Agenda item

6.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith) reported that this item of business was to provide to the Co-operative Executive, the Council’s view on whether Option 3 or one of the other four options should be the preferred overall spatial option taken forward in the Publication (Pre-Submission) Draft Sheffield Plan, as set out in the report of the Executive Director, Place, published with the agenda for the meeting.

6.2

It was moved by Councillor Mark Jones, and seconded by Councillor Martin Smith, that this Council agrees with the advice provided by the Climate Change, Economy and Development Transitional Committee and recommends Option 3 as the preferred overall spatial option that should be taken forward in the Publication (Pre-Submission) Draft Sheffield Plan.

6.3

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Dianne Hurst, seconded by Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs, as an amendment, that the motion now submitted be amended by the insertion of “(a)” after the words “That this Council”, and the addition of the following paragraphs:-

(b)      commends the cross-party work of the Climate Change, Economy and Development Transitional Committee for their work on the Local Plan Spatial Options, and notes the general consensus supporting the Administration’s approach;

(c)      notes that under the national legislation imposed on councils by government, many areas across the country have been forced to build on green belt over recent years, but that due to the importance of protecting green spaces, in 2019/20 the Council undertook detailed work and widespread public consultation to look at how the development of new homes in central Sheffield could be maximised;

(d)      believes that the approach laid out by the previous Administration would have delivered the housing requirement of 40,000 new homes, as determined by government at the time;

(e)      regrets that despite this substantial consultation with Sheffield citizens, the current Government took the decision in December 2020 to increase Sheffield’s housing target by 35%;

(f)       believes that this decision was not even remotely evidence based, and that this number is far too high and that Sheffield, like many northern areas, saw such a high uplift in housing target as a means to protect the green belt in the South of England – the majority of which falls within Conservative-led local authority areas;

(g)      believes that this was a blatant disregard for the people of Sheffield, with the Government putting different rules to our city, than that of the south of England, and notes that this uplift has caused further delay to the process of determining Sheffield’s Local Plan;

(h)      notes that the previous, and current, Administration has repeatedly challenged the Government on the high housing target and, whilst accepting that we must deliver a local plan for the city, believes that what is finally delivered must work in the interests of Sheffield;

(i)       believes that, on balance, Option 3 is the right spatial approach for Sheffield, which would utilise brownfield sites throughout the city, as well as delivering homes in sustainable and connected places;

(j)       notes the support for Option 3 from Campaign To Protect Rural England (Peak District and South Yorkshire) in their media statement (12 January 2022) “The re-use of a very small number of derelict brownfield sites in the Green Belt, in sustainable locations at the edge of the urban area (as outlined in the Council’s ‘Option 3’) may be a way forward that helps meet Sheffield’s realistic housing needs rather than the Government’s target”; and

(k)      believes that the Local Plan is about much more than housing alone – and that the strategy needs to be rooted in how new housing fits in with communities, infrastructure development, connectivity, green spaces and ecology, and lead to prosperous, well-connected, sustainable communities, as well as bringing economic growth (more jobs and higher wages) and that the Local Plan must be flexible enough to deliver on these aims and to link intrinsically with other council strategies.

6.4

It was then moved by Councillor Paul Turpin, seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, as an amendment, that the motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council”, and the addition of the following words:-

(a)      recommends Option 4 as the preferred overall spatial option that should be taken forward in the Publication (Pre-Submission) Draft Sheffield Plan, which would allow a very small amount of greenbelt land to be developed with the security of very strong and robust site selection criteria; and

(b)      believes a Local Plan should:-

(i)       recognise that some urban green sites are of higher ecological and social value than some Greenbelt sites;

(ii)       aim to green the Greenbelt further;

(iii)      by accepting very small amounts of development in the Greenbelt, provide a greater range of housing, such as family accommodation, and improve public transport and services that will benefit communities and tackle rural poverty; and that these sites should be decided using a robust and strict Site Selection Criteria model; and

(iv)      ensure areas designated as brownfield within, surrounded by or close to Green Belt land are carefully assessed as to their current status, and where rewilding has taken place, they should be re-designated as greenfield, so as to enhance the Greenbelt.

6.5

It was then moved by Councillor Lewis Chinchen, and formally seconded by the Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith), as an amendment, that the motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council”, and the addition of the following words:-

(a)      believes that elected members should listen to the people of Sheffield when deciding where new homes are built;

(b)      notes that during the consultation on the Sheffield Plan Issues and Options document in September/October 2020, the people of Sheffield were strongly against development on low quality urban greenspace and Green Belt land, and supported the reuse of brownfield sites;

(c)      believes that Option 1 (a brownfield-only approach) is the only option that delivers on this;

(d)      notes that all other options involve building on undeveloped land and/or the Green Belt;

(e)      believes that this would put sites similar to Hollin Busk in Deepcar at risk; and

(f)       therefore, proposes that Option 1 be the preferred overall spatial option taken forward in the Publication (Pre-Submission) Draft Sheffield Plan.

6.6

After contributions from nine other Members, and following a right of reply from Councillor Mark Jones, the amendment moved by Councillor Dianne Hurst was put to the vote and was carried.

6.6.1

(NOTE: 1. Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Ann Woolhouse, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery and Ann Whitaker voted for paragraph (i) and abstained from voting on paragraphs (b) to (h), (j) and (k) of the amendment moved by Councillor Dianne Hurst, and asked for this to be recorded.

2. Councillors Angela Argenzio, Brian Holmshaw, Kaltum Rivers, Douglas Johnson, Ruth Mersereau, Martin Phipps, Alexi Dimond, Paul Turpin, Christine Gilligan, Peter Garbutt, Alison Teal and Bernard Little voted for paragraphs (b) to (h), (j) and (k), and voted against paragraph (i) of the amendment moved by Councillor Dianne Hurst, and asked for this to be recorded.)

6.7

The amendment moved by Councillor Paul Turpin was then put to the vote and paragraph (a) was negatived and paragraph (b) of the amendment was carried.

6.7.1

The votes on the amendment moved by Councillor Paul Turpin were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For paragraph (a) of the amendment (12)

-

Councillors Angela Argenzio, Brian Holmshaw, Kaltum Rivers, Douglas Johnson, Ruth Mersereau, Martin Phipps, Alexi Dimond, Paul Turpin, Christine Gilligan, Peter Garbutt, Alison Teal and Bernard Little.

Against paragraph (a) of the amendment (56)

-

The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards) and Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Chris Rosling-Josephs, Ann Woolhouse, Bryan Lodge, Karen McGowan, Talib Hussain, Mark Jones, Mohammed Mahroof, Ruth Milsom, Mazher Iqbal, Mary Lea, Zahira Naz, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Moya O’Rourke, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Fran Belbin, Abdul Khayum, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Cate McDonald, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, George Lindars-Hammond, Josie Paszek, Anne Murphy, Tony Downing, Kevin Oxley, Ben Miskell, Mike Drabble, Dianne Hurst, Dawn Dale, Peter Price, Garry Weatherall, Mike Chaplin, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Lewis Chinchen, Francyne Johnson, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery, Ann Whitaker, Mick Rooney, Jackie Satur and Paul Wood.

Abstained from voting on paragraph (a) of the amendment (1)

-

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith).

For paragraph (b) of the amendment (41)

-

The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards) and Councillors Chris Rosling-Josephs, Bryan Lodge, Karen McGowan, Angela Argenzio, Brian Holmshaw, Kaltum Rivers, Talib Hussain, Mark Jones, Douglas Johnson, Ruth Mersereau, Martin Phipps, Ruth Milsom, Mazher Iqbal, Mary Lea, Zahira Naz, Moya O’Rourke, Fran Belbin, Abdul Khayum,, Alexi Dimond, Cate McDonald, Paul Turpin, Christine Gilligan, George Lindars-Hammond, Josie Paszek, Anne Murphy, Tony Downing, Peter Garbutt, Alison Teal, Ben Miskell, Mike Drabble, Dianne Hurst, Dawn Dale, Peter Price, Garry Weatherall, Mike Chaplin, Francyne Johnson, Bernard Little, Mick Rooney, Jackie Satur and Paul Wood.

Against paragraph (b) of the amendment (27)

-

Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Ann Woolhouse, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Lewis Chinchen, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery and Ann Whitaker.

Abstained from voting on paragraph (b) of the amendment (1)

-

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith).

6.8

The amendment moved by Councillor Lewis Chinchen was then put to the vote and was negatived.

6.8.1

(NOTE: Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Ann Woolhouse, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery and Ann Whitaker voted for paragraphs (a) and (b) and voted against paragraphs (c) to (f) of the amendment moved by Councillor Lewis Chinchen, and asked for this to be recorded.)

6.9

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)      agrees with the advice provided by the Climate Change, Economy and Development Transitional Committee and recommends Option 3 as the preferred overall spatial option that should be taken forward in the Publication (Pre-Submission) Draft Sheffield Plan;

(b)      commends the cross-party work of the Climate Change, Economy and Development Transitional Committee for their work on the Local Plan Spatial Options, and notes the general consensus supporting the Administration’s approach;

(c)      notes that under the national legislation imposed on councils by government, many areas across the country have been forced to build on green belt over recent years, but that due to the importance of protecting green spaces, in 2019/20 the Council undertook detailed work and widespread public consultation to look at how the development of new homes in central Sheffield could be maximised;

(d)      believes that the approach laid out by the previous Administration would have delivered the housing requirement of 40,000 new homes, as determined by government at the time;

(e)      regrets that despite this substantial consultation with Sheffield citizens, the current Government took the decision in December 2020 to increase Sheffield’s housing target by 35%;

(f)       believes that this decision was not even remotely evidence based, and that this number is far too high and that Sheffield, like many northern areas, saw such a high uplift in housing target as a means to protect the green belt in the South of England – the majority of which falls within Conservative-led local authority areas;

(g)      believes that this was a blatant disregard for the people of Sheffield, with the Government putting different rules to our city, than that of the south of England, and notes that this uplift has caused further delay to the process of determining Sheffield’s Local Plan;

(h)      notes that the previous, and current, Administration has repeatedly challenged the Government on the high housing target and, whilst accepting that we must deliver a local plan for the city, believes that what is finally delivered must work in the interests of Sheffield;

(i)       believes that, on balance, Option 3 is the right spatial approach for Sheffield, which would utilise brownfield sites throughout the city, as well as delivering homes in sustainable and connected places;

(j)       notes the support for Option 3 from Campaign To Protect Rural England (Peak District and South Yorkshire) in their media statement (12 January 2022) “The re-use of a very small number of derelict brownfield sites in the Green Belt, in sustainable locations at the edge of the urban area (as outlined in the Council’s ‘Option 3’) may be a way forward that helps meet Sheffield’s realistic housing needs rather than the Government’s target”;

(k)      believes that the Local Plan is about much more than housing alone – and that the strategy needs to be rooted in how new housing fits in with communities, infrastructure development, connectivity, green spaces and ecology, and lead to prosperous, well-connected, sustainable communities, as well as bringing economic growth (more jobs and higher wages) and that the Local Plan must be flexible enough to deliver on these aims and to link intrinsically with other council strategies; and

(l)       believes a Local Plan should:-

(i)       recognise that some urban green sites are of higher ecological and social value than some Greenbelt sites;

(ii)       aim to green the Greenbelt further;

(iii)      by accepting very small amounts of development in the Greenbelt, provide a greater range of housing, such as family accommodation, and improve public transport and services that will benefit communities and tackle rural poverty; and that these sites should be decided using a robust and strict Site Selection Criteria model; and

(iv)      ensure areas designated as brownfield within, surrounded by or close to Green Belt land are carefully assessed as to their current status, and where rewilding has taken place, they should be re-designated as greenfield, so as to enhance the Greenbelt.

6.9.1

(NOTE: Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Ann Woolhouse, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery and Ann Whitaker voted for paragraphs (a) to (k) and against paragraph (l) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)

(NOTE: In recognition of the meeting having been adjourned soon after the start of the proceedings whilst a Member of the Council received medical assistance, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith) used her discretion and removed the 25-minute time limit for the item on the Sheffield (Local) Plan Spatial Options and extended the duration of the meeting by 25 minutes, to 5.55 p.m.).