Minutes of North Area Panel 3 July 2007

NORTH AREA PANEL


Special Meeting held 3rd July, 2007, at Stocksbridge School, Shay House Lane, Stocksbridge

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

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Mary Kaye			-	Stocksbridge Town Council
		Dan Lyons			-	Stocksbridge Town Council
		Tony Peers			-	Bolsterstone Community Group
		Anthea Peers			-	Bolsterstone Community Group
		Barbara Horsman			-	Stocksbridge Community Forum
		Joan Banks			-	Stocksbridge Community Forum

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

		Approximately 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 Councillors Kathleen Chadwick and Patricia Fox.

2.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	In response to a question regarding publicity for Area Panel meetings, the Chair stated that the present circulation list was being revised and added that the meeting scheduled for the previous week had to be cancelled at short notice because of the problems with flooding. He added that the cancelled meeting was to be re-arranged if possible.

3.	SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - STOCKSBRIDGE/DEEPCAR
	Paul Gordon, Forward and Area Planning, Development Services, gave a presentation to the Panel on the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) which focused on the Stocksbridge and Deepcar 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 Stocksbridge Steel Works and at Deepcar off the A6102 Wortley Road/Manchester Road.
	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, which included this area, 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 Stocksbridge, 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 Lees Avenue/Knowles Avenue and Pothouse Lane 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 SDF although on re-examination, proposals to add land to the green belt had not been accepted as such change could have triggered a review of the green belt, undermining its permanence. As a result of this re-examination, additional options were developed for the Core Strategy, which would be submitted to Government Office in September, 2007. One of these was that the green, open and rural character of greenfield land south of Stocksbridge at Hollin Busk would be safeguarded through protection as open space. Paul Gordon stated that if people felt this land should be in the green belt, they would need to make representations on the submission version of the Core Strategy, as well as the Proposals Map. Minor changes to the green belt boundary included 31-35 Hollin Busk Lane, Stocksbridge and Hunshelf Bank, Stocksbridge.
	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.
	New buildings and conversions would need to be designed to a high standard of sustainability, with such developments being required to minimise carbon emissions and other harmful impacts on the climate and local environment. Green roofs would be required on all big new developments and encouraged on all others, unless other design or conservation factors made them inappropriate. Sustainable building design would include the minimisation of urban heat - island effects, water consumption, light pollution and overshadowing and the maximisation of water re-cycling, with local materials being used where ever possible and features such as solar energy, the use of natural light and ventilation and use of renewable energy sources. In addition, new developments would be required to promote biodiversity by protecting and enhancing habitats for wildlife and creating a green network of open spaces and wildlife corridors. Watercourses would be protected and enhanced for wildlife and public enjoyment and the use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) 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 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 would be 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 (Offices) and /or Industry		-	131 Site B, Corus Works, Manchester Road, Stocksbridge

			-	110 Ernest Thorpe's Lorry Park, Station Road, Deepcar

	Industry		-	111 Stocksbridge Steel Works Trailer Park

			-	112 Stocksbridge Steel Works (Eastern End)

	Housing (Phase 1 up to 2015/16)		-	101 Edward Street, Stocksbridge

	Housing (Phase 2 up to 2015/2021)		-	117 Site A, Corus Works, Manchester Road, Stocksbridge.

	The Proposals Map covering the Stocksbridge and Deepcar area was displayed for members of the public at the meeting and showed where allocations for sites and policies would be applied, such as housing, open space, green belt, conservation areas, key routes and site allocations.
	The elements of the SDF which were not in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) were also outlined.
	Paul Gordon went on to inform the meeting that the Preferred Options had been approved by the Council as a basis for consultation and these provided an indication of the policies, site allocations and Proposals Map which the Council was thinking of submitting to the Government. The documents could be viewed on the Council’s website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/sdfconsult, and were also available at libraries and First Point. Paper copies were available and all contact details were given in the circulated newsletter. A City Conference was to be held at Ponds Forge on 10th July and those interested were asked to register in advance. Paul Gordon emphasised that people’s comments could lead to changes and he asked those submitting their views to give their reasons for them and to focus on what and where mattered to them. Comments could be sent by online consultation, e-mail to sdf@sheffield.gov.uk or in writing to the SDF Team, Development Services, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH. In conclusion, Paul Gordon reminded the meeting that the deadline for comments on the City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map was Friday, 20th July, 2007.
	Following the presentation, members of the public and Panel asked questions, to which responses were provided, and a number of comments were made. These included the following:-

	· Paul Gordon stated that a range of detailed planning policy statements had replaced previous guidelines and all documents in the SDF had to comply with these and the relevant legislation. Policies were developed by reference back to these planning policy statements.

	· Councillor Martin Brelsford indicated that he was undertaking research into the designation of Hollin Busk as an open space area and that he was disappointed that housing developments in the area would only be required to provide 20% affordable homes and considered that 40% would be more appropriate. He also commented on the state of the infrastructure in Stocksbridge and made particular reference to the condition of the roads.

	· In response to questions from Councillor Martin Brelsford, Paul Gordon stated that the original proposal was for the Victoria Road site to remain as a shopping area, but it was now to be included as a housing area. He also highlighted the difficulties of formulating transport policies for the area and emphasised the importance of ensuring that there was something to aspire to, such as a key route being a focus for investment.

	· Paul Gordon explained that the development of affordable housing was dealt with through Housing Associations and that Planning Officers would ensure that the relevant policies were applied. He would make enquiries as to whether there was a minimum size of land required around apartment blocks.						Paul Gordon

	· In response to a question, the Chair commented that new developments would have to have a travel plan and Paul Gordon indicated that the developers of the Corus site were to contribute to the improvement of road junctions in the vicinity.

	· Councillor Martin Davis commented on the planning policy statements and stated that, once brownfield sites had been used for development, any further development would take place on greenfield sites. He also indicated that the Corus site development should allow for more affordable housing and Paul Gordon stated that only developments in rural parts of Sheffield would be required to have 40% affordable housing. He encouraged people to make representations on this policy if they were unhappy with it.

	· Paul Gordon explained that the rationale behind having offices based in the City Centre was that it was easier to access without a car, but added that there should be some element of choice for employers.

	· Councillor Trevor Bagshaw commented that the thinking behind the SDF was too focused on the urban and central area of the City and added that the Smithywood office development would not be allowed under the new SDF regime. He also questioned the view that the best, high paid jobs would only be located in the City Centre and felt that the local area was viewed as a dormitory community. With regard to rural communities, he indicated that the only other rural communities in the City were in the Peak Park, where the SDF did not apply. He also commented on the outline planning consent for the Corus A development, which he felt was unsatisfactory to most Members, particularly in relation to the provision of affordable housing and drainage.

	· Paul Gordon stated that the policy with regard to SUDS was intended to reduce the number of impervious surfaces and minimise the impact of new developments.

	· A member of the public commented that the die had been cast with regard to the concentration of office developments in the City Centre and that the transitional Objective 1 funding would be focused on the City Centre and Don Valley.

	· Councillor Trevor Bagshaw considered that this area was seen as a rural/semi rural area with some urban activity and felt there was a need to create another view of it.

	· In relation to transport issues, Paul Gordon stated that the policy with regard to the local railway line was to protect its use for freight, although there were some proposals for a heritage route into the City. The UDP contained proposals to protect areas near railway stations to provide park and ride facilities and he would check the local position.						Paul Gordon

	· Councillor Martin Brelsford referred to submission of the City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map in 2009 and commented that things would have changed considerably by then, in terms of new developments. He also wondered whether the Council was pushing to affect design innovation and sustainability at an early stage in developments, particularly in relation to green roofs. He also felt that the SDF was disjointed and without a joined up mentality. In response, Paul Gordon indicated that strong policies were required when negotiating with developers and because green roofs were expensive, developers may cut corners in other areas. Once again, he urged people to make their comments as part of the consultation process.

	· In response to a question from Councillor Martin Davis, Paul Gordon stated that all public utilities were regarded as statutory consultees and added that Yorkshire Water had made very specific comments with regard to water supply and run-off.

	· Paul Gordon indicated that the future of the Hepworth site was to be decided by an appeal to the Government Minister.

	· Paul Gordon commented that the approach taken by the SDF was that all policies needed to be joined up.

	· Paul Gordon explained that the status of Hollin Busk could be raised as part of the consultation on the Core Strategy, which was to be submitted to the Government in September. If no comments were made then the Policy would gain strength, but strong evidence and a sound plan were required to be effective. A petition would demonstrate a strong sense of feeling, but the Chair felt that individual comments would provide a better demonstration of this. Paul Gordon agreed that Hollin Busk met all of the criteria to be classified as green belt.

	· Paul Gordon stated that land which was classified as open space could be developed, provided the appropriate criteria were met. With regard to green belt, national policy was that this should be permanent and any change could only occur in very limited circumstances. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw commented that land classified as open space would only be developed if there were no other areas available and Paul Gordon commented that a balanced judgement would be made by the Planning and Highways Area Board. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw commented that it was Members who made policy and they should ensure that this was followed.

	· In response to a question regarding the formulation of a design statement for the Stocksbridge Valley, Paul Gordon stated that there were several tiers involved which comprised Government Policy, the Development Plan and supplementary documents. The Design Statement was a supplementary document, which was produced to create clarity and would be part of the SDF. He emphasised the importance of people becoming involved when specific proposals were developed.

	· With regard to the proposal for the Corus site, Paul Gordon explained that the development brief indicated when sites were to be developed and, in this case, initial efforts were to be concentrated on Site A. This was reflected on the Proposals Map, but he was aware of developments on adjacent sites, so it was possible that the Map could change drastically in the future.

	· Mary Kaye commented on the lack of inclusion of Rivelin Valley in the green network, the need to strengthen flood protection and warning measures and the possibility of having the City's image spoiled by the construction of very tall buildings in the City Centre and questioned the need for extra provision of sites for travellers.

	The Panel noted the presentation and thanked Paul Gordon for his contribution to the meeting.

4.	DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
	The Panel noted that (a) a special meeting would be held on Thursday, 5th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at High Green School, Wortley Road; and
	(b) the next Area Panel meeting would be held on Wednesday, 18th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at a venue to be confirmed.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |