Decision details

11.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report in relation to the BBEST (Broomhill, Broomfield, Endcliffe, Summerfield and Tapton) Neighbourhood Area and Forum Designation.

11.2

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the BBEST Neighbourhood Area be designated as shown in background paper e) ‘Plan Illustrating Recommended BBEST Neighbourhood Area Designation’ in accordance with section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(b)

the Broomhill, Broomfield, Endcliffe, Summerfield and Tapton (BBEST) Neighbourhood Forum be designated as the only Neighbourhood Forum for the BBEST Neighbourhood Area for five years in accordance with section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(c)

the BBEST Neighbourhood Area and Forum designations be publicized in accordance with Regulations 7 and 10 respectively of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012; and

(d)

approval be given to the responses to representations on the BBEST Neighbourhood Area and Forum applications.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

11.3.1

A local planning authority must designate a Neighbourhood Area if it receives a valid application and some or all of the area has not yet been designated.

11.3.2

A local planning authority must consider the following questions when designating a neighbourhood area:

a) Has a relevant body for an area specified in the neighbourhood area application to be designated by this authority?

Answer: Yes. This is set out in section three of the application.

b) Does the proposed area cover any part of the area of a Parish Council?

Answer: No

c) How desirable is it to maintain the existing boundaries of areas already designated as neighbourhood areas (neighbourhood areas must not overlap?)

Answer: No surrounding areas are designated as neighbourhood areas.

d) Should the area be designated as a business area?

Answer: No. There are a number of businesses and large institutions in the area but it is not “wholly or predominantly business in nature”.

e) Are there any valid planning reasons to deviate from the boundary which has been submitted?

Answer: Yes. There are three minor deviations recommended because the proposed boundary cuts across a single property or “planning unit”. The recommended amendments are:

(i) Include all of Ranmoor Student Village

(ii) Exclude all of St Marie’s Primary School

(iii) Include all of Weston Park

BBEST’s rationale for the first two was to follow the Conservation Area boundary. The third is because we have more accurate mapping software available than BBEST had at the time of their application. The deviations are shown in background paper d) ‘Plan Illustrating Recommended BBEST Boundary Amendments’.

11.3.3

A local planning authority may designate an organisation as a Neighbourhood Forum if the authority are satisfied that it meets certain conditions:

a) Does the area consist of or include the whole or any part of the area of a Parish Council?

Answer: No.

b) Is it established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned?

Answer: Yes. See the objectives of the proposed constitution in section 3 of appendix 3 in the application.

c) Is membership open to individuals who live in the neighbourhood area concerned, work there, and are elected Members of the City Council?

Answer: Yes. See application 5.1, 5.2c), 5.3c) and the first paragraph in section 5 of appendix 3 of the application.

d) Does membership include a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom either live in the neighbourhood area concerned, work there or are an elected Member of the City Council?

Answer: Yes. See application 5.1, 5.2a), 5.2b) and the first paragraph in section 5 of appendix 3 of the application.

e) Does it have a written constitution?

Answer: Yes. See appendix 3 of the application.

f) Has it secured (or taken reasonable steps to attempt to secure) that its membership includes at least one individual who lives in the area, at least one individual who works in the area or one elected Member in the area?

Answer: Yes. See application 5.1

g) Is membership drawn from different places in the neighbourhood area concerned and from different sections of the community in that area?

Answer: Yes. See application 5.2

h) Does the purpose reflect (in general terms) the character of that area?

Answer: Yes. See application 5.3

i) Is there another proposed or designated neighbourhood forum for the proposed neighbourhood area?

Answer: No.

j) Has the organisation or body made an application to be designated?

Answer: Yes

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

11.4.1

English Heritage commented that where the proposed boundary runs very close to, but does not coincide with a Ward boundary, it should be changed to match the Ward boundary. Officers were not recommending this change, partly because of Ward boundary amendments in 2016, particularly for the Central Ward which has had a large increase in population.

11.4.2

Officer discussions with BBEST included the possibility of a smaller area which excluded the large institutions to the east such as the hospitals and the University of Sheffield. However, this was discounted on the grounds that the institutions were an integral part of the neighbourhood. An example of this is the student villages on the other side of the proposed Area. There were no representations that advocated this alternative option.

11.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

11.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

11.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

11.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing