Agenda item

Planning for Housing Development

It was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Colin Ross, that this Council:-

(a)       is committed to defending Sheffield’s reputation as the greenest city in the country – affording our green and open spaces the protection they deserve;

(b)       therefore notes with concern the following sentence from the Sheffield Local Plan report agreed by the Cabinet on 18th December 2013: “Work has already commenced on developing a methodology for strategic review of the South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire Green Belt”;

(c)        recognises the importance of demonstrating a five-year economically-deliverable supply of housing within the City’s Local Plan;

(d)       however, believes that using future allocations of the New Homes Bonus to invest in brown-field sites and bring more empty homes back into use, could avoid the need to concrete over green field and Green Belt land;

(e)       furthermore, hopes the Council will re-investigate density and height requirements within the inner ring-road to help protect important green spaces;

(f)        regrets that instead the Administration appear to have surrendered to big developers by allowing them to cherry-pick treasured green sites across the City for development;

(g)       believes that the Administration have once again taken the easy way out because they think they can get away with blaming someone else; and

(h)       opposes a Green Belt review until more innovative ways of delivering Sheffield’s five-year housing supply have been exhausted.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Julie Dore, seconded by Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.        the deletion of all the words after the words “therefore notes with concern” in paragraph (b) and their substitution by the following words “the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework which has resulted in the Planning Inspectorate stating that the current allocation of sites for housing does not go far enough to meet the demands”;  and

2.        the deletion of paragraphs (c) to (h) and the addition of new paragraphs (c) to (o) as follows:-

(c)       regrets that this is an issue for the vast majority of local authorities across the country and notes that other authorities such as Brighton, Hull, Coventry and Kirklees have had to withdraw local plans as they did not meet requirements;

(d)      confirms that if the Council do not meet the Government targets for a five year supply of immediately deliverable sites, developers could win permission to build on the city's green spaces and even green belt sites on appeal, even after a planning application is turned down by the Council, which could lead to a planning free for all, potentially increasing the level of development on green belt land in an uncontrolled manner, which has already happened in other places such as Leeds;

(e)      regrets that yet again the main opposition group seek to mislead local people by suggesting that the need to find green spaces for housing is merely down to Councils wishing to build on them, rather than the reality, which is that it is driven by their own Government's planning policy;

(f)       notes these comments by Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of the Local Government Information Unit: ‘the National Planning Policy Framework and targets around housing supply are putting significant strain on councils’ ability to protect the green belt.’;

(g)      confirms that this is the view of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who state that: ‘Local authorities that are producing plans are coming under pressure to allocate more greenfield sites than originally intended. And over half (52%) of local authorities do not have up to date adopted local plans in place. As a result, they will come under increased pressure to approve any application for housing development in line with policies in the NPPF, rather than with local views.’;

(h)      notes these comments from Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of CPRE: ‘We know that Planning Minister Nick Boles wants good quality, beautiful development, but his policies are not delivering. There can be no sustainable solution to this country’s housing problems unless there is a renewed focus on improving quality, increasing local control and minimising the loss of countryside. The NPPF is not currently delivering that mix. The Government urgently needs to rethink its approach.’;

(i)        echoes criticisms that this Government have significantly weakened the previous Government’s brownfield-first policy which actively prioritised building on brownfield sites;

(j)        confirms that the present Administration is doing all it can to see as much brownfield land as possible built on and will continue to work to minimise development on green field sites, but it is the Government that has both cut the Council’s funding to subsidise brownfield site regeneration, and then stipulated that the Council has to provide a five year supply at any one time of 'economically deliverable' (ie, financially attractive) sites for developers, which rules out many brownfield sites, restricting site supply;

(k)       welcomes the action of the present Administration to bring hundreds of empty homes back into use, however, will take no lectures from the main opposition group who brought a derisory 13 empty homes back into use in their last year in administration;

(l)        welcomes the policy of the Labour Party to stand up to developers by tackling landbanking through the proposed introduction of a “use it or lose it policy” and believes it is this Government that have surrendered to big developers through rejecting this idea;

(m)     confirms that the Council would be willing to stand up to developers and implement the ‘use it or lose it’ policy were the Government to give local authorities the freedoms to do so;

(n)      believes that the Government’s reforms have been anti localist and have taken planning powers away from local people and given them instead to the Secretary of State and believes that the need to consider the Green Belt is ultimately a consequence of this Government’s approach; and

(o)      proposes that the Cabinet Member for Business Skills and Development writes to the Secretary of State outlining the consequences of the issues caused by the Government's cuts to housing investment for brown field development, and the problems this has caused, and asks the mover of the motion to confirm he will co-sign the letter.

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

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

RESOLVED:  That this Council:-

(a)       is committed to defending Sheffield’s reputation as the greenest city in the country – affording our green and open spaces the protection they deserve;

(b)       therefore notes with concern the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework which has resulted in the Planning Inspectorate stating that the current allocation of sites for housing does not go far enough to meet the demands; 

(c)       regrets that this is an issue for the vast majority of local authorities across the country and notes that other authorities such as Brighton, Hull, Coventry and Kirklees have had to withdraw local plans as they did not meet requirements;

(d)      confirms that if the Council do not meet the Government targets for a five year supply of immediately deliverable sites, developers could win permission to build on the city's green spaces and even green belt sites on appeal, even after a planning application is turned down by the Council, which could lead to a planning free for all, potentially increasing the level of development on green belt land in an uncontrolled manner, which has already happened in other places such as Leeds;

(e)      regrets that yet again the main opposition group seek to mislead local people by suggesting that the need to find green spaces for housing is merely down to Councils wishing to build on them, rather than the reality, which is that it is driven by their own Government's planning policy;

(f)       notes these comments by Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of the Local Government Information Unit: ‘the National Planning Policy Framework and targets around housing supply are putting significant strain on councils’ ability to protect the green belt.’;

(g)      confirms that this is the view of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who state that: ‘Local authorities that are producing plans are coming under pressure to allocate more greenfield sites than originally intended. And over half (52%) of local authorities do not have up to date adopted local plans in place. As a result, they will come under increased pressure to approve any application for housing development in line with policies in the NPPF, rather than with local views.’;

(h)      notes these comments from Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of CPRE: ‘We know that Planning Minister Nick Boles wants good quality, beautiful development, but his policies are not delivering. There can be no sustainable solution to this country’s housing problems unless there is a renewed focus on improving quality, increasing local control and minimising the loss of countryside. The NPPF is not currently delivering that mix. The Government urgently needs to rethink its approach.’;

(i)        echoes criticisms that this Government have significantly weakened the previous Government’s brownfield-first policy which actively prioritised building on brownfield sites;

(j)        confirms that the present Administration is doing all it can to see as much brownfield land as possible built on and will continue to work to minimise development on green field sites, but it is the Government that has both cut the Council’s funding to subsidise brownfield site regeneration, and then stipulated that the Council has to provide a five year supply at any one time of 'economically deliverable' (ie, financially attractive) sites for developers, which rules out many brownfield sites, restricting site supply;

(k)       welcomes the action of the present Administration to bring hundreds of empty homes back into use, however, will take no lectures from the main opposition group who brought a derisory 13 empty homes back into use in their last year in administration;

(l)        welcomes the policy of the Labour Party to stand up to developers by tackling landbanking through the proposed introduction of a “use it or lose it policy” and believes it is this Government that have surrendered to big developers through rejecting this idea;

(m)     confirms that the Council would be willing to stand up to developers and implement the ‘use it or lose it’ policy were the Government to give local authorities the freedoms to do so;

(n)      believes that the Government’s reforms have been anti localist and have taken planning powers away from local people and given them instead to the Secretary of State and believes that the need to consider the Green Belt is ultimately a consequence of this Government’s approach; and

(o)      proposes that the Cabinet Member for Business Skills and Development writes to the Secretary of State outlining the consequences of the issues caused by the Government's cuts to housing investment for brown field development, and the problems this has caused, and asks the mover of the motion to confirm he will co-sign the letter.

(Note: Councillors Robert Murphy and Jillian Creasy voted for Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (o) and abstained on Paragraphs (e), (j) and (k) of the Substantive Motion and asked for this to be recorded.)