Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Search Representations

Results for Sheffield City Council search

New search New search

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Local Plan Vision

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We note the vision for additional housing as part of the overall growth of NED (in particular the expansion of Dronfield, Killamarsh and Eckington of just over 2000 houses up to 2033, table 4.2). We welcome the acknowledged need for a co-ordinated approach to transport, recognising cross boundary issues. Whilst this growth may increase traffic flows between Sheffield and NED, it could also provide increased travel demand which would help to improve the viability of cross boundary public transport improvements (e.g. P&R in south Sheffield, outlined in 'The Sheffield Plan: Citywide Options for Growth to 2034' Nov 2015).

Full text:

We note the vision for additional housing as part of the overall growth of NED (in particular the expansion of Dronfield, Killamarsh and Eckington of just over 2000 houses up to 2033, table 4.2). We welcome the acknowledged need for a co-ordinated approach to transport, recognising cross boundary issues. Whilst this growth may increase traffic flows between Sheffield and NED, it could also provide increased travel demand which would help to improve the viability of cross boundary public transport improvements (e.g. P&R in south Sheffield, outlined in 'The Sheffield Plan: Citywide Options for Growth to 2034' Nov 2015).

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

D5 Housing for All

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We are pleased to note that the Plan confirms the intention to meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the District and will not require part of this need to be met within adjacent authorities.

Full text:

We are pleased to note that the Plan confirms the intention to meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the District and will not require part of this need to be met within adjacent authorities.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

D12 Sustainable Transport

Representation ID: 5481

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We support increasing travel by sustainable forms of transport and maintaining and improving connectivity to the main urban areas within Sheffield City Region. We would welcome partnership working with neighbouring authorities as set out in paragraph 9.54.

Full text:

We support increasing travel by sustainable forms of transport and maintaining and improving connectivity to the main urban areas within Sheffield City Region. We would welcome partnership working with neighbouring authorities as set out in paragraph 9.54.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Housing Provision

Representation ID: 5482

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

The evidence base presented explains how the housing requirement has been arrived at and this appears sensible. The minimum requirement of 300 new homes per year to support economic growth as well as deliver affordable housing will contribute towards the overall economic aspirations of the Sheffield City Region.

Full text:

The evidence base presented explains how the housing requirement has been arrived at and this appears sensible. The minimum requirement of 300 new homes per year to support economic growth as well as deliver affordable housing will contribute towards the overall economic aspirations of the Sheffield City Region.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS2: Scale of Development

Representation ID: 5551

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

Our response to the consultation in March 2015 highlighted that Sheffield might not be able to accommodate all its own objectively assessed housing need. We will set out the options for meeting our growth later this year, including significant Green Belt release. However, some options may not be deliverable in the short-medium term. It is therefore necessary to approach neighbouring authorities about meeting some of Sheffield's housing needs, particularly in the short to medium term up to 2028. After that, we would expect strategic sites within Sheffield to boost supply up to 2034 and beyond.

Full text:

We welcome the commitment to accommodating a minimum of 6,600 dwellings over the period 2011 - 2033, which will meet the minimum requirement of 300 homes per year. This is consistent with a level of growth required to meet an appropriate level of economic growth within NEDD.
In our response to the consultation in March 2015, we highlighted the fact that Sheffield might not be able to accommodate all its own objectively assessed housing need. Options for meeting Sheffield's housing need will be set out in an informal draft Sheffield (Local) Plan which we intend to publish this summer. This is likely to include options for significant Green Belt release.
However, at this stage we have concerns about whether some of the land supply options being considered in Sheffield would be deliverable in the short-medium term. A large proportion of the supply is on brownfield sites and a number of the major strategic growth locations would require very substantial investment in transport infrastructure. This could make them undeliverable in the early part of the plan period. When annual build rates are taken into account, it means that a proportion of the development would not take place until after the end of the plan period (i.e. after 2034). We also expect some options to be ruled out, following public consultation, because of land ownership or environmental issues.
In light of this, we now feel it is necessary to approach neighbouring authorities to see if they would be able to meet some of Sheffield's housing needs, particularly in the short to medium term. The main aim would be to provide additional flexibility in supply over the period to, say 2028. After that, we would expect additional strategic sites within Sheffield to boost supply up to 2034 and beyond. We would therefore like to explore further the options for accommodating additional growth outside Sheffield and look at what scope there would be for NEDD to meet some of Sheffield's needs.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Distribution of Growth & the Settlement Hierarchy

Representation ID: 5552

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

The strategy to direct growth to the most sustainable settlements is welcomed, and is in line with the aims of the NPPF. Three of the four level one settlements are in the north and therefore have a stronger relationship with Sheffield than Clay Cross in the south. With the majority of housing growth proposed across the four towns and four strategic sites, this is likely to result in a reasonable amount of new homes being developed in settlements where there are commuting links to Sheffield and where there is an overlap in the housing market with Sheffield.

Full text:

The strategy to direct growth to the most sustainable settlements is welcomed, and is in line with the aims of the NPPF. Three of the four level one settlements are in the north and therefore have a stronger relationship with Sheffield than Clay Cross in the south. With the majority of housing growth proposed across the four towns and four strategic sites, this is likely to result in a reasonable amount of new homes being developed in settlements where there are commuting links to Sheffield and where there is an overlap in the housing market with Sheffield.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Level 1 and 2 Settlements

Representation ID: 5553

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We support the flexibility in housing supply provided by excluding from the housing requirement both small sites and commitments incompatible with the strategy.

Full text:

We support the flexibility in housing supply provided by excluding from the housing requirement both small sites and commitments incompatible with the strategy.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Table 4.2: Housing Provision by Level 1 and Level 2 Settlement

Representation ID: 5554

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We support the 5,740 new homes identified within level 1 and 2 settlements, including 553 at Eckington and 860 at Dronfield. To some extent, delivery of new homes in these locations supports Sheffield's growth, as there is a relationship with Sheffield's urban area, as well as a strong commuting link.

Full text:

We support the 5,740 new homes identified within level 1 and 2 settlements, including 553 at Eckington and 860 at Dronfield. To some extent, delivery of new homes in these locations supports Sheffield's growth, as there is a relationship with Sheffield's urban area, as well as a strong commuting link.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Strategic Site Allocations

Representation ID: 5555

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

The four strategic sites will be an important source of new homes over the plan period. We support the pragmatic approach of identifying the Coalite site as a priority regeneration area rather than a strategic site because of concerns over deliverability. However, if any homes are able to come forward there towards the end of the plan period, that would be positive and give additional flexibility to the housing supply.

Full text:

The four strategic sites will be an important source of new homes over the plan period. We support the pragmatic approach of identifying the Coalite site as a priority regeneration area rather than a strategic site because of concerns over deliverability. However, if any homes are able to come forward there towards the end of the plan period, that would be positive and give additional flexibility to the housing supply.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Green Belt Review

Representation ID: 5562

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

The Green Belt methodology outlined is different to, but not inconsistent with, Sheffield's approach to Green Belt review. Identification of Safeguarded Land is consistent with the aims of the NPPF to ensure enduring Green Belt boundaries. We note there is recognition within the Green Belt review that some land parcels adjacent to Sheffield's urban area, which scored red, have locational benefits that could potentially weigh in favour of release, although more detailed consideration would be needed. This may be an issue to be picked up through a future review of the North Derbyshire and South Yorkshire Green Belt.

Full text:

This section highlights that in order to ensure a sustainable, deliverable distribution of land for new homes, there will be an impact on the Green Belt, as almost all land parcels perform a Green Belt function to some extent. The process outlined whereby parcels were identified that would cause least harm to the strategic function of the Green Belt, and then taken through the Council's site assessment process is different to, but not inconsistent with Sheffield's approach to Green Belt review. Identification of Safeguarded Land to meet development needs beyond the plan period is consistent with the aim of the NPPF to ensure that Green Belt boundaries endure beyond the plan period, and also builds in additional flexibility should a an early review of the plan be needed. For example, this might be needed if land was taken up more quickly in NEDD as a result of 'overspill' from Sheffield in the short to medium term. We note that within the Green Belt review (5.22) there is recognition that some land parcels adjacent to Sheffield's urban area, which scored red, have locational benefits that could potentially weigh in favour of release, although more detailed consideration would be needed. This may be an issue to be picked up through a future comprehensive review of the North Derbyshire and South Yorkshire Green Belt (possibly as part of a future SCR strategic plan/ framework).

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.