Affordable Housing in the Wrong Place

At the Full Council meeting in February 2026, Council Leader Tom Hunt defended the Local Plan in terms of affordable housing:

The Local Plan is also critical for providing new affordable homes... Under the Council's 'Golden Rules', on former green belt land the requirement will be that even more affordable housing will be delivered. More affordable housing is a key priority for the Council, and I will push for the number of affordable homes on each site to be as high as possible.

Cllr Hunt is right that Green Belt release under the Council's Golden Rules is a powerful mechanism for delivering affordable homes. The problem is not whether these sites produce affordable housing. The problem is where that housing is being delivered.

The Council’s own evidence shows a striking disconnect between what the city needs and what the Plan delivers.

That data, submitted as part of the Local Plan examination, shows the highest concentrations of affordable housing need are in the West of Sheffield. But the largest Green Belt releases - and the largest affordable housing gains that come with them - are being pushed to the South East and Chapeltown & Ecclesfield Housing Market Areas (HMAs), where need is much lower.

The Council’s 2024 Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) shows not only how much affordable housing is needed, but also where it is needed across the city. It does this using a measure called "affordable housing need density" - the number of affordable homes required per 1,000 existing households - which allows areas of different sizes to be compared fairly.

On that measure, the imbalance is hard to ignore:

Source: EXAM 66 (LHNA 2024), Table 2.16.

In other words: the South West has nearly three times the level of need of the South East, and more than two and a half times that of Chapeltown & Ecclesfield - yet the Plan directs its largest affordable housing gains to those lower-need areas.

Where Sheffield's affordable housing need is greatest

Across Sheffield as a whole, the need is 2,032 affordable homes a year. But that need is not spread evenly across the city.

On the Council's own figures, the sub-areas of Sheffield with the highest affordable housing need are the South West (15.91), and the Urban West (14.06) affordable homes needed each year per 1,000 existing households. The Urban West and South West together require 878 affordable homes a year - more than 43% of Sheffield's total - with the Urban West alone accounting for 572 of those.

Now compare that with the areas receiving the largest Green Belt releases. The South East has a need density of just 5.50, below the city average of 8.76. Chapeltown & Ecclesfield is also far lower than the South West at 6.13.

This analysis focuses on the three HMAs receiving the largest Green Belt releases: SES29, SES30 and SS19 in the South East; CH05, NES37, NES38 and NES39 in Chapeltown & Ecclesfield; and SWS18 and SWS19 in the South West. The Urban West receives no Green Belt allocations at all.

The table below shows the key data side by side: where need is highest, where Green Belt homes are going, and how many affordable homes those Green Belt sites will produce.

Source: EXAM 66, Tables 2.5, 2.13, 2.15 and 2.16 (need, relets and income gap); EXAM 140, Table 3 (Green Belt homes by allocation); EXAM 187, Table 1 and site-specific tenure tables (affordable housing rates and policy-plus).

So the Council's own evidence shows the greatest affordable housing pressure is in the West, not in the HMAs now receiving the largest Green Belt releases. The South West has the highest need of the three Green Belt HMAs considered here, while the Urban West - with the city's second-highest need density - receives no Green Belt allocation at all.

Where the Council is directing most of its Green Belt affordable housing

Green Belt release is not just another source of housing numbers. Under the Council’s “Golden Rules”, former Green Belt sites are required to deliver higher levels of affordable housing than standard allocations - typically 30%, rising to 40% on NES37, SWS18 and SWS19, and 50% on SES30. That makes Green Belt release the Council’s strongest way of delivering new affordable homes.

So where are those homes actually being delivered? The answer is stark. The South East receives around 746 affordable homes from Green Belt release. Chapeltown & Ecclesfield receives around 509. The South West, despite having the greatest need of the three HMAs, receives just 136.

Source: EXAM 187, Table 1 (affordable rates by site); EXAM 140, Table 3 (homes by site and area); EXAM 66, Table 2.16 (need density). Affordable totals calculated by applying EXAM 187 rates to site capacities, using the LHNA Housing Market Areas verified from EXAM 130.

The Council says affordable housing is a key priority. But the Council's own figures show its most powerful affordable housing mechanism is being concentrated in areas of lower need, while the highest-need areas receive much less of that benefit.

What the Golden Rules are meant to fix

The LHNA also looks at the "income gap" - the difference between what households need to earn to buy a home and what they actually earn. In the South West, that gap is £28,075. A household that can afford to rent is locked out of ownership by a gap nearly six times the city average of £4,625. In the South East, the same gap is just £2,025, and in Chapeltown & Ecclesfield it is only £2,850.

The income gap also shows who these homes are meant for. Under the Golden Rules, a significant share of affordable homes on former Green Belt land will be "affordable homeownership": shared ownership, First Homes, discounted market sale. These are specifically designed to help people who can afford to rent but cannot afford to buy. The LHNA quantifies exactly this group: in the South West, 140 households per year fall into this category - 46% of the area's total affordable need. In the South East, it is just 21 households per year - 9%. In Chapeltown & Ecclesfield, it is only 13 households per year - 14%.

Source: EXAM 66, Table 2.5 (income gap by sub-area), Table 2.15 (affordable need split by affordability group)

The Council's strongest tool for closing the rent-to-buy gap is being concentrated in the area where that gap barely exists.

Source: EXAM 66, Tables 2.5, 2.13, 2.15 and 2.16

Is this simply where development is easiest?

The Council may argue that these locations are not chosen because of need, but because they are the most deliverable: close to major roads, on the edge of the urban area, and capable of accommodating large-scale growth as part of the Plan’s wider spatial strategy.

That may explain why these sites have been selected. But it does not resolve the core issue: if affordable housing delivery is a key justification for releasing Green Belt, then the spatial distribution of that housing must relate to where need is greatest. Otherwise, the Plan is using affordable housing to justify Green Belt release, while directing the resulting homes to areas where that need is lower.

This is not a question of whether development can take place in the South East or Chapeltown & Ecclesfield. It is a question of whether the scale and concentration of Green Belt release - and the affordable housing it delivers - is aligned with the Council’s own evidence about affordable housing need.

Do urban sites make up the difference?

The obvious response is that Green Belt is not the only source of affordable housing. The South West also has urban allocations, and under Policy NC3 of the proposed Main Modifications, it sits in the 30% affordable housing zone for urban sites - a higher requirement than the South East's 10%.

But this reinforces our point. Despite a higher urban affordable rate, the South West still falls well behind the South East in total affordable housing delivery - because Green Belt is where the real numbers come from, and almost all of it is being sent elsewhere.

The South West's 957 urban homes at 30% produce around 287 affordable homes. Add 136 from Green Belt: roughly 423 total over the entire 17-year plan. The South East's 1,451 urban homes at 10% produce around 145 - but with around 746 from Green Belt, its total reaches roughly 891.

The South East ends up with more than double the affordable housing delivery of the South West, despite having lower need. The higher urban rate in the South West cannot compensate for the scale of Green Belt affordable housing being directed to the South East. It is the Green Belt distribution - not the urban policy - that is driving the imbalance.

This raises the question: if the Council recognises through its own Policy NC3 that the South West needs a higher affordable housing requirement, why is it then directing its strongest affordable delivery mechanism - Green Belt under the Golden Rules - overwhelmingly to areas where it sets a lower requirement?

Source: Policy NC3, Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications (MM127/128); EXAM 140 area breakdown; EXAM 187 Table 1; EXAM 66 Table 2.16

What this means for S13

This citywide imbalance lands hardest in S13, where three Green Belt allocations fall within the South East HMA: Handsworth Hall Farm (SES29), Bramley Common / Beaver Hill Road (SES30) and Land south of White Lane (SS19). Together, they account for 1,907 Green Belt homes and around 746 affordable homes from Green Belt release.

SES30 alone is expected to deliver 434 affordable homes at 50%. That is more affordable housing from one site than the entire South West receives from all of its Green Belt allocations combined.

In other words, one of the biggest concentrations of Green Belt release in Sheffield is being imposed on HMAs where affordable housing need is well below that of the South West, while the area with the strongest evidence of unmet need is left with far less.

The question councillors now have to answer

To release Green Belt, the Council must show exceptional circumstances. That is not just a question of how many homes can be produced. It is also a question of whether the strategy matches the Council's own evidence.

If affordable housing is one of the main justifications for releasing Green Belt, why is the Council directing its biggest affordable housing gains away from the areas that need them most?

The Council cannot have it both ways. It cannot tell us that Green Belt release is needed to deliver "even more" affordable housing, then concentrate its largest affordable housing gains in the places where need is lower. This is not a minor inconsistency. It goes to the heart of whether their chosen spatial strategy is justified.

Cllr Hunt says he wants a fairer city. But the spatial pattern of this Plan does the opposite with respect to affordable housing. The Council's own Policy NC3 recognises that different parts of Sheffield face different levels of affordable housing pressure - that is why it sets higher affordable requirements in the South West and lower ones in the South East.

But the Plan's Green Belt strategy works in the opposite direction, sending the largest affordable housing gains to lower-need areas. The net effect is a plan that widens the gap between the parts of the city that can afford to buy and the parts that cannot - locking the geography of disadvantage in place for a generation.

If Green Belt release will provide "even more" affordable homes, why is the Council directing around 1,255 of them to the lower-need South East and Chapeltown & Ecclesfield, while the South West receives just 136 and the Urban West none at all?