The South East Local Area Committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday 24 September 2025 at the Beighton Lifestyle Centre. The agenda includes presentations from early years, youth services and apprenticeships teams, a budget report, and a discussion of public questions and petitions. The committee is also expected to hold round table discussions to raise concerns and identify support needed for young people in the area.

Sheffield Local Plan

The minutes of the previous meeting on 17 June 2025 include a presentation from the Council’s Planning Service regarding the draft Sheffield Local Plan.

The minutes record a number of questions from the public, and the responses from Simon Vincent, Strategic Planning Service Manager, William Stewart, Director of Investment, Climate Change and Planning, Michael Johnson, Head of Planning, and Laura Stephens, Planning Officer.

The questions covered a range of topics, including:

• Brownfield Site Development: One member of the public asked why planning officers thought that brownfield sites were not being developed, suggesting the council was not encouraging brownfield development and working with developers. Michael Johnson responded that projects are underway to develop brownfield land at Kelham, Neepsend and Furnace Hill supported by £67 million of government funding to deliver 1,300 homes, and that development is also taking place at Attercliffe. Simon Vincent added that Sheffield had been very successful in developing brownfield sites, with approximately 90% of development over the last 20 years on brownfield sites.
• Sheffield Hallam University: One member of the public asked if there was a way to leverage Sheffield Hallam University to build something this side of Sheffield, to encourage people to live there and prevent a divide in the city. William Stewart responded that the council wants to develop job opportunities close to local communities and has adopted a 10-year Growth Strategy which ties in commitments for the universities and private sector, and that the plan makes provision for education, with new proposals from the University at Runway Park.
• Green Belt Land: Concerns were raised about the impact of the proposed site SES30 on Shirtcliffe woodland and the designation of site GM26205 as open space. Simon Vincent clarified that it is not necessary to show exceptional circumstances for the release of open space, but it is necessary to show exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land for development.
• Traffic Impact: A member of the public raised concerns about the proximity of the two large sites being proposed in the area, and the impact on traffic. Simon Vincent responded that a transport assessment had been undertaken, concluding that the only area that needed traffic mitigation was the junction between Retford Road and Beaver Hill Road.
• Quality of Life: One member of the public asked how these developments will improve the quality of life for residents in this area. Michael Johnson responded that there needed to be a compromise, acknowledging there would be an impact on communities and sacrifices will be needed, but that there would be more options around affordable housing.
• Flooding: A member of the public mentioned that Beaver Hill Road had flooded year after year, and asked how the water storage would work. Michael Johnson responded that the council had spoken to Yorkshire Water in relation to these sites with flood risks, and that as there would be a large amount of undeveloped land, there would be opportunity for water drainage strategies that could improve water run off rates.
• Wildlife: Concerns were raised about the impact on wildlife adjacent to Charnock on both sides of Charnock woods where two sites had been proposed. Michael Johnson responded that there would be detailed ecological studies on these sites to look at how they can be delivered with minimal impact on wildlife.
• Distribution of Green Belt Release: One member of the public stated that although Sheffield is only giving up 3% of Green Belt in the city, 90% of that is in S13, and asked how this decision was reached. Simon Vincent responded that officers have looked at the most suitable sites and have focused on the largest strategic sites in the most sustainable locations, and that it just happened that two of those are in S13.
• Gleadless Valley: One member of the public referred to the houses at Gleadless Valley, explaining there was a plan to renovate and rehouse those, and asked what had happened to them. William Stewart responded that the council is looking seriously at Gleadless Valley, that there had just been an appointment of an Independent Chair for Gleadless Valley, a regeneration board established and there is a programme for investment in Gleadless Valley which would look at this issue.
• Water Supply: A member of the public mentioned that the area had previously lost water supply numerous times, and asked how they can ensure this will not get worse when there was a further 600 houses to consider. Michael Johnson responded that work was being carried out with infrastructure providers and would continue to do so to look at these issues.
• Public Health: One member of the public asked what were the anticipated risks to public health for people in this area and how can it be mitigated, and what are the risks of development that the Inspectors might identify? Michael Johnson responded that where new developments would result in a loss in green space, the council would look at new open spaces or how existing ones can be improved as part of the new developments, and that there could be risk around air quality due to more vehicles in the area, and pressures on health and education facilities.
• Fairness of Green Belt Release: One member of the public stated that the distribution of the proposed Green Belt release is unfair when there were 16 sites promoted on the west of the city, and that the South East has the worst air pollution in the city, therefore the developments of these houses were only going to make this worse. Michael Johnson acknowledged that sites were put forward in the west of the city and details are available in the documentation that has been published, and that the appraisals set out why the alternative sites were not put forward.
• Green Belt Ranking: One member of the public mentioned that all Green Belt land were ranked out of 20 and that the land at S13 was ranked 13-14 meaning moderate to strong, and asked why sites with lower rankings were not considered. Michael Johnson responded that this was considered and outlined in the report, and that Green Belt scores were one of 3 factors taken into account, including a sustainability appraisal and planning appraisal.
• Infrastructure Plans at Waverley: One member of the public referred to the infrastructure plans at Waverley and asked how these would work alongside the new development. William Stewart responded that funding of £1.5 billion had been allocated for public transport in South Yorkshire and that Sheffield would get a large amount of that which can be used for tram routes, and that there was also £330 million allocated for bus franchising in Sheffield.
• Affordable Housing: One member of the public asked that if building on Green Belt meant more affordable housing, then why will all the new affordable housing now be in this area? Michael Johnson responded that Green Belt land would lead to more affordable housing as it was easier to build on, and less contaminated, and that affordable housing will be delivered across the city on both the proposed additional site allocations on Green Belt land, as well as on brownfield sites.
• Integrated Care Board: One member of the public asked if there had been any conclusions with the Integrated Care Board or the education providers in the area to show that this can actually be delivered. Michael Johnson responded that this can be delivered, and that land at Beaver Hill was set aside for potentially another secondary school and a burial ground.
• Land Ownership: One member of the public asked who owned the two large sites that had been proposed for development. Michael Johnson confirmed that the Duke of Norfolk owned the site at Handsworth Hall Farm, and the council owned the majority of the site at Beaver Hill.

South East Local Area Committee Budget Report

The South East Local Area Committee is scheduled to discuss a report on the proposed allocation of funds to address local priorities for the South East Local Area Committee (LAC) for 2025-26.

The minutes from the previous meeting on 15 April 2025, record that the South East LAC agreed to use their £100,000 budget to support projects aligned to the themes identified in the Community Plan. These were Crime and Community safety (£50,000), Environment (£17,000), Health and Wellbeing (£15,000), Children and families (£15,000), together with an allocation of £3,000 for administrative costs.

The South East LAC had spent £4,023 through delegated powers, including £18 on printing, £71 on governance delivery and £3,934 on the VE Day Celebrations.

Feedback from VE Day Celebrations

The Communities Services Manager is scheduled to give feedback relating to the VE Day Celebrations. The LAC offered a grant scheme of up to £4,000 with groups being able to apply for up to £250 each.

The groups funded were as follows:

• S12 Community Pantry Celebration Event
• Frecheville Community Centre Family BBQ
• 173rd Sheffield Woodhouse Scouts Afternoon Tea
• Waterthorpe Nursery Infant School Children's Party
• SF4SD 1950's Evening
• Beighton TARA Afternoon Tea and BBQ
• Brunswick Gardens Residents Association Street Party
• Woodhouse & District Community Forum VE Day Party
• Crystal Peaks Health Walks Group Celebration Brunch
• Frecheville Library VE Day Week
• Beighton District Guides Street Party
• Westfield Community Group VE Day Lunch Club
• Charnock Hall Academy VE Day Party
• Hackenthorpe Lunch Club VE Day Party
• Owlerthorpe Walking Group Coach Trip to National Arboretum
• Beighton Village Development Trust Choir Concert
• Medlock Street Party Street Party
• Mosborough History Meeting Group Celebration Event
• Woodhouse Community Playgroup 1940's Party

Public Questions and Petitions

The committee is scheduled to receive any questions or petitions from members of the public.

The minutes of the previous meeting on 17 June 2025 record the following questions from members of the public:

• Road Repairs: A member of the public raised concerns about roads going into disrepair and not being repaired in a timely manner, and that complaints were being sent to the contractor responsible for the repairs for investigation, which they believed was a conflict of interest.
• Friends of Tythe Barn: A member of the public explained they were part of a newly formed group 'Friends of Tythe Barn' who were working with the University of Sheffield and Hallam University to improve community bonds and strengthen education provision for the South East, and asked if LAC members could visit the group to discuss these concerns further.
• Incomplete Minutes: A member of the public mentioned that the 15 April 2025 minutes were incomplete, referring to a comment made by Councillor Ian Horner, Chair of the South East Local Area Committee, regarding a drone and China which was not noted.
• Potholes: A member of the public referred to road repair issues and increasing concerns of potholes.
• New Roads: A member of public asked how the public can be assured that new roads would be better if the existing roads cannot be maintained or repaired effectively.

Presentations

The committee is scheduled to receive presentations from early years, youth services and apprenticeships teams. The agenda states that this is an opportunity to learn and ask questions from the services.

Break Out Session

The committee is scheduled to hold round table discussions to raise any concerns, issues, activities, support needed and what's missing for people your age in your area.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors are required to declare any interests they have in the business to be considered at the meeting. A document titled Advice to members on declaring interests at meetings has been provided to councillors, outlining the rules and guidelines for declaring interests.

The document explains the difference between a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) and a personal interest. Councillors with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter, and must leave the room. Councillors with a personal interest must make a verbal declaration of the existence and nature of that interest.