SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL Development, Environment and Leisure Directorate
REPORT TO WEST AND NORTH DATE 13/06/2006 PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS AREA BOARD
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM
SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN
THE BACKGROUND PAPERS ARE IN THE FILES IN RESPECT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS NUMBERED.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS
CLEARED BY
BACKGROUND PAPERS
CONTACT POINT FOR ACCESS Bob Turner TEL NO: 0114 2734183
AREA(S) AFFECTED
CATEGORY OF REPORT
OPEN
2
Application No. Location Page No.
05/03496/CHU 45 Middlewood Road, Sheffield, S6 4GW 5
05/04613/OUT Ucar Ltd Site, Beeley Wood Lane/Claywheels 10 Lane, Sheffield, S6 1NF,
06/00907/FUL 4 Maxwell Street, Sheffield, S4 7JN 51
06/01009/FUL 5 Floodgate Drive, Ecclesfield, Sheffield, S35 55 9WX
06/01034/FUL Site Of 14 Sussex Road, Chapeltown, Sheffield, 60 S35 2XQ
06/01120/CHU 285 Middlewood Road, Sheffield, S6 1TG 69
06/01134/FUL 151 Main Street, Grenoside, Sheffield, S35 8PN 73
06/01376/FUL 7 Creswick Lane, Grenoside, Sheffield, S35 8NL 78
06/01561/CHU Barnfield Rest Home, Loxley Road, Loxley, 83 Sheffield, S6 6RW
3 4 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
Report Of The Head Of Planning, Transport And Highways, Development, Environment And Leisure To The NORTH & WEST Planning And Highways Area Board Date Of Meeting: 13/06/2006
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION
*NOTE* Under the heading “Representations” a Brief Summary of Representations received up to a week before the Area Board date is given (later representations will be reported verbally). The main points only are given for ease of reference. The full letters are on the application file, which is available to members and the public and will be at the meeting.
Case Number 05/03496/CHU
Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use
Proposal Use of shop for the sale of takeaway hot food (A3 Class) (Application under Section 73 to vary condition 2 (opening hours) as imposed by planning permission 04/02373/CHU)
Location 45 Middlewood Road, Sheffield, S6 4GW
Date Received 02/09/2005
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Mr Kayton
Recommendation Grant Conditionally
Subject to:
1 The building shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted unless suitable apparatus for the arrestment and discharge of fumes or gases has been installed. Before such equipment is installed details thereof shall have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. After installation such equipment shall be retained and operated for the purpose for which it was installed.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining properties.
2 The building shall be used only between the hours of 0900 ¿ 0030 Monday to Thursday, 0900 and 0130 Fridays and Saturdays and 1700 ¿23.30 on Sundays and Bank Holidays
In the interest of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.
3 The building shall not be used for the extended hours of use hereby permitted unless a suitable scheme to protect occupiers of adjacent dwellings from noise has been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter provided and retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining properties.
4 The building shall not be used unless a suitable receptacle for the disposal of litter has been provided in a location in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality.
5 No emptying of bins/emptying of waste or deliveries or cleaning or other activity associated with the proposed use shall be carried out from the rear of the property after 23.00 hours on any day, unless other wise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.
Attention is drawn to the following justifications:
1. The decision to grant planning permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan set out below:
S10 - Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. This informative is intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Planning Records section on 2734220 or by visiting Sheffield City Councils website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/planning-boards
6
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an extension of opening hours of an existing hot food takeaway located on the ground floor of a two storey mid terrace property with a single residential flat. The site is located within the Hillsborough District shopping area. The application site is identified on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map as being within a district shopping area as defined in the UDP.
The Hot food takeaway currently benefits from opening hours between 0800 and 2300 hours Mondays to Thursday and between 0800 hours and 2330 hours on Fridays and Saturdays, with no opening on Sundays or bank holidays. Planning permission is sought to extended the opening hours of the ground floor hot food
7 takeaway Monday to Thursday 0800 hours to 0000 hours, Fridays and Saturdays 0800 hours to 0100 and Sundays and bank Holidays 1700 hours to 23.30 hours.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
02/01455/CHU - Use of shop for the sale of takeaway hot food (A3 Class) - Granted Conditionally
04/02373/CHU - Use of shop for the sale of takeaway hot food (A3 Class) (Application under Section 73 to vary condition (opening hours) imposed by planning permission 02/01455/CHU) – Granted Conditionally
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no letters of representation
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Protection Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions on hours of opening, noise attenuation measures between the ground floor and first floor unit and restriction on the use of outside areas.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The premises are situated within an allocated district shopping area. Policy S7 identifies preferred and acceptable uses of land within the policy area in this case food and drink outlets are acceptable, subject to the provisions of Policy S10, which controls development under 6 different criteria. The most relevant of these criteria states that development will be permitted provided it does not cause residents of any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer form unacceptable living conditions, including air pollution, noise, other nuisance or risk to health and safety and the development complies with policies for the built and green environment as appropriate.
Policy GE24 ‘Noise Pollution’ states that development will only be permitted where it would not, create noise levels which would cause a nuisance, or locate sensitive uses and sources of noise pollution close together.
The principle of the use is established by the previous consents on the site dating back to 2002 to operate a hot food takeaway from the premises. The building was used for the sale of cold sandwiches prior to the 2002 permission. An application was submitted in 2004 to vary a condition to allow later hours of opening, provided details of fume extraction and a scheme to protect the occupiers of adjacent dwellings form noise was submitted.
8
Highways Issues
The proposed extension of hours is not considered to give rise to any highway safety issues.
Amenity Issues
The application relates only to the ground floor of a two storey pitched roofed mid terraced property with residential accommodation at first floor level and to the rear of the site. The frontage along Middlewood Road is primarily commercial with a number of first floor flats. The land to the west is a housing area comprising of primarily terraced properties. There are a number of other takeaways in the locality with varying hours of use restrictions. The most recent permission granted within the District shopping at no. 287 Middlewood Road allowed hours of opening between 1700 and 0030 Monday to Thursday, 1700 and 0130 Friday and Saturday and 1700 and 0000 on Sundays. It is considered that in order to start to establish a clear and robust approach to proposals for new developments or variation and extension of opening hours for A3 and A5 uses, planning approvals and conditions relating to hours of use restrictions should be consistent. Therefore in this case slightly later hours of opening than requested by the applicants are considered acceptable consistent with 06/00115/FUL.
Environmental Protection services have objection to the proposed extension of hours provided adequate noise attenuation measures are implemented to minimise any impact on adjoining property. It is considered that the proposed extension of opening hours is a reasonable increase in bearing in mind the location of the shop in the heart of the Hillsborough district shopping centre.
Environmental Protection services have no record of complaints regarding noise and disturbance associated with the property or use.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The site is identified as being within a district shopping area, where food and drink uses can be acceptable subject to there impact living conditions of adjoining property.
The proposed extension of opening hours is not considered to be out of character with the function of a district shopping centre and subject to reasonable conditions will not lead to significant noise and disturbance that would be detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.
The development is therefore considered to accord with adopted Sheffield unitary development Plan Polices S7, S10 and GE24
9
Case Number 05/04613/OUT
Application Type Outline Planning Application
Proposal Residential Development for 550 dwellinghouses and flats with private and communal gardens - this application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement
Location Ucar Ltd Site, Beeley Wood Lane/Claywheels Lane, Sheffield, S6 1NF
Date Received 05/12/2005
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Cushman And Wakefield Healey And Baker
Recommendation Refuse
For the following reason(s):
1 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would result in the loss of industrial and business land causing harm to the economic development and employment opportunities of the city and the locality contrary to the aims of Policies IB1 and IB2, and contrary to Policies IB5 and IB9 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.
2 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would result in unsustainable residential development contrary to the Government's planning policy guidance contained in PPG3:Housing.
10
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
INTRODUCTION
This planning application relates to a proposal for residential development on part of the Claywheels Lane industrial estate.
Members will be aware that two planning applications have been submitted for developments on the Claywheels Lane industrial estate, one for residential development (application no. 05/04613/OUT) and one for business development and highway improvements (application no. 05/04623/FUL).
The application for business development and highway improvements was considered at the meeting of the Area Board held on 25 April 2006 when it was
11 resolved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and to the completion of a planning obligation (application no. 05/04623/FUL refers).
LOCATION
This planning application for residential use relates to land at the northwestern end of the Claywheels Lane industrial estate. The industrial estate lies off the A61 Penistone Road North in the Upper Don valley.
Claywheels Lane takes its primary access off the Penistone Road North just to the north of the Leppings Lane roundabout and serves an area of predominantly industrial land and premises to the west of Penistone Road North situated between the River Don and a railway line. Within this predominantly industrial area there are also some residential properties towards its eastern end and some areas of open space. There are trees alongside the river and there is woodland at the northwestern end of the industrial estate.
Beeley Wood Lane is a continuation of Claywheels Lane (beyond its junction with Limestone Cottage Lane) and which also runs through the woodland beyond the main industrial estate to serve an isolated group of industrial buildings at its northwestern end. Beyond the woodland to the west and southwest is Middlewood Road. There is currently no vehicular link between the northwest end of Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane and Middlewood Road.
This application site comprises approximately 17 hectares of land on a site known as the ‘UCAR’ site.
The site lies on a southwest facing hillside above the River Don. Its previous development has resulted in plateaux being cut into the hillside to provide level areas for industrial plant and buildings.
Of the 17 hectares of land on this site approximately 4 hectares is woodland within its southwest and northwest boundaries. The remainder of the site consists of several industrial buildings formerly occupied by the UCAR company. Some of buildings on the site have been demolished whilst others are vacant. Part of the site is being used for warehousing and open storage and dismantling industrial plant.
PROPOSAL
The proposal seeks outline planning permission for residential development of the site to provide 550 dwellings in a mix of two bedroom flats and houses to three and four bedroom houses with private and communal gardens. All matters of detail are reserved for subsequent approval. The various supporting documents submitted by the applicant provide illustrative information about their proposal.
The applicant has provided additional supporting information both with the application as originally submitted and also since its submission.
12 The following supporting documents have been submitted by the applicant; a planning statement, a housing statement, an employment land study, a statement of community involvement, a development report, a transport assessment, a supplementary highways report, a tree survey, a woodland ground flora survey, and an access statement. A draft planning obligation, an Environment Statement and a survey undertaken by the applicants have also been submitted.
The applicant’s planning statement describes the development as providing a 19/81% split between flats/houses and the houses being split 30% two-bedroom, 50% three-bedroom and 20% four bedroom. Their statement includes a plot being set aside near to the entrance of the UCAR site for use class A1 (shop),A3/A4 (eating/drinking establishments) with some potential for D2 uses (assembly and leisure) on the first floor to meet community needs.
The applicant has stated that the mix and size of the residential dwellings would be oriented towards larger accommodation, that the scheme would contain an appropriate level of affordable housing, that the timing of the development could be consistent with the delivery strategy for Housing Market Renewal in terms of marketing positioning, that phasing would limit the number the number of residential units developed per annum, that the aspirational housing associated with the application would be well ahead of anticipated values at Foxhill and Parsons Cross, and that the site would relate to Middlewood Road/Hillsborough and reflect a locally different market for buyers from the Foxhill/Parsons Cross area.
The applicant has also stated that the delivery of the employment aspects of their Claywheels Lane proposals requires enabling development at the former ‘UCAR’ site in the form of residential development to deliver further substantial funds into the Claywheels Lane area and elsewhere in the Upper Don Valley. The applicant’s have stated that they propose to phase the housing to allow the business and employment benefits to be delivered whilst delivering the majority of the housing at a time less critical to the delivery of the Housing Market Renewal strategy.
The applicant’s employment land study considers the supply, demand, take-up, location and development economics issues. The applicant’s study concludes that the supply of employment sites in Sheffield outstrips previous average take-up or independently predicted future demand, that there would be a variety of sites to meet demand having a competitive advantage over the UCAR site. It considers the historic allocation of the UCAR site for heavy employment use to be no longer justified in market, environmental or practical terms. It does not represent a favoured location for larger industrial users having no profile, poor access to the motorway, limited opportunities for cluster development, is contaminated, has long term dereliction and has received no real interest following extensive marketing. It considers the other sites on Claywheels Lane do have a realistic prospect of being developed. Moreover it considers the proposals for a sustainable community masterplan are not only desirable but are absolutely necessary if the comprehensive regeneration of Claywheels Lane is to be a success.
The transport assessment also contains illustrative layout drawings showing proposed highway improvements including a road bridge link to Middlewood Road
13 and sketch drawings of bridge designs. Additional information has also been submitted by the applicant that assesses the impact of the development traffic on the M1 motorway.
The applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement with this planning application that considers the cumulative impact of their proposals for this application and other developments on Claywheels Lane.
The applicant has submitted the results of a resident’s survey that the applicant has carried out. The applicant’s survey identifies 94 supporting responses out of 109 replies to the survey.
The applicant considers the benefits of their proposal to be;
- the road bridge and link opens up Claywheels Lane making it a through route, opening it up to the residential area to the west, enhancing the prospects of bringing forward employment use in the area; - the bridge link would take traffic away from the Hillsborough area consistent with the Local Transport Plan; - the road improvements and link would help support the A61 major scheme bid involving major transport improvement for Penistone Road; - the proposal will assist the Yorkshire Bus Project by creating better links between two arterial routes into Sheffield; - the potential for public transport improvements to Claywheels Lane, enhancing accessibility consistent with the Local Transport Plan; - the environmental improvements to Claywheels Lane together with the introduction of key services will transform a largely derelict and underused area into a modern working/living environment, a major regenerative proposal; - initial £33m investment in infrastructure and employment uses underpinned by residential on UCAR will create 660 direct jobs at UCAR and act as a lever for a further 600 jobs on other derelict and under-utilised sites at Claywheels; - the infrastructure and proposals for the UDV Regeneration Fund will crystalise the opportunity for up to 10,000 jobs in the UDV over the next 10 years; - the comprehensive proposals unlock and create a value shift affording the opportunity to landowners of clearing up and developing other sites; - attract further private sector investment into the Upper Don Valley in short time; - the development of differentially higher priced residential scheme at Beeley Wood will attract inwardly locating professionals to Sheffield and enhance its economic prospects for growth in the professional and management sector; - the immediate regeneration at Claywheels and the impact of the funding proposals in the UDV will act as a anchor to the Housing Market Renewal initiative.
The applicant initially submitted a draft planning obligation to secure investment into the Upper Don Valley and other contributions required by the development. Their document included the following;
14 - the developer covenants;
- not to allow any dwellings to be occupied until the earlier of 1 May 2010 and the date when 75% of the dwellings to be constructed/refurbished pursuant to the Foxhills HMR programme have been occupied; - to completed the bridge and infrastructure works and 60,000 sq ft of the commercial floorspace by no later than 31 December 2008; - to complete a total of 90,000 sq ft of the commercial floorspace by no later than 31 December 2009; - to complete a total of 120,000 sq ft of the commercial floorspace by no later than 31 December 2010; - following completion of the first 50,000 sq ft of commercial floorspace to maintain 15,000 sq ft of the commercial floorspace on a speculative basis until all of the commercial floorspace has been let or sold; - to use reasonable endeavours to market/let/dispose of the employment space at market rates and to consult the Council on its proposed marketing strategy.
- to;
- provide a bond (£4m) upon the implementation of the development; - to pay the sum of £1 million into the Upper Don Valley Regeneration Fund upon the implementation of the development; - to pay the sum of £2.5 million into the Upper Don Valley Regeneration Fund by no later than 31 December 2006 whereupon the bond shall be reduced to £1.5 million; - to pay the sum of £1.5 million into the Upper Don Valley Regeneration Fund by no later than 31 December 2010 whereupon the bond shall be released. - to provide affordable housing the need, form, tenure and phasing to be discussed. - to carry out the following public realm works; - upgrading the finishes and materials for kerbing and pavements; - additional bus stops and seating enclosures; - additional planting and landscaping; - enhancements to street furniture and public art; - improved finishes and ornamentation to road and pedestrian bridges; - improvements to lighting and security on Black Path (a footpath alongside Winn Gardens); - provision for security camera monitoring in conjunction with police; - new fishing stations on the River Don; - enhancements to riverside walk; - upgrading lighting and ornamentation of street lamps; - improved signage entrance to Claywheels from both Middlewood and Penistone Road; - woodland walk and nature trail contributions and signage.
- to pay the riverside walk contribution upon completion of an unspecified number of dwellings;
15 - to enter into the Beeley Wood Ancient Woodland Management Plan upon completion of an unspecified number of dwellings; - in the event that any monies paid have not been spent within 5 years of completion of the development the Council shall repay those monies.
More recently in May 2006 the applicant has submitted additional information regarding the regeneration implications, residential delivery and sustainability issues including a reconsideration of their planning obligation.
The applicants have stated that; - their proposed planning obligation and fund proposals were made on the pre-condition that £5m was secured from ERDF funding through Objective 1 which they now understand is not sufficiently related to the impact of the development; - to address this the applicant would give up their application for the £5m of ERDF funding enabling the Council to apply the ERDF funding to other preferred projects elsewhere in the valley or Sheffield. There would be a collective benefit if it were applied towards the infrastructure for the 100,000sq ft business park at Parkwood Springs which could assist in delivering Snow Mountain; - the Beeley Wood Sustainable Community project would deliver the infrastructure, further land acquisitions and job outputs.
The applicants revised planning obligation offers firstly;
- transfer benefit of £5m ERDF application funds to other projects in the Upper Don Valley or Sheffield’s preferred list of projects; - acquire Airflow and United Crane sites into UDR (Beeley Wood) Limited; - deliver all infrastructure at Claywheels including the road bridge, pedestrian bridge, highway junctions and utilities as contained in the ERDF application; - initially to build speculatively 15,000 sq ft on the Airflow site; - once this is let or sold, to build a further 15,000 sq ft speculatively, and then have a rolling programme of development of business space when all but 10,000sq ft of space is let/sold, and progress the next 15,000 sq ft on a speculative basis and carry this approach forward until all the space is let or sold; - to make a detailed planning application for the development of the United Crane site by 1 April 2007; - at all times use reasonable endeavours to market/let/dispose of the employment space at market rates. To this extent the applicant proposes a strategy for marketing in consultation with the Council to be reviewed bi- annually; - to engage with other landowners in Claywheels including Martin Hague and the Duke of Norfolk to masterplan with the Council the development of their sites.
The applicants consider that the commitment to the Airflow and United Crane sites together with infrastructure and some speculative build would give the Council confidence that the regeneration project has been brought forward with the ultimate aim of 120,000 sq ft of employment space being delivered subject to market
16 demand, thus creating up to 660 jobs which reflects a front-ended financial commitment to infrastructure and employment works of up to £33m without grant support.
Secondly, the applicant is committing to the remediation of both the United Crane site and the UCAR site, along with the physical enhancements to the environment including;
- upgrading the finishes and materials for kerbing and pavements; - additional bus stops and seating enclosures; - additional planting and landscaping; - enhancements to street furniture and public art; - improved finishes and ornamentation to road and pedestrian bridges; - improvements to lighting and security on Black Path (a footpath alongside Winn Gardens); - provision for security camera monitoring in conjunction with police; - new fishing stations on the River Don; - enhancements to riverside walk; - upgrading lighting and ornamentation of street lamps; - improved signage entrance to Claywheels from both Middlewood and Penistone Road; - woodland walk and nature trail contributions and signage.
In respect of residential delivery the applicants have stated that they wish to agree that first occupation of the residential units would be from 1st May 2010 (or 1st April 2011 if necessary) onwards or at a time where 75% of the Foxhills HMR programme is occupied whichever is the earlier.
In terms of sustainability the applicants have stated that there is 5,000 sq ft allocated on the UCAR site for a convenience shop, public house and restaurant. The applicant is willing to accept a condition that this is built and ready for occupation prior to 75% occupancy of the residential on UCAR.
The applicant has also stated an aim to work with landowners on a masterplan for Claywheels to bring other sites into beneficial use with the uses suggested being a large convenience store, a dentist unit, retail units, restaurants/takeaways, nursery, public house, sheltered housing or employment uses. Which would be a valuable convenience resource for residents of Beeley Wood, Wadsley Park and Winn Gardens.
The applicant has stated a willingness to set up a working group for the Upper Don Valley with the Council which would apply the funding resources and possibly invest in other major regeneration nodes in the Upper Don Valley.
RELIVANT PLANNING HISTORY
In April 2006 planning permission involving land alongside Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane was granted subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory planning obligation for (a) full planning permission for the redevelopment of the ‘Airflow’ site for employment use (within use class B1)
17 comprising 36 small units covering a total of 7,504.6 sq metres, and (b) outline planning permission for highway improvements to the Beeley Wood Lane/Claywheels Lane and its junction with Penistone Road North, for the construction for a bridge link between Beeley Wood Lane and Middlewood Road, and for the redevelopment of the ‘United Crane’ site for employment use (within use class B1) for 5,700 sq metres of floorspace (application no. 05/04623/FUL refers).
Several applications were submitted for industrial buildings and extensions up to the mid 1990’s in connection with the previous industrial use of the site.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
Members will be updated at the meeting of the Board of any additional representations.
3 petitions have been received, 2 objecting to the proposal and 1 supporting the proposal.
The first petition containing 115 signatures objects to a bridge over the river from the black path and a road bridge at the end of the park;
The second petition containing 18 signatures objects to a bridge direct from Claywheels Lane onto Winn Gardens estate;
The third petition containing 74 signatures supports the planning application and raises the following matters;
- say no to bad industry, no to more noisy polluting business; - say yes to investment, cleaning up the area and the environment, and positively impacting on local area; - the Upper Don valley and Winn Gardens is not a dumping ground for dirty industry; - want fresh air, a pleasant atmosphere, a clean river; - don’t want tilt hammer, smoking chimneys, constant lorries and air being filled with noise and filth, fly tipping.
17 letters of objection have been received relating to the following matters including one letter signed by 7 residents and one letter on behalf of 5 properties;
- in principle the site needs regeneration but avoids issues such as drastically reduced road safety, increased noise, light and air pollution, destruction of wildlife haven, increased road congestion, health and safety accountability and other environmental concerns; - was the financial viability of the regeneration of the Upper Don Valley examined rigorously, alternative public transport systems could be considered, extend tram to Deepcar; - review traffic chaos and bottlenecks around Middlewood and Hillsborough; - lack of assessment of impact of traffic on trunk road network, lack of significant improvements to theA61/Leppings Lane roundabout, lack of
18 sensitivity tests on junction design, traffic assignment to south flawed, residential trip rates underestimated, travel plan is weak, public transport to the proposed development is likely to be weak or non-existent, parking spaces exceed standards, transport assessment does not take account of development at the ski village, queuing figures unrealistically low; - concern about access arrangements, no detailed proposals of the carriageway works, relocates rather than alleviates congestion, the new route would make it a viable alternative to Penistone Road particularly at rush hour; - there has been enough housing imposed on this area, the number of dwellings could be reduced to reflect the surrounding area, should be a mixture of affordable housing and sheltered housing for older people; - any development must be with condition that facilities for the communities are included and provided, existing facilities should be helped, health needs careful consideration; - impact on local schools many are over subscribed, new classrooms and facilities should be paid for and supported by the developers; - noise; - significant increase in traffic predicted up to 544%will effect air quality, noise intrusion and lack of mitigation to overcome the effects of the increase in traffic upon residents, a bridge to Middlewood Road would increase traffic such that the road safety would be compromised; - the bridge is close to housing and a park, a bridge is not acceptable in this location, the option of not installing a bridge has not been explored, improved transportation routes could be created near Halifax Road that would not effect the local community; - there have been several accidents in Claywheels Lane in the past, additional traffic will contribute to more accidents; - Middlewood Road is busy, it has a history of accidents, will increase strain on bad bend just north of Middlewood Tavern, local residents have campaigned to reduce road speed limit and traffic congestion and although not ideal have seen improvements on Middlewood Road North, the bridge would create a bottleneck especially at rush hour and endanger local families, safety for pedestrians is paramount, there is no pedestrian crossing on Middlewood Road North, restrict speed limit to 30mph, concern as to where near by residents would park, parking bays instead for grass verge should be made for residents, traffic lights would restrict local ambulance stations access to the local community; - currently there is little traffic on Claywheels Lane during the weekend and bank holidays; additional traffic and congestion increases air pollution causing ill health to local residents, noise pollution would increase in the local area due to building of the bridge, increase litter and debris form pedestrians and vehicles, impact of additional traffic on the quality of life of residents of Beeley Wood Road has not been considered, impact of construction traffic; - overspill car park is needed at the Supertram Park and Ride; - concern that during the build and after Hagg Hill a single track road that already carries enough traffic will be used; - visual impact may detract from the rural feel of the area;
19 - impact on ancient and mature woodland form new road bridge link, road widening, building dense housing adjacent to ancient woodland, no information age of trees that may be affected; - Beeley Wood is a sanctuary for a wildlife and used for walking, the bridge will have a visual and noise impact on the river environment, cause destruction to wildlife and wildlife habitat, loss of mature trees, loss of ancient woodland, destroy many trees, blight the landscape and disrupt fishing, the environmental report is not accurate, how would wildlife be protected, how many trees be cut down, loss of at least 50 trees, no removal of any trees from Beeley Woods should be allowed, the river banks should be untouched, loss of ground flora and woodland habitat, create long term gap in green corridor, departure to UDP policies, loss of amenity used by public for recreation; - potential pollution of water courses, river water levels rise by over 2 metres during winter months with debris washed down the river, a bridge with stilts could create a dam effect increasing the chance of local flooding, infection and hazard to children; - road bridge is too near the park; - a bridge raises security concerns for residents, a footbridge near the river will be a danger to children’s safety, could it be placed within the Park and Ride car park; - building housing in potential flood areas; - houses should be no higher than three storeys, no tower blocks or high rise structure should be considered; - concern that homes would be affected by ‘Gateway’ site.
The Sheffield Wildlife Trust has commented on the following matters; - concerned at impact on an Area of Natural History Interest; - water quality of the River Don has improved vastly and supports wildlife; - the road bridge and road widening will have a significant impact on the ancient woodland, loss of several mature trees and damage to ground flora, potential barrier to movement of wildlife, bridge design and tree loss information should be made available to fully assess impact, ancient woodland cannot be replaced; - residential development will have a significant impact on Beeley Wood and River Don corridor in terms of recreational use, dogs, cats and litter, little detail on mitigation, grassland buffer zone should include woodland edge/scrub habitat; - the development could bring about a number of positive ecological and environmental improvements to the local area such as new habitats in public and communal gardens and spaces, green roofs for some of the buildings, recycling grey water, sustainable urban drainage systems, bat and bird boxes.
Bradfield Parish Council observations are:
- the Parish Council is concerned re loss of Green Belt to construct the bridge, however recommends approval in principle;
20 - the Parish Council notes that the construction of the bridge to Middlewood Road would be against the Green Belt policy but approves both the residential and industrial development in principle; - infrastructure and traffic management problems the development would create would need to be addressed.
The Area Co-ordinator of the Netherthorpe, Housing and Walkley Area Panel has made the following comments;
- Claywheels Lane is a huge undeveloped resource and in some senses any development which makes better use of the land is to be welcomed especially as it links in with plans to improve the ski village, however the land is not designated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan, overturning the UDP could set a dangerous president and remove potentially job-creating industrial/commercial land from that area; - effects of development on Housing Market Renewal in North Sheffield need to be taken into account; - in principle the new road bridge could have a very high impact on traffic passing through Hillsborough and unlock Claywheels Lane but account needs to be taken of environmental impact, there is opposition to the road bridge by some Winn Gardens residents; - the proposed development is at risk of being isolated and if approved must include community facilities and need to prove itself to be sustainable; - the impact on traffic levels and school provision needs to be examined.
A letter of objection and comment has been received form Councillor J. G. Harston relating to the following matters;
- the Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane corridor is identified in the Unitary Development Plan for general and industrial use, in reviewing the UDF to produce the Strategic Planning Framework local councillors and the three area panels are working on the Upper Don Valley Physical Regeneration Strategy and the consensus emerging is that the corridors use should remain focused on non-residential use; - the Claywheels Lane corridor forms a strategic part of the Upper Don Valley corridor, allowing residential development on Beeley Wood Lane damages a valuable industrial and employment hub, as Beeley Wood Lane is a cul-de- sac residential use at the far end of the corridor at the Penistone Road end; - overturning UDP designation could set a dangerous president as well as removing potentially job creating industrial/commercial land from the area , a large development immediately adjacent to a Housing Market renewal area is likely to adversely affect the outcome of the renewal programme; - there is opposition from Winn Gardens residents to the pedestrian bridge linking to the Supertram stop, the footbridge should link directly with the tram terminus and not have access directly from it to Winn Gardens; - there is also opposition to a footpath alongside the river on the Winn Gardens side, it would be preferable if the riverside walk was on the eastern side of the river, if not then preventing direct access between the footpath and Winn Gardens should be investigated;
21 - no objection to a new road bridge over the Don somewhere in this area, it is vital if the overuse of Middlewood Road/Langsett Road corridor for through traffic to be ameliorated, it will help unlock the Claywheels Lane site, however the bridge is of the wrong design and possibly the wrong location, there is opposition to the bridge by some Winn Gardens’ residents though this is more on the closeness than the bridge itself, the road bridge should be built as far north of Middlewood Park as possible, bridge must be constructed and aligned such that southbound traffic naturally filters into the bypass formed by the link, the proposed bridge does not do this, any bridge works must accommodate future widening to two lanes in each direction.
4 letters of support relating to the following matters;
- the benefits far outweigh any obstacles; - no-one has or possibly will have again the financial package and knowledge that is required for such a huge undertaking; - find it confusing as to why these two housing projects at Foxhill and Beeley Wood cannot work together side-by-side in compromise to regenerate the Claywheels and Foxhill areas; - Winn co-exists with its neighbours and are making great strides to build bridges with new arrivals; - the proposal to include a footbridge will enhance the Winn estate giving access to employment opportunities, shorten journey to Chaucer school, safer walk; - do not want the types of dirty industry this site has seen in the past, industry in the valley will equally impact on HMR pathfinder plans for Foxhill and the desirability of the housing in addition to the well being and quality of life of those who live in the valley; - deflect heavy congestion currently a hazard on Middlewood Road for children attending primary school; - the concerns regarding wildlife are unfounded; - re-routed traffic would not cause any further congestion; - the new measures will not incur any new risk to children.
A letter has been received from David Blunkett MP;
- do not believe that with whatever suitable amendments two projects cannot co-exist side-by-side; overriding interest in making sure we get it right as part of the wider plan; - interest in ensuring that where there is an opportunity to take forward substantial investment and development we do not miss it.
The applicant has also submitted a Statement of Community Involvement setting out the pre-application consultations carried out by them prior to the submission of the application. This included meetings held by the applicant with the Netherthorpe/ Walkley/Hillsborough, Owlerton/Southey Green and North Area Panels, local residents and residents groups, local businesses and landowners. The applicant considered the general response to the consultation to be favourable. The applicant states that amendments were subsequently made to their proposals as a result of feedback from the meetings prior to the application being submitted.
22
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The Upper Don Valley, is one of the four priority economic regeneration zones in the City (the others being the Lower Don Valley, the City Centre and Central Riverside). The Upper Don Valley is also part of the Objective One Strategic Economic Zone for the South Yorkshire Technology Corridor. Regeneration of the Valley is a high priority for the Council’s regeneration strategy for the City.
It is acknowledged that there have been significant changes in the employment land market, which, in the light of guidance in PPG3 on the reuse of surplus employment land, does require a reconsideration of the future needs for employment land in the City. With this in mind, the City Council has recently received advice from consultants as to the future demand for employment land in the City. This indicates that overall, the City needs to continue to provide a healthy supply of different types of employment land in a number of locations throughout the City but that the overall amount of land required may be less than that currently identified.
It is also acknowledged therefore that there may be circumstances where other regeneration benefits may outweigh the need to retain employment sites under current policy. These issues are considered later in this report.
Policy Issues
Government Policy Guidance
The Government’s planning policy guidance on housing is contained in PPG3. Amongst other matters PPG3 includes that Local Planning Authorities should provide sufficient housing land but give priority to re-using previously developed sites within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites, should create more sustainable patterns of development by building in ways which exploit and deliver accessibility by public transport to jobs, education and health facilities, shopping, leisure and local services and should make more efficient use of land.
PPG3 states that it is important to help create mixed and inclusive communities which offer a choice of housing and lifestyle. Local Authorities should take account of assessments of local housing need in determining the type, size and affordability of additional housing for which they should plan.
PPG3 requires Local Authorities to demonstrate that there is a realistic prospect of employment allocations being taken up for the stated use in the plan period preferably through an up to date review of employment land. It states that Local Authorities should consider favourably planning applications for housing or mixed use developments which concern land allocated for industrial or commercial use in development plan documents but which is no longer needed for such use unless the proposal fails to reflect other PPG3 policies, or it undermines the planning for housing strategy, or that there is a realistic prospect of the allocation being taken
23 up for its stated use or that its development would undermine regional and local strategies for economic development and regeneration.
PPS1 relates to delivering sustainable development and states that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development by making suitable land available for development in line with economic social and environmental objectives, contributing to sustainable economic development, protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, ensuring high quality development and that development supports existing communities.
The Government’s planning policy advice note PPS9 includes guidance relating to ancient woodlands and other important natural habitats.
PPG17 provides guidance on planning for open space, sport and recreation including assessing needs and maintaining an adequate supply of open space, sports and recreation facilities.
PPG4 provides Government guidance on industrial and commercial development and small firms. It puts emphasis on the need for development plans to take account of both the locational demands of business and wider environmental objectives, emphasising how local authorities can help small firms through the planning system, and stresses that careful consideration should be given to whether proposals for new development may be incompatible with existing industrial and commercial activities.
The Unitary Development Plan
The Council’s Sheffield Unitary Development Plan identifies the Claywheels Lane industrial estate as being predominantly part of a General Industrial Area, with a Fringe Industry and Business Area at its Penistone Road North end and with some Open Space Areas within and alongside the industrial estate.
Penistone Road North is identified in the UDP as being part of the strategic road network.
Beyond the industrial estate to the northwest, the strip of land between Middlewood Road and Beeley Wood Lane is identified in the UDP as part of the Green Belt. The Green Belt in this location extends down to and includes Middlewood Park.
The UDP also identifies part of the woodland to the northwestern end of the industrial estate and on the riverside as an Area of Natural History Interest.
The River Don is part of the green network identified in the UDP. To the north of Claywheels Lane the network is described as a green corridor whilst to the south of Beeley Wood Lane it is described as a green link.
This planning application site is identified by the UDP as being within the General Industrial Area.
24 Policy IB5 of the UDP states that within General Industrial Areas development proposals for housing are unacceptable. The UDP explains that houses are not allowed as living conditions would generally not be satisfactory for living there permanently. The proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site is a departure from Policy IB5 of the UDP.
Policy IB9 of the UDP relates to conditions on development in industry and business areas including matters of dominance, amenity, design and highway safety. The amenity matters include not permitting development that would discourage new industry and business development.
Policy IB11 relates to housing and residential institutions in industry and business areas and includes criteria whereby any new residential development in industry and business areas should be located next to existing residential areas and that residents would not suffer unacceptable living conditions.
Policies IB1 and IB2 of the UDP promote employment and economic development. Policy IB4 seeks to ensure that there will be enough readily available land for industry and business for the next 5 years.
The nearest existing residential areas to the ‘UCAR’ site are at Winn Gardens, at Wadsley Park Village on the former Middlewood hospital site, and on both sides of Middlewood Road. These existing residential areas are separated from the application site by the River Don, industrial land and buildings, woodland and by the Green Belt. The proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site would not be located next to an existing residential area and would be contrary to Policy IB11 of the UDP.
The housing policies of the UDP include Policy H4 relating to housing for people on low incomes which when a need is identified encourages the provision of affordable housing as a proportion of large housing schemes. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing provides guidance on the application of this policy including where there is a need negotiating a level of affordable housing in the range 5-20%.
Policy H16 of the UDP relates to open space for new housing developments and requires developers to ensure that there would be sufficient open space to meet the local needs of people living there. Policy H17 encourages the provision of a proportion of mobility housing to meet local needs in all new housing development.
The Upper Don Valley Area Study
Since the adoption of the UDP, Yorkshire Forward in consultation with the Council commissioned a multi-disciplinary study of the Upper Don Valley which identified a number of proposals that would contribute to the regeneration of the valley which was welcomed by Cabinet at their meeting in November 2003. A more detailed masterplan for the Upper Don Valley physical regeneration strategy is also currently being prepared by consultants on behalf of the Council.
25 The Upper Don Valley Area Study identified several proposals for the Claywheels Lane Sub-Area including that the industrial area should remain in predominantly business and industry use, however, to transform it into a modern vibrant industrial estate it would require (re)development of 27 hectares of unused/underused sites, access improvements including amongst other schemes modifications to the Penistone Road North junction to allow all vehicle turning movements, a new road bridge crossing linking the park and ride at Middlewood to Claywheels Lane, the diversion of buses through the industrial estate, and image and management improvements.
Improving highway access was assessed as the key to enhancing the attractiveness of Claywheels Lane to developers and businesses.
The Plan For Travel in the Upper Don Valley
Following the Upper Don Valley Area Study a detailed multi-modal transport study of the Upper Don valley was progressed. The delivery of new floorspace, jobs and available industrial land was seen as significant to accommodate businesses which wish to relocate, to enable diversification of land uses to occur elsewhere in the valley, and to enable other regeneration schemes in the city.
The Plan For Travel in the Upper Don Valley Report commissioned by the Council and approved by Cabinet in October 2004 undertook a transportation study to identify and address issues facing local communities in accessing employment sites within the Upper Don valley.
The Plan For Travel Report recommendations include improving accessibility by road to Claywheels Lane by providing, amongst other initiatives, a new vehicular link bridging over the River Don connecting Middlewood Road to Claywheels Lane, new junction arrangements with the A61 offering strategic benefits to relieve congestion at the Catch Bar Lane gyratory and at the Leppings Lane roundabout, and creating a through route along Claywheels Lane. The Plan For Travel Report considered six locations for the bridge link location and identified the preferred location based on an initial analysis and subject to environmental planning review process to be approximately 270 metres south of Stockarth Lane in a location just north of Middlewood Park.
Objective 1
The site is also located within the Objective 1 M1 Corridor Strategic Economic Zone (SEZ).
Highway and Transportation Issues
Outline proposals for highway improvements on Claywheels Lane including junction improvements at the A61, road widening and a bridge link to Middlewood Road forming part of a separate planning application to provide business units on two sites on the Claywheels Lane industrial estate were considered at the meeting of the Board held in April 2006 when Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement.
26
This current planning application for residential development does not include those highway improvements within its proposal but does envisage those highway improvements being carried out.
The Environment Statement submitted with the planning application has considered the cumulative impact of development on the transport issue. The Environment Statement considers that the significance of the changes in traffic flow varies across the highway network. It considers the key issues to be; that traffic levels on Claywheels Lane in 2012 will be significantly higher; that the significance of these flows is counterbalanced since Claywheels Lane replaces Middlewood Road as the main through route between Middlewood Road North and the A61; that the positive impacts outweighing the negative impacts; that the predicted reduction in traffic on Middlewood Road south of the junction of the proposed bridge link, and on the Catch Bar Lane gyratory and between Parkside Road and the A61 is significant with benefits of reducing traffic levels at a congestion hotspot, providing better local access and a safer environment; and that traffic on the A61 will increase with additional re-assigned traffic and the proposed development traffic adding to an already saturated section of the network.
In mitigation to the impact of the development, the Environment Statement proposes measures including proposed highway improvements which will enable further mitigation measures such as diverting bus services along Claywheels Lane. New public transport links to Hillsborough, northern General Hospital, the city centre and destinations to the north and west of Sheffield are identified as are extending community bus services. Improving the existing vehicular access and providing a new point of access to Claywheels Lane will help off-set the impacts of traffic generation and create a new strategic route for through traffic significantly reducing traffic on Middlewood Road and the Catch Bar gyratory. An all movements signal controlled junction is proposed at the A61 junction with Claywheels Lane. The bridge link will offer an alternative route for vehicles accessing the site which will assist in relieving some of the traffic impacts on the A61 junction and offers a more direct route to the northwest and west of Claywheels Lane. Creating a through route along Claywheels Lane is likely to contribute to an improved corridor for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport on Middlewood Road. A travel plan would encourage sustainable means of transport for journeys to and from the site.
The ‘UCAR’ site is currently accessed off Claywheels Lane for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The nearest bus stops are on Penistone Road North at the eastern end of Claywheels Lane. There are no direct links at present from Claywheels Lane to the bus stops or tram terminus on Middlewood Road.
The A61 links the Claywheels Lane industrial estate to the M1 motorway at junction 36, and via the soon to be completed Inner Relief Road towards junctions 34 and 33. It is considered that the existing transport infrastructure within the Upper Don valley surrounding Claywheels Lane, and serving the local community, is incapable of sustaining significant levels of development without improvements.
27 The capacity of the Claywheels Lane junction with Penistone Road North is largely constrained by the performance of the Leppings Lane roundabout and the signals at the junction of Foxhill Road with Halifax Road. During the peak periods, these two junctions currently accommodate a significant volume of traffic, with priority afforded to the north/south radial route to and from the city centre. The Leppings Lane roundabout in particular runs at over capacity during the busy commuter periods. As a consequence of priorities afforded with the signal settings, very little green time is allocated to movements out of Claywheels Lane.
Under the current regime, (re)development of the underdeveloped sites on Claywheels Lane generating significant traffic would create extensive queuing along Claywheels Lane during the evening peak. Entry to the area is currently restricted to a left slip road off Penistone Road North (northbound) into Beeley Wood Road.
A second semi rural route exists via Foxhill Road, although this route is considered to be an inappropriate option given the restricted carriageway widths, hairpin bends and steep gradients on this route.
Traffic between the development site and the road to and from the Stocksbridge direction on the A6102 Middlewood Road currently has to traverse the Catch Bar Lane gyratory with Leppings Lane which also accommodates the tram and has a school situated on an island in the middle. The junction currently runs at capacity during peak periods and will be further pressurised by the continued residential development on the site of the former Middlewood hospital. All vehicular movements from the A6102 to the A61 and vice versa currently pass through the Catch Bar Lane gyratory. Additional traffic associated with development in the Upper Don valley will further compound the situation, adding to queues and delays.
Claywheels Lane is a long cul-de-sac. The River Don severs any links to Middlewood Road which leaves the site isolated from large communities such as Hillsborough, Loxley and Wisewood. The lack of passing traffic along Claywheels Lane and poor access from Penistone Road North into the site is seen as significant factors behind the lack of developer activity. The site is currently practically impossible to access by public transport, cycling or walking.
The key to maximising development opportunities along Claywheels Lane is to unlock some of the congestion and to develop a socially inclusive transport strategy.
The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has commented that;
- they generally encourage new industrial developments to be located close to the existing public transport network and in instances where developments are sited away from these areas developers are expected to contribute towards service provision to enable the core public transport network to be accessed to align with employees shift patterns; - the provision of the bridge is paramount to allow bus services to penetrate the site effectively, junction improvements to allow a right turn into Claywheels Lane are equally essential, and that this element of the
28 application should be completed in advance of the industrial units (this is not a view shared by the Council’s Transport Officers); - minimum parking provision is expected with alternative modes encouraged through a travel plan; - whilst the proposals for a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Don to allow access to the Middlewood Park and Ride facility are encouraged parts of the site would still be outside the desired 400 metre walking distance from bus services and 600 metre walking distance from the tram service; - for the site to be within walking distance of public transport service route diversions would have to be considered with further consultation with bus operators and the SYPTE to establish the feasibility of such service amendments; - the scope for route amendments is limited as services operating past the site from Stocksbridge are currently running to their optimum levels with current journey times into the city centre at maximum levels and it is extremely unlikely these services would penetrate into the site. The SYPTE would be prepared to investigate the potential re-routing of the 17 or 87 services which potentially could access from the northern edge of the site and exit via Middlewood Road although these amendments would be dependant on the construction of the bridge between Middlewood Road and Claywheels Lane and additional improvements to the access road to the northern edge of the site.
The SYPTE’s comment that the provision of the road bridge and junction improvements to Claywheels Lane in advance of the occupation of the industrial units is not a view shared by the Council’s Transport Officers.
Policies T1 and T2 of the UDP seek to promote public transport usage, especially journeys to work (and to school). Policies T7, T8 and T10 seek to promote walking and cycling as alternatives to car travel by providing better facilities to make them safe and more attractive activities.
In terms of walking and cycling, National Cycle Network (route number 6) will pass through the site and out towards Oughtibridge, Whancliffe Woods & Penistone, with a spur to Deepcar and Stocksbridge. The development will provide a riverside cycle/walkway, with a connection over the River Don plugging into the Supertram Park & Ride site. A vehicular bridge further north would connect Clay Wheels Lane to Middlewood Road, in the form of a set of traffic lights with “push-button” pedestrian crossing facilities.
In terms of public transport, the SYPTE have commented on the possibility of existing services 17 and 87 deflecting along/into Clay Wheels Lane, but that there appears to be little other scope for existing services to penetrate the site owing to timetabling difficulties.
An issue that has not been addressed within the submission are school trips. The development would consist of 550 dwellings (mainly family accommodation). Schools currently attracting pupils from this area are: Bradfield, Oughtibridge, Marlcliffe, Wisewood, Meynell, Chaucer, Fox Hill and Hillsborough Junior & Infants.
29 Whilst a “Walking Bus” might be an option for Marlcliffe, a further study is required to be undertaken by the developer (which can be a condition of planning consent), that assesses multi-modal accessibility to local schools and employment sites. The study will consider contributions towards service provision (including refinement of existing services and/or provision of new services) for a period of time to be agreed, and by a certain trigger of occupation of the site, to be agreed. The concern at the moment (and the issue to be addressed by the study) is that if no alternative is offered to the private car, congestion in the vicinity of local schools will worsen, endangering the safety of children. The second strand of the developers study will be to examine the accident records in the vicinity of the local schools, and to consider whether mitigation measures are justified. The study should have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration prior to the construction of any dwellings, with actions emanating from the study provided in accordance with an agreed phasing.
The Local Transport Plan LTP2 prepared by Authorities in South Yorkshire for 2006-2011 includes the A61 Penistone Road/Upper Don Valley Quality Bus Corridor road scheme which includes a new bridge linking the key Objective 1 development cluster on Claywheels Lane to the A61 and the Middlewood Road, improving accessibility to Stocksbridge and Penistone, enabling the removal of through traffic from Leppings Lane and subsequent reallocation of space to public transport vehicles (tram and buses), pedestrians and cyclists.
The location proposed for the bridge was the subject of fairly extensive consideration within the Plan For Travel in the Upper Don Valley Study. The report recommended that creating a through route along Claywheels Lane increases the visibility of the SEZ area and contributes to an improved corridor for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport on Middlewood Road by removing through traffic.
The option preferred by the Plan For Travel (which coincides with the red-lined boundary of the planning application) clearly has potential negative environmental implications in terms of the potential impact on woodland and ecology. These negative impacts need to be weighed against the positive environmental implications accrued by reassigning through traffic away from Catch Bar Lane, the school, bus and tram operations.
Without the bridge link, it would not be possible from a highways perspective to support any major redevelopment along Claywheels Lane owing to the impact of development traffic on the Catch Bar Lane area. The site would also be inaccessible by public transport, and walking and cycling along a lengthy cul-de- sac would be a far from attractive proposition.
With regard to the road bridge, in order to minimise removal of woodland, the width of the bridge needs to be minimised and this would obviate the provision of dedicated cycle lanes or a cycle track on the bridge itself. However cycle lanes and advanced stop lines at signals, plus advisory cycle lanes (or an off- carriageway pedestrian/cycle route) could be provided on the remainder of the cross-river route, and through any proposed junction on the A61. The worst-case scenario for the woodland would be a general carriageway width of 7.3 metres, flaring on the approach to Middlewood Road to give 2 lanes of traffic, together with
30 footways either side of the carriageway each 2 metres wide. The full design of the bridge and junction onto Middlewood Road will be considered as a reserved matter.
The illustrative plans for a road bridge link between Claywheels Lane and Middlewood Road North that have been submitted in the applicant’s transport assessment are purely preliminary. There might be scope to reduce the general carriageway width to 6.75 metres, and have a footway on just one side of the road in the area of woodland. These issues would be considered within the next stage of the planning process. There is no future likelihood of a dual carriageway being provided. The configuration of the junction onto Middlewood Road indicated on the illustrative preliminary layouts is in the form of a ‘T’ junction, giving the impression that the ahead movement along Middlewood Road to Catch Bar Lane is the main through movement. An aim of the infrastructure improvements is to relieve existing congestion at Catch Bar Lane. The future junction will be designed such that it is clear to motorists that they should reassign to Beeley Wood Lane for through movements.
The proposed road bridge link will result in changes to traffic flows within and around the application site. It is predicted that approximately 60% of traffic currently using Middlewood Road would divert onto the Claywheels Lane link road. This would result in approximately 600 vehicles diverting onto Claywheels Lane from Middlewood Road in the peak hour. The proposed developments on the industrial estate will generate their own traffic that will use Claywheels Lane to access those developments. The applicant has assessed the cumulative traffic generation from their proposed and potential future developments on the industrial estate to be approximately 400 vehicles in the peak hour. The 600 plus 400 vehicles reassigned to and generated on Claywheels Lane would be in addition to the amount of traffic at present using Claywheels Lane to access the existing businesses and other properties on the industrial estate. The traffic flows on the southern section of Middlewood Road would reduce.
The applicant’s illustrative preliminary drawings contained in their transport assessment include proposed junction arrangements at Penistone Road North involving widening Claywheels Lane to allow all direction movements at the junction, closing part of the slip road on Beeley Wood Road and prohibiting right turning movements out of Niagara Road onto Penistone Road North.
The South Yorkshire Police have objected to the proposed road bridge link and introduction of a new road junction, to the closure of a section of Beeley Wood Road, and to a footbridge and footpath route between Winn Gardens and Claywheels Lane on highway safety, operational and secured by design grounds.
Whilst the proposed restricted junction arrangements at Niagara Road/Beeley Wood Road/Penistone Road North is being reconsidered by the applicant it is considered that there is sufficient land within the application site and the existing highway to accommodate a revised junction arrangement that enables the development traffic to be accommodated and enables vehicles exiting Niagara Road to progress north and south on the A61.
31 It is considered that the existing highway arrangements are incapable of sustaining the level of development proposed on the ‘UCAR’ site without improvements. In the interests of traffic safety and accessibility there is a requirement for off-site highway infrastructure improvements to be provided prior to any of the proposed residential development becoming occupied. Such highway infrastructure improvements include improvements to the A61/Claywheels Lane junction, road widening along Claywheels Lane and provision of a link road between Claywheels Lane and Middlewood Road. A condition would be required to secure the off-site highway improvements.
The additional assessment submitted by the applicant states that during the peak hours the proposals are predicted to give small rises to changes in turning movements at junctions 33 to 36 of the M1 which are not considered to be significant.
The Highways Agency has considered the additional information and has stated that they do not propose to restrict the granting of planning permission for this application.
Environmental Impact of a Bridge Link to Middlewood Road
Outline proposals for highway improvements on Claywheels Lane including junction improvements at the A61, road widening and a bridge link to Middlewood Road forming part of a separate planning application to provide business units on two sites on the Claywheels Lane industrial estate were previously approved by Members subject to conditions and a legal agreement.
The bridge link and highway infrastructure improvements are not within the site boundary of this outline planning application for residential development and are not part of this planning application.
However the bridge link and off-site highway works are important in the assessment of the proposal for residential development in terms of demonstrating, or not, the site’s access and accessibility issues in support of the proposal for residential development. Consequently their impact is assessed.
A bridge link to Middlewood Road would, if built, improve the access to the proposed residential development on the ‘UCAR’ site.
The provision of a bridge link whether for pedestrians only or for both pedestrians and vehicles would have highway benefits and an environmental impact on the woodland and its ecology through which it would pass.
The extent of the ancient woodland is documented to be on the eastern side of Beeley Wood Lane which has been reflected in the applicant’s submissions on ecological matters. In order to clarify the actual extent and quality of the ancient woodland the applicant has submitted additional information comprising a tree survey and a woodland ground flora survey for the area of the proposed bridge crossing and road widening.
32 The tree survey has identified tree groups and some individual trees in the vicinity of the proposed road widening and proposed road bridge. The survey places most trees within the tree groups. It identifies 3 tree groups (a group of sycamores and two groups of crack willow) and 8 other trees in the location of the proposed road widening of Beeley Wood Lane, a large group of trees (sycamores) affected by the proposed road bridge on the northeastern side of the river and a group of trees (mix of ash, beech, sycamore and Norway maple) and 3 other trees affected by the road bridge on the Middlewood Road (southeast) side of the river. Most of the trees are middle aged and mature trees and are in fair or good condition although some of the trees affected by the road widening are considered to be in poor condition.
The woodland ground flora survey report considers that much of the woodland area at the site whilst likely being of ancient origin is of relatively limited ecological value largely due to fly-tipping, disturbance and clearance and a number of non- native trees and shrub species are present. It identifies that the proposed road bridge would result in the loss of a number of mature trees the exact number depending on the precise location of the works. Two of the better quality areas are at the location of the proposed footbridge and within a small channel that adjoins the river at the location of the proposed road bridge. The report recommends that sensitive design and location and best practice methods are put in place during construction to minimise any effects on these areas, that ancient woodland ground flora to be lost to the proposals be relocated to other areas of more disturbed woodland within the site, and a detailed method statement be worked up at the detailed stage.
The additional information confirms that the proposed highway infrastructure works will affect an area of Ancient Woodland.
As referred to above, outline proposals for the highway improvements including the proposed road bridge form part of a separate planning application to provide business units on two sites on the Claywheels Lane industrial estate that was considered at the meeting of the Board held in April 2006 when Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement.
The planning permission for the business units and the highway improvements once issued requires by condition that additional details are submitted both before any work commences on site (including an historical/archaeological tree survey and report by an appropriately qualified surveyor, a method statement detailing protection of otter access routes and the avoidance of disturbance during construction work and proposed mitigation works to the river and its banks, a hedgerow assessment for Beeley Wood Lane), and before development commences (including protective fencing, method statement for the removal, storage and maintenance of removed woodland soil and vegetation from the working area, and measures to prevent run-off entering the river). A management plan for the whole woodland and adjoining open spaces, landscaping scheme, removal and discouragement of fly-tipping and site supervision by an ecologist in the ancient woodland are also required. In mitigation improvements to Middlewood Park or nearby Wadsley Park are required for the loss of woodland adjacent to Middlewood Road.
33
The proposed footbridge will result in further loss of woodland which have been crucial to recent re-establishment of the otter population in this area.
The proposed road bridge from Beeley Wood Lane to Middlewood Road passes across land within the Green Belt.
The application for the business units identified a 50 metre wide strip of land widening to 80 metres where it meets Middlewood Road within which the proposed road bridge would be accommodated. The illustrative details of the road bridge link show a bridge and link with an overall width varying between 10.5 and 21 metres.
Policies GE1 to GE4 of the UDP seek to retain the openness of the Green Belt and prevent inappropriate development. The construction of a bridge in this location would require the clearance of trees on and alongside its route resulting in a visual break through the woodland.
As the road bridge proposal was in outline the detailed alignment and design was reserved for subsequent approval. Whilst the applicant’s illustrative drawings show a road bridge meeting Middlewood Road at right angles and forming a ‘T’ junction, there is sufficient land within the application site for the road bridge to be designed as a continuation of Middlewood Road (north of the bridge), with Middlewood Road (south of the bridge) meeting it at a ‘T’ junction.
In this instance it is considered that whichever alignment is taken for the proposed road bridge and its accommodation works through the woodland the break in the woodland and the proposed bridge structure would not in itself harm the openness of this part of the green belt. The separation between the built-up areas on either side of Middlewood Road would continue to be maintained and it would not contribute towards the merging of settlements or lead to an encroachment of urban development into the countryside. It is considered that subject to the detailed design of the road bridge being acceptable in form, appearance and massing it would not harm the openness of the green belt.
The River Don to the north of Claywheels Lane is part of a green corridor running north out of the urban area.
Whilst to accommodate the proposed road bridge link would require the removal of a band of trees severing the areas of woodland to the north and south of the proposed road bridge link, the construction of the bridge would also require both permanent and temporary works within the woodland and would require construction access into the woodland to be gained. Such works would result in both permanent and temporary damage to the woodland and its ecological interest. Permanent damage would be caused by the removal of trees and ground flora. The shadow caused by a road bridge would inhibit retained and replanted areas beneath the bridge potentially severing the woodland floor habitat.
The applicant’s have stated that the design and construction of the bridge will minimise the area of land take with the precise location adjusted so as to minimise the loss of mature trees. In addition a series of mitigation measures are proposed
34 by the applicant to minimise disturbance to this sensitive area including fencing, topsoil removal and/or protection by construction mats, programmed timing of works to avoid most sensitive times of year for wildlife.
English Nature consider that the area of ancient woodland habitat likely to be affected by the road widening scheme is of a degraded nature but that the riverside woodland likely to be affected by the proposed bridges has a more diverse ground flora despite being outside the ancient woodland boundary.
English Nature have advised that the Planning Authority should not authorise this application unless a condition is attached which requires the applicant to develop detailed mitigation proposals prior to the commencement of the proposed development. The mitigation scheme must provide a methodology for; relocation of the more diverse elements of woodland ground flora, the creation of natural scrub/woodland edge habitat as compensation for impacts on other parts of the ancient woodland, the protection of water quality, and minimising of the impact of the two bridges. The Planning Authority should also ensure that the applicant’s long-term commitment to the management of woodland habitats is secured through the use of a planning obligation.
Notwithstanding this, English Nature consider that the proposed bridges will have a detrimental effect on the River Don Site of Scientific Interest
The proposed road widening of Beeley Wood Lane would require the removal of trees on the northern side of Beeley Wood Lane that line this section of highway which have an ecological value as they are on the edge of the ancient woodland of Beeley Wood.
The Environment Statement has considered the cumulative impact of development on the River Don to be loss of woodland along the river banks and interruption of wildlife corridors running along the river.
In mitigation to the impact of the development, the Environment Statement proposes measures including; careful consideration being given to the design of the bridge, locating structures of the bridge to minimise loss of woodland and resurvey work prior to any tree removal. Other mitigation measures include removal of contaminants, providing a buffer zone between the woodland and the development site and a watching brief; protecting existing trees to be retained, retention and enhancement of ancient woodland on southern part of ‘UCAR’ site, retention where practicable of trees within the site, new areas of planting, new footpaths, long term landscape management plan; minimising impact on ancient woodland adjacent to new access road and bridge. The applicant has stated that as part of the redevelopment proposals a series of mitigation measures would be implemented within the site boundary, large areas of the site will be used as landscape buffer zones and extensive landscape treatment of these areas will be carried out, design and management of these areas would enhance the overall nature conservation value, locally native species would be used, a range of habitats would be created, together with a woodland management plan for areas of Beeley Wood
35 It is considered that subject to a satisfactory design and mitigation works the principle of the proposed footbridge from Claywheels Lane across the river would not significantly impact on the area of natural history interest along the riverside and the loss of trees to accommodate it would not significantly harm the riverside environment or the green link.
Effect on the Amenities of the Locality.
The Environment Statement has considered the cumulative impact of development. The proposals impacts include provision of a substantial pool of new residential development in an area identified for regeneration with the new accommodation linked to substantial road improvements. Economic impacts include new employment opportunities during construction and indirect employment impacts from the need for goods and services and have a moderate beneficial impact. There will be indirect effects on the surrounding community including education, health, retail and leisure services which will have a minor beneficial effect. The proposal will have a medium term impact on landscape during construction works and removal of unsightly buildings. Ecological impacts pre mitigation on Beeley Wood and wildlife have a major and moderate effects. The archaeological impact is neutral and uncertain for the application site. Construction impacts include encountering contaminants which will have a moderate negative effect and impacts from construction activity. The impact on the water resource is insignificant for flood risk, and minor to moderate for drainage and water consumption. The noise impacts of construction and traffic from the proposed development are considered to be of minor significance whilst air quality impacts are considered to be moderate negative impacts.
In mitigation to the impact of the development the Environment Statement proposes measures including; an employment job introduction strategy, provision of appropriate community facilities, provision of a range of housing tenures and phasing of the development, removal of contaminants, dust prevention measures, providing a buffer zone between the woodland and the development site and a watching brief; implementation of measures in BRE guidelines, use of predetermined transport routes and travel plans; removal of contaminants, reduction in impermeable surfaces, interceptors, water saving devices, specification glazing in new residential properties on ‘UCAR’ site; removing unsightly buildings, protecting existing trees to be retained, retention and enhancement of ancient woodland on southern part of ‘UCAR’ site, retention where practicable of trees within the site, new areas of planting, new footpaths, long term landscape management plan, minimising impact on ancient woodland adjacent to new access road and bridge, provision of open spaces; the results of any further geotechnical works being reviewed, consideration given to a watching brief during intrusive ground works; and appropriate health and safety measures, a watching brief, disposal of excavated soil to comply with regulations imported fill to be inert, and remediation measures.
It is considered that the location of the ‘UCAR’ site is sufficiently separated from nearby residential properties to ensure that there would be no significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents from the proposed residential development.
36 The proposed residential development of the UCAR site would generate a different amount and character of traffic than that from the previous or future industrial use of the site. It is considered that the increase in traffic movements associated with the proposed residential development will not be such so as to cause significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents.
The predicted increase in noise on the road bridge link and Claywheels Lane from reassigned traffic and cumulative traffic from the proposed and potential developments on the industrial estate is approximately 7.4 dB(A) which is a substantial increase which is likely to require mitigation measures to ensure that the increase in noise does not unacceptably harm the living conditions of nearby residents.
The noise and air quality issues have been reviewed. The magnitude of the impacts is likely to be underestimated with existing levels at the western end likely to be lower due to the road being a cul-de-sac and the recent ceasing of some industrial operations on the estate. It is considered that before development commences a scheme of works should be submitted and approved demonstrating how internal noise levels of 40 dB Laeq(15 minutes) between 0700 and 2300 hours in living rooms, and 30 dB Laeq (15 minutes) and 45 dBLAmax between 2300 and 0700 hours in bedrooms, and 55 dBLAeq (15 minutes) in garden areas will be achieved. Conditions would also be required restricting the hours of construction works and securing dust control measures.
As the bridge is located within the valley of the River Don it is considered that there is potential for archaeological interest. If planning permission is granted a condition is recommended to secure a scheme of archaeological investigation to inform on a suitable mitigation strategy
The woodland perimeter of the site provides a prominent green feature in the local landscape that should be retained and safeguarded by provision of a buffer between it and the proposed development.
This is an outline application with all matters of detail reserved for subsequent approval. It is considered that the ‘UCAR’ site can accommodate the proposed residential development without causing harm to the amenities of the locality or the future occupants of the site.
The site lies in an area where the provision of open space is below the minimum guidelines. Should planning permission be granted Policy H16 of the UDP requires developers to make an appropriate contribution towards the provision and enhancement of open space on the site.
The proposal is in an area where affordable housing is required as part of the development. 20% of the new homes would be required to be affordable under the current supplementary planning guidance. Part of the development will be required to be designed to mobility housing standards in accordance with Policy H7 of the UDP and the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on this issue.
There are no drainage objections in principle to the proposed development.
37
Impact of Loss of Industrial Land
In support of the application the applicants consider the proposals to be consistent with the aims and principles of local and regional economic strategies. They consider there is no realistic prospect of bringing forward employment at ‘UCAR’ but its release for housing would secure substantial and wide ranging economic development and regeneration throughout the Upper Don Valley.
The proposal for housing on the UCAR site is contrary to Policy IB5 of the UDP which states that within General Industrial Areas development proposals for housing are unacceptable. The proposal would be a departure from the Unitary Development Plan.
The employment policies in the UDP also include Policies IB1, IB2 and IB4.
Policy IB1 seeks to promote employment and economic development by providing land for employment and economic development, establishing innovative industry, improving older housing areas, and creating a better environment for industry and providing for its infrastructure needs.
If the UCAR site were to be retained for employment use, particularly with new and improved access, it would help achieve the aim of Policy IB1. The loss of the site for residential use would not accord with the aims of Policy IB1.
Policy IB2 promotes industrial development in suitable areas of the city, including the Upper Don Valley, in order to provide for a range of job-creating activities in Sheffield. Industrial development of the ‘UCAR’ site would help achieve this policy aim, but the loss of the site to residential use would be contrary to the aims of Policy IB2.
Policy IB4 seeks to identify readily available industry and business land to meet a 5-year requirement. The ‘UCAR’ site is one of the sites identified in the Sheffield Business and Industrial Land Survey that could help meet this requirement.
The Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) will need to identify land for employment uses for the next 15 years and research work has been commissioned by the Council to look at the requirements for employment land during the period of the Sheffield Development Framework.
PPG3 requires Local Authorities to demonstrate that there is a realistic prospect of employment allocations being taken up for the stated use in the plan period preferably through an up to date review of employment land.
Within Sheffield there is a shortage of suitable industrial land and property to accommodate prospective investor companies. A recent report by Sheffield First For Investment ‘The Availability of Industrial Land and Property in Sheffield’ set out that the city has a shortage of suitable industrial land and buildings.
38 A report commissioned by the Council to assess employment land demand suggests in its draft version that the amount of land required, when compared to the anticipated level of supply, will mean that all current sites identified in the latest Business and industrial Land Survey will have to be investigated for their potential to meet this level of requirement. Until this investigation of the supply side and individual sites has been completed in line with the SDF timetable, it is considered that the UCAR site should be retained for employment use. The final Employment Land Demand Assessment report will be published in shortly in 2006. A separate assessment of the supply side will be commissioned shortly and the SDF timetable anticipates assessment being completed during 2007.
It is considered premature to the emerging Sheffield Development Framework to determine that the ‘UCAR’ site would not be needed for employment use during the Sheffield Development Framework period.
Policy IB9(a) of the UDP seeks to ensure that new development does not lead to a concentration of uses which would prejudice the dominance of industry and business in the area or cause the loss of important industrial sites. Where the size of industrial and business areas are extensive like the Claywheels Lane General Industrial Area the UDP gives guidance for applying Policy IB9(a) to sub-areas. The ‘UCAR’ site is considered to be such a sub-area. Within General Industrial Areas the preferred uses are general industry and warehousing. The proposed residential use of the whole of the ‘UCAR’ site for residential (non-preferred) use would be contrary to Policy IB9(a) of the UDP.
The applicant has proposed a rolling programme for the development of employment B1 uses at Airflow and United Crane.
It is considered that the applicant’s proposals to build 15,000 sq ft initially (about 20% of the total proposed on the Airflow site) and continue as units are let is not acceptable as a potential planning consent for housing on the UCAR site will affect the future of neighbouring sites. Most of the additional benefits that the applicant proposes should planning permission be granted for residential development on the UCAR site form part of the planning permission and conditions for the employment development of the Airflow and United Crane site and are therefore not additional benefits.
It is considered that the development of the ‘UCAR’ site for housing would undermine the local and regional strategies for economic development and regeneration. There is a realistic prospect of the ‘UCAR’ site being taken up for employment uses once access to the site has been improved.
Residential Land Policy and Need
The guidance contained in PPG3 states that sites for housing should be assessed against a range of criteria including whether or not the site is on previously developed land, the location and accessibility of the site, the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, the ability to build communities and physical and environmental constraints on developing the land. PPG3 encourages reallocation of employment land for housing if the proposal meets a range of criteria. There is
39 not an unreserved general presumption in PPG3 in favour of reallocating employment land. PPG3 requires an assessment of whether the proposal fails to reflect other PPG3 policies, or it undermines the planning for housing strategy, or that there is a realistic prospect of the allocation being taken up for its stated use or that its development would undermine regional and local strategies for economic development and regeneration.
The ‘UCAR’ site is previously developed land for the purposes of PPG3.
The approximate density of the proposed development within the red-lined area is 32 dwellings/hectare, however excluding the existing woodland the density would be 42 dwellings/hectare.
The Sheffield Urban Housing Potential Study (2005) identifies significant amounts of previously developed land that is likely to be available to meet housing needs in the long term. The immediate supply of housing land is adequate. There are sites within Sheffield with planning permission and under construction that could accommodate 11,000 dwellings with a further 7,500 student units which represents an 8 year supply. It is estimated that 24,600 dwellings can be accommodated in the long term to 2021. It is not currently necessary for the ‘UCAR’ site to be developed in order to achieve the housing requirements set out in either the current or, recently published, draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy. There is no shortage in the city of alternative previously developed sites that are more suitable than the ‘UCAR’ site for sustainable housing development.
Whilst the application site if developed for housing would be considered a windfall site, it is considered that adequate numbers of windfall sites will come forward in other more suitable locations.
Sustainability of the Site for Residential Use
PPG3 requires proposals for residential development to be assessed in terms of sustainability.
The proposed residential development would be located close to the employment uses on the existing industrial estate, however, the accessibility of the ‘UCAR’ site to local facilities and public transport, without any road improvements, is currently poor. The bus stops on Middlewood Road are approximately 500 metres from the ‘UCAR’ site.
The existing bus services on Middlewood Road are not high frequency routes and there is no guarantee that operators would increase their frequency or re-route them.
Should a proposed bridge link to Middlewood Road be provided the ‘UCAR’ site’s accessibility to local facilities and public transport would still be relatively poor. With a bridge link the ‘UCAR’ site’s frontage would be approximately 1,000 metres from the tram terminus on Middlewood Road, 800 metres to the nearest small shop at Winn Gardens, and 600 metres to the new Primary Care trust building on Middlewood Road. The Middlewood Road local shopping centre is further away.
40 The nearest primary school at Marlcliffe is 1,700 metres away. Such distances make walking unlikely.
The highway bridge link to Middlewood Road is not indicated as part of this proposal but is part of the proposed commercial development of other land on Claywheels Lane. Without this bridge link, the site becomes an even less sustainable location for a residential development and would not be acceptable.
It is considered that, with or without a bridge link to Middlewood Road, the future residents of the new housing development would be highly car dependent, particularly without the provision of a frequent public transport service that directly serves the site.
The ‘UCAR’ site is separated from the Winn Gardens residential area and the housing development on the former Middlewood hospital. As the site is not within or next to these or other established housing areas it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to contribute to building communities.
There is enough surplus capacity at the three local primary schools to cope with the expected increase in demand from the proposed development. The impact at secondary school level is tighter but no educational contribution is being sought.
Although the proposed residential development would make use of a large brownfield site, there are many other sites that can be integrated more effectively with existing housing areas and which are better served by public transport and local facilities.
The applicant has included within their proposals a plot being set aside near to the entrance of the UCAR site for use class A1 (shop), A3/A4 (eating/drinking establishments) with some potential for D2 uses (assembly and leisure) on the first floor to meet community needs.
It is considered doubtful whether 550 dwellings would be sufficient to support such facilities and, if built, whether the units would ever be occupied leaving the future occupants of the proposed dwellings isolated with few easily accessible local facilities. If a new community of 700 houses accommodating about 1,500 people was to be built it could be served by a new neighbourhood centre comprising of about 6 units with a small rather than large convenience store. Their use could only be determined in agreement with the landowner. Thus if at some point in the future it was decided that the site was not required for business and industry and could be used for housing it is considered that a larger area would need to be committed but which would have significant implications for the loss of employment land.
Impact on the North Sheffield Housing Market Renewal Area
The area of north Sheffield to the north and north east of the application site is currently subject to the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) initiative where significant sums of HMR funding have and will continue to be targeted. The disposal strategy is now complete with some of the redevelopment starting on site in 2006.
41
The disposal strategy includes sites at Foxhill, Lindsay, Shirecliffe, Adlington, Falstaff in Parson Cross, Penrith East and West, and Musgrave/Penrith Central.
The development at Foxhill immediately to the north of the application site is likely to start a year earlier than the proposed development of the ‘UCAR’ site and is likely to take 3 to 4 years to complete. The proposed development of the ‘UCAR’ site is likely to correspond with the development of the sites at Lindsay, early Shirecliffe sites, Adlington and possibly the start of the Falstaff development.
The competition for housing investment between the proposed ‘UCAR’ site and sites in the HMR may be acceptable for some of the HMR sites, however for others the clash could be potentially significant.
The applicants initially indicated that they would be willing to accept a condition requiring the phasing of the development over a 6-year period between 2007 and 2012, with a limit on the numbers of homes built each year (25 homes in the first year, 50 in the second year an rising to 125 homes in 2009). This would go some way to mitigating the potential competition with Housing Market Renewal sites but there would still be overlap with the Housing Market Renewal programme.
The applicant’s revised proposals in respect of residential delivery state that they wish to agree that first occupation of the residential units would be from 1st May 2010 (or 1st April 2011 if necessary) onwards or at a time where 75% of the Foxhills HMR programme is occupied whichever is the earlier.
It is anticipated that the Foxhill development would provide 3+ bedroom homes, the Adlington site will be seeking outputs similar to the proposal at the ‘UCAR’ site, and there is a strong neighbourhood demand for larger properties on other sites.
If the programmes for UCAR and HMR housing delivery clash, it is considered that the proposal could potentially harm the Housing Market Renewal Strategy and its implementation across the North of Sheffield. There is a risk that it could flood the market and limit the potential residential development in other parts of the Upper Don Valley, although a phasing condition could minimise this risk.
The body responsible for delivering this initiative, Transform South Yorkshire, consider that the proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site would pose a significant risk to the HMR strategy by potentially diverting private sector housing investment to sites that may offer a more attractive return.
The Local Development Framework of the emerging Sheffield Development Framework will use sequential phasing policies to bring forward development sites adjacent to the HMR initiative once a sustainable housing market in the HMR has been re-established and in accordance with an assessment of supply and demand. This approach is consistent with the draft Regional Spatial Strategy 2006.
Whilst the applicant’s preferred programme includes first occupation in 2010, it is considered that the applicant’s revised programme of agreeing that the first occupation of the residential units on the UCAR site should be from 1st May 2011
42 onwards or at a time where 75% of the Foxhills HMR programme is occupied whichever is the earlier occupied. This would result in reducing the clash between the two housing delivery programmes and would significantly reduce the potential harm to the HMR programme.
Benefits of a Housing Led Development at the ‘UCAR’ Site
The regeneration of the Upper Don Valley is one of the priority economic regenerations/objectives of the City Council. There are major infrastructure and land issues in the Valley that need to be addressed. In particular the recent Baseline report on the Upper Don Valley by Taylor Young consultants, indicates that there are some 46 hectares of vacant and underused employment land in the Valley.
Significant transport issues exist, particularly with regard to the congestion at the Leppings Lane junction and at Hillsborough corner, congestion on Penistone Road itself and the need to open up the Upper Don Riverside.
There are also a number of significant areas in the Valley in need of regeneration. The Claywheels Lane area is a particularly difficult one. The Claywheels Lane area was at one time extremely well suited to its historic development of special and general industrial, through a number of large plants involved in heavy engineering. However, its relatively difficult access, off Claywheels Lane by a single road from the bottom of Halifax Road/Leppings Lane area, inevitably has limited attempts at regeneration.
A number of sites in the area, including the UCAR site, have been under used for many years and suffer from significant abnormal costs and market failure. These particularly relate to the need for significant land reclamation and access improvements.
The City Council has submitted bids under the Local Transport Plan for a major improvement scheme for Penistone Road, and the Claywheels Lane/Leppings Lane area. In particular, there is an urgent need to provide relief to the Hillsborough area by the provision of a river crossing as set out in a previous application which the Planning Board were minded to give consent to on the 25th April 2006. At the present time there are no immediate prospects of funds becoming available for such improvements as there are other priorities in South Yorkshire and the Region which are likely to mean that any transport schemes to deal with the access problems will not occur for a number of years.
Whilst some public funds might be available to assist in regeneration, via the Yorkshire Forward sub regional investment plan, the amount available is relatively limited when compared to the needs of the City. The applicant has set out that regeneration of the UCAR site for a modern business park is unlikely to be viable, without substantial public funds. This has been the subject of independent appraisal by consultants acting for the City Council who confirmed such a development would not be viable without public funds. It must be accepted therefore that without some enabling development, early regeneration of the area would be difficult.
43
When the associated planning application for the employment sites and infrastructure improvements were considered in April, Members raised concerns as to the deliverability of the employment site and associated infrastructure. Similarly, there were concerns expressed that the regeneration of the UCAR and Claywheels area in general will be restricted unless significant investment can be obtained to deal with the local infrastructure problems. If early regeneration is not forthcoming, then it is likely that the UCAR and other sites in the Claywheels Area will remain in general industrial, storage and distribution use for the foreseeable future.
It is acknowledged that the proposed residential development of the UCAR site, given its potential commercial value, could assist significantly in addressing some of these issues.
Accordingly, officers have discussed with the developers what regeneration benefits might be obtained from the granting of planning consent for the development of the UCAR site for residential purposes which will be of benefit for both the Claywheels Lane area and the wider Upper Don Valley.
In these discussions Officers also sought to obtain reassurances that the housing development proposed on the UCAR site could be developed out and phased in such a way as to minimise its potential conflict with the Council’s Housing Market Renewal Strategy and in particular the current efforts to bring forward for housing regeneration sites in the Foxhill, Shiregreen and Parson Cross areas. Officers have also sought reassurances aimed at securing early industrial development of adjacent sites and infrastructure improvements in the Claywheels area.
As a result of these discussions, the developers have offered the following:-
- That the development of the UCAR site be linked to the delivery of the development on the employment sites already subject to planning consent, as set out in Planning Application 05/04623/FUL previously considered by the Planning Board. More specifically:
- Initially, to build speculatively 15,000 sq. ft. on the Airflow site.
- Once this is let or sold, to build a further 15,000 sq.ft.
- To make a detailed planning application for the development of the United Crane site by 1 April 2007.
- To use best endeavours to build out further phases of employment development on the site, up to 60,000 sq.ft.
- The Developers would commit to build out all the infrastructure to upgrade the Claywheels Lane area. This would take the form of the construction of the bridge and associated highways improvements across the River Don to open up the area, together with contributions towards the improvement of the Leppings Lane junction and associated highway works.
44 - That the Developer would contribute towards the enhancement of public transport services through the Claywheels Lane area, in order to ensure that any potential future development of both the housing employment sites can be served by public transport.
- That the development of the UCAR site for housing be conditioned and phased in such a way that no house is available for occupation prior to 1 May 2010 or 75% of the Foxhill HMR site being occupied, whichever is the earlier. The build out of houses on the site, currently proposed at 550 units, would be phased over the subsequent five year period. This would be in order to ensure that development of the site does not detract from the development of the housing market renewal sites in the area.
- That the mix of housing and quality of housing be of a standard to be agreed with the City Council prior to the granting of reserved matters so as to be consistent with the City Council’s HMR Strategy.
- That the development incorporates small-scale local services such as a local shop and appropriate community facilities in order to ensure the site can become more sustainable than is currently possible.
- That the development to incorporate a suitable proportion of Affordable Housing.
The Developers have indicated a willingness to enter into the above Section 106 agreement in order to ensure the delivery of these proposals.
Officers consider that providing these undertakings can be achieved in full by an appropriate legal Agreement, then the regeneration benefits of the above will become a material planning consideration in determining this application and should be weighed against the planning policy objections to the proposal as set out earlier in the report.
The potential benefits of a housing led development at the ‘UCAR’ site include the potential to radically transform the area with limited public assistance.
The proposal has potential to generate value that might be re-invested elsewhere in the Upper Don Valley.
There is landowner commitment from the co-owners of the site.
However, the potential regeneration benefits of the applicant giving up their application for the £5m of ERDF funding whilst enabling the Council to apply the ERDF funding to other preferred projects elsewhere in the valley or Sheffield would not guarantee such funding being approved for investment in projects in Sheffield as it would be open to all the Authorities in South Yorkshire to bid for the funding. It is considered these arrangements for releasing ERDF funding do not deliver significant regeneration benefits for the city or the locality.
45 It is also considered that most of the additional benefits that the applicant proposes should planning permission be granted for residential development on the UCAR site form part of the planning permission and conditions for the employment development of the Airflow and United Crane site and are therefore not significant additional benefits.
It is considered that the proposal provides inadequate regeneration benefits to compensate for the serious harm and loss of opportunity resulting from the development proposed.
SUMMARY
This application site is identified by the UDP as being within a General Industrial Area.
Policy IB5 of the UDP states that within General Industrial Areas Development proposals for housing are unacceptable. The proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site is a departure from Policy IB5 of the UDP.
If the UCAR site were to be retained for employment use, particularly with new and improved access, it would help achieve the aim of Policy IB1. The loss of the site for residential use would not accord with the aims of Policy IB1.
Policy IB2 promotes industrial development in suitable areas of the city, including the Upper Don Valley, in order to provide for a range of job-creating activities in Sheffield. Industrial development of the ‘UCAR’ site would help achieve this policy aim, but the loss of the site to residential use would be contrary to the aims of Policy IB2.
Policy IB4 seeks to identify readily available industry and business land to meet a 5-year requirement. The ‘UCAR’ site is one of the sites identified in the Sheffield Business and Industrial Land Survey that could help meet this requirement.
PPG3 requires Local Authorities to demonstrate that there is a realistic prospect of employment allocations being taken up for the stated use in the plan period preferably through an up to date review of employment land.
It is considered premature to the emerging Sheffield Development Framework to determine that the ‘UCAR’ site would not be needed for employment use in the lifetime of the development plan.
Policy IB9(a) of the UDP seeks to ensure that the preferred uses within Industry and Business Areas maintain their dominance over non-preferred uses. Where the size of industrial and business areas are extensive like the Claywheels Lane General Industrial Area the UDP gives guidance for applying Policy IB9(a) to sub- areas. The ‘UCAR’ site is considered to be such a sub-area. Within General Industrial Areas the preferred uses are general industry and warehousing. The proposed residential use of the whole of the ‘UCAR’ site for residential (non- preferred) use would be contrary to Policy IB9(a) of the UDP.
46 Within Sheffield there is evidence of a shortage of suitable industrial land and property to accommodate prospective investor companies. A recent report by Sheffield First For Investment (SF4i) ”The Availability of Industrial Land and Property in Sheffield” set out that the city has a shortage of suitable industrial land and property.
The ‘UCAR’ site is previously developed land for the purposes of PPG3.
The Sheffield Urban Housing Potential Study (2005) identifies significant amounts of previously developed land which is likely to be available to meet housing needs in the long term. It is not currently necessary for the ‘UCAR’ site to be developed in order to achieve the housing requirements set out in either the current or, recently published, draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy. There is no shortage in the city of alternative previously developed sites which are more suitable than the ‘UCAR’ site for sustainable housing development.
The proposed residential development would be located close to the employment uses on the existing industrial estate, however, the accessibility of the ‘UCAR’ site to local facilities and public transport, without any road improvements, is currently poor. The surrounding environment for the proposed residential use is also a concern as a residential use could constrain any industrial development nearby.
Should a proposed bridge link to Middlewood Road be provided the ‘UCAR’ site’s accessibility to local facilities and public transport would still be relatively poor.
It is considered that, with or without a bridge link to Middlewood Road, the future residents of the new housing development would be highly car dependent.
The ‘UCAR’ site is separated from the Winn Gardens residential area and the housing development on the former Middlewood hospital. As the site is not within or next to these or other established housing areas it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to contribute to building communities.
Although the proposed residential development would make use of a large brownfield site, there are many other sites that can be integrated more effectively with existing housing areas and which are better served by public transport and local facilities.
The area of north Sheffield to the north and north east of the application site is currently subject to the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) initiative where significant sums of HMR funding have and will continue to be targeted. The disposal strategy is now complete with some of the redevelopment starting on site in 2006.
The competition for housing investment between the proposed ‘UCAR’ site and sites in the HMR may be acceptable for some of the HMR sites, however for others the clash will be potentially significant.
It is anticipated that the Foxhill development would provide 3+ bedroom homes, the Adlington site will be seeking outputs similar to the proposal at the ‘UCAR’ site, and there is a strong neighbourhood demand for larger properties on other sites.
47
It is considered that the proposal could potentially harm the Housing Market Renewal Strategy and its implementation across the North of Sheffield. There is a risk that it could flood the market and limit the potential residential development in other parts of the Upper Don Valley. However, a satisfactory phasing condition could go some way to mitigating these impacts.
One of the bodies responsible for delivering this initiative, Transform South Yorkshire, consider that the proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site would pose a significant risk to the HMR strategy by potentially diverting private sector housing investment to sites which may offer a more attractive return.
It is considered that the applicant’s revised programme of agreeing that the first occupation of the residential units on the UCAR site would be from 1st May 2011 onwards or at a time where 75% of the Foxhills HMR programme is occupied whichever is the earlier occupied, would result in reducing the clash between the two housing delivery programmes and would significantly reduce the potential harm to the HMR programme.
It is considered that the existing transport infrastructure within the Upper Don valley surrounding Claywheels Lane and serving the local community is incapable of sustaining significant levels of development.
The key to maximising development opportunities along Claywheels Lane is to unlock some of the congestion and to develop a socially inclusive transport strategy.
A bridge link to Middlewood Road would if built improve the access to the proposed residential development on the ‘UCAR’ site.
The provision of a bridge link whether for pedestrians or for pedestrians and vehicles would have highway benefits and negative environmental implications on the woodland and its ecology through which it would pass. These impacts need to be weighed against the positive environmental implications accrued by reassigning through traffic away from Catch Bar Lane, the school, bus and tram operations.
It is considered that subject to a satisfactory design and mitigation works the principle of the proposed footbridge from Claywheels Lane across the river outside of the woodland area would not significantly impact on the area of natural history interest along the riverside and the loss of trees to accommodate it would not significantly harm the riverside environment or the green link.
It is considered that whichever alignment is taken for a road bridge through the woodland at the end of Claywheels Lane, the break in the woodland and the proposed bridge structure and road link would not harm the openness of this part of the Green Belt.
Whilst to accommodate a road bridge link would require the removal of a band of trees severing the areas of woodland to the north and south of the proposed road bridge link, the construction of the bridge would also require both permanent and
48 temporary works within the woodland and would require construction access into the woodland to be gained. Such works would result in both permanent and temporary damage to the woodland and its ecological interest. Permanent damage would be caused by the removal of trees and ground flora. The shadow caused by a road bridge would inhibit retained and replanted areas beneath the bridge potentially severing the woodland floor habitat.
The road widening of Beeley Wood Lane would require the removal of trees on the northern side of Beeley Wood Lane that line this section of highway. The trees on this north side of the road also have an ecological value as they are on the edge of the ancient woodland of Beeley Wood.
The additional ecological information being pursued by the applicant will inform the assessment of the impact of the road bridge and road widening proposals.
It is considered that the increase in traffic movements associated with the proposed residential development will not be such so as to cause significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents.
The predicted increase in noise on the road bridge link and Claywheels Lane is approximately 7.4 dB(A) which is a substantial increase likely to require mitigation measures to ensure that the increase in noise does not unacceptably harm the living conditions of nearby residents.
Additional ecological information is being pursued by the applicant that will inform the assessment of the impact of the road bridge and road widening works.
The disbenefits of the proposal is that it is contrary to the current adopted planning policy both in terms of business and industry as well as housing policy and it scores poorly against sustainable criteria, especially without the vehicular bridge to Middlewood Road.
Notwithstanding the environmental issues in accommodating a bridge link to Middlewood Road, whilst the proposed residential development at the ‘UCAR’ site would have a positive impact in bringing a use to a currently derelict and unsightly area of the Upper Don Valley, would help secure improved access to Claywheels Lane thus enhancing prospects of new business investment between the ‘UCAR’ site and Penistone Road North, the proposed residential development of the ‘UCAR’ site represents a lost opportunity to provide employment uses to contribute to economic regeneration of the valley as a whole, housing is not needed on the site as there are other brownfield sites that have been identified to meet the city’s needs elsewhere in Sheffield, and it would put at risk the Housing Market Renewal initiative in adjoining areas of north Sheffield.
The potential regeneration benefits of the applicant giving up their application for the £5m of ERDF funding whilst enabling the Council to apply the ERDF funding to other preferred projects elsewhere in the valley or Sheffield would not guarantee such funding being approved for investment in projects in Sheffield as it would be open to all the Authorities in South Yorkshire to bid for the funding. It is considered
49 these arrangements for releasing ERDF funding do not necessarily deliver significant regeneration benefits for the city or the locality.
It is also considered that most of the additional benefits that the applicant proposes should planning permission be granted for residential development on the UCAR site form part of the planning permission and conditions for the employment development of the Airflow and United Crane site and are therefore not significant additional benefits. It is acknowledged that the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement to secure these benefits.
However, it is considered that the proposal does not provide sufficient regeneration benefits to compensate for the serious harm and loss of opportunity resulting from the development proposed and outweigh substantial planning objections.
CONCLUSION
Officer’s conclusion is that a firm recommendation for refusal is appropriate.
Should Members be minded to grant planning permission, the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure to the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission is refused.
50
Case Number 06/00907/FUL
Application Type A Full Planning Application
Proposal Two-storey side extension and use of building as ancillary offices and therapy rooms to Childrens Centre
Location 4 Maxwell Street, Sheffield, S4 7JN
Date Received 07/03/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Mr G Garfitt
Recommendation Refuse
For the following reason(s):
1 The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed extension would be overbearing and cause overshadowing to the neighbouring residential property and would therefore result in an unacceptable affect on the living conditions or occupiers of adjoining property. As such the development would be contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan.
51
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises of an existing building that was previously used as a caretakers house. The house is located within the curtilage of the Ellesmere Children’s Centre and was previously used in connection with this main building. The applicant is seeking consent to use the building as ancillary office accommodation and therapy rooms in connection with the Children’s Centre. The proposal also involves extending the former caretakers house to the side at two storey to provide further accommodation.
52 The former use, as a Caretakers Officer and also the proposed use of therapy rooms and offices connected with the children’s centre are considered to be ancillary to the main use of the building as a children’s centre. Based on this information provided it appears that the use of the building for purposes connected with the children’s centre would not require consent. The assessment will therefore be based on the extension.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The site is within a Housing Area and so needs to be assessed against Unitary Development Plan Policy H14, Conditions on Development in Housing Areas. This states, amongst other things, that new development or change of use will be permitted provided:
- new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings;
- the site would not be overdeveloped or deprive residents of light, privacy or security;
- It would provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off- street parking and not endanger pedestrians.
In addition is also appropriate to consider Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions given that the site is adjacent to residential property.
Design Issues
The proposed extension is shown to extend to the side with a roof line lower than the existing. The materials are shown to match the existing, which is appropriate. The proposal also involves inserting new windows, these are mostly in the rear elevation. It is noted that within the frontage a new window is to be added at a higher level than the existing, that is set partially into the roof, although this appears slightly unorthodox. It is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and appearance.
Amenity Issues
The extension to the former caretakers dwelling is coming closer to the adjacent residential property of No 6 Maxwell Street. No 4 is also set abutting the footway and the residential property of No 6 is set back. This property has main room windows in the ground floor. Due to the set back of the residential property, the extension to the side would cut a 45 degree angle from a main ground floor window associated with No 6. This test is detailed within Guideline 5 of Supplementary
53 Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions and is used to assess overshadowing. In this instance the extension would lead to unacceptable overshadowing to this residential property.
The proposed additional windows are sufficient distances from other neighbouring property so that overlooking would not arise.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Although the aims of the scheme, to provide an enhanced community facility within the area are welcomed, in this instance the extension fails to comply with H14 ( c) of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan as it would deprive the adjacent residents of light and have an overbearing impact on this property. Other suggestions have been offered to the applicants that would overcome the concerns detailed, however these do not appear practical to the applicant. As the proposal fails to concur with Policy H14, the application is recommended for refusal.
54
Case Number 06/01009/FUL
Application Type A Full Planning Application
Proposal Retention of boundary fence
Location 5 Floodgate Drive, Ecclesfield, Sheffield, S35 9WX
Date Received 15/03/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Mr L Bhandal
Recommendation Refuse with Enforcement Action
Subject to:
1 The Local Planning Authority considers the fencing to be out of character in the street scene, by virtue of its height, finish and form detracting from the visual appearance of the street and would therefore be contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan and Guideline 2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions.
55
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application site is located on the corner of Floodgate Drive and Townfields Avenue. The applicant is seeking consent to retain the solid timber fencing that has been erected along the front, side and boundary to No 46. The fence measures a maximum of approximately 1.85 metres.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection and one letter of support has been received in connection with this application. The points raised are summarised below.
56 - Concern is raised that the fence obliterates sight lines and could pose a traffic hazard.
- Concern is raised that the proposal is not in keeping with the general appearance of surrounding properties.
- Objection is raised that the ground landlord has not been formally notified by the applicant.
- The height of the fence exceeds that stated in the deeds.
- Issues is raised relating to the payment of ground rent.
- As the plot is situated on the corner, the site has no rear garden. It is considered reasonable to erect a fence to afford privacy to enable use of this outside space to be made.
- The fence has been constructed in a proper manner using high quality panelling rather than unsightly cheaper methods.
- The height is not dissimilar to other hedges used to screen of corner plots, surely wood panelling is more favourable than conifers which can become overgrown and can cause nuisance to pedestrians.
- It is confirmed that the fence does not obstruct the view of the junction as the footpath widens and allows good vision.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The application site is located within a Housing Area as identified in the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Policy H14 provides conditions for development within housing areas and states that development will only permitted providing that new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings.
Although the proposal for is to retain fencing rather than a building or extension, the principle is still applicable. In addition Supplementary Planning Guidance on designing House Extensions is also applicable given the residential nature of the locality.
Design and Amenity
The fencing does not cause any loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties through overshadowing. The neighbouring property of No 46 has a drive and a garage immediately adjacent to the site and the fencing set well away from the adjoining property.
57 The main issue with the fence is its appearance in the streetscene. Within the immediate streetscene there are low walls, railings shrubbery and hedging that form boundaries to the front of the residential properties. These vary in heights, however within the streetscene there is a character of openness up to the dwelling frontages. The fence that the applicant has erected is extremely prominent in the streetscene due to its light coloured finish, its height and the fact that it is solid. The fence completely encloses the garden and removes the open character of this part of the streetscene. It is acknowledged that there are hedges within the locality that are slightly lower, however due to their nature they do not have such a harsh and enclosing impact in the streetscene. For this reason the proposal is considered unacceptable and contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan and Guideline 2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions. Guideline 2 is concerned with ensuring that extensions do not detract from that dwelling or the general appearance of the street or the locality.
It has been suggested that the applicant reduces the height of the fence to a metre. This would fall within the permitted development criteria. The applicant however wishes for the application to be determined as submitted.
Highway Issues
The site is located on the corner where Floodgate Drive meets Townfields Avenue. Given the layout of this junction and its relationship to the application site then the proposal does not excessively obscure view and would not significantly compromise highway safety.
RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS
Many of the issues raised have been covered in the above report. With regards to the concern raised, that the ground landlord has not been formally notified by the applicant, this has been queried with the applicant, however no further response has been received from them regarding this issue. It is clear from the correspondence that the landlord is aware of the application. Concerns relating to issues in the deeds and the payment of ground rent fall outside the remit of planning.
The need for private garden space is noted. The plot has a small area of private garden space to the rear. The argument for the need for private garden space is noted, however this at the expense of the visual amenity of the locality is not justified.
ENFORCEMENT
The fencing should be removed or reduced to 1 metre in height.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The retention of the fencing is considered to be detrimental to the open character of the streetscene by virtue of its height, finish and solid design. The proposal is
58 contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan and Guideline 2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions.
It is therefore recommended that permission be refused for the retention of the fencing and Members are requested to authorise the city solicitor to take any necessary steps including enforcement action and the instigation of legal proceedings to secure the removal of this unauthorised fence at 5 Floodgate Drive.
59
Case Number 06/01034/FUL
Application Type A Full Planning Application
Proposal Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of 15 apartments for persons 55 years and over in 1 x 3 storey block and associated car parking accommodation - resubmission of amended application
Location Site Of 14 Sussex Road, Chapeltown, Sheffield, S35 2XQ
Date Received 24/03/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Jaguar Retirement Homes
Recommendation Grant Conditionally Legal Agreement
Subject to:
1 The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.
2 Details of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.
3 Before any work on site is commenced, a landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within 1 month of the occupation of the development or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned landscaping has been carried out, thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained. The landscaped areas shall be cultivated and maintained for 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise authorised in writing.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality.
60 4 Before the development is commenced (and notwithstanding the submitted plans), full details of suitable and sufficient bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodation within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be used unless such bicycle/ motorcycle parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such bicycle/motorcycle parking accommodation shall be retained/maintained for the sole purpose intended.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
5 Prior to works starting on site, a dilapidation survey of the highways adjoining the site shall be jointly undertaken with the Council and the results of which agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any remedial works will have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to full occupation of the development.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
6 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, before the development is commenced full details of the vehicular access arrangements shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (to include geometric standards, materials/specifications, any drainage implication, any street lighting accommodation works, tactile paving, demarcation of highway boundary). The access shall have been constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the accommodation becoming occupied.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
7 Prior to the accommodation becoming occupied, car park illumination shall have been provided in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
8 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the flats becoming occupied, the car parking accommodation and drive shall have been provided in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (to include sufficient number of spaces for people with disabilities and margins to each side of the drive). Thereafter, the car parking and drive shall be retained/maintained for the sole purpose intended.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
9 The development shall not be used unless 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres vehicle/pedestrian intervisibility splays have been provided on both sides of the means of access such that there is no obstruction to visibility greater
61 than 600 mm above the level of the adjacent footway and such splays shall thereafter be retained.
In the interests of the safety of road users.
10 The gradient of shared pedestrian/vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
11 The development shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to footway, and means of vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.
In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.
12 At all times that development works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.
In the interests of the safety of road users.
13 Before work on site is commenced, details of a suitable means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the apartments shall not be used unless such means of site enclosure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter such means of site enclosure shall be retained.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality.
14 Surface water and foul drainage shall drain to separate systems.
To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements.
15 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through a petrol/oil interceptor designed and constructed in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
To prevent pollution of the Water Environment.
62 16 The apartments shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.
To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.
17 The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall:
a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey,
b) Be capable of achieving the following noise levels:Bedrooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 35 dB (2300 to 0700 hours),Living Rooms: Laeq 15 minutes - 45 dB (0700 to 2300 hours),
c) Include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation to all habitable rooms.
Before the scheme of sound attenuation works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the building.
Attention is drawn to the following justifications:
1. The decision to grant planning permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan set out below:
H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. This informative is intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Planning Records section on 2734220 or by visiting Sheffield City Council's website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/planning-boards
Attention is drawn to the following directives:
1. As the proposed development abuts the public highway, you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works. If your planning permission
63 involves the construction or alteration of an access crossing, this planning permission does not automatically permit the layout or construction of the access crossing in question. For access approval and specification, you should contact the Highway Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736136.The development will require the issuing of a formal postal address(s) by the City Council. This will apply even if the development is an infill site. Contact Lynn Fox on Sheffield 2736127 for details. Failure to carry out this process at an early stage may result in statutory undertakers refusing to connect services.
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached house and large garden on the southeast side of Sussex Road, close to a bend in that road as it approaches a railway bridge, to the north of Chapeltown station. Sussex Road serves the ASDA
64 supermarket. The application site is at a lower level than the road. To the east of the site is an area of informal open space adjoining the railway. To the rear of the site is a wooded area to the rear of properties on Loundside, which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
To the south west is another two-storey detached property and garden. A row of terraced houses is situated on the opposite side of Sussex Road.
It is proposed to demolish the detached house on the site and erect a 3-storey block containing 15 apartments. These would comprise 6 1-bedroom and 9 2- bedroom apartments and the application states these would be for persons over 55 years of age. 7 of the proposed apartments are shown on the submitted plan as being designed in accordance with mobility design, with level access and lifts within the building.
The building would have a maximum width of 24.2m and an overall depth of 19.4m. It would be 11m at its highest point. The ridgeline of the proposed building would be1.8m higher than the existing. The accommodation on the proposed 3rd floor would be partly within the roof space. The footprint of the proposed would be over 4 times the existing building. No details of materials have been submitted at this stage but the submitted plans appear to indicate brick and render walls with a plain tile roof. Doors, windows and balconies would punctuate the elevations.
A private drive off Sussex Road, with a maximum gradient of 1 in 12, would serve 11 car parking places, including disabled parking. This drive would be between the new building and the boundary of the adjoining property. The rear of the site would be landscaped. The existing boundary wall along Sussex Road would be reduced in height.
PLANNING HISTORY
An application for full planning permission to erect 24 flats and 5 dwellings on land including the current application site and land running along the rear of properties on Loundside was on the agenda of the Board on 10th February 2004 with a recommendation to refuse. The application was withdrawn prior to consideration by the Board (Ref No. 03/03297/FUL).
In May 2004 an application was submitted to construct an adoptable highway into the site from Sussex Road. It was proposed that this would serve 4 three-storey blocks each containing 6 two bedroom flats. The submitted plans indicated that 2 of the blocks of flats would be for the elderly. To the rear of the site, in the wooded area it was proposed to erect a four bedroom detached dwelling with an integral garage. The plans showed a total of 19 car parking spaces around the site to serve the flats.
The application was refused permission in July 2004 on the grounds of development of a greenfield site, loss of trees and open space and additional on- street parking (Ref: 04/01731/FUL).
65 An appeal against this decision was dismissed, the Inspector concluding that it included greenfield land, was harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would cause overlooking and loss of privacy.
An application to erect a 3-storey block containing 15 apartments on the application site was on the agenda of the 7th March 2006 Board with a recommendation that it be refused permission on the grounds that the proposed development would be overbearing in relation to adjoining residential property and would therefore result in an unacceptable affect on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining property. As such the development would be contrary to Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan. The application was however withdrawn prior to consideration (Ref:05/04108/FUL).
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
6 letters of objection on the grounds: -
- traffic problems in the vicinity of the site, including supermarket traffic; - dangerous access into the site; - parking problems in the area; - lack of on-site parking; - out of keeping with surrounding properties; - loss of privacy and amenity value of gardens; - loss of light; - overbearing; - problems during construction; - non-planning issues – loss of value/loss of view.
Ecclesfield Parish Council object on the grounds:-
- over-development and out of keeping with surrounding properties; - unacceptable access, compromising road safety and causing congestion; - loss of trees; - possible loss of green open space; - request a Board visit.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The application relates to land identified as being within a Housing Area in the UDP. Policy H10 states that within such areas housing is the preferred use. However, the proposal has to be considered in the light of other UDP policies and Government guidance on housing contained in Planning Policy Guidance, Note 3 – Housing (PPG3).
In the appeal decision into the previous refusal on the larger site the Inspector took the view that 14 Sussex Road and it’s garden qualified as previously developed land as defined by PPG3. The principle of development on the current application site is therefore considered acceptable.
66 Policy H14 of the UDP states, amongst other things, that new buildings should be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings, should not deprive residents of light or privacy and provide safe access to the highway network.
Design and Appearance
The surrounding area has a mix of 2-storey dwellings, predominantly brick and stone terraces. The adjoining property to the south west is a modern part brick/ part artificial stone built detached house. The characters of the 2 sides of Sussex Road are different. The site is not within a conservation area or an area of special character.
The proposed 3-storey development will present a different feature within the street scene. The ridge line of the proposed building would be 2.6m higher than the ridge of the adjoining property but there would be a break of 13m between them (occupied by an existing garage and the proposed access road). Whereas the existing house on the application site abuts the footway, the front of the proposed building would be set back 2m into the site. Whilst it would obviously be higher it is not considered that the erection of a 3- storey building on the application site would have such an adverse impact on the street scene that it should be refused.
The site has a higher than average depth (over 50m) and it is considered that the proposed building would not be an overdevelopment of the site, adequate amenity space and parking area being provided.
Amenities of surrounding residents
From an amenity point of view the greatest impact of the proposal would be on the adjoining property to the southwest. With the proposed building being on the north side it is considered that it would not result in the loss of sunlight or significant daylight to that property.
The distance between the existing house and the proposed building would be 13m with a garage and new drive in between. (The previous withdrawn scheme had only 7.6 m between the two). The proposed building would project 7.5m beyond the rear of the house. The proposed building would be recessed at the 2 stories above ground floor on the elevation facing the house to reduce any overbearing impact.
It is considered that the current application has addressed the need to reduce the impact of the proposed building on the amenities of the occupiers of the existing house. Furthermore it is considered that they would not be adversely affected to such an extent by the proposed development that a refusal of permission could be supported.
Highway Issues
Most of the existing terraced properties on Sussex Road park on street. This combined with the amount of traffic using Sussex Road (to a large extent related to
67 the ASDA supermarket) would require all parking associated with the proposed development to be adequately accommodated within the site. The developer has undertaken similar projects in Ecclesfield (Allen Gardens) and at Chapeltown roundabout (Cowley Court), both of which offer accommodation for residents aged 55+, with car parking provision at less than one space per flat. Car parking surveys at both sites have shown approximately 65 – 70% occupancy levels.
It is considered that the proposed level of parking provision is reasonable (particularly given the sustainable location close to public transport and shops).
There are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view subject to conditions being imposed on any permission granted.
Open Space Issues
In accordance with the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance on Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments the proposed development would require a contribution to be made to the enhancement of open space in the locality. In this case the required contribution would be £2,317.50. In the event that a satisfactory S106 planning obligation covering the Heads of Terms set out in the preceding paragraph is not concluded before the Board considers this application, in order to meet the Government’s target time for the determination of the application, it is recommended that the application be refused for the failure to make adequate provision in this regard.
Conclusion and recommendation
The proposed apartments represent development of a brownfield site in a sustainable location. It is considered that issues of concern raised by previous applications have been addressed.
It is therefore recommended that the application be granted planning permission subject to the imposition of conditions and the applicants entering into a legal agreement.
68
Case Number 06/01120/CHU
Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use
Proposal Use of shop as hot food takeaway (Class A5)
Location 285 Middlewood Road, Sheffield, S6 1TG
Date Received 24/03/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent M Shabir
Recommendation Grant Conditionally
Subject to:
1 The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.
2 The premises shall be used for the above-mentioned purpose only between 09:00 hours and 12:30 hours Mondays to Thursdays; 09:00 hours and 01:30 Fridays to Saturdays and; 09:00 hours and Midnight on Sundays and Public Holidays.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.
3 Prior to the A5 use commencing, details of the kitchen extraction system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved system shall be installed and maintained thereafter.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.
69
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an old brick built terrace property on Middlewood Road. Located between Carlton Road and Wadsley Lane, the application property is situated in a Local Shopping Centre. To the west and east of the shopping district are residential areas, whilst to the south east is an open space area as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. The streetscene consists of retail premises (Class A1), hot food takeaways (Class A5), financial and professional services (Class A2) and several vacant premises. There are also some residential units above some of the retail premises along Middlewood Road.
The property is currently vacant, however, the previous use was a sandwich shop (Class A1) which sold a mixture of hot and cold food. However, as the percentage
70 of hot food sold was less than 25%, it is considered that the previous use was not A5, but indeed Class A1.
This application seeks permission for a change of use from a sandwich bar (Class A1) to a hot food takeaway (Class A5).
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations received in connection with this application.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues The site lies within a Local Shopping Centre (LSC) as designated in the Unitary Development Plan. Retail uses (Class A1) are preferred in accordance with Policy S7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Policy S10(a) permits change of use provided that the proposed development would not lead to a concentration of uses that would prejudice the dominance of the preferred retail use. This policy is essentially concerned with ensuring retail “dominance” at ground floor level to encourage a customer footfall, which will maintain the vitality and viability of the shopping centre.
A survey of the premises along Middlewod Road was carried out. The figures illustrated that 51% of the premises were A1 uses. The application property was counted as vacant in this survey. The figures would therefore suggest that if the application property were to operate as an A5 use, there would still be 51% of the premises on Middlewood Road operating as A1. It is considered, therefore, that with more than half of the premises still being used as retail (Class A1), the preferred use stated in the Unitary Development Plan would still be the dominant use.
Policy S10(b) has regard to amenity issues and states that new development or changes of use would only be permitted if it would not cause residents to suffer from unacceptable living conditions. It is noted that there are residential units in the immediate vicinity, however, due to the nature and scale of the proposed use, and the fact that there are several properties in close proximity that are open past midnight, it is considered that the proposal would not create unacceptable living conditions for neighbouring residents.
It is considered that in order to maintain acceptable standards of living for the local residential areas, conditions should be attached restricting the hours of use and the use of the premises as a hot food takeaway. The applicant has suggested opening hours of between 09:00 hours and 23:00 hours daily. Other premises along Middlewood Road have been granted opening hours beyond Midnight. Such premises include the neighbouring property 287 Middlewood Road. It is
71 considered, therefore, that the proposal is acceptable in respect of UDP policy S10.
It is considered subject to such conditions being attached to any approval given, that the amenity of the residential properties would not be compromised. Moreover, it is considered that as the previous use was very similar in nature to a hot food takeaway, the proposed use would not create a significant additional impact to the detriment of the occupants of the adjoining properties. It is concluded the development is therefore acceptable in respect of Policy S10(a and b).
Highway Issues
The proposed use would have no implications in highways terms. It is also considered that the proposed use would not generate any more vehicular traffic than the previous sandwich bar. In addition, it is also noted that the site is accessible by foot, bicycle, bus and tram. It is concluded that the proposal would not be of detriment to highway safety and, would be consistent with the aims of PPG13 in promoting sustainable transport choices and Policy S10(f).
Environmental Protection Services
Environmental protection services have requested that further information should be supplied detailing any proposed extraction systems. However, subject to such a condition been attached, the Environmental Protection Services would have no objection to the proposed scheme.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The proposal represents a change of use of the premises at 285 Middlewood Road, from an A1 sandwich bar to an A5 hot food takeaway. It is considered that owing to the nature of the previous use and the other shops in the vicinity, the change of use would not sufficiently dilute retail activity within the LSC or materially detract from highway safety. The impact on the amenity of the occupants of the neighbouring residential properties is considered in this assessment. It is concluded subject to the attached conditions, that the proposed use would not cause significant disamenity.
In the circumstances, the proposal complies with national guidance PPG13 and the Unitary Development Plan Policies S7 and S10. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions.
72
Case Number 06/01134/FUL
Application Type A Full Planning Application
Proposal Provision of outdoor seating area to rear of building
Location 151 Main Street, Grenoside, Sheffield, S35 8PN
Date Received 24/03/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Ocean Design
Recommendation Grant Conditionally
Subject to:
1 In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.
The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
2 The external seating area shall be used for the above-mentioned purpose only between 1100 hours and 2300 hours on any day.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.
3 No amplified sound or live music shall be played nor shall loudspeakers be fixed at any time outside the building.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.
4 Details of the proposed finish to the timber fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.
5 The existing means of enclosure to the site shall be retained.
In the interests of the amenities of the locality.
73
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the Angel Inn public house fronting Main Street in Grenoside. There is an associated yard and car-park to the side and rear of the main building and a detached garage to the northwest corner of the site. The site is bound by a 4-5metre high stone wall topped with a 2metre high wooden fence to the west facing rear boundary is a 2.5metre high stone wall and some mature conifers.
The application site is located in a designated Housing Area as defined in the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. The site also falls within the
74 Grenoside Conservation Area in the UDP. The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, west and south. To the east is the
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of an outdoor seating area comprising of 6 tables and associated sleeper benches with a centre folding awning and wall mounted heaters. The seating area is proposed to the rear of the existing building with timber fencing to the rear. The proposal is part of plans for refurbishment of the pub under new management and some internal alterations are also detailed on the plans but which do not require planning consent.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
There have been 5 individual letters of representation received from local residents raising the following concerns;
- Excessive noise and disturbance from music and people sitting outside caused to local residents - Pub is currently an eyesore, hopes for its renovation - Worsen the existing situation in terms of noise nuisance and trouble
Ecclesfield Parish Council have submitted an objection to the proposal as considers that it will result in an unacceptable increase to the level of noise nuisance caused to local residents; the provision of additional seating to the exterior would result in a loss of privacy for occupiers of surrounding properties; committee also supports objections raised by residents and requests a site visit be made and the North West Planning Board determine the application
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
UDP policy H10 ‘Development in Housing Areas’ states that food and drink outlets which includes public houses are acceptable in principle. The proposed associated beer garden is not specifically listed under this policy and therefore, would need to be decided on its individual merits.
Policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ also lists criteria which should be met for development to be permitted and states amongst other things that for non-housing uses; it should not threaten the residential character of the Housing Area, would not lead to air pollution, noise, smell, excessive traffic levels or other nuisance, or risk to health and safety for people living nearby, and be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the Area.
Policy BE16 Development in Conservation Areas states that development should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. As well as controlling inappropriate development, it is also important to encourage
75 new development which would enhance a Conservation Area as a whole, for example, by sensitive redevelopment of unsightly vacant sites which detract from the Area.
Noise
The Angel Inn is located in a residential area with relatively low background levels. As such, there is an enhanced potential for noise disturbance from unregulated entertainment and patrons outside the premises.
As such, a combination of physical, administrative and noise limits need to be implemented with the aim of preventing unreasonable noise disturbance to surrounding local residents as recommended by Environmental Protection Service. As such, conditions to control hours of use of the external drinking area are necessary and its use is proposed to cease at 23:00 hours, seven days a week. Furthermore, no amplified sound or live music shall be played nor shall loudspeakers be placed at any time outside the building in order to avoid excessive public nuisance
Effect on residential amenities
The blank gable end of no.149 Main Street forms part of the southern boundary to the site along with a 2.5metre high stone wall and mature conifers which separates the pub car-park from the rear garden space to this residential property and there would remain a distance of 12.5metres from the boundary to the seating area. The property to the rear is no.7 Stephen Lane which is situated at a higher level to the application site with a 5-6metre high retaining wall/timber fence separating the site from the bottom of this property’s garden and outbuilding. To the north of the site are no.153 and 155 Main Street which have their main useable amenity space and aspect to the north of the houses.
The relative position of the nearest neighbouring properties with the pub and proposed outdoor seating area as described, and in conjunction with the existing boundary treatments and imposition of the conditions as previously described should ensure that amenity levels of the surrounding properties are not adversely affected and that potential for noise and disturbance is reduced.
Design Issues
The main building has an off-shot kitchen and store to the rear and the external seating area would in-fill some of this gap to the rear meaning that it would be ‘tucked in’ to the main building and would effectively be screened from the street.
A 5metre length of fencing is proposed at 1.8metre high to be constructed from vertical ‘hit and miss’ timbers fixed to a main timber fencing structure, separating the seating area from the car park which also aids the screening and noise reduction of the area.
The position of the fence parallel to the rear boundary and the size of the fencing as previously described means it would not be visible in the wider Conservation
76 Area. Furthermore, timber fencing already forms part of the rear boundary and a stone wall alternative would bring a greater degree of permanency to the seating area. Therefore, it is considered that a good quality timber fence would be acceptable and the details of the proposed finish are to be included by condition.
Highway Issues
There would be no loss of existing car parking provision and access to and from the site would not be affected by the proposal, as such, there are no highway implications from the development.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of an outdoor seating area to the rear of the Angel pub building as part of the refurbishment of the pub.
The site falls with Housing land as defined in the UDP where the use is acceptable although this specific development is to be determined on its individual merits. The site also falls within the Grenoside Conservation Area and due to the size, design and position of the seating area; it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact to the appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.
The outdoor seating area is proposed to be ‘tucked in’ to the rear of the main pub building surrounded by car parking associated with the pub. The relative position of the neighbouring residential properties with the seating area coupled with the boundary fencing proposed to the seating area and the existing boundary treatment to the site would sufficiently protect the surrounding properties from any adverse impact on residential amenity.
This is subject to the imposition of conditions to control hours of use of the outdoor seating area and prohibiting the use of amplified sound or live music being played or loudspeakers placed outside the building which should avoid any public nuisance being caused.
The development is considered to comply with policies H10, H14 and BE16 and it is recommended that planning permission be approved.
77
Case Number 06/01376/FUL
Application Type A Full Planning Application
Proposal Retention of decking to rear of dwellinghouse
Location 7 Creswick Lane, Grenoside, Sheffield, S35 8NL
Date Received 11/04/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent Mr B Thompson
Recommendation Refuse with Enforcement Action
Subject to:
1 The Local Planning Authority consider that the decking would result in unacceptable overlooking of adjoining residential property, leading to unacceptable loss of privacy, and would therefore be contrary to Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and Guideline 6 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions.
2 The Local Planning Authority consider that the decking extension would be overbearing in relation to adjoining residential property and would therefore result in an unacceptable affect on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining property. As such the development would be contrary to Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and Guideline 5 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions.
78
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
This is a retrospective application seeking to retain decking area to the rear of the dwelling at 7 Creswick Lane, Grenoside. The decking area is not visible from Creswick Lane but is a prominent feature from rear gardens.
The whole structure is constructed from timber. It is abutting the rear of a single storey rear extension to the original dwellinghouse. All the properties on the east side of Creswick Lane have rear gardens, and are built on a natural incline. The applicant’s and neighbouring houses are built 1.2 metres above rear garden levels. The houses are built on a natural incline that slopes down from west to east.
79
Houses within locality are predominantly detached or semi-detached and constructed in red brick. The decking area has been constructed from timber. There are no other similar developments to the rear of properties within the immediate locality.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Under the Permitted Development criteria of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) decking is treated the same as extensions and buildings in the garden. The decking is not Permitted Development in this instance as:
· It is within 5 metres of the house, which counts as an extension, · The existing garage, single-storey extension to the house and the decking exceed 703 cubic volume which is the upper limit for permitted development as stated in the GPDO for a detached dwelling.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection have been received:
Ecclesfield Parish Council objects:
· The parish council fully supports the concerns raised by neighbour, · The parish council requests a site visit prior to a decision being made and the decision to be made by the Board.
A neighbour objects:
· The decking is built without consent is approximately 1.25 metres above the terrace level of neighbouring property · Height of terraces is over 3 metres, which includes solid fence and open trellis · Loss of privacy to neighbouring property’s rear garden, rear of property and conservatory
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The majority of the site forms part of a Housing Area, whilst the eastern end of the rear garden lies within the Green Belt as defined by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Within Housing Areas, the acceptability of development must be tested against the requirements of Policy H14. This states amongst other matters that new development will be permitted provided that:
· New buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings; and
80 · The site would not be over-developed or deprive residents of light, privacy or security, or cause serious loss of existing garden space, which would harm the character of the neighbourhood.
The Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) “Designing Household Extensions” guideline 6 is also relevant and states that:
· Extensions should protect and maintain minimum levels of privacy.
The main issues for consideration are therefore impact on the neighbourhood and living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Highways
There are no highway implications.
Affect on residents in the locality
The structure / decking is located to the rear of the house, but its floor is above ground level. The structure is able to be used for amenity purposes providing a vantage point over to the countryside at the rear of the property, but also into neighbours rear garden (no.9) adjacent to the applicants garden.
One of the main issues in determining this proposal is whether the height of decking would reduce privacy thereby reducing the standard of living conditions for the occupants of neighbouring property (no.9).
The retained decking projects 4.2 metres from the rear of the existing single-storey extension and is 3.6m in width at present. The floor level is approximately 1.2 m above the lower garden level. The south elevation of the decking that faces towards the rear garden of the neighbour at 9 Creswick Lane is screened by a close boarded and open trellis fence. The close boarded element of the screen is approximately 1.4 metres to 1.6 metres in height above the floor level of the decking. The fence with the open trellis on top when measured from the floor level of the elevated decking, tapers from 1.8m to 1.6 metres in height for most of its length. A small section of the screen fence is approximately 1m in height.
Taking into account the screening along the side nearest to the boundary with number 9, the screening would not prevent an adult from standing on the elevated decking and looking through the open trellises into windows and a conservatory on the rear elevation of this adjacent property. The elevated decking at its nearest point is on the shared boundary and forward of the rear elevation of number 9 Creswick Lane.
The elevated decking would enable direct overlooking from the open trellises to neighbouring property at a rotating 180-degree angle rather than at a very oblique angle. Therefore the decking area is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to guideline 6 of the SPG “Designing House Extensions” and Policy H14 of the UDP.
81 And finally on the matter of amenity, it should be noted that the proposed building juxtaposed with the boundary wall is visible from within the grounds of the neighbouring property at 9. This overbearing presence and detrimental harm would seem magnified by the fact that the development site is elevated above the rear gardens and properties on Creswick Lane. It is considered that the decking by virtue of its scale, massing, and overall footprint has an overbearing affect on number 9.
The impact of the proposed decking on the property at no. 5 is considered to be minimal due to the separation distance being approximately 14 m and sufficient screening cover consisting of high hedge over 2 metres tall.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposals have an adverse affect upon the neighbouring properties especially number 9 due to increased levels of overlooking and loss of privacy and its overbearing affect.
Consequently, it is recommended that planning permission for the retention of decking area be refused.
Members are requested to authorise the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Governance to take any necessary steps, including enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, to secure the removal of this unauthorised decking at Number 7 Creswick Lane.
82
Case Number 06/01561/CHU
Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use
Proposal Use of nursing/rest home as a guest house (Class C1 hotels) and a dwelling house (Class C3 dwellinghouses)
Location Barnfield Rest Home, Loxley Road, Loxley, Sheffield, S6 6RW
Date Received 28/04/2006
Team NORTH & WEST
Applicant/Agent M Rogers And H Andreas
Recommendation Grant Conditionally
Subject to:
1 The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.
2 No trees, shrubs or hedges existing within the site of the development shall be destroyed or otherwise removed and no tree shall be lopped or topped, without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority, but if notwithstanding this condition any tree, hedge, part of a hedge or shrub is removed or destroyed or damaged to such a degree that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority its removal is necessary, then a replacement shall be planted of a species and size to be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to planting. Any such replacement shall be cultivated and maintained for 5 years and any failure within that 5 year period shall be replaced with like species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
3 The outbuildings within the curtilage of the site shall be used as ancillary storage accommodation in connection with the residential use of the site and shall not be used separately in any way without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
In order to prevent an intensification of the use that could detract from the character of the green belt.
83
Attention is drawn to the following justifications:
1. The decision to grant planning permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan set out below:
GE4 - Development and the Green Belt Environment LR1 - Open Space - Loxley Valley Design Statement SPG and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. This informative is intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Planning Records section on 2734220 or by visiting Sheffield City Council’s website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/planning-boards
Attention is drawn to the following directives:
1. The developer's attention is drawn to:
(i) Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended; and
(ii) the code of Practice for Access of the Disabled to Buildings (British Standards Institution code of practice BS 8300) or any prescribed document replacing that code.
Section 4 sets requirements for access to, and facilities at, premises. Section 7 requires a notice or sign to be displayed, indicating that provision is made for the disabled.
If you require any further information please contact Mr B Messider on Sheffield 2734197.
84
Site Location
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 10018816. 2005
LOCATION AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a large detached brick built property that has previously been extended on both sides and at the rear. The property is set back from Loxley Road and is screened from the highway by mature trees and shrubs. To the east of the site is a nursery and to the west is open countryside. The building is currently vacant and the previous use was as an old peoples nursing home. The site is identified on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map as being within the Green Belt
Planning permission is sought for a change of use to allow the building to be used as a family dwelling and ‘Bed and Breakfast’ guesthouse. 6 of the bedrooms would be available for guests and no external alterations are proposed.
85
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission was given in 2004 for internal alterations and extensions to the roof of the building to form 6 self contained apartments (application 04/01646/FUL refers). This consent has not been implemented.
In 2002 planning permission was given to use the nursing home as a single dwelling house (application 02/02695/FUL refers). This consent has not been implemented.
In 1988 planning permission was granted for alterations and extensions to the rest home (application 88/01915/FUL refers)
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
No letters of representation have been received regarding this application.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy Issues
The site is within the Green Belt. Unitary Development Plan Policy GE4 – Development and the Green Belt states that the scale and character of any development which is permitted in the Green Belt, should be in keeping with the area and wherever possible, conserve and enhance the landscape and natural environment.
Policy LR1 – Tourism is also applicable. This states that Sheffield’s growing tourism industry will be encouraged by generally supporting developments which promote tourism where they would be in keeping with the environment and character of an area.
The Loxley Valley Design Statement Planning Guidelines also need to be taken into consideration. This states that conversion or alterations to houses should make the properties accessible to wheelchairs.
Impact Upon Green Belt
No external alterations are proposed. The use of the building as a family home and guest house will not be particularly more intensive than the previous use of the building as a rest home for elderly people or as 6 separate flats which also has planning consent. Consequently it is considered that the change of use would not have an adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the Green Belt area.
Disabled Access
The building was previously used as a rest home and has a lift from the ground to the first floor. The applicant has also submitted an access statement with the application setting out measures that will be undertaken to improve accessibility.
86 Measures include dedicated disabled parking spaces close to entrances, handrails to all staircases, clear type face signage in contrasting colours and evenly lit public areas and corridors. The main entrance into the building also has a level threshold.
Highways Issues
The property has an existing double garage and a parking area that can accommodate 9 cars. This level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable and the change of use will not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Planning permission is sought to use a sizeable property within the Green Belt as a family home and bed and breakfast accommodation. The property is vacant at present, however the previous use was as an old persons rest home.
No external alterations are proposed and given the previous use of the building a change of use could occur with minimal alterations to the internal layout.
The proposed use would not be any more intensive than the previous use and it is considered that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.
The proposed change of use accords with Unitary Development Plan Polices GE4 and LR1 and so it is recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions.
87