Search: Clear

These comments relate to the consultation on the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan, which ran for nine weeks from 2 March to 5 May 2026. The Main Modifications are the changes proposed by the appointed Planning Inspectors to make the Plan sound and legally compliant.

Please note that comments received through the Have Your Say Sheffield consultation portal are included within this database. Comments received by letter and email can be found using the hyperlink to the representation.

Hyperlink to more details on the consultation and the documents

ABCDEFGHIJKLM
1Representation ReferenceDate of RepresentationRepresentor NameType of RepresentationRepresentor Organisation (where applicable)Is the Representation on behalf of another organisation?Which document to you wish to make a representation on?If you are commenting on a modification, what is the modification reference number?Hyperlink to representationRepresentations received through Have Your Say Sheffield only: Do you consider the proposed modification or document that you are commenting on to be legally compliant?Representations received through Have Your Say Sheffield only: Do you consider the proposed modification or document that you are commenting onto be sound?Representations received through Have Your Say Sheffield only: Please give details of why you consider the proposed modification or document that you are commenting on is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the document or proposed modification, please also use this box to set out your comments.Representations received through Have Your Say Sheffield only: Please set out the change(s) you consider necessary to make the proposed modification or document legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified above. You will need to say why each change will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
2 REF5.0001 02/03/2026 Simon Jones Email National Highways Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM478 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
3 REF5.0002 02/03/2026 Vanessa Mammone Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
4 REF5.0003 03/03/2026 Jonathan Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
5 REF5.0004 03/03/2026 Matthew Clarke Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM440 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
6 REF5.0005 05/03/2026 Adrian Robinson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM227 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
7 REF5.0006 05/03/2026 Eve Thompson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM440 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
8 REF5.0007 05/03/2026 Heather & Keith Firth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
9 REF5.0008 05/03/2026 Heather & Keith Firth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
10 REF5.0009 06/03/2026 Jim Gillies Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
11 REF5.0010 09/03/2026 Not specified Email Exolum Team Fischer German Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM440 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
12 REF5.0011 10/03/2026 David Barton Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
13 REF5.0012 11/03/2026 Thomas Cox Email Cemex Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM122 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
14 REF5.0013 11/03/2026 Matthew Sieczkarek Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM331, MM332, MM350, MM351, MM352, MM353, MM459, MM460, MM461 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
15 REF5.0014 13/03/2026 Anne Marples Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
16 REF5.0015 17/03/2026 Chris Bell Email Don Valley Railway Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM9, MM60, MM61, MM94, MM101, MM102 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
17 REF5.0016 19/03/2026 Tony Wallace Email CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
18 REF5.0017 23/03/2026 Ruth Beeley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM135, MM127 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
19 REF5.0018 23/03/2026 Steven Turner Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
20 REF5.0019 23/03/2026 J Carr Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
21 REF5.0020 23/03/2026 Marie Larkin Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
22 REF5.0021 23/03/2026 Karen McGowan Email Councillor Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
23 REF5.0022 24/03/2026 Tim & Cathy Crome Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
24 REF5.0023 24/03/2026 Chris Gaylor Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
25 REF5.0024 26/03/2026 Mandy Loach Email Trans Pennine Trail National Office and the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
26 REF5.0025 26/03/2026 Mark Howard Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
27 REF5.0026 27/03/2026 Angie Fenton Email British Land PLC Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM354, MM355 , MM356, MM357, MM185, Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
28 REF5.0027 31/03/2026 Mark Corrigan Email British Horse Society Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
29 REF5.0028 31/03/2026 Jennifer Gittins Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Habitats Regulations Assessment MM440 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
30 REF5.0029 24/03/2026 S Maloney Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
31 REF5.0030 01/04/2026 Jean Needham Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
32 REF5.0031 03/04/2026 Jonathan Robinson Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
33 REF5.0032 04/04/2026 Caroline Knight Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
34 REF5.0033 05/04/2026 Rebecca Childs Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
35 REF5.0034 06/04/2026 Clair Longbottom Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
36 REF5.0035 06/04/2026 Linda Scott Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM441 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
37 REF5.0036 08/04/2026 Rebecca Broxholme Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
38 REF5.0037 09/04/2026 Jenna Cain Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
39 REF5.0038 11/04/2026 Ann Lyons Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
40 REF5.0039 11/04/2026 Arthur Lyons Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
41 REF5.0040 11/04/2026 Sharon Childs Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
42 REF5.0041 11/04/2026 Jennifer Gittins Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
43 REF5.0042 11/04/2026 Vincent & Pauline Green Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
44 REF5.0043 12/04/2026 Keith Myers Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
45 REF5.0044 13/04/2026 James Martin Email Sheffield Access Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM129, MM139, MM147, MM464, MM465, MM199, MM204, MM206, MM212 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
46 REF5.0045 13/04/2026 Julie Dowkes Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
47 REF5.0046 14/04/2026 Rory Webster Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
48 REF5.0047 15/04/2026 Lisa Porter Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Policies Map MM411, MM408 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
49 REF5.0048 15/04/2026 Lucy Shuttleworth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
50 REF5.0049 15/04/2026 Stevie Collins Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
51 REF5.0050 15/04/2026 Abigail Shepherd Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0001 - REF5.0050
52 REF5.0051 15/04/2026 Angela Burdon Bailey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
53 REF5.0052 15/04/2026 Sarah Hartwell Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
54 REF5.0053 16/04/2026 Elen Squires Email Natural England Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
55 REF5.0054 15/04/2026 Duncan Bailey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
56 REF5.0055 16/04/2026 Rebeecca White Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
57 REF5.0056 18/04/2026 James Tibbles Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
58 REF5.0057 18/04/2026 Paul Ibberson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
59 REF5.0058 18/04/2026 Louise Tribe Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
60 REF5.0059 18/04/2026 Sue Bolsover Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
61 REF5.0060 18/04/2026 Alice Green Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
62 REF5.0061 18/04/2026 Anna Bogunovic Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
63 REF5.0062 18/04/2026 Pauline & Vincent Green Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
64 REF5.0063 18/04/2026 Kim Bogunovic Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
65 REF5.0064 18/04/2026 Milan Bogunovic Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
66 REF5.0065 19/04/2026 Tracey Stafford Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
67 REF5.0066 19/04/2026 Clare Robinson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
68 REF5.0067 19/04/2026 Matthew Robinson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
69 REF5.0068 20/04/2026 Shaun Crookes Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
70 REF5.0069 20/04/2026 Amelya Mokrane Email Montagu Evans Rendall Pension scheme Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM313 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
71 REF5.0070 20/04/2026 Nick Cupit Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
72 REF5.0071 20/04/2026 Wayne Rhodes Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM69, MM85, MM89 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
73 REF5.0072 20/04/2026 Kim Rowley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
74 REF5.0073 20/04/2026 Pete Scholey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
75 REF5.0074 20/04/2026 Diane Cutts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
76 REF5.0075 21/04/2026 Phillip & Sharon Burns Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
77 REF5.0076 21/04/2026 Rosalyn & David Platts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
78 REF5.0077 21/04/2026 Andrea Platts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
79 REF5.0078 21/04/2026 L Merritt Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
80 REF5.0079 21/04/2026 Neil Cutts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
81 REF5.0080 21/04/2026 Elizabeth Scholey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
82 REF5.0081 21/04/2026 H Walton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
83 REF5.0082 21/04/2026 Lorraine Galligan Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
84 REF5.0083 21/04/2026 Noel Galligan Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
85 REF5.0084 21/04/2026 Frances Barber Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
86 REF5.0085 21/04/2026 Katie Edwards Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
87 REF5.0086 21/04/2026 Eddie Edwards Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
88 REF5.0087 21/04/2026 Annika Lynch Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
89 REF5.0088 22/04/2026 Sharron Needham Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
90 REF5.0090 22/04/2026 John Saunder Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
91 REF5.0091 22/04/2026 Jo Lewis-Middleton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
92 REF5.0092 22/04/2026 Gillian Gilbert Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
93 REF5.0093 22/04/2026 Elliott Kirk Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
94 REF5.0094 23/04/2026 Elizabeth Walton-McBain Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
95 REF5.0095 23/04/2026 Andrew Walton-McBain Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
96 REF5.0096 23/04/2026 Elaine Staite Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
97 REF5.0097 24/04/2026 Claire Allen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
98 REF5.0098 24/04/2026 Sharon Fletcher Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
99 REF5.0099 24/04/2026 Andy Patrick Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
100 REF5.0100 24/04/2026 Tracy Wilson & Carl Brocklehurst Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM224 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0051 - REF5.0100
101 REF5.0101 24/04/2026 Lee & Sarah Montgomery Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411, MM224, MM227 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
102 REF5.0102 24/04/2026 Julie Harris Email Wharncliffe Side Let's Breathe community group. Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
103 REF5.0103 24/04/2026 Michelle & Steve Dewire Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
104 REF5.0104 25/04/2026 Catherine Smith Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
105 REF5.0105 25/04/2026 Crystal Farrer Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
106 REF5.0106 25/04/2026 Abigail Staniforth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
107 REF5.0107 25/04/2026 Tracey Goulsbra Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
108 REF5.0108 25/04/2026 Richard & Jayne Hull Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
109 REF5.0109 25/04/2026 James Poore Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
110 REF5.0110 25/04/2026 Andrew Linfoot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
111 REF5.0111 26/04/2026 Susan & Michael Housley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
112 REF5.0112 26/04/2026 Jessica Doncaster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
113 REF5.0113 26/04/2026 Tony Cope Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
114 REF5.0114 26/04/2026 Diana Radford Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
115 REF5.0115 26/04/2026 Sandra Poore Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
116 REF5.0116 26/04/2026 John Bowler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
117 REF5.0117 26/04/2026 Carol Ann Bowler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
118 REF5.0118 27/04/2026 Robin Hughes Email Joined Up Heritage Sheffield Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
119 REF5.0119 27/04/2026 Ben Parkes Email Savills Norfolk Estates Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM68, MM127, MM128, MM410 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
120 REF5.0120 27/04/2026 Gary Johns Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
121 REF5.0121 27/04/2026 Brian Parkin Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
122 REF5.0122 27/04/2026 Chelsea Herring Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
123 REF5.0123 27/04/2026 Helen Doncaster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
124 REF5.0124 27/04/2026 Deborah Hitchen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
125 REF5.0125 27/04/2026 Shannon Linfoot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
126 REF5.0126 27/04/2026 Sarah Johns Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
127 REF5.0127 28/04/2026 Roger Hardwick Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
128 REF5.0128 28/04/2026 Nik Reeves-McLaren Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
129 REF5.0129 28/04/2026 Penny Miller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
130 REF5.0130 28/04/2026 Mahmood Azam Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
131 REF5.0131 28/04/2026 Paul Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
132 REF5.0132 28/04/2026 Adam Shephard Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
133 REF5.0133 28/04/2026 Pauline & Vincent Green Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM227, MM224 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
134 REF5.0134 28/04/2026 Ian Pearson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM351 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
135 REF5.0135 28/04/2026 Beshara Wad Ismail Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
136 REF5.0136 28/04/2026 Barbara Parkin Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
137 REF5.0137 28/04/2026 Alyson Fender Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
138 REF5.0138 28/04/2026 Kathryn Currey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
139 REF5.0139 28/04/2026 Amy James Email Tetlow King Planning and PlanD Hallam Land Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM10, MM90, MM91, MM98, MM8, MM103 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
140 REF5.0140 28/04/2026 Christina A Stark Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
141 REF5.0141 28/04/2026 Gillian Hall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
142 REF5.0142 28/04/2026 Meesha Elliott Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
143 REF5.0143 28/04/2026 Linda Dickinson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
144 REF5.0144 28/04/2026 Peter Jackson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM440 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
145 REF5.0145 28/04/2026 Amber Hotchen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
146 REF5.0146 28/04/2026 Charlie Hotchen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
147 REF5.0147 28/04/2026 Helen Roach Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
148 REF5.0148 28/04/2026 Emily Bowler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
149 REF5.0149 28/04/2026 Kevin Kelly Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
150 REF5.0150 28/04/2026 Becky Hurst Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00101 - REF5.0150
151 REF5.0151 28/04/2026 Tom Lacey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
152 REF5.0152 28/04/2026 Hazel Hill Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
153 REF5.0153 28/04/2026 Danielle Marsh Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
154 REF5.0154 28/04/2026 Ruth Price Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM7, MM77, M332, MM322 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
155 REF5.0155 28/04/2026 Amber Hotchen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
156 REF5.0156 28/04/2026 Ryan Sylvester Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
157 REF5.0157 28/04/2026 Bryan Price Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM7, MM77, M332, MM322 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
158 REF5.0158 28/04/2026 Lily Locking Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
159 REF5.0159 28/04/2026 Mary Bennett Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
160 REF5.0160 28/04/2026 Leah Walker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
161 REF5.0161 28/04/2026 Geoff Bennett Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
162 REF5.0162 28/04/2026 Claire Beckingham Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
163 REF5.0163 28/04/2026 Rachel Bailey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
164 REF5.0164 28/04/2026 Jim Hobson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
165 REF5.0165 29/04/2026 Laura Dean Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
166 REF5.0166 29/04/2026 Sarah Crookes Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
167 REF5.0167 29/04/2026 Carole Simpson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
168 REF5.0168 29/04/2026 Sean McDaid Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
169 REF5.0169 29/04/2026 Michael Naylor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
170 REF5.0170 29/04/2026 B & G Dyche Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
171 REF5.0171 29/04/2026 Linda Tibbles Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
172 REF5.0172 29/04/2026 Alex Tibbles Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
173 REF5.0173 29/04/2026 Margaret & Maxwell Lea Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications M332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
174 REF5.0174 29/04/2026 William Ward Email Woodland Trust Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
175 REF5.0175 29/04/2026 Elizabeth Sadiq Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM352 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
176 REF5.0176 29/04/2026 Michael Rowley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
177 REF5.0177 29/04/2026 Paul Taylor Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
178 REF5.0178 29/04/2026 Paul Bridges Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
179 REF5.0179 29/04/2026 Rosayln & David Platts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
180 REF5.0180 29/04/2026 Andrea Platts Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
181 REF5.0181 29/04/2026 Alice Wright Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
182 REF5.0182 29/04/2026 Hannah Wright Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
183 REF5.0183 30/04/2026 Jonathan Hobson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
184 REF5.0184 30/04/2026 Kate Hobson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
185 REF5.0185 30/04/2026 Nicola Bates Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
186 REF5.0186 30/04/2026 Chris Martin Email Home Builders Federation Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM83, MM87, MM92, MM108, MM112, MM113, MM119, MM127, MM129, MM186, MM188, MM217, MM221 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
187 REF5.0187 30/04/2026 Albert Whysall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM83, MM87, MM92, MM108, MM112, MM113, MM119, MM127, MM129, MM186, MM188, MM217, MM221 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
188 REF5.0188 30/04/2026 Karen Hobson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
189 REF5.0189 30/04/2026 Chris Carroll Email Sport England Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM103, MM147, MM178, MM179, MM217, MM368, MM412, MM427, MM468, MM469, MM471, MM221, MM342, MM348, MM456 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
190 REF5.0190 30/04/2026 Samantha Green Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
191 REF5.0191 30/04/2026 Kerr Atkins Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
192 REF5.0193 30/04/2026 Christopher White Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
193 REF5.0194 30/04/2026 Mr and Mrs Bailey Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
194 REF5.0195 30/04/2026 Mick Rooney Email Councillor Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
195 REF5.0196 30/04/2026 Caroline Dunn Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
196 REF5.0197 30/04/2026 Jamie Stafford Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
197 REF5.0198 30/04/2026 Cheryl Pursehouse Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
198 REF5.0199 01/05/2026 Debra Coleman Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
199 REF5.0200 01/05/2026 Rebecca Doncaster Email Not specified check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00151 - REF5.0200
200 REF5.0201 01/05/2026 Rebecca Johnston Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
201 REF5.0202 01/05/2026 Derek Hastings Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
202 REF5.0203 01/05/2026 Margaret Melluish Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
203 REF5.0204 01/05/2026 Johnrichard Auckland Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
204 REF5.0205 01/05/2026 Paul Jannaway Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
205 REF5.0206 01/05/2026 Shaun Doncaster Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
206 REF5.0207 01/05/2026 Deborah Bellamy Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
207 REF5.0208 01/05/2026 Dawn Shaw Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
208 REF5.0209 01/05/2026 R Beckett Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
209 REF5.0210 02/05/2026 Ian Taylor Email Aprica Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside Save our Green Belt Community Action Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM459, MM460, MM461, MM350, MM351, MM352, MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
210 REF5.0211 02/05/2026 Ian Taylor Email Aprica Save S13 Green Belt: The Sapphire McCarthy Campaign Group Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
211 REF5.0212 02/05/2026 Haley Spyve Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
212 REF5.0213 02/05/2026 Chris Greenwood Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
213 REF5.0214 02/05/2026 D Tomkins Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
214 REF5.0215 02/05/2026 Paul Ratcliffe Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
215 REF5.0216 02/05/2026 Teresa Loxley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
216 REF5.0217 02/05/2026 Tracy Wilson & Carl Brocklehurst Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
217 REF5.0218 02/05/2026 D & J Brocklehurst Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM227 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
218 REF5.0219 02/05/2026 Anita Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
219 REF5.0220 02/05/2026 Paul Ratcliffe Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
220 REF5.0221 02/05/2026 K Johnson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
221 REF5.0222 02/05/2026 Rebecca White Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
222 REF5.0223 02/05/2026 Isabella Gillespie Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
223 REF5.0224 03/05/2026 Nigel Dorman Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
224 REF5.0225 03/05/2026 Nigel Dorman Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
225 REF5.0226 03/05/2026 Martyn Gregory Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
226 REF5.0227 03/05/2026 Lynda Jackson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM460 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
227 REF5.0228 03/05/2026 Kerry Hicks Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
228 REF5.0229 03/05/2026 Adele Lonsdale Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
229 REF5.0230 03/05/2026 Josie Saddington Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
230 REF5.0231 03/05/2026 Kay & Peter Smith Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
231 REF5.0232 03/05/2026 Joe Dunn Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
232 REF5.0233 03/05/2026 Lee & Nicola Talbot Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
233 REF5.0234 03/05/2026 Angela Cooper Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
234 REF5.0235 03/05/2026 Godfrey Pell Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
235 REF5.0236 03/05/2026 Alison Bloodworth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
236 REF5.0237 03/05/2026 Caroline Nokes Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
237 REF5.0238 03/05/2026 Keith Boldock Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
238 REF5.0239 03/05/2026 Katie Jenkins Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
239 REF5.0240 03/05/2026 D Smith Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
240 REF5.0241 03/05/2026 Emily Dunn Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
241 REF5.0242 03/05/2026 Stephen Brough Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
242 REF5.0243 03/05/2026 Amanda Finbow Froggatt Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
243 REF5.0244 03/05/2026 Debra Dent Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
244 REF5.0245 03/05/2026 C Walton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
245 REF5.0246 03/05/2026 M Walton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
246 REF5.0247 03/05/2026 Catherine Barrass Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
247 REF5.0248 03/05/2026 Jarrod Radford Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
248 REF5.0249 03/05/2026 Bethany Cheshire Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
249 REF5.0250 03/05/2026 Helen Crowell Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00201 - REF5.0250
250 REF5.0251 03/05/2026 Kathryn Lomas Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
251 REF5.0252 03/05/2026 Matthew Pegler Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
252 REF5.0253 03/05/2026 Gary Wolstenholme Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM68 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
253 REF5.0254 03/05/2026 Email Wharncliffe Side “Let’s Breathe” Community Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
254 REF5.0255 03/05/2026 Paula Richmond Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
255 REF5.0256 03/05/2026 Alison Barfoot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
256 REF5.0257 03/05/2026 Melanie Baldock Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
257 REF5.0258 03/05/2026 L Cocker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM351 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
258 REF5.0259 03/05/2026 Karen Riley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
259 REF5.0260 03/05/2026 D Cocker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM351 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
260 REF5.0261 03/05/2026 Joanne Currie Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
261 REF5.0262 03/05/2026 C Wall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
262 REF5.0263 04/05/2026 Sadie Charlton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
263 REF5.0264 04/05/2026 Chloe Hazelby Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
264 REF5.0265 04/05/2026 Lindsey Hudson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
265 REF5.0266 04/05/2026 Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
266 REF5.0267 04/05/2026 Paul Foster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
267 REF5.0268 04/05/2026 Kevin Carter Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
268 REF5.0269 04/05/2026 Emma Lines Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
269 REF5.0270 04/05/2026 Vicky Russell Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
270 REF5.0271 04/05/2026 Mark Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
271 REF5.0272 04/05/2026 Michelle Bond Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
272 REF5.0273 04/05/2026 Derek Walton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
273 REF5.0274 04/05/2026 Anja Charlesworth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
274 REF5.0275 04/05/2026 Jennifer Poole Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
275 REF5.0276 04/05/2026 Becky Travis-Brooker Email Sheffield Green Belt Alliance Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM10, MM87, MM90-93, MM60, MM63, MM68, MM71, MM74, MM80 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
276 REF5.0277 04/05/2026 Angela Brown Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
277 REF5.0278 04/05/2026 Heather Dewick Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
278 REF5.0279 04/05/2026 Lorraine Mellor Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
279 REF5.0280 04/05/2026 Brian Trinder Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
280 REF5.0281 04/05/2026 Karen Bloom Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
281 REF5.0282 04/05/2026 Danny Allsebrook Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
282 REF5.0283 04/05/2026 Rachel Patrick Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
283 REF5.0284 04/05/2026 Brendan Gillespie Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
284 REF5.0285 04/05/2026 Calum Bond Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
285 REF5.0286 04/05/2026 Chloe Sylvester Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
286 REF5.0287 04/05/2026 P Talbot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
287 REF5.0288 04/05/2026 Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
288 REF5.0289 04/05/2026 Lauren Walker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
289 REF5.0290 04/05/2026 Mandy Robertson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
290 REF5.0291 04/05/2026 Kerry Siddall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
291 REF5.0292 04/05/2026 Katie Hardie Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
292 REF5.0293 04/05/2026 Nicola & Lee Talbot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
293 REF5.0294 04/05/2026 Irene & John Watson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
294 REF5.0295 04/05/2026 Suzanne Elliott Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
295 REF5.0296 04/05/2026 Dave Sheldon Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
296 REF5.0297 04/05/2026 Jane Childs Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
297 REF5.0298 04/05/2026 Lisa, Steven, Jordan & Zak Ives Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
298 REF5.0299 04/05/2026 Amanda Taylor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
299 REF5.0300 04/05/2026 Sarah Timmins Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00251 - REF5.0300
300 REF5.0301 04/05/2026 Ian Montgomery Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
301 REF5.0302 04/05/2026 Amber Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
302 REF5.0303 04/05/2026 Julie Goude Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
303 REF5.0304 04/05/2026 Steve Froggatt Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
304 REF5.0305 04/05/2026 Nicola Brady Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
305 REF5.0306 04/05/2026 Ryan Palmer Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
306 REF5.0307 04/05/2026 Theresa Montgomery Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
307 REF5.0308 04/05/2026 Reg Parsisson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
308 REF5.0309 04/05/2026 Kim Palmer Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
309 REF5.0310 04/05/2026 Phil Corker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
310 REF5.0311 04/05/2026 P. Nigel Brady Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
311 REF5.0312 04/05/2026 Andrew Webster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
312 REF5.0313 04/05/2026 Smelt Family Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
313 REF5.0314 04/05/2026 Sue Smelt Email Friends of Shirtcliffe Valley Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
314 REF5.0315 04/05/2026 Charlotte Pinder Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
315 REF5.0316 04/05/2026 Joanne & Ian Ward Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
316 REF5.0317 04/05/2026 Carol Simcox Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
317 REF5.0318 04/05/2026 Mr & Mrs Jackson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
318 REF5.0319 04/05/2026 Alex Radford Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
319 REF5.0320 04/05/2026 Alison Broadhead Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
320 REF5.0321 04/05/2026 Ann Thompson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
321 REF5.0322 04/05/2026 Rob Purseglove Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
322 REF5.0323 04/05/2026 Sarah Purseglove Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
323 REF5.0324 04/05/2026 Bec Nutton Email Stuart Keen Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
324 REF5.0325 04/05/2026 Denise & Alan Casbolt Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
325 REF5.0326 04/05/2026 Noelle Register Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
326 REF5.0327 04/05/2026 Mark Ash Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
327 REF5.0328 04/05/2026 Wayne Bond Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
328 REF5.0329 04/05/2026 Andrew & Olwen Robinson Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
329 REF5.0330 Michael Yates Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
330 REF5.0331 04/05/2026 Alex Hobson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
331 REF5.0332 04/05/2026 Emma Ozenbrook Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
332 REF5.0333 03/05/2026 Pamela Robinson Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
333 REF5.0334 04/05/2026 Paul Talbot Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
334 REF5.0335 04/05/2026 Nicola Ley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
335 REF5.0336 04/05/2026 Rachel Develin Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
336 REF5.0337 04/05/2026 Bec Nutton Email Andrea Smith Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM350 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
337 REF5.0338 04/05/2026 Bec Nutton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM350 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
338 REF5.0339 04/05/2026 John & Sue Warwick Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
339 REF5.0340 04/05/2026 Roxanne Myles Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
340 REF5.0341 04/05/2026 Nicola Bates Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
341 REF5.0342 04/05/2026 Emma Siddall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
342 REF5.0343 04/05/2026 Charlotte Corker Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
343 REF5.0344 04/05/2026 Terri McAlpine Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
344 REF5.0345 04/05/2026 Glen Charlesworth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
345 REF5.0346 04/05/2026 Ammarah Hassanjee Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
346 REF5.0347 04/05/2026 Timothy Goddard Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
347 REF5.0348 04/05/2026 Julie Harris Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
348 REF5.0349 04/05/2026 Luke Eccleston Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
349 REF5.0350 04/05/2026 Liam Cross Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00301 - REF5.0350
350 REF5.0351 04/05/2026 Peter Pearson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM350 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
351 REF5.0352 04/05/2026 V Palmer Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
352 REF5.0353 04/05/2026 Margaret Hall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
353 REF5.0354 04/05/2026 Allison Norris Email Councillor Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM184, MM411, MM410 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
354 REF5.0355 04/05/2026 Nicola Siddall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
355 REF5.0356 04/05/2026 Steven Dale Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
356 REF5.0357 04/05/2026 Sharon Driver Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
357 REF5.0358 04/05/2026 Emma Smith Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
358 REF5.0359 05/05/2026 Kay Dyche Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
359 REF5.0360 05/05/2026 Margaret Osborne Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
360 REF5.0361 05/05/2026 Emily Hoare Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
361 REF5.0362 05/05/2026 Robert Rabjohn Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
362 REF5.0363 05/05/2026 Rachael Nixon Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
363 REF5.0364 05/05/2026 Email CEG Greenbelt Campaign Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM350-MM353, MM459-MM461 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
364 REF5.0365 05/05/2026 Claire Pennington Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
365 REF5.0366 05/05/2026 Sophie Jones Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
366 REF5.0367 05/05/2026 Chris Burkinshaw Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
367 REF5.0368 05/05/2026 Conrad Aldridge Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
368 REF5.0369 05/05/2026 J Pemberton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
369 REF5.0370 05/05/2026 C Pemberton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
370 REF5.0371 05/05/2026 Gill Travis Email Sheffield Green Belt Alliance Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM10, MM91 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
371 REF5.0372 05/05/2026 Julie & Christopher Cooper Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
372 REF5.0373 05/05/2026 Robin Hughes Email Joined Up Heritage Sheffield Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM185, MM186, MM192 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
373 REF5.0374 05/05/2026 Sopheana Cartledge Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
374 REF5.0375 05/05/2026 Richard Nutbrown Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
375 REF5.0376 05/05/2026 Andrew Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
376 REF5.0377 05/05/2026 Lauren Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
377 REF5.0378 05/05/2026 Deborah Newton-Nutbrown Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
378 REF5.0379 05/05/2026 Jack Ellis Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
379 REF5.0380 05/05/2026 Russell Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
380 REF5.0381 05/05/2026 John Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
381 REF5.0382 05/05/2026 Avarna Ellis Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
382 REF5.0383 05/05/2026 Gail Machen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
383 REF5.0384 05/05/2026 Email Save S13 Green Belt: The Sapphire McCarthy Campaign Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
384 REF5.0385 05/05/2026 Christopher & Elizabeth Birkby Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
385 REF5.0386 05/05/2026 A Pink Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
386 REF5.0387 05/05/2026 Hyacynth Cabiles Email NHS Property Services Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM145 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
387 REF5.0388 05/05/2026 Janice Nicholson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
388 REF5.0389 05/05/2026 Clive Betts Email MP check check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
389 REF5.0390 05/05/2026 Faye Costello Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
390 REF5.0391 05/05/2026 Elizabeth Miller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
391 REF5.0392 05/05/2026 Gill Travis & Ray Ritchie Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM351 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
392 REF5.0393 05/05/2026 Diane Ramsden Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
393 REF5.0394 05/05/2026 Gary Smelt Email Friends of Shirtcliffe Valley Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
394 REF5.0395 05/05/2026 Luke Goddard Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
395 REF5.0396 05/05/2026 Rebecca Manning Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
396 REF5.0397 05/05/2026 Peter Sorby Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
397 REF5.0398 05/05/2026 Jake Ramsden Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
398 REF5.0399 05/05/2026 Angela Brooks Email Fisher German National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM321, MM322, MM392, MM122 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
399 REF5.0400 05/05/2026 John & Sally Walton Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00351 - REF5.0400
400 REF5.0401 05/05/2026 Eve Blain Email SAVE Britain’s Heritage Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM113 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
401 REF5.0402 05/05/2026 C Osborne Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
402 REF5.0403 05/05/2026 Email S12 Green Belt Action Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
403 REF5.0404 05/05/2026 Catherine Parkin Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
404 REF5.0405 05/05/2026 Lisa Knight Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
405 REF5.0406 05/05/2026 Lynne Swindells Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
406 REF5.0407 05/05/2026 Catherine Badger Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
407 REF5.0408 05/05/2026 Camille Chapman Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
408 REF5.0409 05/05/2026 Caleb Smelt Email Friends of Shirtcliffe Valley Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
409 REF5.0410 05/05/2026 Lianne Southwell Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
410 REF5.0411 05/05/2026 D Woodhead Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
411 REF5.0412 05/05/2026 Thomas Beyer Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM10, MM91 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
412 REF5.0413 05/05/2026 Luke Browse Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
413 REF5.0414 05/05/2026 Susan Davidson Email Parish Councillor Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
414 REF5.0415 05/05/2026 Laura Ashmore Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
415 REF5.0416 05/05/2026 Lynn Ogle Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
416 REF5.0417 05/05/2026 Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
417 REF5.0418 05/05/2026 Helen Rabjohn Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
418 REF5.0419 05/05/2026 Lauren Hague Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
419 REF5.0420 05/05/2026 James Hobson Email JEH Planning AMG Investments Limited Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM122 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
420 REF5.0421 05/05/2026 Trevor Hibberd Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
421 REF5.0422 05/05/2026 Oliver Blensdorf Email Moss Valley Wildlife Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
422 REF5.0423 05/05/2026 Andrew Johnson Email Fisher German Miller Homes Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
423 REF5.0424 05/05/2026 Katie Birkwood Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
424 REF5.0425 05/05/2026 James Hobson Email JEH Planning Norfolk Estate Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM352, MM10, MM90, MM103, MM127, MM128, MM185 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
425 REF5.0426 05/05/2026 Nicholas Wright Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
426 REF5.0427 05/05/2026 Sally Levitt Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
427 REF5.0428 05/05/2026 Daisy Webster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
428 REF5.0429 05/05/2026 Paul Wheeler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
429 REF5.0430 05/05/2026 Lee Webster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
430 REF5.0431 05/05/2026 Cheryl Hague Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
431 REF5.0432 05/05/2026 Wayne Webster Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
432 REF5.0433 05/05/2026 Susan Davidson Email Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
433 REF5.0434 05/05/2026 James Hobson Email JEH Planning St Pauls Developments Ltd and Smithywood Business Parks Development LLP check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
434 REF5.0435 05/05/2026 Christopher Pennell Email Dore Neighbourhood Forum, Dore Village Society Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
435 REF5.0436 05/05/2026 Steve Hague Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
436 REF5.0437 05/05/2026 Lynda Jackson Email Sheffield Green Belt Alliance MM461A, MM90, MM91, MM92, MM93, MM11, MM87, MM81 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
437 REF5.0438 05/05/2026 James Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
438 REF5.0439 05/05/2026 Lucianne Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
439 REF5.0440 05/05/2026 James Hobson Email JEH Planning Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate check Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
440 REF5.0441 05/05/2026 Levi Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
441 REF5.0442 05/05/2026 Logan Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
442 REF5.0443 05/05/2026 Stephanie Waller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM157, MM158, MM159, MM160 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
443 REF5.0444 05/05/2026 Lily Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
444 REF5.0445 05/05/2026 Jane Nattrass Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
445 REF5.0446 05/05/2026 M Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
446 REF5.0447 05/05/2026 David Dudley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
447 REF5.0448 05/05/2026 Duncan Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
448 REF5.0449 05/05/2026 Steven Dale Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
449 REF5.0450 05/05/2026 Faith Saunches Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00401 - REF5.0450
450 REF5.0451 05/05/2026 Luke Goddard Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
451 REF5.0452 05/05/2026 Andrew Towlerton Email Ecclesfield Parish Council Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM80, MM350, MM351, MM352, MM353, MM460, MM461 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
452 REF5.0453 05/05/2026 Carlton Saunches Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
453 REF5.0454 05/05/2026 Sophie Mellor Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
454 REF5.0455 05/05/2026 Mick Dudley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
455 REF5.0456 05/05/2026 Tina Marshall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
456 REF5.0457 05/05/2026 Sarah Ward Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
457 REF5.0458 05/05/2026 Michael Firth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
458 REF5.0459 05/05/2026 Timothy Goddard Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
459 REF5.0460 05/05/2026 Harry Firth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
460 REF5.0461 05/05/2026 Heather Lewis Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
461 REF5.0462 05/05/2026 Kathryn Waller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM157, MM158, MM159, MM160 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
462 REF5.0463 05/05/2026 Michael Parkin Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM350, MM351, MM440, MM441, MM459, MM460, MM461 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
463 REF5.0464 05/05/2026 Keith Lewis Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
464 REF5.0465 05/05/2026 Alysoun Dungworth Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
465 REF5.0466 05/05/2026 Shannon Martin Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
466 REF5.0467 05/05/2026 Steven Stroud Email James Bailey Planning Sheffield Green Belt Alliance Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM6, MM7, MM81, MM89a, MM265, MM266, MM351, MM94, MM101, MM410, MM97, MM184, MM223 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
467 REF5.0468 05/05/2026 Richard Staniforth Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
468 REF5.0469 05/05/2026 Louise Barton-Heald Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
469 REF5.0470 05/05/2026 Ashley Fowler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
470 REF5.0471 05/05/2026 Zoe Marshall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
471 REF5.0472 05/05/2026 Amanda Gipson Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
472 REF5.0473 05/05/2026 Andrew Bramley Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
473 REF5.0474 05/05/2026 Paul Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
474 REF5.0475 05/05/2026 Kara-Jo Waller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM157, MM158, MM159, MM160 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
475 REF5.0476 05/05/2026 Stuart Harris Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
476 REF5.0477 05/05/2026 Lauren Elise Meadows Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
477 REF5.0478 05/05/2026 Andrew Rose Email Spawforths Rula Developments Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum, Monitoring Framework MM8, MM10, MM80, MM103, MM460, MM461A Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
478 REF5.0479 05/05/2026 Kay Harris Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
479 REF5.0480 05/05/2026 V Henot Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
480 REF5.0481 05/05/2026 Allison Edgeler Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
481 REF5.0482 05/05/2026 Jordan Beckingham Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
482 REF5.0483 05/05/2026 Liam Roe Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
483 REF5.0484 05/05/2026 Nicola Oates Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
484 REF5.0485 05/05/2026 David Badger Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
485 REF5.0486 05/05/2026 Paul Bedwell Email Paul Bedwell Town Planning Jaguar Estates Ltd Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM10, MM92, MM93, MM90, Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
486 REF5.0487 05/05/2026 Denise Birkwood Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
487 REF5.0488 05/05/2026 Peter Barlow Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM157, MM158, MM159, MM160 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
488 REF5.0489 05/05/2026 Ellen Ramsden Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
489 REF5.0490 05/05/2026 James Langler Email Historic England Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM29, MM211, MM225, Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
490 REF5.0491 05/05/2026 Steph Oliver-Beech Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411, MM184 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
491 REF5.0492 05/05/2026 Sarah Wasteney Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
492 REF5.0493 05/05/2026 Sophie Waller Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM157, MM158, MM159, MM160 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
493 REF5.0494 05/05/2026 Craig Gamble Pugh Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM351, MM461, MM459, MM350, MM460 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
494 REF5.0495 05/05/2026 Marie Tidball Email MP Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM350, MM351, MM352, MM353, MM331, MM332, MM459, MM460, MM461 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
495 REF5.0496 05/05/2026 Gemma Bennett Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
496 REF5.0497 05/05/2026 Rob Neylan Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM459 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
497 REF5.0498 05/05/2026 Kate & John Carnall Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410, MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
498 REF5.0499 05/05/2026 Denise Knighton Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
499 REF5.0500 05/05/2026 Adam Cadman Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.00451 - REF5.0500
500 REF5.0501 05/05/2026 Emily Cadman Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
501 REF5.0502 05/05/2026 Michelle Rowett Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM332 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
502 REF5.0503 05/05/2026 Jim Bolsoiver Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM410 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
503 REF5.0504 06/05/2026 Nick Hague Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
504 REF5.0505 06/05/2026 Asha Dube Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
505 REF5.0506 06/05/2026 Michael Rowley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
506 REF5.0507 06/05/2026 Kim Rowley Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
507 REF5.0508 06/05/2026 Jennie Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM352 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
508 REF5.0509 N/A Hemantha Wijeyesekera Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
509 REF5.0510 N/A Ann Birks Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
510 REF5.0511 04/05/2026 Email Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
511 REF5.0512 07/05/2026 Matthew Wilcock Email Environment Agency Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications MM192 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
512 REF5.0513 08/05/2026 Sarah Reynolds Email Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
513 REF5.0514 13/05/2026 Sharon Allen Email Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF5.0501 - REF5.0514
514 REF6.0001 30/03/2026 Richard Hudson Letter Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
515 REF6.0002 07/04/2026 J Robinson Letter Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
516 REF6.0003 25/04/2026 Derinda Colley Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM411 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
517 REF6.0004 23/04/2026 Mr & Mrs D Barker Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
518 REF6.0005 24/04/2026 Mr & Mrs Cronshaw Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
519 REF6.0006 24/04/2026 Mr & Mrs Gell Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
520 REF6.0007 27/04/2026 P Stevenson Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
521 REF6.0008 27/04/2026 J Stevenson Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
522 REF6.0009 27/04/2026 Mr & Mrs Mitton Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
523 REF6.0010 29/04/2026 K Maltby Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
524 REF6.0011 30/04/2026 G Bunting Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
525 REF6.0012 05/05/2026 R Nicholson Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM331 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
526 REF6.0013 05/05/2026 J Howell Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
527 REF6.0014 05/05/2026 K Sugden Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM7, MM10, MM11, MM90, MM93, MM18, MM19, MM20, MM127, MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
528 REF6.0015 13/05/2026 Margaret Siddall Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
529 REF6.0016 13/05/2026 S Walker Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
530 REF6.0017 13/05/2026 J Walker Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
531 REF6.0018 13/05/2026 K & D Thomas Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
532 REF6.0019 13/05/2026 J Burkinshaw Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
533 REF6.0020 13/05/2026 L Fry Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
534 REF6.0021 13/05/2026 Michael Siddall Letter Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications, Impact Assessment Report Addendum MM353 Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
535 REF6.0022 13/05/2026 R Gale Letter Not specified Not specified Hyperlink to view coments REF6.0001 - REF6.0022
536 4585481 02/03/2026 Chris Verity Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No Still unsound. The idea that 549 houses on CH05 is a good idea, along with substantial housing between Yew Lane and The Wheel is unsound in itself. The 'Sheffield Plan' is nothing more than a tick box exercise which does not consider actual practicalities of the area i.e. traffic volume on Chapeltown Road, Cowley Lane, Ecclesfield Road and Nether Lane; doctors surgeries, dental surgeries, increased pollution, disruption of wildlife. The list has been professionally demonstrated by working groups to you previously, but SCC will plough on regardless. The number of houses planned for the S35 area compared to other areas in the city is unfair and unjust, whilst also not making practical sense, especially from a road network point of view. This will no doubt be answered by the working groups in more detail. Asking local residents to answer hundreds of pages of information shows the contempt SCC has for the community in certain areas. Houses are required, fair enough, but the amount in the plan in one area is completely unreasonable.
537 4585534 02/03/2026 David Cronshaw Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No The impact on traffic hasn’t been considered enough especially the Charnock development Shouldn’t go ahead and all Brownbelt used up first before and Greenbelt is considered
538 4585587 02/03/2026 John Daniels Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SWS18 No No 1. Statutory Context Under Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Inspectors must determine: “whether the local plan satisfies the requirements of sections 19 and 24(1), regulations under section 17(7) and any other prescribed requirement, and whether it is sound.” Under Section 19(2) the Council must have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Under Regulation 8(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the local plan must set out policies and proposals which are justified by evidence. 2. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Requirements Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans are sound only if they are: “Positively prepared, Justified, Effective and Consistent with national policy.” Of particular relevance: Paragraph 35(b) – Justified “An appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.” Paragraph 35(d) – Consistent with national policy “Enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.” 3. Green Belt – Exceptional Circumstances Test Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states: “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans.” It further requires that before concluding exceptional circumstances exist, the authority should: “Be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.” This includes: Making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites Optimising density in urban areas Exploring whether neighbouring authorities could accommodate need Paragraph 143 reinforces: “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.” Although this relates to decision-taking rather than plan-making, it underscores the strict protection afforded to Green Belt land. 4. Grounds of Objection A. Failure to Fully Evidence Exceptional Circumstances The allocation of SWS18 represents a permanent alteration of Green Belt boundaries. The Council must demonstrate: A clear, quantified housing need. That all reasonable non-Green Belt alternatives have been exhausted. That release of this specific parcel is necessary and proportionate. The evidence base does not clearly demonstrate that: Urban capacity and brownfield supply are insufficient in a way that necessitates this specific release. Lodge Moor performs better than alternative parcels. The scale of release is the minimum necessary. Without a transparent comparative assessment of alternatives, the Plan fails the paragraph 140 test. If exceptional circumstances are not fully evidenced and justified, the Plan is inconsistent with national policy and therefore unsound under paragraph 35(d). B. Failure of the “Justified” Test Paragraph 35(b) requires proportionate evidence and consideration of reasonable alternatives. The Supreme Court in Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State [2017] UKSC 37 confirmed that development plans must be read in accordance with national policy and statutory interpretation principles. Where a plan departs from national policy safeguards (such as Green Belt protection), clear reasoning and evidence are required. If the site selection methodology does not clearly demonstrate why Lodge Moor is preferable to other options, the strategy cannot be regarded as “appropriate” within the meaning of paragraph 35(b). C. Green Belt Purpose and Harm Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development and Green Belt purposes. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is set out in paragraph 137: “To prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.” If the release contributes materially to: Encroachment into open countryside Loss of openness Urban expansion into sensitive edge-of-city locations then robust justification is required. The evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the harm to openness and countryside character is outweighed by demonstrated necessity. D. Effectiveness and Deliverability Paragraph 35(c) requires plans to be: “Deliverable over the plan period.” If the allocation depends on: Significant infrastructure upgrades Uncertain highways mitigation Undefined environmental mitigation Funding streams not yet secured then the Plan risks failing the effectiveness test. The Court of Appeal in Gladman Developments Ltd v Wokingham BC [2014] EWCA Civ 1253 emphasised the importance of a robust and lawful assessment process when selecting sites. If infrastructure requirements are not clearly costed, programmed, and evidenced, deliverability remains uncertain. E. Sustainability Appraisal / SEA Compliance Under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations), the Council must: Identify, describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives. Provide sufficient information to allow consultees and Inspectors to understand why alternatives were rejected. If the Sustainability Appraisal does not transparently compare Lodge Moor against other realistic alternatives, it risks failing legal compliance under the SEA framework. 5. Overall Conclusion Allocation SWS18 fails the soundness test because it is: Not justified (paragraph 35(b)) Not demonstrated to meet the exceptional circumstances test (paragraph 140) Not clearly consistent with national policy (paragraph 35(d)) Potentially ineffective (paragraph 35(c)) In the absence of clear, proportionate, comparative evidence demonstrating necessity, the allocation should not be adopted. 6. Requested Action The Inspectors are respectfully requested to: Conclude that allocation SWS18 is unsound; and Recommend its removal from the Plan; 1. Statutory Context Under Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Inspectors must determine: “whether the local plan satisfies the requirements of sections 19 and 24(1), regulations under section 17(7) and any other prescribed requirement, and whether it is sound.” Under Section 19(2) the Council must have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Under Regulation 8(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the local plan must set out policies and proposals which are justified by evidence. 2. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Requirements Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans are sound only if they are: “Positively prepared, Justified, Effective and Consistent with national policy.” Of particular relevance: Paragraph 35(b) – Justified “An appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.” Paragraph 35(d) – Consistent with national policy “Enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.” 3. Green Belt – Exceptional Circumstances Test Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states: “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans.” It further requires that before concluding exceptional circumstances exist, the authority should: “Be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.” This includes: Making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites Optimising density in urban areas Exploring whether neighbouring authorities could accommodate need Paragraph 143 reinforces: “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.” Although this relates to decision-taking rather than plan-making, it underscores the strict protection afforded to Green Belt land. 4. Grounds of Objection A. Failure to Fully Evidence Exceptional Circumstances The allocation of SWS18 represents a permanent alteration of Green Belt boundaries. The Council must demonstrate: A clear, quantified housing need. That all reasonable non-Green Belt alternatives have been exhausted. That release of this specific parcel is necessary and proportionate. The evidence base does not clearly demonstrate that: Urban capacity and brownfield supply are insufficient in a way that necessitates this specific release. Lodge Moor performs better than alternative parcels. The scale of release is the minimum necessary. Without a transparent comparative assessment of alternatives, the Plan fails the paragraph 140 test. If exceptional circumstances are not fully evidenced and justified, the Plan is inconsistent with national policy and therefore unsound under paragraph 35(d). B. Failure of the “Justified” Test Paragraph 35(b) requires proportionate evidence and consideration of reasonable alternatives. The Supreme Court in Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State [2017] UKSC 37 confirmed that development plans must be read in accordance with national policy and statutory interpretation principles. Where a plan departs from national policy safeguards (such as Green Belt protection), clear reasoning and evidence are required. If the site selection methodology does not clearly demonstrate why Lodge Moor is preferable to other options, the strategy cannot be regarded as “appropriate” within the meaning of paragraph 35(b). C. Green Belt Purpose and Harm Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development and Green Belt purposes. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is set out in paragraph 137: “To prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.” If the release contributes materially to: Encroachment into open countryside Loss of openness Urban expansion into sensitive edge-of-city locations then robust justification is required. The evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the harm to openness and countryside character is outweighed by demonstrated necessity. D. Effectiveness and Deliverability Paragraph 35(c) requires plans to be: “Deliverable over the plan period.” If the allocation depends on: Significant infrastructure upgrades Uncertain highways mitigation Undefined environmental mitigation Funding streams not yet secured then the Plan risks failing the effectiveness test. The Court of Appeal in Gladman Developments Ltd v Wokingham BC [2014] EWCA Civ 1253 emphasised the importance of a robust and lawful assessment process when selecting sites. If infrastructure requirements are not clearly costed, programmed, and evidenced, deliverability remains uncertain. E. Sustainability Appraisal / SEA Compliance Under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations), the Council must: Identify, describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives. Provide sufficient information to allow consultees and Inspectors to understand why alternatives were rejected. If the Sustainability Appraisal does not transparently compare Lodge Moor against other realistic alternatives, it risks failing legal compliance under the SEA framework. 5. Overall Conclusion Allocation SWS18 fails the soundness test because it is: Not justified (paragraph 35(b)) Not demonstrated to meet the exceptional circumstances test (paragraph 140) Not clearly consistent with national policy (paragraph 35(d)) Potentially ineffective (paragraph 35(c)) In the absence of clear, proportionate, comparative evidence demonstrating necessity, the allocation should not be adopted. 6. Requested Action The Inspectors are respectfully requested to: Conclude that allocation SWS18 is unsound; and Recommend its removal from the Plan;
539 4585638 02/03/2026 Mark Rodgers Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No Please don’t build on our green belt. Please instead build on brownfield sites to regenerate our Citiy
540 4586311 03/03/2026 Mark Baker Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM4 Yes Yes I think that you need to insert the word 'genuinely' in front of the word 'affordable', when referring to the provision of housing for a large range of groups. The current definition of 'affordable' used by public authorities and companies is 'up to 80% of the market rent or mortgage'. This is clearly not affordable for people on average or below average incomes. To operate with this definition will put this housing beyond the reach of local working class Sheffielders. In addition, creating these 80%+ rent/mortgage ghettos will - in the absence of rent controls - force up the existing rents within these areas. Ordinary Sheffield citizens like me need 'genuinely affordable' housing where the rent/mortage reflects wage levels and the ability to pay. Unless you do this, you will end up 'socially cleansing' the city centre and other areas - as has happened in London and other UK cities. You end up with a playground for the rich and corporate interests, with the ordinary people denied access to housing.
541 4586606 03/03/2026 Darren Hall Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SWS18 Yes No Although the modified document states that a Level 2 strategic flood risk assessment is to be carried out as per the below extract: Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. All mitigation matters identified in the “Recommendations, FRA requirements, and further work” section of the Level 2 SFRA site assessment should be addressed at or before planning application stage” There appears to have been little or no thought into this actual site proposal in the first place. The area identified for potential development regularly floods in inclement weather. This flooding often extends onto the public footpath that runs directly next to the conduit. As a long term local resident, the impacts of flooding on this area are seen regularly, not withstanding the flooding that also occurs on the neighbouring estate, 'The Pines'. It appears as though this has not been considered in any way, shape or form when the plans have been drawn up. I would not like to put forward any suggested wording, the concern i have is the impact on the local area, ecosystem and residential properties should these plans go ahead.
542 4587146 03/03/2026 Tracy Ward Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM460 Site Allocation CH04 No No Access to the highway off Cowley Hill, Chapeltown: This is the main/only access to the motorway for this side of Chapeltown and Ecclesfield, and is a very busy highway. Ancient woodland spans each side of Cowley Hill. Any increase in traffic in this area would be detrimental to wildlife and to the people who live there. Hesley Wood expands over the motorway into the Rotherham boundary. What consideration has been given to the residents of Rotherham and Rotherham wildlife who will be affected by this development, as I see no evidence that Rotherham Council or residents have been consulted on this matter. The amended documents re-iterate that proposals must demonstrate how the development will be accommodated within the Industrial zone and that if works are required beyond this zone, unavoidable harm to the Local Wildlife Site must be fully compensated for through replacement habitats. As this area is made up of ancient woodland, it would be impossible to compensate for the loss of habitat as there are plants, animals and insects that only inhabit ancient woodland. It would take over 400 years for any new planting to reach ancient woodland status. Not only that, but if industrial buildings were built within the site with no harm to the wildlife site, the disturbance and light pollution from the site would still be detrimental to the wildlife in the area. This site is well known in the area to be extremely contaminated due to its former use. Any disturbance of this area could result in harmful contaminants leaking into the air and into water courses. There is a great deal of fear in this area in the Rotherham side and Sheffield side that should this land be disturbed, peoples health could be significantly impacted. The only modification of this document regarding this site should be to dismiss it from the local plan because it is completely unsuitable for development for the reasons I have given. Development of this site should be removed completely from the Sheffield Local Plan for the following reasons. It lies within and is surrounded by protected ancient woodland. It is known to contain contaminants that if disturbed could seriously impact peoples health and the environment. Any industrial development would disturb wildlife and plants within the surrounding ancient woodland. There are a large amount of pit shafts and offshoots not only on the site but in the surrounding area which run through peoples properties. Any disturbance of this site could cause a collapse and potentially cause serious damage to properties and possibly the M1 which runs alongside the site. An industrial development would increase noise and air pollution in what is already a busy area.
543 4592339 05/03/2026 Kate Carey Online Shelter n/a Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM127 and MM128 Yes No The LHNA shows there is a high level of need for social rented accommodation in Sheffield. Yet there is currently no real percentage requirement for social rented homes. The modifications state a 10-30% requirement for affordable housing for developments over 10 units. The only way to meet housing need and help those excluded from the market is to build social rented homes. A change to this section to include the percentage requirement for social rented homes on all identified sites and ideally at 20% on all developments over ten units.
544 4593608 06/03/2026 Fiona Hinson Online Integrated Impact Assessment (Update and Addendum) (2026) and Non-Technical Summary Yes No Representations on the SES03, Eckington Way have previously been submitted, and part of the hearings that took place. In none of the reports have any of the concerns that were raised, including traffic assessment (where only done weekday not weekends when this road is absolute busiest), topography, air quality, lack of infrastructure proposals and the proposed issues around privacy been answered or addressed. There have also been further requests for building an MOT centre right next to it! How that will assist with traffic and air quality that is already a massive concern. Assuming the plan is approved, to build, planning permission would be needed, the same people approving the plan will also approve this? The issue with SCC, is that there has been so much individual development and proposals approved in SILO and no wider thinking around the implications on an already fractured infrastructure that it makes these proposals, and the fact that despite over 4,000 objections from residents nothing has been heard or any attempt to alleviate concerns other than “will be reviewed at planning stage”. Numerous other site proposals as alternatives have been made, but just disregarded with poor reasons. There needs to be an additional plan or proposal that demonstrates: 1. New traffic assessment, including weekends, where already shows over agreed limits as to what actions will be taken to improve this, before any other development work or planning approved on this site 2. No further approvals of development that increase the currently overloaded infrastructure until the road network to deal with the completely unacceptable levels of road congestion and air quality are addressed 3. Full plan and details of how the privacy will be addressed for adjoining residents to the field relating to the topography issues raised, again before and development takes place and planning approved
545 4594809 06/03/2026 Dawn Pratt Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No I, along with other local residents and MP Clive Betts are completely baffled not to mention completely opposed to Sheffield's Local Plan process. Eckington Way site is not at all suitable for development for the following reasons: Topography, fraffic and congestion make this site impractical for development. Constraints on the site make it unsuitable. Congestion is already continuous and at maximum capacity, the road network is not fit for purpose now. There are far more suitable locations for industrial sites and traveller sites elsewhere in Sheffield eg. Clive Betts has repeatedly put forward the Sheffield South East contstituency at Holbrook. Is anyone actually listening? I, along with other local residents and MP Clive Betts are completely baffled not to mention completely opposed to Sheffield's Local Plan process. Eckington Way site is not at all suitable for development for the following reasons: Topography, fraffic and congestion make this site impractical for development. Constraints on the site make it unsuitable. Congestion is already continuous and at maximum capacity, the road network is not fit for purpose now. There are far more suitable locations for industrial sites and traveller sites elsewhere in Sheffield eg. Clive Betts has repeatedly put forward the Sheffield South East contstituency at Holbrook. Is anyone actually listening?
546 4595176 06/03/2026 Helen Wales Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SS19 – White Lane, Gleadless Townend (housing) No No The proposed modification and associated Policies Map change affecting Land to the south of White Lane, Gleadless Townend (S12 3HS – 304 homes) is not legally compliant because: • The consultation material does not demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been properly tested in line with national planning requirements, especially given Sheffield’s very large brownfield capacity identified through the Council’s own documents (Brownfield Register, HELAA, and major brownfield delivery schemes such as Furnace Hill and Neepsend). These brownfield-first principles were central to the Plan strategy, yet the Main Modifications now reverse this direction without adequate evidence. • The modification also fails to show that infrastructure constraints (transport, GP/dentist capacity, and air quality) have been assessed before proposing Green Belt release. This conflicts with the requirements for a legally compliant Sustainability Appraisal/Integrated Impact Assessment because the local impacts around White Lane were not properly addressed. NOT SOUND (UNJUSTIFIED, INEFFECTIVE, NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY) 1. Traffic impacts make the allocation ineffective White Lane is already severely congested, especially where it joins the Supertram route. Local reporting confirms traffic is “already bad” at this junction and hundreds of additional homes would make it “a lot worse.” No transport mitigation or junction upgrade is provided in the Main Modifications or Policies Map changes, making the allocation not effective or deliverable. 2. No GP or dentist capacity → not positively prepared The surrounding area already faces shortages in primary care access (GPs and dentists). Similar issues have been raised across Sheffield in relation to Green Belt allocations, where residents highlight overstretched GP services and poor bus frequency. The modification provides no plan to expand essential health infrastructure, meaning the allocation cannot be considered positively prepared. 3. Loss of woodland and air‑quality buffer → not consistent with national policy This site includes natural woodland and green buffer land that supports local air quality. The Plan repeatedly emphasises protecting biodiversity, raising environmental standards, and improving access to natural areas; removing woodland at S12 contradicts those core policy aims. This makes the modification not consistent with national policy on climate, air quality, and nature recovery. [ 4. Brownfield alternatives not exhausted → unjustified Major brownfield regeneration is underway at Furnace Hill (~750 homes) and Neepsend (~430 homes), backed by ~£70m of infrastructure funding, plus Moorfoot (700+ homes), additional Neepsend development (1,300 homes), and thousands more dwellings identified in the Brownfield Register and HELAA. These demonstrate that Sheffield can meet its housing need without releasing additional Green Belt land at S12, meaning the proposed modification is unjustified. To make the modification legally compliant and sound, the following changes are necessary: 1. Remove or defer the S12 (White Lane, Gleadless Townend) allocation. This site should not proceed unless and until brownfield capacity is demonstrably insufficient. Sheffield has extensive brownfield supply which must be prioritised under national policy and the Plan’s own Brownfield First strategy. 2. Redirect development to previously‑developed alternatives such as the Norton Aerodrome site. The former Norton Aerodrome (already previously developed) aligns with policy, avoids White Lane congestion, protects woodland, and does not worsen primary‑care shortages. It is a more sustainable location compared with new Green Belt take at S12. 3. Require a brownfield‑first sequencing policy within the Main Modifications text. Amend Part 1 (Sub‑Area Policies & Site Allocations) so that: Phase 1–2: brownfield sites with partners/funding (e.g., Furnace Hill, Neepsend, Moorfoot, station area) come forward first; Phase 3: Green Belt only considered after an annual published brownfield capacity test; A clause is added requiring re‑testing of the Brownfield Register before any Green Belt site proceeds. 4. Require evidence‑based infrastructure assessments. Before any allocation is confirmed, require: Transport modelling for the White Lane / tram junction, GP and dentist capacity assessment, Air-quality modelling and woodland impact assessment. Without these, the modification cannot be considered positively prepared or effective. 5. Update the Integrated Impact Assessment to address these omissions. The IIA must consider: Traffic and air‑quality impacts at S12, Health‑service pressures, Loss of key woodland and biodiversity value,to be legally compliant.
547 4595513 06/03/2026 Hazel Millington Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No The modifications to the Sheffield Plan remain illegal because the ‘special considerations’ which HAVE to be undertaken before building can commence on Green belt land have not been fulfilled. Those special considerations stipulate that ONLY WHEN ALL BROWNFIELD SITES HAVE BEEN AUDITED IN THE CITY AND ASSESSED FOR BUILDING UPON. can a developer’s request for building on Green belt be agreed. SCC have not audited brownfield site availability for 7 years. If they did they would see that there is more than enough brownfield acreage available upon which to build the 3000 plus homes and employment structures without building a single home on green belt belt land.The process has lacked transparency throughout. Audit fully brownfield site availability for potential building in Sheffield. This would provide the foundation for the implementation or not of the Sheffield Plan.
548 4596964 08/03/2026 John Ford Online Integrated Impact Assessment (Update and Addendum) (2026) and Non-Technical Summary Yes No The whole plan does not reflect the current transport issues. Take a drive on Sheffield Parkway, the A61, the road from Stocksbridge through Middlewood, the road from Oughtibridge to the motorway (not via the city centre) especially in rush hour and you will see the extent of the problem. Just stating there is an existing public transport link and it could lead to more cycling is not living in the real world. If these were so good why is there such bottlenecks now. Adding more and more houses (with probably 2 cars per house) is just going to make the transport system grind to a stop. Solve the current transport issues before building commences
549 4600685 10/03/2026 Community Campaigner David Barton Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Entirety Yes No Traditional Architecture Design Codes should be a central component across this entire consultation and its various chapters and sections especially concerning new construction. It performs strongly on economic, ecological and environmental grounds as can be attested to by leading figures and organisations with academic studies that corroborate this. Please see my PDF Umbrella Representation for the various merits outlined including Placemaking and Greenery Proposals. A ban on demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1950 should be enacted as soon as possible with reconstructions of previously demolished historic buildings listed or not given full support for restoration and reuse. Traditional Architecture Design Codes should be a central component across this entire consultation and its various chapters and sections especially concerning new construction. It performs strongly on economic, ecological and environmental grounds as can be attested to by leading figures and organisations with academic studies that corroborate this. Please see my PDF Umbrella Representation for the various merits outlined including Placemaking and Greenery Proposals. A ban on demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1950 should be enacted as soon as possible with reconstructions of previously demolished historic buildings listed or not given full support for restoration and reuse.
550 4609112 13/03/2026 Christine Ball Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan I have attempted toread and undertstand this 189 page document and have lost the will to ive. it is difficult to read, with red modifications, technical language and way too long for the averge person to read. This is not consultation. No No Unable to comment as a member of the public as too complicated
551 4610546 14/03/2026 Stuart Tanner Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM440 Yes No Sheffield Plan: Our City, Our Future SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED MAIN MODIFICATIONS MARCH 2026 Response to the bullet points in MM440 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation SWS18 pp159-160 • This site was formerly designated as Green Belt, so the ‘Golden Rules’ set out in the National Planning policy Framework will apply. The new National Planning Policy Framework ‘Golden Rules’ for Green Belt development 19 March 2025 states “Infrastructure: Boost public services and infrastructure, to deliver well-designed, connected places…” Residents of the 258 planned new houses will require schools, health facilities, and local shops none of which are near Lodge Moor Road. Given the stipulation of 40% minimum affordable housing of which 75% to be for social rent the need for these services, particularly schools, is paramount. Referring to page 27 MM107 Policy IN1 these infrastructure changes surely fall into the category “Essential” and are non-negotiable. • Subject to further transport assessment work, access to the highway will be required from Lodge Moor Road We note that a large new gate to the field on Lodge Moor Road and large concrete plinth on field has been constructed this year. The application made in Augst 2024 for a Lawful Development Certificate for the proposed construction of a vehicular access and hardstanding/unloading area for agricultural use stopping up three existing accesses and associated works was refused. The application was re-submitted in November 2024 supported by a report from Melissa Murphy K.C. of Landmark Chambers, London EC4A 2HG. The delegated officer’s report states that “It is argued that no agricultural purpose has been put forward for creating an area of hard standing in the field where the new access is proposed. It is therefore not "reasonably necessary" for this development to be carried out "for the purposes of agriculture" and the provisions of Part 6 Class A of Schedule 2 have not been met.” Despite this, permission was granted. Considerable expense and effort has been expended to obtain this permission. Given that the agricultural needs are dubious, and that the tenant farmer’s lease may be short-lived, it is reasonable to question why the landowner should be so determined to achieve this result. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the new field entrance and ground works are in preparation for the proposed building development and to wonder whether the landowner, a building firm, has been given assurance that the development will proceed. • Contributions may be required to local and strategic road network improvements Lodge Moor Road is narrow, particularly near its junction with Blackbrook Road where widening will require encroachment upon neighbouring properties. Blackbrook Road, though heavily used as a cut-through to Lodge Lane and Manchester Road, is single file at the end approaching Harrison Lane. The junction between Blackbrook Road and Redmires Road has been the site of many road traffic accidents, which will undoubtedly increase in frequency if traffic becomes substantially heavier. Thus considerable improvements to local roads will be required, to the detriment of existing residents. We note that when the former Lodge Moor Hospital site was developed a bridleway link but not a vehicular access to Lodge Moor Road was permitted. • Due consideration should be given to any impacts of flood risk …. The field adjacent to Lodge Moor Road is subject to flooding in the winter. The Sheffield Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update - Site S03076 concludes that: << Based on the evidence presented in the Level 1 SFRA (2022) and this Level 2 SFRA: • It should be appropriate to develop this site for more vulnerable purposes given its location within Flood Zone 1. However, fluvial risk to the site from Redmires Conduit along the southern boundary of the site is unknown. Any FRA should model this watercourse to fully understand the onsite fluvial risk both now and in the future. • The owners of the Redmires Reservoir system should be consulted to help ascertain any risk to the site and any risk a new development may pose to the reservoir. • There is risk from surface water through the site in the long term in the form of significant flow paths and a large area of ponding. >> We may conclude that further work is needed to ensure that housing development in this vulnerable site is appropriate. • Heritage Impact Assessment The Sheffield Plan Heritage Impact Assessments: Additional Sites (Site S03076: Land between Lodge Moor Road and Redmires Conduit) refers to two assets, Swallow Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building and Sheffield Water Works Company Conduit (Redmires Conduit). It concludes that the site makes a positive contribution to the setting of nearby heritage assets, of moderate significance, which could be affected by development, and contains a surviving element of historic landscape. Describing potential mitigation measures it states: “This approach should include developing a significant positive boundary alongside the conduit, to preserve its character and setting, and to protect it from the type of encroachment that has occurred in urban areas adjacent to conduit to the east (e.g. south of Carsick Hill Road, Ivy Park Road and Whitworth Road). Although the authors conclude with the weasel words: “With the mitigation in place, new development may potentially cause minor change to the significance” .It states that “A suitably detailed Heritage Statement that explains how historic landscape and setting impacts and potential archaeological impacts have been addressed would be required to support a development proposal. • The development will be expected to protect the setting of the Peak District National Park, including views into and out of the National Park. To mitigate the visual impact of the development when viewed from the National Park appropriate landscape buffers will be required to visually screen the development. What landscape buffers does SCC propose and where will they be sited. Has the Peak District National Park Authority been consulted on this development and will it have an input to the planning process? • A 3-metre buffer on either side of the Exolum pipeline is required to protect this infrastructure from development. This point is absent from “THE SHEFFIELD PLAN Our City, Our Future. Sheffield Plan. Proposed Additional Site Allocations. May 2025” (see page 114 “Policy SA7 - Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area Site Allocations) . Only belatedly has the local authority realised that the subterranean oil pipeline traverses the fields in question, as is clearly evident from the pipeline markers on the Conduit and on Brownhills Road. Have Exolum or their agents Fisher German been consulted about the proposed development? A 6 metre exclusion strip across the site will be a constraint upon the number of houses that can be built. • Schools, health facilities, and local shops must be provided • The issues relating to access to Lodge Moor Road demand tat this site be re-considered • The changes required to local roads are so extensive that this site should be re-considered • Measures to reduce flood risk must be described in any planning application • A suitably detailed Heritage Statement must be provided before any planning proposal is considered • The landscape buffers to protect the Peak District National Park must be specified before any planning proposal is considered • A statement should be obtained from Exolum that the proposed development is permissible. If it is. the constraint on house numbers due to the 6 metre exclusion zone should be calculated
552 4617801 18/03/2026 Kirsty Savage Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No I consider Main Modification MM429 to be unsound and not fully justified in accordance with national planning policy. Under the tests of soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Local Plans must be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. This modification fails against several of these criteria: 1. Not Justified Paragraphs 137–143 of the NPPF require that Green Belt boundaries are only altered in exceptional circumstances, supported by robust evidence and full consideration of reasonable alternatives. The allocation of Site SS19 does not demonstrate that: Exceptional circumstances have been clearly evidenced All reasonable brownfield or non-Green Belt alternatives have been exhausted The modification appears to rely primarily on meeting housing requirements rather than a rigorous and transparent site selection process. As such, it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives and is therefore not justified. 2. Not Effective For a plan to be effective, it must be deliverable and supported by necessary infrastructure (NPPF Paragraphs 20 and 34). The modification identifies that infrastructure contributions “may be required,” but does not provide: Clear, funded, and deliverable infrastructure commitments Evidence of capacity within local schools, GP services, and transport networks A robust delivery mechanism or timeline Local services in the area are already under significant strain. The absence of firm infrastructure planning means the proposal is unlikely to be deliverable without causing unacceptable impacts. This renders the allocation ineffective. 3. Not Consistent with National Policy The NPPF emphasises: Protection of Green Belt land (Section 13) Promotion of sustainable development (Paragraph 11) Prioritisation of brownfield land (Paragraph 119) Releasing Green Belt land without clear exceptional circumstances and without exhausting brownfield opportunities conflicts with these principles. In addition, the likely increase in traffic congestion and associated air pollution conflicts with Paragraph 186, which seeks to protect public health and air quality. 4. Failure to Adequately Address Health Impacts The plan does not adequately consider the direct health impacts arising from the development, particularly: Increased air pollution near schools due to higher traffic volumes Reduced access to primary healthcare due to already overstretched GP services This is contrary to NPPF Paragraph 92, which requires planning policies to support healthy, safe communities. The lack of mitigation or infrastructure provision means these impacts have not been properly addressed. 5. Overall Conclusion on Soundness For the reasons outlined above, Main Modification MM429 is: Not justified, as it lacks robust evidence of exceptional circumstances Not effective, due to insufficient infrastructure planning and deliverability concerns Not consistent with national policy, particularly in relation to Green Belt protection and sustainable development. I therefore respectfully request that the modification be found unsound and that Site SS19 be removed from the Local Plan. To make Main Modification MM429 legally compliant and sound, the following changes are required: 1. Removal of Site SS19 from Allocation Change sought: Delete Site SS19 (Land south of White Lane, S12) from the list of allocated housing sites. Reason: This change is necessary to ensure the Plan is justified and consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The current modification fails to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to release Green Belt land and does not provide sufficient evidence that reasonable alternatives (including brownfield land) have been fully explored. Removing the site would ensure compliance with NPPF Section 13 and restore the integrity of the Green Belt strategy 2. Prioritisation of Brownfield Land (Policy Strengthening) Change sought (suggested wording): “All suitable and available brownfield sites must be demonstrably exhausted before consideration is given to the release of any Green Belt land. Evidence of site viability, deliverability, and availability must be clearly set out.” Reason: This amendment is required to ensure the Plan is justified and consistent with national policy (NPPF Paragraph 119). It would provide a clear, enforceable framework demonstrating that Green Belt release is a last resort, rather than a preferred option. 3. Infrastructure-First Requirement Change sought (suggested wording): “Development of any allocated site must not commence until necessary infrastructure, including school places, primary healthcare provision, and transport improvements, is fully funded, approved, and scheduled for delivery in advance of or alongside development.” Reason: This is necessary to ensure the Plan is effective (NPPF Paragraphs 20 and 34). The current wording (“may be required”) lacks certainty and does not guarantee delivery. This amendment would ensure infrastructure is provided in a timely and coordinated manner, preventing unacceptable strain on local services. 4. Air Quality and Health Protection Policy Change sought (suggested wording): “Development proposals must demonstrate no adverse impact on air quality in sensitive locations, including areas surrounding schools. Where impacts are identified, mitigation must be secured prior to occupation. Proposals that result in increased exposure of children to harmful air pollution will not be supported.” Reason: This change is required to ensure consistency with NPPF Paragraphs 92 and 186, supporting healthy communities and protecting air quality. It directly addresses the identified risk of increased pollution affecting children’s health. 5. GP and Healthcare Capacity Safeguard Change sought (suggested wording): “Planning permission will only be granted where sufficient primary healthcare capacity is demonstrated, or where additional provision is secured and delivered in advance of occupation.” Reason: This amendment is necessary to ensure the Plan is effective and supports sustainable communities. Without this safeguard, increased population will exacerbate existing access issues to GP services, undermining the Plan’s deliverability. 6. If Site SS19 is Retained – Significant Modification Required If the Inspector is minded to retain Site SS19, the following minimum changes are required: Change sought (suggested wording): Reduce the scale of development to reflect infrastructure capacity Require a comprehensive infrastructure delivery plan prior to allocation Include a phasing condition linking occupation to infrastructure delivery Strengthen Green Belt compensation measures with specific, measurable commitments Reason: These changes are necessary to make the allocation effective and partially mitigate conflict with national policy. Without these safeguards, the proposal remains unsound. Overall Conclusion The most appropriate and effective change is the removal of Site SS19. However, if retained, the above amendments are essential to ensure the Plan becomes: Justified (evidence-based and using appropriate alternatives) Effective (deliverable with infrastructure) Consistent with national policy (particularly Green Belt and health protections)
553 4622357 21/03/2026 Mike Priaulx Online Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes Support the main modifications. No changes required.
554 4623961 23/03/2026 Matthew Good Online Pegasus Group Avant Homes. National housebuilder Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM14 Yes No Our client supports the intent of the additional text proposed by MM4, which reads: “housing for different groups in the community including those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes.” Whilst this addition is supported it is considered that the plan will be ineffective in delivering a sufficient range of housing to meet the needs of all different parts of the community. As discussed within our previous comments (see Matter 4 statement, question 7 response) the plan clearly seeks to focus growth upon the regeneration of previously developed sites within the existing urban areas and in particular high-density development within and around the city centre. Development within these areas will no doubt assist students and young professionals in meeting their housing needs. It is, however, considered unlikely it will meet the needs of families with children, older people and, due to issues of viability, the affordable housing needs of the area. The council’s 2024 Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (LHNA Update) (ref: Exam 66) suggests a significant need for affordable housing of 2,032 households per annum. In addition, it suggests that at least 40% of market housing need is in 3 and 4+ bedroom properties. This is unlikely to be met in city centre developments Given these clear issues we have previously commented that there is a clear justification to increase the housing requirement within the plan and provide a greater quantum of allocations within areas, such as Chapeltown / High Green, where the needs of these groups can be met.
555 4623983 23/03/2026 Matthew Good Online Pegasus Group Avant Homes. National housebuilder Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM10 Yes No The Main Modification is considered inconsistent with national policy, unjustified and ineffective. Our clients’ main concern with the policy as modified relates to the housing requirement. The modification seeks to increase the overall housing requirement from 35,530 dwellings to 38,012 dwellings and introduce a stepped requirement. Whilst it is recognised that these amendments emanate from the Stage 2 post hearings letter from the Inspectors, dated 6th February 2025, it is considered unjustified given the government’s clear and repeated push for greater housing delivery and meeting the housing needs of the area in full. Increased overall housing requirement Whilst our client welcomes the increase in the housing requirement this is considered insufficient to meet needs. The council and Inspectors will be aware that our client has consistently argued this point throughout the examination of the plan (see our Matter 3 statement). The plan was submitted for examination on 6th October 2023 and is being examined against a previous iteration of the NPPF. The minimum number of new homes needed at the point of submission, based upon the standard method for determining local housing need (LHN) at the time, was 3,063dpa. The proposed plan period, as identified in Policy SP1, is proposed to be 2022 to 2039. The minimum LHN need over the full 17-years of the plan period is therefore 52,071 dwellings. The plan only seeks to deliver 38,012 dwellings (2,236 per annum) a shortfall of 14,005 dwellings, or 824 dpa. This is a significant shortfall against the need identified at the point of submission and whilst it is recognised that this would require a significant uplift in delivery this must be considered alongside the government’s clear aim to significantly boost supply and the dire need for affordable housing within Sheffield. Whilst it is recognised that the local plan is being examined against the 2021 NPPF, the December 2024 iteration introduced a revised standard method for determining LHN. In the case of Sheffield, the most recent calculation (May 2025) indicates a minimum LHN of 2,428dpa, 41,276 dwellings over the plan period. This is 3,264 dwellings, or 192dpa greater than the proposed housing requirement. The plan requirement is, therefore, also a significant shortfall against the current LHN. A continuation of the proposed housing requirement will create further pressure on the housing market within Sheffield and is likely to place even more households in affordable housing need. Stepped housing requirement The proposed modification to Policy SP1 reduces the proposed housing requirement from 2,090dpa to just 1,780dpa over the period 2022/23 to 2030/31, post 2031 the housing requirement increases to 2,750dpa. This simply delays delivering the already suppressed housing requirement. This is considered unjustified and will simply mean that many households will either be unable to form, have to move outside the area or live in inappropriate accommodation for even longer. Whilst it is recognised that nothing can be done in relation to previous years it is considered that the stepped requirement should be removed from the point of adoption in 2026 rather than suppressing housing delivery for 5 more years. The stepped requirement is justified by the council due to there being several strategic housing allocation sites which are likely to be delivered later in the plan period, due to complexities in bringing forward regeneration sites and the need to phase funding opportunities and activities. Whilst this is not disputed it is considered a function of the chosen spatial strategy and the council’s reluctance to release Green Belt rather than being due to clear and demonstrable barriers to housing growth. Additional sites in areas such as Chapeltown / High Green could facilitate greater delivery early in the plan period. Furthermore, the trajectory as amended in MM92 and MM93, suggests a significant uplift in delivery from 2027/28, far beyond the average rates proposed in the amended housing requirement. Given the council’s own evidence, it is unclear why the step-up in the housing requirement will not occur until 2030/31. To overcome the issues raised above it is recommended that the housing requirement is increased. Ideally this should be reflective of the LHN at the point of submission. However, for reasons of pragmatism and deliverability our client would accept a housing requirement equivalent to the LHN calculated by the current standard method. It is also recommended that the stepped requirement either be removed in its entirety or for reasons of pragmatism the step-up be provided from the year of adoption 2026/27.
556 4624009 23/03/2026 Matthew Good Online Pegasus Group Avant Homes. National housebuilder Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM80 Yes No The Main Modification is not considered justified or effective. The Main Modification seeks to increase housing delivery in the area from 25 to 585 dwellings through a combination of existing permissions and allocations. It also increases the housing requirement for the designated Ecclesfield neighbourhood plan area from 145 to 1,458 dwellings . These increases are welcomed but it is considered that they fail to go far enough and should have sought to allocate more sites within the Chapeltown / High Green area. Table 2 MM91 identifies that, despite this welcome increase, Chapeltown and High Green still receive substantially less than other areas with just 2% of the identified supply. This is not considered commensurate with the identification of Chapeltown/High Green as a Principal town. In comparison the other Principal town of Stocksbridge/Deepcar receives an additional 420 dwellings. The lack of housing delivery within Chapeltown/High Green will have serious implications for affordable housing delivery within the sub-area and across the whole plan area as most developments within this area would be able to viably provide affordable housing contributions. In addition, it should be noted that this area is tightly constrained by Green Belt and there will, therefore, be limited opportunities for windfall development to further boost supply in the sub-area. Further allocations be provided within Chapeltown/High Green sub-area. The council and Inspectors will be aware that our client has been promoting a site at Land at Springwood Lane, High Green, Sheffield. A promotional document accompanied our earlier submissions. This document illustrates that our client’s site provides a deliverable opportunity with limited impacts within a sustainable location.
557 4624017 23/03/2026 Matthew Good Online Pegasus Group Avant Homes. National housebuilder Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM93 Yes No The Main Modification is not considered justified or consistent with national policy. This table suggests that upon adoption the council will be able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply with 6.32-years’ worth of supply. This is unjustified for several reasons. Notwithstanding our concerns relating to the inadequate housing requirement - see our response to MM10 above – the calculation is clearly flawed. The calculation seeks to estimate completions up to 1st April 2026. Given that this date is, at the time of writing, in the future it is far from certain that the completions identified in the table will be delivered. If there is a lower or higher number of completions than envisaged this will have an impact upon the five-year housing land supply assessment either through an increase in the shortfall, which would increase the total net 5-year requirement or a reduction in the future supply. The calculation also includes a 5% buffer. The council and Inspectors will be aware that in accordance with footnote 40, paragraph 78 of the 2024 NPPF the scale of the buffer 5 or 20% is reliant upon the latest Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results. The most recent HDT results are the 2023 results. In terms of Sheffield this identifies that a 20% buffer is required and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is also currently in place. It is understood that both the 2024 and 2025 HDT results will be released together in November 2026 and as such at the point of adoption a 20% buffer would apply. It is also understood that the council’s assumption upon the HDT result requires the suppressed stepped housing requirement to be backdated to the start of the plan period (2022) in the HDT result to achieve a 5% requirement. If this does not occur a 20% buffer will be required upon publication of both 2024 and 2025 HDT results. The application of a 20% buffer would increase the five-year net housing requirement to 11,261 dwellings, based upon the council’s calculations in table 4. Finally, the council suggests a total net supply of 12,464 dwellings. The council and Inspectors will be aware that in terms of the five-year housing land supply the net supply must be based upon ‘deliverable’ dwellings. The NPPF Annex clearly identifies that to be considered deliverable sites for housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. Therefore, any sites which remain in alternative uses or have any restrictions upon their immediate development (i.e. current leases, restrictive covenants etc.) at the base date of the assessment (1st April 2026) cannot be included in the supply as they do not meet this definition. Furthermore, any major site without detailed permission should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years. Whilst our client has not undertaken a thorough assessment of all sites within the claimed supply, we are aware that several sites do not yet benefit from detailed permission. We are also unaware of any clear evidence to suggest that these sites will deliver in the five-year period. On this basis it is not considered that the supply identified within table 4 is a true representation of the deliverable five-year supply. Based upon our commentary there is significant uncertainty with regard to the extent of the council’s deliverable housing land supply upon adoption. Table 4 is considered at best an optimistic assumption. Given the uncertainty it is recommended that Table 4 is removed from the plan and the five-year housing land supply position be published by the council, as required by paragraph 78 of the NPPF, once completions are known and it has published relevant evidence in relation to the sites which make up its claimed deliverable supply.
558 4625250 23/03/2026 Peter Armstrong Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan This is my point - the presentation is bewildering Yes Yes My issue is with the way the plan is presented online. There appears to be one major document of 270 pages and its name is ...modifications... i couldn't see an original document (though I believe the 'modifications' document would be better named "modified" since it seems to be the original with updates) There is no sign of anything simmpler, more viial or explained in clear language that a normal peron would find accessible. What I have read of the document details seems quite sensible, it is the presentation to the general public nline that I find rather opaque. Much more accessible online information
559 4592863 23/03/2026 John Herbert Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No The policy must reflect Brownfield priority decision making Make Brownfield development a priority
560 4626818 23/03/2026 Amy Shephard Online No Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM411 No No FORMAL OBJECTION TO MAIN MODIFICATIONS MM410 (SES29) AND MM411 (SES30) – ON GROUNDS OF SOUNDNESS I object to the inclusion of sites MM410 and MM411 in the Sheffield Local Plan. These allocations fail to meet the statutory tests of soundness as set out in national planning policy. My objection applies to both sites, with particular concern regarding MM411. 1. Positively Prepared – FAIL A positively prepared plan must meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure needs, including unmet needs from neighbouring areas, in a sustainable way. These proposals fail this test because: * There is no credible strategy to ensure infrastructure provision keeps pace with development, particularly: * GP and primary healthcare services * NHS dental provision * Nursery and school capacity * Community facilities * Existing services are already oversubscribed, and there is no clear, funded, and deliverable plan to expand them ahead of occupation. * The scale of development (over 1,600 homes combined) is not matched by a proportionate infrastructure strategy, meaning needs are not being sustainably met. * The plan places an unreasonable burden on existing communities rather than planning positively for growth. Conclusion: The plan is not positively prepared because it fails to ensure that essential infrastructure and services will meet the needs of the increased population. 2. Justified – FAIL A justified plan must be based on proportionate evidence and represent the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. These allocations fail this test because: * The release of Green Belt land on this scale is not adequately justified, particularly given the significant and acknowledged harm to openness and character. * There is insufficient evidence that these sites are the most appropriate options, especially given: * Severe access constraints * Infrastructure deficits * Environmental impacts * MM411 is particularly unjustified: * The site relies on a single access via Beaver Hill Road, which is inherently unsuitable * The proposed junction is located near a blind crest and brow of a hill, with restricted visibility * This creates a clear and foreseeable highway safety risk * The site layout is internally inconsistent and potentially undeliverable, with: * Competing land uses (housing, school, burial ground) * Constraints not properly accounted for (topography, trees, footpaths, buffers) * Reasonable alternatives—such as brownfield development or less constrained sites—have not been adequately prioritised. Conclusion: The allocations are not justified due to weak evidence, unsafe access arrangements (particularly at MM411), and failure to demonstrate that these are the most appropriate sites. 3. Effective – FAIL An effective plan must be deliverable over the plan period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters. These proposals fail this test because: * Transport impacts have not been adequately mitigated: * Significant additional traffic will be routed onto already congested roads * There is no credible plan to control or reduce traffic growth * No effective strategy to minimise increased pollution * The road network is already under pressure and not capable of accommodating the scale of additional traffic. * MM411 is not deliverable in its current form: * The proposed access via Beaver Hill Road is unsafe and impractical * The junction location near a blind brow presents a serious hazard for all road users * The road itself is unsuitable for the volume and type of traffic generated * Without a safe and viable access solution, the site cannot be delivered. * There is no certainty around infrastructure delivery, funding, or timing, particularly for healthcare and education. Conclusion: The plan is not effective because key elements—especially transport access and infrastructure—are not deliverable. MM411 is fundamentally undeliverable due to unsafe access. 4. Consistent with National Policy – FAIL Plans must enable sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These proposals fail this test because: * The scale of Green Belt release conflicts with national policy, which requires exceptional circumstances and minimisation of harm. * The plan fails to: * Prioritise brownfield land * Protect environmental assets * Minimise pollution and promote sustainable transport * The transport strategy is contrary to NPPF principles, which require: * Safe and suitable access for all users * Development that does not result in severe cumulative impacts on the road network * The MM411 access proposal directly conflicts with highway safety requirements, due to: * Restricted visibility * Hazardous junction positioning near a blind crest * Increased traffic will lead to worsening air quality, contrary to environmental objectives in national policy. Conclusion: The plan is not consistent with national policy due to unacceptable Green Belt harm, unsafe access proposals, and failure to promote sustainable and safe transport. OVERALL CONCLUSION MM410 and MM411 fail all four tests of soundness. In particular, MM411 is fundamentally flawed due to: * Dangerous and unsuitable access via Beaver Hill Road * Severe highway safety risks at a blind crest * Lack of infrastructure capacity * Questionable deliverability These are not minor issues—they are critical defects that render the allocation unsound. REQUEST TO THE INSPECTOR I respectfully request that: * MM410 and MM411 are removed from the Local Plan, or * At a minimum, MM411 is deleted in full due to fundamental safety and deliverability concerns The plan, as proposed, does not meet the legal or policy requirements for soundness and should not be adopted in its current form. SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED CHANGES TO MAIN MODIFICATIONS MM410 (SES29) AND MM411 (SES30) TO ENSURE LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND SOUNDNESS This statement sets out the precise changes required to make the proposed allocations legally compliant and sound. Each change is directly linked to one or more of the statutory tests of soundness (positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy) and explains why the modification is necessary. A. PRIMARY CHANGE: REMOVAL OR SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF MM411 Change Required * Delete allocation MM411 in full,
OR, if retained: * Remove all development dependent on access via Beaver Hill Road unless and until: * A safe, policy-compliant alternative access strategy is identified, tested, and approved * Independent highway safety evidence demonstrates full compliance with national visibility and safety standards Why This Change is Necessary * The current proposal relies on a single access point at Beaver Hill Road, located near a blind crest/brow with restricted visibility. * This creates a foreseeable and severe highway safety risk, contrary to national policy requirements for safe and suitable access. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Effective: Ensures the site is deliverable with safe infrastructure * Justified: Removes reliance on an unsuitable and unsafe access strategy * Consistent with National Policy: Aligns with requirements for safe access and avoidance of severe transport impacts Without this change, MM411 is fundamentally unsound and cannot be delivered safely. B. TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS – REQUIRED EVIDENCE AND MITIGATION Change Required * Insert a policy requirement that no development shall commence until: * A comprehensive, independently verified Transport Assessment is completed covering: * Cumulative impacts of MM410 and MM411 * Peak-time congestion modelling * Air quality impacts * A fully funded and deliverable mitigation strategy is secured, including: * Junction improvements * Traffic reduction measures * Public transport enhancements Why This Change is Necessary * Current evidence does not adequately assess cumulative traffic impacts or demonstrate that the network can cope. * There is no clear or enforceable mitigation strategy. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Effective: Ensures infrastructure is deliverable and aligned with development * Justified: Bases decisions on robust, proportionate evidence * Consistent with National Policy: Meets requirements to avoid severe residual transport impacts C. INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION – PHASING AND GUARANTEES Change Required * Introduce a binding policy requirement that: * Development is phased in line with infrastructure delivery * No occupation beyond an agreed threshold until: * GP capacity is expanded and operational * Dental provision is secured * School and nursery places are delivered * Require a fully costed Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) with confirmed funding sources Why This Change is Necessary * There is currently no certainty that essential services can accommodate population growth. * Existing services are already under strain. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Positively Prepared: Ensures community needs are met alongside growth * Effective: Guarantees deliverability of essential infrastructure * Justified: Aligns scale of development with service capacity D. GREEN BELT – REDUCTION AND REVIEW OF SITE CAPACITY Change Required * Reduce the scale of development on MM410 and MM411 to: * Minimise Green Belt release * Retain stronger defensible boundaries * Require a review of reasonable alternatives, prioritising: * Brownfield land * Less constrained sites Why This Change is Necessary * Current proposals result in significant and unjustified harm to Green Belt openness. * Evidence does not demonstrate that this scale of release is the most appropriate option. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Justified: Ensures the chosen strategy is the most appropriate * Consistent with National Policy: Aligns with Green Belt protection principles E. SITE-SPECIFIC DELIVERABILITY (MM411) Change Required * Require a detailed and independently verified masterplan prior to allocation confirmation, demonstrating: * Sufficient land for all proposed uses (housing, school, burial ground) * Inclusion of all constraints (topography, trees, footpaths, buffers) * Confirmation of land ownership and control Why This Change is Necessary * Current plans show internal inconsistencies and potential land shortfalls. * There is uncertainty over whether the site can physically accommodate proposed uses. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Effective: Ensures the site is genuinely deliverable * Justified: Bases allocation on realistic and evidence-based assumptions F. AIR QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Change Required * Introduce a requirement for: * A full Air Quality Impact Assessment * Binding mitigation measures (e.g. traffic reduction, green buffers) * Include a policy that development must achieve no net deterioration in local air quality Why This Change is Necessary * Increased traffic will inevitably lead to higher emissions and pollution. * No clear mitigation strategy is currently secured. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Consistent with National Policy: Supports environmental protection and sustainable development * Effective: Ensures impacts are mitigated in practice G. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Change Required * Insert a requirement for a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment covering: * Transport * Infrastructure * Environment * This must be completed prior to adoption, not deferred to later stages Why This Change is Necessary * The combined impact of MM410 and MM411 is not adequately assessed. How This Makes the Plan Sound * Justified: Ensures decisions are evidence-based * Effective: Prevents unforeseen cumulative harm OVERALL CONCLUSION To achieve legal compliance and soundness, the Plan must: 1. Remove or fundamentally revise MM411, due to unsafe access and deliverability issues 2. Ensure safe, deliverable transport infrastructure is secured before development 3. Guarantee infrastructure provision in advance of occupation 4. Reduce and better justify Green Belt release 5. Demonstrate true deliverability through detailed evidence 6. Properly assess and mitigate cumulative and environmental impacts Without these changes, MM410 and MM411 will remain: * Unjustified (due to weak evidence and alternatives not fully considered) * Ineffective (due to undeliverable infrastructure and unsafe access) * Not positively prepared (due to failure to meet infrastructure needs) * Inconsistent with national policy (particularly on Green Belt and transport safety) Accordingly, the Plan in its current form is not sound and cannot be adopted.
561 4627054 24/03/2026 Katie Goddard Online Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Policies Map SS19 No No I consider the modification relating to SS19 (Land south of White Lane, S12 3HS) to be not legally compliant and unsound. 1. Not justified: The Council’s own Green Belt Review identifies moderate–high landscape sensitivity, a weak southern boundary, and a high risk of encroachment. These findings show that harm has not been minimised and that the site does not have a strong, defensible, permanent boundary as required by the NPPF. 2. Not effective: Transport evidence shows severe congestion at Gleadless Townend and peak‑hour delays on White Lane, with no funded or deliverable mitigation. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan Addendum confirms local schools and GP surgeries are already at capacity. The site is therefore not realistically deliverable. 3. Not consistent with national policy: Exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release have not been demonstrated. The proposed “additional deletion area” extends beyond the allocation and undermines the permanence of the Green Belt boundary, contrary to NPPF requirements. 4. Not positively prepared: The Council has not shown that brownfield capacity, windfall supply, or lower‑harm alternatives have been fully assessed. Without this, releasing SS19 cannot be justified. Conclusion: For these reasons, SS19 fails the tests of soundness and should be removed from the Policies Map, with the existing Green Belt boundary retained. I request that site SS19 (Land south of White Lane, S12 3HS) is removed from the Policies Map and that the existing Green Belt boundary is retained. The modification should be changed by deleting SS19 from the list of proposed Green Belt releases and reinstating the current Green Belt designation for this land. This change is necessary to make the plan legally compliant.
562 4627082 24/03/2026 Chrissy Meleady Online Equalities and Human Rights Gypsy and Traveller Community Members Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Policy NC7 – Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople ☑ Site Allocation SES03 – Eckington Way ☑ Equality Impact Assessment (2026) ☑ Evidence Base – Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2019) No No Not positively prepared - Not justified - Not effective - Not consistent with national policyThe Sheffield Local Plan (2026) is unsound in relation to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) and Travelling Showpeople provision for the following reasons: 1. Outdated Evidence Base The Plan relies on the 2019 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which is now over six years old and predates the 2021 Census and COVID-19 impacts. This is inconsistent with: Housing Act 2004 s.225 (duty to assess current need) PPTS para 6 (requirement for robust and up-to-date evidence) NPPF paras 31–33 (requirement for proportionate and current evidence) 2. Failure to Reassess Transit / Stopping Need The 2019 GTAA recorded 33 unauthorised encampments since 2015 and acknowledged that transit provision can reduce such encampments. However, the Plan: Does not revisit this conclusion in 2026 Does not reassess transit or stopping need Does not demonstrate consideration of updated encampment patterns This is contrary to: PPTS para 10 (requirement to consider transit sites and stopping places) Housing Act 2004 s.225 (including those “resorting to” the area) 3. Imbalance in Site Provision (SES03) The Plan relies heavily on Site Allocation SES03 (Eckington Way), which appears to primarily meet the needs of Travelling Showpeople. The needs of wider Gypsy and Traveller communities are: Less clearly provided for Dependent on future applications rather than allocated sites This risks inequitable provision and fails to meet: PPTS para 7 (requirement to address distinct needs of different Traveller groups) 4. Equality Impact Assessment Deficiencies The 2026 Equality Impact Assessment: Identifies race as a relevant characteristic Acknowledges harm arising from under-provision However: Consultation is described in generic terms There is no clear evidence of targeted engagement with Gypsy and Traveller communities The EIA acknowledges low participation from ethnic minority groups This raises concerns regarding compliance with: Equality Act 2010 s.149 (Public Sector Equality Duty) 5. Case Law Context The deficiencies above must be considered in light of established case law: Chapman v United Kingdom → recognition of cultural and accommodation needs South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) → requirement to properly consider unmet need Moore & Coates v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government → lack of provision undermines enforcement regimes Conclusion Taken together, the Plan: Relies on outdated evidence Fails to reassess key areas of need Does not clearly demonstrate equitable provision Does not evidence adequate equality compliance It is therefore unsound The following modifications are required: Commission an updated GTAA (2025/2026) Reassess transit and stopping need, including: Transit sites Temporary stopping places Negotiated stopping approaches Demonstrate equitable provision across: Gypsy and Traveller groups Travelling Showpeople Undertake: Targeted consultation with GRT communities A refreshed Equality Impact Assessment Please Note : I wish to participate in the Examination Hearing? To present evidence regarding: The adequacy of the evidence base Equality compliance The need for updated assessment and provision
563 4628806 24/03/2026 Monica James Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No We are supposed to be a democratic society. Many thousands of people amongst Sheffield have expressed that they do not wish for building to take place on our green belt sites. Despite intense backlash of this plan, the council are still moving forward. To make this fair and allow the public to vote effectivelty as is there right. A poll should be held on whether we move forward or not. This is not what the South Yorkshire community want there hard earned money spent on and as it is there money being used for these projects. This project should only go ahead if the poll indicates that the public back these planned actions. To go ahead with such strong opposition of the plan is underminding the publics democratic choice on how there money is being used. Other sites would be better utilised. Our voices must be heard. Change the planning to build on brownfield sites, restore industrial or expired site to bring in more housing rather than further damage our already shrinking greenary.
564 4632901 25/03/2026 Josie Orzechowska Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes
565 4634850 26/03/2026 Mark Howard Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No To: Strategic Planning Team & Government Inspectors Re: Objection to Development on Green Belt Land in Grenoside, Ecclesfield & Chapeltown Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to again formally object to the proposed development of Green Belt land in the Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside area, specifically: Proposed housing sites: • Land at Wheel Lane and Middleton Lane S35 8PU: Site Ref S03035 and Map Ref NES39 • Land South of Wheel Lane between Creswick Avenue and Wheel Lane S35: Site Ref S03051/S03034 and Map Ref NES37 • Land West of Grenoside Grange / Holme Lane Farm S35 8PB: Site Ref S03028/ S03100 and Map Ref NES38 • Land to the East of Chapeltown Road, S35 9ZX: Site Ref S03038 and Map Ref CH05 Proposed employment sites: • Land bordered by M1, Thorncliffe Road, Warren Lane & White Lane, S35 2YA: Site Ref S03112 and Map Ref CH03 (Warren Lane) • Land to the South of the M1 Motorway Junction 35, S35 1QP: Site Ref S04101 and Map Ref NES36 (Smithy Wood) • Hesley Wood, North of Cowley Hill, S35 2YH: Site Ref S04639 and Map Ref CH04 (Hesley Wood) I am submitting this representation in accordance with my legal right under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Local Planning Regulations 2012. My submission addresses matters of legal compliance, soundness, and procedural fairness, and raises a number of detailed concerns that I believe must be considered at Examination in Public. I am writing to make it absolutely clear that my representation must be submitted in its entirety and in unredacted form to the Government-appointed Planning Inspectors. No part of my submission should be withheld, omitted, summarised, or altered in any way by Sheffield City council or its officers. Since the original planning documentation was made available for consultation, a very large number of brownfield sites have been identified as potential areas to build these vast amounts of homes. The lack of investigation into these by Sheffield Council is worrying, as these seem have to have been neglected instantly with the Council preferring to destroy greenbelt land. I strongly recommend that these brownfield sites are taken into consideration to save greenbelt land. The identified brownfield sites are as follows: • Parkwood Springs, S3 • Jordanthorpe Playing Field, S8 • Grange Mill Lane, S9 • Firth Park Old Diary, S5 • Weedon Street, S9 • Petre Street, S4 • Lyons Street, S4 • Carlisle Street, S4 • Pitsmoor Road Flats, S3 • Windmill Lane, S5 • Civil Service Land Ecclesfield Road, S35 • Leppings Lane, S6 • Europa Link, S9 • Sandygate Road (Old Pub) 288, S10 • Henley Ave Norton, S8 • James Walton Drive, S20 • Old Penguin Site, S5 • Firshill Rise Old Flats, S4 • Steel City OId Tennis Courts, S5 • Gleedless Road, S14 • Radio Hallam, S6 • Wardsend Road, S6 • Clubmill Road, S6 • Broad Lane, S2 • Busk Meadow, S5 • Penrith Road, S5 • Ella Road, S4 • Remington Road, S5 • Deerlands Avenue, S5 • Loxley Brockwords, S6 • Old Loxley Chapel, S6 • Holme Lane, La Planta Works, S6 • Fisher Lane, S9, • Senior Road Social Club, S9 • Clay Wheel Lane (Union Carbide), S6 • Queens Road, S2 • Manor Lane Depot, S2 • Weston Tower These areas highlighted in bold are substantial areas of land and if found suitable, could ensure that more greenbelt land is not destroyed. I strongly oppose the greenbelt development plans for the following reasons: Flood / Contamination Risk · The proposed sites lie uphill from areas already prone to flooding, including Warren Lane, Cowley Lane, Station Road, Falding Street, Chapeltown Park, Nether Lane, Ecclesfield Common, Cinder Hill Lane, Mill Road, The Wheel, Wheel Lane, Whitley Hall and surrounding roads. · Flow into Blackburn Brook is already a flood risk area · Existing homes, businesses, parks and habitats already suffer from surface water flooding during heavy rain e.g. houses near The Wheel/Cinder Lane Hill and houses on Mill Road · Building here will significantly increase flood risk downstream and would overwhelm drainage systems which already happens in heavy rain. · Hesley Wood site contains the remains of an old spoil tip and is highly contaminated We have experienced flooding on our road and the roads nearby and we are very concerned about the safety of our property and other people's homes and businesses if the development goes ahead. The amended plans do not show any proposal of how flood risks will be mitigated. Urban Sprawl and Overdevelopment · 37% of Sheffield’s planned new homes (1494) are in the Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside area, with a potential increase in local population of 40%. This is an unfair burden on our local community as flagged in the Inspectors letter of February 2025. · These plans will cause Grenoside, Ecclesfield, Parsons Cross, Fox Hill, and Chapeltown to merge into one large urban area, losing our individual communities. · 70% of the Greenbelt land planned for employment use is in Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside despite significant employment land in the area being currently under occupied. · This goes against the core purpose of the Green Belt, which is to prevent this kind of urban sprawl. The development will result in the loss of open greenbelt land, which currently contributes to the rural character of the area and serves as a buffer between urban settlements, contrary to Green Belt policy objectives. The amended plans do not show any decrease in the percentage of new homes planned for the S35 area. Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure · 1,494 new homes will equal approximately 2,000 extra cars using already congested local roads particularly during school runs and rush hour. · Wheel Lane and The Wheel and surrounding roads are already used as a cut-through to the M1 and cannot cope with more traffic. · Creswick Lane is already impassible at certain times of the day due to 3 schools being in close proximity to each other – Mansel, Yewlands and St Thomas More’s. · 3 additional employment sites will also bring increased HGV traffic into the area and further congestion at M1 junctions serving the area. · The employment site classifications do not align to the local demand for jobs and would thereby require workers from outside the local area to travel into the area, further exacerbating traffic congestion · Key routes such as Chapeltown Road, Ecclesfield Road, Cowley Lane, Station Road, Loundside, Burncross Road, Wheel Lane, The Wheel, Penistone Road, and Nether Lane are already under significant pressure. These plans will make it significantly worse and dangerous. · These plans will increase carbon emissions and noise pollution which contravenes the long standing commitment agreed by the Sheffield Council to achieve zero emissions and a reduced carbon footprint. As parents to young children, I am concerned about the impact on their health and safety (as well as that of other people due to the increased risk) of the increase in traffic that this development would lead to, including the impact of increased air pollution. In a city that prides itself on being 'green', these plans contradict this directly. Also they are disproportionately impacting certain areas of the city, surely it would be fairer and have less of an impact on local infrastructure for development to be more thinly spread across wider areas. It does seem that certain areas of the city are treated unequally by the council, and residents in all areas should have just as much value, we all pay our council taxes after all. There is no clear plan on the amendments on how traffic congestion would be eased. Traffic from the M1 to Ecclesfield via Nether Lane is already nearly backed up to the M1 at peak times, and this will now be even worse. Loss of Wildlife and Green Space · These Green Belt sites contain a wide range of wildlife habitats including hedgerows and woodland where bats, owls, badgers, deer, birds of prey and hedgehogs live · There is a legally protected badger sett and local nature site at Middleton Lane. · Hesley Wood and Smithy Wood both contain ancient woodlands and Local Wildlife Sites · Destroying these habitats would be a breach of environmental protections and a loss for future generations. Impact on Heritage and History · A scoping study in 2015 described The Wheel Lane sites as being of “major significant historical value", including remains of an old mill and ironworking sites. · Grenoside and Ecclesfield have historic farm buildings, ancient woodland, and a Grade II listed courthouse. · Smithy Wood has been found to contain heritage assets of archaeological/ historical interest · Development risks permanently destroying the character and history of our villages and landscape. This local plan is not sound as sites were not scored against all five of the Greenbelt purposes. No scoring was conducted against Purpose 4 which assesses the impact on the setting and special characteristics of historic towns. Given Ecclesfield's mention in the Domesday Book, the lack of assessment on Purpose 4 makes the plan unsound. Healthcare and Social Care Pressure · The proposed development is projected to increase the local population by approximately 40%, yet there is no accompanying commitment within the plan to expand healthcare provision such as GP services, dental care, or social care infrastructure. Local GP and Dental surgeries are reporting long waiting lists · Existing NHS data and local feedback confirm that residents already experience delays in accessing appointments. · Without a clear and deliverable strategy to address the additional demand, the risk of service shortfall is substantial and foreseeable based on current capacity constraints. Poor Public Transport Links · Grenoside and Ecclesfield have limited and infrequent bus services, and no tram or train access. · Chapeltown has a railway station but no car park causing parking congestion on nearby roads · New residents and workers travelling to the employment sites would be car-dependent, adding further strain to the road network and increasing carbon emissions and noise pollution. Lack of Exceptional Circumstances The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and only when all other reasonable alternatives have been fully explored. In this case, I would question whether compelling evidence has been presented to demonstrate that such circumstances exist. Has the Council exhausted brownfield opportunities, including smaller brownfield sites, underused urban sites, or higher-density alternatives. Housing need alone does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, as confirmed by established case law. Without a robust and transparent justification, the release of Green Belt land in Grenoside, Ecclesfield and Chapeltown is unjustified, contrary to national policy and risks setting a dangerous precedent. Lack of Transparency and Inaccessible Consultation Process The new Green Belt site allocations were announced just 20 days before the council vote. It was therefore far too short a timeframe for meaningful public engagement. I do not feel I have had sufficient time to review the supporting evidence as this is buried within thousands of pages of highly technical documents, yet the public was given only five weeks to respond. This process effectively excludes residents who lack specialist expertise, time, or even digital access. The consultation falls far short of the standards of accessibility, fairness, and transparency promised in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) — and may also breach legal obligations around inclusive public consultation. We have spoken to lots of people who would be impacted by the development, including elderly people without access to social media, and they were unaware of the plans or of the scale of the impact in the S35 area. We are concerned that this means that many people will not have the opportunity to raise their concerns and objections about something that will hugely impact their lives. We found out on social media, we have not received any information from the council. We did not see any of the consultation events advertised until after they had already taken place. Contravention of Green Belt Principles This proposal breaches all five of the stated purposes of Green Belt designation: preventing urban sprawl, avoiding towns merging, protecting countryside, preserving historic character, and prioritising brownfield development. I believe that none of these principles have been adequately considered. In summary, these proposals are unsustainable, inequitable, and harmful to both the environment and the wellbeing of existing communities. I urge Government inspectors, and Sheffield City Council, to reject these development plans and to protect our Green Belt for current and future generations. Please acknowledge receipt of this. Yours faithfully, Mark Howard **REDACTED** 26/03/26
566 4643113 31/03/2026 Richard Wood Online Devonshire Property Group, landowner and promoter of site allocation SWS 19. Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM441 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation SWS19 Yes Yes It was agreed in the Statement of Common Ground (Exam 172) with SCC that an existing condition wording should be replaced with the following. An integrated approach should be taken to the development of the housing allocation and the adjacent Local Wildlife Site to achieve flood risk, ecological, place making and public access benefits to the local community which can provide compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining areas of Green Belt. As agreed with the Council it is still considered that this is a positive and appropriate requirement.
567 4643390 31/03/2026 Richard Wood Online Devonshire Property Group Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM74 - Policy SA7 Yes Yes
568 4661171 08/04/2026 Frances Revels Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes Does the planning department of Sheffield City Council KNOW how many empty buildings or only partially rented or sold flats there are in Sheffield. Travelling from one side of Sheffield to the other on a bus on my own I do observe a lot of what appear to be empty or only partially occupied buildings. As we have a Labour government in power at the moment why don't we lobby them to use some young people to do research on every building in Sheffield. Get funding for the Sheffield College and universities to start researching this. Geography students studying Human geography would be a good starting point. Also lobby Labour government to support small local builders to build social housing while training and retraining their staff and not allow large developers to put in all the bids for building large developments with so called affordable houses which never seem to actually be built. Building on Green Belt is not supplying Social Housing which is where there is desperate need.
569 4665660 11/04/2026 Cuthbert Baines Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM60 and MM324 No No There are 2 "strategic housing sites" and 4 regular housing sites in locations that aren't anywhere near an employment zone. No normal person will ever be able to afford to live in those houses. They will contribute nothing to the local economy because the people who live in those houses will drive everywhere and have zero involvement in the local economy. They will damage the local economy because fewer day trippers will visit the area. The area is in the legally protected Green Belt. There are rare birds living in the trees they plan to cut down. They are building on a flood plane that has flooded more than once in the last 20 years already. There has already been a massive housing development on that flood plane. No provisions made for school places. No consideration for the increased traffic on those tiny roads. But the worst part of it is that someone looked at the previous plan that has a number of housing sites on it and decided to add more right onto of that flood plane. No mention of the massive land slip. No mention of the dangerous driving on the B road between Stocksbridge and Sheffield. No mention of the increased costs for local residents to pay for road maintenance. This form and survey is about as difficult to access as anyone could possible design. I know that people who design these forms have a duty of care to make them accessible and this for from it. It cannot be considered a true public consultation if the public can't find out about this form and then can't find it. This is a massive Cover up. Shame on you! I would abide by the rule that prevents building on the green belt. I would ban anymore building on that flood plane. If a private developer has bought some land they can't build on that's their own fault and they can sell it whenever they want.
570 4667488 13/04/2026 Flora Blackwater Online Sheffield Swift Network Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM185 - Main Modifications to Policy GS5 Yes Yes Support the main modifications, which implement national planning policy and guidance. No changes required.
571 4667545 13/04/2026 Tracey Russell Online Heeley Green Community Centre Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes
572 4668508 14/04/2026 Thomas Bromley Online Integrated Impact Assessment (Update and Addendum) (2026) and Non-Technical Summary Yes No The strategy directs a substantial level of new housing to areas that are at risk of flooding (flood zones 2 and 3), this is completely unacceptable, short sighted, and dangerous. No new development should be considered in flood zones 2 or 3, particularly given the extensive and well documented evidence that climate change is going to make flooding worse (https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.70010 and https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.4079). Allocating development in flood zones 2 and 3 is against Environment Agency advice, makes the problem of flood risk worse, and bakes in long term risk (physical, social, and financial). Separately, there is no such thing as "flood proofing" development, reference to this should be removed from the plan. Please amend the plan to remove all allocation of development on flood zones 2 and 3. Revise the residual effects to major negative effects. Revise and amend the plan so that no new development allocations are in flood zones 2 or 3. Remove all reference to "flood proofing" development.
573 4668798 14/04/2026 Richard Hull Online Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SES13 No No The Area behind Jaunty Avenue Known as Jaunty Park under your plans SES13 is not only a wildlife corridor which homes endangered species shown below 1. tawny owls 2 bats 3 toads 4 skylarks 5 badgers 6 frogs 7 field mice (also possible dormouse ) 8 red Deer any building on these lands will certainly make these creatures unable to live nearby . You have a responsibility under the wildlife and countryside act 1981 to preserve these areas for the local community . not only this the access is limited to the area and will cause congestion and a danger to local foot passage and car difficulties leave the park as it should be which is a haven for local rare wildlife and a precious area for both wildlife enthusiasts and dog walker's . under the wildlife and countryside act 1981 it is your prime responsibility to protect these area at any cost
574 4668926 14/04/2026 Alison Lally Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No I do not consider the proposed modification to be legally compliant because the consultation has not been properly conducted. The council has not written to the community in Handsworth (and I assume not in Woodhouse). My knowledge of this, to be able to object, has come through a neighbour letting me know about it originally. I understand that a proper consultation at Regulation 18 stage is a legal requirement, but assuming the ability to access information about the proposals online is not including the digitally excluded, be it through financial reasons or disability etc. I do not consider the plan to be sound because I have seen no current evidence that it will meet the needs of local residents. It is driven by a national policy, and not local needs. In fact, as a resident I know it will be to the detriment of current residents. Following the building of the Waverley estate. it has already become difficult to get appointments at the doctors, and impossible to get a NHS dentist appointment in Handsworth. The roads are already jammed at the busiest parts of the day. This concerns me not only from the point of view of the difficulty commuting, but also from the perspective of air quality and safety. One of my cats was killed by a car on our road, and that was tragic, but the risk is that it will be a child if the traffic continues to increase. The research shows that this side of Sheffield already has 10 years less healthy life expectancy than the other side, and this change, taking away nearly all of our recreational and green space will only exacerbate that difference, as there is no indication of alternatives to be provided. The Council has been placed in a very difficult position, with centrally imposed targets to meet, and hence has ended up having to put forward every bit of space that they can identify, rather than making the decisions based on local needs. A plan that is designed to meet the needs of Sheffield residents overall, rather than simply to meet an arbitrarily imposed national target, that has then been disproportionately applied to my area of the city. Proper, timely consultation, that is inclusive of all residents in Handsworth and Woodhouse (and other directly impacted areas of the city). Alternatives provided within the consultation. Information to be provided in an accessible manner, that is suitable for those with disabilities, or who are digitally excluded, and in language that doesn't require technical understanding of planning regulations etc. Specifics on how access to health services, air quality, green space, traffic, school places etc impacts will be mitigated, so that these are not to the detriment of residents.
575 4671525 16/04/2026 Jack Byrom Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Ses29 & ses30 No No I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Local Plan, and particularly those that impact sites SES29 and SES30. While I recognise the need for a sound and deliverable plan, several of the modifications materially weaken safeguards that are essential for public safety, statutory compliance, and the fair distribution of development impacts across the city. For these reasons, the proposed modifications fail to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically that the Plan must be justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. **Failure of the Evidence Base and Brownfield Prioritisation** The Council’s decision to release 91 hectares of Green Belt land across SES29 and SES30 is fundamentally unjustified. Under NPPF Paragraph 35, a plan is only justified if it is the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives; however, the Council continues to rely on a Brownfield Land Register that has not been updated since 2019. In the years since that audit, urban density opportunities have shifted significantly. To proceed with the destruction of the Green Belt at SES29 & SES30 without a transparent, up to date audit of all brownfield capacity is a procedural failure. The Plan cannot be considered "justified" when "reasonable alternatives" on brownfield land have not been formally reassessed for over half a decade. **Contradictions in the IIA and HRA Reports (Unsound Environmental Assessment)** Evidence within the ntegrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Update and Addendum (2026) and the IIA Report Addendum proves that these allocations are unsustainable. Paragraph 5.9.8 of the IIA confirms that "permanent negative effects would remain" on the environment and landscape character, while paragraph 5.9.12 admits these effects will be "difficult to fully mitigate". Furthermore, the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Update (2026) and the Schedule of Changes to the Policies Map highlight significant site constraints, including flood risk and ecological corridors requiring substantial buffering. Despite this, there is no evidence of a transparent recalculation of housing numbers to account for these reduced buildable areas, meaning the housing targets for S13 are speculative and undeliverable. **Infrastructure Failure and the Absence of Grampian Conditions (Ineffective)** The modifications fail to provide an effective strategy for mitigating the severe impact on the highway network. Adding 1,697 homes will generate thousands of daily vehicle movements onto an already saturated road network in S13. MM20 relies on the unacceptably ambiguous phrase that improvements will be made :wherever practicable", which acts as an "escape clause" for developers. To be effective under Paragraph 35, the Plan must include strictly worded Grampian conditions.Without legally binding conditions that prohibit the occupation of new dwellings until specific road upgrades and school expansions are fully operational, the community has no protection against a total collapse of local infrastructure. Relying on "hoped-for" developer funding without these front-loaded requirements makes the plan speculative and unsound. **Collapse of Local Services: Education and Healthcare** The S13 area is being forced to absorb approximately 44% of the city’s total Green Belt housing allocations without a proportionate increase in services. Local school provisions are already under extreme pressure and will be unable to accommodate the projected surge in pupils from nearly 1,700 new homes without a site-specific mandate for new educational facilities. Furthermore, MM19's use of the non-binding phrase "include consideration for" regarding healthcare facilities simply fails to secure delivery. S13 residents currently face a healthcare access rate of just 9% (compared to a 40% national average), and this Plan knowingly risks exacerbating these deep-seated health inequalities. **Conclusion** In conclusion, the main modifications are vague, lack the detail and are neither specific, credible, or deliverable. This plan fails at every level of local and national policy. I therefore urge the removal of SES29 and SES30, to ensure the Plan is sound. Removal of SES29 & SES30
576 4673321 17/04/2026 Heather Wren Online Integrated Impact Assessment Report Addendum Modifications Consultation - including Non-Technical Summary No No The Impact Assessment Report states that the modifications needed further assessment due to spatial strategy changes i.e. school/burial land, Green belt release etc. The Council have also said the Plan makes it worse for our soil and land, biodiversity etc. Due to the environmental harm worsening, residents are entitled to challenge whether this trade-off is acceptable. In the Non-Technical Summary of the Impact Assessment Report, it states that the modifications are less environmentally friendly and raise issues with land, landscape, biodiversity and transport. The modified plan replies on Green belt release leading to permanent loss of greenfield land and reduced soil function, as well as landscape effects and biodiversity becoming worse. Transport also worsens because of the growth in car-dependent areas creating more pollution, more vehicle movements and pressure on congested corridors. AECOM also state that in the Main Modifications, further assessment was required in the following: amendments to spatial strategy and additional site allocations for housing and land for school/burial sites, Green Belt release, stronger flood risk references and protection of wildlife. The Council's own consultants have stated further appraisal is needed due to these changes, which backs up our challenge as to whether these modifications are properly sound and evidenced. One suggestion is making use of brownfield sites, old sites no longer in use, in and around Sheffield, not all centred in the North of Sheffield. Demolish old industrial sites no longer in use and turn them into residential neighbourhoods, but spread them all out over Sheffield.
577 4673404 17/04/2026 Heather Wren Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No The Golden Rules and compensatory movements are still really vague. If the Council is relying on these rules to justify Green Belt release, then they should show clearly what they mean for these sites and how they can be delivered. The Plan relies on a package of improvements without proving deliverability. The modifications are all too broad. They do not states clearly and precisely what is required, whether it is viable and deliverable, whether it undermines housing capacity, and whether it is enforceable with precision. The Plan needs to state precisely what is required and state in clear terms whether it is viable and undermines housing capacity etc. The policies invoke higher affordable housing, NC15 open space and compensatory improvements, but do not clearly prove how this all works in practice. The site policies also add huge burdens - school/burial land, buffers, ecology, highways, flood work, air quality, contamination, heritage, station related requirements - while still assuming high housing numbers.
578 4673428 17/04/2026 Heather Wren Online Habitats Regulations Assessment - Appropriate Assessment Update (2026) No No The Habit Regulation Assessment does not say there is no issue. It says impacts can be avoided only because mitigation is assumed. You can legitimately say that if the Plan depends on mitigation, that mitigation needs to be specific, credible and deliverable. This is therefore not effective and insufficiently evidenced, if the mitigation package is being relied on in principle without enough certainty about delivery. There will also be adverse affects on the biodiversity, wildlife, soil, land, residents from this many houses being built in one area. The Executive Summary on page 5 says the Main Modificationss increase housing capacity from 38,012 to 38,318 homes and increase employment land. The impact tables on pages 38 and 45 say the submitted plan plus the proposed additional allocations would accommodate 38,318 homes, including 3,771 units on greenfield sites in the Green Belt, and 258.65 hectares of employment land including 61.33 hectares of Green Belt land. Those same pages say recreational pressure and activity/vehicle pressures would increase, but conclude no adverse effect only because mitigation measures and developer contributions are assumed. There will be adverse affects from this many houses, building work, and other sites being built in one built-up area. These need to be listed clearly. Please reconsider looking at other sites across Sheffield, including brownfield sites and other sites that are no longer used.
579 4673443 17/04/2026 Heather Wren Online Schedule of changes to the Policies Map arising from proposed Main Modifications MM408 No No If some sites are removed because there is not enough evidence of delivery, then the new strategic Green Belt sites should be tested just as rigorously. The same standard should apply. Therefore, these modifications are not justified or effective, unless the same evidential standard on availability and deliverability is applied consistently to the newly added strategic sites. On page 136, the Schedule of changes to the Policies Map arising from proposed Main Modifications states that SES27 deallocated as unavailable for delivery. The Main Modifications schedule says the reason for sites being removed is “site unavailable for deliverability”, while Green Belt sites are inserted to ensure sufficient housing/employment land supply. Other sites are added even before knowledge of their availability, so if other sites are being removed for lack of deliverability, then the other new Green Belt sites need to be held to the same standard.
580 4619529 17/04/2026 DLP Planning Ltd Online N/A Limes Developments Ltd - Landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM127 Yes No The Whole Plan Viability Assessment (WPVA, September 2022 ref.VI01) paragraph 3.29 (page 39) states that ‘a bespoke viability testing model designed and developed by HDH specifically for area wide viability testing as required by the NPPF and CIL Regulations is used. At the time of the 2019 iteration of this assessment SCC based the affordable housing policy on Gross Internal Area (GIA) so the model was adjusted to accommodate this. The draft policy is now based on units, so the model has reverted to the per/unit basis.’. This version of the WPVA (VI01) was consulted on at the Pre-submission Reg. 19 in February 2023 and formed the basis of the discussion at the hearings held on this matter in September 2024. There is no other version of the WPVA available in the Examination Library. The WPVA Further Note (EXAM 131) for the Green Belt release sites states clearly at paragraph 2.3 that the appraisals are based on the same cost and value assumptions as set out in the previous Assessment to allow direct comparison, and there’s no reference to reverting back to GIA. Therefore, the methodology in the Further Note is based on units which is inconsistent with the draft Policy NC3. When based on units, the WPVA Further Note concludes that 30% affordable housing is considered viable for the draft allocated Green Belt sites. We understand from housebuilders who have expressed interest in one of the proposed site allocations via a marketing exercise that basing affordable housing provision on GIA rather than units will negatively affect viability. Draft Policy NC3 is inconsistent with the Whole Plan Viability Assessment 2022 (VI01) and the Further note (EXAM 131) which assessed the viability of the proposed allocations based on affordable housing units, not GIA. The Policy is therefore unjustified as required by paragraph 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Draft Policy NC3 should require affordable housing to be based on units rather than gross internal area (GIA); Draft Policy NC3 ‘Provision of Affordable Housing’ should be amended to state the following as an example: ‘30% of the proposed units’. Alternatively, the Whole Plan Viability Assessment Further Note (EXAM 131) should be updated to calculate viability based on a percentage of the gross internal area for affordable housing rather than units.
581 4674094 17/04/2026 Jane Newman Online Jane Newman Planning Blue Phoenix UK Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM122, MM123 Yes Yes My client Blue Phoenix UK is one of the UK’s leading producers of Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregates (IBAA) which has been used for over 20 years as a construction material. Blue Phoenix offer extensive UK coverage for the supply of Specification for Highway Works and BS EN compliant Aggregates. Not only does this reduce the volume of waste that goes to landfill, but it also reduces the demand for the mining of primary resources. The proposed policy recognises that this is a use which should not be lost to alternative uses, in order to maintain a sustainable supply of minerals for the city and wider region. Blue Phoenix welcomes the safeguarding of the site and fully supports the policy as it is drafted.
582 4677291 21/04/2026 Sarah Hammond Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan NWS30,NWS31, NES01, NES36, NES37, NES38, NES39 No No The plans and proposed changes would remove Green Belt land from a semi-rural suburb of Sheffield. This area provides an important natural habitat for wildlife, including badgers, deer and many bird species, and the surrounding farmland is central to the character and “village feel” of the community. The proposal also appears to underestimate the likely increase in traffic. Local roads are narrow and not designed to accommodate a significant rise in vehicle volumes, which could create congestion and safety concerns. More broadly, the scale of housing and development being proposed across the S35 area risks overwhelming the local community, without sufficient consideration for existing residents who bought their homes—or chose to live here—because it is a semi-rural environment. Reduction of the volume of housing proposed for S35 and the closure of Townend Farm. Utilise existing brown belt sites previously identified and not used.
583 4677726 21/04/2026 Joss Englert Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan NWS31 - MM332 Yes No Loss of Greenspace The Main Modifications are not ‘sound’ as they rely on the Council’s compensatory proposals (as outlined in Sheffield Plan Green Belt Allocations: Compensatory Opportunities within Remaining Green Belt), which are inadequate and do not address the needs of the community. They provide little or no compensation for those residents most negatively affected by loss of amenity of Green Space, including those with Protected Characteristics. Proposals for Open Space within the site are equally unsatisfactory. Main Modifications are not ‘legal’ as those with Protected Characteristics (including older residents; those with disabilities; illness, and reduced mobility; and young children) will lose the amenity of local and accessible Green and Open Space, with no suitable and acceptable alternative. This would have a negative impact on their Health and Wellbeing and would disproportionately harm those from vulnerable groups. This would be a breach of the Equality Act 2010, which states “Planning decisions must consider how policies affect those with Protected Characteristics,” (Public Sector Equality Duty). It also contravenes the councils Integrated Impact Assessment Framework principle SA5, that states, “Open Space, Cultural, Leisure and Recreational facilities available for all." Flood risk Site NWS31 is known to have a significant problem with groundwater and drainage. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) failed to identify this problem. The Main Modifications rely on the accuracy of the SFRA, and as this issue could have a major impact on the viability and deliverability of the site, without a specific requirement for a detailed ground water assessment, the Main Modifications cannot be considered ‘sound’. Access off Don Avenue There are some complex issues surrounding access off Don Avenue. In order to be found ‘sound’, the Main Modifications need to be more specific in relation to these issues. The MM point is also not sound as it only specifies one entry point to the site, whereas sites of 100 homes or more usually require two access points. Biodiversity The Main Modifications are not ‘sound’ in respect of Biodiversity as there is no specific mention of Protected Species, despite residents’ presentation of clear evidence of their existence on site, both during the previous consultation and at the hearings. As the site has been identified as having a high Biodiversity Net Gain value (Ecology Report), and the value is likely to increase after Protected Species values are added, in order for the MMs to be ‘sound’, there should be a commitment for BNG to be delivered on site in the first instance in line with BNG hierarchy. Loss of Greenspace In order to protect the Health and Wellbeing of all residents, the Main Modifications need to state that: ‘ There should be an obligation for the council and planning teams to work with local community groups and residents to ensure that areas of public amenity Green/Open Space are retained on site and located in areas of the site that satisfy, and are appropriate to address, the needs of local residents, including those with Protected Characteristics. ‘This should be done at master planning stage at the latest. Flood risk Main Modifications should include a requirement for full detailed assessments of groundwater and site run off to be carried out BEFORE the site is released for development. Assessment should account for worst case scenarios i.e. wet weather conditions. Further investigations should be carried out into possible mitigations and their likely success and impact on site viability. Areas intended for public footpath access/Open Space should also be assessed for suitability with respect to presence of groundwater. Access off Don Avenue Main Modifications need to specify that: -Traffic assessment needs to be detailed and consider safety issues around school and nearby estate roads, parking issues, access for plant machinery, impact on junctions etc. -A detailed assessment is required to determine impact on access to residents’ homes, including disabled access and emergency vehicles. -Assessment of Land Drain and Land slippage/ground issues near the proposed site entrance should take place. (In all cases, possible mitigations should be considered and assessed for Feasibility). -A second site access point should be considered from Storth Lane. -Retention of some public footpath access across the site during construction should be considered in collaboration with local community groups. Biodiversity 1. Further detailed assessment should be carried out for Protected Species present on site or very close to the site and BNG should be adjusted accordingly. 2. BNG for watercourse should be calculated. 3. Mitigations should be put into place for all identified Protected Species and their habitats including suitable buffers and light restrictions around forage areas and flight paths. This should apply to all habitats (bat roosts etc.) identified both on site and within close proximity to site. 4. Some areas of open grassland should be retained. AND Condition point 10 “where feasible” should be removed so that the statement reads: “Biodiversity Net Gain should be delivered on site within these areas in the first case, in line with the BNG hierarchy.
584 4682106 25/04/2026 Mark Wren Online Integrated Impact Assessment (Update and Addendum) (2026) and Non-Technical Summary No No The Council's own appraisal says that the main modifications for this plan makes it worse for landscape, biodiversity, soil and land, and transport. The modifications are not supported by enough evidence, so it isn't justified as it's environmentally worse and residents of the surrounding areas should have a right to challenge whether these changes are acceptable, sound and properly evidenced. The Integrated Impact Assessment explains that some of the modifications required further assessment as they involved site allocations, Green Belt release, and more land for schools and burial land. More Green Belt release will lead to permanent loss of greenfield and reduced soil function. Transports worsens as there will be more vehicles in certain areas creating congestion and movement and pressure on the roads. Consider brownfield sites or derelict buildings and industrial sites that could potentially be knocked down and built upon provided the environment impact reports come back positive.
585 4682122 25/04/2026 Mark Wren Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No If the Council are relying on the Golden Rules to allow Green Belt release, they need to specify clearly what it means in practice for these sites and how they can be delivered. This approach is not justified or effective because the plan relies on vague improvements without proving they can be delivered. The modifications are very broad and do not explain how the improvements are viable, deliverable, enforceable, and what exactly is required. As it still doesn't state whether it undermines housing capacity too, and still assumes high housing numbers, the plan does not show how these modifications are deliverable. Especially when the site policies add more burdens such as highways, flood work, air quality, contamination etc. We need more information as to how this would work in practice as it is still vague, but also consider spreading out the building of these new houses around Sheffield, not just centred in the North.
586 4682128 25/04/2026 Mark Wren Online Habitats Regulations Assessment - Appropriate Assessment Update (2026) No No The Habits Regulation Assessment does not state that there is no issue. Mitigation is assumed, so it says impacts can be avoided, but if the plan depends on mitigation, then that mitigation needs to be specific, credible and deliverable. Therefore, it is not effective and there is not enough evidence if the mitigation package is being relied upon in principle without certainty of delivery. The Executive Summary in the HRA states that the housing capacity is increasing by 306 houses and employment land is also increasing. This would include 3,771 units on Green Belt land and 61.33ha of employment land on Green Belt land, and on pages 38 and 45, it states that recreational pressure and activity and vehicle pressure would increase, putting more pressure on the land and surrounding areas. However, it concludes there will be no adverse effects only because mitigation and developer contributions are assumed. When you are putting this much pressure on the land and effecting the residential areas already here, the land, the soil and biodiversity, you need to ensure that you are being thorough as to the effects it will have and not just assuming things will be okay because of mitigation. Please don't assume and actually do the work to highlight the impact it will have. There will also be a cumulative impact of having multiple sites on one area. This also should be investigated.
587 4682134 25/04/2026 Mark Wren Online Schedule of changes to the Policies Map arising from proposed Main Modifications MM408 No No On page 136 of this document, it says that SES7 was deallocated for undeliverability. If some sites are being deallocated and removed because of undeliverability and more Green Belt land is being added for potential sites, the same standard should be applied to the newly allocated land and tested thoroughly to the same standards as the other deallocated sites were. So unless the same standard on evidence-based availability and deliverability is applied to the new strategic sites then it is not justified. Other sites are being added before they have had rigorous testing to ensure they are available and deliverable. The same strict standard should be applied to the newly appointed sites to ensure they are available and deliverable. The work needs to be more thorough and accurate to ensure we're taking everything into account and the impact this will all have on the land and the people who live here.
588 4671882 27/04/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning HFT - landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM4 Yes Yes Hft support proposed modification MM4 which affirms the Council’s commitment to significantly increase the supply of housing for different groups in the community including people with disabilities, and aligns the wording with national planning policy. No modification required.
589 4682929 27/04/2026 Martin Bate Online Campaign for Pubs Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM135 Yes No We think that the term "reasonable public access" within the statement "have reasonable public access to important local services and community facilities" will be difficult to interpret when assessing proposed planning changes. A precise definition of "reasonable" needs to be included. In contrast, the definition in MM136 of reasonable access is more clearly defined.
590 4682940 27/04/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning HFT - landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM10 - Main Modification to Policy SP1 (Overall Growth Plan) Yes Yes Hft support the changes to Policy SP1 in principle which supports Green Belt release around listed settlements. Part J of the policy supports smaller releases of greenfield land at Oughtbridge, Wharncliffe Side and Dore, and cross references to the associated sub- area Policies SA2 and SA7. Hft support the release of Green Belt land around Dore, but consider that insufficient additional sites have been identified to specifically address the recognition in proposed modification MM130 that specialist housing for older and disabled people is required across the City. Hft’s response to Main Modification MM74 (Policy SA7 - Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area) seeks the allocation of the Hft’s site in Dore to deliver a mix of specialist housing for disabled people and market housing. No further modifications to Policy SP1 required.
591 4682947 27/04/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning HFT - landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM130 - Policy NC4 Yes No MM130 seeks to amend the section on Specialist housing for older or disabled people and deletes the statement that specialist housing will be promoted only in areas of need. The proposed modification acknowledges that there is a City Wide need for housing for older and disabled peopled and specialist housing will therefore be promoted in all areas of the City. Hft are a national charity who provide services for people with learning disabilities and support the change to Policy NC4 (Housing for Supported and Independent Living). The Elms site is operated by Hft and lies adjacent to the built extent of Dore within the Green Belt. The site provides residential care for adults with learning disabilities. The existing building is not fit for purpose and a new purpose built facility within the wider landholding is required to provide additional and enhanced supported living accommodation. Additional market housing would ensure the supported living homes are fully integrated with the wider community and provide funding to deliver the new purpose built development. Whilst proposed modification MM140 supports the promotion of housing for older and disabled people in principle, there are no modifications proposed which specifically seek to increase the delivery of specialist housing, particularly for disabled adults, despite the identified need. The proposed policy will not therefore be effective in delivering this much needed specialist housing. Hft are seeking a further modification to Policy SA74 (Policy SA7 – Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area) to allocate The Elms site for specialist and market housing (see our response to Main Modification MM74). In the event the site is not allocated, a further modification is proposed to Policy NC4 to support the redevelopment and growth of existing specialist housing sites including existing sites in the Green Belt. The further modification proposed will support the redevelopment and growth of existing specialist housing sites which may not fully meet the locational requirements set out in the policy but will support an increase in the supply of specialist housing, for which there is a City Wide need. Hft’s further modifications proposed are detailed below in capitals:- Policy NC4: Housing for Independent and Supported Living Specialist housing designated for older or disabled people Specialist housing designated for older or disabled people will be promoted in all areas of the city. NEW proposals will be acceptable where the accommodation would be close to essential services, particularly public transport, shops, and health services. THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF EXISTING SPECIALIST HOUSING SITES WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTED. All specialist housing provision designated for older or disabled people, including supported accommodation (including hostels providing an element of care), and non-supported accommodation should be wheelchair adaptable or fully wheelchair accessible throughout, where feasible. The provision of secure internal storage for mobility aids will be required.
592 4682952 27/04/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning HFT - landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM74 - Policy SA7 (Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area) Yes No MM74 seeks to amend Policy SA7 (Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area) and increases the housing delivery to this sub-area to reflect new proposed allocations which are being released from the Green Belt including a site in Dore (Site Allocation SWS19). Hft consider the proposed modifications within the Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area to be unsound and that land at The Elms in Dore (HELAA Ref: 3069 and Additional Sites Ref: GBOM11) should also be released from the Green Belt and allocated as a housing site to deliver specialist homes for Disabled People as well as market housing. Proposed modifications to the plan seek to significantly increase the supply of housing for different groups of the community including disabled people (MM4) and acknowledge that specialist housing for older and disabled people will be promoted in all areas of the city (MM140 - Policy NC4 Housing for Supported and Independent Living). Whilst these modifications support housing for disabled people in principle, there are no modifications which actually allocate sites that will deliver homes for disabled people or support the growth of existing sites providing residential accommodation for disabled people. The proposed modifications will not therefore be effective in significantly increasing the supply of housing for disabled people as there are no sites identified to meet this identified need. Hft are a national charity who provide services for people with learning disabilities. The Elms site at Dore is operated by Hft and provides residential care for 7 adults with learning disabilities. The existing building is not fit for purpose and the development of the wider site with a new purpose built facility is required to provide additional and enhanced supported living accommodation to meet the longer term needs of the existing residents and meet the additional need for specialist accommodation for adults with learning disabilities. Additional market housing would ensure the supported living homes are fully integrated with the wider community and would provide funds to deliver the new purpose built development. Exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to support the release of sites from the Green Belt and proposed changes to Policy SP1 (Overall Growth Plan) supports smaller releases of greenfield land in the Green Belt at Dore (MM10). The Council have identified one site to the north of Dore (Proposed Allocation SWS19 - Land north of Parkers Lane) which extends to 2.6 ha and has an indicative capacity of 80 dwellings. Hft’s site (HELAA Ref: 3069 and Additional Sites Ref: GBOM11) lies adjacent to the settlement of Dore within the Green Belt and extends to 1.65 ha. The site is part brownfield with an existing Victorian building at the northern extent and greenfield land within Hft’s ownership to the south. Feasibility work has been undertaken with Hft’s preferred option comprising 12 self-contained one bed units for disabled people and 3 detached market dwellings, with the existing residential accommodation retained. The Council’s assessment of Green Belt sites set out in the Proposed Additional Site Allocations: Selection of Sites for Green Belt Release Topic Paper (May 2025) takes no account of the fact that part of this site currently provides specialist housing and the wider site could support the growth of the existing facility with new purpose built accommodation. There are factual inaccuracies within the assessment as the site is stated to be on a Local Green Space which it is not. The main reason for discounting the site is that Highways advised that a satisfactory access cannot be achieved. Hft have prepared a feasibility study which was submitted to the Council through the pre-application process with development options for the delivery of a mixed specialist and market housing development which show that access can be achieved using the existing access into The Elms along with a secondary access. Hft’s proposed amendment includes a new proposed site allocation SWS20 (The Elms, Old Hay Lane, Dore) which will deliver new specialist housing for disabled people and market housing, and is required to ensure the plan can deliver a significant increase in specialist housing which is needed across the City (as reflected in proposed modifications MM4 and MM130). The allocation of the site is also supported by proposed modification MM10, which supported the release of small scale sites around Dore. POLICY SA7: SOUTHWEST SHEFFIELD SUB-AREA Development proposals in the Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area will: a) Deliver approximately 1,295 new homes (through a combination of planning permissions and new site allocations). b) Deliver a housing requirement figure for the two neighbourhood plan areas: • Dore - at least 128 (including homes which already have planning permission and windfall sites); and • Broomhill, Broomfield, Endcliffe, Summerfield and Tapton (BBEST) – at least 214 homes (and will be limited to conversion or redevelopment of existing buildings and sites). c) Deliver Site Allocations SWS021, SWS04, SWS05, SWS06, SWS09 to SWS11, SWS13, SWS15, and SWS17 to SWS20 - including strategic housing site: SWS18.
593 4682956 27/04/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning HFT - landowner Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM441 - Policy SA7 Southwest Sheffield - List of Allocations Yes No Additional sites are needed to ensure the Plan is effective is meeting the identified City Wide need for specialist housing for disabled people. As set out in Hft’s detailed response to MM74 (Policy SA7 (Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area), The Elms site on the edge of Dore should be allocated for mixed specialist and market housing. It is an existing specialist housing site with land that can facilitate the delivery of additional specialist housing. Hft’s site (HELAA Ref: 3069 and Additional Sites Ref: GBOM11) extends to 1.65 ha and could deliver 12 new self-contained one bed units for disabled people and 3 detached market dwellings, with the existing residential accommodation adjacent to Old Hay Lane retained. Policy SA7 - Southwest Sheffield Sub-Area Site Allocations The following sites are allocated and outlined on the Policies Map: Site Allocation Reference Site Address Use Capacity Site Area (Ha) SWS20 Land at The Elms, Old Hay Lane, S17 3GN Housing 15 1.65 New allocation SWS20 (Land at The Elms, Old Hay Lane, S17 3GN) is required to ensure the plan is effective in significantly increasing the supply of specialist housing across the City.
594 4684330 28/04/2026 Philip Cross Online Schedule of changes to the Policies Map arising from proposed Main Modifications No No Site CH03 is totally unacceptable as an area of industrial sites. it is an area that was formerly mined and much dangerous waste was dumped and stored there, the waste under the soil/earth has many contaminants that have laid dormant for many years, to expose all the contaminants to the atmosphere after so long endangers all the local population, wildlife and natural habitat. Sheffield Council/Councillors have not given any guarantees at all that the local populations health, mental health and general wellbeing will be protected. This shows a total lack of any moral judgement, respect or interest whatsoever in the welfare for the local inhabitants of the area in CH03. This should be challenged in the highest courts for the total disregard and lack of morality shown by the Sheffield Council to all the population in the CH03 area To totally remove CH03 from the Local Plan
595 4685185 28/04/2026 George Rees Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM96 Para 5.18 No No The amendment makes reference to "non-standard cycles, including cargo bikes ... and E-bikes", but makes no reference to conventional manual bikes (aka push bikes). This is unsound because manual bikes are still the majority type of bicycle, the lowest-price and therefore most accessible type of bicycle, and the highest impact type of bicycle for improving levels of exercise and health. Recognise and value the popularity and importance of standard manual cycles.
596 4685291 28/04/2026 Debbie Winstanley Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SES03 No No ILLEGAL AIR POLLUTION - Records show that between 2012-2015 the Council monitored air pollution at Moss way/Donetsk Way near to the propose site and recorded NO2 levels between 46-48ug/m3. The legal limit is 40. For some unknown reason the Council stopped keeping a record of the pollution levels which we know for a fact would be so much worse since local developments have occurred such as Asda Mosborough, new industrial units at Drakehouse such as Tesla, extension to Drakehouse Retail Park which includes Aldi, Home Bargains and restaurants etc. and now a nursery by the extremely busy/hectic Scarsdale Pub. TRAFFIC AT BREAKPOINT - No intelligent consideration has been given to the local area when creating the above changes. Traffic is horrendous all day every day and is a nightmare for the local community. adding further dwellings into the area is simply not ethical and will impose further issues for residents who live in the area. PROTECTED WILDLIFE - Skylarks, a Red List species protected by law that has declines 62% nationally, have been confirmed nesting on the field where the planned works are due to take place. No ecological survey has ever been done. GRADE 2 FARMLAND - Best and most versatile agricultural land confirmed on the site by the Council's own officers. I do not want a Travellers site to be built by our home. There is already one within 2 miles of our home so why can't that be used? The crime rate has soared in our area and the Police are already stretched to capacity and cannot support local residents as it is. **REDACTED**
597 4685367 28/04/2026 Frances O'Connor Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM13 SA1 in particular MM184 Yes No I'm not sure if this is the correct place to register my objection to Sheffield Council approving the building of new houses on Green Field Sites (such as 80 houses on the land north of Parker's Lane in S17) but I want to add my voice to the opposition against this part of the city plan
598 4685493 28/04/2026 Helen Roach Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No I consider the proposed Sheffield Local Plan to be unsound, particularly in relation to the scale and concentration of development proposed within the S35 postcode area (including Chapeltown, Ecclesfield, Grenoside, High Green and Oughtibridge). Under the tests of soundness set out in national policy, I do not believe the Plan is consistent with national policy because “sound plans should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy” (NPPF, paragraph 35). 1. Not Justified - Disproportionate Distribution of Development The Plan is not justified because it does not represent an appropriate or proportionate spatial strategy. The NPPF requires that strategic policies are informed by proportionate evidence and reasonable alternatives, and that they are “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence” (NPPF, paragraph 35). The concentration of development in S35 is excessive when compared to other parts of the city. The Plan proposes over 1,600 homes within S35, including large allocations at Wheel/Yew Lane, Chapeltown Road, Grenoside, Middleton Lane and surrounding sites. This represents a significant and localised concentration of growth within a single postcode, rather than a balanced distribution across Sheffield. There is insufficient evidence presented to demonstrate why this level of development is the most appropriate option when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given the constraints already affecting the area. 2. Not Effective - Infrastructure is Not Clearly Deliverable The Plan is not effective because it does not demonstrate that the necessary supporting infrastructure will be delivered in a timely or coordinated way. The NPPF states that strategic policies should be “deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred” (NPPF, paragraph 35). It also requires that plans are supported by infrastructure provision, stating that “it is important that a sufficient choice of sites is available in suitable locations, taking into account the infrastructure needed to support them” (NPPF, paragraph 20). Transport The S35 area is already heavily constrained in terms of transport infrastructure. Key routes such as the A61 corridor and access to the M1 (Junction 35) are frequently congested. As a community clinician commuting daily from **REDACTED** along the A61 towards Sheffield Children’s Hospital, I experience this congestion firsthand. Journeys are already slow and unreliable. The addition of over 1,600 homes will generate thousands of additional vehicle movements, yet there is no clear, funded or deliverable scheme to significantly improve road capacity or reduce congestion in this area. Employment Land and HGV Traffic The allocation of land for “general employment” uses within S35 is also a concern. This type of designation typically results in warehousing and distribution uses, which generate substantial HGV traffic. The cumulative impact of residential and employment growth will place unsustainable pressure on the same constrained road network, further undermining the Plan’s effectiveness. Healthcare The NPPF is clear that planning should support “local health and well-being strategies” and enable “the provision of health facilities” (NPPF, paragraph 95). Primary care capacity is already stretched. At my local GP surgery Chapelgreen Practice, NHS patient survey data indicates that over half of patients report difficulty booking appointments. This reflects existing capacity issues. Despite this, the Plan does not include clear, deliverable proposals for new GP provision, expansion of existing practices, or workforce increases in S35. Without this, additional population growth will further reduce access to healthcare. Education The NPPF also requires that planning decisions and policies support “the provision and use of community services and facilities such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship” (NPPF, paragraph 95), which includes education infrastructure. Whilst the Plan indicates that additional school provision may be required, potentially including new schools, there is no clear, site-specific, fully funded or time-bound commitment to deliver this in step with housing growth in S35. There is insufficient detail regarding: • Location of new provision • Number of places to be created • Delivery timescales • Secured funding mechanisms This creates a clear risk that housing occupation will precede education provision, placing pressure on existing schools. 3. Not Consistent with National Policy - Lack of Infrastructure-Led Development National planning policy requires that development is supported by adequate infrastructure and integrated planning. The NPPF states that plans should “set out the contributions expected from development, including the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure” (NPPF, paragraph 34). It also expects that planning should operate in line with the objective of achieving sustainable development, defined as meeting needs including “accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being” (NPPF, paragraph 8). In this case, infrastructure provision (transport, healthcare, education) remains uncertain, high-level, and not clearly linked to delivery mechanisms or timing. This indicates that development is being led by housing targets rather than infrastructure capacity, which is inconsistent with national policy on sustainable development. 4. Not Positively Prepared - Failure to Address Existing Constraints The Plan does not adequately account for existing pressures within S35, including: • Chronic road congestion • Limited GP appointment availability • Pressure on school places • Established reliance on constrained transport corridors Rather than addressing these issues, the Plan risks exacerbating them significantly. A positively prepared plan should meet “the area’s objectively assessed needs, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas” (NPPF, paragraph 35), but must do so in a way that is realistic and supported by infrastructure capacity. 5. Green Belt Release - Localised Harm Not Properly Balanced The NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where “exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified” (NPPF, paragraph 140), and that authorities should demonstrate they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting development needs before releasing Green Belt land. Although the overall percentage of Green Belt release across Sheffield may be relatively small, the impact is highly concentrated in S35. The scale of release in this area undermines the purposes of the Green Belt, including preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements. The Plan does not sufficiently demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justify this level of localised harm, particularly when infrastructure constraints remain unresolved. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I consider the Plan to be unsound in relation to S35 because it is: • Not justified, due to disproportionate concentration of development • Not effective, due to lack of clearly deliverable infrastructure • Not consistent with national policy, due to absence of infrastructure-led planning • Not positively prepared, as it fails to address existing constraints I would urge that the Plan is reconsidered to: • Provide a more balanced distribution of development across Sheffield • Ensure that infrastructure is clearly defined, funded, and delivered in advance of or alongside development • Reduce reliance on Green Belt land in areas already under significant pressure Without these changes, the proposed development in S35 risks creating unsustainable communities and placing unacceptable strain on existing residents and services, repeating the pattern of decisions made without sufficient regard to local impact that was evidenced in the Sheffield street trees dispute, where widespread public concern arose from a perceived failure to properly balance policy delivery with the lived experience and priorities of affected communities. This would further undermine public confidence in the planning process and reinforce the perception that major local decisions are being made without sufficient regard to cumulative impacts and wider community wellbeing. Suggested Changes Required to Make the Plan Sound and Legally Compliant (S35 Area) In order to make the Local Plan sound in respect of the S35 allocations, I consider that the following changes are necessary. These changes are required to ensure the Plan is “positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy” (NPPF, paragraph 35). 1. Rebalancing of Spatial Distribution of Growth Required change: Reduce the concentration of housing and employment allocations within the S35 postcode area and redistribute a proportion of growth to other parts of Sheffield where infrastructure capacity is greater or where fewer cumulative constraints exist. Suggested revised supporting text: “Development will be distributed across the city in a manner that reflects infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, and the need to ensure balanced and sustainable growth across all communities.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This change is required to make the Plan “justified”, as the current level of concentration in S35 is not supported by proportionate evidence demonstrating that it is the most appropriate strategy when reasonable alternatives exist. It would also improve compliance with NPPF paragraph 35, which requires strategies to be based on reasonable alternatives and proportionate evidence. It would also support “positively prepared planning” by ensuring development is planned in a way that meets needs without overburdening a single locality. 2. Infrastructure-Led Development Requirement Required change: Insert a clear policy requirement that major allocations in S35 will only come forward where supporting infrastructure is fully funded, agreed, and deliverable in step with development. Suggested policy wording: “Development in S35 will be permitted only where it is demonstrated that necessary infrastructure, including highways improvements, education provision, healthcare capacity, and utility infrastructure, is secured and deliverable in a timely manner to serve the scale of development proposed. Occupation of new housing will be phased to align with the delivery of identified infrastructure.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This is required to make the Plan “effective” and “consistent with national policy”, particularly NPPF paragraph 20 and paragraph 34, which require that development is supported by infrastructure and that plans set out how infrastructure will be delivered. Without this change, there is a clear risk that development will proceed ahead of infrastructure capacity, leading to unsustainable outcomes. 3. Transport Capacity and Mitigation Requirement Required change: Strengthen policy wording to require demonstrable evidence of highway capacity and funded mitigation schemes before development is permitted. Suggested policy wording: “Proposals within S35 must be supported by a Transport Assessment demonstrating that the cumulative impact of development on the local and strategic road network can be satisfactorily mitigated. Development will not be supported where residual cumulative impacts would result in severe congestion or unacceptable highway safety impacts.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This change ensures compliance with NPPF paragraph 110, which states that development should only be prevented or refused where residual cumulative impacts are severe. It also ensures the Plan is “effective”, as it links growth to deliverable transport solutions rather than assumptions of future capacity improvements. 4. Healthcare and Education Delivery Requirements Required change: Include explicit requirements for the delivery of additional GP and school capacity in advance of or alongside development. Suggested policy wording: “Residential development within S35 must be supported by confirmed arrangements for the delivery or expansion of primary healthcare and education provision, with capacity delivered in phase with population growth to ensure no net loss of service accessibility for existing or future residents.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This is required to ensure the Plan is “positively prepared” and “consistent with national policy”, particularly NPPF paragraph 95, which supports the provision of health, education and community services. It ensures that essential services are not overwhelmed by new development. 5. Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Justification (S35-specific) Required change: Strengthen the evidence base and supporting text to explicitly demonstrate exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release in S35, including a detailed assessment of alternatives and cumulative local impacts. Suggested revised text: “The release of Green Belt land in S35 is justified only where exceptional circumstances have been clearly evidenced, including a full assessment of reasonable alternatives, and where the development is supported by necessary infrastructure and will not result in unacceptable harm to the purposes of the Green Belt.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This is required for legal compliance and soundness, ensuring alignment with NPPF paragraph 140, which states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Without stronger justification, the Plan risks being found unsound due to insufficient demonstration of exceptional circumstances at a localised level. 6. Monitoring, Phasing, and Infrastructure Delivery Mechanism Required change: Introduce a clear monitoring and phasing framework tied to infrastructure triggers for S35 allocations. Suggested policy wording: “Development in S35 will be subject to a phasing framework linked to the delivery of identified infrastructure. Annual monitoring will assess infrastructure delivery against housing completions, and further permissions may be restricted where infrastructure provision falls behind agreed thresholds.” Why this is necessary for soundness: This ensures the Plan is “effective”, as required by NPPF paragraph 35, by ensuring delivery is realistic, monitored, and adaptable over time. Overall Conclusion These changes are necessary to ensure the Local Plan is: • “Justified”, by providing a more balanced and evidence-based distribution of growth • “Effective”, by ensuring infrastructure is deliverable and properly phased • “Consistent with national policy”, particularly in relation to infrastructure provision and Green Belt release • “Positively prepared”, by ensuring existing and future community needs are properly addressed Without these modifications, the Plan risks allocating development in a way that is not infrastructure-led, places disproportionate pressure on S35, and fails to meet the requirements of national planning policy. Ultimately it is important to emphasise that the concerns raised cannot be addressed through wording changes or policy tightening alone. Whilst strengthened policy language and clearer infrastructure requirements are necessary, they are not sufficient in themselves to make the Plan sound. The fundamental issue is the underlying spatial strategy, which results in a disproportionate and concentrated level of growth within the S35 area. To be consistent with national policy and to meet the tests of soundness, the Plan requires a substantive revision of its housing distribution, with a more balanced and equitable allocation of development across Sheffield as a whole. Without this structural change to the spatial strategy, any amendments to policy wording would fail to resolve the core issue of unsustainable concentration of development and the associated infrastructure pressures identified.
599 4686556 29/04/2026 Ashley Barwick Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan All of of them No No ## **1. Legal Compliance Arguments (whether the Plan follows the law)** ### **A. Failure to Comply with the Environmental Assessment Regulations** Under the **Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004**, the Council must demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been assessed. - The Council has **not demonstrated that brownfield alternatives were fully assessed** before allocating greenfield land in S13. - The Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) does not specifically evaluate the S13 site, this is a **procedural failure**. Inspectors must ensure the plan complies with these regulations. --- ### **B. Failure to Comply with the Duty to Cooperate (Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)** The Council has not shown evidence of sufficient cooperation with neighbouring authorities (Rotherham, Derbyshire) regarding housing numbers or land supply. - The allocation of greenfield land in S13 is **unlawful** because cross‑boundary alternatives were not explored. The Duty to Cooperate is a *legal test* and therefore the Plan cannot be adopted. --- ### **C. Inadequate Consultation (Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012)** Residents were not properly notified and key documents were updated late in the process. - The consultation is **procedurally unfair** because updated documents were released after the consultation began. - This may breach **Regulation 18 and 19** consultation requirements. --- ## **2. Soundness Arguments (required by the NPPF)** Main Modifications have not made the Plan **sound**. The four tests of soundness are: - **Positively prepared** - **Justified** - **Effective** - **Consistent with national policy** None of the tests of soundness have been met. --- ## **A. Not Positively Prepared** The NPPF requires councils to meet housing need *while protecting the environment*. - The Council has **over‑allocated greenfield land** instead of maximising brownfield regeneration. - The Inspectors already asked Sheffield to increase housing numbers, but this does not automatically justify using greenfield land in S13. --- ## **B. Not Justified (No Evidence the Allocation Is the Best Option)** - The Council has **not provided robust evidence** that S13 greenfield land is the most sustainable or least harmful option. - The Sustainability Appraisal does not demonstrate that alternatives were properly compared. -The site has biodiversity, flood risk, heritage value, and recreational use and the Council has not shown show why it is still preferable and therefore the allocation is **unsound**. --- ## **C. Not Effective (Cannot Be Delivered)** The site has constraints. - The allocation is **not deliverable** within the plan period (to 2039). - Infrastructure (roads, drainage, schools, GP capacity) is insufficient and no costed funded mitigation is identified. - This fails the NPPF requirement for plans to be “effective and deliverable”. --- ## **D. Not Consistent with National Policy** The NPPF contains strong protections for: - **Green Belt** - **Biodiversity net gain** - **Local green spaces** - **Flood risk areas** - **Valued landscapes** - **Recreational land** These all apply to the S13 site. - The allocation **conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 174–182**, which require councils to protect natural capital, biodiversity, and greenfield land unless absolutely necessary. - The site is used by the community, and qualifies as a **valued landscape**, which the NPPF says must be protected. --- ## **3. Site‑Specific Characteristics - Legal Arguments ### **A. Biodiversity and Wildlife Law** The site contains protected species and habitats: - The Council is breaching the **Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981** or the **Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017**. - The HRA has not shown that there is no adverse effect on protected sites - therefore the allocation is unlawful. --- ### **B. Flood Risk (NPPF + Flood and Water Management Act 2010)** The land will have flood and surface water issues: - The Council must apply the **Sequential Test** and **Exception Test**. - The allocation is **unsound and unlawful** otherwise. --- ### **C. Loss of Open Space (NPPF para 99)** The NPPF states: > Existing open space should not be built on unless equivalent or better provision is made elsewhere. S13 land is used for recreation, dog walking, informal play, and community use - including an annual community run event - The Handworth Hobble - The Council has **not provided replacement open space**, making the allocation contrary to national policy. --- ## **4. Procedural Argument: The law is clear: **Main Modifications cannot introduce new allocations unless absolutely necessary for soundness.** - The allocation is **unlawful** because it goes beyond what Main Modifications are allowed to do. - It should instead trigger a new Regulation 18/19 consultation. See (9) above
600 4689476 30/04/2026 Paul Driver Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM69, MM85 & MM89 Yes No I am writing to object to the proposed building of a new Travellers Site on Eckington Way in Beighton (site reference number SES03). This proposal will mean building on a field that is used by many local people for walking and is an area of natural beauty. It will also create more traffic in an area that has seen much new construction over recent years and which is already heavily congested.
601 4689613 01/05/2026 ANTHONY BURGHALL Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM441 No No Site SWS19 is at serious risk of flooding. Evidence has been given by me and others previously. When planning permission is sought I and others will be making it very clear to any possible developer and to any possible purchaser of a property that the site is at serious risk of flooding. It is not 'legally compliant' to propose building on flood risk land. Please reconsider your approval. Remove SWS19 from the Sheffield Plan.
602 4690585 01/05/2026 Rachael Martin Online ID Planning Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM127 Yes No We do not support the proposed modification to Policy NC3 (Provision of Affordable Housing) to set the minimum required contribution as a percentage of the gross internal floor area of the development. The standard approach to affordable housing provision is typically expressed as a percentage of the number of dwellings proposed, which allows developers to estimate the number of affordable dwellings likely to be required when bidding for a site. The proposed approach is not justified, it will provide uncertainty for developers who will not know the gross internal floor area at the time of acquiring a site as this information will require the preparation of detailed plans. It may also encourage developers to provide smaller dwellings to reduce the affordable housing provision. It is also questioned how this will be secured at outline application stage when the gross internal floor area is not known. This approach could also result in complications if schemes are redesigned following planning permission, for example, where plot substitutions are proposed and the overall number of dwellings is unchanged but the total floorspace changes, which would then result in re-negotiation of the affordable housing provision. The proposed approach is also inconsistent with the evidence base as the Local Housing Need Assessment (2024) the affordable housing need is expressed as a number of dwellings along with the number of bedrooms. It is therefore inconsistent to set the affordable housing requirement based on gross internal floor area. The proposed approach to set the affordable housing requirement as a percentage of the gross internal floorspace is not justified. To provide greater certainty and clarity for developers and to align with the evidence base, the affordable housing percentage should be based on the number of dwellings proposed. The following modification (shown in capitals) is therefore required:- The following principles will apply when requiring developer contributions towards affordable housing: a) The developer will be required to provide a specified percentage of the gross internal floor area of the development for transfer to a Registered Affordable Housing Provider at an agreed transfer price for the tenure(s) proposed. The specified percentage of AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS is as follows:
603 4691139 01/05/2026 Taylor Doman Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM19, MM20, MM127 & MM128, MM224, MM227, MM429 Yes No MM19- The wording “include consideration” is non-binding and fails to secure delivery. The modification does not commit to a new facility, which is not allocated a site, and does not address the spatial mismatch between need and provision. S12, which lies outside the Central Sub-Area, is expected to absorb significant residential growth with just one extra consultation room being allocated to the area in the plan, despite having pockets of high deprivation and subsequent poor health outcomes. MM19 does not demonstrate how healthcare needs arising from this growth will be met, and fails the NPPF tests of effectiveness and justification, and risks exacerbating health inequalities unless strengthened. Concerns around the impact of development on health and well being are supported by the revised IIA, which states that ‘some new site allocations may reduce the overall amenity experienced by nearby residents. Although the Plan already includes measures to minimise these effects, it is unlikely that all remaining negative impacts can be fully avoided’. Paragraph 5.5.2 of this document also acknowledges that removal of greenbelt will have ‘some negative effects in terms of mental health and well being’ on surrounding communities. MM20 -The phrase “wherever practicable” is too ambiguous in a policy area that is critical to sustainable development and infrastructure delivery. It provides no commitment or assurance that transport improvements will be secured. The modification fails the NPPF tests of effectiveness and clarity, and risks undermining modal shift, accessibility, and safety objectives. It also weakens the plan’s ability to secure equitable outcomes across sub-areas. The wording must be replaced with a firm commitment to secure transport improvements proportionate to development scale and impact, supported by planning obligations and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This is particularly important for the S12 area, where transport is a significant concern in relation to the scale of development proposed. The Sheffield Local Plan identifies approximately 1,600 new homes across S12, which will inevitably generate a substantial increase in traffic movements and place additional pressure on an already constrained local road network. However, due to the dispersed spatial distribution of these allocations, there is currently no clear or coordinated transport strategy demonstrating how the cumulative impact of these developments will be mitigated. The plan does not provide sufficient detail regarding required junction improvements, public transport capacity, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, or wider highway mitigation measures necessary to support this level of growth. Without clear and deliverable transport commitments, there is a risk that the cumulative traffic impacts will significantly worsen congestion, reduce road safety, and undermine the sustainability of the area. Paragraph 5.6.5. If the IIA states that site SS19 ‘benefits from its proximity to the blue tram route and a high-frequency bus corridor’, however, the lived experience of current residents is that this route is already under pressure during peak times and buses are infrequent and unreliable. As such, it is unclear how the proposed level of housing growth in S12 can be accommodated without substantial and clearly defined transport infrastructure improvements. MM127 & MM128- The Plan suggests that Green Belt windfall sites could deliver up to 50% affordable housing, but there is no evidence this is achievable in practice. The Council’s own evidence shows that sites like SS19 are only likely to deliver around 30% affordable housing. This creates a clear gap between what the policy promises and what can actually be delivered. The Plan also relies on “windfall” sites to deliver higher levels of affordable housing. However, windfall sites are uncertain and cannot be guaranteed to come forward, or to deliver the infrastructure and affordable housing needed. This means the Plan is relying on outcomes that may never happen, while still allowing development on Green Belt land. The Council’s own housing needs evidence shows that the majority of housing need in Sheffield is for affordable housing. However, the Plan relies on sites such as SS19 that are only likely to deliver around 30% affordable housing, alongside uncertain windfall development. This fails to align with the identified need and undermines the justification for releasing Green Belt land. MM224 MM 227- These modifications recognise that some sites have constraints (such as flood risk, access issues, and environmental limits), but there is no evidence of any level of recalculation to ascertain the reduction in buildable area and therefore reduction of the number of homes expected from those sites. This raises concerns that the Plan is overestimating how many homes can actually be delivered. If parts of sites cannot be built on, the total housing numbers should be reduced accordingly. In the case of sites such as SES13, the Plan acknowledges the need for buffers but does not reassess how this affects the number of homes the site can deliver. SS19 is not included in these modifications even with significant constraints, including flood risk and the ecological corridor as well as additional buffers for the brook and hedgerows, this creates a risk that the Plan is relying on housing numbers that are not realistic, which undermines confidence that the overall housing target can be met & with such a low “buffer” of housing above the target, the plan could fail should the reality be reflected. As a result, the Plan is not reliable, the modifications are not consistent across sites and does not provide a clear or accurate picture of what can actually be delivered. MM429 (SS19) - The S12 Green Belt Action Group has submitted two previous consultation statements for MM429 (SS19) which highlight significant site constraints including flood risk and the ecological corridor, the need to protect the robin brook and its impact on the Moss Valley SSSI along with access constraints and hedgerow buffers but SS19 is not referenced in MM224 or MM227, which should require recalculation of housing impact across site allocations. This omission is concerning. If SS19’s constraints are serious enough to warrant modification text, they should also trigger a reassessment of its contribution to housing supply. The failure to cross‑reference SS19 in the impact recalculation undermines the credibility of the housing trajectory and suggests that constraint‑driven reductions are not being applied consistently. This raises soundness concerns under NPPF paragraph 36(b) and (c): the plan may not be justified or effective if constrained sites are retained without transparent recalibration. The inconsistency also risks undermining spatial equity, as less constrained sites may be overburdened to compensate for undeliverable allocations like SS19. It is also apparent that even with amended brook buffers and hedgerow buffers, the appropriate buffering has not been removed from the developable area, it is believed this will have an impact on the number of houses that are deliverable on the site and therefore impact the viability of the site. The modifications also fail to consider the impact of North East Derbyshire District Council’s Local Plan, particularly its proposed allocation immediately adjacent to SS19 (site reference 45900), which could deliver a further 348 homes alongside shops or a care facility. It is significant that the landowner, promoter and developer for site 45900 are the same as for SS19, yet NEDDC has assessed 45900 as unsuitable for development due to the same constraints repeatedly raised in relation to SS19. The development of 45900 would create a single, continuous cross-boundary block of development that would clearly conflict with several of the Green Belt purposes set out in national policy: they would fail to check the unrestricted sprawl of the existing built‑up area, erode the separation between Sheffield and North East Derbyshire, and constitute significant countryside encroachment. The two developments would effectively double the size of the Charnock estate with no planned proportionate infrastructure to support this rapid growth. There appears to have been no meaningful collaboration with Sheffield City Council to assess the combined effects of these neighbouring proposals. The absence of any cross‑boundary assessment represents a clear gap in the evidence base and undermines the justification for retaining SS19 in the plan.
604 4691826 03/05/2026 Catie Evans Online Sheffield General Cemetery Trust Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Policies Map Yes Yes The SW Sheffield Sub Area Policies Map does not correctly reflect the status of green space on Montague Street, off Cemetery Road. This area was granted LWS status in 2025, as an extension of the Cemetery LWS status. The Policies Map should clearly represent the LWS status of the green space on Montague Street
605 4691931 03/05/2026 James Conibear Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan All of them Yes No The council seems to be just going through the motions with this consultation. To the ordinary citizen like myself the modifications have not been communicated in such a way as it makes the major changes understandable and their effect on individual localities readily identified. Most residents will rightly or wrongly just therefore ignore this 'consultation'. The use of Green belt land is not following the City's ideals and principles and represents a significant loss of protected countryside particularly close to the Peak District National Park. The Green Belt has been an integral part of Sheffield's identity, weaving a protective boundary around the city since it was originally proposed in the 1930's. Established to prevent urban sprawl and preserve the beauty of the countryside, it has safeguarded Sheffield's rolling hills, woodlands, and unique landscapes for generations. The public do not want another 'Sheffield street trees' type catastrophe with nature being wrongly or inadvertently destroyed. Time in green space and the outdoors is vital for us all. It has a significant impact on health and wellbeing, but with the loss of green space through more houses being built many people are struggling to make it part of their lives. If Sheffield needs homes to support economic growth, any ensuring development needs to happen in the right places rather than be concentrated in a couple of areas such as S35 and S13.I believe it should be spread out more across the city. I am concerned about the effects of this concentration on local wildlife and natural habitats . Once green belt is lost, it cannot be restored. Before irreversible decisions are made, every reasonable brownfield option must be visible and properly considered and utilized . As the Outdoor City, it’s what helps our city grow sustainably while maintaining its unique character and status as the greenest city in the UK. However, this important feature of Sheffield's identity is increasingly under threat. Housing demands, population growth, and shifts in national planning policies are putting the Green Belt at risk. Land once protected as vital green space now faces the possibility of development, raising concerns about the loss of natural habitats and the erosion of Sheffield's green heritage. Through the plan the council should ensure that brownfield sites are exhausted first. Also recognition should be made in the numbers of empty properties which have been vacant and plans should include how these are identified and put back in to use before permission is given for new properties to be built on Green Belt land. I believe that not all suitable brownfield land (which is considerable in Sheffield) may have been fully identified or assessed. The council needs to carry out a thorough review of such sites to contribute to a fuller and more transparent understanding of land genuinely available for regeneration before any decisions were finalised. I also have concerns that ,according to the Sheffield Star recently, green belt land in Lodge Moor identified in the modified proposals is already owned by a builder.
606 4691951 03/05/2026 Andrew Riddle Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No
607 4692023 03/05/2026 Stephen David Brough Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No 1. THE PLAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED: The highway network cannot accommodate this development The council's own head of strategic transport, Tom Finnegan-Smith, told the October 2024 examination hearing that the junction of Eckington Way and Mosborough Parkway is one of 41 across the city requiring detailed investigation. The council's assessments projected road capacity reaching 101–102% by 2029, rising to 109–115% during evening peaks, and potentially escalating to 114–118% within a decade. The objectors' barrister, Chris Young KC, told the hearing he had never in 25 years of practice heard of anyone promoting sites where traffic capacity figures of 109%, 114% or 118% were being discussed, describing those measurements as "completely unacceptable." Critically, in response to a direct question from Inspector Katie Child, Mr Finnegan-Smith confirmed there are no plans to bring forward road improvement schemes on Eckington Way or in the local area. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan contains no funded mitigation for this junction. The council's own April 2025 Strategy & Resources Committee report on additional site allocations identified four junctions on the local road network requiring additional mitigation, one of which is the Junction of A57 Mosborough Parkway/Coisley Hill — in the immediate Eckington Way area. Yet this mitigation is being triggered by the new Green Belt sites, on top of a network the council's own evidence already showed was over capacity. SES03 itself — the original allocation that was the subject of the October 2024 hearing — still has no identified or funded mitigation whatsoever. The council is simultaneously acknowledging that the Mosborough Parkway area needs junction mitigation (April 2025), adding further development pressure via new Green Belt allocations, but providing zero mitigation for SES03. This is a direct contradiction in the council's own evidence base. The broken Transport Strategy promise. The council's officers told the Strategy & Resources Committee on 2 August 2023 that over-capacity junctions near SES03 would be reviewed as part of an "updated Transport Strategy for the city, which is expected to be produced by mid-2024." No such site-specific review has been delivered for Eckington Way. The Transport Vision published in March 2024 is a high-level city-wide aspirational document containing no junction-level mitigation for the Eckington Way area. This was a promise made to elected members and residents to justify proceeding with the allocation. It has not been honoured. 2. THE PLAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED: The public transport sustainability case has collapsed The council's suitability assessment of site S03005 (the larger site encompassing SES03) scored it NN — the worst possible rating — for distance to the Core Public Transport Network, at more than 1,200 metres. The site was also assessed as being beyond 400m of any planned bus network improvement and beyond 800m of any planned tram or rail improvement. A central plank of the justification for development at this location was the potential for new employment to support the business case for reopening the Barrow Hill Line to passengers, with a new railway station at Beighton. The Plan itself references this aspiration. However, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 2 Addendum (Arup, May 2025) confirms that the Restoring Your Railways programme — which was to fund the Barrow Hill Line reopening — was cancelled by the government in July 2024. The cancellation of the Barrow Hill Line programme removes the principal public transport improvement relied upon to justify the sustainability credentials of this location. The Integrated Impact Assessment's conclusion that the location "provides opportunities for use of active and public transport modes ahead of the private car" and that employment growth could "support a business case for a new train station at Beighton" is now based on an infrastructure programme that no longer exists. A plan allocation that relies on speculative transport infrastructure — which has been defunded — to justify a site scoring the worst possible rating for public transport accessibility cannot be considered "justified" under NPPF paragraph 35. 3. THE PLAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED: Air quality evidence demonstrates the area already exceeds legal limits — and the council has reduced its monitoring The council's own officers stated at the Strategy & Resources Committee of 2 August 2023 that the proposed site "already is or is close to exceeding air quality levels." The evidence base confirms this is not merely "close" — it was already in breach. The council's 2018 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR) — which forms part of the statutory Local Air Quality Management evidence base — records the following bias-adjusted annual mean NO2 concentrations from diffusion tube monitoring sites in the immediate vicinity of SES03: Moss Way/Donetsk Way: 47 µg/m³ — exceeding the UK legal annual mean limit of 40 µg/m³ Moss Way/Birley Spa Lane: 36 µg/m³ — approaching the limit Gypsy Queen/Sainsburys: 30 µg/m³ Moss Grove: 27 µg/m³ The Moss Way/Donetsk Way site is located in the Drakehouse industrial/retail area immediately adjacent to the proposed SES03 allocation. Its 2017 reading of 47 µg/m³ represents a clear and documented breach of the legal limit — and this was recorded before the subsequent wave of commercial development along Eckington Way that has significantly intensified traffic volumes since 2017. Both Moss Way/Donetsk Way site nor the Gypsy Queen/Sainsburys site appears on the active network and have been discontinued at some point between the 2018 report and the present day, why? The implications are stark: the council is proposing to allocate a 6.85-hectare industrial site in an area where its own monitoring demonstrated an existing legal exceedance of NO2 limits, and has since reduced rather than strengthened its air quality evidence base for that area. No current baseline data exists from which to assess the air quality impact of the proposed development. The allocation conditions defer air quality assessment to the planning application stage. But how can this assessment be meaningful when baseline monitoring from the nearest sites has been discontinued, and the last recorded data showed a legal exceedance that has almost certainly worsened given the intervening commercial development? 4. THE PLAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED: Ecological harm, including confirmed presence of Red List species The council's own suitability assessment scored the site N (negative) for ecology, concluding it is "likely to have a significant ecological value" and "requires further ecology assessment." The Integrated Impact Assessment identified boundary trees and hedges likely to be of ecological importance, and noted the site's proximity to Local Wildlife Sites and the Shire Brook Valley Nature Reserve. Multiple previous representations have identified the site as functioning as a wildlife corridor connecting Crystal Peak Meadows to Linley Bank to Beighton Orchard Local Wildlife Site. I can provide first-hand evidence that significantly strengthens this ecological concern. I have personally observed skylarks (Alauda arvensis) nesting and foraging on the Eckington Way field. The skylark is: Classified as a Red List species under Birds of Conservation Concern 5 (2021) Protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Designated as a Priority Species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Skylarks are ground-nesting birds that require open grassland with short or tussocky vegetation — precisely the habitat provided by the Eckington Way field. Industrial development with its associated hard surfacing, buildings, noise, lighting, vehicle movements, and human activity is entirely incompatible with the continued presence of this species. The destruction of suitable habitat for a ground-nesting species already in severe national decline is not something that can be "mitigated" or "compensated" at the planning application stage — once the habitat is gone, it is gone. The NPPF (paragraph 180) requires the planning system to minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 186 states that if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or compensated for, planning permission should be refused. Allocating a site known to support Red List species, without any prior ecological assessment, is inconsistent with this framework. Yet the allocation has been confirmed with the further ecology assessment deferred to the planning application stage. If that assessment reveals that significant parts of the site are ecologically constrained, the effective developable area may be substantially reduced, undermining the viability of the allocation entirely. 5. THE PLAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED: Loss of confirmed Grade 2 agricultural land and the Green Belt question The council's officers' report to the Strategy & Resources Committee (August 2023) confirmed that a strip of land along the western edge of SES03 is classified as Grade 2 — best and most versatile agricultural land. This is a higher classification than acknowledged in the Plan's site allocation conditions, which only require surveys to determine whether the land is Grade 3a. This is a direct inconsistency in the council's own evidence base: the officers know the site contains Grade 2 land, but the allocation conditions don't reflect this. The NPPF and DEFRA's 25 Year Environment Plan both direct planning authorities to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land and to use areas of poorer quality land in preference. The Plan's own Policy GS4 seeks to safeguard such land. Allocating a site where Grade 2 land has been confirmed, without the allocation conditions properly acknowledging or protecting this, is inconsistent with national policy and the council's own Plan. The land has been in regular agricultural use for crops including wheat, oilseed rape, and runner beans — the presence of oilseed rape being relevant as a defining crop for Grade 3a classification, which would elevate the wider site into the "best and most versatile" category. 6. THE PLAN IS NOT EFFECTIVE: Physical constraints make the allocation undeliverable as proposed The cumulative effect of physical constraints on SES03 means the site cannot deliver anything close to the 5.35 hectares of net employment floorspace the allocation assumes. These constraints include: High-voltage electricity pylons and cables running diagonally across the site. The council's own officers acknowledged that development under the power lines may be limited to access roads and car parking, and are awaiting confirmation from National Grid on whether any buildings would be permitted. This significantly reduces the developable area. A high-pressure gas pipeline running through the site, requiring permanent access corridors which further restricts building and excavation work within SES03. The required environmental buffer strip between the existing housing and the developed part of the site. Ecological corridors and buffers required to maintain habitat connectivity and protect adjacent Local Wildlife Sites, which the allocation conditions specify must be maintained and removed from the developable area. The Grade 2 agricultural land strip along the western edge. When all these constraints are properly accounted for, the effective developable area shrinks dramatically. The council acknowledged at the examination hearing that "the capital costs are not fully known." This is not a sound basis for a plan allocation. Additionally, the Becton Centre for Children and Young People — providing CAMHS, child and adolescent psychiatry, inpatient eating disorder facilities, and self-harm services — is located adjacent to the southern edge of the site, separated only by a footpath. Industrial development immediately adjacent to a mental health facility serving the city's most vulnerable young people raises serious amenity and incompatible use concerns that have never been properly assessed. 7. THE PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY: The assessment of alternatives is inadequate The council's site selection process for the travelling showpeople element of SES03 considered only two sites in the entire city — Eckington Way and Hesley Wood — with Hesley Wood ruled out because it lay within the Green Belt. The Integrated Impact Assessment confirms no other reasonable alternatives were assessed. In a city of 368 square kilometres, a search that identifies only two potential locations and eliminates one on a single criterion does not constitute the robust assessment of alternatives required by the NPPF and the SEA Regulations. Since the original assessment, circumstances have materially changed. Hesley Wood (now designated CH04) has been brought forward as an additional Green Belt employment allocation in the Inspectors' January 2026 post-hearings letter. It is now formally proposed for release from the Green Belt for employment use. If Hesley Wood is being allocated for employment anyway — the very use category that applies to the majority of SES03 — could it not also accommodate the Travelling Showpeople use that is currently being forced onto the manifestly constrained Eckington Way site? This needs to be reassessed as it is now a more suitable site than SES03 Furthermore, Clive Betts MP informed the residents' panel in March 2025 that a willing landowner in the north of the city has come forward offering to host a site of the type proposed at Eckington Way. This has been noted by the Inspectorate. Yet neither Hesley Wood nor this alternative has been assessed as an option for the travelling showpeople provision. The travelling showpeople element requires only approximately 1.5 hectares. Coupling this modest requirement with a 5.35-hectare industrial allocation has the effect of tying the travelling showpeople provision to a site whose transport, air quality, and ecological constraints make it unsuitable for any intensive development. The council should be required to demonstrate that a genuinely comprehensive, city-wide site search has been undertaken. The cross-boundary dimension has also been inadequately explored. Councillor Crossland's February 2023 objection noted that the Sheffield Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment acknowledged Doncaster has an oversupply of travelling showpeople provision, and that the required Statements of Common Ground between South Yorkshire authorities on GRT provision had not been produced before SES03 was proposed. This duty to cooperate concern has not been resolved. 8. CONSULTATION HAS BEEN INADEQUATE THROUGHOUT The SES03 allocation attracted more public comments than any other element of the Plan, with over 4,000 people expressing opposition across multiple petitions. Despite this unprecedented level of objection, only minor cosmetic changes were made to the site conditions — the addition of an environmental noise buffer, overhead power line considerations, and removal of an agricultural land condition. Not one of the substantive concerns regarding traffic capacity, air quality, ecology, or suitability was addressed. These points were not addressed by either Tom Hunt nor any of the planning officers, it appears to be a total whitewash Clive Betts MP told the October 2024 examination hearing that the council's consultation on Eckington Way was not meaningful — that the council believed the draft Plan could not be altered regardless of consultation responses because that would constitute a significant change requiring the process to start again. If the council had already decided the Plan could not be changed, the consultation was an empty, lip service only exercise. 9. THE INSPECTORS HAVE NOT YET PUBLISHED REASONING ON SES03 It is important to note that the Inspectors' Stage 3 & 4 post-hearings letter of 16 January 2026 (EXAM 213) does not specifically address SES03. The letter deals with additional Green Belt allocations, housing and employment supply figures, and other specific site matters — but contains no analysis of or conclusions about the Eckington Way allocation. The Inspectors state that "full reasoning and conclusions will be set out in the Inspectors final report." The Inspectors have not rejected it, but they have equally not published any reasoned conclusions about it. The October 2025 update from Clive Betts MP noted that the council had not fully updated the Integrated Assessment Report in relation to SES03, relying on arguments that no longer apply given the acceptance of Green Belt release elsewhere. The MP made a further submission to the Inspectorate highlighting this deficiency, and the Inspectorate flagged it at hearings. This Main Modifications consultation remains a live opportunity to demonstrate that SES03 is unsound. 10. LACK OF TOPOGRAPHY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration has not been given to the fact that the SES03 land is one of the highest in the immediate area and has previously been rejected from previous development as unsuitable because of this. It’s high position leaves it fully exposed to winds and I find it strange that the council deems it suitable as a location to settle Travelling Showpeople. I thought we had a requirement to provide suitable land/areas for Travelling Showpeople which SES03 clearly is not. Also has consideration and subsequent mitigation been given to the fact that this high land is visible to all in the surrounding area and the visible impact on the environment of the equipment that would be stored and repaired on the land. By the very nature of the work of Travelling Showpeople (fairground rides/ attractions), their equipment is brightly coloured to attract customers and this will have an adverse effect on the environment and will be seen for miles. CONCLUSION The evidence assembled in this representation demonstrates that the allocation of site SES03 fails every test of soundness: Not positively prepared: The allocation does not address the transport infrastructure deficit, air quality concerns, or ecological constraints necessary to support the development it proposes. Not justified: The council's own evidence shows highway capacity already exceeding 100%, air quality monitoring at adjacent sites exceeding legal NO2 limits, the worst possible public transport accessibility score, confirmed Red List species on site, Grade 2 agricultural land, and an assessment of alternatives limited to just two sites in a city of 368 km². Not effective: Physical constraints (HV pylons, gas pipeline, buffer strips, ecological corridors, Grade 2 land) render the allocation undeliverable at the proposed scale, and no infrastructure mitigation is funded or planned. No topography considerations for the Travelling Showpeople who would live in this site or the environmental impact of a Travelling Showperson’s site in such an elevated location. Not consistent with national policy: The allocation conflicts with NPPF provisions on biodiversity protection, agricultural land, air quality, sustainable transport, and the assessment of reasonable alternatives. It also contradicts the council's own November 2022 committee resolution on greenfield development. I request the following changes to make the Plan sound: (a) The removal of site SES03 from Policy SA5 and from the Annex A Site Allocations Schedule. In the alternative, if the Inspectors are not minded to remove the allocation entirely: (b) A requirement for the completion and publication of highways capacity mitigation for the Eckington Way/Mosborough Parkway junction, with identified funding, prior to the Plan's adoption; A requirement for reinstatement of air quality monitoring at the Moss Way/Donetsk Way and Gypsy Queen/Sainsburys diffusion tube sites, and the establishment of a current baseline dataset, prior to adoption; A requirement for a comprehensive ecological assessment, including breeding bird surveys covering skylarks and other ground-nesting species, to be completed and published prior to adoption; Correction of the allocation conditions to acknowledge the confirmed presence of Grade 2 agricultural land on the western edge of the site. A requirement for a comprehensive, city-wide site search for Travelling Showpeople provision that considers a genuinely broad range of alternative locations — including Hesley Wood (CH04), the site offered by the willing landowner in the north of the city, and cross-boundary options — not limited to just two sites. Given all the points raised I am unable to understand why the council has railroaded through the allocation of SES03 land for the use of industrial employment element and Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show-people. There are better alternatives, as the council has already identified but are ignoring. I hope the Inspectorate can see that Sheffield City Council have unjustly and blindly perused SES03 which is an unsuitable site, with inadequate and misleading consultation and have failed to address / answer key points detailed in this and that SES03 proposal makes the Sheffield Plan UNSOUND.
608 4692061 03/05/2026 David Bardsley Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM441 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation SWS19 Yes No I WISH TO OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF THIS SITE IN THE LOCAL PLAN. THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED THAT SOME GREEN BELT SITES COULD BE DEVELOPED IF THEY WERE "GREY THIS GREEN BELT SITE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED GREY BELT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. IT IS A MEADOW SURROUNDED BY OTHER DESIGNATED GREEN BELT SITES, ALL WITHIN THE SETTING OF THE PEAK DISTRICT PARK AND THE STYLE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN NO WAY REFLECTS NEARBY DELOPMENT. REMOVE THIS SITE FROM THE PLAN
609 4615090 04/05/2026 Anne Jones Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SES03 No No “Have your say” but you are not listening. The Beighton area is already over run with traffic. We do not need an industrial site or a traveller site which will increase this. The access off the proposed roundabout is tricky for larger heavier vehicles slowing down things even more. The local schools would be impacted is your policy to develop first and let the community amenities struggle with the consequences as is always the case. Yes it obviously is. BEIGHTON DOES NOT WANT THIS
610 4692293 03/05/2026 Amanda Lant Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM331 Yes No I do not think that the impact of flooding upon the existing housing on Forge Lane has been given sufficient consideration. The fields,where the planned new build housing application is submitted, currently acts as a good buffer to adsorb, and hold flood water when we experience excessive rainfall. This is now becoming more frequent and I feel that should housing be built on these fields then the surface water will risk flooding to the current housing. I also believe that the impact on the fields wildlife could not be mitigated for. The impact on the community by the loss of this easily walkable, wilded area of meadow -like fields has not been fully considered in this plan. Given the risk of flooding, I do not think that further housing on this site is a viable option
611 4692493 04/05/2026 Robert Chisholm Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes
612 4692570 04/05/2026 Anneesa Judson Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM410 MM411 No No The Council’s own assessment shows the modified plan performs worse for the environment, including impacts on land, biodiversity and transport. How can you justify the desimation of greenbelt yet talk about a greener city and planting more trees . Isn't that contradictory? The increase in housing comes at a clear environmental cost, and this has not been properly justified. The modifications rely on future plans and assessments rather than showing how problems will be solved now. Too many important details are being left until later stages, which means the plan is not properly worked out or deliverable. The plan refers to “Golden Rules” for Green Belt release but does not clearly explain what will actually be delivered or how it will be enforced. There are no clear measures or guarantees showing how these improvements will be achieved in practice. The scale of these modifications is significant and represents a major change, not a minor update. The plan assumes future mitigation will solve problems, but these solutions are not clearly defined or guaranteed. A plan should show how harm will be addressed before approval, not rely on future solutions. Other sites have been removed due to lack of deliverability, but these Green Belt sites are being included without the same level of evidence. The Council’s own evidence shows that the viability of these sites is unclear, which raises concerns about whether they can actually be delivered. If it is not clear that these sites can be delivered, the plan cannot be considered The plan is wholly biased based on postcode targeting the 13th most deprived ward in the city . There has been no fair allocation of greenbelt observe the lack if sites in the more leafy and affluent areas of the city There is no clear or confirmed plan for how healthcare services will cope with the increase in population. The building of the waverley estate is a strong case In point , with many residents using services in Woodhouse and Handsworth because healthcare has been an afterthought Local GP surgeries are already at or beyond capacity, and the modifications do not provide a deliverable solution to this. The plan states that solutions will be worked out later, but does not show how healthcare will actually be delivered. Saying that services “may be expanded” is not the same as having a funded and deliverable plan. The impact of multiple developments on the same local services has not been properly considered together. When combined, these developments will place significant additional pressure on already stretched services. (SES30) Safe and suitable access for this development has not been demonstrated. Transport assessments are incomplete, meaning traffic impacts are not properly understood. There is no clear evidence showing how required biodiversity improvements will be achieved. The number of homes expected does not match the real constraints of the site. Green Belt is being released based on a school and burial ground that are not confirmed. If these uses are not delivered, the land could be used for more housing, which undermines the original justification (SES29) The actual buildable area is significantly lower than the Council assumes. There are major constraints such as contamination and mining risk and flooding that have not been fully assessed. Access and infrastructure requirements are not confirmed or funded. Ecology evidence is incomplete or outdated and should not be relied upon For these reasons, I consider the Main Modifications to be unsound. The plan is not justified by sufficient evidence and is not effective in practice. There is no clear, deliverable plan to support this level of development. I request that these sites are removed from the plan and remain Green Belt. The voice of the people has been totally and utterly ignored . The plan is unsound based on traffic congestion, flood and mining risks. Health risk to residents With an increase to traffic pollution. The development will effectively join SE29 and SE30 the greenbelt is there to prevent urban sprawl. There are plenty of empty homes , shops and industrial buildings which could be brought back into use . Why cant we go back to cities in the sky build upwards and leave our greenbelt alone .
613 4692655 04/05/2026 Trevor Pilling Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM353 No No Since the Sheffield Plan was agreed using the last Call for Sites 2019/20 local residents from CEG Action Group have identified 80 further brown field sites in addition to the 2023 Sheffield City Council Brownfield site list HELAA. This extra brownfield capacity along with use of sites of less than 10 houses invalidates the exceptional circumstances need to build on NES 39 North of Wheel Lane Grenoside. Parcels B and C have slready been stated in the recent inspection Exam 180 as being particularly attractive and make a strong contribution to the character and setting of the local area and the proposed development is not justified. Parcel A is an inegral part of the same area of Green belt with the same local character value except for the view of the river but the horses are near to the footpath allowing generations of passing school childen the opportunity to see and appreciate the local experience. Parcel A should also be withdrawn from site NES39 availability for the same reasons as B and C. The ancient stone wall on Wheel lane makes a hard boundary between developed housing land and Greenbelt and the schedule of proposed main modifications note that this would have to be removed to allow the access off Wheel Lane despite the documented need to retain this stone wall. The proposed housing development on Greenbelt would be an encroachment of urbanisation into agricultural Greenbelt and would weaken the Greenbelt for further potenial development. Sheffield City Council have not yet dentified or costed how the increased car traffic would be managed at the botyle necks of the crossroads at the top of Whhel Lane or where the road narrows down at Ecclesfield. In addition to the NES 39 parcel A site continuing to be included for housing development to detriment to the character and setting of the local area as per related area parcels B and C I also object to the development proposed to Town End Farm at Ecclesfield where the tenants have an agreed three generation tenancy inplace with Sheffield City Council. The full utilisation of all brownfield sites available and sites with below 10 house development before consideration of any Greenbelt release. The removal of parcel A NES 39 in line with parcels B and C The protection of the intact boundary stone wall along Wheel Lane. The recognition of the validity og thr three generation tenancy agreement contract with the Riddle family at Town End Farm Trevor Pilling
614 4692911 04/05/2026 Danny Allsebrook Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SES29 and SES30 No No The inclusion of Green Belt sites is, in my view, unsound. The Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) acknowledges that development on Green Belt land results in the permanent loss of greenfield sites. This loss will have adverse impacts on biodiversity, place additional strain on public transport infrastructure, and increase reliance on private vehicles, thereby contributing to environmental degradation. The proposed “Green Belt Golden Rules” lack clarity and precision. As currently presented, they are insufficiently defined and do not demonstrate how the required standards will be achieved within MM410 and MM411. Although site-specific policies require compensatory improvements and sustainable infrastructure, these matters are deferred to the planning application stage. This approach is inadequate. Infrastructure provision should be secured in advance of development to ensure that existing communities are not adversely affected. At present, local infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity, particularly in areas where recent housing developments have been delivered. Without prior investment, further development risks placing unsustainable pressure on these services. There is evidence to suggest that the proposed developments will exacerbate existing pressures on local schools, many of which are already oversubscribed. While expansion is identified as a potential mitigation measure, there is no clear or detailed strategy for its delivery. Significant concerns remain regarding the availability of teaching staff, the capacity to accommodate increased demand for Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision, and the physical constraints on expanding existing school sites. Furthermore, increased demand for school transport, particularly for pupils with SEN, will place additional strain on an already overstretched system. Transport considerations have not been adequately addressed. In particular, the absence of a tram-train connection to Waverley undermines assumptions regarding sustainable transport provision and is likely to result in increased car dependency. The Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) is also deficient. While it acknowledges the potential for increased pressure on protected habitats, it relies on mitigation measures that are not yet defined and are deferred to a later stage. This introduces a high degree of uncertainty. Where mitigation is necessary to render development acceptable, it should be clearly identified and secured at the plan-making stage. Ecological evidence is incomplete. Only one ecology survey has been undertaken for SES30, and no equivalent assessment has been carried out for SES29. Both sites contribute to an important ecological network in the South East, and their development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation. The loss of ecological corridors would restrict wildlife movement, increasing the risk of injury and long-term population decline. Such impacts are unlikely to be fully mitigated. There are also significant concerns regarding ground stability. No comprehensive mining risk assessment has been provided, despite available data indicating a high level of risk in the MM410 area. Development without a full understanding of mine shaft locations presents a serious risk of subsidence and sinkholes. In addition, both sites are subject to potential flooding from underground springs. Although Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are referenced, their implementation may reduce the developable area, thereby undermining housing delivery targets and weakening the justification for Green Belt release. The loss of prime agricultural land is a further concern. Recent surveys indicate that land within the S13 area is of high agricultural quality. In the context of increasing pressures on food security, the protection of such land should be prioritised. Alternative sites, including land in Dore owned by Sheffield City Council, appear to present fewer constraints and offer greater potential for infrastructure provision. In summary, the proposed modifications rely excessively on matters being deferred to the planning application stage, creating unacceptable uncertainty and risk. The cumulative impacts on biodiversity, infrastructure capacity, public safety, and environmental sustainability are significant. I therefore respectfully request that these sites be removed from the Local Plan. Priority should instead be given to the effective use of brownfield land. Where appropriate, higher-density development should be encouraged in sustainable locations.
615 4692918 04/05/2026 Samuel Storr Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SES30 No No I would like to air my concerns on the site allocated for 827 homes that are proposed to be built on the site at Handsworth, Bramley lane. The proposed site is not suitable for the proposed number of homes for a number of reasons. Handsworth has taken its fair share of new homes in the Sheffield area, mainly through the growing site off Orgreave lane in the 'Waverley' estate. Since the construction of this site, Handsworth has suffered the consequences of this site in a number of ways. Mainly though increase in traffic, air pollution, strain on infrastructure such as public transport, local health services, eduction and other local amenities. The two new sites proposed in Handsworth are now proposing to build an additional 1700 homes within the same area, all using the same roads, the same health care facilities, the same remaining 'green' spaces and the same remaining infastrucuture. With this, air pollution will increase, noise pollution will increase, light pollution will increase, traffic will increase and this will directly impact the residents of Handsworth. The impact will be through increasing health issues, lack of quality of eduction, life and access to useable green belt. The site allocated under SES30 has been assessed poorly. This is for a number of reasons. The site is located at the side of a primary school and nursery, building on this site will cause a danger to the children of Handsworth and wider. Air pollution, noise pollution, traffic danger and more will impact the lifes and health of the children throughout construction and will continue if the site plans go ahead. Wildlife and bio diversity. The proposed site is not just a green belt space, it's a wildlife echo structure that is home to various species of wildlife, many of which are protected. The proposed plans will decimate the habitat of said wildlife and will not leave the space in a better state than it was prior to devlopment due to the number of homes and size of the site. The site is used by ground nesting birds, skylarks. Many species of bats are a common siting in this space, long with owls, woodpeckers, various finches, buzzards, hawks and so on. The space is also home to fox's, badgers, deer, hedgehogs and more. The beck that runs through the site is home to various aquatic life such as newts, frogs and more. The site also acts as a natural flood defence for areas lower to the site on Beaver Hill. Building on this site will impact the sites surrounding Beaver Hill in a negative way and will increase local flooding and put strain in existing drainage infrastructure. S13 as a whole has been unfairly allocated more than the remaining areas of Sheffield and will impact the lives and future generations of this area. The proposed site offers a green space that surrounding areas can use, including Richmond, Stradbroke, Woodhouse. Building on this site will merge all of these areas into one concrete jungle and remove the little green space this hard working community has local access to. Do not build on this site or decrease the allocated number of home proposed to be built on this area.
616 4693011 05/05/2026 Chris May Online Freeths LLP On behalf of Code Living, a developer with the benefit of planning permission for a large co-living scheme in the City Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM90, MM91, MM93, MM128 (and as relevant to MM128, AM98) and MM139 Yes No • MM90, MM91, MM92 and MM93 – it would appear that Site “HC07 Buildings at Wellington Street and Trafalgar Street, S1 4HF” has been included within the housing trajectory and supply figures as contributing 1,105 houses within the 2027/28 year. This development is currently not viable and a recent application to amend the scheme to enable it to be delivered has been refused by the Council on 11 February 2026 pursuant to application reference 25/03069/FUL. The refusal has been appealed but, in the absence of permission for the revised housing mix, the development will not make any contribution to the housing supply of the City within the next 5 years (and possibly longer if the current difficult economic conditions persist). The trajectory and supply figures should be amended to reflect this. A failure to do so would mean the policy is no longer based on proportionate evidence and so not justified • MM128 – the introduction of a policy specific to Build to Rent Accommodation is welcomed as it is plainly the case that the plan has had limited regard to and is based on limited information in relation to this important aspect of housing supply. This is evidenced by policy NC5 which ignores the typology for specific build to rent products, in particular co-living schemes. Unfortunately, the modifications do not provide sufficient guidance on certain types of build to rent products such as co-living schemes which are a different use class (sui generis) and have completely different operational requirements, accommodation type and target occupancy to other rented products such as more traditional Build to Rent. The failure to acknowledge this undermines the draft Policy NC3A. It demonstrates a lack of understanding by the Council of the emerging co-living market and thus is not based on proportionate evidence (and not justified) and would not be effective • AM98 – with the introduction of MM128, it is considered that draft Policy NC5 should have been revised to make it clear that it applies to C3 and C4 homes rather than other types of residential accommodation such as co-living. It is therefore not effective • MM139 – the introduction is welcomed as it appears to indicate that purpose built student accommodation and co-living would not be caught by nationally described space standards (NDSS). However, this could be made much clearer by reference in NC8 a) to only dwellinghouses (C3) use class being caught by NDSS. Without this amendment it would not be effective • MM90, MM91, MM92 and MM93 – The trajectory and supply figures should be amended to the lack of deliverability (unless the appeal is allowed) of HC07 • AM98 – with the introduction of MM128, it is considered that draft Policy NC5 should have been revised to make it clear that it applies to C3 and C4 homes rather than other types of residential accommodation such as co-living • MM139 – reference in NC8 a) to only dwellinghouses (C3) use class being caught by NDSS
617 4693058 05/05/2026 Dave Dillner Online Myself See above. Habitats Regulations Assessment - Appropriate Assessment Update (2026) No No I strongly suggest any environmental impact be viewed with reference to the STAG campaign, its success (see Lowcock Report) and the absolute committment of myself & the thousands of other Sheffield citzens to doing whatever is necessary to protect our natural habitat. Let's not commit another PR disaster. Made clear above.
618 4693081 05/05/2026 Richard Jeans Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM60 Yes No There is no description of what the red text means. Whilst you can assume it is changes / additions, it is not defined anywhere in the document or description. A description of how to identify changes.
619 4693171 05/05/2026 Leon Leather Online Powerful South Yorkshire Sheffield n/a Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan 4.13-4.16 Social housing Yes No R.e. windfall sites - how to ensure they will follow through? [not sound as not ‘effective’ - no proof of no regulatory barriers or national planning barriers r.e. green belt ]. How likely is it that social housing will be built on green field sites, given they can often be resisted by people in the area (evidence of established resistance is here: https://www.savesheffieldsgreenbelt.com/green-belt-petitions-sheffield. How will the increase in the percentage of windfall sites in the green belt meet the allocated quota of social housing needed to be built in Sheffield? If these sites are currently not known or identified, how can you be confident that your percentage increase in site builds will be achieved? We would deem this unsound, as it does not produce effective and achievable delivery. Why have you not allocated social housing construction to already identified sites on both green and brown fields? ‘Affordable Housing’ is not defined; ‘Social Rent’ is not defined - concern that this will mean this housing is not delivered. What % of housing will be delivered via Build to Rent? There is evidence that Build To Rent developers renege on delivery of affordable housing through the legal loophole of it not being ‘viable’. This could affect effective delivery and therefore, is not sound. (https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/80_of_affordable_homes_lost_due_to_legal_loophole_exploited_by_developers2) C) - Please also clarify what the site allocations are - the allocation reference numbers are not understandable. Consultation Response on the Sheffield Local Plan – Main Modifications Submitted on behalf of: Powerful South Yorkshire We are submitting this response on behalf of Powerful South Yorkshire, a grassroots community campaigning group committed to ensuring that development in our region reflects the needs and aspirations of local people. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Local Plan. However, we have two primary concerns regarding the direction and emphasis of the current proposals: There is not enough Social Housing and the plans to build it on Green Belt is likely to lead to opposition and reduce the likelihood of it being built. As a principle, we want more Social Housing. However, there is a risk that if we try to deliver these on the green belt, the risk of opposition means they are unlikely to be built. We are concerned that in the allocations on Green Belt sites, because they have a higher proportion of Social Housing, there is a greater likelihood of opposition to these developments being built and a reduced likelihood of social housing being developed. This approach risks generating significant public opposition, which could delay or derail much-needed social housing developments. Furthermore, locating social housing on Green Belt land may isolate communities from existing infrastructure, services, and employment opportunities. We urge the Council to prioritise brownfield and urban infill sites for social housing, ensuring integration within existing neighbourhoods and access to amenities. The models for ‘affordable housing’, such as Build-to-Rent Developments, are unlikely to be affordable. The Plan seems to favour Build-to-Rent developers, a model that often leads to increased rents and reduced housing security for tenants. While private investment has a role to play, we believe that the Council should take a more balanced approach that does not prioritise market-led solutions at the expense of affordability and community stability. We would encourage the Council to consider alternative delivery models, including: Support for Community-Led Housing Models We strongly encourage the Council to support and promote community-led housing initiatives, such as Community Land Trusts (CLTs). These models offer long-term affordability, local stewardship, and alignment with community needs. The Government’s Pride in Place programme explicitly supports such approaches, and we believe Sheffield should be at the forefront of this movement. Empowering Community Organisations In general, we advocate for a shift in emphasis toward working with community groups and organisations in the delivery of housing and regeneration projects. Local people are best placed to understand the needs of their neighbourhoods, and their involvement leads to more sustainable, inclusive, and accepted outcomes. We encourage the Council to embed community participation and co-production more deeply into the planning and delivery of the Local Plan. We appreciate the complexity of the planning process and the challenges involved in balancing competing priorities. However, we believe that a more community-centred approach will lead to a stronger, fairer, and more resilient Sheffield. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Powerful South Yorkshire
620 4693308 05/05/2026 Kate Armstrong Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan 8.33 and Policy GS9 Yes No I welcome the addition of text relating to self-contained residential rooms within flood areas but I have concerns around housing in general in floodable areas of the city in light of uncertainties around future climate projects, and the aging population. Scientific consensus is now that we have passed the point at which global warming can be kept within 1.5C by the century, and the potential for design floods to be exceeded (with more severe consequences when they do) may be much greater than currently planned for. With an aging population, more residents will be in situations where they may be unable to use stairs to evacuate to upper floors of properties during flood events, with potential for more instances such as Maureen Gilbert who drowned in her own home at Tapton Terrace in Chesterfield. Equally, it may be that placing housing in flood zones may result in residents being ineligible for flood insurance in future decades, which typically affects those that are already the most economically-vulnerable in society, and/or may face repeated flood events or risks leading to the need to future urban retreat such as at Ynysybwl in South Wales. The Integrated Impact Assessment identifies that "10.10.17 With regards to climate change resilience, the Plan is predicted to have mixed effects. The Plan contains a range of policies that seek to ensure that development avoids areas of flooding and manage any risks arising from development. However, the strategy directs a substantial level of new housing to areas that are at risk of flooding in the City Centre. Much of this is residential development, and more sensitive to flood risk than current employment uses in these areas" and "10.10.18 Whilst this development will be required to be ‘flood-proofed’, there will be residual moderate negative effects (the likelihood of effects is greater in the longer term as more extreme events could arise as a result of climate change / frequency of such events)." It seems to me that a moderate residual effect to future climate change should not be acceptable. I would like to see stronger language thank 'unlikely' around self-contained residential rooms in section 8.3.3, amended to be not permitted in flood zones 2 and 3, and to include planning permission of properties to be split into flats or self contained rooms (e.g. terraced houses being converted for student rooms). I would also like to see affordable housing and developments such as care homes, nurseries (including change of use of properties) not permitted in flood zones 2 and 3, and for robust flood mitigation measures, elevated ground floors to severe climate change projections, and allowances for refuges to be required for any other residential properties in those flood zones. Ideally I would suggest no residential developments at all in flood zone 3.
621 4693455 05/05/2026 Martin Collins Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM33 and MM144 Yes No MM33 - Currently prioritises heritage assets within Kelham Island and City Centre but there are other key heritage assets across Sheffield such as Sheffield Manor Lodge and Bishops House. MM144 - I believe the intention of this is to stop young people in their lunch times and immediately after school buying unhealthy options such as burgers and chips but read as written, this would affect the opening of cafes near schools. Sheffield Manor Lodge is a visitor destination within 800m of a primary school and this wording would potentially prohibit them from introducing a food offer to visitors which would ultimately increase footfall and visitors bringing income to the city. MM33 - It would be better if this supported heritage across the whole city. If the Council focused more on joining up and promoting these as part of their strategy it would support the work of community interest and friends of groups to add more value to the city as a whole rather than two specific areas. MM144 - rather than takeaway facilities receiving a blanket ban, it should be considered how they support cultural industries and visitor destinations. In the case of Sheffield Manor Lodge, reintroducing 'Secondary School' as the qualifier would also work. It would also be strange to think that a primary school child would be allowed to leave the school and visit a local heritage site unaccompanied.
622 4693547 05/05/2026 Jez McCole Online Gleadless Medical Centre Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes No This representation relates to the transport and active travel elements within the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications. The Plan is not sound because it is not effective and not justified in relation to cycling and active travel. 1. Not effective – lack of deliverable safe cycling infrastructure The Plan assumes increased cycling uptake but does not demonstrate how this will be achieved in practice. On a key real-world corridor - city centre to Gleadless Valley - there is: * No continuous protected cycling route * Reliance on shared road space with motor traffic * Unmitigated risk at junctions As a result, cycling is not a viable option for many users. This includes individuals who have previously been encouraged to cycle for health reasons. As a General Practitioner, I have actively promoted cycling as a preventative health intervention. I have now ceased cycling myself following injury sustained in road traffic incidents within Sheffield, including a road rage incident in shared road space. The absence of prosecution due to limited enforcement capacity further reduces confidence in safety. This reflects a wider, predictable pattern where shared road space leads to conflict between transport modes and suppresses cycling uptake. The Plan does not demonstrate how these conditions will change. It is therefore not effective. ⸻ 2. Not justified – disconnect between policy and lived experience The Plan refers to “safe and attractive cycling routes”, but this is not reflected in: * Existing infrastructure on key corridors * The absence of continuous, segregated routes * Observed behaviour, where individuals choose not to cycle due to safety concerns The reliance on shared road space is inconsistent with evidence that physical segregation is required to enable widespread cycling uptake. The Plan is therefore not justified by evidence of how people actually behave in the current environment. ⸻ 3. Inequality impact not adequately addressed The corridor from city centre to Gleadless Valley serves a more deprived population. The lack of safe cycling infrastructure means: * Those who would benefit most from low-cost active travel * Are least able to access it safely This has direct implications for health inequalities, including cardiovascular disease, obesity and mental health. The Plan does not adequately address this distributional issue. ⸻ 4. Over-reliance on behaviour without supporting conditions The Plan relies on behavioural change but does not sufficiently account for: * The risk created by shared road space * The impact of limited enforcement of dangerous driving A system that depends on driver behaviour rather than infrastructure protection is unlikely to deliver safe outcomes. ⸻ Conclusion The Plan sets appropriate ambitions but does not provide a credible or deliverable route to achieving safe, widespread cycling. It is therefore not sound because it is not effective and not justified. 1. Mandate protected cycling infrastructure Change: Replace discretionary wording such as: * “Development should support cycling” With: * “Development must provide safe, continuous and physically segregated cycling infrastructure on all strategic corridors.” Reason: This ensures delivery rather than aspiration and addresses the current reliance on shared road space, which is ineffective. ⸻ 2. Remove reliance on shared road space on key routes Change: Insert wording such as: * “Shared carriageway provision will not be considered sufficient on primary or strategic cycling routes.” Reason: Shared road space creates predictable conflict between transport modes and suppresses cycling uptake. Removing reliance on it is necessary for effectiveness. ⸻ 3. Require continuous, connected cycling networks Change: Insert: * “Cycling infrastructure must form part of a continuous, end-to-end network linking residential areas, employment centres and key services.” Reason: Fragmented provision does not enable practical use. Continuity is required for real-world usability. ⸻ 4. Prioritise routes serving deprived communities Change: Insert: * “Priority will be given to delivering safe cycling infrastructure on routes serving areas of higher deprivation, including corridors such as city centre to Gleadless Valley.” Reason: This addresses inequality and aligns with public health objectives. ⸻ 5. Link development to delivery of cycling infrastructure Change: Insert: * “Planning permission for major development will require demonstrable safe cycling access to the wider network, secured through design and developer contributions.” Reason: This ensures infrastructure is delivered alongside growth and not deferred indefinitely. ⸻ 6. Introduce measurable delivery requirements Change: Insert: * “The Council will define and monitor delivery of a strategic cycling network, including targets for coverage and accessibility.” Reason: Without measurable delivery, the Plan cannot demonstrate effectiveness. ⸻ Conclusion These changes would move the Plan from aspirational to deliverable by: * Replacing discretionary wording with enforceable requirements * Addressing known infrastructure failures * Aligning policy with real-world behaviour and safety needs This would make the Plan effective and therefore sound.
623 4693575 05/05/2026 PETER POOLE Online Integrated Impact Assessment (Update and Addendum) (2026) and Non-Technical Summary Mortomley Lane High Green is already a very busy road now including HGV`s, which has been made worse with all the building work being done in recent years in S35 This plan will only make a bad situation even worse Yes Yes
624 4693713 05/05/2026 Valerie Hales Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan NWS31 No No The plan for Wharncliffe Side NWS31 is not sound in expecting us to walk to Dragon Park or The Upper Don trail for our exercise and fresh air. As a sufferer of **REDACTED** and **REDACTED** I would be unable to access either suggested area. The Dragon Park is too far and the Upper Don Trail involves crossing a busy road ( no pavement ) and currently climbing down a steep bank to access the trail and up to return. So I will be forced to drive out of the village in order to go for a walk. The proposed new footpath would be placed around the development through the wettest part of the field that this year was impassable due to the high water table and hence flooded pathways. These options all involve gradients that I find difficult when **REDACTED**. It is not legal to destroy a habitat for bats and other species. The summer months are a time of activity across the horse fields with bats, birds and wild flowers . This natural habitat is vital to the life cycle of these creatures and would have an enormous impact upon Glen Howe park and the Tinker Brook. It is not sound to interfere with the water table in the field which holds back water from the Tinker Brook and is part of the flood plain management . Natural springs appear at times of heavy rain and this spring was a prime example of a sodden field retaining the water. Wellingtons were the necessary foot ware to cross the field. The Environment Agency have planted new hedging as a water retaining feature in the field. The plan is not sound when the landscape of the field is so steep that very expensive and creative plans would be needed in the design. There is a big drop from the suggested access from Don Ave into the field. No other parts of the field have any easier access apart from the gateway off Storth Lane but that is a farmer’s type access via a bridle path or down from Green Lane on a steep single lane road (and the gate was smashed by a fallen tree ). The plan is not sound in suggesting access on Don Ave. Many of the properties do not have drives and some house with drives also use the road as they have a large number of vehicles. It is very difficult to enter Don Ave via Dixon Ave ( the only way) at school arrival and departure times due to the parents parking and narrowing the access further. I owe a small car and find that I can just get by at many times of the day. Currently the extensive works on the houses on Dixon Ave makes for interesting journeys when the JCB is delivering items to a property completely blocking the road. It has to do so to complete the action so any large construction traffic will encounter difficulties getting through. Wharncliffe Side is poorly served by public transport and I use my car daily. I used to catch the Shuttle bus to the tram stop but now drive there as the 57 can be missing. The suggested tram / train is an excellent idea but is the other side of the River Don to the village so will involve a bridge and access when/ if it is sorted. The only access to the Main Road is from Brightholmlee Lane and traffic for Sheffield would need to turn right into the constant stream of traffic down the main road. This turn is next to the only crossing in the village so I am often depending on someone pressing the button to cross and another motorist giving way. I think that there would need to be a complete rethink of the idea as it is a singularly unsuitable site. There need to be full ecological surveys. T pavements and crossings are required the length of the Main Road. All properties along Dixon and Don require parking . Transport to the village needs to be addressed.
625 4693798 05/05/2026 Kysella Tadum Online Homes England Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes
626 4693832 05/05/2026 Cheryl Hall Online Integrated Impact Assessment Report Addendum Modifications Consultation - including Non-Technical Summary My comments are not divided neatly as you would wish but refer to the host of documentation forwarded in the MM plans with specific reference to NES39 MM353. Your form does not make identifying more than one document possible. No No You will find that my comments have changes that I consider necessary to be clearly signposted, but imbedded in my submission which now follows. The Sheffield Plan Main Modifications is still unsound in several ways. • NES39, though reduced in size, is still inexplicably included in the plan. It no less contributes to the openness and landscape character than the parcels deleted. In fact, the ground is higher than original parcels A & B and if anything is MORE prominent. Any building there would irrevocably change the character of the area and would be intrusive from every direction. Development would leave only the species rich hedge between housing and the next green belt field (original Parcel B) – a weak boundary putting further encroachment ever more likely. The current boundary of Middleton Lane is clearly a stronger and more defensible boundary. Its inclusion has still not been justified and exceptional circumstances not proven. • Main modifications underestimate NES39 in terms of allowances made for boundaries. It does not specify or consider the internal archaeological features ie. the wall that completely divides the land and is at least 250 years old, or the evidence of an older structure. Their value and protection have not been estimated and could affect the developable land available. Development should not be considered without formal assessment. Main modifications do not acknowledge that majority of hedges around NES39 are species rich and will require greater boundary depth. There is potential acid grassland on site, a protected priority habitat – particularly near the LWS. This would extend the protected area considerably, incurring again a further loss of land available on which to build. Full ecological and archaeological surveys should be undertaken to appreciate and acknowledge protections required on site, before being allocated as a potential site for development. • There are no specified plans for BNG required from Limes development. Indeed, they are disagreement with SCC about their responsibilities. Agreements are not in place. The environmental loss, as Limes must know, could not be compensated for. • NES39 is an allocation on the edge of urbanization – at odds with one of NPPF’s three overarching objectives; ‘to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.’ This is an area with very limited options in terms of transport, with no investment in, or plans, on stream. Consequently, the area is likely to continue to be heavily reliant on cars in the future. This is an unsuitable allocation, particularly for affordable homes or social housing. Justification for this allocation has not been made and is unsound. • Whether housing could even be made affordable, when on expensive green belt and taking design and character of the area into account – regardless of the numbers suggested, is unaddressed. How will affordability be made possible – smaller homes, cheaper materials? If so, the development will not be an enhancement to any community – but will become one of a transient nature where families cannot be sustained. An unsound choice of allocation; will be challenging at planning stage to meet NPPF obligations in design, in this rural setting, (as should be the case), and developments are unlikely to be affordable. Developers will not see this land as viable in these terms. • The development of NES39 was supposed to be coordinated with NES37 (Townend Farm) in infrastructure terms. Since this site will not be brought forward in at this plan stage – deferred for at least 5 years, it is inconceivable how NES39 could go ahead. Main Modifications make no comment about how these two allocations could develop in relation to the change. This is unsound planning. • A transport assessment has not been undertaken. Such huge change to the communities in S35 has been wholly underestimated. The main arterial routes through the area are KNOWN by SCC to be already highly congested; Wheel Lane, Creswick Lane, Yew Lane are unadaptable to cope with the proposed collective development of NES37,38 & 39. No plan has come forward, no baseline pollution assessment done, and therefore no groundwork completed that would forecast the impact of the change on infrastructure or health of the local communities. Transport and infrastructure planning is unsound because it is being left to the planning stage – too late and uncosted. • No viability assessment has been undertaken on this site and in its absence, this allocation is totally unsound.
627 4693971 05/05/2026 andrew towlerton Online Ecclesfield Parish Council Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Policies Map No No Ecclesfield Parish Council’s Response to Sheffield Local Plan Main Modifications Consultation I am writing to submit Ecclesfield Parish Council comments on the above important consultation. We previously commented in detail on the draft Sheffield Local Plan. We continue to contend that the approach to housing and other forms of development (including associated unwarranted releases of Green Blet land) in Ecclesfield Parish and the wider City in totally unacceptable. In particular, as it is grossly disproportionate and out of scale with the local area and would overwhelm local services and infrastructure. Additionally, it would also cause significant harm to the landscape, distinctiveness and well-being of the communities (and its wildlife) in the Parish. Nor does it constitute sustainable development. Further, there are fundamental and deep-seated shortcomings in the unsound plan preparation process. A view shared by many others. The main modifications do little to change our position, indeed if anything they strengthen them. However, we recognise that the scope of this consultation. In particular, we can only comment on the Main Modifications, and no other aspect of the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, we will confine our comments to the questions posed in the consultation, notwithstanding our continued serious and significant concerns about the overall flawed approach and proposals. In commenting, we have focused on those questions and issues of greatest importance and relevance to the Parish of Ecclesfield. POLICY BG1 - BLUE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE LOCAL NATURE RECOVERY NETWORK • It is considered that it should be made more explicit in the policy or the supporting text that the designation of and development affecting Local Green Space would also need to comply with the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). MM80 – Policy SA 39 • We do not consider the reference to the Ecclesfield Neighbourhood Plan area and any associated housing requirements (including the proposed amendment to footnote 27) is necessary or desirable. Especially as the Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan does not make any housing, or any other forms of development, allocations. MM350 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation NES36 • We would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need for the developer of the site to enter into early engagement with the parish council and the wider community. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. • We also note that a further assessment of this and another site in the Parish (NES39) against Green Belt purposes has been undertaken for those parts of each of the sites which it is proposed should be retained in the Green Belt as main modification. We welcome this exercise. With regard to the findings for this site and its conclusion, while generally supportive we consider that it underplays its continued green belt purpose, especially in respect of preventing neighbourhood towns merging as well as the requirement to create strong and defensible boundaries. MM351 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation NES37 • Again, we would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need to engage with the concerned parish council and the wider community in the master planning or similar process. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. Additionally, paragraph 134, which states “Whoever prepares them, all guides and codes should be based on effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of their area”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. • Notwithstanding our overall strong objections to the proposed removal of the site from the Green Belt and its proposed development for housing, we welcome the conditions that 7 hectares of land within the allocation shall be safeguarded to meet the Council’s identified need for school provision and 4 hectares of land within the allocation shall be safeguarded to meet the Council’s identified need for a burial site. We also welcome that any alternative proposals in relation to this land will be considered as part of the first review of the Plan if necessary. MM352 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation NES38 • Again, we would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need to engage with the concerned parish council and the wider community in the master planning or similar process. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. Additionally, paragraph 134, which states “Whoever prepares them, all guides and codes should be based on effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of their area”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. • We also note that the condition suggests that, in principle, access to the highway will be required off Fox Hill Road and from Salt Box Lane though this does not appear to be reflected on the modification map. MM353 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation NES39 • Again, we would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need to engage with the concerned parish council and the wider community in the master planning or similar process. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. Additionally, paragraph 134, which states “Whoever prepares them, all guides and codes should be based on effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of their area”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. • The Parish Council has undertaken its own ‘Landscape Impact Assessment on Land at Wheel Lane and Middleton Lane (Site NES39’). This report, which forms an integral part and must be read as part of the Council’s submission, provides compelling advice that the development of all or part of the site would result in serious and permanent harm to its scenic, recreational and visual value, relative tranquillity, sense of place and distinctiveness. What is presently attractive open countryside would be replaced by highly visible and urbanised development which encroaches into and detracts from this predominately, much cherished and enjoyed rural and open landscape. • We also note that a further assessment of this and another site in the Parish (NES36) against Green Belt purposes has been undertaken for those parts of each of the sites which it is proposed should be retained in the Green Belt as main modification. We welcome this exercise. With regard to the findings for this site and its conclusion, while generally supportive of the approach we consider that they underplay its continued green belt purpose, especially in respect of checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing neighbourhood towns merging and the need to create strong and defensible boundaries. • Notwithstanding our overall strong objections to the proposed allocation, should it be minded to allocate the site we would like to see a condition protecting all stone walls, which are important to the local character and appearance This includes the stone wall that runs across the eastern edge of ‘site A’, which not only is a key landscape feature but is also of some heritage value (it is clearly shown on the Enclosure maps of 1780’s (for example). MM460 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation CH04 • We would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need for the developer of the site to enter into early engagement with the parish council and the wider community. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. MM461 - Main Modifications for proposed Site Allocation CH05 • We would like to see explicit reference as a condition or failing this in the supporting text of the need for the developer of the site to enter into early engagement with the parish council and the wider community. This will help ensure that the final proposals are informed and shaped by local communities. This is also in accordance with national planning guidance, as reflected in paragraph 40 of the NPPF, with its emphasis on “Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties”. This is of special significance and importance in the context of the emerging Ecclesfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan. • Notwithstanding our fundaments and continued objections to the removal of the site of the Green Belt to facilitate its development, we recognise the reasons why it is proposed to reduce the site to a very limited extent especially to create a more defensible boundary along the main road. Sheffield Plan Examination: Action 46: Note on Proposed Minor Green Belt Additions and Deletions • While we are unsure whether this document forms part of the formal consultation, we support all the proposed minor Green Belt Additions as they relate to Ecclesfield Parish. This is for a variety of reasons including that the sites continue to perform an important Green Belt function and the need to create defensible boundaries. This includes the following sites A3, A5, A11, A12, A17, A18, A20, A27, A31, A36 using the ‘Green Belt Review Addendum Ref’ codes. I trust these comments are helpful.
628 4694047 05/05/2026 Christopher Levesley Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No The government has asked for additional housing on 'grey belt' land, not green belt.
629 4694069 05/05/2026 Sarah Barnsley Online N/A N/A Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM440 No No Given the proximity of proposed site allocation SWS18 to important nature reserves, the Peak District and wildlife, including priority species under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 such as Curlew, Lapwing and Dunnock as well as other important species (e.g. Oystercatcher which is listed as amber on the UK red-list status), I do not believe that the main modifications adequately protect the surrounding area from the impact of development. Sheffield City Council has a responsibility to meet their ‘biodiversity duty’ under the Environment Act 2021, meaning that as a public authority they must what they can do to ‘conserve and enhance biodiversity’. Under the National Planning Policy Framework, local plans should also ‘promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.’ I do not believe that the main modifications proposed meet either of these requirements. In 2026, red-listed Curlew have been seen in fields less than 200m from the proposed site allocation. Further up Redmires Conduit, in the direction of Redmires Resevoir, huge groups of Curlew (Numenius Arquata), red-listed Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and amber-listed Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) have been seen using the fields along the Redmires Conduit within 1.5km of the proposed allocation site, including on 14th March 2026, when 32 Curlew were counted in a single field, 9 Lapwing in the same field and an Oystercatcher in the same field with 9 other Oystercatcher and hundreds of geese of different species also seen in the nearby vicinity. Amber-listed Dunnock (Prunella modularis) and Wrens (Troglodytes troglodytes) have also been seen using the Redmires Conduit itself, including in the Local Wildlife Site designation immediately adjacent to the proposed site allocation. Development in this area would put these important birds under pressure and in my view be a breach of Sheffield Council’s Biodiversity Duty under the Environment Act 2021. Amber-listed Tawny Owls (Strix aluco) are regularly also heard in the area, e.g. on 7th April 2026. Hares have also been recorded in the fields along Redmires Conduit, e.g. on 22nd February 2026. The site should not be considered for inclusion within the local plan at all due to the pressure it will put on the wildlife listed in the response to the previous question from increased car usage, footfall pressure, dog walking, light and air pollution. Development on this site would also be on damp meadow, as evidenced through the locally abundant patches of Cuckooflower (Cardamine pratensis) flowering at the proposed allocation site at present (5th May 2026). Damp meadows should be protected for wildlife and for future-proofing against climate change. At the very least the main modifications should stipulate additional measures that developers MUST take to mitigate pressure on the species listed above and the environment generally, e.g. natural vegetation buffers / barriers between the development and the Redmires Conduit and in the direction of Redmires Reservoir to block light and air pollution from extending further into the surrounding fields and Local Wildlife Site and toward the Peak District National Park. Development should be required to adopt sensitive lighting guidelines to prevent light pollution, e.g. requiring development to meet the ‘Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting’ (https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/lighting-principles) / following other principles and guidance e.g. as found via he following links: https://theilp.org.uk/resource/gn08-bats-and-artificial-lighting-pdf.html https://www.cape.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dated-POST-light-pollution-review-RREAL-2.pdf There should be restrictions to limit air pollution, e.g. restrictions on wood burning stoves. Furthermore, there should be a requirement to include dog waste bins and signage about keeping dogs on leads and not letting them into the conduit and the reasoning behind this, i.e. so that they don’t impact ground-nesting birds and so that tick and flea treatments don’t kill invertebrates and impact other wildlife using the conduit. The buffer between the Local Wildlife Site and the development should be increased beyond 10m, e.g. a minimum of 20m to allow space for vegetation buffers to be provided to block light and air pollution that could affect the Local Wildlife Site.
630 4694085 05/05/2026 Simon Ogden Online Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust & Upper Don Trail Trust Schedule of Proposed Additional Modifications to the Sheffield Plan AM67, AM68, BG1, SA1 etc No No The plan contains a number of clear mapping errors and general policy modifications are not translated into the site and area policies and plans. See below 10 for detail. Comments on the Modified Local Plan from Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust & Upper Don Trail Trust April 2026 Summary We welcome high level changes to the wording of the plan in relation to extending blue-green corridors, public access and nature recovery such as AM67 below. However these changes are in many instances not followed through into the more detailed sections such as site allocation policies and plans which do not reflect these changes and still include four year old out of date plans with serious mapping errors and omissions pointed out by us and other river and nature-focussed consultees in previous submissions in 2024. AM67 SV13 Para 5.24 “Sheffield’s water courses are a very important part of the city’s network, as well as being a key part of the city’s industrial heritage and character. We have high ambitions to further improve connectivity in the network to support both nature recovery and improve recreational opportunities.” Our names are dropped in the following section below but there is little evidence that our requests for policy map changes or more specific site by site vision which those organisations have championed in our comments have been taken on board. AM68 SV7 Para 5.24 “A number of different organisations and agencies are involved in delivering specific blue and green infrastructure projects (e.g. the Environment Agency, Canal and Rivers Trust, Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust, the Upper Don Trail Trust and the Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust).” We welcome apparently strong but unspecific high level commitment below to blue and green infrastructure but are deeply disappointed that there is still no evidence of an overall city-wide spatial vision for this key asset or attempt to identify priority locations, gaps or opportunities. Such plans as do accompany the statements simply show what is already in place. 5.25. Sheffield’s existing blue and green infrastructure is important at all scales and the existing network of countryside and greenspace is represented on Map 17 below. Sheffield’s water courses are a very important part of the city’s network, as well as being a key part of the city’s industrial heritage and character. We have high ambitions to further improve connectivity in the network to support both nature recovery and improve recreational opportunities. A number of different organisations and agencies are involved in delivering specific blue and green infrastructure projects (e.g. the Environment Agency, Canal and Rivers Trust, Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust, the Upper Don Trail Trust and the Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust). 5.24.5.26. Work on a new South Yorkshire Local Nature Recovery Strategy (the POLICY BG1 - BLUE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE LOCAL NATURE RECOVERY NETWORK All blue and green infrastructure in the city will be protected, managed, and enhanced, and wherever possible extended, to help increase biodiversity, provide wider environmental benefits to combat climate change, deliver opportunities for outdoor recreation and active travel, conserve heritage assets, support local food production, and strengthen the city’s landscape character. Very significant weight will be given to the protection and enhancement of Sheffield’s Green Network of urban greenspace and countryside (including blue and green infrastructure and the Local Nature Recovery Network) especially: ● the main river corridors (Rivers Don, Porter, Sheaf, Rivelin, Loxley and Blackburn Brook) and Sheffield and Tinsley Canal; and ● major parks and green spaces of citywide importance for recreation and/or biodiversity (Concord Park, Parson Cross Park, Norfolk Heritage Park, Graves Park, Ecclesall Woods, Endcliffe Park/Bingham Park/Whiteley Woods, Greno Woods, Millhouses Park, Meersbrook Park, Shirebrook Valley, Parkwood Springs); ● registered historic parks and gardens; and ● greens spaces forming (or with potential to form) wildlife corridors or ‘stepping stones’ connecting designated ecological sites, particularly those identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Frequent reference and reliance is made of the South Yorkshire Nature Recovery Plan and a possible Supplementary Planning Guidance on rivers ‘if required’ at some unspecified time in the future but we arlso told by SYMCA that the SYNRP when it finally emerges will have no staturory authority over planning. None is given to the current work to update the Greenspace and Waterways Strategies as a combined Sheffield Blue -Green Strategy which is currently being prepared by the council in partnership with relevant agencies and voluntary organisations. This should be rectified. The following general aspirational statement is now rubber-stamped into each Area policy package but lacks conviction or force because it is not carried through to changes on the proposals maps or site by site allocations and policies. SA1 (m) Extend and enhance active travel routes along one bank of the Main Rivers (River Don, River Sheaf and Porter Brook), wherever practicable and where it is consistent with biodiversity and heritage objectives. There are maps (15 and 16) showing existing transport networks and opportunities but at a scale making it impossible to interpret what if anything is proposed particularly for Active Travel. They should be detailed and specific enough to show the existing networks and ambitions for extension. The general policy on deculverting is welcome but half-hearted:- 8.41. Many of the measures required by the policy have dual benefits in terms of reducing flood risk and enhancing biodiversity. For example, removing canalised sections of watercourse makes them more attractive to wildlife, slows the rate of flow and increases the channel capacity… New development will be permitted where it:… )j) enables the removal of any existing culverts and structures over watercourses wherever practicable; and We believe this should say ‘New development will/could be refused if it does not enable deculverting wherever possible’ Area Policies and Plans - Examples When we turn to the more detailed Area proposals the above general aspirations are simply not carried through even where plans are actually inaccurate. Below are just examples. Map 6 Central Area Sub-Areas Does not show the Porter Brook at all, fails to show the now daylighted Sheaf at Castlegate and does not designate any river corridors as ‘Urban Green Space’ other than the existing Nursery St park and the tiny inaccessible island below Kelham Weir Area Policies Kelham Island, Neepsend, Philadelphia, Woodside POLICY CA1: Thentext makes no mention of either the existing and nor proposed sections of Upper Don Trail. References to the river are based on an outdated Priority Neighbourhood plan by consultants Deloitte from 2022. The text refers only vaguely to opportunities for the River Don: ‘the River Don runs through the site creating potential for green edges, access, placemaking and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for combating climate change;’ The only more specific mention o f access to the River Don (aka the Upper Don Trail though this is not mentioned) is a proposal for an unnecessary extension of Waterloo Walk on the right bank which duplicates the existing UDT on the left bank,. c) Enhanced connectivity to the River Don, including an extension of Waterloo Walk. This also ignores policy SA1 (m) ‘Extend and enhance active travel routes along one bank of the Main Rivers ‘ Proposals for the Priority Site KN36 (Rutland Rd/Penistone Rd – one of the most important opportunities to complete this missing link in the UDT say nothing about it, instead it proposes tenuous links to Ponderosa and Parkwood. The policy also incorrectly describes the site as being ‘on the northern edge of the R Don’ when it actually lies on the southern bank. d) A new waterside park (Bacon Island Park) along the northern edge of the River Don, helping to create a network of green spaces and connections with the Ponderosa and Parkwood. A specific requirement is included for a new East-West crossing of Penistone Rd at this site when there is already a controlled crossing less than 10 metres away. No mention of the greater need for a controlled ped/cycle crossing of Rutland Rd east-west to allow safe use of the supposedly strategic active travel route NCN 617 and Upper Don Trail along Penistone Rd f) A new pedestrian and cyclist priority crossing point across Penistone Road (A61), taking movement east to west along Rutland Road to Bedford Street, towards the Infirmary Road Supertram stop. Proposals for traffic calming along the A61 will also be considered. A rather pointless new bridge between the site and Neepsend Lane is also proposed, which would not improve access to Parkwood or any other significant destination but no mention of linear connectivity along the river from Rutland Rd to Packhorse Weir. l) A new pedestrian bridge across the River Don which will improve connectivity to the wider Neepsend . Character Area 3 Castlegate and Wicker Riverside The Priority Neighbourhood Plans,, again unaltered from 2022 still suggests a deculverting of the River Sheaf in the wrong location between Exchange St and Broad St West (the river actually runs under the Q Parks and Travel Lodge) and fails to show the actual opportunity for deculverting on vacant council owned development land between Broad St, Shude Hill and Park Square. The plan for Wicker Riverside shows the Five Weirs Walk terminating at Derek Dooley Way. Neither plan shows the Upper Don Trail, or Grey to Green existing or proposed. We do however support this random flash of vision below for an extended ‘grey to green’ corridor following the culverted Sheaf along Sheaf St to the Station but would question why are there not similar policies for other, probably more achievable corridors such as Upper Don, Sheaf or Lower Porter Trail as set out in the Sheaf and Porter RT’s Vision for the Lower Porter submission to the previous round of consultation in 2024 link to download print document ( and see below) ? Character Areas 4 Moorfoot and 5 City Arrival (now designated Station Campus) The 2022 plan below continues to be shown twice to illustrate two separate city centre Priority Neighbourhoods - 4 Moorfoot and 5 City Arrival. It clearly doesn’t illustrate 5 which is now also identified as the Station Campus. Nor does it or the accompanying policies for either area make any reference to the opportunity of creating a Lower Porter Brook blue-green and active travel corridor as shown in the Vision for the Lower Porter submitted by Sheaf & Porter to the previous consultation stage and now being actively realised by proposed private developments. Character Area 7 Queens Road The existing isolated section of River Sheaf Trail between Granville Square and Duchess Road is mentioned but no suggestion or ambition to extend or enhance it despite opportunities. There is apparently no Framework plan for this area which seems to be another anomaly. 4.51. The River Sheaf flows through Queens Road, with Sheaf Walk located at the northern end of the neighbourhood, allowing people to enjoy the river. Duchess Road offers a sports pitch and greenspace, while Clough Road Square is the only playground in the neighbourhood. St. Mary’s Church enjoys some greenspace around it. Areas of the neighbourhood located closest to the River Sheaf are designated as a functional flood plain P138-9 Oughtibridge Site NWS30 We note below the requirements on a newly added Green Belt site at Oughtibridge which includes a clear directive on completing the Upper Don Trail. This is the only example we have so far seen in the new plan. We would request in the strongest terms that a similar clear guidance is included for all main riverside development locations currently without connected public access on one bank of the waterway unless there are other strong justifications for its omission. ‘NWS30 Address: Land at Forge Lane, S35 0GG Allocated use: Housing Site area: 2.56 Hectares Net housing area: 2.30 Hectares Total housing capacity: 69 Homes Net employment (Class E(g) (i & ii)) area: 0.00 hectares Net employment (Class B2, B8 & E(g)(iii)) area: 0.00 hectares Net (Other employment uses) area: 0.00 hectares Conditions on development: … • Any masterplanning and subsequent planning application should include a pedestrian and cycle route on the site’s eastern boundary. This would form part of improvements to the Upper Don Trail which, in this locality, will link Forge Lane with Oughtibridge Mill… ‘
631 4693975 05/05/2026 Adele Rddle Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan No No NES37.It is amazing to me tat we are on the third letter of objection.Are the inspectors not listening to the community with thousands of objections,have you read them all.Sheffield council are not listening either.The prime minister said on 7th of January in parliament that no farmland would be built on,asp why is NES37. Namely Townend farm.We have read a letter published on 26th feb2026 from a London barrister saying it is a yearly tenancy.Wrong..Do you think we’ve made the farmhouse habitable and spent thousands putting buildings up just on a 12th tenancy.I urge you again not to build on Townend farm.What use is the farmstead with no land,.
632 4694074 05/05/2026 Jenny Nuttall Online The Green Estate CIC Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM144 Yes No Whilst the intentions behind the proposed changes to Policy NC12 are understood - focus on existing centres and not permitting take away provision near schools - the proposed wording is too sweeping and could lead to unintended consequences. For example, where a visitor attraction is not within the City Centre or a District or Local Centre and wishes to offer hot food which could be taken off the premises, this would not be permitted under this policy yet this would undermine the economic viability of the visitor attraction and therefore have an adverse impact on an important heritage asset. This would be the case, for example, with the Sheffield Manor Lodge site. The proposed modifications to Policy NC12 should state that 'New hot food takeaways, extensions to or increases in the opening hours to existing hot food takeaways will not NORMALLY be permitted....and is within 800 metres of a SECONDARY school .....'. The insertion of 'normally' would mean that decisions would be taken on a case by case basis, so that there was the option of the presumption against permission to be tested and it wasn't a sweeping policy with no options for local, site specific circumstances to be taken into account. The return to the specification of 'secondary' school reflects the fact that primary school children would not be off site during a school day for purchasing lunches and again means that the policy will enable site specific considerations to be taken into account when applications are being considered.
633 4694077 05/05/2026 Brenda Longworth Online N/A N?a Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan MM3 Para.1.28 No No The Localism Act 2011 states " A neighbourhood Plan is a community led planning document that gives local people greater influence on how their community develops." However, Under MM3Para.1.28 this is revoked in that " Neighbourhood Plans form part of theb Development Plan for that neighbourhood......intended to give DIRECET POWER TO COMMUNITIES." As you can see these are direct quotes, obviously for legal documents set in LAW. However, the Under the NPPF Regulations the " Neighbourhood Plan must be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in any Development Plan that covers that area. They should not promote less development than set oit in the Local Plan. " This is clealrly not democracy: non -tranparent and non-inclusive. If as claied by SCCthay theyn didn't have th resources to inform individual households directly affected ie Chapeltown/Ecclesfield/Grenoside/High Green - provide leaflets, posters, hold open information events this is in breach of LOCALISM ACT. They have 30 full time posts, extremely well resourced for the public sector.S35 is to sacrifice green belt via 14 planning applications to the tune of 55% Sheffields overall green belt. Therefore no local consultation- no local democracy. Whilst the need for housing and employment is accepted Green Belt land must be protected and enhanced to prevent urban sprawl (As included in the NPPF ). Employment land and housing developments must be on Brownfield Land. This would entail the accurate and diligent recording of ALL Brownfield sites within SCC. Annually! There are 731 to 751 Brownfiled sites currently available with SCC. Truth be know, and diligent recording the number is most likely higher. There are currently 786 empty council house with less than 13,000 on the waiting list and not 26, 000 as denoted by SCC . The Council demolished over 10,500Council Houses but built just 339 replacements over the past 30 years. Residents are now expected to sacrifice Green Belt to solve bad planning - planning policy not being fit for purpose.
634 4694143 05/05/2026 Dave Allen Online Retired Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan SWS18 No No Transport and flooding issues don't seem to have been addressed Option 1 - Prefered option - do not build on the greenbelt land. It sets a precedent and will lead to further erosion of our environment. The safety and health issues of current residents should be a priority, as well as protecting the environment for future generations. Option 2 - Build on the land near to the Sportsman pub. This doesn't solve all of the issues outlined above, but would tackle the traffic issues to some extent as Redmires road is wider. Also water could be drained down into the Rivelin Valley potentially without increasing flooding to people's homes. This would need to be a low level development to reduce the aesthetic appearance. However, there would still be environmental impacts - loss of habitats and also an increase in noise pollution. I also understand that this land has not as yet been made available to the council. Option 3 - Pay close attention to the ecological and safety needs outlined above. If the Lodgemoor development had to go ahead, then reduce the number of dwellings, use eco designs that have permeable surfaces, and are single storey. Plant trees to landscape, create some habitats and to provide an interception store. Less houses, means less traffic and pressure on the land. Eco designs means the impact on the environment whilst negative, is not so significant. Again, this option does not solve all the issues I have outlined but it goes some way to dealing with some of them.
635 4694432 05/05/2026 Owen Lowry-Thomas Online Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Sheffield Plan Yes Yes