Quote the Council’s words back at them in your personal consultation response.

Flood risk and public investment conflict
Sheffield City Council has recognised The Horse field’s catchment area as part of a high-priority flood mitigation zone within the £53 million Upper Don Valley Flood Protection Scheme:

“The scheme has been developed to protect communities, major roads and development land in the Upper Don, Loxley and Little Don valleys from Stocksbridge through Oughtibridge and Hillsborough to the city centre.” — SCC, Upper Don Valley Flood Protection Scheme Overview

“We have identified funding for planting up to 1 million trees in the Pennine uplands above the city… to achieve maximum flood protection benefit.”

Allowing development here conflicts with strategic flood investment and may risk contravening SCC’s obligations under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Additionally:

“The SEA identifies that there are potential negative environmental impacts on human health and ecosystems from the development of stormwater attenuation and storage facilities in public open spaces.” — SFRMS, Section 8.5.4

The Horse field functions as a natural floodplain. Under NPPF Paragraphs 159–161, development should avoid flood-prone land and support climate resilience. No Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) design or funding plan has been presented for this site.

“The role of the planning authority in flood risk management is: • to avoid inappropriate development in areas designated as being at risk of flooding • to mitigate the surface water run-off impacts of new development on downstream areas.” — SFRMS, Section 4.10.2

The council admit the site may have significant ecological value, and needs further ecological survey. But this hasn’t been undertaken.
The Horse field may contain flora and fauna protected under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and includes hedgerows protected by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

“The site may have significant ecological value.” — Sheffield Local Plan: Site Assessment for Site 1052

“If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.” — NPPF Paragraph 180

The council admit the development may cause harm to Glen Howe park in their own plan

“Development on the Horsefield has the potential to cause harm to the setting of Glen Howe Park, a designated heritage asset.” — Sheffield Local Plan Site Assessment, Site 1052

“Any harm to the significance of a heritage asset… must require clear and convincing justification.” — NPPF Paragraph 200

No such justification has been presented.

Unsafe access and traffic risks
Access relies on Storth Lane and School Lane both narrow and lacking pavements in key sections. No access plan or mitigation strategy has been published.

“Limited access and impact on the road network” — Constraint identified in Sheffield Housing Plan Site Assessment, Site 1052

“Development should ensure safe and suitable access for all users.” — NPPF Paragraph 110(b)

Air quality and respiratory health impact
Development would increase traffic on the A6102 corridor, worsening air pollution. This is not a suitable location for intensified vehicle use.

“Long-term exposure to particulate pollution is a key factor in asthma, COPD, and cardiovascular disease.” — DEFRA & Public Health England Guidance

“Stocksbridge and Upper Don have an ageing population and high levels of chronic illness.” — Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion: Local Insight Report, 2025

We’re already low on infrastructure and the council plan no improvements
The Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan makes no provision for expansion of health or transport services in the area.

Wharncliffe Side lacks:

  • A medical centre
  • A dentist
  • Adequate public transport (only one infrequent bus route)
  • A train line

“Development should provide for accessible services and sustainable transport.” — NPPF Paragraph 8b

Loss of health and wellbeing infrastructure
The Horse field provides accessible flat walking ground for elderly people and those with chronic illnesses and poor fitness. It is also widely used by many people in the community. 

“8.91% of local residents have a long-term illness that limits daily activity a lot. Self-reported ‘very bad health’ is 1.53%.” — OCSI Local Insight Report, 2025

According to the JSNA (Sheffield City Council, 2021):

“Mental health problems are common and rising… strongly linked to deprivation, social isolation, and chronic physical health conditions.”

“Access to green space and community connection play a key role in resilience, especially for older people and carers.”

“Proximity to greenspace is associated with lower levels of stress and improved wellbeing, especially in disadvantaged and rural communities.” — Public Health England, Improving Access to Greenspace (2020)

“Planning decisions should enhance the sustainability of communities by safeguarding shared spaces and services.” — NPPF Paragraph 93

Failure to meet council’s own transport accessibility standards
There is no cycle infrastructure, no pedestrian crossing, and no plans to improve public transport for this site. This exceeds Sheffield’s sustainable transport guidelines, which state developments should be within 800–1,000m of regular public transport.

“The Horse field is more than 1,200m from the core public transport network.” — SCC Site Assessment, Site 1052

“Development should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements… and facilitate access to high quality public transport.” — NPPF Paragraph 110

In conclusion this development would…

  • Conflict with national planning law (NPPF)
  • Breach SCC’s flood risk and infrastructure duties
  • Undermine biodiversity, heritage, public health, and climate resilience goals

On legal, environmental, and policy grounds, the site should be excluded from the Housing Plan and refused planning permission. It is not sustainable, not compliant, and not in the public interest.