What The New Local Plan Consultation Means
At a full meeting of Sheffield City Council on 5 November 2025, it was confirmed that there would be an extra round of Local Plan consultation. This is because many key documents were submitted too late to be properly considered in the main consultation that ended in July.
This gives residents a fresh chance to comment on documents that may influence whether the S13 Green Belt sites (SES29 and SES30) are added to the plan.
Below is an explanation of what this consultation is, where we are in the process, and why your voice matters now.
1. What Is This Consultation?
This is not a full, formal consultation. SCC have described it as a "targeted consultation".
It is an additional opportunity - requested by the Government Inspectors - for residents to comment on a set of documents that were released after the July 2025 deadline.
More than 100 relevant documents were published late, meaning no one could use them when submitting their original objections. Because of this, SCC has offered this extra window for comments, even though they are not required to.
You do not need to read everything. Focus on anything that affects your concerns or strengthens your original objection.
2. Where Are We in the Local Plan Process?
We are currently in the examination stage, where the Inspectors check whether the plan meets national requirements.
The Green Belt sites we're concerned about (SES29 and SES30) are still only proposed.
After the examination stage is complete, the next step will only happen if the Inspectors think these sites could be added to the plan. If so, SCC must run a formal six-week public consultation on any changes. This is known as the "main modifications" consultation, and it is controlled by the Inspectors.
If SES29 or SES30 appear in those modifications, residents will have another opportunity to object before the Inspectors make their final decision.
If the Inspectors eventually decide the sites are "sound", they will be added to the final Local Plan.
That's why acting now is important - because if Green Belt protection is removed later, development becomes far more likely.
3. Why Is SCC Doing This Now?
During the Local Plan hearings in September and October, the Inspectors and SCC agreed that residents should be able to review several documents that were released very late - some during the hearings and some created afterwards.
This short consultation allows the public to comment on those documents.
4. Do I Need to Comment?
Yes. Please comment - and encourage others to do the same.
It is important to show that the community still strongly opposes removing Green Belt protection from these sites.
5. Who Do My Comments Go To?
You send your comments to Sheffield City Council.
SCC will then forward all responses to the Government Inspectors.
The Inspectors are not running this consultation. Any questions must be directed to SCC, not the Inspectors' office.
6. Which Documents Can I Comment On?
SCC has published a list of 71 new documents they are specifically inviting comments on.
We know it’s not realistic for every resident to read all of these - and you don’t need to.
You only need to comment on the ones that relate to SES29 or SES30.
To make this manageable, in the next week the group will publish:
- A simple table listing the key documents that relate to SES29 and SES30
- Plain-English summaries for each one
- Suggested wording to help you write your comment
You may comment on any of the new documents - but your comment must reference at least one of them for the Inspectors to count it as a response to this consultation.
In simple terms: If you have a point to make, say it - just link it to one of the new EXAM documents we will give you.
7. Who Selected the 71 Documents?
SCC decided which documents to include. They have not explained their selection criteria, and some recent documents are not listed. We are seeking clarification, but given the time pressure, we will work with what is available.
8. Will the S13 Group Be Providing Help?
Yes.
We are working with our planning advisors to prepare a community response, and we are looking into obtaining a legal "Opinion" from our barrister (subject to funds).
We will:
- Provide an easy-to-follow table of documents, links and summaries
- Offer guidance on how to write your own comments
We do not have time for drop-ins, but if a short online Q&A session would help, please let us know - we may be able to arrange a Teams call or an informal meeting.
9. How to Submit Your Comments
Email: sheffieldplan@sheffield.gov.uk
Post:
Strategic Planning Team
Planning Services
5th Floor
Howden House
Sheffield
S1 2SH
Deadline: 5pm, Thursday 11 December.
Please make sure you:
- Mention which document you are commenting on
- Include the document's "EXAM" reference number (from our table)
10. Examples
Here's some initial examples of how you can link these new documents to your new objection.
A. Bramley Common Capacity Error
For instance, EXAM 180 sets out the number of houses planned for the Bramley site (SES30).
But it doesn't take into account many major constraints, including:
- Veteran and notable trees
- Hedgerows
- Flood-risk zones
- Extensive footpaths and Public Rights of Way
- Former mining areas
- Wildlife corridors and habitats
- Watercourses
- Archaeological features
So a valid response might look like:
"The allocation of SES30 is unsound because EXAM 180 does not accurately reflect the true deliverable number of houses on this site. It fails to consider key constraints including mature trees, hedgerows, flood-risk areas, the extensive footpaths on the site including public rights of way both existing and proposed, mining legacy features, wildlife corridors, watercourses and known archaeological remains."
This is all you need to do: make your point, and link it to the new document. Short responses still count - and every comment helps.
B. Middlewood Football Ground Green Belt Deletion
Another document, EXAM 136 shows that Middlewood Football Ground is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt.
Removing land like this from the Green Belt makes it more valuable and therefore potentially attractive for development.
If this concerns you, it is worth mentioning in your comments, like this:
"EXAM 136 shows that Middlewood Football Ground would be removed from the Green Belt. I am concerned this will increase the risk of future development on this important community space."
Again, make your point but link it to a new document.
C. Finchwell Site Access
EXAM 179 shows the proposed access arrangements for the Finchwell (SES29) site from Orgreave Lane and Highfield Spring.
The site is planned for 870 homes plus 20 hectares of industrial/employment land, which will significantly increase vehicle movements in an already congested area.
An example objection might be:
"EXAM 179 shows the proposed access to the Finchwell site (SES29), but it raises serious concerns. The access design would remove important hedgerows and green features, and it does not address the existing traffic problems on Orgreave Lane and Highfield Spring. These roads already struggle with congestion from nearby Waverley, as the promised Waverley Link Road was never delivered. Adding 870 homes and 20 hectares of industrial land without proper infrastructure is unacceptable and will make current problems worse."
D. Bramley Common Site Access
Similarly, EXAM 168 shows a "conceptual" plan for the Bramley site (SES30).
Take a look - there are many issues with this plan, including:
- The total plot areas shown (27.4 ha) is not enough space for the houses, school and burial ground (32.6 hectares). Where would everything go?
- All access for 827 homes, the school and the burial ground is shown via Beaver Hill Road - an unworkable and unsafe arrangement that would worsen congestion and road safety.
- Access to the "top field" via Beaver Avenue is shown, but this is completely unfeasible.
- The northern Beaver Hill Road access is located just beyond a blind crest, creating a dangerous junction.
- The plan does not show the extensive footpaths and Public Rights of Way on the site, both existing and proposed.
- No buffer zone is provided to protect Shirtcliffe Woods, despite this being required by planning and environmental policy.
- The plan shows no buffer zones for the important hedgerows or for the veteran and notable trees known to be on the site
- Land in the top-left corner of the plan should not be inside the red-line boundary at all - it not owned by the Council.
Add any others you notice - they all help strengthen your response. An example is below:
"EXAM 136 shows a conceptual layout for SES30, but it contains serious errors and omissions. The plan does not include space for the school or burial ground, relies entirely on unsafe access from Beaver Hill Road, ignores the extensive footpaths and Public Rights of Way on the site, both existing and proposed, and fails to provide the required buffer to Shirtcliffe Woods. Because of these issues, EXAM 136 is not a credible or realistic basis for allocating SES30. The site cannot deliver the development the Council claims."
E. Linking multiple documents together
You can also link together multiple documents in the same representation.
For example, the access arrangements for both the Finchwell (SES 29) and Bramley Common (SES 30) sites, shown in EXAM 168 and EXAM 179, will put significant additional traffic onto Retford Road between Rotherham Road and Beaver Hill Road.
The recent temporary traffic lights on this section of road have already demonstrated how vulnerable this road is to delays and congestion.
So, you could write something like:
"Taken together, EXAM 168 and EXAM 179 show that the proposed access points for SES29 and SES30 will both funnel large volumes of additional traffic onto Retford Road. This road already experiences significant delays, and the recent temporary traffic lights showed how quickly queues build up even with minor disruption. The combined impact of these two sites has not been properly assessed, and I am concerned that the Local Plan underestimates the congestion and road safety issues this will create."
If you have photos of the queues or congestion on this stretch of road - include them in your comments.
As mentioned above, we will be supplying more, as soon as possible. Watch out for website updates, or subscribe to the email list to be kept upto date.