Nearly a month ago, we reported that the Inspectors had written to the Council with nine questions that must be resolved before they publish their final report. The Council has now replied. Its letter, dated 2 July, is published in the examination library as EXAM 217A.

This email follows up on the three questions we highlighted then: the HC07 site, access to SES29 in Handsworth and alternative sites put forward in May 2025.

HC07: an answer that avoids the question

The HC07 site is the tower development at Wellington Street and Trafalgar Street, just off Charter Row. It is the largest single housing site in the Plan: 1,105 homes.

The developer has said the existing scheme is not viable and that the site will not contribute to the five-year housing supply. The Inspectors therefore asked whether the Council "considers the scheme for 1,105 homes is deliverable within the estimated timeframe in the trajectory".

The Council answers that "site HC07 is capable of delivery within the next 5 years".

Read the answer again. The Inspectors asked about 1,105 homes. The Council says the site is capable of delivery but never restates the number, explains what form those homes will take, or says whether the developer's position has changed.

The original permission was for "a mix of student and non-student accommodation"; the refused scheme, now at appeal, sought 100% studio units. Shared student accommodation contributes to housing supply on a different basis to conventional homes.

In a nutshell, the Council's letter still doesn't tell us how or how much this site will contribute towards Sheffield's 38,020 home requirement.

SES29: access "in principle"

The Inspectors asked whether SES29, Handsworth Hall Farm, could be accessed from Orgreave Lane alone if the old Highfield Lane bridge is designated as a heritage asset.

The Council's answer:

"The access arrangements currently being progressed do not include an access to the highway via Highfield Lane, with access instead provided off Orgreave Lane only... subject to the Transport Assessment and further technical work, in principle access could be achieved off Orgreave Lane only".

Consider what is being proposed. A development of 870 homes would house about 2,090 people (at Sheffield's Census 2021 average of 2.4 per household) and own around 1,000 cars (at 1.18 per household, Census 2021). The 20 hectares of employment land would add traffic that cannot yet be estimated, because the employment uses have not been defined.

Residents, workers, visitors, deliveries and service vehicles would enter and leave through about 150 metres of frontage onto Orgreave Lane, a minor B road. The Transport Assessment needed to demonstrate this would work has not been produced. The layout used to justify the site during the hearings (EXAM 179), which used two roads, has been set aside.

"In principle" is doing a lot of work in that answer. National policy sets a higher bar. Paragraph 110 of the NPPF requires that, in assessing sites for allocation, "it should be ensured that... safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users". Ensured - not achievable in principle, subject to a Transport Assessment that does not yet exist.

The alternative sites: suitable, available and not allocated

The Inspectors asked the Council to provide details of new urban sites promoted during the May 2025 consultation. The Council interpreted the question as applying only to sites "directly promoted by a landowner or developer and not to sites suggested by community groups or third parties", a reading that excludes every site identified by residents.

Even within that narrow scope, six urban sites emerged. By the Council's own assessment, three are suitable or potentially suitable: Bardwell Road, with capacity for 77 homes; Infield Lane Allotments, with capacity for 234; and Basset Place/Outram Road, with capacity for 27. The last is Council-owned and already in a draft disposal programme.

Together, these sites have capacity for 338 homes outside the Green Belt - exactly the number of homes the Plan releases from the Green Belt across the entire South West sub-area...

None of the sites will be allocated. The Council's reasoning is familiar: if the sites come forward, they will be "accounted for as part of the windfall allowance".

But the windfall allowance exists to cover sites that cannot be foreseen. These sites are known and have been assessed. They should be considered for allocation.

If six sites emerged from a consultation that was not a call for sites, and from landowners and developers alone, how many more may exist?

What you can do

The Inspectors will now decide whether these answers are sufficient. Councillors will later vote on the Plan.

Write to your ward councillors and ask them two questions:

1. Are they satisfied that safe and suitable access to SES29 has been ensured?
2. Why is the Council releasing Green Belt while declining to allocate urban sites that it accepts are suitable or potentially suitable?

-The Save S13 Green Belt Campaign