New Sheffield green belt housing sites approved – councillors split over decision
Sheffield councillors were divided over a decision to give up green belt land for housing as ordered by government planning inspectors.
The city council’s key strategy and resources committee, which is made up of policy committee chairs, yesterday (April 30) voted 8-5 to use 3.6 per cent of green belt land for 3,539 homes to be built over the next 14 years. LibDems and a Sheffield Community Group councillor rejected the proposal.
The sites, if agreed, would form part of the Sheffield Local Plan, which outlines where all types of development can take place across the city until 2039. The proposal now goes forward to the next full council meeting on May 14 and if agreed there will go out to public consultation until July 11.
Strategic planning service manager Simon Vincent said that government planning inspectors who examined the draft version of the plan last year made the ruling. He said that 89 per cent of housing sites and virtually all the land identified for industrial use in the draft plan was on brownfield sites.
The inspectors said that they were concerned to have a mix of housing and family homes could be provided on the green belt at the edge of the city.
Councillors were told that if they rejected the proposals they faced having to put together a new plan which would have to take new housing rules into account. That would mean identifying sites for an additional 10,000 homes.
Disappointing
Community Group Coun Dianne Hurst said that sites identified included Woodhouse, where there are concerns about air quality. She added: “1,740 of the additional properties being built are in the S13 area.
“That would put great pressure on the already existing infrastructure and impact on the environment. Isn’t this disappointing when we’ve got a whole city to cope with?”
Head of planning Michael Johnson responded that the sites are spread across the city but focused in the south east and north, partly because of infrastructure including transport links.
Coun Martin Smith said that in 12 years as a councillor he had never seen so many legal restrictions on the decisions the committee could make. General counsel David Hollis, who is head of legal services, replied that the recommendations could not be amended and must be voted on as a whole.
Coun Fran Belbin said: “We will struggle to turn down things on the green belt if we don’t have a Local Plan. By identifying the proposals we will protect the majority of it.”
Coun Joe Otten demanded to know why a site in Dore had been included, which is next to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and provides an ecological corridor to Ecclesall Woods.
Coun Kurtis Crossland argued that the contentious site at Eckington Way near Crystal Peaks, currently earmarked for industrial land and a travelling showpeople’s site, should have been considered.
He added: “What’s the best thing for economic growth? It’s trust. If as a local authority we’re riding roughshod over what they want, why should they ever trust us?”
Green group leader Coun Douglas Johnson said: “Naturally as Greens we are opposed to building on the green belt.”
He said his party had criticised the council for not having a Local Plan and it needs to be approved. “We have to have enough houses and employment areas identified to stop poor quality developments. We’ve seen a lot of those alongside the good ones.
“Ultimately the government can step in as has happened in other places.”