.gl/iKTxJG

Compact Sustainable Communities (November For more information about CPRE’s 2006) Green Belt campaigns: http://www.ourgreenbelt.cpre.org.uk https://goo.gl/058lB9

Green Belt Under Siege: 2017 We are a registered charity established in 1926. (June 2017) We campaign for a beautiful, tranquil and diverse countryside for everyone to enjoy now We have also referenced the following sources: and in the future. We want to see green spaces unspoilt by development, thriving towns and Sheffield Garden City - Options for long-term villages connected by excellent public transport, growth (URBED, October 2015) and environmentally friendly farming and forestry. https://goo.gl/jCBEc2 We are principled campaigners, using careful Citywide Options for Growth to 2034 (Sheffield research, influencing development and City Council, November 2015) transport plans and planning applications, and supporting community groups. https://goo.gl/xq9SLj

This report produced by Andrew Wood and CPRE South Yorkshire Mathew Marsden for CPRE South Yorkshire, Victoria Hall, 37 Stafford Road, July 2017. Sheffield, S2 2SF

0114 279 2655

http://www.cpresouthyorks.org.uk/

Photographs: Andrew Wood Illustrations on pages 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14: Katy Mugford

Design & Layout: www.design-now.co.uk