SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL Development, Environment and Leisure Directorate

REPORT TO NORTH AND WEST PLANNING AND DATE 16/06/2009 HIGHWAYS AREA BOARD

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 John Williamson TEL 0114 2734944 ACCESS NO:

AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT

OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

09/01269/OUT 38 Ranmoor Cliffe Road 5 Sheffield S10 3HB

09/01188/FUL 6 Den Bank Drive 18 Sheffield S10 5PE

09/01062/FUL 5 Riverdale Drive 24 Sheffield S10 3FY

09/00762/CHU 124 & 126 Halifax Road 34 Wadsley Bridge Sheffield S6 1LH

08/04967/FUL Site Of Maples Garden Centre 38 Hollin Busk Lane Sheffield S36 1QP

08/02703/FUL Land And Buildings Including Corus And 53 Outokumpu Works, Ford Cottage 23 Ford Lane, 452-462 Manchester Road, Town Hall Manchester Road, Town Hall House Manchester Road And 1 Hunshelf Road Hunshelf Road Stocksbridge Sheffield

3 4 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning, Transport And Highways, Development, Environment And Leisure To The NORTH & WEST Planning And Highways Area Board Date Of Meeting: 16/06/2009

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 Area Board 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 09/01269/OUT

Application Type Outline Planning Application

Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse (Re-submission 08/05576/OUT)

Location 38 Ranmoor Cliffe Road Sheffield S10 3HB

Date Received 23/04/2009

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Mr Steve Coupland

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall not be commenced unless and until full particulars and plans thereof shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and planning approval in respect thereof including details of Appearance, Layout and Landscaping (matters reserved by this permission) shall have been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Until full particulars and plans of the development (including details of the matters hereby reserved) are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority they cannot agree to the development proceeding.

2 Application for approval in respect of any matter reserved by this permission must be made 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.

3 The development shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

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

4 Before the development is commenced, full details of suitable and sufficient car parking accommodation within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the dwelling shall not be used unless such car parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

5 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Any removal that is agreed shall be carried out outside the bird breeding season at a time submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority by the Local Planning.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in the interests of ecological protection.

6 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs, hedges to be retained, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority These measures shall include a construction methodology statement and plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 (its replacement) and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way The local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

7 The existing boundary wall fronting Ranmoor Cliffe Road shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 8 Before work on site is commenced, details of a suitable means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the dwelling shall not be used unless such means of site enclosure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such means of site enclosure shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. The decision to grant planning permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and adopted Core Strategy set out below:

H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas GE11 - Nature Conservation and Development GE15 - Trees and Woodland

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

7 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The applicant is seeking outline consent for a single dwelling in the front garden of No 38 Ranmoor Road. The applicant is seeking consent for access and scale with all other matters reserved.

The existing property on site is well set back from the highway and has garden area to the front and rear. The neighbouring properties are set forward and acknowledge the street scene. The garden of the application site is set approximately 2 metres higher than the highway and is landscaped to the front. Mature trees exist in the highway to the front of the site.

The existing site is accessed via a single access point on the left hand side of the site frontage. The site is located in the Ranmoor Conservation Area.

8 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Two previous applications have been considered for the enlargement of the existing house which are detailed below;

03/01979/FULTwo-storey side extension to dwellinghouse, alterations to roof and erection of detached double garage was refused 21.01.2004

04/00616/FULAlterations and extensions to dwellinghouse and erection of detached double garage and store within the site was granted 19.04.2004

Full or Outline consents have been granted on this site in 1988, 1993,1998,2002 and 2005 for a single dwelling house. Last year an application 08/05576/OUT for the erection of dwellinghouse was withdrawn on 29.12.2008

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

32 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns;

Comment is made about the merits previous extension to the existing dwelling and planning history with regards to outline permissions. Comment is made that the previous outline consents were granted when the original dwelling was smaller, and the nature of the site has changed so that the site is developed to an extent that any further development would compromise the spirit of the conservation area and result in overdevelopment.

Comment is made that the houses are evenly spaced with one house per plot (in larger plots) and the architectural and historic quality, character and coherence of the properties are specific feature of the Conservation Area

The development would result in two large houses with small gardens on the same plot which would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Concern is raised regarding loss of green space and vegetation / trees which has a high amenity value and is a fundamental characteristic of the area, contrary to policy BE16( Development in Conservation Areas) and the visual appearance of the road. Concern is raised regarding the incremental erosion of these green spaces

Comment is made that the scheme is contrary to Policy H14 ( C ) as it represents a loss of amenity in terms of loss of privacy and light to neighbouring properties.

The scheme is overdevelopment and would harm the amenity of the area.

Concern is raised as the site is directly opposite the Ranmoor Cliffe Rookery, one of the largest rookeries in Sheffield and a natural History landmark. Reference is made to policies BE6, GE11 and GE13

Concern is raised regarding highway safety for pedestrians, vehicles and school children. The intensification of the use of this access would compromise safety,

9 particularly as it is concealed and due to the narrow footpaths in the area. ( reference is made to policy BE9)

Concern is raised that vehicles will reverse onto the drive

Any widening of the access would lead to the removal of stone walls

Comments is made that there is insufficient off street parking

Comment is made that the application should be considered as a new application rather than a renewal

Comment is raised regarding the description of the development

Concern is raised that such an approval would set a precedent

Commentary is raised regarding the motives of the applicant and that the scheme should not be considered as it is to protect investment for financial gain.

Comment is made that the plans do not reflect the extensions that exist on the existing dwelling and immediate context

Concern is raised regarding the detrimental impact on wildlife

Reference is made to the previous applications granted in 2002 and 2005, in that it should not have been granted and was contrary to advice provided by Urban design. The previous assessment process is challenged

Comment is made on the letter sent to local residents by the applicant

The scheme is contrary to the aims of PPG15

Both the existing and proposed houses would be visible to many properties on Ranmoor Cliffe Road and Whitworth Road and would adversely affect their outlook and amenity

The design is unsympathetic to neighbouring properties and would ruin the well balanced landscape of the road and general streetscene

Given the scale and character of the building it would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area

Request is made that the Conservation Officer visits the site to verify that the scheme is not in keeping with the surrounding properties and aims of the conservation policies

Comment is raised that the scheme is contrary to Policy H2

The development should not be permitted given that there is outline consent for a more appropriately scaled building on site

The revised plans do not address any of the issues previously raised

Concern is raised that any construction on this front plot would have a negative impact on the privacy and light to No 40 and No 36. It would overlook the rear of No 40 and reduce light at the side. This could apply more to No 20. The scheme would be contrary to Policy H14 C

Objection is raised regarding loss of amenity arising from loss of light (particularly through the side windows) privacy, outlook and noise to No 22. The scheme would eliminate remaining sunlight to the house and garden.

Comment is made than no other house has a basement garage

The building should be constructed of natural stone, even if this is done query is raised as to whether this would enhance the appearance of the road

Commentary is raised regarding separate works that have taken place in the rookery

General objection is raised to the change and erosion of the historic character of the area the addition of traffic and drainage issues.

Comment is made that only detailed applications should be granted to ensure that appropriate materials are used . Particular reference is made to previous actions on the site

The application forms detail no trees and hedges are to be removed this is false. Concern is raised regarding the resulting impact of this and reference is made to BE16 and GE15

Call is made for the reserved matters to be clarified

Comment is made that the scheme fails to comply with policy H15

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

The application site is located within a Housing Area. Policy H10 details housing development as being the preferred type of development in such a location subject to compliance with other relevant policy.

Policy H14 is applicable and seeks well designed development. That does not result in overdevelopment or deprive residents of light, privacy or security. This policy also seeks to ensure that there is provision of safe access to the highway network and appropriate off street parking.

Policy BE16 is concerned with development in Conservation Areas. The scheme states that permission will only be given for proposals which contain sufficient

11 information to enable the scheme to be assessed, and would preserve or enhance the conservation area. Policy BE15 also proposes similar aims. These two policies promote the aims of PPG15.

Since the previous applications have been granted then the ability to renew planning permissions has ceased and all new applications are assessed afresh. Policy H10 details housing development as being acceptable in this area and previous planning decisions have established the principle of this site being developed both prior and subsequent to the existing property being extended. Representation received has queried and challenged previous decisions made on this site. These permissions have been granted and it is not the place to examine the merits of these within this application.

Policy requirements detail that in conservation areas it will be often necessary to require more detailed plans than usually required for outline schemes. The national legislation has changed over the past couple of years this requires a much greater degree of information to be provided. It is considered that the level of information provided is acceptable and allows the principle of a dwelling in this location to be fully assessed. Although full plans have not been provided an indicative layout has been provided together with details of the scale and access arrangements.

The street scene comprises of a mixture of house designs. There is no distinct pattern to the position of the dwellings in the street scene however within the immediate street scene the dwellings are sited towards the front of the plots acknowledging the street scene. The distance between dwellings varies within the street. The prevalent character of the plots are single dwellings in large plots. The existing dwelling is not readily visible in the immediate street scene and the frontage presented to the highway is a sloping vegetated area, with mature trees within the highway. Opposite the site is the Ranmoor Cliffe Rookery.

The development proposed has been designed to maintain the green character of the plot frontage and would make use of the existing access to allow for the vegetated bank to the front of the application site to be retained and replanted if necessary. The applicant details that no trees or hedging would be removed, however on site it is noted that the development would lead to some shrubs adjacent to the drive being removed. The extent of this can be carefully controlled through condition and the reserved matters application.

The existing stone wall will be retained and the scheme would not interfere with the mature trees on the road frontage. (Streetforce have advised that they intend to remove a tree to the right of the driveway and replace it. This is to do with the condition of the tree and is not required as a result of the scheme) The species within the frontage of the application site do contribute to the conservation area if any removal is required this will be controlled to ensure appropriate replacement to ensure the character of the Conservation Area is preserved. Landscaping will be dealt with under the separate reserved matters application where Policy BE6 which relates to Landscape design will be used. Conditions can be attached to any outline approval to ensure the impact on vegetation is acceptable. It is concluded that the scheme is compliant with Policy GE15.

12 The infill of this site with a well designed residential property would be in keeping with this street scene and is set away from neighbouring properties, a comparable distance to other examples within the street scene. The dwelling is shown to be positioned so that it maintains the existing building line and does not extend beyond the rear of either neighbouring property. Policy BE16 details that particular care needs to be taken over development proposals affecting open spaces including gardens which are an important part of a Conservation Areas Character. Although the frontage of the plot would now be developed the character of the area is residential properties on this side of the street that are set back with landscaped frontages It is unusual that this plot is not developed in line with the other properties. The main open green spaces is provided by the rookery opposite and the landscaped frontages and tree lined street. The development of this site would be in keeping with the area and would preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

The large nature of the plots in this area are noted, however it would only be from very limited views i.e. through the driveway that the two dwellings would be read together. Even at the closest point there would be a 21 metre distance between the existing building on site and proposed. In the area other similar separations exist for example 46 Ranmoor Cliffe Road and 50 Ivy Park Road. The predominant visual impact in the street scene would be of a dwelling continuing the character of frontage development of the street. It is not felt that the addition of a further dwelling within this plot would harm the character of the Conservation Area.

The scale and massing presented to the street area appropriate and reflects that of the neighbouring properties to the west. The height is also appropriate. Due to elevated nature of the site, the applicant proposes basement parking, however the elevation facing the street would be built off existing land levels and present a similar scale and massing to neighbouring properties.

The details provided demonstrate that the site can be developed so that the character of the conservation area is preserved and the scheme would comply with Polices BE15, BE16 and the aims of PPG15.

Amenity

The existing dwelling would retain over 400 square metres of land to the rear and the proposed dwelling has approximately 200 square metres to the rear. Such areas of garden are ample to provide adequate amenity space for the existing and proposed dwellings..

The main side elevation of the neighbouring property to the west ( No 40) would be located 13 metres from the side elevation of the proposed dwelling. This dwelling has some openings in the side elevation however at, such a separation distance would not lead to significant overshadowing issues.

The other neighbouring property of No 22 has obscure glazed windows at first and second storey facing the application site , at ground floor is a garage that abuts the boundary and two small windows that appear to serve circulation areas. The windows appear to serve landing areas on the upper floors. Although at a 6.7

13 metre separation distance from these windows there would be some overshadowing and loss of natural light, given the nature of the spaces the windows serve, refusal could not be justified.

This property has a single storey side and rear extension that wraps round the house. Although the new house would be positioned to the south west of this the proposed dwelling is set back from the rear building line of No 22 and although some overshadowing may arise this would not be significant.

The separation distance is ample from the existing property on site so that overshadowing issues would not arise.

There is adequate space surrounding the dwelling so that an internal layout could be established without compromising the amenity of surrounding properties.

Highways

The applicant proposes to make use of the existing access and provide a double basement garage beneath the house. The access on site is concealed and adjacent to a narrow footpath. The comments raised regarding the intensification of this access are noted, however the addition of 1 dwelling is going to result in a small number of additional vehicular movements ( potentially 6 – 8 per day) and as such refusal would not be justifiable.

There is space for at least two off street parking spaces, which is acceptable. There is scope from the information detailed for the vehicles to exit in a forward gear however the scheme will have to be developed in the reserved matters submission to ensure this is the case. This can be controlled by condition and the future application. It is considered that the scheme is acceptable from a highways point of view.

Ecology

Advice has been sought from the City Ecology Unit as the site is opposite a rookery. The Ecologist has noted that no large trees are affected by the development however notes that some garden shrubs / conifers lie within the existing garden. If the applicant proposes to remove these then it is recommended that this is done outside the bird breading season. This can be controlled by condition.

With regards to the Rookery, then it is documented that this has been there since Ranmoor was a small hamlet, the rookery was not affected when the present houses were built so it is not considered that the erection of a single dwelling would affect the rooks now. There are no major ecological issues associated with the development of this site. The scheme is compliant with Policies GE11( Nature Conservation and Development)

14 RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Many of the issues raised through representation have been discussed in the above assessment

Concern has been raised regarding the incremental erosion of green spaces and the scheme would set a precedent. - This is something to be mindful of, however each case must be assessed on its own merits and in this particular instance where the existing dwelling is set so far back, it is fairly unique in this street therefore the infill of this street frontage would not depart from the character of the street scene.

Reference is made to policy BE9 – This refers to larger developments. This principles are applicable and have been discussed above.

Any widening of the access would lead to the removal of stone walls – This is not proposed as part of the scheme.

Comment has been raised regarding the description of the development. - It is clear from the publicised description exactly what is being applied for.

Commentary is raised regarding the motives of the applicant and that the scheme should not be considered as it is to protect investment for financial gain. – The personal circumstances of the applicant do not form a material planning consideration.

Comment is made that the plans do not reflect the extensions that exist on the existing dwelling and immediate context – This is noted, however a full site visit has been carried out, this with the use of up to date aerial photos provides the ability for an accurate assessment to be made.

Comment is made on the letter sent to local residents by the applicant – This letter has not been submitted by the applicant with this application and has been circulated independently by the applicant.

Request is made that the Conservation Officer visits the site to verify that the scheme is not in keeping with the surrounding properties and aims of the conservation policies – A site visit has taken place and the scheme is supported

Comment is raised that the scheme is contrary to Policy H2 – This policy has been superseded, however the main consideration for protecting significant harm of the built and natural environment has been assessed.

The development should not be permitted given that there is outline consent for a more appropriately scaled building on site – All previous consents have lapsed and the scheme must be reassessed based on the information provided by the applicant.

Concern is raised that any construction on this front plot would have a negative impact on the privacy and light to No 40 and No 36. It would overlook the rear of

15 No 40 and reduce light at the side. This could apply more to No 20. The scheme would be contrary to Policy H14 C – The amenity of surrounding properties has been discussed above. It is assumed that the writer is referring to the immediately adjacent plots. The numbering differs from this on site.

Comment is made than no other house has a basement garage – This would be accessed from the side and would not front the street or form a prominent feature. This is not considered to cause concern.

The building should be constructed of natural stone, even if this is done query is raised as to whether this would enhance the appearance of the road – The final detail of the appearance is an issue for the reserved matters application, however stone has been indicated. From the scale and massing and detail provided with the application it is demonstrated that the design can be developed so that the scheme is appropriate in terms of appearance.

Commentary is raised regarding separate works that have taken place in the rookery – This is not relevant to this application. Officers are aware of these works.

Comment has been raised regarding drainage issues – there are no specific issues that arise in relation to this site.

Comment is made that only detailed applications should be granted to ensure that appropriate materials are used . Particular reference is made to previous actions on the site – The level of detail provided is sufficient to establish the principle of development on site. All outstanding details would be dealt with in any subsequent reserved matters application, with conditions requiring the final materials to be agreed.

Call is made for the reserved matters to be clarified – This is clear in the proposed decision notice and will be submitted in a separate application for consideration.

Reference is made to Policy GE13( Areas of Natural History Interest and Local Nature Sites with regards to the rookery, however this has not got designation in the UDP, however the thrust of the policy is covered by Policy GE11, and ecological issues are discussed above.

Comment is made that the scheme fails to comply with policy H15 – This policy relates to larger housing schemes where the multiple houses are proposed, however the scheme complies with the aims of this policy.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

It is concluded that the infill of this frontage with an additional dwelling is acceptable in principle in policy terms and in this location. The submitted information demonstrates that the plot can be developed and preserve the character of the Ranmoor Conservation Area. The submitted plans show that the scheme has the potential to be sited to avoid significant compromise of neighbouring properties amenity. The intensification of the existing access is acceptable for an additional single plot. The scheme presented details that a

16 dwelling can be sited on this land without compromising the mature trees in the locality and that there is opportunity to retain or provide a landscaped frontage. It is concluded that the scheme is compliant with policies H10, H14, BE15, BE16, GE11, GE15 and the aims of PPG15.

Recommendation Grant Conditionally.

Case Number 09/01188/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse

Location 6 Den Bank Drive Sheffield S10 5PE

Date Received 16/04/2009

Team NORTH & WEST

Applicant/Agent Mr D Walsham

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall 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 proposed facing materials shall match the facing materials to the existing building.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 The proposed roofing materials shall match the roofing materials to the existing building.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any order revoking and re- enacting the order) no additional windows or other openings shall be formed in the extension hereby permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

5 The extension shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those

18 plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

6 The proposed vehicular parking area the front of the property shall be surfaced with porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas and SPG - Designing House Extensions BE5 - Building Design and Siting

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

19 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a brick/render semi detached hipped roof property, which is set up from the highway and currently benefits from a rear conservatory and detached garage. Land to the rear of the property rises up towards the rear of property on Den Bank Crescent.

Den Bank Drive is a residential road located within a Housing Policy Area as defined by the UDP. The property is located next to a detached bungalow although the wider area is mainly characterised by similar semi detached properties many of which have been extended.

It is proposed to erect a two storey side extension to the property which will be link attached to the applicants existing detached garage to the rear.

20 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

4 letters have been received in respect of this application which raise concerns that:

The extension will block light and air to an existing window on the side of the neighbouring bungalow and also affect the use of an existing flue on neighbours’ roof.

The proposed extension will appear high in relation to the neighbouring bungalow resulting in loss of residential amenity, detracting from the character of the area. There are no other examples of similar extensions in locality in such close proximity to a bungalow

The extension will prohibit maintenance to side wall of neighbouring property and should be inset from the boundary line.

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site which fails to consider the impact on the street scene and neighbouring property.

The extension will block existing views from property to the rear and cause unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring garden areas.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

H14 Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

In Housing Areas, new development will be permitted provided that: a. new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings; and c. the site would not be over-developed or deprive residents of light, privacy or security, or cause serious loss of existing garden space which would harm the character of the neighbourhood; and

BE5 Building Design and Siting

Good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new and refurbished buildings and extensions. a. original architecture will be encouraged but new buildings should complement the scale, form and architectural style of surrounding buildings. c. all extensions should respect the scale, form, detail and materials of the original building

Assessment

The proposed side extension is well designed in matching materials with a full hipped roof over. The extension which will be built up to the shared boundary line with the adjacent bungalow will be built in line with the main front elevation of the

21 property. To the rear the extension will be link attached at ground floor level to the existing detached garage, the rear wall of which will be built up with a gabled roofline.

The extension is considered to be fully in keeping with the character, scale and appearance of the application property and fully compliant with approved policy in this respect.

The neighbouring property at 4 Den Bank Drive is a detached bungalow which benefits from a previous side extension built up to the shared boundary line with the application property and extending to the rear beyond the front wall of the applicants existing garage. This neighbouring property, which has internal levels approx 1.2m below those of the application property, has an existing side facing obscurely glazed window on the boundary facing directly onto the applicants existing driveway. Light to this window would be blocked if the extension was built. The window, which is understood to serve a utility room and gives secondary light to a kitchen, is located on the side wall of the previous extension.

Whilst loss of light to windows is an important consideration it this case it is not considered unreasonable for the applicant to block light to this window. The window in question is not an original main window but was added in the 1960s when the side extension was built and has since relied on light over the neighbours land. This light could be blocked at any time by the applicant building a boundary fence or a single storey extension both of which would be permitted development. This neighbouring window should not have been placed in this location and should not prevent the applicants carrying out improvements to their property. The submitted plans have been amended since first submission in order to provide a hipped roofline. The initial plans indicated a built up side gable which appeared excessively high in relation to the neighbouring bungalow and was considered to detract from the character of the area. The hipped roof line respects the appearance of the original property and is considered to be in keeping with the general character of the area and helps to reduce the impact on the neighbouring bungalow.

As the rear of the application property faces due south the proposed extension will not cause any loss of light or cause any unreasonable overshadowing of any of the neighbours other main windows and is considered to be in line with the Councils SPG in this respect.

The side wall of the proposed extension will be built up to the side elevation of the neighbours’ extension, the upper 4m of which will be visible above the neighbours’ original eaves line. This however is no more detrimental to the visual appearance of Den Bank Drive than the existing side elevation of the application property. In some respects as the proposed side elevation will be brick built rather than rendered it will reduce its visual impact from long distance views. The extension will appear high in relation to the neighbours extension but not so in relation to the neighbours original bungalow which is set away from the boundary. It would seem unreasonable not to allow the applicants to extend their property just because the neighbouring property was extended first.

22 The first floor rear facing window will be obscurely glazed as this serves a shower room. Consequently the proposed extension will not cause any overlooking of neighbouring garden areas. A proposed high level side facing rooflight within the rear link extension will face directly onto the neighbours side facing extension roof and does not raise any concerns.

The proposed garage within the extension is of substandard size to park a vehicle. The submitted plans therefore detail the provision of a double width driveway. This is considered acceptable and will not detract from the visual amenities of the locality.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The impact of the extension on the neighbours’ side facing window has been addressed in the main report.

The long term impact of the extension on the efficiency and use of the neighbours’ flue is not a planning consideration.

Whilst there are no examples of two storey side extensions in such close proximity to neighbouring bungalows in the immediate locality, the proposed extension is fairly typical of many other extensions on both Den Bank Drive and Den Bank Crescent. Many of these have been built up with side gable walls rather that the side hip proposed by the applicant.

The future maintenance of neighbouring property is not a planning consideration.

The extension is not an overdevelopment of the site. The property maintains a usable garden area to the rear of the property.

The extension is well designed with hipped roof detail reflecting the character and appearance of the existing property and others in the locality.

The extension does not lead to the overlooking of neighbouring property.

Loss of view is not a planning consideration.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed two storey extension is well designed reflecting the character and appearance of the neighbouring property. It does not cause any unreasonable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and is considered to be fully compliant with approved policy and Supplementary Planning Guidance. Consequently the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Case Number 09/01062/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Single-storey rear extension to dwellinghouse for use as sun lounge with swimming pool, underground plant room and raised patio

Location 5 Riverdale Drive Sheffield S10 3FY

Date Received 06/04/2009

Team NORTH & WEST

Applicant/Agent Sharplink Designs LTD

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall 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 proposed facing materials shall match the facing materials to the existing building.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 The use of the swimming pool shall at all times remain incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling 5 Riverdale Drive and shall not be used for any other purpose.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

4 The swimming pool, plant room, and associated plant hereby permitted shall not be brought into use unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall:

a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an assessment of existing background noise levels; LA90 (15 min.). b) Ensure that noise from the plant room extraction point is not tonal, and does not exceed existing background noise levels by more than 3dBA when measured as an Leq (15 min.) at the site boundary.

Before the scheme of sound attenuation works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall thereafter be retained.

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

5 The vehicular access point for construction vehicles shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 The removal and on site storage of any excavated materials shall be submitted to and agreed in writing agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

7 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the adjacent woodland shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority These measures shall include a construction methodology statement and plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 (its replacement) and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way The local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

8 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

9 Surface water and foul drainage shall drain to separate systems.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

10 No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

11 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and the extension shall not be brought into use prior to the completion of the approved drainage works.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

12 No development shall take place until works have been carried out to provide adequate facilities for the disposal and treatment of filter backwash and swimming pool water, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that development can be properly drained without damage to the Local water environment.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE5 - Building Design and Siting

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

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 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.

26 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates a modern brick built detached property, which is one of 5 similar properties, located off a long private access drive on land which, was formerly within the walled garden of Notre Dame school. The application site boundary extends into the adjacent Smiths Wood/Oakbrook Wood an area of protected ancient woodland.

All the properties on Riverdale Drive are sited within a Housing Policy Area as identified by Sheffield’s Unitary Development Plan. The site also falls within the Ranmoor Conservation Area. The adjoining woodland falls within an Open Space Policy Area and is also identified as a Historic Park/ Garden and an Area of Natural History Interest and Nature Conservation

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension for use as a sun lounge with swimming pool and associated underground plant room together with an extended raised patio.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

86/00915/OUT Erection of 5 dwellings and garages. Granted Conditionally 28/01/1987.

88/02609/OUT Erection of 10 dwellings Refused 27/02/89 and dismissed on appeal.

89/01195/REM Erection of 5 dwellings with double garages. Approved conditionally 13/11/1989.

90/02795/REM Erection of five dwellings and garages Approved conditionally 22/04/1991

02/02209/FUL Single storey side extension and front porch Granted conditionally 03/09/2002

03/02031/FUL Erection of rear conservatory Granted conditionally 22/07/2003

06/01717/FUL Erection of two dormer windows Granted Conditionally 29/06/2006. (Not yet implemented)

06/04257/FUL Two single storey side extensions, first floor side extension and rear conservatory Refused 06/07/2007

07/02832/FUL First floor side extension, single storey side extension and rear conservatory Granted conditionally 07/09/2007 (Conservatory and first floor side extension not yet implemented)

08/04067/FUL First floor french window and juliette balcony Granted conditionally 15/09/2008 (Not yet implemented)

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

11 letters have been received from local residents, The Ranmoor Society and The Riverdale and Endcliffe Action Group which raise concerns that:

The site is directly adjacent to Smiths Wood, a small but extremely ancient piece of original woodland which is now in multiple ownership and needs constant vigilance for its protection. The woodland remains a vital refuge for a wide range of wildlife.

The original permission to build 5 houses on this land was subject to the outcome of a local enquiry for 10 dwellings at which it was agreed that any higher density or further extension of buildings beyond those planned was not acceptable. This guideline was written into the covenants for these 5 properties and is understood to be still in force.

28 Letters were sent to local residents at this time assuring them that whilst outline planning permission for five dwellings could not be revoked no significant further development would be allowed in the future to these dwellings.

Planning permission has previously been granted for substantial extensions to the property which has increased its footprint on excess of 40% on its original footprint. The proposed extension would lead to an increase of over 50% of the original footprint. Difficult to see how further significant development to the property can be justified and presented for approval yet still meet the undertaking given after the original public enquiry. All extensions already approved have resulted in a seven bedroom property out of all proportion with the other 4 houses on Riverdale Drive.

The proposed extension is not in keeping with the existing appearance of the application property or the general appearance of the Riverdale Drive estate.

A previous similar application was part of a plan to develop a business at this property with resulting traffic and congestion.

Noise from the proposed plant room will disturb local residents, as will noise from the swimming pool especially in summer when with doors open. Neighbours already disturbed by applicant’s burglar alarm which is always sounding.

If allowed the extension would create a most unfortunate precedent in a sensitive ancient woodland environment.

The applicant who owns part of Smiths Wood does not actively maintain the area unlike other neighbours who manage the woodland in order to let native species flourish.

The existing private access road is maintained by all five properties. The road already shows signs of subsidence and cracking to the banking facing Oakbrook stream. Heavy plant used to clear and excavate the site and future deliveries of materials would be detrimental to the road leading to repair costs.

The existing access road is barely passable by 2 cars. Delivery vehicles needed for the extension would restrict access to neighbouring properties causing nuisance and disturbance.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

H14 Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

29 e. it would not suffer from unacceptable air pollution, noise or other nuisance or risk to health or safety; and g. it would comply with Policies for the Built and Green Environment, as appropriate;

BE5 Building Design and Siting

BE16 Development in Conservation Areas

In Conservation Areas permission will only be given for proposals which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

BE17 Design and Materials in Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest

In Conservation Areas and Areas of Special Character a high standard of design using traditional materials will be expected for alterations and extensions to existing buildings;

GE11 Nature Conservation and Development

The natural environment will be protected and enhanced. The design, siting and landscaping of development should respect and promote nature conservation and include measures to reduce any potentially harmful effects of development on natural features of value.

GE13 Areas of Natural History Interest and Local Nature Sites

Development which would damage Areas of Natural History Interest will normally not be permitted. Development affecting Local Nature Sites should, wherever possible, be sited and designed so as to protect and enhance the most important features of natural history interest.

Where development would decrease the nature conservation value of an Area of Natural History Interest or Local Nature Site, that decrease must be kept to a minimum and compensated for by creation or enhancement of wildlife habitats elsewhere within the site or local area.

GE15 Trees and Woodland

Trees and woodland will be encouraged and protected by: a. planting, managing and establishing trees and woodland, particularly in the South Yorkshire Forest; and

30 b. requiring developers to retain mature trees, copses and hedgerows, wherever possible, and replace any trees which are lost; and c. not permitting development which would damage existing mature and ancient woodlands

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Guideline 1: Extensions should be compatible with the character and built form of the area.

Guideline 2: Extensions to dwellings shall not detract from that dwelling or the general appearance of the street or locality.

Guideline 4: The overdevelopment of a house plot with extensions that leave little garden space will not be permitted.

Design and Impact on Conservation Area

The proposed single storey rear extension is an alternative larger rear extension to that previously approved under application 07/02832/FUL. This application gave approval for a rear conservatory in the same location as that now proposed for the sun lounge and swimming pool extension. The conservatory which had a proposed footprint of 15 square metres has not been built.

The proposed single storey rear extension will project out in total 6.075m from the main rear wall of the property and will be 10.2m wide creating a footprint of 60 square metres.. The extension will be built out over the existing rear elevated patio which will be extended to the side to allow the creation of a basement room to house associated plant for the proposed swimming pool. New flower beds with shrubs and planting will screen the lower part of the extension and patio extension on completion.

The proposed rear extension has been designed to be in keeping with the appearance of the original property utilising matching brickwork and stone detailing. A flat roofline has been incorporated which will include two decorative lantern rooflights. These will be partially hidden by raised parapets. Large full height windows will be included to all side elevations which together with the proposed flat roof help to reduce the scale and massing of the proposed extension.

The existing rear elevation of the application property is partially visible from the adjoining private access road which serves this small development. The side boundary of the application property which runs along side this access road is screened by a 1.8m high close boarded timber fence. The proposed flat roofline of the rear extension will be just visible from the shared private road over the fence line. Limited views of the extension will also be possible from a public footpath through the adjoining woodland which is set well into the trees. From both these areas the proposed extension, which is set well into the application site and viewed against the existing massing of the rear elevation of the application property, is not considered to be detrimental to either the appearance of the application property or its Conservation Area setting.

Impact on adjoining woodland and local environment.

The footprint of the proposed extension respects the original boundary of the former cottage garden and ancient woodland. Whilst there are no visible onsite remnants of this boundary the line has been established from old maps/plans of the area.

The proposed extension is set well away from the current boundary of the adjoining protected woodland in excess of 15m from the closest mature tree. The extension which will be built over the existing elevated patio ensures the retention of a large usable garden area away from the woodland area.

The proposals will require the removal of three recently planted trees near to the existing rear conservatory together with various shrubs which are of insufficient visual amenity to prevent the development.

Appropriate conditions will be added to any subsequent approval to ensure protection of the adjoining woodland during construction works.

In addition Yorkshire Water has requested that conditions be attached to any subsequent approval to protect the local aquatic environment and Yorkshire Water infrastructure.

Amenity of local residents.

The proposed extension is set well away from neighbouring property. As it is located to the rear of the application property the proposal causes no overlooking of neighbouring property on Riverdale Drive. Other adjoining property on Endcliffe Hall Avenue is located at considerable distance from the application property and is well screened by the adjoining woodland.

The proposed plant room equipment required for the swimming pool will be in use 24 hours a day and be audible in operation. The noise levels of the proposed plant equipment have been accessed by the Environmental Health Officer who is satisfied that satisfactory attenuation of any noise from the plant room outlet is achievable thereby ensuring no noise disturbance to local residents. Appropriate conditions will be added to any subsequent approval to ensure suitable sound attenuation works are installed and retained.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS.

Whilst the proposed development adds a large footprint to an already well extended property this does not cause any harm to local residents, the adjoining woodland or Conservation Area and a refusal on this basis would be difficult to justify.

In 1990 an appeal for 10 dwellings on Riverdale Drive was dismissed due to concerns that it would put extra pressure on the adjoining woodland. It was considered that 10 dwellings (rather than the 5 which already had approval) would

32 have resulted in smaller plots and more long term damage demands to the woodland itself. Additionally the Inspector considered that general activities in connection with ten houses would create at least double the noise and disturbance than would arise from 5 houses putting increasing pressure on the wildlife in the area changing its character.

The appeal statement does not refer to future development of the five properties. Searches of the Councils archives have failed to locate the letter neighbours say was sent out after the public enquiry. A copy has been requested from the local resident concerned.

Permitted development rights were not taken away from the 5 dwellings now built and this allows them to all build without planning permission rear extensions up to 4m deep (subject to conditions) provided that this would not cover more than 50 percent of the total garden area of the property.

A refusal on overdevelopment of a plot could only be justified if an extension would leave little usable garden space. In this case a usable garden space in excess of 200 square metres is retained. Note- Guideline 4 of approved Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The proposed extension is for a domestic extension to a domestic property and the proposed swimming pool will at all times remain wholly ancillary to the main use of the property. The use of the swimming pool is unlikely to place any additional pressure on the adjacent woodland. Restrictive Covenants on property, possible damage to private access roads and disturbance and disruption during building works are not valid reasons for planning permission to be refused.

Approval of this application would not set a precedent. All planning applications are treated on their own merits.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The addition of a single storey flat roofed extension in this location will neither detract from the appearance of the Ranmoor Conservation Area nor impact on the adjoining area of protected ancient woodland. Its location to the rear of the dwelling will cause no harm to neighbouring properties nor to those located on Endcliffe Hall Avenue over 60m away. The proposal as submitted is considered to fully comply with approved policy and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Case Number 09/00762/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Use of first floor flat as office for private hire business

Location 124 & 126 Halifax Road Wadsley Bridge Sheffield S6 1LH

Date Received 13/03/2009

Team NORTH & WEST

Applicant/Agent Mr G Higgins

Recommendation Refuse with Enforcement Action

Subject to:

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that proposed use of first floor flat as office for private hire business would result in an unacceptable degree of noise and general disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring residential flats. In these respects the proposal is contrary to Policies S10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Governance has been authorised to take all necessary steps, including enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, if necessary, to secure the cessation of the use. The Local Planning Authority will be writing separately on this matter.

34 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site is located within a district shopping area as defined by the UDP. The first floor is located over and above an Indian takeaway (A5 use class), previously used as a residential unit.

It is proposed to use the flat as an office for taxi services. The application is retrospective.

The shop unit is part of a shopping parade, where many of the units incorporate residential flats over and above. The two immediate neighbouring units to the site in question incorporate residential flats. Immediately opposite the site is a large paved area, which abuts the slip road off Halifax Road. This slip road is heavily parked most of the day and excessively parked during the evenings, by local residents and shop owners.

35 Off street parking has been shown to the rear of the site, the applicant suggests this to be used for two off street parking bays for the taxi business.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS 5 letters have been received. 4 of which are objecting and 1 is in support of the application. Objections raised are outlined below:-

- noise disturbance from telephones, customers and employees - constant parked taxis on the main slip road causing problems for other to park - other non-planning related issues.

Consultation

Highways – no objections

Environmental Protection Services – Recommend refusal on the basis of disamenity to the neighbouring properties.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

According to Policy S7 ‘Development in district and local shopping centres’ taxi and vehicle hire business is an acceptable use in such areas. However Policy S10 ‘Conditions on development in shopping areas’ suggest amongst other things that change of uses will be permitted provided that it would not cause residents to suffer from unacceptable living conditions in terms noise or other nuisance.

The premises adjoins residential properties either side. The operation of the proposed business on a 24-hour basis will cause disamenity to these properties due to noise, particularly at night. Noise from the business operations inside the premises (telephones, use of washroom, etc.) could be mitigated to some extent by the construction of secondary internal walls, and sound installation. The likely success of such measures would need to be evaluated. However, the associated noise of arrivals and departures is likely to be a source of disturbance, and would be difficult to address effectively. Whilst unsolicited, it is likely that customers will visit the premises (it is reported that this has been experienced already to the Environmental Protection Services). Drivers currently use the office as a base and for ‘comfort breaks’. This has been informed by neighbouring residents and shop owners who have also made a complaint about the private hire business causing disturbance especially during the night time to the Environmental Protection Services.

Whilst the use its self is considered acceptable in such areas, it would have been preferred if the business was located at ground floor level rather that the first floor which abuts the neighbouring residential properties. There is concern with the disturbance that is caused from this use to its neighbouring properties in terms of noise. It is considered that the location of the premises renders it suitable for business use in the night-time (between 07:00 and 23:00 hours). However it seems that this may preclude the premises being used as a base for a private hire office/base.

The parking of vehicles to the rear only exacerbates the problem further, as most of the bedrooms to the flats are located to the rear and the comings and goings of vehicles will add to the problem.

ENFORCEMENT

Recommended that the Assistant Chief Executive of Legal and Governance be authorised to take any appropriate action including, if necessary, enforcement action, and the institution of legal proceedings to secure the cessation of the use of the first floor of 124 and 126 Halifax Road for Use of first floor flat as office for private hire business.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

It is considered that the proposed change of use is contrary to Policy S10 of the UDP. The use will cause significant detriment to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and as such is an unacceptable use.

Refuse with Enforcement Action

Case Number 08/04967/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 2 ecologically styled dwellinghouses incorporating curved sedum grassed roofs, integral parking areas and associated landscaping works

Location Site Of Maples Garden Centre Hollin Busk Lane Sheffield S36 1QP

Date Received 26/09/2008

Team NORTH & WEST

Applicant/Agent Parritt Leng Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall 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 Before the development is commenced, full details of suitable and sufficient cycle parking accommodation within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and, thereafter, such cycle parking accommodation shall be retained.

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

3 The development shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

4 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

38 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 the safety of road users.

5 Notwithstanding the submitted plan, prior to the dwellings becoming occupied, the old garden centres’ vehicular crossing shall have been rationalized in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (it currently forks into two). A management regime for trimming/maintaining the grass verge that fronts the site shall also have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (prior to occupation) which shall thereafter be adhered to, such that sight lines are not compromised.

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

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008, Part 1 (Classes A to H inclusive), Part 2 (Class A), or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order, no extensions, external lighting, porches, garages, ancillary curtilage buildings, swimming pools, enclosures, fences, walls or alterations which materially affect the external appearance of the development shall be constructed without prior planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that the traditional architectural character of the development is retained and there is no visual intrusion which would be detrimental to the amenities of the locality and in the interests of preserving the open character of the Green Belt.

7 Details of all proposed external materials and finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

39 9 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the local planning authority Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

10 Before work on site is commenced, details of a suitable means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such means of site enclosure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such means of site enclosure shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

11 Before any work on site is commenced, a report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying how the predicted carbon emissions from the development will be reduced by a minimum of 20% through increased energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. The agreed energy efficiency measures shall have been installed before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing 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.

12 No work shall commence on site until a written agreement has been received to the Local Planning Authority that details measures for the removal or repositioning of the electricity poles and apparatus on site.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. The decision to grant planning permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance.

This informative is intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission.

40 Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. 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.

2. It is noted that your planning application involves the construction or alteration of an access crossing to a highway maintained at public expense.

This planning permission DOES NOT automatically permit the layout or construction of the access crossing in question, this being a matter which is covered by Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980, and dealt with by:

Assistant Head of Highways Development Services Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH

For access crossing approval you should contact the Highway Development Control Section of Sheffield City Council on Sheffield (0114) 2736136, quoting your planning permission reference number.

3. 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 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.

41 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application refers to a 1.25 hectare site on the south western edge of Deepcar, which is identified in the UDP as being within the Green Belt. The site is triangular in shape and ‘sandwiched’ to the west of crossroads between Hollin Busk Lane to its north and Cockshot Lane to its south-west. Beyond the two adjacent highways are fields in agricultural use and to its east across the crossroads are detached houses that front onto Royd Lane. The open fields to the north of the site is identified as being Open Space in the UDP. Access onto the site is from Hollin Busk Lane.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey ‘L’ shaped masonry constructed building with dilapidated rear off-shot extension. The existing building measures approximately 26m x 20m at its widest points and extends to a height of some 4.2m to its ridge. The total footprint of the building is 222 square metres. The building was a former stable block providing stabling for about 10 horses and more

42 recently in connection with a horticultural garden centre that ceased trading in October 2006. As part of the previous use, the building was extended along its rear (western) elevation and a number of poly tunnels and greenhouses were erected on site. Most of the extension and associated buildings have now been removed from site.

Inspection of the site shows that the existing building is located towards the site’s eastern corner. In front of this building is a large concrete hard standing. A former mineshaft is located behind the building to its east. Enclosing part of the site is 3- 3.5m high mesh and barbed wire security fencing.

The application seeks full planning to demolish the existing building on site and erect two 3-bedroomed ‘eco-styled’ dwellinghouses. The proposed houses are of unconventional design being single storey ‘dome-like’ structures with curved sedum grassed roofs supported by arched laminated beams. A large glazed screen panel (front elevation) together with light portholes within their roof would allow light into the buildings. The two houses’ front elevations would be orientated in a southerly direction to face the site’s Cockshot Lane frontage. Parking for one vehicle would be incorporated within the body of the buildings with each property provided with a sunken terrace garden that would be screened from the adjacent roads by the berming of the site’s boundaries. Access to both properties would be taken from Hollin Busk Lane via a permeable driveway.

The supporting information details that the houses have been designed to blend in seamlessly into the landscape that would improve the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed footprint of the two eco-houses would be 202 square metres, a reduction of 10% than the existing building and be set approximately 1m lower in height.

The applicant’s Design and Access Statement details that the two houses have been designed to be sustainable and environmentally progressive in line with Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6. The houses would incorporate a raft of sustainable and energy efficient measures both in terms of their construction and energy consumption with the use of two renewable energy sources for heating and cooling (ground source heat pumps and solar thermal collectors), 100% re-use of grey water and also the employment of appropriate surface water management techniques.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

93/00136/FUL – Use of buildings for the retail sale of garden items – approved 9/03/93

97/00543/FUL – Use of land and building for the retail sale of garden items (Application under Section 73 (without complying with Condition No. 4 – Specific user) imposed by 93/0017P) – approved 24/03/97

07/03543/FUL – Demolition of existing buildings and structures and erection of six ecologically styled dwellinghouses incorporating curved sedum grassed roofs, integral parking areas and associated landscaping works – Refused 01/11/07

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Thirty-nine letters have been received in response to this application. These include thirty four objection letters from local residents, a petition with 28 named signatures against the scheme and letters of objection from Stocksbridge Town Council, the local MP, Stocksbridge Design Statement Group and Bolsterstone Community Group. One letter has been received in support of the application from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). A summary of all comments are outlined briefly below:-

Against

- The development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - Increased noise disturbance; - Development would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the Green Belt; - Have a damaging effect on the attractive landscape setting of the area and enjoyment of the area; - Other brownfield sites in Stocksbridge and Deepcar more suitable for development than this Green Belt site; - Question the validity of the ‘eco’ status of the houses; - Increase traffic use; - Detrimental to highway safety; - Harm the natural beauty of the area; - The buildings would extend far great than the existing footprint of the buildings on site; - The building would be totally out of character with the surrounding area; - Set a precedent for future development of the Green belt and Open Space; and - Affect on wildlife in the area;

Stocksbridge Town Council comments that the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Stocksbridge Design Statement Group state that the development is unacceptable on the grounds that the area is Green Belt, there is no shortage of brownfield sites in the area and no demand for further housing in the area given the amount for sale.

Bolsterstone Community Group says that buildings in the Green Belt should only be allowed in exceptional cases. Why they recognise the need to building new houses in Sheffield, they do not consider that this application an exceptional case to allow the development in the Green Belt. They state that one of the key arguments in favour of maintaining Open Space and Green Belt status for Hollin Busk is the role this area plays a clear boundary between Deepcar and Stocksbridge and retaining the integrity of Bolsterstone as one of Sheffield’s last hill villages. Hollin Busk forms an important green wedge in a residential area. Allowing the development would set a precedent for other applications in the area.

44 Angela Smith MP does not consider that the proposal represents exceptional circumstances that would justify allowing the development in the Green Belt. Other sites should be considered elsewhere such as the Corus site before any encroachment into the Green Belt is considered.

Support

Campaign to Protect Rural England (South Yorkshire) (CPRE) support the proposal. They consider that the cumulative benefits brought by this application with the removal of the unsightly derelict garden centre and its replacement by less intrusive, single storey sedum roofed homes outweigh policy concerns and presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The development’s incorporation of sustainable design and compliance with BREEAM standards is especially welcomed. Subject to the removal of the transformer and electricity poles, it is considered that the development will improve the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.

Procedural Matters

The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan as the development involves the erection of houses in the Green Belt. Should Members be minded to grant planning permission, the application will have to be referred to the Secretary of State. The SOS has the power to call the application in for his own determination, issue a holding direction to allow for further consideration of the application or agree to allow the LPA to determine the application in accordance with the recommendations of the Area Board.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The application should be assessed against Policies GE1, GE3 and GE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (Adopted March 1998). Policy GE1 states that development will not be permitted where it would lead to unrestricted growth of the built up area, contribute towards merging of existing settlements, lead to encroachment of urban development in the countryside or compromise urban regeneration. Policy GE3 states that in the Green Belt, the construction of new buildings will not be permitted, except in very special circumstances, for purposes other than agriculture, forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries, and other uses which would comply with Policy GE1. Policy GE5 sets out the circumstances where new houses would be allowed in the Green Belt. Under this policy it states that other than those needed to support agricultural and other acceptable uses, housing will be permitted only where this would involve either infilling of a single plot within the confines of an existing village, group of buildings or substantially developed road frontage or replacement of an existing house on the same site.

Sheffield Core Strategy Policy CS71 relates to the protection of the Green Belt. Under this policy, it states that the countryside and other open land around the

45 existing built-up areas of the city will be safeguarded by maintaining the Green Belt, which will not be subject to strategic or local review. It goes on to state that, exceptionally, changes may be made to remove untenable anomalies where the change would not undermine the purposes or objectives of Green Belt in that area.

Government guidance is contained within PPG2: Green Belts. It states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. PPG2 applies a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and details that by definition, this is harmful to the Green Belt. Unless there are ‘very special circumstances’, such development should not be allowed (Paragraph 3.1). With regard very special circumstances, Paragraph 3.2 states that this will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Further guidance is given at Paragraph 3.7 where it states that with suitable safeguards, the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of Green Belts, since the buildings are already there. The alternative to re-use may be a building that is left vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction. Paragraph 3.8 continues by stating that the re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development on the proviso that i) the new use does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt, ii) strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building, iii) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and iv) the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy relates to the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and energy conservation. This policy states that all new buildings and conversions must be designed to achieve a high standard of energy efficiency and make best use of solar energy, passive heating and cooling.

Planning Consideration

The policy position is very clear in terms of circumstances where new houses would be allowed in the Green Belt. Under Policy GE5 of the UDP, it states that new houses in the Green Belt, other than those needed to support agriculture and other acceptable uses will be permitted only where this would involve either the (i) infilling of a single plot within the confines of an existing village, group of buildings or substantially developed road frontage or (ii) the replacement of an existing house on the same site, providing that the new house is not significantly larger than the one it replaces.

The application site is not within the confines of an existing village, group of buildings or substantially developed road frontage nor does it represent the replacement of existing houses on site. With this in mind, it is considered that the proposal to erect two dwellinghouses on this site would conflict with Policy GE5 in terms of new housing in the Green Belt.

46 Under the terms of Policy GE5, the development of this site for housing would therefore be unacceptable.

As detailed above, there is a clear presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is not disputed that the development and erection of housing (C3) represents such a form of development. Having regard to this, it is considered that the principle of erecting two dwellinghouses on this site turns on whether the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness is outweighed by other material considerations of significant weight that would justify setting aside the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

There is no definition on what constitutes very special circumstances in PPG2. As a guide therefore, officers have set out below examples that may amount to very special circumstances in allowing inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

- The proposed development would create a smaller building footprint than that currently existing with less visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt; - The proposed development would improve the openness of the Green Belt by bringing the built form closer to the built up area; - The proposed development would cause very little harm to the stated functions of the Green Belt; - The proposed development would replace one inappropriate use with another but of lesser ‘visual’ harm; - The development would be of local, regional or national importance.

The case put forward by the applicant in demonstrating very special circumstances can be categorised as follows:

- The reuse of a previously developed site (brownfield) with the overall footprint and volume of the houses being less than the existing and redundant masonry buildings; - The removal of unsightly masonry buildings and site enclosures that are not in keeping with their surroundings; - The proposed development involves the erection of two bespoke ‘eco-styled’ houses that have been carefully designed to fit seamlessly into the landscape setting and have minimal impact on the open character of the Green Belt; and - The site has been actively marketed for other and more appropriate uses prior to being considered for housing without success.

It is considered that the existing masonry building is unattractive and fails to respect its landscape setting. It has a very bleak appearance with its large expanse of concrete walling and continuous roof profile considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area. The site’s existing enclosures and high security fencing, together with the expanse of hardstanding and electricity transformer and poles only helps to reinforce the incongruous and unappealing appearance of the site.

While this is noted, officers do not accept that simply replacing the building with housing irrespective of whether its affect on the open character of the Green Belt is less harmful, is sufficient in itself to be considered very special circumstances. If this was the case, it would be easy to apply very special circumstances on all

47 proposals that sought to replace appropriate development with inappropriate development on grounds that they improved the openness of the Green Belt. It should also be noted that there is no distinction in policy terms between ‘standard’ house types and houses that have an environmentally progressive design such as these when considering development in the Green Belt. Although officers welcome the ‘green’ credentials of the development, it is considered that little weight should be given to this when the key objective of Green Belt designation is to prevent urban sprawl and keeping land permanently open.

Taking the above into account and acknowledging the visual appearance of the existing building and site, the applicant was advised at pre-application stage that redeveloping the site for housing would only be considered on the grounds that the development would make a positive contribution to the openness of the Green Belt and that the harm caused by its inappropriateness was supported by other material considerations of significant weight to justify setting aside the general presumption against inappropriate development. The applicant was advised that the development would have to be of exceptional quality, carefully designed to avoid introducing an urban element or additional activity into the area that would conflict with the objectives of Green Belt policy and importantly that the development would materially improve the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. The applicant was also advised by officers that before housing should be considered, evidence should be submitted that clearly demonstrated that alternative uses more appropriate to the site’s Green Belt location had been explored and due consideration given to the re-use and conversion of the existing building.

In response to this, the applicant has produced what officers consider to be an exceptionally high quality scheme that would significantly improve the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is considered to represent an exemplar scheme that is unlikely to be considered suitable in urban locations given their somewhat unusual design and appearance. Officers contend therefore that it is only locations such as these on previously developed sites in rural areas that are likely to come forward for development of this ilk. It is considered that the two dwellinghouses would maintain the character of the area by disguising the buildings mass whilst integrating them almost seamlessly into the landscape. The two houses would have a 10% smaller footprint than the existing building and be 1m lower in height. The applicant’s supporting statement goes into great detail regarding the ’green’ credentials of the buildings and the number of sustainable features included within their design, particularly their low profile and curved sedum grassed roofs that aim to conceal the form of the houses. Officers welcome their innovative form, which have been specifically designed to ‘blend in’ with the site’s sensitive location in the Green Belt.

Also of relevance is the existing appearance of the building and site. It is considered that the existing masonry building and the remnants of the paraphernalia associated with the previous use harm rather than preserve the landscape setting. The opportunity to remove this building and high incongruous enclosures with an appropriate designed scheme in officers’ opinion should be given significant weight. Moreover, since there is little likelihood that the existing building and enclosures would be removed in the near future, failure to find a suitable use for the building is likely to mean that the site will remain in its present

48 state and prone to vandalism and dereliction. Inspection of the existing building shows that it is in generally good order and could be converted without the need for significant structural re-building. Although PPG2 states that the re-use of existing buildings does not represent inappropriate development with suitable safeguards, officers would not wish to see it retained given its poor visual quality. Accordingly, in considering the merits of the application, officers are mindful that the building and enclosures would continue to have a serious impact on the open character of the Green Belt for some considerable time.

It would be inappropriate in officer’s opinion to simply dismiss housing proposals in the Green Belt on previously developed sites, in instances when the development would bring significant and distinct benefits to the surrounding area. On this point, it is considered that the proposal complies with guidelines set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), which deals with the redevelopment of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt (MDSGB). Although this site does not specifically meet the criteria for identification as a MDSGB, the principles outlined in Annex C of PPG2 have been used by the Council as a reference point to assess the redevelopment of previously developed sites in the Green Belt. Annex 2 of PPG2 states that redevelopment proposals should have i) no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; ii) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts; iii) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and iv) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).

Officers acknowledge that domestic paraphernalia associated with housing can have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. As stated above, one of the fundamental aims of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It is important therefore that the development does not introduce an urban element or additional activity into the area that would conflict with the objectives of Green Belt policy. By this officers mean that the development should not include washing lines, trampolines or other domestic paraphernalia associated with the residential use or lead to indiscriminate parking or exposed parking areas that would be harmful to the open character of the area.

It is considered that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed through the design of the houses. The plans show the garages would be incorporated within the body of the buildings and each house provided with a sunken terrace garden enclosed by dry stone retaining walling that would effectively conceal them from the adjacent highways. It is considered therefore that any domestic paraphernalia associated with the two houses such as washing lines etc would not be readily visible from most parts of the surrounding area. Officers are also satisfied that the development would be largely inconspicuous at night with minimal light ‘break out’ from the two houses. Glazing has been purposefully kept to a minimal with the two houses incorporating a single arched window and opening along their front elevations, two small recessed windows and recessed light holes that would be set 300mm below the external level of the sedum roofs. Additionally, the applicant has submitted contextual drawings showing four key views of the buildings from different areas around the site. These drawings show that the houses would be

49 significantly screened from the surrounding area with limited views of the properties or their openings. It is considered therefore that any light ‘break-out’ from the two houses would have minimal impact on the open character of the Green Belt and unlikely to be readily visible, particularly along the two adjacent highways. In terms of external lighting, officers are satisfied that this can be adequately controlled by condition.

While it is considered that the proposed development would improve the openness of the Green Belt, officers do not agree as detailed above that this in itself represents very special circumstances to allow the site to be developed for housing. In officers’ opinion before housing should be considered, it is important to establish with some surety that housing remains the only feasible option for this site to override the strong policy presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

On this point, details have been submitted by the applicant outlining the attempts made by the previous tenant of the site to make the horticultural business succeed and the extent that the site has been commercially marketed following its closure.

Letters provided by the applicant show that despite every effort by the previous tenant to make the horticultural use succeed, it was found to be non-profitable and eventually closed down. These efforts officers understand included selling his home to finance the business and the sale of garden and aquatic products on site that were in breach of planning conditions. Following the closure of the business in 2006, the applicant has stated that the site has been actively marketed for almost 3 years by Ernest Wilson Surveyors for a variety of more compliant uses including a dogs’ home and a horse recovery centre. In this time, only two serious enquiries were received, neither of which progressed to an offer being placed. Additionally, a letter from Ernest Wilson Surveyors to the applicant dated August 2006 concludes that the site would be difficult to achieve a sale of the business and unlikely to make any kind of a commercial return on investment.

Officers are satisfied that the site has been properly marketed with all the evidence submitted indicating that a commercial use could not viably replace the existing building. The likelihood that a more appropriate and viable use could be found is questionable at this present time in light of the evidence submitted.

Accordingly, officers consider that, on balance, the application is acceptable with the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness outweighed by other material considerations to justify allowing the development. The development in officers’ opinion represents a sensitive and sympathetic scheme that would significantly improve the openness of the Green Belt. The houses are considered to be of innovative design that would fit seamlessly into the landscape and likely to positively enhance the landscape quality of the area.

It is acknowledged that concerns have been raised by some of the objectors that the development would set a precedent for the release of further land in the Green Belt for housing. However, officers are satisfied that the development of this brown field site would not set a precedent for further housing at Hollin Busk. The application relates to the development of a previously developed site with the

50 proposed development likely to bring significant benefits to the open character of the Green Belt whilst allowing for the removal of an incongruous building and site enclosures that are considered to serious detract from the landscape quality of the area. The development for housing on the adjoining and undeveloped land at Hollin Busk would not improve the openness of the Green Belt and therefore likely to be strongly resisted by officers should any application be received.

CPRE have requested that the electricity transformer and electricity poles should be removed as part of the proposal. The applicant has assured officers that they would enter into negotiations with the owner of the apparatus and seek its removal. The submitted site and layout drawings show it removed. It is recommended that a condition be attached that secures this.

Highway Issues

It is not considered that the development raises any significant highway concerns with officers’ satisfied with the proposed access point onto Hollin Busk Lane and level of off-street parking. Residential Amenity

It is not considered that the development raises any significant residential amenity issues. The proposed houses are adequately distanced from the nearest neighbouring properties along Royd Lane and orientated in a southerly direction across open fields. Any affect in terms of overlooking, outlook or noise disturbance would therefore be minimal.

Other Issues

Despite the concerns raised, any affect on wildlife and ecology in the area is considered to be minimal since the new houses would be erected primarily on the site’s existing built up area.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The site is located within the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The proposal to erect two dwellinghouses on this site would represent such a form of development and therefore would be contrary to Policies GE1, GE3 and GE5 of the UDP. PPG2 states such development by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed, except in very special circumstances. With regard very special circumstances, guidance in PPG2 states that this will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The applicant proposes to erect two eco-styled dwellinghouses as a replacement of the existing masonry building on site. The two proposed houses would have a 10% smaller footprint than the existing building and be 1m lower in height. Although a presumption exists against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, officers are satisfied that, on balance, the development of this site for housing can be justified on grounds of very special circumstances. It is considered

51 that the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness is outweighed by other material considerations of significant weight to set side the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The development is considered to be an exemplar scheme with officers satisfied that the development would significantly improve the open character of the Green Belt. The existing building and enclosures are considered to significantly detract from the visual qualities of the surrounding area with the proposed development offering the opportunity to improve the visual appearance of the site with an attractive an innovative pair of eco-styled houses that would merge almost seamlessly into the landscape setting of the site. For the reasons given, it is considered that the development is acceptable and is recommended for approval as a departure from development plan policy.

Case Number 08/02703/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Mixed use development including retail (Use Class A1), food and drink (Use Class A3), Leisure (Use Class D2), offices (Use Class B1), health centre (Use Class D1) and associated highway works, ground works, car parking accommodation, public open space and landscaping works (as amended 21.7.08, 24.7.08, 22.10.08)

Location Land And Buildings Including Corus And Outokumpu Works, Ford Cottage 23 Ford Lane, 452-462 Manchester Road, Town Hall Manchester Road, Town Hall House Manchester Road And 1 Hunshelf Road Hunshelf Road Stocksbridge Sheffield

Date Received 22/05/2008

Team NORTH & WEST

Applicant/Agent Planning Prospects Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall 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 Notwithstanding the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no part of the development shall be used as a pharmacy or as a post office.

In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

53 3 The cumulative total of gross floorspace of units on the application site whose use is primarily for the unrestricted sale of goods for purposes within Use Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 shall not exceed 14,781 square metres. The cumulative total of gross floorspace of units on the application site whose use is primarily for offices within Use Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 shall not exceed 4,731 square metres.

In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

4 Before development commences details of the phasing of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed phasing details unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

5 The phasing of the development shall include provision of a food-based superstore with a minimum floorspace of 5,650 square metres as part of the first phase of development.

In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

6 Before development commences full details of the proposed works to the pedestrian links between the development and the existing centre including signage promoting the existing centre and the phasing of such works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter no part of the development shall be brought into use unless the approved works to the links have been provided in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.

In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

7 Prior to any of the development becoming occupied, details of the management of the customer car park and arrangements to ensure that the customer car parking areas are available for visitors to the existing town centre shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the car parking areas shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved details.

54 In order to protect the vitality and viability of the shopping area in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 and Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S4 and S5.

8 Before any work on site is commenced, a report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying how, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, (a) a minimum of 10% of the developments predicted energy needs will be provided from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy, and (b) the development will generate further renewable or low carbon energy or incorporate design measures sufficient to reduce the development’s overall predicted carbon dioxide emissions by 20% (this would include the decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy required to satisfy (a) above). The approved details of renewable or low carbon technologies shall be operational before the buildings are occupied or shall be brought into operation in accordance with an approved phasing plan which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing 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.

9 Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed servicing arrangements (including the hours of servicing and routing) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter servicing of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

10 The Heavy Goods Vehicle service route to the development shall be restricted solely to the private access road and shall not take place via Manchester Road.

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

11 The development shall not be begun until improvements to the highways listed below have either:

a) been carried out (details of which shall have been given prior approval by the Local Planning Authority), or b) arrangements have been entered into to ensure the works are implemented before any of the apartments are occupied.

Highway Improvements:

- Provision of the highway scheme entailing signal control (with MOVA) at Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road (also controlling the private access opposite Hunshelf Road; controlled pedestrian crossing facilities; new pedestrian links to the historic Stocksbridge retail on Manchester Road; revisions to bus stops and shelters; improvements to Hunshelf Road; new roundabout replacing the oval

55 one; closing the junction with Ford Lane with an appropriate alignment; and improvements/provision of new footways and street lighting along Hunshelf Road.

- A change of operating mode at the Vaughton Hill traffic signals from vehicle activated to MOVA operation, and provision of advance stop lines for cyclists.

- Review/promotion of Traffic Regulation Orders in the vicinity of the development site that might be desirable as a consequence of development (waiting/loading restrictions) entailing advertising, making and implementing the Traffic Regulation Order subject to usual procedures (including provision and installation of regulatory traffic signs and road markings in accordance with traffic signs, Regulations and General Directions 2002).

- A review of tactile paving and lowered kerb locations in the vicinity of the development site (and provision of new facilities where necessary) to assist pedestrians crossing the road and to fit with new pedestrian desire lines created by the development.

- Any other accommodation works to traffic signs, road markings, lighting columns, and general street furniture necessary as a consequence of development.

- Arrangements to secure the funding by the developer of a dedicated bus service to serve the development during its opening hours, linking it to the community on the south side of the valley, or alternatively the running of a commercial service achieving the same objective including details of the proposed service, route and timetabling (together with funding the other initiatives contained within the Framework Travel Plan)

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

12 Prior to the improvement works indicated in condition no. 11 being carried out, full details of these improvement works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

13 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the development commencing, full details of the portion of land to be safeguarded for a potential future rail halt (and access to it) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (including the arrangements for the future release of the land should a rail halt be built).

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.

14 Prior to occupation of any part of the development a detailed Travel Plan specific to that part of the development shall be prepared in accordance with

56 the Framework Travel Plan titled “Outo Kumpu, Stocksbridge Travel Plan” and dated March 2009 or subsequent amendment approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Travel Plan(s) shall include:

1. Clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets; 2. 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, 3. The results and findings of the monitoring shall be independently verified/validated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 4. 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 of any part of the development the approved Travel Plan specific to that part shall thereafter be implemented, subject to any variations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This is a direction of the Highways Agency 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.

15 Prior to any works commencing on site, full details of the following shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the construction works shall only be progressed in accordance with the approved details:

Construction method statement. Site safety. Any temporary site access for construction traffic. Location of site compound and temporary car parking arrangements for contractors. Haulage routes.

Any times when construction works and movement of construction traffic will be restricted.

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

16 The development 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.

57 In the interests of pedestrian safety.

17 The gradient of shared pedestrian/vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

18 The development shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to footway, and means of vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

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

19 Prior to works starting on site 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 remedial works will have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to full occupation of the development.

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

20 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the development becoming occupied, suitable and sufficient, secure and sheltered bicycle/motorcycle parking accommodation (plus storage/changing/shower facilities for the different elements of the project) shall have been provided in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (ideally avoiding the use of butterfly systems which have a tendency to buckle wheels). Thereafter the bicycle/motorcycle parking shall be retained/maintained for the sole purpose intended.

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

21 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development becoming occupied, arrangements shall have been entered into securing the installation/improvement of bus stops/shelters in the immediate vicinity of the development, with raised footway and tactile paving to assist boarding/alighting.

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.

22 All vehicle and pedestrian areas within the site shall have been surfaced, sealed and drained to the satisfaction of Local Planning Authority prior to the development becoming occupied in accordance with a phasing plan that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

23 Prior to the closure of any part of Ford Lane, all arrangements/works associated with the formal closure of Ford Lane shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (including where necessary alterations to statutory undertakers equipment & all street furniture, but incorporating the continuation of STO3).

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

24 Prior to the development becoming occupied, the car parking accommodation and vehicle manoeuvring areas shall have been provided in accordance with the approved plan, with the parking surfaced, sealed, drained and formally marked out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained/maintained for the sole purpose intended.

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

25 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.

26 Prior to the development becoming occupied, car park illumination (including the means of preventing overspill of light) shall have been provided in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of the proposed dwellings and in the interests of public safety.

27 The development shall not be used unless details 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 shall be put into place prior to the use of the buildings commencing, and shall thereafter be retained.

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

28 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, before development commences details of the phasing of provision of the following elements shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

59 Before development commences on any of the following elements, details thereof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The various elements of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and phasing plan and thereafter retained:

- All boundary treatments and locations of walls, fences, railings, gates (rationalization of the highway boundary round the perimeter of the development site, offering the potential for both Section 38 Adoption, and highway closure).

- Street furniture in landscaped walkways/courtyards.

- Palette of materials/specification of vehicle and pedestrian areas within the development site boundary, plus drainage details.

- New retaining structures, cross sections, structural calculations, materials/specifications, construction method statement and method of compaction and material to the rear of the existing retaining wall supporting the steelworks private access road.

- Illumination within the development site boundary together with any associated means of reducing obtrusive light.

- Route/alignment/width of pedestrian/cycle routes through the site (particularly in relation to STO3), including details of railings close to retaining structures and materials/specification.

- Full details of the service road access arrangements for the development off the private road (geometric standards, width & margins, materials & specifications, any drainage implication, tactile paving, long-sections, cross-sections, junction arrangement, visibility/sight lines, signage, illumination.

- Layout, access and servicing arrangements of the retained industrial building’s yard at the eastern end of the site.

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

29 Before the any part of the development is commenced full details of the proposed refuse facilities to be provided to serve that part of the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a method statement indicating how the facilities will be managed and serviced and how occupiers of the proposed development will be encouraged to reduce general waste arising. Prior to the occupation of any part of the proposed development the approved facilities for that part of the development shall have been implemented in conjunction with the approved method statement and shall thereafter be retained.

60 In order to ensure that proper provision for refuse is made and to encourage the reduction of general waste in the interests of protecting the environment.

30 Before the development is commenced full details of the proposed recycling storage facilities to be provided to serve the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a method statement indicating how the facilities will be managed and serviced and how occupiers of the proposed development will be encouraged to maximise the use of the proposed recycling facilities to reduce general waste arising. Prior to the occupation of the proposed development the approved facilities shall have been implemented in conjunction with the approved method statement and shall thereafter be retained.

In order to ensure that proper provision for refuse is made and to encourage the maximum use of recycling in the interests of protecting the environment.

31 No development, including demolition or ground remediation, shall take place until the applicant, their agent, or their successor in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (including building recording), in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that arrangements are made to record, or preserve in situ, considerable archaeological remains present on the development site, as mitigation.

32 Prior to the commencement of any work on site, a detailed scheme for the foundation design and all new ground works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure that ground disturbance is restricted to a minimum and is carried out in the agreed manner to preserve archaeological remains in situ.

33 Notwithstanding any indication given in the submitted details, before development commences details of the arrangements to re-site the following matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(i) existing tank at the junction of Ford Road and Hunshelf Road; (ii) existing external storage racking yard at the junction of Ford Road and Hunshelf Road;

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

34 Before work on site is commenced, full details of suitable inclusive access and facilities for disabled people, both to and into the building(s) and within

61 the curtilage of the site, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such inclusive access and facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter such inclusive access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practice BS8300).

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

35 Notwithstanding the indication given on the submitted documents, details of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(i) proposed roofing slate; (ii) arched windows and surrounding brickwork on the north elevation of Block B;

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

37 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.

38 Before development of each building commences, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:20 of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local planning Authority before the commencement of development:

(i) Windows including rooflights (ii) Window reveals (iii) Doors (iv) Eaves, verges and parapets (v) External wall construction (vi) Brickwork detailing (vii) Entrance canopies (viii) Rainwater gutters and downpipes

62 (ix) typical bay on the north elevation to Block B including windows and surrounds

Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

39 Details of the design and appearance of the items listed below shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of development:

(i) Freestanding walls including retaining walls, fences and gates; (ii) Steps, paths, hardstandings, bollards and other elements of the hard landscaping design including canopies; (iii) Boundary treatments; (iv) Lighting columns, lamp units and their means of preventing overspill of light; (v) Signage strategy including location, design and appearance.

The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

40 Before development commences full details of the package of sustainable measures to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter prior to the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such details as provided shall be retained.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

41 Before the development is commenced full details of proposals for the inclusion of public art within 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 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.

42 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall include details of existing and proposed levels through the proposed reformed bank along the northern boundary of the site, and specific detail must be provided on how those parts of the site adjacent to watercourses or

63 over culverts will be designed to maximize their function as wildlife corridors (the scheme must use native species of known local provenance). The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the local planning authority Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

43 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs, hedges to be retained, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority These measures shall include a construction methodology statement and plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 (its replacement) and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way The local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

44 A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan including measures to enhance biodiversity within the site, including short, medium and long term aims and objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all distinct areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work on site is commenced. The Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

45 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 6.0 (six) metres either side of the centre line of the 450mm and 300mm sewers which cross the site. As an alternative to a stand-off distance the developer may, subject to agreement with Yorkshire Water (the statutory sewerage undertaker), arrange for the sewers to be diverted away from the proposed development.

In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work of the public sewerage network at all times.

46 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 4.0 (four) metres either side of the centre line of the 225/150mm sewers which cross the site.

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

47 No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal and treatment of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that the development can be properly drained.

48 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

49 No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall for surface water have been completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

To ensure that the site is properly drained and surface water is not discharged to the foul sewerage system which will prevent overloading.

50 Surface water from vehicle parking and hardstanding areas shall be passed through an interceptor of adequate capacity prior to discharge. Roof drainage should not be passed through any interceptor.

In the interest of satisfactory drainage.

51 The development shall not be occupied unless sound insulation measures have been implemented, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. Thereafter the approved sound insulation measures shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

52 A scheme showing details of all external plant and equipment, together with any associated noise attenuation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. The works comprising the approved scheme shall be completed before any such plant and equipment is brought into use and shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

53 The commercial office use hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall:

65 a) be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey; b) be capable of achieving internal noise levels as per Noise Rating Curve: NR45 (Noise Rating Curves should be measured as a 15 minute linear Leq at the octave band centre frequencies 31.5 Hz to 8kHz); c) include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation.

Before the scheme of sound attenuation works is installed, full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

54 Prior to the use of any commercial catering facilities included as part of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of odour control shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based on the required information to support a planning application for a commercial kitchen as detailed in annex B and a risk assessment as detailed in annex C of the DEFRA document “Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems“, published in January 2005. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the use commencing and shall be retained. Any change to the scheme of odour control shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority in writing and agreed prior to installation.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

55 Development shall not commence until actual or potential land contamination and ground gas contamination at the site has been investigated and a Phase I Preliminary Risk Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Reports shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004.

Should further intrusive investigation be recommended in the Phase I Preliminary Risk Assessment Report, development shall not commence until a Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR 11 (Environment Agency 2004), and PPS23.

Should remediation be recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report, development shall not commence until a Remediation Strategy Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Strategy Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and PPS23. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with an approved Remediation Strategy, or unexpected contamination is encountered at any stage of the process, the Local

66 Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Revisions to the Remediation Strategy 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.

Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The Validation Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and PPS23. The site shall not be brought in to use until all the validation data has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of the works outlined in the approved Remediation Strategy Report:

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

56 An Air Quality Management Plan for the development, including mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work on site is commenced. The Air Quality Management Plan and approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

57 The flood risk mitigation measures summarised in section 12.2.2 of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment report shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development. The required measures are as follows:-

Provision of a 2 metre flood wall as indicated in G-11-1 of the Flood Risk Assessment;

Finished floor levels shall be set at a minimum level of 150.25 metres Above Ordnance Datum unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

Dry access/egress routes kept open as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment

To reduce the risk of the development flooding.

58 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the management of surface water run-off shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme, as detailed in section 12.2.2 of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment report shall include:- Full details of an oversized pipe to convey waters to the river; Full details of a surface water run-off storage facility; Full details of Vortex Control and overflow to manage discharge.

67 The development shall thereafter proceed only in strict accordance with agreed scheme.

To ensure that the proposed development will not exacerbate flooding to itself or elsewhere.

59 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run- off during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

To ensure sediment is not introduced to watercourses during the construction period.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

IB5 - Development in General Industry Areas IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas S4 - District Centre Shopping S5 - Shop Developments outside the Central Shopping Area and District Centres BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest BE17 - Design & Materials in Areas of Special Character or Historic Interest BE18 - Development in Areas of Special Character CS33 - Jobs and Housing in Stocksbridge/Deepcar CS34 - District Centres CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS66 - Air Quality CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS70 - Provision for Recycling and Composting

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

This informative is intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Planning Records section on 2734220 or by visiting Sheffield City Council’s website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/your- city-council/council-meetings/planning-boards

2. The proposed design and layout are of an acceptable quality.

68 Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. 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.

2. To ensure that the road and/or footpaths on this development are constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the work will be inspected by representatives of the City Council. An inspection fee will be payable on commencement of the works. The fee is based on the rates used by the City Council, under the Advance Payments Code of the Highways Act 1980.

If you require any further information please contact Mr S A Turner on Sheffield (0114) 2734383.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. To ensure that the road and/or footpaths on this development are constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the work will be inspected by representatives of the City Council. An inspection fee will be payable on commencement of the works. The fee is based on the rates used by the City Council, under the Advance Payments Code of the Highways Act 1980.

69 If you require any further information please contact Mr S A Turner on Sheffield (0114) 2734383.

6. For advice on the preparation of Travel Plans, contact Paul Sullivan (0114 205 3073) SCC Travel Plan Officer. For advice regarding Traffic Regulation Orders for double yellow lines contact Eric Wilson (0114 273 6178).

7. The Environment Agency has advised that The Little River Don is 'main river’ therefore the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws 1980 will both apply. Briefly, these state that there shall be no development (including tipping, fencing, etc.) within 8 metres of the top of the bank, or the landward toe of a flood defence structure, without the prior written consent of the Environment Agency. If such development is proposed, then an application with full details must be submitted for consent.

8. YWA Directives.

9. EPS Directives.

70 Site Location

INTRODUCTION

Consideration of this application was deferred at the meeting of this Board held on 11 November 2008 to allow officers to negotiate with the applicants on the satisfactory resolution of outstanding details in respect of the development.

The details outstanding in November 2008 were;

- the Environment Agency’s assessment of flood risk and biodiversity issues; - the Highways Agency's assessment of the impact of the development on the A616 Stocksbridge Bypass; - the assessment of the robustness and sensitivity of the proposed improvements to the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction; - consideration of the impact on air quality; - the proposed pedestrian links within the car park being widened; - resolution of the arrangements to divert the pedestrian/cycle/bridleway.

71 Since that meeting of the Board the assessments of the application by the Environment Agency and Highways Agency have been received, the assessments of the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction and air quality issues have been concluded, and the applicant has subsequently submitted amended plans for consideration which include the pedestrian links and diversion proposals.

These and other matters are considered below.

LOCATION

The application site is located in the valley bottom of Stocksbridge at the eastern end of the town centre.

The site includes land and buildings on Manchester Road, to both sides of Hunshelf Road and off Ford Lane.

The site is currently occupied by some of the industrial buildings and land of Corus Engineering Steels and the Outo Kumpu works and commercial premises on Manchester Road and also includes a dwelling on Ford Lane and the forecourt to the Stocksbridge Town Council offices. A railway line serving the Corus works and the Little Don River, which is partly in culvert, run alongside the site.

Beyond the site to the north there is a small commercial business and several residential properties on the valley side. To the south of the site there are various commercial and residential properties along Manchester Road.

PROPOSAL

The proposal has been amended since the last meeting of the Board. The amendments include revisions to the car park layout and pedestrian links, revisions to the appearance and internal layout of the proposed buildings, and minor re- siting/massing of the Block A building.

The proposal as amended seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of the application site for shops, food and drink outlets, leisure, office and health centre uses. Whilst the applicant is seeking a flexible approach to the arrangement of these uses within the proposed buildings the general arrangement of the proposed uses has been indicated.

The applicant has submitted various supporting documents including transport, retail, and flood risk assessments, a sustainability statement and an archaeological specification for building recording.

The redevelopment of the site will involve demolition of several buildings on the site, retention of some buildings and erection of new buildings and structures.

The amended plans show the demolition of two buildings on Manchester Road, one (no.452/454) whose demolition together with the reforming of the forecourt to the Stocksbridge Town Council building enables the widening of Hunshelf Road at

72 its junction with Manchester Road, and the other (no. 462) enables the formation of a widened footpath link between Manchester Road and Hunshelf Road.

The existing roundabout part way down Hunshelf Road would be re-shaped giving access to redeveloped land either side of Hunshelf Road whilst also maintaining access to the retained Corus works.

On the west side of Hushelf Road, the proposal seeks to refurbish an existing building (Block D) providing 310 sqm of office/retail/food and drink floorspace, and erect two new two-storey buildings (Block E) providing 10 office units totalling 1110 sqm.

To the rear of these units parking for 215 cars is proposed of which 128 spaces would serve the Corus Works and 87 spaces would serve the proposed development. Within this area land is set aside for a potential rail halt although the rail halt itself is not part of this application.

On the eastern side of Hunshelf Road three large new buildings, a kiosk and car parking are proposed.

The first of these proposed buildings (Block B) is sited next to Hunshelf Road and the railway line and is partly new build and partly refurbishment of retained parts of the existing building. It would provide 5 small shop units on its western side totalling 260 sqm fronting onto Hunshelf Road, 7 larger shop units (one including a first floor mezzanine level) totalling 7030 sqm and a small kiosk unit of 100 sqm on its principle elevation facing northwards, 3 small first floor office units at the western end of this building totalling 280 sqm, and 2 office units on the ground/first and second floors at the eastern end of this building totalling 2200 sqm.

On the northern side of the site across the proposed car park a new building (Block A) is proposed. This building would provide 9 ground floor shop units totalling 1130 sqm, and 5 first floor office units totalling 830 sqm.

In front of Block A, a single-storey semi-circular kiosk providing 130 sqm of floorspace is proposed.

At the eastern end of the site a large retail building (Block C) is proposed providing a 5820 sqm food store unit (including a restaurant) and a smaller unit of 500 sqm.

In front of these buildings on the east side of Hunshelf Road a car park of 635 spaces is proposed, together with a further 28 space car park at the rear of Block C.

Overall the proposal would provide approximately 4420 sqm of offices and 14870 sqm of retail and other uses.

The proposed external materials on the buildings comprise natural stone and red brickwork for the elevations, re-constituted slates for the steeper pitched roofs of Blocks A, B and E, metal roof covering for the shallow roof section on part of Block B and a combination of metal roof and rooflights on Block C.

The amended plans include provision for the diversion of an existing right of way between Hunshelf Road and the eastern boundary of the site onto a proposed widened route running alongside the access road on the north side of Block A and continuing along the realigned service road to the north of Block C.

Other pedestrian links are also proposed within and through the site.

The proposal includes hard and soft landscaping works particularly to the primary pedestrian links through the development and structural and amenity planting within the site.

The applicant has submitted a statement of Community involvement and a set of feedback forms from their public consultation session held in April 2009. 58 forms have been submitted (42 in favour, 16 against/unsure) Feedback comments summary;

- complete on time, just what Stocksbridge needs - wrongly referred to as regeneration, devastate local shops, invest in existing centre, concern about redundant shops, centre of town may die, more shops not needed, note what people really want - rather see manufacturing, make valley bottom more green, add play area, should be public access to river, incorporate river - more priority to local businesses, - add child care facility and outdoor market - not linked to local shops - good parking and public transport links - keep Ford Lane open, prevents link with trans Pennine trail - concern at increase traffic and pollution, access needed from bypass - put a station in, add park and ride and Supertram link - buildings look fine, blends in - buildings soul less, large areas of ashphalt - what about little wind turbines, green roofs - Block A windows overlook Hunshelf Park - like Fox connection, will there be a tourist point/area - bring work into area - low paid work not going to regenerate Stocksbridge

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant recent planning history on this site.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Further publicity has been given to this application following the recent submission of amended drawings.

After the meeting of the Board in November 2008, representations have been received both before the submission of the latest amended plans and since.

74 At the meeting of the Board in November 2008 it was reported that the following petition and representations had been received.

A petition containing 354 signatures objecting to the building of Block A in planned location which will be of detriment to an established existing business and its customers, removal of Ford Lane one of the oldest roads and rights of way in Stocksbridge, and increased development wall heights creating inward looking retail park/introduction of a high wall surrounding the retail development.

28 letters of objection relating to the following matters;

- Sheffield has enough characterless retail parks offering identical shops, will be filled with national chains resulting in most of the income leaving the town, development does not support the local economy/centre; - jobs will not be high quality skilled nature, no details how local enterprise will be encouraged or assisted by the scheme, effect on smaller shops could be significant, reduces social cohesion, creates a closed shopping environment for chosen few (large multiples), not an appropriate scale; - goes against existing policy, more than 300m to crossing in town centre, topography and lack of frontage activity will sever the site from the existing centre, 971 space parking will not promote accessibility, no public transport nodes shown, development relies on car-borne travel; - alterations made to heights of buildings and location of sunken tank, size of project increased by 20%, inaccuracies in assessments, Chapeltown Asda is less than 18.6 km away; - no need for a third supermarket, development is inward facing which will not encourage shoppers to venture as far as existing shops, development needs to be scaled down with no large walls; - do not reflect needs of the town, need for large retail development shops and car park not effectively established, scheme places too much emphasis on retail and not enough on imaginative and creative industries, too little regard to shopping provision in centre of Stocksbridge, increased road transport is hardly a green option and existing stores already provide necessities, focus on the car appears to go against aim of encouraging trade to the town, don’t need more out of town shopping, better for home delivery shopping to be increased, developers research flawed; - loss of important public rights of way, Ford Lane should be retained and used for pedestrians and as a cycleway to connect the cycle trails in the area for ecological and health reasons; - development would divide the town into two, with its inward looking design, high blank walls and fencing, would lead to closure of several local businesses, it would be better to develop the current centre and the scruffy parade; - vast increase in traffic on Manchester Road, widening access will create traffic issues, no to new crossing on Manchester Road, signalising junction will cause delays on Manchester Road the public transport route with no benefits, removal of bus stop, existing vehicle access to Smithy Hill still needed; - opening of private access road to public needs to be a planning condition, increase in traffic down Pea Royd/Hunshelf Road, vibrations from heavy traffic, danger to children, pedestrians and traffic, effect on junction on Hunshelf Road

75 from access to bypass/reduced size of junction, junction needs open views to pedestrians; - increase traffic on all routes including Deepcar traffic lights and Main Road in Wharncliffe Side and children crossing, access remains poor, heavy residential parking on Manchester Road, already a difficult road for buses and lorries, no firm agreement that private road from bypass will be used, accesses narrow to limited driving area still to be used by the steel works, vital to encourage sustainable transport, need to look at train links and bus stops, until proper access through a reopened railway or extended parking out of town can be provided this site provides insuperable access problems for domestic traffic; - no mention of utilising railway line; - demolition of a home when shortage of housing, loss of building to make a larger access, retain gym, no to restaurant in gymnasium; - loss of light and privacy due to height/location of block A, higher boundary wall does not embrace the existing area and businesses, affects setting of existing building; - Block A looks awful, it is the dirty backside of the development, almost doubled in size creating a massive structure intruding on sightlines of Hunshelf Park, intrude on privacy, it needs to be smaller in height, tall buildings block out light, it needs to be inclusive to the Lunchbox café and homes on Hunshelf Park and a friendlier outlook, remove from plans if it blocks Ford Lane, the section drawing though Block A and properties on Hunshelf Park is misleading; - Materials chosen for the buildings have been downgraded, out of keeping; - Safety and security of areas surrounding development will become more at risk due to increase in visitors and traffic; - rear of the complex is vulnerable to crime and antisocial behaviour, increased security lighting will add to light pollution; - some buildings not in keeping with the area; - development has little to make it unique to the area, a feature needs to be made of the river and existing stone buildings and use made or railway for passenger traffic and freight, the infrastructure needs to be considered prior to consent to build, less concrete more trees equals better flood control - lost history and heritage, no mention of retaining original features in the area such as the existing bridge, loss of Ford Lane and public rights of way which is best access point, open up old Stocks bridge adding attraction for tourists; - flood prevention measures not sufficient, raising level of the area still not above level of last years flooding, large car park is likely to increase flooding problems and pollute water ecosystem; - relocation of water/oil interceptor will affect mature tree; - make it as near as possible carbon neutral, development seems planned with motorists rather than users in mind; - sustainability statement is brief, option of siting a turbine higher up the valley side to power the site should be investigated; - noise pollution, noise form car park behind houses on Manchester road, no mention of what will be done to prevent noise to the north of the site of remediation work needed, air quality report insufficient; - four new restaurants excessive, no mention of measures to control litter; - no mention of improving or providing wildlife habitats; - mayhem from machinery used during development;

76 - in favour of regeneration but doubt this proposal represents the best way forward, a revised submission with a large food store at the western end of the site would address local concerns whilst enhancing the centre; - consultation process patchy residents not aware of changes.

3 letters stating not opposed in principle but concerned at the following matters;

- worried about impact this development will have, needs to be acceptable to all and set standards for the future of Stocksbridge; - concerned about limited facilities regarding schooling, transport links and congestion if potential housing redevelopment; - there are not adequate links from the site to the existing shops and businesses in the town centre prejudicing vitality and viability of the existing centre, made worse by location of supermarket as far away from town centre as possible, development is inward looking creating a new centre with detriment to the old one; - lost opportunity to open up the course of the river; - character of new buildings should reflect residential character and let industrial buildings stand for themselves; - the corner unit has single aspect and blank walls to highway, footpath to building D not apparent, security gates will prevent use of car park, will people be able to use car park whilst using other facilities in Stocksbridge; - little or no internal landscaping, some external landscaping seems to be outside the site; - impact of traffic using Hunshelf Road link to bypass should be considered in case improvements are needed to junctions including Hunshelf Road and Ford Lane, concerns for The Works Lunchbox if road improvements take place outside it, move Block A if necessary; - can junction on hillside be achieved; - will cause considerable traffic congestion in Stocksbridge with little advantage if drivers just visit the retail park, no public transport or footpaths shown into the site, no petrol filling station shown; - the vernacular buildings to be lost should be investigated to establish if they have more historic roots; - public rights of way and existing walks should not be removed or incorporated into a retail development where traffic becomes an issue, Ford Lane should be kept separate; - the development turns its back on a business isolating it; - small amount of open space does not relate to anything other than the development.

18 letters of support;

- it is what Stocksbridge needs; - will attract additional customers to the town; - new jobs will be created; - better parking and some toilet facilities would be an asset.

77 Stocksbridge Town Council has made the following comments;

- weight restrictions be placed from the top of Hunshelf Road to the roundabout at the bottom; - conditions be attached to any approval for phase 1 of the programme relating to the development of the infrastructure linking to the bypass, be carried out within 5 years of the retail development taking place; - the current proposals for one access road for service vehicles be adhered to; - public transport access be included in any conditions; - a desire to see the development move ahead with the current local shopping facilities.

Stocksbridge Community Forum has raised the following issues;

- has the development been moved slightly south to increase landscaping on the northern side and to reduce the height of the retaining wall; - queried the siting of the bus stop; - the planned layout is too enclosed and inward looking, appeared insular and cut off from the town.

Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise Partnership has objected;

- people should be given more time to consider the plans; - details are unclear and look like they disadvantage local businesses; - local businesses should be considered and consulted.

The Stocksbridge Design Statement Group has commented/objected;

- in the shopping survey used to justify the proposed retail development only 4 out of 26 postcodes listed were near Stocksbridge, some are adjacent large new retail developments so it is not surprising that 80pence in pound is spent outside Stocksbridge; - object to proposal to extend and heighten the block to the north of the site, substantial enlargement will affect existing building to the north blocking winter sun and have a higher profile in the valley, as the proposed number of units increases so chances of filling existing units become fewer, at present there are two large buildings empty which would house four or five small units; - whilst the consultation opportunities have been good early on there has been little time for comments on last minute changes.

Bolsterstone Community Group have commented;

- endorse views of Socksbridge Town Council and Stocksbridge Community Forum; - while broadly in agreement with the scope and quality of the development hope all the concerns and reservations expressed may be discussed and resolved before the development goes ahead.

78 A letter on behalf of the Changing Places, Changing Lives Initiative stating;

- ensure that a changing place is included in the development.

Don Valley Railway Limited has commented;

- an area be set aside for a railway station and park and ride facilities for the centre of Stocksbridge to offer an alternative form of transport and reduce congestion; - object to plans not including a railway station and park and ride facility.

A letter on behalf of Corus Engineering Steels supporting the principle of a mixed use development subject to a detailed review the application has on the core steel business operational requirements and redistribution of displaced CES uses.

After the meeting of the Board in November 2008 and prior to the latest amended plans the following representations have been received;

15 letters of objection have been received;

- already well served with supermarkets and other local businesses, do not reflect needs of the town, need not established, impact on businesses, telephone research flawed, food store would have a monopoly; - loss of Ford Lane an historic road which meets the old Stocks bridge, not sufficient provision to join a cycle route along the riverside or join the trans pennine trail, the proposed route is not level, a problem for cyclists carrying heavy shopping older and disabled people; - worried about the infrastructure of local amenities; - concerns about the development being on a floodplain; - new pedestrian access route shows no improvements, does not give a clear view, stairs discourage use; - concerns about highway issues, dangers of using works access road, increase traffic will be a problem, generation of thousands of car journeys per day on narrow dangerous unsuitable roads, servicing access from Hunshelf Road to rear of Manchester Road properties conflicts with controlled crossing impact on Deepcar traffic lights not catered for, look into access via bypass; - bland anonymous scheme, materials downgraded, size of Block A overbearing, perspective will make Block A look better than it will be; - need to consider green building method, sustainable technology, green roofs, drainage run-off and harvesting, impact on shops and roads, improving pedestrian access on Manchester Road, is development practical in a recession, mix of retailers, is it to serve Stocksbridge or passing trade; - lost opportunity, chance to create place of individuality and character would be lost, provision should be made to open up riverside to the public as a green corridor for wildlife and recreation, move development down more leaving space for open green space; - developers DVD omits views from Hunshelf Park, Hunshelf Road and private road;

79 The South and East Yorkshire Federation of Small Businesses has objected on behalf of small businesses trading in the Stocksbridge area; - livelihoods of owners and employees of many small businesses will be placed at risk, diverse culture will be undermined, Stocksbridge cannot afford to loose the variety and diversity, will draw away business activity from present trading community, no evidence of integrating with existing trading infrastructure, no provision for affordable premises to encourage new enterprises.

1 letter of comment has been received;

- safest view is to see what the majority opinion is.

5 letters of support have been received;

- Stocksbridge is in great need of development, wonderful opportunity for the whole community, important that provisions are made so people do not drive out of town; - would be good to see public transport provision in the development; - plans look really good; - extra jobs are needed; - slight qualm is there is no play area;

A letter of support has been received from Angela Smith MP;

- the scheme is important to the town; - most residents of the area do not shop in Stocksbridge, the development of a new shopping centre is vital to encourage local spending, increase local footfall and help regenerate Stocksbridge town centre; - the development is important to Corus Engineering Steels to rationalise that part of the site; - importance of retaining and creating new jobs in Stocksbridge.

Stocksbridge Town Council have requested a condition be imposed to ensure commitment to provide customer access to/from the by-pass to the development as part of phase 1.

Following the submission of the latest amended plans the following representations have been received;

8 letters of objection have been received;

- it will not benefit the people or the area, cannot see that the area needs more than it has, more chain stores are not the answer, enough take-aways and cafes to satisfy the area; - does not address regeneration of the town as a whole, the new additions would take trade from local small businesses, will drive out small businesses, customers will not walk a quarter of a mile with loaded shopping bags from the existing shops to the new car park when all they have to do is visit a one-stop supermarket and park outside it, telephone survey was flawed; - shops on old Corus site would soon close with exception of the supermarket;

80 - should flooding happen again people lives could be at risk, entry point to site and the car park and the only way out was at least a metre deep in fast running water; - concern about extra traffic, ability of local roads to cope, increase traffic congestion, proposed use of link to bypass for goods only, Manchester Road is already busy concern at emphasis on car access, absence of plans to incorporate the rail link; - buildings not in keeping with the preferred character; - loss of Ford Lane as a flat route for pedestrians, cyclists or horses, prevent effective link to the Pennine trail; - large areas of tarmac, green issues not addressed sufficiently; - the land should be developed as a park garden centre and recreation area, better to revamp town centre, now is the chance to provide unique town by providing central parking, fill existing shops and more independents, the area needs industry, waste opportunity to capitalise on town’s industrial heritage;

The Stocksbridge Community Forum has objected to the urban design changes shown on the amended plans;

- Stocksbridge Community Forum commented originally and liked the buildings, what is the point of a group representing the community commenting when an undemocratic group can overrule them and get changes made.

Don Valley Railway Limited have restated their objection;

- Don Valley Railway are progressing the rail project, the use of the rail line is in the SDF and SYPTE 10 year plans which should be kept in mind in future developments in or near the rail link.

1 letter of support has been received;

- the development cannot happen soon enough, the whole area is dominated by an existing store, it will give the town a facelift and generate jobs;

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

Since the meeting of the Board in November 2008 the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development Framework has been adopted.

The main policy considerations are contained in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan, the Core Strategy, the Corus Works Development Brief which overlaps part of the site, the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Government’s planning policy guidance on planning for town centres contained in PPS6.

The Regional Spatial Strategy

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) identifies Stocksbridge as a principle town. The RSS seeks to support the continued regeneration of Stocksbridge. Policy E2

81 of the RSS relating to town centre and major facilities states that the centres of principle towns should be a focus of local services and facilities and seeks to create distinctive, attractive and vibrant sense of place and identity for each centre. Policy YH5 of the RSS relating to principle towns also reflects these roles.

The Sheffield Unitary Development Plan

The Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies that part of the application site to the north of the railway line where the new buildings are proposed as being within a General Industry Area. The remainder of the application site on the south side of the railway line lies within the eastern end of the Stocksbridge District Shopping Centre.

The UDP also identifies part of the application site alongside Hunshelf Road as being within the Hunshelf Area of Special Character.

The Core Strategy

The Core Strategy (CS) forms part of the emerging Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) and provides the overall spatial strategy for the SDF and the spatial objectives and spatial context for decisions. As such it supersedes some but not all of the UDP policies.

Core Strategy Policy CS34 lists Stocksbridge as one of the district centres.

The Corus Works Development Brief

Since the adoption of the UDP, the Council has approved the Corus Works Development Brief (CWDB) as a material consideration in the determining of planning applications within the area covered by the Development Brief.

The CWDB sets a framework for the redevelopment of surplus land at Corus Engineering Steels in a co-ordinated and planned manner. The CWDB acknowledged discussions with adjoining land owners however at the time of preparation of the CWDB the Outo Kumpu land holdings were not incorporated within it.

The CWDB identifies the operational land to be retained by CORUS and identifies 7 sites (A to G) for redevelopment variously for residential, industry/warehousing, offices and mixed uses. The CWDB recognised that some of its proposals depart from the UDP.

Those parts of this current planning application site that lie to the west of Hunshelf Road and to the north side of the Outo Kumpu service road are within the area covered by the CWDB.

The land to the west side of Hunshelf Road immediately north of the railway line and the service road past Outo Kumpu works (which led to the Corus trailer yard) on the east side of Hunshelf Road were identified in the CWDB as retained CORUS operational land.

The lawned area and adjacent service road to the CORUS works on the west side of Hunshelf Road are identified in the CWDB as part of a proposed mixed use development of the adjacent historic core of the works (Site D) involving offices, residential, retail, leisure, food and drink and community uses. The CWDB recognises the benefit of retaining the lawned area as open space.

The land north of the service road on the east side of Hunshelf Road is identified in the CWDB as proposed office/leisure sites (Sites E and F).

The CWDB seeks to provide shared surface footpath/cycleway links and encourages contributions to the upgrading of a heritage trail in the area.

Impact on Existing Centres

The UDP and PPS6 provide guidance on the development of this site.

Policy IB5 of the UDP relates to development in General Industry Areas. In this instance Policy IB5 states that within the General Industry Area shops, other than small shops, are unacceptable uses unless at the edge of the District Shopping Centre, and that offices, food and drink outlets, community facilities and leisure uses are acceptable uses in principle. Policy IB9(a) seeks to ensure that the dominance of preferred uses in industry and business areas is maintained.

Policy CS33 of the Core Strategy relating to jobs and housing in Stocksbridge/Deepcar includes safeguarding surplus industrial land for business development where it could provide employment and business opportunities for local people and that opportunities will be taken as they arise to improve the environment of Stocksbridge district centre and to enable its improvement and expansion when land becomes available.

The proposal will result in the loss of a significant amount of industrial land and floorspace and the provision of new office floorspace. Within this General Industry Area the preferred uses will remain dominant. Stocksbridge has a limited role in providing industrial employment for the city as a whole given its location. A more appropriate role is to provide for local employment need which is reflected in the RSS policies that recognise the role of principle towns in having a service centre function. The provision of business development in the form of the proposed office buildings and floorspace is welcomed and would comply with Policy CS33. There are no strategic objections to the level of office provision.

The key issue of Policy IB5 in this instance is whether the proposed shopping provision constitutes an edge of centre development.

Policy S1 of the UDP (relating to the city centre and location of major shop developments) previously referred to in the November 2008 report has been superseded by the Core Strategy.

83 Policy S4 of the UDP promotes retail development in district shopping centres and only permits proposals for retail development at the edge of district shopping centres where they comply with Policy S5.

Policy S5 of the UDP permits edge of centre major development for non-food and food goods where there is no suitable site within the centre and where the development would satisfy criteria relating to not undermining the vitality and viability of the city centre or the district shopping centre, not jeopardising private sector investment in the centre, being easily accessible, not significantly harming public transport and the road network, not significantly increasing the number and length of customer trips and not taking up land where other uses are required.

The Government’s planning policy guidance on planning for town centres contained in PPS6 adds additional key considerations of need and scale, and applies a sequential approach to site selection.

The UDP defines edge of centre as being within easy walking distance of 200 to 300 metres of the primary shopping area and providing parking facilities that serve the centre as well as the store enabling one trip to serve several purposes. PPS6 identifies edge of centre as a location well connected to and within easy walking distance of up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area taking into account local circumstances of topography, barriers, attractiveness and safety of the route, and the strength and size of the town centre.

The proposed development adjoins the edge of Stocksbridge primary shopping area. Within the proposed layout the furthest unit, Block C at the eastern end of the site, is approximately 310 metres from the primary shopping area. The critical element is the link along and across Hunshelf Road and on to Manchester Road due to the gradients on footpaths, the potential conflict between shoppers/parents with children and the traffic travelling along the road, and the potential quality and enhancement of the link.

In this instance the proposed Block B is sited next to the edge of the site and the existing shopping area and includes small retail units fronting onto Hunshelf Road, the proposal includes provision and enhancement of the footpaths up to Manchester Road, and seeks to provide a pedestrian crossing facility on Hunshelf Road. Within the existing centre recent paving and public realm enhancement works have taken place just to the west of the proposed links. The amendments to the application include improvements to the pedestrian link through the site to Block C, and enhancements to the appearance of Block B, particularly its southwest corner which is visually prominent from and adjacent to the existing shopping area. The applicant has stated that the proposed car park be managed to provide a 2-3 hour time limit allowing people to shop in the existing centre.

It is considered that subject to the proposed parking facilities being available to serve the existing centre and the extension of the proposed link to include re- paving on the north side of Manchester Road up to the recently completed scheme, the proposal comprises an edge of centre development. Conditions requiring agreement of details of the management of the proposed car parking to

84 ensure that it also serves the existing centre, and of satisfactory off-site highway works are recommended.

The need for additional retail development can be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

The existing Stocksbridge centre has no large superstore. The two largest convenience stores are the Co-op and Lidl stores. The retail assessment states that only 13% of local residents do their food shopping at these stores with 70% doing their shopping elsewhere in superstores. A superstore in Stocksbridge is therefore likely to satisfy shopper's needs and reduce the need to travel. Assessment of the combined convenience spending in the local catchment area shows a quantitative need for approximately 1,100 sq metres of additional food retail sales floorspace which is half of that currently proposed. Assessment of local comparison spending, allowing for growth of the New Retail Quarter in the city centre, shows a quantitative need for approximately 2830 sq metres of sale floorspace which is just less than half of that proposed.

There is a qualitative need to increase the quantity and range of goods available to residents of Stocksbridge. A superstore of the size proposed would provide this for convenience goods.

The scale of the proposed retail development would be large relative to the Stocksbridge district centre and would more than double the amount of retail floorspace in Stocksbridge. However this scale of development is justified given Stockbridge's role as a principle town and district shopping centre and the qualitative benefits of the proposal.

Within the existing Stocksbridge district centre there are no sites suitable or available for the development. There are no other available sites closer to the centre. The proposal satisfies the sequential approach to location of the development.

The proposal will Impact to varying degrees on the vitality and viability of existing centres in the catchment area. The retail assessment anticipates that trade loss from centres would be a small proportion, around 2%, of their non-food turnover. The proposed superstore would claw back some of Stocksbridge resident's convenience goods spending from beyond the town although trade would also be taken from existing shops in Stocksbridge and other nearby centres.

The assessment assumes that the proposed superstore would result in a 13% convenience trade loss from the existing Stocksbridge centre although there will also be spin-off trade in the existing centre from people visiting the new development. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that no part of the proposed development contains a pharmacy or post office to encourage people to visit the existing pharmacy and post office in the centre which provide for peoples day-to-day needs. The impact on Hillsborough district centre is primarily on an existing superstore which although important to that district centre's vitality and viability is currently overtrading and as such the impact on Hillsborough is acceptable. The impact on Chapeltown district centre would primarily be on an

85 existing superstore taking a sixth of its trade. This store was previously under trading but has had recent investment in it. It is considered that the Chapeltown district centre is in good health and the proposal would not impact significantly on it.

There are bus stops on Manchester Road close to the Hunshelf Road junction and the proposed enhancements to the link between Manchester Road and the site provide reasonable accessibility. The proposed provision of a bus stop on Hunshelf Road and a hopper bus stop outside Block C would enable improvements to the sites accessibility should bus operators be encouraged to use these stops.

Overall whilst there is no quantitative need for the amount of retail floorspace proposed, there is a qualitative need for a development to enhance Stocksbridge as a district centre, and a qualitative need for a superstore to broaden the range of goods available, clawback expenditure and reduce trips. There are no other suitable sites. The scale is large relative to the existing centre but it will not raise Stocksbridge above its role as a district centre. It will have a positive impact on Stocksbridge which will outweigh negative impact on other centres. It is considered that no centre will be significantly harmed.

Sustainability

The Government’s planning policy guidance in PPS1 on delivering sustainable development and its accompanying document Planning for Climate Change seek to facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development. The RSS reinforces this approach. Core Strategy Policies CS63 to CS67 and CS70 promote various sustainability issues.

The applicant’s sustainability statement sets out the principles of the applicant’s approach as being to achieve a minimum of a good or very good BREEAM rating, minimising material going off-site from construction works, re-using structural frames subject to safety, flexible form of buildings, integration with the town centre and public realm works, allowing for buses, use of green travel plans, cycle routes and parking, recycling as much waste as possible, minimising heat loss to buildings and solar gain, providing natural daylight, installation of solar thermal water heating, use of low energy fittings and efficient gas condensed boilers, re- use of rainwater, flood alleviation and rain water attenuation measures, encourage biodiversity in landscape design, use of low polluting and sustainable materials.

Subsequent additional submissions by the applicant expand upon these principles and additionally include confirmation that a combined heat and power unit will be incorporated within the foodstore and that the offices will be naturally ventilated.

The amplification of the package of sustainable approaches to this development is noted and conditions to secure the impact of this approach are recommended.

Flood Risk

The proposal has been considered against the sequential approach to site selection. In this instance whilst there are no alternative in centre sites in the

86 Stocksbridge district centre this edge of centre site will enable linked trips to both the existing centre and the proposed development and reduce overall car trips.

The site lies alongside the Little Don River which is a main river and which is partly in culvert and partly in open channel. A large proportion of the site around Hunshelf Road and at the south and eastern end of the site lies within an area where there is a high risk of flooding, although it does not function as a flood plain, with adjacent areas at medium risk. The remaining parts of the site are at low risk from flooding. Part of the site was affected by flooding in the events of June 2007.

The applicant has pursued the sequential approach to flood risk and has submitted a flood risk assessment in accordance with the Government’s guidance in PPS25 and the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. In this instance there are no other reasonably available sites at a lower risk of flooding suitable for the proposed development. Both the existing and proposed uses are considered to be less vulnerable uses. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the flood risk by incorporating a combination of measures to restrict flooding, and manage any site inundation and surface water run-off. The existing site levels are proposed to be raised by an average of 0.9 metres with new buildings having a finished floor level approximately 0.5 metres higher than the retained building (Block B). A continuous retaining wall of varying height is proposed along the southern boundary of the site typically 2 metres high above the adjacent railway line level and 0.5 metres above the higher site level but reducing in the vicinity of an open culvert at the eastern end of the site to allow discharge from the site back to the river in an extreme flood event. Oversize pipes and an on-site storage tank are proposed to allow attenuation of on-site run-off to rates less than currently occurs. A dry access/egress route is proposed running to the north of Block C.

The applicant has stated that existing surface water run-off will be reduced by 30%.

The applicant’s submissions on flood risk have been assessed by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency considers the applicant’s submissions comply with Government planning policy guidance contained in PPS25. On the issue of flood risk the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions to secure the flood risk mitigation measures and management of surface water run-off.

Travel Plans

The applicant’s supporting design and access statement submissions recognise the importance of travel plans as a component of sustainability. Service vehicles will be routed to the site via the by-pass and private steel works access road to reduce congestion in the town centre.

The applicants have updated their submitted framework travel plan, which has now been approved by the Highways Agency. There are no transportation objections to the submitted travel plan.

87 Recycling

The applicant proposes to provide rainwater harvesting storage tanks throughout the development for use in the flushing systems of the WC’s and for watering the soft landscaping on the site.

The applicant proposes to provide an area for recycling bins for business waste within the service yards.

A recycling facility within the customer car park is also proposed.

The proposed recycling facility is welcomed. A condition is recommended to secure its detail and management.

Sustainable Design

The applicant’s proposal to incorporate a combined heat and power unit as part of the foodstore is welcomed. Natural lighting is proposed to some of the buildings using northlight windows in the roof design as a means of reducing the reliance on power for lighting and restricting solar gain and heat loss. The applicant is not proposing to provide green roofs within the scheme on the grounds of the preferred approach to reflect the industrial roofscape which includes northlight design on some of the buildings.

The applicant considers the use of wind turbines is not an option due to the sheltered characteristics of the site.

Landscape Design and Ecology

The proposed development would result in the loss of some groups of trees within the site. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures include replacement tree planting with the landscaping proposals for the site.

The applicant’s ecological assessment has identified a low number of foraging bats mainly along the railway line and across gardens to the north of the site. Whilst the proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect the habitat, mitigation measures including monitoring for and replacement of bat roosts prior to demolition works, planting along the northern boundary, and the use of cowled lighting where appropriate is proposed. A small population of reptiles beyond the application site has been identified. The proposed development will not affect that habitat however mitigation measures to carry out survey work on site prior to site works is proposed. Further mitigation measures to carry out ecological survey work prior to site works, phasing site clearance to avoid the bird breeding season and enhancement of bird nesting opportunities are proposed.

Natural England have commented on the lack of a green roof approach, their support for opportunities to open up the culverts and habitat enhancement, the use of other sustainable building techniques, protection and enhancement of the existing footpath/cyclepath infrastructure and rail halt, and the need to properly embed a public transport.

Natural England have advised that the applicant be informed of the legislative requirements regarding protected species and welcome the pedestrian links, the proposals to incorporate sustainable urban drainage system, positive contributions to biodiversity, use of native planting, and provision of artificial nesting and roosting sites and have commented on the lack of a green roof approach, their support for opportunities to open up the culverts and habitat enhancement, the use of other sustainable building techniques, protection and enhancement of the existing footpath/cyclepath infrastructure and rail halt, and the need to properly embed a public transport..

Following the submission of amended plans Natural England have advised that the details of planting should involve more native species and for planting mix to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and highlighted that benefits that could be achieved by including green roofs.

The potential to open up culverts alongside the application site is limited due the proximity to and need to protect the adjacent railway line and the extent of resultant engineering works.

The Environment Agency have assessed the issue of bio-diversity. Following the meeting of the Board in November 2008 the Environment Agency commented that it was regrettable that the potential to open up the existing culvert cannot be taken and recommended that conditions be included to safeguard the culverts from buildings and secure a planting scheme to maximise the wildlife corridor function of those parts of the site adjacent to watercourses or over culverts. The Environment Agency’s original concerns to open up the culverts was supported by the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trusts.

The applicant’s amended plans seek to retain and continue the use of the industrial building and yard that is situated over the eastern most culvert As this building is outside the application site and is being retained it is considered that a planting scheme over this particular culvert would not be achievable.

Archaeology Issues

The archaeological interest in the site comprises the standing buildings and below ground structures. Following an initial assessment of the standing buildings it is recommended that archaeological recording of the industrial buildings is undertaken prior to their demolition and development works. The below ground features of archaeological interest are identified as the Stocks Bridge (an earlier bridge possibly under the present line of Hunshelf Road just south of its junction with Ford Lane), the former Hunshelf corn mill (potentially located towards the eastern end of the site) and a former fulling mill (potentially located at the western end of the site near the existing open storage racks) which were elements of the former agricultural landscape. Trial trenching has been undertaken in the open yard in the vicinity of the former Hunshelf corn mill which found some remnants of former structures suggesting truncation by more recent building work. The submitted specification for building recording requires further revision however it is considered that such matters can properly be controlled by appropriate conditions.

It is recommended that archaeological investigation is undertaken in the stockpile yard and Ford Lane areas of the site prior to commencement of development works. Conditions are recommended to secure this archaeological work.

Layout and Appearance of the Development

The Government’s design guidance on planning for town centres supports PPS6 and seeks development normally orientated so that it fronts the street, maximises the amount of active frontage avoiding inward looking designs and blank frontages, and provides good pedestrian access to the existing centre. It recognises that roofspace design should be considered within the wider context, the importance of hard and soft landscaping, and seeks to minimise the visual impact of car parking which should normally be located to the rear, underneath or above new development.

Policies BE5, IB9( c) of the UDP and Policies BE15, BE17 and BE18 relating to Areas of Special Character are also relevant in seeking good design and enhancing the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed layout has sought to locate the development as close to the existing district centre as possible and create an active shop frontage to Hunshelf Road, in particular Block B which is sited close to the existing centre and includes the provision of 5 small shop units on its western elevation facing Hunshelf Road. Block D, the retained building on the west side of Hunshelf Road will have an entrance on its southern elevation onto the pedestrian link up to Manchester Road whilst the proposed Block E is also sited close to the Hunshelf Road frontage. The car parking serving Blocks D and E are located principally to the rear of these buildings.

The northern elevation of Block B (containing 8 ground floor units) and the primary elevations of Block A (9 ground floor units) and Block C face inwards towards the proposed customer car park.

The amended plans have revised the elevational treatment of Block B to incorporate three-storey and two-storey ridged roof sections at either end of the building with the principle middle section containing the shop fronts having large arch-shaped windows and red brick masonry.

The siting and massing of Block A has been revised on the amended plans. It has been resited approximately 3 metres further south towards the car park and its height to the main ridge has been increased by approximately 0.6 metres. The land to the rear of Block A would be graded and landscaped.

As amended, Block A is sited on an west/east axis with its narrower gable facing Hunshelf Road and its rear elevation facing the works access road which starts to rise up the valley side towards the by-pass. The siting of Block A maintains a public view down Hunshelf Road to existing buildings which contribute to the vista.

90 The opportunity to locate all or part of this area of customer parking to the rear of Blocks A and C has not been pursued by the applicant.

Balancing the needs of providing customer car parking that can also serve the existing centre and reducing conflict with service vehicles, it is considered that subject to the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping to the public realm areas, and use of landscaping to break up the large car park, the proposed design approach is acceptable in this instance.

The proposed pedestrian links within this car parking area pass alongside the building’s frontages and across the car park between Blocks B and A and between Blocks B and C. Tree planting is indicated alongside the routes across the car park. It is considered that the principle of these routes are acceptable. The amended plans have increased the width and quality of these routes across the car park to ensure their effectiveness as an attractive link.

Within the application site there is currently an adopted highway along Hunshelf Road and Ford Road and public rights of way from Ford Road to land beyond the site to the north and east. The proposed layout of the development requires the closure of Ford Road and impacts on the existing rights of way.

The proposed arrangements for diverting these routes through the development have been reviewed by the applicant. The amended plans provide for the realignment of the route alongside the access and service roads to the north side of Blocks A and C. The route would be 5 metres wide incorporating a 3 metre wide footpath and a 2 metre wide verge.

There are no highway objections to the proposed re-alignment of the public footpath. It is considered that its design width to provide for pedestrians, cyclists and horses is an improvement and satisfactorily addresses its safety and amenity issues.

At the eastern end of the site beyond the service road to the rear of Block C a substantial belt of landscaping is proposed running north-south across the site and returning towards the open culvert at the southeast corner of the site. This belt would be approximately 13 metres wide narrowing to 7 metres near the culvert and provide a planted strip linking the natural habitats and planting on these two sides of the site.

The massing and design of the buildings reflect the industrial character of this part of the valley. The amended plans have increased the use of natural stone and propose red brick on other elevations which is more in context with the local character than the originally proposed artificial stone and cladding on some of the elevations of the proposed buildings. It is considered that the amended design treatments are a further improvement on the original submissions.

It is considered that the general layout and design of the proposed scheme and the landscaping arrangements are acceptable.

91 Highways and Transportation Issues

The Government’s planning policy guidance contained in PPG13 relating to transport promotes more sustainable transport choices, accessibility to jobs/shopping/leisure/services by public transport/walking/cycling, and reducing the need to travel especially by car. Policy IB9(f) of the UDP seeks to ensure that new development is adequately served by transport facilities, provides safe access and appropriate off-street car parking.

In the vicinity of the application site, Manchester Road runs along the lower part of the valley through Stocksbridge and its existing shopping centre. Hunshelf Road runs north from Manchester Road, across the valley bottom, and up the northern side of the valley where it links into Pea Royd Lane, bridges over the A616 Stocksbridge Bypass and on towards Hunshelf Hall Lane. Ford Lane runs eastwards from Hunshelf Road for approximately 270 metres and a public right of way then continues eastwards from the end of Ford Lane. A further public footpath runs north from Ford Lane up the valley side. A private works access road runs off Hunshelf Road from the valley bottom northeastwards up to the Bypass.

Manchester Road is a bus route with stops on both sides of the road close to the Hunshelf Road junction.

Hunshelf Road and Ford Lane currently provide access to the Corus and Outo Kumpu works. Hunshelf Road also provides access to several residential and business properties in the locality.

The applicant has submitted a transport assessment and travel plan in support of the proposed development.

The Highways Agency is responsible for all matters relating to the A616 Stocksbridge Bypass. The impact of the proposed development on the bypass has been assessed by the Highways Agency who have raised no objection to the proposed development and have directed that a condition be imposed to secure an appropriate travel plan.

The proposal seeks to provide access to the new buildings on either side of Hunshelf Road from a reconfigured roundabout in the valley bottom. The proposed layout would require the closure and removal of Ford Lane and would affect the existing public rights of way. The proposal also includes demolition of no.452/454 Manchester Road to accommodate widening the junction of Hunshelf Road with Manchester Road.

The applicant has stated that heavy goods vehicles serving the proposed development on the east side of Hunshelf Road would access the site from the bypass via the private works access road. Corus works traffic and heavy goods vehicles serving the proposed development on the west side of Hunshelf Road would also use the private access road from the bypass. Other smaller service vehicles and customers/employees cars would access the site from Manchester Road via Hunshelf Road.

92 The transport assessment considers that most of the existing retail trips leak out of the local area to other shopping centres and that the proposed development would retain most of these trips within the local area resulting in a significant reduction in distance travelled which would adhere to local and national policy.

Whilst less retail trips would pass through the more remote junctions, more turning movements would be focused at the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction. An assessment of the robustness and sensitivity of the proposed improvements to the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction has been carried out and the junction proposals have passed a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The reconfigured junction would accommodate the recently permitted small scale residential development on the south side of Manchester Road.

The proposed layout identifies parking which is below the maximum spaces applicable under the Council’s car parking guidelines. This reflects the reduction deriving from a number of linked trips between the different components of the development.

An aim of the proposal is to link with the existing retail centre of Stocksbridge and provide the opportunity to park and visit shops on Manchester Road. A car park management strategy will be required to secure the success of this link between the existing centre and this edge of centre site.

The proposed layout makes provision for bus services, should they so desire, to divert their route off Manchester Road and use Hunshelf Road to and from the reconfigured roundabout. The proposed layout provides a bus layby on the east side of Hunshelf Road adjacent to Block B.

A bus layby is also proposed at the eastern end of the customer car park close to Block C. This could accommodate a local shopper's bus service thereby improving the accessibility of the site with the residential areas particularly those higher up the hillside on the south side of Stocksbridge.

The applicant has stated that they are seeking to work with the Passenger Transport Executive and local bus operators to deliver a service that effectively meets everybody’s needs and suggest that the option of a commercial operator providing an equivalent service be incorporated into any requirement for a single vehicle to be funded while the supermarket is operating. The need to ensure that bus services to the site support the accessibility of the town centre is recognised. The proposal to allow the opportunity of a local bus operator to provide the service is acceptable

The proposed layout also illustrates a location for a potential rail halt to the north of Block D on the eastern side of Hunshelf Lane should such a proposal be progressed in the future. The provision of the rail halt is not part of this proposed development.

The applicant’s proposed revisions to widen the diversion of the public rights of way alongside the private road and service road have reduced conflict with the use of these roads by heavy goods vehicles serving the site and the Corus works by

93 providing sufficient separation and segregation for the safety and amenity of its users.

The proposed pedestrian routes within the car park have been widened and enhanced. A condition is recommended to ensure that the proposal secures satisfactory links to the existing centre.

Conditions to secure the highway provisions are recommended.

Other Infrastructure

There are several existing private and public drains and mains services within the application site with some requiring diversion. Yorkshire Water Services has advised that there are no objections with regards to water supply and the waste water proposals subject to conditions to safeguard existing sewers and satisfactory details of foul and surface water drainage including balancing facilities.

Effect on the Amenities of Residents and the Locality

Policy IB9 (b) of the UDP seeks to ensure that new development does not cause residents to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

There are residential properties and small businesses close to the application site on each side of the valley.

The proposal involves the demolition of 3 large industrial buildings and the partial demolition and conversion of another, as well as demolition of some smaller industrial and commercial buildings, and the removal of an open steel stockholding area.

The proposed development involves the construction of large buildings most of which are in similar locations to the buildings proposed for demolition. The proposed siting of Block A on the northern part of the site introduces a new building close to an existing small business and residential properties on the nearby hillside. The siting of Block A is off-set from the nearby property such that it would not significantly overbear, overlook or otherwise harm the amenities of the occupants of nearby properties. The section drawings through Block A continue to demonstrate that a satisfactory separation between Block A and nearby properties is achieved.

The siting and massing of the remaining Blocks B to E will not overbear and overshadow neighbouring and nearby properties.

The proposed development will generate noise from the operations of the site including loading and unloading of deliveries, customer movements and any external plant and equipment. The applicant's submitted noise assessment identifies the activities in the service yard to the rear of Block C as the most likely source of noise disamenity particularly due to any 24 hour operation at the premises and seeks the provision of an acoustic barrier in mitigation for the

94 existing properties although this may prejudice any future noise sensitive land uses on land immediately to the east of the site.

It is considered that the service areas to the rear of the proposed buildings are sufficiently separated from existing nearby residential properties to ensure that there would be no significant noise or general disturbance to nearby residents subject to appropriate conditions including satisfactory details of an acoustic barrier to the rear service yard of Block, the design and management of loading/unloading bays and service yards and a scheme of sound attenuation of any external plant and equipment.

The proposal will increase the amount of light vehicles along Manchester Road and result in larger service vehicles using the private access road. However it is considered that the proposed arrangements for vehicles accessing the site would not cause significant noise or harm to nearby residents. The impact of the proposal on air quality is acceptable subject to conditions to secure mitigation measures where appropriate.

The nature and size of the proposed development will require the extensive external areas to be illuminated outside daylight hours. It is considered that to ensure that there is no significant overspill of light beyond that necessary, and to reduce light pollution generally, a condition requiring a satisfactory means of baffling external lighting where required is recommended.

The proposed food and drink outlets and the ancillary café within the retail unit in Block C may undertake commercial food preparation which will require satisfactory fume attenuation equipment to prevent nuisance to nearby properties from odours.

Due to the previous industrial use of the site conditions requiring assessment and remediation of ground contamination that may affect the proposed uses are recommended.

Whilst the proposed development has potential to generate several sources of nuisance, it is considered that subject to a satisfactory consideration of the impact on air quality and appropriate conditions to mitigate such emissions the proposed development would not significantly harm the living conditions and amenity of nearby occupiers.

Phasing

Whilst the proposal involves the demolition and construction of several buildings it is essential that the proposed redevelopment in this edge of centre location supports and sustains the existing district centre.

It is considered that a condition requiring the phasing of the development to be assessed is required to ensure such benefits are secured.

95 SUMMARY

The Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies the application site to the north of the railway line where the new buildings are proposed as being within a General Industry Area with the remainder of the site on the south side of the railway line as being within the eastern end of the Stocksbridge District Shopping Centre.

The land north of the service road on the east side of Hunshelf Road is identified in the Corus Works Development Brief as proposed office/leisure sites (Sites E and F).

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) identifies Stocksbridge as a principle town which should be a focus of local services and facilities and seeks to create distinctive, attractive and vibrant sense of place and identity for each centre.

There are no strategic objections to the level of office provision.

It is considered that subject to the proposed parking facilities being available to serve the existing centre and the enhancements of the link with the existing centre, the proposal comprises an edge of centre development.

The scale of the development is large relative to the existing centre but it will not raise Stocksbridge above its role as a district centre. It will have a positive impact on Stocksbridge which will outweigh negative impact on other centres. It is considered that no centre will be significantly harmed.

The applicant’s submissions on flood risk are acceptable. On the issue of flood risk the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions to secure the flood risk mitigation measures and management of surface water run-off.

Following the meeting of the Board in November 2008 the Environment Agency commented that it was regrettable that the potential to open up the existing culvert cannot be taken and recommended that conditions be included to safeguard the culverts from buildings and secure a planting scheme to maximise the wildlife corridor function of those parts of the site adjacent to watercourses or over culverts.

Conditions to secure the package of sustainable proposals including measures to reduce energy requirements are recommended.

The proposed layout of the development requires the closure of Ford Road and impacts on the existing rights of way. The proposed arrangements for diverting

96 these routes through the development are acceptable and will ensure the safety and amenity of its users is maintained.

The general layout and design of the proposed scheme and the landscaping arrangements are acceptable.

Heavy goods vehicles serving the proposed development would access the site from the bypass via the private works access road. Other service vehicles and customers/employees cars would access the site from Manchester Road via Hunshelf Road.

The transport assessment considers that most of the existing retail trips leak out of the local area to other shopping centres and that the proposed development would retain most of these trips within the local area resulting in a significant reduction in distance travelled which would adhere to local and national policy.

Whilst less retail trips would pass through the more remote junctions, more turning movements would be focused at the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction. The robustness and sensitivity of the proposed improvements to the Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road junction are acceptable.

Conditions to secure the highway provisions are recommended.

There are residential properties and small businesses close to the application site on each side of the valley. It is considered that the proposed development would not significantly overbear or overlook nearby properties.

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS

- Use restrictions (conditions 2 and 3); - Principal Phasing and links (conditions 4 to 7); - Sustainability measures (conditions 8 and 40); - Highway matters (conditions 9 to 28); - Refuse and recycling (conditions 29 and 30); - Archaeology (conditions 31 and 32); - Layout and design matters (conditions 33 to 39 and 42); - Landscaping and ecology (conditions 42 to 44); - Drainage matters (conditions 45 to 50 and 59);

97 - Environmental protection matters (conditions 51 to 56); - Flood risk (condition no. 57 and 58).

RECOMMENDATION

It is a requirement of the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Directive) (England and Wales)(No.2) Directive 1993 concerning large shopping developments that in certain circumstances before granting planning permission the Local Planning Authority shall consult the Secretary of State.

In this instance the proposal requires referral to the Secretary of State under the 1993 Shopping Directive should Members be minded to grant planning permission.

It is recommended that Members grant planning permission subject to;

(i) conditions, and (ii) there being no objection from the Secretary of State.