University of – Social Sciences consultation summary The consultation – what we did The 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 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. 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. There was general public support for removing the parking bays on Northumberland Road and for widening the pavements to make the area more comfortable and welcoming for pedestrians, although some respondents, including Weston Park Museum, expressed concerns about the bays being removed. “Yes, it can feel like a hazardous place to cross the road as there are no pedestrian lights or central reservation and there are several directions that cars can come from to turn into Northumberland Road. It would be great if there could be a central reservation built, to break-up the crossing if it is wide enough to accommodate this. Alternatively, if a traffic light system or zebra crossing could be introduced that would be good too.” There were a number of suggestions about whether new traffic management could incorporate improvements to the queue into Weston Park Hospital. There were strong feelings that the traffic issues, amongst others, needed to be considered as part of a wider masterplan, rather than simply about the proposed Social Sciences building in isolation. “Driving along Northumberland Road is difficult and dangerous at times,” said one respondent. “The pavement can be very congested. I would be concerned if there was any attempt to restrict traffic flow.” Another respondent expressed concern over the impact the building could have on traffic movements: “I am concerned that that this building is only going to make what is already a bad junction even worse.” One suggestion was that filter lanes could be introduced on both sides of Whitham Road, allowing easier access to both the hospital and the proposed new building, and allowing transient traffic to continue to flow. “An entrance to a large scale facility should not be on Northumberland Road. It should be from Whitham which can handle the traffic. This may be more expensive but it is the safest option. Northumberland Road is a 20 mph road but motorists rarely stick to this speed. Every winter the dip in the road causes a flood and pedestrians are often in the road. It is currently dangerous and "improving" traffic flow will make the situation worse. Traffic should be discouraged from using this road.” Another respondent asked for a crossing to be provided at the junction of Northumberland Road and Crookesmoor Road. 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. The University masterplan extension should also help to address these concerns. Football Pitches There was a significant amount of opposition to the proposed two six a side football pitches on the site of the existing car park on Northumberland Road. This was probably the single biggest issue of concern. People were worried about increased noise and bad language as a result of late night usage. They were also very concerned about light pollution and reduced privacy in their gardens as a result of the proposed pitch development. There were also concerns about reducing parking availability in the area by building over the current car park, as many people feel that parking is already in short supply. Generally, people said they would personally not use the new sports pitches but that they knew people who would. Some of the comments included: “I am not anti-progress. There has been much recent university development around my property including the Arthur Willis Centre and the Management School extension that I have not objected to. However the proposed football pitches and their associated noise and light pollution, look like they will impact detrimentally on my life. There will be increased levels of noise and light inside my house. My garden will become so noisy and overlooked that it will be unpleasant to go into for myself and my children.” (resident of Crookesmoor Road) “Noise created by players using the pitches, through shouting and general sporting activity will be highly disruptive. The natural acoustics of the car park mean that normal conversation levels are already highly audible our gardens and garden facing rooms. The pitches are likely to be in use from early morning to 10.00pm, 7 days per week and this noise will create major disturbance, and disrupt the sleep of our children. Having children, the resulting noise and shouting will be doubly problematic given the inevitable aggression and bad language (resident of Crookesmoor Road)

“The light pollution created by the Goodwin Sports Centre and car park floodlighting already has an unwelcome impact on night-time light levels. The close proximity of high luminosity sports floodlights so close to our houses will be highly disruptive and clearly visible, even within our homes.” There will also be an overall impact on current use of our gardens for rest and relaxation. The current car park, whilst busy during normal working hours (and early evening for Goodwin), offers some respite at weekends and evenings after 6.00pm. This respite will clearly be lost in terms of noise, traffic, footfall and light pollution, well into the night, 7 days per week.” (resident of Crookesmoor Road)

Our response

Having heard the many genuine and heartfelt concerns from local residents about the proposal to develop two new six a side pitches on the existing car park site, we have decided to drop this element from the planning application and look at alternative options for replacing the capacity lost by building the Social Sciences building on one of the existing pitches.

Pocket Park and more green spaces The idea of the pocket park at the front of the building, open to all, was generally very well- received, although one respondent wondered whether it was needed, given the building’s proximity to Weston Park. Of the many respondents who welcomed the proposal, some of the comments included: “Excellent idea – will make the area more people-friendly.” “The more open green space preserved around the building the better. A pocket park opposite Weston Park Hospital could serve the needs of patients and visitors in the same way that Weston Park currently serves the needs of patients and visitors from Sheffield Children’s Hospital.”

“Definitely support this. This area is currently uninviting, polluted and congested. Opening it up would be great.

“Yes, this is a good idea and yes I would use it. I would also urge you to make the site as permeable as possible to pedestrians and cyclists, and to share green space with the public as much as possible. The picture seems to illustrate a hard-paved car park at the front of the building rather than a pocket park.”

“Yes I would definitely use this space. I live locally and use all the open spaces and parks, large and small. People waiting outside the Hospital would benefit from somewhere soothing. The park will need bins for people smoking anxious cigarettes! A drinking-fountain would be useful, and bins for dog-poo-bags. Walls to stop children running on the road would be good. Consider working the bus-stops into this, so people can wait on the edges of the park?”

Our response

We were pleased to receive such a positive response to the pocket park and will look at how it can be further developed to incorporate some of the respondents’ suggestions.

Railings and Leylandi There was strong support for the retention of the railings on Whitham Road. The majority of respondents were also in favour of the removal of the Leylandi trees on Whitham Road as it was felt that they created a dark and unwelcoming feel to the streetscape. Many people would like to see them replaced with trees less prone to disease, including native species, with others suggesting palm trees. Some of the comments included: “Good idea to remove those trees. Birch are a good idea. Some species have beautiful bark and they provide screening with natural surveillence.”

“British natives, the tall ones, especially pine. Berries and seeds for squirrels and birds feeding. Rowan is bright. Ivy and ferns.”

Our response

We were pleased that the proposal to remove the Leylandi trees was welcomed as we believe the site and the surrounding area will benefit from being opened up. The University has a policy of replacing any felled tree with three new trees and, as part of the landscaping development, we will look at some of the ideas suggested by respondents. Café and public use Generally the café proposal was well-received and people said they would use it, but Weston Park expressed concern that it would be in direct competition with their café offer. One respondent said there was a shortage of places to grab food in the area. Others said they were very keen to see facilities for public use within the building, with suggestions including exhibition space, room hire and an internet café. Some of the comments included: “Possibly would use - would be of great benefit to hospital visitors, taking them out of that environment and headspace for a little while.” “All/most facilities should be accessible for hire/use (Sheffield is a civic university, we're told) to maximise 24/7 use of the building.”

Our response We’re pleased that the response to the café and public spaces was generally positive. We believe that the increase in students and staff in the area as a result of the new building will mean the café has a substantial source of customers and that it is unlikely to impact negatively on Weston Park – in fact, there could be a positive impact due to more people in the area during the day. However, we would be happy to meet and talk with them about trying to create a complementary offer so that both venues can benefit from the new development. Sports centre redevelopment and masterplan There was a significant amount of concern about the lack of detail at this stage about the proposed new sports centre and the fact that the masterplan extension to cover this part of the campus was not included as part of the public consultation. Some of the comments included:

“Since the proposed Masterplan for this area indicates that the University will also be seeking to change the use of buildings at the Goodwin Centre and build new sports facilities abutting Northumberland Road, I believe the University should set out these plans with as much detail as possible at this time and seek outline planning approval for the Masterplan before it seeks planning approval for individual elements within the plan – like the proposed new Social Sciences building.” “I feel frustrated that we are being asked to comment on part of the plan. My views may be different if I could view the plan for the whole area, including the sports centre redevelopment. How can we comment on parking, pitches, traffic flow when the Goodwin plans may well affect these things too? I am naturally inclined to be very accepting of changes occurring as I recognise this is part of living in this area. But I am loathe to endorse half a plan, with no indication of when we will get to view the other half (ie the sports centre). I am strongly opposed to developments that encourage even greater car use in an area which already has difficult roads to cross & high air pollution. And I suspect that housing 34% of the university WILL lead to greater car use.” “I'm really concerned about other developments as well as this. At the Harcourt Road residents meeting some sensible suggestions and concerns were raised including the need for a masterplan so that decisions are not taken piecemeal and we can be properly informed.” “ A proposed new swimming pool was included in the model at the consultation evening, but no information was available about the plan for the current pool building, or the wider plans for the Goodwin Centre. This causes concern & potentially unnecessary worry, about sports pitch relocation etc. Residents asked the university to engage with them (back in April) before any major plans were made. We would like this to be arranged, particularly in light of the proposed new swimming pool being shown. I feel it is unfair for the university to expect residents to comment on individual projects without the ability to understand the full impact of these developments on our neighbourhood. The university should set out their complete plans in as much detail as possible, & seek consultation/outline planning approval for the Masterplan before seeking consultation/ approval for individual projects within the plan (ie the Social Sciences building).

Our response We welcome the comments about the need to look at this proposal alongside other plans for the area and will be running a follow-up public consultation later in the year where we will present updated plans for the Social Sciences building, more details of the proposals for the Sports Centre development, and the overall context within our extended masterplan proposals.

Appendix A Response from BBEST THE NEW UNIVERSITY SOCIAL SCIENCE BUILDING RESPONSE OF BBEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING FORUM The Forum is the designated body charged with developing a neighbourhood plan for the area, and has, after three years work, finalised the major objectives of that plan, and is about to consult on the application of those objectives via planning policies. This response is based on its remit to develop a plan, and the objectives that have been agreed by the Forum. The proposed development is a significant and major change to the area. Arguably the most significant in decades: in its scope to alter dramatically the nature of the University boundary within the area, significantly increase in all aspects the movement of people, change traffic needs and demands and flows, and provide (the first of) new very large buildings within the area with all the attendant design issues involved in abutting a conservation area regarded as one of the finest Victorian suburbs in . The existing boundary of the University around Northumberland Road gently eases the campus into the surrounding neighbourhood houses via playing fields (and low rise buildings on the other side of the Road). The boundary is very different with a major and substantial new building in place of this. The plan to move three social science departments and thousands of students from one side of the campus to this new location is a change with immense consequences for people and traffic movements. The future plans for the sports centre area, and the car park on Northumberland Road, will add to this impact, with at present totally unknown integration or conflict with the Social Science proposal. The development is therefore of immense significance for the neighbourhood plan area.It also, if thought of as part of whole masterplan for the area could lead to improvements which are key objectives for BBEST. These include improvements to public realm on the Whitham Road corridor (the ‘Boulevard Project’), the improvement of cycling and walking provision (the whole of Northumberland Road for example will need rethinking right up to and across Crookesmoor Road because of the massive increase in people flow), the development of green space, and the continuation of a high standard of building in the area which pays attention to remarkable buildings (for example 63 listed buildings in the plan area) and to the cityscape of Victorian architecture and design of the highest quality. The five BBEST key points, with the first absolutely fundamental, are:

1. MASTERPLAN FOR THE AREA BOTH SIDES OF NORTHUMBERLAND ROAD It is vital that no planning application for this building is considered without a master plan for the area. The impact of the changes, and the further prospective changes, is so significant that this is a fundamental issue. A Masterplan, is we understand, in preparation, and should be subject to planning processes before considering the application for the social science buildings.

2. THE BOULEVARD PROJECT A key element of the BBEST plans, relating to many of the agreed objectives, is to improve the pedestrian (and overall) experience of the corridor from the University up the Whitham Road, to the end of the Retail Centre (as well as relevant sections of feeder roads, including all of Northumberland Road). This is of major relevance to the University as thousands of students walk up and down this from the Endcliffe Village every day. It also relates to the University’s ambitions for improving the outdoor movement and visual and environmental appearance of the route from Portobello to the . There need to be similar ambitions for those parts of the Boulevard that could be directly helped by the University, such as the whole Whitham Road boundary, to include changed pavements, parking alteraations, improved bus stops, better cycling options if possible, major tree planting etc. These ambitions should also be part of the major developments both sides of Northumberland Road the pavements, planting,traffic routing etc in that area as well. The Masterplan should address this opportunity, which has been the subject of general discussion for some time between BBEST and the University

3. DESIGN ISSUES (a) The building should respect the townscape of the local character area. The building can be distinctive and dramatic while still ‘belonging’, and the Masterplan should refer to the overall principles which will enable this to happen, and make it respect its role as part of the ‘gateway’ to the Victorian suburb. Below the site are substantial and typical stone walls, above it brick terraces of uniform Victorian design, behind are classic stone houses, and it is surrounded by walls and railings typical of the area. These factors will feature in a future Design Guide as part of the neighbourhood plan, the University should note these key features of the area in its masterplan, and relate them to the design of this new building, including making sure at ground level there is proper integration into both the palette of materials and the topography (so it does not appear cut off by, for example, car park entrance walls with poor quality, and inappropriate, finishes). (b) The building’s relation to public space is a key issue, as the neighbourhood is significantly short of public space, and it is in the interest of staff, students, visitors and local residents that this is enhanced by this building. Permeability is a good principle, and the public ‘square’ at front is welcome (although the scale of the flow through it may minimize its usage as genuine space, and at present it lacks ideas such as seating or children play opportunities which would genuinely mark it out as a contribution for everyone and not just a student/staffpassageway). The idea of linkage across the road should be explored for benefit of the cancer hospital, and the opportunity should be taken to increase sense of space on both Whitham and Northumberland Road. All of these issues should be addressed in the Masterplan and then reflected in the building design.

4. TRAVEL ISSUES There is a welcome emphasis on walking and cycling with this building, which should be a key feature of the Masterplan. Entrance treatments for car parks are crucial, and where pavements must be crossed by cars the pavement should be continuous (at grade) to emphasise, and address practically, pedestrian priority. The bus stop treatment does not show much advance, and there should be imaginative ways to improve this, to increase pavement area, to avoid pavement clutter and encourage ease and pleasantness of use. This is a major opportunity, which should be addressed in the Masterplan, to remodel pavements, street signs, bus stops, edges to make more spacious pedestrian environment, and possibly include a cycle lane (or lanes). 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BBEST has commissioned ecological studies of the entire neighbourhood plan area and detailed studies of areas within it. The entire Northumberland Road area is of crucial significance to achieving the environmental objectives of BBEST based on the studies that have been commissioned. A key environmental corridor goes through this area, and includes the Harcourt Hole, the Arthur Willis Centre, and the edges of the sports pitches. This corridor, and the study evidence, has been discussed with the University, and should play an important role in the development of the environmental elements of the Masterplan. Opportunities for enhancement should be undertaken, to include ways that environmental gain can help the public as well as the ecology (for example to cover a BBEST objective of increasing pocket parks). Mature trees, with the exception of the conifer belt on Whitham Road, should be kept except where removal can be fully justified. The conifers should be replaced, as proposed, but up the full extent of the sports pitch site, and with appropriate tree and landscape planting (with all tree planting having a five year management plan). This is an area with significant water flows, and water issues should be explored in detail, because of their potential effect on both ecology and property. A BBEST objective, to ‘tell the story’ of blue infrastructure in the area, could be reflected in some design considerations (e.g. aspects of landscaping) and via sign boards and other means.

Professor Peter Marsh Chair BBEST NPF 28 July 2016

Appendix B – letter from Carbon Neutral University Sustainability of the proposed Social Sciences Hub at the University of Sheffield

The University of Sheffield is a dynamic, growing institution at the forefront of research and learning in the UK and worldwide. We, the Carbon Neutral University network and the undersigned, appreciate and support the continual need to update and improve our facilities to maintain this high standard. We also recognise the important role of our many iconic campus buildings, from , to the Arts Tower to the best Student Union in the UK, in representing the University community. We have therefore viewed the current plans for the Social Sciences Hub with great interest and welcome the opportunity to engage with Estates and Facilities Management through the ongoing public consultation.

Several aspects of these plans we have support for. The provision of publicly accessible green spaces, including through pocket parks, will promote biodiversity and allow the building to both benefit and better integrate into its immediate surroundings. Similarly, plans for a sustainable drainage system including rain gardens and swales are very positive. However we also wish to raise major concerns with regard to the sustainability of this building. While we raise specific queries in response to these plans, our concern and interest in appropriate and ambitious sustainability targets is applicable to development across the University more generally. We hope that this consultation will (a) facilitate clarification and (b) engender an ambitious response to the concerns below.

• No sustainability targets are mentioned in these plans. Such targets are key to ensuring any proposed measures to improve sustainability are maintained throughout construction. Are targets for energy and sustainability currently being considered for this building? • How will these targets relate to recognised sustainable design standards, such as BREEAM, LEED or Living Building Challenge? The My Sustainable Campus webpages state “The University of Sheffield has committed to developing low carbon buildings, setting ourselves the ambitious target of BREEAM excellent as a minimum for all new capital projects ─ the most widely used environmental assessment for buildings.” Is that the case for this building? • We recognise that some commonly used standards may not always reflect effective and innovative sustainable design, particularly in relation to energy. If EFM feels this is the case, will an alternative, ambitious target appropriate for such a flagship build (such as zero carbon) be set? • What efforts have so far been made to include carbon positive design features? Is there potential (for example) to develop the use of carbon positive building materials such as timber? • How has prominent research and expertise at the University of Sheffield, such as that in solar and other renewable technology, and in green roofing, been recognised and incorporated into this design? Could use of this expertise be developed further? • We support the consideration of renewable energy solutions described in the plans, but would welcome clarification as to what these solutions are and how much they will contribute to the overall energy use of the building. • Finally, in plans to improve traffic flow and pedestrian access in the Northumberland Road area, how have the needs of cyclists been considered? The precedent for sustainable, low or zero carbon University buildings exists across the University sector. At the University of Nottingham, the Jubilee campus features green rooves, photovoltaic cells and passive ventilation. The striking Enterprise Centre at the University of East Anglia achieved the Passivhaus standard and also makes extensive use of renewable energy. Setting and meeting aspirational sustainability targets will enable this building to be forward- looking and competitive. We hope the Social Sciences Hub will reflect our leading research in sustainability and serve as a flagship for both the campus and the ethos of the University community.

We look forward to your response.

Thank you very much.

With kind regards,

The Carbon Neutral University Network

Web: http://carbonneutralshef.weebly.com/

Email: [email protected]

As a network, we asked people if they would also like to sign the letter as individuals and thereby show the level of interest around different parts of the University. Please find their names and affiliations below.

Signatures

1. Alasdair Cochrane, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics

2. Andrew Merson, Undergraduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering

3. Fionn Stevenson, Professor, HoD, School of Architecture

4. Stephen Folkes, Undergraduate, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering

5. Nick Nuttgens, PhD Student, School of English

6. Lenny Koh, Professor, Management School

7. Hamish Cunningham, Professor, Department of Computer Science

8. Aldous Everard, Business Development Manager, Sheffield Solar, Physics and Astronomy

9. Matt Watson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography

10. Adam Howard, MSc student, Centre for Alternative Technology/ University of East London

11. Paul Jarman, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Biomedical Sciences

12. Briony Norton, Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept Animal and Plant Sciences

13. Philip Warren, Professor, Dept Animal and Plant Sciences

14. Kiran Malhi-Bearn, Sustainability officer, Sheffield Student’s Union

15. Liam Ratcliffe, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Chemistry

16. Eleanor Absalom, Undergraduate, Department of Geography

17. Christian Unger, Grantham Research Fellow, Faculty of Science

18. Christopher Baines, Undergraduate, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences

19. Kathryn Aston, English Language Teacher, English Language Centre

20. Melanie Hannah, Departmental Manager, Department of Biomedical Sciences

21. Rachael Treharne, PhD Student, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences

22. Joe Hook, Undergraduate, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering

23. Lizzie Jewitt, Undergraduate, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences/ Department of Geography

24. Juliet De Little, Undergraduate, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering

25. Gwen Welsh, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Geography

26. Emily Vincent, Undergraduate, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

27. Hayley Stevenson, Reader in Politics and International Relations, Department of Politics

28. Holly Lawford-Smith, Research Fellow, Department of Philosophy

29. Danial Sturge, Policy Assistant, Green Alliance and PhD Alumni, Mechanical Engineering

30. Adam Picot, staff, English Language Teaching Centre

31. Sian Morrey, staff, English Language Teaching Centre

32. Joanna Sutcliffe, English tutor, English Language Teaching Centre

33. Ruby Lee, undergraduate, Department of Philosophy

34. Fiona Graham, PhD Student, Human Nutrition Unit

35. Jenny Patient, Campaigns Worker, Sheffield Climate Alliance

36. Jamie Gough, Senior lecturer, Department of Urban Studies and Planning

37. Hannah Sewell, PhD student, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences

38. Monica Ortiz, PhD student, Department of Geography

39. Richard Bradford, English Language Tutor, English Language Teaching Centre

40. Megan Lewis, Business Development Manager, Sheffield Science Gateway

Appendix C feedback from questionnaires Quantitative analysis from Social Sciences Questions for the general public Number of questionnaires received = 138

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

2. We are planning on keeping as much of the stone walls around the site as possible – do you think these are important to the character of the area? Yes

1% No 1% 13% 5% No preference

Left blank

80% Unsure

4. Part 1 At the front of the building we are proposing a ‘pocket park’ open to the community and visitors to the hospital – do you think this is a good idea? Yes

No

4% 11% 6% Unsure

79% N/A/Left blank

4. Part 2 At the front of the building we are proposing a ‘pocket park’ open to the community and visitors to the hospital – would you use it? Yes

No

13%

10% Unsure

13% 64% N/A/Left blank

5. We’re trying to make the building as sustainable as possible using renewable energy and sustainable materials – do you think this is a good idea? Yes

No 17 0 1

No preference

108 Left blank

7. We’re hoping to develop two new six a side pitches with car parking underneath on the existing Northumberland Road car park – would you be likely to use these pitches?

Yes

19 20 No

N/A/Left 87 blank

10. There will be a café on site, open to the general public – would you be likely to use the café?

14% Yes

13% No 48%

Maybe

25% N/A/Left Blank

12. Are you a regular user of Sport Sheffield?

13%

36% Yes

No

51% N/A/Left Blank