CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP

Meeting held 23 rd June , 2009

Name Organisation

PRESENT: Dr. Philip Booth (Chair) University of Sheffield Mr. Tim Hale (Deputy Chair) Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Industry Dr. Roger Harper Ancient Monuments Society Professor Clyde Binfield 20th Century Society Mr. Albert Kirton South Yorkshire Industrial History Society Mr. Howard Greaves Hallamshire Historic Buildings Society Dr. Alan Watson Institute of Civil Engineers Mr. Rod Flint Georgian Society Mr. Bob Marshall Royal Town Planning Institute

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Mrs. Joan Sewell (Landscape Institute) and Mr. Bob Hawkins (Council for the Protection of Rural England).

2. SHEFFIELD URBAN DESIGN REVIEW PANEL The Chair (Dr. Philip Booth) stated that there was nothing to report regarding the Sheffield Urban Design Review Panel.

3. CHAIR’S REPORT The Chair (Dr. Philip Booth) reported that (a) Miss Ruth Harman had been appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire for her voluntary service to heritage conservation in Sheffield and (b) an article regarding English Heritage’s Report on Buildings At Risk had been published in a recent edition of the Sheffield Star newspaper and an article on the same topic had been published in the Independent newspaper. The Head of Planning stated that (i) the conservation areas most at risk within the City were (A) the Endcliffe Conservation Area, where the substantial grounds or gardens of large properties were under threat of development, (B) the Hackenthorpe Conservation Area, where planning approvals had been granted, on appeal, for development which could have a damaging effect on the conservation area and had led to a reduction in the boundary of the conservation area, (C) the Well Meadow Conservation Area, where metal trades buildings were at risk and (D) the General Cemetery Conservation Area, where the Chapels and various monuments were at risk; (ii) the reduction of the Hackenthorpe Conservation Area had already been considered following the decline of the Shopping Centre and the installation of UPVC windows within the area; (iii) principal listed buildings at risk were Arches and Manor Lodge and Oakes Park where repair works were being carried out gradually on one building; and Meeting of the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group 23.6.2009 Page 2

(iv) the Wicker Arches were the responsibility of Network Rail. Graffiti had been removed from the structure but there had been other difficulties, regarding vandalism at the site. The Group noted the information and, arising therefrom, the Group extended its warmest congratulations to Miss Ruth Harman on her receipt of an M.B.E. Award in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2009.

4. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 21st April, 2009 were approved as a correct record subject to the substitution in the attendance, of the words “Mr. Tim Hale” for the words “Dr. Tim Hale” and in item 7 (Nether Edge), of the words “did not preserve or enhance the conservation area” for the words “did not add anything to the conservation area” and, arising therefrom, the Group noted that:- (a) (i) the Chair (Dr. Philip Booth) had attended the Yorkshire and Humber Historic Environment Forum’s Workshop at York on 23rd April and had met Alison Long, the Chair of the York Conservation Advisory Group who had informed him that there was no other conservation advisory group within the North Yorkshire area, (ii) the Government’s policy was that planning applications should be considered through a process involving advisory groups, similar to this one; (iii) in the opinion of the Chair, a network of any such groups would be useful and this Group should be more forceful locally, for example, through having its own web page on the City Council’s website, to identify its remit and role; (iv) there were similar groups in Leeds and Ripon which did not refer to themselves as advisory groups; and (v) in Doncaster, the Council was advised by the Civic Trust, which, in the opinion of Professor Binfield would be a useful means of sidelining the impact of a conservation advisory group; (b) a letter from Dr. Booth had been published in the Sheffield Telegraph on 29th May, 2009 relating to the listing of the Sheffield Co-operative Department Store, Castle House, Angel Street; (c) Dr. Booth and Dr. Harper had examined housing on Dorset Street and Gloucester Street for the possible submission of a listing application as it was a prime example of the five module (steel and timber) system of construction which the City Council had volunteered to erect, working in conjunction with the relevant Government Department at the time. The buildings were generally intact and were a good example of a post war development of civic housing. Even if the buildings were not listed they were potentially suitable for local listing. The possibility should be examined of extending the Hanover Conservation Area to include those properties. Dr. Booth would write to English Heritage to request that the buildings be listed; (d) new signs had been erected at the Norfolk Arms Public House, Ringinglow. The Head of Planning was continuing a dialogue with the owners of the property; (e) the Head of Planning would submit a report to the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board’s meeting to be held on 29th June, 2009 seeking authority to serve an urgent works notice regarding the Gleadless Valley Methodist Church and possibly a repairs notice in respect of the property, which the City Council might be able to purchase; (f) it was anticipated that a planning application would be submitted shortly regarding development at Morton Works; (g) the Head of Planning was in dialogue with the Architect of the Heeley Meeting of the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group 23.6.2009 Page 3

Development Trust regarding the Anns Grove School, Heeley. If a planning application was submitted regarding the building, it would be referred to the Group for consideration. It would not be advisable to include Heeley Bank School within any such consideration as its internal features had been removed; (h) an appeal had been lodged against the listing of the Sheffield Co-operative Department Store, Castle House and no decision had yet been received; (i) planning permission had been refused for development of the Crookes Vestry Hall; (j) a structural survey would be carried out of Morton Works as part of the above planning application; (k) the materials to be used for the purpose of the Highways PFI scheme in conservation areas, had been identified in the conservation area appraisals and the PFI contractor would be notified of the details. Within the Endcliffe Vale Road Highways Scheme, a financial contribution must be made by the developer to the cost of upgrading the roads; (l) work on the paving at the Forecourt was at an early stage in terms of surfacing and if a planning application was submitted regarding the works, it would be referred to the Group for consideration; (m) the owner’s intentions regarding the Henry Matthews Saw Mill were unclear and, in terms of the City Council monitoring its condition, there were a number of priorities to be considered; (n) the recent development at the former Tramsheds, Albert Road had used bricks which were a reasonable reproduction of the original ones, in form if not in colour; and (o) the City Council was supportive of the proposed listing of Cow Mouth Farm, Hemsworth Road.

5. REPORT OF HEAD OF PLANNING The Head of Planning reported that:- (a) the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) organisation had requested English Heritage to consider listing the Stumble Inn Public House, Attercliffe by a letter dated 20th June, 2009. Over the following weekend the property had been gutted internally. There was presently no protection for a property, if it was subject to spot listing. If a building preservation notice was served in relation to a building and it was not listed the owner would have a right to claim compensation from the City Council. The Heritage Protection Bill, containing a provision providing for the temporary protection of such buildings had fallen during the last Parliamentary session. It was possible that the New Inn Public House could be damaged in similar fashion. It was locally listed but that provided no protection unless statutory protection was provided as would have been the case with the Heritage Bill; (b) public consultations would begin in the near future regarding the proposed car park provision at the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals; (c) the Titanic Works would be the subject of a publication to be paid for by the developer which would refer to the works and other properties which were part of the metal trades industry; (d) the Middlewood Hospital Church and the Crookes Valley Methodist Church had the highest priority in terms of building preservation. The owners would be offered a 56 day period in which to enter into an agreement which would form a planning obligation to maintain them. If that did not take place the City Council Meeting of the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group 23.6.2009 Page 4

would issue urgent works notices to ensure that the buildings and their grounds would be safe, secure and weather tight. The Group noted the information.

6. BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST The Group considered the following applications for planning permission for development affecting buildings of special architectural or historic interest and made the observations stated:- (a) demolition of single -storey flat roof rear extension, erection of two - storey rear extension to Sixth Form Centre, internal and external alterations to building and associated external works (resubmission of application No. 08/05675/LBC) at Sheffield High School for Girls, Sixth Form Centre, 1 Melbourne Avenue (Case Nos. 09/01290/FUL and 09/01308/LBC) The Group welcomed the improved scheme, but it felt that the timber clad panels on the elevation facing Glossop Road were a clear weakness of the design, which the Group felt should pick up the string course in the listed building. The Group felt that the submitted elevations should not be approved and revised elevations, to reflect the Group’s views, should be submitted to the Planning Authority. The Group expressed its disappointment that consideration had not been given, at an earlier time, to the matter of disabled access to the building. None of the four options presented, for disabled access, was wholly satisfactory but the Group felt that the proposed ramp would form the lowest level of intervention and could be acceptable, provided that it was straight, a formal architectural feature, in scale with and sympathetic to the listed building and it provided access from the side, rather than from the front, of the building. (b) siting of giant observation wheel, for a period to end of January, 2010 at pedestrian area, Fargate (Case No. 09/01571/FUL). The Group felt that the proposal was acceptable, in principle, subject to consideration being given to the impact of the erection of the structure on the surface and sub-surface of Fargate and, if there was a proposal to extend the planning permission, it would be resubmitted to the Group. The Group considered that a longer term siting of the structure should be outside the City Centre, on a suitable site, such as the area between Park Hill Flats and the Railway Station. (c) alterations and extension inclu ding construction of one additional floor to existing building and the erection of a new wing on the north west elevation, with use of basement and ground floor for business (Use B1), financial and professional services (Use Class A2) and restaurant and café (Use Class A3) and conversion of upper floor to form apartments and provision of car parking spaces at the Nicholls Building Shalesmoor (Case NO. 09/01911/FUL). The Group affirmed its decision of 23rd September, 2008 and added that it felt the scheme was still overdevelopment of the site especially at the rear and the proposed blank wall would have a damaging impact on the adjoining site. The Group considered there was a risk that signage could adversely affect the frontage of the development. (d) Single -storey extension to the north wing at Onesacre Hall, Green Lane, Oughtibridge, (Case Nos. 09/01831/LBC & 09/01834/FUL) The Group felt that the proposed development would damage the character of a Grade II* listed building when a building of this quality merited the highest standard of architectural treatment. The Group considered that the application Meeting of the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group 23.6.2009 Page 5

lacked sufficient information, the drawings were inadequate and the submitted site plan was unsatisfactory. The Group also noted that the advice of Council officers regarding the development had been disregarded by the developer.

7. MISCELLANOUS ITEMS Members of the Group reported on development affecting conservation areas and listed buildings and the Group noted that:- (a) the Head of Planning would investigate and report back on (i) the possibility of the former Ritz Cinema, Southey Green being considered for local listing and whether it had been considered for development within the Housing Market Renewal Programme, (ii) whether the former Essoldo Cinema, Lane Top could be considered for local listing and (iii) the position regarding the wall of the General Cemetery, Cemetery Road; (b) the National Civic Trust had been wound up. Some of its work, including Heritage Open Days had been taken over by English Heritage but other aspects, such as the Design Awards had not, as yet, been taken up by other organisations; (c) the former Victorian factory at Norton Hammer had been demolished; (d) the Head of Planning would investigate the position regarding three buildings at Bradfield, the condition of which were deteriorating badly and, if the site fell within the jurisdiction of the Peak Park Planning Authority he would forward the details to the Authority; (e) if the roof of a listed building was failing it was possible for the City Council to issue a building repairs notice to require the owner to repair it; and (f) the Head of Planning was unaware of the condition of Bennett Grange. If like to like replacement of features was carried out at a listed building, it could be done without planning permission or listed building consent being required, but such development should be reported to the City Council.