UPPER DON VALLEY PHYSICAL REGENERATION STRATEGY CONSULTATION COMMENTS Key

A – Accepted AIP- Accepted in part C – Contest CH/CL – Changed or Clarified NC – No change needed

Do you have further comments to make on the Strategy? Response Development Services Response (Database record number in bold) Key

1 – Mr Dave Pickersgill AIP a)”The key is to get less transport using the roads. My main concern is NC a) The UDV PRS proposes major investment in infrastructure through the regarding the transport infrastructure, the proposed developments will implementation of strategic as well as development-related transportation be positive for the area but these will be a resultant substantial growth projects. Our experience shows that not all developments will result in growth in in transport requirements (both goods transit and people) -hence it is transport requirements and these will be analysed as part of the planning process essential that major investment is made: a rail link to/from through individual Transport Impact Assessments. Additionally, SCC is working / will reduce rd transport requirements. Ideally with the Transport Executive on a study to examine the this would be similar to London Docklands railway with a number of commercial viability for passenger use of the Stocksbridge- Sheffield Rail line, stations along the route (Including Park and Ride Sites) If this does not although at this moment, we understand that there is no funding from Central happen regeneration will be a recipe to grid-lock! “ Government to reopen the line. There could be alternative uses through the involvement of the ‘Don Valley Railway’ in terms of reusing it for heritage purposes. This is in any case a long term option which is included in the UDV PRS.

b) “In addition, SYPTE needs to introduce a "transport card" similar to b) SYPTE are currently preparing (with significant funding assistance from the the London Oyster Card (makes transport faster and more efficient) - Department for Transport) a 12-month pilot of Smart card ticketing (to be called in addition an extension to Supertram would also be use!” 'Yorcard', but equivalent in function to Oystercard in London). It is currently hoped that this will start in early 2007 and cover the bus routes serving the S10 Quality Bus Corridor (e.g. 51, 52, 60), plus the rail route between Sheffield and Doncaster. If this pilot shows the principles and the technology to be successful in operation, then further DfT funding will be sought to roll out Yorcard to all public transport across the whole of South and West Yorkshire. 4 Ms C Gilligan A a) The UDV PRS includes a number of transport projects designed to reduce a) “ Improve transport situation – there is already congestion – NC congestion in the UDV, such as the Bus Priority measures in the A61 more people coming in for work will only make matters worse. Road corridor. Other measures will be proposed as part of the Local Transport Improve bus/tram/train options” Plan 2 (2006 – 2011).

b) “Please make safe cycle paths” b) The development of the UDV Cycling and pedestrian network is one of the 1 strategic projects put forward by the UDV PRS and this includes improving the safety of existing and new cycling lanes and routes. As an example, SCC is funding a new cycle route from the City Centre to the College at Livesey Street and this project will be completed in 2007 c) “Improve the visual appearance of the buildings – no more tin c) High design and environmental sustainability of new buildings is one of the sheds. Please make sure all new buildings are built to high main principles for new developments as part of the regeneration of the UDV environmental standards – i.e. heat/energy efficient – visually blend in PRS. The recent construction of the Hillsborough College on Livesey Street with landscape.” demonstrates this commitment to good quality buildings for the area. 6 Cllr Jackie Drayton A The Regeneration Strategy places great emphasis on making the most of “I Think it's really important to improve and use the "water front" NC waterfront locations and improving access to the riversides locations. Need to link any plans with the regeneration and developments "up the hill" in Burngreave. Need to talk to community Regarding your proposals in Burngreave, we have discussed the proposals groups involved in those areas, e.g. development of the Ski Village included in the UDV PRS with the Burngreave Area Panel, community needs to be sympathetic to those people working to and developing organisations, Job Net and other stakeholders in Burngreave and will continue to Parkwood Springs, Shirecliffe Roads site as a wildlife and open do this in the future as we agree it is of vital importance. space.” 7 Mr D Goodison (Don Valley Rail) A SCC is working with the South Yorkshire Transport Executive on a study to “Make use of the existing rail line to encourage people off the road and NC examine the commercial viability for passenger use of the Stocksbridge- Sheffield encourage tourism” Rail line, although at this moment, we understand that there is no funding from Central Government to reopen the line. There could be alternative uses through the involvement of the ‘Don Valley Railway’ in terms of reusing it for heritage and tourism purposes. This is a long term future which is also included in the UDV PRS 9 Mr Peter Auckland (Crusteel) A Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council Neepsend Gateway: Opportunity Site 27 (Rutland Road/ River Don) CH officers and other stakeholders, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put forward by Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced “Option 1, with only a partial conversion residential etc uses, cannot to one. Option 2 or residential development is not an option that SCC or possibly work. This would need to be an all or nothing changeover”. If consultees think is appropriate or realistic for this parts of the UDV and has this change in use was to go ahead, it would be necessary to ensure therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. Therefore, the long term that the development of site 29 included provision for the re-location of proposals for the area are employment uses, which is what the area is the existing occupiers in site 27” successfully being used for at present. 12 Barbara Rimmington AIP a) “I live next to the Leisure and Education campus and overlook NC a) The plans proposed by the UDV PRS around Livesey Street will not necessary Parkwood Springs area. I strongly agree that the new Hillsborough cause more traffic congestion as usage of any new facilities may be at different College needs better links to the surrounding area and that more times than current uses. In any case, any new proposals will be subject to the walking and generally throughout the area. Penistone Road currently transportation requirements and assessments as part of the planning application fails as a strategic link to the city- it is too heavily congested at peak process. times for buses etc to be reliable. It is also one of the most pedestrian and cycle unfriendly roads in the city. I am horrified to read of Additionally, regeneration of the Livesey Street area will only increase levels of proposals for yet another pub, restaurant, fast food outlet in the area congestion if additional car parking is provided. This will not necessarily be the

2 (River Loxley) - Hillsborough and Malin Bridge are already awash with case. Efficiency improvements are being made to the signal-controlled Livesey litter, vomit and urine form such facilities, why spread it further?” Street / Penistone Road junction in the near future, which are being funded by Sheffield College as part of their planning obligations for the development of Hillsborough College. b) “It would be good if the quality courses in the evenings for working adults - the reality at present if that they focus on the needs of 16-19 b) On the availability of courses by Sheffield College, we will forward this yr olds.” comment to Hillsborough College 14 Mr & Mrs P & A Clarke AIP Penistone Road carries over 61,000 vehicles per day and is generally, a “Brilliant concept - however all future development very dependent on NC generally efficient road. However, we accept that there are congestion hotspots supporting infrastructure particularly adequate accessibility which and are trying to alleviate them. For example, by removing the Leppings Lane means in essence better roads. The impression currently given on roundabout and replacing it with a far more efficient new junction. The UDV PRS approaching one of the major cities is one of neglect and lack of addresses this issue and we are seeking funding from the Local Transport Plan 2 thinking. 21st Century traffic doesn't work on 19th century roads.” (2006-2011) to carry out the work. 16 Mr Hawley Marcus, Eurobroid a) A a) Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council a)”This area is lacking quality industrial units for small business. CH officers and other stakeholders, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put Although I wouldn't mind seeing some new housing this shouldn't be forward by Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced at the expense of business premises” to one. Option 2 or mixed use development led by residential development is not an option that SCC or consultees think is appropriate, realistic or deliverable for b) AIP this part of the UDV. It has therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. The NC concept of development of quality industrial units for small businesses in the Upper Don Valley is being pursued by Sheffield City Council and Sheffield First for Investment with support from European funding.

b) The plans proposed by the UDV PRS around Livesey Street will not necessary b) “Something must also be done to ease congestion and parking near cause more traffic congestion as usage of any new facilities may be at different the new college. It's a nightmare” times than current uses. In any case, any new proposals will be subject to the transportation requirements and assessments as part of the planning application process.

Additionally, regeneration of the Livesey Street area will only increase levels of congestion if additional car parking is provided. This will not necessarily be the case. Efficiency improvements are being made to the signal-controlled Livesey Street / Penistone Road junction in the near future, which are being funded by Hillsborough College as part of their planning obligations for the development of the college. 19 Mr Andrew Stringer C It is acknowledged that to maximise the development opportunities at Club Mill “It is visually important that money is found to build a new road from NC Road, we need to improve access and permeability within this area. SCC will the Junction of Herries road - Herries Road South to continue shortly be modelling the different options for this area. However, a dual following the river under the Shirecliffe’s to meet up with Club Mill carriageway in unlikely to be considered at this stage and thus, we consider that Road, which should be widened to a dual carriageway. From this road this proposal should not be included in the final UDV PRS. a new road could be built to give much better access to the Ski-

3 Village. The new dual carriageway Club Mill Road would join up with the existing road system at Neepsend. This "bypass" would drastically reduce traffic at the near gridlocked Penistone Road, Bradfield Road, Green Junction by giving drivers an alternative route through the area.” 20 R. L. Lenzini C a) “After many years why have you allowed the area around NC a) The boundary of the UDV PRS is Penistone Road and excludes Hillsborough Hillsborough to become so run down?” District Centre. We are unsure which area this comment refers to. b)” At the meeting why was the council representative so evasive in b) Regarding the availability of funding for Claywheels Lane, the explanation answering questions of the availability of funding for the Claywheels provided at the meeting was that the Objective 1 grant funding for the Lane?” infrastructure and some office space in this area was being pursued by a private developer and therefore whilst the Council was supporting the application, it could not guarantee that this grant would be obtained.

c) The delivery plan for the UDV PRS has not been produced yet. The report that c) “Are the council relying on grants or developers cash to continue, if will be taken to Cabinet in September 2006 will indicate which are priority projects so this entire project could become a massive burden of debt or a non for delivery. The UDV PRS only reflects at present the views of Taylor Young, the starter” consultants who have produced it.

21 J Dunn A This principle is accepted. The development of the Upper Don Valley’s “Generally I agree with plans for regeneration. NC Pedestrian and Cycle Network is already a key strategic project put forward by The recommendation should seek to enhance and refurbish existing the UDV PRS (Sect 3). structures and resources. with an emphasis on pedestrian and cycle access.” 22 Mr & Mrs B Merrill AIP Q2a – Neepsend Gateway is an industrial area and the proposals for this area Q 2a (Neepsend Gateway) This is an industrial area. CH are that it will remain so (See Comment to entry no. 46)

Q 5d (Leisure & Education Campus) “Make 3 traffic Lanes for access Q5d – Proposals for improved access to B& Q fall outside the scope of this study to B&Q/Morrisons reduce the width of the Central Reservation and but have been forwarded to our transport department for their consideration. allow more time for people to cross the pelican lights.

Q 6a & b (Wadlsey Bridge). “This has been an eyesore for far too Q6 a & b “Potential sports and leisure uses near to SWFC’s Hillsborough long. Subject to the land being contaminated, a car park would have Stadium”. We agree. New sports or leisure facilities would need to be helped to improve appearances”. Also useful to provide sporting complementary to those already available at local leisure centres, such as the facilities which are not available at Hillsborough Baths, i.e. indoor Hillsborough Leisure Centre. The final UDV PRS (Section 6) will explicitly bowling/tennis etc.” mention the complementarity of any new leisure development with existing facilities. Q 7c (Claywheels Lane) “An access road from Claywheels Lane to Middlewood Road should be treated with some urgency. This should Q7c – Improvements to access at Claywheels Lane. The planning application for

4 have been built years ago. Problems with traffic in Leppings Lane this road link has been granted outline planning consent subject to the completion area - trams make worse, parked cars outside of tyre supplier double of a planning obligation, which has not yet been completed. (See comment 29). yellow lines restrict traffic flow - query the positioning of some of double yellow lines” 23 Mr Brian Marsh AIP The two general aims of this proposed bridge link is to reassign traffic away from “Claywheels lane - proposed new bridge link. NC Parkside Road/ Catch Bar Lane and Middlewood School, not to necessarily This will take traffic form the Claywheels Lane Business/Industrial area increase traffic levels up and down Manchester Road towards Stocksbridge. onto Middlewood Road towards Oughtibridge, , Stocksbridge Secondly, these proposals will make employment sites more accessible than they possibly via a very substandard link to the Stocksbridge bypass? Not currently are at present. In addition to this, it is important to mention that all the Good” implications from the proposed development will be modelled to assess its impact prior to the start of its construction 24 Mr Martin Burnham , IFA LTD. Ltd Group A Existing companies such as these based in the UDV are vital to the future of the “Four sizeable manufacturing employers exist in the area around CH valley. This principle is reinforced in the different ‘Area Description’’ sections and Owlerton, namely Swann Morton Ltd, Symmetry Medical, Doncasters these companies mentioned too (Section 6). Swann Morton Ltd and Symmetry Ltd and Independent Forgings & Alloys Ltd. All employ significantly Medical are in the Owlerton/ Wadley Bridge sub-area and Doncasters and more that 100 people each. All turnover is in excess of £15m pa each. Independent Forgings & Alloys Ltd in the Hillfoot Riverside sub-area. All are recognised as satisfying the "Advanced Manufacturing " or "Technology" criteria and should be regarded and valuable to this area profile.” 25 Lynsey Ogden (Jobnet at NUCA) AIP The UDV PRS proposes (Plan 16) to rationalise the car park for the casino and “I disagree with making car park smaller in front of the casino if there NC Owlerton Stadium (part of site 19) from its frontage location onto other two other is no bigger alternative parking. It seems you are trying to improve sites (pars of 20 and 22), thus not implying a loss in the net car parking capacity. links with public transport but companies/businesses are already We agree with the owners of the car park that car parking is very important for having problems parking in this area due to the new college being built this type of leisure development and this will be factored in to more detailed without these facilities, I am worried that businesses will loose staff development proposals for the area. due to this. Could you not make agreements with businesses to pay for parking or ask staff of near businesses if they would pay a small amount each day”. 26 A. Daw A The planning application for the development of the road link and bridge at “I am concerned that increased business and industry in the NC Claywheels Lane has been granted outline planning consent subject to the Claywheels Lane area will increase traffic on Middlewood Road and its completion of a planning obligation, which is awaited. A Traffic Impact connecting roads forcing traffic to route through residential areas, Assessment was submitted as part of the outline planning application. Final especially long, straight loads like Marlcliffe Road” planning permission will be subject to the conditions and obligations to secure appropriate mitigation work to minimise the traffic impact 27 Mr R. Cook A The draft UDV PRS indicates (page 4) that the regeneration of the UDV is a long “I would appreciate knowing the timescale for starting the project. NC term challenge and whilst short term. projects are important, the time frame for Particularly the Neepsend Gateway site of which we are a part” the Strategy will extend to the next 15-20 years. The draft UDV PRS (page 79 onwards) also provides an indication of the overall phasing of priority projects across the four areas of change. These are however the Consultants’ views. A report will be taken to Cabinet at the end of September which will have the initial thoughts on delivery of the UDV PRS for approval by Cabinet.

5 It is also important to indicate that following the consultation exercise for the UDV PRS, only one option for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ will remain in the final document. This is the ‘moderate intervention’ which excludes the introduction of new uses in this area. Therefore, no major change is encouraged in this area, which will remain as a business and industry area. 28 Mr Craig Marks, MENTA CIP The UDV PRS provides a solid vision and strategy for the regeneration of the “The proposals for the Upper Don Valley are well presented and give NC UDV. Menta’s housing proposals were not granted planning permission. The an overview of the potential. They still fall short of what actually could UDV Strategy makes clear that business and industry Is the preferred use of land be achieved including the ability to give the Valley its own identity and at Claywheels Lane. ability to cross regenerate in transport and accessibility with the neighbouring residential scheme. The proposals for UCAR put forward by MENTA's sustainable community forms part of the answer”. 29 Miss Nicola Freeman A a) “I am concerned about the impact on wildlife and the environment NC a) The planning application for this road link has been granted outline planning caused by new road linking Middlewood and Halifax Road via Beeley consent subject to the completion of a planning obligation, which is awaited. An Wood.” Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the outline planning consent. Final planning permission will be subject to the conditions and obligations to secure appropriate mitigation work to minimise environmental impact. b) “I would like to see Parkwood landfill closed and the hillside b) Viridor, who own and run the Parkwood Landfill, have a valid planning returned to a greener state as soon as possible without changing the permission to legally operate this site. Viridor has a planning application with the use from inert materials/rubble to incinerator ash which causes health Council to change the nature of the waste to be tipped and this in turn would problems for local residents.” have an impact on the length of the tipping operations. This planning application has not yet been determined. The UDV PRS explains that the future of Parkwood Springs will be the subject of a separate masteplanning exercise. 30 Mr Gareth Davies (Independent Forgings & Alloys Ltd) AIP The plans proposed by the UDV PRS around Livesey Street will not necessary “I am concerned that proposal will cause even more traffic congestion NC cause more traffic congestion as usage of any new facilities may be at different on Livesey Street, Penistone Road and Hillsborough Centre. times than current uses. In any case, any new proposals will be subject to the Pedestrian routes along Livesey St are already inadequate. transport and assessments as part of the planning application process. IFA own 4.5 acres of Hillfoot Riverside including frontage on River Loxley. We need consultation and reassurance that this project aims Additionally, regeneration of the Livesey Street area will only increase levels of to support existing business and one rapidly expanding workforce if congestion if additional car parking is provided. This will not necessarily be the currently 120. case. Efficiency improvements are being made to the signal-controlled Livesey We also have a long-term lease on property on Claywheels Lane and Street / Penistone Road junction in the near future, which are being funded by would like confirmation of intentions in this area.” Sheffield College as part of their planning obligations for the development of Hillsborough College.

6 31 Mr Thompson AIP The Hillfoot Riverside sub-area in the Upper Don Valley will be an area for “To consider existing manufacturing companies in the Hillfoot Riverside CL manufacturing businesses to expand and thrive in the future. This is the key area who are creating jobs and wealth to the local area, and not to put message of the UDV PRS. The strategy will not put these jobs in ‘jeopardy’. this in jeopardy by replacing them with “service type jobs” (shops, leisure Section 6 of the Strategy, Hillfoot Riverside has been revised to acknowledge the etc) part-time/low paid, non skilled jobs”. contribution of both big and small occupiers of this sub-area in its regeneration. 32 Mr R & Mr C Jewitt (Footprint Tools ) A The principle of support to existing business is accepted and it is a fundamental “All plans must include recognition of the importance of existing CHIP to the success of the Strategy. Since Option 2 for Neepsend Gateway, which businesses in the area and their future requirements. They must not be included an element of residential development, is no longer an option for this squeezed out in favour of other uses which would be to the detriment of area and won’t be included as part of the final UDV PRS, most of the developable the economic development of the city. Space for existing businesses land in the UDV will be used for employment uses. Therefore, land should be based in the city centre who wish to relocate and remain in Sheffield available for relocations, expansions of existing firms and new investment into the should be retained within the plans”. area 34 AIP It is not clear which park is referred to in the comment. Hillsborough Park is Need accessible transport NC outside the study area but the comments will be forwarded to the Parks and Need buildings and attractions in park for bad weather Countryside Department. As regards the development of a major urban park at Café and toilets in park Parkwood Springs, accessibility issues, design and type of facilities will be a top Need training for people dealing with disabilities. Information in other priority for the development of this site, although this is a probably a few years formats for all ongoing work. Unit for support and health to be wheelchair away. These comments will be forwarded to the officer responsible for the accessible with colour contrast Masterplan of Parkwood Springs. 35 Richard Whiteley (Swann Morton Ltd) A The principle of continuing consultation with land owners and key stakeholders is Consultations with current residents/businesses is a key to the success of NC agreed. this project. I look forward to seeing this development progress 36 Mr R Taylor AIP a) Although I agree with the concept of redeveloping the frontage of NC a) Casino car park: The Regeneration Strategy suggests that the Penistone Road, I feel that as the car parking is used by many in the redevelopment of the Casio Car Park could not take place without the community and is busy 7 days/week during the day and evening to lose relocation of some of its capacity to nearby but less prominent locations this car parking would push more cars onto side streets causing issues for residents. b) Whilst more sports and leisure facilities are always an advantage, care b) Any new leisure facilities in the Livesey Street area would need to should be taken to ensure these compliment the excellent facilities complement the Hillsborough Leisure Centre, not compete with it available at the Hillsborough Leisure Centre rather than compete with them. c) We are aware of the issues around the five residential properties in the c) The Upper Don Valley Regeneration is, without doubt, a good thing for Beeley Wood Rd/ Claywheels Lane area. We are in contact with them to see Sheffield as a city and the majority of residents of the Upper Don Valley. how their case can be considered as part of any final planning application. However, some residents (particularly those in Beeley Wood One of the major proposals for this area, proposals for a residential Rd/Claywheels Lane Area) are already suffering from "planning blight" development at the UCAR site, was rejected recently at Planning Board (13 and will continue to suffer as the regeneration process continues. For June 2006). example, these residents cannot sell their houses as outstanding planning applications make the future of their properties uncertain. Consult these

7 residents 37 Mr Andrew McClean (Pennine Lubricants) AIP a)The plan for the Claywheels lane will not generate new employment CH a) Large areas of Claywheels Lane are currently derelict. This includes the former opportunities, simply for relocations. UCAR site (14 Hectares) which if redeveloped, could provide up to 2000 jobs. These would be new jobs to the site as it is at present not occupied, which could come from new inward investment projects or relocations. But even in the latter case, the jobs may be new to the Upper Don Valley and the redevelopment of the original sites will in turn generate new employment.

b) As a result of the consultation, we have asked the consultants to review the b)The plan also covers the Underhill Lane site - destined for "Strategic proposals for the strategic greening of the Limestone Cottage Lane Industrial Greening" This part of the plan should be scrapped as it only served to Area (Plan 4) in favour for it to remain employment generating space with reduce employment opportunities and devaluing businesses. potentially some environmental/ landscape improvements

c)This area would benefit greatly if the Railway Bridge over Limestone c) The railway bridge over Limestone Cottage is a historical situation. Raising the Cottage Lane was improved to give greater clearance (currently only bridge above an active railway line is not an option. Any other options to alleviate 10'9"), and Hagg Hill were widening to allow safer access for vehicles too the problem would probably be cost prohibitive. SCC is aware of the problem and high to travel under the Railway Bridge. we will review the options to remediate it in line with further development sin the area. 38 Indigo (On behalf of National Grid) CIP, AIP Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council (This is a summary of the comments provided by Indigo) CH officers and other stakeholders and consideration of comments received during Indigo Planning act on behalf of National Grid Property Ltd (formerly the consultation exercise, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put forward by Secondsite) who have freehold interests in ‘Opportunity Sites’ 29 and 31 Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced to one. within the study area. Option 2 or mixed use development led by residential development is not an option that SCC or consultees think is appropriate, realistic or deliverable for this Before commenting on the contents of the draft strategy we can confirm that part of the UDV. It has therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. As part our client is broadly supportive of the plan’s aims and objectives, and in of this process, the number of existing industrial businesses operating from the particular the proposals to create a new mixed use quarter at North area and their reaction to the proposals, together with the fact that some of the Neepsend. other uses suggested in Scenario 2 (such as industrial uses for the Neepsend Gas Works Site) were not considered good neighbouring uses of residential However, and not withstanding the above, we consider that there is a need for development. Therefore, the long term proposals for the area are employment uses, which is what the area is successfully being used at present. This includes modest changes to the Strategy, principally for clarification purposes in sites 29 and 31 (Neepsend Gas Works site and Gas Holder) relation to the development potential and range of uses identified for our client’s sites within the Neepsend Quarter. For ease of reference we have However, given the prominence of the National Grid (formerly Secondsite) Site referred to the chapter headings as set out within the ‘Final Report (Site 29, 13.48 acres), that it is currently vacant and has contamination problems, th (Consultation Draft)’ dated 8 May 2006 and would comment as follows: SCC will continue the dialogue with National Grid Property Ltd. to discuss options for the redevelopment of this site. It is recognised that the redevelopment of this Regeneration Concept site could have some positive ‘catalytic’ effects for this sub-area but it is also understood that remediation costs for this site are likely to be high. Our client is in support of the proposal to ‘radically transform’ North Neepsend

8 and furthermore believes that the coordinated redevelopment of sites 29 and As regards site 31, Neepsend Gas Holder, we accept your comments regarding 31 could be important in achieving this objective. Additional comments on the the recladding of the structure may not be feasible in this instance and that any detailed proposals for the Neepsend Quarter are provided below. painting would need to take account of the regular movement of the gas holder. But, if the gasholder is unlikely to be dismantled in the short or medium term, Opportunity Sites proposals to improve the look of the structure are considered consistent with the delivery of he aims for this area. Section 5 of the Strategy relates to strategic land use issues and provides a number of development opportunity sites that are at the ‘heart of delivering the vision’. With relation to Plan 3, National Grid have freehold interests in sites 29 and 31 respectively…Given the size of site 29 (13.48 acres), its immediate availability, and its strategic location, we consider that the development of this site could have an immediate and potentially catalytic effect in kick starting the mixed use vision as detailed within the draft Strategy.

Land Use and Development Proposals

…With reference to Plans 2 and 3 within the draft Strategy, sites 29 and 31 represent approximately 40-50% (18 acres) of the Neepsend Gateway area. It is therefore National Grid’s view that the Strategy should be amended to make reference to the potential for mixed use development on both sites to include an element of residential development, to move away from the heavy industrial character of the area and to include cleaner, more environmentally friendly high-tech business along with local retail and leisure uses especially along the adjoining road frontages.

Improvements to Infrastructure and Streetscape in Neepsend

Section 5.45 of the Strategy relates to improvements to Neepsend Lane and in particular the removal of heavy goods vehicles to create a place where people will want to live, work and relax. National Grid supports this approach as part of a coordinated approach to establishing a mixed use area within Neepsend and believes that the removal of the heavy industrial uses from the Neepsend Gateway area will inherently change the character of both sites and their surroundings including the removal of heavy traffic generation associated with such uses.

Improvements to Streetscape and Public Realm

Section 5.61 of the report relates to the creation of a new mixed use 9 residential urban quarter and this is also supported by National Grid. In particular the move away from the heavy industrial character of the area and the reactivation of the existing streetscape frontages is supported as part of a coordinated approach to establishing a mixed use area within Neepsend.

Regeneration Focus in the Areas of Change

As the Council will be aware, the remediation of previously contaminated sites (in the case of site 29) and the removal of gasholders (site 31) can potentially involve prohibitive abnormal development costs for the landowner and this can make the redevelopment of such sites unfeasible… It is therefore likely, that in order to facilitate the redevelopment of either site, high value uses to facilitate and cross subsidise a remediation strategy and/or the removal of the gasholders will be required for at least part of each of the site(s)…Whilst we would acknowledge that neither site benefits from river frontage, our client believes that the removal of the heavy industrial uses from both sites and the planned redevelopment of a number of the other sites within the Neepsend Quarter for residential and mixed uses, will not only inherently change the character of the surrounding area but also the attractiveness of our client’s sites within the quarter.

Main Projects Schedule

…Taking site 29 firstly, this is classed as a priority site with reference made to the redevelopment of the site for business/employment uses following the remediation of the site. In terms of uses, reference is also made to the fact that ‘it is unlikely that this site could or should be used for residential development’’ For the reasons outlined above, our client would like to object to this restriction of uses on the site as they consider that, for the reasons outlined above, and given the immediate availability and strategic size of site 29, the site is suitable for a range of uses to include a mixture of cleaner businesses, residential, leisure and other associated uses to achieve the mixed use objective of the Neepsend Gateway.

Turning to site 31, and as detailed above, there is a clear steer within this section of the Strategy advocating the removal of the gasholders with reference made to the fact that they are not attractive and conducive to achieving the strategic vision for the area. National Grid agree with these conclusions and believe that the removal of the gasholders would have a significant and beneficial amenity impact for the site and also the surrounding 11 are and could kick start the regeneration of the Neepsend Gateway area. However, and as outlined above, the removal of the gasholders and to undertake the associated remediation works that would also be required will involve significant abnormal development costs. To this end, and to subsidise these remediation works, high value uses will be required as part of any redevelopment proposals on the site. These uses would include residential, leisure and/or cleaner and environmentally friendly employment related businesses.

Our client would therefore like to object to the low project priority given to the site as well as the reference to business/employment uses only. As outlined above, it is National Grid’s view that, as with site 29, high value uses to include residential and leisure as part of a mixed use approach including some business/employment generating uses, would be more appropriate in achieving the strategic objectives of the mixed use quarter.

…It is National Grids experience in addressing this issue elsewhere that the mechanisms involved in the operation of the gasholders mean that recladding the structure would not be feasible in this instance. Furthermore, any painting of the structure would need to take account of the regular movement of the gasholder and the resultant impact on visual amenity that that this would have on whatever was painted onto the structure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our client is generally supportive of the aims of the draft strategy, in particular the objective to create a new mixed use quarter at North Neepsend. However, given the strategic size and location of opportunity sites 29 and 31 which comprise approximately 40-50% of the developable area within this quarter, we consider that reference should be made in the strategy to the potential for mixed use development on both these sites to include a mixture of residential, business and leisure uses.

39 Mr Nigel Doar (Sheffield Wildlife Trust) A a) Please keep SWT involved for future consultation of UDV proposals. NC a) SCC will keep all people who have provided contact details as part of this consultation exercise informed of future development.

b) Concerned at environmental impact of proposals from Claywheels b) The planning application for the road link at Claywheels Lane has been Lane granted outline planning consent subject to the completion of a planning

12 obligation, which is awaited. An Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the outline planning consent. Final planning permission will be subject to the conditions and obligations to secure appropriate mitigation work to minimise environmental impact 40 Ms Teresa Bissatt C The Stocksbridge/ Deepcar area has not been excluded from the consultation Stocksbridge Town Councillors have expressed their dissatisfaction that NC programme. The consultation events were discussed with the North Area Co- the consultation events do not extend to Stocksbridge/ Deepcar area. ordinator and it as considered at the time that an exclusive event for They wish to note that their area is part of the UDV and as such should be Stocksbridge/ Deepcar was not required. This decision was arrived at by the included in any consultation and subsequent regeneration programme Working Group responsible for organising the consultation events. The distance between the study area and Stocksbridge as well as the need to limit the number of events given financial resources was taken into account to arrive at this decision. Subsequently, a presentation on the Physical Regeneration Strategy was made to the North Area Panel on 21 June. 41 Mr Tony Deeming (Hydra Clarkson) A a) How does the Council's plans impact on the prospects & financial well CH a) Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council being for the Hydra Clarkson business and its 100+employees. officers and other stakeholders, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put forward by Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced to one. Option 2 or residential development is not an option that SCC or consultees think is appropriate or realistic for this parts of the UDV and has therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. Therefore, the long term proposals for the area are employment uses, which is what the area is successfully being used at present. Under Option 1 of the PRS, Hydra Clarkson would be encouraged to remain and expand in their existing site and find an alternative economic use for their white building on Penistone Road, such as managed workspace. b) What are the timescales which are being considered for the b) Given the above, no proposals are considered at present by the PRS which developments which directly affect our site. would directly affect Hydra Clarkson. c) What financial support is available for a move to another site. c) If the company wants advice to move on support to move to another site, this would need to be done through Sheffield First for Investment, who are already in contact with the company 42 Mr Andrew Taylor (Sheffield Superturn Ltd.) A CH a)CWL should remain an employment/business and industry area. a) The UDV PRS suggests employment uses for the Claywheels Lane area. b) Concerned at proposal for comprehensive 'greening' of the b) As a result of the consultation, we have asked the consultants to review the Limestone Cottage Lane industrial area proposals for the strategic greening of the Limestone Cottage Lane Industrial Area (Plan 4) in favour for it to remain employment generating space with potentially some environmental/ landscape improvements

13 44 Peter O’Brien a)An economically thriving Upper Don Valley is important to the A a)Agree principle. The Baseline Report provides all the necessary analysis success of the Pathfinder programme, as it will play a key role in NC regarding land uses in the Valley. sustaining the housing market in North Sheffield in particular The mix of land uses in the Valley should therefore be carefully considered to ensure that they generate maximum benefit in this respect. b) We note that new housing development is only suggested in the A Neepsend Gateway area. It will be important that the type of housing CH b) Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council "offer" envisaged is carefully thought through, to ensure that it will not officers and other stakeholders, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put compete unduly with that being promoted within the HMR Pathfinder forward by Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced and thus potentially jeopardise existing and future investment to one. Option 2 or residential development is not an option that SCC or consultees think is appropriate or realistic for this parts of the UDV and has therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. Therefore, the long term proposals for the area are employment uses, which is what the area is successfully being used at present c)Related to the above point, you will be aware that we have been in A c) The UDV PRS proposes employment uses for the UCAR site. Also, the discussions with the City Council regarding the planning application for NC mentioned residential application for the UCAR site was recently refused extensive residential development in the Claywheels Lane area. Our planning permission for housing development (13 June 2006). view is that certainly in the short to medium term, such development would put at risk our investment in North Sheffield by distorting the housing market. d) Notwithstanding any discussions about the mix of land uses in the A d) Cross valley linkages are very important for the long term regeneration of the Claywheels Lane area, we feel that any development would be more NC Upper Don Valley. Developers will be encouraged to apply the highest quality sustainable, and offer greater benefits to adjoining areas, if some design and development patterns will need to be sympathetic to the woodland thought is given to a refocus on the north-south linkages as well as the environment and close proximity to residential communities (Winn Gardens, for east-west. By linkages we do not just mean transport infrastructure but example). rather the development pattern.

e) Access to jobs by local people is very important. There are three strategic e) It will be important that people living in North Sheffield can access A objectives (Section 3 in the Strategy ), which include the economy, communities the new economic drivers in the Valley easily and safely. It wasn't NC and the environment. Issues around communities and ensuring that investment clear that the concepts illustrated in the draft Strategy had fully and development in the Upper Don Valley creates opportunities for local people addressed this issue and it may therefore merit some further thought. and local businesses will be addressed as specific development take place. This will be done by continuing the consultation with local community organisations (such as SOAR or NUCA), residents and other community stakeholders such as Area Panels.

14 46 Mr Andrew Staniland A Following consultation with local businesses, general community, Council Mr Staniland owns the freehold to Crusteel (on Petchey Group - CH officers and other stakeholders, the two options for ‘Neepsend Gateway’ put Rutland Way) - Crusteel has 9 years on the lease. Would like some forward by Consultants Taylor Young in the draft UDV PRS, have been reduced certainlty regarding possible residential development at the Neepsend to one. Option 2 or residential development is not an option that SCC or Gateway. consultees think is appropriate or realistic for this parts of the UDV and has therefore been removed from the final UDV PRS. Therefore, the long term proposals for the area are employment uses, which is what the area is successfully being used at present. 47 Liz Whittaker (Beeley Fabrications Ltd) A LLA discussed on the phone, have included contact details in the database and “Our company are on Niagara Road, Sheffield S6 1NH and we occupy NC sent executive summary by post. two units on Claywheels Lane opposite Fletchers Bakery. We are very interested obviously of the changes in the area and hope that it will be big benefit to all involved. We would appreciate if you could send to us through the post any information that is available”

50 Mr Steve Thompson (Tool Steel Bank) A LLA sent request to Alan Lyons (SF4i) Elmsdale Estates (part of City Estates) has bought the freehold to his NC business. Need advice on relocation.

51 H Ashley A The principle of support to existing business is accepted and it is a fundamental (This company is located at the back of the Caravan site, off Livesey CH one for the success of the Strategy. Since Option 2 for Neepsend Gateway, Street). which included an element of residential development, is no longer an option for this area and won’t be included as part of the final UDV PRS, most of the The regeneration of the UDV as proposed by PRS won’t work without developable land in the UDV will be used for employment uses. Therefore, land an explicit relocation policy for businesses, particularly in Claywheels should be available for existing businesses to expand on site as well as to allow Lane. Transport companies are very difficult to relocate. They need for relocations and attract new investors into the area special planning and applications to operate. Estates don’t like them because of the big articulated lorries. Property developers buy the land and small people cant do anything. This strategy (UDV) and SCC need to consider the interests of smaller businesses as well as the interests of the big property developers.

52 Mr Peter Rogers A .City Development has written to Mr Rogers, following the determination of the Mr Rogers owns one of the five terraces on Claywheels Lane. He is NC UCAR planning application to inform him of the outcome. City Development has very concerned at the fact a major road is going to be developed just also asked the DC Officer to confirm the planning position and also if these 5 outside his home . These 5 terraced houses have become literally owners could access free legal aid. ‘unsellable’ and the developers of the CWL scheme are not willing to buy them. Mr Rogers has contacted with the DC Officer and is not clear on the planning position (do the developers have to buy then off or not?)

15 53 GL Hearn (on behalf of Menta) 24 July 2006 C NC Economic Deliverability of the PRS/ Engagement with the surrounding communities/ Comprehensive environmental enhancement 1 Menta considers that the proposals put forward by the Council within the 1 The UDV PRS has raised some pertinent issues regarding the quantum of Physical Regeneration Strategy for the UDV are not deliverable based on employment land to be provided in the Upper Don Valley. The Upper Don Valley market reality/development economics, do not engage with the is a 15-20 strategy and it accepts that more work will be needed in this area and surrounding communities and would not offer comprehensive that the SDF provides an opportunity to look into this more closely (Baseline environmental enhancement for the area. Report, paragraph 8.23). This process is taking place at present with the Arup Employment Land Demand Assessment. This document will inform the SDF regarding specific future employment land requirements and this will have an impact on the Upper Don Valley. Reflecting on planning policy and discussions between the consultant team and the Strategy’s Steering Group, it was jointly agreed that sites in the Upper Don Valley and particularly the UCAR site are of strategic long term importance and should remain as employment sites.

In terms of engagement with surrounding communities, it is considered that the plan does provide measures to enhance the connectivity with, and quality of the area for, people living and working within and adjacent to the UDV.

In terms of comprehensive environmental enhancement, it is SCC view that the proposals to improve public realm, create new pocket parks, enhance the rivers and riversides will provide significant improvement across the valley. Allied to improvement along Penistone Road, it is considered that an implemented PRS will create significant and far reaching improvements to the environment of the valley.

2 Menta are concerned that the Strategy does not make any specific 2. The Consultants fully considered all future land use options at Claywheels detailed reference to their proposals or seek to consult on their proposals Lane including those proposed as part of Menta’s planning application. . The that were with the Council as a formal planning application from the start principles behind their proposal have also been considered (Baseline Report, of December 2005, and only determined in June 2006, after the Section 8). Theconsultants consulted with Menta at an early stage of the report consultation process on the Strategy had closed. through a number of meetings and SCC is grateful with Menta for sharing their information with the consultants. Furthermore, Menta had opportunities at both consultation stages to address meetings 3 Menta are of the firm belief that their proposals should have been part of 3. The Strategy (Baseline report, Section 8), having considered all different the detailed options put forward to enable the public to be able to options for the Claywheels Lane area, concludes that “the Menta strategy is a understand what all the development alternatives are and then the public high risk strategy and that at this point of time, it appears prudent to consider

16 would be in a position to make a considered judgement. A separate letter employment proposals for this area s? this leading prospect. Therefore, the UDV on this has been sent to Simon Ogden of the Council. PRS contains proposals only for an employment led regeneration at Claywheels Lane. As with the rest of the Upper Don Valley sub-areas, it is this option that the consultees were asked their views on. 4 The Strategy highlights on page 8 that Claywheels Lane is an important employment location which Menta does not dispute. The key consideration 4. See comments below. is what it will take to deliver employment use and how this can be 'enabled'. With regard certain aspects of the Strategy (Baseline Report) specific comments are made below.

Baseline Report: 5 Page 10 of the Strategy highlights that Claywheels Lane is an 5 As explained above, Menta’s alternative regeneration approach is set out in the employment led regeneration area. Menta considers that this should have Baseline report, Section 8.14-24. The report provides an outline analysis of the been written to reflect the other options that are available for the area to basic principles and concluded that given planning and regeneration enable a balanced consideration to be given, such as residential proposals concernsClaywheels Lane should be an employment led regeneration area. put forward by Menta, as being enabling development to bring forward employment use.

6 Paragraph 2.30 makes sweeping comments with regards to planning 6 None of the proposals set out in this section are discussed in detail in this applications that have been submitted to Sheffield City Council however section of the report. Menta’s proposals are considered in outline later in the this does not provide any detail on the planning application submitted by report in Section 8. It was not part of the Consultants’ brief to present a detailed Menta therefore leaving those who review the document to undertake their analysis of Menta’s proposals, but, as appropriate, the key principles of their own research into what the planning application may be for. proposals have been analysed and included in the report. As previously highlighted Menta considers more detail should have been provided to make the public more aware of the issues, such as substantial costs, benefits, potential safeguards etc.

7 Paragraphs 4.133 - 4.137 make minimal reference to residential development in the UDV however the Strategy does highlight the need for 7. In our view appropriate mention is made in the baseline report to the issue of some 2,700 new homes in the vicinity of the UDV. In this regard Menta residential development in the Valley at section 4.133-137 and in section 8. The considers that this demonstrates a requirement for their residential planning application process and refusal of Menta’s residential proposals at proposals need to be considered and put fully into the public domain as Claywheels lane confirms the unsuitability of this location for housing. this will assist in providing the identified housing need. In addition Menta considers that making reference to their residential proposals in the Strategy should have been undertaken in addition to the formal planning consultation undertaken with any planning application.

18 8 A review of the Menta proposal is given within paragraphs 8.15 to 8.24, 8 The content of section 8 was based on the Consultants’ understanding of the with the conclusions of this section (paragraphs 8.21 to 8.24) stating that planning policy and regeneration context prevailing at the time of writing the "the Menta concept does offer an alternative property market solution to report. The baseline report was completed prior to the submission of the planning the area's highest profile sites/projects . . . However, this solution is application and it was not appropriate to delay the baseline work and the evolving potentially a very 'high risk' strategy given the serious issues that the PRS to wait for the detailed application to be submitted. Moreover it was the proposal gives rise to . . . the Menta concept would appear, on the balance principle of residential development at UCAR rather than the detail of the scheme of all the evidence, unwise." Menta considers that this statement, in a which was at the heart of concern with Menta’s proposal. We do not agree that document produced prior to the planning application being presented to section 8.21-24 is either ill-informed or misjudged. Planning Board is ill-informed and mis-judged. The consultants did not have the information before them that the council had to determine the application, nor were they in a position to judge the proposal.

9 Indeed, previous drafts of the report had presented the prospect of 9 As explained above, the final baseline report does include Menta’s regeneration residential development at UCAR as a more deliverable solution for concept and the Consultant’s outline review of this. The Baseline Report was Claywheels Lane. Before it was released for consultation this reference produced as part of the first stage process in the production of the UDV PRS and was removed. it sought a clear view from SCC on the future strategic planning direction for Claywheels Lane. This guided the later stages of the preparation of the PRS

UDV PRS The Final Report of the Strategy also makes reference to Claywheels Lane and the Menta interests, these are commented on below.

10 Paragraph 4.1 (final bullet point) states the regeneration concept for 10. As explained above, different options were considered at the baseline stage Claywheels Lane is as an important employment location and securing for Claywheels Lane (Section 8) and the PRS provided the preferred way sustainable regeneration of underused sites. Menta considers that this forwards. The consultation was undertaken on the preferred development model does not allow for those being consulted to have full consideration of all for each of the sub-areas in the Upper Don Valley as proposed in the Strategy. the options available, including residential.

11 Paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 looks specifically at employment uses at 11. We do not agree that the consultation process was an unbalanced process Claywheels Lane. Menta again considers that the Council is being one- for the reasons explained in Paragraph 10 above. Furthermore, as also already sided in its views for potential regeneration by only focussing on noted, the ‘high risk’ nature of residential development at UCAR (Baseline employment led regeneration. Again this 'Final Report' highlights the Report, paragraph 8.21-8.24) reflects the serious planning and regeneration Council's consideration that residential redevelopment will be high risk issues which would preclude this change of direction. strategy, however the Council have come to this conclusion on their own and have not allowed the consultation process to come to this conclusion, therefore demonstrating an unbalanced process.

1 Consultation In relation to the entire consultation process there are additional issues that Menta consider need to be addressed, these are highlighted below. 12 Please see comments 10 and 11 above. We do not accept that the 12 To carry any real weight or significance, any consultation undertaken consultation questionnaires were design to secure a specific answer. Appendix 1 should not be 'stage managed', by this it is meant that a survey should not of this Cabinet report contains the consultation schedule of all the events that seek to lead the respondent to secure a specific answer. For instance, Q7 were undertaken for the UDV PRS, all of which were agreed by two steering relates to Claywheels Lane but refers only to employment uses. Those groups- one for the community events and the other one for the business events. surveyed are not offered an alternative. As in any consultation, events need to be organised and pre-arranged but we do not accept that these were ‘stage managed’.

13 This is even more concerning, given our view that the proposals put 13 The PRS as a whole is not reliant on relocating businesses to the UCAR site. forward in the strategy are not deliverable. The strategy falls away, along The UCAR site is not under this scenario a key relocation site but a future land with the materiality of the consultation, if it is not capable of resource. It can therefore be addressed more discreetly. Assistance with unusual implementation. This is a crucial consideration that should be at the heart costs associated with development of the UCAR site may be provided by English of the strategy. Given the evidence on the costs associated with bringing Partnerships, Yorkshire Forward, Local Transport Plan 2, the Objective 1 forward the UCAR site, the substantial supply of employment land in Programme or others. It will be important to enhance the wider area as a key Sheffield and limited take up and anticipated future demand it has to be employment location for the City. considered how will development be achieved?. It is understood that in As regards the issue of the substantial supply of land, the on-going Arup terms of public sector funding, from Yorkshire Forward, that Claywheels Employment Land Demand study will inform the Sheffield Development Lane is not a priority for SCC. The whole of the strategy is predicated on Framework, in particular the Core Strategy, as to the needs of future employment relocations, environmental enhancement, better access arrangements and land requirements. SCC will be formally consulting on this matter and inviting new build facilities. None of this has been costed or valued, and the report comments in the new Year, where developers will have the opportunity to make offers no real understanding of the consequences of the strategy. their views known on these figures. Finally, to clarify that the future of Claywheels Lane is very important to SCC and that the ERDF application for improved access linked to Claywheels Lane and SCC’sinvolvement in this process over the last three years demonstrates its commitment to the scheme and to the overall regeneration of Claywheels Lane.

14 In addition it remains unclear what status the 'Baseline' and 'Final' UDV 14. The purpose of the Cabinet Report on the UDV to go to Cabinet on 25 Physical Regeneration Strategy has, can the Council please advise. Do October is to report on the final UDV PRS, which includes the Baseline Report the Council support the document in its entirety, and further do they and seek Cabinet’s endorsement of this document In particular, section 7 of this endorse the findings, conclusions and recommendations. report explains how the strategy will be delivered.

LUCIA LORENTE-ARNAU 18 SEPTEMBER 2006

1