Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre South and East Planning and Highways Committee Date 16/01/2012 Report of D

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 16/01/2012 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM

SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS

CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR Lucy Bond TEL 0114 2734556 ACCESS Chris Heeley NO: 0114 2736329

AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

10/03826/FUL Goit And Wheel Pit Works Kelham Island And Kelham Goit Bridge Street 5 Sheffield S3 8RY

11/01623/FUL Mylnhurst Preparatory School And Nursery Button Hill 34 Sheffield S11 9HJ

11/01759/FUL Former RAF Norton Aerodrome Norton Avenue 50 Sheffield S12 2LA

11/01840/FULR Royal Works 60 Priestley Street 72 Sheffield S2 4DD

11/02111/LU1 The Meersbrook Garage 1 - 7 Meersbrook Road 89 Sheffield S8 9HU

11/03115/FUL Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home 139 Derbyshire Lane 97 Sheffield S8 9EQ

11/03214/FUL 500 Queens Road Highfield 108 Sheffield S2 4DT

11/03291/CHU 191 London Road Sheffield 133 S2 4LJ

3 11/03469/FUL Brook House 557 Ecclesall Road 142 Sheffield S11 8PR

11/03493/FUL Gilder Group Ltd Bochum Parkway/Dyche Lane 152 Sheffield S8 8BR

11/03710/FUL Aspects Of Home 995 Abbeydale Road 165 Sheffield S7 2QD

4 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The SOUTH Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 16/01/2012

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

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

Case Number 10/03826/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Installation of power generating water wheel and associated works

Location Goit And Wheel Pit Works Kelham Island And Kelham Goit Bridge Street Sheffield S3 8RY

Date Received 30/11/2010

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent City Development Division

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

KIMH/01, AI/RLC/xxxx/3, A1/RPDT/KMH/5 – Details Sheet 1, A1/RPDT/KMH/7, A1/RPDT/KMH/4, KMH/01, A3/RDPT/KMH89 received 30th November 2010 and Plans 1108/GA/01, 1108/GA/02, 1108/GA/03 received 22nd November 2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 Prior to the commencement of the installation of the water wheel, further details, including samples, of the materials to be used in the construction of the enclosure to the wheel pit, as detailed on Plan 1108/G/02, to include a sample of the material to be used for the timber bench, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation of the water wheel and shall thereafter be retained.

To ensure an appropriate quality of development within the Kelham Island Conservation Area.

4 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the Phasing Strategy confirmed by e-mail dated 4th January 2012, which confirms the following:

Phase 1 Bank excavation (head goit); Clearance of silt/vegetation (river) Installation of additional sluice gate (goit inlet) Clearance of silt/restrictions in the tail goit.

Phase 2 Wheel pit works - construction and installation of electro-mechanical equipment and supply connection; Remaining goit and river works including landscaping and installation of monitoring/control systems; Agreed mitigation works .

In order to define the permission and the sequence of works.

5 Phase 2 of the development as defined in Condition 4 above shall not be begun until an assessment of the impact of the development on the passage of fish over the Kelham Weir, as well as details of mitigation measures to address the impacts identified, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until any mitigation measures identified in the approved assessment have been implemented in accordance with a timescale to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such mitigation measures shall be retained at all times that the development is in use unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the ecology of the River Don or Kelham Goit in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the UDP.

6 6 Prior to the commencement of Phase 1 of the development, a report that provides additional assessment of the impact of the final scheme design on the reach of river identified as being depleted as a result of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report shall identify appropriate measures to mitigate any impacts on ecology and, where necessary, provide compensatory habitat creation. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the ecology of the River Don or Kelham Goit in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the UDP.

7 Prior to the commencement of Phase 2 (wheelpit works) of the development, a ‘Depleted Reach Mitigation Plan’ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include the following assessments: (i) A River Habitat and fisheries habitat survey for weir pool and depleted reach under Q mean flow conditions (method ref: section 2, Kelham Goit Micro-hydro Scheme Ecological assessment, July 2010); (ii) A summary assessment of availability and extent of similar local habitats, providing potential for fish to redistribute should they be affected by the modified flow regime; (iii) An annotated Map of survey results, including 1 and 2 above; (iv) Further consideration of the ecological impacts to the weir pool / depleted reach, based on comparison of Q mean and Q90 survey results, to include the following specific points: a. The hydrology and morphology of the depleted reach; b. The proportion of the weir pool/depleted reach habitats that will be or have the potential to be lost'; c. The impact, if any, on the ‘natural flushing’ of the spawning gravels (Autumn); d. The impact, if any, that a reduction in flows may have on the canoeists that use the river; e. Impact on breeding habitats for amphibians; A mitigation plan shall also be submitted to address the impacts that may arise from the additional assessment outlined above. Such mitigation works shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved measures and agreed timetable.

To ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the ecology of the River Don or Kelham Goit in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the UDP.

8 Development of any phase shall not be commenced until details of fish screening to be installed both at the inlet and outlet of Kelham Goit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Water wheel mechanism shall not be activated until the approved fish

7 screens have been installed and they shall be thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

To protect fish from being killed of harmed as a result of being pulled into the water wheel mechanism in the interests of the ecology of the area.

9 The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Appendix B Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Appendix B1 FRA Technical Appendix and email correspondence from Capita Symonds, dated 17 May 2011 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA documents:

1) Notwithstanding detail included within the email correspondence from Capita Symonds, dated 17 May 2011, the opening height of the head goit sluice gates shall be set at a maximum of 0.785 m, as detailed in the FRA documents Appendices B and B1.

2) The trigger levels for the automatic closure of the penstocks within the head goit and wheel pit shall be set as detailed within the email correspondence from Capita Symonds dated 17 May 2011.

3) Debris screens shall be provided within the goit, as detailed within Appendix B.

To reduce the risk of flooding and to prevent potential blockages affecting the flow through the goit.

10 Prior to the commencement of Phase 2 of the development hereby approved, further details of an interpretation board to describe the history of the water wheel and the details of the new hydro scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include:

(i) The location of the interpretation board; (ii) The height and design of the interpretation board; (iii) The text of the interpretation board.

The interpretation board shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation of the water wheel or in accordance with an alternative timescale to be agreed and shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of reflecting the heritage assets of the locality in accordance with PPS5.

11 Prior to the commencement of Phase 2, further details of the proposed landscaping works in associated with the proposal hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing 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

8 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.

12 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 amenities of the locality.

13 Prior to the commencement of any development, the removal of any contaminated sediment from the Goit shall be investigated and a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004). In the event of the identification of any contaminated sediment, a remediation strategy shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy, or unexpected contamination is encountered at any stage of the development process, works should cease and the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Protection Service (tel: 0114 273 4651) should be contacted immediately. Revisions to the Remediation Strategy 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.

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

14 Development of any phase shall not commence until details of a management strategy for the day-to-day maintenance of the system in terms of keeping all screens clear of debris and maintaining sluice gates has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management strategy shall be implemented upon the first operation water wheel and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved strategy.

To ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the ecology of the River Don or Kelham Goit in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the UDP.

15 No development work, including ground clearance and demolition work shall take place unless and until the developer, their agent or their successor in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work 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 any archaeological remains present, whether standing or buried, are preserved - either by being left in situ or recorded and removed in accordance with an agreed method, before they are damaged or destroyed.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

MU9 - Kelham Mixed Use Area BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE17 - Design & Materials in Areas of Special Character or Historic Interest BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings BE22 - Archaeological Sites and Monuments GE20 - Flood Defence CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS74 - Design Principles PPS9 Kelham Neepsend Action Plan 2008-2018

The proposed installation of a micro-hydro scheme is considered to contribute to the Council’s policy objective to promote developments that generate renewable energy and it is positioned within the housing of the original Kelham Water Wheel such that it is historically appropriate within the context of the Kelham Island Conservation Area. Whilst there will be an impact on the ecology of the weir and River, it is not considered significant and is therefore sufficiently sympathetic to nature conservation. It is also considered not to have any undue impacts on the amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

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

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant is advised to note that based upon the experience of the Environment Agency's fisheries department and their current understanding of this site, the Environment Agency would expect the satisfactory fish passage required by Condition 5 above to constitute a formal fish pass. However, the Environment Agency will consider any satisfactory solution and thus the condition requires 'fish passage' in the event that a satisfactory solution does not require a formal fish pass.

10 2. It is recommended that an appropriate flood plan be prepared for the scheme. This plan should include manual override procedures for closing the head goit sluices in the event of failure of the sensors, or prior warning of a flood event. This should be implemented in conjunction with subscription to the Environment Agency’s Flood Warning Service- Flood Warnings Direct.

3. The applicant should phone Floodline on 0845 988 1188 to find out if they can register for Floodline Warnings Direct. It is a free service that provides flood warnings direct by telephone, mobile, fax, or pager. It also gives practical advice on preparing for a flood, and what to do if one happens. By getting an advanced warning it will allow protection measures to be implemented such as moving high value goods to an elevated level as well as evacuating people off site.

4. The applicant is advised that the Environment Agency recommend that prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the long-term maintenance and operation of the hydroelectric plant and associated works is provided. This is needed in order to ensure clear responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the scheme for the lifetime of the development.

5. The applicant is advised that in relation to Condition 7 above, mitigation required as part of the this condition must include:

1) Mitigation for the removal of vegetated bars in the channel of the River Don that provides habitat for nesting birds, otters and other species groups.

2) Mitigation for increasing flows and widening of the channel of the goit, which includes loss of bankside habitats, and loss of backwater habitats. Suggestions included replacement of habitats and incorporation of soft engineering techniques. Also retention or creation of backwater habitat.

3) Mitigation for changes in flow in the River Don to retain valuable habitat features including riffles, waters-edge habitats including over-hanging trees.

4) Appropriate timing and methods for any dredging and associated work to minimise impact on ecology and reduce the risk of pollution.

5) Replacement of lost or altered habitats.

6. The applicant is advised to be aware that this application will require an Abstraction Licence under the Water Resources Act (1991).

7. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Don, designated a ‘main river’. As part of this consent a Working Method Statement will be required. The WMS will be required to outline details of the proposals to prevent pollution,

11 including by silt, of the Kelham Goit and the River Don while the works are being carried out.

8. Erection of flow control structures or any culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Environment Agency under s.23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 or s.109 of the Water Resources Act 1991. The Environment Agency resists culverting on nature conservation and other grounds and consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings.

12 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of a former water wheel pit on the north side of Alma Street, at its junction with Kelham Island at the end of Kelham Goit. The wheel pit is presently open and set within an area of York Stone.

The area surrounding the application site is mixed in character. To the north lies the mixed-use development at Kelham Square, which comprises ground floor commercial development with residential above. Further eastwards along Kelham Island lies the Chimney House and the Kelham Island Museum, which is set within a traditional cobbled street environment adjacent to the inlet. To the south west of the application site is the Kelham Island Brewery building and beyond that, the Fat Cat Public House, which is Grade II Listed. To the south of the site lie the buildings associated with Globe Steel Works.

The application proposes the construction of a micro-hydro system to include a new power generating water wheel and associated infrastructure to comprise the following:

(i) A water wheel, which is a modern “Zuppinger” turbine proposed to maximise energy production. It is constructed from timber slats on a galvanised steel frame, which extends to a diameter of 4.5 metres of which just over 1 metre is above ground level. The wheel is designed to reduce noise and simplify maintenance and is sited within the wheel pit of the former Kelham Wheel. It is set within a mesh enclosure, which partially utilises the existing railings on top of which is constructed a new timber handrail at a height of 1.1 metres above ground level above which a stainless steel cable mesh installed to a height of 1.8 metres with 25mm steel posts with an open steel hoop shape bulrush at the top of the post. A solid timber seat is to be integrated within the design. This enclosure represents a revision of the originally proposed enclosure, which extended to a height of 5.3 metres, which was considered to be overbearing in relation to the site’s Conservation Area context. The mesh will conceal the wheel and a transmission and generator housing and will also protect the wheel.

(ii) At the sluice to the north of Green Lane, the goit inlet and existing sluice is to be doubled in capacity by adding a second sluice. The upstream silt bank and trimming goit bank will be removed and a new oblique coarse screen will be installed across the inlet;

(iii) At the head goit, approximately 60 metres downstream of the sluice, the existing silt bank will be widened near the inlet;

(iv) The backwater that adjoins the banks of the Kelham Island Museum will be protected as a backwater habitat;

(v) Along with the water wheel, a new debris screen and automatic rake will be installed across the inlet. This comprises a comb arrangement on an articulated hydraulic arm. Water level sensors activate the rake when the screen becomes

14 partially blocked. The hydraulic pump will be electrically driven and enclosed in a small-soundproofed enclosure.

(vi) The tail goit under the Inner Relief Road is to be cleared of debris and maintained by the applicant.

(vii) At the existing Millsands open goit, marginal planting is to be removed on the south western side only to allow for additional flow. Existing screen and timber boards will be removed to reduce the risk of debris building up and to also increase flow;

(viii) The plans also indicate the reinstatement of the existing canoe platform within the Goit to ensure that access for canoeists is retained. This will require the removal of five trees to improve access to the Goit with the remaining groups of trees in this location all retained.

The purpose of the scheme is to take water from the River Don at Kelham Weir and divert it down the existing goit to power the water wheel located in the old wheel pit between the head and tail goit. The water will then pass through the tail goit to re-enter the river at the existing outfall downstream of the Corporation Street bridges, adjacent to Mill Sands apartments at a distance of approximately 650 metres downstream of Kelham Weir.

The proposal will require additional engineering works to include the widening of the sluices at the top of the goit to allow a greater flow to be diverted above the weir into the goit. It will also include the removal of vegetated silt bars, scrub and trees from the area of the River Don immediately upstream of the sluice to the goit to allow enough flow to pass through the new sluice. The current goit channel will also be widened to remove constrictions in order to deliver the flow and velocity of water required to the wheel pit.

The application includes minor works in the vicinity of Kelham Weir, which is Grade II Listed, comprising the removal of vegetation, soil and silt to open the channel to the sluices and the installation of a new penstock adjacent to the Weir. It also includes works within the inlet, as outlined above, which all lie within the Kelham Island Conservation Area. It is also relevant to note that both the River Don and the Kelham Goit are designated as Local Nature Sites.

With regard to output, the application includes the submission of a hydropower feasibility study. The study advises that the annual energy capture is clearly determined by the efficiency of the water wheel and by flow rates, which can be difficult to predict because the efficiencies of the wheel and generator in particular vary at different flow rates. The study uses computer software to model predicted output and in this instance, indicates that the peak power output may vary between 13.2kW (at a design flow of 1.5 cubic metres per second) to 32.3kW (at a design flow of 3.5 cubic metres per second) with a range in energy yield between 69,287kWh/pa and 108,853kWH/pa. As a comparison, an average house uses 12kW per day such that a scheme of this scale could result in annual savings in CO2 emissions with an estimated payback period of between 10 and 12.5 years.

15 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history directly relevant to the consideration of this planning application.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

This application was advertised by means of a site notice, press notice and by means of neighbour notification.

A total of 38 representations have been received of which 12 do not wish to object to the proposal, 16 wish to comment on the application with the remaining 10 objecting to the proposal.

The objections to the proposed water wheel raise the following concerns:

- Operating noise levels would be unacceptable for a residential area, particularly at night when noise levels are especially low, particularly as the wheel is very close to the adjoining residential properties;

- The noise assessments undertaken are unreliable;

- The previous wheel was part of a heavily industrialised area; this is no longer the case and the wheel is an inappropriate addition to a highly desirable housing area;

- The wheel is not worth the overall negative environmental impact for such a small amount of generated electricity;

- The equipment will become an attraction for youths;

- It will cause a drop in property values;

- The ‘enormous’ black cage is not attractive or in keeping with the surrounding area;

- Impact on wildlife.

- The management plan that is in place for the Goit appears to be about improving the landscape and wildlife value of the Goit and it presently supplies a different habitat type to that found along the river. Whilst it is conceded that the habitat will be altered by the increased flow, it is considered unlikely that any aquatic ecosystem could develop and that the re-modelling of the goit for the benefit of the hydro-electric scheme will lead to the loss of the aquatic and riparian habitats in the goit at present;

- There are bats in the derelict Tyzack building and the scheme could result in a loss of a feeding area. The Ecology Report does not consider this significant as there are feeding opportunities nearby but the objector considers this to be a poor approach and considers that just because the losses are not major, this is not necessarily insignificant.

- The flow in the main channel will be altered as a result of this development; this stretch of the River Don is fish-rich and contains more fish than suggested by the ecological assessment. There will be a major effect on this stretch of the River Don for a tiny amount of carbon free electricity;

- The objector does not agree with the submitted Ecological Assessment in terms of the impact upon migratory fish within the River Don and a fish pass is deemed by the objector to be absolutely essential even though the Ecological Assessment deems it unnecessary.

The Angling Trust object on the following grounds:

- Fish will not be able to pass through the wheel and insufficient screening of downstream movement of fish.

- The Ecological Assessment does not consider diadromous species such as Eels, which are long depleted;

- Will result in severe depletion of fish biomass and a change in species;

- Up stream migrating fish will be delayed from getting past the structure;

- Up stream channel enhancements will be jeopardised by the depleted flow.

The comments on this application raise the following points:

- Initially excited about the proposal until inspecting the proposal and seeing that it will not resemble any previous water wheels at this site and a monstrosity will conceal it;

- Wildlife will not be endangered any more than it is now by the youths who throw rubbish and debris into the water;

- Noise levels seem rather dubious.

The Don Catchment Rivers Trust has submitted a letter raising a number of concerns. These include the following:

- Weirs and their associated infrastructure have been historically proven to cause the demise of populations of salmon and other migratory species in the Don System and the Trust would therefore expect a condition that requires a fish pass to be installed on the weir and a supply of adequate water;

- The Fish Pass should be ascendable by all species of fish resident in this location;

17 sustainability of flows into and down the fish pass. They would like to see their impacts modelled and identified.

- The Trust consider that the channel on the right side of the weir could become dry for long periods, leading to a significant loss of fishery habitat and the Trust would expect measures to mitigate the impacts to this habitat.

- The Trust would expect adequate screening to the off-takes and outflows to protect fish species, which should be maintained to a high level.

Those in support of the application raise the following issues:

- The water wheel will become a landmark for the area and is in keeping with its industrial nature;

- Some noise has to be expected in this area because it is still an industrial area; the resident can already hear the press from Kutrite but would not expect the water wheel to make much difference to current noise levels;

- Important that the Council shows support for renewable energy generation if we are to reduce the effects of climate change;

- Is it planned to run the water wheel 24 hours a day? Want the project to succeed but some concern about noise levels;

- The water wheel fits well into the semi-industrial landscape and the step towards sustainable energy generation is highly positive but the protective cage is a little imposing.

A letter has also been received from Councillor Jillian Creasy, who is in support of the application and advises that it is in keeping with the tradition of the area.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

This application proposes the installation of a micro hydro system to include a new power generating water wheel and associated infrastructure at Kelham Goit. The key issues to consider in the determination of this application include the following:

(i) Principle of development: Policy and Land Use; (ii) Impact on the Kelham Island Conservation Area and Heritage Assets; (iii) Design and appearance of the proposed development; (iv) Noise issues; (v) Flood risk and; (vi) Ecology.

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

Policy and Land Use

The site is located within the Kelham Mixed Use Area as defined in the Sheffield Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy MU9 of the UDP (Kelham Mixed Use Area) identifies a range of uses that are acceptable in this location including business (B1) as a preferred use with shops (A1) and food and drink and residential as acceptable uses, which reflects the surrounding development.

The introduction of a micro-hydro scheme clearly does not form a new use within the Kelham Mixed Use area and must therefore be considered on its merits. It does, however, contribute to the objectives of Policy CS63 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy: Responses to Climate Change, which states that action to reduce the city’s impact on climate change will include promoting developments that generate renewable energy.

The Kelham Water Wheel is also clearly identified as a delivery objective within the Kelham Neepsend Action Plan. The Action Plan is designed as a delivery vehicle for a 10-year vision for the area (2008-2018). It has been the subject of public consultation and is therefore a relevant consideration in the determination of this application. The Action Plan notes that the original Kelham Island Water Wheel was one of the earliest uses of waterpower in Sheffield, dating back to the 11th Century. Although the wheel no longer exists, the wheel pit with the water supply from the Goit, which is the purpose for which the Goit was constructed, remains, and it is for this reason that the project was identified as an opportunity to reintroduce the use of waterpower into Kelham Island.

Accordingly, the micro hydro scheme is considered to accord with current planning policy as set out at Policy CS63 of the SDF Core Strategy and also achieves a delivery objective identified within the Kelham Neepsend Action Plan. It is therefore in accordance with current planning policy in this regard and acceptable in principle subject to an assessment of its impacts, which are considered below.

It is also relevant to note that both the River Don and the Kelham Goit are designated as Local Nature Sites. This is considered in the Ecology section of the report below.

Impact on the Kelham Island Conservation Area and Heritage Assets

Relevant planning policy in considering applications that adjoin Listed Buildings and that lie within a Conservation Area is primarily set out within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Policy HE7.1 of PPS5 advises that in decision-making, local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal. Policy HE7.2 advises that in considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations.

In addition, Policy BE16 of the Sheffield UDP relates specifically to development in Conservation Areas and advises that permission will only be granted for proposals where it would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Policy BE17 advises that a high standard of design using traditional materials and a sensitive and flexible approach to the layout of buildings and roads will be expected for new buildings. Policy BE19 of the UDP relates to development affecting Listed Buildings and advises that proposals for development within the curtilage of a building or affecting its setting will be expected to preserve the character and appearance of the building and its setting.

As part of the application, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement, which acknowledges the objectives of PPS5 and relevant policies within the Core Strategy and UDP as well as the Kelham Neepsend Action Plan, which describes a vision for Kelham Neepsend as an ‘attractive place to live and a thriving and accessible business location’ and ‘the home of a successful and popular micro- hydro power generation scheme at Kelham Wheel’. The Heritage Statement also acknowledges the heritage assets of the location in terms of the area’s designation as a Conservation Area, which was designated with the aim to preserve some of Sheffield’s historic industrial buildings, including the last remaining cores of metal trades related buildings within the city with significant local buildings such as Globe Works, Cornish Place and the Kelham Island Industrial Museum. It also identifies that the Goit was originally used to power the Town Corn Mill with the 116 metre long Kelham Weir being a listed structure.

In this context, in assessing the proposal, it is considered that the principle of the micro hydro scheme and the water wheel relates appropriately to the industrial character of the Kelham Island Conservation Area and is a reflection of the historic generation of power to the original industries within the locality. Indeed, the proposed wheel sits within the site of a former water wheel and to that extent, is restoring the site to its original purpose. It is acknowledged that the proposed water wheel is a modern interpretation of hydro-power but it is considered to represent a piece of modern engineering that is not, in itself, detrimental to the historic significance of Kelham Island. It is also a contemporary reminder of the heritage of the area, contributing to the value that it holds for this and future generations, in accordance with PPS5. The wheel is constructed in timber and steel, which are also deemed to be materials appropriate to the area; in this regard, the water wheel is considered to preserve and to an extent, enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies BE16 and BE17 of the UDP. Whilst acknowledging the proximity of the water wheel to Listed Buildings, primarily to the Fat Cat Public House, it is considered that the water wheel is a feature that will enhance the appearance of the area and will not detract from the character of the Listed Building; it is therefore in accordance with Policy BE19 of the UDP.

It is advised that the original proposal included the provision of a mesh enclosure, which was to be constructed of a galvanised steel welded mesh on an aluminium scaffold frame. It extended to a height of 5.36 metres above ground level and 9.3 metres in width. The mesh enclosure was deemed necessary to protect the steel water wheel as a security measure. However, the enclosure was considered to be

20 of a significant scale and over-bearing in relation to the waterwheel. In addition, its design and height was deemed to be detrimental to the heritage value of the locality, contrary to PPS5 and guidance within the UDP. It was therefore omitted from the scheme as originally proposed and revised to comprise the equivalent of a boundary fence around the water wheel, which is constructed with a timber handrail for visitors to observe the wheel, which is enclosed by a steel mesh that rises above the handrail for security. This revised cage is considered to represent an appropriate scale of enclosure and also utilises natural metal and timber materials that are appropriate within the industrial context of Kelham Island.

With regard to the works in the proximity of the Grade II Listed Kelham Weir, as part of this application the structure of the Weir is unaffected by the proposal with the works relating to the removal of soil and silt adjacent to the weir to open the channel to the sluices. However, this is not considered to impact upon the special character or appearance of the Weir or affect its value as a heritage asset in accordance with guidance within PPS5 and Policies BE16, BE17 and BE19 of the Sheffield UDP. Members will note in the Ecology section below that reference is made to the potential to provide a means of fish passage across Kelham Weir as a condition of this proposal. The exact nature of the fish passage is unknown at this stage but should it require a structure to be installed on the weir, this will be subject to a separate Listed Building Consent application in due course.

Overall, the current proposal is therefore considered to represent a modern interpretation of a traditional means to generate power that is reminiscent of Kelham Island’s industrial heritage. The water wheel is constructed of high quality timber and steel, which is also appropriate to the locality, such that the wheel and associated works to develop the hydro scheme are determined to protect the heritage asset of the locality and preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and adjoining Listed Buildings. On this basis, and subject to further details relating to the materials to be used for the wheel cage, the proposal is considered to be sufficiently in accordance with guidance within PPS5 and Policies BE16, BE17 and BE19 of the Sheffield UDP.

Design and appearance of the proposed development

Policy BE5 of the UDP relates to building design and siting and advises that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new developments. It seeks to achieve original architecture and a design on a human scale with varied materials that break down the overall mass of development. Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy, which relates to design principles, advises that high-quality development will be expected, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods.

It is noted that the water wheel is a contemporary interpretation of the traditional timber water wheel but its construction in timber on a steel frame is considered to represent high quality materials that are appropriate to the locality and are therefore acceptable in accordance with Policy BE5 and Policy CS74.

21 The omission of the original proposed mesh enclosure is welcomed as this was considered to lack a human scale and was detrimental to the distinctive features of the neighbourhood, in terms of the River, Weir and surrounding buildings. The revised protective cage is designed to form the equivalent of a boundary fence around the wheel; it partially utilises the existing metal railings and introduces a new timber handrail at a height of 1.1 metres, above which is a finer steel mesh to a height of 1.8 metres and intermediate steel support cable. The scheme also allows for the introduction of a solid timber seat on a steel bracket as part of the steel post assembly.

Overall, the revised proposal is considered to be of a more human scale and will allow visitors to view the wheel but it is not over-bearing within the streetscene. The need to infill the ‘cage’ with cables to protect the working of the waterwheel is accepted; however, it is determined that these will be viewed in the context of the more dominant timber handrail and metal posts. Moreover, the introduction of a solid timber seat within the structure will soften the appearance of the enclosure and will introduce the opportunity for visitors to stop at the water wheel and view both the wheel and the surroundings, which will add interest to this particular site and the wider area. On this basis, the protective cage is now considered to be of an appropriate scale using high quality materials that are appropriate to the locality in accordance with Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy.

Noise issues

The applicant has submitted a noise assessment as part of the application submission. The assessment advises that the water wheel is located within an area where the predominant noise source is traffic. It states that the water wheel will generate low levels of noise whenever there is sufficient water in the main river to make the operation of the wheel economic, which is forecast to be approximately 40% of the time although this is an estimate.

The applicant has been unable to secure any reasonable data of noise levels relating to the actual water wheel proposed because the context of each water wheel is different. However, sound measurements have been sourced from a water wheel scheme in Germany, which comprises a larger 7.5-metre diameter wheel in comparison to the 4.5 metre diameter wheel proposed as part of this application. However, the 7.5 metre water wheel when running at half power (almost equivalent to the power output of the proposed wheel) produced a noise level of 56dB 10 metres upstream and 86dB 10 metres downstream.

The Council’s Environmental Protection Service (EPS) has advised that the submitted Noise Report does lack detail as a consequence of the nature of the use and is not a sufficient basis to determine whether noise nuisance is likely. However, EPS consider that because the development is in an urban environment, the prevailing background noise levels are quite high and even at night, they are anticipated to be elevated. It is noted that the nearest residential units are nearly all new build and therefore incorporate a good specification of noise mitigation measures, such as glazing and acoustically treated ventilation provisions, which were designed to ensure that residential accommodation could be appropriately

22 sited within a mixed use area such as Kelham Island. On balance, EPS therefore consider that the proposals are unlikely to result in significant detriment to the amenity of adjoining residents by virtue of noise disturbance and it would be unduly onerous to request the applicant to provide further evidence in respect of predicted noise levels.

Overall, EPS have no objection to the installation of a micro-hydro scheme in this location. On this basis, it is concluded that the application is unlikely to result in noise disturbance that would warrant a refusal of the application on these grounds.

Flood risk

Policy GE20 of the UDP advises that development will not be permitted where flooding risks to it or to existing development would not be overcome by suitable on-site protective measures and where necessary, off-site flood prevention measures will be required. Policy CS67 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy also relates to flood risk management and advises that the extent and impact of flooding will be reduced by a number of measures. It is also relevant to note the contents of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk with the aim to steer new development to the lowest probability of flooding.

The application site falls within Flood Zone 2, as defined on the Environment Agency Flood Map, which is an area at a medium risk of river flooding. Consequently, the application includes the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, which acknowledges that during the flood event of 2007, overland flows from areas above Kelham Island as well as high river flows combined to cause considerable damage to the City. Since that time, a considerable amount of work has been undertaken to reduce flood risk on the River Don, including the Environment Agency’s Channel Improvement Programme and the construction of a bastion flood defence on the Kelham river boundary.

The Flood Risk Assessment advises that proposals have been incorporated into the scheme to avoid increasing flood risk. These include:

(i) Introducing a screen upstream of the Head Goit sluices to prevent material larger than 200mm in size from blocking the head goit sluices. Any collected material will be occasionally manually collected from a deck above the screens; a strategy for collection will form a condition of any recommendation;

(ii) Automatically controlling the penstocks to maintain a pre-set level in the Head Goit so the capacity of the sluices will not exceed the capacity of the tail goit;

(iii) Maintain the Tail Goit by manually removing any obstructions; the operation of the water wheel will, in any event, increase flows through the Tail Goit and limit further build-up;

(iv) Ensuring a management strategy for the day-to-day maintenance of the system in terms of keeping all screens clear of debris and maintaining sluice gates etc. As noted above, such a strategy will form a condition of any recommendation.

23 The Environment Agency has advised that they raise no objection to the proposed development on the grounds of flood risk subject to conditions relating to the effective management of flood risk and on this basis, the proposal is consistent with Policy GE20 and guidance within PPS25.

Ecology

National Government Guidance set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, advises that development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. In addition, Policy GE13 in relation to Local Nature Sites advises that development affecting Local Nature Sites (which includes the River Don and the Goit) should, wherever possible, be sited and designed so as to protect and enhance the most important features of natural history interest. It adds that 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.

Although the majority of works relating to this proposal are within the Goit, it does also affect the River Don as the proposal takes water from the River Don at Kelham Weir and diverts it down the existing goit to power the water wheel. As such, Policy GE17 of the UDP is also considered relevant to a limited extent. Policy GE17 advises that all rivers and streams will be protected and enhanced for the benefit of wildlife by (as relevant to this application) requiring that any development involving alterations to the channels of rivers ands streams be designed in a way that is sympathetic to nature conservation and archaeological interests. In this case, the application does not propose any major physical works to the River Don with the project primarily focused within the Goit. However, it is considered that the principles of Policy GE17, to be sympathetic to nature conservation and archaeological interests are relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

Accordingly, the application includes the submission of an Ecological Assessment to consider the key ecological interest features associated with the site, including fish populations and the habitat within the River Don and the possible effects of construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed micro-hydro scheme on the ecology of the river and goit corridor. It also considers any necessary mitigation.

The Assessment utilised fish survey data provided by the Environment Agency as well as an ecological walkover survey of the section of the River Don between the weir and the outflow of the Goit. The Assessment determines that the River Don corridor within this area represents a highly modified and restricted channel; it notes that the section downstream of the weir is relatively dynamic with areas of exposed gravels and some fisheries enhancement whilst the area downstream becomes more restricted.

In terms of vegetation, it is noted that the vegetation along the bank faces is simple and predominantly bare. There is evidence of a wide range of fish in this part of

24 the river including brown trout, perch and grayling. Whilst otters have been known to use this stretch of the Don within the study area, the Assessment found no holts within the area and no sign of otter presence or habitats suitable for holts, although it is acknowledged that the river is an important route for otters to commute between areas of more optimal habitat and the fish in the area will act as a food source. In addition, no habitat suitable for water vole was observed as part of the survey. Finally, the Assessment notes that several bird species were observed during the study, including dipper, mallard and grey wagtail. Within the goit, numerous shoals of small/juvenile fish were observed in both the head goit and below the wheel pit as well as tadpoles in the head goit.

In terms of the operational impact of the proposed hydro system, the Ecological Assessment considers that there is potential for the scheme to reduce the extent of wetted channel area in the depleted reach of the River Don when flow is at a low level.

With regard to species, the Assessment also concludes that there is potential for exposure of gravels that are suitable for spawning fish and given the presence of juvenile Brown Trout in the area, it is suggested that they do spawn in the locality. Exposure of such areas would represent a decrease in spawning habitat but only if the depletion of flows is beyond what would normally occur (i.e. as a direct result of the operation of the scheme as opposed to normal low flows) and if this corresponded to the spawning season.

The report concludes that it is likely that some additional exposure of gravels will occur during the spawning season (March-April for species like chub and dace and October-March for species such as Trout and Grayling) such that the operation of the scheme could potentially constitute a significant effect on fish populations within the immediate reach of the River Don in respect of spawning although the effect is considered to be localised and it is anticipated that the majority of fish would redistribute to areas of similar habitat.

The Assessment also considers that there is some potential for coarse fish habitat, such as tree roots and vegetation, to become exposed at times. This could result in a loss of cover and spawning structure for species such as Roach, although, as evident from recent channel improvement works, it is expected that riverside vegetation would soon adapt to the altered flow.

With regard to macro-invertebrates, the study considers that the effect of the hydro scheme will be limited and is not considered to be of significance to nature conservation outside an immediate zone of effect. The impact on birds is deemed to be similarly limited.

With regard to Otters, the report concludes that as flows will not fall below the levels experienced at low flows under normal conditions, the suitability of the habitat for otters will not be affected by the scheme.

Within the Goit, it is noted that it presently provides a breeding habitat for amphibians, which would be severely limited if the flows through the goit are significantly increased as proposed. However, it determines that habitats suitable

25 for amphibians are common within the area such that it would not have a significant impact within the wider habitat.

The Goit also provides a nesting habitat for water birds and if the stability of the left bank were disturbed by increased flow; this would result in the reduction of a suitable nesting habitat. However, it is stated that birds will readily adapt to a new flow regime and relocate within the habitat afforded by the River Don if required, such that the overall impact will not be significant.

Having noted the potential impacts, the Ecological Assessment proposes the following mitigation and enhancements:

(i) The fitting of a trash screen to the turbine, which in itself is considered to be a low impact design to fish passing through;

(ii) The Assessment considers that there is no need for a fish pass on Kelham Weir;

(iii) Monitoring of the form and stability of the left bank of the goit to ensure that the higher velocity flows do not lead to erosion of the left bank and subsequent degradation of the habitat. These will need to be re-engineered if there are any signs of erosion;

(iv) Areas of backwater should be retained and protected, even under the highest operating flows or areas of backwater habitat created along the River Don within the vicinity but outside the Goit:

(v) Slowly staged increase in velocity at the start-up of the scheme to help the ecology to adapt.

It is also noted that during construction, there will be a need to remove some areas of habitat on the left bank of the goit and to remove some historic sediment from the goit, which is likely to be contaminated. It is recommended that the goit is drained before being dredged and fish rescue undertaken prior to that to remove fish from the head goit. It is considered that working to best practice guidance will minimise the potential for a pollution incident to occur.

Overall, the Ecological Assessment submitted with the application concludes that whilst there will be some impact on the ecology of the weir, it is not considered to be significant overall.

The content of the Ecological Assessment and the potential impact of the hydro scheme has been the subject of considerable discussion in the course of the application with the Council’s Ecology Unit and the Environment Agency.

The Ecology Unit has raised concerns about the impact of the water wheel on the ecological value of the Weir. However, their primary concern relates to how the proposal will impact upon a Management Plan that was produced as a condition of the planning application for the residential developments at Kelham Island and the Raven Development in particular. They advise that the objective of the

26 management plan is to manage the goit for the existing ecology and to enhance it via a five-year management plan. It is understood that the conservation work as prescribed in the plan has already begun with major tree work including pollarding of some trees to be carried out in a rolling programme over a five-year rotation. The primary concern in relation to the application proposed is that they consider that the scouring of the goit bed, the destruction of the riparian habitats and the banks is likely to be contrary to the objectives of the management plan. They also advise that although the Ecological Assessment states that species can relocate e.g. birds, amphibians and fish species - the original purpose of the management plan for the goit is to have these species within the Goit and in the local area of the river to enhance the urban environment.

This issue has been discussed at length with the applicant who has advised that the installation of the water wheel will change the ecology of the Goit as a consequence of the change in water flow to serve the wheel but that it should be acknowledged that the scheme is effectively restoring a water wheel into the wheel pit, which was the original purpose of the Goit’s construction. Furthermore, the Management Plan effectively comprises a condition of a planning application rather than a material planning consideration albeit that the applicant also contends that the Management Plan is a reflection of the time in which it had been written, based upon the existing situation but that an equally valid management plan could have been written based upon increased water flow, as proposed within this application. The applicant also advises that the change in water flow could enhance the ecology of the goit in different ways in terms of promoting new species appropriate to the habitat.

Whilst not wishing to disregard the objectives of the Management Plan referred to by the Ecology Unit and acknowledging the level of work that has contributed to its production and implementation, it is the view of Officers that it is not a material consideration as such and has no status as formal planning guidance. However, the scheme must still comply with relevant policies within the UDP noted above and the Ecology Unit has further reviewed the application on these grounds and their final formal response is awaited and will be reported directly to Members at the Planning Committee.

It is relevant to note that the Environment Agency (EA) have also considered the ecological impacts of the proposal and have recommended that they have no objection to the scheme in relation to matters of fisheries and bio-diversity but only if specific conditions are applied. These conditions include the need for further assessment of the impact of the development on the passage of fish over the Kelham Weir as well as details of mitigation measures to address any impacts identified. The EA are keen to ensure that the weir is passable to salmon and sea trout, brown trout and coarse fish through a wide range of river flows as it is acknowledged that abstracting water for hydropower will reduce the window of opportunity for fish to pass upstream over Kelham Island Weir. It has been agreed with the EA that a condition be imposed in relation to the provision of a means to secure fish passage over the Grade II Listed Kelham Weir and the need for fish screening, as well as a further ecological survey in relation to the depleted reach, as this can only be properly surveyed during specific conditions. The Environment Agency note that based upon their experience and their current understanding of

27 this site, they would expect the satisfactory fish passage to constitute a formal fish pass. However, they will consider any satisfactory solution and thus the condition requires 'fish passage' in the event that a satisfactory solution does not require a formal fish pass. It is considered that this condition addresses the concerns of the Don Catchment Rivers Trust and other objectors in relation to the passage of fish.

Further conditions are also proposed in relation to the need for an additional assessment of the impact of the final scheme design on the reach of river identified as being depleted as a result of the development, to include appropriate measures to mitigate any impacts on ecology and, where necessary, provide compensatory habitat creation as well as a Depleted Reach Mitigation Plan. Subject to the imposition of these conditions, it is the view of the Environment Agency that they have no objection to the proposed development on ecological grounds.

Overall, it is acknowledged that the re-introduction of the water wheel into the Goit will change the ecology of the goit as a result of the introduction of additional flows of water. However, it is relevant to note that Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission confirms that conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission as long as they are both necessary and reasonable, as well as enforceable, precise and relevant both to planning and to the development to be permitted. In this case, it is considered that the proposed conditions will ensure that any impact of the hydro scheme on the ecology of the goit and beyond the site in terms of the impact on fish passage over the Kelham Weir are sufficiently mitigated such that will not unduly decrease the nature conservation value of the area because any decrease is kept to a minimum by means of appropriate mitigation secured through the planning conditions. Furthermore, in this regard, it is considered to be sympathetic to the nature conservation of this Local Nature Site and the application is therefore considered to be sufficiently in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the Adopted UDP and will also have no significant detrimental effect on bio-diversity in accordance with PPS9.

Archaeology

Policy BE22 of the UDP advises that development will not normally be allowed which would damage or destroy archaeological sites and their settings. In addition, PPS5 acknowledges that heritage assets include those with archaeological interest.

As part of this application, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement, which advises that the original Kelham Island Water Wheel was one of the earliest uses of waterpower in Sheffield and whilst the original wheel no longer exists, the water wheel pit together with the water supply from the goit remains. The Statement advises that the major infrastructure for developing the hydropower potential of the wheel pit appear to be in good condition, in terms of the weir, goit and tailrace. Within the wheel pit itself, this allows for a maximum wheel width of 4.3 metres and the existing wheel pit area will accommodate a high-duty gearbox, flat belt drive and generator. It is proposed that the existing wheel pit floor be replaced in concrete and will be close-fitting to match the final wheel design radius. The

28 applicant has advised that the existing side-walls are considered to be repairable and will not need replacing within only minor alterations envisaged for transmission to the generator although one new wall will be constructed to constrain the flow through the wheel and separate the wheel and generator. Finally, the Statement advices that the remains of the breastwork lining of the wheel pit floor are considered to be beyond repair; however, it would not be visible once a new wheel is fitted and it is therefore proposed to remove the remains and retain them for display.

At the time of writing the report, the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service are considering some further information submitted by the applicant and should any further amendments or information be sought, Members will be advised directly at the Committee. However, on the basis that the application is effectively restoring a wheel into the original wheel pit, it is considered that the principle of the development will not destroy an archaeological site or its setting and subject to a condition requiring further details of the archaeological work, the proposal is in accordance with Policy BE22.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

In response to the objections received, the following is advised:

Operating noise levels would be unacceptable for a residential area, particularly at night when noise levels are especially low and (ii) the noise assessments undertaken are unreliable. The issue of noise is considered fully in the report above.

The previous wheel was part of a heavily industrialised area; this is no longer the case and the wheel is an inappropriate addition to a highly desirable housing area; Kelham Island is identified as a Mixed Use area within the UDP rather than solely as a housing area. Moreover, the introduction of a water wheel to provide a renewable source of energy is consistent with the historical character of the area and will contribute to the objectives of Policy CS63 of the Core Strategy to reduce the city’s impact on climate change by promoting developments that generate renewable energy.

The wheel is not worth the overall negative environmental impact for such a small amount of generated electricity; Estimated energy yields are between 69,287kWh per annum and 108,853 287kWh per annum, subject to flow, which will either be connected into the grid or utilised directly by adjoining businesses such as the Kelham Island Museum or the Kelham Island Brewery. In addition, the provision of any source of renewable energy will contribute to the objectives of Policy CS63 above and a reduction in CO2 emissions.

The equipment will become an attraction for youths; it is proposed that the water wheel be covered by an enclosure to limit any potential damage.

It will cause a drop in property value; Property values are not a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

29 The ‘enormous’ black cage is not attractive or in keeping with the surrounding area; the mesh enclosure has been amended in the course of the application followings concerns about its appearance as detailed in the report above.

Impact on wildlife; this is considered fully in the report above.

Relationship to the Management Plan – this is addressed within the report above.

Matters relating to the movement of fish – the issue with regard to the impact of the water wheel on the movement of fish upstream relates primarily to the changing water levels as a result of water abstraction. The matter of fish passage over the Kelham Weir is addressed in the report above but it is also relevant to note that changing water levels as a result of water abstraction is managed by the Environment Agency who would have to grant an Abstraction Licence to this proposal in due course. It is understood that this would only be undertaken if there were no detrimental impact on the ecology of the River Don. However, as noted in the report above, the EA have advised that they have no objection to the scheme subject to appropriate conditions, including a means to accommodate fish passage over the weir.

The concerns raised by The Angling Trust also relate to the movement of fish as a result of changing flows and water levels, which is considered in the report above. The applicant has also confirmed that the water wheel will have no impact on diadromous species such as Eels.

In response to the comments received as part of this application:

- A monstrosity will conceal the wheel; the original cage design has now been revised and is significantly reduced in scale to that originally proposed and is now considered acceptable as noted in the report above.

- Noise levels seem rather dubious: this is addressed in the report above.

- The Don Catchment Rivers Trust request a condition that requires a fish pass to be installed on the weir that is and a supply of adequate water; this is fully considered in the report above.

- The Trust consider that the Fish Pass should be ascendable by all species of fish resident in this location; the Environment Agency are the primary agency responsible for managing the River Don and consider that fish passage should relate to salmon, sea trout, brown trout and coarse fish rather than all species, which is considered sufficient guidance given the scale of this development and the expertise of the EA in this regard.

- The diversion of flow through the goit at Kelham has the potential to affect the geomorphology of the river upstream of the weir and the Trust consider that increased siltation is likely to occur, which could impact upon the long-term sustainability of flows into and down the fish pass. They would like to see their impacts modelled and identified; this is addressed by means of the proposed planning conditions in relation to the depleted reach.

- The Trust are concerned that diverting flow through the goit will result in parts of the weir crest drying up in low flows; their concern is that this could lead to changes in the structures (weir crest) ability to retain water with potential effects on the flow of water down the fish pass; As noted above, with regard to water levels over the Weir, this will effectively be managed by the Environment Agency in their consideration of an application by the applicant for an Abstraction Licence.

- The Trust would expect adequate screening to the off-takes and outflows to protect fish species, which should be maintained to a high level; A condition is proposed in relation to fish screening to be installed to the inlet and outlet of Kelham Island Goit.

Those in support of the application raise the following issues:

- Is it planned to run the water wheel 24 hours a day? It is intended that the wheel run continuously except during low flow conditions in the main river and when essential maintenance is carried out.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes the installation of a micro hydro system to include a new power generating water wheel and associated infrastructure at Kelham Goit. The water wheel comprises a modern “Zuppinger” turbine, which is constructed from timber slats on a galvanised steel frame, to be located within the wheel pit of the former Kelham Wheel. The wheel is set within a low mesh enclosure, which will also conceal the transmission and generator housing and provide a viewing point for visitors.

The application is submitted on behalf of Sheffield Renewables, who represent a community enterprise. The purpose of the scheme is to take water from the River Don at Kelham Weir and divert it down the existing goit to power the water wheel located in the old wheel pit between the head and tail goit. The water will then pass through the tail goit to re-enter the river at the existing outfall downstream of the Corporation Street bridges, adjacent to Mill Sands apartments at a distance of approximately 650 metres downstream of Kelham Weir.

31 The site is located within the Kelham Mixed Use Area as defined in the Sheffield Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in which a range of uses is considered acceptable. A micro-hydro scheme does not form a new use per se and must be considered on its merits. It does, however, contribute fully to the objectives of Policy CS63 of the SDF Core Strategy, which promotes developments that generate renewable energy. It also achieves a specific delivery objective identified within the Kelham Neepsend Action Plan 2008-2018 to reintroduce the use of waterpower into Kelham Island utilising the original wheel pit. Accordingly, the micro hydro scheme is considered to accord with current planning policy as set out at Policy CS63 and the Kelham Neepsend Action Plan and is therefore acceptable in principle.

The application site also lies within the Kelham Island Conservation Area and is also in proximity to a number of Grade II Listed Buildings and the Grade II Listed Kelham Weir. However, the current proposal is considered to represent a modern interpretation of a traditional means to generate power that is reminiscent of Kelham Island’s industrial heritage. The water wheel is constructed of high quality timber and steel, which is also appropriate to the locality, such that the wheel and associated works are determined to protect the heritage assets of the locality and preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and adjoining Listed Buildings, in accordance with guidance within PPS5 and Policies BE16, BE17 and BE19 of the Sheffield UDP.

The design and appearance of the water wheel, which is a contemporary interpretation of the traditional timber water wheel and is to be constructed in steel and timber, is considered to represent a high quality material that is appropriate to the locality and is therefore acceptable in accordance with Policy BE5 and Policy CS74.

With regard to Flood Risk, the applicant has submitted a sufficient Flood Risk Assessment, which demonstrates that that proposals have been incorporated into the scheme to avoid increasing flood risk, in accordance with Policy GE20 of the UDP and PPS25. The Environment Agency also raises no objection in this regard.

Ecologically, it is noted that the water wheel scheme is likely to have an impact on the immediate ecology of the Goit and River, with particular regard to some fish species and additional exposure of gravels during the spawning season. However, the effect is considered to be localised and it is anticipated that the majority of fish would redistribute to areas of similar habitat. Similarly, the water wheel may have some impact on amphibians but it is noted that habitats suitable for amphibians are common within the area such that it would not have a significant impact. Whilst the water wheel will change the ecology of the goit, it is not to its overall detriment and represents a modification and a potential enhancement in some species. In this context, it is noted that the Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal on ecological grounds subject to a series of conditions. On balance, it is therefore considered that the impact of the water wheel on the ecology of the area can be mitigated to an extent and it will also adapt to new flow levels, such that it is not considered so detrimental to warrant a refusal of the application. It is therefore concluded to be sympathetic to nature conservation in accordance with Policies GE13 and GE17 of the UDP and also in accordance with PPS9.

Overall, the reintroduction of a water wheel into the existing water wheel pit is considered to comply with current planning policy and the scheme is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Case Number 11/01623/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing nursery block, erection of replacement nursery and reception block (amended scheme)

Location Mylnhurst Preparatory School And Nursery Button Hill Sheffield S11 9HJ

Date Received 11/05/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Cordonier Escafeld

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, 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.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 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 amenities of the locality.

34 5 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 shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

7 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the landscape works are completed.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

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

Drawings numbered 11.25 (TR) 01B, 11.25 SP 01B, 11.25 (PL) 05A, 10.32 (PL) 04C, 11.25 (PL) 03D and 10.32 (PL) 02B

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

9 The proposed green / brown roof (vegetated roof system) shall be provided on the roofs in accordance with the locations shown on the approved plans prior to the use of the building commencing unless otherwise agreed in writing. Thereafter the green/brown roof shall be retained. Prior to works commencing on site details of the specification and maintenance regime shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that period shall be replaced.

In the interests of sustainable development.

10 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified upon completion of the green roof.

35 In the interests of biodiversity.

11 The nursery shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

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

12 Prior to the commencement of development, details of a fence along the boundary of the site with the dwellings facing Woodholm Road shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the fence shall be implemented prior to the use commencing in accordance with approved details and retained thereafter.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13 The nursery shall be used between the hours of 0800 and 1900 hours Mondays to Fridays during school term time only and not during weekends, bank Holidays or school holidays.

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

14 The existing car parking accommodation within the site, as indicated on the approved plans, shall be retained for the sole use of the development hereby permitted.

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

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

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

16 At all times that demolition and 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 the safety of road users.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE7 - Design of Buildings Used by the Public BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings BE21 - Historic Parks and Gardens GE15 - Trees and Woodland H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas LR5 - Development in Open Space Areas CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS74 - Design Principles

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

37 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Mylnhurst School is located within a residential area in Banner Cross. The main school building, a red brick two and three storey structure which is Listed Grade 2, is sited centrally with lawns and landscaping to the south and west.

To the north are additional school buildings, principally a two storey swimming pool and sports hall and a single storey pre-fabricated building used as a nursery. To the south-west, at a lower level is a play area that is, at times, used as a car park and there is a further staff car park to the north of this, close to the east boundary of the site.

Around and within the site are gardens containing mature trees, many of them protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Part of the grounds are also on the Local List of Historic Gardens.

There are three points of access into the site. The main access which is at the corner of Woodholm Road and Button Hill is a vehicle and pedestrian access which leads to the school’s main entrance and to the car parks. There is a second vehicle and pedestrian entrance at the opposite part of the site from Millhouses Lane, close to its junction with Mylnhurst Road. The third entrance is pedestrian only and taken from Woodholm Road. A path leads from the road between houses to the east and trees to the nursery and sports hall, before reaching the main school.

The school grounds are bounded by rear gardens of houses fronting Button Hill, Millhouses Lane and Mylnhurst Road and Woodholm Road.

The proposal, as amended, has changed significantly since the original submission and the changes were such that three separate rounds of consultation have been carried out with local residents, which are summarised later in this report. The different schemes will be set out in the next section but the application, as it now stands, is as follows:

(i) Demolition of the existing pre-fabricated nursery (ii) Erection of new nursery on the same site (iii) Use of the play area at south-east corner for parking at times

BACKGROUND

The application, as originally submitted comprised:

(i) Demolition of existing pre-fabricated nursery (ii) New nursery built on playground at south-east corner (iii) Removal of existing trees along the boundary with gardens on Button Hill next to the proposed nursery with new trees to replace them (iv) New access road along the line of the pedestrian access from Woodholm Road that would lead to the site of the existing nursery (v) On the site of the existing nursery, a new hardsurfaced area would have the combined use of a drop off / pick up point for pupils and a multi-use games area.

This scheme was considered to be unacceptable and an amended proposal was submitted. This was the same as the original submission except the access road from Woodholm Road was omitted and the remaining hard surfaced area left by the demolition of the existing nursery would be a multi-use games area.

This second proposal was also superseded in favour of the current scheme of building on the same site.

REPRESENTATIONS

Original Submission

48 letters of support were received. 39 letters of objection were submitted listing the following comments:

- The creation of a new access off Woodholm Road is not acceptable. The existing one off Millhouses Lane is under used; - There is already a lot of congestion on Woodholm Road and a new access here would increase this and make the existing situation more hazardous; - The traffic congestion from 05.15 to 09.00 and 15.00 to 16.00 hours is appalling; - The roads around the site, particularly Woodholm Road, are busy throughout the year because of school activities, including weekends and evenings; - The design of the new access road is unacceptable;

40 - Increased noise and pollution from cars; - Nursery drop off / pick up area is too far from the new nursery; - Loss of parking for teaching staff will be displaced on to roads; - The new access road is too narrow to accommodate two way traffic safely; - The new junction on Woodholm Road would detract from the character of that part of the street; - The surrounding area is not suitable for any more expansion; - Concerns that the Leisure Centre / Swimming Pool will become a separate business, detached from the school; - This is overdevelopment and an intensification of uses reaching an unacceptable level. This is now more of a commercial venture than a school, with use in holidays, evenings and weekends; - Lack of consultation with residents at pre-application stage; - Detrimental impact on trees and wildlife; - Loss of mature trees; - Much of the site is classified as open space in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and this proposal is not appropriate; - Loss of trees along the Button Hill boundary which form a distinctive woodland edge; - The trees along the proposed across road although shown for retention, would be lost because of the impact in their roots by construction; - The birch tree (T2) is only being removed to allow the new access and no other reason; - The tree report says that trees next to the new access road would need to be carefully protected to avoid damage; - The loss of the silver birch trees on Button Hill boundary and replacement with ash trees would create loss of light and overshadowing; - The gross internal floorspace would increase by 36% from 320 m² to 436m², resulting in 10-15 extra pupils, extending to 80 throughout all school years; - A better location for the new nursery would be on the site of the existing one; - The proposal would have a severe impact on the bungalows and adjoining the site on Woodholm Road because of increased activity, lack of screening and car headlights; - Increase in litter and noise; - It would be better to site the car park elsewhere; - The design of the new gates is unacceptable.

A petition was lodged with the Council, containing 147 signatures, objecting to the application on the grounds that the environmental impact and traffic increases would be unacceptable.

The Conservation Advisory Group, at their meeting of 21 June 2011 said:

- The new building meant there would be a loss in the potential of restoring the landscape at that part of the site; - The building materials were unacceptable; - The loss of trees will damage the character of the historic garden and the setting and character of the Listed Building; - The new nursery should be built on the site of the existing one.

Second Scheme

1 letter of support was received. 15 letters of objection have been submitted:

- Disruption and danger from increased traffic; - Major problems with existing parking and traffic generation; - Concern over opening times of nursery; - Will the staff car park be available during out of school hours; - 10 extra children at the nursery will extend to 80 extra, taking account of all years, with the result of extra cars; - Disturbance from noise and lighting from the games area; - Design of the nursery remains unacceptable and detrimental to the character of the Listed Building; - The siting of the nursery would displace 30 cars on to the street; - The nursery should be built on the site of the existing one; - The school has already been developed to its utmost capacity on this site; - There would be overlooking of houses on Button Hill from the new nursery; - New trees will overshadow gardens on Button Hill

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley has commented on this proposal:

- The removal of the Woodholm Road access road is welcomed - There are concerns about the impact on amenities of local residents - Out of hours school activities should be limited

Third and Current Scheme

54 letters of support. 13 letters of objection.

- This latest proposal is much better than the previous two options; - The nursery would be much closer to the bungalows on Woodholm Road than the existing one. The distance would reduce from about 9 metres to 5.5 metres; - The increase in pupil numbers would result in an increase in on-street parking; - A one-way internal traffic system should be introduced to ease pressure on the access at Button Hill; - The new nursery would be 36% bigger than the existing one, which would be over development; - A barrier should be placed along to the boundary to screen the nursery; - The new nursery should only operate during normal school hours; - The new building should be no higher than the existing one; - All glazing facing towards Woodholm Road should be opaque; - Any external lighting should be sympathetic, avoiding any glare or light spillage affecting neighbours; - The upgraded pedestrian access should not be lit; - There has been no discussion between the applicant and neighbours;

42 - Loss of trees along the Button Hill boundary; - Road improvements measures should be introduced; - The design of the nursery does not compliment the Listed Building or the Historic Garden.

Two petitions have been received. The first, with 21 signatures, expresses concerns about the out of school hours parking issues and the second, with 39 signatures, is concerned about the overdevelopment of Mylnhurst School.

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley has submitted additional comments about this scheme:

- The revised proposal is welcomed; - It should not affect the amenities of residents living at Button Hill and Woodholm Road; - There are concerns about noise and disturbance, particularly at weekends and evenings; - Hours of use should be controlled by a Condition.

This scheme was considered by the Conservation Advisory Group on 13 December 2011, who welcomed the relocation to the site of the existing building. However, they felt that further improvements were needed to the exterior of the nursery.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) shows that the grounds of Mylnhurst School are allocated as open space and the buildings including the piece of land between nos. 7 and 17 Woodholm Road are part of a housing policy area. The existing nursery is within the housing allocation and it is on this site that the new nursery would be located.

Policy H10 of the UDP deals with development in housing areas and says that housing is the preferred use, but that Community Facilities and Institutions, which the school is, are acceptable. There is no change of use proposed as the existing nursery is to be replaced by a new one on the same site.

With respect to that part of the site which is allocated for open space, Policy L.R.5 of the UDP seeks to protect open space areas from development that results in an inappropriate loss of open space. This application restricts itself to development within the housing allocation so there would be no impact on open space.

Members should be aware that the assessment of this application will limit itself to the current proposal only, which is the replacement nursery on the same site as the existing one, as the previous two alternatives have been superseded.

Layout, Design and External Appearance

43 Policy BE5 of the UDP deals with building design and siting and this requires good quality in all aspects of new development.

Policy CS74 of the adopted Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy addresses Design Principles and this expects high quality development which takes advantage of distinctive features of the surroundings, are attractive and sustainable.

The existing nursery is a single storey pre fabricated type of building sited at the rear of nos. 5 and 7 Woodholm Road and hard surface that was previously the school tennis courts. Around this building, mainly to the south is play space for the children and there is a garden area on the north side, between the nursery and residents gardens, including ornamental trees and lawns.

This application, as amended, proposes to remove the existing nursery and replace it with a new, purpose built one.

This would be single storey with a shallow, pitched roof and the building would be arranged on site in an ‘L’ shape, the main part of the nursery facing the rear gardens of the bungalows on Woodholm Road. This semi enclosed space is on the south side and this would be used for outdoor activities and play, maximising solar gain.

The exterior would, as amended in line with officer and C.A.G advice be a mix of wood cladding, metal, stone and forticrete with a sedum ‘green’ roof. There would also be photovoltaic panels on the lower roof on the canopies next to the outdoor play area. Light onto the building would be maximised by concentrating windows on the south side, including high level windows between the main roof and the canopy. The design would be a complete contrast to the traditional stone Listed main school and would be significantly better than the existing nursery and sports hall. Interest in the exterior has been created by the use of an appropriate palette of materials, including wood, to complement the wooded setting and a varied built form which includes shaded parts, expressed entrances and the green roof.

It is considered that the design and external appearance is acceptable and in line with policy criteria.

As part of the proposal, the existing footpath leading from Woodholm Road would be upgraded and new fencing placed around the nursery. The line of fruit trees tended by the children that currently site between the nursery and the boundary, would be replanted along side the footpath leading to Woodholm Road.

The new nursery would be about 35% bigger than the existing one which would require some of the land to the east to be slightly regraded to allow the nursery to be constructed. Additional information in the form of sections through the building demonstrates that the changes in level would be marginal.

As part of the application, it is, proposed to use the play area at the lower, south- eastern corner for overflow parking but this, as an ancillary use to the overall school use, would not require formal planning consent.

Sustainability

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy relates to climate change, resources and sustainable design of developments and advises that all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and function in a changing climate. They must also be designed to use resources sustainably. The supporting text to CS64 advises that to satisfy the policy, all new non-residential developments over 500 square metres should achieve a BREEAM rating of a very good (or equivalent). Policy CS65 of the Core Strategy relates to renewable energy and carbon reduction, and requires all significant developments to secure the provision of renewable/low carbon energy and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions, unless it can be shown not to be feasible or viable.

The new nursery has a gross floor area of 436 square metres so falls short of the 500m² threshold that the above policy criteria specifies. Nevertheless, the new building would have a high sustainability specification including a sedum roof, south facing photovoltaic panels, rainwater harvesting, windows to maximise solar gain, materials to provide a high level of insulation and fitments designed to minimise power consumption.

It is considered that this is acceptable.

Impact on the Listed Building and Historic Garden

Policy BE19 of the UDP deals with Listed Buildings and proposals for development within the curtilage or affecting its setting will be expected to preserve the character and appearance of the building and setting.

Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy says that development should take advantage of and enhance the distinctive heritage of the city, particularly the buildings associated with the Victorian and Edwardian suburb.

The proposal has been moved away from close proximity to the Listed Building and the setting would not be affected by the proposal. The site of the new nursery is screened by trees and the design of the proposal is significantly better than the existing nursery so the wider setting of the Listed Building and the ground around it would be improved by this application in line with policy criteria.

The grounds at Mylnhurst School are included in the Local List of Historic Gardens and Policy BE21 of the UDP, which deals with Historic Parks and Gardens, seeks to protect their setting, character and appearance.

The original scheme which proposed the new access road would have had a detrimental impact on the historic garden but the current scheme is acceptable. The historic character would not be affected because the proposal would replace the existing building on the same site. There are some long term proposals to remove and replace trees along the Button Hill boundary but a condition would control this.

It is considered that the character and setting of the Historic Garden would not be affected.

Landscaping and Protection of Trees

Policy GE15 of the UDP seeks to protect trees and woodland and where trees are to be lost, they should be replaced.

The grounds of Mylnhurst School are covered by a Tree Preservation Order which has been in place since February 1980. The original scheme showed the new access road passing very close to trees identified as Group One. The applicant made a case that the trees would not be harmed as long as care was taken in constructing the road, so as to protect the roots. Your officers did not accept this, taking the view that it was likely that these trees would not survive the introduction of the new road.

The new building would not have a detrimental impact on protected trees as it would be sited where the current nursery is. A line of ornamental trees that lie between the existing nursery and the boundary with houses on Woodholm Road would be saved and re-planted next to the footpath leading from Woodholm Road.

A single apple tree would be lost to the new nursery but this is not a native species contributing to the gardens and grounds and this would be replaced elsewhere in the site.

The amended scheme also shows the removal and replacement of existing trees along the south and east edges of the existing school playground. There are silver birch, sycamore and elder and the plans indicate that this is a long term proposal.

Two existing oak trees and a white beam would be retained and replacement trees would be mountain ash (rowan) along the east boundary only. However, this is of concern to residents whose gardens adjoin the school at this point because the ash trees will eventually, form a dense boundary that would block light from the gardens. It is considered that a condition should be attached that protects all trees here and does not allow any to be removed until an acceptable layout has been agreed.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbours

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should not harm the amenities of local residents. The only dwellings that would be affected by the proposal are three bungalows that front on to Woodholm Road.

The siting of the new nursery is on the same hard surface as the existing one but there is a larger footprint which takes into account the increased footprint which is to allow for improved teaching facilities and for up to 10 extra pupils. The increase in size has meant that it is nearer to the bungalows, rather than result in trees being lost.

46 The existing nursery is 9 metres from the boundary with the bungalow gardens and the proposal would bring the nursery nearer, at 5.5 metres. Residents are concerned that there would be an intensification of activity and potential for a loss of privacy.

With respect to a possible loss of privacy, the building would be single storey and there would be nine windows facing towards the gardens, as well as the entrances to the Nursery and Reception. Four windows would be associated with a cloak room, two with the office, one with a quiet room and two with the reception class room. Residents would prefer that all windows were of obscure glass.

The plans, as amended, show a new hedge to be grown along the boundary rising to 2 metres high, which would screen the gardens from the new building so that there would be no overlooking. However, the hedge would take time to grow and it is considered that an additional close boarded fence along this boundary should be introduced that would separate the two sites with immediate effect, retaining privacy and avoiding the opaque glazing.

The outdoor play areas are located on the southern side of the new nursery, very similar to the existing arrangement and the building will act as a buffer for noise during periods of outdoor play.

Residents are concerned that the increase in nursery children attendance of up to an extra 10, combined with the entrances being on the side facing the gardens will result in an intensification in noise and disturbance. In the event that the new nursery is used for activities outside school hours and at weekends in line with current activities then it would be possible that noise and disturbance would impact on neighbours during times when they could reasonably expect peace and quiet.

There is a history of extra-curricular activities at the school during evenings, weekends and school holidays that do cause noise and disturbance, which is set out in many of resident’s objections to the application. It is considered that there may be additional noise and disturbance resulting from the new nursery being located closer to the bungalows with the entrances facing the houses. Consequently, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition limiting the use of the new nursery building to school and early evening only, which would allow for parents evenings and after school meetings. This would exclude late evening, weekends and holiday times.

At all stages of this application, neighbours have objected to noise and disturbance from the out of school activities which extend to weekends and holidays and to extensive use of the sports hall / swimming pool which has been built near to the nursery, having been granted planning consent in 2006. Whilst being sympathetic to the issues surrounding this, planning guidance makes it absolutely clear that when dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities can only take into account matters that directly relate to the application. Issues relating to existing circumstances such as noise, activity and disturbance from the remaining parts of the school cannot be taken into account.

47 It is considered that the amenity of residents would not be significantly harmed by the new nursery.

Parking, Access and Transport

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should provide adequate parking and safe access.

The issue of parking, within the school grounds and on the roads around the school is one of great concern to local residents and has been a persistent theme throughout the three public consultation exercises. During the mornings, evenings and at times during weekends and school holidays, cars park on the roads around the site, with the greatest pressure on Woodholm Road. This is the closest point to the nursery and sports hall via the footpath access, hence its attraction. This occurs not only at the start and end of the school day but in evenings, weekends and holidays, associated with out of school activities, particularly at the sports hall. Officers have visited the site during mornings and evenings and can verify the extent of parking. Woodholm Road is under most pressure from this, with cars parking on both sides of the road which does severely restrict the free flow of traffic. However, as stated earlier in this report, matters that are not related to the actual proposal, such as this, cannot be taken into account.

The application relates to the new nursery which would result in an increase in up to ten new pupils. Given the level of activity around and within the school, it is considered that the extra vehicles attracted would not significantly change this situation. The access and internal parking arrangements would not alter apart from the hard surfaced play area on the south-east corner being identified as an area for possible overspill car parking. Although specified in the application this option is outside planning control as it would be ancillary to the school use.

Members should be aware that when your officers assessed the original submission that included the new access road from Woodholm Road, it was considered to be unacceptable because of the detrimental impact it would have on road safety and because of the level of traffic conflict the new junction would create. In response to these concerns, this part of the proposal was removed.

Disabled Access

Policy BE7 of the UDP addresses the design of buildings used by the public and says that provision for disabled people should be encouraged. Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy deals with design principles and this expects new development to be accessible for people with disabilities.

The drawings for the new nursery show that level access and ramps would be used at the entrances, there would be disabled toilets; the entrance doors are wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs and circulation space within and outside the building can accommodate wheelchairs. This is considered to be acceptable and the inclusion of disabled facilities within the new building would be controlled by a condition.

48 REPSONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Members should be aware that responses will be limited to the current proposal because the previous two options have been superseded.

Responses to matters relating to traffic, parking, loss of amenity, impact on the Listed Building and loss of trees have already been addressed earlier in this report.

With respect to the impact on wildlife, there would be very little because the proposal would impact only on hard surfaces and very few trees would be affected.

There is no need to introduce a one-way internal traffic system as a result of this amended scheme.

Regarding potential external lighting, a condition would be attached that required details to be submitted.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application, as amended, is for a new nursery on the site of the existing one housed in a pre-fabricated type building. The design of the new building is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, scale and massing and a significant improvement on the appearance of the existing building. It would have a good sustainable specification, including a ‘green’ sedum roof and photovoltaic panels.

The impact on the amenities of residents is considered to be acceptable with the introduction of a fence along the boundary to compliment the hedgerow and a condition limiting hours of operation.

There would be no adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building, the main Mylnhurst School, or the Historic Garden. There are many large, mature trees within the grounds that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There are long term proposals that might affect some trees in the south-east corner but these will be controlled by a condition, ensuring their retention in the short term. All other trees would not be affected.

It is acknowledged that there are issues relating to on-street parking around the school but this cannot be attributed to this proposal so addressing this is outside the scope of this application. There would be very little additional traffic associated with the proposal and this would not significantly affect existing levels.

All matters are considered to be acceptable, there is no conflict with planning policy and the application is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

Case Number 11/01759/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Use of site as green waste and energy processing facility, refurbishment of hangar and siting of two metal cabins for use as site office and welfare building

Location Former RAF Norton Aerodrome Norton Avenue Sheffield S12 2LA

Date Received 26/05/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Green Estate Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 The use shall cease after a period of 3 years from the commencement of development, the Local Planning Authority having been informed of such commencement date by the applicant.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

a) been carried out; or

50 b) details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure that such improvement works will be carried out before the site is/are brought into use.

Highway Improvements:

- Norton Avenue Site Access - Lightwood Lane Site Access

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

5 Prior to the improvement works indicated in the preceding condition 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.

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

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

7 Before the development is commenced, details of the signing of the one- way system within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The signage shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans before the site is used and thereafter, such signage shall be retained and maintained.

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

8 The floor level of the metal portacabins shall be at least 150mm above the ground floor level.

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

9 Before any work on site is begun, including site clearance/preparation works, an ecological survey of the buildings shall be carried out by a suitably qualified person(s) whose credentials shall first be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The objectives of the ecological survey shall be:

a) to ascertain whether the buildings are used by protected species as a living, breeding, roosting or hibernating habitat;

b) to provide a schedule of measures to preserve or enhance any identified habitat of a protected species and shall include details of when such measures shall be carried out;

the survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work, including site preparation works, on site is commenced and any approved measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

In order to ensure that no harmful effects are caused to the interests of nature conservation in the locality as a result of the proposed development, in accordance with Policy GE11 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Guidance as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 (Nature Conservation).

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

Drawings numbered L001b, GW03, 11-1(L)005A, 11-1(L)006A, 11-1(L)010, 11-1(L)012A, 11-1(L)011, 11-1(L)014A

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

11 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 amenities of the locality.

12 The site shall be used for the above-mentioned purpose only between 0800 hours and 1800 hours on any day.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE9 - Design for Vehicles GE1 - Development in the Green Belt GE3 - New Building in the Green Belt GE4 - Development and the Green Belt Environment GE9 - Re-use and Adaptation of Rural Buildings GE10 - Green Network

52 GE11 - Nature Conservation and Development GE12 - Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves GE13 - Areas of Natural History Interest and Local Nature Sites GE14 - South Yorkshire Forest GE15 - Trees and Woodland GE17 - Rivers and Streams GE22 - Pollution GE24 - Noise Pollution CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS68 - Waste Development Objectives CS70 - Provision for Recycling and Composting CS71 - Protecting the Green Belt CS73 - The Strategic Green Network

53 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Norton Aerodrome which lies within the Green Belt on the south-eastern edge of the outer ring road. The whole aerodrome site is an extensive area comprising buildings, hardstandings and open land containing many trees but the application relates to only part of this.

The plans supporting the planning application show that the hangar, the smaller building to the north-west of this, the hardstanding and vehicle access between Lightwood roundabout and Bochum Parkway would be used for Green Composting. The buildings and hardstanding are already part enclosed by fencing. An area to the north-east of this, which is all hardstanding, would be used for the storage of timber and the creation of woodchip bio-mass from this. This area comprises level hardstanding which extends into bays between groups of trees.

This would be for a period of three years only.

The application site is level, whereas the land to the south and south-east falls away towards the Moss Valley and open countryside. To the south-west of the site lie the Woodland View and Birch View Nursing Homes with some houses beyond. To the west across the ring road are flats and elderly persons bungalows. To the north-west and north, both also across the outer ring road are playing fields and Valley Park Primary School, respectively. To the north-east is housing, the nearest road being Bowman Close.

Details of the Planning Application

- Vehicle access into the site would be taken from the existing access close to Lightwood roundabout off the road that already serves the nursing home. Vehicles would leave the site at an exit point on Bochum Parkway which is to the north-east of the application site.

- It is estimated that there would be 15 vehicle movements per day.

- The Green Waste Composting facility would extend over an area of 11,924 square metres comprising the large hangar, the smaller building to the north-west and the hardstanding between and immediately surrounding the buildings. The exterior of the hangar would be refurbished including a new roof and the existing fence that part surrounds this area would be extended around the whole extent of operations.

- The Green Waste Composting facility would operate within the large hangar. Materials, comprising vegetation, leaves and similar types of compost would be delivered and stored within the building in lines, called windrows, until this has broken down to a level when it becomes compost. It is then placed in bags and distributed on a commercial basis. This would not be available to the public apart from an event possibly one morning a month.

- The working floor area within the hangar would be 5280 square metres although this would be reduced by the central stanchions.

- The timber storage and creation of woodchip biomass would operate in the open on an area of hardstanding of 19,800 square metres. Access would be the same as for Green Waste Composting. Timber would be delivered and stored on the hardstanding next to the north-eastern side of the hangar until it is dry enough to be chipped into biomass. Then it would be stored, under cover, on the hardstanding until it is distributed for use as fuel. The organisation doing this are called Silvapower. Due to the nature of the activity, it is not the case that the whole area would be used at any one time. The storage of timber and bio-mass would be in different parts of the hardstanding at different times with significant areas of space between to allow for vehicle access and movement.

- Site operation would be seven days a week with activity focussed on 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday with occasional use at weekends and Bank Holidays.

REPRESENTATATIONS

Objections

Two petitions have been submitted with 152 and 35 signatures respectively. The smaller petition objects to the application but gave no grounds for this. The petition of 152 signatures objects to the proposal because:

- This is an industrial process and its location in the Green Belt is inappropriate. - It is close to houses and farmland. - Noise, smells and disturbance. - It is unlikely to be for a three year period. - It would be a target for vandalism. - There are alternative sites that are available.

65 letters of objection have been received from local residents and interested individuals:

- Inappropriate Green Belt location. - Contrary to protection of Green Belt. - Extra traffic affecting an already busy road. - Inadequate exit and entry points for lorries; the exit would be straight onto Bochum Parkway. - Too close to houses, nursing home and school. - The close proximity to the nursing home and school has not been considered properly. - This is an industrial use, not agricultural. - Pollution – noise, smells, disturbance and dust.

- There would be serious harm to the health of those living around the site caused by the emission of spores and bio-aerosols from the proposed activities. - The bio-aerosol spores can cause death resulting from aspillergus fungus. - It is noted that there should be a distance of at least 250 metres between ‘sensitive receptors’ such as nursing homes, houses and schools with 500 metres a much safer distance. - There is no ‘safe’ distance when dealing with bio-aerosols and this has not been addressed by the applicant. - The building would be opened on a regular basis, thus allowing spores out; there is no such thing as a ‘sealed’ composting facility. - The composting site will act as an incubation bed for asperlligus spores. - The proposal does not comply with Environment Agency Permit regulations for closed vessels because:

- activity must not be carried out within 1 kilometre of a site of scientific interest, in this case, Moss Valley Meadows; - it should not be within 250 metres of any sensitive receptors; - no Environmental Agency screening exercise has been carried out.

- The health risk from bio-aerosols increases when the operation is on top of a hill, as in this case, so there would be a spread over a wider area. - Spontaneous combustion of compost material is a possibility, which would need mitigation measures. - There is asbestos in the existing hangar building which would be dangerous to move. - There would be a detrimental impact on wildlife and plants because of the activities proposed. - The site is part of Sheffield’s war time history which should be remembered. - The ‘temporary’ three year period is unrealistic given the slow composting process of up to 18 months. - There are no details on how contamination on the site would be disposed of. - The broken, concrete hardstanding would allow pollutants to seep into the ground.

57 - Within the 250 metre boundary there is a 60 person nursing home, 13 bungalows for elderly people and just beyond the boundary is a school, all being in danger from the proposal. - There is more suitable land available at Blackburn Meadows and Don Valley. - 30% of air within the building can escape from the building when the doors are opened.

Clive Betts MP objects to the application:

- The nearest residence is 120 metre away, which is too close for this type of activity. - The Woodland View Nursing Home offers palliative care and many residents are in ill health. Valley Park Primary School and the nursing home are close to the site and children and elderly people are extremely susceptible to asperlligus fungus which can cause severe lung infections. - He is not convinced that air filtration processes will eliminate bio-aerosols. - The noise level of wood chipping at 85 decibels for several hours at a time will cause nuisance to residents. - He supports the objections of Woodland View Nursing Home.

Councillor Ian Auckland objects to the application:

- Any decision on this site would be premature in the absence of a proper planning brief. - The proposal would be damaging to the Green Belt as there would be an unacceptable level of activity due to buildings, plant and equipment. - It would be contrary to the allocation for the site as a ‘Park and Ride’ scheme. - Too close to nearby houses. - This is an industrial process which is not suitable for this site in scale or impact. - Alternative sites should be considered.

Councillors Bryan Lodge and Karen McGowan object to the application:

- Not convinced that health issues have been resolved. - It is likely that traffic movements are understated and there will be a significant impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. - The scale of development is excessive at this location. - An alternative proposal for housing on the site is more acceptable.

Woodland View Nursing Home objects:

- Their residents are frail and susceptible to illness. - Dust and odour. - Noise and traffic. - Possible on-site expansion. - The primary concern is the health hazard from bio-aerosols causing lung infections, bronchitis and asthma.

Moss Valley Wildlife Group have objected to the application:

- Detrimental impact on protected species; mammals and plants. - Trees on an adjacent to this site would be disturbed. - Bats roost in the buildings. - There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest less than one kilometre from the site. - Stoneley Wood is 250 metres from the large hangar at Norton Aerodrome. - Leachates from the composting would find their way into watercourses. - The proposal exceeds the existing developed area so is overdevelopment.

The Woodland Trust object to the application:

- Potential for pollution of the conservation area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and woodland. - Impact on Stoneley Wood. - This is an industrial form of biodegradable waste. - Contrary to Policies CS71 and CS73 of the Core Strategy and Policies G1, G2 and G3 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). - Very special circumstances need to be established to allow this development in the Green Belt. - An ecological survey is required. - A more detailed assessment of the release of bio-aerosols is required. - Leachate into water through cracks in concrete.

Natural England also objects to this application because an assessment of the potential impact of ammonia and nitrogen generated by composting should be done.

Support

Six individual letters of support have been submitted:

- This scheme would limit anti-social behaviour. - It would contribute to sustainability, reduce carbon emissions and reduce vehicle miles. - Minimal impact on the surrounding area. - The site is suitable for this use. - The waste would be handled safer here than in other parts of the city. - Good use of existing, long vacant buildings. - Recycling is highly sustainable and a good thing. - The guidance PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – supports this application in that the locational needs of a waste facility and the wider benefits are material considerations. - Responsibility for waste is important in moving towards a more sustainable economy.

59 - This would deliver considerable benefits that would outweigh any harm to the Green Belt. - This would support Sheffield’s claim to be the ‘greenest’ city in the country. - Additional traffic would be negligible given that the ring road is already very busy.

The Forestry Commission support the application:

- This would be a low cost, carbon lean, locally derived fuel that would benefit charities, local authorities and educational establishments. - It would help to meet UK and EU targets on carbon emissions. - Silvapower is an example of diversification of rural skills allied to true ‘forestry’. - In the Yorkshire and Humber area, there are 70,280 hectares of woodland and about half of this is unmanaged. There is potential to expand the bio- fuel market with further diversity. - Using wood fuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

South Yorkshire Forest also supports the application;

- Local wood fuel storage facilities are essential in a multi-faceted approach to carbon reduction. - Local depots reduce transport costs and minimise vehicle miles. - This will provide a focus for woodland owners to manage their woods. - This will help to meet the numerous UK and EU carbon reduction targets.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The adopted UDP shows that the application site lies within the Green Belt so the proposal will need to be tested against a number of policies that control development in the Green Belt.

Policy GE1 of the UDP deals with ‘Development in the Green Belt’ and it says that development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances, where it would:

(a) lead to unrestricted growth of the built up area; or (b) contribute towards merging of existing settlements; or (c) lead to encroachment of urban development into the countryside.

Given the scale of the proposal, principally the extent of Silvapower’s bio-fuel operation on the hardstanding adjoining what is considered to be the developable area of existing buildings and immediately adjoining hardstanding, very special circumstances will have to be demonstrated so that the proposal can be considered to be acceptable.

Potential Harm to the Character and Openness of the Green Belt

60 As well as the restrictive nature of Policy GE1 of the UDP, Policy GE4, which deals with ‘Development in the Green Belt Environment’, says that the scale and character of any development which is permitted in the Green Belt, or would be conspicuous from it, should be in keeping with the area.

Policy GE1, in dealing with very special circumstances, is a close reflection of national guidance contained in PPG2 – Green Belts, which also says that inappropriate development is only acceptable where very special circumstances exist to justify it.

Policy CS71 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy deals with ‘Protecting the Green Belt’ which states that the countryside and other open land around existing built up areas will be safeguarded by maintaining the Green Belt.

It is considered, in the case of development within the Green Belt at Norton Aerodrome, that the developable area is the footprint of the existing building plus the hardstanding between the two and immediately around the building perimeter. The issue here is with the activities of Silvapower who would store wood and woodchip on the hardstanding next to the hangar on an area beyond the developable area.

The applicant, as part of the application, has made a case for establishing special circumstances which can be summarised as follows:

- 20 other sites have been considered and all have been disregarded due to costs, siting and suitability. - The timber would be stored and processed close to where it would be used. - There would be a significant reduction in vehicle miles. At present, there are lorry trips to Doncaster and Scunthorpe and these would cease if Green Estates and Silvapower were to operate from Norton Aerodrome. - The creation of bio-mass woodchip and compost will contribute to aims regarding climate change and sustainability by reducing vehicle miles, providing bio-mass fuel for local users, reducing a dependency on fossil fuel, operating on a very local basis and recycling waste material. - The compost would be mostly generated in south Sheffield so a local need would be met. - There are nine bio-mass boilers in Sheffield that would be served by Silvapower.

It is important to assess the visual impact of the proposal as this is part of the consideration of special circumstances.

The existing buildings would be used and the hardstanding to the north-east of the large hangar would store timber and woodchip. The timber would be stored in lines of about 3 metres in height and the piles of woodchip would be of a similar height but covered whilst being stored.

The large hangar is plainly visible from around the site and from within the Green Belt to the south and east where it falls within north-east Derbyshire. The hardstanding is only visible from within the site and is well-screened by trees which

61 lie to the north-east and north-west of the site. The stored timber and woodchip would be very well screened by the trees and the hangar and would only have a limited impact on the visual quality of this part of the Green Belt.

Re-Use of Existing Buildings in the Green Belt

With respect to the re-use and adaptation of the existing buildings, this is addressed by Policy GE9 of the UDP which says that such use of existing buildings would be permitted particularly where it would provide a diversification of the rural economy. Also, the existing buildings should be capable of conversion without significant alteration or extension, the new use should not harm the landscape or character of the countryside and where the building is in poor condition, improvements should be secured by conversion works.

As part of this application the two existing buildings would be brought back into use after many years of neglect which has seen significant deterioration in the built fabric to the point of near dereliction. The hangar, in particular, would be re-roofed and the sides would be re-cladded to secure the building for its proposed use. The hangar draws attention because of its scale and size but also because of its very poor appearance. The neglected air of this part of the Green Belt would be improved by an active use. Conversion of existing buildings would not involve significant alterations or extensions.

New Building in the Green Belt

As part of this application, two new small buildings are proposed. One would be a portacabin for office purposes and the other would be portable toilet. Both would be self-enclosed and sited close to the hangar on the hardstanding within the developable area.

Policy GE3 of the UDP deals with new buildings in the Green Belt and this says that new buildings would not be permitted except where they are essential to acceptable uses that comply with Policy GE1 of the UDP. There are small, ancillary buildings sited next to the hangar and given the scale of the existing buildings, these would not have a significant impact and would not harm the Green Belt.

Sustainability and Climate Change

National guidance in PPS1 – Planning and Climate Change, states that climate change is the greatest long term challenge facing the world today. Addressing climate change is, therefore, the Government’s principle concern for sustainable development and it advises that new development should be planned to make good use of opportunities for decentralised and renewable low carbon energy.

Further national guidance in PPS22 – Renewable Energy – recognises that although renewable energy projects within the Green Belt constitute inappropriate development due to potential harm to the openness, the wider benefits associated with the increased production of energy from renewable sources may constitute very special circumstances, which outweigh any harm caused. This guidance also

62 recognises that small scale renewable energy projects can make valuable contributions to renewable energy output and should be encouraged.

Action to reduce the impact of climate change is a key part of the overall vision of the Core Strategy and there are specific objectives for reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable development. It is recognised that significant climate change is still predicted and Policy CS63 of the Core Strategy sets out action by way of responses to climate change. This includes:

- Designing development to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. - Promote development that generates renewable energy. - Reduce the volume of waste disposed of in landfill sites and generating energy from waste.

Both Green Estates and Silvapower use waste material, which reduced the amount disposed of in landfill sites and the bio-mass product will provide fuel. This development would promote renewable energy.

Policy CS68 of the Core Strategy sets out waste development objectives and says that Sheffield’s waste will be managed more sustainably by setting performance targets for recycling and composting waste.

Policy CS70 of the Core Strategy, ‘Provision for Recycling and Composting’, says that increased recycling and composting will be enabled by supporting development of new technologies for treating mixed organic waste.

In March 2011 the Government published revised national guidance in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management which sets out the objectives of waste disposal.

An important aspect of this is preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery and disposing only as a last resort. In Section 3, Key Planning Objectives, it says that Green Belt locations should be protected but the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining planning applications.

Wood chip is a dry bio-mass which has the advantage that it emits significantly less carbon dioxide than gas, oil or coal when burnt. It releases the same amount of carbon dioxide that was absorbed during plant growth and is, therefore, considered to be a ‘carbon neutral’ fuel. The use of more ‘carbon neutral’ fuels will, over time, help achieve a net reduction in carbon emissions.

It is considered that the conversion of organic material to compost for re-use and the reduction of waste timber to create fuel for Renewable Heat Boilers does satisfy the criteria of this guidance on sustainable waste management and responses to climate change.

Layout and Appearance of Buildings

63 Policy GE4 of the UDP says that the scale and appearance of development should be in scale with the character and appearance of the area.

The issue of new buildings as part of this application has already been addressed and there would be no other additional building. However, the exterior of the hangar would be fully enclosed and the roof repaired to create a secure and sealed building.

Block work to a height of 2 metres would be erected along both sides, which are currently open. The remainder of the side openings would be closed off using opaque, rigid sheeting fixed to the metal substructure.

The smaller building between the hangar and the dual carriageway to the north- west would not be altered apart from the introduction of mesh windows to allow air to circulate as wood would be dried inside.

The existing building is in a derelict state and the alterations to the exterior would improve the appearance.

The proposal would not conflict with Policy GE4 in this respect.

Adverse Impact on the Amenities and Health of Residents

Policy GE4 says that new development should be in scale and character with the Green Belt. In terms of the impact on the visual amenity of residents, there is potential for an impact on those living in houses to the west and north-east of the proposal and in the nursing home that lies to the south. The hangar is visible from the houses to the west and north-east because of its scale and height. However, this would not change apart from the treatment of the exterior. The wood storage and chipping operation would be screened by the existing building and trees and would have a minimal impact, in terms of visibility, on residents.

There would be no harm as a result of this.

Policy GE22 of the UDP deals with pollution and this says that development should be sited so as to prevent or minimise the effect of any pollution on neighbouring land uses.

Many representations have been received from local residents expressing very strong concerns about health risks resulting from spores associated with the composting and wood storage processes. Residents make specific reference to disease and infections that affect the lungs and respiratory system such as asthma, but there is a particular reference to asperlligus fungus.

The spores are tiny airborne emissions from organic, composted material that cannot be seen, tasted or smelt and residents are concerned that these can, particularly for those living within close proximity of the spores’ source, result in very serious illness or, in extreme cases, death.

64 A detailed examination of this particular aspect is required, given residents’ concerns.

Policy GE22 of the UDP deals with the issue of pollution affecting residents but Members should be aware of national guidance contained in paragraphs 26-28 of PPS10 which, under the heading of ‘Responsibilities’ says:

“26. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the development plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities.

27. The planning and pollution control regimes are separate but complementary. Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.

28. Waste planning and pollution control authorities should work closely to ensure integrated and timely decisions under the complementary regimes. This can be assisted by applicants preparing and submitting planning and pollution control applications in parallel.”

This guidance relates to Sustainable Waste Management and, given that the two uses involved with this proposal would be processing waste for re-use, which is sustainable, weight should be given to this national policy guidance.

In this instance, your officers, throughout the assessment of this planning application, have liaised closely with the Environment Agency as, in this instance, they would be responsible for assessment and prevention of pollution.

It is important that appropriate weight is allocated to the planning and pollution control authorities’ responsibilities.

It is important, given public concern, to set out in detail how the emission of spores is assessed, controlled and prevented.

The Environment Agency (EA), in assessing composting uses, are in a position to assess applications for two types of permit, the difference between the two being dependant upon the location of ‘sensitive receptors’. These are people who might be particularly susceptible to emissions and who live or spend a significant amount of time within 250 metres of the source of spores or compost linked emissions. The distance of 250 metres is considered to be an acceptable distance away in terms of impact on health but 500 metres is considered to be safer.

65 There are ‘sensitive receptors’ within 250 metres of the composting and wood chipping activities and these are:

- residents living on Bowman Close and adjoining roads - Birch View and Woodland View Nursing Homes - Valley Park Primary School - Elderly person housing and residences to the west.

Where there are ‘sensitive receptors’ within a 250 metre radius a ‘bespoke’ licence has to be issued by the EA, tailor made to the operations. If there were no ‘sensitive receptors’ within 250 metres then a standard licence would be issued. There is some dispute with residents about the accuracy of distance of receptors but it is clear that they all lie within the 250 metre zone.

There is particular focus by residents, the nursing homes and the school on the potential danger from asperlligus and research on this and what is a safe distance away from the source of emissions is inconclusive. It is clear that there is a health risk attached to this. The applicant has, in support of the application, submitted information on how the emissions from the green composting facility will be controlled, which has been assessed by the controlling regulator, the EA. The EA have not lodged an objection and their process and involvement in this matter is clear.

A preliminary assessment is done at the time of the submission of the planning application by the EA and this has been done as the first phase of the EA process in leading up to the issue of a bespoke permit. The EA have not objected to the application as they have concluded that the proposal is, based on the information submitted, acceptable. No further assessment will be carried out by the EA. In the event of this application being approved, a second assessment would be carried out; then once Green Composting and Silvapower began operating, monitoring would take place to ensure that preventative measures on site were in place and emissions were restricted in accordance with EA guidelines.

The applicant has to secure the EA permit on an annual basis and the operation is monitored by the EA. In the event of emissions exceeding the established controls and limits, the EA have the power to stop the use until remedial measures have been put in place.

The bespoke Environmental Permit which the applicant would need to secure would set conditions for emissions to air and water, noise, odour, management of waste water, waste handling and recovery, management systems, energy use, accident management, emissions monitoring and land protection.

In this instance, the main processes would be enclosed within the hangar and the key consideration is to identify a system of air management control. The air within the hangar would, therefore, be maintained in a satisfactory condition with air emissions managed and controlled so that there is no risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

66 The air management would be done by air changes carried out within the enclosed building using a suction fan ventilation system with all exhausted air having to pass through a wetted air filtration system. The purpose of the wet phase is to trap and reduce bio-aerosols, particularly asperlligus and other bacteria. A separate site specific Bio-aerosol Risk Assessment has been carried out which sets out this control system in detail.

The design of the air control system is based on a suction method so that when doors are opened to allow lorry access, the air does not escape but remains within the enclosed space. Emissions would not escape.

The design of the air filtration system would conform to EA, DEFRA and Industrial Good Practice and the systems would also include a water spray system effective in removing bio-aerosols, odours and traces of other elements such as ammonia.

Inside the building, harvested ‘grey’ water would provide dust control for both surfaces of material in process and for the internal floor surface.

These designs are to be put in place to conform with EA ‘Best Practice’ and are based on schemes that have been successfully tested at similar commercial scale composting sites.

It is recognised that there are very real concerns about health risks associated with emissions and bio-aerosols from commercial composting. It is also recognised that, although research into the affects of bio-aerosols has been carried out, there is no clear conclusion as to what harm results.

The responsibility for control over air quality and pollution lies with both the Local Planning Authority and the Environment Agency. Policy GE22 of the adopted UDP says that development should be sited as to prevent or minimise the effect of air pollution on neighbouring land uses. National guidance is set out in PPS10 and local authorities are asked to assume that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced by those responsible. Consequently, the EA would control pollution, which in turn, would satisfy the policy criteria in GE22, leaving the local planning authority no grounds to resist the proposal on this issue.

Members are reminded that it is not the case that there would be no or limited control in the event of planning permission being granted. It would be for three years only and there would be regular monitoring by the EA to ensure that air emissions were controlled to ensure that there would be no danger to the health of people around the site.

Noise

Policy GE24 of the UDP deals with noise pollution and this says that development will only be permitted where noise levels would not cause a nuisance.

The principle source of noise, as part of this application and a matter of concern to local residents, is the wood chipping required to convert wood into chipped bio- mass.

It is not the case that the wood chipper would be in operation every day. It would occur on an infrequent and irregular basis and would generally be one or two days a week and sometimes only two or three days each month. Wood dust would not be an issue as the wood is chipped green and dust is only generated from very dry timber.

With respect to the noise generated by the wood chipper, the one used by Silvapower was tested by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service in 2005/6 when it was located at Norton Nursery, some 60 metres away from the nearest house. The noise levels were assessed as being acceptable as part of a horticultural operation in weekday working hours.

It is noted that the site is close to the outer ring road where there are high levels of background traffic noise throughout the day. Given this, the intermittent nature of woodchip operations and the results of the earlier noise testing, it is considered that this application would not be contrary to Policy GE22 of the UDP.

Traffic and Vehicle Movements

Policy BE9 of the UDP sets out guidance for how vehicle movements and parking are incorporated into the design and layout of new development. This says that there should be safe access, adequate parking and there should not be noise affecting people living near the site. The application plans show that the access point into the site would be the existing one close to Lightwood roundabout, taken from the access road serving the nursing homes. This would be re-opened and the existing internal road system would be used.

There is also an existing access point onto the dual carriageway at the northern point of the access point which would also be re-opened and would be for exit purposes only. This exit point is located centrally between two bus stops and there is good visibility to the north-east. Exit would be a left turn only.

The applicant has indicated that there would be no more than 15 lorries a day at maximum periods. Very often it would be a lot less.

There are very high levels of vehicle movement on the ring road and the additional vehicle movements associated with this application would not significantly affect these. The vehicle entry and exit points are safe and there would be no impact by way of noise affecting residents, given existing background noise levels.

The application is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety issues, subject to the following matters that would be controlled by conditions:

- Highway improvements at the entry and exit points including signs and road markings, - Details of construction vehicle access. - Internal one-way system and route.

68 Ecology and Green Network

Policies GE10, GE11, GE12 and GE13 of the UDP deal with the Green Network, Nature Conservation and Development, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves and sites, respectively.

Policy CS73 of the Core Strategy deals with the strategic Green Network and this seeks to maintain and enhance the network.

The intention of these policies is to ensure that natural history and ecological resources are conserved.

Representations have been received from Moss Valley Wildlife Group, The Woodland Trust and Natural England who point out that there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest less than one kilometre from the site and Stoneley Wood lies 250 metres away. It is asserted that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on these areas and on wildlife, some protected, that live, hunt and forage in the Aerodrome area.

An Ecology Report has been submitted with the application and this has surveyed the ecological content of the site, highlighting the presence of protected species in the vicinity. One species is active and has habitats well away from the application site and there is a possibility that bats might roost in the buildings. A further survey would be required prior to the commencement of the use to ensure that bats would not be harmed and this would be controlled by a condition.

The survey points out that the activities proposed as part of this application would be carried out exclusively within existing buildings and on hardstanding close to these buildings. There would be no encroachment onto the more open and natural area of the Green Belt and it is considered that there would be no harm to the natural history and ecological value of the area.

Trees

The application site lies within the area covered by South Yorkshire Forest. Policy GE14 of the UDP pledges support for the creation of the Forest and Policy GE15 seeks to protect trees and woodland.

As explained earlier in this report, the proposal would be confined to the buildings and hardstanding area to the north-east. There are trees around the hardstanding area, so a condition would be attached ensuring that no trees were felled.

Watercourses

Policy GE17 of the UDP deals with rivers and streams and this says that, as part of the development of the Green Network, all rivers and streams will be protected and enhanced for the benefit of wildlife and, where appropriate, public access.

There is concern amongst some residents and interested organisations that chemicals and pollutants would penetrate through cracks in the hardstanding and

69 find their way into the local streams. This would not happen because this would also be within the remit of the Environment Agency’s control in issuing a permit for this proposal. All moisture would be contained within buildings and dealt with in a controlled manner that would have to comply with EA regulations.

As part of the initial consultation process, the EA submitted an objection to the application, specifically to the disposal of sewage and waste, concerned that this might find its way into the water table. This objection related to the portacabin toilet only and the submission of further information has resolved this.

There is no conflict with Policy GE17.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Many of the objections and concerns submitted have already been addressed in this report, but some further responses are required.

With respect to the assertion that it would be for longer than the three year period applied for, planning consent for the use would expire after three years from commencement of the use and a further planning application would be needed to continue the use, if so desired.

The site has been a target for vandalism and anti-social behaviour for years and an active presence on the site is likely to reduce this.

Regarding the potential of other sites, the applicant has stated that about 20 other locations were considered prior to identifying Norton Aerodrome and all others were considered unsuitable for a variety of reasons.

The spontaneous combustion of composting material is extremely unlikely as conditions within the building would control this.

The removal of any asbestos would be under controlled conditions.

With regard to the possibility of a ‘Park and Ride’ scheme on this site, it is the case that the Draft City Policies and Sites (June 2010) has identified Norton Aerodrome as a possible Park and Ride site but this is subject to further consultation and consideration. This is not a firm proposal.

There are no proposals for the applicant to expand further into the Green Belt and, if this emerged, a new planning application would be required.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes to introduce a green composting and bio-mass operation at Norton Aerodrome for a temporary period of three years. The application relates to the existing hangar, the smaller building to the north-west, the hardstanding between and immediately adjoining both buildings and a larger area of hardstanding to the north-east of these buildings. The existing fence that part

70 encloses the buildings would be extended to create a full enclosure and two very small portacabins would be placed next to the hangar.

The site lies within the Green Belt and, given the extent of the area to be developed, it has been necessary to provide information supporting a case for very special circumstances to be established to allow development to take place in line with Policy GE1 of the UDP.

The applicant has provided information of other sites which have been considered but are not suitable and has made a case that the highly sustainable nature of both activities and their contribution to limiting the effects of climate change will be of significant benefit. In addition, there would be a reduction in vehicle miles and the production of bio-mass fuel will allow this to be used in nearby facilities in Sheffield.

The proposal would have limited visual impact on the open Green Belt as the only external part of the uses would be screened by existing buildings.

There has been great concern expressed about the health risks posed by the emissions of spores and bio-aerosols and this has been carefully considered. National and UDP policy guidance sets out the areas of responsibility for the control and enforcement of pollution and emissions and this falls with the Environment Agency. They have not objected to the application and, in the event of planning application being granted, a separate process would be undertaken to secure the permit to allow the applicant to operate. The use would be monitored on a regular basis and if there were any failings, the EA have the power to stop work on the site. Given that this level of control would be established, it is considered that health concerns are resolved.

The traffic generation would not have a significant impact on the road network and there would not be an unacceptable level of noise created.

An ecology study has been submitted which resolves any concerns about impact on wildlife and vegetation because all activities would occur within the building and on hardstanding.

Your officers take the view that the very special circumstances required as part of PPG2 – Green Belts and Policy GE1 of the UDP have been established and this development would, therefore, be suitable in the Green Belt. There is no conflict with the policy criteria set out in this report, the application is acceptable and is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

Case Number 11/01840/FULR

Application Type Full Replacement Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 1 x 5-storey building for use as student accommodation (providing 127 bedspaces), including rooftop terrace, landscaped riverside terraced areas and basement cycle and car parking accommodation (Application to extend time limit for implementation imposed by application reference 08/01202/FUL)

Location Royal Works 60 Priestley Street Sheffield S2 4DD

Date Received 09/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Gladman Developments

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 The student accommodation shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for 17 cars 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.

3 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.

4 The student accommodation 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.

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

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

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

6 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 the safety of road users.

7 Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed layout and setting out of the cycle parking accommodation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellinghouses shall not be used unless the cycle parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter, such cycle parking shall be retained.

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

8 Before any dwellinghouse is occupied, the footways around the site frontage shall be resurfaced and re-kerbed.

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

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 shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

73 10 The dwellinghouses shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

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

11 Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include:

a) Clear & unambiguous objectives to influence a lifestyle that will be less dependent upon the private car; b) A package of measures to encourage and facilitate less car dependent living; and, c) A time bound programme of implementation and monitoring in accordance with the City Councils Monitoring Schedule. d) The results and findings of the monitoring shall be independently validated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. e) The validated results and findings of the monitoring shall be used to further define targets and inform actions proposed to achieve the approved objectives and modal split targets.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, evidence that all the measures included within the approved Travel Plan have been implemented or are committed shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

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

13 The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied 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 approved method statement for the noise survey,

b) Be capable of achieving the following noise levels:

74 Bedrooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 30dB (2300 to 0700 hours) Living rooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 40 dB (0700 to 2300 hours) c) Include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation to all habitable rooms.

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 future occupiers of the building.

14 Before the use of the building for the purposes hereby permitted is commenced, written confirmation shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that the approved scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed in the building in full.

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

15 Before the use of the development is commenced, a Validation Test of the sound attenuation works shall have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such Validation Test shall:

a) Be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement,

b) Demonstrate that the specified noise levels have been achieved. In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the sound attenuation works thus far approved, a further scheme of sound attenuation works capable of achieving the specified noise levels and recommended by an acoustic consultant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the development is commenced. Such further scheme of works shall be installed as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

17 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the following shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- the balustrading, which shall be glazed and not steel mesh - window reveal details

Such approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the use and retained thereafter.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

18 Before the development is commenced a Phase 1 and 2 Risk Assessment, to characterise the contamination on site and propose a remediation scheme to ensure safe redevelopment, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should any previously unsuspected contamination be encountered during the development, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified within one working day of its discovery, together with any proposed amendments to the proposed remediation scheme. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and the applicant shall provide written verification that the remediation has been completed as approved, within 21 days of the approved scheme being completed.

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

19 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 a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs of the of the completed development will be obtained from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy

Any agreed renewable or low carbon energy equipment, connection to decentralised or low carbon energy sources or additional energy efficiency measures shall have been installed before any part of the development is occupied and a post-installation report shall have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the agreed measures have been installed. Thereafter the agreed equipment, connection or measures shall be retained in use and maintained 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, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS65.

20 The floor level for residential accommodation shall be no lower than 61.6 metres AOD.

To reduce the risk of flooding.

76 21 An overland flood route and flood mitigation measures shall be installed as detailed in the submitted drawing no. SK01.

To reduce the risk of flooding.

22 An exit door to Charlotte Road shall be installed for means of flood escape.

To provide a dry means of escape in the event of flooding.

23 Prior to commencement of development details of the riverside walkway shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include:

- landscaping (hard and soft) - ramp and walkway - access point - materials - lighting - railings/balustrades

The agreed details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse and retained thereafter.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

24 The two terraced areas on top of the building shall be constructed to form a vegetated roof system (green/brown roof) with access for amenity purposes. Details of the specification and maintenance regime shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. The green/brown roofs shall be provided prior to the use of the building commencing unless otherwise agreed in writing. The plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that period shall be replaced.

In the interests of sustainable development.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments BE5 - Building Design and Siting GE17 - Rivers and Streams T16 - Management of Traffic Demand CS27 - Housing in the City Centre CS30 - Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas

77 CS40 - Affordable Housing CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities CS48 - Open Space and Riversides in the City Centre CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS74 - Design Principles

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. 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.

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:

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. 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-

78 commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

4. 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.

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

79 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site is located at the junction of Priestley Street and Charlotte Road, diagonally opposite the student accommodation on Charlotte Road. The site has now been cleared but formerly accommodated a three storey building that fronted onto the Charlotte Road/Priestley Street corner and backed onto the River Sheaf. To the south east and west (across the river) are commercial and business areas. To the north is a car park that was associated with the former building on the site with two storey terraced housing beyond. There is also a line of houses along Charlotte Road to the west across the river. To the south east Screwfix is located, a commercial use.

Planning permission was granted on 11 June 2008 for student accommodation comprising 127 student bedspaces contained within a single building that ranges between three and five storeys. There would be an undercroft parking area for cars and cycles beneath the flats with a single access point taken at the northern end of the site. This new application seeks to extend the time period by a further 3 years as development has not yet begun. The student bedspaces would be accommodated in 26 apartments.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

16 August 2004 – Outline planning consent for residential development on the site was granted (03/0241/OUT).

11 August 2006 – Reserved Matters consent for 52 flats was granted (05/00194/REM).

81 3 December 2007 – Detailed planning application for student accommodation refused (07/03674/FUL) with the reasons relating to poor design quality and flood risk.

11 June 2008 – Erection of a single 5 storey building for use as student accommodation (providing 127 bedspaces), including rooftop terrace, landscaped riverside terrace areas and basement cycle and car parking accommodation was granted (08/01202/FUL).

REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy Issues

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for Sheffield indicates that the site is within a Housing Policy Area. Policy H10 states that housing is the preferred use so the broad principle is acceptable. However, this would be subject to other policy criteria. Members are reminded that the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy has been adopted since the grant of the original permission and relevant policies need to be taken into account.

Policy CS27 of the SDF Core Strategy relates to housing in the city centre and advises that a further expansion of city centre living with a mix of tenures and sizes of unit will form part of mix of uses. Although the site is at the edge of the city centre, some weight should be afforded due to the close proximity of the application site to the centre.

Also relevant is Policy CS41 of the Core Strategy as the provision of student housing is a key consideration of this policy. This relates to the creation of mixed communities and this says that the objective of the policy will be achieved by limiting the forms of housing types where more than 20% of residences within 200 metres of the application are shared housing. In this instance, 37% of residences are shared housing and this would increase as a result of this application being granted. This is contrary to Policy CS41.

However, in this instance, it is noted that the site is close to the city centre and Hallam University and at a sustainable location. There is a previous planning consent for the same scheme at this site. The applicant advises that the provision of student accommodation is required to meet demand and this represents a viable development option enabling the site to be developed in the short term. These benefits need to be balanced against this policy conflict.

Policy CS30 of the Core Strategy deals with jobs and housing in the Sheaf Valley and neighbouring area, which includes the Queens Road corridor. This states that the Queens Road corridor will be non-residential and will accommodate business and industry. However the site falls outside the area covered by this corridor, so this policy does not apply.

Layout, Design and External Appearance

Policy BE5 of the UDP deals with Building Design and siting and this expects a good quality design with quality materials.

Policy H14 of the UDP deals with conditions on development in housing areas and expects good design and the scheme should be well laid out. Policy H15 addresses the design of new housing developments and expects adequate garden space and outlook for residents.

Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy addresses design principles and this says that high quality development will be expected.

The design, layout and external appearance would be the same as that approved in 2008 in application no. 08/01202/FUL.

It is proposed to build on most of the application site, with the building fronting onto Priestley Street and Charlotte Road. A space would be left at the northern end to allow for a ramped access down into the undercroft parking area, a garden area, access to the riverside walkway and for bin storage.

The proposed building varies in height from three to five storeys, the highest point being the corner fronting Charlotte Road. This provides a focus at a prominent point but, overall, the massing is considered to be acceptable.

Along the River Sheaf, a walkway is proposed that would terminate at the junction of Priestley Street and Charlotte Road. It would also be possible to access it from the other side of the site.

The design is of good quality. The applicant has provided 3D coloured elevations of the proposal, which shows that it is five storeys at the southern end, with the corner emphasised by triangular metal balconies. The building would step down to four and the three storeys towards the north where the site is next to the existing two storey terraced houses. Along the Priestley Street elevation, the long elevation would be broken by two stairwells that would rise above the height of the building by less than a storey. The windows on the elevations have deep reveals and the stairwells are expressed out from the main bulk of the built form. This creates interest and avoids flat and bland elevations, and also allows shadow to break up the external appearance. The same quality of design has been applied to the elevation facing the River Sheaf.

The predominant external finish would be red brick to match that of existing houses. Timber boarding would be placed in between some of the windows in four storey columns and the top floor of all elements of the building would be grey metal coated cladding. There are amenity/garden areas proposed for the roof spaces above three and four storey elements and there would be glazed panels on metal at the edge of these. The balconies would be of grey, metallic mesh.

83 With respect to the open area to the north and west of the site, these are also acceptable. Next to the vehicle entrance at the north, there would be a landscaped area with planting, seating and a path down to the riverside walk. Along the river is a ramp which takes the pathway along the river to a wider area at the south west of the site which forms a terraced area with trees and seating. This then leads to Charlotte Road.

The layout, design and external appearance of the proposal is of good quality. It will match the existing red brick but also introduce a modern and attractive built form that is better than the scheme that is already approved. The step down from five to three storeys ensures that this proposal does not result in the proposal dominating existing houses.

The proposal meets the criteria of Policies BE5 and H14 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy.

Sustainability

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy relates to climate change, resources and sustainable design of developments and advises that all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and function in a changing climate. They must also be designed to use resources sustainably. It requires all new residential development of this scale to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. Policy CS65 of the Core Strategy, which relates to renewable energy and carbon reduction, requires all significant developments to secure the following, unless it can be shown not to be feasible or viable:

(i) provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy; and

(ii) 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 (i).

However recent changes to the Building Regulations relating to carbon dioxide emissions are such that part (ii) of the above is not currently being pursued as a planning requirement, as this would prove onerous in the current economic climate.

In this case, the applicant has submitted a sustainability statement which confirms that appropriate measures will be included in the design of the scheme and this can be secured by a planning condition requiring Code Level 3 to be reached.

With respect to the renewable requirements set out in Policy CS65, the sustainability statement provided by the applicant sets out a variety of measures:

- the use of ‘A’ rate materials for construction - limit the amount of water used on the site - incorporation of SUDS

84 - improve ecology of the site through enhanced landscaping - achieve and exceed the target ‘u’ values and air test figures for building components - use materials with zero ozone depletion.

Additional, more specific detail is required but this can be controlled by a condition.

Landscaping and Riverside Walk

Policy GE17 of the UDP deals with rivers and streams and this says that they should be protected and enhanced with improved access where possible.

Policy CS48 of the Core Strategy specifically addresses open spaces and riversides in the city centre but does make reference to improving riversides including the Sheaf Valley.

There is no planting on the site at present and there is scope to introduce new planting along the riverside and around the car park. A detailed assessment cannot be carried out because the applicant has not provided details of levels of planting proposals. Planting can be introduced but the potential is limited, partly due to there being little space available between the car park and the riverside walk.

The riverside walk is shown leading from Charlotte Road, along the river’s edge within the site, until it reaches the car park at the opposite end of the site. It terminates at the edge of the site next to housing, but there is access to Priestley Street via the pedestrian access into the site.

The walk is ramped in part but would be accessible for wheelchairs. The details of the treatment and surfaces has not yet been identified but can be controlled by conditions.

The layout, however, does show that planting is proposed for the communal amenity space, including trees and also along Priestley Street and the riverside.

This is considered to be acceptable; an improvement on the existing planting and the details could be controlled by conditions.

Parking, Access and Highways

Policy T16 of the UDP is concerned with the management of traffic demand and this seeks to regulate private traffic and reduce congestion. Policy T25 deals with car parking in residential areas and promotes the regulation of all day parking by commuters in residential areas and restricts on-street parking where necessary.

The proposal is for 127 student bedspaces and the parking provision in the basement comprises 3 staff spaces, 14 disabled spaces with two secure spaces for cycle parking.

85 The site is at an accessible location being close to the city centre and the Queens Road Retail Park. There are other similar developments at the edge of the city centre with similar provision and at this location a residents parking scheme has been implemented. The scheme would, therefore, be car-free except for disabled spaces and the three staff spaces, which is acceptable at this accessible location.

A Travel Plan would be required for this development to be controlled by an appropriate condition.

The access details from Priestley Street into the undercroft area beneath the living accommodation are considered to be safe and accessible.

Impact on the Amenities of Existing Residents

Policy H14 of the UDP says that residents should not suffer a loss of amenity caused by new development and Policy H5 says that a concentration of flats should not cause a nuisance to residents. The main issues here are whether or not the proposal would result in a loss of privacy or overdominance.

There would be a gap of 17 metres between the end of the proposed building and the terraced houses. The houses are 7 and 9.5 metres high at eaves and ridge levels respectively. The end elevation of the proposal would be 10.6 metres high with a balustrade above, as this would be an external terrace area. The building would then rise to four storeys fronting Priestley Street and five fronting the river a further 9 metres from the northern end of the proposal.

Given the heights in relation to the existing houses, and the distance between the existing and proposed buildings, there would not be an overdominant impact on the existing houses.

Above the three storey element of the proposal at the northern end, there is an external terraced area with views towards existing housing. Also, in the north facing elevation there are two small windows associated with communal space and a corridor (first floor) and studio flat and corridor (second floor). These look towards the blank elevation of the nearest house and its rear garden which has a brick wall along the boundary. Given that there is a 17 metre distance between the terrace and windows and the rear garden screened by a wall, it is considered that these would not be a significant loss of privacy.

It is noted therefore, that the proposal would not give rise to any loss of privacy.

Provision of Open Space

Policy H16 of the UDP requires a financial contribution to be submitted for the provision of off-site open space improvements where it can be demonstrated that existing provision is deficient. In this instance, a sum of £23,544 is required and in the event of a favourable recommendation, the submission of this would be controlled by a legal agreement.

86 With respect to on-site provision, two roof terrace areas are proposed totalling 108 and 141 square metres respectively. There is also a terraced area facing the River Sheaf near to Charlotte Road of about 240 square metres and the landscaped area at the northern end of the site is about 120 square metres in area. These four amenity spaces are an acceptable level of provision.

Flood Risk

Policy CS67 of the Core Strategy deals with flood risk and management and the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in support of the application. Most of the site lies within flood zone 2 (medium probability of flooding) with a small part within zone 3 (high probability). The FRA identifies that ground floor levels within the building need to be raised to a minimum height of 61.11 metres AOD, something which was agreed in the earlier consent. This would be controlled by a condition.

The Environment Agency have been consulted as part of the application process but do not object to the scheme.

Affordable Housing

Policy CS40 of the Core Strategy says that in all parts of the city new housing developments will be required to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing where this is practicable and financially viable.

The current guidance on Affordable Housing states that the threshold for a contribution for student accommodation is 60 dwelling units. In this instance the application is for 26 apartments which is below this threshold, therefore the policy does not apply and no contribution is required.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application is for 127 student bedspaces at a vacant site at Priestley Street, at the edge of the city centre.

The design and external appearance is acceptable and of good quality. The massing is acceptable and the height drops down to three storeys, which is appropriate given the proximity of the two storey terraced housing to the north.

There would be no loss of privacy affecting existing residents. A riverside walk is included as part of the proposals. The scheme would be car free apart from spaces for disabled people and office staff.

The Environment Agency do not object to the proposal.

The application to extend the period for a further 3 years is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the policy criteria set out in this report. The proposal is, therefore recommended for conditional approval subject to a legal agreement controlling the submission of the commuted sum for open space.

87 HEADS OF TERMS FOR LEGAL AGREEMENT

Open Space

The owner shall pay, on or before the commencement of development, the sum of £23,544 to be used by the Council towards the provision, or enhancement of open space within the relevant catchment areas of the site, in accordance with Policy H16 of the Unitary Development Plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance “Open Space Provision in New Housing Development”.

Case Number 11/02111/LU1

Application Type Certificate of Lawful Use Application

Proposal Application to establish lawful use of building for servicing, repair, maintenance, MOT and other works to vehicles (Application under Section 191)

Location The Meersbrook Garage 1 - 7 Meersbrook Road Sheffield S8 9HU

Date Received 27/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent DLP Planning Ltd

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 Sheffield City Council as Local Planning Authority hereby refuses to issue a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the above-mentioned development for the following reason:-

The applicant has failed to establish the test of ‘balance of probability’ as set out in Government Circular 10/97 in favour of the applicant.

89 Site Location

90 Proposed floor plan

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Meersbrook Garage is a flat roofed building that is located within a residential area at the corner of Meersbrook Road and Northcote Avenue. The garage is used for vehicle repair, maintenance and servicing and for MOT testing and it has a level forecourt at the front and sides with a sloping access leading down to the basement level at the rear. Beyond this, the Meersbrook flows past the site and the land beyond rises to the north.

There are a total of six bays at ground floor level with three offices, a store and toilet also within the building. New upvc windows have been fitted, the extension has been pebble-dashed, a new wall at 1.8 metres high has been erected, new shutter boxes have been fitted to the new bays and external lighting has been introduced. Members may recall that the new works, including the creation of three new bays do not have the benefit of planning permission (see background below).

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL

The works to the garage set out in the previous paragraph were completed some time ago and were the subject of a retrospective planning application no. 09/00365/FUL, which was refused at the City Centre, South and East Area Planning Committee of 14 June 2011 for the following reason:

“The Local Planning Authority considers that owing to the increased number of vehicle repair/servicing bays within the building, the proximity of the building to residential property, and the restricted dimensions of the site, the proposal represents an over intensification of an existing inappropriate use within a Housing Area, that results in noise and disturbance from vehicle repairs/servicing activity,

91 and excessive and indiscriminate on street (and footway) car parking, to the detriment of the living conditions of nearby residents, and to highway and pedestrian safety. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policies H10 and H14 of the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield.”

The Committee also agreed the authorisation of enforcement action to remove the new service bays in the west side of the garage, the wall and external lighting.

During the discussion of the application at Committee prior to determination, Members accepted officer advice that the centrally located MOT bay, the workshop to the east and the basement were lawful and outside planning control. However, it was agreed that the creation of new service bays on the west side resulted in an unacceptable intensification of the garage that would be detrimental to the living conditions of local residents.

The applicant disagrees with this conclusion and the response to the refusal of the planning application has been the submission of this application under Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act which seeks to establish that all of the premises have been used for the servicing, repair, maintenance and MOT and other works to vehicles for a period exceeding 10 years without interruption and is, therefore, a lawful operation in all parts of Meersbrook Garage, including the west side, the ‘showroom’ area.

In support of this application for a Certificate of Lawful Use the applicant has submitted supporting evidence and this is listed below:

- Business rates bills dated March 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. - A sworn and witnessed statement by Mr Ken Drabble, who states the following: i) He owned Meersbrook Garage from 8/6/1989 to 30/9/2008. ii) During his ownership, the garage comprised a centrally located MOT bay, a workshop either side, identified as Workshop1 and Workshop 2 and an office at the rear. A body and spray workshop was in the basement. iii) A plan has been submitted, numbered KWD1, that identifies the workshops, MOT bay and office area. iv) The garage was used continuously for motor repairs, servicing and maintenance of cars and for MOT testing. This use also included tyre fitting and replacement on the forecourt. v) The hours of operation were 0830 to 2100 hours during weekdays only and 10 people were employed. vi) The west side of the garage, the showroom area, was during 1989 and 1990 used for the display and sale of cars but this was an unsuccessful venture and after 1990 the showroom, Workshop 1 was used for car repairs. vii) Drawing KWD3 shows a plan of the garage when Mr Drabble was proprietor which shows a mezzanine level at the east end that was used for storing car parts. viii) It was common for up to 12 cars to be worked on at any one time:

92 o 3 in Workshop 1 o 3 in Workshop 2 o 1 in the MOT bay o 4 in the basement

- Six sworn and witnessed statements from individuals who confirm that Mr Drabble’s statement is true and accurate. - A sworn and witnessed statement from Mr Sean Murphy who states the following: i) He is the current owner having bought the premises on 30/9/2008. ii) He has used the garage for vehicle repairs, servicing and MOT testing continuously since he took possession. iii) The reason for refusing the previous planning application – 09/00365/FUL – based on an intensification of the use is refuted. iv) Previously there were 10 employees under Mr Drabble and now there are 6. v) The whole building is used for car repairs, the same as before. vi) He agrees with Mr Drabble’s statement. vii) The same number of cars are dealt with as were done under the previous ownership.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

The information and evidence provided by people who live close to the site and, very often, pass the site on a daily basis over long periods of time, can be very important in identifying the circumstances of the previous ten years.

In response to the consultation exercise with residents the following information has been received.

Four letters from trades people associated with the garage have been received all saying that the showroom was used for car repairs.

21 letters have been received from local residents saying that the showroom has not been used for repairing vehicles. Relevant, more detailed, comments are:

- During the period of Mr Drabble’s ownership there were usually one to three cars in the showroom at any one time. Letters repeatedly refer to a red Porsche and a white sports car displayed in the showroom for a long time. - There are consistent references in their letters to the showroom being used for office purposes, there being a carpet down, a settee and pet cats being kept there. - The operation under Mr Drabble was much more low key than now. - The showroom appeared to be used by Mr Drabble for storage and parking of his own cars. - For a short period, the showroom displayed Datsuns for sale with some stored and displayed on the forecourt facing Northcote Avenue. This ceased after 1990. - Photographs submitted with residents’ letters show cars in the showroom area and a settee is clearly visible by one window facing Meersbrook Road.

93 - One photograph shows a ‘For Sale’ sign on the wall or a car on the east side of the showroom. - Cars are shown parked on the forecourt but none have a ‘For Sale’ sign on them

In addition to the individual letters, a petition containing 34 signatures has been submitted which says that cars have not been repaired in the showroom.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Guidance

In determining applications for a Certificate of Lawful Use, policy criteria in the Unitary Development Plan and Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy is not relevant. Rather, separate guidance is contained within Annexe 8 of Government Circular 10/97 which deals with lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate.

Paragraph 8.12 of the circular says that the onus of proof in these applications is firmly on the applicant. It also says that an application may be refused because the onus of proof is not discharged by the applicant, but this does not preclude the submission of a further application if better evidence is subsequently available. A refusal may not, therefore, conclude that something is not lawful; it may mean that insufficient evidence has been presented to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the operation is lawful.

Paragraph 8.15 sets out the relevant test of the submitted evidence. In appeals to the Secretary of State, where the burden of proof is on the appellant, the Courts have held that the relevant test of the evidence on such matters is “the balance of probability”. This does not mean that the stricter burden of “beyond reasonable doubt” has to be satisfied.

Consequently, the evidence submitted by both the applicant and residents will be evaluated to assess whether or not the balance of probability is established in this instance.

BALANCE OF PROBABILITY

The applicant has submitted evidence and information relating to two aspects of the application.

With respect to the establishment of continuous use during the ten year period prior to submission of the application, rates bills have been provided for most years in that period. The signed statements submitted by the applicant state this as well. Also, it is not disputed in any of the residents’ submissions that there has been a continuous use. In fact, many of the letters make it clear that there has been continuous use, which is in agreement with the applicant.

94 Consequently, the balance of probability on the continuous use of the premises is strongly in favour and this is accepted. However this does not establish the exact nature of the use.

The remaining issue relates to that area of the garage known either as Workshop 1 or the showroom. Earlier in the report it is stated that there is no dispute about the use of the MOT bay and Workshop 2; it is accepted that these areas have been in use for the purposes of vehicle repair, servicing and MOT with no increase in intensification. The previous application was refused because of the detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenities due to the intensification of the repair and servicing in Workshop 1 and the creation of bays here.

The applicant is claiming that repairs and servicing have been done in Workshop 1 over the last ten years and sworn statements have been submitted saying that vehicles have been repaired in that part of the garage during the last 10 years and there has been no intensification of the use. Additional information in the statements relate to the number of employees, hours of operation and other matters which are set out earlier in this report.

No further evidence has been submitted but there is the evidence provided by local residents to consider.

The representations were submitted in the form of 21 separate letters and a petition containing 34 signatures. There is a considerable overlap of addresses but, nevertheless, the comments all say that vehicle repairs were not carried out in the showroom (Workshop 1). It is important to look at some of the detailed comments.

The following matters cropped up frequently in letters:

- the showroom was not used for car sales, as this ceased in 1990 after a short period - the showroom was used for the storage of a red Porsche and a white sports car and also another vehicle that may have been for sale - a consistent comment was that the Porsche and sports car were either stored there or on display for long periods of time - part of the showroom was used for office purposes - a settee was located within the showroom

Photographs have been submitted appearing to originate from Google Streetview, which show vehicles in the showroom and the settee is visible on a number of these. It is understood that these would have been taken within the last five years.

With respect to the use of the showroom, your officers conclude that there has been continuous activity and use within this part of Meersbrook Garage because, from the evidence submitted, no or very limited car sales have been carried out but vehicles have been present in that part of the garage throughout the ten year period. Your officers have not been able to form a clear opinion that the showroom was used for car repairs even though cars were present during the ten years. The applicant has provided statements to that effect but there is consistent information

95 from people who live close to the garage saying that the cars were on display and not being repaired. It is possible that some cars may have been occasionally repaired or serviced in the showroom but the evidence has not, in officers’ opinion, established that there is a “balance of probability” in favour of the applicant. Consequently, in line with guidance contained in Government Circular 10/97, it is not possible to support this application and there is no alternative but to recommend refusal.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application for a Lawful Use Certificate seeks to establish that the showroom/Workshop 1 part of Meersbrook Garage has been used for car repairs and servicing for the ten years prior to submission of this application on 28 June 2011.

The application is in response to a refusal of planning permission - 09/00365/FUL - because of an unacceptable intensification of vehicle repair and servicing in the showroom area that would have a detrimental impact on neighbours’ amenities.

Your officers consider it has been established that vehicles were present in the showroom during the 10 year period but, on the basis of the evidence and information submitted, there is no clarity as to whether or not these were being stored or repaired. Guidance on the assessment of Lawful Use Certificate applications is set out in Government Circular 10/97 and this clearly states that the test is one of establishing a “balance of probability” in favour of the case made by the applicant. In this instance the balance has not been established so there is no other alternative but to refuse the application.

If Members agree with the recommendation, then enforcement action to secure the removal of the unauthorised workshop bays, the boundary wall, and lighting as previously authorised, would commence.

Case Number 11/03115/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application to amend condition number 7 imposed by application 11/00674/FUL to include the provision of revised landscape proposals including the addition of a bin store, walkway and also providing additional rooflights (Application Under Section 73)

Location Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home 139 Derbyshire Lane Sheffield S8 9EQ

Date Received 23/09/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent SALT Architects

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 A 1.7m high solid screen from footpath level as shown on the plans shall be erected in accordance with those plans within 2 months of the date of the decision notice. Thereafter, the screen shall be retained unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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

2 1m high laurel tree planting shall be planted as per the details received in the approved plans within 3 months of the date of the decision notice. Thereafter the landscaped area shall be retained and 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 and occupiers of adjoining property.

3 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed between the walkway and the curtilage of properties on Crawford Road without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

4 A 1.7m high solid screen from footpath level as shown on the plans shall be erected in accordance with those plans within 2 months of the date of the decision notice. Thereafter, the screen shall be retained unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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 BE5 - Building Design and Siting

It is noted that there is significant opposition to the proposed development, which is partly retrospective. The present situation, with a raised path and reduced vegetation, does present privacy and security issues for properties on Crawford Road. However, the proposed use of dense vegetation and a screening fence as proposed would resolve these issues. The bin store is to be moved only 2m closer to neighbouring properties than the previous storage area before development commenced, whilst the existing storage area is already right up against the curtilage of properties on a different section of Crawford Road. As a result, the proposal will not cause any additional issues when compared to the existing situation. The style of the bins is such, that significant smell migration, noise or vermin issues should not arise towards neighbouring properties. The use of laurel planting will hide most of the gabion structure from view when planted, and will effectively hide the entire screening fence and supporting structure from view when grown to its full height. The rooflights will be positioned in a way to avoid privacy issues or any loss of amenity to the side, and are visually acceptable. It is noted that the planting and screening are needed to rectify the existing situation with regards to overlooking and security, and will be conditioned to be provided within a set time period from the date of decision. The scheme will accord with the principled of policies H14 and BE5 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

98 Site Location

100 INTRODUCTION

Members may recall at the committee meeting on 19th December 2011 this application was deferred to allow for a site visit by members.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The proposal refers to Scarsdale Grange, a Nursing Home located behind properties on Cliffefield Road, Crawford Road and Norton Lees Road.

The premises benefit from planning permission for the construction of an extension to the North West of the site, which projects closer to properties on Crawford Road and Cliffefield Road, plus an extension to the East, towards Cliffefield Road and Norton Lees Road. The extensions have been constructed, albeit with roof lights that were not part of the original permission, with a single roof light upon the extension to the East, and another two upon the extension to the North West.

In addition to the roof lights, a raised footpath has been constructed upon the sides facing Crawford Road and Cliffefield Road to the North West of the site, alongside the extension. The original permission encompassed a footpath level with the original ground level. The present footpath has not been fully completed, and a temporary handrail is in place.

This application seeks planning permission, retrospectively, for the raised footpath and the roof lights within the extensions. In addition to the retrospective permission, planning permission is also sought for a bin store area upon the side facing Crawford Avenue, involving increasing the width of the footpath by 1.3m from the presently constructed width.

The natural ground level to the West of the site towards Crawford Avenue drops down towards the rear gardens of these properties. The presently constructed footpath is upon a concrete base, with a soil embankment to the side. The proposed bin store would be upon gabion baskets, which would project up to 1.5m in height above the existing ground level at present.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/01341/FUL: The application to construct the nursing home and associated parking was Granted Conditionally on 11/01/1993

07/03892/FUL: An application to construct a single-storey rear extension and two- storey side extension was refused planning permission. The extension was refused due to concerns it would lead to overshadowing towards properties to the East, and would negatively affect the outlook of some of the bedrooms of nursing home occupants. The application was Refused on 07/11/2007.

07/04591/FUL: A resubmission of 07/03892/FUL was withdrawn on 03/01/2008.

10/02987/FUL: An application to erect single-storey side and rear extensions to the nursing home to provide additional bedrooms and a conservatory for residents (as

101 amended by plans received on 19/11/2010) was Granted Conditionally on 25/11/2010.

11/00674/FUL: An application to reposition the approved side extensions to the nursing home (Granted Conditionally under 10/02987/FUL), as per amended plans received on 22/03/2011, was Granted Conditionally on 27/04/2011.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Objection

Ten letters have been received from neighbours: eight from residents on Crawford Road, and two from residents on Cliffefield Road with regards to this application. The majority (9) object to the proposal on the basis that:

- The proposed bin store would cause problems for properties on Crawford Road by adding to noise (including through the clanging of bin lids and movement of the bins), encouraging vermin, and causing a problem with bad smells. - The roof lights would cast a strong light from the rooms towards properties on Crawford Road. - The footpath causes security issues for properties on Crawford Road by providing an open aspect towards these properties, making them ‘burglar friendly’. - Refuse collectors would be unable to access the proposed bin store area - The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the local area, by virtue of the placement of a bin store area raised up from the natural ground level (by more than the height of existing boundary fences on Crawford Road). - The existing walkway offers direct views towards properties on Crawford Road. - The raised footpath would offer easy access to the roof of outbuildings to the North. - Existing trees on the site offer little screening towards Crawford Road. . - The comments from residents on Cliffefield Road highlight that the bin storage area should not be moved to the rear of Scarsdale Grange due to issues with smells and visual appearance. - Comments from residents on Cliffefield Road also highlight that the rooflights may cause issues with light disturbance to their properties.

Three written comments have been received from properties on Crawford Road, who previously objected to the scheme above, pointing out that the amended plans received on 17/11/2011 to include a solid screening fence would be insufficient to overcome their concerns with regards to the scheme.

Other issues have been raised, which are not material planning matters and will not be discussed in the assessment below. These include issues of: - Land ownership – questioning whether properties on Crawford Road actually own the site where the path has been built. - Effect on property values.

102 - Issues with regards to the existing bins, and how they are used. - The present state of the existing pathway and hand rail (this is not a material consideration as the path is presently not completed, and is only in its present state with a temporary handrail until construction work re- commences). - Issues with regards to structural damage caused to fences on Crawford Road (this is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration). - Questions as to whether the proposed gabion baskets would be structurally sound. This is a Building Regulations matter. - Issues from residents on Cliffefield Road questioning past permissions on the site for the construction of the nursing home and further extensions (including requests for additional screening to hide the residential home from view of Cliffefield Road). These issues are not related to this planning application and have already been judged as part of past applications on the site.

Support

A tenth representation raises no planning issues to the proposal, and states that they support the work of the Care Home.

In addition to the written representations above, a petition has also been received with 25 signatures from 12 different addresses on Crawford Road, stating that they strongly object to the planning application.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The site is within a Housing Area as designated by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP), and attention will be given to policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ from this document. Weight will also be given towards policy BE6 ‘Landscape Design’.

Policy H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas, states that; new development or change of use 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 (d)it would provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking and not endanger pedestrians; and (e) it would not suffer from unacceptable air pollution, noise or other nuisance or risk to health or safety.

Policy BE6 – Landscape Design, states that; good quality landscape design will be expected in new developments and refurbishment schemes. Applications … should, where appropriate, include a suitable landscape scheme which: (a) provides relevant information relating to new planting and/or hard landscaping, and of existing vegetation to be removed or retained; and (b) provides and interesting and attractive environment; and (c) integrates existing landscape features into the development, including mature trees, hedges and water features.

103 Design & Appearance

The proposed side footpath has been raised in height from the original ground level by approximately 1.5m at its greatest extent. The ground slopes upwards towards the extension, and has been filled so that it is approximately level with the footpath, which lies alongside the extension for much of its length. Confirmation from the builder of the scheme has confirmed that the path to the rear of the property (behind the rear of properties and outbuildings on Cliffefield Road) will be built utilising a paved path atop of a gabion supporting structure as opposed to the original intention to utilise a metal platform cantilevered from the main building (the temporary nature of the existing path in this position consists of a wooden platform), which will provide access around the rear of the extension. The height of this part of the path will be approximately level with the tops of fences between the extension and outbuildings to the North, accessed from Cliffefield Road.

Due to the siting of the raised walkway and proposed bin store area, the alterations will not be visible from the wider area, and will only be visible from the rear gardens on Crawford Road, and partially from Cliffefield Road. Due to the height of existing fences and position of outbuilding facing the raised footpath from Cliffefield Road, the visual impact of the proposal as viewed directly from this site is quite limited when compared to the original application. As a result, the assessment will focus largely upon the visual impact from Crawford Road.

Due to the existing lie of the land, the footpath lies at a height 1.5m higher up from the garden level of properties on Crawford Road. Due to the natural slope of the land, the visual height of the concrete supporting structure of the path is minimal, and the path itself has a very limited presence. The existing temporary railings are, however, very visible, as would be the proposed 1.7m high screening fence required to minimise privacy issues arising (see below). For the path itself, therefore, the proposal would effectively result in the formation of a visible 1.7m high fence above the bank. The scale of this screening fence would be in scale and character with typical garden fences visible in the local area. It should be noted that existing fences of a similar height exist with a similar visual relationship behind the properties on Crawford Road that back onto the front car park area of the subject site.

The proposed bin store area would be positioned on top of a gabion supporting structure, and comprise of a concrete platform to rest the bins atop of. A screening fence 1.7m high would be present. Due to the lie of the land falling in height towards Crawford Road, the gabions would be visible from the rear gardens of Crawford Road, and the combined height of the gabions and screening fence would have an effective height of approximately 3.2m high (with a 1.5m high gabion structure, plus a 1.7m high screening fence). The visual impact of this structure would not be ideal on its own and by itself, with no screening, would not comply with the aims of UDP policy BE5(b).

However, the scheme does include a significant degree of planting designed to screen the gabion structure from view. Laurel trees are proposed to be planted to provide a hedge area between the curtilages of Crawford Road and Scarsdale Grange. They are shown to be planted 60-90cm apart, and the elevations show

104 their height at 1m high when planted (which can be conditioned). The effect of the planting would be to hide the majority (1m high section) of the gabion structure from view. Laurel trees grow up to 5-6m in height, and grow rapidly at 1m per year. As a result, after 1 year of growth, the trees would hide the entire gabion structure from view, with the entire screening fence hidden from view within 3 years. Consultation with tree officers highlights that Laurel would be able to grow on the site. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the landscaping sought would be appropriate in order to minimise the visual impact of the structures as viewed from Crawford Road.

It should be noted that the applicant has removed leylandi trees on the existing boundary, which is contrary to conditions on the original approval, and does result in the extension having a less favourable appearance when viewed from Crawford Road. The implementation of laurel trees would help to rectify the present situation, and after 3 years of growth would restore the semi-natural setting as viewed from the North West.

With regards to the retrospective roof lights upon the building, these only alter the external appearance very slightly, and are not considered to detract from the appearance of the development.

Impact upon the Amenities of Properties

The existing raised footpath does present privacy issues, as clear views into the rear gardens on Crawford Road are available. Residents have noted concerns that the associated removal of vegetation does allow easier access to their rear gates. However, it is noted that boundary fence barriers still remain.

The amended plans received on 17/11/2011 show the use of close boarded fencing to be used as a screen alongside the raised platform facing towards Crawford Road. This will have no gaps, and will be 1.7m high, and will prevent all views into the rear gardens of these properties. The laurel bushes proposed will aid with security, and will effectively restore the status quo situation before the development commenced, where dense planting had previously prevented views and easy movement into the rear gardens to the North West.

Views from the raised platform facing Cliffefield Road are not considered to significant impact upon the privacy or security of neighbours to this side. There is a garage block with public access located directly next to the path, and views towards this cause no significant privacy or security implications. A suitable hedge is already in situ on this side, that prevents significant views towards residential properties on Cliffefield Road, and the present arrangement on this site is therefore considered acceptable.

Objections to the bin store area proposed are noted. The proposal is to locate the bins a distance of 0.9m to 1.8m distant from the curtilages with properties on Crawford Road. This is approximately 2m closer than the location of the bins prior to the development. At present, the bins are stored within the front car park area, lined right up against the rear curtilage of another set of properties on Crawford

105 Road. As the original development had no controls on where bin storage could be located, the present storage area is not unauthorised.

Due to the distance of the bin store areas from the houses on Crawford Road which feature long gardens that offer a separation distance of at least 25m from the edge of the bin store area, it is not considered that significant noise migration, or smells would affect the amenities of residents inside these properties. As a result, the assessment will focus upon any nuisance that would potentially occur towards users of the gardens.

With regards to noise and smells, the location of the bins is similar to where they were located prior to the development, and they are now proposed only approximately 2 metres closer to the curtilage of neighbouring properties. As a result, associated noise from the operation of the bins and the migration of smells will actually be very similar to the situation prior to the development commencing, and cannot form a valid reason for recommending a refusal of the scheme. Even ignoring this issue, however, it is not considered that the noise caused from the opening and closure of the bin lids would form a noise nuisance that would affect the use of the rear gardens of neighbouring property, as the actual movement of bins will be infrequent, occurring only for bin collection. The bins would be moved out into the car park area for refuse collection, then stored back afterwards. As the bins feature closing lids, smell migration should not be significant. The planning officer did visit the site on five separate occasions, and did not notice any issue with regards to smells next to the bin area.

The location of the bin store area will be close to a blank side wall of the nursing home, which will ensure that it will not affect any significant outlook for residents of the facility. As discussed above, screening and planting will avoid any significant effect upon the outlook from properties on Crawford Road.

With regards to vermin, the movement of the bins a short distance from where they are presently stored should not present any significant additional issues. Looking at the bins on site during each site visit, the officer notes that they have solid lids which are firmly closed. As a result, they should not in themselves encourage vermin. It is noted that the land to the side of the care home, which has now been cleared, was formally overgrown and encompassed dumped rubble, which would have provided a good habitat for vermin, which has now been mostly removed. In any event, this is a matter for the Environmental Protection Service.

The roof lights are a suitable distance away from neighbouring properties to prevent any significant migration of light that would cause any significant disamenity to neighbouring properties. The garden lengths to properties on Crawford Road and Norton Lees Road is greater than the 22m distance normally recommended to avoid disturbances between directly facing windows. A refusal of the windows on the basis of light migration could therefore not be reasonably considered. The height of the windows above room floor level will prevent any privacy issues arising. The position of the windows are not visible from Cliffefield Road.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

106

The rooflights will be positioned in a way to avoid privacy issues or any loss of amenity to the side, and are visually acceptable. It is noted that the planting and screening are needed to rectify the existing situation with regards to overlooking and security, and will be conditioned to be provided within a set time period from the date of decision. The scheme will accord with the principle of policies H14 and BE5 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted conditionally.

107

Case Number 11/03214/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of a 4 storey residential unit and associated car parking to provide accommodation and support for clients of the St Wilfrid's Centre homeless social mobility programme (sui generis use)

Location 500 Queens Road Highfield Sheffield S2 4DT

Date Received 12/10/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Space Studio

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 Before the development is commenced, details of the proposed surfacing, layout and marking out of the car parking accommodation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole use of the development hereby permitted.

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

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

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

108 4 The accommodation shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for 18 cars 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.

5 The accommodation shall not be used unless the cycle parking accommodation for 10 cycles as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and, thereafter, such cycle parking accommodation shall be retained.

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

6 The accommodation 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 accommodation commencing, and shall thereafter be retained.

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

7 The building shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to footway and kerb, 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.

8 Prior to any works commencing on site full details of the access from Queens Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing and the site access shall then be constructed in accordance with such approved details.

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

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

a) been carried out; or

b) details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure that such improvement works will be carried out before the building is brought into use.

Highway Improvements:

- Queens Road signage

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

10 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 the safety of road users.

11 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 shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

12 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained shall be provided, 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.

110 14 Unless otherwise agreed in writing the proposed green roof(s) (vegetated roof system) shall be provided on the roof(s) in the locations shown on the approved plans prior to the use of the buildings commencing and shall thereafter be retained. Prior to works commencing on site, full details of the green roof construction and specification, together with a maintenance schedule shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and unless otherwise agreed in writing shall include a substrate based growing medium of 80mm minimum depth incorporating 15-25% compost or other organic material. Herbaceous plants shall be employed and the plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that period shall be replaced.

In the interests of biodiversity.

15 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified upon completion of the green roof.

In the interests of biodiversity.

16 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, 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.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

17 Before the commencement of development, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:20 scale of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Windows Window reveals Eaves and verges Balconies Entrance canopies

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

18 The design and location of all external light fittings shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

19 Details of the design and location of all external signs shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

20 Before work on site is commenced, details of the means of site enclosure including entrance gates shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the building 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.

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

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

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

To ensure the development can be properly drained.

23 No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until surface water drainage works including off-site works have been completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to mitigate against the risk of flooding.

24 The surface water discharge from the site is subject to a reduction of at least 30% compared to the existing peak flow. In the event that the existing discharge arrangements are not known, or if the site currently discharges to a different outlet, then a discharge rate of 5 l/s/Ha is required. The detailed proposals for surface water disposal, including calculations to demonstrate the reduction, must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of building.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

25 The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied 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 approved method statement for the noise survey, b) Be capable of achieving the following noise levels: Bedrooms: LAeq 15 minutes – 30 dB (2300 to 0700 hours),

112 Living Rooms: Laeq 15 minutes – 40 dB (0700 to 2300 hours), c) Include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation to all habitable rooms.

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 future occupiers of the building.

26 The proposed management suite/ common room 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: 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 future occupiers of the building.

27 Before the use of the development is commenced, a Validation Test of the sound attenuation works shall have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such Validation Test shall:

a) Be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement, b) Demonstrate that the specified noise levels have been achieved. In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the sound attenuation works thus far approved a further scheme of sound attenuation works capable of achieving the specified noise levels and recommended by an acoustic consultant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the development is commenced. Such further scheme of works shall be installed as approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the building.

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

113

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

29 Before the development is commenced, actual or potential land contamination and ground gas contamination at the site shall have been investigated and a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment Report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004).

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

30 Any intrusive investigation recommended in the Phase I Preliminary Risk Assessment Report shall be carried out and be the subject of a Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being commenced. The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR 11 (Environment Agency 2004).

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

31 Any remediation works recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report shall be the subject of a Remediation Strategy Report which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being commenced The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and Local Planning Authority policies relating to validation of capping measures and validation of gas protection measures.

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

32 All development and associated remediation shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Remediation Strategy. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy, or unexpected contamination is encountered at any stage of the development process, works should cease and the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Protection Service (tel: 0114 273 4651) should be contacted immediately. Revisions to the Remediation Strategy 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.

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

33 Upon 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 development or any part thereof shall not be brought in to use until the Validation Report has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Validation Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report

114 CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and Local Planning Authority policies relating to validation of capping measures and validation of gas protection measures.

In order to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly dealt with.

34 The building shall not be used unless suitable access and facilities for people with disabilities, both to and within the building and also within the curtilage of the site, have been provided but, before such access and facilities are provided, full details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. When the access and facilities have been provided, thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practise BS8300).

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

35 The building shall not be used unless a level threshold has been provided to the entrance thereto in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such level threshold shall be retained.

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

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

01-1 rev A 02 rev H 02-1 rev C 03 rev F 04 rev F 05 rev D 06 rev D 12 rev G 13 rev H 14 rev D

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

37 Finished floor levels within the development shall be no lower than 64.7m AOD.

In order to mitigate against the risk of flooding.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

H5 - Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing H6 - Short-term Accommodation for Homeless People H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE9 - Design for Vehicles CS24 - Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing CS26 - Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility CS30 - Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS66 - Air Quality CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS74 - Design Principles

Whilst the proposal is located in a general area where more commercial uses would normally be encouraged the allocation of the site, the constraints placed upon it by other policies and the unique circumstances relating to the site and it’s proximity to the existing St. Wilfrid’s Centre render the proposal the most suitable use for this specific site. Overall it is considered that the development is satisfactory with regard to the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant should install any external lighting to the site to meet the guidance provided by the Institution of Lighting Engineers in their document 'Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution'. This is to prevent obtrusive light causing disamenity to neighbours. The Guidance Notes are available from the Institute of Lighting Engineers, telephone number (01788) 576492 and fax number (01788) 540145.

2. The applicant is advised that noise and vibration from demolition and construction sites can be controlled by Sheffield City Council under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As a general rule, where residential occupiers are likely to be affected, it is expected that noisy works of demolition and construction will be carried out during normal working hours,

116 i.e. 07:30 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. Further advice, including a copy of the Council's Code of Practice for Minimising Nuisance from Construction and Demolition Sites is available from the Environmental Protection Service, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB: Tel - 0114 2734651.

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. You are required as part of this development, to carry out works within the public highway: As part of the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Section 54), 3rd edition of the Code of Practice 2007, you must give at least three months written notice to the Council, informing us of the date and extent of works you propose to undertake.

The notice should be sent to:-

Sheffield City Council 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road Sheffield S9 2DB

For the attention of Mr P Vickers

Please note failure to give the appropriate notice may lead to a fixed penalty notice being issued and any works on the highway being suspended.

5. 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.

117 Site Location

118

119

LOCATION AND CONTEXT

The application relates to a 0.31 hectare site lying on the north side of Queens Road at the junction with St. Wilfrid’s Road. The site is currently dominated by large areas of hardstanding commensurate with its previous use as a petrol filling station. An automated car wash still stands on part of the site and is fully functional.

The site is allocated as Housing Area in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

To the north the site is bounded by St. Wilfrid’s Road and beyond this the terraced houses of Lancing Road. To the south the site is bounded by Alderson Road and beyond lies a small car servicing/car wash business and the St. Wilfrid’s Centre itself.

To the west lies Shoreham Street with terraced houses occupying the west side of the street.

The east boundary is located on Queens Road itself with vacant terraced properties lying on the opposite side of the road.

The site lies on ground falling generally from west to east with a level difference of approximately 2.5 metres over the extent of the site. Noteworthy flora is limited to the Shoreham Street frontage of the site where there is a bank of trees. Whilst none of these are worthy of protection in themselves they do work as a group providing an important break in the built environment.

120 It is proposed to erect a four storey building the footprint of which would be located on the northern portion of the site adjacent St. Wilfrid’s Road.

The building is to function as residential accommodation for persons attending the St. Wilfrid’s Centre nearby which supports a homeless social mobility programme. Occupation will be transient as persons advance through the courses offered by the Centre and then move into alternative accommodation throughout the city.

Accommodation will consist of 16 one bed apartments and 7 cluster units with a total of 37 beds between them. Each cluster unit will be served by dining/ living room. The accommodation will also include a ground floor common room and laundry as well as facilities for support staff comprising a reception space, meeting room, and office.

The communal and support areas would be reached by the main entrance which would be located in the south elevation of the building.

The common room would be located within a projecting single storey element that would feature substantial amounts of glazing offering views across one of the three landscaped areas. The balance of the elevations on this element would be faced in brick though there would be a timber faced parapet above. The single storey structure would support a green roof.

The elevations of the building would be faced primarily in brick though the St Wilfred’s elevation (north) would be broken into three equal parts by two vertical panels of architectural metal cladding and the south elevation is broken by two vertical panels of glazing, one centred above the main entrance and the other located at the right hand extremity of the south elevation.

The building would be four storeys in height but because of the difference in levels across the site the westernmost end of the structure would be sunk approximately one half of a storey into the ground.

The building would be set within a reasonably generous curtilage for a development such as this with three reasonably sized areas of landscaping, car parking for 18 cars (including three spaces for the disabled located immediately adjacent the main entrance), a formal outdoor sitting area and covered cycle parking.

It is proposed to erect a new boundary wall around those frontages of the site on Alderson Road and Queens Road. New tree planting is proposed within this boundary wall.

Access to the site is proposed from Queens Road, by reinstating the access that formerly served the petrol station and currently also serves the automated car wash.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

121 There is a wealth of planning history on this site but the majority relates to the use as a petrol station and has no relevance to the determination of this application.

In 2005 (05/04629/FUL) permission was refused for a development of shops. The proposal was refused on the basis that such a development would impact adversely on the viability grounds for existing shopping centres

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 2 letters of objection to the scheme.

Summary of Points Raised

The proposal would:

- be better located on the west side of the site adjacent Shoreham Street - increase the likelihood of vehicle conflicts on Queens Road. - result in a loss of surveillance from Queens Road towards Edmund Road - be too tall and should be reduced to three storeys

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The key issues to consider include the following: a) The principle of development b) Scale, massing and orientation c) Accessibility d) Residential amenity e) Air quality f) Flood risk g) Sustainability

Principle

The site for development is allocated as a Housing Area in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). UDP policies H6, H10, CS24, CS26, CS30 and CS41 are therefore relevant.

Policy H6 ‘Short term accommodation for homeless people’ states:

The development of good quality short-term accommodation for homeless people will be permitted where it would:

(a) be within easy reach, by foot or bus, of a shopping centre; (b) be within easy reach of existing or proposed housing; and (c) have facilities for people with disabilities

122 The proposal is for residential accommodation for persons attending the St. Wilfred’s Centre, a facility known citywide for it’s efforts in providing assistance to the homeless and those in need

The proposal would lie within a Housing Area, close to high frequency public transport links and would be located very close to the St. Wilfrid’s Centre itself enabling good communication links and inter surveillance between the two locations.

This being the case it is considered that he proposal is in compliance with Policy H6.

Policy H10 ‘Development in Housing Areas’ identifies Residential Institutions (C2) as an acceptable use subject to satisfying Policies H5 and H14.

Policy CS24 ‘Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing’ states:

‘Priority will be given to the development of previously developed sites…’

Whilst the use of previously developed land for the purposes proposed is welcomed, the nature of the use does not neatly ‘fit’ the spirit of providing new homes and as such it is felt that it would be erroneous to suggest that the scheme was contributing towards the delivery of providing 88% of new homes on previously developed land.

Policy CS 26 ‘Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility’

Housing development will be required to make efficient use of land but the density of new developments should be in keeping with the character of the area and support the development of sustainable, balanced communities.

Subject to the character of the area being protected, densities will vary according to the accessibility of locations, with the highest densities in the City Centre and the lowest in rural areas. Density ranges for new housing development will vary, in decreasing order of intensity, according to whether a development is:

‘a. within or near to the City Centre – at least 70 dwellings per hectare’

Policy CS30 ‘Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas’ states:

‘c. the Queens Road corridor will be non-residential and will accommodate business and industry and large-format retailing and leisure outlets not appropriate to a City Centre or district centre location’

This policy element is further developed with the following text:

‘new housing would not be built on Queens Road as the environment is unsatisfactory and it would deter more appropriate uses for this area’

123

It is accepted that the proposed scheme runs contrary to the provisions of Policy CS30. However, this site offers a unique opportunity for the St. Wilfrid’s Centre in terms of its size, it’s location and crucially that the site is being donated to the Centre by the current owners The Diocese of Hallam.

The ability to erect residential accommodation so close to the existing centre means that both staff and clients are less than a minute’s walk away from the existing Centre wherein training classes are conducted.

The potential difficulties with siting residential accommodation so close to an accepted noise source are discussed later in this report. As regards the loss of a site within this corridor for alternative, commercial or industrial uses it should be noted that the site has been largely vacant for a considerable period of time. It is also worthy of note that the preferred uses for the Queens Road corridor as a whole would likely require significantly more frequent vehicular movements on and off this site and the use of larger vehicles with potential highway implications. As such it is felt that, given the policy and topographical constraints and the presence of housing nearby, the use proposed is better suited to this site.

Policy CS41 ‘Creating Mixed Communities’ states:

Mixed communities will be promoted by encouraging development of housing to meet a range of housing needs including a mix of prices, sizes, types and tenures, and a. providing housing for a broad range of smaller households in the City Centre and other highly accessible locations where no more than half the new homes in larger developments should consist of a single house type; d. limiting new or conversions to hostels, purpose-built student accommodation and Houses in Multiple Occupation where the community is already imbalanced by a concentration of such uses or where the development would create imbalance.

The proposal would result in the efficient use of previously developed land, in a sustainable location within the main urban envelope. Further it would introduce a scheme that is an acceptable use within the Housing Area and which would provide an important community function in close proximity to existing facilities.

The proposal is for a residential ‘institution’ and as such requirements for appropriate density and variation in tenure are not considered strictly applicable.

The scheme does introduce a form of purpose built shared accommodation but this is focussed on a small but significant vulnerable sector of the population and it is not considered appropriate to apply Policy CS41 (d) to this development in the same way it might be applied to purpose built student accommodation or hostel.

Given the above the scheme is considered to satisfy Policies H10, CS23, CS26, and CS41 and despite being contrary to Policy CS30 there are mitigating

124 circumstances that would justify a positive recommendation in respect of the principle of the development.

Scale, Massing and Orientation

The key policies for consideration in this regard are Unitary Development Plan policies BE5 and H14 and Core Strategy policy CS 74

Policies BE5 and CS74 advise that any new development should respect the topography of the City, views and vistas and the townscape and landscape character of the particular area.

Policy HI4 ‘Conditions on development in Housing Areas’ states:

In Housing Areas, new development or change of use will be permitted provided that:

(a) new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings

On St Wilfrid’s Road the context is set by two storey end gables of terraces on Lancing Road and Edmund Road. On Queens Road the context is more varied with the self storage Yellow Box building the most dominant structure. Within this context it is not felt that a flat roof four storey building will appear as an anomalous or deleterious feature in the street scene, particularly as the building will lie adjacent Queens Road, this being a significantly wide main arterial route into the city.

Further into the site (towards Lancing Road) the height of the building is effectively reduced to 3 and one half storeys by the rising ground and it is not felt that a flat roofed building of this height will appear unduly dominating relative to the gable ends of pitched roof two storey residential development on Lancing Road.

In wider vistas from the south the new building would be viewed in the same context as the substantial Big Yellow self storage unit at the junction of Queens Road and Myrtle Road and The St. Wilfrid’s centre itself. From the north the building would rise above the roofs of terraced properties on Edmund Road in a similar manner to the Big Yellow storage facility on the opposite side of Queens Road. A clear height differential would therefore be apparent from the north but it is felt that the building is not of so great a height that it would appear overly dominant relative to the existing built environment.

The orientation of the main axis of the building is somewhat unusual in that it runs perpendicular to Queens Road. With main arterial routes the preferred orientation would be for a principal elevation to address the street. However, the design here is a response to both the noise generated on Queens Road and the small area of Flood Zone 3a that penetrates the site on the north west corner. By orienting the building in this way the great majority of windows serving the accommodation are located away from the principal noise source and the main entrance can be located within the site well away from that part most susceptible to flooding.

125

The north west corner of the building exhibits a subtle curve in the elevation creating interest on the corner but also does not feature openings that would be susceptible to flooding. The location of a 1.2 metres high boundary wall along Queens Road will assist in creating a defensible space but should also provide some mitigation if flooding were to occur.

In conclusion it is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate architectural response to the prevailing built character of the area. The scheme is, of course, of a more contemporary appearance than Victorian terraces to the north and west but nonetheless a human scale is retained and the building is acceptably detailed. It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of scale and massing at this location.

Subject to conditions requiring large scale details of principle features and details of materials, it is considered that the scale, massing and architectural treatment are acceptable in accordance with Policy BE5 and CS74

Highway Issues

Policy BE9 Design for Vehicles states:

New developments and refurbishments should provide a safe, efficient and environmentally acceptable site layout for all vehicles (including cycles) and pedestrians.

The scheme has one point of vehicular entrance/egress from Queens Road.

The access points to the proposed surface level parking is not considered to be a cause for concern with regard to highway safety provided that entrance and exit of the site for vehicular traffic is on a left turn basis only. Appropriate signage will be required in order to inform vehicular traffic of this modus operandi.

The level of off street parking reflects the nature of accommodation with little or no provision being considered appropriate for the clients/residents. The provision of 18 spaces is considered a generous provision for the number of staff that attend the Centre.

It should also be noted that the site lies close to frequently served public transport networks.

Adequate covered and secure cycle parking will be provided to left of the main vehicular entrance.

In conclusion then, it is considered that subject to the above requirement for vehicular signage the proposal should have no adverse affect on highway safety or the amenities of the locality and that the proposal therefore satisfies Policy BE9

Accessibility

126 The car parking provision for the site includes three spaces adjacent the main entrance. The gradient on the site between Queens Road and the main entrance is extremely shallow and there will be level access at the main entrance. The arrangement of the path to the north of the main entrance and around the Common Room would allow wheelchair users to access the principal external amenity areas.

Residential Amenity

Existing residents

Policy H5 ‘Flats, bedsitters and shared housing’ states:

Planning permission 'will be granted for the creation of flats, bed-sitters and the multiple sharing of houses only if:

(b) living conditions would be satisfactory for occupants of the accommodation and for their immediate neighbours;

Policy H14 ‘Conditions on development in Housing Areas’ states:

In Housing Areas, new development or change of use will be permitted provided that:

(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.

Overbearing, Overlooking and Overshadowing.

The nearest residential properties to the proposed development are the terraced dwellings on Lancing Road and Edmund Road. However, these terraces present their gable ends to the St. Wilfrid’s Road elevation of the proposal and therefore there is no implication for overlooking.

The St. Wilfrid’s elevation would be located at least 12 metres from the gable ends of these same properties and as such it is not felt that any overbearing or overshadowing aspect would be presented to main aspect windows of existing residents.

Noise

Whilst specific plant is not detailed on the submitted plans it is considered appropriate to add a condition controlling the deploying of any external plant for the purposes of heating, cooling and or ventilation.

Future occupants

The proposal is includes two forms of accommodation. The half of he building closest to Queens Road contains 5 & 6 bedroom ‘cluster’ units with shared Living/Dining spaces. These units are for clients beginning the courses at the

127 nearby Centre. The northern half of the building contains individual one bed flat units for persons who have progressed further into the support programme.

The outlook and natural lighting to all of these accommodation spaces are considered acceptable.

The external amenity spaces are considered well proportioned and with suitable planting these should offer good quality external spaces for sitting/ outside recreation.

The principal concern with regard to residential amenity is the vehicular noise that is generated on Queens Road, this being a Category C noise exposure area. PPS24 ‘Planning and Noise’ identifies such areas as being where planning permission should ‘not normally be granted’ for residential development, but that where it is considered that permission should be given (e.g. because no quieter sites exist) conditions should be imposed to secure appropriate internal noise levels. For reasons set out earlier in this report, this site offers a unique opportunity to provide a valuable facility in close proximity to the St Wilfrid’s Centre, and conditions would therefore be appropriate. The orientation of the building should reduce this noise impact on future occupants with the Queens Road end elevation containing no bedroom windows. However, it is considered prudent to require, by condition, that the bedrooms of the development achieve acceptable levels of sound attenuation.

Sound attenuation will also be required between common rooms/reception rooms and bedrooms located immediately above

Further concerns relating to potential contamination from previous uses can be addressed through conditions requiring appropriate testing and, if required remediation.

Subject to this condition it is considered that the scheme satisfies the requirements of policies H5 and H14.

Policy CS40 ‘Affordable Housing’ states:

Housing developments of 15 or more units are normally required to contribute towards affordable housing. However, as this accommodation is provided charitably rather than to be rented or purchased it is not felt that such a contribution should be sought.

Sustainability

128 Policy CS65 of the Core Strategy, which relates to renewable energy and carbon reduction, applies to new buildings and requires all significant developments to secure the following, unless it can be shown not to be feasible or viable:

(i) Provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy AND (ii) 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 (i).

Supporting evidence submitted with the application indicates that the proposal will be built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 as a minimum which equates to a 25% reduction in carbon emissions. It should however be noted that the 20% reduction in emissions (above Building Regulations requirements) is not currently a planning requirement, due to recent changes in Building Regulations targets, that make this extra 20% too ambitious in the current economic climate.

The application lists a number of sustainable features that it is intended should be introduced into the building including increased wall insulation, exclusive use of energy efficient lighting, AAA appliances to be used throughout and energy efficient condensing boilers with heat recovery system to all flats.

The single storey Common room element of the building will feature a Green Roof which is welcomed.

Details of provision for renewable energy should be sought by condition.

Air Quality

Core Strategy Policy CS66 ‘Air Quality’ states:

Action to protect air quality will be taken in all areas of the city. Further action to improve air quality will be taken across the built-up area, and particularly where residents in road corridors with high levels of traffic are directly exposed to levels of pollution above national targets.

It is accepted that the locating of residential accommodation close to main arterial routes will not result in ideal conditions for future occupants of the drop in centre. However, the orientation of the building as previously described achieves some mitigation regarding this problem. The location of the building away from the Alderson Road/Queens Road junction where standing traffic occurs likely leading to greater levels of particulates is considered advantageous.

Once again, it must be noted that this site offers a unique opportunity for the St. Wilfrid’s Centre and that the accommodation is for a transient clientele rather than permanent/long term residents. As such it is not considered that the impacts on residential amenity from reduced air quality are sufficient grounds upon which to base a refusal.

129 It is not considered that the introduction of this use will contribute in any significant way to a degradation of existing air quality. The vehicular movements associated with the Centre (staff and visitors) are unlikely to exceed the levels generated by the current car wash facility and almost certainly would be less than the former petrol station use.

Sustainable Drainage and Flood Risk

Core strategy policy CS67 ‘Flood Risk Management’ states:

The extent and impact of flooding will be reduced by: a. requiring that all developments significantly limit surface water run-off; c. promoting sustainable drainage management, particularly in rural areas; f. not increasing and, where possible, reducing the building footprint in areas of developed functional floodplain;

Where an overriding case remains for developing in a zone with high probability of flooding, development will be permitted only if: m. more vulnerable uses, including housing, would be above ground floor level; and n. the lower floor levels of any other development with vulnerable equipment would remain dry in the event of flooding; and o. the building would be resilient to flood damage; and p. adequate on and off-site flood protection measures would be provided.

It also states that housing will not be permitted in Flood Zone 3a.

The site lies within a Flood Zone 2 area and a portion of the site lies within a Flood Zone 3a area (a very small area on the north east corner of the site and the area around the vehicular access from Queens Road). Flood Zone 2 has a medium probability of flooding (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability); and Flood Zone 3a has a high probability of flooding (1 in 100 or greater annual probability).

Pre-application discussions were entered into with Officers and with the Environment Agency with regard to a residential development at this location. Under normal circumstances the Environment Agency would object to a residential development unless a Sequential Test had been undertaken to establish that more suitable sites outside the flood plain were unavailable.

In this instance, the necessity for a full test was considered inappropriate given the circumstances pertaining to the acquisition of the site and the necessity of placing such a facility close to the existing St. Wilfred’s site. It is considered highly unlikely

130 that a site of appropriate dimensions so close to the existing Centre would be donated to St. Wilfrids.

The Environment Agency has therefore raised no objection to the scheme as submitted.

The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment which considers the predicted flood levels within Flood Zone 2. It identifies these as 63.47m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). It then identifies the finished floor level of the lowest habitable accommodation as 64.7m AOD (i.e. 1.23m above the 1 in 100 annual probability flood event).

The presence of Flood Zone 3a within the site has to a large degree determined the orientation of the building as described earlier. The portion of the building within the highest risk area does contain living accommodation. However, this portion of the building would be located behind a substantial length of boundary wall and has no external opening to allow ingress of water.

All electrical services in this portion of the building would be run from the ceiling downward with all sockets mounted above predicted flood levels. The internal layout of the building would provide appropriate ‘means of escape’ internally to locations above flood level.

Given the above it is considered that the development satisfies the requirements of Policy CS 67. However, finished floor levels as described in the Flood Risk Assessment should form part of a planning condition.

Drainage

In terms of surface water run off it is considered that he proposal would represent an improvement since the site is, at present, largely covered in hardstanding and under the proposal a significant portion of these areas would be converted to soft landscaping with resultant increase in on site permeability and soak-away. The access drive and car parking areas will drain to permeable planting boarders.

As a brownfield site with an existing surface water run-off, policy CS 67 requires that this must be reduced by 30%. Measures to ensure this reduction should be secured by condition.

Landscaping

Whilst the plans indicate a layout of soft landscaping and additional tree planting a full hard and soft landscaping scheme should be required by condition.

Nonetheless the indicative plans do suggest that a significant contribution to the amenity of the locality can be achieved through additional landscaping. This should be achieved not only through the removal of the current derelict appearance of the site but through substantial greening of the site including a amenity space adjacent the Common Room, another to the north of the building on St. Wilfrid’s Road and in a 7 metre wide strip running along the side of the site adjacent

131 Alderson Road. The retention of trees on the Shoreham Street frontage, as indicated, should also be conditioned.

Response to representations

Matters relating to scale, massing have been dealt with in the main body of this report.

Any loss in surveillance from Queens Road towards property on Edmund Road should be more than compensated for by the presence of main aspect windows on St. Wilfrid’s Road.

Siting of the building on the Shoreham Street side of the site would result in greater difficulties with regard to access gradients and loss of trees. It would also result in increased traffic movements in closer proximity to existing residential property.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a proposal for a centre providing residential accommodation for a nearby charity providing support for the homeless, the vulnerable and those who are socially excluded.

The site offers a unique opportunity in terms of site acquisition and close proximity to the existing centre.

The design and detailing of the proposed building and associated infrastructure is considered appropriate for the locality and, subject to conditions there are no highway implications.

The proposal should not result in any adverse affects on existing residential amenity.

The level of residential amenity offered to future occupants, whilst not exemplary, should be satisfactory, particularly given the transient nature of occupancy.

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be granted permission subject to conditions.

132

Case Number 11/03291/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Use of ground floor as a mixed use, hot food takeaway (Class A5 Takeaway) and restaurant (Class A3 Restaurants and Cafes)

Location 191 London Road Sheffield S2 4LJ

Date Received 19/10/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Mr S Wong

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the use of the premises as a hot food takeaway and/or café will result in the loss of an additional A1 retail unit reducing the dominance of such premises in the area to a level that will threaten its function as a District Shopping Centre and as such, is contrary to Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

2 The Local Planning Authority considers that the use of the building as a hot food takeaway and café up to the hours of midnight each night would result in an unacceptable level of noise disturbance to the occupiers of adjacent residential property. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

3 The Local Planning Authority considers that the siting, location and design of the proposed fume extraction flue would create a prominent and incongruous feature which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

4 The Local Planning Authority considers that there is no adequate provision for the storage and siting of a commercial waste bin needed for this type of development and as such, it is considered that the proposal will be detrimentally harmful to the amenities of the area and for nearby residents. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

133 Site Location

134

135 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a vacant retail sandwich shop (Class A1) located in the London Road District Shopping Policy Area. The proposal seeks consent to change the use of the premises to form a mixed-use unit consisting of a hot food takeaway (Class A5) with some indoor seating (Class A3).

The application site is the ground floor accommodation of a two-storey property located within an existing shopping parade. The first floor accommodation, including the accommodation in the roof space, is a separate self-contained residential flat. The access to the flat is gained from the rear of the site via an external staircase located in a small yard area.

The application site has a shop window display and main entrance fronting London Road and, there is also a door/access to the rear of the premises via the small yard area beneath the external staircase.

The application site is located within a shopping parade block consisting of 14 units of which over a third (5) of the units are already in use as either a restaurant or a hot food takeaway. The immediately adjoining properties include a charity retail shop at number 187 London Road and a photographer’s retail shop at number 193.

The site is located in a triangular shaped block created by three surrounding roads – London Road, Alderson Road and Woodhead Road. There is a Council pay and display car park for approximately 30 vehicles located close to the rear of the site and accessed off Alderson Road. There is also a residential housing estate beyond the rear of the application site off Alderson Road.

In addition to changing the use of the premises, the applicant is also proposing the erection of a flue at the rear of the premises to serve the hot food takeaway/café use. The proposed flue would run up the external rear wall, up along the external rear roof slope and up against an adjoining chimney stack. The proposed ducting to the flue would be 315mm in diameter and would be painted in a matt black colour.

When the application was originally submitted, the applicant was seeking to have the opening times from 4:30pm through to midnight on Sundays to Fridays and 4:30pm through to 1:00am on Saturdays. The applicant also indicated that the premises would operate at lunchtimes between 11:00am to 2:00pm every day. Due to concerns and comments raised by officers, the applicant is now proposing that the hours of operation of the premises will be upto midnight each day.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Previous relevant planning applications relating to the premises include:-

76/00209/FUL – This was an application for alterations to form a maisonette flat above the existing shop. This application was approved in February 1976.

136 11/00444/CHU – This was an application for use of ground floor accommodation as a massage/herbal shop (Use Class D1). This application was conditionally approved in April 2011.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

No representations from local residents or other commercial properties have been received.

However, as part of the on-going discussions for this proposal, the applicant has highlighted that the property has been vacant for the past 2 years and, that this proposal has not raised any objections from any local residents. The applicant has also confirmed that London Road is fast becoming renowned as being a food orientated location and that this proposal will see a new business starting up which should be seen as being a positive for the London Road District Shopping Centre.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy Issues

The site is located within the London Road District Shopping Centre (DSC) as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The Council owned car park towards the rear of the site and the residential properties beyond are located within a Housing Policy Area.

Whilst the preferred use in District Shopping Policy Areas is for retail shops (Use Class A1), the Unitary Development Plan does identify food and drink outlets (Class A3, A4 and A5 Uses) to be acceptable in principle subject to there not being a dominance of non-Class A1 retail uses and also subject to there being no detrimental harm for existing residents, no highway safety issues and, that the scheme is well designed.

UDP Policy S10 (Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas) seeks, amongst other things, to preserve the dominance of retail uses within District Shopping Centres in order to protect the primary shopping function.

Although the development plan interprets dominance as generally looking at floor area, it’s not the only methodology that can or should be used to assess dominance. Alternative methods used to establish ‘dominance’ include assessment of the actual number of units rather than actual floorspace and the Council has regularly used this approach (this has been due to the fact that accurate floorspace details have never been available or were too vague). However, information now available from the Valuation Office makes it easier to record more accurate figures for actual floorspace and therefore, Members may now wish to also be informed of the implications of the proposal when the dominance issue is assessed against actual floorspace as well as the actual number of units.

At present, when the ‘dominance issue’ is assessed based on actual number of units, the figures show that the number of retail uses only occupy approximately

137 39% of the London Road District Shopping Centre which, clearly is well below the 50% threshold level. It is also worth pointing out that the figures show that the London Road District Shopping Centre has a 14% vacancy rate which is slightly higher than the Sheffield average of 10%. Clearly therefore, to lose another retail unit (albeit a vacant unit) would reduce the 39% retail use even further.

However, if the ‘dominance issue’ is assessed based on actual retail floor-space, then the data suggests that there is currently a 62% figure for Class A1 retail use in the District Centre and as such, this proposal would not affect the Class A1 retail dominance of the Centre. It should be noted that the floor-space figures for Class A1 retail use in the centre is high because of the inclusion of the nearby Waitrose superstore which although is only one Class A1 retail unit does have a very large Class A1 retail floor-space.

It’s also worth pointing out that although designated as being within the London Road District Shopping Centre, the Waitrose Superstore is at the extreme end of the district shopping location and as such is almost a stand-alone shopping location in its own right that has limited bearing on the character or viability of the main London Road district shopping centre.

The issue of dominance is therefore a finely balanced consideration that requires a more site specific and localised approach to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the viability and vitality of the District Shopping Centre. In this regard officers have assessed various factors such as the need to ensure retained operational daytime activity (as opposed to closed-up shop frontages) and, the need to ensure a healthy mix of uses in the centre whilst also recognising an above average vacancy rate. The application site is located within an existing shopping parade of 14 units within a defined block that nestles between Alderson Road and Woodhead Road. If approved, the proposal would result in approximately a 50-50 split between Class A1 retail units and non Class A1 retail units in this particular block/shopping parade. There are Class A1 retail uses at either side of the application site and then a further three units away (starting at number 197 London Road) there is a run of 4 restaurants/hot food takeaways (197 through to 205 London Road, one of the units being a double-fronted unit). Therefore, whilst there is some concern that a mini-cluster group of hot food takeaways/restaurant uses are being formed in the parade which could give rise to some dead frontage during the day, the mix between retail and non-retail would still be fairly even. The application site also appears to be the only vacant unit within the shopping parade which provides a different perspective to a parade of endless vacant units – that might otherwise give the visual impression of a struggling shopping centre.

To conclude the policy position therefore, floorspace shows that A1 retail use is dominant, but actual retail unit numbers show A1 retail to be weak and, localised assessments show retail dominance (though still at 50%) to be very much in the balance. However, the floorspace is heavily skewed by Waitrose and it is questionable as to whether or not it really functions as part of the centre. Furthermore, the perception/context of London Road is very much of reduced/limited A1 facilities and this is highlighted by the information on actual retail units and also on retail frontage in the centre (which currently stands at 42%). Therefore, on balance, and despite a higher than average vacancy rate, it is

138 considered that any further loss of retail use would adversely affect the retail function of the centre which would be in conflict with Policy S10 (a) of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

Amenity Issues

There are a number of existing late night uses in the immediate area, these are primarily made up of existing hot food takeaways, restaurants, public houses and a small selection of retail shops that also operate late into the evenings, however, there is a separate self-contained flat immediately above the premises and there are also a range of flats and houses in close proximity to the rear of site (along Alderson Road) and directly opposite the site (on Grosvenor Square), officers are therefore mindful of the need to protect the amenities for existing local residents. There are 5 other hot food takeaway/restaurant establishments in the same parade, of these one has un-restricted operating times (due to its historic nature), 3 others have planning conditions imposed on them to operate to the fairly standard opening times (23:30 hours Mondays to Saturdays and, 23:00 hours on Sundays) and, one unit is authorised to operate until 03:00 hours on any night. Despite aspirations to operate longer into the early hours of the night, the applicant is now proposing to reduce the operating times up to midnight every day. Officers do have concerns that the proposed operating times will have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of nearby residents, particularly given that there is a residential flat immediately above the premises and, given also that there is a public car park towards the rear of the site which may be utilised by patrons of the proposed food establishment and be a source of increased late night noise and disturbance.

The rear access door serving the proposed hot food takeaway would be sited immediately below the external staircase serving the first floor flat and as such, there is a potential for noise nuisance affecting the residents of the flat above particularly on hot summer nights when doors and windows tend to be kept open for ventilation purposes. Officers feel that the more typical opening times for hot food takeaways in similar circumstances to this proposal should be applicable (i.e. upto 23:30 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 23:00 on Sundays) and that any increased hours beyond the standard hours of operation will exacerbate noise and general nuisance issues in the area. By and large these operating times would also remain consistent with the operating times of other approved hot food takeaways and restaurants in the same shopping parade.

The applicant is also proposing a new flue to meet the fume extraction needs of the proposed use. The applicant is proposing to run the flue out at the rear of the premises and up the rear facing wall and along the rear roof slope and alongside an existing chimney stack. The flue needs to terminate at this particular height in order to adequately disperse odours and fumes without causing nuisance for occupants of nearby residential premises (including the occupants of the first floor flat immediately above the hot food takeaway). Officers feel that the proposed location and siting of the flue will create a prominent and incongruous feature when viewed from Alderson Road and from nearby residential properties, including the first floor flat above the proposed hot food takeaway.

139 The applicant has indicated that there are other flues already located in similar positions in the parade that are equally as prominent and visually intrusive. In response to the applicant’s comments, officers have checked the planning history of the other nearby food establishments and found that the majority of the other flues installed have never actually been authorised. Officers will be looking into this matter further with a view to potential enforcement action, but it is understood that the majority of the flues have been in situ for many years now and, it might not therefore be possible to take appropriate remedial action now.

Officers also consider that the proposed flue in this site will be much more prominent than some of the other flues in the parade because of the differences in separation distances, landscaping and termination points. Officers feel that the rear of this application site differs from some of the other food establishments because of the closer proximity to the adjacent footpath, highway and public domain on Alderson Road than the other units with flues in the parade.

Officers have also raised concerns with the applicant about the proposed location of commercial waste bins for the hot food takeaway. The application site has a very limited rear yard space and, what little space does exist merely serves as the only access route to the first floor flat immediately above the premises. Given that the commercial waste bin needed for a hot food takeaway is substantially larger than a normal domestic wheelie bin, officers do have concerns that bin storage in the rear yard area will create a very undesirable and enclosed environment for the residents of the first floor flat, in terms of odours and having to pass the bin store day-in day-out. In response to these concerns, the applicant had indicated that he would site his commercial waste bin in the car park area further along Alderson Road where other commercial waste bins are stored. Officers have discussed this matter with the officers from Parking Services and they have confirmed that they were not aware that waste bins (belonging to commercial properties on London Road) were being stored in the public car park. Parking services have also now confirmed in writing that they have concerns about any commercial waste bins being stored in the car park because of the potential damage that could be caused to parked vehicles and the potential loss of revenue of commercial bins occupying parking bays. Officers also believe that if the ownership of the car park area ever changes, this unit along with some of the other food-related businesses might not have adequate provision to accommodate waste storage bins which would potentially be harmful to the amenities of the area and create further operational problems for the businesses.

In view of the above concerns, officers feel that the proposal would be detrimental to the living conditions of existing residents, and as such, would be contrary to Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

Highway Issues

Whilst the site has no provision for off-street car parking, the site is considered to be within a highly sustainable location, being close to regular public transport routes along London Road. There is also a public car park towards the rear of the site on Alderson Road which provides some car parking provision in the area.

140 Officers have assessed the proposal and do not consider that the proposal will raise any highway safety issues.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an application for a change of use from a retail shop (Class A1) to a mixed use development consisting of a hot food takeaway with facilities for customers to also consume food on the premises (Classes A5 and A3). The proposal also seeks consent to install a new flue for fume extraction purposes. No neighbour representations have been received and the proposal does not raise any highway safety issues.

In land use policy terms, the policy position is finely balanced with retail use dominant in floorspace terms but not when assessed in relation to numbers of units. The localised mix of units is also balanced. However the presence of a somewhat detached Waitrose store skews the figures on floorspace and, on balance, given the overall context and visual impression of limited retail activity along London Road, the further loss of an A1 unit would lead to a concentration of uses which would prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the area and as such, officers feel that the proposal would be contrary to Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

Officers also feel that there are several amenity issues which have not adequately been addressed which render this proposal unacceptable. These include: the installation of a highly prominent and visually intrusive flue, the lack of a suitable location for commercial waste bins, and proposed operating times that could cause potential noise nuisance.

For all of the reasons outlined above, it is considered that on balance, the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of local residents and contrary to planning policy, and as such, it is recommended that this application be refused.

141

Case Number 11/03469/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Alterations and extensions to first floor of building to form bar/restaurant - application for a further 6 month trial period to extend opening hours of the licensed premises to 0900 hours to 0030 hours seven days a week (Application under Section 73 to vary condition 5 (opening hours) imposed by 06/04588/FUL)

Location Brook House 557 Ecclesall Road Sheffield S11 8PR

Date Received 26/10/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Journeyman Design Ltd

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed extended hours of use of the premises would result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties as a result of people leaving the premises late at night when background noise levels have subsided. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S10 (b) and H14 (k) of the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

142 Site Location

143 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the former Walnut Club (now Studio 557), located at 557 Ecclesall Road. This is the first floor premises located above the former Plumb Centre though the club is accessed from a lobby at ground floor level on Ecclesall Road.

The site falls within a District Shopping Centre. This part of Ecclesall Road is characterised by a range of retail outlets and by a variety of food and drink establishments and professional services.

The closest residential properties are located on the opposite side of Ecclesall Road, which includes Carmel Court which is approximately 28 metres from the front elevation of premises, and to the rear of the application site, along Neill Road adjacent to the site, and Porter Terrace approximately 14 metres away from the rear elevation.

This application seeks to extend the permitted hours of use to 00:30 on all days for a further trial period of 6 months.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Permission was granted in 2006 (06/04588/FUL) for the alterations and extensions to the first floor of the building to form a bar/restaurant.

The permission restricted the hours of use of the restaurant/bar to 0900 hours and 2330 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 0900 and 2300 hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

Permission was refused in 2008 (08/05262/FUL) for an application to extend the opening hours to 02:00 on weekdays and Saturdays.

Permission was refused in 2009 (09/01948/FUL) for the use of the premises until 01:30 hours on Fridays and Saturdays for a temporary period of 6 months.

Permission was granted in 2009 (09/03212/FUL) for a trial period of 6 months extending opening hours to 00:30 hours.

Permission was granted in 2010 (10/01497/FUL) for a trial period of 12 months with extended opening hours to 00:30 hours.

Permission was granted in 2010 (10/04106/FUL) for a further trial period of 6 months with extended opening hours to 00:30 hours.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

18 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposed development. These include representations from Cllr S Wattam, the Sharrow Vale Community Association, the Botanical Area Community Association and the Endcliffe Corner Community Association.

144

Cllr Wattam objects on the grounds of potential noise disturbance to nearby residents.

Issues raised by other representations include:

- the Applicant has been operating the business at a low level to minimise complaints in order to present a less intrusive development; - loud music is clearly audible when the lobby doors are left open; - people stand outside the premises in groups smoking and creating noise and disturbance; - scantily clad girls are apparent on the street enticing customers into the venue; - the owner has been opening on a limited basis in order to limit the amount of data available to the Planning Authority; - the dual opening of Sainsbury’s and this venue at the same time would exacerbate noise disturbance in the locality; - the Chair at Committee that considered the last application said that there would be no more extensions of time; - the constant applying for added time extensions is making a mockery of the planning system; - the sale of alcohol later into the morning hours will lead to an increase in vandalism and other anti social behaviour.

Endcliffe Corner Community Organisation (ECCO)

Residents are already experiencing disturbance and antisocial behaviour arising from restaurants and bars along Ecclesall Road staying open late at night.

Botanical Area Community Association

The clubs clientele has only built up in the last two months but there are already complaints from residents with regard to Friday and Saturday night opening.

Residents experience noise nuisance created by people returning to their cars parking in our streets and driving away, taxis waiting for customers. The resultant disturbance is a problem for all but most notably those local residents who need to work early shifts.

With the previous permission the owner of the club agreed to a condition to meet local community groups and has not done so.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policies

The majority of the site lies within the Ecclesall Road District Shopping Centre, as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The Neill Road frontage is within a designated Housing Area. UDP Policies S10 (Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas) and H14 (Conditions on Development in Housing Areas) are most relevant in considering the merits of the application.

145

Policy S10 (b) and H14 (k) requires that developments should not cause residents to suffer from unacceptable living conditions, including air pollution, noise, other nuisance or risk to health and safety.

Residential Amenity Issues

Context

The main consideration in assessing the proposal is the potential impact on the amenities of the locality and occupiers of residential properties that may result from any later opening. Consideration of precedent setting with regard to other food/drink type venues in the locality must also be considered.

The previous owner requested opening until 02:00 hours prior to submitting the original application for planning permission for the Club in 2006. At the time the applicant was advised that whilst the Walnut Club concept was welcomed, it should not be at the expense of residential amenity in a finely balanced community which is under constant pressure from food and drink businesses.

It was made clear that officers felt late night opening was not considered acceptable in this location. The previous owner was therefore advised to seek alternative premises, preferably in the City Centre or at the edge of the City Centre, away from traditional residential areas if opening in the early hours was necessary to the operation.

Following full consideration of the original change of use application by the Planning Board, the current hours were imposed in line with the officer recommendation. Therefore it should be made clear that the Walnut Club (as the original premises were known) opened in the full knowledge that later opening hours were not considered acceptable.

This was reinforced by the refusal of planning permission for an extension of hours until 0200 hours by the Planning Board in November 2008. The original condition and its reinforcement would have been apparent to the current owner upon purchase.

The main concern is not necessarily noise break out from within the building (though this remains a concern), but disturbance from customers leaving in the early hours of the morning. This principal concern is for residents on the opposite side of Ecclesall Road and in other nearby residential streets.

The venue has capacity for approximately 150 people, and therefore it is quite possible that there will be large numbers of people leaving the building in the early hours of the morning.

Existing character

Ecclesall Road, due in part to its length, exhibits different characteristics along its full extent. In the main the road can be considered as having a ‘city centre’ end

146 which features a greater concentration of venues for evening entertainment including a large number of pubs, bars and restaurants which are very popular with both students and the general population, and a relatively more sedate section towards Hunters Bar which exhibits a less boisterous atmosphere and has more of the characteristics of a mixed residential area.

In recent years the number of bars and restaurants has increased along this southernmost section of Ecclesall Road, but opening hours have been restricted to 23:30 hours. Premises which are controlled by these hours of operation include Felicini, La Tasca, Nonna’s, and the Porter Brook.

There have been several applications from nearby restaurant/bars in the last three to four years seeking to extend their opening hours. These have included a proposed hours of use extension until midnight (00.30 hours Fri/Sat) at La Tasca in January 2007 which was refused. (06/04327/FUL).

The Porter Brook was granted a licence until 01.00 hours on Fridays and Saturdays, but this was inconsistent with the planning permission which permitted opening only until 23.30 hours. An application for later opening hours (midnight Mon-Thu, 01:00 hours Fri-Sat and 23:30 hours Sun) was refused in February 2008 (07/03510/FUL).

An application for extending the opening hours at Nonna’s restaurant to 01:30 hours (Mon-Sat) and 23:30 hours (Sun) was refused on amenity grounds.

Both the Porter Brook and Nonna’s decisions were the subject of appeals and both Inspectors’s subsequently dismissed the appeals in December 2008 and January 2009.

The Inspectors concluded that ‘Later closing times would extend the potential for noise and disturbance later into the night to the detriment of the amenity of those living in and around this part of Ecclesall Road. Noise and disturbance can come from customers talking or even shouting as they gather outside or walk away from the premises after closing time. Noise and disturbance can also come from customers being picked up family or friends in cars or getting into taxi’s, involving engines being stopped and started and car doors being slammed. Furthermore this activity may not necessarily be confined to Ecclesall Road but to numerous side streets as customers disperse. Talking and shouting in the quieter ambience of narrower residential side streets are likely to be particularly intrusive.’

In considering the potential for disamenity to residents it is first necessary to establish what degree of background noise already exists in proximity to the site.

In this regard background noise levels are consistently high late into the evenings on Ecclesall Road due to passing vehicular and pedestrian traffic. However, the level of activity on the southernmost section tends to subside when the various food and drink premises close in accordance with their permitted hours of use (between the hours of 23:30 and midnight).

147 A license was granted in 2009 for a new One Stop Shop/ Supermarket directly below this application site at ground floor level. No change of use planning application was required as the unit remains in A1 (Retail) Use Class and as such there can be no retrospective introduction of restriction on the opening hours. A license has been granted for 24 hours a day on everyday of the week, and includes the selling of alcohol. The supermarket has not been opened at the time of writing. Later opening hours at this shop would undoubtedly have an impact on the standard of amenity experienced by residents but the degree to which this would impact on amenity is indeterminable.

As such, possible noise disturbance must be considered against the current levels of background noise and to this end it must be concluded that later opening does have a clear potential to alter the character of the area through both noise breakout and through the activities of clientele entering and exiting the premises.

Consideration must also be given to the cumulative effect of a number of premises along this road applying for permission to extend their opening hours should a permanent permission be granted for Studio 557.

In mitigation it is worthy of note that this property has no outside seating/drinking area, unlike other food/drink outlets, previously mentioned that lie in close proximity. Studio 557 is also located at first floor level and as such has a limited active street frontage, with windows being fixed obscurely glazed with screening behind.

Whilst people do smoke on the forecourt area, this is limited to a relatively short period of time, with no drinks allowed outside. Anecdotal evidence of noise breakout suggests this only occurs when the lobby doors are left open but Officer site visits during operation suggest this is not an infrequent occurrence.

Data collection to date

This application seeks to extend the hours of use of the premises until 00:30 hours 7 days a week on a 6 month trial basis, which mirrors previous applications for a temporary period.

Whilst Officers collected data in the Winter months 2010/11 relating to the premises operating under the previous owner, and collected data over the Summer months of 2011 it is accepted that the former occurred under previous management and the latter has occurred in a period when the business has only been operated at more intermittent/low level basis without a capacity clientele.

Previous monitoring in Winter months revealed the following:

Some congregation of persons smoking does occur outside the premises at times but these tend to be for short periods.

Lobby doors have been left open, leading to noise breakout from the premises.

148 Loading of musical equipment outside the premises representing a significant noise ‘event’ occurred which although short lived (a ten minute period) were significant.

Taxis arriving to pick up clientele do create noise that exceeds background levels as these fall away around midnight.

In the last monitoring period there have been numerous occasions where the club has not been open at all, a fact confirmed by concerns raised in representations and this has limited data collection.

However, the following has been observed during monitoring of the club on two Saturday nights during the Summer of 2011:

Persons waiting outside club for taxis though some may have originated from the Porter Brook.

The main door being left open leading to noise breakout from inside building, this being clearly audible when traffic noise drops off.

Shouting witnessed from groups leaving the premises around midnight.

Officers are aware that this application represents the latest of a series of temporary permissions and accept that a further period of data collection (with the operation better established in terms of a rising clientele) might provide further evidence upon which to base a recommendation.

Officers are also aware that no official complaints have been registered with the Environmental Protection Service during the trial period.

However, given the evidence arising from Case Officer monitoring of the clubs operation to date, under both the previous management and in the Summer months of this year, it is felt that, an extension of hours of operation has significant potential to impact adversely on the amenity of local residents.

While these residents, living as close as they do to a District Shopping Centre (DSC), may not benefit from the same levels of amenity afforded those in solely residential areas, nonetheless it is considered that there should be a reasonable balance between the viability and vibrancy of the DSC and the amenity of residents.

All other food and drink outlets, whilst they may differ operationally from Studio 557, have been restricted to closing hours of 23:30 in the interests of residential amenity.

Evidence from site visits suggests that background noise levels from vehicular traffic lessen and become more intermittent as the time approaches midnight in the locality of the premises.

149 This lessening of activity in the vicinity of Studio 557 means that noise ‘events’ such as people shouting, calling for taxis, opening and closing car doors etc. are far more prominent and intrusive and with extended opening hours it is not unreasonable to expect these activities to continue until 1 o’clock in the morning.

Hence whilst noise break out from the premises can be controlled to a significant degree (though there is evidence of shortcomings even in this respect) the disturbance arising from pedestrian and vehicular movements outside the club cannot be controlled or mitigated to any significant degree.

As such it is felt that the original restrictions placed on the 2006 permission should remain, these being consistent with decisions on other premises nearby and with Appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate in the recent past.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Matters relating to noise and disturbance form the main body of this report.

Anti social behaviour is a matter for the police and not a material planning consideration.

The dress code of employees seeking to encourage custom is not a material planning consideration.

It is impossible to draw any substantial conclusions with regard to concerns raised about the Applicant limiting operation to inhibit Local Authority data collection.

Comments by previous Chairs of Planning Committees are not binding and cannot prevent the submission of further applications which the Local Planning Authority are then duty bound to consider on their merits.

There was no formal condition on the previous permissions requiring the owner of the club to meet with community groups.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Planning permission is sought to extend the opening hours of the premises until 00:30 hours on all days, for a trial period of 6 months. This would enable further data collection through a period when the business is building a more substantial clientele.

There have been a number of planning applications at nearby food/drink/entertainment venues in recent years for extensions of opening hours after 23:30, which have been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Data collected regarding activity outside the club has revealed that later opening hours does give rise to noise and disturbance events that occur as ambient background levels of noise become less intense and more intermittent and representations indicate disturbance to local residents.

150 However there have been no formal complaints to the Councils Environmental Protection Service during the trial period.

Nonetheless the noise and disturbance noted by Officers was considered to unacceptably compromise the amenity of local residents and this would be contrary to Policies S10 and H14.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

151

Case Number 11/03493/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application to replace condition 12 (lighting restriction) imposed by 07/02018/FUL (Erection of car dealership and headquarters building) to increase the permitted duration of external lighting (application under Sec 73)

Location Gilder Group Ltd Bochum Parkway/Dyche Lane Sheffield S8 8BR

Date Received 28/10/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent SDA Architects Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from 31 July 2007.

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

2 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, 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.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 Samples of all proposed external hard surfacing 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 the interests of the amenities of the locality.

4 The landscaping scheme shown on the plans shall be carried out 'within 1 month of the occupation of the development or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority' but before such landscaping is carried out further details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

152 When the above-mentioned landscaping has been carried out, thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained. The landscaped areas shall be cultivated and maintained for 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise authorised in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

5 The existing trees within the site of the development, other than the trees indicated for removal on the plans, shall not be lopped, topped, destroyed or otherwise removed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority, but if notwithstanding this condition any tree other than the afore- mentioned trees indicated for removal is removed or destroyed or damaged to such a degree that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority its removal is necessary, then a replacement shall be planted of a species and size to be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to planting. Any such replacement shall be cultivated and maintained for 5 years and any failure within that 5 year period shall be replaced with like species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 Before any work on site is commenced full details of the measures to be taken to protect the existing trees within and/or adjoining the site of the development during site clearance and construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall include means of preventing the ground beneath the canopy of such trees and/or hedges from being disturbed or used for storing materials of any kind.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

8 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, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include measures to restrict the rate of surface water discharge from the site to 60 litres per second.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

9 There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no building shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the

153 approved foul drainage works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.

10 Before work on site is commenced, details of proposals for the inclusion of an element of public artwork in the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A programme for implementation of such artwork shall have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being brought into use.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

11 The building shall not be used unless the fencing to the boundary with Meadowhead School has been provided and finished in accordance with the submitted plans. Thereafter such fencing shall be retained.

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

12 The external lighting shall not at any time exceed the lux levels shown on drawing no D11139/JB/D.

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

13 No amplified sound shall be audible outside the buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

14 The site shall be open for business only between the following hours:

07.30 - 21.00 hours (Mondays - Fridays) 08.00 - 18.00 hours (Saturdays) 10.00 - 17.00 hours (Sundays and Public Holidays).

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

15 There shall be no vehicular access to the rear of the building outside the hours stated in the foregoing condition and measures to prevent such access shall be implemented in accordance with details to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

16 The building shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to footway and kerb, and means of

154 vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

In the interests of pedestrian safety.

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

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

18 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.

19 The building shall not be used unless provision has been made within the site for accommodation of delivery/service vehicles in accordance with the approved plans.

To ensure that adequate servicing is available.

20 The building 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 building commencing, and shall thereafter be retained.

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

21 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development, a detailed Travel Plan(s), designed to reduce the need for, and impact of, motor vehicles, increase site accessibility and to facilitate and encourage alternative travel modes, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where there has been a previously approved Framework Travel Plan for the proposed development, the detailed Travel Plan(s) shall be developed in accordance with it. The Travel Plan(s) shall include:

1. Clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets;

155

2. An implementation programme, with arrangements to review and report back on progress being achieved to the Local Planning Authority for written approval of actions consequently proposed, at intervals of one, three and five years from occupation;

3. Arrangements to carry out a user survey(s), the results of which shall be used to further define targets and inform actions proposed to achieve the approved objectives and modal split targets. On occupation, the approved Travel Plan(s) shall thereafter be implemented, subject to any variations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

a) been carried out; or

Highway Improvements:

Widening of Bochum Parkway Formation of new access Improvement to Dyche Lane junction

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

23 The building shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

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

24 The vehicle workshops shall not be used unless measures to minimise the breakout of noise have been implemented, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation. Thereafter the approved noise attenuation measures shall be operated/retained.

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

25 The development shall be carried out in conjunction with the development permitted by planning permission 06/04232/FUL.

To reduce carbon emissions associated with the development.

26 Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed grey water recycling facilities shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the building shall not be used unless such recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter the grey water recycling facilities shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and to ensure sustainable development.

27 There shall be no vehicle body repair work (including paint spraying of vehicles) undertaken within the building hereby permitted.

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

28 The internal lighting shall be fully illuminated during business hours only and shall be limited and/or reduced thereafter in accordance with details to have been submitted no later than 29 February 2012, and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant is advised that condition No(s) 1-11 and 13-27 were imposed by planning permission No. 07/02018/FUL and are reproduced on this notice to provide you with a complete record of all conditions, regardless of whether some may have already been discharged.

157 Site Location

158

INTRODUCTION

This application is to regularise the night-time illumination of the external areas at Gilder’s car dealership and headquarters. The car dealership was built on the site of the former Meadowhead School approximately 2½ years ago.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site has frontages to Bochum Parkway, Dyche Lane and Chesterfield Road South and covers approximately 2 hectares. There is an extensive car display area in front of the building across the whole of the Bochum Parkway frontage. Bochum Parkway is dualled with a wide central reservation. Norton Lane runs parallel on the opposite side of Bochum Parkway and is separated by a wide planted buffer strip. A row of semi-detached dwellings faces the site (Nos 1– 43). The rear elevations of a pair of caretaker’s dwellings at the new Meadowhead School are close to the rear boundary of the site. The car park to the school adjoins the remainder of the rear boundary. The entrance to Norton College lies opposite the site in Dyche Lane.

The application is to replace Condition 12 to the planning permission for the car dealership development (ref 07/02018/FUL). The condition states:

Before the development is commenced, full details the proposed lighting to the site, including details of its intensity, direction, and siting shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the hours of both external and internal illumination of the site and its buildings, and their relationship to business hours, and be limited and/or reduced thereafter, and shall

159 be further limited and/or be reduced after midnight on each day, unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The current approved hours for the external lighting following submission of details relating to this condition are:

07:30 – 21:00 hours (Mondays – Fridays) 08:00 – 18:00 hours (Saturdays) 10:00 – 17:00 hours (Sundays)

The showroom lights are approved to be illuminated beyond these hours with the level of internal lighting being reduced after 23:00 hours.

The proposal is intended to remove the reduced hours of illumination and to permit the external lighting to be fully illuminated throughout the night.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission for the development was originally granted in August 2006 (ref 06/01809/FUL). A similar scheme with minor revisions was resubmitted and granted planning permission in July 2007 (ref 07/02018/FUL). Both permissions included the lighting condition that is the subject of this application.

Planning permission for a 15m wind turbine was granted in July 2007 (06/04232/FUL). The permission has been implemented.

All details required by the planning conditions in respect of the dealership development and turbine were subsequently approved (refs 08/02354/COND; 08/03071/COND; 08/03387/COND; and 08/04598/COND).

The signage at the site was granted advertisement consent in September 2008 (ref 08/03185/ADV).

An application similar to the current proposal was withdrawn in June 2011 (11/00916/FUL) to allow for more information to be prepared.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters of objection have been received (from Nos 33 and 41 Norton Lane). The objections are summarised below:

- current restricted hours provide Norton Lane residents with some protection from the glare of light emanating from the site throughout the night - no change since completion of the development, so conditions imposed should remain - Nos 33-43 Norton Lane are much closer to the site than other residents and bear the brunt of light from Gilders – advertising pillars, external signage, lighting on front and side of building, external freestanding lighting (which reflects of cars), light from security office, illuminated bollards at site entrance and headlights of cars leaving the site)

160 - There is no screening to block out the light on this part of Norton Lane - Internal lights are often left on at full power during the night – adds to illumination and glare - Gilders assured local residents that they would respect their concerns and be good neighbours – this application shows complete disregard for neighbours - Proposal directly opposes ‘green policies’ (energy conservation and environmental awareness) advocated and promoted by the Council - Has been breach of condition for past 3 months – nothing has been done in response to letter of complaint to Council - Bad enough having it there in the first place – was once a nice residential area but is now like living at the side of a motorway

Councillor Auckland also objects:

- no change in circumstances so no justification for changing the condition which provides a measure of mitigation of impact on residents in Norton Lane - reduction in sustainability would conflict with the trend of planning policy - notes incidents of criminal activity but no details of incidents or police action/recommendations - notes Council guidance which refers to impact of glare from external lighting on residential amenity, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and open countryside and highlights the need for detailed information in support of applications for planning permission

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

The site lies within a Business: Institution: Leisure Area as designated in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). In the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Draft Proposals Map, the site is designated as a General Employment Area.

The most relevant UDP Policy is CF8 (Conditions on Development in Institution Areas).

The SDF Core Strategy Policy CS63 (Responses to Climate Change) is relevant and the principles of Policy CS64 (Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments) are also relevant although the policy is specific to new developments.

Sustainability

Policies CS63 seek to reduce the City’s impact on climate change by, amongst other things, designing development to reduce energy consumption. Policy CS64 requires all new buildings and conversions to use resources sustainably and achieve a high standard of energy efficiency.

161 Whilst the original planning permission pre-dated the Core Strategy, the building was designed to be energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy (wind turbine), grey water recycling and restricted surface water discharges to the culverted watercourse in Dyche Lane.

The external lighting comprises 44 x 5m and 4m high lighting columns with 150W lighting units, and 21 x wall mounted lights (70W). If the application is granted, the lights will be illuminated for up to an additional 10.5 hours (Mon-Fri) and more at weekends and public holidays. This is significant in terms of energy consumption. However, the floodlights are designed to be energy efficient and it is clear that there is a need for security on this relatively exposed site with extensive and valuable display of cars for sale. (Evidence of 3 incidents of criminal damage and theft to cars and the Audi showroom was submitted with the previous application (11/00916/FUL) with losses in excess of £18k).

It should be noted that the currently approved lighting hours are the result of the applicant’s original intentions to tie lighting in with trading hours. The hours were not imposed by the planning condition, merely approved in accordance with it. The condition, in itself, does not prevent some degree of illumination throughout the night. In considering the original application for the development (06/01809/FUL), it was acknowledged that some lighting would be required to the site frontage in order for the CCTV to operate effectively.

Whilst it is clear that longer illumination will result in the development being less efficient than at present, the Core Strategy policies do not preclude the proposal and, on balance, the operational need is considered to outweigh the loss of efficiency.

Amenity

The nearest residential property to the site are the new caretakers’ dwellings at the adjoining Meadowhead School. The School and the individual dwellings were notified about the application but have not made any representations.

There is no other residential property in such close proximity to the site. The nearest dwellings are in Norton Avenue, in excess of 70m away on the opposite side of Bochum Parkway.

The lighting units are specifically designed to prevent ‘sky glow’ and are angled so that horizontal spillage is minimised. A night time visit indicated that the external lighting is operating efficiently with no ‘sky glow’ and minimal spillage beyond the site boundary. The street lights in Bochum Parkway are significantly more obtrusive.

The supporting submissions include a plan that indicates that typical ‘lux’ levels at the site boundary in Bochum Parkway do not exceed 5 lux. The exception is at the entrance to the site where the maximum level at the boundary is 28 lux. This is at a location some 65 metres from the front elevations of the nearest properties in Norton Lane. The lighting plan shows that the light spillage from the site entrance reduces to nil lux at a point approximately 58 metres from those front elevations. It

162 should be noted that there is a significant buffer of tree and shrub planting between Norton Lane and Bochum Parkway in front of the objectors’ properties.

To add perspective, guidance prepared by the Institution of Lighting Engineers indicates that light trespass into windows at night time (after 23.00 hours) should not exceed 2 lux in this type of area. 10 lux is considered acceptable at other times. The lighting clearly meets this guideline.

In view of the above, the proposals maintain adequate residential amenity and therefore comply with Policy CF8.

The building has a front elevation of approximately 115 metres. Approximately 33 metres of this frontage is glazed to almost the full height of the building (approx 7m). The remainder is glazed to heights of approximately 3m and 4m. It is reasonable to restrict internal levels of illumination to prevent light shining directly outwards late at night.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Council guidance – the ‘guidance’ referred to is taken from the Planning web pages designed to help applicant’s to submit adequate information in support of planning applications with external lighting implications.

Complaint – the objector’s complaints were initially investigated in March 2011 and resulted in the approved lighting hours being adhered to. The subsequent breach has been investigated and has resulted in the submission of this application.

ENFORCEMENT

One of the objections makes reference to the lighting of the freestanding signs at the site entrance. These two signs include narrow neon strips to the edge of the signs. The neon strips were not shown on the approved plans (08/03185/ADV) and illumination was restricted to the letters and logo and between 07:30 – 21:00 hours daily. The permitted hours of illumination are designed to define the consent and to reflect the trading hours referred to previously.

The level of lighting is not considered to present an unacceptable intrusion in this location adjoining the Outer Relief Road and some 70 metres from the nearest residential property. It is recommended that no further action is taken in respect of the freestanding signs.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is to regularise the hours of external lighting currently being operated at the site.

The lighting is well within accepted guidelines (Institution of Lighting Engineers) and has no adverse impact on residential property or the night sky. Whilst consuming more energy resources than the approved hours of lighting, the wider development does focus on energy efficiency, including renewable energy. The

163 need for the external lighting is justified on security grounds. However, there is no evidence that the internal lights need to be illuminated at full intensity throughout the night.

Overall, the proposals are considered acceptable and in compliance with UDP Policy CF8. There is no material conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS63 and 64 and it is recommended that Condition 12 is replaced with two conditions as follows:

1. The external lighting shall not at any time exceed the lux levels shown on drawing no D11139/JB/D

2. The internal lighting shall be fully illuminated during business hours only and shall be limited and/or reduced thereafter in accordance with details to have been submitted no later than 29 February 2012, and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority.

164

Case Number 11/03710/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Use of shop as a hot food takeaway (Class A5) and erection of fume extraction equipment to rear (In accordance with amended plans received on 19/12/2011)

Location Aspects Of Home 995 Abbeydale Road Sheffield S7 2QD

Date Received 21/11/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Mr R Bishop

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

Drawing reference: 2011.995AR.05.A

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the premises shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted unless a scheme for the installation of equipment to control the emission of fumes and odours from the premises is installed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This system shall provide a flue fitted with a low resistance cowl, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The use shall not be commenced until the approved equipment has been installed and is fully operational. After installation, such equipment shall be retained, operated and maintained for the purpose for which it was installed.

165 In the interests of the amenities of the locality and satisfactory fume extraction.

4 The premises shall be used for the above mentioned purpose only between 0800 hours and 2330 hours, Mondays to Saturdays, and 0800 hours and 2300 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

5 Deliveries to the site shall be restricted to between 0800 hours and 2100 hours Monday to Saturday, and no deliveries on Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

6 No movement, sorting or removal of waste bottles, materials or other articles, nor movement of skips or bins shall be carried on outside the building within the site of the development between 2330 hours and 0800 hours Monday to Saturday and between 2300 hours and 0800 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

7 The building shall not be used for the above-mentioned purpose unless a suitable receptacle for the disposal of litter for customers use has been provided and thereafter retained during opening hours.

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

8 The A5 unit shall not be occupied unless sound insulation measures have been implemented between the shop unit and the apartment above, 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 occupiers of adjoining property.

9 No live music or amplified sound shall be played within the building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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

10 No delivery service shall be operated from the premises unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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

166

11 The A5 unit shall not be used unless suitable access and facilities for people with disabilities, both to and within the shop unit and also within the curtilage of the site, have been provided but, before such access and facilities are provided, full details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. When the access and facilities have been provided, thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practise BS8300).

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

S7 - Development in District and Local Shopping Centres S10 - Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas

167 Site Location

168 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a retail shop unit with separate flat over in a parade of local shops close to the junction of Abbeydale Road with Archer Road at Millhouses.

The shop unit is currently vacant, having been previously occupied by Aspects of Home, an A1 retail use. There is a retail shop and flat at No. 993 and a bank with ancillary accommodation over at No. 997. To the rear of the site is an informal parking area accessed via a driveway from Archer Road.

The application is to use the shop for the sale of take-away hot food. The proposed hours of opening are not specified, and it is understood that the change of use is speculative, with no confirmed occupier at present.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

An application under reference 08/06016/CHU for the conversion of the shop unit into a hot food takeaway (A5 use class) was refused on 28/04/2009 on the basis that the scheme did not demonstrate that fume extraction equipment could be satisfactorily accommodated without harm to residential amenity and/or visual amenity; and that the opening hours sought (up to 0100 hours 6 days a week, and up to 0200 hours on Saturdays) would result in late night activity that would undermine the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

16 letters of objection have been received from local residents. The objections are summarised as:

- Millhouses is more than adequately served by food and drink outlets (3 takeaway restaurants, 1 sandwich and hot food shop, 2 large supermarkets, McDonalds plus 2 public houses and 2 restaurants) - The loss of the A1 unit will reduce the diversity of shops, and threaten the viability of the Local Shopping Centre. - Takeaway use will result in an increase of litter - Potential encouragement of crime at night from drunken revellers and encourage gangs of youths to congregate. - Additional demand for parking – already reaching a dangerous level and will make a dangerous and difficult road junction dangerous for pedestrians and drivers and create difficulties for buses - Parking for the collection of hot food will result in illegal parking in the vicinity of the site. - Concerns from the neighbouring bank that the ventilation outlet will interfere with the Bank’s own air conditioning condensers and fresh air intake. - Concerns with regards to the fume extraction system and impact of the amenities of the flat above and residential properties to the rear. - Will add to existing problems – litter and associated vermin, high volume of traffic and associated noise and pollution, cooking smells, youths congregating

169

Comments have also been received recommending that the unit be occupied for a useful purpose, such as a chemist or greengrocers. These comments are appreciated, but cannot be taken into account as the planning department can not force retail units to be occupied by a specific use within use classes, which are often determined by market forces. Comments with regards to the viability of an A5 unit have also been received. However, it is not the planning department’s role to assess the viability of a proposed use, which is up to the financial risk of a potential occupier.

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley objects on the following grounds:

- Potential adverse effect on viability of shopping centre – already a high number of takeaways and restaurants that threatens the viability of the Millhouses shops - The site is close to extremely busy junction at Abbeydale Road/Archer Road/Springfield Road – already serious pressure on limited parking – proposed use will severely compromise road safety

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

The site lies within a Local Shopping Centre (LSC) as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The following UDP policies are most relevant in assessing the merits of the application proposals:

S7 (Development in District and Local Shopping Centres) S10 (Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas) BE7 (Design of Buildings used by the Public)

The following policies in the recently adopted Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Core Strategy are also relevant:

CS39 (Neighbourhood Centres) CS74 (Design Principles)

Principle of Use

The current use as a retail unit (Class A1) is the preferred use in Shopping Centres in accordance with Policy S7. Food and drink uses (Classes A3 – A5) are listed as ‘acceptable’ uses.

Policy S10 permits change of use provided that, amongst other things, the use would not lead to a concentration of uses that would prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the LSC or its principle role as a Shopping Centre. The objective of Policy S10 is to maintain at least half of the LSC in Class A1 use. This is related to the issue of retail dominance, where it is noted that several consultees have voiced concerns that the proposal will affect the viability of the LSC. Planning Controls aim to keep the number of A1 units to over 50% of uses in order to

170 respond to this concern. In floorspace terms, most recent figures indicate approximately 73% of the LSC is made up of Class A1 retail uses.

13 of 23 premises within the LSC are currently in the preferred Class A1 use. The current breakdown of units in the LSC is as follows: Class A1 (Retail) – 13 Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services) – 2 Class A3 (Restaurants/Cafes) – 3 Class A5 (Takeaways) – 3 Class D1 (Non-residential Institutions) – 1 Veterinary Surgery – 1

The loss of the shop unit would reduce the retail uses to 12 (52%). On this interpretation, the proposals would still comply with Policy S10(a). This also takes account of current committed developments (i.e. unimplemented permissions).

Policy CS39 reinforces the objective of achieving successful neighbourhoods and acknowledges the role of Neighbourhood Centres in providing a basic range of shops and services within walking distance and providing for basic top-up needs. Neighbourhood Centres will replace LSC’s. The SDF City Policies document will build on this policy in terms of considering appropriate scales of development. However, at present there is no conflict with CS39 and UDP Policy S10 remains most relevant.

In view of the above, the proposed change of use is considered acceptable, in principle, although it is recognised that the uses in the LSC will become more finally balanced.

Amenity

UDP Policy S10(b) seeks to ensure that development in Shopping Areas does not unacceptably harm living conditions for residents.

The application that was refused under reference 08/06016/CHU contained no information with regards to the extraction system or flue, and proposed late night opening hours.

In terms of opening hours, the regulated food and drink uses in the LSC are restricted to 2330 hours. As a result, it is considered that a condition to limit the opening hours to this time would be required. The agent has verbally agreed opening times to this limit.

Whilst there is some potential for disturbance to be caused by customers as a result of possible raised voices, arrivals and departures by cars (engines/doors slamming etc) the site is located in very close proximity to a major traffic junction and as such there are relatively high background noise levels until late in the evening. There are also a number of established late night uses in the vicinity including two public houses and a restaurant. As such the use of the premises between 0800 and 2330 Monday to Saturday and between 0900 and 2300 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays are not perceived to give rise to any unacceptable

171 amenity issues in this busy shopping area and therefore complies with Section b of Policy S10. The closing time enforced will ensure that neighbouring residential properties above shops will not have any disturbance from late night onwards.

This proposal includes the provision of an internally routed extraction system, which will terminate at least 1m above the dormer window to the flat above. This information provides evidence that the routing of an acceptable extraction system can be achieved, which was not available with regards to the former application. The internal routing is possible, as the residential flat is within the ownership of the applicant.

As an occupier to the unit has not been identified, it is not possible for full details of the extraction system to be provided – such as the use of a non restrictive cowl or sound attenuation measures. As a result, conditions will be implemented to allow for this information to be supplied. Of note, the routing of the extraction system is considered acceptable in principle, and will be at least 1m above the top of the rear dormer window to the residential apartment, which is sufficient to prevent significant smell migration towards this residential unit. The position is also suitably distant from the air conditioning units to the neighbouring bank, to avoid problems towards this neighbour. The flue will be sufficiently distant from other residential properties to the rear, to prevent noise or smell migration to these neighbours.

In view of the above, the proposals have demonstrated that the development is capable of complying with UDP Policy S10(b), and overcome previous reasons for refusal.

Appearance

UDP policy S10(d) requires development to be well designed and of a scale and nature appropriate to the site. In this case, the shop front will remain unchanged, with the only visual change being the incorporation of an external extraction flue. The original proposal intended to run a flue up the outside of the property to the rear, which would have been visual incongruous when viewed from the rear of the property (visible from Abbey Lane), which would have had a semi-industrial appearance due to the functional facing material of the flue, and its height relative to the eaves of the building. The amended proposal to route the flue internally is more visually acceptable, with only a limited chimney of 1.5m in height. Although the height will be above the eaves of the property, it is not considered that the scale of the amended flue would be significantly greater than gas flues commonly seen on similar properties in the city, and it is not considered that the amended proposal would be visually incongruous, or out of scale with the building or local area.

Access

UDP Policy BE7 and SDF Policy CS74 seek to provide or improve safe and convenient access for all members of the public.

172 The proposals do not include any physical alterations to the property apart from providing a food preparation area and serving counter. The existing shop front has two steps to the entrance. It is unlikely that these can be satisfactorily designed out to provide inclusive access due to the lack of any obvious forecourt to the premises. However, some improvement should be possible e.g. providing grab handles. Such improvements could be conditioned if planning permission is granted.

Highways

There is no customer parking to serve the property. This is consistent with the majority of units in the LSC. There is limited car parking available to the rear of the property which, although not likely to be used by customers, would provide space for staff. No delivery service is indicated to be offered.

The site lies on a bus route and is within walking distance of a reasonable population. There is on-street parking in Abbeydale Road, including a lay-by virtually outside the unit, which provides limited parking when clearway restrictions are not operating. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site lies close to a busy signalled road junction, the location is accessible by means other than private cars and refusal on highway grounds cannot reasonably by justified.

In view of the above, the proposals are considered to comply with Policy S10(f).

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Litter – there is a waste bin in the highway within approximately 15m of the site.

Crime/Youths congregating – there is no evidence to suggest that the additional takeaway facility would exacerbate any incidences of people congregating in the area.

The remaining representations are addressed in the Planning Assessment.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The site is a retail shop within the Local Shopping Centre (LSC) at Millhouses. The loss of the shop unit to a takeaway use is acceptable in principle although there will be a finer balance of uses in the LSC.

The proposals have demonstrated that fume extraction equipment can be satisfactorily accommodated without harm to residential amenity and/or visual amenity. The application proposes opening to hours similar to other evening uses in the area and would not be potentially disturbing to residents in the area.

In the presence of sufficient information to judge the proposals acceptable in accordance with relevant UDP and SDF policies, this proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal on this site. It is recommended that planning permission is granted conditionally.

173