Minutes of North Area Panel 24 July 2007

NORTH AREA PANEL


Special Meeting held 24th July, 2007, at Loxley Primary School, Rodney Hill, Loxley

PRESENT:		Councillors Alan Hooper (Chair), Trevor Bagshaw, Martin Davis and Vickie Priestley.

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Councillor Ruth Labedz	-	Bradfield Parish Council
		Councillor Howard House	-	Ecclesfield Parish Council
		Councillor A. M. Briggs	-	Bradfield Parish Council

		City Council Officers:-
		Paul Gordon	-	Forward and Area Planning, Development Services
		Anne Blantern	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Matthew Rush	-	Area Action
		Jason Dietsch	-	Committee Secretariat

11 members of the public and representatives of Panel Partners attended the meeting.

………………..

					Action
1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Baker.

2.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	There were no public questions or petitions received by the Panel.

3.	THE SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - WHARNCLIFFE SIDE TO STANNINGTON FOCUS
	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 Wharncliffe Side to Stannington area. The presentation outlined progress made in relation to the Development Framework and introduced 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 prior to the adoption of the document.

	City Policies
	The City Policies document established detailed criteria for land use, design and sustainability that would be applied when the Council made decisions on planning applications.
	The document proposed that the best locations for offices was in the City Centre and also recognised that safeguards were required for industrial use at sites such as Platts Lane, Oughtibridge and Oughtibridge Mill, Wharncliffe Side.
	For housing developments, the policies focused upon family housing on large sites and specified that not more than half of the new homes in the City Centre should consist of a single occupant type to prevent an over supply of small flats. Most developments would provide for affordable homes and the proportion of affordable housing was 20% in most areas or 15% in Housing Market Renewal areas. For rural areas in Sheffield, the proportion of affordable housing was 40% of any new housing development.
	The Policy aimed at higher housing densities in sustainable locations such as those close to high frequency public transport. A minimum size of garden would also be specified for private gardens in new housing developments. Large retail developments would be concentrated in the City Centre and district centres such as in Hillsborough and Stocksbridge were recognised as places for main food and every day shopping and as a community hub. Neighbourhood Centres offering a basic range of shops and services were also recognised, for example Ponds Road/Oldfield Road, Stannington, Langsett Road North, Oughtibridge and Brightholmlee Lane, Wharncliffe Side. Open spaces were to be protected from development and the loss of such space would only be allowed where certain criteria could be met. Development of open space would only be acceptable in cases where accessibility and quality could be improved through the replacement of an open space in the same local area or where it could be proved that such open space was "surplus".
	Numerous proposals for changes to the green belt had been considered at the Emerging Options stage although on re-examination, proposals to add to the green belt had not been accepted because such change might have triggered a review of the entire green belt (if such a change was made without exceptional reason). The strength of the green belt was its permanence. Minor changes would be made to 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 development had made a boundary untenable. Such a proposed change was at Spring Grove Gardens, Wharncliffe Side and Hawksley Drive, Wharncliffe Side.
	Large new developments would be required to incorporate recycling facilities and new buildings would use recoverable materials. New waste management sites would be carefully situated in industrial areas.
	There were a number of proposals relating to urban design and sustainability to minimise heat loss, water consumption, light pollution and over shadowing. Where possible local materials would be used and features to enable energy conservation would be included. New buildings would be designed to a high standard of sustainability and might include such features as green roofs.
	New developments would be required to help protect and enhance habitats and to create new ones. A green network of open spaces and wildlife corridors was envisaged, safeguarded from ecological damage. Watercourses would be protected to enhance public enjoyment and wildlife habitats and the use of sustainable drainage systems would be required to reduce surface water run-off.
	Travel plans, safe highway access and accessibility by foot, cycle and public transport would be required on large new developments and maximum parking standards would be set for developments and, where there was a risk that such parking restrictions would lead to a greater number of cars parking on streets, developers would be required to contribute to controlled parking zones.

	City Sites
	The City Sites document allocated sites for new industrial, business and office space and housing development and these were summarised in the presentation.

	Proposals Map
	The Proposals Map was displayed as part of the presentation and indicated where allocations for sites and policies would be applied such as open space, green belt, conservation areas, key routes and site allocations.
	Elements of the development framework which were not in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) were outlined.
	The above documents were all approved by Council for public consultation and might inform planning decisions subject to consultation comments and the strength of new evidence. Further information could be found on the Council's website which allowed interactive examination of the SDF documents and for members of the public to post comments relating to specific policies and sites. It was noted that the deadline for comments for the City Policies and Sites and Proposals Map had been extended to 31st July, 2007.
	Members of the public and Members of the Panel asked questions and commented upon the presentation now made and responses were given by Paul Gordon as follows:-

	· In relation to a question concerning areas of high landscape value, it was confirmed that these did not appear in the development framework although they had been part of the UDP. The main reason that they were not included was because there was not sufficient evidence to support the designation of areas of high landscape value and such a designation would require an area to be properly surveyed. The SDF applied more robust criteria than did the UDP. At the time of reporting such areas of high landscape value were sited within the green belt and were protected as such. It was suggested that the questioner submit comments in relation to areas of high landscape value as part of the consultation on the SDF.

	· It was confirmed that supplementary planning guidance (SPG) might be similar to policies within the SDF and policies within the SDF were required to satisfy tests such as sustainability and equality audits and the inclusion of any supplementary planning guidance might also need to satisfy such tests.

	Councillor Trevor Bagshaw commented that there was an expectation that such planning guidance would be taken forward as part of the development framework and responsibility for including the guidance should be with the Council. The Loxley Valley Design Statement was referred to as a particular example.

	· Reference was made to the housing area in Wharncliffe Side where the boundary of the green belt had been altered to take account of that development and that Bradfield Parish Council had opposed the development on the grounds that it was thought to have been on green belt.

	· Concern was expressed that, within the area allowed for gardens, buildings such as extensions had been permitted thereby reducing the garden area and it was confirmed that the 50 to 75 square metres. referred to as part of the presentation and relating to garden size applied only to new developments. Concern was also expressed at backland development and the potential adverse effects and Paul Gordon stated that the effects referred to such as subsidence might fall within the remit of the Council's building control function.

	· Reference was made to the wish to preserve a mix of housing types and styles.

	· A member of the public commented in relation to rejected options for development of housing, for example on the Hepworth Site, Hanson Road, Greaves Lane, the Loxley College and the Sheffield Wednesday Training Ground and Paul Gordon confirmed that these sites had been rejected at the first stage of producing the development framework. However in relation to these sites there was still further consultation to be had and sites such as Hanson Road had not been designated green belt but instead had been categorised within the proposals for the SDF as open space. It was important that, where people supported such a proposal within the document, they notify the Council, as this would add to the weight of evidence used when the documents were submitted to the Inspector for consideration.

	· Comments were made in relation to the ability of developers to purchase large areas of land and the speculative nature of acquisition of land by developers. Some developers specialised in infilling sites in the City whereas others undertook large-scale developments.

	· A comment was made that an area should be considered in its entirety for example to include transport and drainage impacts rather than in isolation when development proposals were being put forward.

	· A comment was made that the Prime Minister had announced plans for increased house building nationally and that this might affect the development framework before it had been agreed.

	· Reference was made to a Parish Council request to extent the designation of Conservation Areas and that the UDP incorporated areas of special character which the Parish Council were informed would become Conservation Areas. Paul Gordon responded and referred to the requirement to have sufficient evidence to support such designation. Areas of special character were viewed by the Planning Inspector as weaker policies in the UDP and where such policies were taken into account as part of consideration of a planning application they were unlikely to be the only reason, for example, for a refusal of a planning application. The Council's Urban Design and Conservation Team would consider suggested areas for new Conservation Areas and the public were informed that there was a rolling programme of Conservation Area appraisals such as those considered by the Area Panel at its meeting on 18th July, 2007, and relating to Midhopestones and Ecclesfield. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw referred to the new Heritage Bill, which would draw together various elements of heritage and conservation including allowing for a local listing and presented an opportunity to protect buildings of character. Paul Gordon stated that Conservation Areas were subject to different legislation than those governing the development framework, although once an area had been recognised as a Conservation Area the Local Development Scheme, which would be updated annually would be revised to account for such a change.

	· A question was asked as to how the Rivelin Valley would be protected as it did not appear listed within the proposed documents and there was concern that its natural and historic value might be threatened by potential development. Paul Gordon responded that he would clarify the status of the Rivelin Valley, particularly as to whether it fell within green belt designation.				Paul Gordon/ Kathy Parsons

	It was considered that Rivelin Valley fell within another Area Panel area (Netherthorpe/South West).

	The Chair, Councillor Alan Hooper thanked Paul Gordon for his presentation and members of the public for contribution to the consultation and discussion.

4.	DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Wednesday, 19th September, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at a venue to be confirmed.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |