Content

9.1

The Executive Director City Futures submitted a
report seeking approval for an improved approach to regeneration in
Gleadless Valley that better works alongside the community,
investors and partner organisations to see the ambitions in the
Gleadless Valley Masterplan come to fruition. The proposal is to
develop a One Council and partnership working approach to the
delivery of the Gleadless Valley Regeneration Programme in order to
unlock and accelerate delivery of housing and green space
improvements and deliver sustainable social and economic benefits
to the local community. The proposals include an improved approach
to regeneration, a new delivery structure to drive social and
economic regeneration and new governance arrangements to facilitate
partnership working.

 

 

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Strategy and
Resources Policy Committee:-

 

 

 

(a)   
notes that due to rapid build cost inflation, the
existing Gleadless Valley Masterplan proposals previously approved
in 2022 are no longer deliverable within the allocated Council
budget and that delivery of the housing and green space
improvements has stalled;
 
(b)   
approves the development of an improved approach to
regeneration in Gleadless Valley involving working across the
council, with voluntary and community groups and with delivery and
investment partners to bring additional expertise, capacity and
funding into the programme;
 
(c)    
agrees that the current approved Gleadless Valley
Masterplan proposals should be reviewed and updated to reflect the
new approach to regeneration. The review should also
consider the potential for physical improvements to
housing and open spaces to be complemented by social and economic
interventions to address the high levels of deprivation in the area
and build thriving communities. Once the review is complete the
draft revised proposals to be brought back to the appropriate
Council Policy Committee for consideration and
approval;
 
(d)   
agrees that a Delivery Plan for the updated
Gleadless Valley regeneration proposals should be developed over
the coming year in partnership with the local community and
potential delivery partners and investors. The Delivery Plan, once
drafted, to be brought to the appropriate Council Policy Committee
for consideration and approval, at which point the full financial
implications and risks will be considered;
 
(e)   
agrees to the establishment of a new Gleadless
Valley Regeneration Board, bringing together residents, local
community organisations, delivery partners and Council
representative with the purpose of advising on the overall
strategy for Gleadless Valley and aligning stakeholders to deliver
the vision;
 
(f)     
agrees that residents living in blocks that are
identified in the existing masterplan for demolition or remodelling
should be informed that the plans for their blocks are being
reviewed and may change; and
 
(g)   
approves the transfer of £662,300 from the
Gleadless Valley Housing Revenue Account Capital Allocation into a
Gleadless Valley Housing Revenue Account revenue budget to cover
additional expenditure in the current financial year to implement
the new approach to regeneration and develop the Delivery
Plan.

 

 

9.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

9.3.1

The Council
embarked on the masterplan work in 2017 and spent four years
developing the masterplan proposals in partnership with the local
community. Rising construction costs have made it unaffordable for
all of the proposed works to be funded by the council’s
capital programme.

 

 

9.3.2

Scaling back the masterplan to meet the council’s budget
would fail to deliver meaningful change for Gleadless Valley
residents. Instead, the proposed approach will explore
opportunities to use council spending to seed fund and de-risk the
Valley for external investment from the likes of: Housing
Associations, Institutional investors, the Combined Authority,
Homes England and third sector
organisations.

 

 

9.3.3

This new approach would also allow Gleadless Valley to better
contribute to the ambitions that the council and partners have for
the future of Sheffield as set out in the City Goals and Council
Plan, for example inclusive housing growth, net zero and great
local centres and facilities.

 

 

9.4

Alternatives Considered and
Rejected

 

 

9.4.1

Alternative Option 1: Allocating additional HRA capital funding
to the project in order to deliver the masterplan proposals in
full
This option is rejected as unaffordable within the HRA business
plan. Sticking precisely to the existing masterplan would also fail
to deliver significantly against the council’s net zero
commitments, or housing growth targets (a net increase of only 115
homes based on current plans) and would not address resident
priorities for improved shops and
services.

 

 

9.4.2

Alternative Option 2: Allocating additional HRA capital funding
to the project in order to deliver the refurbishment, remodelling
and green space improvements while delivering the redevelopment
aspects of the masterplan through disposals to housing
associations
This option would still require a very significant uplift in the
capital allocation to the project (from £40m to c£100m
excluding any works to the shopping centres) which is considered
unaffordable within the HRA business plan.

 

 

9.4.3

Alternative Option 3: Reducing the scope of the proposed works
to meet the available HRA capital budget.
This would allow delivery of (for example) around half of the
refurbishment proposals in the masterplan plus some public space
improvements. It would be a fast and relatively low risk delivery
option but would deliver very limited improvements, lead to
significant reputational damage and fail to deliver meaningful
change for Gleadless Valley residents.