Appendix 2 of Cabinet Report for City Centre Living Strategy 28 April 2004 Details of consultation responses and subsequent actions arising from this GENERAL No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. The University broadly welcomes the strategy and supports the overall University of Support for Strategy No change required aims as set out in the Introduction. The need for a mix of housing Sheffield types is particularly important (recognising that not all locations are appropriate for family housing) with the emphasis on quality and safety. 2. The draft is a very sound document and would not wish to amend it. Peter Downey Support for Strategy No change required However, I assume it will become a working document and therefore Review of SPG can take place should be reviewed from time to time. whenever there is a change in circumstances but is intended to be a longer term document explaining the aims of the UDP 3. SYHA feels that this is a very positive and important document, which South Yorkshire Support for Strategy No change required makes sense of the progress to date on city centre living and outlines Housing the opportunities for the future. Association 4. Overall, the plan seems a clear and sensible approach to including Sheffield Health Support for Strategy No change required accommodation as an element of the city centre’s regeneration. Authority 5. The agency supports the overall strategy of city centre living as a Sheffield Support for Strategy No change required means of reviving the city centre. Riverside Development Agency 6. The principle message of the strategy document is to encourage city FPD Savilles Support for Strategy No change required centre living, which is welcomed and supported 7. I am very pleased to learn that the strategy for the city centre is to Cathedral of St Support for Strategy No change required encourage the growth of resident population. Marie 8. There is much to commend in the draft strategy in terms of drawing Cultural Industries Support for the Strategy. No change required together many key themes and related issues associated with the Quarter ‘Urban Renaissance’ such as re-use of brownfield sites, encouraging sustainable developments, re-cycling and innovative environmental interventions. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 9. As a general point, I think the document gives a negative impression Internal comment The purpose of the Strategy is to Amend document to include because of all the proposals requiring payments or contributions. In bring together various policy a positive strategy statement effect, it could deter rather than encourage residential. In fact, most of elements of city centre living and at the beginning, with these demands are already referred to by the UDP or SPG, perhaps to provide a clear guidance to specific the requirements could be indicated by reference to these, thus developers, in a single requirements/proposals avoiding the impression CC housing is being singled out. document what will be required included within each as part of any development. Guideline 10. The report is to be welcomed. It is a timely piece of work, which should Sheffield 1 See 9 above See 9 above be supported. BUT the tone of the document is too “public” sector and too much on “control” as opposed to facilitation and encouragement. The relative infancy of the one of the private sector residential market in Sheffield compared with other major cities, means that the emphasis needs to focus on encouraging/nurturing it [and conversely not to impose conditions that would unnecessarily “get in the way”]. 11. The Strategy Sheffield 1 See 9 above See 9 above Perhaps this could be redrafted in parts/edited to read in a more positive way and perhaps less as a list of policy restrictions/requirements which might seem daunting and perhaps even discouraging to a potential investor. The message should be that we want housing to return in even greater numbers to the City Centre [in the right areas of the right type, quantity, quality etc] – to do that we need to do certain things by way of further encouragement [creating the conditions which cause people to want to live in the City Centre]. 12. Whilst being sympathetic to the Council’s desire to influence the City Estates See 9 above See 9 above development of the City Centre, this is evidence once again of Sheffield dictating to its population. For the time being at least the very fact that Sheffield is now on the agenda for developers and investors should be welcomed. Generally speaking the private sector is good at providing what the population wants. The Council’s seeming obsession with control will affect what is starting to be a strong ‘feel good’ factor about Sheffield and could reconfirm outsiders prejudiced (may be not!) views about the city. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 13. Wheelchair users have also pointed out that the cobbling of Fargate Sheffield Health Design of the public realm is No change required has made it less accessible to them-other city centre design needs to Authority dealt with in other Council complement the housing aspirations. documents. 14. Numbers of dwellings need to be as up to date as possible. Internal comment Agree. The document should be Amend figures as and when kept up to date until its necessary publication 15. Plan 2 is incorrect in places (incorrect reference numbers) Internal comment Agree Plan will be amended for final version 16. Over the years, a growing number of people are relieving themselves Cathedral of St Provision of public toilets not a No changes required in public. Enhancing the city centre will need to address this Marie matter for this document unpleasant subject. 17. Next to nothing is said about Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Roger Harper – of which the City centre has, of course, a significant number. (Conservation Advisory Group) Listed buildings, and work generally in conservation areas, can lend itself to new living uses and provided the character is retained can give an additional and valuable quality to new housing uses. Such work needs to be done with due care and consideration but the ultimate advantages in terms of value for money, saleability generated by the attraction of special character appeal and historic continuity will surely give many such listed buildings and conservation areas an added attraction to potential developers. Many of our older buildings, whose original function has now disappeared, are in desperate need of new uses to ensure their survival. 18. Another aspect of city centre living which Sheffield is weak on is the Internal comment Agree Add references to Guideline beneficial influence of ethnic diversity in creating attractive places to This should be referred to in 2 and 3 visit/eat/be entertained – we have no China Town to speak of for Guidelines 2 and 3 example. Park Hill could provide that diversity for the city centre as an alternative draw to clubs, pubs and student housing. POLICIES/SPG etc No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. The introduction needs to be clear on the status of the strategy. Is it Internal comment Agree Amend document to include meant to be SPG? Consequently more cross-references to the UDP references to SPG and its would strengthen it. As SPG it ought to include sections explaining status in ‘Introduction’ what SPG is and what the UDP says. This would obviously involve chapter significant re-writing of sections 1-3 of the draft strategy. 2. In line with the other SPG, it would also be appropriate to refer to the Internal comment Agree Amend document at all ‘proposals’ as ‘guidelines’. It might be worth considering using the appropriate locations standard format for SPG, ie ‘Guideline’, ‘Reasons for the Guideline’, ‘How the guideline will be put into practice’. 3. Delete ‘PPG3’ and substitute ‘national planning guidance on housing’ Internal comment Agree Amend document at all appropriate locations 4. Section 3 – I suggest this section should be divided into two new Internal comment Contest No change required sections: The Chapter is set in historical a) What the UDP says context, but it still deals with all b) Other policies the relevant policies. 5. In sentence three, delete ’13,900’ and substitute ‘an average of 770 Internal comment Agree Amend in para 3.2 dwellings per year (13,900 in total)’. 6. The section on policies should make it clear that housing is acceptable Internal comment Agree Amend in para 3.2 in areas other than Housing Areas. It ought to refer to the ‘conditions policies’ IB9(b), CF8(b), S10(b) and MU11(b) which aim to protect the living conditions of residents or visitors in those policy Areas. The policies do not allow residential uses where people would suffer from air pollution, noise, other nuisance or risks to health and safety. 7. It would also be helpful to highlight that housing is a ‘preferred use’ in Internal comment Agree Amend in para 3.2 the Central Shopping Area (except for ground floor frontages in the Retail Core). SV7 No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. 3.4.2 – It may be useful to introduce the Preliminary Sheffield Urban Internal Agree Amend in para 3.2 Housing Capacity Study here (rather than in paragraph 4.4.5). PPG3 states comment that local authorities should undertake urban housing capacity studies to assess how much additional housing can be accommodated in urban areas and therefore how much greenfield land may be needed for development. The Preliminary Study estimates the capacity of the City Centre should be as high as 6,165 dwellings (excluding existing sites in the Housing Land Survey 2000), although a figure of around 3,000 dwellings is probably more realistic. 9. 3.4.3 – This could be reworded to provide a bit more background, eg:- Internal Agree Amend in para 3.2 ‘PPG3 states that developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare comment should be avoided and encourages housing developments that make more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare). It seeks a greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city centres. Encouraging higher density development in the City Centre will play an important part in ensuring that the average density of development in Sheffield meets the Government’s targets. The average density of developments in Sheffield is currently 29 dwellings per hectare but the figure is much higher for City Centre sites’. 10. 4.2/P11 ‘Rogers Report’ should be referred to as the ‘Urban Task Force Internal Agree Amend in para 3.3 report’. comment 11. How does this tie into draft ‘sustainable housing guidance’ Internal Work is currently being carried No change required comment out on three related documents – City Centre Design Guide; Sustainable Design Guide; Design Guide for Housing. These will be used to cover issues on design and sustainability not included in this Strategy. LOCATION No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. Existing residential development in the Terminal & Grain Warehouse is causing Victoria Quays Victoria Quays was intended Not an issue for the us management problems and we are not keen on any more. The problems Management to be a mixed use area with Strategy. No change are inadequate parking giving rise to irrecoverable cost to deal with fly parking Co. residential playing a needed around the canal basin, car security because there is no secure garaging and significant part in its high barrier maintenance costs. character and sense of safety. The dominance, now, of business uses is leading to pressure for more car parking. On the other hand, the Quays has a large multi- storey car park which should be sufficient to accommodate this need 2. It should perhaps be said that parts of the City Centre, notably Devonshire University of The Strategy highlights this No change required Green, are one of the few areas in the City that are attractive to both University Sheffield already but also stresses that of Sheffield and Hallam University students. This has been recognised by a mixed tenure is needed private developers with students from each institution occupying recent rather than a single use such developments. Being close to the Universities is a key factor in a student’s as student accommodation choice of accommodation. 3. It is not true to say that the Devonshire Green developments in student University of Agree Delete reference housing have, from our point of view at least, arisen as a response to the Sheffield expansion in higher education page 3). We have always made it clear to developers and the Council that there is/was not a shortage of accommodation in the City and that the new developments would need to compete with existing housing stock. This could result in less accommodation being provided in the western suburbs as landlords find it more difficult to let accommodation in an increasingly competitive market. 4. 4.1/P8 – Carmel House – an application has not yet been received therefore Internal Agree Delete reference this example should not be used. comment 5. 4.1/P9 – CIQ – reference should be made to the requirement in the UDP for Internal Agree Include reference to this the preferred uses to remain dominant. Therefore, housing should comment in Guideline 3 only be acceptable if part of a mixed use development or of a very minor nature. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 6. 4.1/P10 – Cathedral Quarter – What is the conflict between young people Internal Agree Change reference to housing and office uses? comment positively encourage a mix of tenures in developments that are appropriate to the character of the area 7. There are a few items that are not covered in the report which I will comment Monaghans Agree in part In recent times there has on as follows:- Partnership Ltd been a recognition that Sheffield is different for city centre housing compared to Leeds, Manchester, high quality Birmingham and London where travel to work time is a lot greater. In Sheffield developments do have a we have a 15 minute drive time to the Peak District, compared with Leeds or place in the City Centre. Manchester where you may have a 1 hour drive to a reasonable area to live. New schemes have and Many housing developers who we work with recognise this and have been are coming forward since cautious of putting high quality living space in to Sheffield. Prime sites that I this comment was written think should be encouraged is a high quality block in the heart of the city in the front of the Peace Gardens. 8. 4.1.2 – A cross-reference back to the section on UDP policies might be useful Internal Agree Amend document here (see comments above on conditions policies). comment 9. Reference might also be made to Croft buildings in the Cathedral quarter University of Agree Include reference in section of page 10 as this provides housing for 42 student families arising from Sheffield Guideline 1 a successful partnership between the Council and University No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 10. The other key issue relates to the city centre boundary. There is a strong view Internal Park Hill does not lie within No change required in Housing that the strategy should include Park Hill as ‘city centre’ housing. comment the area currently defined as Park Hill is far more city centre than say Cornish Place, which is given a the City Centre but its future prominent reference. This is a big opportunity to promote the change of image regeneration is critical to and ‘re-branding’ of Park Hill for its future. housing provision in this part of the City. The success of Although we would not expect them to be included in the city centre, could the the Park Hill development will strategy make reference to other estates around the inner ring road (eg depend on a stand alone Hanover, Sunny Bank, Leverton, Netherthorpe, Edward Street). They play an scheme, although its important role in helping to sustain the lift of the city centre. And the success proximity to the City Centre of city centre housing has no doubt helped to sustain them. We can provide a will be a key factor in form of words if needed. attracting both developers and tenants.

Other estates around the City Centre have played a major part in providing affordable housing. This situation will be reviewed by the City Council’s Housing Department and changes could be incorporated at a later date in the Strategy – see Guideline 5 11. Whilst I appreciate the definition of the City Centre being based upon UDP Internal See 10 above No change required map 10 I would contend that ignores the role played by Park Hill in city centre comment life and the strength of its links to there. It is notable, for example, that Plan 2 identifies the green area along South Street (South Park?) between Park Hill and the railway line as one of the largest areas of green space in the city centre yet there is nothing in the strategy which makes anything of it.

It also should be pointed out that Park Hill is one of the most visible landmarks from much of the city centre and whatever we might draw as the boundary of the city centre will not change the dramatic visual influence that Park Hill has and the effect that may have upon potential city centre developers. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 12. Need to be sure that there is sufficient rented accommodation for students. Hallam It is recognised that the City No change required This conflicts with CIQ – who are seeking to stop residences eg Psalter Lane University Centre plays a significant Campus (2000 students) part in taking the pressure, for student accommodation, off suburban areas. There is a need, however, to make sure that student accommodation does not swamp the development opportunities in the City Centre, particularly in areas like the CIQ. The Strategy, therefore, advocates a mix of tenures. 13. It is noted that housing will not be permitted in the Scotland quarter (page 7) University of Plan 2 within the Strategy No change required without it being clear where the Scotland (and other) quarters are. (suggest Sheffield included the boundaries of that this be outlined on an appendix) the Quarters and this will be It is assumed however that the Scotland quarter covers the area within the included in the final boundaries of Broad Lane, Upper Allen Street and Scotland Street and see a document. The Scotland significant potential for housing developments in waste ground close to Broad Quarter is a General Industry Lane Court (our most popular self catered complex). This would ease the Policy Area where residential pressure on new student developments in the City Centre. is unacceptable 14. Agrees with the comments that the industrial areas of the city should be kept. Monaghan Support for the Strategy No change required For example Scotland Street. Housing should not be encouraged in these Partnership Ltd areas. Nor in areas such as night-time entertainment or corridors such as Devonshire Street where there will be noise problems. I agree with the two main areas of Devonshire Green and the Cathedral Quarters being the focus for housing. I also feel that the housing around the cultural/industrial quarters will give more and more security to this area. We have seen Truro works and at the Leadmill bus garage and now Fairclough Homes starting on site. By identifying Devonshire Green, Cathedral Quarter, Victoria Quays Riverside the Cultural Industry Quarters we pick up the 4 points of the compass and housing can then spread from there. Although it is stated that the council have limited powers through planning to prescribe the different tenures and mix of housing such powers will not be required. The commercial led development will identify this. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 15. On page 9 whilst it is clearly appropriate to make reference to successful Eversheds Agree Delete Chapter 6 and residential schemes within the city centre, we question whether it is appropriate (acting for Plan3 to include references to the development proposals that are “in the pipeline” Leadmill and which have yet to be determined by the City Council to avoid any future nightclub) suggestion that the Council has predetermined these applications. 16. We have particular concern over Proposal 1 of the Strategy, which actually FPD Savilles See also comments under Amend Proposal 1 (see appears to be seeking to discourage residential development from taking place (acting for Pearl 4.6 (Night-time Guideline 1) to indicate in three areas of the City, which compromise the Sheaf Valley around Sheaf Assurance plc) entertainment) that residential schemes Street, the Moor Quarter and in the industrial areas of Kelham Island. would not be ruled out Agreed from The Moor provided The Sheaf Valley and Kelham Island areas are distinctly different character The document did not justify that the living conditions from The Moor Quarter in their ability and nature to potentially accommodate sufficiently the reasons for of residents would be residential opportunities. Proposal 1. The proposal, satisfactory (see however, was based on the Guidelines 7 and 8. We can understand why perhaps residential development is being discouraged fact that The Moor is within the Sheaf and Kelham areas of the city, but there appears to be no presently a part of the City Work with owners to logical planning or other reasons for excluding The Moor Quarter from being Centre that ‘closes’ when the develop a ‘masterplan’ able to sustainably contribute to the provision of new housing opportunities. shops close and, as a result, for The Moor. Indeed no reasoned justification is even indicated in the Strategy document. provided significant opportunities for night-time We would therefore wish to express our client concerns at Proposal 1 and take leisure as no residential this opportunity in setting out below, why the wording of this proposal be existed in that area. The amended to exclude the reference to the Moor Quarter. Strategy proposed taking advantage of the vacant We would contend that Proposal 1 is fundamentally flawed for discriminating property (especially on the against an area of the city which is ideal for appropriately accommodating upper floors) to provide that residential uses and is contrary to: new leisure opportunity. It  Central Government Guidance, as set out in PPG3; was considered that this type  The aims and objectives of Regional Planning Guidance, as set out in draft of use would be compatible RPG12; with the existing uses. On the  The principles and objectives as advocated by Sheffield one URC and as other hand, residential set out in their Masterplan; schemes are being  The adopted Sheffield UDP and housing policies, which seek to encourage encouraged in many other residential uses above ground floor retail premises; City Centre locations to help  The precedent set for such development taking place in the locality of The strengthen existing Moor Quarter and concentrations.  Any sound and reasonable planning judgements normally employed when considering proposals such as this. This approach is perhaps too unrefined for an area as We would instead contend that the residential use of upper floors above large as The Moor and there ground floor retail premises is entirely compatible with existing land users and is perhaps scope for both uses. Allowing residential uses, would allow for this quarter of the city to types of uses to exist here. become the vibrant and vital place for people it needs to be and that Sheffield The key to this occurring City Council, Sheffield One, Yorkshire Forward and other key partners are without causing amenity advocating. problems for residents is to undertake a more detailed It is therefore suggested that PROPOSAL 1of the draft City Centre Living study to identify where each Strategy for Sheffield be deleted, or, in the very least be amended to exclude use could exist without any reference to The Moor Quarter. creating undue problems for the other. The fact that The Moor is essentially controlled by one owner would provide a further element of control for this to happen.

17. It is noted that residential is to be discouraged from Sheaf Valley. We need to Sheffield 1 The Quarters within the City No change required be clear what the Sheaf Valley area is. Do we want to encourage residential Centre have been defined on along the area on sites such as Blonk Street/Castlegate, or do we see these Plan 2. are more orientated towards commercial development?? This issue needs Blonk Street/Castlegate are some debate. not within the area defined as Sheaf Valley. 18. No problem with this chapter City Estates Support for the Strategy No change required MIX OF TENURES AND USES No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. There is real concern that speculation and inflated hope values for sites to be Sheffield 1 The CIQ Action Plan and the No change required developed as housing is frustrating small scale commercial development in areas UDP require B1 in the CIQ to like the CIQ (eg Graham’s and Exchange Works). This is particularly true of remain dominant. This is taken student housing schemes and we might take the opportunity to be more pro-active into account when considering in seeking to create a mix of housing types and perhaps in discouraging student all relevant planning applications housing in areas already saturated (can we pro-actively encourage student in the area. housing in less sensitive areas of the City that need regeneration/investment eg Park Hill?) The Strategy (and the CIQ Action Plan) stresses the importance of having a mix of tenures either within each development or within a quarter. 2. We share your concerns about how we try to protect and enhance the diversity of Sheffield 1 See 1 above See 1 above the CIQ. We are concerned that every site is attracting interest for housing with the consequent squeezing out of commercial opportunities. Housing should be an acceptable, but not a dominant use. The thrust should be that this is a commercial area where housing on a certain limited number of sites is acceptable. Even where housing is acceptable we should guard against filling the whole site with housing. The CIQ Action Plan policies should be strongly re-stated as you suggest. The approach taken on the Leadmill site is a good example to promote. 3. While acknowledging the care taken in assessing the suitability of proposed Cathedral The aim of the Strategy is to No change required accommodation for people who are young/old, single/married, do take care that of St Marie encourage a mix of tenures in you do not end up with zones for “the elderly” and zones for the “bright young most parts of the City Centre things”. My pastoral experience has taught me that a bit of blending and interaction does help to create community. 4. You may have a small number of buildings in the City Centre used by the public Cathedral Outside the scope of this No change required that do not have access for disabled people. The offer of a grant may ensure that of St Marie Strategy Sheffield City Centre is accessible to everyone. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 5. I consider it dangerous to insist on mixed use of all types of buildings. Often the Monaghan funding and viability of schemes is difficult to achieve with houses above shops. I Partnership think that if the right conditions are created then the commercial development Ltd world will utilise spaces such as existing offices above shops as housing when the time is right when the office spaces are unusable and un-letable and housing becomes more viable and attractive in the City. Once people see a demand for housing then they will look to take up the empty letable space. I therefore feel that at this stage in the development of city housing the planning department must be very careful not to try and force the issue. 6. We should ensure that housing providers have regard to the wider market in the University Each development will be No change required City Centre to avoid an over abundance of student accommodation (page 4) but of Sheffield treated on its merits, but this the report does not make it clear how it will be possible to achieve an appropriate Strategy should provide the mix, or indeed what such a mix, in appropriate numerical terms ought to be. Is development industry with a view this intentional? of how their schemes will be considered. 7. 4.2/P12 Please change photograph. There are still concerns both in Planning Internal This type of development does Update photos for and EPS about residential over pubs. I don’t think we should be giving the comment occur in the City Centre but published version impression that this is a preferred type of mixed use development. usually only if the living conditions of residents can be safeguarded. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. Whilst perhaps desirable, it would be totally wrong to prescribe that B1 should City All planning applications are dealt form part of any development. Each proposal should be treated on its merits and Estates with on their merits but there is a whilst the Council may through persuasion convince a developer of the benefits of need to take into account the incorporating such a use, to secure this via policy would potentially defer relevant policy requirements. The development/investment. economy of the City Centre relies on business space being provided, but the market is currently very slow to do this. In some parts of the City Centre, such as the CIQ, there is a demand for certain types of office space and this can be achieved by encouraging a mixed development with business at ground level. This has the added advantage of putting the residential element on the upper floors, thus reducing disturbance for residents. 9. Equal opportunity for housing as in every other area of life is desirable. However, City it should be recognised that disability takes many forms whereas the usual Estates preconceptions is that of a Wheelchair user. You cannot prescribe who lives where and provided developers can demonstrate a responsible approach to disabled access and developments can be shown to be adaptable this should be sufficient. To insist on a percentage fitted out at day 1 as opposed to being capable of adaptation increases cost which will have a knock on effect on the desire of new developers to enter the market. There should be no requirement for partially fitted out provided the concerns are addressed. Equally the proposal as currently drawn is too wide. A full analysis of the disabled population of the city is required before contemplating incorporating such a proposal. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 10. Although there is a service charge it is not possible to pass on all costs to the Victoria Victoria Quays is no longer a No change required residential occupiers in part because this would be prohibitively high. There is Quays mixed use area as it is mostly therefore some element of subsidy of the residential element by the commercial Manageme office development. The users, which is holding back the Quays. I think great care has to be taken to avoid nt Co. residential that is there, in the problems like this on mixed developments. existing buildings, tends to add life and security to the area after the offices are shut. They should, perhaps, be seen as an asset rather than a problem. Management agreements are outside the scope of this Strategy. 11. There are many City Centre housing sites that have now commenced and we Monaghan Agree No change required must be mindful of what has happened in Leeds. All site values have been better Partnership This Strategy recognises the for residential than commercial. We must also try and promote new commercial Ltd importance of business space as development in the City Centre, in addition keep expanding the retail uses by part of mixed developments in giving more retail consents, for example Sainsbury’s on the Moor, the Spar Shop certain parts of the City Centre eg on Devonshire Street and generally providing the facilities that housing in the City CIQ Centre would require. 12. Proposal 2 City Support for the Strategy Refer to UDP definition No problem – although the central shopping area is not defined. Estates Definition of Central Shopping of Central Shopping Area is missing from Strategy Area in revised document 13. Proposal 3 Sheffield 1 This Strategy is intended to No change required This could be strengthened to ensure that B1 forms a significant or in some elaborate on UDP policies and specific cases a predominant part of the development. the definition of B1 dominance normally relates to ground floor uses as part of mixed development incorporating residential. It would be outside the scope of the Strategy to insist on more than this. 14. 4.2/P11 Proposal 3 – please insert ‘normally’ before ‘be expected’ Internal Agree Add ‘normally’ to comment Guidelines 2 and 3 15. Proposal 4 Internal Agree Amend to include The supporting text to this proposal should cross-refer to policy H7 of the UDP. comment reference to H7 No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 16. Disabled access on refurbished buildings is very difficult to provide in some Monaghan UDP Policy H7 is already being Amend to include instances. The new disability discrimination act will take care of this point and the Partnership implemented and this proposal reference to H7 Mobility matter should not be forced as a planning issue. Ltd should link with the existing SPG Housing for mobility housing 17. The plan places some emphasis on the need to ensure mixed tenure, making Sheffield The Strategy provides an See 16 above provision for small families, retired couples and people who have disabilities. This Health explanation of policy H7 which clearly presents some challenges. While we welcome most of the proposals, we aims to ensure that all new would be interested in what proportion of accommodation would be equipped for dwellings are capable of use by those with disabilities (proposal 4). conversion to mobility standard should the need arise. (see 16 above) AFFORDABLE HOUSING No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. While the Agency is keen to encourage a diverse and sustainable residential CIQ Discussions with house Reword Proposal 5 (new community in the Quarter the decision to implement UDP policy H4 as part of Agency providers and the Council’s Guideline 5) to reflect the the new City Centre housing strategy needs to be undertaken after Housing Department had need for a review of this consultation and with very clear guidance on expectations, as it may not be indicated that there was a stance by the Council appropriate in all schemes to insist on introducing an affordable housing sufficient supply of available element (is there a commuted sum option? How does the cost relate to s106 social housing stock in and sums? Is the combination a bar to development etc). Ideally discretion should around the City Centre to meet be available to officers, so that adequate evaluation of the management the needs for affordable implications of mixed tenure housing schemes can be made, nor should housing. This has resulted in the socially responsible landlords be expected to deliver a disproportionate level of decision that UDP policy H4 affordable housing on schemes not receiving Social Housing Grant from the would not be implemented in the Housing Corporation. The Agency is particularly keen to be consulted on a City Centre. regular basis so we are involved in decisions to introduce this measure on schemes within the CIQ boundary, although we clearly recognise it is a city- However, the Council are now wide issue. required to carry out a survey to determine whether this is still the case. The results of this will be incorporated into future versions of the Strategy. 2. Is the debate about affordable housing in the City Centre relevant? This is not Sheffield 1 See 1 above See 1 above a key feature of our regeneration strategy/Masterplan. Having talked to the Housing Department and others, we came to the view that overall there is sufficient (and in certain locations on oversupply of) low cost housing in and around the City Centre. We feel we should be focusing on bringing new private sector housing into the City Centre. That is not to say that there is a case for some innovative social housing schemes – for example shared ownership, living over the shop, live/work and CASPAR type initiatives. We would not support a move, at this stage, to put any planning gain/s106 requirements on private developers to provide affordable housing. 3. We are very nervous about this requirement given the infancy of the market. Sheffield 1 See 1 above See 1 above This needs more debate – we do not support this in principle at the moment. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 4. Our approach would be to encourage the creation of a strong commercial Sheffield 1 See 1 above See 1 above housing market in the City Centre; with people choosing to invest their own money in the City Centre either through ownership, market rent or shared ownership. There should be little or no emphasis for the time being at present on social housing.

We also need to be very careful of compromising the fragile market by what might be seen as unreasonable demands, before it has really established. Current values would not support any significant element of affordable housing – the danger is that this would be a real disincentive to developers. The fragile market needs very careful nurturing and if there is added value we should be seeking to promote a better quality specification. 5. As yet, there has been very limited development in the City Centre despite all City Estates See 1 above See 1 above the recent applications, Sheffield lags other major cities and until it catches up a ‘social housing’ element will send developers home in their droves. We are now seeing social housing requirements in some other large cities where city living is more mature. It is perhaps appropriate in these circumstances but you should not even consider it for 2-3 years. 6. In respect of affordable housing once again the planning department should Monaghan See 1 above See 1 above not force this on development schemes at this time. If the Council wish to be Partnership active in this form they should possibly reduce the values of some of their own Ltd sites to attract developers in to provide low cost affordable housing. 7. Another area where the document is weak is on the role of housing and its Internal See 1 above See 1 above influence upon employment markets/provision. This is more than low cost Comment housing – its about avoiding the problems of other big cities with shortages of people to service the 24 hour city – the bar staff, the cleaners , the hospital workers etc. These shortages are linked to the availability of accommodation. The one thing that Park Hill has to offer is cheap City Centre accommodation within easy walking distance of most work places. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. Has an assessment of need been made in respect of affordable housing in the Internal See 1 above See 1 above City Centre. If it has can we not be more specific so developers and DC offers comment have more certainty. I am afraid this proposal will act as a deterrent to housing development, particularly if it lack certainty. The SPG at least has a range of 5-20%, whereas the proposal is open-ended.

This proposal is going to mean more work for case officers, particularly if 106 Agreements have to be used. Is the 40 threshold too low for dense flat developments? Are all areas of the City Centre to be covered or is the area of need more limited? Is there no limit to the number we are looking for? 9. Affordable Housing Northern See 1 above See 1 above – where does the 40 threshold come from – it would be useful to know for Counties when a test case comes along! Housing – What mechanism exists for calculating a “proper feasible proportion” Association determined by negotiation with the developer – they will always attempt to “pull the wool”! I would suggest that you need some guidelines for a process that both the developer and you as a council can understand and apply in practice – otherwise we may get what we currently have from current S106s – nothing tangible delivered and disputes. 10. Are Housing Services happy with this section? Is there definitely a need for Internal See 1 above See 1 above affordable housing to be provided in the City Centre. Has a needs assessment comment been undertaken (as specified under PPG3)? If not, we are in a weak position in negotiating with developers and are open to challenge at appeal. 11. The key area within which the Association suggests a change is in the level of South See 1 above See 1 above ‘affordable’ housing provided within schemes (this relates to proposal 5 on Yorkshire page 13). The level of 1.5ha or 40 dwellings are felt to be too high and we Housing would suggest that the limit should be 20 units. This would give real Assoc opportunity to make City Centre living more affordable across a wider socio- economic group. 12. It will be important to get the right message across, and consistently, about the Internal See 1 above See 1 above role of affordable housing in City Centre developments. I don’t think we’ve got comment our act together very well on this so far. The strategy needs to be far more specific, but perhaps that’s something we can discuss at the meeting. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 13. The plan places some emphasis on the need to ensure mixed tenure, making Sheffield See 1 above See 1 above provision for small families, retired couples and people who have disabilities. Health This clearly presents some challenges. While we welcome most of the proposals, we would be interested in what proportion of low price housing would be deemed acceptable (proposal 5). 14. Proposal 5 does not really add any additional guidance over and above what is Internal See 1 above See 1 above already in Policy H4 and the Affordable Housing SPG. Omit? comment DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. 4.4.2 The density of the Broomsprings development is approximately 48 Internal Agree Change table in 4.4 dwellings per hectare not 30 dwellings her hectare. Analysis of other comment schemes in the City Centre for the Urban Capacity Study provides some other examples of densities that are being achieved: St Pauls Chambers/Parade 400 dwellings/ha 15-33 Cavendish Street & Fitzwilliam Street 193 dwellings/ha Fitzwilliam Street/Cavendish Street/Broomhall Street 348 dwellings/ha 34-40 Trippet lane 250 dwellings/ha 216-218 Solly Street 88 dwellings/ha 2. 4.4/P13 Can we just say that the ‘Rogers Report’ also supports higher density to Internal Agree Reword to refer to avoid giving support, by implying tacit agreements with his Lordships comment ‘National Guidance’ 80/Ha. 3. 4.4/P13 Final para, all housing developments will be required to contribute to Internal Agree Delete and incorporate in open space provision not just denser developments. comment Open Space guidelines 4. 4.4.1 I suggest this paragraph is unnecessary and is dealt with sufficiently by Internal Agree Delete my suggested paragraph 3.4.3 above. comment 5. It is stated on page 14 that the City Centre could reach a population of 17,000 University Agree Include reference to but I don’t (unless I have missed it) see where this compares to the existing of Sheffield existing population population. It is a key point to show what overall maximum potential/objective is in terms of future growth in numbers (not dwellings). 6. Proposal 6 Internal Agree Amend Proposal 6 We have made some amendments to the range of densities used for the comment development scenarios in the Urban Capacity Study (they now range from a low of 120 dwellings/ha to an upper figure of 400/dwellings/ha). Consequently, we may want to amend the figures in this proposal, although it might be useful to also discuss whether the UCS figures are appropriate. I definitely think, however, that the maximum density should be higher than 40 dwellings/ha in the City Centre (this would not necessarily rule out providing some family housing). No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 7. No problem – this is a very important both in land use and financial terms. City Estates Part support for Strategy No change required Coupled with proposal 5 above if you seek to incorporate social housing requirements density will have to go up or land values will fall and development The housing market is very No change required will be stymied for years to come. strong and there is no evidence from other cities that suggests this is the case. However the Strategy will not implement UDP policy H4 at present. 8. Proposal 7 Sheffield Health services are normally No change required Obviously an increase in numbers of people living in the City Centre will have Health notified when planning an impact on local medical and dental services, and we expect to be kept applications are received. informed of developments as they progress. City Centre residents would be well placed to access the hospitals and the walk-in centre at the Royal Hallamshire, but GP services in the area are already stretched. 9. Of particular importance is clarity about planning obligations, as we know they Internal In most cases, the type of Delete Proposal 12 must be fully justified and necessary to the development. So re 7 what is the comment residential opportunities in evidence about school provision. On the Wards development, we were told the City Centre are unlikely to education experience is that few children are being housed so far in new result in family housing. schemes in City Centre. For family housing are there explicit school shortages Current evidence suggests in the Centre? If so, can realistic proposals be implemented to tackle them, that the number of children in justifying taking obligation monies? the City Centre is limited and will not increase significantly. The existing provision at Springbank School is considered to be sufficient to cater for future demand. This situation is equally true of other ‘community’ facilities and it would prove difficult to justify the need for these when negotiating planning obligations. The Proposal is no longer needed. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 10. In respect of development facilities such as community rooms and school Monaghan Agree See 9 above expansions again I think it is wrong to seek developers at this stage to Partnership See 9 above contribute. Ltd Perhaps the Council should look at a policy of disposing of some of the out of town schools such as Herdings and Hemsworth and then use the proceeds to create new community rooms or school expansions within the City Centre. 11. 4.4/P14 Proposal 7 should be deleted, it is not necessary to target City Centre Internal Agree See 9 above housing specifically, it should be left to UDP policy, and established comment See 9 above procedures to establish if social provision is required as with any other housing proposal. 12. What are the priorities to be between providing community facilities and open Internal See 9 above See 9 above space (Proposal 15)? If amendments are also made to the ‘Open Space in New comment Housing Developments’ SPG to make financial contributions more onerous in the City Centre, will developments be able to financially withstand other planning gain requirements?

This section should also refer to Policy CF5 of the UDP. 13. There is a great danger here that certain forces within the Council may seek to City Estates See 9 above See 9 above have the private sector pay for public type facilities to an unreasonable level. Clearly the S.106 regime exists but great care is required if you go down this route further. 14. While the need for facilities to provide a good quality of life are mentioned, the Sheffield See 9 above See 9 above proposal (7) refers only to the provision of community rooms and school Health expansion. Other elements of city centre provision would need to be taken into As a result of the expansion account, eg the development of food stores offering a sufficiently wide range of of City Centre living, new goods at affordable prices and eating places particularly new style café-bars, convenience stores have that admit children. opened near to the housing. New café bars/restaurants are as a result of the demand from all users of the City Centre it is not necessary for the Strategy to specifically target their provision. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. Final Paragraph, P14 Internal Agree Amend Proposal 9 The emphasis should be on the need for a scheme of works to address noise, comment rather than on noise surveys. On occasions, somewhat selective surveys have been used in justification for doing nothing to address noise beyond conventional design and construction work. Noise will invariably be an issue for consideration in relation to City Centre development for the reasons outlined in the guidance produced by this Service. For residential development the aim will be to provide a good standard of protection against noise for occupiers, and for the entertainment venues the aim will be to prevent excessive noise breakout. 2. Top of P15 Internal Agree Amend Proposal 9 Whilst it is vitally important that noise insulation schemes should incorporate an comment acoustically treated means of ventilation (as an alternative to opening windows) to a good standard, I would wish to encourage the use of passive ventilation systems in preference to mechanical systems. 3. Scheme of works to address noise breakout can be justified from entertainment Internal The amenity of residents is an No change required venues and equally good protection against noise egressing residential premises. comment important factor for planning to But emphasis should be given towards late venues attracting large crowds, consider in terms of locations for increased noise from late-night traffic, pedestrians leaving the club and the night-time leisure venues and this outrageous behaviour from club-goers. Strategy identifies this in Proposals 10 and 11 and Plan 1, Behaviour on the City Centre streets, however, is not a matter that planning has any direct control. 4. External noise ie street cleaning, delivery vehicles etc should be considered within Internal Choosing to live in the City Centre No change required various zones. Noise from these activities can be an added issue towards comment means that higher levels of noise Environmental Noise. will be experienced at longer times of the day, when compared with suburban living. It is not a planning matter to control the use of City Centre streets. 5. P15 The reference to Air Quality Management is unnecessary and only acts to Internal The Air Quality Action Plan for the Amend reference to deter housing development. comment City Centre forms part of an Air Quality Action existing initiative to raise the air Plan in ‘Living quality in the City. It is aimed at conditions for creating a better environment for residents’ chapter. those that live and work in the City Centre, so the Strategy should refer to this in a positive way 6. Re air quality, city living of course is highly sustainable, and reduces use of the car. Internal Agree, see 5 above See 5 above City living is positive and should help the problem, so this needs rewording. comment 7. How can housing minimise adding to the AAZ? Internal The major contributor to poor air See 5 above comment quality is the use of the car. City Centre living should reduce this use and thus add to the other actions proposed for this initiatve. 8. Proposal 8 and 9 City Support for the Strategy No change required No problem – but it is essential that the council does not apply the same desirability Estates levels in the city centre as they do in the suburbs. The two are different and together make up an appropriate mix ie choice for the population. No one is forced to live in the city centre and the same is true of the suburbs. They are all attracted to one area or the other because of the different amenities offered. 9. Proposal 8 – insert ‘normally’ between ‘will’ and ‘be’ Internal Agree Amend Proposal 8 Proposal 9 should be combined with 8. It is not necessary to refer to mechanical comment ventilation on its own. I suggest:- Proposal 9 emphasises the need Amend Proposal 9 ‘Noise assessments will normally be expected to form part of planning submissions for low energy solutions to the that involve residential development. The assessment should include measures to issue of ventilation. The proposal prevent residents suffering noise pollution where required’. should be reworded to allow flexibility of equipment used to meet the requirements. 10. Proposal 9. Another difficult area. The reports should be made available with City The Council’s documents are No change required consultation between the council and architects, M&E consultants before setting Estates obtainable from Environmental any guidelines. Protection Service. NIGHT-TIME LEISURE No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. I am in agreement with the general principle of introducing a degree of Internal Support in part No change required to zoning to the City Centre. Whilst this means there will be presumptions in comment Identifying zones where activities can Strategy favour or against particular developments in certain areas, I would wish to take place will always lead to issues stress the importance of considering development proposals on their own about proposals that are on or just Re-examine the NCTZ merits, for example where the development site is on or near the boundary outside the boundary of that zone. The and refine its between two zones. night-club tolerance zone (NCTZ) is boundaries. identified to give guidance when considering new developments, but other factors such as the impact on residential amenity will also play a part in any decision. Further detailed work is needed to determine the boundary of the NCTZ. 2. As we are aware, the owners of some night-clubs have resisted residential Internal The aim of the NCTZ and Proposal 14 Re-examine Proposal development close by on the grounds that they may become liable to comment was to prevent the problems arising 14 and the NCTZ and action for Statutory Nuisance if a residential population is introduced. from residential and night-clubs being refine its boundaries. There is some basis for this concern, but the question arises as to whether located close together. However, this this is a legitimate reason for refusing consent for residential development. approach is too broad but there is still a The best solution will always be for noise to be treated at source, and in need to examine in more detail the practice this would be achieved at the developers expense by way of a locations where night-clubs would be Section 106 agreement. This would obviously require the agreement of acceptable. Even within these areas it the owners of the nightclub, but they would be encouraged by the fact that may be appropriate to allow residential they would be unlikely to be subject to Statutory Noise Nuisance provided that the amenity of residents legislation if noise breakout is adequately controlled. will be safeguarded. Accordingly, there is a need to refine both the zones and Proposal 14. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 3. In relation to night clubs and other entertainment venues, the issue of Internal See 2 above See 2 above blight arising from noise breakout should perhaps be raised. Night-clubs comment in areas where there is little or no residential development may have operated for some time without giving rise to complaint, despite significant noise breakout from the premises affecting nearby sites. The effect can be that surrounding land cannot be used for residential development unless extreme measures are taken to insulate dwellings. Similar difficulties have been experienced where new night -clubs are proposed in areas where there are currently no residential properties, and it is therefore perceived that works to minimise noise breakout are unnecessary. Without such works the effect may again be one of blight. 4. It must be stressed the important of development of residential site on or Internal Agree See 1 above near the boundary between two zone of clubs and for bar/pubs opening at comment late hours. Special consideration should be given due regards to amenities. 5. Residential development near night clubs operating till late hours should Internal See 2 above See 2 above be discouraged and vice versa. comment 6. Our main concern with the City Centre Living Draft for Consultation is with Sheffield The purpose of defining this zone was to No change required the proposed ‘Housing Environmental Zones’ around parts of the Kelham Riverside identify where limited opening hours for area specifically the impact that the proposed boundaries will have on the Development A3 uses would be sought, as a means of approval of future residential developments that are outside the proposed Agency protecting residential amenity. It did not boundary. We are concerned as to what the implications would be to the imply that residential would be above-mentioned developments as they are outside the proposed Housing unacceptable outside that area. Environmental Zones and would like this point to be clarified. If housing developments outside of the Housing Environmental Zone were unlikely to receive planning approval then we would want to discuss the exact boundary in greater detail before the final draft is issued. 7. Proposed Tolerance Zone for Night Clubs Cultural See 2 above See 2 above This proposal if implemented without a pragmatic interpretation would Industries surely lead to the CIQ being identified as ‘unsuitable for housing’ as night Quarter clubs would be prioritised. This we believe is fundamentally at odds with the vision and aspirations of the CIQ EDAW strategic vision and the CIQ Action Plan.

Whilst we are keen to maintain the area as a production zone for See 2 above See 2 above knowledge based and creative industries, the Agency and partners are The Strategy will only apply to equally seeking to introduce a broader based residential community to developments that occur after the complement the emerging community of learning. The promotion of a document is approved by the Council. tolerance zone as stated policy for the CIQ is difficult to reconcile with the planning permissions for those schemes now under construction or about to go on site such as Leadmill Garage, Faircloughs, Exchange Works, Sterling Works and those at planning stage such as Derwent Housing Association.

Such a policy may also jeopardise the proposed introduction of shared ownership in mixed tenure and mixed-use residential schemes, now being discussed with several house-builders and social registered landlords. The Cultural Industrial Quarter is seeking to broaden its appeal as a place in which to work, play and live, it is not endorsing one type of music or cultural experience, however, economically, important. 8. Whilst we welcome the concept of ‘Tolerance Zones’, we were puzzled as Eversheds See 2 and 7 above See 2 and 7 above to how the precise areas that they occupy had been identified. At the (for the Agree - the Strategy will only apply to meeting on 31 July 2001 you confirmed that there had been ‘nothing Leadmill) developments that occur after the scientific’ in the way that the Zones had been identified. This being the document is approved by the Council. position, we would suggest that it would be appropriate to review the areas to be included in Tolerance Zones to ensure that they cover a sufficient area to enable them to serve their intended purpose of discouraging residential development in areas of potential conflict with night club uses. I am aware that my client company has already advocated a radius of 75 metres around the Leadmill in which further housing should not be permitted and we would submit that this suggestions could inform the identification of the precise areas to be included in all Tolerance ones and also should be regarded as the minimum area for the Tolerance Zone in which the Leadmill is situated. However, before you make a final decision on the boundary of the “Leadmill Tolerance Zone”, my client company would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue. We would suggest that such a meeting would be most helpful to you in formulating your policy as the operators of the Leadmill have the benefit of many years of experience of operating it as a venue and are well versed in the possible noise problems that may be associated with its use. Finally on the subject of the “Leadmill Tolerance Zone”, I would suggest that it is appropriate to extend the Zone to the area opposite the Leadmill and bounded by Shoreham Street and Matilda Street, notwithstanding the fact that there is existing/imminent housing shown on Plan No.1, as the extension of the Tolerance Zone in this way would not have any effect on extant planning consents, but would properly relate to any future proposals for residential development in this area. 9. The unusual answers to this project from every night club owner is the S Baxendale See 2 above See 2 above obvious one, we came first, other people should learn to live and work (for Niche) There is scope in a City Centre for all around us. types of development to take place. Situations change and there is a need We invested our money when the City Centre was on the floor, we for all users to consider their affect on watched the Council squander millions of pounds on failed ventures giving their neighbours. all outsiders the impression that Sheffield could not manage its own finances and had no foresight, which I still feel is the case. 10. Night Life: I would not want to spoil the party but do please recognise that Cathedral of There are grounds for requiring a noise Add new Proposal to sound can travel. Concern must be given to residents and also to the fact St Marie assessment as part of night-time leisure Strategy to cover this that you have centres of worship that are established in the city providing activities to limit as much as possible issue. an oasis of peace to all visitors. disturbance to other City Centre users. 11. In general terms, we welcome the recognition that whilst there is a case for Eversheds Support for the Strategy No change required encouraging residential development in the City Centre, such development (for Leadmill) should not be promoted in areas which might result in future problems due to the juxtaposition of potentially incompatible uses, most notably, night clubs and residential. With this in mind we noted with interest the comments that were made at the meeting on 31 July 2001 by a representative of a Housing Association who made reference to problems associated with the siting of residential development opposite one particular night club which had resulted in numerous complaints being made by students. This illustrates the point that those who are in the business of providing residential accommodation perceive a clear benefit to them associated with the introduction of planning policy which seeks to discourage the construction of residential development in the vicinity of night clubs. 12. The report provides an excellent analysis of the tension between City South Support for the Strategy No change required Centre living and the need for leisure either through open space or night Yorkshire clubs. Housing Association No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 13. Top of page 16, para under D2 assembly and Leisure the following could Internal The definition of D2 uses is sufficient, in No change required be added after 1.00 am….with music, singing, dancing licence with comment planning terms, to inform the Strategy designated dance floor and extension to the Liquor licence. 14. Proposal 10 - extension to the Zone in mixed use is not sufficiently Internal See 2 above See 2 above covered ie St Pauls Parade area. comment A revision to the zone is required 15. What extended hours will be allowed within this area? Internal Opening hours for new night-time leisure comment developmentsthe City Centre is an issue 16. At West Street pub/bar has had extension to allow operating til 12.00 Internal There will always be exceptions to a Amend Proposals 10 midnight. comment Strategy of this type but the final version and 13 will incorporate guidelines that define closing times for a variety of night time leisure uses. 17. No problem City Estates Support for the Strategy No change required 18. Proposal 10 needs reworking Internal Agree Amend Proposals 10 comment The Proposal is lacking in information and 13 about proposed closing times for night time leisure. 19. Proposal 11 Internal The wording of the Proposal reflects a Amend Proposals 10 Why is Devonshire Quarter highlighted? comment specific policy from the Devonshire and 13 Quarter Action Plan. However, it is recognised that there are other areas within the City Centre where this approach would apply. Proposals 10 and 13 should be rewritten to incorporate closing hours for all quarters of the City Centre No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 20. Major problem. At a time when Sheffield is able (hopefully) to enjoy a City Estates As the Strategy stresses, Amend Proposals 10, renaissance some of the aspects (or all of them) which form an integrated even City Centre residents in 11, 13 to give guidance part of the reestablishment of any city centre will be undermined. some of the quarters ought to on the areas affected Therefore, one of the reasons people are attracted to the City Centre have relief from noise and and the relevant (young and old) will be restricted. You simply cannot relocate suburbia in disturbance for part of the opening times. the City Centre and should not be prescriptive in this way. I am aware of night. The City Centre is a significant amounts of private investment going begging because of the complex mix of uses and it Council’s lack of willingness to embrace one of the man focus’ of City Living should be usable by ie convenience (of all things), proximity (to all things). Do not be everyone. The concept of a prescriptive. Treat each application on its merit and control concerns by ‘24-hour’ city is not physical measures ie sound attention etc. The policy if implemented will set necessarily a true reflection of Sheffield back 5 years rather than drive it forward. You cannot have a 24 how all the City Centre will hour city that closes at midnight. If the courts do not wish to embrace the evolve. There are parts of the 24 hour city ethos then it should declare this so people know where they where ‘18 hours’ is more stand as the message is very confusing at present. realistic, such as the Cathedral Quarter, and it is valid to limit the night-time disturbance residents in these areas will experience. The Guidelines in the Strategy should reflect this approach. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 21. Proposal 12 Internal This zone is meant to identify Delete Housing Action What is a Housing Environment Zone? Comment an area where night-time Zone – see 20 above businesses would be controlled in order to provide a satisfactory residential environment. It is also to identify locations where residential would be encouraged. The situation since writing the draft has changed and there is no longer a need to encourage residential development and the HEZ can be deleted. The Strategy should be amended – see 20 above 22. This conflicts with the UDP because it proposes a different Housing Priority Internal Agree. The HEZ is no longer Delete Housing Action Zone to that in the adopted Plan. This should only be amended through the Comment needed. See 20 and 21 Zone – see 20 and 21 UDP Review process. One way around this might to overlay the Housing above above Priority Zone in the UDP on the ‘Housing Environmental Zone’ (ie the areas of the City Centre where a satisfactory living environment is likely to be possible). The UDP Housing Priority Zone should be down on Plan 1. 23. No problem. A level playing field is what is required. City Estates Supports the Strategy No change required No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 24. Proposal 13 Internal The amenity of residents is Revise Proposals 10, Why is it necessary to identify a maximum late opening time and if it is, why comment still very much a material 11, 13 and 14 don’t we do it in this document? consideration for dealing with planning applications and the use of opening/closing hours is a way of ensuring that disturbance for residents is limited. Agree the document You don’t say why some part of CC are suitable for night clubs. does not give appropriate hours of opening and should be amended. Agree, the document does not explain the issues and should be amended. 25. My comments under 11 apply here also. City Estates See 20 above See 20 above 26. Proposal 14 Sheffield 1 There is still a need to Review Plan 1 to show We are nervous about night clubs in the Barkers Pool area given expressed examine in more detail the areas where night-time desire by developers of new retail quarter to include housing in scheme and locations where night-clubs leisure will be of course the emerging proposals for the NUM/Carver Lane sites and would be acceptable. Even acceptable. Leopold Street which are all likely to contain an element of quality within these areas it should residential floorspace. be appropriate to allow As you know, we are encouraging housing as part of the New Retail residential, provided that the Quarter and the Heart of the City projects. amenity of residents is safeguarded. The New Retail Quarter scheme and that for the Heart of the City will ultimately be developed from an agreed masterplan and any potential conflicts will have been resolved as part of this process. 27. There is no reason to include the small area of Paternoster in the Tolerance Internal Agree See 26 above Zone. It has only been included because of the existing night clubs. There comment Review all boundaries. (see is less residential in the Castlegate Area plus PP for Old Courthouse, so 26 above) why not create a tolerance zone in this area? No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 28. This needs great care. It is necessary to understand the requirements of City Estates There is still a need to Review Plan 1 to show City Centre residents before presenting what is built for them. Each examine in more detail the areas where night-time scheme should be treated on its merits depending on its location, and locations where night-clubs leisure will be intended end user. would be acceptable. Even acceptable. within these areas it should be appropriate to allow residential, provided that the amenity of residents is safeguarded. 29. Proposal 15 Eversheds Contest Amend Looking at page and the paragraph dealing with the Cultural Industries for Leadmill The aim of this Proposal is Review Plan 1 to show Quarter (CIQ), we are pleased to note that there is recognition that some nightclub not to limit residential in those areas where night-time parts of the CIQ have “night-time activities that cause disturbance and areas where nightclubs could leisure will be further housing will be discouraging from locating hear these venues”. be developed. There is scope acceptable and reword Reference is made to paragraph 4.6 of the draft document which is in some areas of the City Proposal 15. concerned (in part) with night clubs and “Tolerance Zones”. What we would Centre for both to occur, but suggest is lacking in the draft document at present is a clear policy the amenity of residents will statement – set out in separate “Proposal” that residential development will be the overriding factor in any be discouraged in Tolerance Zones. Such a policy would be entirely decision. The Proposal, consistent with the working that I have quoted above. We would suggest however, as worded, is that the Proposal could read as follows:- misleading and should be 15. Residential development will be discouraged in the “Tolerance zones” revised to clarify this issue. shown on Plan 1 in order to protect night-time living conditions”. OPEN SPACE No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. I think the whole issue of ‘open space’/green strategy needs beefing up. I think Internal An open space strategy for the Amend Plan 2 it needs to address a few principles:- comment whole of the City Centre is - identification of main existing and proposed boulevards/’greened’ streets awaited. This document deals where the pavement environment itself is acting as quasi ‘open space’ with open space provision by - relationship of those green streets to the main public realm/open space developers for the benefit of sites residents. Plan 2 can be amended - relationship to retail spine and universities spine (as per City Centre to reflect the comments made but strategy) this could be revised once there is - Strong theming of links to River and Park Hill an agreed open space strategy. - Relationships to greening of ring road/gateways 2. In respect of open space once again the market demand will show how much Monaghan The provision of open space No change required open space provision is required. This should also be part of the master plan. Partnership related to a specific development, directly reflects its size and type. There are various squares and other features that housing has been There are, however, existing open successfully grouped around for example at St Pauls’ Parade Housing spaces within the City Centre that Development and the Peace Gardens. The planning department must be need improvement and to do this careful on forcing contributions on developers to open space. Possibly this would also bring benefits to the should be provided as infrastructure by Sheffield One. residents. Left to the market, no public space would be created or improved so the Strategy aims to balance the amount of amenity space provided within a development and the public space that the residents should also enjoy. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 3. 4.7/P19 I still think there should be more new open space. We are pulling Internal Agree. Plan 2 does identify some money in to provide additional open space yet some quarters have comment opportunities for new open space nothing eg CIQ. If we are not going to identify land now, reference but this is difficult in areas of high should be made to this being done as part of UDP review. land values where the cost of making new open spaces is prohibitive. Some existing open spaces, eg. Devonshire Green and CIQ Square, are in need of enhancement and it is appropriate to undertake this before funds are used to acquire land that may not be improved for a considerable time. 4. Recreational open spaces may be a problem as will garden space for young Cathedral The aim is to provide a variety of No change required families. The atmosphere in the City Centre may be helped by careful of St Marie open spaces in the City Centre cultivation of greenery in the area. and to design them according to their location and likely demand. Some should meet the requirements of this comment. 5. On Environmental issue the University agrees with the proposed policies but University The wider environmental and Include reference to trees would like to see a strengthening of purpose with regard to streetscape, hard of Sheffield design issues in the City Centre within Open Space an soft landscaping and open space. For instance, Policy H16 is very open are included within a separate Chapter ended. Also Sheffield has recently launched a treescape initiative to bring document, the City Centre Design trees and potentially wildlife back into the City. The Strategy should at least Compendium. make reference to this and identify where respective policies can be integrated. Reference to trees within the City Centre will be covered within the Compendium but it is appropriate to also make reference to this in this Strategy. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 6. As you are aware the CIQ Agency is very keen to deliver significant CIQ Funding is available through s106 No change required environmental and open space improvements to the CIQ through the use of Agency for open space within the CIQ and s106 in new CIQ based housing schemes. We are particularly anxious that as the opportunity for the CIQ the delivery Agency for this area we ourselves commission and shape the Agency to act as delivery agent urban design and environmental enhancements potentially available to the for this is currently being area. This would be more effectively managed through the CIQ Agency acting investigated. It is not a matter that with delegated authority from and in full consultation with the City Council, as needs including in this Strategy the delivery agent for the development of open space and environmental improvements as we directly represent organisations and businesses in the area. 7. Open space should also include balconies. Sheffield 1 Balconies provide useful space No change required for individual residential units but they do not contribute to the communal spaces or to space that the public has access to. It would be the decision of a developer whether to provide this facility or not but it would not be seen, in terms of this Strategy, as making a contribution to open space provision. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. 4.7/P18 The open space in CC developments has never been enough to avoid Internal Residents need access to both No change required contributions to off-site provision, so it should state that a reduction comment private amenity space (which is will be allowed if on-site provision is made. likely to be communal in City Centre developments) and open space, which provides a variety of public recreational uses. UDP Policies H15 and H16 make it clear that both will normally be required in any development, although because this results in an ‘agreement’ on the amount and how the contributions are spent, then there is normally scope for negotiation on this matter. This is intended to explain the I don’t see why the list of what the guidelines cover is included. requirements of the existing Open Rewrite open space Space Supplementary Planning chapter to include Guidance, but this is leading to elements of the Open duplication and it is proposed to Space SPG that are include modified SPG Guidelines relevant to the City within this Strategy Centre. 9. Finally, we would suggest that the proposal on green spaces include a Sheffield Agree, references to trees should Include reference to trees reference to trees, which would be beneficial in terms of shade and Health be included within Open Space environmental impact. Chapter 10. No problem in principle but please don’t prescribe. City Support for Strategy. No change required Estates See also 2 above GUIDELINE 11 OF THE CITY CENTRE LIVING STRATEGY OPEN SPACE

SUMMARIES OF EXTERNAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SPG AND THE CITY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE INCLUDING ANY INTERNAL COMMENTS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN AMENDMENTS

No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. The rates and costs should be fixed. Peter Beard, Appendix 2 states the s.106 costings based on Amend Monaghans the August 2003 Supplementary Planning Reword to include sentence in Guidance August 2003 figures, and states that first paragraph of the chapter after figures will be updated annually. “needs of residential The Guideline 11 on the Open Space Needs of development.” the following City Centre Housing Developments is only one sentence: type of planning obligations which may apply in “Open space planning obligations the City Centre. Policy CF5 refers to possible are one of the planning planning obligation or planning condition obligations which may apply to requirements which may be required to meet City Centre housing circular 1/96. developments.” 2. Broad agreement with the aims and Peter Beard, Support for the Strategy No change required objectives. There is an obvious difficulty in Monaghans Guideline 11 does allow either a financial finding areas of land to create public open contribution to be made which will be prioritised space in the same quarter as the development. This will be implemented through the Quarter Action Plans referred to in the “How the Guideline will be put into practice section”.

Alternatively Guideline 11 requires publicly accessible open space to be created as part of new development. No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 3. Support for a commuted sum where it is Peter Beard, Support for the Strategy No change needed impossible to create a green open space Monaghans within the confines of the site.

4. It must be clear that Guideline 11 applies Peter Beard, Support for the Strategy. The Unitary No change needed to all schemes Monaghans Development Plan does not provide a basis for requiring s.106 contributions for open space except from housing developments of over 5 dwellings. Therefore the minimum dwelling threshold for requiring s.106 open space provision or contributions remains the same as the Unitary Development Plan Policy H17.

5. Clarify whether developers are to provide Peter Agree. The current wording of Guideline could Amend open space/courtyards or a contribution to Connelly, be misinterpreted. at the end of Guideline 11, part open space or both. Sheffield One a), after the words “screened from street noise”, add the word “; and”

At the start of the Reason for the Guideline section, include the following sentence: “Residents need access to both private amenity space (which may need to be communal within flat developments) and open space which serves a variety of public recreational uses..” Delete the sentence later which says: “Public open space is therefore crucial in providing wider outdoor space for a variety of recreational uses.” No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 6. Request that if open space/courtyards are Peter Contest in part Amend. required, that guidance is available for Connelly, An area per occupier requirement would be too In the “How the Guideline will be developers on areas per occupier. Sheffield One prescriptive and would not take account of other put into practice” section, a new urban design and development control first sentence will be added: objectives. With such a criteria, it may be “Site specific planning advice on impossible to provide, due to the nature of a incorporation of private amenity conversion or constraints of small sites. space into schemes” However it is accepted that developers will need further advice, of a site-specific nature, on how to incorporate such private amenity space into their schemes. 7. Recognises that whilst a courtyard of roof Peter Accept that this will not be possible on all Amend terrace would enhance most schemes it Connelly, schemes, due to the nature of a conversion or At the end of Guideline 11, part may not be possible or appropriate to Sheffield One constraints of a small site. This will be open to a), between the words “screened include such areas on all schemes. negotiation. from street noise”, and “and”, add “where possible”.

In the Reason for the Guidelines section, after the following text: “although a few have balconies or roof terraces”, add the following sentence: “New build developments and most conversions will be expected to provide communal space, such as roof terraces, courtyards or green spaces, although this may be impossible for some small flat conversions.” No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. The amounts stated seem reasonable. Peter Support for Strategy No change needed Any increases in line with RPI could be Connelly, maintained for a period of at least three Sheffield One years. After this time values may have increased at a greater rate than RPI and it should be possible to review the base figure.

9. An expectation that developers will expect Peter Accept. In the second part of Guideline 11, it Amend that their contributions will be used to Connelly, states that developers will be expected to make In the first part of Guideline 11 enhance public space within the vicinity of Sheffield One a financial contribution to the City Council part (b), the word “the” will be the proposed development. towards provision or enhancement of open inserted before the word space in the city centre, prioritising open space “residents” to emphasis that in the same quarter as the development. developer contributions from a . particular scheme will be spent on an open space which the residents of that scheme would be close enough to use 10. The CIQ Agency's priority is to establish a Richard It is accepted already that developers will wish No change needed clear public open space strategy for the Motley, to see the relationship between their Quarter which the City Council have yet to Cultural development and strategies on open space. finalise with us. Developers will wish to Industries Map 2 of the City Centre Strategy outlines very see reasonably worked out strategies and Quarter briefly proposed open spaces and existing open visualisations showing the vision their Agency spaces. The How will the Guidelines be put contribution will help deliver - otherwise into practice section refers to the Action Plans some may see no relationship between for the Quarters. The Action Plans of the their contribution and the reality on the Quarters identify where open space will be ground. improved and where open spaces will be created. It is recognised that not all of these Quarter Action Plans are finished, and some may need reviewing as further opportunities emerge. No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 11. There is insufficient clarity in the second Internal Accept Amend half of Guideline 11 (In bold) whether this Comment In Guideline 11, replace expectation on developers refers to both “Developers will be expected to” amenity green space and open space with “In order to provide open provision available to the public. space available to the public, developers will be expected to:” Change the second bullet points a) and b) to i) and ii)

12. There should be an option to spend Internal Contest in part. It is accepted that the s.106 Amend adjacent to the City Centre in limited Comment open space contributions should be spent on Reword Guideline 11 to include: circumstances if that is the closest site in open spaces, which would be used by the “Any financial contributions paid need and would be used by the residents residents of the new flats. These sites are likely by a developer towards the of the new flats. to be within the City Centre and within each provision or enhancement of Equally money raised just outside the City quarter funding will need to be prioritised on open space will be the subject of Centre could be spent within if that was one site at a time to gain sufficient funding to a legal agreement specifying the best implement the improvements or create new amount of any contribution, when Therefore add “or immediately accessible open space. There may be the possibility that it should be paid and that it will be to the site adjoining the city centre” after funding opportunities may arise where the City spent in accordance with the the word “city centre” at the bottom of the Centre open space strategy straddles the principles set out in the Council’s first page current City Centre boundary. Where there is a supplementary planning guidance Council commitment towards such extensions, “Open Space provision in new part (ii) of Guideline 11 would allow for this Housing Development”. This situation. addendum to the supplementary This document does not concern s.106 off-site planning guidance requires that open space financial contributions which are this contribution be spent to sought and obtained outside the City Centre. complement the City Centre open The SPG: Open Space in New Housing space strategy.” Developments still operates in these situations. No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 13 Developers will also be looking to agree Internal It is accepted that developers will be concerned No change needed a timescale for the spend with a longstop comment when the open space improvements or creation date. of open space will be implemented. As the s.106 contribution is insufficient in itself to improve City Centre open spaces or create new ones, it will need to be matched against other funding. Bidding for matched funding cannot occur until there is sufficient s.106 money within the Quarter Open Space Fund from a number of housing developments within a quarter. For example, the Devonshire Green Quarter Open Space Fund has accumulated £1/2 million over 4 years. This is now only sufficiently large enough to be used as matched funding to bid for other funds, which will double or treble the amount to be spent on Devonshire Green. The length of time before expenditure of the Quarter Open Space Fund will depend on the speed at which new housing development is brought forward in the quarter and the size and cost of the open space to be created or improved. The text already refers to the need to secure external funding as the reason for not setting a time limit. Therefore, no change is needed.

14. The CIQ has already experienced a Peter The Reason for the Guidelines section No change needed growth in residential and mixed use Connelly, acknowledge the growth in the use of the City schemes and further growth is expected Sheffield One Centre generally. in the Cultural Industries Quarter over the next five years. No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 15. The CIQ Agency and its CIQ partners are Richard Planning Policy Guidance 17 does allow open No change needed working on re- establishing and re- Motley, space contributions to be spent on improving designing the CIQ square (previously Cultural accessibility to open spaces. In the Reason for known as NCPM square) and establishing Industries the Guidelines section, the last paragraph managed events for the space for the Quarter includes the following sentence: benefit and enjoyment of all the Agency “A city centre open space strategy (shown in emerging CIQ communities (business, Map 2) provides the framework for upgrading learning and residential). and creating new open spaces in quarters of the city centre without sufficient high quality Similarly the Agency is establishing an open spaces. Any new opportunities for Urban Trail as part of the public realm creating or improving open spaces which arise aspect of the CIQ Townscape Heritage and benefit local residents, will also be Initiative Developers should be positively considered.” encouraged to invest / contribute to this This will allow consideration of the Urban Trail Urban trail and DC officers should for spending within the open spaces along its promote a broader vision and route, alongside the Quarter Action Plan. interpretation for open space.

16 Healthy environments and encouraging Richard Contest in part Amend. regular exercise are key elements to Motley, Planning Policy Guidance 17 does recognise Modify to include workers and urban living and growing sustainable Cultural that open space can form part of green visitors, to read as follows: neighbourhoods. So we shouldn't seek to Industries networks, which can be used for a variety of “Open space in the city centre limit developers thinking to only traditional Quarter healthy activities, including walking and cycling. needs to provide for the needs of 'open space' as the most appropriate way Agency Although these activities are likely to occur all users of the city centre. This to invest in the public realm. outside open spaces in the City Centre, includes workers and visitors as Planning Policy Guidance 17 only allows well as residents of the city Businesses, residents and enrolled planning obligations to be used to improve or centre. This includes students, students use open space in many create open spaces but not to be spent on elderly people and children. different ways. highway verge improvements. However the Shared housing schemes may in People consume their environment in Reasons for the Guideline section does future be converted to self- many ways - some will find enjoyment recognise that open space may be created by contained flats for non-students. from walking/cycling/skateboarding their pedestrianising streets (see response to 5.4). Therefore active recreation and way around the Quarter. People of Off-site open space contributions cannot thus children’s play opportunities will different ages should be accommodated be spent on all the environmental concerns be incorporated into city centre and respected. which the CIQ identifies. open space.” No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action So just creating open space is not likely to lead to the level of quality in The fifth paragraph of the “Reasons for the the environment the CIQ Agency and Guideline” section does recognise that there is partners aspire to. a wide range of users of City Centre open space.

17. Location of Devonshire Green and Richard Accept Amend. Riverside have attracted development Motley, In the Reason for the Guideline, due to their open environment, and before Cultural in the following sentence: improvements have been made. Industries Improvements to existing open Quarter spaces have attracted residential Agency development.”, exclude the wording “Improvements to” and add the wording “and the riverside” after “open spaces”.

18. Does the current wording allow s.106 Internal Accept. In the Reason for the Guideline section, Amend open space contributions to be spent on Comment it states that “the “public realm” will be created The word “pedestrianised” will be trees? A single tree can provide greenery wholly or partly within streets or public inserted before the word “streets” within an urban environment and should squares.” Open space contributions should in this sentence be considered worthy for the spending of only be spent on the creation of open space s.106 open space spending and not on highway verge improvements, as this are not defined as open space under Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation. This current text could lead to misinterpretation. 19. Policy CF5, H16 and Supplementary Internal Accepted. Amend Planning Guidance: Open Space in New Comment From the last but one paragraph Housing Developments do not set out that in the Reason for the Guidelines the administration and project section, alter the following management of planning obligations are sentence: necessary to be covered within a planning “The cost of laying out or obligation. Therefore wording referring to improving open space includes the administration and project administration of the planning management of planning obligations obligations, design costs, should be omitted. materials, project management of the schemes and 5 year’s establishment maintenance”, by excluding the wording “administration of the planning obligations,” and “project management of the schemes” 20. Page three of the guidance. Add to the list Internal Accept in part. Accessibility is an important Amend of bullet points a new, first one that Comment issue and should be one of the criteria used to Therefore, in the Reasons for the reflects the growing number of accessible design open spaces. Guideline section, add a new residential properties in the city centre bullet point between the second and the wider need for accessible open and third bullet point space. It should state: “be designed so as to be “All open space provision shall be accessible to all potential users, designed so as to be accessible to all in particular, disabled people. potential users, in particular, disabled Designs shall adopt provide a people. Designs shall adopt provide a high standard of inclusive design, high standard of inclusive design, making making use of the City Council’s use of the City Council’s Disability Design Disability Design Standards.” Standards.” No Summary Response Ref Assessment Proposed Action 21. So that developers do not incur additional Internal Accept. The Supplementary Planning Amend legal fees or planning consent is not Comment Guidance: Open Space in New Housing Include the model head of terms delayed, a simple legal agreement is Developments does already include at used in unilateral obligations required or a standard planning condition Appendix 6, model heads of terms for legal relating to off-site open space stating that before occupation is made, a agreements, however this refers to on-site financial contributions. After the contribution provision and breaks down into the three section on “How the Guideline will various elements. Due to Development Control be put into practice”, a new practice to speed up the signing of legal heading will inserted which will be agreements, more simplified legal agreements called “Model heads of terms for are now used. unilateral obligations”. This section will include the following text:

Unilateral obligations will include the following heads of terms relating to open space off-site financial contributions, where this is appropriate:

The Owners shall pay to the Council [on or before the commencement of any development within the meaning of Clause 2.2] the sum of £ to be used by the Council towards the provision of recreation space in the locality of the site. This shall be provided in accordance with the principles set out in the Council’s supplementary planning guidance “Open Space provision in new Housing Development”. 22. The provision of green space as part of Peter Beard, The Quarter Action Plans provide detail about No change needed developments should be promoted as part Monaghans how particular locations within the City Centre of the design process and should take could fit in with the city centre open space account of how developments tie in with framework. the provision of public realm. 23. The rate is currently set at a reasonable Jane Hunt, Contest. Planning obligations are not a No change needed level and is expected to increase by RPI. Yorkshire development tax relating to the market value of This contribution will seem quite minimal Forward property. Planning obligations can only be in the future, once rents have increased sought in line with circular 1/95, which is the due to the large amount of public and current Government Policy setting out a specific private sector investment planned in the circumstances when planning obligations can foreseeable future, this contribution may be sought. This is set out as a series of policy seem quite minimal in years to come. tests which have collectively become known as Once this regeneration has occurred, “the necessity test”, to determine the Sheffield City Council should consider acceptability of a planning obligation. This reviewing the level of contributions to requires that obligations should be necessary, reflect market conditions. relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and reasonable in all other respects. The suggestion made would not be in keeping with current Government Policy. The Guideline 11 will be reviewed if it falls out of line with future Government Policy or the situation changes, which justifies the current costings. 24. Lack of green space has been raised as Jane Hunt, In the “How the Guidelines will be put into No change needed an issue in the city centre and it may Yorkshire practice section”, the Quarter Action Plans will therefore be prudent to consider this in Forward identify locations for existing open space the context of public realm schemes improvements as well as new open spaces which are not fully worked up e.g. Tudor Square. 25. In the section “How the Guideline will be Jane Hunt, Accept. Amend. put into practice”, it is unclear that Action Yorkshire In the section “How the Plans for the Quarters identify locations Forward Guidelines will be put into practice for new open spaces, as well as , in line referring to Quarter Action improvements. Plans, insert word “open spaces” after “new”. 26. As two bedroom dwellings are the most Internal Accept. The justification for equivalent amounts Amend common in the city centre, the s.106 open Comment for 2 bedroom dwellings within the City Centre Following the statement “The total space contribution from two bedroom flats from Planning and across the city is accepted. amount will be calculated as in the city centre should be the same as Services The level of contributions are calculated using follows:-“, the costings will be the contribution in the Supplementary Workshop the average number of residents expected in changed to the following: Planning Guidance: Open Space in New dwellings with particular number of dwellings. Housing Developments. As this is slightly Houses and Flats higher than the level in the draft Guidelines, the level of contribution One-bedroom dwellings required from each dwellings with 1 £800 bedrooms, 3+ bedrooms and per student Two-bedroom dwellings bedspace should be increased to the £1065 same extent. Three-bedroom or more Dwellings £1365

Shared Housing £570 per bedspace MANAGEMENT, SECURITY AND PERMABILITY No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. Proposal 16 – No problem City Support for the Strategy No change required Estates 2. Proposal 17 Monaghan Contest No change required The report fails to mention CCTV I think housing adds a huge amount Partnership Proposal 17 deals specifically with of security in a City Centre and this can be demonstrated in many other street lighting and CCTV cities. Cameras do give security and I feel that more should be done on extending the CCTV system throughout all parts of the city. 3. Further development of surveillance cameras in the area could help to Cathedral Contest No change required secure the safety of its citizens (I did not see the subject of surveillance of St Marie See 2 above cameras mentioned in your document). 4. CCTV issues need to be addressed within this report. Internal Contest No change required comment See 2 above 5. Re 17 I think we should define the expectation, eg on all abutting Internal Contest No change required frontages and routes to necessary infrastructure (Open Space, shop, comment This would be too detailed for the school…?). Strategy and the requirements for each development should be determined during consideration of the planning application as dictated by its location, type, form etc 6. 4.8/P21 I fear this will be another deterrent to investment, could we Internal Contest No change required tone it down to ‘some locations’ and ‘may be expected’. comment Safety for residents and all users of the City Centre is a key issue. There are parts of the City Centre where lighting and CCTV are low quality or non- existent and it is appropriate for the development to include measures for their upgrading to an acceptable standard. 7. No problem City Support for the Strategy No change required Estates No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 8. I don’t think that we can enforce a management presence in all University Accept Amend developments catering for 30+ students as a condition of registration of Sheffield Delete this reference (page 21), bearing in mind that not all developers will want to register with us (and vice versa) and this isn’t consistent with our own practices in University owned/managed accommodation. Our stated aim is to provide a management presence by way of a Senior Resident in all properties with a 100+students. The design and lay-out of buildings has a key influence on behavioural standards and this is something that the planners need to look carefully at (particularly in relation to the size of individual flat units). PARKING AND CAR USE No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. Add ‘Availability and access to travel options” to the heading Internal Contest No change required comment This chapter relates solely to the issue of car and cycle parking for residential developments. 2. Account should also be taken of disabled parking needs and secure University Agree Amend to include reference to bicycle storage facilities on page 21. of Sheffield disabled parking provision 3. Sound proofing flats and nightclubs will not cure the problem of the Niche Not an issue for the Strategy No change required parking nightmare. All municipal car parks are renown thief’s Nightclub paradises so people will park as near as possible to the nightclubs in the hope that people passing will protect their cars. 4. Yes we are all for the regeneration of the City Centre as long as the Niche The UDP does not require the No change required strategy includes parking facilities for this abundance of new faces Nightclub provision of parking for new which are not students. residents. It is the decision of the developer whether to include parking as part of the development. 5. I agree that car parking should not be a stipulation and that schemes Monaghan Support for the Strategy. No change required without car parking should be allowed, this will be demand led. Partnership 6. Care should be taken when setting out proposals for reducing car University Contest No change required dependency. There will still be a need for personal travel to schools, of Sheffield This chapter relates solely to the countryside, hospitals etc. Car provision should be carefully issue of car and cycle parking for balanced with an appropriate traffic management system. residential developments. 7. Needs to mention quality links to major City Centre facilities Internal Agree Amend to include reference to especially cycle routes and public transport. comment The importance of easy access to links to this in Proposal 18 public transport and cycle facilities is a significant factor in the reduction in need for car parking as part of City Centre residential development. 8. You have a problem with access for cars and the need to control the Cathedral See 7 above No change required number of empty buses in the City Centre and at the same time of St Marie provide a transport system that will be popular. The system will need to ensure that while people can enjoy the centre of the city, the residents can also travel out to the open spaces around Sheffield. No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 9. The way that this section is currently worded, one could forgive a Sheffield 1 Contest No change required reader thinking the City Council was still anti-car. However, drafted a The Strategy points out the benefits different way it could be turned into a positive rather than a of travel options by being in the City negative/restrictive statement – we know that some people who will Centre. Parking for residents is not wish to live in the City Centre will also want to own a car – and we ruled out but this is normally at the are allowing for it! We could be seen to be flexible on this. expense of housing provision. The Council will accept developments with or without cars as this will be the developers choice, providing that this does not affect the form of a particular scheme. 10. Lets see more concentration on CCTV monitored car parks to Niche Not an issue for this Strategy No change required coincide with this massive surge of outsiders coming in who will Nightclub inevitably be behind motor vehicles. 11. Proposal 18 – No problem City Support for the Strategy No change required Estates 12. Proposal 19 Internal Agree Amend Proposal 19 to add “car Add ‘car share’ before the word ‘facility’ in the proposal. comment share” 13. Doesn’t read as a policy, the subject can only be deduced by Internal Agree Amend. Reword to follow reference to the text. comment agreed wordings for such a Guideline FUNDING No Comment Ref Assessment Proposed Action 1. Funding – Big tax breaks (last budget) – living over shops – include now Sheffied The Chapter was included at a Amend. Delete this Chapter Hallam time when there was a need to University investigate support for residential development in the City Centre. This is no longer the case and the Chapter is not needed. 2. S Delivery Sheffield 1 See 1 above See 1 above e There ought to be a section – how is it going to be implemented? We e need to make it clear that the vast majority of market provided in the City Centre will not require/be a priority for any public subsidy. There is no 1 PIP programme for housing and we need to make a bold step away from a grant culture. a b o v e