Beighton traveller site: Councillor 'furious' after attempt to axe traveller site from draft Local Plan fails

An amendment to Sheffield's draft Local Plan, concerning a proposed traveller site, was refused this week - leaving one councillor "furious".
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A Sheffield councillor has expressed his anger after attempts to get a proposed traveller site removed from the draft Local Plan for Sheffield failed this week.

Councillor Ian Horner, who represents the Liberal Democrats for the Beighton ward, seconded an amendment to the plan put forward by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed at a meeting of the Full Council.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

They want proposals for an accommodation site for travellers removed from the draft Local Plan - claiming the site is unsuitable "both for the current residents and the people who would be asked to live on it".

The Lib Dems attempted to table a motion to remove the controversial site from the plan, but this was refused by senior council officers.

Coun Horner said: "There is poor air quality as it is next to the A57...we aren't asking residents to live on it."

The A57 runs through Sheffield, passing numerous residential areas along the way, including Hackenthorpe, Richmond, Woodhouse and a small part of Beighton.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Coun Horner also stated he objected to the loss of green space that would result if the site was created.

The proposal in the draft Local Plan also includes an industrial site in the same area.

Both sites were the subject of seperate petitions protesting against the proposals. Two petitions against the traveller site amassed 3,477 signatures, whilst a single petition against the industrial site recieved 635.

Councillor Ian Horner (centre) with fellow Beighton councillors Kurtis Crossland and Ann Woolhouse at the proposed industrial and traveller site. (Photo courtesy of Sheffield Lib Dems)Councillor Ian Horner (centre) with fellow Beighton councillors Kurtis Crossland and Ann Woolhouse at the proposed industrial and traveller site. (Photo courtesy of Sheffield Lib Dems)
Councillor Ian Horner (centre) with fellow Beighton councillors Kurtis Crossland and Ann Woolhouse at the proposed industrial and traveller site. (Photo courtesy of Sheffield Lib Dems)

Sheffield's Liberal Democrats said the proposal attracted significant opposition from residents in South East Sheffield concerned about "congestion, noise and the loss of green field land".

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Coun Horner said: “I’m furious that this site has been approved for submission to the Planning Inspector.

"What’s even more disappointing is the fact that this ‘public consultation’ is more like a fait accompli. This Plan was out for consultation at the start of this year, and a massive amount of residents made their voices heard. What’s more, this council passed a resolution calling on planning officers to remove the site from the Local Plan. The council had nine months to listen to residents, remove the site and propose an alternative – it didn’t.

"Now, we have been told that we cannot even amend the Local Plan to remove the site ourselves. This is a disgraceful undermining of our right to represent our constituents.”

The Liberal Democrats claim the "undermining" came when senior officers refused their amendment to remove the site from the plan. Officers did this as it is not possible to submit the draft plan to the government without provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The draft Local Plan was passed by Sheffield City Council with 37 votes in favour, 17 against, and 20 abstentions. The way each individual councillor voted is expected to be published later this week.

The draft plan will now be sent to the Government for examination before coming into action from next year. Local Liberal Democrats have pledged to continue their opposition to the site.

Related topics:

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.