Transformation and Sustainability

SHEFFIELD LOCAL PLAN (formerly Sheffield Development Framework)

CITY POLICIES AND SITES DOCUMENT

SOUTH COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY AREA

AREAS AND SITES BACKGROUND REPORT

Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street SHEFFIELD S1 2SH June 2013

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 5

Part 1: Sheaf Valley (part) and South East Urban Area Core Strategy Sub-Area

2. Sheaf Valley (part) and South East Urban Area Policy 9 Areas

- Business & Industrial Policy Area 9

- District Centre Policy Area 12

- Neighbourhood Centre Policy Area 15

- Housing Policy Area 20

- Flexible Use Policy Area 24

- Open Space Policy Area 28

3. South East Urban Area Allocated Sites 33

- Housing Sites 33

- Mixed Use Site 40

- Sites no Longer Included 47

Part 2: South & West Urban Area Sub-Area

4. South & West Urban Area Policy Areas 49

- Business Policy Area 49

- General Employment Area 53

- District Centre Policy Area 57

- Neighbourhood Centre Policy Area 59

- Housing Policy Area 62

- Flexible Use Area 66

- 3 -

- Open Space Policy Area 71

- Countryside Areas (Green Belt) 76

5. South & West Urban Area Allocated Sites 81

- Housing Sites 81

- Mixed Use Site 89

- Transport Site 95

- Sites no Longer Included 99

- 4 -

1 INTRODUCTION

The Context

1.1 This report provides evidence to support the published policies for the City Policies and Sites document of the Sheffield Local Plan.

1.2 The Sheffield Local Plan is the new name, as used by the Government, for what was known as the Sheffield Development Framework. It is Sheffield’s statutory development plan, which the local planning authority is required by law to produce. .

1.3 The Local Plan includes the Core Strategy, which has already been adopted, having been subject to formal public examination. It sets out the vision and objectives for the Local Plan and establishes its broad spatial strategy.

1.4 The City Policies and Sites document now supplements this, containing:

- Criteria-based policies to inform development management and design guidance - Policy on land uses appropriate to a range of area types across the city - Allocations of particular sites for specific uses

1.5 The document was originally proposed to be two, City Policies and City Sites. Both of these have already been subject to two stages of consultation:

- Emerging Options - Preferred Options

1.6 The Emerging Options comprised the broad choices, which were drawn up to enable the Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of drawing up the document1. Having consulted on these options the Council decided which to take forward as Preferred Options.

1.7 The Preferred Options were published and consulted on as the ones that the Council was minded to take forward to submission2. However, the choice of option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging Options had been rejected and why.

1 Emerging Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) and Emerging Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) – see Sheffield City Council - Emerging Options 2006 2 Preferred Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) and Preferred Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) – see Sheffield City Council - Preferred Options 2007

-5-

1.8 Work following the Preferred Options was delayed whilst priority was given to the public examination of the Core Strategy. In the subsequent version, the Consultation Draft3, the policy areas and allocations were updated to reflect changing circumstances. A further consultation was carried out on additional sites for allocation.

1.9 The present version of the City Policies and Sites document has been published as the Council’s final version, including additional allocations. This is for final representations by stakeholders and other members of the public, followed by submission to the Government and public examination. A schedule of changes may be produced following representations and a final chapter will be added to each Background Report to explain why the changes have been proposed.

1.10 The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the policies are sound. That is the issue on which representations are invited, in line with national policy. The policy document itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies and allocations. So, the more detailed evidence and analysis is found in the Background Reports.

1.11 The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Local Plan. So they are not published as the subject for representations though comments on the soundness of the area designations and site allocations may well take up evidence or conclusions set out in the Reports.

1.12 This Report supports the published policy areas and site allocations for the South Community Assembly Area. Different Core Strategy Areas are dealt with in distinct parts of the report, reflecting the underlying common factors for each component of the spatial strategy.

1.13 For each sub-area, there are chapters on:

• Strategic Context • Policy Areas • Allocated Sites

1.14 Each section within these chapters deals with principal themes from the soundness criteria:

• Consistency with national and other strategic policy • Justification • Effectiveness • Conclusions – drawing together the strands under the four criteria for soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 City Policies and Sites: Consultation Draft (May 2010) – see Sheffield City Council - City Policies and Sites

-6-

1.15 There are many references in this report to policy areas. These are explained in Part 2 of the City Policies and Sites document (chapter 11), which includes policy H1. More detailed justification on the policy area types and their menus of land uses is contained in the relevant Policy Background Reports as follows. This applies across all areas of the city and is not repeated in each area report.

Policy Area Policy Background Report Business Areas Economy and City Region Business and Industrial Areas Economy and City Region General Employment Areas Economy and City Region

District Centres Neighbourhoods Neighbourhood Centres Neighbourhoods Housing Areas Neighbourhoods Flexible Use Areas Neighbourhoods

Open Space Areas Opportunities and Well-being Countryside Areas: Green Belt Character and Heritage

The Area

1.16 The South Community Assembly Area covers the electoral wards of Nether Edge, Gleadless Valley, Graves Park and Beauchief and Greenhill. It contains parts of three of the Core Strategy Areas that form the basis of the spatial strategy as follows.

1.17 Firstly, it covers some of the Sheaf Valley either side of the Midland Mainline in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas where Gleadless Valley Ward joins Nether Edge and Central Wards. This is essentially one of the City’s secondary employment areas focussing on local jobs in the business and industry sector but excluding major office developments which will require more accessible locations.

1.18 Secondly, it includes the western third of the South East Urban Area just beyond the former Housing Market Renewal Area and covering the Norton Woodseats area and the rest of the Gleadless Valley Ward. This area consists of three large residential neighbourhoods where housing is the main use of land. It contains some residential site allocations to encourage revival of the housing market. The area has some extensive open spaces and is served by one District Centre and several Neighbourhood Centres. The emphasis in this area will be on supporting successful neighbourhoods, encouraging new housing and a range of other uses to make those neighbourhoods more sustainable places in which to live.

-7-

1.19 Lastly, it includes the south-eastern quarter of the extensive South and West Urban Area covering the outer suburbs in Graves Park and Beauchief/Greenhill Wards and the inner suburb of Nether Edge Ward. The area is predominantly residential in character but its southern edge is framed by a section of the adopted Green Belt extending eastwards from Beauchief Park to Oakes Park. Open land within this Green Belt area will be safeguarded from inappropriate development and its boundary has not been subject to review. Nether Edge is a distinctive neighbourhood within a wider south west sector of the City where the strategy aims to conserve and respect existing special character. This means that the scale of development and amount of housing will be what can be accommodated through infill and windfall sites such as redundant education institutions.

1.20 Elsewhere in this zone the main housing areas are relatively stable and the emphasis will be on safeguarding their residential character and their high quality open spaces as new proposals come forward. This area is served by a single District Centre and several Neighbourhood Centres and it contains six Conservation Areas. Because this sub-area has a markedly different character to the rest of the Community Assembly Area, requiring more types of policy area designations, this report covers it in Part 2. The two other sub-areas have more of a common regeneration focus and they are therefore combined in Part 1 of the report.

-8-

PART 1 SHEAF VALLEY (PART) AND SOUTH EAST URBAN CORE STRATEGY AREA

2 SHEAF VALLEY (PART) & SOUTH EAST URBAN POLICY AREAS

2.1 Six types of policy area are represented across this sub-area.

Business & Industrial Policy Area

2.2 The area contains a single continuous Business and Industrial Area stretching some 2.5 km along the River Sheaf and the railway from East Bank Road south of the City Centre to Archer Road in the Norton Hammer area. The Sheaf Valley Industrial Corridor has had a similar employment designation since the adoption of the UDP in 1998. This major policy area designation extends into locations at Olive Grove Road and Chippinghouse Road which are within the East and Central Community Assembly Areas respectively. For convenience, the evidence included in this report for this particular zoning applies equally to those small enclaves.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.3 All paragraph references in these parts of the report refer to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) unless otherwise stated. This particular designation identifies a priority area for economic development and therefore conforms with national policy in setting out a clear strategy that encourages sustainable economic growth (paragraph 21). There is a long term need to protect the employment function of this area, so it is not necessary to review its role and designate land within its boundary for alternative uses (paragraph 22).

Core Strategy

2.4 The policy area supports the objectives and spatial strategy of the Core Strategy in retaining manufacturing, distribution/warehousing and other non-office business in an established employment area (policy CS5c). The zoning fits with the strategic aim of continuing to provide local employment for residents of south and south-west Sheffield in an area where the local environment is not good enough to support residential class uses (policy CS30d).

-9-

Justification

Alternative Options

2.5 The Policy Area helps towards delivering the strategic land requirements for non-office B1 uses and manufacturing and distribution B2/B8 uses set out in policy CS1 because those uses are preferred in this area designation. The area is well located in transport and environment terms to continue providing a range of enterprises and employment uses for the southern sector of the City.

2.6 The lack of suitable premises in the right locations has, in the past, been a severe restriction on the ability of existing firms to expand or relocate within the City. Therefore, established business and industrial areas such as the Sheaf Valley Corridor need to be retained to accommodate demand that has previously gone unmet. This means that they need to be located in an area where planning policy ensures that non-office business and industrial uses are prioritised above other uses. This particular zoning achieves that through the requirement to maintain a minimum level of 70% of the area in the preferred uses. The Economy and City Region Background Report has more detailed reasoning for setting this level of dominance.

2.7 No other land use designations were considered given the strategic role that this area is expected to perform. This is the most appropriate employment-led designation because the area is not a named location where major offices should be located in policy CS3 and it is the only designation that performs the type of mixed business and industrial role suited to areas that border on sensitive residential neighbourhoods. The local environment is not good enough for residential class uses and large parts of the area carry levels of flood risk that are unsuitable for such vulnerable uses. This view was challenged by the owner of a recently cleared site off Chippinghouse Road (see paragraph 2.10 below). However, introducing housing would cause conflict with current employment uses and enterprises. This area can however offer some scope for non-office businesses which can co-exist with adjoining housing.

Sustainability Issues

2.8 No detailed appraisals have been carried out on a development site basis as there are no site allocations proposed in this zone. However the redevelopment of existing sites here for the preferred business/industrial uses would have positive impacts for workers in terms of good accessibility for public transport services.

Equality Issues

2.9 The employment implicit in this area designation would have positive benefits for those groups on low income and with low access to private transport as there would be easier access to local jobs and training.

-10-

Consultee Preferences

2.10 In response to consultation on Additional Site Allocation Options in 2012, the Bolsterstone Group (comment ASAO 692) argued that their land between Chippinghouse Road and Broadfield Road should be promoted primarily for residential class uses with a retail frontage to London Road. This option was rejected because it would have led to conflict with adjoining business uses and the particular site is located in a high risk flood zone where housing would be regarded as vulnerable.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.11 The Economy and City Region Background Report sets out how applications for development in Business and Industrial Policy Areas will be assessed. The northern half of this area already meets the required 70% dominance level despite the existence of some non-preferred uses such as retail and leisure on the Broadfield Road frontage. Those uses would not justify an alternative designation given their dispersal throughout the area.

2.12 The equivalent Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy was not quite as restrictive in protecting the non-office business and industrial role of the southern half of the area, resulting in a local concentration of non-preferred B1a office use at Broadfield Business Park and part of the Woodseats Close area. They constitute one of the few office park locations serving the south and west of the City. However, this area is not as accessible as the City Centre which is why it is not promoted as an office destination. There is now less need to sustain that particular use in this location given the adopted strategy for office provision set out in Core Strategy policy CS3. The proposed Policy Area will provide firm guidance going forward should such offices or other non-preferred uses become available for re-use in the future.

2.13 Notwithstanding the above, policy H1 (and Table H1) allows a degree of flexibility for a variety of non-residential uses provided they are compatible with the area’s main business and industrial role.

2.14 There are no site-related policies that supplement the present policy but it will be sufficient for Development Management to use to ensure that the intended land use character of the area is maintained through any subsequent planning decisions.

-11-

Monitoring

2.15 The mix of uses and dominance of uses within Business and Industrial Areas will be assessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Economy and City Region Background Report.

Conclusions on Business & Industrial Policy Area

2.16 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

2.17 It is positively prepared:

• It adheres to the plan-making requirement in national policy to deliver jobs that are needed in the area (NPPF paragraph 156).

2.18 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver Local Plan requirements for employment land (Core Strategy policy CS1) and specific spatial policies for the Sheaf Valley (policies CS5c and CS30d).

• It provides the most appropriate menu of uses given the area’s proximity to sensitive residential neighbourhoods and the strategic employment role it has for South Sheffield.

2.19 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because business and industrial uses already predominate in most parts of the area and they can be expected to continue.

2.20 It is consistent with national policy:

• It encourages sustainable economic growth in one of the City’s priority zones (NPPF paragraph 21).

District Centre Policy Area

2.21 Heeley is the only District Shopping Centre in this sub-area. It is located one mile south of the City Centre along the A61 London Road/Chesterfield Road in the Gleadless Ward. It retains its place in the retail hierarchy identified previously in the UDP but its boundary on the Proposals Map has now been extended by small blocks at its northern and southern ends to reflect the continuity of retail frontage in those areas.

-12-

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.22 Broadly this policy area designation supports the social dimension of sustainable development by helping to maintain a centre with accessible local services required by the community living within its catchment area (paragraph 70). More specifically it demonstrates that Heeley is part of the city’s network of resilient District Centres by clarifying the physical extent of the centre and the permissible uses within it for the purposes of future planning decisions (paragraph 23). Because of its support for complementary land uses, it also respects the core planning principle of promoting mixed use development (paragraph 17).

Core Strategy

2.23 The Policy Area interprets Core Strategy spatial strategy by helping to sustain a named District Centre and thus develop neighbourhood economies with the provision of local services, jobs and leisure opportunities (CS34). This approach supports strategic objectives for economic transformation, successful neighbourhoods, reducing the need to travel and creating urban areas that look good and perform well.

Justification

Alternative Options

2.24 The centre flanks the A61 Chesterfield Road which is part of the City’s Key Route Network and therefore it has excellent accessibility for South Sheffield residential neighbourhoods. The Centre is served by multiple bus services throughout the day. This offers choice of transport and depth of catchment area for patrons not available in lower order centres. There is already a good range of shops and services including discount food stores, a large furniture outlet and an in-centre retail park with a large car park. The centre is reasonably healthy although the level of vacant properties in the shopping frontage is slightly higher than the average for all District Centres.

2.25 In the circumstances, there were no meaningful alternatives to a District Centre designation that would have been consistent with Core Strategy policy CS34. The centre’s boundary on its eastern side has been extended at both ends to include an established furniture store and an adjoining business to the north and a continuous parade of shops to the south. These areas exhibit a genuine retail character that justifies their inclusion and protection in the designated centre.

-13-

Sustainability Issues

2.26 The designation will have positive impacts for the majority of sustainability objectives. It will be particularly beneficial in respect of sustaining jobs, making efficient use of public transport services and reducing the need to travel to access everyday needs.

Equality Issues

2.27 The range and current nature of the shopping offer in the centre will have positive impacts for groups with low access to private transport and those with low incomes. The dedicated parking provision in the retail park and the furniture store is beneficial for those with physical disabilities. Finally, the opportunities for job experience inherent with a multi-unit centre will help certain groups, particularly adolescents and young people.

Consultee Preferences

2.28 No comments were made on the extent of this Policy Area at any stage during the consultation on this plan.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.29 The Neighbourhoods Background Report sets out how applications for development in District Centres will be assessed. The street frontage within the centre already complies with the minimum level of preferred uses (shops (class A1) and community facilities (class D1)) required by land use policy H1 and policy C4 on preserving the level of dominance. Development management will support an appropriate balance of retail and other facilities in the centre, taking account of the need to maintain vitality throughout the day and evening.

2.30 Demand for preferred retail uses in this location has become more buoyant recently so there is little risk of not being able to maintain the frontage requirement for a District Centre. If opportunities arise, there is scope within the Policy Area to accept a range of other complementary uses such as leisure, small-scale offices or financial services. Such uses can help to strengthen the offer of the centre without compromising its distinctive retail function.

Monitoring

2.31 The mix of uses and dominance of uses within District Centres will be re- assessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Neighbourhoods Background Report. Regular surveys and monitoring of uses within District Centres will take place so that the policy can inform future planning decisions.

-14-

Conclusions on the District Centre Policy Area

2.32 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

2.33 It is positively prepared:

• It supports the viability and vitality of a recognised town centre (NPPF, paragraph 23). • It helps ensure that shopping facilities in this centre can develop and modernise to benefit the community reliant on those services (NPPF, paragraph 70).

2.34 It is justified:

• It implements Core Strategy policy C34 for part of South Sheffield. • It complements policy C4 in helping to control the scale and nature of development to maintain the centre’s position in the retail hierarchy. • It is the most appropriate option consistent with higher tier policy on town centres.

2.35 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because shops (A1) and community facility (D1) class uses already predominate in this area and there is little risk of not being able to maintain this position in future.

2.36 It is consistent with national policy:

• It supports the core principle of promoting mixed use development in a suitable location (NPPF, paragraph 17). • It helps to define part of the network of centres resilient to future economic change (NPPF, paragraph 23). • In assisting the application of sequential testing for main town centre uses through defining the extent and function of a centre (NPPF, paragraph 24).

Neighbourhood Centre Policy Area

2.37 There are eight Neighbourhood Centres serving more localised communities dispersed across parts of the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area that lie within the South Community Assembly Area. They are as follows.

• Heeley Green • Newfield Green • Blackstock Road ( Gaunt Centre) • Derbyshire Lane

-15-

• Lees Hall Avenue, Norton Lees • Abbeydale Road (around junction with Chippinghouse Road) • Abbeydale Road (around junction with Sheldon Road) • Abbeydale Road (around junction with Carter Knowle Road)

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.38 The identification of Neighbourhood Centres where shops and services are the preferred uses is consistent with the national objective of promoting healthy communities. The policy helps to ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in sustainable locations for the benefit of the communities that rely on them (paragraph 70).

2.39 The policy conforms to the NPPF (paragraph 23) as it provides the detail for the network and hierarchy of centres in the City – the Neighbourhood Centres being the lowest tier as described in Core Strategy policy CS39. The extent of these designated centres is defined on the Proposals Map and policies H1 and C4 establish the preferred uses (shops (A1) and community facilities (D1)) that are expected to dominate in these centres along with compatible uses that can support their viability and vitality (paragraph 23).

Core Strategy and Other Strategies

2.40 Core Strategy policy CS39 sets out the role of Neighbourhood Centres in meeting everyday needs of the community. The policy area designation interprets this policy at a more detailed level. The characteristics of Neighbourhood Centres in policy H1 build on this.

2.41 The Blackstock Road (Gaunt) Neighbourhood Centre has received some modest funding for improvements as a priority project in the City Council’s Thriving District and Local Centres Strategy. This work should help to encourage future investment in the area.

Justification

Alternative Options

2.42 Each Neighbourhood Centre will support the continuation of the role of these areas to provide retail and community facilities for local communities whilst also giving a focal point and identity to their surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

2.43 Neighbourhood Centres have typically been identified where six or more shops would be sustainable, taking account of their distribution and the residential catchments they could serve. Surveys of potential centres were last undertaken

-16-

in 2009. The boundaries of designated centres reflect the area, where using the provisions of Policies H1 and C4, the current or future retail function can be protected and where investment will be encouraged to ensure that the centre thrives.

2.44 The first four centres listed above are retained with boundaries virtually unaltered from equivalent Local Shopping Centres shown on the UDP Proposals Map. Only minor additions have been made at Derbyshire Lane and Newfield Green to include a business property and a health centre respectively, with both uses complementing the retail functions of those centres. An extra centre is identified at Lees Hall Avenue based on the local convenience store and adjoining properties. Although this has fewer than six shops, the centre is well located in conjunction with the Chesterfield Road (Meersbrook) centre (see paragraph 4.66 below) to serve the Norton Lees and Meersbrook neighbourhoods which are otherwise remote from the nearest alternative centres.

2.45 Other small sized shopping parades at Derbyshire Lane (around the junction with Abbey View Road), Constable Road and Leighton Road have not been taken forward as centres from the UDP into the Local Plan. Parades of this nature are not significant enough to qualify as centres according to Annex 2 of NPPF. They do not occupy such strategic locations and have larger and, therefore, more robust, centres within their immediate vicinities. Consequently, there is no compelling need to protect any retail function that they currently offer as part of a consolidated network of centres. These parades have all been subsumed into the Housing Areas that surround them as their current retail use can be regarded as complementary and optional rather than essential to the needs of the residential neighbourhoods in which they are situated.

2.46 The UDP identified more than one mile of the Abbeydale Road frontage from Mount Pleasant Park to Archer Road as a Local Shopping Centre, the largest of its kind in the Plan. It has been difficult to sustain the vitality of such an elongated centre and, since the UDP was adopted, more than 12% of shop (A1) uses in the centre have been lost to other uses or no longer operate. The vacancy rate is 50% higher than the average for all District Centres and, in the circumstances, it is no longer considered tenable to protect the entire length of this area for retail/community uses.

2.47 The Abbeydale Road Centre was not identified as a District Centre in the adopted Core Strategy because it does not have the range of main town centre uses expected of this tier in the retail hierarchy and it has little scope for accommodating medium sized foodstores. The preferred approach has therefore been to identify three separate Neighbourhood Centres at focal points along the Abbeydale Road corridor where it is more likely that retail and community uses can be sustained for the duration of this Plan. The designated Abbeydale Road Centres are situated around nodal junctions with Chippinghouse Road, Sheldon Road and Carter Knowle Road. Their

-17-

boundaries have been drawn to contain most of the convenience stores (A1) in the corridor and to meet the street frontage requirement for preferred uses set out in policy C4.

2.48 Areas to the south of the new Abbeydale Road/Sheldon Road and Abbeydale Road/Carter Knowle Road Centres, formerly shown as being within a Local Shopping Centre in the UDP, have been subsumed within adjoining Housing Areas as they contain several non-A class uses, some vacant premises together with a few residential blocks. It is realistic to encourage further change of use to residential or residential-compatible uses within these stretches.

2.49 The section of Abbeydale Road frontage between St Ronan’s Road and Empire Road has a slightly different character and has been designated as a Flexible Use Area. More detail on this particular policy area designation is included in the section below on Flexible Use Areas (see paragraph 2.89).

Sustainability Issues

2.50 In general sustainability terms, the provision and safeguarding of local shopping facilities will reduce the need for local residents to travel long distances to access those facilities. All centres, apart from the Lees Hall Avenue Neighbourhood Centre, are connected with an efficient and regular bus service and the use of the centres helps to sustain those services. The network of centres also helps to provide some local jobs.

Equality Issues

2.51 The designated Neighbourhood Centres provide local shops and services which would assist groups with poor mobility (e.g. people with low access to private transport, people with low incomes and young people). Employment experience available in these centres may also benefit the same groups.

Consultee Preferences

2.52 At Consultation Draft stage (2010), an objection (comment dpm 216) was raised to the contraction of a unified Abbeydale Road Centre into three smaller Neighbourhood Centres. This was on the basis that it might not support a coherent public realm improvement to this gateway to the City Centre. This was rejected on the grounds that the centre did not qualify as an integrated District Centre in the Core Strategy and that three smaller Neighbourhood Centres could still provide for the needs of nearby communities.

-18-

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.53 The Neighbourhoods Background Report sets out how applications for development in Neighbourhood Centres will be assessed. Delivery will be achieved in the same way as for District Centres, primarily through development management (see paragraph 2.29 above), although the scale of proposals should relate to the smaller neighbourhood scale.

2.54 The centres now designated are expected to be able to sustain six or more retail units over the plan period, given present lifestyles, travelling patterns and recent trends in vacancy rates. The menu for designated centres in policy H1 allows a broad range of other complementary uses provided the preferred shops (A1) and community facility (D1) uses remain in the majority along the street frontage.

Monitoring

2.55 The mix of uses and dominance of uses within Neighbourhood Centres will be re-assessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Neighbourhoods Background Report. Regular surveys and monitoring will take place so that the policy can inform future planning decisions.

Conclusions on Neighbourhood Centres

2.56 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

2.57 It is positively prepared:

• It clearly identifies a robust distribution of centres across the sub-area for everyday shopping needs fulfilling the policy requirement to support viable centres (NPPF, paragraph 23).

2.58 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives already in the Core Strategy relating to Neighbourhood Centres (policy CS39). • It delivers on local policy to maintain centres that support the vision of successful communities (Core Strategy paragraph 3.13). • It is the best approach as these centres already exist in focal locations at the heart of viable catchment areas.

2.59 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period as these are existing centres and there are reasonable grounds for considering that they can be sustained.

-19-

2.60 It is consistent with national policy:

• In playing a social role in sustainable development by helping to deliver sufficient community, cultural facilities and other services to meet local needs (NPPF, paragraphs 17 and 70). • It helps to manage the contraction of a particular centre experiencing lower market demand (NPPF, paragraph 23).

Housing Policy Area

2.61 Within the South East Urban Area part of this sub-area the Housing Area consists of three stable long-standing neighbourhoods at Heeley, Gleadless Valley and Norton Lees/ Norton Woodseats. There are two smaller residential enclaves in the Sheaf Valley section located around Sellers Street and the ‘Lake District’ roads between Abbeydale Road and the Sheaf Valley business and industrial corridor.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.62 The policy area designation conforms to and contributes towards achieving the social dimension of sustainable development by supporting strong communities and providing housing required to meet present and future needs. The designation safeguards existing housing, underpins site specific proposals for new housing and provides support for housing re-use of windfall sites when they become available. This helps to meet housing supply requirements (paragraphs 47 and 48).

Core Strategy

2.63 The overall approach to location of land for housing follows the spatial strategy with its focus on development in the main built-up area of the City. The Housing Policy Areas in this sub-area therefore support Core Strategy policy CS23 which sets out broad priority locations for housing which makes efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Justification

Alternative Options

2.64 Preferred residential class uses listed in policy H1 already cover most of the land in this sub-area outside major open spaces, shopping centres and the industrial corridor along the Sheaf Valley. There are no realistic alternatives to designating

-20-

the established residential neighbourhoods as Housing Areas. Options for altering some of the boundaries of Housing Areas to other, mainly Open Space, policy areas are dealt with in more detail in later sections.

2.65 In their extent the Housing Areas are very similar to equivalent areas designated under UDP policy H10 (and shown on the UDP Proposals Map). The opportunity has been taken to update these Housing Areas to account for changes that have taken place in the intervening period. Those changes have been broadly neutral in the split between the Housing Area (building footprint) and Open Space Area (playing field) components for rebuilt schools at Newfield secondary and Gleadless Valley and Norton Free primary schools.

2.66 Minor extensions to the Housing Area have been made to reflect the developed nature of certain sites. This applies to the new Anns Grove Primary School building and also to garden extensions into former private allotment plots at the rear of properties on Hemsworth Road. The sub-division of the former Abbeydale Road Local Centre has added frontage properties to other streets in the ‘Lake District’ area between the new Neighbourhood Centres at Abbeydale Road/Sheldon Road and Abbeydale Road/ Carter Knowle Road. It has also added frontage properties on Abbeydale Road to the south of the latter centre between its junctions with Woodseats Road and Archer Road.

2.67 One other notable extension to the Housing Area relates to part of Sheffield Hallam University’s disused playing field at Hemsworth Road. Here one-third of this 4 hectare sports field is proposed for new housing within a site allocation (see paragraph 3.36 below on Allocated Sites) designed to also restore the remaining area for quality sports pitches. The Proposals Map therefore shows a Housing Area underpinning the housing element on this site.

2.68 The Housing Area has also contracted in a few instances mainly to recognise the value of some smaller scale amenity open spaces and the inclusion of existing changing facilities with the adjoining sports pitches at the University of Sheffield’s Norton Playing Fields. These changes are covered in more detail below in the section relating to Open Space Areas.

Sustainability Issues

2.69 Appraisal of proposed housing site allocations in this sub-area indicates that the Housing Areas as a whole will have mainly positive impacts if they were to be assessed against the Plan’s sustainability objectives. The area offers decent housing in good surroundings with good access to public transport services and community and recreational facilities. There is ample opportunity for new housing to make use of previously developed land or buildings and to take advantage of existing infrastructure. Additional housing may give rise to slight increases in air pollution through increased car usage but this is not a reason to review the Housing Area designation when compared to all the other positive impacts. Extra housing might stretch the capacity of local schools depending on the type of

-21-

housing, but the Council’s Education Service have advised that the issue can be resolved through distribution and management of capacity, together with developer financial contributions where necessary.

Equality Issues

2.70 The good access to public transport and other facilities mentioned above will benefit most of the defined impact groups. Consequently there are no equality reasons for questioning this policy area designation.

Consultee Preferences

2.71 At Preferred Options stage minor changes in the Housing Area boundary were sought by the Gleadless Valley Wildlife Group (ID 2218 and ID 2235) in the Gaunt Road and Bank Wood Close areas to increase environmental buffers to adjoining open spaces. Those particular suggestions were rejected on the basis that adequate buffers had already been allowed at the interface between policy areas at those locations.

2.72 Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) have argued at Preferred Options and Consultation Draft stages (ID1562 and dpm 203) that the redundant 4 hectare playing field at Hemsworth Road in their ownership should be added to the Housing Area in its entirety. The case was based on their view that pitches lost to potential residential development had already been re-provided at their Bawtry Road ground and that the site could usefully increase housing supply in the area. This re-designation was resisted on the grounds that the ‘replacement’ pitches already existed at the new site and that the Hemsworth Road site has good potential for meeting the need for additional quality sports pitches to serve this sector of the City.

2.73 However, it is acknowledged that in the present circumstances the re-instatement of sports pitches may not be viable without some (residential) development on part of this playing field. Accordingly, the site was included in the Additional Site Allocations Options consultation with up to one third of this greenfield site being proposed for partial development on condition that it results in the restoration of the remainder for outdoor sports provision (see paragraph 3.35 in Allocated Sites). SHU supported this proposal in principle (ASAO 533) as being an appropriate balance between development and investment in sports facilities in the area. Agents acting on SHU’s behalf have subsequently written to the City Council to confirm that feasibility work undertaken for them suggests that a proposal along the lines of the site allocation would require more funding than the university is prepared to provide and would therefore be unviable. SHU is therefore expected to seek an increase in the level of housing resulting in less or no outdoor sports facilities on the site.

2.74 The proposed site allocation split of one third Housing Area and two-thirds Open Space Area was supported by 11 other individual respondents with Natural

-22-

England (ASAO 611), Environment Agency (ASAO 417), Sport England (ASAO 523) and a further individual submitting neutral responses. Some 38 objections were raised to the loss of any open space on this site and they included the local MP (ASAO 260), a local councillor (ASAO 334), University of Sheffield (ASAO 476), Pedal Ready (ASAO 396), Norton History Group (ASAO 568) and Friends of Graves Park (ASAO 594). The support of the development plan for partial development of the site, expressed through an addition to the Housing Area, offers the best prospect of securing the early and necessary restoration of the remainder of this playing field to an appropriate standard. Further discussions with SHU should take place to establish whether a viable package of proposals can be arrived at.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.75 The Neighbourhoods Background Report sets out how applications for development in Housing Areas will be assessed. The designated Housing Area in this sub-area already meets the required threshold of 70% dominance for preferred C2 and C3 residential class uses. Maintenance of this residential character will be delivered primarily through development management.

2.76 There is little risk that the preferred residential uses would not remain dominant across the Housing Areas given the relative strength of the housing market here. Policy H1 does allow flexibility for other small-scale commercial uses, incidental open space and other community uses that are compatible with residential use.

Monitoring

2.77 The mix of uses within Housing Areas will be assessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Neighbourhoods Background Report.

` Conclusions on Housing Policy Area

2.78 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons

2.79 It is positively prepared:

• It helps meet objectively assessed development requirements for the future supply of housing. • It helps guide the recycling of previously developed land and other windfall sites to maximise supply of new housing (policy CS24).

-23-

2.80 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives on where new housing should be located (policy CS23) and new housing opportunities are set out in the site allocations (see Chapter 3). • There are no realistic alternative options to designating established residential areas in this sub-area as Housing Areas.

2.81 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because residential class uses already predominate and there is little risk of this position not being maintained. • It provides scope to allow development of unforeseen complementary uses such as a new primary school.

2.82 It is consistent with national policy:

• It is consistent with the core principle of delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (NPPF, section 6) in that it identifies where housing should remain the dominant land use and hosts some site allocations that will deliver new properties. • It supports healthy communities by protecting the residential character of their neighbourhoods (NPPF, paragraph 7)

Flexible Use Policy Area

2.83 The sub-area contains two proposed transitional areas covered by a Flexible Use Area designation. The first is a small business and industrial area at the lower end of Valley Road in Heeley. The second is a section of commercial frontage on Abbeydale Road between St. Ronans Road and Empire Road. This new designation results from the sub-division of the former Abbeydale Road Local Shopping Centre into three discrete Neighbourhood Centres as described at paragraphs 2.46 - 2.49 above.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.84 These Flexible Use Areas, with a range of housing-compatible uses but no preferred uses, specifically support the core planning principle of promoting mixed use developments and encouraging multiple benefits from the use of land (paragraph 17).

-24-

2.85 The main purpose of these policy areas in this sub-area is to deliver the benefits envisaged in national policy by enabling mixed development, including new housing uses, to come forward in areas that are in transition from commercial or older industrial uses. These transition areas also support the core planning principle of delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. In particular, they help encourage a change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings where there is a need for more housing (paragraph 51).

Core Strategy

2.86 There are no specific spatial policies that call for the use of this policy area designation within any part of the South Community Assembly Area. However, a Flexible Use Area gives an opportunity for some mixed commercial areas within this sub-area to enlarge adjoining neighbourhoods where people live by introducing more housing or other sensitive uses. The approach therefore contributes to objectives for sustaining, restoring or creating vital and successful neighbourhoods (Core Strategy, paragraph 3.13). It also helps to recycle previously developed land and buildings in preference to using more greenfield land (Core Strategy, paragraph 3.30).

Justification

Alternative Options

2.87 In the UDP, the Valley Road area was previously designated as part of a narrow linear Business and Industry Area located on the eastern edge of the Heeley District Centre. It consists of a small enclave of industrial premises, offices and some yard uses that are surrounded on three sides by established housing areas. Being at the southern end of a commercial zone, it is somewhat isolated from other businesses and is peripheral to the main Sheaf Valley industrial corridor. Given its proximity to housing, it is no longer appropriate to maintain it as part of a Business and Industry Area or as a discrete General Employment Area. Both of those designations support general industry (class B2) and warehouse and storage (class B8) uses which would prolong land use conflict with the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

2.88 The area contains no housing at present and therefore it would be premature to designate it within a Housing Area where there is a 70% dominance requirement for residential class uses. A Flexible Use Area would be better for exploring the opportunity, over time, to introduce some residential use alongside any compatible business uses. This would both provide useful additional housing and improve the management of conflicts that the current industrial activity is having on the wider neighbourhood.

2.89 In the UDP, the proposed Abbeydale Road Flexible Use Area was previously designated as part of an extended Local Shopping Centre. Paragraph 2.46 of this report refers to the difficulty of sustaining the vitality of this elongated centre in

-25-

future given the loss of shopping (class A1) uses and increasing vacancies experienced over the last 15 years. The frontage along this section of Abbeydale Road from the Mother of God RC Church to the Abbeydale Picture Palace currently contains no housing at ground floor level. At present this is a weak basis on which to justify subsuming the area into the surrounding Housing Area.

2.90 Only 6% of the properties in this affected section of the commercial spine are used as A1 convenience stores. Although the section contains other A1 units it would be difficult to sustain the shop frontage policy C4 along this particular length. The retained Neighbourhood Centres described in paragraph 2.47 above are in more nodal locations where footfall via more direct walking routes is likely to be heavier. There is therefore less need to try to protect retail character throughout this particular section against impacts where new retail development is drawn to more viable locations.

2.91 A Flexible Use Area designation is a superior option here because unlike a Neighbourhood Centre it does not prevent conversion of ground floor units in the street frontage to residential use and there is now more need to encourage such change to deliver additional housing in the City. The proposed designation also gives more scope for bringing in leisure facilities, craft uses and food and drink outlets (classes A3 and A4) to complement existing specialist shops, including antique trading.

Sustainability Issues

2.92 The designated locations offer sustainable areas for the residential and residential-friendly uses favoured by this policy area type. The impacts would mainly be positive and similar to those for the Housing Areas across this sub-area (see paragraph 2.69 above).

Equality Issues

2.93 The good access to regular public transport and other community facilities will benefit most of the defined impact groups. Consequently there are no equality reasons for questioning the application of these policy area designations.

Consultee Preferences

2.94 The only comment raised during the Consultation Draft stage (2010) that bears on the Abbeydale Road Flexible Use Area has already been covered at paragraph 2.52 above as it relates to the proposed subdivision of the Abbeydale Road area into separate Neighbourhood Centres.

-26-

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.95 Market forces will determine the extent of changes within the Flexible Use Areas with development management playing an important role. The Neighbourhoods Background Report sets out how applications in Flexible Use Areas will be assessed.

2.96 The flexibility of the area designation will enable a range of compatible developments over time to respond to the needs of the area and changing market conditions. There is minimal risk of planning requirements delaying development.

Monitoring

2.97 There are no requirements to maintain dominance for particular uses in these areas. However, the mix and dominance of uses within Flexible Use Areas will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Neighbourhoods Background Report.

` Conclusions on Flexible Use Policy Area

2.98 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

2.99 It is positively prepared:

• It adheres to the plan-making requirement in national policy to promote development and flexible use of land (NPPF, paragraph 157). • It assists the market to bring forward development in these opportunity areas without prescriptive constraints on land use.

2.100 It is justified:

• It is the most appropriate when considered against other potential policy designations as it provides flexibility for a mix of uses that relate well to sensitive uses in adjoining areas.

2.101 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because it does not insist on a dominant land use character to evolve in these areas over that time span.

2.102 It is consistent with national policy:

• It adheres to the core principle of promoting mixed development (NPPF, paragraph 17).

-27-

• It avoids unnecessarily designating these areas entirely for employment uses which allows alternative uses to be brought forward in response to market signals (NPPF, paragraph 22). • It helps manage the contraction of a particular shopping centre experiencing lower market demand (NPPF, paragraph 23).

Open Space Policy Area

2.103 This sub-area contains multi-functional open spaces in District Parks at Meersbrook and Herdings and in Local Parks at Broadfield Road and Heeley Millennium Park. Large woodland areas exist in the Gleadless Valley and Leeshall and there are several smaller informal areas dispersed throughout the area. There are several schools with playing fields, some private playing fields, allotment gardens and large playgrounds at Gregory Road and Gleadless Common. The River Sheaf is a main river corridor offering a key route for wildlife and pedestrians and cyclists along its banks. Gleadless Valley contains another strategic Green Corridor connecting to the open countryside to the south and integrating with urban parks and other woodlands to the north.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

2.104 The policy area designation conforms to and contributes to the delivery of national policy in furthering the environmental dimension of sustainable development (paragraph 7). In particular, the designation contributes to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and improvement of biodiversity. More specifically, the policy area links with section 8 of the NPPF on promoting healthy communities and with paragraph 73 which highlights the importance of access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. The policy designation delivers the protection for identified open spaces that are not considered surplus to requirements (paragraph 74).

Core Strategy

2.105 The identified open spaces deliver on the spatial vision of the Local Plan to have ‘A City that prizes, protects and enhances its natural environment and distinctive heritage and that promotes high-quality buildings and spaces’ (paragraph 3.4). The open spaces help to fulfil the set of objectives for protecting the various green assets listed under that vision statement.

2.106 The policy area designation implements the safeguarding of open space under policy CS47 because it identifies all valuable open spaces of 0.4 hectares or more in size that are not already in the Green Belt. Some of these are also shown

-28-

symbolically on the Proposals Map as being linked as part of the City’s Strategic Green Network in line with policy CS73.

Justification

Alternative Options

2.107 Open Space Areas are extensive across the sub-area. They identify all types of valued open spaces and ancillary buildings across the formal and informal categories listed in paragraph 9.26 of the Core Strategy. Some of them also have ecological value and carry an additional Local Nature Site or Local Nature Reserve designation. They are supported by the findings of an Open Space Audit completed in 2008 and similar audits for outdoor sports facilities contained in the Playing Pitch Strategy 2011 and its update completed earlier this year. In the circumstances, there are no realistic alternative options for these areas that would not either impair their present or potential value and/or sever important green networks.

2.108 In their extent, the Open Space Areas are very similar to equivalent areas designated under UDP policy LR4 and shown on the UDP Proposals Map. The opportunity has been taken to refine and extend some Open Space Areas where land has subsequently been recognised as having a clear value as open space. New riverside amenity open space has been added on the opposite bank to the Broadfield Road Local Park within the Sheaf Valley. Informal areas with ecological value have been included next to housing estates at Raeburn Place and Fleury Road and the historic garden making up the grounds of the Cooke and Beard Homes at Meersbrook has also been added. Recreation space within the grounds of schools has been enlarged at Bank Wood Primary School, the former Hemsworth Primary School and the reconfigured Newfield Secondary School. The new Gleadless Valley Primary School has been built to a different footprint and the surrounding recreation area has been altered on the Proposals Map accordingly. Ancillary changing facilities for the University of Sheffield’s Norton Playing Field have been added on the frontage of Warminster Road.

2.109 Some formerly designated open space will be lost at Sheffield Hallam University’s Hemsworth Road Playing field as part of the enabling development proposed on Site P00511 (see paragraph 3.36).

Sustainability Issues

2.110 Open Space Areas have not been appraised as the sub-area contains no site allocation proposals for new open space. However, Policy CS47 safeguards identified and other open spaces and this was appraised as part of the submission of the Core Strategy. The designated open spaces are likely to be positive for the majority of sustainability objectives, particularly those relating to good leisure/recreation facilities, maintenance of quality natural landscapes,

-29-

protection of historic parks and gardens and conservation of wildlife sites. There are no sustainability issues created by the designation of these areas.

Equality Issues

2.111 The designation of an extensive open space network serving residential communities will be beneficial to most of the identified impact groups. Consequently, there are no equality reasons for questioning this policy area designation.

Consultee Preferences

2.112 Suggestions from Gleadless Valley Wildlife Group (ID 2220) at Preferred Options stage to designate small parcels of land at Gleadless Road/Spotswood Road as an Open Space Area and at Fleury Road as an Open Space/ Local Nature Site were taken up. Those spaces are considered to have landscape and nature conservation value that warrant explicit protection in the Plan. Small additions were also agreed, at their suggestion (ID 2225), to recognise informal woodland and landscaped areas fronting Gleadless Road and the western end of Hangram Bank Wood.

2.113 At the same consultation stage, an individual (ID 2334) sought to zone a further area of private allotments off Warminster Road for residential purposes (see agreed change to Housing Area recorded earlier at paragraph 2.66). These remaining allotments are still viable and the proposal to change their designation was rejected as there is no evidence that they are surplus to need.

2.114 As already mentioned above (see paragraph 2.72), Sheffield Hallam University (ID 1562 and dpm 203) have argued that their playing field at Hemsworth Road should be added to the Housing Area on the basis of prior replacement. This was rejected as the replacement pitches were already in existence when the university took them over. The Hemsworth Road site had also been identified as having potential to meet a shortage of outdoor pitches in South Sheffield in the 2011 Playing Pitch Strategy adopted by the City Council. Paragraph 2.74 covers the preferences expressed in favour of reducing the Open Space designation during consultation on the Additional Site Allocation Options.

2.115 From the reasons given at the time, it can be inferred that those objecting to partial development of the Hemsworth Road site wished the Open Space designation to be retained for the whole sports field. The objections raised included the following issues.

• Loss of valuable recreation space that could be put to various uses • Disruption to the local road network • Lack of capacity in local schools • Overlooking impacts on adjoining residents

-30-

• The use of local and other brownfield sites as alternatives for housing • Access requiring the demolition of some fit properties belonging to SHU • Incompatibility of sports pitches with new housing

2.116 On the basis of its updated Playing Pitch Strategy (2011), the Council rejects the view that these playing fields are surplus to requirements because they have the potential to meet latent demand for cricket and other organised team games. However, the University is not prepared to make the playing field available to interested clubs without the benefit of selling some of the site for housing. The Council is not in a position to take over the management of this site for sport even if it were made available. None of the issues raised in paragraph 2.115 necessarily prevent an enabling development on this site. In the circumstances, partial development is seen as the most practical way of restoring sports use on the majority of the site. It is preferable to guide development of the site through a pragmatic conditional site allocation rather than retaining an Open Space Area designation across the whole site and dealing with its potential redevelopment through the development management process alone. Further discussion with SHU should resolve whether this course of action can be agreed in the adopted Plan.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

2.117 The Opportunities and Well-being Background Report sets out how applications for development in Open Space Areas will be assessed. Implementation of change within the Open Space areas would be primarily by the development management process using polices CS47 (Safeguarding Open Space) and CS73 (The Strategic Green Network). Policy G1 (Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity and Features of Geological Importance) would also apply to some Open Space Areas.

2.118 It is expected that the Open Space Areas will change and adapt over time in line with their local value and use. There is a risk that maintenance of recreation space may be reduced or withdrawn and, as a result, an open space becomes less attractive and run down. CS47 specifically deals with safeguarding open space and contains specific criteria to determine whether an open space is truly redundant. Development proposals involving the loss of identified open space will be assessed against the provisions of this policy. Occasionally, as in the case of SHU’s Hemsworth Road redundant playing field, early release and delivery of improvements to open spaces in private ownership may depend on whether a competitive return, involving partial development, is needed by the landowner.

-31-

Monitoring

2.119 Open Space Assessments, carried out as part of the development management process, will identify where development may affect provision of Open Space in a local area. The extent and value of Open Space Policy Areas will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Opportunities and Well-being Background Report.

` Conclusions on Open Space Policy Area

2.120 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

2.121 It is positively prepared:

• It meets objectively assessed infrastructure requirements to provide areas of open space to meet the recreation needs of people living or working in the area. • It supports the continuation of existing and locally valued areas for their recreation and/or wildlife value.

2.122 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver specific Local Plan objectives for safeguarding open space (policy CS47). • It is the most appropriate given that generally these areas already exist and are identified for protection.

2.123 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period as these are existing open spaces and they are expected to be retained.

2.124 It is consistent with national policy:

• It identifies areas of open space to be safeguarded from development consistent with NPPF Objective 8 ‘Promoting healthy communities’. This sets out the importance of access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation (paragraph 73). Paragraph 74 protects existing open space where it is needed.

-32-

3 SOUTH EAST URBAN AREA ALLOCATED SITES

Introduction

3.1 Most of the sites proposed for allocation in the City Policies and Sites document are safeguarded for one, or sometimes more than one, required use. A few sites are allocated where uses would be determined through the policy area framework, although this does not currently apply to any sites in this Community Assembly Area. In these cases, flexibility is considered more desirable than certainty about a required use. The general reasoning for this is briefly summarised in the City Policies and Sites document. This chapter and chapter 5 provide further background on individual sites. All allocations are subject to the provision of citywide policies and criteria set out in the Core Strategy and City Policies and Sites documents (see Policy J1 and paragraph 12.12 in the latter document). This chapter refers to evidence that is distinctive to the allocated sites.

3.2 Evidence is provided in respect of four Housing Sites and one Mixed Use Site (including housing) in this sub-area. There are no site allocations proposed in the Sheaf Valley part of the Community Assembly Area.

Housing Sites

3.3 Three of the allocations are cleared sites in the Gleadless Valley Ward and the fourth is a redundant dairy distribution depot at Norton Woodseats in the Graves Park Ward. Evidence is essentially very similar for this cluster of sites and they are therefore grouped in order to avoid repetition.

Introduction

3.4 The housing sites are all in established residential areas, surrounded by other housing. They all comprise previously developed land or buildings that provide opportunities for regeneration and diversification of the housing offer. They can help strengthen the housing market in their neighbourhoods by providing modern and efficient homes in a variety of sizes and tenure types and with an improved layout, including larger properties to meet the needs of diverse communities in the area. In total, they could provide around 230 new homes at densities appropriate to their locations.

3.5 The site allocations are as follows

• P00356 Next to 45 Spring Close Mount, Gleadless Valley • P00360 Gaunt Road (previously 95-381), Hemsworth • P00361 Former Hemsworth School, Blackstock Road • P00499 Dairy Distribution Centre, Hemsworth Road, Norton

-33-

National Policy and Other Strategies

National policy

3.6 All of the proposed housing site allocations in this sub-area conform to the NPPF and Core Strategy policies set out in relation to Housing Areas at paragraphs 2.62 and 2.63 above. The site allocations specifically deliver the NPPF requirement (paragraph 47) to identify a supply of deliverable and developable sites to meet objectively assessed needs for housing over the plan period.

Core Strategy

3.7 All of the sites maximise the use of previously developed land in line with Core Strategy policy CS24. Two of the sites (P00361 and P00499) are suitable for early development in accordance with the contingency arrangements established in policy CS25.

Justification

Alternative Options

3.8 Although they have been disused for some time, these sites do not have sufficient ecological or recreational value to warrant their protection as open spaces. Early development of these sites would prevent them from becoming eyesores and would therefore benefit the surrounding neighbourhoods. Similarly, there are no requirements to use any of these sites for local shops or particular community facilities. Consequently, no alternative options have been considered for these sites consistent with their designation within Housing Areas.

3.9 There has been developer interest in all of these sites in the recent past. Three of the sites (P00356; P00360 and P00361) have previously obtained planning consent for housing and the fourth site (P00499) is currently the subject of an application to build housing at the time of writing. They all benefit from safe access to frequent local bus services and access to other infrastructure such as local shops and services, parks and woodlands. No meaningful alternatives to their use for housing have been advanced during consultations on the Plan.

Justification for Conditions

3.10 There are some site specific conditions for all of the proposed site allocations as detailed below.

3.11 Site P00356 (next to 45 Spring Close Mount) comprises the site of a former farm building and its immediate curtilage. The allocation has conditions to retain trees on site and to provide suitable drainage for extra surface water. The

-34-

former is needed to acknowledge the constraint posed by a Tree Preservation Order covering some 20 trees on this site. The latter acknowledges that Yorkshire Water has identified that measures will be necessary to overcome a sewerage constraint due to limited capacity in the existing public sewer network. As part of the planning consent for 57 apartments (11/00986/FUL), there have already been discussions with the applicant on using a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS) to assist with reducing surface water run-off. The developer has also accepted retention of existing trees on this site. The conditions are considered essential and they would not prejudice the viability of development on this site.

3.12 Site P00360 (Gaunt Road) was previously used for 13 blocks of maisonettes with their associated amenity areas. It has a similar condition to site P00356 on provision for extra surface water as it is affected by the same constraint. The second condition relates to safeguarding trees on this site and reducing the impact of development on an adjoining nature conservation area. This is needed to protect some trees on site and to ensure sympathetic boundary treatment on the western edge next to Leeshall Wood, which is an ancient woodland and designated as part of the Gleadless Valley Local Nature Reserve (LNR). This area contains meadows and significant groups of trees quite close to the site boundary. Both of these conditions are considered as reasonable requirements and they should not prejudice the viability of development on this site.

3.13 Site P00361 (former Hemsworth School) consists of the footprint area of the former primary school building together with associated hardstanding areas. The adjoining playing field, including a wooded area next to Hemsworth Road, lies outside of the site and is safeguarded through an Open Space Area designation. The site allocation contains a single bespoke condition to retain trees on site, particularly those fronting onto Mawfa Lane. In practice, unless the development site is reconfigured by swapping parcels of land within the adjoining Open Space Area, the large trees adjacent to Mawfa Lane are unlikely to be affected by new development. The condition will support the retention or necessary replacement of viable groups of trees within the allocated area that have landscape or amenity value. As such, the condition is warranted and it should not prejudice the viability of the new housing proposed on this site.

3.14 Site P00499 (former Dairy Centre on Hemsworth Road) comprises a set of ten vacant buildings, including a group that made up a former farm complex (known as Cowmouth Farm), all of which were built or converted to operate as a specialised dairy. The property is no longer required for business purposes and it has recently been sold to a housing developer. There are two bespoke conditions, the first of which protects some mature trees on site that have landscape or amenity value.

3.15 The other condition requires new residential development to retain and re-use four buildings of heritage value which comprise the former courtyard plan farm

-35-

complex close to the Hemsworth Road frontage. This is needed to ensure that redevelopment of the site carefully considers the case for re-using three eighteenth century residential and agricultural buildings along with an attached nineteenth century cow-house. Despite their age, English Heritage has declined to list these buildings because they are considered to be compromised by some detrimental alterations and additions. Nevertheless, they are a candidate for local listing because they have some architectural and historic value for the immediate neighbourhood which is otherwise devoid of such character. The detailed case for their retention and conversion as part of a housing site allocation is set out in a published report that the Council commissioned from a firm of archaeological consultants4.

3.16 Given the archaeological assessment that has been undertaken, the City Council is clear that there would be merit in retaining the U-shaped complex of four buildings making up the former farmstead on this site. The original farmhouse represents an essential element of the historic interest present on the site. It is accepted that it may require a high level of intervention to convert the group of four buildings into residential use and a developer may have concerns about the cost of completing such works. In view of the rarity of such eighteenth century farm buildings in the area, it is, nevertheless, considered reasonable to make their retention a consideration within this site allocation. In the absence of a full building appraisal confirming otherwise, it is assumed that this particular condition would not seriously prejudice the viability of a comprehensive development of the site for housing purposes.

Sustainability Issues

3.17 The only realistic alternative to residential development of these sites and buildings is to leave them vacant and therefore prone to vandalism or anti-social behaviour. This would lose an opportunity to recycle urban land and make better use of existing infrastructure and local facilities available in these neighbourhoods. In the case of site P00499, the lack of a positive proposal there could risk a return of another non-conforming use setting up in this residential area.

3.18 All the sites have a very positive performance for residential development measured against the appraisal objectives. They will all improve housing choice in their neighbourhoods and help to sustain local services. The sites are in close proximity to a range of community assets including local shops, parks and woodland. The public transport network is safe and accessible to use and runs to high frequencies. None of the sites are exposed to high risks of flooding or poor air quality. The conditions attached to site P00499 should lead to conserving a locally cherished heritage asset in the form of an historic farmstead.

4 See the following link https://sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city/planning-documents/local-plan/city- policies-and-sites/survey-reports.html

-36-

3.19 Family housing on these sites could stretch the capacity of local schools but this can be resolved through distribution and management of capacity at the time. Alternatively, further funding for places could be provided either through developer contributions or priority spending from the forthcoming Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Equality Issues

3.20 Housing on these sites will benefit people with low access to private transport because they all benefit from regular and frequent bus services and good access to shops and parks. The sites should be beneficial to residents in various groups as they will be able to access a range of house types and tenures to suit their needs. Implementation of the current permission for 1- bedroom apartments on site P00356 could particularly benefit the young and elderly groups. Wheelchair accessible housing will need to use the flatter parts of sites P00356 and P00360 to mitigate problems caused for users by the topography in those locations.

Consultee Preferences

3.21 At Preferred Options stage, Sport England (ID1753) commented that an open space needs assessment compliant with PPG17 might be required on site P00361 on the basis that residential development might impact on the school playing fields. This was considered unnecessary as the development site is limited to the former building footprint and immediate curtilage of the former primary school and has no effect on its former playing field.

3.22 At the same stage, Gleadless Valley Wildlife Group (ID2235 and ID2236) sought minor adjustments to the boundary of site P00360 to facilitate a wider buffer zone for a hedgerow and meadow areas in the adjoining LNR. This was rejected as adequate buffer areas had already been allowed for in defining the western boundary of the site allocation.

3.23 At Consultation Draft stage (2010), agents (dcps 406) acting for the Cooperative Group sought a residential allocation for what is now site P00499 on the basis that it was both suitable and available for such a use. Officers agreed and put the site forward provisionally as a housing site during consultation on additional options early in 2012. At the time, the proposed option was that new housing development should include the retention and re-use of the original farmhouse and outbuildings with confirmation of the site allocation to be subject to the outcome of an archaeological survey/building appraisal.

3.24 The provisional allocation was supported by the Cooperative Group as landowners (ASAO717), Natural England (ASAO 610) and 12 other respondents at the Additional Site Allocation Options stage (2012). A local councillor (ASAO332) and another individual were neutral on this proposal but stated their

-37-

wish to see the existing cottages retained on the site. The Cooperative Group also argued that the attached condition on buildings retention was imprecise and not justified in planning, archaeological or heritage terms and that without more flexible wording it could render a scheme unviable. The provisional site allocation was opposed by the Local MP (ASAO261), Norton History Group (ASA O567), Friends of Graves Park (ASAO593) and 18 other respondents. Their principal concerns were -

(a) some of the buildings were in productive use by an organisation training adults with learning difficulties; (b) insufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate more children; (c) increased congestion on the local road network and an unsafe vehicular access point

3.25 The interim training use of the site by Spectrum has now ceased and the property has been sold. The Council’s highway officers confirm that the local road network can support more development and the Education Service has confirmed that any capacity problems in local schools can be resolved by using developer contributions or CIL funding if necessary. The Council has therefore included the site allocation in the current document using the findings of the archaeological survey (see paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 above) to clarify which buildings should be retained. The more modern agricultural and commercial buildings have negligible value and can be replaced by new homes.

Effectiveness

Delivery

3.26 The Council owns site P00360 and site P00361 and they will be disposed of on the open market for private development with the benefit of informal planning guidance. Planning approval for a care home on site P00361 was not implemented and consent has now expired. However there is current market interest in the site and it is therefore estimated for completion in the short term (by 2016). There are more constraints on site P00360 as the steep topography will require a degree of engineering works to achieve satisfactory vehicular access and some re-configuration of the site. However, residential development is achievable and completion is estimated by 2021.

3.27 Site P00356 is in private ownership and will be privately developed. It has full planning permission for 57 apartments in two blocks but work is yet to start on site. The developer needs to acquire some small parcels of land from the Council to implement the current consent and discussions on this matter are on- going. Any development here has to work with a steeply sloping site surrounded by a number of valuable trees. The current consent demonstrates that this is possible and completion is therefore estimated to be in the medium term (2018).

-38-

3.28 Site P00499 has recently been sold to an interested developer who has just submitted a planning application (13/01919/FUL) to demolish all buildings apart from the original farmhouse and build 14 dwellings. The Council will need to carefully consider the case for demolishing some buildings that are required to be retained in the proposed site allocation. If a satisfactory scheme can be negotiated then development should be possible in the short-term (by 2016).

Flexibility and Risk

3.29 Delivery of sites in private ownership will depend heavily on market conditions. If when the Council markets site P00361 it is shown to be commercially marginal, it may be possible to seek an enlargement of the site by including some open space around it and replacing the area that is lost to other land in Council ownership locally so long as it provides equivalent space and functions. Alternatively, there may be some scope for the Council to consider developing affordable housing using available mechanisms within the Housing Revenue Account.

Monitoring

3.30 This will be through SHLAA and the development management process.

Conclusions on Soundness of Housing Allocations

3.31 The allocation of the sites for housing is considered sound for the following reasons.

3.32 The proposals are positively prepared:

• Such site allocations are a central part of maintaining a positive vision for the City and its neighbourhoods.

• They provide clarity for decision-makers on what should be permitted on specific sites in line with plan-making requirements set out in national policy (NPPF paragraph 154).

3.33 They are justified:

• They help implement the Core Strategy spatial strategy in respect of the South East Urban Area because they promote objectives for transforming housing markets, successful neighbourhoods, reducing the need to travel, supporting sustainable transport and improving the look and performance of urban areas (Core Strategy paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20).

-39-

• They help implement strategic policies on land recycling and the location and phasing of housing sites in the Core Strategy (CS23, CS24 and CS25).

• They are all in sustainable locations within established residential neighbourhoods that have good access to local amenities and regular public transport services.

• There are no compelling reasons to use these sites for non-residential purposes.

• The specific conditions attached to the allocations are essential for sustainable development and they will not prejudice the viability of proposed development.

3.34 They will be effective:

• They are free from major constraints and market interest should ensure that they are delivered during the plan period.

3.35 They are consistent with national policy:

• They are consistent with key principles (NPPF paragraphs 7 and 17) of meeting housing needs, focusing development in sustainable locations and recycling urban land with lesser environmental value.

• They specifically implement the policy to identify the necessary supply of deliverable and developable housing sites for the plan period (NPPF paragraph 47).

• They also encourage some housing re-use of business property that is no longer required (NPPF paragraph 51).

Mixed Use Site

3.36 This sub-area has a single Mixed Use site with two preferred uses of housing and open space. The site allocation is referred to as

• P00511 Former SHU Playing Fields, Hemsworth Road, Norton

Introduction

3.37 The site is a former sports ground off Hemsworth Road owned by Sheffield Hallam University and previously used by University sports teams. The playing fields have been disused for more than 10 years when the University moved

-40-

their principal sports facilities to Bawtry Road. The land is approximately 4 hectares in size and accommodated 2 senior football pitches, 2 rugby union pitches, a cricket pitch and some tennis courts. The land is no longer regularly maintained as sports fields and is surplus to the University’s requirements. Local sports clubs have approached the University wishing to lease the grounds which now need a significant investment to restore them to an acceptable quality. The whole site is designated as an Open Space Area in the UDP to acknowledge its value as recreational open space.

3.38 The University has not been prepared to release all of their land to local clubs preferring instead to explore options involving partial or full development of the site for housing to help contribute to its future capital expenditure programmes. In an attempt to find a creative way to resolve this issue, officers consulted on a proposal to allow partial development of the playing field as part of the Additional Site Allocations Options stage in 2012. This proposal was put forward as a way of inducing the landowner to share disposal receipts to help fund the necessary capital costs in restoring the remaining land as a sports field that could meet specific needs arising from the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy (2011).

National Policy and Other Strategies

National policy

3.39 The links with national policy for the underlying Housing and Open Space Areas are set out in paragraphs 2.62 and 2.104 respectively. The residential component of this site allocation specifically delivers the NPPF requirement (paragraph 47) to identify a supply of deliverable and developable sites to meet objectively assessed needs for housing over the plan period. Crucially, the allocation will enable people living in a sector of the City to access new high quality sport and recreation facilities that are needed in that area (NPPF paragraph 73).

Core Strategy

3.40 The connections with Core Strategy policy are those referred to in paragraphs 2.63 and 2.105-2.106.

Justification

Alternative Options

3.41 Given that the site is surrounded by housing and has been disused for some time, the landowner has suggested re-use of their site for new housing. The Council has not considered the option of allocating the whole site for housing because these former playing fields are capable of being restored to meet identified needs for additional pitches in the South Sheffield area. Although an assessment has shown that locally (within a 15 minute walking zone) the

-41-

provision for formal outdoor sport exceeds the recommended standard of 1.12 hectares of space per 1,000 people by around 40%, such assessments also need to be interpreted alongside the findings of regular audits of open space provision that use broader analysis areas. They also need to take into account the quality of the available provision.

3.42 A detailed audit of playing pitches carried out in 2005 recommended retaining this particular sports site because its size and level nature gave potential for quality multi-pitch provision. In particular, the site was seen as having potential to remedy a deficiency in provision of cricket pitches in a sector of the City that otherwise had limited opportunities to meet this need. An update of the Playing Pitch Strategy (2011), which analysed provision at a Community Assembly Area level, confirmed that the South Area still required an extra cricket pitch to meet future needs. In addition, it also highlighted a significant net shortage for mini soccer and youth football pitches even allowing for the re-designation of surplus adult pitches in the area.

3.43 The Strategy noted that a local cricket club (Millhouses Works CC) were seeking a new home ground for its teams and that as a Yorkshire Cricket Board (YCB) ‘focus club’ there were good prospects for accessing some development resources for the club’s development plan. The club has approached SHU seeking to lease the Hemsworth Road site. At the same time the Council was made aware that a local junior football club (Norton Lees FC) also viewed Hemsworth Road as an ideal base to centralise and expand their 12 team club.

3.44 In the circumstances, the Council considers that wholesale development of these playing fields is not appropriate in terms of national policy (NPPF 74) as a robust assessment has shown that they are not surplus to future requirements and that the site can satisfy a local demand for the types of pitches that the Strategy says are needed. The Council considers that the Playing Pitch Strategy (2011) is sufficiently up-to-date to have informed this stance. Evidence compiled this year for a further update of the Playing Pitch Strategy does not alter this conclusion. That work has registered that there is still a high level of demand for additional access to cricket pitches (with 5 clubs reporting demand) which is likely to require new provision. Localised assessment, based again on Community Assembly Areas, is also showing a need in South Area for an extra 6.75 hectares of land for playing pitches to cope with latent demand and deficiencies. The new Playing Pitch Strategy has been completed but is currently awaiting Cabinet approval5.

5 The updated Playing Pitch Strategy is due to be considered by the City Council’s Cabinet in Autumn 2013.

-42-

3.45 The two remaining options considered were to:

(a) Not allocate the site for (residential) development and safeguard from any non-recreational development by retaining an Open Space Area designation, or (b) Allocate part of the site for a limited amount of housing to act as enabling development that helps restore the remainder of the site for playing fields and ancillary uses.

3.46 Although it has the merit of preserving a greenfield site, Option (a) is unlikely to lead to early beneficial improvements to the playing fields. To date the landowner has been unwilling to release the site to other parties and if this continues the site will remain vacant and unavailable for public use. Even if the site were to be released, in the current climate it is unlikely that either the Council or local sports clubs, with access to some grant funding, could provide the significant investment required to restore the pitches to an acceptable quality.

3.47 The preferred approach is Option (b) which is the current Mixed Use site allocation. The sale of part of the land for residential development can generate partnership funding that can be used along with grant funding from various sports bodies to provide a suitable mix of facilities that the area needs. Housing is the most appropriate use to share this site because it is situated within an established residential area and is sustainably located relative to local facilities and regular public transport.

3.48 The proposal does involve the loss of some potential pitch provision. However, provided this relates to the minor part of the site this can comply with Core Strategy safeguarding policy CS47 because the local area will still meet the recommended standard for informal and formal open space. More importantly, the development will have secured quality restoration of the remaining pitches which will benefit the local community as indicated in the supporting text to policy CS47 (paragraph 9.23). During the Consultation Draft stage (2010) the University did state its willingness to release the site within the next 5 years on the basis of the proposed land use mix.

Justification for Conditions

3.49 The sole condition attached to the site allocation requires that residential development should not proceed without an agreement to re-instate at least two- thirds (2.67 hectares) of the site for a full-sized cricket oval or other pitches of an appropriate standard and/or another type of open space required to satisfy needs in the district. The proportion of the site that needs to be retained for outdoor sport is largely determined by the dimensions needed for a multi-pitch facility with space allowed for ancillary changing and parking facilities. A standard cricket pitch could require between 1.6 -2.0 hectares including safety run-off space. Other pitches, such as adult and youth football pitches, can be

-43-

laid out on the outfield of the cricket square. Re-instatement of pitches, and in particular a cricket pitch, is the main priority but some flexibility is written into the condition to allow for other forms of open space to be included, such as allotments, if this assists with the viability of the mix.

Sustainability Issues

3.50 A modest housing development on part of this large greenfield site would be sustainable if it also facilitated the re-instatement of quality sports pitches for a sector of the City that will lack such provision. A conditional allocation for a comprehensive mixed development, as proposed, has more positive impacts than negative ones. The residential element would be sited in a sustainable location close to existing houses and local services and although it may put some extra pressure on local schools it should be possible to mitigate the impact by using developer contributions or priority funding from the CIL if necessary.

3.51 A housing development that helps to secure the permanent re-instatement of quality pitches would meet future acknowledged needs for extra sports provision in South Sheffield. The alternative of leaving the site vacant would preserve its greenfield status but without a major intervention it would not lead to beneficial improvement of this open space

Equality Issues

3.52 Good access to regular bus services on Hemsworth Road would be beneficial to younger residents and those residents with low access to private transport. The site is currently unavailable for open space, so the proposal would increase access to good quality open space as well as the facilities already available within Graves Park. This will be beneficial for most of the impact groups. There are therefore no equality reasons for questioning this allocation.

Consultee Preferences

3.53 The content and nature of comments received at Consultation Draft stage on this site allocation have already been covered in parts of the sections of this report dealing with the sub-area’s Open Space Areas (paragraphs 2.72-2.74) and Housing Areas (paragraphs 2.114-2.116). In agreeing to the allocation, SHU (ASAO 533) observed that it reflected the most appropriate balance between development and investment in sports facilities in the area. It did, however, object to an estimated capacity of 40 dwellings on the site. That figure was only supplied as background context for the consultation and it does not feature in the site allocation proposal.

3.54 The comment from Sport England (ASAO 523) appreciated that the site represented an opportunity to address a potential shortage for cricket in this location as mentioned in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy. It also advised limiting housing to land that was incapable of accommodating a pitch in line with

-44-

an exceptions category in its own Playing Fields Policy. In securing a viable comprehensive scheme, it should be acknowledged that it may not be possible to adhere strictly to that approach and the location of the enabling housing will depend largely on where a new access to the site is secured.

3.55 None of the issues raised in objections summarised in paragraph 2.115 necessarily prevent an enabling development on this site. In particular, there are no insurmountable problems in siting sports facilities next to new and existing houses. New housing development will have to comply with standards for maintaining a reasonable level of privacy for existing and new residents.

Effectiveness

Delivery

3.56 A co-ordinated scheme needs to be developed and funded by the landowner/developer who will then lease the sports facilities to a club or clubs to operate. This is likely to involve the sponsor in making grant applications to sporting bodies to generate the necessary capital funding to deliver the project. Bodies such as the Football Foundation, English Cricket Board and Sport England are possible sources for capital funding based on informal consultation carried out with them so far. Following the development of a workable scheme the sponsor will need to apply for planning consent before marketing the opportunity with the benefit of a residential planning consent. To allow time for this to take place completion is estimated to be in the medium term (by 2021).

3.57 The means of vehicular access for this combined development are still to be determined. The University has an option to demolish property in its ownership if other alternatives such as access via site P00499 are not available. It may be necessary to conduct a bat scoping survey at planning application stage to advise whether further action and a license from Natural England are needed.

Flexibility and Risk

3.58 The siting of potential housing development has not been determined by the allocation and the policy areas shown on the Proposals Map are purely indicative and not meant to constrain options for a successful scheme that complies with the conditions stated for this site. Delivery of the proposal rests with the landowner/developer who is likely to require a competitive return to fully engage with this project. Recent correspondence with agents acting for SHU have raised some doubts as to whether it is prepared to facilitate the project on the basis of some feasibility work that has been carried out. It should be noted, however, that the sports mix is not overly prescriptive and that ancillary facilities such as changing accommodation can be provided to a range of standards. Further discussions with SHU will take place to establish a viable package of proposals that can be delivered on this site.

-45-

Monitoring

3.59 This will be through Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and the development management process.

Conclusions on Soundness of Mixed UseAllocation

3.60 The allocation of this site for housing and open space is considered sound for the following reasons.

3.61 It is positively prepared:

• The site allocation is a central part of maintaining a positive vision for the City and a creative way of enhancing the use of land in a particular neighbourhood (NPPF, paragraph 17). • It provides clarity for decision-makers on what should be permitted on a specific site in line with plan-making requirements set out in national policy (NPPF, paragraph 154).

3.62 It is justified:

• It helps implement the Core Strategy spatial strategy in respect of the South East Urban Area because it promotes objectives for transforming housing markets, successful neighbourhoods, reducing the need to travel, supporting sustainable transport and improving the look and performance of urban areas (Core Strategy, paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20).

• It helps implement strategic policies on land recycling and the location and phasing of housing sites in the Core Strategy (CS23, CS24 and CS25).

• The housing element is in a sustainable location within an established residential neighbourhood that has good access to local amenities and regular public transport services.

• The former playing field is of a quality that merits re-instatement to meet future needs for sports provision (particularly cricket) in an area that is otherwise constrained by topography.

• The specific conditions attached to the allocation are essential for sustainable development and they will not prejudice the viability of proposed development.

3.63 It will be effective:

• It is free from major constraints and market and community interest should ensure that it is delivered during the plan period.

-46-

3.64 It is consistent with national policy:

• It adheres to the core principle of promoting mixed development (NPPF paragraph 17).

• It specifically implements the policy to identify the necessary supply of deliverable and developable housing sites for the plan period (NPPF paragraph 47).

• It restores access to high quality sports provision and thereby contributes to the health and well-being of communities in the surrounding area (NPPF paragraph 73).

Sites no Longer Included

3.65 A number of sites were proposed for allocation at previous consultation stages that are now withdrawn. The table below sets out why they are no longer included.

3.66 Preferred Options (2007)

Site Number Type Allocation Reason 813 Midhill Road Housing Site Developed

811 Anns Grove Housing Allow greater flexibility in School using Listed Building

822 Heeley Bank Housing Allow greater flexibility in Centre using Listed Building

914 Broadfield Business or Industry Site Developed Business Park, Little London Road

-47-

PART 2 SOUTH & WEST URBAN CORE STRATEGY AREA

4 SOUTH & WEST URBAN AREA POLICY AREAS

4.1 There are eight types of policy area represented across this sub-area.

Business Policy Area

4.2 There is only one Business Area proposed in this sub-area, located at the current Norton campus of Sheffield College on Bochum Parkway. This is a newly designated area arising from the College’s stated intention to relocate from the site.

4.3 In Business Areas, there are no preferred land uses but it is an employment-led area encouraging offices (class B1a), other class B1 uses, small-scale leisure facilities and with limited scope for some housing. This is provided that:

• Office development is in accordance with policy CS3 ‘Locations for Office Development’. • Leisure development is in accordance with policy CS15 ‘Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments’. • Residential uses (including any student accommodation and hostels) do not cover more than 40% of the gross floorspace in the area.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.4 This area designation supports the economic dimension of sustainable development by identifying a new priority area for economic development to serve South Sheffield (paragraph 21). Because of its flexible nature it also supports the core principle of promoting mixed use development (paragraph 17).

Core Strategy

4.5 Core Strategy policy CS3 promotes office development in the City Centre, other named accessible locations and on high frequency public transport routes. The Norton site is served by several bus routes and therefore qualifies as an appropriate area in principle for small-scale offices under strategic policy CS3c.

4.6 The site already contains leisure and recreational facilities serving the south of the City. Their retention, renewal or expansion within the context of a new Business Area will therefore comply with strategic policy CS15, as there is

-49-

currently no capacity to replace them in existing centres in this sub-area and the form of recreation use may not suit a centre location in any case.

Justification

Alternative Options

4.7 In the UDP, the College site, including the public swimming pool and sports hall, was shown as part of a Business:Institution:Leisure Area that extended along the Outer Ring Road (Bochum Parkway) either side of its junction with Dyche Lane. That designation gave options for any of the uses named in its title but it precluded housing in order to avoid adverse impacts from traffic generated by large scale developments. The indoor tennis centre had not been built at that time and the land on which it now sits was used as playing fields safeguarded by an Open Space Area designation.

4.8 The Business: Institution: Leisure designation has not been taken forward in the Local Plan and there is an opportunity to also review how the built leisure area at the Graves Leisure and Tennis Centre (GLTC) should be zoned in future. It would have been appropriate, in view of its principal and current use for further education purposes, to designate the College campus as a University/College Area. Such areas are designed for class B1b (research and development) and class D1 (non-residential institutions such as education centres) to be the major uses there. However at the Consultation Draft stage in 2010 the College indicated it intended to vacate and dispose of the site. Since there is no requirement for other higher and further education providers to use the vacated site that particular designation is no longer fitting.

4.9 The College site is not contiguous with any existing Housing Area because it is detached from the Jordanthorpe housing estate by the surrounding outdoor pitches and courts of the GLTC. It is also separated from the Norton neighbourhood by the dual carriageway and wide highway verges of the Outer Ring Road. There are no housing elements on the site itself. Therefore, for the purposes of land use policy H1, it is not possible to satisfy the required dominance threshold for preferred residential uses that might justify a discrete Housing Area designation. There are also no proposals to bring forward a site specific allocation for housing purposes here.

4.10 A General Employment Area, favouring employment uses without any housing is not a realistic option for the area either. There is currently no general industry (class B2) or distribution use (class B8) on site that needs to be supported by such a policy. The area also lies well outside of the strategic employment zone in the Sheaf Valley which is providing for these types of uses, along with non- office businesses (classes B1b&B1c), in the South Community Assembly Area.

4.11 The effective choice is therefore limited to one of the other two flexible land use designations that do not require any preferred uses. A Business Area is

-50-

considered preferable to a Flexible Use Area here when key objectives are factored in. A Flexible Use Area would provide policy support for a transition that achieved more housing on the site. However, it does not particularly promote leisure uses that should be sustained or developed as part of the land use mix. In principle, a Business Area can fulfil both of those objectives whilst also giving scope for creating other jobs in small-scale offices and other non- office businesses. These kinds of employment uses could operate without conflict alongside some new on-site housing and existing housing in adjoining neighbourhoods. The site is well located to attract business development because of its ready access to both the Outer Ring Road and the A61 Chesterfield Road South which is a major radial route to and from South Sheffield. It offers good scope for a ‘campus style development’ for offices that may not suit a central location.

Sustainability Issues

4.12 The accepted employment uses in this Policy Area would have positive impacts for provision of jobs, minimising the need to travel, increasing the use of frequent public transport services and making efficient use of previously developed land and existing infrastructure. Any residential component in the Area could also offer decent housing in good surroundings with good access to regular public transport services, local shops and recreational facilities.

Equality Issues

4.13 Local jobs inherent in this designation would be beneficial for those on low incomes and with low access to private transport. In particular, the Area could offer employment and/or training opportunities to the Jordanthorpe/Batemoor neighbourhood which suffers from deprivation and high unemployment levels.

Consultee Preferences

4.14 At Consultation Draft stage (2010) consultants acting on behalf of Sheffield College (dpm109) stated that the college planned to move away from the Norton site and wished to dispose of the site for commercial use. They argued that, in the circumstances, a University/College Area designation was no longer appropriate. Instead, they sought a Business Areas designation for the College campus along with buildings and land forming part of the GTLC, both within and adjoining their campus. That designation was aimed at supporting re-use of the combined site for shops (A1), restaurants and cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4), business (B1), and leisure and recreation facilities (D2) which could help continue the commercial frontage on Bochum Parkway represented by the existing Gilders/Audi Dealership car showrooms.

4.15 The Council has accepted the case for an amendment here and has agreed to designate the college campus (including the public swimming pool and sports hall) together with the indoor tennis hall and car park as a Business Area. Such

-51-

an area could accommodate all the uses desired by the landowners with the scale being subject to the provisos referred to in paragraph 4.3 above. It also has the flexibility to include some housing if this could assist the regeneration of the site.

Effectiveness

Delivery

4.16 Implementation of the policy area will be primarily through the development management process unless the College sees merit in preparing a planning brief for their land. The Economy and City Region Background Report sets out how applications for development in Business Areas will be assessed. The exact mix and quantity and phasing of development within this Business Area will be addressed by the landowners (Sheffield College and Sheffield International Venues).

Flexibility and Risk

4.17 There is a good degree of flexibility with this policy area designation as up to 40% residential development could occur should there be any weakening of market demand for commercial space or a changed focus for local leisure development.

Monitoring

4.18 The mix of uses and dominance of uses within this Policy Area will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Economy and City Region Background Report.

Conclusions on Business Policy Area

4.19 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.20 It is positively prepared:

• It uses forthcoming redundancy of the college site to create a new priority area for economic development in South Sheffield (NPPF, paragraph 21).

4.21 It is justified:

• It delivers the Core Strategy objective of locating small-scale offices in an area accessed by high frequency public transport (policy CS3c). • It is the most appropriate option when considered against possible alternatives as it provides flexibility for a mix of uses with an emphasis on employment.

-52-

• It can support existing and new leisure development serving the South Sheffield area (policy CS15).

4.22 It is effective:

• As a result of having no preferred use, the Area has maximum flexibility to deliver a range of employment generating uses including built leisure during the plan period.

4.23 It is consistent with national policy:

• The designation supports the core planning principle of promoting mixed use development (NPPF, paragraph 17)

General Employment Area

4.24 Two General Employment Areas are designated in this sub-area. The first is the Woodside Quarry Retail Park off Chesterfield Road comprising large format shops selling DIY, gardening products, furniture and carpets. The second area consists of the major car showrooms and vehicle repair facilities of the Gilders/Audi Dealership at Bochum Parkway near the Meadowhead roundabout.

4.25 General Employment Areas are areas with no preferred uses but with acceptable uses supporting an emphasis on employment. They exclude sensitive uses, such as housing, that could impede development of employment uses in keeping with policy A2. The flexibility allows uses to continue or come forward that would best serve the regeneration needs of areas. It also allows large-scale uses that might be constrained in policy areas where only a relatively small percentage of non-preferred uses would be allowed.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.26 This type of flexible use supports the core planning (principle paragraph 17) on promoting mixed use developments and encouraging multiple benefits from the use of land. In this sub-area, these policy designations also indirectly support the policy of ensuring vitality of town centres (paragraph 23) in that they provide for some main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in the nearest District Centre.

-53-

Core Strategy

4.27 General Employment Areas are employment areas that have the widest flexibility in terms of range of uses that could be accommodated. The spatial vision for the South and West Urban Area (Core Strategy paragraph 4.24) contains no major employment zones and therefore looks to District Centres to provide for jobs and leisure facilities in the first instance. Where this is not possible, it is accepted that other highly accessible locations may be used to provide local jobs and services.

4.28 Strategic policy CS15 specifically cites the Sheaf Valley as an area where large scale leisure development can be located if it serves a sub-citywide catchment and no better sites are available in existing centres. In that context, the Woodside Retail Park would be the most appropriate alternative location to Heeley District Centre for accommodating new leisure development, given its proximity to the Sheaf Valley and the excellent accessibility it has for public transport services.

Justification

Alternative Option

4.29 Both the designated areas are currently fully developed for single commercial uses but they require planning policies that are flexible enough to cope with economic change that may affect the market for their businesses. In the UDP, the Woodside Quarry site was designated as a discrete Retail Park and the Meadowhead site fell within a Business:Institution:Leisure Area designation (see also paragraph 4.7 above). The Local Plan no longer uses these policy area types with the former being seen as too inflexible and the latter being incompatible with the strategic policy CS3 of concentrating major offices in the City Centre.

4.30 It would not be appropriate for the Woodside Quarry site to be included in either of the closest District Centres at Woodseats or Heeley because it is located too far away from the edges of those centres to properly integrate with them. The intervening street frontages are almost exclusively in housing use.

4.31 As a former quarry, the Woodside site is very enclosed and has a poor aspect for accommodating new housing. This does not support the case for including it in either a Housing Area or a Flexible Use Area designed to enable eventual transition to a housing area or an area with housing-friendly uses. The site falls outside of the Sheaf Valley for the purposes of Core Strategy policy CS30d which promotes that area specifically for business and industrial employment use. The spatial strategy (Core Strategy paragraph 4.18) would not support major office development in this sector of the City either. The area is therefore not suitable for either a Business and Industry Area or a Business Area.

-54-

4.32 The best option for the area would be a housing-free flexible use area that promotes a wide range of employment uses not confined to the business (B) use classes. A General Employment Area is the best fit for the site given its present use for large format retailing and its suitability for accommodating out-of-centre leisure uses to serve a local catchment in South Sheffield.

4.33 The large car showrooms sited near Meadowhead roundabout were developed on a redundant part of the former secondary school campus. This type of large one-off employment use is often difficult to locate within a District Centre because of the space requirements and the impacts that associated vehicle repair facilities can have on sensitive neighbouring uses. A General Employment Area designation fits this site best because it endorses both the current use whilst also maintaining flexibility for attracting other large-scale employment uses to come forward if necessary. Given the excellent accessibility this location enjoys, this could include out-of-centre leisure and recreation use if there are no superior sites serving South Sheffield.

4.34 In terms of other alternatives considered, the area does not form a logical extension to the nearby Meadowhead Neighbourhood Centre owing to its physical separation and its position on the other side of a major highway intersection. This particular site would not favour a housing after-use either because use of the surrounding highway network creates especially poor environmental conditions in terms of noise and air quality impacts. This argues against using either a Housing Area or a Flexible Use Area designation designed to enable a suitable transition to a housing-friendly character for the site. A Business Area designation accepting up to a 40% residential component would not be a meaningful alternative option for the same reasons.

Sustainability Issues

4.35 There has been no formal appraisal for this area designation. However, this employment-friendly designation can be expected to have mainly positive impacts especially in relation to provision of job opportunities, minimising the need to travel, increasing the use of frequent public transport services and making efficient use of previously developed land and existing infrastructure.

Equality Issues

4.36 The employment inherent in this area designation would have positive benefits for those groups on low income and with low access to private transport as there would be easier access to local jobs and training.

Consultee Preferences

4.37 No comments were made on the extent of this Policy Area at any stage of the consultation process.

-55-

Effectiveness

Delivery Flexibility and Risk

4.38 Implementation of the policy area will be primarily through the development management process. The Economy and City Region Background Report sets out how applications for development in General Employment Areas will be assessed. The current uses may remain in the area but they could also change and adapt with the needs of the existing occupiers. At present there are no vacant buildings or land available for new development within these areas.

4.39 The flexibility offered by this policy area will reduce the risk of loss of demand for particular employment uses leading to lack of take up for new uses. It is anticipated that there will be a continuing need for local employment options to serve this sub-area and these locations are well placed to meet that need.

Monitoring

4.40 Given the high level of flexibility within the policy area there is no need to monitor the types of uses that are taking place in these areas (other than to ensure unacceptable uses are not locating there). The mix of uses and dominance of any uses within General Employment Areas will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Economy and City Region Background Report.

Conclusions on General Employment Policy Area

4.41 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.42 It is positively prepared:

• It helps provide a choice of location for local employment serving South Sheffield in line with Core Strategy spatial policy.

4.43 It is justified:

• It makes efficient employment use of two highly accessible locations where the local environment is not good enough for housing to be established. • It is compatible with current occupying uses and is the most appropriate designation when considered against the other alternatives. • If required it could help to deliver Local Plan objectives on the location of leisure development in South Sheffield (policy CS15).

-56-

4.44 It is effective:

• Because the areas have maximum flexibility to deliver a range of employment generating uses, including built leisure, in prominent locations with good accessibility by a range of transport modes.

4.45 It is consistent with national policy:

• These areas support activities that ‘promote mixed use developments and multiple benefits from the use of land’ (NPPF, paragraph 17). • They also provide for situations where proposals for main town centre uses, particularly large scale leisure, cannot be accommodated in the nearest centres (NPPF, paragraph 23).

District Centre Policy Area

4.46 Shops in the Sharrow Vale Road area have been included within the boundary of the Ecclesall Road District Centre and evidence for that designation is contained in the Central Area Background Report and is not repeated here. Woodseats is therefore the only District (Shopping) Centre wholly within this sub-area. It is located approximately two miles south of the City Centre along the A61 Chesterfield Road in the Graves Park Ward. It retains its place in the retail hierarchy established by the UDP with virtually the same boundary being shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.47 The issues are the same as for District Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.22 above).

Core Strategy

4.48 The issues are the same as for District Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.23 above).

Justification

Alternative Option

4.49 The centre flanks the A61 Chesterfield Road which is part of the City’s Key Route Network and therefore it has excellent accessibility for South Sheffield residential neighbourhoods. The Centre is served by multiple bus services throughout the day and evening. This offers choice of transport and depth of

-57-

catchment area for patrons which is not available in lower order centres. Woodseats is one of the largest District Centres both in terms of shops and floorspace. There is a good range of shops and services including three medium sized food stores, banks, food and drink outlets and other community services including a library. The Centre is healthy in that vacancies are lower than the City average for District Centres and there are no cleared sites awaiting development.

4.50 In the circumstances, there were no meaningful alternatives to a District Centre designation that would have been consistent with Core Strategy policy CS34. The Centre’s boundary on its eastern side has been slightly extended at its southern end to include a private nursery next to the entrance to Graves Park. This is a community facility that is consistent with land use preferences and street frontage policies set out respectively in policies H1 and C4.

Sustainability Issues

4.51 The issues are the same as for District Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.26 above).

Equality Issues

4.52 The range and current nature of the shopping offer in this centre will have positive impacts for groups with low access to private transport and those with low incomes. The dedicated car parks at the three food stores are beneficial for those with physical disabilities. Finally, the opportunities for job experience inherent with a multi-unit centre will help certain groups, particularly adolescents and young people.

Consultee Preferences

4.53 There was a single objection (dpm30) at Consultation Draft stage to the inclusion of the landscaped frontage of Woodseats library in the boundary of the District Centre. The respondent preferred an Open Space Area zoning supported by an additional nature conservation designation. This was rejected on the grounds that the trees within this small strip would not merit specific protection, that the site is too small to map as an open space and that it is flanked on either side by commercial properties.

Effectiveness

Delivery Flexibility and Risk

4.54 The issues are the same as for District Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.29 and 2.30 above).

-58-

Monitoring

4.55 Monitoring will be undertaken in the same way as for District Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.31 above).

Conclusions on District Centre Policy Area

4.56 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.57 It is positively prepared:

• It supports the viability and vitality of a recognised town centre (NPPF, paragraph 23). • It helps ensure that shopping facilities in this centre can develop and modernise to benefit the community reliant on those services (NPPF, paragraph 70).

4.58 It is justified:

• It implements Core Strategy policy C34 for part of South Sheffield. • It complements policy C4 in helping to control the scale and nature of development to maintain the Centre’s position in the retail hierarchy. • It is the most appropriate option consistent with higher tier policy on town centres.

4.59 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because shopping (A1) and community facility (D1) class uses already predominate in this area and there is little risk of not being able to maintain this position in future.

4.60 It is consistent with national policy:

• It supports the core principle of promoting mixed use development in a suitable location (NPPF, paragraph 17). • It helps to define part of the network of centres resilient to future economic change (NPPF, paragraph 23). • In assisting the application of sequential testing for main town centre uses through defining the extent and function of a centre (NPPF, paragraph 24).

Neighbourhood Centre Policy Area

4.61 There are nine Neighbourhood Centres serving more localised communities dispersed across this sub-area. They are as follows.

-59-

• Hutcliffe Wood Road (Beauchief) • Meadowhead • Lowedges (Terminus) • Lowedges Road • Nether Edge • Montrose Road (Carter Knowle) • Greenhill • Jordanthorpe • Chesterfield Road (Meersbrook)

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.62 The issues are the same as for Neighbourhood Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.38 and 2.39 above).

Core Strategy

4.63 The issues are the same as for Neighbourhood Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.40 above).

Justification

Alternative Options

4.64 Each Neighbourhood Centre will support the continuation of the role of these areas to provide retail and community facilities for local communities whilst also giving a focal point and identity to their residential neighbourhoods.

4.65 Neighbourhood Centres are identified where six or more shops would be sustainable taking account of their distribution across the area and the residential catchment they serve. Surveys of potential Neighbourhood Centres were last undertaken in 2009. The boundaries of the designated centres reflect the area where, using the provisions of policies H1 and C4, the existing retail function can be protected and where investment to ensure the centre thrives will be encouraged.

4.66 The first four centres listed above in paragraph 4.61 are retained with identical boundaries to those shown for equivalent Local Shopping Centres in the UDP. In the case of Greenhill and Jordanthorpe, these include integral community facilities such as a library and a public house (now vacant) respectively. The Nether Edge and Carter Knowle centres are both extended slightly to include an additional retail unit. An addition to the list of centres has been proposed at Chesterfield Road (Meersbrook) based on an extended parade of commercial uses. Although it is close to the Heeley District Centre, the western end of that

-60-

centre comprises of a retail park which is below street level on Chesterfield Road and therefore not within easy walking distance. This smaller centre has a convenience store (class A1) and it can work in conjunction with the Lees Hall Avenue Centre in serving more local needs of the Meersbrook and Norton Lees areas which have no convenient alternative centres.

4.67 The small parade of businesses at the junction of Meadowhead and Greenfield Road was designated as a Local Shopping Centre in the UDP but is not being taken forward as a Neighbourhood Centre in the Local Plan. The grouping does not contain any convenience stores (A1) and it lies within the immediate catchment of the larger centre close to Meadowhead roundabout some 200 metres to the south. Consequently, there is no compelling need to protect any current retail function and the area has been subsumed into the Housing Area that surrounds it. The retail use can be regarded as complementary and optional rather than essential to the needs of the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

Sustainability Issues

4.68 In general sustainability terms, the provision and safeguarding of local shopping facilities will reduce the need for local residents to travel long distances to access them. All centres are connected to their catchment areas with regular bus services with frequency varying from very high, in the case of Meadowhead, Lowedges and Jordanthorpe centres, to medium in the case of Montrose Road (Carter Knowle). The use of the centres helps to sustain regular bus services and supports some local employment in their respective neighbourhoods.

Equality Issues

4.69 The issues are the same as for Neighbourhood Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.51 above).

Consultee Preferences

4.70 There were no comments submitted on proposed Neighbourhood Centres within this sub-area at any stage of the consultation process.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

4.71 The issues are the same as for Neighbourhood Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.53 and 2.54 above).

-61-

Monitoring

4.72 Monitoring will be undertaken in the same way as for Neighbourhood Centres in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.55 above).

Conclusions on Neighbourhood Centre Policy Area

4.73 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.74 It is positively prepared:

• It clearly identifies a robust distribution of centres across the sub-area for everyday shopping needs fulfilling the policy requirement to support viable centres (NPPF, paragraph 23).

4.75 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives already in the Core Strategy relating to Neighbourhood Centres (policy CS39). • It delivers on local policy to maintain centres that support the vision of successful communities. • It is the best approach as these centres already exist in focal locations at the heart of viable catchment areas.

4.76 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period as these are existing centres and there are reasonable grounds for considering that they can be sustained.

4.77 It is consistent with national policy:

• In playing a social role in sustainable development by helping to deliver sufficient community, cultural facilities and other services to meet local needs (NPPF paragraphs 17 and 70).

Housing Policy Area

4.78 Within this sub-area the Housing Area is made up of nine established residential neighbourhoods at Norton, Batemoor/Jordanthorpe, Lowedges, Greenhill, Beauchief, Woodseats, Carter Knowle, Nether Edge/Brincliffe, and Sharrow Vale. In line with the spatial strategy of the Core Strategy this sub-area is not expected to yield as much new housing as some other parts of the City. The use of windfall education sites is likely to figure prominently in the available supply of housing land. Overall the policy emphasis here is on safeguarding the existing residential character as new proposals come forward.

-62-

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.79 The issues are the same as for Housing Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.62 above).

Core Strategy

4.80 The issues are the same as for Housing Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.63 above).

Neighbouring Authorities

4.81 Along with the City’s Green Belt, the Housing Area at Jordanthorpe and Lowedges adjoins the administrative boundary with North East Derbyshire District Council. The adjacent land within that Authority’s area is also designated Green Belt in the North East Derbyshire Local Plan. Housing need in North East Derbyshire has not been identified as an issue about which Sheffield needs to co-operate across this particular boundary. No comments have been received from the District Council about the extent of the designated Housing Areas within this sub-area.

Justification

Alternative Options

4.82 Preferred residential uses listed in policy H1 already cover most of the land in the urban part of this sub-area outside major open spaces and designated shopping centres. There are no realistic options to designating the established residential neighbourhoods as Housing Areas. Options for altering some of the boundaries of Housing Areas to other Policy Areas is dealt with in more detail under sections covering those Policy Areas.

4.83 In their extent the Housing Areas are very similar to equivalent areas designated under UDP policy H10 (and shown on the UDP Proposals Map). The opportunity has been taken to update the Area to account for changes that have taken place in the intervening period. These changes have been broadly neutral in the split between the Housing Area (building footprint) and Open Space Area (playing field) components of rebuilt schools. This is the case for example at Norton Free and Lowedges Primary Schools and Meadowhead Secondary School. The same applies to the proposed reconfiguration of developable land as part of the site allocation described at paragraph 5.31 on the former Abbeydale Grange Secondary School site.

-63-

4.84 Minor extensions to the Housing Area have been made to reflect the developed nature of certain sites. This applies to the Norton Water Tower and associated underground reservoir, an area of newer detached housing accessed from Norton Lane and extensions to Abbey Lane Primary School. There has been an enlargement of the Housing Area around the Bannerdale Centre to take in operational car parking and concourse areas that function alongside the building. Existing blocks of houses at the western and eastern edges of the former Archer Road Mixed Use Area have been drawn into the designated Housing Area as they adjoin existing residential areas.

4.85 The Housing Area has contracted in several instances to acknowledge the value of smaller scale amenity open spaces within the grounds of large properties or interspersed with the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. Parcels of land have also been designated to safeguard a well used bowling green, some woodland belts and to define the width of a strategic Green Corridor linking a suburban park to the wider countryside. These are dealt with in the section covering Open Space Areas.

Sustainability Issues

4.86 Appraisal of proposed housing site allocations in this sub-area indicates that the Housing Areas as a whole will have mainly positive impacts if they were to be assessed against the Plan’s sustainability objectives. The area offers decent housing in good surroundings with good access to public transport services and community and recreational facilities. There is ample opportunity for new housing to make use of previously developed land or buildings and to take advantage of existing infrastructure.

4.87 Additional housing may give rise to slight increases in air pollution through increased car usage but this is not a reason to review the Housing Area designation when compared to all the other positive impacts. In areas adjacent to arterial roads, where the air quality is not currently meeting national standards, care will need to be taken that new housing does not worsen conditions. Extra housing might stretch the capacity of local schools depending on the type of housing, but the Council’s Education Service have advised that the issue can be resolved through distribution and management of capacity together with developer financial contributions where necessary.

Equality Issues

4.88 The good access to public transport and other facilities mentioned above will benefit most of the defined impact groups. Consequently, there are no equality reasons for questioning this policy area designation.

-64-

Consultee Preferences

4.89 At Preferred Options stage Yorkshire Water (ID 1472) argued for all of their operational land, including unused meadow land, at the Norton Oakes Service Reservoir to be zoned as housing. The site has been the subject of further consultation for the Additional Site Allocations where a conditional allocation proposed designating two-thirds of the site as a Housing Area to support new development with the remainder being converted to a public open space. That proposal was withdrawn from the Pre-Submission Plan because Yorkshire Water has stated that it wishes to retain the land for future operational purposes. The CPRE (ID 2016 and ID 2017) supported an Open Space Area for the whole site at Preferred Options stage. Finally, at Consultation Draft stage (2010), a local councillor (dpm209) and another individual (dpm225) objected to land around the Water Tower carrying a Housing Area designation because they considered it could lead to the destruction of the rural character of Norton Lane. The current plan adds the Water Tower/underground reservoir and the adjoining open field to the Housing Area to acknowledge their developed nature and potential for satisfying future water infrastructure needs. The wooded fringe along Hemsworth Road has however been altered to an Open Space Area.

4.90 During recent consultations on the Planning and Design Brief which supports the new site allocation P00518 for the former Abbeydale Grange School, there were objections to a perceived enlargement of potential developable land through a revision to the Housing Area. This view is rejected as the Pre-Submission site allocation requires 0.34 ha of the indicated Housing Area to be set aside for a woodland buffer. This would actually result in a small gain of open space upon redevelopment.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

4.91 The issues are the same as for Housing Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.75 and 2.76 above).

Monitoring

4.92 Monitoring will be undertaken in same way as for Housing Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.77 above).

Conclusions on Housing Policy Area

4.93 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

-65-

4.94 It is positively prepared:

• It helps meet objectively assessed development requirements for the future supply of housing.

• It helps to guide the recycling of previously developed land and other windfall sites to maximise the supply of housing (policy CS24).

4.95 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives on where new housing should be located (policy CS23) and new housing opportunities are set out in site allocations (see Chapter 5). • It defines residential areas in South West Sheffield with a distinctive townscape and character where new housing will be constrained in order to safeguard those qualities (policy CS31). • There are no realistic options to designating the established residential areas in this sub-area as Housing Areas.

4.96 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because residential class uses already predominate and there is little risk of this position not being maintained. • It still provides scope to allow development of unforeseen complementary uses such as a new primary school.

4.97 It is consistent with national policy:

• It is consistent with the core principle of delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (NPPF section 6) in that it identifies where housing should remain the dominant land use and hosts some site allocations that will deliver new properties. • It supports healthy communities by protecting the distinctive residential character of their neighbourhoods (NPPF paragraph 7).

Flexible Use Policy Area

4.98 The sub-area contains two proposed transition areas covered by Flexible Use Area designations. The first relates to the combined sites of the Meadowhead Secondary School building off Dyche Lane and the Sheffield Park Hotel off Chesterfield Road South. The second area comprises mainly of the Archer Road Retail Park (including Sainsbury’s foodstore), together with a small business enclave off Troutbeck Road and the Abbeydale Drive Park & Ride facility. North of the railway line this policy area designation extends westwards

-66-

into the South West Community Assembly Area to cover Tesco’s Abbeydale Road foodstore and petrol-filling station and small scale industrial units accessed from Station Drive. Evidence for that part of the Flexible Use Area is contained in the Background Report for the South West Community Assembly Area.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.99 The issues are the same as for Flexible Use Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.84 and 2.85 above).

Core Strategy

4.100 The issues are the same as for Flexible Use Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.86 above).

Justification

Alternative Options

4.101 In the UDP, the Archer Road Area was previously shown as a Mixed Use Area (policy MU8) with a unique land use policy that untypically accepted some general industry (class B2) use along with housing on its merits. In the main, the Local Plan has replaced such tailored designations with generic Flexible Use Areas that have clearer and less conflicting objectives. This policy area designation follows that approach.

4.102 In redefining the extent of the area, the opportunity has been taken to remove blocks of existing housing on the edge of the Area and include them in neighbouring Housing Areas (see paragraph 4.84). This means that the core area no longer contains any housing. No new housing has been built here either despite outline consents having been granted for that purpose in the past to redevelop the site of the former Jacob’s engineering factory off Troutbeck Road.

4.103 Most of this area does not have a high risk of flooding apart from a small area immediately adjoining the banks of the River Sheaf. Parts of the area do, however, suffer from poor air quality when compared to national standards due to the intensity of existing traffic movements around this area and the current use of diesel trains on the Midland Mainline as it passes through the area. There are plans to withdraw diesel trains and for the rail service to be electrified by 2020/21 which will address some of the air pollution constraints applying to new sensitive uses.

4.104 Given the circumstances referred to above, the lack of a critical mass of development sites and the requirement of policy H1 to sustain a 70% dominance

-67-

level, it is not tenable to anticipate sufficient transition to warrant including any part of the area within a Housing Area in the current Local Plan.

4.105 A General Employment Area, favouring employment uses but without any housing, is not a realistic option for this area either. Its support for further general industry (class B2) and warehouses and storage uses (class B8) would impact adversely on existing housing on the periphery of the area. The area lies outside of the strategic employment zone in the Sheaf Valley and the potential for allowing major office development would conflict with the objectives of policy CS3 to concentrate such activity in the City Centre and other named locations. In terms of the provision of additional local leisure facilities in the Sheaf Valley, the Core Strategy already supports a superior location at the Queens Road General Employment Area (policy CS30c).

4.106 It is acknowledged that there is now a significant retail presence throughout this area but this would not qualify it to become a District Centre. Core Strategy policy CS34 has already identified the centres that should operate at this level of the retail hierarchy. The City Council does not accept that the current group of free-standing foodstores and bulky goods outlets constitute a ‘town centre’ as defined in the glossary at Annex 2 of the NPPF.

4.107 A Flexible Use Area, with no preferred use but an emphasis on a mix of housing and compatible non-industrial development, is considered to be the best fit for this area during the currency of this Plan. Where sites become available, it can encourage any of the residential and business (class B1) uses together with convenience shop development (class A1) of an appropriate scale to serve the incoming development. The high level of demand for housing in South West Sheffield can make this use the driver for change in the area. However, given the poor air quality levels that have been recorded in the vicinity these changes must be able to meet relevant criteria in policy F1 for mitigating any adverse impacts. This could be achieved if developments are air quality neutral, they replace uses which currently have higher emissions or they are assessed against different standards (e.g. workplace exposure standards which could apply to non-office B1 class uses).

4.108 Meadowhead Secondary School was rebuilt on part of its former playing fields which were designated as an Open Space Area in the UDP. In the same document, the adjoining Sheffield Park Hotel site formed part of a discrete Business: Institution: Leisure Area which is a policy area type that has not been carried forward in the Local Plan. Consequently, both of these sites require a new planning policy designation going forward. Given their proximity to one another, and in the context of the surrounding land uses, there is merit in considering them as an entity for planning policy purposes.

4.109 The combined site is not contiguous with any housing in the closest neighbourhood at Batemoor/Jordanthorpe. There is a common boundary with the Gilders/Audi Dealership development but on its three other sides it is

-68-

surrounded by large Open Space Areas consisting of the playing fields belonging to the secondary school, the Graves Leisure and Tennis Centre and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority. It therefore occupies something of an ‘island’ site which could in principle carry either a Housing Area designation or one of the more flexible designations that have no preferred use defining its character.

4.110 In practice, it may be unlikely that either of the occupying uses will cease in the near future and if the combined site was adjacent to a neighbouring Housing Area it would have been preferable to subsume it within such an area. However, neither of the existing uses qualifies as preferred uses (housing (class C3) or residential institution (class C2)) for the purposes of policy H1 and, therefore, the area could not satisfy the relevant 70% dominance threshold required for a discrete Housing Area.

4.111 A General Improvement Area would not be suitable as it rules out the main residential class uses altogether. Although it contains no preferred uses a Business Area is more oriented towards providing small-scale offices that serve the mid-range market mainly within the City Centre. Residential uses do not have to be part of the land use mix but if they are present they must not cover more than 40% of the gross floorspace of the area. This would not offer a viable ‘stepping stone’ to the area becoming a Housing Area as defined by policy H1. This sub-area already includes the nearby Norton College site which is considered to be a superior option for a Business Area to serve South Sheffield needs (see paragraph 4.11 above). That area is better located in terms of both visibility and access to public transport which are important considerations for developing say an out of centre office park. There is unlikely to be scope for more than one Business Area in this sub-area without compromising the objectives of strategic policy C3 on concentrating new offices primarily in the City Centre.

Sustainability Issues

4.112 Both the designated areas can offer sustainable locations for residential and residential-friendly uses that are favoured in this policy area type. They can provide decent housing in a quality environment. The impacts for new housing or business uses can be expected to be mainly positive. The accepted uses would be close to frequent bus services, neighbourhood shops and major parks. Business uses could provide local jobs and therefore reduce distances in travelling to work.

4.113 Negative impacts are likely to include insufficient capacity in local schools. However, this can be resolved through the distribution and management of capacity at the time of development, and the possible use of developer financial contributions. Currently poor air quality is an issue for the more sensitive uses in the Archer Road Area. The significance of this will depend on whether new uses would add to emissions or reduce them by replacing current uses that already

-69-

have greater impacts in the area. As already noted, the air quality issue for residential development should diminish greatly once the railway is electrified later in the plan period.

Equality Issues

4.114 The Flexible Use Areas enjoy good access to public transport and good local access to shops, other neighbourhood facilities and parks which should benefit most of the impact groups. Planning consent has previously been granted for a retirement village on former industrial land off Troutbeck Road in the Archer Road Area. This established that there would be positive impacts for a group of people requiring personal support services. Consequently, there are not likely to be any equality reasons for questioning these area designations.

Consultee Preferences

4.115 At Consultation Draft stage (2010) consultants (dpm71) sought to extend the Flexible Use Area designation in the Archer Road Area to include land and buildings in commercial use between Troutbeck Road and the Abbeydale Drive Park and ride facility. At that stage those properties were included as part of a Housing Area because outline consent had been granted for the retirement village mentioned above. That consent has yet to be implemented and the consultee argued that conversion of this enclave to a Flexible Use Area would be better for delivering comprehensive and sustainable development on this previously developed land. This particular change was agreed as it was acknowledged that new housing had not been delivered and that the new designation provided greater land use flexibility whilst not preventing a residential after use if market conditions supported this.

4.116 At Preferred Options stage, the CPRE (ID 2015) opposed the Flexible Use Area at Jordanthorpe School (which became Meadowhead Secondary School) because it might lead to housing development taking place on its playing fields. In fact, the designation has only ever related to the built footprint of the new school rather than to its playing fields which remain as an Open Space Area protected by policy CS47. The Council therefore rejected changing the Proposals Map to address this comment.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

4.117 The issues are largely the same as for Flexible Use Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.95 and 2.96 above). However, future school organisation planning will also determine the extent of changes within some of Flexible Use Areas in this sub-area.

-70-

Monitoring

4.118 Monitoring will be undertaken in the same way as for Flexible Use Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.97 above). .

Conclusions on Flexible Use Policy Area

4.119 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.120 It is positively prepared:

• It adheres to the plan-making requirement in national policy to promote development and flexible use of land (NPPF, paragraph 157). • It assists the market to bring forward development in these opportunity areas without prescriptive constraints on land use.

4.121 It is justified:

• It is the most appropriate when considered against other potential policy designations as it provides flexibility for a mix of uses that relate well to sensitive uses in adjoining areas.

4.122 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period because it does not insist on a dominant land use character to evolve in these areas over that time span.

4.123 It is consistent with national policy:

• It adheres to the core principle of promoting mixed development (NPPF, paragraph 17). • It avoids unnecessarily designating these areas entirely for employment uses which allows alternative uses to be brought forward in response to market signals (NPPF, paragraph 22). • It supports the principle of delivering a wide choice of high quality homes by encouraging a change to residential from commercial use where there is a need for more housing (NPPF, paragraph 51).

Open Space Policy Area

4.124 This sub-area hosts a major City Park at Graves Park and Local Parks at Chancet Wood and Chelsea Park. There are large woodland areas at Hutcliffe Wood, Chancet Wood and Spring Wood with several smaller informal open spaces dispersed throughout the area. There are several schools with large playing fields, some private playing fields, allotment gardens and a large

-71-

playground at Batemoor. A strategic Green Corridor through South Sheffield integrates Graves Park and smaller open spaces with parks located in the Green Belt at Oakes Park in the east and Beauchief Park in the west.

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.125 The issues are the same as for the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.104 above).

Core Strategy

4.126 The issues are the same as for Open Space Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.105 and 2.106 above).

Justification

Alternative Options

4.127 Open Space Areas are extensive across the sub-area. They identify all types of valued open spaces and ancillary buildings across the formal and informal categories listed in paragraph 9.26 of the Core Strategy. Some of them also have ecological value and carry an additional Local Nature Site or Local Nature Reserve designation. They are supported by the findings of an Open Space Audit completed in 2008 and similar audits for outdoor sports facilities contained in the Playing Pitch Strategy 2011 and its update completed earlier this year. In the circumstances there are no realistic alternative options for these areas that would not either impair their present or potential value and/or sever important green networks.

4.128 In their extent, the Open Space Areas are very similar to equivalent areas designated under UDP policy LR4 and shown on the UDP Proposals Map. The opportunity has been taken to refine and extend some Open Space Areas where land has been shown to have clear value as open space. All additions previously formed part of designated Housing Areas in the UDP.

4.129 In Nether Edge, new open spaces are identified to protect the bowling green off Nether Edge Road and informal amenity spaces within the grounds of Sharrow Snuff Mill and Banner Cross Hall. Historic gardens within privately owned properties at Kenwood Hotel, Rundle Road and Chelsea Park have been added. The perimeter tree belt between the fenced boundary of the former Abbeydale Grange Secondary School and Abbeydale Road has also been added. The tree planting here was carried out by the local community and it has created a valuable amenity space enjoyed by residents and workers in the area. It also provides a useful environmental buffer along Abbeydale Road which is recognised as a significant contributor to poor air quality in the locality.

-72-

4.130 In Jordanthorpe/Batemoor the playground of Lower Meadows Primary School has been added along with small amenity spaces at locations off Dyche Lane, Ormond Way, Hazelbarrow Crescent, White Thorns View and Jordanthorpe Parkway (near Bochum Parkway).

4.131 In Lowedges, similar landscaped areas or informal play areas have been included at Beckett Avenue, Atlantic Road, Gervase Road, Gervase Avenue and land adjoining the Green Belt boundary near Chesterfield Road South and at Lowedges Fire Station.

4.132 The widened landscaped highway verge alongside Greenhill Parkway in Greenhill has been added. Landscaped areas have also been included within the grounds of the primary school at Chancet Wood and the designation for the wood itself has been extended in two places at its southern end. Two small informal spaces have been added at Bocking Lane and The Greenway.

4.133 In Norton, a small remnant open space serving the Norton Glebe Development has been added because of its contribution to the character of the Norton Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings. The land is in private ownership and its designation as an Open Space Area has been contested on the basis that the land should mainly be used for housing instead (see paragraph 4.139 below).

4.134 A second area comprising a field of pasture land off Norton Lane adjoining Norton Free School has been designated as an Open Space Area because of its intrinsic landscape value and the ecological features that it contains. These assets have been confirmed by archaeological and ecological surveys on the Norton Lane site commissioned by the City Council6. This space also helps to define the width of the strategic Green Corridor (Core Strategy policy CS73) linking Graves Park to the countryside at Oakes Park. This did form part of a proposed mixed use (part housing and part open space) site allocation at Additional Site Allocations Options stage. However, that proposal has not been included in the Plan because the principal landowner (Yorkshire Water) subsequently confirmed that their land could not be spared from their operations at this site.

4.135 Finally, two areas of mature woodland have been added at Brincliffe Edge Plantation near Psalter Lane and between Aukley Road and Chesterfield Road near the Norton Hammer area.

6 See (https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/local-plan/city- policies-and-sites/survey-reports.html)

-73-

Sustainability Issues

4.136 The issues are largely the same as for Open Space Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.110 above).

Equality Issues

4.137 The issues are largely the same as for Open Space Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.111 above).

Consultee Preferences

4.138 At Consultation Draft stage (2010) the Carter Knowle and Millhouses Community Group (dpm9) and another individual (dpm25) argued for an Open Space Area designation to protect the tree belt between the former Abbeydale Grange secondary school and Abbeydale Road. This was accepted and the area has been added to the Proposals Map for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.129 above.

4.139 At the same stage, agents acting for the landowner (dpm82) contested the proposed designation of the amenity open space adjoining the Norton Glebe Development (see paragraph 4.133 above). This greenfield site was required to be retained and enhanced as an open space as part of a past planning permission (application reference 96/0542/P). The space was needed to serve new residents and to maintain its contribution to the character of the Norton Conservation Area. The space provides a buffer zone between residential development to the east and the core of the Conservation Area centred on a number of Listed Buildings. It has intrinsic heritage value meriting protection in line with policy CS47. These reasons have been tested through a planning appeal against refusal to modify the planning obligation in the above permission that was dismissed in January 2011 (ref. APP/J4423/Q/10/2139891). This objection has therefore been rejected and the area has been proposed as an Open Space Area on the Proposals Map.

4.140 At Consultation Draft stage (2010) the CPRE (dpm115) supported the designation of land south of the Lowedges Fire Station as an Open Space Area and this has been included on the Proposals Map. The same organisation (dpm116) also supported the open space designation of pasture land laid out in two fields between the Norton Free School and the Norton Oakes Service Reservoir and Water Tower because this assists the Green Link connecting Graves Park to Oakes Park and the countryside. Paragraph 4.134 above explains the reasons for withdrawing a possible site allocation affecting these fields. In the light of the surveys referred to above, there is a case for retaining an Open Space designation on the western field to protect the historic landscape and ecological features (including an important hedgerow) and to better define the width of the strategic corridor referred to in policy CS73. The Proposals Map confines the Open Space Area to the west of, and including the historic

-74-

hedgerow that runs north to south through these fields, with the eastern field being designated as part of a Housing Area.

4.141 At Additional Site Allocations stage Yorkshire Water (ASAO 565), their property arm (ASAO 243), the other affected landowner (ASAO 634) together with four other individuals, agreed the designation of some of the Norton Lane pasture land as an Open Space Area as part of a conditional site allocation proposed for the land. The National Trust (ASAO 535) and English Heritage (ASAO 447) were also content with such an arrangement for the site. However, it can be inferred that the remaining 46 objectors to the site allocation preferred both fields to be designated as an Open Space Area. They included the CPRE (ASAO686), Moss Valley Wildlife Group (ASAO 592), Natural England (ASAO 612), Sheffield Wildlife Trust (ASAO 579), Gleadless Valley Wildlife Group (ASAO 534), Norton History Group (ASAO 570), Sport England (ASAO 524), Friends of Graves Park (ASAO 637), South Yorkshire Biodiversity Group (ASAO 666) and a local councillor (ASAO 331). It is not considered sound to include the eastern field in an Open Space Area designation given that it contains less ecological interest and that an alternative Housing Area designation can provide necessary scope for any additional water infrastructure needs, whilst also not restricting its disposal for a use compatible with the residential character of its surroundings.

4.142 At Consultation Draft stage (2010), Sheffield College in its submission on their campus (dpm109) also sought to re-zone land and buildings at the Graves Leisure and Tennis Centre (GLTC) from an Open Space designation to one favouring commercial uses. Paragraph 4.15 above covers the outcome for the College campus. It is acknowledged that the indoor tennis centre and its car park is not so integrated with the other outdoor facilities at the sports complex that it must retain an Open Space Area designation. In the interests of supporting a modernisation of the leisure facilities on the wider site, it is proposed to include those elements in the proposed Business Area designation that also covers the College site. However, given their current value for outdoor recreation and amenity purposes, it is proposed that the all-weather pitch and the adjoining woodland should remain as part of the larger Open Space Area designation at the GLTC contrary to the College’s submission.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

4.143 The issues are largely the same as for Open Space Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 2.117 and 2.118 above).

Monitoring

4.144 Monitoring will be undertaken in the same as for Open Space Areas in the Sheaf Valley and South East Urban Area (see paragraph 2.119 above).

-75-

Conclusions on Open Space Policy Areas

4.145 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.146 It is positively prepared:

• It meets objectively assessed infrastructure requirements to provide areas of open space to meet the recreation needs of people living or working in the area. • It supports the continuation of existing and locally valued areas for their recreation and/or wildlife value.

4.147 It is justified:

• It is needed to deliver specific Local Plan objectives for safeguarding open space (policy CS47). • It is the most appropriate given that generally these areas already exist and are identified for protection.

4.148 It is effective:

• It is deliverable over the plan period as these are existing open spaces and they are expected to be retained.

4.149 It is consistent with national policy:

• It identifies areas of open space to be safeguarded from development consistent with NPPF Objective 8 ‘Promoting healthy communities’. This sets out the importance of access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation (paragraph 73). Paragraph 74 protects existing open space where it is needed.

Countryside Areas (Green Belt)

4.150 The extent of the policy area in this sub-area covers part of the southern section of the adopted Green Belt in an arc stretching from Beauchief Park/Ladies Spring Wood in the west to Oakes Park in the east. Where it follows the Planning Authority’s boundary it meets an equivalent Green Belt area within North East Derbyshire. The Countryside Areas (Green Belt) cover some large recreation spaces in the form of golf courses, other sports pitches, a District Park at Greenhill and an Historic Park at Oakes Park.

-76-

Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies

National Policy

4.151 This area designation conforms to the NPPF, paragraph 83, in that it confirms part of the boundary of the City’s Green Belt established by the UDP. In this part of the city, no minor alterations to its boundary are needed to deliver the NPPF requirement for clearly defined boundaries using recognisable and permanent features (paragraph 85). It will be necessary to keep all of the designated Green Belt permanently open for the duration of the Local Plan.

Core Strategy

4.152 The policy area is in line with the overarching spatial strategy as it helps to confine development to the existing built up area. It also complies with the principle of there being no fundamental review of the established Green Belt boundary set out in policy CS71. In this Local Plan sub-area, there have been no problems with the operation of the Green Belt that might justify minor exceptional changes to remove untenable anomalies in its boundaries.

Neighbouring Authorities

4.153 The Green Belt boundary in this sub-area adjoins the designated Green Belt in the adopted North East Derbyshire Local Plan safeguarding the intervening countryside from encroachment and preventing parts of South Sheffield merging with the settlement of Dronfield. North East Derbyshire supported the retention of Sheffield’s Green Belt for the submission of the Core Strategy.

Justification

Alternative Option

4.154 There are no meaningful options for the land within Sheffield’s Green Belt. The following sites have been put forward for exclusion from the Green Belt or for particular policies to apply with it.

• Land at Beauchief Drive • National Grid’s Jordanthorpe sub-station

4.155 The above locations are not regarded as untenable anomalies under Core Strategy policy CS71 that need to be reflected in changes to the Proposals Map for the current Plan. They represent more radical options that should only be considered during a review of the Local Plan.

-77-

Sustainability Issues

4.156 No sustainability appraisals have been undertaken with regard to the part of the Green Belt that lies within this sub-area. Core Strategy policy CS71 was, however, appraised for the submission of that document. Generally limiting development in the Green Belt to uses that conform to national Green Belt policy and policy G6A is likely to be positive for the majority of the sustainability objectives used for this Plan. It is particularly beneficial for reducing the need to travel, maintaining quality natural landscapes and wildlife sites, maintaining good access to countryside leisure and recreation facilities and maximising the use of previously developed land and existing infrastructure.

Equality Issues

4.157 Protecting the Green Belt would restrict urban sprawl and encourage more development to take place within the existing built up area. Such strategic support for more urban development with a denser public transport network is, on balance, likely to be beneficial for most of the impact groups but especially so for those people with low income and low access to private transport as well as young people.

Consultee Preferences

4.158 Only two sites in the Green Belt attracted objections during the consultation process. At Consultation Draft stage an agent (dpm164 and dpm148) argued that a greenfield site at Beauchief Drive should instead be allocated as a Housing Site within a Housing Area as they considered it had no meaningful links with the countryside and therefore failed to perform stated Green Belt purposes.

4.159 This proposal was rejected on the grounds that the land is primarily open in character, links to the rest of the Countryside areas (Green Belt) via Old Park Wood and has clear physical boundaries defined by established garden hedges and the line of Hemper Lane. Its retention in the Green Belt was therefore not anomalous in terms of the criteria set out in policy CS71. The Green Belt here helps to check the unrestricted sprawl of the main built-up area of Sheffield. Whether this land might have any exceptional merit in contributing to an increased supply of housing sites in the future should only be considered as part of a full review of the Local Plan that takes account of the principles set out in national policy (NPPF, paragraphs 83-85).

4.160 At Preferred Options (ID 1374) and at Consultation Draft (2010) (dpm211) stages National Grid sought a ‘Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt’ policy designation as a way of ensuring that any potential future expansion of its Jordanthorpe sub-station would not be restricted. This suggestion was rejected as being unnecessary since national planning policy (NPPF, paragraph 89) has replaced that mechanism with specific criteria for assessing the impact of

-78-

development proposals on such previously developed sites in the Green Belt. Development management will therefore give due consideration to those criteria should proposals come forward for expanding the sub-station on this site.

4.161 As part of their representations at Preferred Options stage, the Moss Valley Wildlife Group (ID 1382) supported the inclusion of Oakes Park at Norton within the designated Green Belt area. There is no intention of excluding this park from the designated Green Belt area shown on the Proposals Map.

4.162 Finally, the neighbouring authority of North East Derbyshire has raised no objections to the extent of Sheffield’s Green Belt in this sub-area. In conclusion, there is no case for amending any of the Green Belt boundaries in this sub-area to address matters raised during consultation on this Plan.

Effectiveness

Delivery, Flexibility and Risk

4.163 The Character and Heritage Background Report sets out how applications for development in the Green Belt will be assessed. Land uses in the Green Belt already exhibit the necessary open character which defines this area designation. The implementation of policies to protect the use of the Green Belt for mainly rural uses will be through the development management process in accordance with national policy and policy G6A. The latter expands on some parts of national policy in relation to the area’s villages and other locations considered suitable for housing infill. It also expands on requirements to control the reuse of rural buildings. However, those provisions will have limited application in this particular sub-area.

4.164 Appropriate uses in the Green Belt are quite tightly defined in national policy (NPPF paragraphs 89-90). Inappropriate development must be justified by very special circumstances (NPPF, paragraph 87).

4.165 There remains a risk that some areas of the Green Belt may stay or become derelict as Green Belt policy alone is not sufficient to ensure land is maintained to a particular standard.

Monitoring

4.166 Subject to prevailing national policy, the extent of the Green Belt and any possible variations to policy G6A will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. Further information is provided in the Character and Heritage Background Report.

4.167 The Core Strategy sets a monitoring target under policy CS71 for no land in the Green Belt to be developed for inappropriate uses in the period up to 2026.

-79-

Conclusions on Countryside Area (Green Belt)

4.168 The policy area designation here is considered sound for the following reasons.

4.169 It is positively prepared:

• It protects the openness and rural character of part of the countryside surrounding the City and assists in regenerating the urban area by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.170 It is justified:

• It retains clear boundaries using recognisable and permanent physical features (NPPF paragraph 85) • It helps to deliver Core Strategy policy CS71 by confirming the detailed extent of the Green Belt in this sub-area. • It clearly identifies land where development would be inappropriate and permission is likely to be withheld (NPPF, paragraphs 154 and 157) • The Green Belt boundaries are the most appropriate when considered against suggested alternatives put forward.

4.171 It is effective:

• It defines the limit of the developable area within the City for the duration of the present Plan.

4.172 It is consistent with national policy:

• The proposed boundaries are needed to deliver the permanence of the Green Belt and to help set a framework for a sustainable settlement policy as required by national policy (NPPF, paragraphs 79 and 83).

-80-

5 SOUTH & WEST URBAN ALLOCATED SITES

Introduction

5.1 For the background to site allocations in general see paragraph 3.1 above. This chapter provides further background on individual sites within this sub-area.

5.2 Evidence is provided in respect of 5 Housing Sites, one Mixed Use Site (including housing) and a Park and Ride Site. Allocated sites are listed in the same order as in the City Policies and Sites document.

Housing Sites

5.3 Four of the allocations are cleared sites formerly used for school or university buildings in both the southern suburbs of the City and the Nether Edge Ward. The fifth is a vacant car showroom and related workshops near the southern end of Banner Cross District Centre. Evidence is essentially very similar for this cluster of sites and they are therefore grouped in order to avoid repetition.

Introduction

5.4 The housing sites are all in established residential areas, surrounded by other housing. They all comprise previously developed land or buildings that provide opportunities for regeneration and diversification of the housing offer. They can help strengthen the housing market in their neighbourhoods by providing modern and efficient homes in a variety of sizes and tenure types and with an improved layout including larger properties to meet the needs of diverse communities in the area. In total they could provide around 280 new homes at densities appropriate to their locations.

5.5 The site allocations are as follows

P00343 Gilders Car Showroom site, Ecclesall Road, Banner Cross P00350 Sheffield Hallam University Campus, Psalter Lane, Nether Edge P00357 Former Hazelbarrow School, Hazelbarrow Crescent, Jordanthorpe P00436 Former Oakes Park and Talbot School, Matthews Lane, Norton P00518 Former Abbeydale Grange School, Abbeydale Road, Carter Knowle

National Policy and Other Strategies

5.6 The linkages with national policy are the same as for sites in South East Urban Area (see paragraph 3.6).

-81-

5.7 All of the sites maximise the use of previously developed land in line with Core Strategy policy CS24 and three of them (P00350, P00436 and P00518) are suitable for early development in accordance with the contingency arrangements established in policy CS25. Three of the sites are located in the South West sector of the City and their development needs to reflect distinctive townscape and landscape features in their vicinities to comply with Core Strategy policy CS31.

Justification

Alternative Options

5.8 None of these cleared and vacant sites have developed any ecological or recreational qualities that might prevent their subsequent development and to retain them in their present condition would have several negative effects on their surrounding residential neighbourhoods. There are already recent permissions for housing on two of the sites and the Council intends to dispose of a third site in the near future after successfully marketing it for housing.

5.9 All sites benefit from safe access to frequent bus services and good access to other infrastructure such as shops and services and parks and woodlands. They are all located in low risk flood zones and outside of priority employment areas in the Local Plan. Given that there are no unmet needs for community facilities or other one-off uses that would benefit the surrounding neighbourhoods, no meaningful alternatives to housing were considered for four of the sites.

5.10 An option was considered for site P00343 in response to comments made during consultations with landowners. Given the complex nature of this site, the owners were concerned that a purely residential scheme may not be as financially viable as a mixed scheme including a large retail use (class A1 use). Although it was last operated as a car showroom and for car repairs, this site is surrounded by housing and has therefore been designated within a Housing Area on the Proposals Map. It was not appropriate to extend the nearby Banner Cross District Centre to embrace this site because that would have favoured its use mainly for preferred retail use (A1 class) in line with land use and street frontage policies H1 and C4. This approach is consistent with the refusal of a scheme in 2009 (08/04852/FUL) for a mixed redevelopment of the site including a medium-sized food store and 16 dwellings. Highway issues were the main reasons for rejecting that scheme. It was concluded that the traffic generated by this type of retail development would have led to unacceptable congestion on the A625 Ecclesall Road and on adjoining residential streets. These highway constraints will continue to limit the capacity for retail uses that require deliveries by heavy goods vehicles and generate many car-based shopping trips.

5.11 Sustainability appraisal for this site suggests that a predominantly housing use performs better here than retail use because it has more positive impacts (including reducing the need to travel) and less negative impacts (due to lower

-82-

emissions of pollutants from car trips). Housing is the most appropriate use for this site given its location and the greater need to identify a sufficient land supply to meet citywide requirements set out in policy CS22. However, it was also concluded that a modest retail component within a housing site allocation could be beneficial here as it provides some flexibility for a regeneration scheme that makes efficient use of existing structures and awkward levels on site. To provide sufficient scope for this possibility the site allocation, by exception, permits a lower threshold of 65% for required housing uses rather than the standard figure of 80% set out in policy J1.

Justification for Conditions

5.12 There are some site specific conditions attached to all five housing allocations.

5.13 Site allocation P00357 has conditions to retain trees on site and to provide suitable drainage for extra surface water. The former is needed to acknowledge the landscape and conservation value of existing trees on site that a future survey establishes are worth retaining. The latter recognises that Yorkshire Water has identified that the development will need to employ measures to overcome a sewerage constraint because of limited capacity in the existing local public sewer network.

5.14 Site allocation P00350 includes three specific conditions that are necessary for development to occur. The site is partly within the Nether Edge Conservation Area and therefore the development must respond positively to this setting. In particular, the development must retain and re-use the former Bluecoat School, a building of character within the designated area. The building is centrally located and sits above a grassed embankment within the site. It comprises a substantial and imposing two- storey Edwardian property retaining many of its original features.

5.15 The site is characterised by significant tree planting to its boundaries. These include mature lime trees planted on highway land in Brincliffe Crescent, a number of tall mature trees to the boundary with Psalter Lane and a mature woodland belt at the former quarry edge against Brincliffe Hill. The second condition is needed to retain and protect these assets. The final condition preventing vehicular access (except for emergency services) from Psalter Lane is needed in the interests of the safety of road users and the protection of the tree belt along the road frontage. It should be possible to use a new and safer access to the site from Brincliffe Gardens. All of these provisions have been met in the planning consent for housing (12/01660/FUL) granted in September 2012.

5.16 Site allocation P00343 has a single condition that the development should provide off-site highway works to enable safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site via Banner Cross Drive. These will comprise traffic control and pedestrian measures at the busy junction of Ecclesall Road/Ecclesall Road

-83-

South and Psalter lane. Again, these provisions were included in a revised mixed development scheme granted permission (10/01942/FUL) in 2012.

5.17 Site allocation P00436 has three conditions designed to improve the site’s connections with its immediate surroundings. The site’s semi-rural character is reinforced by boundary trees, native hedgerows and a group of trees from an historic woodland strip which should be retained. The surrounding area has been shown to have insufficient informal open space and therefore it is expected that the development should lay out an area of some 0.2 hectares embracing some of the retained trees if possible. That area should be used to enhance and better define the route of the strategic green corridor (policy CS73h - Oakes Park to Limb Valley) that crosses the southern end of the site. The first condition covers those requirements.

5.18 The second condition of safeguarding the setting of Oakes Park itself has been included to meet a valid objection from English Heritage (see paragraph 5.30 below) who was concerned that the site should not undermine the character and setting of the nearby Registered Historic Park and the surrounding rural Conservation Area.

5.19 Site P00518 has two conditions derived from key aspects of the Planning and Design Brief recently approved following public consultation. The wider site comprises the former Abbeydale Grange Secondary School site, playing fields and the Bannerdale Centre. A block of ancient woodland, known locally as Spring Wood and designated as a Local Nature Site on the Proposals Map, separates the two site allocations in this area. In order to protect its integrity and associated species there is a condition that a 15 metres landscaped buffer should be provided within the northern part of the site up to the woodland canopy edge. It is intended that the buffer may be used for public access and part of it could contribute to on-site open space required by policy D2.

5.20 As a former school the site boundary has been secured and there are currently no public rights of way through the site. The second condition has been framed to create two public footpaths from Hastings Road into Spring Wood and beyond to increase public ownership of the wood and to improve access to Millhouses Neighbourhood Centre from both the Bannerdale Centre site and the Carter Knowle Road area.

Sustainability Issues

5.21 The only realistic alternative to residential development of these redundant sites and buildings is to leave them vacant and therefore prone to vandalism and anti- social behaviour. This would lose an opportunity to recycle urban land and buildings and make better use of existing infrastructure and local facilities available in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Given its character and contribution to the Conservation Area in which it is situated, it would be of

-84-

particular concern if the Bluecoat School building remained dis-used for any length of time.

5.22 Although the sustainability issues are largely the same as for housing sites in the South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 3.17-3.19) there are some additional positive and negative impacts to mention for some of the sites in this sub-area. The conditions attached to Site P00350 will significantly enhance one of the City’s Conservation Areas through the re-use of a major vacant historic building. Similarly, the conditions for Site P00436 will help to enhance the appearance and wildlife potential of a strategic green link passing through the site.

5.23 On the other hand, the appraisal of site P00518 (and site P00525) has highlighted a significant issue with local air quality. National air quality standards are already breached in its vicinity so on the advice of the Council’s Air Quality Team any residential proposal should aim to have a neutral impact on local air quality. At application stage, this means that an Air Quality Impact Assessment with an associated Traffic Impact Assessment will be required for any development on this site. This will help to consider the cumulative impact of sites being developed and the potential for associated mitigation measures. Such measures could include a Residential Travel Plan to encourage sustainable travel choices with specific measures such as installing electric charging points: the use of ‘car club’ services and other initiatives to improve the attractiveness of local services and local walking and cycle routes. Normal residential parking standards could also be lowered.

Equality Issues

5.24 The issues are largely the same as for housing sites in the South East Urban Area (see paragraph 3.20). Sites in this sub-area present no particular issues in being able to accommodate the required proportion of wheelchair accessible housing.

Consultee Preferences

5.25 At Preferred Options stage, Yorkshire Water (ID 522) confirmed that site P00357 could be supplied at reasonable cost and that there was adequate capacity to cope with foul water flows. They did however draw attention to the fact that the public sector network might not have capacity to accept additional discharge of surface water without reasonable measures being taken by the developer. As mentioned above, a specific condition has been included in the site allocation to alert developers to this requirement. At the same stage, Sport England (ID 1749) commented that an open space needs assessment might be required for this site as it appeared to affect the school’s outdoor sports facilities. This was unnecessary as the development site is limited to the building footprint and immediate curtilage of the previous primary school building and has no effect on its former playing fields.

-85-

5.26 At Consultation Draft stage (2010), South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) (dcps690) sought an alternative allocation for this site as a possible Park and Ride facility to serve the Meadowhead/Chesterfield Road corridor. At the time, the evidence was not strong enough to support holding the site for that purpose and after further analysis SYPTE has concluded that the site is unsuitable for such a facility. At the same stage, Moss Valley Wildlife Group (dcps614) supported the use of the site for housing provided the sewerage capacity is improved in line with the stated condition.

5.27 At Preferred Options stage, Sport England (ID 1750) mistakenly sought an open space needs assessment on the basis that outdoor sports facilities might be affected on site P00350. At that time the site was almost entirely occupied by university buildings save for the large car park serving the campus. All structures except for the former Bluecoat School were subsequently demolished in 2010 and there has never been any outdoor recreation provision on site. During consultation events staged in 2010, a Planning Aid workshop gave its support to the proposed housing site allocation, but a Youth Council workshop preferred the land and buildings here should be used as an adult learning/youth centre set within parkland. The Council could not support such a project financially and the landowner would not have released the site for such purposes.

5.28 SHU did in fact object to a housing allocation for the site during landowner consultations and at Consultation Draft stage (dcps856). This was on the basis that it might fetter the disposal of the site, should possible planning policy burdens render a pure residential scheme unviable. The City Council rejected the idea of withdrawing the housing allocation, given that the site is firmly located in a Housing Area, there is a pressing need to identify such suitable sites to deliver the required supply of housing land, and that the case for retaining it for other non-preferred uses was not as strong. Planning permission has subsequently been obtained for new and converted residential use which is now under construction (see paragraph 5.34 below).

5.29 During landowner consultations in 2009 the Gilder Group supported a residential element on site P00343 but considered that a pure residential scheme might not be viable given the costs of remediation on their site. They had unsuccessfully tested a mixed use scheme, including a retail food store, that was refused (08/04852/FUL) by the local planning authority that year. Planning consent for 14 new dwellings, subject to a legal agreement, has subsequently been obtained with the former showroom buildings being converted for smaller scale retail operations. That scheme is consistent with the proportions of required land uses indicated in the proposed site allocation. The case for using this site primarily for housing was supported in both a Planning Aid workshop and a Community Assembly roadshow event that publicised the Consultation Draft document.

5.30 At Consultation Draft stage (2010), Moss Valley Wildlife Group (dcps 615) supported the allocation proposed for site P00436 and the locally specific

-86-

conditions attached to it. At the same stage, English Heritage (dcps783) sought an extra condition that development should safeguard the setting of the neighbouring Oakes Park given its registered status as an Historic Park and Garden. The Council agreed to add the condition to the Pre-submission document as mentioned above.

5.31 The allocation of site P00518 was not included in the Additional Site Allocations Options consultation in 2012 but separate public consultation commenced on development options for this and the Bannerdale site in June and July 2012. A Draft Planning and Design Brief covering the two sites was subject to a 6 week period of formal public consultation from February to April this year. That draft document was used to support the site allocations now proposed for this and the Bannerdale site. A summary of the comments received and the Council’s responses is included as Appendix 6 of the Planning and Design Brief approved by Planning Committee on 21st May this year.

5.32 There were two themes in the comments that relate specifically to the Pre- submission Proposals Map. The initial options based consultation in July 2012 resulted in strong support for housing on site P00518 and a concern to avoid any significant retail provision there. At the Draft Brief stage, 5 out of 73 respondents questioned the size of the developable area that is now equivalent to the proposed site allocation. In their view, the site extends beyond the footprint of the former secondary school building and therefore reduces the amount of open space that is safeguarded by the UDP. This view was rejected for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.90 and parity between developable and protected areas in existing and proposed planning documents is assured by the condition requiring a 15 metre woodland buffer in the housing site allocation.

Effectiveness

Delivery

5.33 The City Council owns sites P00357, P00436 and P00518 and they will be disposed of on the open market for private development with either informal planning guidance or an approved Planning Brief. A preferred developer has already been selected on this basis for site P00436 and completion of a scheme is estimated to by 2016. There is also likely to be strong market interest for site P00518 which is estimated for completion by the same year. Site P00357 is located in area that has comparatively low market prices and completion is therefore estimated to be in the medium term (by 2021) by which time there should be an improvement on current market conditions. There are no significant constraints to developing these sites for housing.

5.34 Site P00350 has been acquired by a volume house builder and permission (12/01660/FUL) was granted in September 2012 for 40 houses and 22 apartments subject to an off-site affordable housing contribution. The former Bluecoat School building will be converted to 14 x 2 bedroom apartments. Work

-87-

commenced on site in January of this year and completion is expected in the short term (by 2015). The planning consent satisfies all three bespoke conditions for this site allocation.

5.35 At site P00343, permission has been granted (10/01942/FUL) for 14 new dwellings and conversion of the former showroom premises for retail (class A1) and a bar/ restaurant (class A3) subject to a legal agreement. Work is yet to commence on that scheme and current market conditions may mean that its completion is unlikely until 2019. There is almost a 10 metre difference in levels across the site and substantial commercial buildings either need to be demolished or significantly remodelled for new uses. The current permitted scheme manages to overcome these particular constraints. As mentioned earlier there will be a need for the developer to fund some off-site highway works to overcome vehicular access constraints.

Flexibility and Risk

5.36 Delivery of sites in private ownership depends heavily on market conditions. There is now very little risk in delivering proposals for site P00350 now that work has commenced on site. For Council owned sites, some of the risks to developers have been reduced through the preparation of detailed planning guidance.

5.37 Although housing site allocations require mainly housing (C3) or residential institutions (C2) uses, they also allow up to 20% of the site to be developed for other compatible uses, if this is necessary and in line with policy H1. In the case of site P00343, this tolerance has been extended to 35% in recognition of the evident constraints in regenerating this particular site.

Monitoring

5.38 This will be done through the SHLAA and the development management process.

Conclusions on Soundness of Housing Allocations

5.39 The allocations of sites for Housing use is considered sound for the following reasons.

5.40 They are positively prepared:

• Such site allocations are a central part of maintaining a positive vision for the City and its neighbourhoods. • They provide clarity for decision-makers on what should be permitted on specific sites in line with plan-making requirements set out in national policy (NPPF, paragraph 154).

-88-

5.41 They are justified:

• They help implement the Core Strategy spatial strategy in respect of the South and West Urban Area because they promote a range of objectives including those for a ‘city with character’ (Core Strategy policy CS31 and paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23). • They help implement strategic policies on land recycling and the location and phasing of housing sites in the Core Strategy (CS23, CS24 and CS25). • They are all in sustainable locations within established residential neighbourhoods that have good access to local amenities and regular public transport services. • There are no compelling reasons to use these sites for non-residential purposes. • The specific conditions attached to the allocations are essential for sustainable development and they will not prejudice the viability of proposed development.

5.42 They will be effective:

• They are free from major constraints and market interest should ensure that they are delivered during the plan period.

5.43 They are consistent with national policy:

• They are consistent with key principles (NPPF, paragraphs 7 and 17) of meeting housing needs, focusing development in sustainable locations and recycling urban land with lesser environmental value. • They specifically implement the policy to identify the necessary supply of deliverable and developable housing sites for the plan period (NPPF, paragraph 47). • They also use an opportunity to promote development that enhances a Conservation Area showing the significance of an heritage asset within it.

Mixed Use Site

5.44 The sub-area has a single Mixed Use site with two preferred uses (Housing and Open Space). The site allocation is referred to as:

• P00525 Bannerdale Centre and adjacent land, Carter Knowle Road

Introduction

5.45 This Council -owned site measures some 14.89 hectares in total and is made up of three main elements.

-89-

• The Bannerdale Centre and its associated car parking and access road • The parkland to the north west of the Centre which includes four football pitches and three informal junior pitches • The eastern part of the site including a variety of plots within a woodland infrastructure

5.46 On the Proposals Map, the first area is designated within a Housing Area (see paragraph 4.83) and the remaining areas are within an Open Space Area to acknowledge their recreational and landscape value. The Bannerdale Centre houses some education and community services but the Council plans to demolish the building in the near future. A consultative Planning Brief has been prepared and adopted which underpins this site allocation and the allocation for site P00518 which is covered in the Housing Sites section above.

National Policy and Other Strategies

5.47 The links with national policy for the underlying Housing and Open Space Areas are set out in paragraphs 2.62 and 2.104 respectively. The connections with Core Strategy policy are those referred to in paragraphs 2.63 and 2.105-2.106. The residential component of this site allocation specifically delivers the NPPF requirement (paragraph 47) to identify a supply of deliverable and developable sites to meet objectively assessed needs for housing over the plan period.

Justification

Alternative Options

5.48 The preparation of a planning brief for this site has revealed that the immediate area has a quantitative shortage of open space according to the definition used in policy CS47. It would not therefore be consistent with the Core Strategy to lose any existing identified open space on this site. Some of the space is in the form of playing pitches and the Sheffield Playing Pitch Strategy (2013) identifies a need for these types of pitches to be retained. Consequently, there is no meaningful alternative to protecting the full extent of the parkland within this site. Options to re-use or redevelop the Bannerdale Centre for other community facilities or for new open space, to redress the current deficiency, were also discounted. It is no longer economic for the Council to maintain the Centre long term or rebuild it for community use. Neither can the Council afford to deliver and maintain a significant increase in open space on this site. The Centre and its immediate environs have no heritage, recreation or ecological value to warrant retaining it in its present form. Once the building is vacated, it could become a target for vandalism with consequent negative effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.

-90-

5.49 Residential class uses are preferred uses in the Housing Area in which the Centre is situated and they would perform best against the sustainability objectives used for the Local Plan. In the circumstances, the most appropriate option is to allocate the whole site for a combination of retained open space and new housing equivalent to the footprint and curtilage of the Bannerdale Centre. This will help to deliver an additional housing site in line with Core Strategy policy CS22, whilst also complying with policy CS47 in safeguarding valued open space in the local area. Provided there is no loss of open space and areas with intrinsic landscape quality are preserved, there could be options on where new housing development could be sited within the allocated area. The Planning Brief has explored some of the possibilities

Justification for Conditions

5.50 The allocation lists six specific conditions. The first condition restricts the developable area to 1.91 hectares which is equivalent to the footprint of the Bannerdale Centre, its car park and landscaped concourse. The quantum of development represents the maximum area of the wider site that can be re-used without infringing policy CS47 in an area with an identified shortage of open space. The conditions to retain, or re-provide to the same quality, four playing pitches and three junior pitches and other types of open space within the site are to comply with Core Strategy policy CS47 because those facilities are valued, they are not surplus to requirements and this is the only site in the local area that can reasonably accommodate them.

5.51 A condition that development must respect and safeguard the landscape character of the area adjacent to the ancient oak woodland (Spring Wood) is necessary to preserve the integrity of this Local Nature Site.

5.52 There are related conditions to maximise views and surveillance of the open space and to create public footpaths from Carter Knowle Road. These are necessary to increase use and ownership and to enhance the qualities of the open space in line with the design principles in Core Strategy policy CS74. This requirement is consistent with NPPF policy (paragraph 75) on enhancing public rights of way. The new footpaths will also improve access to Millhouses Neighbourhood Centre from the Carter Knowle Road area.

Sustainability Issues

5.53 For the open space element of this allocation, the issues are largely the same as for Open Space Areas throughout the Community Assembly Area (see paragraph 2.110 above). The retention of such recreational facilities in an area where provision is below the adopted minimum guideline figure is particularly beneficial.

5.54 For the housing component of this proposal, the issues are largely the same as for housing sites in the South East Urban Area (see paragraphs 3.17-3.19).

-91-

There is, however, a similar issue with local air quality as mentioned for site P00518 (see paragraph 5.23).

Equality Issues

5.55 For the residential element the issues are largely the same as for housing sites in the South East Urban Area (paragraph 3.20). The retained open space on this site will be beneficial to most of the identified impact groups and overall there are unlikely to be any equality reasons for questioning this site allocation.

Consultee Preferences

5.56 Paragraph 5.31 explains the context for late inclusion in the document of this site allocation, along with the allocation of site P00518. Consultation on the Draft Planning Brief raised two issues for this site that relate to the Pre-submission Proposals Map. Some 29 respondents objected to an option (referred to as option 2A) for siting the development area on pitches at the western end of the site with access from Carter Knowle Road. The concern was that this would be intrusive on the open space, spoil its green character and cause unnecessary disruption to users of the pitches during any planned relocation of facilities. That option was removed from the approved Planning Brief as it is accepted that development there would have a worse impact on the landscape of the parkland than using the footprint area of the Bannerdale Centre once the building is demolished.

5.57 The western end of the site and the land immediately north of Spring Wood are areas that are least favoured for new development in the approved Planning Brief. The area to the north of the woodland is particularly sensitive since the landscape here has remained virtually undisturbed since at least the nineteenth century and probably even earlier.

5.58 The site allocation and the supporting Planning Brief does not currently restrict the proposed developable area to the Bannerdale Centre footprint area, as technically there could be some flexibility in siting both within site P00525 and in conjunction with Site P00518. However, should future applicants wish to develop on some of the open spaces adjoining the former Abbeydale Grange School site and the existing Bannerdale Centre (by way of a land swap), then they must have a compelling rationale showing how:

(a) The open space can be replaced within the site both in terms of quantity and quality, including seamless use of any sports pitches; and (b) Good design can be achieved through the siting, layout, external appearance and landscaping of the development and its relationship with the open space.

5.59 Although six respondents supported the redevelopment of the Bannnerdale Centre site for housing, a further eight respondents preferred the Centre to be

-92-

retained for mixed uses including residential, community facilities and workshops. The Council has rejected that proposition because it concludes the present building is uneconomic to convert to those uses, there will be alternative community spaces available in the local area and the need to identify housing land on this site must take higher priority.

Effectiveness

Delivery

5.60 This is a Council-owned site and it is intended that the Bannerdale Centre will be vacated and closed in 2014. The Council will determine the boundaries of the site to be marketed for private development. Development will need to accord with the approved Planning and Design Brief which usefully sets out principles for location, layout and density of development.

5.61 A bat scoping survey will be undertaken prior to demolition of the Centre building to advise whether further action and a license from Natural England are needed. Given the issue referred to in paragraph 5.23 above, an Air Quality Impact Assessment and an associated Traffic Impact Assessment will be required to consider any cumulative effects and associated measures to ensure a neutral impact on local air quality.

5.62 Market conditions will be a factor in the timing of the delivery of this site but demand for housing is sufficiently strong in this sector of the City for completion to take place in the medium term (by 2021).

Flexibility and Risk

5.63 There is always a possibility that the site could take longer to develop if current market conditions fail to improve in the medium term. However, the potential risks to developers have been reduced through the preparation, approval and publication of the Planning Brief which is now a material consideration for future planning decisions on this site.

Monitoring

5.64 This will be through regular discussion with the Council’s in-house property service and then through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and the development management process.

Conclusions on Soundness of Mixed Use Allocation

5.65 The allocation of this site for housing and open space is considered sound for the following reasons.

-93-

5.66 It is positively prepared:

• Such a site allocation is a central part of maintaining a positive vision for the City and its neighbourhoods. • It provides clarity for decision-makers on what should be permitted on a specific site in line with plan-making requirements set out in national policy (NPPF paragraph 154).

5.67 It is justified:

• It helps implement the Core Strategy spatial strategy in respect of the South and West Urban Area because it promotes a range of objectives including those for a ‘city with character’ (Core Strategy policy CS31 and paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23). • It helps implement strategic policies on land recycling and the location and phasing of housing sites in the Core Strategy (CS23, CS24 and CS25). • It is in a sustainable location within an established residential neighbourhood that has good access to local amenities and regular public transport services. • There are no compelling reasons to use this site for other purposes. • The specific conditions attached to the allocations are essential for sustainable development and they will not prejudice the viability of proposed development.

5.68 It will be effective:

• It is free from major constraints and market interest should ensure that it is delivered during the plan period.

5.69 It is consistent with national policy:

• It is consistent with key principles (NPPF, paragraphs 7 and 17) of meeting housing needs, focusing development in sustainable locations and recycling urban land with lesser environmental value. • It specifically implements the policy to identify the necessary supply of deliverable and developable housing sites for the plan period (NPPF, paragraph 47). • It also encourages some housing re-use of property that is no longer required for education and community services (NPPF, paragraph 51). • It is part of an integrated approach that protects valued open space and enhances public rights of way through it (NPPF paragraphs 74 and 75).

-94-

Transport Site

5.70 The sub-area has a single Transport Site in the form of a Park and Ride facility. The site allocation is referred to as:

• P00355 Abbeydale Drive, Carter Knowle

Introduction

5.71 This is an existing 200 space park-and-ride facility situated next to the Tesco (Abbeydale Road) superstore. The site is also next to a bus turning facility that is utilised by off-peak free buses provided by the retailer, a part-funded bus route (505) and the commercially operated 85 bus service.

National Policy and Other Strategies

5.72 Such an allocation is consistent with national policy to promote transport solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and congestion (NPPF, paragraph 30), make the fullest use of public transport (NPPF, paragraph 17), and improve City Centre parking (NPPF, paragraph 40).

5.73 The allocation forms part of the City’s and the South Yorkshire authorities’ strategy (Core Strategy policy CS57) to develop park-and-ride capacity to both reduce car miles and the need for long- stay parking in the City Centre. Such transport infrastructure supports the spatial strategy of concentrating many employment opportunities and regional services in the City Centre because it can help to reduce a higher level of peak period congestion that would otherwise occur. It also allows a beneficial shift in the balance between short- stay and long-stay parking spaces within the City Centre

Justification

Alternative Options

5.74 This bus-based park-and-ride facility was developed in 1997 as part of the planning obligations attached to the consent for the Abbeydale Road Tesco superstore. The site is privately owned and held on a long lease by the retail operator who is required to manage and maintain the 200 space facility. The success of the facility has in the past been constrained by operational aspects and limited influence that South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) has over its usage. Nevertheless, the site is ideally placed to make good use of frequent bus services benefitting from bus priority measures that operate in this Key Route corridor.

5.75 Whilst a new rail-based park-and-ride has recently been established close to Dore Station some 3 kilometres to the south, the existing Abbeydale Drive

-95-

facility is still needed to fulfil SYPTE’s objective for a minimum of 400 spaces in the Abbeydale Road strategic priority corridor. The City Council has been consistent in protecting the capacity of this site from alternative development proposed in subsequent planning applications. It has taken this approach because the facility is still in use and there are no superior or appropriate alternatives in the corridor that are as convenient for accessing bus services using Abbeydale Road or Abbeydale Road South. An alternative, using part of the Council-owned recreational open space on site P00525, was rejected as being too remote from the corridor and contrary to policy CS47 owing to the serious deficiency of open space serving users in that particular area of the City.

5.76 The current facility is compatible with the Flexible Use Area designation in which it is situated because there are no alternative preferred uses that should take precedence over it. Neither the SYPTE nor the City Council can commit to the significant investment that would be necessary to replace this facility in the foreseeable future, even if a new opportunity presented itself. Given the circumstances, and the continuing requirement (under policy CS57) to provide capacity in the Abbeydale Road strategic priority corridor, no alternative uses were considered for this site.

Justification for Conditions

5.77 The facility already exists and is subject to a legal agreement to provide the service unless the planning authority agrees to either vary or withdraw the condition. It is therefore unnecessary to include further specific conditions as part of the site allocation.

Sustainability Issues

5.78 No negative issues for the current use of the site have been identified and the park-and-ride facility generally has positive impacts for relevant sustainability objectives where they relate to transport infrastructure. Park-and-ride can result in reduced mileage by private vehicles. This can help reduce carbon emissions, encourage the use of public transport and an efficient transport network, all of which can significantly benefit air quality.

Equality Issues

5.79 There are no equality reasons for questioning this site allocation. The facility will support the use of bus services in the Abbeydale Road corridor which would be beneficial to people in the surrounding neighbourhood with low access to private transport.

Consultee Preferences

5.80 Two sets of comments were received during landowner consultation in late 2009. Tesco Stores Ltd considered that the current facility is under- utilised

-96-

because its location is unsuited to serving the intended catchment area. They considered that there was insufficient evidence to support its allocation and that alternative sites within the corridor had not been considered. It was also observed that the site was too small to match the size objectives of the South Yorkshire Authorities Park-and-Ride Strategy and that the City Council should therefore consider allocating a larger site to meet those requirements. Those comments were made in the context of the retailer’s plans for further extensions to their store and its dedicated car park. A planning application to relocate and expand the park-and-ride facility onto adjoining land as part of a store extension is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the judicial review into refusal of a similar sized retail scheme proposed by Sainsbury’s at their nearby Archer Road store. The findings of that review are not available at the time of writing. Paragraphs 5.75 and 5.76 above address the salient points about alternatives made in Tesco’s submission. The Council is therefore not in a position to withdraw or replace this proposed site allocation.

5.81 The freeholder of the site (Revival Land Ltd) observed that they intended to implement their planning consent (06/02624/OUT) involving some reconfiguration of the park-and-ride facility to enable alternative access to adjoining land for housing development. That consent has yet to be implemented but there would be no adverse impact on the park-and-ride facility as it involves no loss of spaces and no appreciable increase in walking distances to the bus turning circle.

Effectiveness

Delivery

5.82 The facility already exists and planning approval for the adjoining superstore requires management and maintenance of the facility without any time limits. It is accepted that the site has not been used very efficiently in the past and the site allocation acknowledges that more investment could improve its performance. SYPTE are seeking to market and promote the site whilst improving the quality of the offer in order to stimulate demand and increase uptake of the service. Both the Council and SYPTE would be looking for maintenance of public transport infrastructure and bus services connecting with this site in any agreed reconfiguration of this facility.

Flexibility and Risk

5.83 The cooperation of the landowners is material to improved usage of the facility as there is no explicit obligation on them to promote the facility other than under the 'management' obligations in the planning consent. The Council and SYPTE will work to improve marketing by mutual consent and seek to encourage the landowners to provide appropriate support for public transport services to the site.

-97-

Monitoring

5.84 As the facility already exists there is no particular need to monitor this proposal. Any changes to the facility will be considered through the development management process.

Conclusions on Soundness of Park and Ride Allocation

5.85 The allocation of this site for a park-and-ride facility is considered sound for the following reasons.

5.86 It is positively prepared:

• It meets objectively assessed needs for transport infrastructure set out in Core Strategy policy CS57.Such a site allocation is a central part of maintaining a positive vision for the City and its neighbourhoods.

5.87 It is justified:

• It makes efficient use of public transport investment along one of the City’s Key Routes.

• It helps to alleviate some traffic travelling into a congested City Centre by removing it from the network.

• It is the most appropriate use of the site given the lack of suitable alternative sites to meet park and ride needs in the Abbeydale Road corridor.

5.88 It will be effective:

• The facility already exists and any proposed variation to its use is subject to planning control.

5.89 It is consistent with national policy:

• It promotes a transport solution that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and congestion (NPPF, paragraph 30).

• It helps to promote sustainable transport by making the fullest possible use of public transport in the Abbeydale Road corridor (NPPF, paragraph 17).

• It contributes to improving City Centre parking by allowing some long-stay spaces to be substituted by short-stay spaces (NPPF, paragraph 40).

-98-

Sites no Longer Included

5.90 A number of sites were proposed for allocation at previous consultation stages that are now withdrawn. The table below sets out why they are no longer included.

Preferred Options (2007) and Consultation Draft (2010)

Site number Type of Allocation Reason

1,109 Former Housing Site Developed for Jordanthorpe Tower Health Centre Blocks,Dyche Road 1104 Former Jacobs Housing Other land required to Engineering, Troutbeck access site Road P00398 Sixth Form Housing Site Developed Centre Abbeydale Grange School

Additional Options (2012)

Site number Type of Allocation Reason

P00512 Norton Lane Housing and Open Site unavailable Space

-99-