North Area Panel Minutes 13th June 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Special Meeting held on 13th June, 2005 at Chapeltown Library, Nether Ley Avenue, Chapeltown

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (in the Chair), Kathleen Chadwick, Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley.

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Megan Smith - Grenoside Conservation Society
		Lindsay Berry - High Green Community Forum

		City Council Officers:-
		Anne Blantern - Area Co-ordinator
		Paul Gordon - Development Services
		Gemma Carl - Development Services
		Matthew Rush - Area Action
		Paul Fell - Transport Planning
		Jason Dietsch - Committee Secretariat
		9 members of the public, including representatives of community organisations, attended the meeting.
…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Arthur Dunworth and Patricia Fox.

2.	SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
	The Panel received a presentation by Paul Gordon, Planning Officer from Development Services in relation to the Sheffield Development Framework which sought to outline the principles of the framework and emerging options therefrom.
	The Development Framework was a new style the Unitary Development Plan which the Council had a statutory responsibility to prepare. Special features of the new system included that it provided a spatial vision for the City, that proposals within the framework would be tested for sustainability, there would be earlier community involvement and that the framework would be sound, credible, comprehensive and robust and employed a simplified process which was quicker to adopt, easier to update and add to in the future.
	The Development Framework portfolio included the following documents:-

	· Development Plan documents: Core Strategy, City Policies, City Sites and Proposals Map

	· Supplementary Planning documents outlining more detailed guidance.

	· Other documents such as a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), a monitoring report and a Local Development Scheme. The Core Strategy was the first document in the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) portfolio, which every other planning document would need to comply with. The document outlined at a strategic level what was going to happen and where and how it was going to happen and would contain the SDF's aims and high level policies setting out the main changes to Sheffield over the next 15 years.

	There were five overall aims for the SDF which were: economic transformation, balanced communities, to protect and improve the environment, increase accessibility and enhance the quality of life.
	Paul Gordon outlined examples of the choices or emerging options from the Development Framework which were not Council Policy but represented alternative options. Paul Gordon stressed that balanced judgements needed to be made before a preferred set of options could be chosen.

	Jobs and Shops

	· The future of surplus employment land will need to be decided and options included: to retain the land for employment regeneration, housing and support use development or to allow housing development whilst meeting market demand.

	· Choices also emerged as to the future of shopping centres and whether to support existing centres to expand shopping at district centres, to encourage more variety of uses in centres, or to let the market decide the future role of each centre.

	Transport
	A particular issue emerging from the framework was how to manage demand for trips by car and options included:-

	· Quality Bus Corridors for example from Stocksbridge or Chapeltown to Sheffield.

	· A By-Pass for Chapeltown District Centre.

	· To invest in rapid transport.

	· To develop travel plans for new developments.

	· To encourage better use of vehicles.

	What Kind of City?

	· A decision needed to be made as to whether mobility would be increased or whether self-contained communities would be developed by looking at increasing mobility by all forms of travel or developing self-contained communities or by increasing mobility through better transport.

	· A spacious or a compact City? - choices included developments of a spacious low density nature, a compact high density development or compact developments at centres along bus/tram routes.

	Housing

	· New locations for housing, whether these be in the City Centre or in the Lower Don, Upper Don, Sheaf Valleys or at the edge of the City on greenfield sites such as Hollin Busk and Coppice Close or on brownfield sites such as Hepworths and Hesley Wood.

	· Identity high density housing - either in the City Centre and District Centres, near tram and rail and good bus routes or throughout the City.

	Paul Gordon outlined the various documents relating to the emerging options which were available on the Council's website (www.sheffield.gov.uk) and were also available in Libraries and in First Point Centres.
	The Panel were informed that every individual who registered with the Council as a contact would be consulted on the future stages of the Core Strategy and on the production of all future SDF documents. For organisations, there was a City Conference being held on Friday, 8th July, 2005, to which organisations could send representatives. Comment could also be made on the emerging options either through the Council's website or by e-mail or letter. There would be an opportunity to further contribute to the framework when the preferred options for the Core Strategy were presented in February, 2006. The deadline for initial comments on the emerging options was Friday, 22nd July, 2005.
	Members of the public and Panel Partners asked questions in relation to the Development Framework as follows:-

	Q. The density of housing was a concern in the North area especially in relation to properties overlooking adjacent buildings.

	A. Officers also had concern that the Government guidance encouraged the more efficient use of land to maximise house building. The legislation set minimum densities of 30 houses per hectare in more rural areas and a minimum of 50 houses per hectare in urban areas and Planning Officers main objection to such development would be on the grounds of over development. The Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw acknowledged that high density housing could change the character of an area and Paul Gordon, Development Services, stated that if there were options in the framework which might impact on the character of an area, local people should inform Planning Officers as part of the consultation process.

	Q. Were there considered to be enough car parking spaces in Chapeltown/Burncross?

	A. Standards for levels of car parking were set out in PPG 13 which could be reviewed as part of supplementary documents in the development framework process and this issue would be noted.

	Q/C There were particular parking issues at Smith Street and it was considered that the housing development there should have had dedicated parking.

	Q. Concern was expressed that the Council should develop a strengthened legal administration section and authority to ensure that the Council Members and Officers were not subject to undue pressure from the increasing number of private organisations including those involved with developments and for example sponsors of PFI Projects.

	Q. What was the process and timetable for the Sheffield Development Framework?

	A. Documentation was on the Council's website, accompanied by a list of the emerging options and details of the strengths and weaknesses related to each option. The public were asked to look at the options and make comments and add their own alternatives. The Chair stated that organisations would be invited to an event related to the development framework process on 8th July, 2005, and he stated that through the Village Appraisal Process, Grenoside for example will have made the views of its community known in relation to further development and highways matters and he requested the group responsible for drawing up the appraisal to identify the relevant information in that document and feed this into the consultation process.

	Q. How were young people and those with learning disabilities included in the consultation process?

	A. Paul Gordon stated that he was not aware to what extent this had been considered and would respond to the questioner separately on this issue.

	Q. What was the future of the market place in Chapeltown as it had been rumoured that this would be redeveloped as part of a new bus station.

	A. There had been discussions regarding the construction of an interchange at Chapeltown Town Centre but it had not been the intention to develop this on the market site. The Chair added that following consideration of the Plan 4 Travel for Chapeltown in Autumn 2004 a response had still not been received from the Council in relation to the proposals put forward by consultants and acknowledged that peoples concern regarding how the centre of Chapeltown was likely to change. If there were a number of developments in terms of highway infrastructure one would impact upon the other and the development framework process would need to demonstrate how it accounted for interaction between various development projects and options so that these might be planned for in a joined up way. Paul Gordon added that he would urge local people to consider the specific options for their own area but also to look more widely at issues such as transport and waste management to see how these might impact on their own and other areas.

	Q. A question was asked concerning the siting of the proposed interchange for Chapeltown and whether this might be located at the Smithywood site in accordance with the proposal of the consultants in the Plan 4 Travel.

	A. As part of options outlined by the consultants the Smithywood site was proposed as a Park and Ride Scheme although nothing was yet certain as the Council had yet to respond formally to the views of the consultants.

	Q. How would the existing UDP affect the new Development Framework and what would the impact of Central Government guidance for example on housing density be?

	A. Paul Gordon stated that planning decisions lay with Elected Members serving on the Council's Planning Board and Council Officers made recommendations based on the available information and objections together with guidance on the basis of which Elected Members could make their decision on planning matters. There were some elements such as the green belt that were more permanent and he noted that the last UDP did not incorporate small area changes to the green belt but that it was likely that as part of the Development Framework area changes would be made this time round.

	Q. Would the Council be more empowered to resist development in favour of public concerns.

	A. The Chair stated that it was not until decisions arising from the new development framework were tested that the answer to this would be known and it was partly dependant on the quality of framework documents. He noted that there would be an opportunity for developers to appeal on decisions made by the Council's Planning Board and it remained to be seen how these challenges would be dealt with. It was also noted that the Planning Board could attach conditions as part of a planning application.

	Q. Concern was expressed that in the aims of the framework document the term "economic transformation" was not specific enough and it was felt that it should refer to the need to put Sheffield amongst the more prosperous Cities in the Country highlighting the need for job creation and tackling areas of deprivation and to encourage University graduates to seek employment in the area by providing jobs which would use skills acquired in the Local Education sector and it was felt that migration of graduates and skilled workers from the community would serve to weaken it.

	A. The Chair stated that this comment would be noted although other matters apart from economic ones should also be considered as part of the SDF.

	Q. How would the framework fit in with the aim of City region planning?

	A. Paul Gordon stated this would be achieved through the regional spatial strategy which is part of the Sheffield Development Framework and the Action Area Plans which would be based upon the framework.

	Q. How would the process account for improvement of strategic linkages such as car transport in the North area and in particular the linkage from East to West.

	A. Transport options within the framework would look at overall principles for road transport and strategic corridors including further integration with public transport modes.

	Q. Councillor Graham Oxley expressed concern that the process was not necessarily reaching an adequate number of the public.

	A. Paul Gordon stated that three meetings of the Area Panel had been arranged to consider the SDF and a database from the Planning Department had been used to produce 2,000 letters informing people of the process and in addition the databases of the Area Panel had been used but he acknowledged there had still been low turn out at meetings and considered that one problem might be that people did not realise the relevance of the process to them at this stage.

	Q/C It was considered in response to the above that there had been a real attempt to consult on the framework but it was felt that this effort needed to be further amplified.

	The Chair stated that key figures from local communities had attended meetings and stated that this consultation would be the start of the process and there would be further opportunity to comment in early 2006 and there would be opportunity to bring people into the process between now and 2006. The Chair acknowledged concern regarding the delay in responding to the Plan 4 Travel and stated that he would investigate this particular issue and bring a response back to the Panel.
	The Chair expressed thanks to members of the public and Members of the Planning Team for attending the meeting and contributing to the consultation process on the development framework.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |