2 Policy
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
NPPF was revisedon 20 July2021, which sets out the government planning policies and is to be read as a whole.
2.2 The Development Plan
At the time of writing this Statement of Appeal, the Development Plan consists of:
● Sheffield Core Strategy (2009)
● Unitary Development Plan (1998)
The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council on 4 March 2009 and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in March 1998 which forms part of Sheffield's development plan.
The following policies are regarded to be relevant for considering this application:
Core Strategy
● CS26 Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility
● CS63 Responses to Climate Change
● CS67 Flood Risk Management
● CS74 Design Principles
UDP
● BE 15 Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest
● BE 17 Conserving and Recording the Historic Environment
● BE 19 Design Principles
● BE 20 Other Historic Buildings
● GE 11 Nature Conservation and Development
● GE 15 Trees and Woodland
● H15 Design of New Housing Developments
5
3.1 Reason 1: Character and Appearance
3.1.1 Design considerations
The concerns regarding the development would result in the loss of character of Worrall. The applicationput forward wouldbe surroundedby overlydense residentialdevelopmentonall sides and therefore the suggested dwelling development would make an ‘illogical infill’ intothe built form and would undermine the appearance of the settlement. The loss of green-fields and the agriculturearea which containheritage propertythat render the rural character of the village. The local heritage of the village is not maintainedby the proposed extension.The view of open green fields creates a sense of vastness, which will be lost as a part of development.
Achieving well-designedplaces is the focus of Chapter 12 of the Framework,and paragraph 126 notes that sustainable development is dependent on good design.
The Framework's design-related paragraph 130 lays forth the following expectations:
● Addition in the morphology of precinct;
● A result of good architecture, layout and landscaping;
● Are benevolent to the local character and circling built environment;
● Establish and maintain a strong sense of place;
PoliciesCS74 of theCS and UDP policiesBE5, H14, andH15 allattempttoensure high-quality improvements that enrich the context's personality and physical attractiveness. The land is completelysurroundedby development.As statedpreviously,the developmentwould involvethe removal of the front-yardbarn. Putting aside this issue, the settinghas a diversityof house types with contrasting character and appearance.
The existing suggested plan appears to be overly thick, leading to limitedroom for the adjacent listed buildings to breathe.
3.2 Reason 2: Heritage and archaeology issues
3.2.1. Loss of identity
Wiggan Farm holds significanthistoricalvalueforlocal identity.Accordingto the Local Planning Authority,theproposeddevelopmentcouldpotentiallyleadtothelossofanon-designatedheritage asset.Moreover,it mayalsocauseharm to a heritageasset'scharacterandvisualamenitiesnearby, which includes Grade II listed buildings and local heritage buildings. Based on this, this proposed developmentmay go against the NPPF paragraph 189 and 191, which is not conducive to the conservation and study of the site and archaeology for future generations.
3.2.2. Demolition of the barn
Paragraph 189 of the NPPF argues that heritage assets vary from locallysignificant structures and buildings to World Heritage Sites of Outstanding International Value. These unique assets should be protectedina mannersuitabletotheirsignificancesothatcurrentandfuture generations
6
3 Material Considerations for refusal
can enjoy their benefits. As mentioned above, there are Grade II listed buildings (64 and 66 Towngate Road, Fox house) and local heritage buildings (Wiggan Farm farmhouse and barn, Shoulderof MuttonPH) onthissite.This proposalwilldemolishthebarn, destroyingthehistorical buildings of local identities, local authorities therefore should take action to protect it from development
3.2.3. Listed buildings and local heritage
Paragraph 191 of the NPPF also points out that Local planning authorities should ensure that sites designated as conservationzones possess special architecturalor historicrelevance to avoid devaluing conservation.As it canbe seen from the figure, there are three listedbuildings and two localheritagebuildingsnear the site.Althoughtheylie slightlyaway fromthe site,the impactwill stillbe observed.With regardto UDP PolicyBE 19,the developmentshouldpreserve the context and exterior appearance of Listed Buildings. BE 15 and BE 20 also argue that the historical buildings and heritage that are not being listed are supposed to be preserved as well.
3.2.4. Historical Landscape
The site is surrounded by buildings and fields of local character. Paragraph 176 of the NPPF statesthatconservingand enhancingbothwildlifeandculturalheritageshouldalsobe anessential concern.As the role of BradfieldParish Council, it is committedfor the high-qualityof everyone in thewhole area.PolicyCS74 ofthe Core Strategyalsoidentifiesthatthecity’sdistinctheritage, which includes historicalvillagecentres and its rural setting, should be respected for high quality development.
Additionally, the Heritage Statement Wiggan Farm proposes that when evaluatingdevelopment proposals, prioritywill be given to the maintenanceand enhancement of heritage assets and their application for practical and proper uses in order to guarantee their future conservation. Those
7
Figure3. Listed building and local heritage (Source: Sheffield City Council)
applicationsinwhich the importance,nature,andcontextof the assets as well as theirsurrounding historic environment are maintained, protected, and suitably improved can be approved. In conclusion,the proposed development may have negative effects on the heritage conservation of the Wiggan Farm,which couldbe harmful toits non-designated heritageasset. Considering its potential importance, it is not reasonable to devote the farm to housing construction.
3.3 Reason 3: Residential amenity
3.3.1 Education Issues
Core Strategy CS43 identifiesthe need for schools toprovide new educationat a timewhen there is insufficientcapacitytodevelopnew housing for this purpose due to local economicconditions, etc.
Policy CS43 requiresschools to be able toprovide adequate modernfacilities,includingthe need for allsecondaryschoolsinthe areatobe rebuiltandrefurbishedandthe need for significantfunds to be invested in a number of local primary schools. All schools in the area will need to be expanded. Developers will pay for this when there is not enough local space to accommodate additional residential development.
This is a problemas there is not enough localcapacityto accommodatethe developmentrequired for new housing developments.
According to the Planning statement document, the schools in the vicinity of the site are not at capacity in 2018, but their enrollment is very close to their maximum capacity. For example, Marlcliffe Primary School, 1.6 miles from the site, has 510 registered pupils and can only accommodate 525 pupils, and other schools are in a similar situation. Wisewood Community Primary School, 1.5 miles from the application site, has a capacity of 210 pupils and has 189 enrolled pupils. It is therefore clear that there will continue to be capacity issues for primary and secondary schools in the area in the future, which may be exacerbated by this residential development.
The CIL and Planning Obligations SPD states that at least 500 or more dwellings must be developed in order to receive section 106 education contributions, however the number of dwellings in the development is much lower than the threshold and in order to address the educational issues associated with the development, other solutions such as CIL are required.
3.3.2 Residential Amenity Issues
The CS44 Core Strategypolicycallsfor theestablishmentofprimaryhealthcentresinareaswhere local needs have changed somewhat or continue to grow to correspond to existing medical problems.
However, due to the insufficientnumberof dwellings, this developmentis not eligiblefor section 106 education contributions, so CIL and other subsidies become a source of health facility construction, which may increase the financial burden on the local community.
8
Local residentsand the NHS Trust believe thatthe current healthfacilitiesdonot adequatelymeet the demands of residents, which could be exacerbated if the development is permitted.
3.3.3 Job and Employment Issues
In accordance with Policy CS14, the Council will need to work with partners and relevant stakeholdersto focus investmentontransport.It shouldprovide people withbetter accessibilityto public sector services, retail,health and leisure, employment and so on. However, in the officer report document, this site is missingmajor transport links in terms of accessibility for people to work, and retailoutlets.Therefore,theproposeddevelopmentof thissitemight be not sustainable, being not conducive to employee development.
3.3.4 Parking Issues
Policy H14(d) states that development must be able to be built without endangering the safety of pedestrians and that appropriate on-street parking can be provided. However, it isknown fromtheofficerreportdocumentthatthereisa narrowcarriagewayhereafter access from Towngate Road and that on-street parking would make pedestriansafety even more insecure. It is therefore proposed to create a car park on the adjacent grassed area, however this grassed area is not sustainable and therefore a dedicated car park cannot be created.
This resubmissionhasalluredaconsequentialnumberof representationswhichareresponsiblefor raising highways-associated concerns:
● Due to insufficient local amenities and inadequate bus services, an incremental 130 vehicle movements will be forced into the local highway network.
● Access through a narrowroadwhere on-streetparkingwould pose congestion. Trafficvolume will jeopardise the safety of juveniles walking to and from Bradfield School.
● Towngate Road serves as a racetrack.It is utilisedby a significantnumber of vehicles.Given the on-street parking, it is unsafe which reflects overdevelopment of the site.
3.4 Reason 4: Access and its effect on the neighbourhood
The public roads and access roads of the development site have the following problems.The anticipated access road will be 7-metres in width for the initial 10-metre length, before getting reduced by 2 pathways provided on both sides of the road. The entrance road narrows to go past the farmhouse, however, this narrowing is approximately 28 to 30 metres into the property. 'Narrowings' or 'pinch-points' with incoming traffic give-way indications are a frequent traffic calmingmethodthat may be found on considerablybusier roads thanthe projectlocation,such as Fraser Road in Woodseats and Richmond Park Road. For 25 mph, the stopping sight distance is 37 metres.Sucha sight-linetoTowngateRoadfromthepotentialentrantsisunlikelytobefeasible.
3.4.1. Increased traffic volume and lack of public transport
The biggest problem with transportationisthat the existingroad network is alreadysaturated and cannot handle the additional development needs of 67 households. During busy hours, roads
9
aroundthe mainroad,HaggstonesRoad, are congested.CommutertrafficwillincreaseonWorrall Rdand Loxley Rdto downtownas driverstrytoavoidthecity'scongestedareas.The trafficsurvey of the presented traffic specificationis conducted mainly during normal times, not during peak hours, so there is a possibilitythat the calculation of the results may be inaccurate. If you use Worrall Rd to drive from Bradfieldto SheffieldStation,it usually takes 25 minutes and the peak time is about 40 minutes.
The lack of public transport services around the site makes it difficult to accommodate new developments. An accessible stop is on Haggstones Road, close to the junction with Towngate Road. The route from the developmentsiteto the bus stationis unsafe. There is a need to increase safety and convenience for routes from the site to the bus stop close to the junction of Wilshaw Road and Haggstone Road. Currently, it has been decided to abolish bus route 57, but we are confirming additional demand for bus use.
3.4.2. Narrow roads and lack of pedestrian safety
Most of Towngate Road, the mainconnectingroad of the development,is a single driveway and is parkedby residents,makingitdangerousfor carsto pass each other.It is expectedthatthe safety risk will increase with heavy-duty vehicles during construction.Towngate Road and Haggstones Road have safetyconcerns,especiallyinbadweather (where cars are blockedby snowand ice).If possible, the addition of Wilshaw Road site access would be an alternative from a safety and capacity standpoint.A passage between WalshawRoads 39 and 46 is consideredfeasible.From a pedestrianstandpoint, there is a sidewalkon only one side of Towngate Road, which is used a lot for children'scommuting or for access to amenities.If development is added, there appears to be an increasedriskto pedestriansafetyandlossof parkingspaces forlocalresidentsdueto increased vehicles and insufficient sidewalks.
10
Figure 4. Map of nearby roads and stops - Red: Narrow and one way footway on Towngate Road, Yellow: Need to access to Walshaw Road
3.5 Reason 5: Ecology and drainage
3.5.1 Ecology and green network
3.5.1.1 Threats on wild habitat
According to the 2021 Ecological Impact Assessment report, the development has made some mitigation for the negative impacts of hedgehogs, but reveals four expired protected species licences for pipistrelleandno mention of badgers seen by residentsin the report. The demolition of the barn and farmland would destroythe character of the village and have no positive impact on the habitat of the birds and bats.It is contrary to policyCS74 which states that the city should develop whilst maintaining its unique character,including its green network, important habitats, waterways and woodlands.
Section 174 in NPPF refers to planning decisions that should contributeto the local environment and provide a biologicalnet benefit.In thisintensivedevelopment,importantwildlifehabitatsare irreversibly damaged.
In itscurrent situation,the developmentfails to safeguardand improvethe biologicalvalue of the site. In view of the intensive development form of the site, the overall arrangement will be unfavourable to the net benefit.
3.5.1.2 Harm to the surrounding green network
The GE 15 of UDP mentionsthatmature treesand hedges should be retainedas muchas possible, and the lost trees should be replaced,and it is not allowed to destroythe developmentof existing mature and ancient forest land. But by research the back garden of the four-bedroom house in design looks verysmall,some areas of the gardenare veryclose to the treesthat are at the edge of the site, which will cause shading problems and may need to be removed.
The GE11 pointedoutthatthegovernmentshouldsupportandstrengthenthegoalsofwildhabitats and green networks, and eliminate the potential ecological hazards. According to the Tree ConstraintsPlan, several trees at the site boundary were tied with wire,causing girdlingdamage, which is noted in Figure 5. The safe lifespanof a wire-fencedtree is no more than 20 years. And due to the varying densities of the shrubs, there may be other invisible damage.
Development on thissite will affect the surroundingforestbelt,and althoughthe developer'splan to retain some of the trees have somewhat mitigatedthe damage, the development will adversely affect the characteristics and appearance of the ground.
11
3.5.2 Drainage
On the contrary the CS63/CS67, which requires the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) should be used in site development as much as possible,particularlyinrural areas,FRA has determined thatthe SuDSis not applicabletobeusedinthisarea.The mainlocalfloodauthorityalsoindicated thatSuDSwouldbe hinderedbysurfaceinfiltrationconditions,siteslopeandlackofwatercourses.
The Yorkshire WaterServicesreportedthatSection185of the WaterIndustry Act 1991 statesthat no buildings or other obstacles shall be placed within 6 metres of the centreline of a mains water pipe. However, a hydraulic main crosses the border line and its existence can affect the arrangement of the site. The underground part of the project would therefore need to be diverted or closedto the mainsto achieve the requiredseparationdistance,and the applicantsshould apply to the local planning authority and bear the cost of reconstruction at their own expense.
And according to the report, water discharged into the public sewer needs to be disposed of properlyand surfacewater discharge shouldbe reduced by at least30%,otherwise the application cannot be accepted.
3.6 Reason 6: Housing density
3.6.1 Five-year Housing supply and tilted balance
Sheffield City Council lacks a five-year supply of deliverable housing, with evidence of a fouryear delivery supply from 2021-2026 accordingto an official report.The Local Plan policies are consideredto be out-of-dateandthe 'tiltbalance'of Paragraph11 of the Frameworkis engaged. In these circumstances, planning approval should be granted unless there are unfavourable effects
12
Figure5 . Boundary of the site(source:Sheffield City Council Tree survey, 2021)
that significantlyand demonstrablyoutweigh the benefits and showcase its noncompliance with the policies of the framework as a whole.
As the tilted balance is applied, it is noted that the benefits of this revised planning application would be significantly and demonstrablyoutweighed by the harm identified,as assessed above alongside with housing density discussed below.
3.6.2 Housing Density Issues
Withregardto density,the submittedlayoutwith33.5dwellingsper hectare adherestothe density requirement - as stated in Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy, being 30-50 dwellings per hectare; and thereby should be consideredpartiallycomply with the aim of Policy CS26 - ‘make efficient use of land’. Yet, the high density of the proposed development has caused adverse impacts in relation to the layout, density,amenityand biodiversityissues,and as such, has failed to comply with the aim of Policy CS26 to protect the local character and support balanced communities.
Fail to ensure adequate amenity levels: The indicative layout demonstrates an inappropriate housing densitydevelopmentas severalhouses onlyhave smallrear amenity spaces,with regards to the size of the property.With the applicationrequestingup to 67 dwellings, the current layout should be deemed too crowded to ensure an adequate level of amenitiesfor future occupants and the neighbourhood, and not comply with UDP Policy H15.
Adverse impactsonthe nearbylistedbuildingsandmaturetrees: Thecurrentindicativedesign is considered too dense, leaving little buffer for adjacent listed buildings to breathe. The TPOprotected trees on the east side of the site would also be affected under the current indicated development layout.
13
Figure6. Indicative Site Layout (Extracted from Design and Assess Statement by DLP)
Overdevelopment: The new proposal, which keeps the farmhouse, will further constrict the development, leaving no room for expansion in front of the farmhouse, and as such violates Policies CS26 and UDP H15.
3.7 Other considerations
3.7.1 Lack of privacy
The project's layout was deemed inappropriate due to the negative impact it would have on residential amenities.Due to the site's topography, there is a lack of seclusion; the loss of green space alsocontributestoa substantiallossof privacy.As for the site'sslopingterrain,theproposed home size, height, and placementare unsuitable.Because of the close proximityof the dwellings as well as the insufficient space between them, the residents' privacy might be compromised. Because of the project's topography, apartment buildings may be overpowering.
3.7.2 Daylight factor
The dwellings would be squeezed together with small passings between properties hence having less natural light inside, resulting in more use of electricity which will lead to additional consumption of resources.
14
4 Overall Planning Balance
The application seeks outline permissionfor up to 67 dwellings with all matters reserved except access. However, supportinginformationhas shown that thereare materialconsiderationsforthis planning application to be refused.
The proposal will provide up to 67 dwellings whilst the SheffieldCity Council failsto establisha five-yearhousing land supply. Withtiltedbalanceengaged, allother considerationsinrelationsto the proposed development shouldindicate no significant or adverse impacts that would outweigh the presumptioninfavour of sustainabledevelopmentasstatedinthe Frameworksection 2,which the proposal failed to do so.
The development would resultin significantlong-lastingharmto the character and appearance and a lossof heritagevalue of the area andwider countryside.Listedbuildings,localheritageand other potentialheritage assets around the site would be damaged,which is against the policies of CS, UDP and NPPF. As the existingbarn is locally listed, demolishingthe barn for 67 dwellings will lead to unacceptableirreversibledestructionon the historicalcharacterand view of this nondesignatedarea,which is againstParagraph203of NPPF and thedevelopmentplan,and therefore, should attach substantial weight to this harm.
The development would have a negative impact on the ecological value of the area. The habitat of animalsin this area will be damaged.The applicant’smitigationmeasuresmay have a positive effect on the habitat of hedgehogs, but limited information has been presented to clarify the magnitudeofsuchgainandthe proposalcannotoffsetthelossofotheranimalsaswell,and thereby the proposalwillnotbe conducivetothe netbenefitsofbiodiversity,whichrunsagainst NPPF174. The applicantretainssome treesprotectedbyTPO, but trees involvedin shadingstillface the risk of being cut down. The trees at the site boundary will suffer girdlingdamage, which will reduce theirlifespan,and as such violatesGE11/GE15 of UDP. This should,therefore,attacha moderate weight.
Apart from the loss of ecologicalvalue and landscapecharacter,there would also be unacceptable impacts on neighbouringproperties as well as the livingenvironment for existingand future residents – in relations to layout, density, residential amenity, biodiversityand drainage issues, but as that could be resolvedby the imposition of suitable conditions, limitedweight should be weighed on this.
It should be acknowledged that the creation of 67 dwellings would bring several economic and social benefits - contribution to the council’s housing supply and some short-term economic benefitsduring constructionand a minimalamount of support for neighbourhoodservices. While these factors weigh in favour of the proposal, they provide only minor benefits and are significantly outweighed by the harm, as discussed above.
15
5 Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it should be concluded that the adverse impacts of allowing this appealproposal of67 dwellingswould significantlyanddemonstrablyoutweighthebenefitswhen assessedagainstthe policiesof the Frameworkas a whole.The proposal shouldnot be considered to be sustainable in both social and environmental aspects and as such fail to accord with the national and local policies. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
16
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2021). National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planningpolicy-framework--2 (Accessed: 1 December 2021).
Sheffield City Council (1998). Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/planning-development/sheffield-plan (Accessed: 29 November 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2009). Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy. Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/planning-development/sheffield-plan (Accessed: 2 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2021). Consultee Comment by Yorkshire water. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 2 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2021). Ecology documentation. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 28 November 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2021).Flood risk assessment. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 3 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2022). Heritage Statement. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 2 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2022). Officer Reports. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 1 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2022). Planning Statement. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 4 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2021).Tree survey, ”Wfw 02 tree constraints plan”. Available at: https: planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage (Accessed: 5 December 2022).
Sheffield City Council (2022). South Yorkshire Local Heritage List. Available at: https://localheritage-list.org.uk/south-yorkshire/map (Accessed: 3 December 2021).
17
Reference
