®Planning appeal decision
Land Bounded by Rockingham Street and Wellington Street and Trafalgar Street, Rockingham Street, Sheffield, S1 4NN
Planning appeal 3318273 at Land Bounded by Rockingham Street and Wellington Street and Trafalgar Street, Rockingham Street, Sheffield, S1 4NN (Sheffield City Council) was allowed on 18 August 2023 by Inspector Hockenhull H, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal to remove affordable housing from the scheme would result in a fundamental variation of the development permitted by planning permission ref 21/05354/FUL and if so whether it would be appropriate to consider this through an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act).
Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of permission 21/05354/FUL to remove reference to affordable housing on the floor plans, within a scheme for demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed use residential towers of 12/17/38 storeys with ancillary amenities and ground floor retail unit
- Authority
- Sheffield City Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Other Major Developments
- Inspector
- Hockenhull H
- Postcode
- S1 4NN
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal to remove affordable housing from the scheme would result in a fundamental variation of the development permitted by planning permission ref 21/05354/FUL and if so whether it would be appropriate to consider this through an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act)
- Whether a section 73 application can be approved which would necessitate a variation to an existing section 106 agreement, given section 106A
- Whether the proposal can make provision for affordable housing having regard to viability and if not should planning permission be granted
What decided it
The Inspector's finding that the scheme was unviable to deliver affordable housing meant there was no conflict with Policy CS40 and only very limited conflict with Policy CS41, so the scheme accorded with the development plan as a whole.
the very limited conflict with Policy CS41 was outweighed by the scheme's continued social, economic and environmental benefits and its overall accordance with the development plan, so the appeal was allowed
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS40Policy CS41Draft Policy NC5
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 60
- Judgments
- Barnett v Secretary of State [2010] 1 P&CR 8 at [17]-[22]; R v Coventry City Council ex p Arrowcroft Group Plc [2001] PLCR 7; R9Vue) Entertainment Ltd) v City of York Council [2017] EWHC 588 (Admin); Finney v Welsh Ministers {2019] EWCA Civ 1868; Armstrong v Secretary of State [2023] P.T.S.R. 1148; Norfolk Homes v North Norfolk DC and Norfolk CC [2010] EWHC 2265; Batchelor Enterprises Ltd v North Dorset District Council [2003] EWHC 3006 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Sheffield City Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Dismissed29 October 202660143274 Struan Road, Sheffield, S7 2EH
- Dismissed27 October 20266009090Meadow Farm, Whiteley Wood Road, Sheffield, S11 7TJ
- Dismissed20 October 20266014347Advertising Right Adjacent Park House, Bernard Road, Sheffield, S2 5BQ
- Allowed16 October 202660147191 Twickenham Court, Halfway, Sheffield, S20 4HT
- Allowed12 October 20266012829189 Crimicar Lane, Sheffield, S10 4EH
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.