North Area Panel Minutes 7th November 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Special Meeting held on 7th November, 2005 at Stocksbridge School, Shayhouse Lane, Stocksbridge

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), Alison Brelsford and Martin Brelsford.

		Council Officers:-
		Paul Gordon, Development Services
		Bob Turner, Development Services
		Mark Simons, Highways Development
		Jason Dietsch - Committee Secretariat

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-

		Richard Knight, G. V. A. Grimley, Alan Warburton, Corus, Elise Gilwright, Sheffield West Primary Care Trust and Councillor Andrew Cooke, Stocksbridge Town Council.

…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Kathleen Chadwick, Arthur Dunworth and Alan Hooper.

2.	OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 'SITE A' CORUS WORKS, STOCKSBRIDGE
	The Panel received a background presentation from Richard Knight, G. V. A. Grimley concerning the development of Site A for residential use at the Corus Works, Stocksbridge. Sites A and B, namely the former raw materials stock yard and melting yard respectively were the first phases of development at the former Corus Works site. Site A would be developed for residential use whilst Site B was earmarked for employment related development. Sites C to G would be developed in the future. The matter for consideration was the outline planning application which assuming it was granted by the City Council's Planning and Highways Board would then progress to a more detailed application by a future developer. The number of residential units proposed was estimated to be between 275 and 375. Access to the site would be through western and eastern access routes and it proposed that a new bridge be built over the river. The other elements of the development included a vision for affordable housing and necessary improvements to the highways, particularly junctions in and out of the sites and those leading to the bypass.
	Paul Gordon, Development Services, stated that the Development Brief had established the principle of housing on Site A. As part of the outline planning application the City Council still wished to hear the views of local people and representations could still be made to the Planning Department. Further, Bob Turner, Development Services, stated that at present the application was at its publicity stage and letters had been sent to those people living closer to the site and, in addition, notices had been posted around the site and an advertisement placed in the local newspaper.
	If the City Council's Planning and Highways Board granted the application for outline planning, then it would be necessary to refer it to the Secretary of State on the grounds that the application was a departure from the existing City Unitary Development Plan.
	Consultation had been undertaken with the relevant Authorities, including other Council Departments, the Highways Agency and Yorkshire Water. He reaffirmed that account would be taken of representations made and these would be incorporated into any report to the Council's Planning and Highways Board for consideration. He also informed Members of the Board that more detailed drawings and plans were available for inspection at the Town Council Offices, Stocksbridge Library and at Howden House in the City Centre.
	There was currently a mound on the site in the vicinity of the river, which served to soften noise from the Corus site and it was proposed to re-site this mound to the eastern part of the site to act as a buffer between Sites A and B.
	The 13 week target period for dealing with the application set by the Government would end on 16th December and the earliest possible meeting of the Planning and Highways Board to which the application might be submitted would be 13th December, followed by meetings in the New Year.
	Mark Simons, Highways Officer, stated that a company had been commissioned to undertake a traffic study using a National database of sites similar to the one in Stocksbridge to model the effects of the residential development on Site A and the industrial development on Site B. The study revealed that junctions to the site and Manchester Road would be within capacity but there were indications that junctions to the by-pass, even without the proposed development taking place, would be over capacity in the future. The locations of junctions where there might be potential capacity or safety issues in the future would be identified and it was suggested that some mitigation of the impact of the proposed development would be required. This would be the responsibility of the Highways Agency but there would be input from the City Council and the developer. Such action by the developer would be included in conditions for any grant of a planning application for residential use.

	Housing
	The Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw, informed the Panel that the proportion of affordable housing proposed for the site was 20% and that he had been informed that both Corus and the City Council were still in discussion as to the assessment of need for affordable housing on the site. Richard Knight stated that the current policy of the Council was that a proportion of affordable housing should be provided at between 5% and 20% on any new developments but this needed to be evidenced by the Housing Needs Survey. The City Council had informed G. V. A. Grimley and Corus that they would require the maximum 20% level of affordable housing on the development but that G. V. A. Grimley were not convinced that there was a need for such a proportion of affordable housing although they acknowledged there was demand.
	In response to a question from a member of the public concerning what the nature of the affordable housing would be, Bob Turner stated that such housing should be affordable to those on low incomes at a level of 68% of the average income in Sheffield and on most sites in the City the Council negotiated up to 20% as being for affordable housing such as terrace housing, apartments and family accommodation and family housing but he underlined that need would be looked at in any particular area. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that the City Council's assessment of need on the site was different to that of G.V.A. Grimley's interpretation and as yet there had been no response from the City Council to Grimley's statement.
	A question was asked as to whether extra care housing would be included in the amount of housing allotted for affordable housing and Bob Turner responded that the Council’s Neighbourhoods and Community Care Directorate had been requested to look at the statement by G. V. A. Grimley and Corus and respond and this would include looking at the need for new extra care housing in the Stocksbridge Area and any possible contributions from the development of the site to the provision of such accommodation. It would also be possible to provide extra care accommodation in different location to the site under discussion, for which there was a precedent such as at Oughtibridge where existing houses were being bought by the Council to be made available as affordable housing.
	A comment was made by Councillor Andrew Cooke, Stocksbridge Town Council, that the highest possible figure for the provision of affordable housing should be negotiated by the Council. Bob Turner responded that as a Planning Authority, the Council needed to resolve such issues before the development could continue and a legal agreement would be entered into with the developer which could be enforced and would serve to control the development to a greater extent. There were opportunities to review such an agreement and it was likely that there would be a number of contributions from the developer of the site. In response to a further question, Bob Turner stated that as this was an outline application the detail of accommodation was not yet known but at this stage principles were being considered. Government guidance stated that previously developed land should be maximised in terms of its development and there should be a range of the type of houses developed on that site. He informed the Panel that, if granted, the planning permission would last for a three year period. This permission would be attached to the land in question so that any developer acquiring that land would benefit from the grant of planning permission. When the details were submitted of an application for housing on the site the Council would advertise the proposals and public participation would be encouraged in the same way as for the outline application.
	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that it had been the experience at other sites that land had been sold off in several parts and the holistic view of the development was lost sight of. Further concern was expressed by a member of the public that people would not be listened to and their views not represented. Bob Turner responded that Councillors sitting on the Council's Planning and Highways Board would receive information relating to representations made on the application, which they could consider before making a decision on the application.

	Education
	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw informed the Panel that the view had been taken that there might be a need to provide for an increased number of secondary places in Stocksbridge only if both the Corus and Deepcar sites identified were developed for residential use. He added that the Headteacher of Stocksbridge High School had stated at the previous Panel meeting that she had not been content with the proposals for education provision.
	Bob Turner stated that any contribution from the developer toward education provision would be safeguarded in that it could not be spent on other items and if it were not spent then it would be returned to the developer. In relation to education provision in Stocksbridge the school role had been declining but at present the High School was at capacity. If the Corus site and that on the former brick works at Deepcar were to be developed then the bond of approximately £1m would be released to fund the building of a five classroom block and it was likely that this would be placed in an interest bearing account and that it could be a considerable time before such additional provision was completed.

	Traffic
	A question was asked concerning the junction by No. 1 Gate to the Corus Works and requests made that this be lit and possibly be altered into a roundabout that could be better seen and, in addition, the route from the works to the by-pass through the top road be also altered at the junction so that a roundabout was developed which would slow traffic down and ease access on to the by-pass. The Panel were informed that this would be fed back to discussions with the Highways Agency. Following the outcome of discussions with the Highways Agency and if there were significant alterations to proposals Bob Turner stated that significant changes would be reported to interested parties.
	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw asked whether the Town Council would be involved and take the lead in terms of contribution to changes to the highway relating to the development, stating that it was vital that local knowledge was recognised and taken account of.
	A statement was made by a member of the public concerning the westward roundabout at which there were already significant queues during peak times and that this might be affected or further compounded by additional residential developments at Stocksbridge. In response, Mark Simons stated that Council schemes generally had a sound consultation process and he would ask for feedback as to how the Highways Agency intended to consult on any schemes, which they might propose.
	Mark Simons stated that there might be a possible adoption of highway through the Corus site to alleviate traffic congestion and that access to the site would be designed to accommodate both residential traffic and public transport. In addition, travel plans would be required from the developer and such initiatives as a year’s Travelmaster ticket for residents were being considered.
	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw emphasised that formal engagement of the Town Council was needed in relation to dialogue with the Highways Agency.
	Councillor Martin Brelsford stated that increased traffic from the Stocksbridge area would more than likely be funnelled into the Hillsborough and Grenoside areas of the City, which were already at capacity. He suggested that more sustainable transport alternatives be considered such as an extension to the Supertram or provision of a rail link. He also stated that buses were not necessarily reliable or affordable for people, who would then use their cars.

	Drainage Issues
	Richard Knight outlined the proposals for an on-site foul water treatment system. He stated that there was no capacity in the main sewer or the main treatment works at Deepcar and therefore there would be the need for a new main sewer to Deepcar and funding for a new treatment works. This however would need to be routed over a long distance as relevant pipe work could not be taken through the Corus Works and it was considered that the cost, infrastructure requirements and time implications were too high and therefore an on-site treatment system was proposed which would be located under ground and enable treatment of water on site and would be maintained as part of the site service agreement. Discussions were being held between G. V. A. Grimley, Corus, the Environment Agency, the City Council and Yorkshire Water.
	Councillor Martin Brelsford expressed concern that this would not deal with the problem of adding additional water into the watercourse and as the site was to be made into a built environment, using more impermeable surfaces and there would be less natural drainage and therefore a risk of flooding which was already a concern. Bob Turner stated that the Environment Agency were considering surface water run off and how water running into the river might be managed through on-site storage tanks to slowly release water into the river.
	Barbara Horsman, representing the Community Forum was concerned that the river should not be culverted and that, in general, the condition of the river should be improved so as to encourage wildlife. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw added that there had been improvements to the condition of rivers in the City particularly in the Don Valley and hoped that water quality in the Stocksbridge area could also be further improved.
	Following a question concerning whether soil tests had been taken, Richard Knight responded that a full ground assessment had been undertaken on the site to measure the quality of soil and the Site’s suitability for residential development. The questioner further expressed concern that colliery waste and slack had been tipped on to the site and this would not be suitable for residential development.
	In relation to wider environmental issues, concern was expressed that buildings and housing on the site should be sustainable and that the development should be seen as an opportunity to improve the environment in general in terms of sustainability, use of colours and in keeping with the rural character of the area. In addition, the heights of buildings should be considered and dry stone walls preserved where possible. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw informed the questioner that greater detail would be considered as part of the reserved planning matters, which would form the next stage of any development.
	A question was asked concerning the retention of trees in and around the site and Richard Knight responded that the majority of woodland was outside the area earmarked for development and these would be retained as structural landscape and the Panel were shown a landscaping plan which indicated where trees might be retained.
	Councillor Martin Brelsford expressed concern as to who might be responsible for the maintenance of the woodland area and Bob Turner responded that the Council would potentially be asked to adopt open spaces, the roads and footpaths on any residential development or alternative management schemes might be considered. Further, Councillor Martin Brelsford stated that a holistic approach was needed to the development of the site and strategic problems should also be considered and there was now an opportunity to address such problems. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw agreed that a holistic approach was required. Bob Turner stated that the cumulative effects of the development would need to be considered and some initiatives had already been undertaken, including the submission of an environmental assessment by G. V. A. Grimley and Corus. The Panel were informed that the Steel Valley Project, who were partly funded by Corus, managed parts of the woodland area surrounding the site. Paul Gordon stated that because consultation had been undertaken on the development brief for the site information had already been gathered to a great extent as to the views of people in Stocksbridge and this provided an opportunity to look holistically at the area.
	A member of the public stated that a holistic approach was also required in relation to noise from the Corus Works, which would also be heard elsewhere in Stocksbridge other than the Site A. Reassurance was also sought that the community would be involved in the development of Site B, proposed for industrial developments. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that noise related issues could be dealt with by the Council's Environment Protection Service.
	The Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw, thanked members of the public and Council Officers together with representatives of G. V. A. Grimley and Corus for attending the meeting and advised members of the public to detail their concerns in writing to the Council's Planning Service.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |