Councillor says additional ‘green belt deletion’ may open door to further development in Sheffield

As widely reported in Sheffield over recent weeks, the controversial plan to allow more than 3,500 homes to be built on green belt land was approved by the council following a vote in May.

The proposal followed direction from government planning inspectors, who, after reviewing a draft version of the council’s Sheffield Local Plan, told the authority it should consider incorporating green belt land for new housing. This advice came after public hearings held last year.

Inspectors also instructed the council to identify space for 3,539 additional homes—raising the target from 34,680 to 38,012.

However, a review of the documents published in advance of the council’s Strategy and Resources Committee and Full Council meetings reveals a detail that has not been publicly discussed: Appendix 2 indicates that nine of the proposed sites include further areas earmarked for “green belt deletion.”

The sites in question where there is additional "green belt deletion" on top of the proposed green belt release: - Site Reference: NWS30 on Land at Forge Lane, S35 0GG

- Site Reference: NWS31 on Land between Storth Lane and School Lane, S35 0DT

- Site Reference: NES37 and NES39 on Land between Creswick Avenue and Yew Lane, S35 8QN

- Site Reference: NES38 on Holme Lane Farm and land to the west of Grenoside Grange, Fox Hill Road, S35 8QS

- Site Reference: SES29 on Handsworth Hall Farm, Land at Finchwell Road, S13 9AS

- Site Reference: SES30 on Land between Bramley Lane and Beaver Hill Road, S13 7JH

- Site Reference: SS19 on Land to the south of White Lane, S12 3HS

- Site Reference: CH04 at Hesley Wood, north of Cowley Hill, S35 2YH

- Site Reference: CH05 on Land to the east of Chapeltown Road, S35 9ZX

These additions, a councillor warns, may open the door to future development beyond what was originally proposed.

One question that has emerged is what happens if the revised green belt boundary cuts through residential gardens. On Creswick Avenue, for instance, the document shows the “green belt deletion” effectively splitting more than a dozen rear gardens in half.

Although concerns have been raised, the council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that a number of gardens behind houses on Creswick Avenue are already intersected by the existing green belt boundary. “The proposed amendment to the boundary will rectify this anomaly,” the council said.

Cllr Mike Levery, representing the West Ecclesfield ward, told the LDRS he had major concerns about these additional green belt boundary changes—elements that, notably, were not addressed during council meetings.

He said: “Deleting additional land over and above the sites in the plan removes those sites from Green Belt protection and potentially allows developers to promote them at any time in the future.”

When asked why none of this was raised during meetings at the town hall, he noted that the report prepared for the Strategy and Resources Committee and Full Council included 10 appendices and exceeded 1,000 pages in total.

Cllr Levery said: “Clearly, members could not read and digest all the content in the few days leading up to the meeting.

“It wasn’t clear that green belt deletion was included in the Additional Site Allocation Consultation Document (Appendix 2), and the only reference stated ‘The allocation of some of the sites will necessitate some further alterations to the Green Belt boundary in order to create a logical and defensible Green Belt boundary.’”

The Local Democracy Reporting Service contacted the council to ask whether these additional green belt boundary adjustments could enable future development.

A council spokesperson said the report submitted to the Strategy & Resources Committee on April 30 “makes it clear that the allocation of some of the proposed additional sites will necessitate some further alterations to the Green Belt boundary in order to satisfy the national requirements to create a logical and defensible Green Belt boundary.”

The council also stated: “In most cases, any additional land that is removed is proposed to be designated as an Urban Green Space Zone.”

When asked why councillors had not been briefed specifically on these changes, the spokesperson said the report had been made available prior to the Strategy & Resources and Full Council meetings.

The council emphasised that out of Sheffield’s 9,061 hectares of green belt, 327.45 hectares (3.6%) would be removed. Of that, 234.42 hectares (2.6%) is allocated for development, including 180.76 hectares for housing and employment.

Following the currently ongoing public consultation between May 29 and July 11, another round of public consultation would take place in early 2026 before the inspectors issue their final report.

Finally, the council would meet to decide whether to adopt the revised plan, which is expected to be in force by July 2026.