Sheffield local plan: what option councillors chose in first vote for the city’s blueprint

Five out of nine members of the climate change, economy and development transitional committee said a limited number of brownfield sites in the green belt, next to urban areas, should be built on to meet housing and economic needs.

This approach is known as option three and it is halfway between choices that would see developments only on brownfield sites (significantly limiting housing) – option one – and as much development in the green belt as necessary to meet the government’s housing supply targets (which council officers said would harm the environment and undermine Sheffield’s reputation as the Outdoor City) – option five.

Before voting for option three, councillor Mark Jones, chair of the committee, said: “Throughout this process I thought about what Sheffield is and where I want Sheffield to be.

“Limiting ourselves to building just on the brownfield sites is, I feel, regressive and dangerous, in so much that I’m not sure that over-densification of housing can lead to social value and social justice, specifically social justice because that’s the bit that I really want the city to achieve.

“I want to see good quality housing that’s affordable, not artificially affordable like 80 percent of the market value, but genuinely affordable for people on genuine incomes.

“I am really mindful that the developers would tell me that would mean building in greenfield and green belt because that’s the cheapest option to them. However, I do not believe they will deliver affordable homes for genuine people.

“I’m also cautious about opening the door and wedge for allowing unscrupulous developers to come into Sheffield and try and deliver housing on our green belt sites.

“For me, I want to see not high densification but high liveability is the goal. If we can achieve that through creative design and creative thinking, and capturing all that humanity can to do deliver houses that are fit for people to live in, not to exist in, then I’ll go for that…

“I’m reluctantly going to go for option three as opposed to anything that would otherwise allow the creep of developers’ greedy desires.”

But not all agreed with that choice.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, co-operative member for development, voted for option one and said he was awaiting a meeting with the government to revise its housing target which were branded “unrealistic” by the council and campaigners.

Green councillors Douglas Johnson, co-operative executive member for climate change, environment and transport, and Paul Turpin voted for option four which would see greenfield land in the green belt released for development – this option was recommended by senior council officers.

Coun Diane Hurst abstained as she was torn between options three and four.

What does the vote mean?

The vote was the first time any councillors had recorded a preference on the latest options for local plan and while influential, there is still more discussion and voting ahead before a final choice is made.

Results of this vote will be given as advice to city leaders on the co-operative executive.