Agenda item

6.1

Public Questions Concerning the Local Plan

6.1.1

Nigel Slack commented that the first stage of consultation for the 'Local Plan' is now under way, this is good. We are years behind where we should be but, if we get it right, we will be stronger for it. It is just a shame about the abuse that developers have handed to this city in the meantime.

He stated that over time, changes to national planning laws have broken the ability of local planning committees to actually deliver democratic decisions on behalf of our residents. Even headline decisions like 'Owlthorpe Field' are not safe, an appeal is already under way with central government, where developers usually win. This was even used as outright threat by The University of Sheffield when there was even the least suggestion they might not be allowed to demolish the Grade 2 listed Jessops Hospital. On that occasion Sheffield City Council caved.

New government legislation is now looking to streamline the destruction of our system of local planning with ever more presumptive acceptance of planning applications. Offices transformed into some of the darkest tiniest flats in Europe, without permissions needed, and deregulated market forces trash our cities, towns and countryside. Money/profit is king and the planning system supports this wasteful and antisocial approach.

Local architects, whose motto should be destroy history, demolish the good and sod the people, are now proposing new back to back housing for the city centre. Less than 100 years since the slums of the city were cleared for decent, affordable Council Housing. At the same time the economic impact of first Covid and then a disastrous Brexit will dictate a change from 'business as usual' and this Council must drive that change.

What will be the new 'Local Plan' be able to do to protect our city from the depredations of government and predatory developers?

6.1.2

Councillor Johnson commented that the Council also had concerns about many aspects of the proposals in the Government White Paper and how it will affect our Local Plan, the development mandate and the development management process.  He stated that the Council welcomes some of the proposals, for example the shorter planning time, simpler process for preparing plans, the greater use of digital plans and a stronger emphasis on designing quality.  There is however a lack of detail in many of the government’s proposals, which seems to be a common thread amongst many of their proposals of late.  So, its currently unclear as to what some of these plans mean in reality.

Under the government's proposals local plans will have a strong say over where development takes place, but the shift to a zonal system with fast track or automatic permission for certain categories of development specified in the Local Plan has significant risks attached to it, and removes democratic accountability and scrutiny from the planning application stage.  It seems clear from the proposals however that areas defined in the Local Plan as protected areas, which include green belt, conservation areas and wildlife sites would still be subject to more stringent development controls and should still see full planning applications required for schemes affecting those type of areas.  So, we will be keeping a close eye on that.

He added that the council's Local Plan is currently at the consultation stage, which means that the council should be able to adapt to any emerging changes resulting from this legislation, while still maintaining the direction of the Plan and of course maintaining and promoting what you and I both know is special about Sheffield.

6.2

Public Questions Concerning the Council’s Reserves

6.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that with more of the city's reserves being earmarked to support Ponds Forge, John Lewis, etc, when will those reserves be exhausted and how long after that will the city be bankrupt?  Also, what can this Council do to utilise the governments approach of 'Limited & Specific' unlawfulness to mitigate these issues?

6.2.2

Councillor Fox commented that the Council will be bringing the medium term financial analysis to Cabinet shortly, hopefully in October, and that analysis will give full details on our financial forecast including the reserves position.  He stated that the Council and its elected members have a responsibility to set a balanced budget at the end of the year, otherwise we are in contempt and Government would send in individuals to run the Council.  We believe that Elected Members are the right and accountable people to set that balanced budget.

6.3

Public Questions Concerning disposals of Parks and Countryside Estate

6.3.1

Mike Hodson commented on disposals of parks and countryside estate and asked:

Could the Cabinet Lead for Leisure and Culture confirm that any proposals for “disposals”, whether by lease or sale, of Parks & Countryside estate must be subjected to the Building Better Parks Policy approved by Cabinet in Nov 2018?

Could she also confirm that according to the decision making process of that Policy, laid out in Appendix 1, this entails;

(a) a prior assessment of any proposal for such disposal against the Reinvestment Assessment Criteria detailed in Appendix 2; and

(b) that such an assessment should be followed by a consultation with “key stakeholders” - including local Councillors, Friends Groups and the wider community etc (also detailed in Appendix 1); and

(c) that these should take place prior to any discussions with other Council departments including Planning, and prior to any authority to progress such a proposal by the Cabinet Member?

In relation to the proposal by True North Brewery (TNB) to lease a section of Millhouses Park, lodged with Parks & Countryside in November 2019, can she confirm that the proposal did not undergo the assessment prescribed above as a first step, and that the consultation prescribed as a second step did not take place, before she gave her authorisation to progress the proposal in Feb 2020? (in the light of the published Assessment bearing the date 28 August 2020, with internal evidence that it was prepared after the lodging of a Planning Application by TNB in May 2020; and in the light of the failure of Planning and Countryside Officers to carry out the required consultation with key stakeholders.)

Would she agree with Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group and the Friends of Millhouses Park that it would be appropriate for her to withdraw the authority to progress for the TNB proposal, given by her in Feb 2020; and that the proposal should revert to its status as at December 2019, so that the proposal can be subjected properly to the required steps in the Building Better Parks Policy?

Would she also agree with Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group and the Friends of Millhouses Park that it would be appropriate that any indications given by Parks and Countryside Officers that the proposal is being favourably considered, and that it would be approved if the Planning Application is successful, should likewise be withdrawn, as pre-judging the outcomes of any consultation? (which according to Council policies require 'the need for an open mind at the beginning of a consultation, and a readiness to modify proposals according to the feedback received.' In particular she is referred to the Sheffield City Council Involvement Table from 2016, which lays out the different levels of participation expected, and refers specifically to disposals as one situation where these would be needed.)

6.3.2

Councillor Lea commented that any proposal for disposal of our parks or sites are subject to the Better Parks Policy and the criteria that's laid out in the Policy.  She confirmed that a disposal in this case refers to a lease, it doesn't mean the sale of land.

All proposals are assessed against the criteria in the Better Parks Policy.  Proposals are subject to consultation with key stakeholders, which includes users of the park, the community as well as the Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group and the Friends of Millhouses Park.  She stated that there is no set order for the consultation and engagement process in the Better Parks Policy and that during that process we need to take advice from other services in the Council, including Property Services, Planning Services and Legal Services, to enable us to make an informed decision as to whether the proposal is feasible.

She clarified that as a Cabinet Member she does not give a formal authorisation for proposals such as this, officers recommend that a proposal be considered and that includes consultation and any planning application.  This proposal was received initially in 2017 (As a result of this proposal the Better Parks Policy was developed).  There was engagement with the Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group and the Friends of Millhouses Park during that time.  We have supported this proposal because we think it benefits the park and community and it fits with the Better Parks Policy which is about betterment of the parks and enhancement of the benefits to the community.  It was assessed against the relevant criteria in May 2019 and we then aimed to undertake further consultation, which was planned to take place during the pre-application part of the planning process.  However, as you know the national lockdown commenced in March and the submission of a full planning application was submitted.  This over rid the timetable that we had planned so we have had to amend the approach to the consultation.  One of the ways we have done that is to use social media and we have had more than 500 responses.  Planning applications are obviously subject to consultation themselves and again, because of the lockdown, that couldn't take place.  At the request of the Friends of Millhouses Park the Planning Department extended the consultation process and determination date for the application.   A lot of work has been undertaken on social media with regards to consultation and engagement in the community.  More consultation is planned, hopefully in October, with the community including all the stakeholder groups.   It is not appropriate for me to halt the consultation on this proposal.

She commented on the benefits of parks during this pandemic which had, for some, been the only thing that people had been able to enjoy, certainly in in the first month of lockdown.  They were widely used.  When we were able to open up further, one of the things that we did was to allow businesses in parks such as cafes to extend their seating areas to outside their premises, and that this proposal is really about extending what is already there outside of the particular premises where that business takes place.

She stated that the recommendation by the Parks service to pursue the proposal will be part of the planning consultation process. Should the planning application be successful, we would expect that a 10 year lease would be granted.  Consultation is part of the process and the Park’s service are interested in these proposals due to the benefits that this would bring to Millhouses Park, the local community and the City as well.  She reiterated that we plan to have further consultation next month and that the basis of that further consultation will shape the proposals further.  This will be done with people in the local community, the users of the park and True North Brewery as well.