1. Are You a Local Resident, a Staff Member, a Student, a Local Employee Or Other?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Sheffield – Social Sciences consultation summary The consultation – what we did The University of Sheffield published its draft plan for a new Social Science development in June 2016. As part of the process, views from students, staff and members of the public were sought through an extensive consultation programme. Dedicated webpages with an online consultation form were produced and two public consultation days were held at Sport Sheffield, close to the proposed development location. These were staffed by representatives from the University, the project architects and our transport planners, and were advertised in advance in both the Sheffield Star and the Sheffield Telegraph. In addition, we delivered letters to local residents in the surrounding streets inviting them to both of the consultation events. During the consultation period, we had direct conversations with more than 200 people, and more than 120 people completed the online feedback form. We also received contributions from BBEST and the Carbon Neutral University group. We have also had face to face meetings with a number of key stakeholder groups, including residents of Crookesmoor Road, whose properties back on to the carpark site on Northumberland Road, and Weston Park Hospital, which is directly opposite the proposed new building. Who responded? The majority of the respondents were local residents but there were a significant number from students and staff members at the University. The pie chart below shows the breakdown of respondents. 1. Are you a local resident, a staff member, a student, a local employee or other? 2% 1% Work at the 5% University Study at the 26% University Local residents Local employee 41% Other 25% Left Blank The online questionnaire presented questions according to broad subjects and this report summarises the responses received. The detailed responses from BBEST and Carbon Neutral University are included as appendices at the end of the report. Quantitative analysis of the responses to the questionnaires is included at Appendix C. Building design The building design seems to have split opinion fairly equally down the middle. Some people were very positive about the design, describing it as “attractive and interesting.” Other comments in favour included: “Looks good - clean lines for easy cleaning and maintenance.” “It is a very eye-catching design! I like the use of lots of glass which gives it a very open look and plenty of reflection. It looks quite futuristic and bold.” “It appears to be an interesting design and a high quality development.” “The modern styling will be an enhancement to the local area.” Of those who disliked the building, one commented “architectural catastrophe” with another describing it as “domineering.” Others raised concerns about the juxtaposition of this and traditional buildings, but acknowledged that “equally the hospital buildings are also a real mix.” Other comments included: “Not keen on the strange roof. Think it's not timeless enough.” “The external design of the building, like the adjacent Psychology Department building, is of no special architectural merit and makes no attempt to match either in materials or shapes the predominant architecture of the late Victorian/Edwardian residential area in which it is to be located. The important architectural merits of the surrounding residential areas are recognised in their designation as Conservation Areas (Northumberland Road and Broomhill). The proposed building would be a very large and intrusive element in this landscape and one that would further substantially diminish the now very limited amount of open space in Broomhill.” “Unsure about roof and overhanging levels but like curved elevations and full height glass.” Our response We are working towards a development which balances the needs of today’s teaching and learning environment – and the expectations of our students and staff – with a building which has real impact and creates an ‘entrance’ to the University campus from the West of the city. We have listened to the concerns raised by local residents and have amended the original design in response. The proposal is now for one floor less but with a slightly larger floorplate, and we have also made some amendments to the roof design, which seemed to be the most significant point of concern in the original design. Sustainability Generally the idea of making the building as sustainable as possible was popular, with support from all groups of respondents. People felt it was essential to make it sustainable in today’s current climate. Concerns were raised about how sustainable the building would actually be, with many suggesting that it should be high on the list of priorities in the building design brief. A number of people commented that making the building sustainable would be of more benefit than an attractive building design. The Carbon Neutral University group within the University of Sheffield made a series of comments which are included as Appendix B. Some respondents expressed concern that there were no energy efficiency standards included in the design description, with others stressing that this needs to be included from the outset - “It is more practical and cheaper to build in energy efficient measures than to retrofit – the Social Sciences building needs to be designed to be carbon neutral.” One respondent said that the building should be “absolutely at the forefront of creative, innovative, sustainable design, with others suggesting it should include a wind turbine, solar panels, ground or air source heat pumps and passive ventilation. There was also concern over the amount of glass, steel and concrete used in the design and whether this was the most conducive to a sustainable building. Some of the comments included: “I believe a plan of this size must use sustainable methods in the development and running of the building.” “It would undoubtedly result in more positive feeling within the student (and possibly staff) body than an attractive design alone. Personally, I would be deeply disappointed to see another missed opportunity for a sustainable building.” “This is much more important than just being a good idea. Sadly this is often seen as a rather luxury and secondary to the design considerations.” “This must be done as much as possible, and should be a very high priority, together with energy consumption efficiency such as making as much use as possible of natural light and thermal insulation.” “I think now more than ever we should be increasingly conscious of sustainability.” “I think this is the most important part. No compromises. The building should be as energy efficient as possible with today’s technology - solar panels, sustainable wood, fully insulated and so on. It would be even better if the building actually produced more energy than it used. At the very least it should be carbon neutral.” “Have you referred to experience in Sheffield for the Home Office (Vulcan House) to look at the entire carbon footprint over time, and included travel planning in your design? What standard will it be built to, I assume at least Passive House equivalent? Carbon neutral or carbon positive?” “Are you using recycled rainwater?” Response We are aiming to achieve a minimum BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent.’ Below are some of the key sustainability features of the building. • Maximising natural daylighting through façade engineering and central atrium design. • Pushing high levels of airtightness to minimise energy losses, better than 3 m3/m2.hr @ 50Pa test. • Exposure of thermal mass to regulate internal thermal environment, reducing peak heating and cooling loads. • High performance façade, including orientated solar shading, triple glazing and solar control glazing. Reducing heat losses and use of cooling energy. • Low energy ventilation systems with very high efficiency heat recovery, and potential use of thermal mass energy storage. • Low temperature heat network between Social Sciences and proposed Goodwin Sports Centre development. • Heating and cooling energy provided from Ground Source Heat Pump system to cover full Social Sciences and proposed Goodwin Sports centre developments. • Low temperature heat network allows heat recovery between systems within each building as well as heat recovery between sites. • Gas fired CHP to provide a contribution of heat and on site electrical energy production. Parking A significant number of respondents expressed concern about car parking in the area. There is already significant pressure on the limited amount of on street car parking in the area, and there was concern that simply replacing or slightly increasing the numbers currently available on the Northumberland Road car park, as well as removing the on street bays, would cause major problems. That said, from a traffic flow point of view and the issue of pedestrian safety, the proposal to remove the on street parking bays from Northumberland Road was broadly welcomed. Weston Park Museum responded with a request to keep on street parking to support visitors to the Museum and the hospitals, and were keen to look at ways of co-operating with the University to maximise usage of spaces to both organisations’ benefit. Another respondent was concerned that removing the on street parking would result in a loss of revenue to the City Council. Other respondents felt the focus should be on creating cycle lanes and providing cycle parking to encourage more cyclists and thus reduce car use. One respondent commented: “Only happy to see the on street parking removed if the affordability and accessibility to hospital visitors remains the same or is improved. Some of the Northumberland Rd spaces are free at night, and are heavily used by hospital night staff.” Our response Our traffic consultants Aecom will be looking at these issues in detail over the next few weeks and before we submit a full planning application. General traffic issues There were significant concerns about a general increase in traffic in the area, but many people said they would welcome potential improvements to traffic management and flow, particularly around the Northumberland Road/Whittam Road junction.