North Area Panel Notes of an Inquorate Meeting 7th June 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Notes of an inquorate Meeting held on 7th June, 2005 at Oughtibridge Parish Centre, Church Street, Oughtibridge

PRESENT:		Councillor Trevor Bagshaw

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Mike Bancroft - Bradfield Parish Council
		Malcolm Glover - Bradfield Parish Council

		City Council Officers:-
		Anne Blantern - Area Co-ordinator
		Vicki Savage - North Area Regeneration Partnership
		Paul Gordon - Development Services
		Sarah Smith - Development Services
		Matthew Rush - Area Action
		Jason Dietsch - Committee Secretariat
		7 Members of the public, including representatives of community organisations, attended the meeting
…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	There were no apologies for absence received from Panel Members.

2.	SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
	The Panel received a presentation by Paul Gordon, Planning Officer 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 would replace 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), 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, 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 in First Point Centres.
	The Panel were informed that for every individual who 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 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/C Concern was expressed at the amount of publicity before the Panel meeting.

	A. The Chair outlined the methods taken by the Panel to publicise meetings including press releases, the Council's website and use of a mailing list. He also outlined changes to times of Panel meetings to potentially encourage members of the public to attend.

	Q/C The following points were raised in relation to the Development Framework: the lack of a properly defined ring-road, extension of the Supertram to Stocksbridge or extension of the train service, that dense developments would be inappropriate in Oughtibridge and provision should be made for other uses such as provision of a community hall and other amenities such as libraries.

	A. Government guidance had been issued in relation to the density of housing development and this was difficult for the Local Authority to control other than making sure there was not over development.

	Q. Would village appraisals be used to inform the Development Framework process as this process had already ascertained views of people living in the North area.

	A. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw, responded that elements of the village appraisal process could be presented by communities to the Council's Planning Service as a response to the Framework document and he agreed that this was a legitimate way of representing the views of the community but emphasised that communities should interpret information from the appraisal process before submitting it to the Authority.

	Q. The view was expressed that the Council should use a joined up approach in relation to infrastructure and amenities before housing developments were planned in transport corridors such as that serving Oughtibridge. A suggestion was made that Oughtibridge be by-passed.

	Concern was expressed for current businesses whose trade was suffering and were considering moving out of the area.

	A. Paul Gordon responded that the Local Authority could only judge criteria of planning applications against certain elements. He emphasised that City Council Elected Members were informed by information presented to them by Council Officers. He stated that the planning system allowed for development unless there were clear reasons not to develop.

	Q. The Framework should include development of an effective public transport system and a further question was asked concerning the use of green belt land.

	A. The Chair responded that at present the Government had stated that there should be no development of greenfield sites where brownfield land existed.

	Q. Did the Council have powers to improve run down shops and the general repair of buildings.

	A. The Council only had power to take such action in relation to repair where the structure of the building was proved to be dangerous.

	Q. A question was raised in relation to the development of the Stocksbridge area and in particular the Corus Development and as to whether a supermarket would be built in Stocksbridge.

	A. Paul Gordon stated that the only space available in the Stocksbridge Development was away from the District Centre and Councillor Trevor Bagshaw added that the developments of the Corus site would be phased and some limited retail would be planned for that site. It was likely that housing would be developed first on the site to fund the development of other amenities. He added that the City Council had no power to ensure that shops were provided but could create the best circumstances for this to happen. The Chair added that the community did have the opportunity to influence the process.

	Q. A question was asked regarding planning gains in terms of Section 106 monies from developments.

	A. Paul Gordon explained that the developer would have to pay to mitigate certain circumstances such as a lack of open space on a development. He stated that there were rules governing the issue of Section 106 money from developers including the distance from which an open space could be sited away from the development being undertaken by a particular developer. He added that more recently improvements such as open space were completed at the same time as the development itself and that the Area Co-ordinator and Area Panel were involved in how to obtain the best for the community from such planning gains. He emphasised that the use of such money was constrained.

	Q. A question was asked concerning the restoration of the verge, which had been planted with daffodils along Low Road, Oughtibridge.

	A. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw responded that the Panel had been assured the area would be restored and this had been discussed at the last meeting of the Panel. In relation to a further question concerning the pedestrian crossing on Low Road, he explained that West Planning Board had, on 7th June, requested that Officers undertake further consultation, by letter, with local residents seeking their views on where a crossing might be situated, on Low Road or another position.

	Q. Could monies be used from Section 106 Agreements to fund improvement of the Millennium Green.

	A. The Chair stated that there was the opportunity to apply for funding and suggested that the questioner contact the Area Co-ordinator.

	Q. Did the public have a right to see where money had been spent from developer contributions?

	A. Paul Gordon told the questioner that the Planning Department of the Council could inform people of where monies were likely to be spent in their locality. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw emphasised that no final decisions had been made in relation to any planning gains from the current development on Low Road. Paul Gordon added that he would forward a list to Bradfield Parish Council of planning gain monies spent in the Parish.

	The Chair thanked members of the public and Planning Officers for their attendance at the meeting.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |