North Area Panel Minutes 8th June 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Meeting held on 8th June, 2005 at Lomas Hall, Stannington

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), David Baker and Arthur Dunworth.

		Also in attendance:-
		Anne Blantern - Area Co-ordinator
		Matthew Rush - Area Support Officer
		Paul Gordon - Planning Services
		Kathy Parsons - Planning Services
		Patrick Burns - Committee Secretariat
		5 Members of the Public

…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alison Brelsford, Martin Brelsford, Kathleen Chadwick, Martin Davis, Patricia Fox, Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley.

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 development plan which would replace the Unitary Development Plan and the Council had a statutory responsibility to prepare the document. 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, that 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), monitoring 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, balance communities, to protect and improve the environment, increase accessibility and enhance the quality of life.
	Paul Gordon outlined the choices or emerging options from the Development Framework.

	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 development 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 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 a couple of First Point Centres.
	The Panel were informed that every individual who was registered with the Council as a contact they would guarantee to consult them on the future stages of the Core Strategy and on all future SCF documents. For organisations, there was a City Conference being held on Friday, 8th July, 2005, to which organisations could send representatives. Comments could also be made on the emerging options either through the Council's website or by e-mail or by 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 asked questions and Officers and Members of the Panel responded as follows:-

	Q. If Quality Bus Corridors were provided, how would it then be possible to ensure that there would be more buses?

	A. That would have to be considered by all stakeholders.

	Q. Under the new system would it be the case that planning applications would not be judged on the basis of matching a blueprint or a strategic view?

	A. There would continue to be planning policies to provide a foundation for the determination of planning applications.

	Q. Would the Closing the Gap Initiative be achieved by bringing down affluent areas in the City?

	A. The Initiative should be judged on its merits. It was being implemented in accordance with planning law and policies. Planning law would not change. Planning applications would still be judged on their merits. The yardsticks may change but the dominant factor was the Development Plan.

	Q. Was it the case that the SDF was not chipped in stone?

	A. That was the case. The City Council would have to interpret it and be prepared to defend it.

	Q. Would the process of deciding planning applications be different?

	A. There would be some changes to the process of development control but Officers would make recommendations to the Planning Boards, as now, while embodying a wider vision and the longer term implications of development. The policies may make conditions for developers more difficult in some ways and less difficult in others.

	Q. As the SDF would be broader, more detailed and more extensive than the UDP it appeared that the room to manoeuvre, for Councillors, would be restric, ted and the recommendations of Officers would be based on broader, tighter criteria. Would it therefore be the case that the opportunity for Councillors to go against the recommendations of Officers would be restricted?

	A. That would not necessarily be the case because Councillors would influence the Core Strategy in the first place so that, for example, they could decide that housing would be built in existing areas and then detailed policies would be based on that decision.

	Q. Was it the case that Officers recommended departure from planning policies now?

	A. That was the case if there were special circumstances as, for example, had occurred with regard to the development of the former Wisewood Forge. The key issue was whether the Government would permit more or less flexibility. Already there was more masterplanning and development that must fit in with that.

	Q. Was it the case that the wider the portfolio, the wider the interpretation which would be required?

	A. That was so and there would always be test cases but the position would be reached as at present with the UDP, where Officers knew where the level was.

	Q. It was not possible at the moment to force developers to provide services such as bus services or facilities for a GP practice at the Wadsley Park, so was it the case that visions in the form of masterplans could not be delivered now?

	A. Planning was one facet of society so the answer was for society to demand certain things from developers, such as the services mentioned by the questioner.

	Q. Little funding was spent on providing playground and traffic calming facilities in this area. How could the planning system enable greater spending of that sort. Measures were carried out with public money but how could planning help to "close the gap"?

	A. Planning was one area of what happened, as shown for example by the Housing Market Renewal Initiative.

	Q. How could planning "close the gap"?

	A. Housing density was covered by the policies of the UDP, in terms of enabling developers to provide affordable housing.

	Q. Was it the case that planning only impacted on prosperous areas?

	A. There were many pockets of poverty within affluent areas.

	Q. Was it the case that there were more problems in terms of affordable housing in areas such as Loxley, than in areas such as Pitsmoor?

	A. That was not necessarily the case. Properties which until fairly recently had been worth £70,000 were now worth £220,000 in parts of the Burngreave area. There was a City-wide need for affordable housing.

	Q. Was it the case that policies provided for housing developments to include 5%-20% of affordable housing but developers did not comply with those policies, while at the same time the Planning Service accepted that there was no demand for affordable housing?

	A. It was noted that in some cases there was little affordable housing provided within new developments, but with regard to the demand for it, this was a matter of judgement by Sheffield Homes.

	Q. Should that judgement be made by the communities rather than by Sheffield Homes?

	A. The only source of information regarding this aspect of housing demand was that provided by Sheffield Homes.

	Q. How realistic was the consultation on the SDF. Would Officers go round knocking on doors in the Loxley area?

	A. The City Council would take account of Village Appraisals and the degree to which the consultation was realistic would depend on what the responses were generally.

	Q. Should the community consultation be based on the numbers of people consulted?

	A. The community consultation was taken seriously by the City Council. The Village Appraisals contained information on the villagers’ views of their future. The Bradfield Parish Council was a statutory consultee and it had the task of ensuring that relevant parts of the community appraisal would be brought to the attention of the Planning Service.

	Q. Was it the case that the Village Appraisal should not be the only method of conveying a community's views?

	A. That was agreed.

	Q. Should this area be a more self contained community than at present where the position was that most people had to travel to work?

	A. That was accepted. A decision would have to be taken on whether local former employment land should remain as such or should be used to provide housing. The Parish Council had indicated that it wanted land in this area to continue to be allocated for light industry use.

	Q. Was it not the case that it would not be possible to ensure that land would be put to industrial use except where there was subsidy from the Government or from European funding?

	A. That was accepted.

	Q. Should not the City Council have created business parks in rural areas as was the case in Derbyshire and was it the case that sites had been lost to housing developments to which the Planning Service had to react?

	A. That was accepted.

	Q. In the case of the vision for Wadsley Park, was it the case that it had been believed that the housing development there would take pressure off the Green Belt but developers still wanted to encroach on the Green Belt?

	A. That was accepted.

	Q. Was it the case that it would be difficult to deliver a vision, as the City Council did not have the powers or the resources to do so?

	A. That was accepted.