You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Area Panels » North » Agenda 18 July 2007 » Minutes 20 June 2007
Minutes of North Area Panel 20 June 2007
NORTH AREA PANEL
Meeting held 20th June, 2007, at Lound Junior School, Loundside, Chapeltown
PRESENT: Councillors Alan Hooper (Chair), Trevor Bagshaw, Patricia Fox and Graham Oxley.
Representatives of Panel Partners:-
Councillor Kath Granger - Ecclesfield Parish Council
Councillor Denise Fearnley - Ecclesfield Parish Council
Councillor Norman Garratt - Ecclesfield Parish Council
Joanne Holt - Sheffield Futures
Lynne Hilson - Sheffield Futures
City Council Officers:-
Paul Gordon - Forward and Area Planning, Development Services
Mike Shaw - Street Force
Jason Dietsch - Committee Secretariat
13 members of the public and representatives of Panel Partners attended the meeting.
………………..
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Kathleen Chadwick and Vickie Priestley.
2. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
There were no public questions or petitions received by the Panel.
3. STREET FORCE CUSTOMER CHARTER
Mike Shaw, Street Force, addressed the Panel in relation to the Street Force Customer Charter questionnaire which members of the public were requested to complete to inform the review of the Street Force Customer Charter and comments were also invited in relation to a leaflet produced by Street Force which was to be republished. Comments were invited up to September, 2007, and copies of the questionnaire were available for members of the public at the meeting.
The report was noted.
4. SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - CHAPELTOWN/ECCLESFIELD
Paul Gordon, Forward and Area Planning, Development Services, gave a presentation to the Panel in relation to the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) and focusing in particular on the Chapeltown, High Green, Grenoside and Ecclesfield area. The presentation sought to outline the progress made in relation to the Development Framework and to introduce preferred options for the City Policies and City Sites Documents and the Proposals Map.
The Core Strategy was to be submitted to the Government Office in September, 2007, and would be considered by an independent Inspector, before the document was adopted.
City Policies
The City Policies document set out detailed criteria for land use, design and sustainability which would be applied when the Council made decisions on planning applications.
The City Policies document proposed that the best location for Offices was in the City Centre and also recognised that substantial land needed to be safeguarded for industrial uses at sites such as Thorncliffe, Smithywood and Ecclesfield Common.
In relation to housing developments, the policies focused upon family housing on large sites and that not more than half of the new homes in the City Centre should consist of a single house type to prevent an over supply of small flats. Most developments would provide for affordable homes, the proportion of affordable housing being 20% in most areas or 15% in housing market renewal areas and for rural areas in Sheffield such as Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Worrall, the proportion of affordable housing was 40% of any new housing developments.
The Policy aimed for higher housing densities in sustainable locations, such as those close to high frequency public transport, and lower density elsewhere. In addition, a minimum size would be specified for private gardens for new housing developments.
Whilst large retail developments would be concentrated in the City Centre, District Centres, such as Chapeltown, were recognised as places for main food and every day shopping and as a hub for community life. Neighbourhood Centres with a basic range of shops and services such as High Street, Ecclesfield, Wortley Road and Greengate Lane, High Green were also recognised in the Policies document. There were also restrictions in relation to the change of use from a shop to other use such as a bank or restaurant.
Open spaces were to be protected from development and loss of such space would only be allowed where strict criteria could be fulfilled. Development of such open space would only be acceptable where accessibility and quality could be improved through the replacement of an open space in the same local area or where it could be proven that the open space was surplus.
A number of proposals for changes to the green belt were considered at the emerging options stage of the Development Framework although on re-examination, proposals to add land to the green belt had not been accepted in that such change could have triggered a review of the green belt, undermining its permanence. Minor changes would be made to the green belt boundary to remove anomalies where a boundary could not be identified on the ground or where there had been a mapping error or subsequent developments had made a boundary untenable. An example of such a change was the boundary at Stephen Lane in Grenoside.
Large new developments would have to incorporate recycling facilities and new buildings would use recoverable materials. New waste management sites would be carefully situated in industrial areas.
All significant developments would be required to provide at least 20% of their predicted energy need on site. There would be local measures to avoid unacceptable impact upon air quality by means such as car free housing schemes, the use of cleaner fuel, reduced number of parking spaces, limiting traffic speed and introducing travel plans. There would also be various policies to ensure a high standard of urban design and sustainability including to minimise heat loss from buildings, maximise water recycling and developing green roofs.
Policies were proposed to preserve and enhance conservation areas and to protect listed buildings and historic buildings of local importance which were not on any statutory list. New developments would be required to promote bio-diversity by protecting and enhancing habitats for wildlife and to create a green network of open spaces and wildlife corridors. Policies also sought to protect watercourses and enhance such areas for wildlife and public enjoyment. The use of sustainable drainage systems would be required to reduce surface water run-off and thereby reduce the risk of flooding.
In relation to transport, large new developments would require a Travel Plan, safe highway access and accessibility by foot, cycles and public transport. Maximum parking standards would be set for new developments and, where there was a risk that such parking restriction would lead to a greater amount of on-street parking, developers were required to contribute to controlled parking zones and waiting restrictions.
City Sites
The City Sites document allocated sites for new industrial development, business and office space and housing. These sites were as follows:-
Business/Industry
- 102 former Petrol Depot, Johnson Lane, Ecclesfield
- 108 former Tilcon Depot, Station Road, Ecclesfield
- 136 Station Road, Ecclesfield
Industry
- 103 adjacent to disused railway line, Butterthwaite Lane
- 109 former Hydra Tools, Nether Lane, Ecclesfield
- 124 adjacent former Hydra Tools, Netherfield Lane, Ecclesfield
- 115 Loicher Lane, Ecclesfield
- 135 Smithywood Industrial Estate
- 138 next to Arthur Lee Works, Loicher Lane
Housing (Phased up to 2015/16)
- 137 former Stanley Tools site, The Common, Ecclesfield
- 138 former Grenoside Council Offices, Salt Box Lane.
The Proposals Map covering the Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside area was displayed for members of the public at the meeting and indicated where allocations for sites and policies would be applied, such as open space, green belt, conservation areas, key routes and site allocations.
The elements of the Sheffield Development Framework which were not in the Unitary Development Plan were outlined.
The documents referred to were all approved by the Council for public consultation and might be used to inform planning decisions subject to consultation comments and the strength of new evidence. Further information could be found on the Council's website which enabled interactive examination of the Sheffield Development Framework documents and for members of the public to post comments upon specific policies and sites. The deadline for comments on the City Policies Sites and Proposals Map was Friday, 20th July, 2007.
Members of the public and Panel asked questions and commented upon the presentation now made and responses were given by Paul Gordon as follows:-
· A number of questions were asked in relation to affordable housing and in particular how people could be prevented from buying up a number of flats designated for affordable housing and thereby preventing local people from purchasing such accommodation and whether criteria could be placed upon affordable housing allocations to ensure that it was kept for use by local people or whether Council Tax for all landlords could be increased if they purchased a large number of dwellings. In response, the questioner was informed that whilst the Council could put forward a policy to acquire a proportion of new housing developments to be affordable housing, land ownership was not an issue for Development
Services and the multiple purchase of dwellings was more of a problem in the City Centre.
· Comment was made that adequate drainage should be ensured on new development sites and it should also be made certain that there was enough water to supply any such new housing development. In response it was indicated that policies forming part of the Development Framework sought to ensure that sustainable urban drainage would minimise water run off and that there would be increased use of permeable materials and water supply and the development of new water storage were matters for the Environment Agency and water companies.
· Councillor Trevor Bagshaw pointed to recent flooding in Ecclesfield and expressed concern that the Development Framework did not, at the proposals stage, address that issue and give the City Council the ability to insist that new drainage be installed, particularly in built areas.
· In relation to affordable housing, there was concern that developers might be able to buy their way out of agreements for affordable housing provision and Councillor Bagshaw asked how affordable housing for local people could be protected and how "affordable" was defined. In response, the Panel were informed of the proportion of affordable housing for the majority of areas, housing market renewal areas and rural areas (the latter being 40%) and that legal agreements would be in place in relation to the discount applied to the price of houses which were deemed affordable.
· Councillor Bagshaw expressed concern at provision in the documents relating to the management of traffic in areas such as Chapeltown and particularly access to employment sites. In response, the Panel were informed that whilst there were policies in relation to traffic and transport in the Development Framework any specific schemes were identified in the Local Transport Plan and the need for well managed and sustainable transport systems in the Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside areas was recognised.
· Councillor Bagshaw commented that in relation to neighbourhood shopping areas and district shopping areas adequate access was required so that people could park close to shops.
· The extent to which local people had a real input into the design of future developments and people could be engaged in developing the City was questioned by Councillor Bagshaw along with the need to ensure the preservation of local heritage and important sites and buildings were locally listed.
· In response to a question concerning the definition of industry on the former Hydra site and Smithywood, the Panel were informed that, on the Smithywood site, a proportion of office development was acceptable under the terms of the planning consent/outline permission. The questioner had referred to the development of a data centre on the site and Paul Gordon confirmed that consent had been granted for B1, B2 and B8 uses which included offices, warehouse distribution and general industrial use. Paul Gordon stated that further enquiries could be made as to whether retail use was included as part of the consent for Smithywood. Paul Gordon
· Concern was expressed that a great number of trees had been lost in the development of the Smithywood site and that this site should be re-forested to improve air quality and help mitigate climate change and in response the Panel were informed that, where possible, trees on the site had been protected although the exact nature of agreements was not known. This information could be ascertained and there were landscape requirements for the site amongst the conditions which formed part of the planning consent. Councillor Bagshaw commented that the site had been contaminated and much of the work undertaken requiring the loss of trees and landscaping had been part of the decontamination process. Measures would also be taken to ensure that detailed planning applications for the development on the Smithywood site were accompanied by a sustainability assessment which would include such elements as drainage and permeable surfaces for parking areas. It was considered that policies within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) were not strong enough in relation to sustainability and the Council needed to negotiate with developers in relation to such requirements, whereas, under the Sheffield Development Framework, the Council would be able to require developers to undertake certain works in relation to sustainability.
· A question was asked in relation to the siting of a railway station and a park and ride site at Smithywood given the difficulty in accessing the existing station at Chapeltown, particularly for disabled people as there was limited car parking and in response Paul Gordon stated that the Proposals Map within the UDP did provide for a station and park and ride site on Smithywood although, following discussions with the Passenger Transport Authority, it was considered that a new railway station should not be located so close to the existing one in Chapeltown.
· A question was asked in relation to car free housing schemes and in response the Panel were informed that in order to reduce congestion particularly in the City Centre and at other locations with frequent public transport services, the number of parking places in new developments could be reduced. The Chair, Councillor Alan Hooper, informed the questioner that there were a number of sites already in the City Centre where no car parking was provided and there was no provision for on-street parking. In some cases developers had agreed to pay for public transport travel costs of residents purchasing properties within such developments for a limited time.
· It was confirmed that transport policies were present in the City Policies document for example, the protection of rail routes to Chapeltown and Stocksbridge, although there was scope to specify more in relation to reducing car usage in the City.
· Councillor Graham Oxley asked a question in relation to the protection of sites for industrial use and in response Members were informed that Government Policy considered that once a plan was adopted the provisions within that plan would be the most material consideration in relation to any planning application. However, the current status of the SDF was limited although it could inform future planning decisions, subject to consultation, comments and strength of new evidence.
· A comment was made in relation to ensuring that there were adequate play facilities for children and young people incorporated into future housing developments and that such development of play areas should be in addition to existing ones and there were examples where monies from Section 106 Agreements arising from housing developments had been used to improve existing provision such as Thorncliffe and Mortomley Parks.
· It was confirmed that Chapeltown Park was located in the green belt but was designated
as a park and as such was maintained through the Council's budget for Parks and Countryside and Section 106 Planning Gain could be used to make improvements to the Park.
· Although specific sites for the generation of renewable energy such as through wind turbines or biomass were not identified within the Development Framework documents, there were policies relating to renewable energy in the City Policies document. The Area Panel had examined proposed sites for renewable energy generation at a previous meeting although a substantial amount of feasibility work was required before further proposals were developed for such sites.
· A question was asked in relation to former industrial sites and whether such locations needed to be returned to industrial use or whether there was potential to develop such sites for leisure facilities and in response the Panel were informed that the Chapeltown area was highly constrained by the green belt and therefore the amount of land available for development was limited. The two major housing development sites in the area which were identified within the City Sites document already had planning permission and for older industrial sites it was proposed that these locations be put to flexible use. It was possible that such sites could be used for leisure purposes but from the perspective of a developer, higher land values could be obtained if these sites were used for housing. Paul Gordon stated that he would clarify the status of leisure use on such sites. Paul Gordon
· A member of the public commented upon some research being undertaken by one of the Universities in the City in relation to renewable energy and asked whether such research was being undertaken on behalf of the Council. Area Panel
· Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that the Council was attempting to meet targets in relation to renewable energy through the Development Framework process and also sought to promote small schemes such as a potential scheme to generate energy from water at Kelham Island.
· Councillor Bagshaw commented that whilst office space was being developed on sites such as Smithywood and Thorncliffe, the City Policies document now stated that offices should be developed in the City Centre where much development was taking place of housing.
· Responding to a question concerning ground source heat pumps for generation of energy, Paul Gordon stated that there had been some suggestion of using such an energy source although there was much feasibility work to be done in relation to the capability of ground source heat pumps. There were policies to provide energy by such generation within the City Policies document.
· A member of the public pointed to several concerns in relation to the use of wind turbines including noise pollution, the strobing effect caused by turbine blades and health and safety concerns. In response Paul Gordon stated that any developer of wind turbines would be required to provide an environmental impact assessment in relation to wind turbines to quantify the effects of such a development before decisions were made as to the siting of wind turbines at a particular location.
It was agreed to note the presentation now made and to thank Paul Gordon for his contribution to the meeting.
5. PARISH COUNCIL MATTERS
There were no matters raised by Parish Council representatives.
6. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 23rd May, 2007, were agreed as a true record and arising therefrom, Councillor Alan Hooper stated that the petition submitted to the Panel in relation to heavy vehicles using highways in the area surround Hollin House Lane had been referred to the Council's North and West Planning and Highways Area Board for consideration. It was confirmed that the Lead Manager, John Charlton, had forwarded correspondence in relation to this issue to the Council's Transport and Highways Officers specifically in relation to the use of heavy goods vehicles and turning at Rhinegold Garden Centre. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw added that Stocksbridge Town Council had reported that lorries and heavy goods vehicles using satellite navigation were being directed through Stocksbridge and this was having an adverse effect on the roads in that area.
Councillor Alan Hooper referred to the matter raised in relation to communication by the Area Panel and drew the public's attention to the publication of the first newsletter for the Area Panel, copies of which were available for members of the public at the meeting.
Councillor Alan Hooper stated that he had received further information in relation to Wortley Road from Transport and Highways Officers, stating that the design proposals for Wortley Road were subject to public consultation and the draft Traffic Regulation Order was to be advertised from 29th June, 2007. Letters regarding the consultation would be issued from 25th June with a request that responses be made by 20th July, 2007. A special meeting of the North Area Panel would be held at High Green School, Wortley Road, specifically in relation to the proposals for Wortley Road on 5th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m..
Ewden Valley
The Panel noted the information item submitted in relation to the Ewden Valley - Action Notes, arising from the meeting held on 14th May, 2007, in Stocksbridge Town Hall.
7. DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
The Panel noted that the next meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Wednesday, 18th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at a venue to be confirmed in either Bolsterstone or Stocksbridge. Special meetings of the Area Panel would be held in relation to the Sheffield Development Framework on Tuesday, 26th June, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at Bradfield Village Hall and on Tuesday, 3rd July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at Stocksbridge School, Shayhouse Lane, Stocksbridge; and a special meeting would also be held concerning proposals for Wortley Road on Thursday, 5th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at High Green School, Wortley Road.
How useful is this page?