1 Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 13/06/2011 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

THE BACKGROUND PAPERS ARE IN THE FILES IN RESPECT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS NUMBERED.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR ACCESS Lucy Bond TEL 0114 2734556 Trevor Sullivan NO: 0114 2734369 AREA(S) AFFECTED

CAT EGORY OF REPORT

OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

11/01263/FUL 371 Coleford Road Sheffield 6 S9 5NF

11/01126/CHU Unit 14 The Plaza 11 8 Fitzwilliam Street Sheffield S1 4JB

11/00885/FUL Land Between Cumberland Street Eyre Street Earl Street And The Moor 18 (New Block 6, The Moor) Sheffield S1 4PY

11/00819/CAC Land And Buildings At Sidney Street, Matilda Street, Arundel Street And Sylvester Street 49 Sheffield S1 3RA

11/00815/FUL Land And Buildings At Sidney Street, Matilda Street, Arundel Street And Sylvester Street 52 Sheffield S1 3RA

11/00723/LBC Ground Floor The Warehouse 80 Wharf Street Victoria Quays Sheffield S2 5SY

11/00718/CHU Ground Floor The Warehouse 85 Wharf Street Victoria Quays Sheffield S2 5SY

3 11/00149/FUL Bank Street Arts Ltd 32 - 40 Bank Street 99 Sheffield S1 2DS

09/00365/FUL 1-7 Meersbrook Road Sheffield 113 S8 9HU

4 5 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The SOUTH Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 13/06/2011

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

*NOTE* Under the heading “Representations” a Brief Summary of Representations received up to a week before the Committee date is given (later representations will be reported verbally). The main points only are given for ease of reference. The full letters are on the application file, which is available to members and the public and will be at the meeting.

Case Number 11/01263/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Siting of 10 metre high liquid nitrogen vessel and erection of 2.4 metre high fencing to perimeter of site

Location 371 Coleford Road Sheffield S9 5NF

Date Received 18/04/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Atomising Systems Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Location plan headed 371 Coleford Road-

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. The decision to grant permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the relevant policies and proposals from the Sheffield Development Framework and the Unitary Development Plan set out below:

IB6 - Development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas IB10 - Visitor Accommodation in Industry and Business Areas

Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

This explanation is only intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planningonline or by calling the planning officer, contact details are at the top of this notice.

7 Site Location

8 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site is an industrial unit located on an industrial estate in Darnall, close to the junction of Coleford Road and Catley Road. To the west and south there are industrial units and to the north there is Tinsley Hill which forms part of an open space area. To the east is a field used for grazing horses.

The application is seeking permission to erect 2.4m high palisade security fencing around the site and a 10m high storage tank within the service yard.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues.

The application site lies within a General Industry Policy Area as identified on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. Policy IB5 states that general industry and warehouses are the preferred uses. Policy IB9 states that development will be permitted provided it is well designed with buildings and storage of a scale and nature appropriate to the site.

Visual Impact.

The key issue is the visual impact. The site has frontages to Coleford Road and Catley Road. The building is set back from these roads with a lawn area adjoining Coleford Road and a grass embankment next to Catley Road. The existing boundary treatment to these roads comprises of a low metal railing. There is a 2m high temporary wire mesh fence to the eastern boundary and 2m high existing galvanised palisade fencing to most of the western and northern boundaries.

The palisade fencing is to be erected along the back edge of footpath along most of the Coleford Road frontage and this would be the most prominent section of fencing. The fencing will appear quite hostile given the current open character of the frontage. However, galvanised fencing is the predominant fencing type within the estate and there is galvanised fencing of a similar height along the frontage of adjacent sites. There is also open storage and low quality development along the frontages of many sites in this estate. Given these considerations, and the fact that the site will be vulnerable in the evenings and weekends when there are few people around, it would be unreasonable to resist this proposal on visual amenity grounds. The applicant has agreed to set back the fencing on the Catley Road frontage and locate it at the bottom of an embankment; therefore the visual impact will be much less. The fencing along the eastern boundary will not be prominent and is an improvement over the existing temporary fencing.

The new storage tank is cylindrical shaped, 2.2m in diameter and 10m high. It is located at the rear of the site within the service yard and will extend approximately 3m above the height of the existing building. It will be seen from the

9 road frontage over the top of the building and from the footpaths within and into Tinsley Hill. Whilst it is taller than the building it is a relatively slim structure and it is not so tall that it will appear out of scale with the surrounding industrial development. It will be viewed as part of the normal paraphernalia associated with an industrial development and consequently will not appear excessively intrusive from the surrounding area.

Access Issues.

The vehicular entrance gates are positioned close to the back edge of footway and do not allow for a vehicle to clear the highway when entering the site. However this is not a significant problem as the gates are likely to be left open when the building is in use and all the adjoining sites seem to operate in a similar way.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Whilst the positioning of fencing on the back edge of footway is not ideal it is acceptable in this instance given the character of this estate. The visual impact of the fence and storage tank is considered to be acceptable. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Case Number 11/01126/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Use of premises for Class A4 purposes (Pubs and Bars)

Location Unit 14 The Plaza 8 Fitzwilliam Street Sheffield S1 4JB

Date Received 06/04/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent White Design

Recommendation To Report

Site Location

INTRODUCTION

The applicant has requested that this application be placed on the agenda in the hope that the outstanding issues can be resolved in time for the Committee meeting. This is because the plan, if approval is forthcoming, is for Ossett Brewery to start fitting out the premises as soon as possible thereafter in order to try and be open for the Tramlines Festival towards the end of July. This would not be possible if the application was deferred to the next available meeting.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site comprises of a large unit located in the south east corner of The Plaza, the ground floor retail/commercial centre at the northern end of the largely residential West One complex. The unit, which fronts onto Fitzwilliam Street, was formerly occupied by Budgens (a mini supermarket).

There are currently 12 units facing onto The Plaza, and a thirteenth located at the junction of Convent Walk and Cavendish Street. Nine of the thirteen (approximately 70%) are in or have permission for A3/A4 (restaurant/café/bar) use.

Planning permission was granted in January 2010 for the use of unit 14 (formerly Budgens) as a restaurant/café (Use Class A3), including the formation of an external seating area. However the unit has remained vacant. Planning permission is now sought for the change of use of unit 14 to a real ale pub (Use Class A4), including an outdoor seating area. The intended occupants will also host live music and comedy nights and a 28 square metre stage is proposed at ground floor level.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

11/00389/FUL On 3 May 2011, planning permission was granted for the use of unit 7 (formerly Prego) as a restaurant/café (Use Class A3) and provision of an extraction flue.

09/02736/FUL Planning permission was granted in January 2010 for the use of unit 14 (formerly Budgens) as a restaurant/cafes, including the formation of an external seating area.

08/04888/FUL Planning permission was granted in December 2008 for the change of use of unit 12 from a retail unit to a restaurant (Use Class A3).

08/03045/FUL An application to extend the opening hours at unit 3 (Bar 23) until 0000 hours was approved in August 2008.

07/01862/FUL Permission was granted in October 2007 for the extension of opening hours at units 1 and 2 (Revolution) to 0800-0300 hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

13 07/01727/CHU In November 2006, planning permission was granted for the use of unit 5 as an extension to an estate agents (A2).

06/02884/CHU Planning permission was refused in October 2006 for the change of use of units 11 and 12 from retail (A1) to a bar/restaurant (A3/A4) for the following reasons:

‘The local planning authority consider that the use of the site for food and drink purposes (Use Class A3/A4) would result in an unacceptable degree of noise, smells and general disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. In these respects the proposal is contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

This decision was upheld at appeal.

06/02865/CHU An application for a temporary outside seating area at units 1 and 2 (Revolution) for restaurant/bar purposes (A3/A4) between 0900 and 2230 hours daily was approved in March 2007.

06/02190/FUL An application to vary Condition No. 2 (as imposed by planning permission 05/03077/FUL) to extend the opening hours of the bar/restaurant at unit 3 until 0000 hours was approved on 22 August 2006.

05/03077/FUL Planning permission for the use of unit 3 as a restaurant (A3) and bar (A4) with a 2300 hours closing time was granted on 23 September 2005.

05/01183/CHU The use of unit 3 and part of unit 2 as a restaurant (A3) was approved on 19 July 2005. A 2300 hours closing time was conditioned.

05/00561/CHU The use of West One’s former leisure and fitness suite (The Cage) as offices (B1) was granted on 1 June 2005.

03/01573/CHU An application for outside seating areas in association with Class A3 purposes (food and drink) was approved on 5 August 2003. Conditions were imposed requiring the seating areas to units 1 and 2 to be used only between 0900 hours and 1930 hours on any day and, at units 8/9, 10, 13 and 15 to be used only between 0800 hours and 2230 hours on any day.

00/01269/FUL The West One application, for the erection of flats, basement car parking, retail units (A1), offices (A2), restaurants/bars (A3), leisure (D2) medical centre (D1) and crèche (D1) (amended scheme) was granted planning permission on 22 February 2001. Condition 22 of the approval required no more than 33% of the proposed retail units/floorspace to be occupied by A3

(food and drink) units (In order to comply with the Devonshire Quarter Action Plan Policies).

14 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Eleven letters of representations were received in connection with the proposed change of use, including 9 letters of support and 2 objecting to the use of the unit as a pub.

Those in support of the scheme, which includes representatives of the West One Resident’s Committee and some commercial tenants, state that:

− The vacant unit is an eyesore, harming the appearance of the West One complex and damaging the remaining businesses;

− The proposed real ale pub would be a positive addition to the area, increasing vitality and footfall;

− The target audience for the proposed venue will improve the demographic mix of the area and live music is an aspect West One is missing;

− The development will bring employment to the area.

Objectors to the proposals raised the following concerns:

− The customers of pubs and bars create much more noise than restaurant goers;

− West One residents already suffer from noise from drunk customers, late night music and food smells;

− There are enough pubs and bars in the area;

− This is a residential area. The amenities of residents should be taken into account.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Issues

The application site lies within a Housing Area and a Housing Priority Zone as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy H10 of the UDP (Development in Housing Areas) describes housing as the preferred use of land in such areas. Food and drink uses are considered to be acceptable provided that they are not so large or numerous that they cause disturbance to people living there.

Policy H14 of the UDP (Conditions on Development in housing Areas) states that new development or changes of use will be permitted provided that they occupy only a small area and will not lead to a concentration of non-housing uses, which would threaten the residential character of the area; not lead to air pollution, noise, smell, excessive traffic levels or other nuisance or risk to health and safety

15 for people living nearby; and be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the area.

The City’s Core Strategy reinforces the important role the city centre plays in meeting future housing needs. Policy CS27 (Housing in the City Centre) identifies areas around Devonshire Green. The locations identified in the Core Strategy are those where the environmental and locational benefits are considered greatest and where the needs of residents would not conflict with other uses.

Although in a Housing Area, the shop forms part of the West One Plaza, considered as an extension to the Devonshire Street and West Street/Glossop Road shopping areas. National Planning Policy Statement 6 supports all types of Class A development in centres and does not distinguish A1 from A3/A4 uses except in primary frontages (i.e. Fargate) where there should be a high proportion of retail uses. PPS6 states that secondary frontages (e.g. West Street) provide greater opportunities for flexibility and a diversity of uses.

That said, the Plaza falls within a designated Housing Area and while pubs, bars and restaurants are an acceptable land use in principle, the cumulative impact of food and drink uses has the potential to threaten the residential character of the area and have a harmful impact upon the amenities of those residents living in the immediate vicinity, and while the dispersal of people from a restaurant may be considered less likely to cause nuisance to residents than those from a bar, the introduction of a public house offering live music and comedy nights raises significant concerns.

Amenity Issues

The City Centre Living Strategy (April 2004) describes the Devonshire Quarter as ‘the most active and varied housing development area, with a healthy mix of housing for sale and social or private rent and student flats, catering for families and single people’. The area to the west of Fitzwilliam Street is identified in the Devonshire Quarter Action Plan as the best location for family housing in the city centre, owing to its proximity to open space (Devonshire Green) and to a primary school (Springfield).

Guideline 8 of the City Centre Living Strategy (CCLS) expects planning submissions involving potentially noisy uses to submit a scheme of works to address noise problems and states that planning permission will be refused for developments that are unable, through design, technical measures or separation, to prevent noise and disturbance from affecting residents. The Council’s Environmental Protection Service has raised concerns regarding the potential for the use to adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. The premises were not designed to host live music events and the applicant has not included enough information to show that noise (and vibration) transmission through the building to the residents above can be satisfactorily addressed. In addition to the residents above being affected by the transmission of noise/vibration, the adjacent premises (East One) have a party wall and are also likely to be affected by noise transmission.

16 Furthermore, the noise from people using the outdoor seating area and leaving the premises at closing time (indicated as 23.30 on the application forms for most of the week and 22.30 on Sundays, although the recently submitted premises licence application indicates 1am every day) is considered likely to be harmful to the amenities of nearby residents. It is accepted that other noise related issues, such as noise from early morning and late night deliveries and collections, and from plant and equipment, can be controlled with conditions.

A revised plan has been submitted with an ‘L’ shaped lobby, rather than a straight through lobby, on the advice of EPS and this is undergoing assessment. Other outstanding noise control details, including the noise report data and noise transmission predictions are currently outstanding and need to be properly addressed bearing in mind previous complaints that we have received in respect of noise associated with the Plaza development. Members will be updated on these issues at the meeting, together with a final recommendation.

Mixed Use/Vitality Issues

West One was conceived as a largely residential, mixed use development with a shopping precinct at the northern end of the site to tie in with the Devonshire Street and West Street/Glossop Road shopping areas. When planning permission was granted, a 30% restriction was imposed on the amount of food and drink units (Condition 22) in order to comply with the principles of the Devonshire Quarter Action Plan which seeks to protect specialist shopping uses in the area, in the face of strong pressure from food and drink uses, by restricting the level of non- shopping uses.

The 30% limit has since been exceeded with approximately 70% of units currently in or having permission for food and drink use. Planning permission for the use of unit 14 as a restaurant/café was granted in January 2010 so the loss of another retail unit is not an issue in this instance. Furthermore, it is considered that this, and previous decisions have damaged the viability of The Plaza’s retail offer to the extent that the 30% limit on food and drink uses can no longer be upheld.

SUMMARY

It is considered that the proposed public house could well have a harmful impact upon the amenities of those residents living in the immediate vicinity due to noise, vibration and general disturbance, particularly when live music is being played and at closing time. The premises were not designed to host live events and at the present time we do not have sufficient information to address these issues at the current time.

The applicant has, however, committed to providing the outstanding information as a matter of urgency and, provided that there is sufficient time to assess it, we will then be in a position to offer a final recommendation at the meeting. Whilst this is not an entirely satisfactory approach, it has been agreed on this occasion due to the timescales for fit-out that the proposed occupier is anxious to achieve.

Case Number 11/00885/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 6 retail units (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A5), indoor market hall with service yard, storage and administrative offices

Location Land Between Cumberland Street Eyre Street Earl Street And The Moor (New Block 6, The Moor) Sheffield S1 4PY

Date Received 17/03/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent NJL Consulting

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Before the commencement on site of each phase samples of all proposed external materials and finishes for that phase, including windows, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details, and shall not be carried out otherwise without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 Before the external facings for each phase are fitted full height sample panels at a scale of 1:1 of the following external facings (unless authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall have been erected on site including any windows, grilles or other feature elements:

Market Phase: (i) Brickwork (Smooth Red and Alternate Recessed Bands and blue facing brickwork) including blockwork plinths (ii) Timber Weave Rainscreen

18 (iii) Curved Glass and Timber Roof to Market Entrance and main Market Hall (iv) Plinths to Market roof on Earl Street (v) Galvanised channel section columns and channel cross beams (vi) Glazed Curtain Walling System (vii) Opaque glass coloured panels (viii) Timber Brise Soleil (ix) Powder coated ventilation cowls

Retail Phase: (x) Reconstituted stone panels and plinths of slate pre-cast panels (xi) Glazed Curtain Walling System (xii) Textured Stone Panels

The sample panels shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the installation on each phase of the external facing material and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Notwithstanding the 1:50 sections submitted for approval, further modelling details for each phase in sections at a scale of 1:20 of the items below (unless authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority) on each facade shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of the corresponding part of the building:

Market Phase:

(i) Window Reveals (ii) Window Heads and Sills (iii) Floor Slab Edges (iv) Eaves, Verges and Soffits (v) Joints and Fixing Details (vi) Shutter Fitting to Service Entrance if not already approved (vii) Louvres and Grilles (viii) Junctions between materials (including blockwork plinth, alternating brickwork and galvanised channels).

Retail Phase:

(ix) Window Reveals (x) Window Heads and Sills (xi) Floor Slab Edges (xii) Eaves, Verges and Soffits (xiii) Joints and Fixing Details (xiv) Shutter Fitting to Service Entrance if not already approved (xv) Louvres and Grilles (xvi) Junctions between materials

19 Thereafter the works for each phase shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details, and shall not be carried out otherwise without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 Large scale design details for each phase including materials, finishes and fixings at a scale of 1:20/1:50 as appropriate of the items listed below shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of that part of the building is commenced:

Market Phase:

(i) Canopies above entrances to market hall (ii) Cladding to columns within the market hall entrance (iii) External lighting (iv) Service Yard entrance gates if not already approved (v) Railings to Eyre Street and Earl Street steps (vi) Inclusive Access and Doors to Earl Street, including manifestations to doors and adjoining glazing. (vii) Step design and platform lifts to Eyre Street and Earl Street entrances.

Retail Phase:

(viii) Canopies above entrances to shops (ix) Decorated frieze above shops (x) External lighting (xi) Service Yard entrance gates if not already approved (xii) Inclusive Access and Doors to The Moor, including manifestations to doors and adjoining glazing.

Thereafter the works for each phase shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details and shall not be carried out otherwise without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

6 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, revised details of that part of the Eyre Street elevation in the area of the rear steps, the curved façade to the market hall and its junction with the market office wing (all in the Market Phase) shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work on that part of the development is commenced, and that part of the development shall not be used unless the building has been built in accordance with such approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

7 The shop units shall not be used unless one or other of the alternative shop front designs hereby approved has been carried out in its entirety to the

20 exclusion of the other, and the alternative shop front designs shall not be carried out in combination or part-combination with each other.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

8 No phase of the development shall be used for the purposes hereby permitted unless either the specific measures for that phase to produce Energy Efficiency, Low Carbon Energy and Renewable Energy proposed in Section 6 'Climate Change' of the Sustainability Statement by NJL Consulting (August 2009, Ref NJL/AC/2007-014) or appropriate alternative measures for that phase that shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall have been installed before that phase of the development is first used, and such approved measures shall thereafter be retained in place and operational for the lifetime of the development.

In order to ensure that new development makes energy savings in the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change.

9 Unless shown not to be feasible and viable to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority no phase of the development shall be used for the purposes hereby permitted unless a Validation Test Report for that phase showing that the building meets at least the BREEAM “Very Good” standard has been submitted to approved by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure that new development makes energy savings in the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change.

10 The following Use Classes hereby permitted for the Retail Phase: Class A2 - Financial and Professional Services Class A3 - Restaurants and Cafes Class A5 - Hot Food Takeaways shall only operate so that at least 60% of the retail frontage of the development to The Moor between Earl Street and Cumberland Street remains in use as Class A1 Shops.

In order to protect city centre shopping on The Moor.

11 No Class A3 use (Restaurants and Cafes) nor A5 use (Hot Food Takeaways) in the Retail Phase hereby permitted shall be operated except between the hours of 0530 and 0030 hours the following day on any day.

12 No Class A3 use (Restaurants and Cafes) nor A5 use (Hot Food Takeaways) in the Retail Phase hereby permitted shall be used unless suitable apparatus for the arrestment and discharge of fumes or gases has been installed. Before such equipment is installed details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. After installation such equipment shall be retained and operated for the purpose for which it was installed.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

13 Before the occupation of any part of the development a detailed management strategy for the operation of the service yard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management strategy shall cover the following issues:

(i) full details of the proposed refuse and recycling storage and collection facilities and how they will be managed (including the movement, sorting & removal of waste bottles, materials, other articles, skips & bins, which should be restricted to between 0530 hours and 2300 hours daily); (ii) hours of operation of the service yard (which should only be between 0530 hours and 2300 hours daily) and how it will be managed; (iii) delivery times for the different users of the development;

Thereafter the development shall be operated in accordance with the approved management strategy and any subsequent variations to the strategy shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of traffic safety, the proper provision for refuse and recycling and the amenity of the area generally, including future residents.

14 Amplified sound or live music shall only be played within the building in such a way that noise breakout to the street does not exceed:

(i) background noise levels by more than 3dB(A) when measured as a 15 minute LAeq, (ii) any octave band centre frequency by more than 3dB

when measured as a 15 minute Leq, when measured at the façade of the buildings opposite.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

15 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and before work on the Market Phase is commenced, full revised details of the side doors to Earl Street shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Market Phase of the development shall not be used unless such revised door details have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such details shall be retained.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

16 Before any phase of the development is commenced, and not otherwise except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, full details of proposals for the inclusion of public art within:

(i) the Market Phase (ii) the Retail Phase

or adjacent to the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall then be implemented prior to the occupation of that phase of the development unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to satisfy the requirements of Policy BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure that the quality of the built environment is enhanced.

17 No externally mounted plant or equipment for heating, cooling or ventilation purposes, nor grilles, ducts, vents for similar internal equipment, shall be fitted to any phase of the building unless full details thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and once installed on that phase such plant or equipment should not be altered without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

18 The service yard shall not be used unless 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres vehicle/pedestrian intervisibility splays have been provided on both sides of the means of access such that there is no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 mm above the level of the adjacent footway and such splays shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

19 The development shall not be begun until the improvements (which expression shall include traffic control, pedestrian and cycle safety measures) to the highways listed below have either;

a) been carried out; or b) details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure that such improvement works will be carried out before the development is first brought into use (or an alternative timescale to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority)

Highway Improvements:

(i) Improvements to Eyre Street (Footway Surfacing to Urban Design Compendium materials requirements (ii) Improvements to Cumberland Street (Footway surfacing/reconstruction to Urban Design Compendium materials requirements; Contra-flow cycle lane at the bottom of The Moor; Bus gate camera enforcement works;

23 Completion of Taxi Rank provision including feeder rank works to South Lane) (iii) Improvements to Earl Street/Earl Way (Footway and carriageway reconstruction to Urban Design Compendium materials requirements including the formal creation of a turning head for HGV’s (iv) The Moor: Completion of paving works along the site frontage (v) General pedestrian signage works together with appropriate traffic signage to Cumberland Street and South Street (vi) Contribution towards refreshing the connect signage map system to incorporate this development

To enable the above-mentioned highways to accommodate the increase in traffic, which, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, will be generated by the development.

20 Before each phase of the development is commenced, details of the means of ingress and egress for vehicles engaged in the construction of that phase shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the arrangements for restricting the vehicles to the approved ingress and egress points. Ingress and egress for such vehicles shall be obtained only at the approved points.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

21 At all times that construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

22 No phase of the development shall be used unless provision has been made within the site for accommodation of delivery/service vehicles in accordance with drawings hereby approved. Thereafter, all such areas shall be retained free of all obstructions, including the storage, display and depositing of materials, packaging or other objects so that the service yard is fully available for the parking, turning and manoeuvring of delivery/service vehicles.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

23 Before any phase of the development is commenced and unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of suitable and sufficient cycle parking accommodation within that phase shall have

24 been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and no phase of the development shall be used unless such cycle parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter such cycle parking accommodation shall be retained.

In the interests of sustainable transport.

24 No phase of the development shall be used unless details for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing how surface water will be prevented from spilling onto the public highway. Once agreed, the measures for that phase shall be put into place prior to the use of the development commencing, and shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

25 Prior to the occupation of any phase of the development, a detailed Travel Plan(s) for that phase, designed to: reduce the need for and impact of motor vehicles, including fleet operations; increase site accessibility; and to facilitate and encourage alternative travel modes, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Detailed Travel Plan(s) shall be developed in accordance with a previously approved Framework Travel Plan for the proposed development, where that exists. The Travel Plan(s) shall include:

a) Clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets; b) An implementation programme, with arrangements to review and report back on progress being achieved to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the 'Monitoring Schedule' for written approval of actions consequently proposed, c) The results and findings of the monitoring shall be independently verified/validated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. d) The verified/validated results will be used to further define targets and inform actions proposed to achieve the approved objectives and modal split targets.

On occupation, the approved Travel Plan(s) shall thereafter be implemented, subject to any variations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of delivering sustainable forms of transport, in accordance with the Transport Policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield and PPG13.

26 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no outward opening doors shall be fitted so as to open over the public highway except for the sole use by a statutory undertaker, and before the development is commenced further drawings showing inward opening doors shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

27 No external lighting shall be fixed to any phase of the development and operated unless full details thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

28 No phase of the development shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for that phase of the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing for each phase by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme must include the following: (i) Details of how the 30% reduction in the existing peak surface water run- off rate will be achieved. This applies up to and including the 1 in 100 (plus climate change) rainfall event, (ii) Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.

29 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 3.5 metres either side of the centre line of any sewer that crosses the site.

In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.

30 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on the site up to the site boundary.

In the interests of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

31 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from any phase of the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works for that phase and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to the completion of the approved foul drainage works for that phase.

To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

32 Surface water draining from areas of hardstanding shall be passed through an oil interceptor or series of oil interceptors, prior to being discharged into any watercourse, soakaway or surface water sewer. The interceptor(s) shall

26 be designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the area being drained, shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Clean roof water shall not pass through the interceptor(s). Vehicle washdowns and detergents shall not be passed through the interceptor.

To reduce the risk of pollution to the water environment.

33 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents received 17.3.11:

Leslie Jones Architects Drawing No’s: 3359/AL(00)0708 P02 Phasing Plan 3359/AL(04)1000 Rev P03 1001 Rev P03 1002 Rev P03 1010 Rev P08 1012 Rev P05 1013 Rev P05 1014 Rev P05 3359/AL(06)1050 Rev P04 1051 Rev P04 3359/AL(05)1030 Rev P05 1031 Rev P05 3359/AA(20)2000 Rev P02 2001 Rev P02 2002 Rev P02 2003 Rev P02 2004 Rev P02 2005 Rev P03 NJL Consulting Sustainability Statement, August 2009, Ref NJL/AC/2007/-014

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

34 Prior to commencement of each phase of the development, a Remediation Strategy Report for that phase addressing the requirement for gas protection measures shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase. The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and the Local Planning Authority policy relating to validation of gas protection measures.

In order to protect the health and safety of future occupiers and users of the site.

27 35 Remediation shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Remediation Strategy Report for each phase. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy Report, or unexpected contamination is encountered at any stage of the development process, works should cease and the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Protection Service (tel: 0114 273 4651) should be contacted immediately. Revisions to the Remediation Strategy Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy Report.

In order to protect the health and safety of future occupiers and users of the site.

36 Upon completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy Report or any approved revised Remediation Strategy Report, a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The development or any part thereof shall not be brought in to use until the Validation Report has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Validation Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and the Local Planning Authority policy relating to validation of gas protection measures.

In order to protect the health and safety of future occupiers and users of the site.

37 Neither the Market Phase nor the Retail Phase of the development shown on Phasing Plan AL(00)0708 Rev PO2) shall be used whether together or separately unless the Service Yard Phase has been completed in accordance with the approved drawings, except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of satisfactory phasing of the development.

38 The development shall not be used except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority unless an interpretation board has been provided within the Market Phase explaining the findings of the archaeological investigation already carried out, but before such interpretation board has been provided full details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter such interpretation board shall be retained.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

39 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and before work on site on the Market Phase or the Retail Phase is commenced, revised details of the junction of proposed ground floor levels of each phase to existing highway levels in The Moor and in Earl Street shall have been submitted to and

28 approved by the Local Planning Authority. The ground floor levels of the development and highway completion for that phase shall be built only in accordance with such approved revised details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be retained.

40 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and before work on the Service Yard Phase is commenced, revised details comprising plans, sections and elevations as necessary of the proposed service entrance from Cumberland Street shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and no phase of the development shall be used unless the service yard entrance has been provided in accordance with the approved revised plans and thereafter retained.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

CS17 - City Centre Quarters CS18 - Shopping in the City Centre CS74 - Design Principles CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS67 - Flood Risk Management S1 - The City Centre and the Location of Major Shop Developments S3 - Development in the Central Shopping Core S10 - Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas S11 - Design of Retail Development BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE7 - Design of Buildings Used by the Public BE8 - Access to Workplaces BE12 - Public Art BE22 - Archaeological Sites and Monuments GE25 - Contaminated Land

and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Considerable weight has been given to the phasing of the development, the design of the revised 3 storey shop unit and the new highway levels rebuilt since the previous permission..

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. As the proposed development will involve the closing/diversion of a highway(s) you are advised to contact the Principal Engineer of Highway Information and Orders, Development Services, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH, as soon as possible.

2. You are required, as part of this development, to carry out works within the public highway. You must not start any of this work until you have received a signed consent under the Highways Act 1980. An administration/inspection fee will be payable and a Bond required as part of the consent.

You should apply for a consent to: -

Highways Adoption Group Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House, 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH

For the attention of Mr S Turner Tel: (0114) 27 34383

3. The Council is responsible for allocating house numbers and road names to both new developments and conversions of existing buildings. Developers must therefore contact the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Officer on (0114) 2736127 to obtain official addresses for their properties as soon as construction works commence.

4. Before the development is commenced, a dilapidation survey of the highways adjoining the site shall be jointly undertaken with the Council and the results of which agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any deterioration in the condition of the highway attributable to the construction works shall be rectified in accordance with a scheme of work to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

5. For further information and advice about pollution prevention please refer to the Environment Agency’s website to access Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx) and advice on how to get your site design right http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/pp_pays_booklet_e_1212832.pdf

6. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a

30 fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

7. As the proposed development abuts the public highway you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

31 Site Location

INTRODUCTION

Planning permission was granted on 2 November 2009 (Application No 09/02597/FUL) for the erection of 8 retail units (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A5) and Market Hall with service yard, storage and administrative offices.

After discussion with the applicant, it is now proposed to separate the development so that the market and shops, with shared service yard, can be built separately. At the same time the applicants wish to combine the 3 retail units approved at the corner of The Moor and Cumberland Street into one unit and add a third storey to this larger unit. This will allow the accommodation of an anchor tenant in the retail part of the development.

There are no other changes from the 2009 scheme.

SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

This report addresses only the proposed changes to the scheme, together with some updating of Design, Inclusive Access, Archaeology and Highways matters. The previous report (attached as an appendix) covers all other aspects.

34 REPRESENTATIONS

None.

ASSESSMENT

The same planning policies are in force as for App No 09/02597/FUL and are covered in the report.

Land Use

The additional third floor of shopping complies with Policy CS18 (shopping in the City Centre) of the Sheffield Development Framework, in that it is not considered to prejudice or delay the success of the regeneration of the Primary Shopping Area (which is focussed around the New retail quarter area).

Design

The new 3 storey shop is provided with a distinctive façade composed of a full height frame in reconstituted Portland Stone. The vertical elements are dominant with recessed horizontals giving a pleasing effect appropriate to its location and function. The centrally placed entrance has higher ground floor glazing and omits the horizontals between second and third floors, enhancing the presence to The Moor.

The initial drawings have been improved in pre-application discussion. The return frontage to Cumberland Street now repeats the treatment of the new 3 storey shop facing The Moor, successfully grounding the design on the corner. The ground floor shop windows to Cumberland Street have been extended from 10m wide to 14m.

One new material, textured stone panelling, is to be used on the 3 storey shop unit and this is added to condition 3.

Overall, the improved scale, massing and design at an important street corner is to be welcomed. The revised design complies with development plan policy.

However, since the permission of November 2009, the highway to The Moor and Earl Street has been reconstructed by the Council in primary palette to a high specification, establishing the levels to which the ground floors of the Market Phase and Retail Phase should be set. Unfortunately, the elevation to Earl Street proposes twisting of the footway levels to produce level thresholds to the side doors to the Market entrance.

This is unlikely to be the best solution. A new condition requires submission of proposed ground floor levels of the Market and Retail phases for approval to ensure a good match with the existing highway, with no awkward levels changes.

35 Inclusive Access

As before, revised details of the Earl Street doors are reserved to ensure satisfactory inclusive access. A Changing Places toilet has been asked for, and is being considered separately as it is not a planning requirement.

There are some further details requiring approval, and these have been added to Condition 5: step design and platform lifts to Eyre Street and Earl Street entrances, and door design to the Market and Retail phases, including manifestations to doors and adjoining glazing.

Phasing

A new condition ensures that the service yard will be available in time for completion of the first phase of the development, whether the Market Hall or the Retail Units.

Some of the conditions have been reworded to refer to the new phasing arrangements.

Archaeology

All the field investigation and post-excavation reporting has been completed under the previous approvals. It remains to provide satisfactory published interpretation of the findings for public benefit. This is covered by a new condition.

Sustainability

The condition is amended to cover phasing. Since the permission of 2009, feed-in tariffs for on-site power generation have come in. It may be possible to increase the renewable/low carbon energy from the predicted 5% to something near the 10% in Policy CS65.

Highways

A pinch point of 2.8m is shown on the Eyre Street footway close to the existing pelican crossing. This is not considered good. Whilst the siting of the building behind the back edge of the footway (formerly Baldwin and Francis) is already approved, the exact footway dimension is new information received from the architects.

The Council works to standard 5m footway on busy city centre streets, and the 3m intended here is already a substantial compromise. Heavy pedestrian use can be expected close to the rear market entrance, the pelican crossing and bus stops. The available footway space is already less then 2.8m because of the existing columns supporting the lights to the crossing. Crowding can be expected, especially where people are using wheelchairs or pushchairs.

36 Setting back to the required 3m will help, although footway congestion is unlikely to be eliminated. The applicants have agreed to include this in the redesign of the rear curved wall already covered by Condition 6.

The service yard entrance has been moved 6m towards Eyre Street without explanation. This will entail emerging service vehicles moving towards South Lane travelling against the flow of one way traffic in Cumberland Street, which is unacceptable. Revisions are required by a new condition.

Condition 23 requires cycle parking provision on-site primarily for staff, but is disputed by the applicants who argue that the existing cycle park in the Eyre Street multi-storey car park should be adequate for those using the shop units. However, the MSCP is considered too remote from the shops to encourage the staff in the shops to cycle, and on-site provision is still considered necessary. This is a normal requirement, and it is recommended that the condition should stand for both phases but with a degree of flexibility built in so that an appropriate solution can be found.

The sub-station doors are shown opening out over Cumberland Street, which is contrary to requirements, and could create an obstruction although this will be infrequent. This is covered by Condition 26 as before.

CONCLUSION

The revisions to the shopping provision are welcome and will help secure the future of shopping on The Moor. The separation into a phased development will assist with implementation. With the conditions revised as recommended, the provision of a much-needed new market for Sheffield is likely to become a realistic possibility, with all that entails for The Moor, and the working out of a new future for the Castle Market site and the riverside generally.

The decision to grant permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the relevant policies and proposals from the Sheffield Development Framework and the Unitary Development Plan set out below:

37 GE25 - Contaminated Land and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Considerable weight has been given to the phasing of the development, the design of the revised 3 storey shop unit, and the new highway levels rebuilt since the previous permission.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant subject to the recommended conditions

APPENDIX - Report for 09/02597/FUL

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The buildings on the lower part of The Moor through to Eyre Street have already been demolished to allow the previously approved market development to be built.

Meanwhile, in view of the changed economic climate, this revised proposal has been made omitting both the student accommodation above and the lower ground floor commercial unit, allowing not only the design but also the sustainability of the building to be improved.

The proposal will provide a new market for Sheffield to replace the existing Castle Market, assisting the regeneration of the Castlegate area of the city and consolidating city centre shopping within a more compact area. In this sense it will complement the New Retail Quarter (Sevenstone) between Pinstone Street, Barker’s Pool and Charter Square.

There is a fall of 3.6m across the site from north to south.

The proposed building is two main parts. Firstly, the market hall will be at the rear of the site with its floor level at 67.5m AOD, 2.2m above Eyre Street at the rear and 1.4m below entrance level from The Moor. A glazed entrance hall will lead from The Moor falling at the same gradient as Earl Street, over which it will extend by 2.5m, providing pedestrian entrance doors on one side to Earl Street and a row of stalls on the other. The market will provisionally accommodate about 200 stalls, with meat and fish stalls at one corner and café stalls at the other next to Eyre Street.

The market hall will have a second pedestrian entrance to Eyre Street via steps and a lift close to the bus stops, and a third with steps to Earl Street close to the multi-storey car park already built. Highway improvements will provide access for wheelchair users from the car park.

The second part will be a row of two storey deep plan modern shop units to The Moor, with full height glazed fronts. Two alternative shopfront designs are proposed.

As in the previous scheme, a service yard with access from Cumberland Street will be shared by the market and shops. A two storey building at the corner of Eyre Street and Cumberland Street will accommodate plant, toilets and other facilities as well as the administrative offices for the Council’s Markets staff.

There will be no accommodation this time for a mobility scooter hire facility. This follows from the omission of the lower ground floor on cost grounds. There will no longer be an upper floor link bridge across Earl Street to the multi-storey car park.

The repaving of The Moor next to the site, on which work has already commenced, including a demountable 3 day a week outdoor market, is not the subject of this application.

HISTORY

Application No 06/04145/FUL: Planning permission was granted on 30 January 2007 for 8,388 square metres of retail space (Use Class A1), 2,731 square metres of leisure space (Use Class D2), an indoor market with ancillary facilities, a link bridge and student accommodation comprising approximately 1100 student bed spaces.

Application No 06/04147/FUL: Permission was also granted on 30 January 2007 for a multi-storey car park. This is complete and in use.

PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION

Discussions with the applicants began in autumn 2008, proceeding from initial concept through to the present submission.

Issues covered include: Internal character of the market hall, including Thermal Modelling to create sustainable climate control of the interior; Front elevation of the shops to The Moor; Character of the buildings to the corner of Cumberland Street and on Eyre Street; Active frontage to Eyre Street and Earl Street; Public art; Floor levels and inclusive access; Interface with the public realm; Servicing and highways issues; Archaeology.

Urban Design Panel 7.5.09: (1) Welcome proposals for an identifiable, iconic market building that would a destination in its own right, contributing to regeneration. Main design decisions, especially the roof, are convincing, but more detailed design work needed to elevations to The Moor and Eyre Street; (2) Support ambition for a low energy building with natural ventilation, underfloor heating and possible link to District Heating network; (3) Relationship to public realm is critical to success of the scheme, including positioning and layout of temporary outdoor market stalls, and detail of public realm design; (4) Proposed Moor elevation not appropriate to the strong context prevailing in the street. More positive expression of the structure in the façade is imperative, and in the materials chosen. Height of building satisfactory, but unconvinced about timber elements. Suggest a shop front design code to ensure coherence of different units; (5) Eyre Street elevation should be improved by greater transparency, especially the café

39 area, to give animation. Steel frame could be expressed more, with timber weave sitting within it. Simplify diamond patterned brickwork; (6) Support internal diagonal route, but disappointed that more not made of café stalls overlooking Eyre Street. Scope for improvement in design of stalls; (7) Supportive of proposed roof structure, as it would give drama and interest, and confident that modelling could resolve design issues. Support EFTE panelling at high level over the flat areas, but less appropriate closer to ground level where glazing more appropriate.

The following have required further work during the consideration of the application: Inclusive access; Sustainability; Shop Frontage Policy; Archaeology; Public art; Public realm improvements.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Exhibitions were held on 4-6 June 2009 at the Bandstand on The Moor and on 8- 10 June at the Castle Market.

684 people attended at The Moor, and 480 people at the Castle Market.

Of those, 6.1% were black or from ethnic minorities at The Moor, and 5.6% at Castle Market. 1.5% were wheelchair users at The Moor, and 3.7% at Castle Market.

127 Questionnaires were returned at The Moor; 54 at Castle Market.

At The Moor, 90% strongly agreed or agreed with the Market Hall layout; at Castle Market 79.6%.

At The Moor, 89% strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed design; at Castle Market 83.3%.

At The Moor, 92.3% strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed public transport arrangements; at Castle Market 70.4%.

At The Moor, 47% wanted to call it “Sheffield Market”; at Castle Market 54%.

There is strong support in the city for the proposal. There is a strong preference for meat and fish stalls and fruit and vegetable stalls in the new market, as well as cafes whether grouped or not, amongst a wide range of stalls selling other household and personal goods.

REPRESENTATIONS

3 Objections received from Sheffield residents in S2 and S10: (1) Shops too low- rise for location, more like a retail estate, (2) Eyre Street frontage a poor, bland design, more like existing warehouses nearby, (3) Design lacks innovation and distinctiveness, and contrary to Urban Design Compendium, (4) Stronger architectural statement required, (5) Good design sacrificed to financial expediency, (6) Sub-standard design will blight city centre for next 25 years , (7)

40 Grants/Subsidies required from ERDF or Objective One to improve design, (8) At odds with proposed high density office quarter at Moorfoot, (9) Could raise roof level to provide indoor garden, (10) Prudent to wait until the property market improved to improve design quality and materials, (11) Market section looks interesting architecturally, (12) City desperately needs replacement for Castle Market, (13) Proposed location is out-of centre. Would be better at top of The Moor with leisure or retail on upper floors due to higher rent yields, (14) Will elongate city’s shopping centre contrary to Master Plan, (15) Poor pedestrian connectivity with rest of the city centre to north, (16) Local people with no car will have to walk over 1km to or from train and bus stations.

1 Letter of critical support from resident of Worrall: (17) Much better proposal, no longer a mixed use overdevelopment, but two buildings with clear presence and identity, human in scale and sympathetic to architectural spirit of The Moor, (18) But large dead frontage to Cumberland Street must be activated, perhaps by a bar or restaurant with views to future open space across Cumberland Street. Replace dead panels proposed with glazing and solar shading as necessary, (19) Eyre St/Cumberland St corner is weak and should be strengthened by a clock or visual display tower and by more showy and spectacular elevations, (20) Alternatively, the Eyre Street Market entrance needs a landmark feature above roof level, (21) North elevation lacks refined detail, and should include restrained decoration that is integral rather than attached, (22) Proposed frieze is excellent, but should be more than decorative, requiring an artist’s commission to explore, market’s origins, city’s history, modern trades and successes, in a contemporary version of the Town Hall frieze, (23) Reconstituted stone disappointing, (24) 8 shops in a Council sponsored building should have a green roof.

1 Objection received from Green Party: (25) Welcome the omission of student flats above the market, (26) Welcome the renewable energy proposed, (27) Welcome the continuation of the existing street market, (28) Oppose the location of the Market, 1km from train and bus stations, and remote from north Sheffield, (29) Unclear how will relate to proposed Sevenstone and Moorfoot shopping developments, (30) Low-rise design may be at odds with other high rise proposals nearby, (31) Would prefer affordable 2 bedroom flats at upper levels, (32) Suspect the proposal is based on minimum cost for RREEF, (33) Oppose bland design of retail units, (34) New application needed with full low carbon use of energy, higher architectural merit with affordable residential accommodation.

ASSESSMENT

Land Use

Policy CS17 aims to strengthen The Moor as a linear retail area anchored by several major stores and the proposed new indoor market. The Moor generally has considerable potential for mixed office and residential uses.

Policy CS18 in the Core Strategy seeks to concentrate major non-food retail development in the Primary Shopping Area, extending from Moorhead to the north end of Fargate. In addition it requires retail uses on the ground floor frontages of

41 The Moor north of Fitzwilliam Gate. It also envisages alternative roles for areas such as Castlegate outside the Primary Shopping Area.

The provision of a limited amount of second floor retailing in this proposal is not considered to conflict materially with Policy CS18. The relocation of the market from Castlegate is considered to be consistent with Policies CS17 and CS18.

Policy S1 in the Unitary Development Plan promotes major retail development in the City Centre to encourage its regeneration to help develop and consolidate its role as the principal commercial centre of South Yorkshire.

The site lies within the Central Shopping Area in the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy S3 lists Shops and Food and Drink as preferred uses. Policy S10 requires development to be well designed and of a scale and nature appropriate to the site; it should comply with policies for built and green environment; and be adequately served by transport, provide safe access to the highway network, appropriate off- street parking and not endanger pedestrians.

The Government’s Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres is also in force in addition to the UDP. It aims to strengthen shopping and other uses in central areas.

The proposal complies with land use policy. The dominance of Shops in the proposed shop units is required by condition, whilst allowing a good proportion of Financial and Professional Service, Cafes, Restaurants and Hot Food Takeaways if the market would enable it.

Design

Policy CS74 expects high quality design taking advantage of distinctive features of topography, and of the city centre townscape with its scale, built form, layout, building styles and materials. Development should contribute to place-making, promoting the city’s transformation and improving areas that have become run down and lacking in distinctiveness.

Policy BE5 expects original architecture, good quality materials, and a co-ordinated approach to overall design where there is more than one building. The overall mass of buildings should be broken down, and special architectural treatment should be given to corner sites.

The proposed buildings meet all the above requirements. The market hall design is unique and could only be realised in this way on this site. The entrance hall from The Moor has a distinctive curved glazed roof with timber panels, leading to a diagonal route through the main market hall emphasised by the bespoke design of the timber roof, timber supports and glazed panels in a special material (EFTE) that will avoid overheating of the interior.

The market hall will have an adiabatic cooling system dispersing air cooled at lower level, whilst heating on cold days will be provided by pipework in the concrete floor.

42 Recycled rainwater will provide the means of cooling, and high efficiency gas boilers will supply the heating.

The side doors from Earl Street to the entrance hall may be held open in warm weather, helping pedestrian flow into the building. The Eyre Street entrance adjoins the café stalls and tables close to a glazed area screened by brise soliel, providing a lively frontage close to the main bus stops.

The elevations to the market hall have improved considerably in discussion, addressing most of the points raised by the Urban Design Panel. The entrance designs and proportions of the plinths, brickwork and timber weave panels at high level are all satisfactory.

The only area requiring further design work is the curved corner to the market hall to Eyre Street and its junction with the eaves above and adjoining office wall. This is conditioned.

Likewise the presence of the shop units to The Moor was improved considerably before submission, with stronger vertical emphasis to the columns between the units, and the provision of a frieze above the eaves line. Reconstituted stone to match the existing facades to The Moor is the main element here, successfully framing the glazing and frieze.

Two alternative shopfront designs are submitted, both of which are considered acceptable. The provision of one or the other in its entirety is required by condition.

Further detailed work is required on the brickwork, stone and slate panels, rainscreen, curtain walling, glass and timber roofs an supporting plinths, opaque glass panels, galvanised channel section columns and cross beams, timber brise soleil, and powder coated ventilation cowls. All these are conditioned.

Modelling details of the facades are required by condition, as are large scale details of shop canopies, column claddings, high level frieze, external lighting, service yard entrance gates, railings to steps, and door designs to Earl Street.

Overall the design is to be commended and meets policy requirements.

Inclusive Access

Policy S11 requires provision of access for people with disabilities, safe and easy pedestrian movements at ground level, and adequate car and cycling provision.

Policy BE7 requires safe, equal and easy access for people with disabilities to buildings used by the public. Policy BE8 promotes suitable access to workplaces where there are 20 or more employees especially reception and toilet facilities.

The revised drawings confirm that platform lifts large enough for scooters will be fitted at the Eyre Street and Earl Street entrances. The Eyre Street footway will be raised to reduce the height to 2 metres maximum. This can be accommodated in

43 the highway. The height reduction allows 12 steps of 166.67mm risers with 350mm goings. This is acceptable.

A raised plateau in the Earl Street carriageway will link the footways allowing access from the multi-storey car park to the Earl Street entrance. Detail design will be done as part of the external works in the public realm.

The front doors to The Moor have been changed to Spacesaver doors set back behind the back edge of the footway. The unacceptable automatic swing doors previously proposed have been deleted, as they opened over the highway and are difficult for some disabled users.

The ramped entrance parallel to Earl Street presents design difficulties because of physical limitations. The side doors to Earl Street will require an internal levels change but this has been reduced to one diminishing step with level access at one end to the ramp. The possible width of the doors, at present uncertain, will be governed by the amount of twisting that the Earl Street footway can accommodate. Details of this design are reserved by condition to allow co-ordination with external works design which is in progress.

The column bases to the Earl Street roof supports have been designed so as to eliminate footway areas of inadequate headroom. Details are required by condition.

The provision of a Changing Places toilet within the market hall is being examined.

The proposal is much improved and provides a good level of inclusive access considering the levels difficulties, and complies with policy.

Public Art

Policy BE12 encourages public art as an integral part of the design of major developments.

Possible locations for public art on the building include the high level frieze above the shop units, and the glazed entrances to the Market Hall front and rear. This is still under discussion, but it is intended that an artist will be commissioned to provide public art before completion.

This will comply with public art policy.

Climate Change - Sustainable Design

Core Strategy Policy CS64 requires all new buildings to be designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use resources sustainably.

The proposal has various measures to achieve this including: (i)Extensive natural daylight and low energy artificial lighting, (ii) Intelligent energy control features, (iii) High performance glazing, (iv) Enhanced U-Values, (v) Mixed mode ventilation including natural ventilation, (vi) Use of “free” cooling from recycled rainwater

44 feeding into an adiabatic cooling system to the market hall, (vii) High efficiency gas boilers to supply underfloor heating to the market hall, (viii) Roof mounted solar panels to supply domestic hot water for public and non-public toilet areas.

The BREEAM Pre-Assessment Estimator shows that the building has a “Very Good” rating, meeting the Policy CS64, subject to validation after the building has been completed which is confirmed by condition.

Climate Change - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction

Policy CS65 requires (a) all new development to provide a minimum of 10% of their predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy; and (b) generate further renewable or low carbon energy, or be designed to reduce overall predicted carbon emissions by 20%; all the above subject to viability not being affected.

The scheme does not propose wind generation as the buildings are too low to provide sufficient wind in this location. Solar photovoltaic panels are not considered to be financially viable as they cannot provide power requirements at reasonable cost. The building being low energy in design does not provide a good enough summer heat load for decentralised combined heat and power. Connection to the district heating scheme from the Bernard Road incinerator is not financially viable owing to high connection costs relative to the low energy demand of the building.

The solar water heating panels proposed are viable and a suitable form of renewable energy for this building.

However the whole development, both market hall and shops, is still predicted to reduce its carbon emissions by 28% because of its low energy sustainable design and will comply with Policy CS65.

Climate Change - Summary

Although renewable energy produced on site is less than 10%, the overall performance of this sustainable building is good and is considered acceptable. The provision and retention of the measures proposed, or alternative measures acceptable to the Council, is required by condition.

Refuse and Recycling

Both the market hall and the shops will have recycling and compacting facilities located in the service yard, to enable good use of the space available. Details of the operation of the yard in a Method Statement are required by condition.

Archaeology

Policy BE22 requires an adequate archaeological record to be made where development creates unavoidable disturbance to an archaeological site.

45 Much of the site has basements that will have already interfered with any below- ground remains. In other areas there is relatively undisturbed ground close to the surface, although the likelihood of significant remains is considered to be low.

Site clearance work has already commenced. In undisturbed areas this should have been done in accordance with the scheme of archaeological work already undertaken in connection with the previously approved market development. An updated report of this work is still awaited, but the applicant has confirmed that site clearance work will cease by the end of October and no further excavation will take place in the sensitive area at the rear of the former shop buildings.

Flood Risk

Policy CS67 requires all development to reduce the extent and impact of flooding as appropriate to the site, and to limit surface water run-off.

The site lies on higher land above the flood plain of the Porter Brook, classed as Flood Zone 1, and the proposal therefore satisfies the Sequential Test under Planning Policy Statement 25.

The 1 in 1000 year water level at the nearest point on the Porter Brook is 64.77m AOD, including allowances for climate change. The lowest land level adjoining the site on Eyre Street is above this level at 65.32m. The main floor levels are at 67.5m, and the service yard is at 67.08m. This is considered satisfactory.

The site is over 1 hectare in area. As required by PPS25 the submitted Flood Risk Assessment proposes a reduction in surface water run-off of 30% to meet Council and Environment Agency requirements. This will be achieved by a cellular storage system on site, and this requirement is confirmed by condition.

Land Contamination

Policy GE25 requires any contaminated land to be effectively treated prior to development.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 ground investigation reports were submitted with the previous application, giving results of trial boreholes drilled on site. As the site was almost completely built over, and will be totally covered when the development is complete, the report is considered satisfactory.

Highways

Traffic flows will be lower than the previously approved scheme, as it is a smaller development, and are considered unlikely to create difficulties.

The service yard has been analysed and is expected to operate satisfactorily. All service vehicles, including large articulated heavy goods vehicles, can enter and leave the site in forward gear. The management of the yard is conditioned.

46 A formal turning head at Earl Street/Earl Way is provided to allow the occasional HGV to turn should the need arise. This requirement is covered by condition, as is the detailed design in progress.

A number of small areas of public highway will need to be closed along The Moor frontage, mainly column bases, and along Earl Street, Cumberland Way and Cumberland Street. Likewise several small areas of private land will become public highway on Cumberland Street, Eyre Street, and Earl Street. This will be dealt with under the Highways Act.

To mitigate then loss of the former cycle route along Cumberland Way (now closed) a contra-flow cycle lane is to be provided on Cumberland Street across The Moor. Additional demand for taxis is to be catered for by means of a new taxi- rank on Cumberland Street and a feeder rank on South Lane. These features are required by the condition covering Highway Improvement Works under Section 278.

There is no longer a requirement for Car Club parking spaces in the absence of residential accommodation in the scheme.

The drawings lack a satisfactory 2 x 2m visibility splay for pedestrian safety at the entrance to the service yard. This is conditioned.

Staff cycle parking and a Travel Plan are also conditioned.

As recommended the proposal meets Highways requirements.

Public Realm Improvements

These are not proposed as part of the application, being mostly outside the boundary of the site. Using external funding the Council is carrying out some of this work to The Moor and Earl Street to Urban Design Compendium standards (primary palette). This is separate although co-ordinated with the market development. The other highways improvements to secondary palette standards are still a planning requirement however funded. This is under discussion.

There will be an outdoor street market 3 days per week on The Moor next to the development, with demountable stalls removed when not in operation.

All highway works are to be completed before the development is commenced.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Objections (1)-(4), (11)-(15), (17)-(19), (21), (22), (25)-(27), (29), (33), (34): Answered in Report.

Objections (5)-(8) Noted; (9) Noted, but not a planning requirement; (10) Market cannot wait any longer; (11) Eyre Street and The Moor are well served by bus services; Castle Market is same distance from train station as this site; (20) Noted, but could not be insisted on; (23) Noted, but reconstituted Portland stone is

47 considered a good substitute; (24) Noted, but could not be insisted on as building otherwise very sustainable; (28) Not considered remote, as buses serve the site. Closer to south Sheffield; on balance little disadvantage; (30) Building is higher rise than previous buildings on the site, especially on Eyre Street. Other high rise proposals not yet built, townscape here still evolving; (31) Housing has been proved to be unviable on this site, creating too complex a project to realise the new market; (32) Noted.

CONCLUSION

The design of the development is considered to be most satisfactory and worthy of support.

The proposal will give Sheffield a market hall to be proud of, all on one level in a purpose designed building. Together with the new shops it can be expected to bring much-needed new life to The Moor, consolidating city centre shopping in preparation for the Sevenstone development in years to come.

New uses may be found for the Castle Market site, reviving the fortunes of the whole Castlegate area and resolving one of the most intractable problems of city centre regeneration.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant subject to the recommended conditions.

Case Number 11/00819/CAC

Application Type Conservation Area Consent Application

Proposal Demolition of warehouse buildings and part demolition of industrial buildings (Amended plans received 23.05.2011)

Location Land And Buildings At Sidney Street, Matilda Street, Arundel Street And Sylvester Street Sheffield S1 3RA

Date Received 07/03/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Cartwright Pickard Architects

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has not provided a suitable replacement scheme which would warrant the proposed demolition of buildings located within the site which are located in the Cultural Industries Quarter Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policies BE15 and BE16 of the Unitary Development Plan and advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 5.

Site Location

50 For Report see 11/00815/FUL

Case Number 11/00815/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Mixed use development comprising demolition of warehouse/industrial buildings (Site A) and erection of 7/6/5 storey block providing 80 student flats (383 bedspaces) and flexible use space (Use Class A1/A3/B1) with associated landscaping works, part demolition and conversion of industrial buildings (Site B) erection of 5 storey block providing 10 student flats (62 bedspaces), 4 storey residential block providing 41 residential apartments, flexible use space (Use Class A1/A3/B1), bar (Use Class A4), Microbrewery, winter garden, associated car parking accommodation and landscaping works (Amended plans received 23.05.2011)

Location Land And Buildings At Sidney Street, Matilda Street, Arundel Street And Sylvester Street Sheffield S1 3RA

Date Received 07/03/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Cartwright Pickard Architects

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development by reason of its excessive height, scale and massing gives rise to an unacceptable form of development that would be excessively prominent and over dominate adjoining buildings within the conservation area. The development therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area or enhance the city’s townscape and is considered to detrimentally affect the appearance of the conservation area and unlisted buildings of merit contrary to the aims of Policies BE1, BE5, BE15, BE16, BE17, BE19 and IB9 of the Unitary Development Plan, CS74 of the Sheffield Core Strategy and the Sheffield Urban Design Compendium, The Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan, Cultural industries Quarter Conservation Area Appraisal and National Planning Guidance contained in PPS 1 and PPS 5.

2 The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development by reason of its repetitive elevation treatment, fenestration pattern, use of

52 inappropriate materials and layout combine to create unacceptable massing and an unsatisfactory design which is considered to detract from the appearance of the street scene, visual amenities of the locality, character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to the aims of Policies BE1, BE5, BE15, BE16, BE17, BE19 and IB9 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Sheffield Urban Design Compendium, The Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan, Cultural industries Quarter Conservation Area Appraisal and National Planning Guidance contained in PPS 1 and PPS 5

3 The Local Planning authority consider the proposed development constitutes an over development of the site owing to the excessive volume of accommodation proposed resulting in unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupants by virtue of a poor outlook and unacceptable natural day lighting to habitable rooms. The development is therefore contrary to Policy IB9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 The Local Planning Authority considers the proposed development by virtue of the provision of a substantial amount of ground floor residential accommodation and layout of the development fails to provide sufficiently animated, active and continuous built street frontages, which is considered detrimental to the character of the conservation area and appearance of the street scene which in turn creates a poor pedestrian environment and living conditions for future occupants. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies IB9, BE1, BE5, BE15, BE16, BE17, BE19, of the Unitary Development Plan, CS74 of the Sheffield Core Strategy and the Sheffield Urban Design Compendium, The Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan, Cultural industries Quarter Conservation Area Appraisal and National Planning Guidance contained in PPS 1 and PPS 5.

5 The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed development would introduce additional shared (Student) housing into an area which is already imbalanced by such uses. As such the proposed development would lead to an unacceptable concentration of shared housing within the area and therefore fails to create a mixed community with a suitable mix of housing types, which would harm the character of the area. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CS41 and CS27 of the Sheffield Core Strategy.

53 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application site comprises of two sites (A & B) which are located to the south of Matilda Street on the east and west sides of Sidney Street within the Cultural Industries Quarter (CIQ)

Site A – Comprises of approximately 0.35 hectares and is a corner plot with frontages to Arundel Street and Sidney Street. The existing site comprises of a substantial two-storey industrial building known as ‘Renown works’ which fronts Sidney Street and two single storey warehouse buildings. The existing buildings on site appear to be largely vacant with parts of them having being used for private contract parking and various commercial uses

Site B – Comprises of approximately 0.42 hectares of land located between Sylvester Lane, Sidney Street, Matilda Street and the Porter Brook. The site comprises of a number of existing buildings these include;

The former Niche Nightclub is a three storey building faced in black steel profile cladding. The building is currently vacant.

77-81 Sidney Street is a 3 storey brick built pitched roofed building with two rear two storey ranges which extend towards the Porter Brook. The range to the rear of the No.77 is proposed to be demolished. The building is partially occupied and has a café/sandwich shop at ground floor.

Speedwell Works comprises of three commercial floors with a three storey rear wing and a detached two storey building within the rear courtyard. It is proposed to completely demolish these buildings.

55 The Sidney Street frontage is completed by Albert Works which is a part three storey, part two storey brick built structure which turns the corner onto Matilda Street. The single storey element of the building facing Matilda Street is flanked by two storey buildings. It is proposed to demolish the rear ranges of the buildings and the single storey element fronting Matilda Street. All of the existing buildings remain only partially occupied by small scale commercial uses.

The Urban Design Compendium identifies Speedwell Works and Albert Works as unlisted significant buildings which contribute to the character of the conservation area.

The south end of the CIQ is mixed in character. It comprises of a number of established commercial uses including; the Atkinson’s storage building, the Lord Nelson Public House, the central fire station further to the west, Decathlon retail store to the south, as well as some residential accommodation.

The site B lies adjacent to the former Bernard Works which is a partially cleared site which has an extant permission for a mixed use scheme including residential accommodation. Elliot House is a Grade II listed building which lies to the south of Site A and is used for residential purposes adjoining which is the more modern ‘City walk’ which also accommodates residential apartments.

The entire application site is located in a Fringe Industry and Business area, The Cultural Industries Conservation Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and within the Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan area.

This application(s) seeks Planning and Conservation Area Consent to under take the following:

Site A: - Demolish all buildings and erect two buildings containing in total 383 student bed spaces (80 Clusters). 222 sq m of flexible use space is proposed at ground floor to be used either as office (use class B1) retail (use class A1) or restaurant/café (use class A3). A 7 storey block is proposed on the corner of Sidney Street and Arundel Street, a 6 storey block fronting Arundel Street with two 5 storey link blocks with exposed courtyards which front Sidney Street.

Site B

- Demolition of the former Niche nightclub and erection of a 4/5 storey building comprising 62 student bed spaces (10 Clusters). - The partial demolition and conversion of 77-81 Sidney Street to B1 office space. - The complete demolition of Speedwell Works and erection of a 4 storey block with rear courtyard containing 41 two bedroom private apartments ground floor flexible use space (B1/A3/A4) with additional A1/workshop space on the second and third floors. - The partial demolition and conversion of Albert works to form office space over various floors, the erection of a glass house/winter garden housing a

56 microbrewery at ground floor with additional A1/workshop space above and the formation of a riverside walk.

Inclusive of Site A and B the revised planning application seeks permission for 445 student bed spaces (90 student apartments), 41 two bedrooms apartments, 222 sq m of flexible use space (use class A1/A3/B1), 1069 sq m of B1 office space and 294 sq metres of flexible use space (use class B1, A3/A4) 476 sq m of A1/workshop space and a microbrewery/wintergarden.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following planning history relates to Site A only:

06/02848/CAC - Demolition of building – refused

06/02844/FUL - Erection of 4/5/6 storey mixed use development including 144 apartments, offices (B1 Use) with associated car parking and access works – refused

The following planning history relates to Site B only:

06/01605/FUL - Demolition of nightclub and erection of 18 flats in 1 x 5/6 storey block including ground floor public house – withdrawn.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Whilst raising no objection to the proposal the following comments from Sheffield Hallam University have been received;

- The scale and massing is in our experience, considered too dense, creating very small single rooms – which are long and thin in design which are not first choice for students

- The proposed density also leaves very little space for communal (e.g. kitchen/living room as well as an area for general student mixing between flats) space and quality circulation space (e.g. wide/light corridors, entrances, management areas).

- The student accommodation design is similar to the “first wave” of private student accommodation developments – e.g. such as the Exchange Works site adjacent to Sidney Street: which is proving difficult to maintain lettings despite the location of it being so close to city campus.

- Small units with poor circulation feel oppressive to live in and noise transference between flats and rooms within flats is a problem

- Schemes with more space in the letting rooms as well as in the communal and circulation space prove more attractive and viable and will create significant competition for this proposal.

57 - Careful consideration needs to be given to the design/links of the student flats block and the 56 apartments on site B because of the conflict between student and non student lifestyles

- The location itself including nearness to city campus/railway station etc. is an advantage.

- Sufficient research should have been carried out into student accommodation demand in the future in Sheffield in order to develop this proposal: however the university recommends that the scheme is designed and developed so that if there are problems with vacancy, the scheme can be relatively easily adapted for other residential uses. This would include planning of infrastructure support, such as how energy supplies into flats can be measured: security and safety issues dealt with etc. There is concern that the modular build will not allow easy adaptation.

- No contact has been received from the developer or advice sought on this scheme in relation to student needs/demands.

The following statutory consultations have also been received:

English Heritage – Initial comments English Heritage (EH)

EH note the scheme is split over two sites and will have a varying degree of impact. Site A is covered with a series of modest low rise buildings and spaces and the scheme is to erect a tall cluster of residential blocks which would be out of keeping with the established built form. Site B enjoys a much greater volume of historic metal working premises and the proposal to retain most of these, renovate them and erect additional buildings in a jigsaw of new and existing structures is considered more sympathetic albeit concerns remain regarding height and design.

EH are concerned that the development of Site A does not reflect the advice in PPS 5 para 7.5 and particular 9.2(i) and 10.1 or the council’s adopted conservation area appraisal guidelines. Site B reflects the guidance in PPS 5 at 9.4 and10.1 more closely although there remains scope for improvements in height and design

EH advises that greater analysis of views along Arundel Street and across the CIQ is needed to assess the impact of the scheme especially the corner block of site A as it is located far away from the modern, tall cluster in the CIQ and in EH’s view the development is out of place in this location, responds poorly to its context and sits uncomfortably with the general character of the area. EH do not oppose some form of contemporary new build however the present large footprint, height and mass is out of keeping and the both the roofline and elevational treatment would benefit from design development.

Site B offers a very interesting and dynamic development with repaired historic buildings, river frontage walkways and courtyard access all

58 combined to create a homogenous scheme. Reservations remain over the five storey block and its juxtaposition with the to-be retained building fronting Sidney Street

English heritage offer the following additional comments on the revised scheme.

EH raised a number of concerns about both sites when first consulted and were most concerned by the proposals for Site A, considering them to be over tall and out of keeping with the established character of this corner of the CIQ conservation area. Whilst the building has been reduced to 7 storeys, this still appears over large in the street scene. Its height, out of keeping with this end of the CIQ conservation area, and remains EH’s greatest concern with the scheme.

As for Site B EH are much more comfortable with the overall plan and heights albeit that one infill along Sidney Street uncomfortably abutts the historic building adjacent. Some design changes have been suggested but the scope for a still more sensitive neighbouring new-build remains.

The principal material to be used is Core ten which has little resonance with the CIQ area. Brick is the overwhelming material of use and EH suggest that this should remain the main material, relieved where appropriate by render.

EH consider that especially at Site A, much still needs to be altered in order to integrate the development into the street scape more successfully. With Site B, this is almost achieved with the new amendments where, but for the want of a few more modest changes; it could be a very successful development and sit well in the CIQ conservation area.

The Sheffield Sustainable Development and Design Panel

The need for investment within the Quarter was recognised by the panel and that financially the development of site A was of significant importance to the delivery of site B. However the panel felt that the scale of development proposed must work successfully in design terms, over and above financial constraints.

The scale and massing raised a number of issues and the architectural expression and response to the urban grain was considered to require further analysis and design development. The city’s robust policies relating to the (CIQ) in terms of its use, as well as clear guidance relating to heights were noted and the panel considered the scheme represented a departure from these documents and would constitute a profound change of context, radically altering the appearance of the area, both in terms of its form and use, as well as the areas character and scale. The panel considered the approach taken needs to ensure that the new buildings, support the retained buildings and avoided creating a situation where the new buildings themselves became the context.

59 Support was given to the retention of a number of historic buildings in site B, but concerns remained with regard to how comfortable the buildings were with one another. Strong reservations were expressed about the block inserted between the retained buildings, owing to its height and roof form as it was felt to create an uncomfortable relationship with the surrounding buildings. The lower element of the front facade of Speedwell Work was noted to be of interest within the street scene and its retention advocated.

The approach to sustainability was welcomed but the panel questioned how flexible the internal layout might prove to be for alternative types of development in the future.

Concerns about the architectural approach were raised with the proposed cladding being an alien material within the area. The uniformity of materials and treatment creates the impression of a monolithic façade, and further architectural articulation of the elevations is required.

Certain elements of the urban grain had been successfully resolved in plan, and support was given to the approach to address the river frontage.

The extent of blank facades was noted, which combined with the overhanging upper floors created a potentially challenging environment and further consideration needed to be given to elevations and soffits to respond to existing movement patterns and anticipated activity throughout the area.

In summary the Panel complemented the way that the proposals responded to the clients brief and worked with the urban grain, but felt that there were a number of key areas that required further attention to realise a successful proposal.

The height, scale and massing of the proposals was considered clearly a fundamental change to the existing character of the area, and the Panel considered that further analysis was necessary in order to be convinced of the approach proposed.

The pedestrian routes being created and the uses proposed needed to be supported by the architectural expression, particularly at ground floor level.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues/Land Use

Within the Sheffield Adopted Unitary Development Plan the application site is designated as a Fringe Industry and Business Area. Policy IB6 of the UDP relates to development in such areas and advises that whilst Business (Use Class B1), General Industry (B2) and Warehousing (B8) uses are preferred, a range of other uses including small shops (A1), food and drink (A3), leisure and recreation (D2) and housing (C3) may also be acceptable. In the case of housing, IB6 states that the better environment of these areas might exceptionally allow some houses

60 where living conditions are satisfactory and they would not hinder industrial and business development.

Policy IB9 of the UDP seeks to limit development that would prejudice the dominance of business and industry in an area, and determines that residents should not be made to suffer unacceptable living conditions by way of noise, air pollution, or ground contamination. The intention of Policy IB9 is to ensure that existing employment areas continue to provide employment and confirms that in industry and business areas, the preferred uses should effectively remain dominant. However, many of the referred B1/B2/B8 uses are no longer considered appropriate in this area following the adoption of the Core Strategy (CS) which takes into account up-to-date national planning policy guidance. Specifically policy CS6(f) identifies the CIQ as no longer suitable for manufacturing, as such the loss of existing industrial and commercial uses is not considered contrary to policy.

The scheme proposes to provide 930 sq m of B1 office space and 476 sq m of potential workshop space. Policy CS3 and CS4 of the CS advises that new office development should take place in key locations in the City Centre and other accessible edge of centre locations. Whilst the policy does not cite Sidney Street is one of these key locations it does note that significant amounts of new office floor space will be allowed in other areas of the City Centre, including development as part of mixed schemes, to which this proposal is considered to comply.

Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy relates to the City Centre Quarters and advises with specific regard to the Cultural Industries Quarter, that the area is suitable for a wide mix of uses and is to be established as the main location for the city's creative and digital industries, as one of the key growth clusters for the economy of the City Region. The proposed development is considered to comply with this approach in terms of delivering office space, workshop space and flexible use space that could be used to contribute to the City’s creative and digital industries.

With regard to the provision of class A uses within the scheme, such uses are considered town centre uses, as described by PPS4 which identifies that new out of centre retail development must be considered against the tests of impact, the sequential approach and sustainability including accessibility by a choice of means of transport. There are vacant units in the nearby City Centre (The Moor) where the proposed uses could be located. However in this case the retail space is relatively small, is most likely to serve residents of the proposed development, is highly accessible by a choice of means of transport and is accessible from the City Centre itself, as such it will have minimal affect on the retail core. However the attraction of Class A1 uses and non-food A1 use into the city centre is essential to its vitality. As such to ensure that the proposed retail uses do not detract from the City Centre offer restrictions could be imposed which require that at no time could there be more than 476sm of A1 floor space in the whole completed development. Subject to these restrictions the scheme is considered to comply with PPS4.

In relation to the proposed Microbrewery policy CS17 advises that the CIQ is acceptable for a wide variety of uses and the introduction of such uses is considered to contribute to the vitality and character of the area and therefore complies with CS17.

Policy CS27 of the Core Strategy relates to housing in the city centre and advises that a further expansion of City Centre living with a mix of tenures and sizes of unit will form part of a mix of uses within the CIQ. The introduction of private residential development on upper floors is to some extent welcomed, however there are concerns that the proposal will result in a dominance of a single type of housing, in this case student housing which would be contrary to the policy. The provision of student housing will be considered in more detail below in light of Policy CS41.

Student Housing

With specific regard to the proposed provision of student housing in this location, a key consideration is Policy CS41 of the Core Strategy, which relates to creating mixed communities. The supporting text to this policy advises that the objectives of Policy CS41 (d) in relation to student housing will be achieved by limiting the forms of housing types where more than 20% of residences within 200 metres of the application site are shared housing. In this instance, the site falls with in an area where there is already a high concentration of shared housing. Within 200m of site A and B the existing concentration of shared housing is 37% (184 of 498) and 36 % (226 of 626) respectively. As such the addition of a further 90 student apartments (383 bed spaces) and 41 private apartments would increase this to 43.5% for Site A and 41.7% for site B. This concentration of shared housing is clearly contrary to policy CS41 (d).

It is noted that the site is located in close proximity to the Sheffield Hallam University campus and as such may prove to be a convenient choice for student housing. The applicant has also identified that the development of the student housing element of the proposal is also essential from a financial viability perspective to the delivery of development on site B. However in this case, given the existing concentration of shared housing in the immediate vicinity of the site, the substantial increase as a result of the development (443 bed spaces) and associated increase in the percentage concentration of shared housing, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable concentration of shared housing which fails to create a suitably mixed community. In these circumstances there are not considered to be any overriding factors that would outweigh this unacceptable impact and as such the proposal is considered contrary to policies CS27 and CS41 of the CS.

Design Issues

Policy CS74 of the CS, which relates to design principles, advises that high-quality development will be expected, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods. Policy CS74 also advises that any new development should respect the topography of the City, views and vistas and the townscape and landscape character of the particular area with their associated scale, layout, form and building style and materials. Policy BE5 of the Adopted UDP relates to building design and siting and advises that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new developments, with new buildings expected to complement the scale form and architectural style of surrounding buildings. It seeks to achieve original architecture

62 and a design on a human scale and for large scale developments materials should be varied and the overall mass of development broken down.

Scale and Massing.

A key issue in the determination of this application is the proposed scale of development in particular with regard to the impact of its scale on the street scene, visual amenities if the locality and existing buildings

With regard to the street scene, the Urban Design Compendium identifies that infill developments should respect the character of the quarter and the appropriate scale of development within the CIQ is three to five storeys.

Site A

The proposed development of site A is split into two separate blocks comprising of a 7 storey corner building at the junction of Sidney Street and Arundel Street and a 6 storey block fronting Arundel Street with two five storey wings which extend towards Sidney Street. As such it is clear that the proposed building with the exception of the wings fronting Sidney Street exceed the scale parameters set out in the UDC.

With regard to the corner building it is acknowledged that amendments have been made during the consideration of the application to attempt to reduce the overall height and scale of the development. The revised plans have reduced the height of the building by approximately 4.6 metres by removing the 8th floor and reducing the floor to ceiling height of the ground floor and redistributing accommodation to the ground floor. The UDC does acknowledge that there may be scope to introduce taller building into the CIQ to create landmarks and enhance legibility within the area however the UDC specifically indicates that such developments should be located along the Ring Road and Eyre Street to provide some enclosure to these wider streets. Whilst the site is a corner plot it is clearly not in one of the locations specified in the UDC where additional height may be considered appropriate. The site is surrounded by established historic buildings which are substantially lower in height and scale than the proposed development and the development is also taller than permitted schemes on the opposite side of Sidney Street such as Bernard Works/Industry Works. As such the proposed development rises substantially above the established context and forms a prominent and discordant feature in the area.

The second building on Site A extends to 6 storeys along its entire length (55 metres) of the Arundel Street elevation. Arundel Street is a narrow road and the established building heights are generally 2/3 storeys. The proposed development would again rise substantially above the scale of the existing street scene and the building would appear unacceptably tall when viewed from vantage points along Eyre Street and longer distance views from the west of the site. The finger blocks which front Sidney Street are five storeys in height and whilst falling within the UDC scale parameters, albeit at the very maximum acceptable height. A more appropriate scale for the Sidney Street block is considered to be four storeys taking account of the historic buildings on the opposite side of Sidney Street.

Elevationally the design does little to reduce the uncomfortable sense of scale and mass, set backs at high levels which often help to reduce the sense of scale on the street have not been utilised and as such from the back edge of street there is a continuous built form which rises to 7/6 and 5 storeys in height which will appear overbearing to pedestrians and over dominant in the streetscene. The proposed breaks between strips of the cladding materials at parapet level do little to reduce the sense of scale. Members may recall that planning permission was refused on this site in 2006 for a scheme which was lower in height 4/5/6 storeys but still gave rise to concerns with its height and design, similar to the issues raised with this development.

The elevation treatments and repetitive fenestration pattern also emphasise the building’s slab like appearance and fail to break up the scale or add variety to the elevation which may help to break down the overall mass of the development. Some variation in terms of set back and changes in material within the Arundel Street facing block elevation have been included but this does little to reduce the uncomfortable sense of scale, massing and height on site A. The applicant has submitted a series of longer distance views of the site along Arundel Street towards St Mary’s gate, which further illustrate the inappropriate scale and height of buildings on site A. The unacceptable scale and massing is ultimately driven by the sheer quantum of development that is being proposed on the site A. In light of the above the scale, height and massing of the proposal is considered over dominant and harmful to the character and appearance of the area resulting in an overdevelopment of site A.

Site B

Alterations have also been made to the development of site B during the application process. The former Niche building has been reduced from 6 storeys to a predominantly 5 storey building with a further reduction to 4 storeys of a very small part of the building where it is adjoins 81 Sidney Street. The reduction in height is welcome however the proposed building even at five storeys is considered to unacceptably over dominate the adjoining historic building. The repetitive elevational treatment and fenestration pattern of the Sidney Street elevation which reflects the design approach taken on Site A again creates an unacceptable sense of scale and a homogenous design approach when viewed in context of site A and as such lacks suitable varied approach to the each site in order to break down the overall mass of the buildings and development a whole. Members should also be aware that an application for a 5/6 storey building was previously withdrawn (planning ref; 06/01605/FUL) on this site due to failure to deliver a scheme of suitable height and design.

The proposed apartment building which is to be inserted in place of Speedwell Works has also been amended during the application process, reduced from 5 to 4 storeys in height removing a mansard roof. The alterations to the height are welcome and the scale and massing of the scheme is considered to sit more comfortably in the context of the retained historic buildings which flank the site. The proposed microbrewery building is a two storey structure which fronts Matilda Street incorporates a series of pitched roofs the height of which reflect the retained

64 two storey brick buildings which form ‘book ends’ adjacent to the Porter Brook and the corner of Sidney Street. As such this element of the scheme is considered acceptable from a scale and massing perspective.

The applicant has also submitted a series of long distance views of site B most notably the view from Arundel Lane looking south towards St Marys Church, which is identified as a key view in the UDC. This view illustrates that the reduction in height of the Speedwell works block from 5 to 4 storeys and the Niche building from 6 to 5 storeys exposes more of the St Marys Church than the initial scheme with the clock and a majority of the tower now remaining visible. This is a notable improvement and the reduced scale and massing of the former Speedwell works site is considered acceptable however, the scale and height of the former Niche building and how this relates to the existing retained historic buildings remains unacceptable. As such, whilst improvements have been made the proposed scale, height and massing of development on Site A and parts of Site B in relation to the street scene, established built context and retained adjacent buildings the proposal will be prominent and obtrusive rising significantly above the established context and as such is considered contrary to Policy BE5 of the UDP and CS74 of the CS.

Elevation treatment

Architecturally the proposed new buildings on both Site A and B are modern in approach utilising sustainable modern methods of construction and materials that respect this approach. Predominantly rainscreen cladding terracotta and anodised aluminium have been used on site A and a pre weathered steel cladding (corten) used on the main street frontages on site B with a mix of other materials.

The Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan identifies the site as being located within the traditional Industry character zone and encourages diversity of design solutions provided the design is of a sufficiently high standard. Building heights should be generally low rise, between 3 and 5 storeys in height with tight street frontages providing strong building lines and effective corners, some extra height may be allowed in the right setting as landmarks and focal points.

PPS 1 seeks to ensure a high quality of design in all new developments paragraph 34 states that “design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving its character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted.”

Site A

The design approach has been revised during the process of the application. Officer comments with regard to removal of a largely glazed set back ground floor with colonnade of the corner building and replacement with a more robust approach have been taken on board. The colonnade has been removed and the rainscreen cladding taken down to ground floor level in a series of columns which is considered to create a more robust ground floor treatment. However concerns still remain regarding the proposed treatment of the elevations with particular regard to the repetitive fenestration pattern.

65 The elevation treatment and fenestration detailing to both Arundel Street and Sidney Street is highly repetitive in terms of pattern and proportion. The only variation being where ‘flip flop’ windows have been incorporated which project at angles to the face of the building to give views up and down the street. These elements of the scheme are well detailed with deep reveals however it is the fenestration pattern, which gives a strong vertical emphasis, lacks hierarchy and when combined with the cladding is considered to create a monotonous appearance when taking account of the substantial length and inappropriate height of the buildings. These factors again combine to create an inappropriate sense of massing resulting in a monolithic built form, lacking the richness and variation in appearance and plot size that is considered necessary on a development of this size. The architectural quality of this proposal is insufficient in context of its prominent position within the conservation area on this corner site with regard to the setting and appearance of surrounding buildings and therefore fails to reflect the established characteristics of the CIQ.

The amended proposals seek to remove some of the originally proposed commercial space at ground floor level and replace it with residential accommodation in order to retain the quantum of residential accommodation on the site as a result of the reduction in height of the buildings.

Concerns were raised during the application process regarding the provision of residential accommodation at ground floor along the Arundel Street frontage, whereby potential occupants feel open to the street and as such are likely to draw curtains creating dead inactive frontages. An additional set back has been included in the Arundel Street elevation and the floor plate is elevated approximately 0.5 metres above street level, however this does little to address the impact and there are still large volumes of accommodation at ground floor level located at, or very close to the back edge of the street.

Active frontages are a historic characteristic of the quarter, the proposed reduction in the amount of active frontages within the amended scheme, creates long stretches of street frontage that lack animation or variation creating a poor pedestrian environment on streets that are popular pedestrian routes in the day time. This unacceptable impact is again generated as a result of the excessive amount accommodation proposed on Site A.

Site B

The approach to site B has been largely more successful with the exception of the niche building. The proposed micro brewery building is well detailed incorporating an interesting multi pitched roof design with extensive glazing to the Matilda Street frontage. The revised Speedwell works building is well detailed with deep window reveals throughout an ordered vertically proportioned window pattern with enlarged openings at ground floor which help to define a hierarchy within the elevation. Glazed balcony spaces are incorporated on the rear ranges, which add interest and the building is largely faced in corten steel which references the original metal trades in the area and the historic industrial context. In light of the revisions the microbrewery building and speedwell works building are considered to be well detailed. The niche building in design terms is almost identical to the buildings on

66 site A. With the exception of the use of corten cladding the proposals incorporate the same repetitive fenestration pattern which although on a smaller building is considered to raise the same issues as site A creating a monotonous form of development which emphasises the unacceptable scale and massing of the buildings and when considered in context of site A is considered to create significant volume of repetitive homogenous development.

Active uses have been removed from large parts of the ground floor of the Niche building with the exception the small corner unit, in order to retain as much volume of accommodation as the original scheme owing to the removal of the 6th floor. This creates blank inactive ground floors, particularly along Sylvester Lane which provides the link to the riverside walk and as such should be a welcoming and safe animated space for pedestrian to move through. The removal of the active frontages is considered to detract from the appearance of the area.

It is therefore considered that whilst certain parts of the development of Site B are considered of sufficient quality and would be welcomed, the proposed replacement niche building and the whole of the development of Site A is considered unacceptable and therefore contrary to policies BE5 of the UDP and CS74 of the CS.

Impact on the Conservation Area

The entire site lies within the CIQ Conservation Area and, as such, the proposals must be assessed in terms of their impact on the character of the area. The CIQ Conservation Area Appraisal identifies Site A as falling within the Arundel Street Character Area and Site B falling within the Mary Street and Matilda Street Character Areas.

Relevant planning policy in considering applications that lie within a Conservation Area is primarily set out within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. In addition, Policy BE16 of the Sheffield UDP relates specifically to development in Conservation Areas and advises that permission will only be granted for proposals where they would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Policy BE17 advises that a high standard of design using traditional materials and a sensitive to approach to preserve and enhance the conservation area and a flexible approach to the layout of buildings and roads will be expected for new buildings and alterations and extension to existing buildings. Policy BE1 states that a high quality townscape will be promoted with a positive approach to conservation and as high standard of new design. The best of Sheffield’s Buildings will be kept refurbished and there setting improved.

The applicant has submitted a PPS 5 Heritage assessment (revised to take account of the amended plans) which considers the significance of the CIQ Conservation Area, the contribution existing buildings make to it, and the impact the development will have on the Conservation Area. The following key characteristics of the conservation area where identified; the historic regular grid iron street pattern, the influence of the Porter Brook on the area, the townscapes strong industrial character, the position of buildings at the back edge of highway,

67 continuous frontage development and courtyard development which gives a strong sense of enclosure and the respective separation of public and private realms. The relatively modest vertical scale of buildings as well as the use of traditional materials is also identified.

Albert Works as well as Speedwell Works and parts of 77-81 which fall within Site B are noted as having a positive impact on the townscape of the conservation area.

In assessing how the scheme will impact upon these important heritage assets, it is necessary to have regard to the content of PPS5. Of most relevance are the following:

Policy HE7.1 advises that in decision-making, local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal. Policy HE7.2 advises that in considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations.

Policy HE7.5 states that local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use.

Policy HE9.1 of PPS5 also confirms that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. It states that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and the loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

Site A

In this case the application seeks to demolish all buildings on Site A. Subject to appropriate replacement, the principle of removing existing buildings from Site A is considered appropriate as the existing buildings are considered to be of minor heritage value. However the proposed replacement 7, 6 and 5 storey buildings are considered to have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Although amended, owing to their excessive height, scale and massing the proposal represents a significant departure from the established scale of buildings in the vicinity.

The development has been split into two separate buildings forming a new access lane between Arundel Street and Sidney Street in order to try to reflect the potential historic street pattern and attempt to reduce the overall scale of the development. However the layout does little to mitigate the detrimental impact of the excessive scale, height and massing of the buildings which would have an overdominating impact on surrounding buildings. The proposal if permitted would

68 irrevocably damage the historic context of the conservation area, with the new buildings becoming the context owing to the excessive size, height and form rather than preserving and contributing to the established historical context of existing buildings.

The proposed buildings do attempt to address the street with continuous built frontage along Arundel Street and Sidney Street but with varying degrees of success. The height of the Arundel Street block is considered excessive and the setting back of parts of the elevations and changes in materials do little to mitigate the unacceptable scale of the buildings. Elevationally the design is repetitive with little relief or variation in the approach across the whole of site A, creating a single design response to the development of a very large site. As such the proposal lacks a varied response to the size of development which is considered necessary within the conservation where plot sizes are smaller and variation in design is considered to add to the character.

Continuous built frontage with enclosed private courtyard space behind is a distinctive character of the conservation area however, owing to the height of the blocks of development on site A in order to provide suitable natural lighting to the court yard spaces breaks in the Sidney Street frontage are required. The exposed courtyards proposed are considered out of context and detrimental to the appearance of the conservation area. Despite suggestions during the application that these spaces should be enclosed to the street to form continuous frontage development and private courtyards behind, the breaks in the built frontage remain perhaps due to this being the only means of providing suitable natural light to the internal spaces and rooms, as a result to the excessive height of buildings and the inappropriate amount of accommodation proposed. The breaks between the fingers of development are defined only at ground floor level by single storey bin/bike stores at the back edge of street which do are not considered to adequately define the street.

In terms of materials predominantly the elevations are faced with a terracotta rain screen cladding system with areas of anodised aluminium cladding in order to attempt to add variety and to break up the overall massing of the structure. This type of cladding system has been selected in part to respect the proposed off site construction methods and whilst there is no objection in principle to the use of modern materials, this is subject to the design of the scheme. The existing buildings in the conservation area are largely red brick and form the established context. The proposed use of rain screen cladding taking account of the size and massing of the proposed building is considered out if character with the predominant facing material used within the conservation area.

The applicant’s own PPS 5 assessment identifies that the development of site A will at best have a neutral impact with the revised proposals still representing a significant departure from the established grain, scale, architectural themes and palette of materials that contribute to the character of the conservation area. In light of the above the proposed development of site A is considered to unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and is therefore considered contrary to policies BE1,BE5, BE15, BE16 and BE17 of the UDP, CS74 of the CS and PPS 1 and 5.

Site B

Site B contains more buildings of heritage interest than site A, a number of which are proposed to be retained and converted. The part removal of single storey elements of Albert works and introduction of a two storey building fronting Matilda Street with a largely glazed frontage is considered to be a high quality addition, which will contribute to and enhance the character of the conservation area. The introduction of a river side walk, outside amenity space and seating areas and the formation of the remainder of the winter garden, which will house the proposed micro brewery are considered attractive additions to the area.

The Sidney Street frontage of Albert works is to be retained and converted largely into commercial use. 77-81 Sidney Street will also be retained with the exception of one of two existing two storey rear wings which is considered a later addition of limited value and its removal enables courtyard space and access to the Porter Brook to be created. The retention and conversion of these buildings is welcome and helps to create a varied street scene and is a successful element of the scheme.

It is proposed to remove the former Niche nightclub, a poor quality building which at present has a negative impact on the appearance of the conservation area. The proposed replacement building provides back edge of pavement development and respects the existing street pattern retaining Sylvester Gardens which separates the application site from Bernard Works. However the proposed building does give rise to a number of significant concerns owing to its height and relationship to 77- 81 Sidney Street which is a three storey pitched roof building. The footprint of the proposed building is larger than that of the existing niche nightclub as it builds over an electricity substation which currently divides the two buildings. The replacement building as proposed is predominantly 5 storeys with a small step down to four storeys where its adjoins 77-81. The proposed height of the building is considered to over dominate the adjoining building and the reduction in height does little to alleviate the impact.

Elevationally the building is almost identical in form to the proposed buildings on site A with the same repetitive fenestration pattern and design emphasis. Such an approach creates a homogenous feel to the development as a whole when viewed in context with the buildings on site A which is considered to detract from the character of the conservation area. The use of corten as a facing material offers some reference to the industrial character of the area, but it is the inappropriate height and overall approach to the design of the building, which is considered to lack the necessary variation in built form that is characteristic of the conservation area. A reduction in height would result in a successful relationship with adjoining buildings.

Speedwell works is identified as a significant unlisted building in the UDC, the proposed development seeks to replace this building with a four storey residential block. The main features of interest of the existing building are the ground floor and parts of the retained frontage which incorporates large window openings and column detailing internally. However the building has been the subject to significant

70 alterations including the unsympathetic rebuilding of the upper floor following bomb damage and the insertion of a now dated shop front which obscures a large part of the ground floor. The revised scheme has taken on board comments made by officers during consideration of the application, the originally proposed mansard roof has been removed and the building reduced in height so it is no longer considered to over dominate the adjoining retained buildings. The building has been positioned at the back edge of pavement which is characteristic of the conservation area removing a colonnade and the fenestration pattern amended to give a more contextual approach. Corten is used as the predominant facing material which is high quality and provides some reference to the former metal trades in the locality. Taking account of the extensive alterations that have been made to the existing building, the quality of the proposed replacement building and benefits it offers in terms of opening access to the Porter Brook and creating courtyard development which is characteristic of the conservation area, the proposed replacement building is considered in isolation acceptable

Whilst the proposed microbrewery building/winter garden, river side walk and the replacement of Speedwell works is considered acceptable and would be a welcome addition to the area, the redevelopment of the former Niche building is considered to unacceptably over dominate 77-81 Sidney Street. The building’s elevation treatment and fenestration pattern is considered to reflect the proposed buildings on Site A and such lacks the variety in the design of the buildings and creates a homogenous form of development which is considered to detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area. This could be rectified by a reduction in height and altered design approach to the elevations.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the conservation area. The proposed new buildings are considered in the main to irrevocably damage the historic context of the conservation area, with the new buildings becoming the context owing to the excessive size, scale, form, height, massing, materials and fenestration pattern rather than preserving and contributing to the established historical context of existing buildings within the conservation area. The proposal is therefore considered to damage a number of heritage assets and is therefore considered contrary to PPS 1, PPS5 and policies BE1,BE5, BE15, BE16 and BE17 of the UDP and CS74 of the CS.

Sustainability

Policies CS63, 64 and 65 of the CS sets outs the councils approach to dealing with climate change and sustainability. The supporting text to CS64 advises that to satisfy the policy, all new non-residential developments over 500 square metres should achieve a BREEAM rating of very good (or equivalent) and all residential developments in excess of 5 dwellings must achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainability Homes guidance. The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement, which confirms that the private and student residential elements of the scheme will meet the code level 3 of the code for sustainable homes guidance and the commercial elements will achieve a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating, which is consistent with the requirements of policy CS64.

71 Policy CS65: Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction within the CS sets out objectives to support renewable and low carbon energy generation and also to further reduce carbon emissions. Policy CS65 requires, if it is feasible and viable, new developments to achieve the provision of a minimum of 10% of their predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy. CS65 did until recently also require the generation of further renewable or low carbon energy, or the incorporation of design measures, sufficient to reduce the development’s overall predicted carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. As this is now a requirement of Part L of the 2010 Building Regulations it is no longer being sought as part of planning applications in the current economic climate.

However in this case the developer’s sustainability statement indicates they have reached an agreement to construct the development in accordance with the 2006 building regulations under a transitional agreement with building control as such the requirements of part (b) of policy CS65 still stand in order to achieve the carbon reductions that the 2010 Building Regulations would achieve.

With regard to the renewable requirements set out in Policy CS65, the sustainability statement advises that a variety of measures have been considered and a number have been discounted on design, feasibility and viability grounds. The statement however confirms that the primary source of heating is intended to be gathered from the Veolia District Heating system. The closest node of the District heating system is located within 100 metres of the site and further investigations will be necessary at the time of development to confirm connection to the system. The buildings on Site A will also have green roofs which contribute to the biodiversity of the area, provide storm water attenuation and air quality improvements. The building facing Arundel Street is also proposed to accommodate an array of roof mounted photovoltaic cells in order to generate electricity for the development.

The applicant also intends to use off site construction methods which are considered to reduce energy demand from the outset, with reported improved U values and improved insulation over traditional construction methods.

Policy CS64 (f) seeks to ensure that development is designed flexibly so it can afford a wide variety of future uses if necessary. Concerns were raised during the application process regarding the layout of the proposed student accommodation, its ability to be adapted in the future should housing demand change and the ability of the chosen off site construction method to accommodate adaptation. The applicant has demonstrated in the design and access statement that each of the 6 bed cluster flats could be altered internally to provide two, two bedroom apartments should there be vacancy issues or later adaptation is required, without the need to demolish and rebuild the structure.

Further to the above the site has other sustainability credentials that promote and encourage sustainable design/living, including making use of and converting existing buildings, the site’s highly sustainable central location close to several modes of public transport, shopping facilities and the provision of cycle parking and recycling facilities.

72 Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policies CS63,64 and 65.

Conservation Area Consent

Policy BE16 states that buildings, which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area, will be retained. In light of the conclusion reached above the proposal is not considered of suitable quality to warrant the removal of the existing buildings on site A and B and it is therefore recommended that conservation area consent is refused to ensure that the area is not left with inappropriate ‘gap’ sites.

Amenities of future Residents

Policy IB9 of the UDP seeks to ensure that the amenities of future residents would be acceptable.

Daylight/Sunlight Analysis

The applicant has undertaken a daylight/sunlight analysis of the proposed development to demonstrate that the occupiers of both the student housing on Site A and B and the private housing on Site B would benefit from appropriate natural lighting within the living accommodation.

Whilst there is no recognised conclusive minimum daylight percentage value for a habitable room, there is agreement in best practice publications that less than a 2% average daylight factor will often produce an interior perceived to be dull and that electric lighting will be required for substantial periods of the daylight hours.

A 1% average daylight factor is however endorsed in British standard BS8206. However it is considered that 1% and less will often produce dull spaces and occupants’ perception of daylight will be poor except on bright days and Electric supplementary lighting will be required for substantial periods of daylight hours.

BS8206 gives a definition of a minimum acceptable average daylight factor and states, “Even if a predominantly day lit appearance is not required in buildings, it is recommended that the average daylight factor be at least 1% in bedrooms, 1.5% in living rooms and 2% in kitchens..."

As such taking account of the above guidance In order to ensure a reasonable level of amenity for future occupants the applicant has been requested to ensure that a 2% daylight factor can be achieved in living spaces to avoid the need to artificially illuminate a space during daylight hours. Owing to the nature of student accommodation where more time is often spent in the occupants bedroom than would ordinarily be the case within a private apartments with separate living space the applicant has been requested to demonstrate that all habitable areas of the student bedrooms (excluding en-suite and corridors) meet the 2% daylight factor. The proposed development of Site B does not give rise to any unacceptable amenity implications for future occupants as the proposed minimum 2% daylight factor is achieved in all living rooms of the proposed accommodation. With regard

73 to Site A there are a number of rooms which still fail to meet the required 2 % daylight standard. Primarily this is due to the height and density of the buildings proposed. As such the proposals are considered contrary to Policy IB9

Analysis of the impact of the redevelopment of the Niche site and on the future amenities of the residents of the approved Bernard Works scheme has also been undertaken. The analysis shows that there will be a reduction in the amount of natural light that adjoining future residents will receive. However the Bernard works scheme was designed with main living space overlooking the Porter Brook facing away from Sylvester Lane and account was taken at the time of the relationship between the proposed development and the existing niche building which although lower in height than the proposed scheme presented a similar back edge of pavement relationship. The applicants have attempted to ‘lighten’ the Sylvester Lane elevation by incorporating a large glazed entrance feature, whilst also ensuring that no main facing windows are located overlooking Sylvester Lane due to the Lanes narrow width and relationship to Bernard Works. As such whilst there will be a reduction in daylight it is considered given the design of the Bernard works scheme, the relationship to the existing building and a desire to retain a back edge of pavement form of development on balance the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard.

Two substantial landscaped private courtyard spaces have been provided on Site A for the use of occupants. These courtyards are considered of an appropriate size and owing to their orientation (south east) will receive acceptable amounts of natural light. Two courtyard spaces are proposed on site B which although to be used for parking and turning for the proposed office accommodation, both courtyards are south east facing and as such will receive appropriate sunlight. A majority of the new build private apartments on Site B are provided with dedicated balcony spaces, and there is ancillary space provided by way of the river side walk which incorporates landscaped and sitting areas which can be used by the occupants and the general public. A roof top garden is also provided at first floor level for occupants of the student accommodation on Site B. In this regard the development is considered acceptable from an amenity perspective.

The proposals do not give rise to any unacceptable overlooking largely due to the lack of established residential accommodation in the locality. The impact of the proposal on adjoining permitted schemes has also been considered, most notably affected is Bernard works, which has windows overlooking Sylvester Lane. The proposed redevelopment of the former niche nightclub does not result in any unacceptable overbearing or overlooking. However owing to the height and layout of the development on Site A number of the student bedroom spaces are considered to receive inadequate amounts on natural light, which is considered harmful to the living conditions of future occupants the proposal is therefore considered contrary to policy IB9.

Noise

A noise report has been submitted which indicates that instances of noise indicates that site falls within categories A, B and C in accordance with the noise categories set out in PPG 24. The proposal incorporates the demolition and replacement of

74 the former Niche Nightclub therefore eradicating a potential unacceptable source of noise and disamenity from the locality. There are very limited heavy industrial or major commercial operations remaining at this end of the quarter with established residential developments located in close proximity and extant approvals for new residential developments in the locality. As such it is evident that the area already has been established as having acceptable living conditions for residents and therefore subject to appropriate glazing specifications and building insulation future occupants of the proposed development would not suffer unacceptable living conditions in respect of noise.

Archaeology

The applicant has commissioned a PPS 5 Heritage assessment which also assesses the archaeological implications of the development. The assessment has not found any and evidence that would preclude development. As such it is recommended that limited trial trenching with some undisturbed parts of site b is undertaken before development is commenced

Flood Risk

The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a as identified on the Environment Agency’s Strategic Flood risk Assessment Map (SFRA). Policy CS67 ‘Flood Risk Management’ states that housing development will not be permitted in areas with a high probability (Flood Zone 3a) of flooding before 2016/17 as there is ample capacity for housing in the city without resorting to land with a high probability of flooding. The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment with this application which challenges the EA’s existing flood zone allocations and claims the site to be in flood zone1 (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding). The applicant’s flood zone challenge remodels the EA’s existing Hydraulic flood model of the Porter Brook correcting it in places where the consultants considered thereto be inaccuracies, including previous over estimates of the amount of flood water which would enter the application site and wider locality from the Porter Brook in times of flooding. The EA have accepted the applicant’s flood zone challenge and are therefore satisfied the site falls within flood zone 1 and as such there is no objection to the proposed development and it is therefore considered to comply with policy CS 67 of the CS.

Highways issues

In policy terms, Policy IB9 of the UDP advises that new development in industry and business areas will be permitted provided that it would be adequately served by public transport and provides safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking.

The site is located within a sustainable location in accordance with PPS 3 in close proximity to major shopping facilities on the Moor and high frequency bus routes and stops on Eyre Street and Arundel Gate which provide links to The University Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam university campuses as well as other areas of the city.

75 With reference to the Council’s Parking Standards, it is noted that the Council have adopted maximum standards relating to a range of uses, including student housing and offices as relevant to this application. 19 parking spaces are proposed, located solely on site B within two secure courtyards. These parking spaces are intended to serve the commercial element of the scheme. Given the site’s highly sustainable location the level of car parking proposed is considered acceptable with additional short stay visitor parking available on street. Only 1 of these 19 spaces is shown on the plans as being disabled accessible, however the applicant has indicated that two additional spaces could be provided within the courtyard space which is on balance considered acceptable provision with opportunity to provide additional spaces on street if deemed necessary. Adequate secure cycle parking is provided on site A. Highways have raised concern that additional cycle parking should be provided on site B and the applicant has confirmed that additional provision could be provided within the courtyard space. The applicant has also confirmed following comments from South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) that improvements will be made to two bus stops in the vicinity (Eyre Street and Furnival Street) to provide connect Sheffield signage and Real Time bus information.

No alterations are proposed to the layout of the adjoining highways with the exception of a pedestrianised river side walk which runs along the length of site B adjacent to the Porter Brook providing a link between Matilda Street and Sylvester Gardens. This pedestrian link will also tie in with the adjoining approved schemes at Bernard and Industry works which also propose a riverside walk adjacent to the Porter Brook. Policy CS61 Pedestrian Environment in the city centre seeks to create a high quality environment through improved landscaping design materials and street furniture, as such improvements to the footways adjoining the development sites in accordance with the Urban Design Compendium (UDC) secondary palette standard would be required.

With regard to servicing the proposed flexible use space on both sites and the Microbrewery on site B it is considered acceptable to undertake this from the adjoining highways. In light of the above the proposal is not considered to give rise to any unacceptable highways implications and therefore complies with policy IB9.

Access Issues

Policy H7 identifies that a proportion of mobility housing is to be encouraged to in all new and refurbished developments. A proportion is defined as 25% dwellings. In this case the applicant has confirmed that 35 of the 41 private apartments (85%) will meet the Councils mobility standards. With regard to the shared student housing BS8300 is used as a recommend standard and states that 5% of bedrooms should be provided to mobility standards resulting in the proviso of 22 bedrooms. In this case the applicant has provided 21 which is on balance considered acceptable.

Affordable Housing

Policy CS40 of the CS and the IPG: Affordable Housing requires all new developments of 15 dwellings or more where viable to provide between 30 and

76 40% of the dwellings as affordable housing, where on site provision is not desirable contributions will be take for off site provision. In this case the applicants has submitted a affordable housing statement which has identified that the provision of affordable housing is not viable, this conclusion has been confirmed independently by the District Valuers office following consideration of a development appraisal. As such no affordable housing is proposed to be provided as part of this development.

Open space

Policy H16 of the Unitary Development Plan requires that the developer make a financial contribution towards the provision or enhancement of public open space within a kilometre of the application site.

The City Centre Living Strategy (CCLS) also advises that developers will be expected to make a financial contribution to the City Council towards the provision or enhancement of open space in the city centre, prioritising open space in the same quarter as the development; or provide appropriate publicly accessible open space as part of their development which would complement the city centre open space strategy.

Under the terms of Policy H16 of the UDP and the CCLS an open space contribution of £369,620 would be required if the development were deemed acceptable.

Public Art

Policy BE12 encourages public art where it would be readily seen by the public and integral to the design of major developments. The applicant has indicated a willingness to integrate public art within the development Given the size of the proposal, its proposed creation of a riverside walk there are ample opportunities to integrate public art within the scheme.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes to demolish all buildings on Site A and erect student apartments in 7/6/5 storey blocks with flexible use space (use classes A1/A3 and B1) on parts of the ground floor. On site B it is proposed to demolish the former Niche nightclub and erect a student apartment block, demolish Speedwell works and erect a block of private apartments, convert retain and partially demolish other buildings on site and provide flexible use space, workshops and erection of a microbrewery.

It is acknowledged that a mixed use development comprising of flexible use space Use classes A1/A3 and B1, private residential apartments, workshop space and student accommodation is compliant in principle with policies IB6 and IB9 of the UDP and CS3, CS4, and CS17 of the CS. However given the existing concentration of student housing in the area the addition of a further 90 student apartments (383 bed spaces) and 41 private apartments would increase this concentration to 43.5% for Site A and 41.7% for site B as such the proposal is considered to create an unacceptable concentration of student housing contrary to

77 Policies CS41(d) and CS27, which relates to creating mixed balanced communities and ensuring that an appropriate mix of tenures and sizes form part of a mix of uses within the CIQ.

The scale, massing and design of the scheme has been amended considerably during the process of the application in response to officer comments and whilst these changes are acknowledged and welcomed there remain a number of fundamental issues with the development of Site A in particular. The corner building of Site A has been reduced from 8 to 7 storeys and amendments made to the design of the elevations. However the revised proposals for Site A still far exceed the scale parameters set out in the UDC and recommended in the CIQ Action Plan which identifies that development in the CIQ should be between 3 and 5 storeys in height. As such although amended, owing to the excessive height, scale and massing of the buildings this element of the proposal represents a significant departure from the established scale of buildings in the vicinity and is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The repetitive fenestration pattern throughout the proposed building on Site A contributes to the unacceptable massing of the proposal, creating monotonous unrelieved elevations. The layout of the development with courtyards open to the street and inappropriate use of rain screen cladding is considered to be out of character and does not reflect the established built form or predominant palette of red brick materials of the conservation area.

The proposal also gives rise to unacceptable living conditions for potential future residents with a number of rooms requiring artificial lighting throughout the day. The removal of commercial space and redistribution of residential accommodation to the ground floors of the proposed buildings of both sites A and B in order to retain a specific amount of accommodation creates unanimated, blank frontages which in turn create a poor pedestrian environment, give rise to amenity concerns for future occupants and detracts from the appearance of the streetscene.

There are a number of positive and welcome elements of the scheme with particular regard to Site B. These include the conversion and refurbishment of a number of existing buildings, the provision of a winter garden which will house a microbrewery and the provision of a new publically accessible riverside walk. On balance the demolition of Speedwell Works which is identified as a significant unlisted structure in the UDC and replacement with a four storey residential block is considered appropriate. The applicant has also analysed Views of St Marys Church form Arundel Street which demonstrates the revised proposals will not unacceptably interrupt views of the church. However the proposed redevelopment of the Niche Block is considered to unacceptably over dominate the retained adjoining building 77-81 Sidney Street owing to its height. The elevational treatment of the building is also considered repetitive and monotonous and reflects the design of the buildings on site A. This could be revised to achieve a successful scheme for Site A and one which has the potential to be a good addition to the CIQ.

As such, although revised, the proposed development as a whole (taking Sites A and B together) if permitted irrevocably damage the character and appearance of

78 the conservation area with the proposed buildings becoming the context rather than the existing historic buildings owing to the height design and size of the development.

A majority of the design issues relating to massing, scale, height of building and amenity issues are generated as a result of the sheer quantum of the development proposed and as such the scheme is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

The applicants have challenged the EA’s current strategic flood risk maps and have established that the site is in Zone 1 and as such with regard to flooding the development is considered appropriate.

19 parking spaces are proposed which is considered acceptable in this highly accessible location and with regard to accessibility; the new private and student development will be accessible to persons with a disability.

With regard to noise an appropriate internal environment for future office users and the residential accommodation can also be secured by means of appropriate noise attenuation to the glazing system and the site is in an area where there are already permitted and established residential properties.

With regard to sustainability the applicant has confirmed a commitment to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’ for all commercial and meet code level 3 for all residential elements of the scheme. 10% of the development’s energy requirements will also be secured form a decentralised renewable or low carbon sources.

The proposed level of investment in this part of the city is welcomed but this is a very important conservation area and any new development within it will be there for many years to come. It is therefore vitally important to get the balance between economic consideration and conservation consideration right. Unfortunately this scheme does not achieve this balance.

Although the scheme has been revised substantially to try and address these concernsá it has failed to produce a scheme of sufficient quality to warrant the demolition of the existing buildings within the CIQ conservation area replacement with the proposed scheme. As such it is considered that the development is contrary to Policies BE1, BE5, BE15, BE16, BE17, BE19 and IB9 of the UDP, policy CS 27, 41 and 74 of the CS, PPS1 and PPS 5 and the guidance contained in the Sheffield Urban Design Compendium., The Cultural Industries Quarter Action Plan and Cultural Industries Quarter Conservation Area Appraisal.

Case Number 11/00723/LBC

Application Type Listed Building Consent Application

Proposal Alterations and refurbishment of ground floor to form 3 office units (Class B1 Business)

Location Ground Floor The Warehouse Wharf Street Victoria Quays Sheffield S2 5SY

Date Received 25/02/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Walton And Co

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990.

2 The existing hoppers in the Grain warehouse shall be retained in their existing positions.

In the interests of preserving the special character of the listed building.

3 No works shall take place until details of the following matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. - A strategy for accommodating service runs, ducting and cables. - The design of the new partitions, doors, screens and pods and how they meet the existing fabric of the building. - The design and materials for infilling the openings between the Grain and Terminal buildings and the opening in the north elevation of the Grain warehouse. - New doors and windows to the external elevations. - Blinds and shading to the windows. - Repairs and cleaning to the existing fabric of the building.

In the interests of preserving the special character of the listed buildings.

4 A sample panel of the proposed masonry shall be erected on the site and shall illustrate the colour, texture, bedding and bonding of masonry and mortar finish to be used. The sample panel shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the building works and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 Masonry shall be pointed or bedded using a lime mortar mix that is weaker than the surrounding masonry. The colour of the new mortar, which should match the original mortar before weathering, should be achieved by the use of appropriate sand. No propriety coloured mixes of pigments shall be used. The joints should be finished flush then brushed back to expose the aggregate and the edges of the adjacent stone. On no account should the joints be struck or finished proud of the masonry face to form strap or ribbon pointing or feathered over the edge of eroded blocks. A sample panel of proposed pointing shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

6 Before the development commences, details of the location, specification and appearance of all new services to the building (including meter boxes, outlets and inlets for gas, electricity, telephones, security systems, cabling, trunking, soil and vent stacks, fresh and foul water supply and runs, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, extract and odour control equipment, pipe runs and internal and external ducting) shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

7 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

381.01 (05)003 Rev B, (06)004 Rev B, (06)003 Rev B, (01)002 Rev A

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings

The physical works to accommodate office uses can be achieved without harming the special character of the listed buildings and the further details needed can be controlled by condition.

Site Location

For Report please see 11/00718/CHU.

Case Number 11/00718/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Alterations and refurbishment of ground floor to form 3 office units (Class B1 Business)

Location Ground Floor The Warehouse Wharf Street Victoria Quays Sheffield S2 5SY

Date Received 25/02/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Walton And Co

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Prior to the use commencing full details at a scale of 1.20 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of the new glazed door infills to the west elevation and new timber doors to the north elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the use commences.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 Before the development is commenced, details of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

-381.01(05)003 Rev B, (06)004 Rev B, (06)003 Rev B, (01)002 Rev A -

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

MU1 - Mixed Use Areas MU10 - Victoria Quays Mixed Use Area MU11 - Conditions on Development in Mixed Use Area CS17 - City Centre Quarters Sheffield City Centre masterplan 2008

Given the prominence of the site and its position at the gateway to the Canal Basin it has a disproportionate impact on the apparent mix of uses with Victoria Quays. The historic core of Victoria Quays is still dominated by offices and the proposal would lead to the office uses dominating the character of the area detracting from its diversity and vitality. It is therefore concluded that the proposals remains contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies MU1 and MU11. This remains unchanged from the situation at the time of the previous application and the appeal. It is also the case that there is a strong preference for an active use on the ground floor of these buildings in order to provide an attractive and vibrant entrance to the Quay’s and ideally to facilitate public access to the historic buildings and inner dock.

At the time of the appeal the ground floor of the buildings had been vacant for some years and there were barriers to pedestrian movement between the City Centre and the site. The planning inspector felt that it was only reasonable to resist an office use whilst the process strengthening the pedestrian links continues.

Five years have passed since the appeal and the improved pedestrian connections between the site and city centre have not been secured. It remains a high priority for the city but there is currently no funding for these works. There is uncertainty as to whether the works will be funded and even if they are it could be some time before they are carried out.

Since the appeal the applicant has continued to actively market the site but has been unable to secure a tenant. Given the depressed market for food and drink uses, the fact that this site is disconnected from the city centre and suffers from low footfall it seems unlikely that a food and drink use will be secured in the near future. Given this and the fact that the ground floor has been vacant 15 years, it is considered to be unreasonable to continue resisting a change of use to offices. This is supported by Planning Policy

86 Statements 4 and 5 which seek to encourage new and appropriate uses for vacant buildings. Whilst granting consent will not necessarily secure immediate occupation of the building given the depressed economy, it will allow the applicant greater flexibility to market the site and increase the chances of securing an occupier. An occupied building will contribute more to the vitality of Victoria Quays than a building that continues to remain vacant. Whilst it can be given no weight at the moment, it is also noted that under the emerging Sheffield Development Framework policies there would be no policy basis for resisting an office use. It is concluded that the above considerations outweigh the Unitary Development Plan policy objections

87 Site Location

88 INTRODUCTION

This report covers the planning issues for both the planning and listed building application. Members may recall that they refused similar planning and listed building applications for alterations to the ground floor to form 3 offices in August 2004, (references 04/01881/FUL and 04/01879/LBC). The planning application was refused for the following reasons.

1. The proposal will increase the dominance of office uses in the canal basin in a key gateway building that is particularly suitable for public use, to the detriment of securing a vibrant canal basin with a wide mixture of uses. It is thereby considered to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy MU11.

2. The proposed car parking is considered to be harmful to the setting of the Grade II* Listed Terminal Warehouse and is thereby considered to be contrary to the Unitary Development Plan Policy BE19.

The listed building application was refused for the reason listed below.

1. The removal of the hoppers in the Grain Warehouse is considered to be harmful to the special architectural and historic character of the buildings and insufficient information has been submitted to assess the effect of the other alterations on the special character of both the buildings. The proposals are thereby considered to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy BE19.

The applicant appealed both decisions and in March 2006. The appeal against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed and the listed building appeal was allowed. Revised plans were submitted in connection with the listed building application prior to the appeal hearing showing the hoppers being retained and along with conditions these addressed the concerns in respect of the listed building application.

The key points made by the inspector’s in dismissing the planning appeal were;

- The prominence of the site and its key location gives a disproportionate effect to the apparent mix of uses in Victoria Quays. The proposal would lead to the office uses dominating the character of the area detracting from its diversity and vitality. He concluded that the proposal would be contrary to UDP policies MU1 and MU11. - The site had been assiduously marketed for a number of years by the appellant. He acknowledged that the site was isolated from the City Centre by traffic on Exchange Street. At the time of the appeal the reduction of traffic and down grading of Exchange Street was considered to be on track. Whilst this process continued, the inspector considered it was reasonable to seek to retain those uses that would ultimately strengthen the vitality and viability of the area.

89 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the ground floor of the Terminal and Grain warehouses. The former is listed grade II* and the latter grade II. The upper floors of both buildings have been converted to flats. The ground floor has been refurbished and incorporates glazed entrances and windows in keeping with the character of the buildings. The buildings are located at the heart of the canal basin being the first buildings that are encountered when approaching the site from the City Centre. They also enclose the attractive space around the inner dock.

The ground floor of the Terminal warehouse contains a boat dock that enabled barges to load within the building. The ground floor of the grain warehouse contains the metal bases of a series of hoppers that originally extended to the full height of the building. Both buildings have an attractive outlook across the inner dock; timber pontoons have been erected on the canal side of the buildings to allow access to the waterside. Some original hoisting machinery has been retained under the canopy on the canal side elevation of the Grain warehouse.

The proposal is to convert the ground floor of both buildings into three separate offices. Two of the offices would be located in the Terminal Warehouse which would be accessed by existing arched openings located on the Exchange Street elevation either side of the boat dock. One office would occupy the ground floor of the Grain warehouse with the entrance located on the north facing elevation opposite the Hilton Hotel. Access from all the offices onto the timber deck around the inner dock will be maintained. The applicant has confirmed that all the hoppers will be retained in the Grain warehouse and the plans show a largely open plan layout. Partitions are proposed to create toilet and meeting areas and the design and access statement says they have been designed in a pod like manner to separate them from the existing building fabric, although no details are provided as part of the listed building application. Two openings between the Terminal and Grain warehouses are to be blocked up.

Externally the widow and door openings will largely remain as existing. Both the windows and doors were renewed in the mid 1990s when the building was refurbished. The existing windows and doors are to be surveyed and repaired and replaced to match existing. Two existing temporary doors on the Exchange Street elevation of the Terminal Warehouse are to be replaced with new glazed doors to match the character of glazed doors on the other elevations.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

See the most recent history in the introduction above.

Planning and listed building consent was granted for the conversion of the first floor of both buildings to flats under applications 00/01169/FUL and 00/01170/LBC.

Planning and Listed Building consent was granted for the conversion of the upper floors of the Terminal and Grain Warehouses as flats and for the use of the ground and first floor for food and drink uses under applications 96/8077P and 96/8078/LBC in July 1996.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Two residents of the upper floor flats have commented, one considers offices would be an appropriate use as there would be no noise conflict with the residents living above. The other is in favour of developing the ground floor but is concerned about noise during construction (due to unpredictable working hours), noise during operation as the sound proofing is poor, and lack of parking.

The Victoria Quays Management Company considers that it would benefit the Quays if some use could be established in the property as it has been vacant for 15 years since the refurbishment was completed by Sheffield Development Corporation.

English Heritage has no objections to the scheme and is supportive of the proposal to obtain a use for the ground floor. They consider the works are minor structural changes to modify works undertaken in a previous refurbishment and the Local Planning Authority should ensure works for the replacement of any original fabric are fully justified and not an application of a standard specification.

British Waterways has raised no objections to the change of use application.

Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group considered the scheme in April and felt that there was no objection, in principle, to the development, subject to the alterations being reversible and careful consideration being given to the infilling proposals and to the provision of wc facilities within the scheme.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The application site lies in the Victoria Quays Mixed Use Area. Policy MU1 which applies to all Mixed Use Areas says that a variety of land uses will be preserved and created. A mixture of developments will be encouraged by not allowing any single use to dominate. A wide range of uses are acceptable in policy terms including offices (Policy MU10). Policy MU11 applies to all mixed use areas and states that changes of use will be permitted that would “preserve or create variety in the character of the neighbourhood and not result in any one use dominating and leading to the loss of the Area’s character. The commentary on this policy states that the “mixed character of these Areas needs to be fostered where large single-use developments would result in a dull environment.”

The Mixed Use Area as defined on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map is wider than the area immediately adjoining the canal. This was an issue considered at the appeal. The inspector acknowledged that the most attractive part of the Mixed Use Area is the area around the canal and the historic buildings and waterside environment creates a strong sense of place. Although the proposal would only make a small change in the proportion of buildings in office use he considered that the prominence of the site and its key location gives a disproportionate effect to the apparent mix of uses. He concluded that the change

91 of use would lead to a dominance of office uses in the character area, detracting from its diversity and vitality.

Since the appeal the mix of uses in the wider mixed use area and the historic character area around the canal has not changed significantly. An additional hotel is under construction to the west of the Royal Victoria Hotel ramp approach on the east side of the River Don. However the mix of uses in the character area largely remains unchanged. The Hilton Hotel occupies arches 1 to 8 on north quay and uses one of these as a bar, one as a coffee lounge, one as a hotel entrance, the others are used for offices and meeting rooms. Of the remaining arches, 3 are used as cafes/sandwich shops, two are vacant; two are used as offices and one as an office/shop. The upper floors of the Terminal and Grain warehouses comprise of 35 flats. However the whole of south quay and the Straddle Warehouse are used as offices with further office developments off Blast Lane and within Sheaf Quay House. The former coal company offices on Merchant’s Crescent, directly opposite the Grain Warehouse, comprise of vacant offices and Wharf House on Wharf Street is also vacant office space.

Given that there has been no significant change in the balance of uses within the character area it is considered that the previous conclusions about the impact of the proposed mix of uses remains valid. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed change of use will still lead to the dominance of office uses within the key character area thereby detracting from its vitality. The proposal therefore remains contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies MU1 and MU11.

Core Strategy Policy CS3 promotes the City Centre as a location for office development. This means that there is a general presumption in favour of offices in the city centre and means that less weight should be given to the Unitary Development Plan policies which seek to maintain a mix of uses. Core Strategy Policy CS17 states that the Castlegate Quarter will be consolidated and strengthened as an area for a mix of uses including offices, housing, hotels, leisure, linking the heart of the City with Victoria Quays, as a focus for mixed waterside uses. Policy CS61 seeks to promote high quality pedestrian links within and through various areas of the city including Castlegate/Victoria Quays.

Policy EC2 of Planning Policy Statement 4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’, which is concerned with plan making polices says that development plans should encourage new uses for vacant or derelict buildings, including historic buildings.

Planning Policy Statement 5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ states that the Government’s overall aim is that heritage assets are conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. To achieve this it states that wherever possible they should be put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation.

Whilst the Draft City Policies and Site document has no weight at the moment is does indicate the direction which planning policy is moving and is the local interpretation of the spatial Core Strategy policies. It is signalling a change towards more flexible policies. This identifies the site as lying within a business

92 area. The consultation Draft of Preferred Options for City Policies identifies office uses as the preferred use for at least 50% of the gross floor space in the area. Shops, non-office B1 uses and housing are referred to as acceptable uses, food and drink uses must be considered on their merits. The commentary with this policy refers to Business Areas helping to deliver sufficient office development whilst allowing for other uses. Whilst there is nothing in this policy that precludes a food and drink use there is no requirement to maintain a mix of uses or to prevent office uses becoming dominant. As stated above the policy area designation and policy has no weight at the moment and it is the Unitary Development Plan policies which should be given significant weight. However it does indicate that in the future there may be a loosening of control over the balance of office uses.

The area immediately to the west of the application site is identified in the City Policies and Sites Draft as an open space site referred to as Victoria Square. The commentary on this policy states that the completion of the Inner Relief Road provides the opportunity to improve connections between Victoria Quays and the rest of the City Centre. It states that initial feasibility work has been completed but funding for the next phase has to be secured which could be in conjunction with the Castle Market site. As above, this site allocation currently has no weight.

Sheffield City Centre Masterplan 2008 has a key objective of connecting the City Centre with the waterside. It states that the re-routing of the Inner Relief Road allows for the links between Castlegate and Victoria Quays and the Riverside to be strengthened. A high quality public realm with a new pedestrian spine route between Castle Square and Victoria Quays will connect with Fargate. The Masterplan includes a proposal to create Victoria Square as part of a new gateway which will involve the downgrading of Exchange Street in order to connect Victoria Quays to the City Centre.

Whilst the proposal is still considered contrary to Policies MU1 and MU11 it is supported by Core Strategy Policies CS3, CS17 and national policies encouraging the use of vacant buildings. The Core Strategy policies and the emerging policies are signalling a move towards greater flexibility. Clearly there is policy support for bringing these vacant buildings back into use.

Demand for Food and Drink Use.

At the planning appeal the applicant produced evidence of the marketing of the site since 1996. This included: - Marketing through 4 different property agents. - Advertising the property at local, regional and national level. - Particulars forwarded to 5,400 persons. - Marketing board displayed on site. - Over 73 viewings and 124 expressions of interest, none of which came to anything. - Offering flexible terms.

The planning inspector concluded from this evidence that, “There can be little doubt that the appellant has marketed the building assiduously for a number of

93 years. There has been considerable interest shown with many viewings and some cases where lease terms have been drawn up, yet no tenant has been secured.”

Since the appeal in 2006 an advertising board has been permanently displayed at the site and the applicant has circulated the details extensively. No positive interest was received from a restaurant/bar operator over the 5 year period. In 2010 they re-circulated the details to 297 local regional and national restaurant/bar operators and 76 leisure operators offering the property at a price of £325,000 or on a 10 year lease with a 5 year rent free period at a rent of £32,000 thereafter. In March 2010 the property was advertised in the Sheffield Star and Telegraph for 4 consecutive weeks and a meeting was held with Hallam University to persuade them to open a catering establishment.

The above sale and rental terms have been reviewed by the Council’s property experts and they have concluded that the terms being offered are competitive.

The applicant has argued that it is unlikely to prove attractive to a food and drink operator for the following reasons.

It is in an isolated position and the Exchange Street highway forms a barrier to movement between the site and the city centre.

There are no other significant leisure uses around the site and the site is not on a leisure circuit.

There is not sufficient footfall during the day and night to create the turnover needed for a restaurant/pub.

There is a lack of adjacent parking which means it is not attractive as a destination restaurant.

The above arguments were considered at the planning appeal.

The applicant has also stated that there has been a well published contraction in the pub/restaurant business. Statistics from the British Beer and Pub Association for 2010 show that in England 5,134 public houses/bars closed between 2007 and 2010.

In the immediate vicinity there are other ground floor food and drink opportunities that have remained vacant for some time. These include units in the base of the Castlegate multi-storey car park and also in the Hancock and Lant site by Lady’s Bridge.

Information has been received from a potential occupier that they offered the asking price for one of the three units for use as meeting/exhibition/gallery space for the Creative Industries. The applicant has advised that this offer was rejected because no planning consent existed for the use and because it is too complicated to sell off part of the ground floor on a long leasehold basis. It should be noted that this interest does not show evidence of demand for a food and drink use but a use which may have facilitated some limited public access to part of the building.

In conclusion, there is clear evidence that despite extensive marketing that there has been no interest or demand for the units from food and drink uses.

Progress with pedestrian improvements.

In the previous appeal the Planning Inspector considered whether it was reasonable to retain the use and resist a change of use to offices. At that time the reduction in traffic on Exchange Street and the strengthening of pedestrian links to the city centre were on course. He concluded that “it is probable that improvements will continue and the attractiveness of the Quays and canal will increase as a consequence. Whilst this process continues, I consider it is reasonable to retain those uses which would ultimately strengthen the vitality and viability of the area.”

Since the Inspector’s decision the Inner Relief Road has been completed and the volume of traffic on Exchange Street has been reduced considerably. This has reduced that barrier effect of the road to some extent. However there have been no further improvements in strengthening the links between the site and the City Centre. The carriageway remains and there are physical barriers to crossing the road. A feasibility study for downgrading the road and creating a new square linking the site with the City Centre was completed in 2008, but there is no funding for this scheme as yet. Whilst the provision of the pedestrian improvements remains a top priority, progress is linked with the relocation of the Castle Indoor Market and the progression of a scheme for that site. By the end of 2012 we could have an indication as to whether the Victoria Square scheme can be funded. This leaves significant uncertainty as to when and whether it will go ahead.

Benefits of the Proposal.

The applicant has argued that the continued vacancy of the buildings is detracting from the vitality of the area. They consider it would be better for the units to be occupied rather than left vacant whilst funding for the pedestrian improvements is secured. It should however be noted that there is also office accommodation which has been vacant for some time close to the site, that is within the Carillion scheme on Castlegate, the North Bank site on the corner of Blonk Street and the Wicker, and within Victoria Quays itself in Wharf House and Merchants Crescent. The applicant does not have an occupier for the site and clearly there is a risk that even if consent were granted for offices that it would continue to remain vacant.

Access Issues.

The total internal floorspace is approximately 700 sqm. There is no requirement for car parking to serve an office use in the city centre. The applicant has indicated that they have 6 existing spaces allocated to the site on the Exchange Street frontage opposite the Terminal Warehouse. There is also a multi-storey public car park to the rear of the railway arches on north quay that serves Victoria Quays and a new multi-storey car park with 200 public spaces opposite the site constructed as part of the Castlegate development. Parking provision is restricted within Victoria Quays and a barrier restricts access to the area around the building and north

95 quay. The Victoria Quays Management Company is responsible for controling the public realm areas around the building. The site is well served by public transport being close to high frequency bus services and the Supertram network. Given the above and the accessibility of the site it is considered that there is no reason for resisting the proposal on parking or access grounds.

There is a level threshold to all the offices and provided new doors to the west elevation are mobility compliant disabled people will be able to access the building. Disabled toilets are not shown on the submitted plans but this is an internal matter and the applicants will have to provide whatever is necessary under the building regulations.

Impact on Listed Building.

Unitary Development Plan Policy BE19 states that proposals for internal or external alterations will be expected to preserve the character and appearance of the building.

It was accepted at the previous appeal that the proposed change of use to offices could be accommodated without having a significant impact on the buildings special architectural and historic character.

The current scheme does not propose any significant demolitions or loss of original building fabric. It retains all the original hoppers within the Grain Warehouse and maintains a largely open plan layout that will allow the original warehouse character of the spaces to be revealed.

The position of the toilet facilities has been reconsidered since the comments were made by the Conservation Advisory Group. They have been relocated to allow the original openings between the Terminal and Grain warehouse to be exposed enabling better interpretation of the building. .

There is no detail of the design of the new partitions, toilet facilities, infilling of openings between the Terminal and Grain warehouse, pod facilities or how services will be accommodated in the building. There is also insufficient detail of the new doors to Exchange Street, or replacement doors to the north elevation and what exactly is proposed in terms of repairing or replacing existing window and door openings. However conditions can be attached to ensure that satisfactory details are submitted which is a principle established in the previous appeal.

It is therefore concluded that the proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the building. In fact it is likely that an office use will have less impact on the character of the building than would a food and drink use.

Flood Risk.

The application site lies within flood zone 2 which means that there is an annual probability of river flooding of between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000. There are no records of the site flooding, including the June 2007 event.

96 Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ states that change of use applications should not be subject to the sequential or exception tests.

The site is outside the 1 in 100 flood outline and is not considered to be at risk from of flooding from the canal, groundwater, pluvial or sewer flooding. The 1 in 100 year plus climate change water level for the River Don (46.85 AOD) is significantly lower than the floor level of the existing building (50.36 AOD). Therefore the building should not flood in a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. In order to mitigate against any residual risk of flooding flood resistant construction techniques should be incorporated into the design of the building and users of the site should register with the EA to receive flood warning information.

Given the above there is considered to be no justification for opposing this scheme on flooding grounds.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Given the prominence of the site and its position at the gateway to the Canal Basin it has a disproportionate impact on the apparent mix of uses with Victoria Quays. The historic core of Victoria Quays is still dominated by offices and the proposal would lead to the office uses dominating the character of the area detracting from its diversity and vitality. It is therefore concluded that the proposal remains contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies MU1 and MU11. This remains unchanged from the situation at the time of the previous application and the appeal. It is also the case that there is a strong preference for an active use on the ground floor of these buildings in order to provide an attractive and vibrant entrance to the Quays and ideally to facilitate public access to the historic buildings and inner dock.

97 necessarily secure immediate occupation of the building given the depressed economy, it will allow the applicant greater flexibility to market the site and increase the chances of securing an occupier.

An occupied building will contribute more to the vitality of Victoria Quays than a building that continues to remain vacant. Whilst it can be given no weight at the moment, it is also noted that under the emerging Sheffield Development Framework policies there would be no policy basis for resisting an office use. It is concluded that the above considerations outweigh the Unitary Development Plan policy objections and therefore it is recommended that planning permission is granted for the proposed change of use.

The physical works to accommodate office uses can be achieved without harming the special character of the listed buildings as was agreed at the previous appeal. Whilst further details are needed these can be controlled by condition. It is therefore considered that listed building consent should be granted.

Case Number 11/00149/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing bridge and erection of new bridge with bin storage areas and staircase leading down to courtyard

Location Bank Street Arts Ltd 32 - 40 Bank Street Sheffield S1 2DS

Date Received 17/01/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Mr John Clark

Recommendation Visit by Planning Highways Area Board

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Plans: Untitled elevation plan at Proposed Courtyard Plan received 24th February 2011.

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 Prior to the installation of the bridge hereby approved, further manufacturers details of the balustrades and the finish to the balustrades shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the details hereby approved and thereafter retained.

To ensure an appropriate quality of development within the curtilage of a Grade II Listed Building.

99 4 The construction of the bridge hereby approved shall only be carried out between 0800 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays

To protect the amenity of the adjoining residential occupier

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. The decision to grant permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the relevant policies and proposals form the Yorkshire and Humber Plan, the Sheffield Development Framework and the Unitary Development Plan set out below:

Policies IB7, BE5, BE16, BE17 and BE19 of the UDP, Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy and guidance within PPS5.

Overall it is considered that the development complies sufficiently with the relevant policies and proposals, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

100 Site Location

101 INTRODUCTION

Members may recall that this application was deferred from the previous Committee for a site visit. In addition, matters relating to the enforcement of planning conditions at this site are now reported as a separate Enforcement item on this agenda.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site relates to Bank Street Arts, which comprises the properties with the given address of 32-40 Bank Street; this actually comprises two rows of three terraced houses separated by two internal courtyards. The group to the north comprises 36-40 Bank Street, a terrace of three properties that form part of a large row of buildings extending from 18-44 Bank Street, all of which are Grade II Listed, and which lie within the City Centre Conservation Area. The rear terrace comprises Nos. 32, 34 and 40a Bank Street that fronts onto Scargill Croft and the Magistrates Court; the rear terrace is not listed.

The main internal courtyard is situated to the rear of 40 and 42 Bank Street (the neighbouring building) and 34 and 40A. This is presently an open courtyard with a modern bridge and timber deck access across the courtyard between the front and rear terrace. This access comprises a number of steps and changes in level to provide a link across at the ground level of the front range, which crosses to the first floor level of the rear range to the existing conservatory. The remainder of the courtyard is largely paved and lies at the lower ground level. Within this courtyard, to the rear of part of 34 and 40A Bank Street is a modern conservatory structure at ground and first floor level. The second smaller courtyard lies to the rear of 32 and 36 Bank Street and has been enclosed to create an atrium. Within the building and across the site there are a number of level changes such that it comprises accommodation at lower ground and ground floor level to both the front and rear buildings with the front buildings at 36-40 Bank Street encompassing further accommodation at first and second floor level.

Planning permission was granted in August 2008 for its change of use to a non- residential institution (Use Class D1) to include art gallery, non-residential education space, exhibition space with ancillary retail (Use Class A1), ancillary performance space (sui-generic), office and light industrial (Use Class B1) and a cafe (Use Class A3) to include the demolition of an existing conservatory and internal courtyard structures and other alterations. Prior to the operation of the Arts Centre, the premises were vacant but prior to that, they were in office use by a single occupier who constructed the conservatory, atrium and link bridge. Pedestrian access to the Arts Centre is solely from Bank Street.

The surrounding area is mixed in character. No.42 Bank Street, which is in residential use, immediately adjoins the site to the north and east and shares a pedestrian access between the two properties from Bank Street to the large internal courtyard with access for bin storage. The rear windows of No.42 directly overlook the courtyard. The property at 26-30 Bank Street is in use as student accommodation. Beyond No.42, the surrounding area is predominantly in commercial use.

102

This application proposes the demolition of the existing brick and timber bridge and staircase within the courtyard, for which consent was previously granted as part of the 2008 permission, and the construction of a new galvanized steel bridge. The existing bridge extends from the passageway between Nos.40 and 42 Bank Street and crosses the courtyard to the upper level of the conservatory affixed to the rear range of the Arts Centre via three steps. In addition, there are two staircases from this bridge into the existing courtyard. This courtyard proposal differs from that proposed within the original 2008 consent and it is for this reason that a new application is required.

The new bridge will also extend from the passageway between Nos.40 and 42 Bank Street; it will then step up by two steps to run straight across to the upper level of the conservatory. A single staircase is proposed into the courtyard extending in a north-westerly direction, away from the window of the adjoining property at No.42. This provides a connection to the lower level of the conservatory. This differs from the plans approved as part of the original 2008 permission, which proposed the removal of the conservatory located on the rear range of the building to create a larger courtyard space and the installation of a spiral steel staircase at the end of the pedestrian route between 40 and 42 Bank Street to provide access into the courtyard with a projecting balcony to the rear of No.42 to provide this property with a replacement bin store. This scheme subsequently proved unviable and this revised proposal reflects the retention of the conservatory and the need to construct a new bridge.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The relevant planning history is summarised below:

10/01690/FUL: Application for the lower ground floor cafe to allow the sale of hot food cooked by a toaster, sandwich toaster, microwave and jacket potato cooker (Application under Section 73 to alter condition number 13 (the premises shall serve only beverages and cold food)) as imposed by 08/02457/FUL. Approved: 04.03.2011

08/04647/FUL: Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary Conditions 4, 5 and 6 imposed by 08/02457/FUL to allow an extension of opening hours and to allow the playing of amplified sound at the application premises, which is to be used for Class D1 (non-residential institution) including art gallery, education space, exhibition space with ancillary (class A1) retail, ancillary performance space (sui-generic), Business (Class B1) (to include office and light industry appropriate in a residential area) and a Cafe (Class A3). Refused by the Planning Board: 29.10.2006. This application was subsequently allowed on appeal.

08/02457/FUL: Demolition of existing glass atrium and alterations and change of use of the premises to Classes D1 (non-residential institution) to include art gallery, non-residential education space, exhibition space with ancillary retail (Class A1), ancillary performance space (sui-generic), B1 Business (to include office and light

103 industry appropriate in a residential area) and Class A3 (Cafe for the sale of food and drink on the premises). Approved: 19.08.2008

08/02458/LBC: Description as above. Approved 19.08.2008

88/01179/FUL: 32-40 Bank Street Alterations and extension to offices Approved: 20.06.1988

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been advertised by means of neighbour notification. One letter of objection has been received from the adjoining residential occupier at 42 Bank Street, who raises the following objections:

(i) The applicant ignores conditions imposed by the City Council; (ii) The freehold property is owned by Mr John Clark (the applicant) and the legal status of the applicant is of concern. The property is let out to a company limited by guarantee, which trades as Bank Street Arts; (iii) This is a commercial operation rather than a community project; (iv) The objector is concerned at ‘claims made by the applicant that he (the applicant) is a multi-millionaire author and he will get his own way on the planning or words to that effect’. The objector clarifies that he is not suggesting that Council officers are corrupt; (v) The objector is also concerned that during an argument with the applicant as to the conduct of the centre in breach of planning, the applicant stated that ‘he could have a Wetherspoons operation there if he wanted’. The objector states that he has repeatedly asked the Council to impose conditions to make the Arts Centre personal to the applicant but the Council have not agreed and this is planning by creep; (vi) The premises should not be allowed to open as they have disregarded the condition precedent imposed by the Committee for the disabled. No steps have been taken to enforce the condition and the disabled of Sheffield suffer; (vii) The Arts Centre has a disregard to the amenity of the objector – parties have been held and alcohol has been served and people smoke and drink in the courtyard; (viii) The premises have been open for public events when the shouldn’t have been; (ix) An ‘A’ Board on the pavement advertised Caribbean food that they weren’t allowed to sell, which the objector acknowledges was stopped by the Council; (x) The objector has a legal right of way outside the rear of his house to the front and a right of way through the back of the applicant’s premises; this has been squalid for the last two and a half years; (xi) Dustbins are collected by a commercial company at 5.30am; (xii) Burglar alarms have been left to run for most of the night and the applicant could not be contacted;

104 (xiii) Excessive noise from time to time is a problem; (xiv) The existing plans are inaccurate; (xv) The courtyard should have been landscaped within three months of the original application; (xvi) Sounds and smells are a continuing concern; the development would create more noise as the structure is made of metal and also, as a result of removing a large quantity of earth, allegedly for disabled people; (xvii) The objector’s living room would be overlooked by the bridge; (xviii) The objector’s legal rights would be hindered but the objector accepts that this is a matter of litigation rather than a matter for the Committee.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

This application proposes the demolition of the existing brick and timber bridge and staircase within the courtyard of Bank Street Arts, for which consent was previously granted as part of the 2008 permission, and the construction of a new galvanized steel bridge. The key issues to consider in the determination of this application include the following:

(i) Principle of the development: Policy and Land Use; (ii) Impact on the Grade II Listed Building and City Centre Conservation Area; (iii) Amenity considerations.

The Council is also required to consider representations received as a result of the public consultation exercise.

Policy and Land Use

This application relates to landscaping works within the internal courtyard of the Bank Street Arts Centre. It does not propose to alter the use of the premises, which was established by planning permission 08/02457/FUL. As such, there is no need to reconsider the use of the premises as part of this application.

For reference, however, it is noted that the application site is designated as a Business Area within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy IB7 of the UDP determines that business (Use Class B1) is the preferred use with a range of other uses including food and drink (Use Class A3), small scale retail (Use Class A1) community facilities and institutions (Use Class D1), which include art galleries and exhibition halls, leisure and recreation (Use Class D2) also deemed acceptable. The use of the building as an Arts Centre with associated facilities is therefore consistent with the relevant UDP policy.

The application site also lies within the Cathedral Quarter as defined within the Council’s Urban Design Compendium. Within the adopted Core Strategy, Policy CS17 relates to the City Centre Quarters and advises that the distinctive and fundamental roles of different quarters of the City Centre will be consolidated and strengthened. With specific regard to the Cathedral Quarter, it states that the main professional, legal and financial district will be strengthened by a richer mix of uses to include residential, leisure and retail, with which the established use of the

105 premises as an Arts Centre is also deemed consistent as it adds to the mix of uses within the area.

Thus, whilst this application does not seek to change the use of the premises, which was established by the 2008 planning permission(s), it is relevant to acknowledge that such uses are still in accordance with current planning policy and are acceptable in principle.

Impact on the Grade II Listed frontage and the City Centre Conservation Area

Policy BE15 advises that buildings and areas of special architectural of historic interest will be preserved or enhanced and development that would harm their character of appearance will not be permitted. Policy BE19 requires that internal and external alterations and new buildings within the curtilage of Listed Buildings should preserve the building’s character, appearance and setting. Further guidance is provided within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Of most relevance, Policy HE7.1 of PPS5 advises that in decision- making local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal. Policy HE7.2 advises that in considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations. Policy HE9.1 of PPS5 confirms that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be.

In this case, the application seeks to replace an existing bridge that is constructed in brick and timber with a new galvanized steel bridge. The bridge will effectively be installed in the same position as the existing bridge, across the courtyard between the front and rear of the Arts Centre such that the principle of the bridge is broadly unchanged from the existing situation. In this respect, the proposal is not deemed to affect its character as a building of special architectural or historical interest and a separate Listed Building Consent application has not been sought.

However, it is determined that the use of galvanized steel and the means of supporting the bridge within the courtyard by vertical supports, provides a more simple design solution to the bridge construction and improves the aesthetic appearance of the courtyard and its relationship to the Listed front range. As a result, it is considered to enhance the setting of the Listed Building and will ensure that its character is retained for this and future generations. In respect of the City Centre Conservation Area, the bridge is proposed within an internal courtyard that is barely visible from the street such that it is not considered to have any impact upon the character of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies BE15 and BE17 of the UDP and guidance within PPS5.

Design and appearance of the proposed development

Policy BE5 of the UDP relates to building design and siting and advises that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new

106 developments. It seeks to achieve original architecture and a design on a human scale with varied materials that break down the overall mass of development. Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy, which relates to design principles, advises that high-quality development will be expected, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods.

In this case, the introduction of a simple metal bridge within the courtyard is considered to be of an appropriate quality to enable the courtyard to remain uncluttered, which will enhance the setting of the building, as set out above. It is considered to represent an aesthetic improvement on the appearance of the existing bridge, which is constructed in timber and bricks and in a poor state of repair. The proposed bridge is therefore considered to represent an acceptable design in accordance with Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy.

Impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupier

Policy IB10 of the UDP relates to conditions on development in Industry and Business Areas and advises that new development will be permitted provided that it would (b) not cause residents or visitors in any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

In this case, the primary consideration is the impact of the bridge on the amenity of the adjoining occupier at No.42 Bank Street. Clearly, this application seeks to replace an existing bridge with a structure that is more aesthetically pleasing. To this extent, the principle of a bridge link between the front and rear range has already been established and the applicant could clearly retain the existing link should the Arts Centre wish to do so.

It is accepted that this proposal does alter the form of the bridge; nevertheless, both the existing and proposed bridge connect from a landing adjacent to the alleyway between Nos.40 and 42 Bank Street to the upper level of the conservatory that is positioned to the rear of part of 34 and 40A Bank Street, over the courtyard. However, the existing bridge is level with the height of the alleyway and then steps up to the upper level of the conservatory at the entrance to the conservatory. In contrast, the proposed bridge steps up at the opposite end of the bridge at the alleyway entrance, adjacent to No.42 such that there is a landing area of 1 metre at the alleyway entrance; the bridge then steps up at this point by 0.4 metres and runs across at this level to the upper level of the conservatory. This revised approach is a consequence of the position of the stairway into the courtyard from the bridge, which has been relocated to the north-west, near to the Arts Centre’s conservatory and directed away from the residential property at No.42 Bank Street. As such, the steps on the bridge are located at the alleyway end of the bridge to enable the staircase down to the courtyard from the opposite end of the bridge.

It is accepted that the bridge is in close proximity to the rear bay window of No.42 Bank Street. However, the existing bridge is in the same proximity such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposed bridge on the grounds of its position

107 within the courtyard. Whilst accepting that the form of the proposed bridge is slightly altered from the existing bridge as it rises by 0.4 metres adjacent to the rear elevation of No.42 rather than adjacent to the conservatory, these steps are necessary to address the change in level between the front and rear ranges. Moreover, to provide the steps at the entrance to the bridge enables the staircase down to the courtyard to be positioned at the opposite end of the bridge, furthest from the window of No.42. It is also considered that the bridge is necessary to provide the connection between the front and rear ranges and is a walkway between the two, rather than attracting users to stand on the bridge and create any issue of overlooking of the adjacent property.

Overall, given that this application seeks to replace an existing bridge with a new, more aesthetically pleasing bridge, it is considered that it would not be feasible to substantiate a refusal of this application on the grounds of overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjoining occupier, particularly as the new bridge will result in the staircase access to the courtyard being positioned away from the rear window of No.42, which is considered to benefit their residential amenity. On balance it is therefore determined that an undue detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupier cannot be justified and the application is sufficiently in accordance with Policy IB10 of the UDP.

Accessibility

Policy BE7 of the UDP relates to the design of buildings used by the public and advises that in all such buildings, provision will be expected to allow people with disabilities safe and easy access to the building and to appropriate parking spaces.

In this case, the application site comprises a number of complex historic buildings that function over a number of different levels due to their character and original structure. As part of the previous approvals, the applicant has removed the existing stone step to the front entrance at No.36 Bank Street and introduced a level threshold created by the installation of an internal ramp. The approved plans also indicate the provision of a new platform lift within the atrium courtyard; to date, this has proved unviable for the applicant but the Arts Centre have restated their commitment to provided the lift in due course, which will secure access to the ground and lower ground levels within the front terrace and the lower ground at the rear and the courtyard. This matter is considered further in the separate enforcement report.

The proposed bridge will not alter the accessibility of the building as the accessible entrance will remain via No.36 Bank Street but it is considered that overall, applicant has sought to allow people with disabilities safe and easy access to the building as far as practicable, in accordance with Policy BE7.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

(i) The applicant ignores conditions imposed by the City Council: This is considered in the separate enforcement report.

108 (ii) The freehold property is owned by Mr John Clark (the applicant) and the legal status of the applicant is of concern: the property is let out to a company limited by guarantee, which trades as Bank Street Arts: This is not a planning issue; the applicant is Mr John Clark, who is the freeholder of the premises.

(iii) This is a commercial operation rather than a community project: This is not a planning issue.

(iv) The objector is concerned at ‘claims made by the applicant that h (the applicant) is a multi-millionaire author and he will get his own way on the planning or words to that effect’. The objector clarifies that he is not suggesting that Council officers are corrupt: This is not a planning issue relevant to the consideration of this application.

(v) The objector is also concerned that during an argument with the applicant as to the conduct of the centre in breach of planning, the applicant stated that ‘he could have a Wetherspoons operation there if he wanted’. The objector has repeatedly asked the Council to impose conditions to make the Arts Centre personal to the applicant but the Council have not agreed and this is planning by creep: A public house falls within Use Class A4 such that were the applicant seeking to change the premises from an Arts Centre that includes a café within Use Class A3, to a public house within Use Class A4, planning permission would be required such that the Arts Centre does not represent planning by creep.

(vi) The premises should not be allowed to open as they have disregarded the condition precedent imposed by the Committee for the disabled. No steps have been taken to enforce the condition and the disabled of Sheffield suffer: This issue is considered in the separate enforcement report.

(vii) The Arts Centre has a disregard to the amenity of the objector – parties have been held and alcohol has been served and people smoke and drink in the courtyard: The serving of alcohol is not a planning matter unless the premises are operating as a stand-alone bar. However, it is understood that het serving of alcohol is related to events/activities that take place at the Arts Centre and are therefore ancillary to its authorised use.

(viii) The premises have been open for public events when they shouldn’t have been: The objector has not advised the Planning Department of any specific breaches of the conditions so it is unclear how the premises have operated in breach of their consent. The Council will investigate any future breaches that it is made aware of.

(ix) An ‘A’ Board on the pavement advertised Caribbean food that they weren’t allowed to sell, which the objector acknowledges was stopped by the Council: It is the case that the applicant ceased to sell Caribbean food when advised that it was not within his consent. It is noted that the Arts Centre does now have permission to sell limited hot food, restricted to food that can

109 be heated by means of a toaster, sandwich toaster, microwave and jacket potato cooker.

(x) The objector has a legal right of way outside the rear of his house to the front and a right of way through the back of the applicant’s premises; this has been squalid for the last two and a half years: The status of a legal right of way is a private civil matter between the objector and the applicant.

(xi) Dustbins are collected by a commercial company at 5.30am: This is considered in the separate enforcement report.

(xii) Burglar alarms have been left to run for most of the night and the applicant could not be contacted: This is not a planning issue.

(xiii) Excessive noise from time to time is a problem: This is an issue that is not directly relevant to the consideration of this application but relates more appropriately to the lawful use of the site, which already benefits from consent to operate as an Arts Centre subject to a number of conditions relating to the hours of use etc. These conditions were imposed to provide a balance between enabling the site to operate as an Arts Centre and associated facilities, which is entirely in accordance with the area designation within the UDP and SDF Core Strategy, and protecting the amenity of the adjoining residents. The hours of use conditions attached to the original consent are considered to achieve that balance. The objector has not advised the Planning Service of any breaches of conditions. However, the Environmental Protection Service has advised that they have received 5 complaints from the premises as follows: 8th June 2010 - complaint regarding noise from music and people; 17th June 2010 - complaint of loud music, and complaints on the 15th June, 2010, 17th September 2010 and 19th October 200 regarding the burglar alarm. EPS advise that they made pro-active visits on 27th June 2010, 30th July 2010, 31st July 2010, 3rd August 2010 and 19th October 2010 but on each occasion, no noise or disturbance was witnessed and the premises were in darkness. EPS also advise that there have been two or three calls to the Council’s 101 service (out of hours noise team) but on each occasion, the out of hours team were either unable to visit or the complaint had stopped before they were able to visit. It is evident from the above that the Council has monitored the premises but there is no evidence that the Arts Centre is operating contrary to the approved conditions or causing a dis-amenity to the adjoining occupier. Clearly, any further complaints will be appropriately investigated.

(xiv) The existing plans are inaccurate: It is accepted that the existing plan illustrates the original form of the bridge, which has been modified by the applicant subsequently. However, the applicant already has consent to demolish the bridge in accordance with 08/02457/FUL such that in this instance, the applicant has not been requested to submit a revised existing plan. However, it is appropriate that the proposed plan is accurate and a condition is proposed requiring the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

110

(xv) The courtyard should have been landscaped within three months of the original application; this is considered in the separate enforcement report.

(xvi) Sounds and smells are a continuing concern. The development would create more noise as the structure would be metal and as a result of removing a large quantity of earth, allegedly for disabled people: The matter of sounds and smells is considered above. With reference to the removal of a large quantity of earth, it is advised that the previous 2008 approval granted consent for the return of the courtyard to its original lower ground level with new landscaping, stone flags and external café seating. This application replicates that aspiration to provide a level courtyard that will be accessible to disabled visitors, once the platform lift is installed within the building. Whilst there may be some noise associated with the works, this will be temporary and a condition is recommended to limit the construction works to daytime hours is proposed.

(xvii) The objector’s living room would be overlooked by the bridge: This is addressed in the report above.

(xviii) The objector’s legal rights would be hindered but the objector accepts that this is a matter of litigation rather than a matter for the Committee: As acknowledged, this is not a planning issue.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application site relates to Bank Street Arts, which comprises the properties with the given address of 32-40 Bank Street. This application proposes the demolition of the existing brick and timber bridge and staircase within the courtyard of Bank Street Arts, for which consent was previously granted as part of the 2008 permission, and the construction of a new galvanized steel bridge.

The introduction of a simple metal bridge within the courtyard is considered to be of an appropriate quality to enable the courtyard to remain uncluttered, which will enhance the setting of the building, as set out above. It is deemed to represent an aesthetic improvement on the appearance of the existing bridge, which is constructed in timber and bricks and in a poor state of repair such that, overall, the proposed bridge is of an acceptable design in accordance with Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy.

With regard to the impact on the Grade II Listed Arts Centre Building and the City Centre Conservation Area, the proposal is not deemed to affect the special architectural character or historical interest of the building and a separate Listed Building Consent application has not been sought. The use of galvanized steel and the means of supporting the bridge within the courtyard by vertical supports provide a more simple design solution to the bridge construction and improve the aesthetic appearance of the courtyard and its relationship to the Listed front range. As a result, it is considered to enhance the setting of the Listed Building and will ensure that its character is retained for this and future generations. In respect of the City Centre Conservation Area, the bridge is proposed within an internal

111 courtyard that is barely visible from the street such that it is not considered to have any impact upon the character of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies BE15 and BE17 of the UDP and guidance within PPS5.

A primary consideration of this application is the impact of the bridge on the amenity of the adjoining residential occupier at No.42 Bank Street. Overall, given that this application seeks to replace an existing bridge with a new, more aesthetically pleasing bridge, it is considered that it would not be feasible to substantiate a refusal of this application on the grounds of overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjoining occupier, particularly as the new bridge will result in the staircase access to the courtyard being positioned away from the rear window of No.42, which is considered to benefit their residential amenity. The proposal is therefore sufficiently in accordance with Policy IB10(b) of the UDP.

It is also advised that the proposed bridge will not alter the accessibility of the building as the accessible entrance will remain via No.36 Bank Street but it is considered that overall, applicant has sought to allow people with disabilities safe and easy access to the building as far as practicable, in accordance with Policy BE7.

On the basis of the above, the proposed construction of a bridge within the courtyard of Bank Street Arts is considered to sufficiently comply with relevant planning policy and is recommended for approval.

112

Case Number 09/00365/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Alterations to car showroom for use as additional bays to repair garage/MOT testing centre and erection of 1.8m high boundary walls and external lighting (retrospective application) (Amended plans received 07/08/2009)

Location 1-7 Meersbrook Road Sheffield S8 9HU

Date Received 05/02/2009

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent PRC Survey & Design

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawings dated 7 August 2009

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

2 Within 2 months of the date of this permission, the improvements (which expression shall include traffic control, pedestrian and cycle safety measures) to the highways listed below shall have either;

a) Been carried out within a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority; or b) Details shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure that such improvement works will be carried out.

Highway Improvements.

Traffic Regulation Order to Northcote Avenue

113 To enable the above-mentioned highways to accommodate the increase in traffic, which, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, will be generated by the development.

3 The glazed sectional doors shown on approved drawing number PRC 0807/7.4 shall be implemented within three months of the date of this permission.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 The garage shall not be used on any Sunday or any Public Holiday and shall be used only between 0800 hours and 1800 hours on any other day.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS74 - Design Principles

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at

114 www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

115 Site Location

116 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Meersbrook garage is a single and two storey building with flat roofs located at the junction of Northcote Avenue, Meersbrook Road and Albert Road, Heeley. All surrounding uses are residential and at the rear, to the north, the Meers Brook flows through a culvert. At the front side, to the west and rear there are parking areas.

This is a retrospective planning application for alterations to the car showroom to form additional bays to the car repair garage and MOT testing centre, erection of 1.8 metre high boundary walls and external lighting.

Four additional repair bays have been created which means that the total number of bays is six, all at the ground floor level, facing Meersbrook Road. The development includes three offices, a store and toilet, and a mezzanine floor has been removed to allow adequate height for a repair bay and ramp.

New Upvc windows have been provided and the exterior of the garage has been pebble-dashed. There are shutter boxes to the repair bays inserted flush with the wall and the windows on the Northcote Avenue elevation have matching shutters fitted.

Forecourt lighting has been introduced so that it shines into the site, to avoid light pollution affecting residents.

The level access into the site has also been retained. New pillars, boundary walls and wrought iron railings have also been provided.

PLANNING HISTORY

06/04355/FUL - Demolition of garage and erection of 15 apartments refused on 20 March 2007

07/03024/FUL - Demolition of garage and erection of 12 Apartments refused on 21 December 2007

REPRESENTATIONS

Fourteen letters of objection have been received from local residents, the objections being:

The development is a substantial intensification of the use from a garage with two bays and a showroom to six repair bays, more staff and more noise and disturbance.

This is not appropriate in a residential area because of the noise and disturbance from hammering, pneumatic tools, car movements, pollution, fumes and light pollution.

117 The cul-de-sac at the end of Northcote Avenue next to the garage is used as a car park for the garage and it is difficult to access the drive of 1A Northcote Avenue because of fly parking on grass verges.

Meersbrook Road is already at capacity because of resident’s car parking and this scheme will increase car parking pressure.

School children will be endangered because of extra traffic and cars mounting the pavement.

Traffic control measures should be introduced to restrict parking of cars associated with the garage.

Exceptionally bright lights are being used in the repair bays and the shutters are wide open when the garage is open. This is distracting to passers by either on foot or driving.

The shutters in front of the bays give the building an unsightly, industrial look.

Security lighting should be controlled and not left on all the time.

The scale and context is totally out of context of the location in a residential area.

There should be restrictions on operating hours, restricting use in evenings, weekends and Bank Holidays.

This use is more suited to an industrial estate, not a housing area.

Councillor Frank Taylor and former Councillor Denise Reaney have both objected to the application, supporting the comments of local residents and they have also said that the development was in progress prior to any planning consent being granted.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) shows that the site lies within a housing policy area. Policy H10 of the UDP deals with development in housing areas and this says that housing is the preferred use.

The use of the site as a car repair garage and MOT Station falls into General Industry (B2) classification and this use is listed as being unacceptable in a housing area. In this instance, the garage has been in use at this site for a considerable period of time and the issue is whether or not the development, which is in place, has intensified and increased the use to such a level that it has become unacceptable because of the detrimental impact on the locality and on the amenities of neighbours.

118 Design, External Appearance and Layout

Policy H14 of the UDP requires new development to be well designed and in keeping with the scale and character of locality.

Policy CS74 of the adopted Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy deals with Design Principles which says that development should contribute to the creation of attractive and sustainable neighbourhoods.

Prior to the development at the garage being carried out, Meersbrook Garage was in a rather dilapidated state. The exterior was unsightly and neglected with a lot of timber cladding that was in poor condition. The eastern side of the building is two storeys high with a basement at the rear. At the front were two bays with wooden doors and on the western side were three large windows and a single entrance door. At the rear were further windows and double doors allowing access into the basement.

At this time, there were two workshops and an MOT bay with ancillary offices with the body shop and paint spray area at basement level. Parking was on three sides in an unmarked parking area and a dilapidated boundary wall ran along the front boundary.

There have been no extensions to the building but the exterior has changed. The building now has a render finish and on the front elevation there are five bays, four serving workshops and one the MOT station. The internal layout has remained the same with the two workshop areas and MOT bay with the basement used for vehicle storage.

The original scheme showed five plain roller shutter doors serving the five bays and this option has been put in place. This is not considered to be acceptable because it has an austere, industrial feel. They have been painted a bright, blue colour but this does not resolve the issue.

An alternative scheme has been submitted, which shows the three most recent bays having glazed, sectional doors and this would improve the appearance, making the building less industrial in character. This is considered to be an acceptable treatment and the timing of inserting the new doors would be controlled by a condition.

All windows have been replaced with white Upvc frames and a new boundary wall has been constructed incorporated metal railings along the top.

The external appearance has improved and the garage has a more modern, brighter appearance that meets policy criteria.

Sustainability

Policies CS64 and CS65 of the Core Strategy deal with sustainable design and carbon reduction. There are no new extensions and the fabric of the

119 original buildings has not changed apart from the new bays being inserted. New Upvc windows have been provided to improve thermal capacity and limit noise outbreak. This contribution to sustainability is considered to be acceptable.

Parking, Access and Transport

Policy H14 of the UDP says that there should be safe access to the highways and adequate off-street car parking. The increase in car parking and vehicle activity is a matter of concern to local residents.

The plans show two access points for the main garage area. There is an entrance in Meersbrook Road and an exit onto Northcote Avenue. The one-way system is a good solution that avoids internal vehicle conflict. Northcote Avenue, where it is next to the garage is a short cul-de-sac, so there is no conflict between vehicles leaving the garage and through traffic. At the rear, there is a further access leading to the lower parking area and basement level.

The access arrangements are acceptable; having good visibility so there is no danger to other road users.

The parking standards for this development are two to three spaces per service bay with one space per three staff. There are six bays with six staff, so this equates to a minimum of eighteen off site spaces to be provided including the four spaces shown in the basement. Nineteen can be provided within the site, which complies with guidelines. However, it is the case that cars associated with the garage do park on the Northcote Avenue cul-de-sac and along both sides of Meersbrook Road in the vicinity of the garage.

Parking along Meersbrook Road does not disrupt the free flow of traffic in either direction, but the parking on Northcote Avenue cul-de-sac does cause problems. Cars are parked along both sides of this cul-de-sac which causes disruption at the exit point from the garages, but also blocks the access for the residents at 1A Northcote Avenue. So that this might be resolved, the applicant has agreed to fund a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that would restrict parking, thus allowing free access to 1A Northcote Avenue and an easy exit from the garage. Displaced cars would be absorbed by available on street parking in the area.

There are good public transport links and there is a bus stop very close to the garage.

It is considered that parking and access arrangements are acceptable and the TRO on Northcote Avenue, which would be controlled by a condition, would resolve parking and access problems there.

Potential for Increasing Noise and Disturbance

Policy H14 of the UDP says that there should be no noise or disturbance that would harm the amenities of residents.

120 It is important to note that this application is not for a new garage at this location. There has been a car repair garage at this site for a considerable period of time with the same floor space and workshop areas. This retrospective application is to alter the appearance, including the creation of new openings at the front to allow better access to repair bays. This has allowed an increase in the number of service bays and the issue is whether or not the intensification of the use would increase any noise and disturbance to unacceptable levels.

This matter is one of concern to local residents who say that there is noise from the garage and the disturbance is unacceptable.

The applicant has stated in the application form that the hours of operation would be 08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday with no opening on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

It is acknowledged that there may be some additional noise associated with the intensification of the use at Meersbrook Garage. However, the site has a long standing authorised use for car repairs at the site, with the earliest Council records dating back to 1977. Your officers can find no record of control established over operating hours and, prior to the submission of this application, there was no control over when the garage was in use, but operating hours would be limited to weekdays only with no use at weekends or bank holidays.

It is considered that there would be no significant harm to local residents due to noise and disturbance and given that the intensification the hours of operation would be controlled by a condition.

Flood Risk

Policy CS67 of the adopted Development Framework Core Strategy seeks to manage the extent and impact of flooding. The site lies very close to the Meers Brook, which flows past the rear of the site. The garage lies within Flood Zone 3 where there is a 1 in 100 year’s probability of flooding. However, the brook is culverted near the site and is two metres below the site level. There is no record of flooding at this site and it is the basement and rear car park which would be most vulnerable in the event of a flood. This lower area is only used for parking and storage and the more vulnerable area is metres higher and would not be affected. The use is existing and although being intensified is not a more vulnerable use, such as housing.

The alterations have not affected site drainage.

The provisions of Policy CS67 are satisfied.

External Lighting

The issue of external lighting and of lights shining into nearby houses has been raised by residents. This has been resolved by way of replacing the lighting with a low level lighting system that is activated by a sensor. This is a significant

121 improvement and is considered to be acceptable. The retention of the low level lighting would be controlled by a condition.

Disabled Access

The entrance arrangements and internal circulation areas have not altered in terms of disabled access and the building meets current regulations in this respect.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The majority of issues raised in representations have been discussed earlier in this report, particularly those dealing with parking, noise and lighting. However, a number of comments are still required.

With respect to whether or not the use is appropriate in a residential area, the use has been established for a considerable period of time and the issue is whether or not the alterations and intensification are acceptable, which has been addressed in this report.

Traffic control measures would be introduced to control parking on Northcote Avenue.

The development would not significantly affect the safety of school children.

The loss of the grassed area at the front is not significant as it was a very small area. It would not increase the risk of flooding.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a retrospective planning application to alter Meersbrook Garage to create more service bays for customers. The development involves adding an extra three openings to serve bays in the single storey part of the building, new windows, a new pebble-dashed exterior, a new wall, a more formal and organised parking layout and more control over the street parking close to the site.

The new openings have been fitted out with metal roller shutter doors and all five have been pointed with a uniform blue. Three of these will be replaced by glazed doors which would improve the exterior.

The current parking problems at Northcote Avenue would be resolved by the introduction of a traffic regulation order controlling parking.

The hours of operation would be limited to weekdays only and it is considered that the use would not harm the amenities of local residents.

The retrospective application complies with the policy criteria set out in this report and is acceptable. The proposal is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

122