1 Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 07/11/2011 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS

CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR Chris Heeley TEL 0114 2736329 ACCESS NO:

AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT

OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

11/02889/FUL 77 Townhead Road Sheffield 6 S17 3GE

11/02724/CAC Meeting House Williamson Road 12 Sheffield S11 9AR

11/02701/REM Former Blackburn Meadows Power Station Site Alsing Road 17 Sheffield S9 1EP

11/02698/FUL Meeting House Williamson Road 29 Sheffield S11 9AR

11/02653/FUL Sir Robert Hadfield Building Newcastle Street 50 Sheffield S1 4EF

11/02416/OUT Land Adjacent To 31 Brickhouse Lane 58 Sheffield S17 3DQ

11/02314/FUL Scout Hall Hastings Road 68 Sheffield S7 2GW

11/02138/FUL 16 Ashfield Close Sheffield 77 S12 2QU

11/02024/FUL Birley Manufacturing Birley Vale Avenue 87 Sheffield S12 2AX

11/02002/LBC Milton Works Egerton Lane 108 Sheffield S1 4JZ

11/02001/FUL Milton Works Egerton Lane 112 Sheffield S1 4JZ

11/01478/FUL Morrisons Supermarket 84 Meadow Head 123 Sheffield S8 7UE

08/02279/FUL Land Adjacent Cricket Inn Penny Lane 143 Totley Sheffield

4 5 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The SOUTH Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 07/11/2011

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

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

Case Number 11/02889/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Alterations to bungalow including two single-storey rear extensions, erection of front bay window, re-roofing, alterations to facing materials, windows, doors, access steps and installation of new windows

Location 77 Townhead Road Sheffield S17 3GE

Date Received 12/09/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Mr G Garfitt

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

Drawings received on 12/09/2011 reference numbers 2001-09A; 2011-08A; 2011-07A; 2011-06B; 2011-02A and stone and render details received on 07/10/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 The proposed render shall be as per details received on 07/10/2011, utilising colour code G20 (Off White) and Fine Scraped texture.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 The proposed stone facing materials shall be in natural stone.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

The extension is visually acceptable, will complement the building and will not be out of character with the local street scene nor detract from the Conservation Area nor setting of neighbouring buildings or merit. The siting and scale of the extensions and alterations will not cause any significant overshadowing or privacy issues for neighbours. As a result, the scheme will accord with Policies BE5, BE16 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. It is therefore recommended that the proposal is approved

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

7 Site Location

8 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The proposal refers to a detached bungalow within the Dore Conservation Area. The bungalow is one of two distinct bungalows, with a neighbour positioned to the rear of the subject property.

The building is set relatively well back from the main road frontage on Townhead Road, behind a wall and hedge, and benefits from a well proportioned front garden area. The front, and part of the side of the house is seen in context alongside a section of Sycamore Farm, which forms a building of merit in the Conservation Area.

This application seeks to carry out alterations to the bungalow, including the construction of single-storey extensions to the rear, and the erection of a front bay window feature. The works also include the recladding of the front elevation and the front section of the side elevation in natural stone, with the use of render upon the extension, and the remainder of the side elevation facing towards Sycamore Farm. The present building is comprised of rough coursed art stone.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no recent relevant planning history for this property.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

No written representations have been received.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

The site is within a Housing Area as designated by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). UDP Policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ will therefore be of relevance in addition to BE5 ‘Building Design and Siting’.

In addition, the site is within the Dore Conservation Area. As such, policy BE16 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ will also be of relevance.

Design

UDP policy BE5(c) requires extensions to respect the scale, form, detail and materials of the original building. Policy H14(a) requires development to be well designed and in scale and character with neighbouring buildings.

The design of the extensions themselves are considered acceptable. The proposed rear extensions will be well proportioned, and will have gable ended features that will complement the main building. The impact of the extensions on the Conservation Area will be minimal, given their siting to the rear of the property.

9 To the front, the proposed bay window feature will be of a small scale, with a width of 2 m. It will have a gable ended roof to complement the main building, but at a low pitch and height to ensure that this element will be a small unobtrusive addition that will tie in with the general form of the building.

The proposed changes to facing materials are considered acceptable. Details have been received indicating the stonework to be used on the frontage of the house will be natural, and it will tie in well with the stone used elsewhere in the street scene, and will be a visual improvement over the existing arts stone frontage.

To the side and rear, render is proposed. Due to the siting of the building next to Sycamore Farm, it is vital that the colour and texture of the render do not detract from the setting of this building within the Conservation Area. An off white colour is proposed, with a rough texture. Although the material will be slightly more visually prominent from the street scene (a section of the side wall is visible above the front hedge), its colour and texture are considered to be suitably subdued to avoid the alterations from clashing with the materials used within the more traditional parts of the Conservation Area.

Impact upon the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

UDD Policy H14(c) requires development to not deprive residents of light, privacy or security.

In terms of light, the rear extension will project a significant distance beyond the rear elevation of the neighbour at 79 Townhead Road. However, a site visit has indicated that there is an established hedge to the side of the extension site of a height greater than the eaves height of the proposal. In addition, there is a separation distance of 5m to the side of the extension to the side wall of number 79, coupled with a land height difference, where number 79 is set at a higher elevation. These factors together will ensure that the extension to the rear will only have a very minimal impact on number 79. With regards to other neighbours, the rear extensions will be suitably distant from number 75 (over 15m), and the extensions will not be directly in front of the side windows of Sycamore Farm.

With regards to privacy, the proposal does not propose any significant side windows that would affect the privacy of neighbouring property. New windows to the West will face the dense hedge with number 79 Townhead Road (which will offer more than adequate screening to the side), and all the other windows will face the private amenity space or the frontage of the subject property.

Highways

UDP policy H14(d) requires development to provide appropriate off street parking. The proposal in this case maintain the existing parking accommodation, which is more than sufficient for the size of property in this case.

10 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Case Number 11/02724/CAC

Application Type Conservation Area Consent Application

Proposal Demolition of meeting hall (resubmission of application no. 11/01355/CAC)

Location Meeting House Williamson Road Sheffield S11 9AR

Date Received 11/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Journeyman Design Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 In the event that the redevelopment of the site is not commenced in accordance with a relevant planning permission within 6 months of the completion of demolition works, full details of a scheme of visual improvements, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be thereafter be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

3 Before any demolition work is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs, hedges on and adjoining the site shall be implemented in accordance with Weddle Landscape Design’s Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement (June 2011) and a plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the

12 protection shall not be removed until the completion of the demolition works unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas

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

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. Section 80 (2) of the Building Act 1984 requires that any person carrying out demolition work shall notify the local authority of their intention to do so. This applies if any building or structure is to be demolished in part or whole. (There are some exceptions to this including an internal part of an occupied building, a building with a cubic content of not more than 1750 cubic feet or where a greenhouse, conservatory, shed or pre-fabricated garage forms part of a larger building). Where demolition is proposed in City Centre and /or sensitive areas close to busy pedestrian routes, particular attention is drawn to the need to consult with Environmental Protection Services to agree suitable noise (including appropriate working hours) and dust suppression measures.

Form Dem 1 (Notice of Intention to Demolish) is available from Building Standards, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734170

Environmental Protection Services can be contacted at DEL, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734651

13 Site Location

14 INTRODUCTION

This application is accompanied by an application for planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for 8 apartments (11/02698/FUL), and Members will recall that it was deferred from consideration at the previous Committee to allow for a Members site visit.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The building on the site is a c1950’s single storey structure with shallow pitched roof. It is set back in excess of 25 metres from Williamson Road on a site of approximately 933m2 lying between two large Victorian villas. The building is a vacant Gospel meeting house formerly used by the City’s Brethren community. It is no longer required and the proposal is to demolish the building to allow redevelopment for residential use.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Previous proposals for demolition of the existing building and a similar new development for 8 apartments were withdrawn in July 2011 (11/01355/CAC and 11/0135/FUL).

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The representations received relate primarily to the proposed redevelopment of the site. However, one of the representations makes the following point:

- existing building reflects era of utilitarian and perfunctory architecture – can be argued that the type of structure charts Religious post WW II architecture

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The site lies within the Nether Edge Conservation Area. Assessment of the proposed demolition is restricted to the value of the building to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the impact of its loss on public amenity.

This part of the Nether Edge Conservation Area is noted for a wide range of residential environments including large Victorian and Edwardian villas on spacious plots, medium sized terraced and semi-detached Edwardian villas, inter-wars semis, post-war bungalows and detached housing. Significantly unifying features are the spacious geometry of the streets and the dominance of trees, planting and boundary walls within the street scene.

The existing single storey 1950’s building on the site has no particular architectural or historic merit and although the point raised by the representation is noted, the building does not make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area in the context of the character described above. The extensive tarmac surface in front of the building is a negative feature. Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to significantly enhance the street scene and strengthen the positive aspects of the Conservation Area

In view of the above, the demolition of the mediocre building is considered acceptable and in accordance with UDP Policies BE15 (Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) and BE16 (Development in Conservation Areas) and the general principles set out in national planning policy in PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

A condition requiring sensitive treatment of the site in the event that the building is demolished and is not redeveloped within a reasonable timescale is appropriate.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The existing single storey 1950’s building on the site has no particular architectural or historic merit and does not make a positive contribution to the Nether Edge Conservation Area. The demolition of the building is therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with the policies quoted above.

It is recommended that conservation area is granted subject to conditions.

Case Number 11/02701/REM

Application Type Approval of Reserved Matters

Proposal Erection of a renewable energy plant with associated flood management works, landscaping and improvements to an existing access (Approval is sought for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale approved in outline planning permission 08/01225/OUT)

Location Former Blackburn Meadows Power Station Site Alsing Road Sheffield S9 1EP

Date Received 08/08/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent E.ON UK Plc

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 Prior to the landscaping works being carried out outside the power station plinth boundary, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented. It shall follow the principles shown on drawing number 240957/REV1 and incorporate the amendments set out in points 1b to 1d of the "Environmental Planning Comments on Landscape Proposals dated 22nd September 2011" and incorporate an accessible pedestrian link into the SUDs ponds area from the power station plinth. In the event that the Tinsley Link is be implemented within 2 years, (or alternative timescale agreed with the Local Planning Authority) of the commencement of the commercial operation of the plant, an amended landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which takes into account the layout of the SUDS ponds as shown on drawing HD/BN653/P14E and reflects the principles established in drawing number 240957/REV1 and the amendments set out in points 1b to 1d of the "Environmental Planning Comments on Landscape Proposals dated 22nd Sept 2011", along with the footpath link referred to above. E.ON shall take reasonable steps to implement the approved landscape scheme taking account of any changes of land ownership that may have taken place to facilitate the completion of the Tinsley Link. The landscape scheme shall be implemented within one planting season of the opening of the Tinsley Link.

To ensure the landscape scheme is of sufficient quality and enhances the biodiversity value of the site and in order to avoid abortive landscaping works being carried out.

2 Prior to the plant being brought into use a pair of drop kerb crossings with tactile paving shall be provided either side of the site access adjacent to the Supertram crossing.

In the interests of ensuring adequate pedestrian links are provided to the site.

3 The vehicular access arrangements, parking facilities and pedestrian access arrangements shown on the approved plans shall be implemented before the plant is brought into use.

In the interests of providing safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site.

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

240957/MID/640 Rev A, (0-)A001, (0-)A002, 240957/, BDP_PL_SW_ LD001 Rev A, AD001, LD002 Rev B, AS003 Rev A, AS002 Rev A, AS001, LP002 Rev A, LP001 Rev B, LP003 Rev A, AP002 Rev A, AP001, VC_AE001 Rev E, AS001 Rev E, AD001 Rev A, AP001 Rev D, AC_AE001 Rev A, FH_AE001 Rev C, AE002 Rev B, AP001 Rev A, AS001 Rev A, AS002 Rev A, BH_AD001 Rev A, AE001 Rev C, AE002 Rev C, AP001 Rev B, AP002 Rev B, AP003 Rev B, AS001 Rev B, Outline external works specification Rev B dated 28.9.11,

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

CS74 - Design Principles BE4 - Environmental Improvements BE12 - Public Art IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas BE7- Design of Buildings Used by the Public

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

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant is advised that the Council wants to avoid abortive landscaping works being implemented. Therefore the applicant is encouraged not to proceed with further work on the landscaping scheme until the outcome of the Tinsley Link funding is known, which is expected in January 2012. Once the funding decision is known the Council will be sympathetic to varying the timescales in the outline permission for implementing the landscaping works outside the power station boundary plinth to reflect the construction timescales for the Tinsley Link.

2. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

19 Site Location

20 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site comprises of the former Blackburn Meadows Power Station site. It adjoins the Tinsley viaduct, Blackburn Meadows Sewage works, the River Don and the railway line. There is a separate Yorkshire Electric Substation which is surrounded by the site.

The application is seeking detailed permission for the scale, apperance, layout, landscaping and access arrangements for a Biomass Power Station that was granted outline permission in 2008. The principle of building a power station has already been established by the outline permission. An Environmental Statement was submitted in support of the outline application which assessed the main environmental impacts. Parameters for the scale of the development were defined in the application and the visual and landscape impact was judged to be acceptable. A design and access statement established a series of principles to guide the detailed design and the air quality, noise, traffic, ecological, and flooding impacts were considered and all found to be acceptable.

Conditions were imposed on the outline permission covering the following matters; - The plant to be designed to be heat ready to allow for a district heating network. - Parameters defining the scale of development. - Landscape and habitat management plans to be submitted. - Protection of the Tinsley Link route. - Noise limits. - Flood mitigation works. - Site remediation. - Off site highway improvements including the signalisation of the Supertram crossing. - Provision of green and brown roofs. - Buildings to be designed to meet BREEAM Very Good standard.

Details have already been submitted and approved to discharge many of the conditions. The outline consent is also subject to a legal agreement that secures a contribution of £75,000 to the Tinsley Link, a contribution of up to £25,000 per annum to a community fund after the first year of operation, and up to £25,000 for air pollution reduction initiatives to be paid after the commencement of commercial operations.

The submitted drawings show the layout and design of the various items of plant and buildings, the parking arrangements, a general principles plan for the landscaped areas outside the plant boundary, detailed landscaping proposals for the area within the plant boundary including the design of the green and brown roofs.

The plant is located in the north east corner of the site on a raised plinth to protect it against flooding, as established in the outline planning permission. The southern section of the site is to be landscaped and will accommodate the sustainable urban drainage system for the site comprising of a series of ponds that drain into the River Don. The southern part of the site will also form part of the flood plain.

The main built elements comprise of the;

- Exhaust stack at 90m high and 2.5m wide. - The boiler island buildings consisting of the boiler and turbine building and various attached silos which are up to 42m high. - The air cooled condensers and associated pipe work up to 20m high, - The fuel store up to 26m high. - The fuel sampling building up to 27m high and various covered conveyors linking the fuel store to the main boiler island.

The main items of the plant are located in the north east corner of the site with the fuel store and conveyor system towards the west, the boiler housing and turbine housing in the centre and the air cooled condensers to the east. The majority of the buildings are faced in black profiled steel and dark brick and their form is dictated by their function. The boiler house is highlighted as a landmark feature and will be faced in orange polycarbonate cladding that extends over the building. It will be illuminated at night to create a gentle glow.

The visitor centre, offices, staff facilities’, stores and mechanical workshops are located in a lower linear building along the southern boundary of the plant compound. This is to be faced in black brickwork with an orange polycarbonate clad stair tower to mark the main entrance.

The visitor centre is located at the west end of the office building and will be accessed by appointment only. It will include interactive displays, 3D scaled models, and information displays. It will include presentation space, toilets and kitchen facilities and there will be access to the green roof at first floor level and views over the sustainable urban drainage ponds and landscaped areas to the south.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a renewable energy plant with associated flood management works, landscaping and improvements to an existing access in September 2008, planning permission 08/01225/OUT.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The Design Review Panel was consulted on the broad concept for the detailed plant design in July 2009. They were supportive of the approach taken. They accepted that there are overriding operational factors that dictate the siting of the plant and disposition of the various components in relation to one another. They considered the form and layout convincing due to its simplicity but the detailed design needs to ensure that additional clutter is kept to a minimum.

In terms of the elevational approach they felt that one of the main considerations is the visual experience from the motorway. The panel supported the overall architectural approach and use of materials. That is, finer grain materials on the visitor centre and black profiled metal for the larger structures. They considered

22 that this is a good contextual response to the large industrial structures in the Don Valley.

Highlighting the boiler room as the most significant element is supported. It was felt that the twisted metal cladding proposed at the time may undermine the strong geometric form of the boiler house. The panel accepted the concept of not drawing attention to the stack and focussing on the boiler house.

Early involvement with a public artist was encouraged and that there was a need for collaboration with the Big Art Project.

Since the scheme was considered by the panel the only significant changes have been in the cladding proposed for the boiler house and the decision to secure a contribution to the proposed M1Gateway iconic art project rather than promote public art on the site.

British Waterways has raised no objections to the proposal.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has raised no objections to the proposal and is satisfied with the pedestrian provision within the site and with the proposals to reserve land for the construction of the Tinsley Link.

Sheffield and Rotherham wildlife trusts are pleased to see that the buildings includes green roofs which are designed to meet the objectives laid out in Sheffield’s Green Roof Habitat Action Plan.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy.

The general policy issues relating to the principle of the development were considered when the outline permission was granted in 2008.

Design Issues.

Core Strategy policy CS 74 states that high quality development will be expected, which would respect and take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhood including; - The townscape and landscape character of the city’s districts, neighbourhoods and quarters, with their associated scale, layout and built form, building styles and materials.

Unitary Development Plan policy BE4 says that the priority for environmental improvements will be given to where the environment is unsatisfactory in the M1 corridor and at other specified locations.

Scale and Massing.

Since 2006 outline planning applications have had to include information on the amount and scale of development that is proposed. The outline permission

23 established parameters for the amount of development and the scale of the buildings. Condition 6 of the outline permission states that the maximum floorspace, and the scale of buildings and structures shall not materially exceed the parameters defined in the design and access statement.

The maximum floorspace as defined in the outline application was 5056 sq m but the floorspace of the buildings in the reserved matters application is 6443 sq m. The tallest structures as defined in the outline application are the stack at 90m and the boiler house at 46 m. The reserved matters application still proposes a 90 m stack but the height of the boiler house has reduced to 42 m. Some of the buildings are smaller and some are larger than in the outline application. For example the boiler house and fuel reception buildings have reduced in height and the fuel reception facility has reduced in volume by over 50%. However the height of the Flue Gas Filter has increased from 17 to 24.8m and the Turbine House Building from 15m to 20.8m. The cooling system, fuel store building and admin/workshop buildings have increased in length from 40 m, 50 m, 30 m to 70.5 m, 74.7m and 62.8 m respectively.

As the design of the buildings was not known at the time of the outline application the visual impact was assessed by superimposing the highest and most visible elements of the plant (stack and boiler house) on photomontages. As the plant is located within a large self contained site and other elements of infra-structure restrict access to the surrounding area such as the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Treatment Plant, the railway, river and motorway viaduct, the site is mainly seen in distant views.

Although some of the lower and mid height buildings have increased significantly in length they were not particularly prominent in the views of the site or photomontage views originally considered. The taller elements such as the stack and boiler house, which will be the most visible, have not increased in height. Given this and the fact the site is mainly seen from longer distance views it is considered the visual impact of the plant has not altered materially from the outline application and therefore the scale is still considered to be acceptable and falls within the confines of condition 6.

Design concept and appearance.

The design concept is for simple building forms with certain of the taller elements highlighted as landmark features against a backdrop of industrial forms within a wetland environment.

The form and arrangement of the buildings is dictated by their function. Their design is plain and simple although the varied shapes and forms of the buildings, tanks and conveyors will create a reasonably interesting industrial landscape. The background buildings are to be clad in black profiled steel and dark brick which ties in with the local vernacular of large industrial workshops. The use of one predominant cladding colour will help to create some coherence between the different buildings. The boiler house is highlighted in bright orange polycarbonate cladding expressing the fact that it is at the heart of the energy process. This element extends above and projects out from the attached buildings on the boiler

24 island and as a result it will give prominence to this element. A series of visualisations from the motorway and its surroundings have been produced which show that the plant will sit comfortably in its contact whilst the boiler house will be highlighted. Whilst the design is not exceptional it will create a local landmark that is reasonably well mannered given its scale and industrial characteristics. The simple design is likely to stand the test of time better than an overly contrived design.

The visitor centre sits adjacent to the southern boundary of the plant compound next to the landscaped ponds. It forms part of a longer building containing offices, workshop and stores. It is distinguished from the other buildings in that it is faced in full height black brickwork and the entrance lobby has been highlighted with the orange polycarbonate cladding. Its design is contempory with a flat roof behind a parapet wall and incorporates both vertical and horizontal slit windows; the entrance lobby is fully glazed at ground floor level. There is a high quality formal landscape forecourt to the building that forms part of the pedestrian approach from the car park and coach parking area.

Public Art

Unitary Development Plan Policy BE12 states that works of public art in places which can be readily seen will be encouraged as an integral part of the design of major developments.

When the outline application was considered it was intended to provide public art as part of the scheme through the design and treatment of buildings and landscaping. Since then the M1 Gateway master plan has firmed up on two sites for an iconic art work installation, one of which includes the southern landscaped part of the E.ON site, the other being to the west of the motorway viaduct. There is a risk that a separate art work installation on the E.ON plant would compete with the M1 Gateway piece. Given this, and the need to secure a significant level of private sector funding for the Gateway Art project, it was considered more appropriate to secure a contribution than to promote a separate art work installation on the E.ON site. A contribution of £30,000 has been negotiated and which will be secured by a legal agreement as part of an application to vary a condition on the outline permission.

Landscaping.

Landscaping is confined to formal landscaping adjacent to and on the approach to the visitor centre, green roofs on the visitor centre and office/stores/workshop building and larger areas of informal planting along the southern part of the site associated with sustainable urban drainage ponds.

The formal landscaping associated with the visitor centre is located in a linear space linking the car park to the visitor centre. It comprises of the following;

- Geometric blocks of ornamental grasses to represent the growing of crops frequently used in biomass production.

25 - Resin bound gravel paving broken up into strips, and blocks of ornamental grasses with Corten edges. - Formal tree planting in soft beds and also in Corten tree grills with uplighters. - An outdoor induction space with seating and planting is at the west end of the visitor centre with a 1.8m high Corten wall to define the space. The wall will incorporate laser cut panels and will be lit with ground lights.

The green roofs cover approximately 18% of the roof area of all the structures. A condition on the outline permission required green roofs to be provided over a minimum of 20% of the building footprint. They should be designed to provide nesting habitat for certain species and include herbaceous plants indigenous to the locality. Green roofs need to be of a reasonable size to create meaningful habitat. Consequently not all of the buildings are suitable. Some of the structures are too small. Some are unsuitable due to the steep roof slopes, their height, the additional structure required to carry the load, and due to heat dissipating through the roof. Given these constraints it is concluded that the area of green roof proposed is reasonable and meets the spirit of the condition. The planting is designed to target species in the Green Roof Habitat Action Plan and the Bio- diversity Action Plan. The detailed specification has been checked and it is considered that proposed scheme will produce successful green roofs.

When the outline application was granted the Tinsley Link was expected to take a different alignment through the landscaped area adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The applicants have submitted a broad principles landscape plan for this area. This shows blocks of tree planting, species diverse grassland and pond margin planting. With some amendments the planting will create a bio-diverse habitat and help to soften the appearance of the development. The planting will help assimilate the development with the wider green context formed by the river and canal corridors. The applicant has agreed to amend the planting proposals in principle but does not wish to develop the detailed design further at this stage in order to avoid abortive works. A revised alignment of the Tinsley Link was granted planning permission as part of application 10/03699/RG3 in May 2011. Whilst the Tinsley Link has planning permission a decision on whether it will be funded by the Government will not be made until early next year. At this point there will be more certainty as to whether the road is going ahead and the likely timescale. It is therefore entirely reasonable to delay the detailed design of the informal landscaping area so that it can be co-ordinated with the Tinsley Link scheme should it proceed. It is therefore proposed to accept the general landscape concept plan subject to an amended scheme being submitted if the Tinsley Link is funded. This may well have the effect of delaying the landscaping mitigation works on the southern part of the site whilst the plant has already been completed and operational. Clearly this will delay the mitigation of the visual and ecological impacts. However it would clearly be wasteful to implement the landscaping only for it to be destroyed within a short period of time to facilitate the construction of the Tinsley Link.

26 Access Issues.

Unitary Development Plan policy IB9 states that new development will be permitted provided safe access to the highway and appropriate off street parking is available. Policy BE7 seeks to ensure that buildings used by the pubic are accessible to people with disabilities.

The site can only be accessed from Alsing Road which is a low trafficked route that serves the Meadowhall Coach Park and the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Treatment Plant. The amount of traffic generated by the development was considered as part of the outline application and minor improvements to Alsing Road were conditioned as part of this application including the signalisation of the road where it crosses the Supertram tracks. This application is concerned with the detailed design of the site access, the design of the internal access road, and the design and provision of parking and servicing arrangements within the site and pedestrian facilities.

A new site access and tarmac road into the site was constructed when the was site reclaimed. The plans show this access road extended into the plant area and brought up to full standard. The submitted design is suitable to serve the development and will provide safe access to Alsing Road.

The access road is 250 long between the site entrance and the plant compound; consequently any loading and manoeuvring will take place some distance from the site entrance. There is a one way circulation system for delivery vehicles around the plant.

A 20 space car park is to be provided with coach drop off point which is separated from the delivery routes. The car park is considered to be adequate to serve the 20 full time staff, contract and maintenance staff and visitors. Segregated pedestrian routes between the car park and the office/visitor building are proposed. Zebra crossing points are provided across the internal circulation roads. Four disabled parking spaces are proposed close the visitor centre which are connected to the building with a segregated pedestrian route. There is a segregated footpath along one side of the site access road which links the buildings to the footpaths on Alsing Road.

Overall the vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements are adequate to serve the development.

Level routes will be created between the accessible parking spaces and the visitor centre/offices. There will be level thresholds into the combined office/visitor centre entrance. A lift will provide access to the first floor and visitor centre roof garden. Disabled toilets will also be provided in the visitor centre. The scheme has been designed to facilitate access by disabled people.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The principle of developing this site for a biomass power station has already been established under outline planning permission 08/01225/OUT. The significant

27 benefits that this brings forward were set out in the outline permission. An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted with the outline application and all the main environmental impacts were assessed and judged to be acceptable.

This application is concerned with the site layout, the building design and scale, the access and parking arrangements within the site and the landscape design.

Parameters for the scale of development were established in the outline application. The impact of this was assessed by superimposing the development on photomontages. The development submitted as part of the reserved matters application has a larger floor space than originally proposed and whilst the overall height is not increased some of the buildings are longer than originally intended. However the increase in floor space will not change the amount of material to be burned, vehicle movements, or the air quality impacts. As the site is mainly seen from a distance the visual impact will not be materially different from that assessed at the outline stage. It is therefore concluded that the scale of development is acceptable and still falls within the confines the environmental impact which was considered to be acceptable at the outline stage.

Given the scale of the buildings and the location of the site by the motorway it will be very prominent. However due to the nature of the surroundings it is mainly seen from a distance rather than close up. The design concept that has been adopted is to keep the building design simple, whilst highlighting the taller boiler house by cladding it in a bold colour. Given that the site is mainly viewed from a distance, the use of a bold block of colour will be effective in creating a local landmark. The other background buildings will be faced in black metal cladding, which ties in with the local industrial architecture of black metal workshops. The lower scale visitor centre is of a more contemporary design and faced in black brickwork. The proposed design is considered to be a good solution for this proposal given the functional requirements of the buildings.

There is a significant area of planting proposed along the southern boundary of the site which forms part of the functional flood plain and also accommodates the sustainable urban drainage system of the site. When this matures it will create a strong landscaping setting for the site and significantly enhance its biodiversity whilst reinforcing the green corridor along the canal/river.

The application establishes the general principles for the landscape design with the detail to be submitted when it is clear whether the Tinsley Link is proceeding. The landscaping within the plant compound is acceptable and incorporates green roofs to the offices and visitor centre.

The access and parking arrangements are considered to be satisfactory and will ensure that vehicles and pedestrians can access the site safely. Adequate facilities are also provided for the parking and turning of vehicles on site and provision has been made for disabled access.

It is therefore recommended that reserved matters consent should be granted for the scale, appearance, layout, landscaping and access for the biomass power station.

Case Number 11/02698/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of meeting hall, erection of 8 apartments with associated car parking accommodation and landscaping works (resubmission of application no. 11/01354/FUL) (As amended 22.09.2011)

Location Meeting House Williamson Road Sheffield S11 9AR

Date Received 11/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Journeyman Design Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally Legal Agreement

Subject to:

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

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 A sample panel of the proposed masonry shall be erected on the site and shall illustrate the colour, texture, bedding and bonding of masonry and mortar finish to be used. The sample panel shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the building works and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

29 4 Before the commencement of development, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:20 scale of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Windows Window reveals External doors Mock door surround Roof lights Chimneys Rainwater goods Eaves and verges Entrance canopy Entrance gates

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed cellular confinement system and finishing treatment to the driveway shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the driveway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 Roof lights shall be conservation style whereby no part of the roof light shall project above the surface of the roofing slates unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

7 All proposed rainwater gutters, down pipes and external plumbing shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium construction and painted black unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

8 The proposed 1.2m retaining wall to the rear boundary of the site shall be constructed in natural stone in accordance with samples and details to have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation of the said wall.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

9 Prior to any work commencing on site, full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the

30 construction shall only be progressed in accordance with the approved details: - construction vehicle routing - construction vehicles ingress and egress - location of site compound and temporary car parking arrangements for contractors.

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

10 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs, hedges to be retained on and adjoining the site to be retained, shall be implemented in accordance with Weddle Landscape Design’s Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement (June 2011) and a plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

11 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

12 The approved landscape works shall be implemented prior to the use of the development commencing or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed with the local planning authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13 The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum standard of Code Level for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and before any dwelling is occupied (or within an alternative timescale to be agreed) the relevant certification, demonstrating that Code Level 3 has been achieved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS64.

14 The apartments shall not be occupied unless all vehicular areas are constructed of permeable/porous materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved permeable/porous surfacing material shall be retained.

In order to control surface water run off from the site and mitigate against the risk of flooding.

15 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, the first and second floor dining and kitchen area windows in the elevation facing The Manse shall be non-opening to a minimum height of 1700mm above the finished floor level of the dining and kitchen areas and such windows shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum privacy standard of Level 4 Obscurity. The windows shall not at any time be glazed with clear glass without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

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

16 The windows to the first floor bedrooms facing The Manse shall be installed strictly in accordance with the detail shown on the first floor plan extract submitted on 22 September 2011 and such windows shall not be subsequently modified in any way without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

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

17 The lighting within the communal stairwell shall comprise emergency escape lighting with any additional decorative lighting being on a separate circuit to be controlled by a timer.

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

18 Prior to implementation, the screening to the private terraces to the ground floor apartments shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such screen treatments shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

19 The apartments shall not be used unless the car and cycle parking accommodation shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car and cycle parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

20 The gradient of shared pedestrian/vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

21 At all times that demolition and construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

22 The apartments shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to boundary wall, footway and kerb, and means of vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

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

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

Drawings W RD PL-02 Rev E W RD PL-03 Rev D W RD PL-04 Rev C W RD PL-05 Rev B W RD PL-06 Rev D W RD PL-07 Rev B First floor plan (extract - 22/09/11)

Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement (Weddle Landscape Design June 2011)

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE6 - Landscape Design BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas

33 BE17 - Design and Materials in Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest GE15 - Trees and Woodland H5 - Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing H7 - Mobility Housing H11 - Development in Housing Areas in Nether Edge and Broomhall H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H15 - Design of New Housing Developments H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments CF2 - Keeping Community Facilities CS26 - Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS67 (Flood Risk Management CS74 (Design Principles

The proposed development has been considered acceptable, despite some concerns about the impact on bedrooms in the adjoining residential care home. On balance, it is considered that the relationship between the existing and proposed building provides adequate privacy and daylight and greater weight has been given to the benefits of the scheme which will increase the housing stock and enhance the residential character and appearance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The developer should be aware that the size of the development is such that it would be prudent to investigate the ground conditions on the site before proceeding further. Information and advice on ground conditions is available from Building Standards, Barkers Pool House, Burgess Street, Sheffield, S1 2HF. If any coal shaft, adit or other coal working is encountered, no work must be carried out without the authorisation of the Local Planning Authority.

2. As the proposed development abuts the public highway you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

3. You are required as part of this development, to carry out works within the public highway: As part of the requirements of the New Roads and Street

34 Works Act 1991 (Section 54), 3rd edition of the Code of Practice 2007, you must give at least three months written notice to the Council, informing us of the date and extent of works you propose to undertake.

The notice should be sent to:-

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

For the attention of Mr P Vickers

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

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

5. The applicant is advised that noise and vibration from demolition and construction sites can be controlled by Sheffield City Council under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As a general rule, where residential occupiers are likely to be affected, it is expected that noisy works of demolition and construction will be carried out during normal working hours, i.e. 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. Further advice, including a copy of the Council's Code of Practice for Minimising Nuisance from Construction and Demolition Sites is available from the Environmental Protection Service, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB: Tel - 0114 2734651.

6. Section 80 (2) of the Building Act 1984 requires that any person carrying out demolition work shall notify the local authority of their intention to do so. This applies if any building or structure is to be demolished in part or whole. (There are some exceptions to this including an internal part of an occupied building, a building with a cubic content of not more than 1750 cubic feet or where a greenhouse, conservatory, shed or pre-fabricated garage forms part of a larger building). Where demolition is proposed in City Centre and /or sensitive areas close to busy pedestrian routes, particular attention is drawn to the need to consult with Environmental Protection Services to agree suitable noise (including appropriate working hours) and dust suppression measures.

Form Dem 1 (Notice of Intention to Demolish) is available from Building Standards, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734170

Environmental Protection Services can be contacted at DEL, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734651

7. The applicant is advised that the carrying out of any works to the existing trees, hedges or shrubs within the site, which are works authorised by this permission will constitute the commencement of work on the development. The unauthorised removal of any tree, hedge or shrub or any other works which threaten their future vigour and quality, may result in breach of condition action. It could also mean that the development is materially different from that which has permission and may be liable to enforcement action and the submission of a new planning application may be required.

8. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

9. The Council is responsible for allocating house numbers and road names to both new developments and conversions of existing buildings. Developers must therefore contact the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Officer on (0114) 2736127 to obtain official addresses for their properties as soon as construction works commence.

10. The applicant should be aware that a legal agreement has been entered into for this scheme.

36 Site Location

INTRODUCTION

This application is accompanied by an application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of an existing building on the site (11/02724/CAC), and Members will recall that it was deferred from consideration at the previous Committee to allow for a Members site visit.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site is approximately 39.7m x 23.5m (933m2) and lies between two large Victorian villas in Williamson Road. It is currently occupied by a redundant Gospel meeting house for the Brethren community (Use Class D1). The meeting house is a c1950’s single storey building with shallow pitched roof. It is set back in excess of 25 metres from Williamson Road. The entire area in front of the building is tarmac and has previously been used for car parking. There is gated vehicular access from each side of the front boundary. The site falls approximately 1.8m from front to back.

There are Beech, Laurel and Leylandii hedges to the front and side boundaries. Between the building and the rear boundary is an approximately 3m strip of land which is overgrown with Ivy and Brambles. To the side and rear of the building are 6 mature and semi-mature trees and there are 3 more similar trees adjoining these boundaries.

The site adjoins a two and three storey stone villa to the south side boundary. This building lies at the junction of Williamson Road and St Andrew’s Road and has recently been converted for use as a nursing home (‘The Manse’). The Manse has primary window openings on all 4 sides. An equally large 3 storey c1960’s building (No. 23 Kingfield Road) is linked by a 2 storey building (24A St Andrew’s Road) is attached to the rear elevation of The Manse. These buildings are in separate office uses (Class B1).

To the opposite side boundary is a two storey stone villa (19 Kingfield Road), also in use as offices (Class B1). This building has frontages to Williamson Road and Kingfield Road. There is a garden area to the Williamson Road frontage and a large car park to Kingfield Road.

To the rear of the site is a c1970’s two storey block of flats with a row of flat roofed garages adjoining the rear boundary. On the opposite side of Williamson Road is a substantial stone wall which screens the large raised car park to NHS premises at Argyll House. The remainder of Williamson Road is made up of private detached and semi-detached dwellings with a children’s nursery (‘Treetops’) sitting at the junction with Psalter Lane.

The application proposes a two storey mock Victorian villa with 8 apartments (7 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed) on 3 floors (including roof space). Car parking for 10 cars is proposed to the rear of the building. One of the two existing access points will be

39 closed with the land in front of the building being landscaped to provide a communal garden.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Previous proposals for demolition of the existing building and a similar new development for 8 apartments were withdrawn in July 2011 (11/01354/FUL and 11/01355/CAC).

Planning permission for use of The Manse as a nursing home was granted in 2009 (09/02479/FUL).

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Representations have been received from both the owners and the operators of The Manse. The owners have no objection to development of the site in principle but object to this particular scheme. The objections are summarised as:

- site has two entrances and would be more sustainable for a small pair of semi-detached dwellings or a single dwelling - proposals represent a negative contribution to the Nether Edge Conservation Area due to scale, massing, siting, design and impact on adjoining properties - overdevelopment of the site – makes reference to a recent appeal decision (not specified) which defines overdevelopment, including non-conventional design compromises to address fundamental flaws in a development proposal - distance to the Manse and height of proposed gable demonstrate overdevelopment – a lesser scheme would overcome all objections - non-conventional windows to bedrooms in side gable are less than satisfactory and do not overcome privacy issues. Other side windows obscure glazed but will need to open – further loss of privacy. Gable should be blank or with obscure glazed secondary windows only - roof massing should be pitched away from Manse and building moved further from boundary with smaller footprint - will put further pressure on surrounding road network’s on-street parking facilities - overbearing impact on adjoining residents, particularly those undergoing care in the Manse – notes two refusals of similar schemes in conservation areas with greater separation to neighbours than this scheme – granting permission for this scheme will set dangerous precedent and give developers much stronger grounds of appeal - proposals will result in 12 primary windows looking directly into 3 windows, including sole windows to some bedrooms, at the Manse at less than 4.5m distance and others at maximum 6.9m – loss of privacy and will put the Manse bedrooms in breach of regulatory (CQC) requirements which could result in 3 of the total 8 bedrooms being de-registered and the care home not being viable (loss of care facilities and jobs). Separation distance should be minimum 25m - large range of below ground issues (subsidence/drainage problems)

40 - layout not suitable for bin collections and no on site refuse vehicle provision - insufficient car parking to serve proposals - loss of all trees on site – submitted report written to suit proposals

The operators have provided NHS assessment criteria for registered care homes and consider that 3 of the care home bedrooms would no longer meet the relevant standards. They also draw attention to their residents having ‘a variety of disabilities’ which would be compounded by the proposed development. The relevant registration criteria are: - appropriate levels of privacy and dignity for patients - good views inside and out of the building - patients can choose to have visual privacy - patients and staff can easily see the sky - the view outside is calming - the view outside is interesting

In addition, 12 letters of objection have been received from local residents (2 from same person). 7 of the letters are identical and incorporate the same text from the objections from The Manse. Additional objections raised in the remaining letters are summarised as:

- viability of scheme is not a planning consideration – developer bought site at own risk - ‘lettable’ flats will introduce transient population in area of predominantly family and owner-occupation - single unit family housing is the only appropriate use for the site - loss of community/religious facility – implications of loss should be investigated - existing building reflects era of utilitarian and perfunctory architecture – can be argued that the type of structure charts Religious post WW II architecture - no traffic study submitted. Parking and traffic situation around St Andrew’s Road/Williamson Road junction is horrendous and adding this overdevelopment to the junction is irresponsible. Walk from Brincliffe Crescent to Treetops nursery and Clifford Infant School involves negotiating fly-parked cars, speeding traffic and vehicles emerging from poorly-sighted driveways. St Andrew’s Road and Williamson Road used as rat-runs. Additional pressure for parking in Williamson Road due to permit parking in adjacent area. Significant traffic generators are commercial premises within 100m of the site (Eastwood & Partners, NHS offices, Treetops nursery, St Andrew’s Hall, doctor’s surgery, The Manse). Narrow pavements and much pedestrian activity (children going to schools) in Williamson Road – proposals will exacerbate these issues - driveway slopes up at fairly steep angle to Williamson Road and has insufficient visibility splays - insufficient off-street parking – doesn’t comply with Council’s guidelines. Potential for 15 cars using development plus visitors - use of car park will be noise nuisance to neighbours at Kingfield Court - incongruous in street scene – huge square lump poorly disguised - character of Conservation Area is predominantly family housing – should be encouraged on this site

41 - not well served by local shops or public transport – will encourage more car journeys - loss of natural habitat due to loss of trees – replacements proposed to front will not compensate and existing trees should be retained - insufficient bin storage/collection arrangements – will result in bins being left overnight on highway for collection - should condition that occupiers and users of the apartments do not own or use cars and should put parking restrictions in place in Williamson Road - will block light and dominate rear of flats at Kingfield Court which have bedroom windows facing site - pressure on drainage connections running through Kingfield Court

The Conservation Advisory Group commented on the previously withdrawn application (11/01354/FUL) which was essentially of the same scale and character as the current proposal. The relevant minute is:

“The Group welcomed the use of natural stone and slate, but considered that the scheme was overdevelopment of the site and the floor plan was larger than those of properties in the area, hence the proposed large roofs which were out of scale with the roofs of the surrounding buildings. The Group felt that the fenestration was also out of scale and the proposed blind door was clearly unacceptable, as was the installation of upvc windows in a conservation area. The Group considered that there was no objection, in principle, to the redevelopment of the site, if it reflected the architectural language and rhythm of the surrounding area.”

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The site lies within a Housing Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and within the Nether Edge Conservation Area. There are no proposals to alter the policy areas in the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Draft Proposals Map.

Principle of Proposed Use

Housing (Class C3) uses are the preferred land use in accordance with UDP Policy H11 (Development in Housing Areas in Nether Edge and Broomhall). The current lawful use of the site for religious worship (Class D1) is listed as an ‘acceptable’ use. The proposal represents the replacement of an acceptable use with a preferred use and is therefore acceptable, in principle, in accordance with Policy H11.

Density and Mix

The SDF Core Strategy Policy CS41 (Creating Mixed Communities) encourages housing development to meet a range of housing needs including a mix of prices, sizes, types and tenures. As highlighted in some of the representations, the area is predominantly family housing with a high proportion of owner-occupation. However, there are a number of purpose built flats schemes, including those to the

42 rear of the site in Kingfield Court and larger scale schemes in close proximity in St Andrew’s Road and Clifford Road. The application proposal introduces new housing into the Housing Area and will not result in an over provision of flats or undermine the traditional stock of family housing. Overall, the development complements the existing housing stock and complies with Policy CS41.

Core Strategy Policy CS26 (Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility) indicates that a density of between 30 and 50 units per hectare is appropriate for this type of location. The development equates to approximately 85 units per hectare. However, apartments will invariably make more efficient use of land and achieve higher densities than single dwellings. In this instance, the density is comparable to the relatively recent flats schemes in St Andrew’s Road and at the junction of Clifford Road and is not out of character in the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

Conservation and Design

The existing single storey 1950’s building on the site has no particular architectural or historic merit and does not make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area in the context of the character described above. The extensive tarmac surface in front of the building is a negative feature. Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to significantly enhance the street scene and strengthen the positive aspects of the Conservation Area in accordance with UDP Policies BE15 (Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) and BE16 (Development in Conservation Areas), SDF Core Strategy Policy CS74 (Design Principles) and the general principles set out in national planning policy in PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

The building has been designed to reflect the character of the large villas that are key drivers of the Conservation Area designation. The building is proposed to be constructed in natural stone and slate and includes a hierarchy of timber framed window openings to the front elevation, bay windows, gables, chimneys and steep roof pitches. These features are better articulated than on the original application for planning permission (ref 11/01354/FUL). It is proposed to be sited forward of the existing building and No19 and in line with the corner of The Manse and Nos 4–12 Williamson Road. The ridge height is approximately 1300mm below the highest ridge at The Manse and approximately 550mm above the height of the other adjoining property (19 Kingfield Road). One of the two existing vehicular access’ will be closed and the land in front of the building will be soft landscaped with 5 new trees planted. Matching stone boundary wall treatment and additional beech hedging will be provided to the closed access and an automated timber panel gate and separate pedestrian gate will replace the large vertically barred steel gate to the retained access.

The details described above all contribute positively to the street scene and help to reinforce and enhance the Conservation Area in accordance with the policies quoted above. They also accord with UDP Policies BE5 (Building Design and Siting), BE17 (Design and Materials in Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) and H14(a) (Conditions on Development in Housing Areas).

There are some negative aspects to the design of the scheme. These relate to upvc window treatments to the side and rear elevations, unorthodox window design to two bedroom windows, mock front door, extensive car parking to the rear and large front roof slope. However, the upvc materials will not be visually prominent, the window design to the bedrooms does not affect the external appearance of the building, the car park will have no material impact in the street scene and the massing of the roof is broken by gable features to the front elevation.

The mock front door is unfortunate as it is a misleading design feature that is likely to be confusing to visitors. The applicant has been unwilling to create an entrance in the front elevation due to a preference for maintaining the submitted internal layout and a preference for a single entrance which is better accessed from the car park. Nevertheless, the external landscape treatments can effectively point the way to the intended rear entrance and the ‘front door’ maintains the traditional character in the street scene.

Overall, the mock front door is a relatively minor design flaw which is outweighed by the more positive aspects of the development in contributing to the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

Sustainability

The proposals represent the development of a brownfield site in a reasonably sustainable location, albeit not within easy walking distance of local shops and high frequency public transport.

SDF Core Strategy Policies CS64 (Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments) and CS65 (Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction) require new development to minimise the impact on climate change through the sustainable use of resources and reducing carbon emissions.

The apartments have been assessed against the criteria in the Code for Sustainable Homes and the relevant pre-assessment submission shows that the design can achieve a minimum of Level 3, with half of the units achieving Level 4. This is sufficient to comply with Policy CS64 and reflects the aims of the over- arching principles in CS63 (Responses to Climate Change).

The submitted pre-assessment also demonstrates a reduction of almost 25% in carbon emissions compared to the target emission rate. This exceeds the requirements of Policy CS65b. There is no provision for renewable energy in the scheme as required by CS65a. The previously withdrawn scheme had included an air source heat pump but this has been excluded from the current application due to lack of suitable external space. Nevertheless, the dwelling emission rate alone

44 significantly reduces carbon emissions and increases energy efficiency beyond the minimum requirements. This reduces the need for on-site energy regeneration and the proposals therefore broadly comply with Policy CS65.

The proposals will result in a reduction in hard surfaces and incorporate permeable surfacing to those that are provided in the scheme. There will be a consequent reduction in surface water run-off in compliance with Core Strategy Policy CS67 (Flood Risk Management).

Residential Amenity for Occupants

The building provides generally good living conditions for future occupiers and there are small private terraces to the 3 ground floor units. There will also be communal amenity space of approximately 125m2. Although to the front of the building, it is well designed and will be well screened to afford sufficient privacy for residents.

Two flats at first floor level are designed with unorthodox windows to one of the two bedrooms. The windows project into the bedrooms in a ‘V’ shaped arrangement above fitted furniture. One side of the ‘V’ is fixed and obscure glazed, the other being clear and openable. A conventional clear glazed window is proposed in the external wall in front of the ‘V’ windows. This arrangement is designed to maintain adequate privacy to facing bedrooms in The Manse but prevents any meaningful outlook from the new bedrooms.

The design solution to attempt to address privacy concerns will result in less than ideal living conditions in terms of outlook from the bedrooms. However, the nature of the layout of the flats and their anticipated occupation is such that the bedrooms are unlikely to be used for much other than sleeping. Nevertheless, they will receive sufficient natural light. The primary living areas have adequate light and outlook.

The one bedroom apartment in the roof space relies on roof lights to serve the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom with only the living room having a conventional window. The rooflights to the bedroom should provide some outlook albeit limited.

Two of the apartments are designed to achieve ‘mobility housing’ standards in accordance with UDP Policy H7 (Mobility Housing) and the external layout is fully accessible.

Overall, the proposals provide adequate amenity for occupiers and the proposals comply with UDP Policies H5 (Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing) and H15 (Design of New Housing Developments).

Residential Amenity for Neighbours

The key issue is the impact of the building on bedrooms in The Manse nursing home adjoining the site. The Manse is genuinely and reasonably concerned that the development may result in one or more of the bedrooms being de-registered as no longer fit for purpose in accordance with the relevant NHS regulations.

The Manse has bedrooms for a total of 8 residents, including 3 bedrooms with windows facing the application site. 2 of these bedrooms are at first floor level and the other one is at ground floor level. There is also a ground floor office window facing the site and 2 bathroom windows. It should be noted that the conversion of The Manse is not strictly in accordance with the approved plans (ref 09/02479/FUL) which show the office at first floor level and a bedroom in its place at ground floor level.

The first floor bedroom windows in the elevation of The Manse facing the site are within approximately 1.7m and 3.8m of the boundary, respectively. They are angled at approximately 25° to the boundary. There is an approximately 3.5m high leylandii hedge to this part of the boundary. The hedge is to be retained within the application proposals.

The side elevation of the proposed apartment building is between 2.4m and 3m from the boundary with The Manse. This results in separation distances of 5m and 7m between first floor windows in the existing and proposed building, albeit not directly facing. The existing boundary treatment provides adequate privacy between ground floor windows. Due to the deep footprint of the building, windows are necessary in the side elevation to serve habitable rooms. There is potential for overlooking albeit at oblique angles.

The secondary side windows to the living/kitchen spaces can be obscure glazed and the lower sections made to be non-opening without significant loss of amenity to the new occupiers. This will also prevent loss of privacy between one of the secondary windows from an office window in the extension to The Manse that directly overlooks the boundary.

The two bedroom windows give more concern and have resulted in an unorthodox internally located ‘V’ shaped window arrangement with part obscure glazing behind clear glazing in the external wall. The arrangement significantly restricts outlook from the new bedrooms but does not completely eliminate views of the windows in The Manse. However, views into the Manse bedrooms are at oblique angles and rely on purposeful behaviour to be achieved. It is highly likely, but cannot be guaranteed, that new residents will prefer the outlook from the forward and rear facing living rooms and the bedrooms will be very much secondary spaces. To eliminate any possibility of overlooking and alleviate the concerns of the Manse operators, the bedroom windows can be conditioned to be altered to be fully obscure glazed or high level types if considered necessary.

In considering privacy to The Manse, it should be noted that the existing separately occupied office block extension to that Manse has windows directly facing a bedroom and the communal living rooms to the Manse at a distance of approximately 13m. This relationship is substandard and there is potential for loss of privacy.

The operators of The Manse also have concerns that the building will be overbearing on the property resulting in unreasonable loss of outlook. Guidelines in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (Designing House Extensions) are

46 helpful in considering impact albeit not strictly applicable to new buildings or buildings not in use as a ‘house’. The Guidelines suggest that a two storey extension should not be placed within 12m of the ground floor main windows of a neighbour in order to prevent unacceptable overshadowing or being overbearing. The proposed building is clearly in breach of this guideline. However, in considering the ground floor facing windows in The Manse, it should be noted that they serve an office and a bathroom (non-habitable rooms) and a bedroom that has a comparably sized window in the front elevation as well as the side elevation. The situation is the same with one of the first floor bedrooms. In these circumstances, 2 of the 3 affected bedrooms are considered to have adequate light and outlook from the front facing windows and amenity is not unduly compromised in those rooms.

The third bedroom is towards the rear of The Manse and it too has a rear facing window. However, this window is totally obscured by the linked elevation of the office block extension which is approx 1.2m from the window. The Manse has therefore obscured its own outlook (many years previously) and it is unreasonable to rely on amenity from the neighbouring site in these circumstances. In addition, the concern is about the first floor window which is at roughly the same level as the first floor windows in the new two storey building. The ground floor can be taken out of the equation in considering the relative heights and the roof of the new building is pitched where it faces the window in The Manse. It therefore does not represent a two storey ‘extension’ being placed in front of the window. Furthermore the new building is to the north of The Manse which will minimise overshadowing for most of the day.

On balance, it is considered that the relationship is acceptable and adequate privacy and daylight can be provided and maintained in accordance with UDP Policy H14(c).

The rear elevation of the building is approximately 25m from the rear elevation of the flats to the rear of the site (Kingfield Court). This exceeds the guideline (21m) required to maintain privacy between directly facing windows. Low level emergency lighting is proposed to light the stairwell to the rear of the building which is served by a large window. A PIR lighting system will also operate for safety. These measures will prevent unreasonable light spillage to the rear boundary.

The garage block at the rear of Kingfield Court will buffer activity from the new car parking area.

Landscape

The proposals result in the loss of 6 trees on the site. These trees are relatively small (max 10m high) and the submitted tree survey report indicates that they are all relatively low quality specimens. They are all towards the rear of the site and do not make any significant contribution to the street scene.

The existing hedges to the front and side boundaries are to be retained and additional hedge planting is proposed where the vehicular access is to be closed.

47 The proposals incorporate new tree planting to the front of the site. This treatment will strengthen the street scene and more than compensates for the loss of the trees to the rear of the site. The proposals also include a soft landscaped front garden area which will enhance the residential character of the street scene and the Conservation Area.

In view of the above, the proposals comply with UDP Policies BE6 (Landscape Design) and GE15 (Trees and Woodland).

Highway Issues

The proposals provide 10 car parking spaces to serve the 8 apartments. This includes provision of 2 disabled parking bays. Secure cycle parking is proposed in a dedicated space within the building. This level of provision is consistent with other flats developments in the area and is considered sufficient to serve the development in accordance with UDP Policies H5(c) and H14(d). It should be noted that the existing meeting house has the potential for greater traffic generation and more concentrated movements than this proposal.

Loss of Community Facility

UDP Policy CF2 (Keeping Community Facilities) permits the loss of community facilities if they are no longer required or equivalent facilities are available in the same area.

The former owners of the site (Williamson Gospel Hall Trust) have confirmed that the building was used solely for Gospel services and worship for the Brethren community in Sheffield. No other groups used the building. The displaced services are now offered at halls at Ecclesall and Millhouses and the Trust no longer has need for the Williamson Road hall.

The statement provided, and the fact that the hall has been vacant for some time, is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Policy CF2.

Open Space

UDP Policy H16 (Open Space in New Housing Developments) requires developers to ensure that there is sufficient open space to meet the needs of occupiers of new housing developments. In this instance there is a shortfall in local open space within the catchment area of the site and provision must therefore be made by the developer. The applicant has submitted a completed Section 106 obligation which will secure a commuted sum of £5,541.40 for the provision or enhancement of local recreation space in accordance with and the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed apartment building (8 units) replaces a redundant community facility (Gospel meeting hall). It will strengthen the residential character of the Housing Area and will not create an undesirable concentration of flats in the area. The

48 building is a sustainable form of development and generally representative of the built form within the surrounding area. Despite the mock ‘front door’ and expansive front roof slope, it will contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area. The loss of trees to the rear of the site is adequately compensated for by soft landscaping and tree planting to replace the existing expanse of tarmac to the front of the building. Car parking is adequate to serve the development (10 spaces) and the developer has completed a unilateral Section 106 obligation in respect of provision for local recreation space.

The key concern is the impact on bedroom windows facing the site in the newly converted care home adjoining the site at The Manse. An unorthodox ‘V’ shaped internal window arrangement has been designed to restrict outlook to facing windows. This reduces amenity for the new occupiers but maintains adequate daylight to the proposed bedrooms with the main living rooms providing the primary outlook. On balance, it is considered that the relationship is acceptable and adequate privacy and daylight can be provided and maintained in accordance with UDP Policy H14(c). However, high level or fully obscure glazed windows can be provided if deemed necessary.

In a finely balanced assessment, it is considered that the proposals broadly comply with the quoted policies and guidelines and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Case Number 11/02653/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing single storey block and stand alone laboratory (education use), and erection of 7 storey research and teaching facility, with associated landscaping works

Location Sir Robert Hadfield Building Newcastle Street Sheffield S1 4EF

Date Received 23/08/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Bond Bryan Building Surveyors (Church Studio)

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

Drawings: (06)001 rev D2; (06)500 rev D0; (06)501 rev D0; (07)001 rev D13; (07)002 rev D13; (07)003 rev D13; (07)004 rev D13; (07)005 rev D13; (07)006 rev D13; (07)007 rev D14; (07)008 rev D9; (08)001 rev D3; (08)002 rev D3; (08)003 rev D1; (08)004 rev D3; (08)005 rev D2;(09)001 rev D3; and (SK)098 rev D1 all received on 23/8/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

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

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

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

6 At all times that demolition and construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

7 Prior to any works commencing on site full details of the following shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the construction shall only be progressed in accordance with the approved details:

a) Construction method statement b) Location of site compound and temporary car parking arrangements for contractors c) Vehicular routes for construction traffic

In the interests of the safety of road users.

8 The development hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum rating of BREEAM ‘very good’ and before the development is occupied (or within an alternative timescale to be agreed) the relevant certification, demonstrating that BREEAM ‘very good’ has been achieved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS64.

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

To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements and to prevent the risk of flooding

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

CF7 - Provision of Community Facilities CF8 - Conditions on Development in Institution Areas BE5 - Building Design and Siting CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction

The proposed extension is considered to be a well considered, positive addition to the streetscape which complies with all relevant policies from the UDP and the Core Strategy.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. You are required, as part of this development, to carry out works within the public highway. You must not start any of this work until you have received a signed consent under the Highways Act 1980. An administration/inspection fee will be payable and a Bond required as part of the consent.

You should apply for a consent to: -

Highways Adoption Group Development Services

52 Sheffield City Council Howden House, 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH

For the attention of Mr S Turner Tel: (0114) 27 34383

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

The notice should be sent to:-

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

For the attention of Mr P Vickers

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

3. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

53 Site Location

54 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site lies at the junction of Broad Lane and Newcastle Street, at the edge of the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering complex. The site is currently occupied by a number of single storey buildings housing laboratories and lecture theatres built largely in the 1950s. The low scale of these building is at odds with the larger mass of their neighbours, the Sir Robert Hadfield Building, fronting onto Newcastle Street and the Broad Lane wing of the Sir Frederick Mappin Building, both built in the 1950s. The six storey building fronting Broad Lane is considered to be a particularly robust and attractive example of its era.

Land on the eastern side of Newcastle Street is occupied by Rockingham House, a ten storey development of student accommodation with a GP walk-in clinic at ground level. To the north, on the opposite side of Broad Lane, lies further University accommodation housed in the former Health and Safety Executive (HSE) laboratories as well as a vacant development site with planning permission for 5433 square metres of office/teaching space and 99 apartments (application 08/05439/FUL refers).

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a new seven storey building to provide the Faculty of Engineering with over 5000 square metres of accommodation for undergraduate teaching, post graduate research and inter- disciplinary research groups. The Graduate School, as it is known, forms the first phase of the Faculty’s Development Framework, a fifteen year plan to improve and extend the existing estate in order reflect their ranking as one of the best Engineering Schools in the UK and to facilitate their ambitious growth plans.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has been the subject of many minor changes over the years as well as some more substantial additions including:

09/01613/FUL Planning permission was granted in July 2009 for a two storey extension on the west facing courtyard elevation of the Robert Hadfield Building. The extension houses a new research institute known as ChELSI (Chemical Engineering at the Life Science Interface) which focuses on applying engineering skills to medical issues.

05/02742/FUL In August 2005 planning permission was granted for the erection of single-storey building for use as a laboratory/chamber for the study of rainfall.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

No representations were received in connection with the proposed development.

55 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use

The site lies within an Education Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in which education and community uses are the preferred use of land (Policy CF7). The proposal to extend the Engineering Faculty is therefore considered to comply with Policy CF7 of the UDP.

Policy BE5 of the UDP (Building Design and Siting) states that original architecture will be encouraged, but that new buildings and extensions should complement the scale, form and architectural style of surrounding buildings.

Building Design

The application site is constrained by many factors, not least the existing buildings, the wall retaining the highway to the north, an existing High Voltage cable which runs along Newcastle Street and across Broad Lane, clipping the corner of the site, Veolia pipe work and a walk-in below ground service duct. Nevertheless, the proposed Graduate School is considered to respond to the context and constraints, and complete this previously unfinished block in a positive and elegant manner.

The form of the building is very much informed by the existing Broad Lane block, reflecting the scale and the established staggered street alignment of the neighbouring building. The elevational treatment also takes cues from its neighbour, echoing the proportion of floor heights, hierarchy of window openings and juxtaposition of materials, including the use of stone at the lower levels to ground the building and as an accent material against the predominant brick. Contemporary detailing and features prevent the extension from feeling like a direct copy of the existing buildings. For example, as the building is to be predominantly naturally ventilated, an acoustically attenuated air path is required in order to distribute air and to deal with traffic noise from Broad Lane. A louvre system is proposed, set back behind panels of horizontal clay baguettes. The proportion of baguettes to louvres and to glazing varies across the elevations depending on the ventilation and day lighting requirements creating an element of irregularity.

Sustainability

Sustainable design is the basis of policies CS64 and CS65 of the adopted Core Strategy. They advise that all new developments should to achieve a high standard of energy efficiency, achieving a BREEAM rating of Very Good (if more than 500 square metres) and providing a minimum of 10% of their predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable of low carbon energy. This building has been designed with sustainability in mind. Measures include:

- All offices, laboratories and teaching rooms are naturally lit either by windows on the building’s facades or a central atrium. To maximise the spread of light windows are taken up to the soffit of the ceiling slabs.

56 - The majority of spaces are naturally ventilated. Where mechanical ventilation is required it will be managed to reduce heat loss. - The building will connect into the city’s district heating system to provide space heating and hot water. - Exposed thermal mass will remove the need for mechanical cooling in many spaces. - Heat recovery systems will be introduced where mechanical ventilation is necessary. - Occupancy detection will reduce system operation times. - Effective waste disposal systems and facilities for recycling.

The building will be designed to achieve BREEAM Very Good as a minimum, aspiring to achieve BREEAM Excellent. On this basis the proposals comply with policies CS64 and CS65 of the Core Strategy.

Highways Issues

There are no highways concerns arising from these proposals. There are no changes to the service arrangements as a result of this development and no new means of vehicular access are formed. All servicing takes place from an existing service road off Newcastle Street. No parking is proposed as part of this development. There are existing bays on Newcastle Street that remain unaltered by this scheme.

Residential Amenity

Policy CF8 of the UDP (Conditions on Development in Institution Areas) states that new development must not cause residents to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

Rockingham House, the ten storey building on the eastern side of Newcastle Street, comprises largely of student accommodation with a GP walk-in clinic at ground level. A minimum distance of approximately 13 metres separates the Rockingham House from the Grad School. This is considered to be a reasonable privacy distance, given the city centre location. Particularly as the proposed extension will predominantly be used by students during the day time. Similarly, it is considered that there is sufficient separation to prevent a significant loss of light.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed extension to the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering forms the first phase of a fifteen year plan to improve and extend the existing estate. The result of extensive pre-application negotiations, it is considered to be a well considered, positive addition to the streetscape which has successfully managed to complete the urban block and marry its two neighbours together. Moreover, the proposals are considered to comply with all relevant policies from the UDP and the Core Strategy. Members are therefore recommended to grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions.

Case Number 11/02416/OUT

Application Type Outline Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 4 detached dwellinghouses with associated access

Location Land Adjacent To 31 Brickhouse Lane Sheffield S17 3DQ

Date Received 02/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Chalkline Architectural Services

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development shall not be commenced unless and until full particulars and plans thereof shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and planning approval in respect thereof including details of (a) Appearance, (b) Landscaping, (c) Scale (matters reserved by the permission) shall have been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Until full particulars and plans of the development (including details of the matters hereby reserved) are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority they cannot agree to the development proceeding.

2 Application for approval in respect of any matter reserved by this permission must be made not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

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

3 The development shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

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

4 Removal of PD for windows and openings on the dwelling.

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

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008, Part 1 (Classes A to H inclusive), Part 2 (Class A), or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order, no extensions, porches, garages, ancillary curtilage buildings, swimming pools, enclosures, fences, walls or alterations which materially affect the external appearance of the dwellings shall be constructed without prior planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

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

6 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no hedge shall be removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

Drawings numbered SO-279-06 Rev B, SO-279-08, SO-279-06 Rev C

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

CS24 - Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing CS26 - Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility CS31 - Housing in the South West Area BE5 - Building Design and Siting H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

The siting and design of the proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding built area. Furthermore, owing to the siting and scale of the proposal, it is not considered that the dwellings would have a significant impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to UDP and Core Strategy policies.

This explanation is only intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the

59 application report at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planningonline or by calling the planning officer, contact details are at the top of this notice.

Site Location

61 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a parcel of land adjacent to 31 Brickhouse Lane. The proposal seeks outline planning permission for the erection of four, two storey dwellinghouses situated fairly centrally within the site.

The parcel of land is currently used in connection with 31 Brickhouse Lane and is set to the side and rear of this property. The site is relatively flat and approximately one quarter of a hectare in size.

The site is located within a leafy suburb which is approximately 1.6 km away from the Peak District National Park boundary. The site is flanked on three sides by dwellinghouses which vary in size and architectural style. As defined in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, the proposed site is wholly within a Housing Area. To the north of the site, however, on the other side of the road there is agricultural land.

The existing two storey stone building is situated within the south eastern corner of the site in an ‘L’ shape formation. The northern elevation of the stone building fronts the public highway and the main front elevation looks across the width of the site. A stone wall marks the boundary between the site and the public highway and an access point of 2.3 metres in width runs up from the road to a flat roofed open shed/store directly behind the dwelling. The boundaries are defined by stone walls and various mature trees. Further smaller trees/ shrubs are located fairly centrally within the site opposite the existing dwelling.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history associated with this application.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 24 representations received in connection with this application. Whilst the majority of the representations have been received from neighbouring properties, a representation has been received from the Dore Village Society. The main planning concerns that have been raised are summarised below:

− The proposal would be contrary to current planning policies including policies; CS31, CS47, CS71, CS72, CS74, UDP policy GE8 and H14; − The four dewellings would be back land development which would be detrimental to the character of the area and especially the neighbouring Green Belt; − The form of backland development is contrary to national policy and will mean the loss of an area of extreme value which contributes to the quality of life of the residents. The green element of the site contributes to the character of the area and the would be forever changed; − The further expanse of tarmac would span into the green finger of land and will further erode the character of the area;

62 − The proposal would be detrimental to the character of the existing surrounding buildings and does not relate to the existing dwelling on the site or the surrounding properties; − The proposal would be overbearing to all the neighbouring properties and would also reduce their existing privacy levels; − The building is sited on a narrow road which can not accommodate further traffic. The road is currently congested with heavy traffic and cars parked along the road. The proposal will create blind spots which will be detrimental to highway safety; − The site is a Greenfield site which is host to a variety of habitats of birds, small and medium mammals and amphibians.

These issues are discussed further in the subsequent report.

The representations also raise issues regarding the future intentions of the developer and compensation which should be paid to the neighbouring properties. These issues are not material planning considerations which can be taken into account when assessing this planning application.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The application site is situated within a Housing Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan. (UDP) The main policy considerations are therefore outlined within UDP policies:

− H10 ‘Development in Housing Areas’; − H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’; − BE5 ‘Building Design and Siting’.

In March 2009, Sheffield City Council adopted the Core Strategy policy document which is to run along side the UDP until the Sheffield Development Framework is fully implemented. The policies which are most relevant from the Core Strategy are in this case:

− CS24 ‘Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing’; − CS26 ‘Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility’; − CS31 ‘Housing in the South West Area’; − CS74 ‘Design Principles’.

Although the proposal seeks permission for four new dwellinghouses, the guidance stipulated within the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing House Extensions is also relevant in determining whether the plot can accommodate such a development without being to the detriment of the neighbouring properties.

As the subject site is situated within a Housing Area as defined in the UDP, policy H10 is fundamental in determining whether the principle of development is

63 acceptable. Policy H10 states that Housing is the preferred use for such land, provided the other policies outlined above can be achieved.

Policy CS24, ‘Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing’, seeks to utilise the ‘Brownfield’ sites within the city. The application site is considered to be a ‘Greenfield’ site, following the re-draft of planning policy statement 3 – ‘Housing’ in June 2010. However, Core Strategy policy CS24 does state that small Greenfield sites may be acceptable provided that no more than 12% of the dwelling completions within the city are on ‘Greenfield’ sites. The number of proposed dwellings accords with this policy and the development would not result in more than 12% of the total number of dwellings being completed on ‘Greenfield’ sites.

Policy CS26 ‘Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility’, seeks to ensure that proposal make efficient use of land. However, whilst the policy does specify desired densities, it also states that housing densities outside of the specified ranges maybe acceptable if they achieve good design which reflects the character of the area. The proposed density equates to 12 dwellings per hectare, compared with the desired density specified in the Core Strategy of 30 – 40 dwellings per hectare. However, the policy does allow for lower densities, but stresses that it must be compatible with the character of the area. As it will be discussed further in the subsequent report, the proposal is considered to be more representative of the character of the area in terms of its density and as such is acceptable in terms of this policy.

Development within this area of the city is also considered in policy CS31 ‘Housing within the South West Area’. It states that priority will be given to the safeguarding and enhancing of the areas of character. However, it also makes the provision for infill development which at an appropriate density can be accommodated without being detrimental to the character of the area.

Response to Policy Issues Raised by Local Residents

In one of the representations, reference is made to policy CS72, ‘Protecting Countryside not in the Green Belt’. The representation outlines the importance of this policy. However, this policy is not applicable to this application as the policy is specific to the areas referred to. The subject site is not stipulated in this policy. The thrust of the policy is to protect these specific sites which were previously designated Housing sites and that have the potential to contribute greatly to the open character of the neighbouring Green Belt areas. The policy will link with the City Sites document when the document is fully adopted by the City Council.

The representation also references UDP policy GE8 ‘Areas of High Landscape Value’ and Core Strategy Policy CS71 ‘Protecting the Green Belt’. These policies look at protecting the Green Belt and Areas of High Landscape Value from development which expands into, and encroaches upon such designated areas. The development is within a Housing Area which is surrounded by dwellings and not in either the Green Belt or a designated Area of High Landscape Value. Again, these policies are not relevant in this instance. The proposal is not a development that encroaches into the open countryside owing to its enclosure within a

64 residential area. The subsequent report will address the issues of respecting the character of the immediate surrounding milieu.

Policy CS46 is also mentioned within the representations. Policy CS46 ‘Quantity of Open Space’ looks at the informal and formal open spaces which are accessible to the public. The site in question is not a public open space and not therefore subject to this policy.

Design Issues

Policies CS74, BE5 and H14 all seek high quality designs which reflect the existing character of the surrounding area whilst retaining the character and main architectural features of the properties within the street.

The application seeks outline permission for the erection of four dwellings. The details relating to the appearance, landscaping and scale are to be dealt with under reserved matters in a separate application.

The dwellings would be set off a road that would utilise the existing access (albeit increasing the width marginally). The road would then continue south across the site to the eastern edge where it would lead up to the two dwellings which are sited in the southern half of the parcel of land.

At this stage the proposal only seeks outline planning consent for the dwellings. It has detailed the maximum heights of the buildings and proposed materials. The materials include natural slate and stone which are common materials used within the area. The proposed materials, together with the overall height and massing of the buildings, are considered to be appropriate in this instance. The details provided at this stage are considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment and as such, acceptable in terms of UDP policies BE5, H14 and Core Strategy policy CS74.

Residential properties surround the site and the properties to the east have had bungalows erected to the rear. The sites of the bungalows would at some point have been the gardens to the properties facing Brickhouse Lane. Unlike the bungalows, however, this proposal is not a ‘backland’ development as the site is accessed from Brickhouse Lane and the parcel of land is an infill site between existing properties. The buildings within the street vary in size and architectural style and a variety of materials are present.

The character of the immediate area is defined by the close proximity of the dwellings and modest sized gardens. The subject property is the only exception to this with its much larger garden and separation distances between the neighbouring properties to the south and east.

The applicant previously submitted a proposal for the Council’s perusal before a formal submission was made. This proposal has lowered the number of houses and the tenure of the residential units on the site to ensure that the four dwellings are sited within modest grounds and respect the urban grain of the immediate surrounding residential area. The proposal allows views down through the site as

65 the buildings do not form a solid barrier across the front of the site. The scale, massing and built form of the properties are similar to those of the neighbouring properties and it is considered that the layout and outline details of the properties respects the surrounding layout, pattern and building styles.

Whilst the proposed layout has a lower density of dwellings than would be desired, the character of the area is maintained as illustrated above. As such the proposed layout of four dwellings is considered to meet the Council’s planning policies regarding efficient use of land and development within the South West Area. The policy is within a Housing Area and therefore the preferred use in this instance.

Amenity Issues

UDP policy H14 seeks to protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties. For the purpose of clarity, the distances recommended in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Designing House Extensions are used as a guide to assess whether the site can accommodate the four dwellings without compromising the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Whilst it is acknowledged that at this stage no window fenestrations are detailed, it is considered that the houses can be designed so that main habitable windows are set a minimum distance of 21 metres from the existing neighbouring properties. Furthermore, such a layout of the properties is not considered to restrict light or overbear due to the substantial separation distances.

Highways Issues

The proposed dwellings would be sited off a road which would have a width of 3.5 metres at its narrowest point. The road would sweep across the site providing access to the proposed off street car parking spaces. The proposal incorporates two off street car parking spaces per dwelling and this is considered to be sufficient off street car parking to satisfy the Council’s parking standards.

It is acknowledged that Brickhouse Lane is a modest public highway in terms of its width. However, it is considered that owing to the scale of the development, the additional pressure put on Brickhouse Lane would be minimal and not detrimental to highway safety.

The access point is of a sufficient size for small emergency vehicles. Whilst the proposal does not incorporate a turning head for larger vehicles, such as a fire engines; the site could accommodate fire hydrants to negate the need for such vehicles entering the site. The road is considered to be an acceptable width which would be satisfactory in terms of highway safety.

With respect to the above comments, it is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of UDP policy H14.

66 Landscaping Issues

The proposal incorporates the removal of various trees/ bushes from the site. The trees on the site are not protected with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) or by any previous planning conditions. The trees/ bushes vary in size and species and the ones to be removed are not considered to be of significant merit to consider protecting with TPO’s.

The trees to be removed are mostly along the eastern boundary and include high conifers. The mature heavy standard trees are to be retained and landscaping details are to be dealt with under reserved matters. Further landscaping will be provided to offset the loss of the trees indicated for removal.

Ecology Issues

The site comprises of mostly lawn and various trees/bushes. It is considered that the areas of the site which are affected by the proposal are of low ecological value. No evidence was noted on site to suggest that the site is occupied by protected species that would be affected by the development. The mature trees and areas which are of significant importance are to be retained and enhanced through the landscaping details to be provided as part of the reserved matters.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed outline planning application seeks approval for four dwellinghouses on the land adjacent to 31 Brickhouse Lane. The outline consent relates to the access and layout of the proposal with appearance, landscaping and scale to be approved by reserved matters.

On balance, the lower density of houses enables the proposal to respect the character of the area in terms of its layout and access. The proposal is surrounded by residential units and does not therefore affect the setting of the surrounding Green Belt or the residential area.

The lower density of houses enables the principle of the proposal to fit in with the surrounding area and comply with Core Strategy policies CS24, CS26, CS31 and UDP policies H14 and BE5. Such a density of dwellings also prevents a layout of dwellings which would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The access and layout of the proposal are considered to be acceptable in terms of UDP and Core Strategy policies and is therefore recommended for approval.

Case Number 11/02314/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of school hall/gym building including changing facilities, cycle parking and car parking accommodation

Location Scout Hall Hastings Road Sheffield S7 2GW

Date Received 22/07/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Space Studio

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

A11-127-01 rev A A11-127-02 rev B A11-127-03 rev B A11-127-04 rev C A11-127-05 rev C

and the e mails dated 31st August 2011 and 17th October 2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the local planning authority Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

In the interests of biodiversity.

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

In the interests of biodiversity.

8 The sports hall shall not be used on any Saturday, Sunday or any Public Holiday and shall be used only between 08:00 hours and 16:00 hours on any other day.

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

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

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas CS74 - Design Principles

The design of the proposed sports hall is considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding area. The design incorporates various sustainable measures which also soften the visual impact of the proposal and minimise the likelihood of amenity issues. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale, built form, massing, materials and details. It is therefore considered to be satisfactory with regards to UDP policies BE5, H14 and Core Strategy policy CS74.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

70 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a parcel of land set within the grounds of St Wilfrid’s Primary School. The parcel of land is set to the east of the school and within a green woodland area. A large port-a-cabin was previously sited on the subject piece of land and was used by both the school and the local scout group. A long established footpath runs along the boundary of the site to the school and its playing fields. The site consists primarily of poor quality hard standing surrounded by trees and shrubs.

72 The school site is accessed principally from Millhouses Lane; however, the subject part of the site is also accessible from Hastings Road. The site is surrounded by woodland and mature trees/ shrubs which separate the site from the houses which are situated to the south.

The parcel of land which forms the basis of this planning application is set solely within a Housing Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan. The woodland to the north and the school’s playing fields are designated as open space.

The application seeks permission to erect a sports hall on the site of the old scout hut.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The parcel of land with which this application relates to has been the subject of two planning applications.

In 2002 a planning application was granted to erect a building to be used by the local community. Application Reference 02/02522/FUL

In 2007 an application was granted consent to extend the hours of use of the above facilities and alter condition 2. Application reference 07/00476/FUL

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 14 representations received in connection with this application. The main planning concerns which have been raised in the representations can be summarised as:

− The building would be excessive in terms of its height and overall built form; − The size of the building is unnecessary given that the use of the building is for school children; − The height of the building would be overbearing to the properties on Hastings Road; − The building would be detrimental to the adjoining neighbours given that there is a lack of shrubs/ trees which could potentially screen the overall built form of the building; − The access to the school from Hastings Road is already problematic in terms of traffic. The indiscriminate parking of parents along the road is potentially hazardous to children but is also detrimental to the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and other disturbances; − Whilst there is an existing access point to the school, the proposal will exacerbate the current traffic problems; − The proposed four car parking spaces is insufficient for the proposed building and will encourage people to use this access point for the school; − Children will have to walk along the path which is in between the new building and the existing dwellings along Hastings Road. The proposed building will therefore increase noise and disamenity to the neighbouring residents owing to its use and siting away from the main school building;

73 − The building is to be sited within close proximity to a woodland which is the home of foxes and other wildlife; − As the path leads around the front of the building, at times of the year when the leaves are not on the trees, the proposal will allow people to overlook the neighbouring properties and this will further increase noise disturbance.

The above material planning concerns are discussed further in the subsequent report.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The proposed development would sit wholly within a residential plot of land as defined in the Unitary Development Plan maps. As such, the application is to be assessed against the most relevant planning policies which are outlined in UDP policy BE5, H10 and H14. Policy H10 of the Unitary Development Plan states that whilst the preferred use for designated Housing land is residential uses, D1 uses such as community facilities and institutions are acceptable within such areas. In March 2009, Sheffield City Council adopted its Core Strategy policy document. Policy CS74 of the adopted Core Strategy further reinforces the need for high quality designs which respect the character and built form of the surrounding area.

Design Issues

Policies H14 and CS74, seek high quality designs that enable a proposal to fit in comfortably with their surroundings and without being detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.

The application seeks permission to erect a detached sports hall on an area of land situated to the east of the main school building. It is sited to the north of a row of residential properties on Hastings Lane and to the south of an area of open space.

The building would measure approximately 14.2 metres by 6 metres and would have a maximum height of 8.6 metres. (Amended plans have been received reducing the overall height from 9.0 metres.) The buildings dimensions have been determined by the use of the building as a sports hall. The dimensions are a standard size for such facilities and would enable students to experience indoor activities previously unavailable to them.

The building would use a variety of materials which would complement the surrounding built area and the leafy areas sited to the north and west. The building would sit on a brick base and would have timber cladding to soften the overall built form. Furthermore, a green roof and a planting frame along the elevation facing the residential properties have been proposed to reduce the visual impact of the building.

The design is considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding areas whilst providing a functional space which meets current standards for such facilities. The

74 proposal would be set behind various shrubs/ trees and further landscaping will be provided, subject to conditions. Owing to the above reasoning, the proposed design and siting of the sports hall are considered to be acceptable and sensitive to the surrounding area. In this respect, the proposal is considered to meet the aims of UDP policies BE5, H14 and Core Strategy CS74.

Amenity Issues

UDP policy H14 seeks to protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The building is sited approximately 25 metres from the nearest residential property. Although the building would be approximately 8.6 metres high; the distance between the buildings, together with the high boundary treatments and the orientation of the building, are sufficient measures to prevent the proposal from significantly overbearing the neighbouring residential buildings.

Amended plans and artists impressions have been received to illustrate the relationship between the proposed building and the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the amended drawings have lowered the height of the roof by 400mm. With regards to potential for overbearing/ loss of light, it is considered that all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the impact of the building on the surrounding area. As such, the building is considered to be compliant with regards to UDP policy H14.

The boundary treatments and distances between buildings also prevent any overlooking of the neighbouring properties and their private amenity spaces. Again, the distances and siting in this respect are considered to comply with UDP policy H14.

It has been confirmed by the applicant that there will not be an increase in the number of pupils at the school. Furthermore, it is confirmed that hours of use will be the same as the school and can be secured through a condition to that affect. As such, it is considered that noise levels should be no worse than the current situation.

Unlike the previous scout hut, the building will be insulated to current building standards and the built form will inevitably provide a better acoustic barrier. Furthermore, as the building is sited approximately 25 metres from the neighbouring properties and would be screened partially by soft landscaping; the building is considered to be less problematic in terms of noise disturbance than its predecessor.

The proposed building is to be used solely as ancillary accommodation to the main building. The previous huts where used for a breakfast and after school club and had hours of use between 07:45 and 18:00 hours. The hours of use of the ancillary school building can be limited through a condition and it is suggested that such conditions mirror the hours of use of the school. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is not considered to be any worse than the previous use in terms of noise and disturbance and therefore satisfactory with regards to UDP policy H14.

Highways Issues

The proposed building will be sited on a piece of land which currently provides access to the main school and the playing fields. There is an established public footpath and gates which lead to a large area of hard standing. The previous building was surrounded by hard standing which could accommodate over 4 car parking spaces. The number of spaces provided is no greater than this.

The comments raised regarding traffic concerns are duly noted. Although the building is larger than the previous units, the intensity of the use is considered to be less than the previous building. The proposal would not increase the numbers of staff or children and the unit is not proposed to be used for non school participants.

The Unitary Development Plan states that schools should provide 1 car parking space per 1 - 6 members of staff whilst sports facilities should provide 1 space per 3 participants. The building is only to be used by school pupils and the car parking needs of staff members are catered for within the wider school site. The amount of off street car parking is not therefore considered to be contrary to the Unitary Developments guidelines for parking accommodation.

As the access points, car parking (albeit not officially marked at present) and pedestrian footpaths already exist; on balance, the proposal is not considered to further exacerbate the traffic issues of the area. Whilst the comments received regarding highways issues are noted, the proposed development is considered in this respect to be acceptable with regards to UDP policy H14.

Ecology Issues

The proposal has a bigger footprint than the previous building. However, the building will be located on hardstanding which is currently there. The inclusion of a green roof and various other soft landscaping will enhance the current hard landscape and should have a positive impact upon the wildlife of the area.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale, built form, massing, materials and details. It is therefore considered to be satisfactory with regards to UDP policies BE5, H14 and Core Strategy policy CS74.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

Case Number 11/02138/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse including side and rear extensions, raising of roof height and erection of front and rear dormer windows to form four dwellinghouses

Location 16 Ashfield Close Sheffield S12 2QU

Date Received 29/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Plans For Extensions Ltd - Mr N Fieldhouse

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 The dwellings shall not be used unless 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres vehicle/pedestrian intervisibility splays have been provided on both sides of the means of access such that there is no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 mm above the level of the adjacent footway and such splays shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

4 The dwellings shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for seven vehicles as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

5 The landing window on the elevation of Plot A facing west shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum privacy standard of Level 4 Obscurity and shall not at any time be glazed with clear glass without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

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

6 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

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

8 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

9 Before work on site is commenced, details of a suitable means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the shall not be used unless such means of site enclosure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such means of site enclosure shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

10 Before development is commenced, full details of all hard surfaced areas within the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall consist of porous materials, or shall direct surface water run off from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Thereafter the hard surfacing shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.

In order to control surface water run off from the site and mitigate against the risk of flooding.

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

Drawing 2 of 4 dated 27.09.11 and drawings 1,3 and 4 of 4 dated 30.06.11

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities CS74 - Design Principles

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

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

79 Site Location

80 INTRODUCTION

Members will recall that this application was deferred from consideration at the previous Committee meeting to allow for a Members site visit to take place.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Ashfield Close is a cul-de-sac that leads off Gleadless Road. The road is narrow and there is a turning area at the end, which has a ‘hammer head’ formation that is also of restricted dimensions.

This application relates to the existing bungalow and garage at 16 Ashfield Close, which lies at the head of the cul-de-sac on the right hand side. The house is single storey with a pitched roof and set within, by far, the largest plot on the road. The site is surrounded by other residential development, notably a bungalow to the south, No. 14 Ashfield Close and a terrace of three small two storey houses, nos. 21, 23 and 25 Ashfield Close, that face towards the side of the application site.

This application, as amended, proposes alterations and extensions to the existing house, raising the roof height and the inclusion of front and rear dormer windows to form four dwellings.

REPRESENTATIONS

Fourteen letters of objection have been received from neighbours and other interested parties: -

− Ashfield Close is a busy, narrow road, already subject to a lot of on street parking and this proposal will make this situation worse; − The turning head at the end of the road is small and substandard and should be kept open; − Six parking spaces is insufficient for four houses; − Parking spaces five and six are too close to the bedroom window at the side of 14 Ashfield Close; − The site at the rear of Ashfield Close has already been developed for houses and flats and this caused noise and disturbance. This will be repeated if this application is approved; − This is overdevelopment within a small site; − The proposal will result in a loss of garden space contrary to national planning guidance; − Flooding occurs in the garden; − The proposed gardens are too small; − Noise and disruption from construction traffic.

Councillor Julie Dore has raised issues about the level of consultation with residents and requested that the application is determined by the Planning Committee.

81 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Planning

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) shows that the site is part of a housing policy area. Policy H10 of the UDP says that housing is the preferred use in such areas so the broad principle is acceptable.

Policy CS41 of the adopted Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy deals with ‘Creating Mixed Communities’ and this encourages a broad range of house types and sizes so that needs and aspirations of all sector of the community are met.

Design And External Appearance

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new buildings and extensions should be well designed and in keeping with the scale and character of the area.

Core Strategy Policy CS74 addresses Design Principles and this says that high quality development is expected that takes advantage of distinctive features in neighbourhoods.

The existing building comprises a stone and brick bungalow with a pitched roof having a double garage of matching materials and design on the western side. This is linked to the house by a stone and brick arch having a door to the back garden. At the front is a pronounced gable feature containing an inset porch. There is an extensive garden area around the whole house with space on all sides.

This application proposes to extend, alter and lift the roof of the house to create four separate dwellings. The existing double garage would be converted to a dwelling by way of lifting the roof by half a storey and increasing the pitch to allow accommodation in the upper space. Single storey side and front extensions would be added.

The roof of the existing bungalow would be raised by way of an increased pitch with dormer windows in this space but the front, expressed gable feature would be raised half a storey with a steeper roof pitch and higher eaves levels. An extension would also be introduced between the existing house and garage that would be single storey to eaves with dormer in the roof. The fourth dwelling, Plot D, would be created by extending the bungalow at the eastern sides. This would have lower eaves and ridge lines so that this would look subservient to the main building.

All four houses would have private rear garden spaces with space at the front given over to parking with some amenity space. Three of the houses would have two parking spaces with one having a single space.

The four dwellings can be summarised as follows: - a. Lounge, kitchen / diner, two bedrooms with two parking spaces; b. Lounge, kitchen / diner, three bedrooms with a single parking space;

82 c. Lounge, kitchen / diner, four bedrooms with two parking spaces; d. Lounge, kitchen / diner, two bedrooms with two parking spaces.

The existing house is located within a plot which is significantly larger than any of the other ones on this road and the scale of the proposed dwellings and plot sizes, as proposed, are more in keeping with the plot sizes in the remainder of the street, apart from those close to the junction of Ashfield Close with Gleadless Road. The houses are a mix of two storey detached and semi-detached houses, bungalows and terraced houses. Generally, the houses are modest in size, scale and plot size with the exception of the application site. Although the proposal is for smaller plots than most on Ashfield Close, they are considered to be acceptable, providing separate houses, gardens and off street parking.

The predominant building height in the locality is two storeys and the principle of lifting the existing roofs of both the house and garage is acceptable as this would be in keeping with the surrounding area.

The external appearance is mainly of stone with some brick with concrete roof tiles. The proposal would extend this appearance throughout, but the applicant has not provided specific details of where materials will be placed. This can, however, be controlled by an appropriate condition.

The existing roof slope is varied with gables at different angles and the proposal would extend this by way of additional gables and dormer windows. This would both create an interesting roof slope and reflect the small scale and modest nature of the accommodation to be provided.

It is considered that the scale, design and external appearance would be acceptable and in line with Policy H14 of the UDP and CS74 of the Core Strategy.

Highways, Access And Parking

Policy H14 of the UDP says that there should be adequate access to the public highway with sufficient parking for the development it is noted that these issues are of great concern and objections to parking and traffic generations have featured in virtually all letters of representation.

The existing access that serves the bungalow would be retained but widened from 3.1 metres to 5 metres to allow two vehicles to pass, should the need arise. The turning head at the end of the cul-de-sac currently serves seven dwellings but with the proposal this would be increased to ten. Although this is a significant number, with the improvements to the access, this is considered to be acceptable.

With respect to the traffic generation, there are currently twenty houses served from Ashfield Close. This would increase to twenty three with this proposal. It is accepted that the dimensions of both the road width and the turning head are limited and the on street parking that occurs does restrict access along the road. This issue does concern residents who assert that the proposal would make this situation worse and that this would be unacceptable.

83 The proposal shows that there would be seven off street parking spaces serving the four dwellings. Given their modest sizes, this is considered to be sufficient but should future occupiers require an additional space, there is potential for all houses to provide an extra space.

It is considered that the additional traffic generation by future occupiers and visitors would not result in a significant increase in traffic, or lead to highway safety concerns. It would be absorbed into the overall traffic flows along Ashfield Close and the on street demand for parking by visitors would not be at an unacceptable level.

The access, parking and traffic generation would not, therefore, conflict with Policy H14 of the UDP.

Impact On Residents’ Amenities

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should not cause any harm or disamenity to neighbours.

Plot A of the proposal would be at the western end of the site where the existing double garage is. Next to this, there are three terraced houses that face towards Plot A, the front elevation being 5 metres from the boundary with the application site. There is an existing hedge that screens the ground floor windows of the terraced houses from the site but first floor windows do over look the site, but it is noted that this situation is in place already.

There is a landing window in Plot A facing towards the terraced houses but privacy There would be secured by the use of opaque glass, which would be controlled by a condition.

No. 14 Ashfield Close is located next to the south-east corner of the application site and there is a window associated with a habitable room that faces the application site. Given that the existing house at no. 16 faces towards no. 14 and the room has a second window facing the front garden, it is not considered that there would be a significant loss of privacy.

There remains, however, the issue of the overlooking of gardens from the first floor of the three terraced houses. Some weight should be given to the fact that the existing garden is already overlooked. It is acknowledged that the garden of Plot A would be smaller than the existing garden serving one house but there would be some screening from the existing hedge and it is only from the first floor of 25 Ashfield Close that views are available. The relationship is not therefore so significant to render it unacceptable when set against Policy H14 of the UDP.

Flooding

Local residents have said in their representations, that localised flooding occurs within the application site, particularly in the south-east corner, close to 14 Ashfield Close. This issue has been investigated in 2003 and it was concluded that the problem, likely to be seasonal, was not the result of watercourses or land drains,

84 but private drainage, which is the responsibility of individual owners. A condition would ensure that permeable material is used for the drive and parking areas to control surface water run-off. It is considered that this condition would also contribute to reducing the potential for parts of the site to flood.

Landscaping

Around the perimeter of the site there is a hedge and within the site are a number of trees. The trees are not of sufficient quality to resist their loss, but the hedge should be retained. This would be controlled by a condition, as would the landscaping scheme for the gardens.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The issues raised by neighbours regarding parking, access and flooding have already been addressed in this report but a number of issues are still outstanding.

It is not the case that the application results in the loss of significant garden spaces as each of the proposed dwellings would have adequate, private garden space.

The proposal is not considered to be over dominant as the plot sizes are not dissimilar to some in place on Ashfield Close. Private garden spaces are acceptable in terms of size and adequate parking would be provided.

Noise and disturbance from construction and associated delivery vehicles does occur, but unacceptable levels of disturbance are controlled by separate Environmental Protection legislation.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

16 Ashfield Close is a bungalow set in a large plot at the end of a cul-de-sac, with access to the site taken from one side of the turning head. It is proposed to extend and alter the existing house to create for modest houses, each with private gardens and off street parking.

The design and external appearance is acceptable and there is adequate off site car parking. The existing high demand for on street parking is a matter of great concern to neighbours but it is considered that the limited additional demand caused by visitors to the application site would not be enough to significantly worsen the existing situation.

The limited overlooking of the rear garden from the terraced house would only be partially resolved but this is not significant enough to be unacceptable.

Policy CS41 of the Core Strategy encourages the creation of mixed communities and this application would contribute to this by way of the creation of modest dwellings widening the range of choice in this area.

85 The application meets the remaining policy criteria set out in this report, is considered to be acceptable and is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

Case Number 11/02024/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Retention of three fume extraction structures to roof of existing factory building

Location Birley Manufacturing Birley Vale Avenue Sheffield S12 2AX

Date Received 27/06/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent DLP Planning Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The flue extraction structures hereby approved shall be used for the above- mentioned purpose only between 0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1400 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no use of the flue extraction structures on Sundays or Public Holidays.

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

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

Birley Manufacturing Ltd - Spray Booth Extract Chimneys at 5 October 2011 (received 07 October 2011)

Roof and Chimney Drawing October 2011 (received 07 October 2011)

Details of Cowl Drawing (received 07 October 2011)

Review of Spray Booth Operations (23 June 2011)

Site Specific Monitoring Proposal for Periodic Monitoring of Emissions to Air - 31 May 2011)

Environmental Noise Assessment - Cti environmental (June 2011)

Environmental Noise Assessment - Cti environmental (September 2011)

87 Part I: Executive Summary Report of Periodic Monitoring of Emissions to Air - Cti environmental (22 June 2011)

Part I: Executive Summary Report of Periodic Monitoring of Emissions to Air - Cti environmental (3 October 2011)

Part II: Supporting Information for Periodic Monitoring of Emissions to Air - Cti environmental (22 June 2011)

Part II: Supporting Information for Periodic Monitoring of Emissions to Air - Cti environmental (3 October 2011)

Report on Dispersion Modelling of Emissions at Birley Manufacturing Ltd (including Dispersion Model Data) - Cti environmental (23 June 2011)

Report on Dispersion Modelling of Emissions at Birley Manufacturing Ltd (including Dispersion Model Data) - Cti environmental (19 October 2011)

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

IB5 - Development in General Industry Areas IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas GE22 - Pollution GE23 - Air Pollution GE24 - Noise Pollution

Government Guidance:

PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG24: Planning and Noise

This planning application has been borne out of a public complaint to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team in July 2010, which related to the installation of flue structures on the northern section of a factory roof without prior planning permission being granted by the Council. The premise is occupied by Birley Manufacturing Limited which has an established use on the site and have existed there since the 1970s. Their work inside the building includes woodworking, fabrication and coating operations as well as office accommodation.

88 This application seeks to regularise the planning position and legitimise the structures which serve as part of the ventilation system to a spray booth and drying room.

A significant number of complaints have been received from local residents living on Wingfield Crescent which, in part, backs onto the factory site. Main planning objections relate to issues of visual appearance, noise, odour and the implications that products being emitted have on their everyday lives, including health issues and use of their property (e.g.). Letters in support of the application have also been received from employees of the Birley Manufacturing Ltd.

This application solely relates to the retention of 3 flue structures and planning issues surrounding this. It does not relate to any other activities carried out at the application site, either internally or externally.

The application site is located in a General Industry Area, the flue structures form part of the site’s industrial activities and represent features that are not uncommon in such areas. Given that the structures support an industrial use the principle of these additions is considered to be acceptable.

With reference to visual appearance, it is accepted that the structures can be seen from private and public areas surrounding the application site. Depending on the location their appearance varies from a direct to a partial angled view. Whilst the position of these units and views of them is not ideal, especially from the adjacent residential properties, it is concluded that the flues are common additions to an industrial building within an existing industrial context. The residential properties already back onto an industrial estate and have the view of an existing industrial building constructed from brick, corrugated cladding and a cement roof. It is advised that there is no right to an attractive or specific view in current planning law. Furthermore, neither the adjacent housing area nor the industrial estate is designated as a sensitive area requiring special control and design merit.

Following the submission and re-submission of technical reports and information, it is concluded that the Applicant has reacted to the Council’s concerns and implemented such measures to demonstrate that current guidance and industry ‘best practice’ is being satisfied for a coating process of this type. The Council is satisfied that previous concerns raised have been addressed to the extent whereby the proposals are now consistent with relevant guidance and recommendations.

With reference to noise, the levels generated by the flue structures are demonstrated to be lower than the background noise levels recorded with reference to BS4142, thus indicating that noise levels from the equipment is unlikely to be a cause for complaint from the neighbouring residents.

89 requested minimum velocity of 10 metres per second. The reporting also re- investigates by modelling the emissions from the extract stacks and once again concludes that there will be no disamenity to neighbouring properties from odour or fume emissions. It is now in line with current guidance and similar facilities in the area of the Authority.

Finally, it is advised that the spray product types that are selected from a range of "low solvent" and "water based" products that are representative of current industry Best Practice. These products are generally recommended for use as an alternative to traditional products with high solvent content where they exist.

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

Site Location

91 LOCATION

The application site is located at the northern end of a small industrial estate at an isolated position in between the districts of Hollins End and Frecheville in the South-East of Sheffield (Birley Ward).

The site contains a large factory building and ancillary office accommodation. The buildings on site are all single storey units and are predominantly constructed from red brick and corrugated cladding. The roof of the main factory building comprises numerous pitches and it is constructed from corrugated cement (most probably asbestos).

The site is occupied by Birley Manufacturing Limited, a Company that has operated the site since the early 1970s. The Company employs 84 staff and is a specialist manufacturer of bespoke and roll-out equipment for retail areas such as banking, supermarkets, pharmaceutical stores and high street fashion. Internally, the building contains workshop based activities that include woodworking, fabrication and coating operations as well as office accommodation. Externally, there are mainly yard areas, associated plant and equipment, and car parking accommodation.

The industrial estate – and in particular the application site – is situated within close proximity of an existing established residential area, which is situated to the immediate north-east of Birley Manufacturing Limited’s side boundary. The residential properties on Wingfield Crescent represent those situated closest to the application site and these are traditional two-storey semi-detached houses built during the inter-war years. The properties at 45 – 61 Wingfield Crescent have their back gardens backing onto the application site. The gardens are of reasonable length and vary between approximately 9 metres and 19 metres long. These gardens represent the main private amenity space and include the usual structures, such as conservatories, decked areas, garage accommodation and children’s play facilities.

The boundary in-between Wingfield Crescent and Birley Manufacturing Limited comprises a hedgerow containing shrubs and vegetation. It is understood that this hedgerow has previously been cut back by residents as it was becoming overgrown and excessively shaded their gardens.

Members are advised that other uses on the industrial estate include Shepherd Construction Services, Palletline, and Fluorocarbon. It would appear that these are also general industrial (use class B2) and/or storage and distribution uses (use class B8).

PROPOSAL

This is a retrospective planning application, which seeks to resolve a breach of planning control that has occurred at the site.

It is proposed to retain 3 existing flue structures that have been installed and protrude above the ridge level on the north-east part of the factory’s roof. The flues

92 are all air extraction flues associated with the internal ventilation system. They are attached to the roof of the building, reaching approximately 1.8m high above their point of protrusion.

The flues are required in association with a spray booth operation that is carried out as part of the joinery element of the manufacturing process. Internally, the spraying facility consists of two connected rooms; one for spraying the manufactured parts and the second for drying. Externally, two of the flues are positioned close together and serve as part of the extraction system associated with a spray booth located within the factory. The third flue is also an extraction system serving a drying room that is associated with the spray booth. This flue was previously an air inlet but it has been altered to an extraction flue during the application process.

The flues are essentially metal pipes that are constructed from stainless steel and project through the roof of the building. They all have a low resistance cowl design. The flues serving the spray booth room have been painted various greys in order to camouflage the structures but this has had limited success.

A fourth structure previously existed on the site, which was similar to the three that remain but not as tall. It is understood that this was an air inlet flue, which has subsequently been re-sited inside the building to reduce noise levels.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

It is understood that the factory was built during the 1970s and its associated planning history follows from this point. Applications relate to the provision of and alterations to the car park as well as extensions to the office accommodation. This planning history is relevant to this application proposal.

The most relevant history has occurred over the last 17 months and resulted from a complaint made to the Council in July 2010 by a resident on Wingfield Crescent, who alleged that Birley Manufacturing Limited had erected stainless steel chimneys/flues on the roof of its building, directly adjacent to the bottom of their garden (ref. 10/00518/ENU).

Following investigation, Enforcement Action to take all necessary steps to secure the removal of the structures was authorised by the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Committee on 25th October 2010. In summary, it was Officers opinion that the structures were clearly visible from neighbouring gardens on Wingfield Crescent and that one of the flues was visible from the road at the front (Birley Vale Avenue). The structures were considered to materially affect the appearance of the building and, therefore, it was concluded that they did not enjoy Permitted Development Rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (GPDO), and a planning application should be submitted to regularise the works. Furthermore, it was concluded that the unauthorised development had taken place within the prescribed time limits for taking enforcement action (4 years – operational development).

93 Consequently, an Enforcement Notice was served against Birley Manufacturing Ltd. in respect of this matter on 16th November 2010 and required the removal of the structures within 28 days of it being served. Birley Manufacturing Ltd. subsequently appealed this Notice, as was their right under Section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended).

The Planning Inspectorate concluded that the effect of each structure on the appearance of the premises was material; the development did not fall within the scope of Permitted Development and subsequently the development was in breach of planning control. The Planning Inspector made no comment on the merits of the development or whether mitigation measures would make it acceptable.

Finally, the Planning Inspectorate’s decision did consider it reasonable to extend the period of compliance with the notice to 4 months, rather than the 28 days stipulated in the Council’s Enforcement Notice. It was considered that this was sufficient time for Birley Manufacturing Ltd. to apply for planning permission, or remove the structures if permission is refused or they fail to seek permission promptly.

Members are advised that this planning application is the outcome of this appeal decision.

REPRESENTATIONS

This application proposal has been advertised by neighbour notification letter, including the properties at 47 – 67 Wingfield Crescent. A significant number of representations have been received.

Letters of objection have been received from 14 households on Wingfield Crescent. A number of the residents have been in regular email and verbal correspondence with Officers throughout the application process.

6 letters of support have been received. These are all from employees of Birley Manufacturing Ltd. who work at the premises but do not live in the immediate surrounding area.

Additionally, it is advised that Clive Betts MP has provided comments on the proposal.

Representations Offering Objections:

The main objections received are summarised below:

1. Failure to Follow Planning Procedures

- The planning application was only submitted after Council and Government intervention.

- Cost to the Company should not be a factor as the Company failed to follow correct planning procedures initially.

- Appreciate concerns raised by employees of Birley Manufacturing but their complaints should be directed to the Owners of the Company as it is their negligence and ignorance that started this.

- The local residents have welcomed this planning application. This ensures the Company will have to carry out relevant noise and fume extraction monitoring, in accordance with current planning policy and standards that exist to protect the public.

- The residents have never enforced any objections upon this Company when previous planning applications have been submitted.

2. Appearance of the Flue Structures

- Objection on visual amenity grounds under IB9 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

- The flues have significantly altered the appearance of the building and how it has looked over the past 40 years. Previously, there have been no industrial features on this part of the building.

3. Noise and Odour Issues

- The application proposal fails to meet local Policies IB9, GE23 and GE24 of the Unitary Development Plan.

- The application proposal fails to meet planning policy contained in PPS1: Planning and Sustainable Development, PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control,and PPG24: Planning and Noise.

- Since the flues started to operate in Autumn 2010 there have been various noise and odours emanating from them. They have been altered on numerous occasions to try and bring them in line with current planning rules but still they extract odours and white mist.

- The current spray booth operating at the opposite side of the factory is more suitably situated as it is further away from the housing. If this was a new planning application then consultants, including the Council, would be informing the company to locate the stacks elsewhere. The installation should be situated as far away from the residential properties as possible and only if it can be proved its safe and will not cause a nuisance wherever situated, regardless of further cost to the company. Just because the stacks are already erected doesn’t mean they should be looked at any differently to a new application.

- The Company presently operates Monday to Saturday lunchtime. The fume extraction systems have a negative impact upon the enjoyment of homes and gardens on a daily basis. During operation residents have been unable to use their gardens or have windows open. Smells of “spray paint fumes”

95 and “nail varnish remover” have been common place, usually daily, from this fume extraction system.

- The spray booth has had a significant negative impact on their daily lives. The constant drone from the flues is audible in the upstairs of their property and has woken their children on numerous occasions. Residents have kept a log of noise and fume extraction since October 2010 (at request of EPS) and these logs coincide with the Company’s hours of operation as documented in the CTI Environmental Assessment Report submitted as part of the application.

- Despite the reports, it is considered that the present velocity of the fans would not be sufficient to remove noise and chemical residue without adding substantial noise impact.

- The facility is used to spray cars. Some of the ‘2 pack’ paints used contain a cyanide element and, when in use, strict force fed breathing apparatus must be used. It is not a good thing for children to be breathing this in.

- It seems from the reports on odour emissions that the company had been using solvent based products and this had not been previously enclosed.

4. Health Issues

- Very worried about the impact of the fume extractors on my one resident’s health. He has severe heart failure and according to some information some very harmful fumes are going to be extracted into the air.

- Concerns about the impact of the fumes and airborne toxins on air quality and health risks, including impact on asthma sufferers, pregnant women and children.

- The submitted information all seems a bit vague.

- The prevailing wind blows from the direction of the industrial units and right over Wingfield Crescent. Residents on this family-orientated road will be put at risk.

5. Issues with Consultant Reports

- Residents have raised concerns about the quality of the reports that have been produced by Cti Environmental who are the consultants employed by Birley Manufacturing Ltd. to address the odour and noise issues surrounding this application. They raise issues about the presentation and content of data produced, which is considered to be flawed.

- A DVD was submitted by one objector, in July 2011, to demonstrate that despite the content of the initial consultant reports the stacks were failing to work correctly.

96 Additionally, a very detailed and thorough objection letter has been received from a local resident who appears technically knowledgeable. It is advised the content of the objection letter is over 30 pages long and therefore very difficult to fully summarise in this report, however he has made a number of concluding statements which summarise his issues with the applicant’s submitted information. The comments relate to the original details submitted with the application on 27th June 2011 and include:

(a) Concluding comments on ‘Application Statement’ prepared by DLP:

“I strongly dispute that the technical analysis of the impact of the vents has been fully assessed; both noise and odour assessments are flawed and show signs of selective data manipulation to present a more favourable result.

The area may not be of high architectural merit but it is where we residents live and the stacks are unnecessarily visually intrusive.

…much of the planning statement is inaccurate or wholly wrong and that retrospective planning permission, for this unauthorised and demonstrably polluting development, should be refused.”

(b) Concluding comments on ‘Review of Spray Booth Operations’ prepared by Cti Environmental:

“None of the filters remove any of the VOCs [Volatile Organic Compounds], butyl dilycol or ammonia; the current discharge to the atmosphere relies solely upon dispersion to reduce the odour and toxicity and due to the unreasonably close proximity of the unauthorised installation to our properties on Wingfield Crescent there is no realistic possibility of proper dilution of the pollutants emitted. This conclusion is supported by our continued reports of odour nuisances.”

“The report by Cti is not scientific, it is littered with mathematical errors and unsupportable assumptions. The limited data appears to have been subject to prejudiced data manipulation and presented in a manner that does not reflect the true extent of the emissions from the unauthorised spray booth at BML.”

(d) Concluding comments on ‘Part I: Executive Summary Report of Periodic Monitoring of Missions to Air’ prepared by Cti Environmental:

Issues raised about the technique used and omission of data. It is considered that this information would reveal the true levels of pollutants in the emissions and yet the data is missing from any of the reports.

97 (e) Concluding comments on ‘Part II: Supporting information for periodic monitoring of emissions to air’ prepared by Cti Environmental:

“I conclude that the earlier tests were badly designed by running longer than necessary measurement times and mixing two tests into one piece of data, the unacceptably high standard deviations highlight this.

The test pieces are very simple and easy to spray leading to a greater under estimated spray duration and quantity of over spray; they do not represent the complex products that BML normally produces.

The missing tables highlight the level of discharges that I believe are more typical of BML production.”

(f) Concluding comments on ‘Environmental Noise Assessment’ prepared by Cti environmental:

“…we are still being subjected to unacceptable noise disturbance so the conclusion that ‘…the spray booth exhaust noise emission is unlikely to be a cause for complaints from neighbouring residents…’ is hopelessly optimistic and actually wrong.’

It is advised that the content of this objection letter has been forwarded to and reviewed by the Applicant’s consultant, Cti Environmental, and they have subsequently responded to the detailed points raised.

Representations Offering Support

- Birley Manufacturing Ltd. has manufactured in Sheffield for over 100 years. It has made a vast contribution to the area in terms of employment and sponsorship. The business has taken a long time to cultivate.

- The Company and public have existed alongside each other for many years without incident or complaint.

- In order to continuously improve the factory and remain competitive it has been necessary to upgrade the spray booth in the joinery shop, both in terms of its efficiency and environmental credentials. We did not consider, nor were we advised, that keeping something up to date and improving its environmental impact would require planning permission.

- Once it was determined planning permission was required we immediately commissioned noise and emission surveys from an independent company to be undertaken to support our application and demonstrate we are operating within best practice guidelines. The methodology to be adopted was discussed with Sheffield City Council’s Environmental Protection Service.

- Refusal of the application would result in the removal of the new spray booth, which would mean the Company will not be able to trade in its current

98 market place. As a result, employees fear for their jobs and state that local jobs would be lost to overseas manufacturers. It is advised that Birley Manufacturing Ltd. is important for Sheffield, especially the Intake and Birley wards.

- If there was a credible argument against the permission being granted on health grounds then this would have to be argued seriously. However, all extensive tests undertaken by an independent company prove that there is no case to answer.

- Birley Manufacturing Ltd. takes very seriously its responsibility to health and safety and the environment. It is considered that it would not make a decision where it was felt it would impact on employees or cause harm to the surrounding area. In every part of the process all of the current legislation has been adhered to.

- The view of the flues would not have been visible to the residents if they had not taken the decision to chop down their trees leaving them with a view of the side of the factory. They simply do not like the view. We would be interested to know the Council’s view on the tree felling actions.

Correspondence from Clive Betts MP

It is advised that Clive Betts MP has been contacted by both Birley Manufacturing Ltd. and a number of his concerned constituents during the application process. The correspondence sent directly to Officers discusses the contact made by constituents and their significant concerns about the noise and pollution impact of the stacks as well as the time being taken to determine the application. Questions have been raised in relation to the planning submission, including about what interim action the Council intends to take when the Planning Inspectorate’s 4-month compliance period ended on 19th August 2011.

In terms of an opinion about the application, Clive Betts MP states:

“…My view, of long standing, is that this is an industrial site and therefore physical changes to the appearance of the building are occurrences which will happen from time to time and, while my constituents may be concerned about their appearance, that of itself is not a reason for rejecting the planning application. However, I have also been clear to my constituents have every right to be protected from any potential increase in pollution or noise…”

Your Officers have responded to the questions raised, as required.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

In order to determine whether the retention of the flue structures is acceptable, the following planning issues must be considered:

99 1. The Principle of the Development; 2. The Impact of the Flue Structures on the Visual Amenity of the Locality; 3. The Odour Impact of the Flue Structures; and 4. The Noise Impact of the Flue Structures.

Planning Policy Issues

The Principle of Development

The application site is located in an area designated for General Industry with Special Industries in Sheffield’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Accordingly, UDP Policy IB5 is relevant and relates to ‘Development in General Industry Areas’ and considers what uses are preferred, acceptable and unacceptable in this designated area. The policy states that General Industry (use class B2) and warehousing (B8 excluding open storage) is the preferred use in this area.

Members are advised that the main industrial use and ancillary activities (e.g. office) that are occurring at this site are not in question given the established use of Birley Manufacturing Ltd. at this location for over 10 years. Therefore, there is no planning control relating to the operations occurring within the building.

The flue structures that are the subject of this application form part of the site’s industrial activities and they represent features that are not uncommon in General Industrial Areas. Given that the structures support an industrial use it is considered that the principle of these additions is considered to be acceptable, provided that the proposals also comply with other relevant planning policies that are discussed in further detail below, including issues of amenity.

In light of the above, it is concluded that the application proposal is preferred development in this General Industry Area and is therefore considered acceptable in terms of UDP Policy IB5.

Amenity Issues

The application site is located in an isolated industrial estate that is accessed from Mansfield Road. Apart from this estate, there is no other allocated industrial area located within the vicinity of the site. The surrounding uses mainly comprise areas designated for Housing and Open Space. The proximity of the housing on Wingfield Crescent is clearly not ideal but nevertheless it is a relationship that is established and must be considered as part of the assessment of this proposal. In essence, the flue structures should not create unacceptable living conditions for people living nearby or in new housing.

The Impact of the Flue Structures on the Visual Amenity of the Locality

UDP Policy IB9 relates to ‘Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas’ and part (c) states that new development will be permitted provided that it would be well designed and of a scale and nature appropriate to the site. The

100 objections received from local residents about the appearance of the flue structures are noted.

It has previously been established that the flue structures materially affect the appearance of the host building’s roof scape. As explained by the Planning Inspector in April 2011; relative to building as a whole, each flue is a small structure, however, each project substantially above the plane of the roof (approximately 1.8m). The flue structures, where visible, significantly affect the simplicity and form of the roofline of the building. There is a series of small vents that run along the ridge of the building and some other projections above the roof, including a small vent pipe and CCTV equipment, however, the roof is generally free from substantial projections, plant and equipment – particularly at the northern end.

It is accepted that the position of the flue structures on this part of the building is not ideal and Officers do not dispute that the structures are visible from locations outside the site – wholly or in part – involving both public and private land. However, it is considered that it must be recognised that the flue structures are attached to an existing industrial building within an industrial area which has an industrial context.

The structure nearest the road, serving the drying room, is on the skyline in some views from Birley Vale Avenue. However, the flue structures are items that would be expected to be found in an industrial area and, therefore, do not raise any significant amenity concerns when viewed from within the industrial estate. It is noted that the host building does contain some additions to the roof space and it is also the case that other units on Birley Vale Avenue are adorned with plant and equipment at a high level.

All of the structures are visible from the rear elevation and private garden areas of the houses on Wingfield Crescent, which back onto the application site. Depending on the position of these properties relative to the flue structures it is advised that this appearance varies from a direct to an oblique angled view. Whilst the position of these units and views of them is unfortunate, it remains that the flues are additions to an existing industrial building within an industrial context. The properties already back onto an industrial estate and there is no right to an attractive or specific view in current planning law. Furthermore, it must be noted that neither the adjacent housing area nor the industrial estate are designated as sensitive areas, such as a Conservation Area.

In light of the above, it is considered that there is no reasoned planning justification to warrant the refusal of this application on visual amenity grounds. On balance, it is concluded that the proposal complies with Policy IB9 part (c).

Fume/Odour Dispersion Issues

Policy IB9 part (b) of the UDP is relevant to the proposal and states that new development or change or use will be permitted provided that it would not cause residents or visitors in any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

101

Policy GE22 of the UDP relates to ‘Pollution’ and states that development should be sited so as to prevent or minimise the effect of any pollution on neighbouring land uses or the quality of the environment and people’s appreciation of it.

Specifically, UDP Policy GE23 relates to ‘Air Pollution’ and states that development will be permitted only where it would not locate sensitive uses where they would be adversely affected by sources of air pollution.

Additionally, PPS23 is a relevant consideration and provides overall guidance on ‘Planning and Pollution Control’. It states that “…any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possible leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use…”. With specific regard to development control decisions on planning applications, it advises that Local Planning Authorities must be satisfied that planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, having sufficient information on which to base their decisions, and through close liaison with relevant bodies.

The application submission in June 2011 contained technical reporting, which models and assess the emissions and dispersions generated by the flue structures. Following assessment of this information, and notwithstanding the conclusions of the report which stated that disamenity would not result, it is advised that Officers were unable to conclude that the flue structures and measures proposed would not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. The main concerns related to:

- The modelling undertaken, which did not take account of the effects of the residential buildings in close proximity of the site and situated higher than the flue structures.

- The discharge velocity of the flue structures, quoted at being between 3 and 4 metres per second, was considered to be unsuitably low. A discharge velocity of a least 10 metres per second would be good practice and improve dispersion thus mitigating the effects on the surrounding environment.

Guidance for similar processes that is regulated by the Pollution Prevention Control permitting regime indicates that minimum discharge velocity should be in the order of 10-15 metres per second (source: Process Guidance Note 6/33(04) Secretary of State’s Guidance for Wood Coating (Sec6.13) – cross reference to Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) – Guidelines on Discharge Stack Height for Polluting Emissions). Whilst this application does not relate to a process of sufficient throughput to be regulated under the current Pollution Prevention Control permitting regime, the process is still regulated under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and it is therefore considered that the above guidance is of assistance in considering the likely suitability of the discharge velocity of this equipment and best practice.

102 These concerns were forwarded to Birley Manufacturing Ltd. and their consultants (Cti Environmental) who subsequently carried out further work and undertook further modelling of the emissions. This information has been resubmitted as “Report on Dispersion Modelling of Emissions at Birley Manufacturing Ltd” a 3 part report by CTi Environmental dated September 2011 and a number of supporting documents including MSDS data sheets.

In response to Officers previous concerns/comments it is advised that amendments have been made to the extraction system to achieve an efflux velocity of 12 metres per second, which is an increase from the original unsatisfactory velocity proposed, and in line with the Council’s requested minimum velocity of 10 metres per second. The reporting also re-investigates by modelling the emissions from the extract stacks and once again concludes that there will be no disamenity to neighbouring properties from odour or fume emissions.

Following assessment and review of the new report and supporting information, it is concluded that a desirable discharge velocity has been achieved and that emissions discharge has been satisfactorily amended. It is now in line with current guidance and similar facilities in the area of the Authority.

The selected filtration specifications have also been reviewed and it is concluded that the filtration is satisfactory for this type of process. Furthermore, it is advised that there is no requirement for additional secondary abatement prior to dispersion for this process.

Finally, it is advised that Officers have further considered the spray product types that have been selected for this use and have contacted the manufacturer of the products for further information and clarification. The spray product types that are selected from a range of “low solvent” and “water based” products that are representative of current industry Best Practice. These products are generally recommended for use as an alternative to traditional products with high solvent content where they exist.

Following review of the submitted information, it is concluded that it satisfactorily addresses the issue of fumes and odours from the equipment. In reaching this conclusion, it is advised that Officers have made a number of visits to the site and surrounding public and private land. Therefore, it is concluded that the structures are consistent with the requirements of UDP Policies IB9 part (b), GE22 and GE23.

It is recommended that the development maintains the use of “low solvent” and “water based” products. Any such future replacement products considered should be representative of current industry Best Practice. This is not considered to be planning matter and therefore no conditions are recommended to regulate this. It is advised that changes in product resulting in further complaints would be addressed by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service under the relevant Environmental Protection legislation.

103

Noise Issues

UDP Policies IB9 and GE22 described above are also relevant to the assessment of fume/odour dispersion from the flue structures.

Specifically, Policy GE24 of the UDP relates to ‘Noise Pollution’ and states that development will only be permitted where it would not a) create noise levels which would cause nuisance; or b) locate sensitive uses and sources of noise pollution close together.

Additionally, PPG24 is a relevant consideration and provides overall guidance on ‘Planning and Noise’. It states that “…noise can have a significant effect on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by individuals and communities. With regard to noise from industrial and commercial developments, PPG24 states that “…the likelihood of complaints about noise from industrial development can be assessed, using guidance in BS 4142: 1990…”.

The submission initially included a variety of supporting documentation and reports, including an ‘Environmental Noise Assessment – June 2011’. Following consideration of its content, Officers concluded that at the operating levels stated in this assessment indicated the flue structures and equipment did not exceed the measured background levels to such a degree that disamenity would be caused to the surrounding area. However, given the initial concerns about the discharge velocity of the extraction system and the clear recognised need to increase this to at least a minimum of 10 metres per second (described above), it was advised that further assessment of noise levels would be necessary once the appropriate velocity had been achieved. Clearly, Officers were mindful that the greater velocity required could result in greater noise and it was stated that if this occurred then the necessary attenuation measures should be employed to ensure that the levels emitted do not exceed the surrounding background noise levels and remain acceptable. It was also advised that the alteration to the extraction to the drying room, which has occurred during the application process, should be included in any new assessment.

Consequently, the applicant has undertaken further acoustic assessment in accordance with British Standard BS4142 and this has been re-submitted as “Environmental Noise Assessment – Birley Manufacturing Ltd” dated September 2011.

The report describes the assessment undertaken and concludes that the Noise Rating Level from the spray booth and drying room exhaust flues under consideration is lower than the background noise level recorded in the garden of residents and, with reference to BS4142, it states that noise levels from the equipment is unlikely to be a cause for complaint from the neighbouring residents.

Following review of the submitted noise assessment, it is concluded that it satisfactorily addresses the issue of noise from the equipment. In reaching this conclusion, it is advised that Officers have reviewed the survey position at which the new survey was undertaken, by visiting the residential premises at Wingfield

104 Crescent, and it is concluded that the position adopted by the survey is appropriate and in accordance with BS4142. Therefore, it is concluded that the structures are consistent with the requirements of UDP Policies IB9 part (b), GE22 GE24.

Members are advised that this conclusion is subject to the use of the flue structures being restricted in hours of operation. It recommended that the equipment only be used between 07:30 hours and 18:00 hours on Monday to Friday and 08:00 hours to 14:00 hours on Saturday with no operation on Sunday or a Public Holiday. This period of use is within the time/day range of acoustic data submitted and an appropriate condition is recommended.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

A significant number of objections have been received in relation to this application. The main planning related objections relate to issues of visual appearance, noise, odour (and subsequent impact issues, e.g. health), submitted information, and planning/enforcement procedure. It is considered that the majority of these issues have been addressed in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report.

It is advised that a number of complaints from local residents relate to noise emitted from the site. The general background noise level in the area is reflective of a number of industrial and commercial activities. Such other noise sources, generated by Birley Manufacturing Ltd. or other business in the area, is outside the scope of the considerations of this application, which is to specifically assess the flue structures related to the spray booth and drying room. It is confirmed, however, that complaints regarding potential alternative sources are investigated by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service under its function to investigate matters of statutory nuisance.

With reference to complaints about odour and fumes affecting gardens and the immediate area around the residential properties, it is the case that other potential sources of paint/solvent type odour have been identified from premises other than Birley Manufacturing Ltd and these are currently being investigated by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service under its function to investigate matters of statutory nuisance.

ENFORCEMENT

In light of the conclusions reached in the assessment above, and the positive recommendation at the end of this report, it is considered that no further planning enforcement action is required to be undertaken by the Council.

Members are advised that the 4 month compliance period set by the Planning Inspectorate in its Appeal Decision ended on 19th August 2011 but no further enforcement action has been carried out by the Planning Service. Such action is at the Council’s own discretion and the lack of action has been questioned by a number of local residents who believe it shows that Birley Manufacturing Ltd. are being given an increased, and unreasonable, amount of time/chances to rectify this matter.

105

For clarification, at the end of the 4 month compliance period the main enforcement option open to the Planning Service was to prosecute against non-compliance with the enforcement notice, and Officers were very much aware that given the previous history and challenges by the Applicant that this could realistically result in a legal case, which may go on for some time. At the end of this process, a positive result may lead to the removal of the chimney stacks but it would not cease the use of the spray booth inside the building and it would not achieve the desired harmony between Birley Manufacturing Ltd. and local residents. Furthermore, Officers were acutely aware that any Magistrate may question why the Council has chosen to prosecute the Applicant when they have submitted a planning application, employed professional experts and stated that they are trying to resolve the situation and explained what work they are intending to undertake to try an rectify the matter.

All enforcement action must be proportionate to the case in hand and for the above reasons, it was agreed that the Applicant be given the opportunity to review the Council’s comments on the original submission and be allowed a reasonable period of time to respond. It was hoped that a positive response would hopefully negate the need for a lengthy prosecution process.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

This planning application has been borne out of a public complaint to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team in July 2010, which related to the installation of flue structures on the northern section of a factory roof without prior planning permission being granted by the Council. The premise is occupied by Birley Manufacturing Limited which has an established use on the site and has existed there since the 1970s. Their work inside the building includes woodworking, fabrication and coating operations as well as office accommodation.

This application seeks to regularise the planning position and legitimise the structures which serve as part of the ventilation system to a spray booth and drying room.

This application solely relates to the retention of 3 flue structures and planning issues surrounding this. It does relate to any other activities carried out at the application site, either internally or externally.

106

With reference to visual appearance, it is accepted that the structures can be seen from private and public areas surrounding the application site. Depending on the location their appearance varies from a direct to a partial angled view. Whilst the position of these units and views of them is not ideal, especially from the adjacent residential properties, it is concluded that the flues are common additions to an industrial building within an existing industrial context. The residential properties already back onto an industrial estate and have the view of an existing industrial building constructed from brick, corrugate cladding and a cement roof. It is advised that there is no right to an attractive or specific view in current planning law. Furthermore, neither the adjacent housing area nor the industrial estate is designated as sensitive area requiring special control and design merit.

With reference to fumes/odours the extraction system now achieves an efflux velocity of 12 metres per second, which is an increase from the original unsatisfactory velocity proposed, and in line with the Council’s requested minimum velocity of 10 metres per second. The reporting also re-investigates by modelling the emissions from the extract stacks and once again concludes that there will be no disamenity to neighbouring properties from odour or fume emissions. It is now in line with current guidance and similar facilities in the area of the Authority.

Finally, it is advised that the spray product types that are selected from a range of “low solvent” and “water based” products that are representative of current industry Best Practice. These products are generally recommended for use as an alternative to traditional products with high solvent content where they exist.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the flue structures comply with relevant planning policies contained in UDP Policies IB9, GE22, GE23 and GE24 as well as relevant planning policy guidance notes contained in PPS23 and PPG24.

It is therefore recommended that this application be approved.

107

Case Number 11/02002/LBC

Application Type Listed Building Consent Application

Proposal Demolition of courtyard toilet block and single-storey rear extension, alterations and refurbishment of building to form 6 flats including three-storey rear extension, single-storey rear extension, internal alterations and alterations to door and window openings (amended as per plans received 21.10.11)

Location Milton Works Egerton Lane Sheffield S1 4JZ

Date Received 23/06/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent SLA Design

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

In order to comply with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990.

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

Drawing refs: 006 rev F and 003 rev F received on 21/10/2011; 004 rev F and 005 rev E received on 27/9/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

108

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed schedule of all internal and external works, including large scale details where relevant, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including, but not exclusively:

Windows Doors New joinery/timber structural elements External wall construction Roof Chimney stacks and pots Rainwater goods New metal elements, including external walkways Light fittings Boundary walls, gates and hardstandings

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 A sample panel of the proposed masonry shall be erected on the site and shall illustrate the colour, texture, bedding and bonding of masonry and mortar finish to be used. The sample panel shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the building works and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

6 Prior to commencement of works, details of the extent and specification of brick/stone repair and cleaning shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure that the fabric of the building is not damaged

7 Before the development commences, a schedule of all fixtures and fittings, with a photographic record, and details of their retention, repair, removal or relocation shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

In order to protect the character of the original building.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

109

IB6 - Development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas CS3 - Locations for Office Development CS4 - Offices in the City Centre CS17 - City Centre Quarters BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments

The amended proposals are now considered to safeguard the special character and appearance of the Grade II* Listed Milton Works and thus comply with Policies BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and other relevant policies.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

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

110

Site Location

111

Case Number 11/02001/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Location Milton Works Egerton Lane Sheffield S1 4JZ

Date Received 23/06/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent SLA Design

Recommendation Grant Conditionally subject to the completion of a Legal Agreement

Subject to:

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

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

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

Drawing refs: 006 rev F and 003 rev F received on 21/10/2011; 004 rev F and 005 rev E received on 27/9/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

112 In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed schedule of all external works, including large scale details where relevant, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including, but not exclusively:

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

In order to ensure that the fabric of the building is not damaged

In order to protect the character of the original building.

8 The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall: a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey, b) Be capable of achieving the following noise levels:

113 Bedrooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 30 dB (2300 to 0700 hours), Living Rooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 40 dB (0700 to 2300 hours), c) Include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation to all habitable rooms. Before the scheme of sound attenuation works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114

13 Upon completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The development or any part thereof shall not be brought in to use until the Validation Report has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Validation Report shall be prepared in accordance with Contaminated Land Report CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004) and Local Planning Authority policies relating to validation of capping measures and validation of gas protection measures.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. As the proposed development will involve the closing/diversion of a highway(s) you are advised to contact the Principal Engineer of Highway Information and Orders, Development Services, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH, as soon as possible.

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

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

4. You are advised that residential occupiers of the building should be informed in writing prior to occupation that:

(a) limited/no car parking provision is available on site for occupiers of the building, (b) resident's car parking permits will not be provided by the Council for any person living in the building.

116 Site Location

117 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site comprises of Milton Works, a Grade II* Listed former metal trades building (knife and tool works), which was subsequently used as workshops and office accommodation and is presently vacant and in a very poor state of repair. The building lies at the junction of Headford Street and Egerton Lane with Beehive Works situated to the rear.

Milton Works was constructed in the mid and late Nineteenth Century with subsequent Twentieth Century alterations. It is built in red brick with ashlar dressings and slate roofs with numerous brick stacks. The main building extends to three storeys in height fronting Egerton Lane with a small single storey addition at the rear. This main building is rectangular in form comprising a 16.6 metre frontage to Egerton Lane and a narrow 4.7 metre return onto Headford Street. The single storey element projects to a depth of 3.1 metres from the rear elevation and extends to approximately 9.7 metres along the rear of the Works. To the front elevation, the fenestration pattern is relatively consistent comprising 12 regularly positioned 8-pane casement windows to both the first and second floors, however a number of windows to the front and rear elevation have been unsympathetically altered. The ground floor incorporates larger windows of the same form as well as a cart entrance through the building to the rear courtyard. The fenestration pattern to the rear elevation is similar to the front.

Planning permission and listed building consent are sought for the refurbishment of the building to form 6 flats intended to be used for students. The proposals include the demolition of the courtyard toilet block and single-storey rear extension, to be replaced by a new three-storey rear extension, single-storey rear extension, internal alterations and alterations to door and window openings.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

09/00017/FUL & Planning permission and listed building consent were 09/00018/LBC refused in March 2009 for the refurbishment of the Grade II* Listed Building comprising part demolition of the courtyard toilet block, the single storey lean-to to Headford Street and internal/external staircases, internal and external alterations to the fabric of the building to include the bricking up of existing windows and doorways, alterations to ground floor windows to the front elevation and the construction of a 3 storey glazed extension to the building to the rear and Headford Street elevations to create a new stair tower.

While the principle of its refurbishment and re-use was strongly supported, the detail of the application was considered insufficient to demonstrate that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the Listed Building. Moreover, the proposed three storey extension to provide a new stair core was considered to harm the special character and appearance of Milton Works.

118 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The application was advertised by means of neighbour notification and also by means of a site notice and press notice as an application affecting a Grade II* Listed Building.

The following statutory consultation responses have been received:

English Heritage

English Heritage were involved in the pre-application discussions on this proposal and are satisfied that the submitted scheme provides a sustainable future for this important building while retaining its significant features. They suggest that details of materials and finishes should be submitted to and approved by Sheffield City Council. On this basis the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.

Victorian Society

The Victorian Society strongly objects to the application. It considers the drawings to be inadequate and the level of intervention high on this extremely important grade II* listed building. They recommend that permission is refused.

In addition a further representation has been received from a member of the public working in Beehive Works, concerned that the building has become so neglected and mistakenly thinking that it is the main three storey building that is to be demolished.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

This application proposes the refurbishment and alteration of this Grade II* Listed former metal trades building for use as student accommodation. The proposals include the construction of a new three storey extension to create a stair core. The key issues to consider in the determination of this application include the principle of development in terms of land use, the impact of the works on the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the impact of the proposals on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Principle of Development: Policy and Land Use

The application site lies within a designated Fringe Industry and Business Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy IB6 of the UDP (Development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas) describes B class uses (business/industry/warehousing) as the preferred uses, however other uses are considered acceptable including housing.

Policy IB9 (a) (Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas) allows changes of use provided it does not prejudice the dominance of industry and business. As this is a small scheme, and the present balance of uses is in

119 accordance with Policy IB9 (a), the use of Milton works as student accommodation is considered to be acceptable.

Furthermore, while Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy (Locations for Office Development) generally promotes offices in the city centre, this is not a Priority Office Area as defined in Policy CS4 (Offices in the City Centre). It is, however, promoted as an area suitable for city living in Policy CS17 (City Centre Quarters) (f) which seeks to reinforce the character of the Devonshire Quarter as a vibrant mixed-use location. The application is therefore deemed to accord with the objectives of the Core Strategy and is acceptable in principle.

Impact on the Grade II* Listed Building

Policy BE15 of the UDP (Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) advises that buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest will be preserved or enhanced and development that would harm their character of appearance will not be permitted. Policy BE19 (Development Affecting Listed Buildings) requires that internal and external alterations and new buildings within the curtilage of Listed Buildings should preserve the building’s character, appearance and setting. These policies reflect the guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPS 5) which requires the Council to assess the impact of development on the affected heritage asset and their settings.

Milton Works is currently in a very poor state of repair and the principle of its refurbishment is, as before, strongly supported. Proposals to demolish later additions on the building’s south east facing elevation are considered to be acceptable in principle and efforts to maintain as much of the original fabric of the Works as possible are welcomed. Both of the street facing elevations remain largely in tact (following amendments), save the glazing of the cart entrance and insertion of a new entrance door, thus maintaining the character and setting of this and neighbouring metal trades buildings. The central staircase, which was to be demolished as part of the previous scheme, will now remain in situ, to be used as a storage area.

The previous proposals raised some significant concerns in relation to the detailed design of the scheme, as well as the level of information that was submitted to support the application. For example, the three storey stair tower was not considered acceptable as it required the demolition of part of the south-east (courtyard) façade. It also had a mono-pitched roof which rose to the ridge level of the existing building and did not appear subservient to the original Works. These issues have since been addressed as the stair tower now incorporates the courtyard wall, albeit it hidden from view by the outer walls of the tower, and the now flat roofed stair tower terminates at the eaves of the original building and is clad largely in brick not glass and timber as before. Further amendments have been made during the application process, the most significant of which is the reduction in the length of the stair tower (by 3 metres) in order to reveal more of the original south east facing elevation by replacing the previously internal corridors with external walkways. While further information is required in relation to a number of design details, such as the external walkways and the glazed insert

120 between the stair tower and the existing building, it is felt that these can be reserved by condition, along with conditions seeking to secure the best quality materials and finishes.

Milton Works is in a very poor state of repair and recently suffered further damage as a result of fire and occupation by squatters. There are concerns that, if a viable scheme to re-use and refurbish the building is not found shortly, it could deteriorate to an irreparable state. It is considered that the scheme as currently submitted will not cause significant harm to the special character and appearance of the Grade II* Listed Milton Works and thus complies with Policies BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and advice contained within PPS5.

Highways and Access

The site is in a highly accessible location and no car parking is proposed as part of the development. Secure cycle parking is however proposed which is to be welcomed and a car free directive will be added to ensure that residents are not entitled to parking permits.

Amenity Issues

While Milton Works is located in a predominantly commercial location, a PPG24 based assessment of the building indicated that the main noise source is the nearby ring road. However, noise levels were such that they could be satisfactorily attenuated against, and an appropriate condition is proposed in order to safeguard the amenities of future occupants.

Sustainability Issues

Sustainable design is the basis of policies CS64 and CS65 of the recently adopted Core Strategy. They advise that all new developments should achieve a high standard of energy efficiency and that all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to use resources sustainably by, for example, minimising water consumption, using sustainable materials wherever possible and promoting recycling. As the development involves the conversion and extension of a listed building there are limitations to what can be achieved. That said, improved insulation and glazing will make a dramatic difference to energy efficiency and the building will remain naturally ventilated. It is also proposed to heat the building using air source heat pumps, however this matter is reserved by condition.

Open Space Enhancement Contribution

Policy H16 of the Unitary Development Plan requires that the developer make a financial contribution towards the provision or enhancement of public open space within the vicinity of the application site. The applicant has agreed to enter into unilateral planning obligation to pay the Council the sum of £6,210.90 upon the commencement of development. The monies will be distributed in consultation with the relevant Area Panel.

121

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the Grade II* Listed Milton Works and its re-use as student accommodation. The principle of its refurbishment and re-use is strongly supported given its very poor state of repair and the amended proposals are now considered to safeguard the special character and appearance of the Grade II* Listed Milton Works and thus comply with Policies BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and other relevant policies. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to the proposed conditions.

122

Case Number 11/01478/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of two-storey front extension to building to create customer cafe and staff facilities, demolition of existing offices (currently ground floor) to provide additional sales area and erection of rear extension for additional warehouse space

Location Morrisons Supermarket 84 Meadow Head Sheffield S8 7UE

Date Received 17/05/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent WCEC Architects

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 The development shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for 335 cars as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

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

3 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development, the detailed Travel Plan dated September 2011 designed to: reduce the need for and impact of motor vehicles, including fleet operations; increase site accessibility; and to facilitate and encourage alternative travel modes, shall be implemented. The Travel Plan shall include:-

1. Clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets; 2. An implementation programme, with arrangements to review and report back on progress being achieved to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the "Monitoring Schedule" for written approval of actions consequently proposed.

123 3. The results and findings of the monitoring shall be independently verified/validated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 4. The verified/validated results will be used to further define targets and inform actions proposed to achieve the approved objectives and modal split targets.

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

4 Before the development is commenced, full details of suitable and sufficient cycle parking accommodation within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and, thereafter, such cycle parking accommodation shall be retained.

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

5 Prior to the completion of the development, a detailed car park management plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the car park shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the agreed car park management plan.

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

6 Prior to any works commencing on site, full details of the location of the site compound and temporary arrangements for contractor parking shall have be and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

7 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the noise levels generated from the proposed freezer/storage extension shall not exceed background noise levels (LA90) when measured at the site boundary.

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

8 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, and prior to completion of the development, the developer shall install a minimum of 5 electric car charging points on site. Prior to installing the said electric car charging points, full details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to encourage the use of zero emissions vehicles and, mitigate against cumulative damage to air quality.

124 9 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

10 Prior to the development commencing, full details of the proposed clock feature to be sited on the new glazed double-height atrium, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

11 Prior to the development commencing, full details of the proposed "Real Time Public Transport Information Display Board” and the arrangement details with SYPTE for its operation shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the “Real Time Public Transport Information Board”

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

12 Before work on site is commenced, full details of suitable inclusive access and facilities for disabled people, both to and into the building(s) and within the curtilage of the site, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such inclusive access and facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter such inclusive access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practice BS8300).

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

13 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the net sales floor area (defined as all internal areas accessible to the customer, but excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the checkouts) shall not exceed 3,211 sq metres.

In order to define the permission and ensure that the retail impact on existing centres is no greater than that which has been assessed as part of the application. Also in the interests of protecting existing centres from significant adverse impacts in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 4.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. In reaching this decision the Board gave particular weight to UDP Policies

H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

125 S5 - Shop Developments outside the Central Shopping Area and District Centres

and Core Strategy Policies

CS14 - City-wide Distribution of Shopping and Leisure Development CS34 - District Centres

and Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4).

The proposal seeks to add a further 1,288 square metres of gross floor space to the store in the form of a single-storey rear extension and a two- storey front extension. The proposed single-storey rear extension will be sited within the service yard and will be used for freezer/refrigeration storage purposes. The proposed two-storey front extension will enable existing office/staff accommodation/facilities currently located at ground floor to be re-sited in the new extension at first floor level, thereby freeing up space within the store. The additional newly created space will enable Morrisons to widen the aisles and check-out areas to ease congestion and increase the size of the café which currently has capacity issues. The proposals will also enable Morrisons to maximise the net retail areas within the store.

The proposal will result in an overall loss of 2 parking spaces, but officers are satisfied that the proposal will not lead to any highway safety or traffic congestion issues and neither will it result in the air quality limits being exceeded. The proposed extensions are well designed and are unlikely to affect the living conditions of any local residents.

The proposal satisfies the requirements of PPS4 in terms of the sequential approach to site selection and there is no clear evidence that the proposal will lead to significant and adverse impacts on other shopping centres.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

2. If a voltage exceeding 650 is to be used, the Chief Fire Officer, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, Wellington Street, Sheffield, S1 3FG should be consulted as to the position of the fireman's switch before the installation is carried out.

3. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's Development Services, Land Drainage Group, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB (Telephone Sheffield 2735847) to seek approval for the proposed drainage

126 arrangements, as soon as possible, prior to the commencement of development.

4. The applicant is advised that noise and vibration from demolition and construction sites can be controlled by Sheffield City Council under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As a general rule, where residential occupiers are likely to be affected, it is expected that noisy works of demolition and construction will be carried out during normal working hours, i.e. 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. Further advice, including a copy of the Council's Code of Practice for Minimising Nuisance from Construction and Demolition Sites is available from the Environmental Protection Service, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB: Tel - 0114 2734651.

6. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

127

Site Location

128

PROPOSAL

This is an application in a Housing Policy Area for alterations and extensions to an existing Morrison’s retail superstore in the Woodseats/Meadowhead area of Sheffield.

The alterations and extensions being proposed include a two-storey front extension and a single-storey rear extension to the retail store. The proposal also involves some re-configuration of the car parking layout in order to accommodate the proposed new front extension.

The purpose of the proposed front extension is primarily to improve circulation around the store, by increasing the sales area and extending the width of the shopping aisles and checkouts, thereby minimising in-store congestion and increasing the store’s turnover. The proposed changes will also improve conditions within the store for both staff and customers by way of increasing the size of the café area and, relocating staff and office accommodation from the ground floor level to the proposed new first floor level.

The proposed two-storey front extension will have a footprint measuring approximately 62 metres by 11.5 metres and a further front double-height glazed entrance lobby which has a footprint area measuring approximately 4.5 metres by 4.5 metres (giving a total footprint area of approximately 750 square metres. The proposed front extension will be approximately 9.5 metres high. In addition to the enlarged relocated café area, the front extension will also incorporate relocated customer toilet facilities. A staircase and a new lift will allow access to the first floor of the extension where there will be some relocated offices and staff rooms.

The proposed single-storey rear extension will accommodate the new freezer storage area of the store and will have a footprint area of approximately 98 square metres. The new freezer/rear extension will be located within the service yard area.

The proposed extensions will create an additional 1288 square metres of gross floor space (made up of 749.7 sq metres ground floor front extension, 440 sq metres first floor front extension and, 98.3 sq metres rear extension), the actual overall footprint of the extensions will therefore only be 848 sq metres. The proposal will see an increase in net sales area of approximately 1,015 sq metres.

Although the proposed extension will take up approximately 1288 sq metres of additional site area, the proposal will only result in the loss of 2 car parking spaces.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

After originally being granted planning permission in 1996, the retail superstore was originally constructed and operated as a Safeway store. The store was subsequently acquired by Morrisons in 2004 and thereafter began trading under the Morrisons brand. However, as with many Safeway stores which were converted to Morrisons, the applicant argues that the store is smaller than a typical purpose built Morrisons outlet and a number of compromises have had to be made

129 to accommodate as much of the Morrisons trading format as possible. Morrisons feel that the proposed extensions are necessary in order to deliver the standard Morrisons format and brand. Morrisons argue that the Meadowhead store experiences in-store congestion at peak shopping times due to the fact that the sales area is not large enough to accommodate the number of customers, there is also insufficient warehouse space and the café has capacity problems.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The existing Morrisons superstore is located within the Meadowhead area of Sheffield, in a residential suburb of Sheffield, approximately 5km to the south of the City Centre. The store is located on Meadowhead (A61) and is approximately 500 metres from the edge of the Woodseats District Shopping Policy Area, which lies to the North of the site. The Morrisons store comprises a 4,850 sq metre gross food store with associated car parking for 337 cars. The site also incorporates a petrol filling station and a service yard. The service yard, petrol filling station and customer car parking areas are all accessed from the same signalised junction on Meadowhead. To the east of the site there is a steep embankment/quarry face with mature trees and grassland (designated as an Area of Open Space) which provides good acoustic and visual screening from the superstore site. There is a residential housing estate beyond the area of Open Space. The site adjoins residential housing (fronting Meadowhead) to the south and north. Directly opposite the site to the east is Graves Park. The superstore itself is set well back on the site and is approximately 55 metres from Meadowhead.

The existing store is a large single-storey (7 metres in height) building constructed predominantly in buff brick with sections of cladding and glazing to the main front elevation (facing south). The store has an existing large projecting flat canopy (approx 4 metres high) which spans the full length of the shop frontage and a further projecting canopy at roof level which spans over the main entrance area to the store.

130

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a lengthy planning history, however, the most relevant planning applications for the site include:-

93//00390/OUT – This was an outline application for the erection of a retail food store (48,000 sq ft total floor space) and petrol filling station with associated car parking. This application was refused in June 1994 but, was subsequently allowed on appeal in July 1995.

95/01541/REM – This was the associated reserved matters application for the previously approved (on appeal) application. This application was conditionally approved in March 1996.

97/01251/FUL – This was a Section 73 application to not have to comply with a planning condition which restricted the opening hours for loading/servicing of the food store and petrol filling station. This application was refused in December 1997 but was subsequently allowed on appeal in November 1998.

97/01334/FUL – This was a Section 73 application to remove a planning condition which restricted the trading hours of the petrol filling station and the car wash facility. This application was conditionally approved in December 1997.

NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS

The application has resulted in 5 letters of representation being submitted, these include 4 letters from neighbouring residents and a letter from a firm of solicitors representing Asda Stores Ltd. All the representations received raise objections to the proposal and those objections have been summarised as listed below:-

The concerns raised by the 4 local residents:-

- The proposed increase in height of the store may have a detrimental impact on the solar generation created by photovoltaic solar panels located on the roof of the objector’s property.

- The proposal may lead to increased problems of gaining vehicular access to the objector’s off-street parking space. The introduction of the bus gate further along Meadowhead has lead to traffic congestion along Meadowhead and also quite often drivers drive in the bus lane to gain faster access to the Morrisons store and car park.

- The submitted details do not show adequate details for cycle parking provision, the objector would like to see suitable high quality and secure cycle parking provision.

- The area is already significantly built-up and this proposal will further lead to the removal of more greenery.

131 - The “building looks particularly unattractive”. “Why can’t it be situated at the far end of the car park where it can’t be seen from the road”.

The concerns raised on behalf of Asda Stores Ltd:-

- “The applicant has clearly not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach and has relied purely on commercial reasons for the dismissal of alternative opportunities. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any flexibility in its business model as required by PPS4 and the accompanying guidance. Without evidence of compliance, the application can but only be refused under PPS4 Policy ERC17.1.”

“There is insufficient evidence to consider impacts on the basis of the information provided. The impacts on the vitality and viability of a relatively small district centre such as Woodseats could be significant and clearly adverse. The applicant has not provided the information for the Council to thoroughly assess this, and given the recent change in the nature of the centre, through the conversion of the former Netto into an Asda store, there is a need to fully understand the impact of this proposal. Without such evidence it is not possible for the Council to determine whether the impacts are significantly adverse, but they are undoubtedly negative, with no overriding positive benefits in terms of the balancing exercise that PPS4 Policy EC17.2 would require in such cases.

RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS

The proposed extension will raise the height of the building by approximately 2 metres, however the increased height will only occur on the proposed front extension, the majority of the existing store will remain at the same height. Furthermore, the objector that has raised the concern about the potential impact on solar panels at the objector’s home (63 Meadowhead). Officers feel that there is adequate separation distance (approximately 90 metres) between the proposed front extension (where the roof height will increase) and the objector’s property, furthermore, as can be seen from the photo image below taken from outside the objector’s property, it is clear that the roof/canopy to the existing petrol filling station at the front of the site will screen the majority of the increased roof height of the proposed front extension. It is considered therefore, that the proposed extension is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the solar panels located at 63 Meadowhead.

132

With regard to the concerns raised about gaining vehicular access to an objector’s off-street car parking space and, the increased traffic congestion in front of the objector’s property (136 Meadowhead), officers feel that because there are double- yellow lines extending along the section of Meadowhead that fronts the objector’s property, vehicles should not be parked there in any case.

Furthermore, officers feel that due to the existing signalised junction at the site entrance to the store and the existing bus priority signals further along on

133 Meadowhead, there will inevitably be some vehicles that may back up to the objector’s property (which is the third property along from the site entrance – see photo image above), this is not an uncommon occurrence for properties that are located on busy roads and close to signalised junctions serving large retail superstores.

Furthermore, if drivers drive in the bus lane to access the retail superstore, this would normally be a matter dealt with by the police or other traffic enforcement agencies, and not therefore a material planning consideration. On balance, officers are satisfied that the proposal will not create any new or significant highway safety issues.

With regard to the quality of the cycle parking provision, officers will ensure that a planning condition is imposed requiring details of the proposed cycle parking facilities to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

With regard to the concern raised about the area already being significantly built-up and that the development will result in the removal of the last bit of greenery in the area, officers are satisfied that the proposal will not result in the loss of any existing trees or grassed areas and therefore, one can only assume that the objector is concerned that some of the trees and greenery on the quarry-face/steep embankment will be screened by the proposed front extension. Whilst it is accepted that some of the trees and greenery (currently forming the backdrop of the site) will be screened by the proposed extension, it is considered that the level of impact will be minimal given the expanse of other trees and greenery that form the backdrop of the site. It is also acknowledged that the existing tree line is higher than the height of the proposed extension and therefore, the backdrop of the trees will still partially be visible.

In terms of concerns raised about the design of the proposed extensions, this matter is discussed elsewhere in this report (under the heading of “Design Issues”).

The matters dealing with Planning Policy (and the response to the objections raised on behalf of Asda Stores Ltd – which are primarily policy related) are dealt with elsewhere in this report (under the heading of “Policy Issues”).

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

Unitary Development Plan The site lies within a Housing Policy Area as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and as such saved Policy H10 of the development plan - “Development in Housing Areas” is applicable. This policy lists shops that are larger than 280sqm as being unacceptable. The proposal would be contrary to this policy but little weight should be attached to it because it was adopted in 1998 and the more recent PPS4 allows for the possibility of larger retail development out-of- centre.

134 Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan – “Conditions on Development in Housing Areas” requires new development in housing areas to satisfy criteria relating to design, layout, over-development, access to the highway network, off-street parking and danger to pedestrians. Other criteria relate to air pollution, nuisance, and environmental buffers. Non-housing uses must be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the Area or meet primarily local needs. These criteria are covered in other sections of this report, but generally, it is considered that the proposal does conform with this policy.

Policy S5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan – “Shop Development outside the Central Shopping Area and District Centres” requires out-of-centre retail applications to be assessed against impact and accessibility criteria. These criteria are covered in PPS4 so are considered below under that section.

Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy

Policy CS14 of the Sheffield Core Strategy precludes major non-food retail development (defined as increases in gross floor space of more than 2,500 sq metres) in out-of-centre locations. Given that this proposal only seeks to increase the gross floor space by 1,288 sq metres, the proposal is not considered to be a major development by the definition given in Policy CS14 and therefore, the proposal is consistent with the policy.

The proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy CS34, which encourages retail facilities in district centres, but, given that the proposal is for an extension to an existing retail superstore that cannot reasonably be accommodated within the District Centre, this in itself does not necessarily make the proposal unacceptable.

National Policy Background - PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

Policy EC10

Policy EC10 applies to retail and other economic development. It requires a positive approach towards applications for development if that development secures sustainable economic growth. Proposals should therefore be:- a) Sustainable, in terms of CO2 emissions etc; b) Accessible by a choice of means of transport; c) Have a high quality and inclusive design; d) Assessed for impact on regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion; and e) Assessed for impact on local employment.

Points (a) and (c) listed above, are considered elsewhere in this report but points (b), (d) and (e) issues relating to accessibility, employment and regeneration are considered below:-

Policy EC10 – Accessibility / PPG13

135 Policy EC10(b) requires proposals to be accessible by walking, cycling, public transport and car. Similarly a key planning objective of PPG13 is to ensure that shopping facilities are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. The store conforms to these requirements. It is in a housing area and its walk-in catchment and the cycling catchment is substantial. It is next to a high frequency bus route and bus stops are within 130 metres and 250 metres walking distance from the store entrance.

Policy EC10 - Effect on regeneration and employment The proposal is neutral in respect of criteria d and e. The area does not need physical regeneration, is not in an area of deprivation, and whilst the proposal will create 37 new local jobs, these are likely to be offset eventually by losses in shops from which it will take trade.

PPS4 - sequential approach

Out of centre retail proposals not in accordance with an up to date development plan, including retail extensions over 200 sqm, have to satisfy the sequential approach (EC14.3 and EC15) to ensure that all more central options in the catchment area have been assessed before less central sites are considered. Failure to comply with the sequential approach is a reason for refusal (EC17.1a).

The Retail Assessment defines a catchment area for the sequential approach based on a 5 minute drive time of the site. The extent of the catchment area appears reasonable. It includes Heeley, Woodseats and Dronfield Centres. Sequentially preferable sites must be suitable, viable and available (PPS4 EC5.2). The Retail Assessment examines alternative more central sites under these criteria. No site is large enough to accommodate the whole store but the Greshams site within the Heeley district centre could accommodate the extra floor space proposed. It has permission 10/01866/FUL for ‘Alterations and Extension to building to form Class A1 Retail use’ to form 1,932 sq metres of floor space, which is more than proposed in the Morrisons application.

However, ‘genuine difficulties which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site’ must be taken into account (EC15.2). In this case Morrisons’ business model relates to specific improvements at the store at Meadowhead. The submitted Retail Assessment states: ‘The Meadowhead store experiences in-store congestion at peak shopping times due to the fact that the sales area is not large enough to accommodate the number of customers. There is also insufficient warehouse space and the cafe has capacity problems.’ The nature of the proposed extension is therefore ‘location specific’ and, it is therefore unreasonable to look for alternative sites. The need to improve customer facilities can be met only by improving the store itself and not by operating the extension floor space separately. Since the extension should not be considered separately from the store, the proposal conforms to the sequential approach.

PPS4 – Impact

136 PPS4 EC16.1 requires applications for out-of-centre retail development that do not accord with an up to date development plan to be assessed for their impacts on centres. PPS4 proposes a threshold for impact assessments of 2,500 sq m (gross), which is greater than the proposed development. However PPS4 EC14.5 requires that if development plans have not been revised to reflect the PPS, as is the case in Sheffield, impact assessment are necessary for any out-of-centre retail proposal that is not in accordance with an up to date development plan ‘that would be likely to have a significant impact on other centres’. The Council therefore asked the applicants to provide an impact assessment as a precautionary measure. The following impacts are relevant

− impact on public and private investment in centres in the catchment area (criterion a) − impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer (criterion b) − impact on in-centre trade and trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer spending in the catchment area (criterion d)

These are considered below.

Impact on Investment - EC16.1a

The only in-centre development scheme within the catchment area is at the Greshams site. It has an open A1 permission and there is no evidence that any potential occupier would be deterred by the proposed extension at Morrisons.

Impact on town centre vitality and viability - EC16.1b The submitted Retail Assessment estimates that the extension would raise Morrisons’ turnover by £5.4m. Judgements of where this trade would otherwise have been spent are inevitably subjective but the applicants’ assessment of trade draw appears reasonable. It appears to conform to advice in Practice Guidance p56 that it is related to the similarity of the alternative shopping destination and its distance from the proposal. An extension to a superstore is likely to affect trade in other superstores nearby.

The Retail Assessment (below) shows that impacts would be mainly on the Tesco superstore at Abbeydale Road and Sainsbury at Archer Road, both of which are out-of-centre. Impacts on out-of-centre shops are not generally a planning concern.

Impact on other stores / centres % of new Morrisons trade diverted from this store Impact on convenience turnover Woodseats District Centre 7% 2.9% Heeley District Centre 2% 2.1% Dronfield Town Centre 10% 2.5% Tesco Abbeydale Road 28% Sainsburys. Archer Road 30% Aldi Archer Road 3% Outside Catchment area 20%

137 Total 100%

Impacts on district centres in the catchment area (Heeley, Woodseats and Dronfield) would be small. The Sheffield Retail Study shows that the Woodseats District Centre is in reasonable health so this level of trade withdrawal would not be harmful. Except for the Retail Park and Lidl, the Heeley District Centre appears run-down and has a proportion of vacancies. However the effects of the proposal are likely to be slight and more likely to impact on Lidl and the Retail Park. Given the small level of trade withdrawal, these would not be likely to close or significantly diminish their retail offer.

The Retail Assessment makes a reasonable case that impact on Dronfield would not be significant. Officers are unaware of any objections being raised by NE Derbyshire relating to impact on Dronfield.

Impact on in-centre trade and trade in the wider area - EC16.1d Unlike PPS6, PPS4 no longer requires a need for the proposal to be shown. However EC16.1d requires an assessment of its impact on trade in the wider area, taking into account trends in spending. In this case the likely uplift in spending in the catchment area will exceed the uplift in the store’s turnover: the Sheffield Retail Study forecasts an increase of convenience spending of £8m between 2011 and 2014 in zones 7 and 14, from which zones Morrisons draws 68% of its trade, compared with an increase in store turnover of £4.5m.

The Sheffield Retail Study expresses concern that the expansion of stores in the south west of the City could have a trading impact on identified District Centres in the area. However, despite policy EC16.1d, it would be difficult to show clear evidence of these impacts given the relatively healthy state of nearby district centres.

Policy Issues – Conclusion

The proposed extension would be contrary to UDP Policy H10 since it has more than 280 sq metres of floor space. Nevertheless the weight to be attached to H10 is reduced because it was adopted in 1998 and the more recent PPS4 allows for the possibility of larger retail developments out-of-centre. There is no conflict with Sheffield Development Framework’s Core Strategy policies. The proposal satisfies the requirement in PPS4 policy EC15 that the sequential approach should be followed. There is no clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 of PPS4. Officers therefore consider that from a planning policy perspective, the proposed development is felt to be acceptable. Officers do recommend however, that a condition should be imposed to limit the overall net sales area of the store to the amount shown in the Retail Assessment (3,211 sq metres).

Highway & Traffic Issues

The siting of the proposed front extension is such that it would result in the loss of a number of parking spaces located near the front of the building, however, the car parking layout has been re-configured in such a way that there will only be an

138 overall loss of 2 car parking spaces leaving 335 spaces in total. The resulting 335 spaces will include:- 14 parent and child spaces (a reduction of 1 from the existing layout), 21 disabled parking bays (an increase of 6 from the existing layout) and 9 staff parking spaces (an increase of 4 from the existing layout). The applicant is also proposing to double the existing customer cycle parking provision at the site from 3 to 6.

As part of the re-configuration of the car parking areas, no existing trees or soft landscaped areas will be affected

The applicant has submitted a Travel Plan and one of the objectives of the travel plan is to maximise the use of the existing public transport services to and from the site. The site is well served by public transport with stops located outside the store on the A61 (Meadowhead) which are within 400 metres walking distance of the site. The bus stops are served by bus numbers 25, 25A, 53, 43, 44, 44A, 89, 242, 253, 181, 75 and 701 providing at least 14 buses per hour Monday to Saturday and 12 on Sundays in each direction.

In order to further support and encourage the use of public transport, the applicant has agreed to install a “real time” display board which will give accurate real time details and travel information to customers. SYPTE had requested that this display board be installed within the store, however, in order to provide a break in the mass of brickwork (and at the request of urban design officers), the applicant has agreed for the display board to be sited on an external wall close to the site entrance.

The following paragraphs form the summary of the traffic generation information submitted in the Transport Assessment:-

The proposal involves the extension of the store by some 1015 sq m, the main objective of this increase is stated as being “to provide a new Morrisons restaurant / café, greater circulation space and additional checkouts for customers”

As has been discussed with previous applications for Superstore extensions the increase in floor space does not result in a pro rata increase in car numbers. It is therefore not appropriate to calculate the likely trip generation from extensions based on the TRICS database as this would result in artificially high levels of traffic being estimated from the extension. Reference has therefore been made to TRICS research report and a before and after study at the Morrisons Bramley (Leeds) store where a similar-sized extension has been carried out.

Using the TRICS report a prediction of a 10% increase in the number of vehicles generated by the site would be expected. The information from the Bramley store shows an 8.6% increase. For the purposes for this application the higher figure – 10% has been used.

The following table shows the predicted increase in vehicular movements expected to result from the store extension

139 Assessment Period Arrivals Departures Friday PM Peak 314 +31 299 +30 Saturday Peak 347 +35 374 +37

Modelling of the immediate highway junctions has been carried out using the above figures and has been confirmed to be accurate by colleagues in the Urban Traffic Control Section. The results of the modelling indicate that the highway network will not be adversely affected by the estimated increase in vehicular movement.

In a recent Planning Appeal decision (Sainsbury’s Archer Road), the Inspector took the approach that higher levels of traffic would be likely to be generated by the proposal than has been agreed. If the same assumptions are applied to this site the following levels of additional traffic would be estimated (see table below):-

Assessment Period Arrivals Departures Friday PM Peak 314 +50 299 +30 Saturday Peak 347 +55 374 +59

Based on the above figures, officers recognise that if the scheme is granted, the car park would be operating at 90% capacity at the busiest peak times on a Friday and at 100% capacity at the busiest peak times on a Saturday and during the pre- Christmas periods. Officers feel that even if the car park was at full capacity, there would still be some scope for vehicles to enter the site and wait in the aisles for spaces to become available and, based on the anticipated numbers in this worst scenario, officers still do not feel that traffic would back-up onto Meadowhead. If this did become a regular problem, the travel plan and traffic management plan (which are to be conditioned as part of the scheme) will create further opportunity to monitor and action in order to minimise traffic and parking problems.

On balance, officers are satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to lead to any highway safety issues and, from a highway operation point of view the higher levels of vehicular traffic would be highly unlikely to have any greater material impact.

Design Issues

The proposed rear extension will be located at the rear of the site (in the service yard) and will not be visible from the street scene. The rear extension will be constructed in matching facing materials to the original building.

The proposed front extension will be constructed using matching brickwork and cladding with extensive sections of glazing. The design will also incorporate built-in solar-shading features which are designed to support the energy efficiency of the building. The new double-height glazed entrance atrium provides legibility to the main entrance and also (with the inclusion of a built-in clock) creates an element of a feature entrance. The projecting canopy will provide a useful cover and also help create an element of visual interest to the form of the proposed extension. On balance, officers are satisfied that the design concept of the proposed extension will continue the form and appearance of the existing store and, will not represent

140 an unsightly addition to the overall building. There are therefore no significant concerns about the design of the proposed extension.

Effects on Residential Amenities

Whilst the proposal is likely to lead to some increase in traffic movements to and from the site, the proposal (given that the store is already in operation) is unlikely to have any significant impact on nearby residents. Officers have assessed the likelihood of the proposed rear refrigeration extension causing nuisance in terms of noise (given that it will be located within 55 metres of the nearest residential property/garden), and are satisfied that no nuisance is likely to be caused, however as a safeguard to further protect the amenities of nearby residents, a further condition will be imposed to ensure that noise levels from the freezer/storage extension shall not exceed background noise levels (LA90) when measured at the site boundary.

There is unlikely to be any significant visual impacts for local residents as the neighbouring residential properties are significant distances away from the built extensions. The operating hours/times for the store will remain the same.

It is considered that the proposed extensions would not be overbearing or significantly harm the amenities of nearby residents or harm the character and appearance of the locality.

Other Issues

Air Quality

With the exception of the areas covered by the Peak Park, all of Sheffield is within an Air Quality management area. The nearest air quality monitoring station from the site is located near the main roundabout at Meadowhead (on Hunstone Avenue – which is approximately 980 metres away from the Morrisons store). The target figure for the City is to keep the level below 40pg/m. For the past 3 years, the measurements taken at the air quality monitoring station near Meadowhead has been 30pg/m.

The proposal has been considered in light of potential harm to air quality in the local area. As mentioned above officers can confirm that air quality values are not currently exceeded in the local area and, that as a result of the proposed extension to the store, the air quality limit values are still unlikely to be exceeded.

However, in order to mitigate against the cumulative impact on air quality, officers have discussed with the applicant and feel that it is appropriate to impose conditions as mitigation. The applicant has therefore agreed to a condition being imposed requiring a minimum of 5 electric vehicle charging points being installed at the site to encourage the use of zero emissions vehicles. As previously mentioned above, the applicant has also submitted a Travel Plan from which there is an aim to encourage staff and customers to adopt the use of alternative, more sustainable and cleaner modes of transport.

141 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposal seeks to add a further 1,288 square metres of gross floor space to the store in the form of a single-storey rear extension and a two-storey front extension. The proposed single-storey rear extension will be sited within the service yard and will be used for freezer/refrigeration storage purposes. The proposed two-storey front extension will enable existing office/staff accommodation/facilities currently located at ground floor to be re-sited in the new extension at first floor level, thereby freeing up space within the store. The additional newly created space will enable Morrisons to widen the aisles and check-out areas to ease congestion and increase the size of the café which currently has capacity issues. The proposals will also enable Morrisons to maximise the net retail areas within the store.

For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that this application be conditionally approved.

142

Case Number 08/02279/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Raising the level and expansion of existing paddock area and refurbishment of drainage system within paddock area, retention of enlarged equestarian area/menage, extension of existing stable building to form barn and provision of retaining wall structure to provide storage area

Location Land Adjacent Cricket Inn Penny Lane Totley Sheffield

Date Received 28/04/2008

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Simon Elliott Associates

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 Details of all proposed external materials and finishes to be used in the stable extension and retaining wall structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

2 The chemical composition of any imported material shall be proven to be suitable for use. Laboratory analysis results for a minimum of three samples, or one sample per 250m3 (whichever is the greater), or a certificate of chemical suitability, for each differing material type, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority within three calendar months of the date of this consent.

To ensure protection of the natural environment and water resources.

3 At no time shall livery services be made available at the site.

In order to define the consent, and in the interests of the amenities of the locality.

143

4 Within two calendar months of the date of this consent details of an Ecology Management Strategy for the site, including details of fencing adjacent to the stream to allow re-vegetation and stabilisation of the soil, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timescale for the implementation of the agreed measures. Thereafter the agreed measures shall be implemented and permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

- In the interests of the ecology value of the site.

5 Within two calendar months of the date of this consent a Management Strategy document for the site, including details of the maximum number of horses kept at the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall then be operated in full compliance with the Management Strategy document in the future.

In order to define the permission.

6 Notwithstanding the details contained within approved drawing number 3414 Rev A, at no future point shall any additional culverting of the stream or re- routing of the stream be carried out .

In order to define the permission.

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

Drawing Numbers Proposed Barn Extension Retaining Wall 3414 Rev. A

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

8 The boundary hedge planting at the northern perimeter of the site is not hereby approved. Within two months of the date of this consent a comprehensive soft landscape scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include, but not only include, planting details along the northern boundary of the site featuring native species. The landscape works shall be implemented within a timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

144 In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

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

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

11 A comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

GE1 - Development in the Green Belt GE2 - Protection and Improvement of the Green Belt Landscape GE4 - Development and the Green Belt Environment GE8 - Areas of High Landscape Value and The Peak National Park GE17 - Rivers and Streams GE19 - Water Resources

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

145 1. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

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

146 Site Location

147

148 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located to the south of Penny Lane immediately adjacent to the Cricket Inn Public House. The site is designated in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan as being within Green Belt and is also allocated as part of an Area of High Landscape Value.

The application seeks consent to alter the land level, form an additional culverted section to the watercourse and carry out an expansion of the paddock area. These works would also include refurbishment of the drainage system. A portion of these works have already been carried out. Also proposed is retention of the enlarged equestrian / ménage area. Additionally, it is proposed to carry out and enlargement of the existing stable to form a barn area and provide a retaining wall structure to provide storage capacity.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/01716/FUL – Erection of Building for use as an animal shelter. Approved 03.06.1993

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Following direct consultation, 21 representations have been received. The comments made can be summarised as follows:

EQUESTRIAN ISSUES

-Green Belt guidance allows some equestrian activity, but also seeks to protect and preserve the open character of the green belt. -Grazing has previously led to ground becoming very boggy, and could be extended were consent to be granted. -Clarification sought relating to change of use of land from agricultural, and point at which this alteration was made. -Query extent of horse-riding use by family members, and whether there is actually a business use. –Existing stabling and livery facilities within close proximity, proposal is therefore not essential. Concern that use is actually part of a gradual introduction of a large scale commercial equestrian centre, and later residential development. -Potential traffic implications given location adjacent to Cricket Inn. -Query how Planning Department can monitor details of actual use. -Concern expressed that subsoil is not suitable for horses.

GENERAL ISSUES

- Part of works carried out / commenced without the relevant approval. No advantage should be gained due to this. No consent for the ménage area in its original form.

149 -Stated that works started well before the Applicant’s stated date of June 2007, and had been underway for 2/3 years prior to that. -Given incorrect information on application forms, application should be made invalid. -Query whether requirements of previous planning consent will be taken into account at this stage. - Stable construction/enlargement will increase its visual impact. Roof not in keeping with the local area. - Query the extent of neighbour consultation.

FLOOD ISSUES

-Area regularly floods and the works to alleviate the drainage and extension of the culvert transfers problem to the surrounding area. A flood risk assessment should be carried out. -Query why Environment Agency have no comments to make given nature of application. Should be made to carry out a Flood Risk Assessment.

ECOLOGY ISSUES

-Land is classified as a Site of Importance for Nature and Conservation within the Sheffield Development Framework, based on 2002 Sheffield Wildlife Trust survey. -A tree survey is needed after the removal of trees and hedges. -A protected species report should be carried out by City Ecology Unit. -Birds commonly nest in the area. -The soil will have been altered. Fish are no longer present downstream of the site. Badgers and water voles are no longer seen. An Environmental Impact Assessment should be required. -Fields should be re-seeded with appropriate grasses and wild flowers.

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AT SITE

-Commercial vehicles and building goods are stored at the site every night. -Dumping of tons of hardcore, rubble and extension of the crossing over the dyke. Suggested that this requires a Waste Management Licence.

NON PLANNING ISSUES

-Horse manure pile within proximity to Cricket Inn constitutes a health concern.

Cllr Colin Ross, has submitted correspondence in relation to the application. He wishes to support the letters of objection, which raise concerns in terms of the evidence presented, the fact that application is retrospective and the ecological impact of the development. He considers there to be sufficient and substantial grounds to refuse the application.

Campaign to Protect Rural England

150

Horses have had an adverse impact upon the amenity of the Green Belt. Current use of the site has had an adverse impact on the valley, and to grant consent would be contrary to UDP policies GE2, GE4, GE8 and GE10.

Sheffield Wildlife Trust Comments

Comments have been forwarded by an objector to the scheme from a representative of the Sheffield Wildlife Trust. The comments made are as follows: The site was visited in 2002, when it was unimproved, species rich meadows with some wet flushes, being ecologically diverse with an abundance of wild flowers, including some uncommon species. At that stage they were designated by the Council as a Local Wildlife Site. The owners of adjoining land were assumed to be the owners of the site, and were told it would be appropriate to continue the management to retain their unspoilt species diverse character. During a brief visit to the site in 2009 the field was described as being over grazed, species poor horse pasture; with enrichment and trampling in places. The biodiversity was described as having been severely degraded and as having lost most of the wildflower species that made it so special at the previous visit.

Petition in Support of Application

A petition with signatories from ten local addresses has been submitted in support of the application and the adaptations to provide a suitable and safe environment for the horses. Noted that other horse owners in the area have made similar alterations to their land, and it is not certain if these works have been subject to planning control.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The site lies within the approved Green Belt and an Area of High Landscape Value as defined in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

Planning Policy Guidance 2 covers ‘Green Belts’, and states that development in Green Belt locations is inappropriate, unless it is for certain uses including the provision of essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. Such essential facilities are required to preserve the openness of the green belt, and small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation are given as a possible example.

Additionally, the following UDP policies are most relevant in assessing the merits of the application proposals:

GE1 – Development in the Green Belt GE2 – Protection and Improvement of the Green Belt Landscape GE4 – Development and the Green Belt Environment GE8 – Areas of High Landscape Value and the Peak National Park GE17 – Rivers and Streams

151 GE19 – Water Resources

Existing Use

The Planning Department’s aerial photographic records verify that the site has been used for the care and stewardship of horses, featuring a ménage area since at least 1997. On this basis the use of the site for horse keeping and the original ménage area is established and free from enforcement action.

Consequently, the current application is required to be assessed upon its merits, with the principle of the actual use and the original ménage area not being part of the current consideration.

Re-Levelling / Culverting Works and Enlarged Menage

The culverting works have been carried out to facilitate re-levelling works. This was necessitated because of the stream’s banks were becoming steeper, due to high levels of rain and horses forcing the embankments downwards. There was also the intention of forming a larger paddock area.

The length of the culvert which has been created is not precisely clear, however, from 2002 to 2008 it is considered that a stretch of approximately 20metres in length was culverted.

Policy GE17 (a) of the UDP states that the culverting of any stream will not be permitted unless absolutely necessary and the re-opening of culverted watercourses will be encouraged where opportunities arise.

In ecological terms it is considered to be very important that no further culverting is carried out. Notwithstanding this the opening up of the culverted stream would not be considered to provide any ecological benefits, as the impacts arising from these works would not be reversed.

It is considered to be possible to allow for the compensation of some of the loss of habitat following degrading by the horses. This would involve the fencing of the stream, with a single access point for the horses to both portions of the field. The formation of such fencing would allow re-vegetation at the stream banks, and the stabilisation of the soil.

It is also considered to be prudent to set a limit on the number of horses kept at the site in order to prevent the impacts of over-grazing. This would need to be done in liaison with the Applicant, the Council’s Animal Welfare Team and the City Ecology Unit. A condition could require an agreement to be reached.

As any ‘de-culverting’ would not be considered to have a beneficial impact in ecological terms it would be unreasonable to resist the application due to these issues.

152 The Environment Agency (EA) have commented that due to previous recordings of white clawed crayfish downstream, there is a potential for them to be present within the site. Consequently, it is recommended that a condition is added to any consent stating that no further culverting works take place.

The EA also confirm that the extended culverting is considered to provide adequate capacity to accommodate water flows. Any additional flood risk would not be significant. The Applicant owns a substantial portion of land downstream, and any additional flooding would be contained within their land.

The culverting works are viewed within a context of very varied topography, given the site’s location within the valley. Consequently, the culverting works are not considered to lessen the openness of the green belt, or to have a detrimental impact upon the rural character of the countryside.

The enlargement of the ménage area essentially amounts to an additional strip 10- 12metres in width to the north of the previously existing ménage. The enlargement is essential to allow a the provision of a full size ménage for competition training. In visual terms it is considered that it avoids a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The enlargement would be most apparent from longer distances when the openness of the green belt would be less sensitive to such impacts.

Overall, it is considered that these elements of the scheme would be comply with UDP policies GE1, GE2, GE4, GE8 and GE17.

Stable Extension and Retaining Wall Structure

The extension to the existing stable building would be located between the existing building and the belt of trees to the side. It is intended to use this as additional storage space, which had been lost after the removal of the previous storage building attached to the barn. The provision of this extension would free up space within the existing building for stabling. This is considered to represent an essential facility, as it would allow bedding and feed (hay, wood shavings and bagged feed) to be stockpiled through the winter months. There is also the need to store rugs, coats and helmets which are frequently required as part of the use. The management of the site also requires machinery, including a tractor and harrow.

The stable extension would comply with the requirements of PPG2, in that it would provide an essential facility for outdoor sport or outdoor recreation.

The height of the proposed extension would line through with the existing barn Due to its location and size, it is not considered that the extension would be significantly visible. The proposed materials are described as “concrete block clad with stone” and coated steel roofing sheets. These materials would match the existing building and would be considered to be acceptable for the proposed extension. A condition requiring agreement of materials details is recommended.

153 The retaining wall structure would be constructed from railway sleepers, and set into the sloping topography. It would be partly set to the rear of the previously existing ménage. It is considered that the structure would be significantly visible, and would be used to store manure etc, which is currently stored elsewhere within the site.

The stable extension and retaining wall structure works, would not be considered to lessen the openness of the countryside or to harm the character of the green belt. The stable extension would represent a facility essential for outdoor sport or recreation. Therefore, the works proposed within the application will have no adverse impact, and there is no conflict with the requirements of PPG2 or UDP policies GE1, GE2, GE4 and GE8.

Livery and Riding Lessons

A number of representations have referred to Livery facilities being available at the site and riding lessons also being offered, meaning that a business use is operating from the site. The Agent has confirmed that the Applicant is responsible for the horses that are on the land, and that no livery arrangements are in place at the stables. Whilst tuition may be given to children of friends, no lessons are given for payment.

This response is taken at face value, and it is therefore considered that no change of use for business purposes form a part of the assessment. A condition/s to specify that no such use shall be allowed to take place is recommended.

Water Quality

UDP policy GE19 seeks to ensure that there is no adverse impact of developments on surface and/or groundwater interests. The Environment Agency confirmed that they had contacted the Applicant regarding the requirement for an exemption or permit, authorising the depositing of waste material. That process controls the types of waste deposited. To reinforce the control of this issue it is recommended that a condition is recommended requiring any imported infill material to be proved suitable for the use. It should be noted that the materials used are understood to have been imported by a local domestic paving company, suggesting that materials will be inert.

With the suggested condition in place and the EA’s previous involvement and enforcement powers, there will be no conflict with GE19.

Other Issues

The presence of badgers at the site was raised within correspondence objecting to the scheme. As a result of this a Badger Survey was undertaken at the site, where it was found that no badgers or signs of badgers were found. As such this issue does not represent a reason to resist the scheme, however, the Applicant would be required to adhere to other legislation relating to this issue.

154 RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The contents of the application forms are noted, and where discrepancies occur clarification is sought.

Consultation has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement.

A Flood Risk Assessment or an Environmental Impact Assessment are not required in relation to the application. The Environment Agency and the Council’s Ecology Unit have commented upon the application, and have not raised any objections.

The parking of commercial vehicles at the site does not necessarily constitute a change of use. From observations the paving company in question do not use the site as a base, and it is understood they have other premises. However, the site can be monitored in the future and any necessary enforcement action commenced.

The placement of horse manure near to the Cricket Inn does not represent a materials planning consideration.

ENFORCEMENT

It is unclear when works were last undertaken at the site. As a result of this time lag the works at the site may have become established and exempt from enforcement action. Consequently, if Committee were minded to refuse the application, it is probable that only very limited re-levelling / de-culverting works would be able to be pursued via enforcement action.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The site lies within the Green Belt and an Area of High Landscape Value. The works will not detract from the physical character of the Green Belt, and represent essential facilities for outdoor recreation. Appropriate conditions will ensure that the ecological value of the site is allowed to recover, that the quality of the water environment is not compromised and that there will be no increased risk of flooding.

Overall, the proposals comply with PPG2 and UDP policies GE1, GE2, GE4, GE8, GE17 and GE19, and it is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

155