Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD LOCAL PLAN (formerly Sheffield Development Framework)
CITY POLICIES AND SITES DOCUMENT
ECONOMY AND CITY REGION POLICY BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street SHEFFIELD S1 2SH June 2013
-1- -2- CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. Introduction 7
2. Infrastructure Requirements, Community Infrastructure Levy 11 and Other Developer Contributions
3. Requirements for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable 57 Employment Development Providing for Sensitive Uses 59 Local Employment 68
4. City Centre Design 87
5. Development in the Central Shopping Area and the Cultural 111 Hub
6. Shopping and Leisure Development and Community Facilities 137 outside Existing Centres
7. Policy Areas: 138 - Priority Office Areas 158 - Business Areas 180 - Business and Industrial Areas 217 - Industrial Areas 228 - General Employment Areas 232 - City Centre Cultural Hub 235 - Central Shopping Area 236 - City Centre Primary Shopping Area 238 - Meadowhall Shopping Centre 239 - University/ College Policy Area 240
8. Other Options not Taken Forward 242
-3- Appendices
Appendix Page
1. Summary of Infrastructure Issues Identified in the SEWIS 245 Study
2. Potential Funding Sources other than Developer Contributions 247 for Infrastructure Provision
List of Tables
Table Page Number
3. Section 106 Agreements Income in Sheffield 50
4. Commitments in City Centre Shopping Areas 118
5. Retail (A1) Concentrations in the City Centre Streets 124
6. Footfall Measures 127
7. Spectrum of Housing and Employment Areas 156
8. Balance of Uses in Priority Office Areas 178
9. Balance of Uses in Business Areas 209
10. Employment Land Requirements 219
List of Maps
Map Page Number
1. City Centre Shopping Areas 126
2. Buffer of 300 metres around the Primary Shopping Area 129
3. Priority Office Areas in Sheffield 158
4. Business Areas in Sheffield 179
-4- 5. Business and Industrial Areas in Sheffield 214
6. Industrial Areas in Sheffield 226
7. General Employment Areas in Sheffield 232
-5-
1 INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1 This report provides evidence to support the published policies for the City Policies and Sites document of the Sheffield Local Plan.
1.2 The Sheffield Local Plan is the new name, as used by the Government, for what was known as the Sheffield Development Framework. It is Sheffield’s statutory development plan, which the local planning authority is required by law to produce.
1.3 The Local Plan includes the Core Strategy, which has already been adopted, having been subject to formal public examination. It sets out the vision and objectives for the Local Plan and establishes its broad spatial strategy.
1.4 The City Policies and Sites document now supplements this, containing:
- Criteria-based policies to inform development management and design guidance. - Policy on land uses appropriate to a range of area types across the city. - Allocations of particular sites for specific uses.
1.5 The document was originally proposed to be two, City Policies and City Sites. Both of these have already been subject to two stages of consultation:
- Emerging Options - Preferred Options
1.6 The Emerging Options comprised the broad choices, which were drawn up to enable the Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of drawing up the document.1 Having consulted on these options the Council decided which to take forward as Preferred Options.
1.7 The Preferred Options were published and consulted on as the ones that the Council was minded to take forward to submission.2 However, the choice of option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging Options had been rejected and why.
1 Emerging Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) and Emerging Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (February 2006) – see Sheffield City Council - Emerging Options 2006 2 Preferred Options for City Policies, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) and Preferred Options for City Sites, Sheffield City Council (April 2007) – see Sheffield City Council - Preferred Options 2007
-7- 1.8 Work following the Preferred Options was delayed whilst priority was given to the public examination of the Core Strategy. In the subsequent version, the Consultation Draft 3, the section on policies was much shorter than in the Preferred Options report, reflecting the transfer of some issues to the Core Strategy, the condensing of many policy options and the proposed transfer of other matters to Supplementary Planning Documents.
1.9 The present version of the City Policies and Sites document has been published as the Council’s final version. This is for final representations by stakeholders and other members of the public, followed by submission to the Government and public examination. A schedule of changes may be produced following representations and a final chapter will be added to each Background Report to explain why the changes have been proposed.
1.10 The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the policies are sound. That is the issue on which representations are invited, in line with national policy. The policy document itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies. So, the more detailed evidence and analysis is found in the Background Reports.
1.11 The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Local Plan but they contribute to the statutory process of preparing it. So they are not published as the subject for representations though consultation comments on the policies may well take up evidence or conclusions set out in the Reports.
1.12 This Report supports the published policies for Economy and City Region. The chapters are based on each of the policies presented in the chapters on Economic Prosperity and Serving the City Region and they deal with each of the soundness considerations in turn:
- Consistency with national and other strategic policy - Justification - Effectiveness - Conclusions on Soundness – drawing together the strands under the four criteria for soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
1.13 The City Region covers the four South Yorkshire Districts of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield and parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire counties, comprising North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, Chesterfield, Bolsover and Bassetlaw districts. The policies are intended to help deliver prosperity and services to the people of Sheffield and the area it serves.
1.14 A further chapter deals with related policy areas. A final chapter deals with issues and options not followed through to the current draft version.
3 City Policies and Sites: Consultation Draft (May 2010) – see Sheffield City Council - City Policies and Sites
-8-
1.15 The Sheffield Local Plan aims to contribute to creating the right conditions for businesses to grow and therefore to benefit the citizens of Sheffield through improved prosperity. Most of the policies for achieving economic prosperity and sustainable development are contained in the Core Strategy but there are three major areas of economic improvement that can be delivered through the development management process:
• Businesses can only thrive if the right infrastructure is in place and where deficiencies are likely to occur, provision will need to be made and the funding for infrastructure improvements will need to be identified.
• Businesses also need to operate, develop and grow in appropriate areas without having to worry about the presence of sensitive uses that could hold back future economic activity.
• On the other hand, new developments and residents can benefit from relative proximity by matching the employment requirements of new development with communities that are in need of new employment opportunities.
1.16 The City Centre has a key role as a driver for the transformation of the economy of the City and the City Region. Again, three issues need to be addressed:
• The distinctive character of the City Centre, and in particular the Quarters that make it up, are important components of this distinctiveness. The Local Plan seeks to achieve improved design quality to support regeneration through reinforcing the character of these areas, which will assist with providing a range and diversity of premises and sites across the City Centre.
• More specific policy is required to supplement the broad statements in the Core Strategy about shopping and other facilities in the City Centre and how the centre can best meet the objective of serving the whole region.
• As recognised in national policy the locations in the centres may not be able to accommodate all the retail development required. Although the Core Strategy seeks to limit non-food development outside the City Centre, further local policy is needed to inform decisions about proposals for out- of-centre development.
.
-9-
2 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY AND OTHER DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
Introduction
2.1 Effective and full economic regeneration through the provision of new homes, businesses, services and leisure cannot be achieved without adequate supporting facilities. Infrastructure connects people with these jobs and services and provides the means for these to be delivered effectively. The City’s aspirations for economic growth, as set out in strategies such as the Economic Masterplan, City Strategy, Corporate Plan and City Centre Masterplan can only be achieved with the provision of adequate physical, social and green infrastructure. Infrastructure provision is also a critical issue on the national policy agenda and local plans are now expected to include policies that actively seek to deliver infrastructure improvements.
2.2 Plans for the overall provision of infrastructure in the city is being set out in a separate Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). This will assess current levels of infrastructure provision and identify where shortfalls need to be overcome. Funding for new infrastructure is likely to be limited, and the IDP will play a key role in identifying funding gaps, priorities and delivery mechanisms for infrastructure.
2.3 New development draws on the capacity of existing infrastructure and creates new requirements. For this reason it is necessary for new development to make financial contributions towards the future provision of infrastructure to meet the additional demand generated. An effective mechanism is needed to determine the level of these contributions and how they should be spent. Two principal mechanisms are provided for in national legislation. These are planning obligations, that are related to specific schemes and delivered through Section 106 (S.106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 4, which the City Council, as local planning authority, is now empowered to set as a charge on most new development. The wording of the policy reflects the Council’s intention to set a CIL. Other mechanisms specifically for highways provision will also contribute, such as S.278 and S.38.
2.4 The main issue to be dealt with by this policy is how to effectively deliver infrastructure improvements through developer contributions, including the CIL. It is anticipated that Sheffield will have significant infrastructure requirements arising from new development planned through the Local Plan, and funding for
4 “Community Infrastructure Levy: A levy allowing local authorities to raise funds from owners or developers of land undertaking new building projects in their area.” National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2: Glossary, Communities and Local Government, March 2012 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
-11- these improvements is expected to be limited. There is a need for a policy to guide priorities for infrastructure to ensure that new projects are focussed on supporting new development and assisting in the regeneration of the city. To do this, developer contributions need to be effectively and efficiently targeted.
2.5 Core Strategies are expected to be informed by an IDP. Sheffield’s Core Strategy was prepared under earlier national guidance and, whilst it provides an adequate context for infrastructure decisions, a policy is required to identify generic categories of infrastructure which should be prioritised based on existing priorities in the city which are discussed below. The policy sets out how CIL spending will be prioritised and what the CIL funding is likely to be spent on. These priorities will need to be made more specific as a CIL Charging Schedule is drawn up and a ‘Section 123 list’ is published that sets out specific projects for CIL spending.
2.6 The Council has published a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and supporting evidence 5. Formal statutory public consultation on this took place between January and March 2013.
Policy A1
Infrastructure Requirements, Community Infrastructure Levy and other Developer Contributions
The priority for funding of infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other developer contributions will be to increase the effective capacity of infrastructure to enable or support development in the city.
Receipts from the CIL will be used only to invest in infrastructure that:
a. is essential for delivery of outcomes proposed in the Sheffield Local Plan; or b. has been identified to meet locally determined requirements in the neighbourhood where the development takes place;
and that:
c. could not be financed from mainstream programmes, site-specific developer contributions or other sources; and d. could be delivered within a reasonable timescale.
Infrastructure will be given priority for funding through the CIL that:
e. Releases potential for regeneration;
5 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/community- infrastructure-levy.html
-12- f. Supports meeting of the city’s housing and employment land targets; g. Maximises the benefits from scarce resources; h. Enhances quality of life and equal opportunities; i. Reduces carbon emissions; j. Increases the resilience of the area to long-term change.
Specific priorities are: k. Measures and facilities to increase the capacity and quality of the transport network and public transport, particularly on Key Routes; and l. Provision for schools where there is evidence of insufficient local space for demand arising from new development; and m. New or improved green infrastructure and public spaces in areas where there is a shortage; and n. Additional specific measures that would be critical to delivering the city’s economic and spatial strategy.
Definitions
‘Infrastructure’ – includes physical, social and environmental facilities and networks needed to serve development such as transport, telecommunications, energy, water supply, sewerage and drainage, schools, hospitals, health centres and open space, consistent with the definition set out in the Planning Act 2008.
‘Other sources’ – these are likely to vary over time but current examples are the Regional Growth Fund, Tax Increment Financing and the New Homes Bonus.
‘Transport Network’ – includes roads, rail, tram, cycling and pedestrian routes and facilities. For Key Routes, see Core Strategy policy CS52 and the Proposals Map.
‘Green Infrastructure’ – A network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality-of-life benefits for local communities. It may include playing fields, play areas and informal open space such as parks, natural or semi-natural open spaces, landscaped areas, etc. (see also definition of informal open space in Core Strategy policy CS47).
-13- Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
2.7 Current national policy focuses heavily on the need to improve infrastructure and plan for it more effectively, and much of the emphasis is on infrastructure to help deliver new housing, particularly affordable housing.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
2.8 The NPPF6 promotes sustainable development through three key dimensions, where the planning system has an economic, social and environmental role. Infrastructure as defined above cuts across all three of these roles, but it is specifically and significantly referred to in the economic role (NPPF paragraph 7).
2.9 Paragraph 21 of the NPPF recognises that a lack of infrastructure can be a significant barrier to investment, and that priorities for infrastructure provision should be identified. More specifically, local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan, including strategic policies to deliver the provision of infrastructure (paragraph 156) and to plan positively for infrastructure required to meet the objectives, principles and policies of the NPPF (paragraph 157). Policy A1 does this by setting out a commitment to a process for identifying infrastructure priorities and mechanisms to provide the funding for these priorities, particularly through the CIL. The criteria for assessment set out in the policy from e. to j. are focused on the NPPF priorities of sustainable development, particularly those priorities that focus on meeting employment and housing demand.
2.10 In order to deliver sustainable development, specifically a strong and competitive economy, barriers to investment such as a lack of infrastructure need to be overcome. Paragraph 160 emphasises the importance of working with the business community to identify where infrastructure is lacking, and the IDP process to support the delivery of the policy and the implementation of CIL will heavily rely on the views of local businesses in terms of infrastructure shortages and priorities. Local businesses and business groups have been closely involved as stakeholders in drafting both the policy and the CIL documents. The policy reflects this with a focus on regeneration and the delivery of new housing and employment.
2.11 The delivery of infrastructure is seen as a core planning principle of sustainable development, and plan-making should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver infrastructure, particularly to deliver homes and businesses (NPPF paragraph 17). Criteria e. and f. of the policy specifically address this.
6 National Planning Policy Framework . Communities and Local Government, March 2012 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
-14-
2.12 Criterion i. of the policy supports paragraph 93 of the NPPF, emphasising the importance of planning in supporting the delivery of low-carbon energy and associated infrastructure, as does paragraph 97.
2.13 Paragraph 99 promotes green infrastructure and the contribution it makes to manage risks associated with climate change. Paragraph 114 also requires local planning authorities to plan positively for the provision of green infrastructure. This is supported specifically by criterion m. of the policy.
2.14 Paragraph 75 recognises that CIL should place a meaningful proportion of funding in the neighbourhood where development takes place and criterion b. of the policy will ensure that this is the case. Paragraph 173 requires that, to ensure viability and deliverability, the costs of infrastructure contributions should be at a level that does not threaten viability. The CIL Viability Study will inform CIL rates and ensure that this aim is met. Rates will not be set at the margins of viability, as required by the CIL legislation in Regulation 14(1).7 More detail on this is included later in paragraph 2.177 – the rates will not be set so high as to seriously threaten viability.
2.15 Paragraph 162 requires local planning authorities to assess the capacity of infrastructure to meet forecast demands. This will be an iterative process between the Local Plan in terms of site allocations and the wider infrastructure planning process, but will addressed by criterion a. of the policy and through the site allocations.
2.16 Supporting communications infrastructure is a key aim of the NPPF in Chapter 5 (paragraphs 42 and 43). Although telecoms are included in the infrastructure definition they are not specifically referred to in the policy. This is because they are not a major barrier to development in Sheffield, so may not qualify as a priority under criterion a. as indicated by the Sheffield Energy and Water Infrastructure Study (SEWIS) study (see paragraph 2.104 onwards) and are likely to be funded from sources other than developer contributions (criterion c.). However, if issues of shortages arise, they can be addressed through the policy and telecoms provision would then be a priority under criteria e. to j., particularly e., f., h. and i..
Other National Policy
2.17 The UK Sustainable Development Strategy 8 sets out Government priorities including to create attractive and welcoming parks, play areas and public spaces
7 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents 8 Securing the future - Delivering UK sustainable development strategy. DEFRA, March 2005, page 122. http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk- strategy/documents/SecFut_complete.pdf
-15- and to improve the physical infrastructure of places. In developing the theme ‘Homes for All’ the Strategy also indicates the importance of creating homes in communities with the infrastructure needed to support them. Criteria f. and m. address this.
Infrastructure Funding Through Developer Contributions
2.18 Local planning authorities are empowered to agree contributions, or planning obligations, from applicants for planning permission in England under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. 9 Under S.106, any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may, by agreement or otherwise, enter into a planning obligation requiring a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.
2.19 S.106 contributions are negotiated on a site-by-site basis, with reference to current local plan policies. However, there are often competing policy requirements and the scope for contributions is limited. Policy A1 is a mechanism for determining how to prioritise these competing policy needs on a consistent and transparent basis.
2.20 The NPPF sets out in paragraph 204 how planning obligations under S.106 can be used. This is the mechanism currently used in Sheffield to achieve developer contributions. The ability to negotiate planning obligations under S.106 has been limited as part of the CIL legislation. They may be negotiated only where the infrastructure would be:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in kind and scale to the development.
2.21 From April 2014 10 S.106 will be further restricted, limiting to five the number of contributions that may be pooled to pay for an infrastructure project. In other words, S106 may be used for infrastructure relating to the development itself but not for making contributions towards infrastructure that is less directly related to the contributing developments, as this is what the CIL is intended to deliver.
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
2.22 The Planning Act 2008 11 empowers local planning authorities to charge a CIL on most new development to contribute towards infrastructure that is needed to enable the development strategy for the wider area to take place. The Levy
9 Planning and Compensation Act 1991. HMSO 2001. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910034_en_3#pt1-pb3-l1g12 10 Proposed to be April 2015 in the Government’s recent CIL Consultation – see paragraph 2.28. 11 Planning Act 2008. HMSO 2008. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/29/contents
-16- came into effect in April 2010 12 through legislation that also amends the Section 106 regime of developer contributions as referred to in paragraph 2.20 above. It has been amended by legislation in 2011,13 2012 14 and 2013 15 .
2.23 This Act sets out the legislative framework for the CIL to be introduced, and includes a range of definitions that infrastructure may include:
(a) roads and other transport facilities, (b) flood defences, (c) schools and other educational facilities, (d) medical facilities, (e) sporting and recreational facilities, (f) open spaces.
2.24 This range of definitions, whilst not expected to be exhaustive, indicates that, when considering infrastructure provision under the CIL, local planning authorities should consider it in the widest sense. The categories set out in the Act relate to the policy specifically as follows:
(a) roads and other transport facilities – prioritised specifically through increasing the transport network in criterion k.
(b) flood defences – not specifically prioritised but supported by criteria e. to g., j. and n.
(c) schools and other educational facilities – schools are specifically prioritised in criterion l.
(d) medical facilities – not specifically prioritised, but supported by criterion h.
(e) sporting and recreational facilities – not specifically prioritised, but some sports and recreational facilities will be prioritised as green infrastructure under criterion m. and also supported by criterion h.
(f) open spaces – green infrastructure is specifically a priority in criterion m.
2.25 The primary purpose of the policy is to indicate the broad priorities for allocating CIL and other funding in a way that supports delivery of the Core Strategy.
12 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents . 13 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made 14 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111529270 15 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111534465/contents
-17- 2.26 The case for the policy’s reliance on CIL is made on the Communities and Local Government (CLG) website,16 which justifies the use of CIL as fairer, faster and more transparent than Section 106 and giving local authorities the freedom to set their own priorities for what the money should be spent on. Also it makes the system more transparent for local people, as local authorities have to report what they have spent the levy on.
2.27 The City Council concurs with this, highlighting benefits of:
• Certainty – the contribution required will be known to developers in advance and can be planned for and built in to development appraisals;
• Transparency – priorities and projects that will be the recipients of funding will be clearly set out and justified and can be easily scrutinised;
• Efficiency – infrastructure provision can be better co-ordinated and complementary funding sources can be identified more easily;
• Focus – the priorities for receiving funding will be clearly set out and will have been justified;
• Better Value – the Government has estimated that extra revenue for infrastructure could be achieved by the introduction of CIL. 17
2.28 These aims are reiterated as the main advantages of the CIL in the April 2013 CIL Consultation (paragraph 3). 18
2.29 It is not expected that the emphasis will be undermined by early changes in infrastructure funding mechanisms. The Government has recently emphasised its commitment to the CIL. The April 2013 consultation on CIL proposes further reforms. In paragraph 9 it states that:
“The Government is committed to the levy and to ensuring that it is workable and effective.”
2.30 Paragraph 3 confirms that the Government considers the CIL has many advantages over the previous system and reiterates the advantages of certainty, confidence, more investment and greater transparency.
16 GOV.UK Website - https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-communities-more-power-in- planning-local-development/supporting-pages/community-infrastructure-levy 17 Localism Bill: Community Infrastructure Levy - Impact Assessment. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6037/1829714.pdf 18 Consultation on Community Infrastructure Levy further reforms. CLG, April 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/community-infrastructure-levy-further-reforms
-18- 2.31 Paragraph 2 of the Consultation states the role of the CIL as being to provide funding for infrastructure that the council, community, neighbourhoods and delivery partners have identified is needed to support development and mitigate its impact.
2.32 The approach in the policy is to set out the criteria that will be used to prioritise developer contributions in as clear a way as possible, that will assist in providing transparency. The policy establishes this approach as a principle for determining what projects developer contributions will be spent on.
2.33 A CIL is perceived to offer a number of benefits compared with the S.106 regime, as summarised in paragraph 4 of the Government’s CIL Overview:19
“The Government has decided that this tariff-based approach provides the best framework to fund new infrastructure to unlock land for growth.”
2.34 But the CIL will only be used where other funding sources are not available (see criterion c. of the policy). There may be other drivers for the provision of infrastructure, particularly where it is less related to unlocking development land to deliver growth, such as when it is needed to address existing infrastructure deficiencies (see also paragraph 2.109).
2.35 The justification for a CIL or any tariff system is that all except very minor developments have some level of impact on the use of infrastructure, so should contribute to its provision. The Government considers that the financial benefits accrued from the granting of planning permission should also be shared with the community that has granted it, in terms of improved local infrastructure (CIL Overview, paragraph 10). Criterion b. of the policy will help to deliver local infrastructure.
2.36 Guidance on setting a CIL charge and charging schedules has been issued 20 that sets out the responsibilities on a local authority setting a CIL:
• prepare and publish a document known as the “charging schedule” which will set out the rates of CIL which will apply in the authority’s area. This will involve consultation and independent examination;
• apply the CIL revenue it receives to funding infrastructure to support the development of its area, and;
• report to the local community on the amount of CIL revenue collected, spent and retained each year.
19 Community Infrastructure Levy – An Overview . CLG May 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-infrastructure-levy-overview 20 Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance – Charge setting and charging schedule procedures. CLG 2010. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1518612.pdf
-19-
2.37 Policy A1 is required in order to be able to effectively meet these responsibilities, particularly setting the broad context for the Charging Schedule and supporting development of the area. Firstly, there is a need to identify what infrastructure requirements will need to be funded through a CIL. This will need to be determined before a justified charging level is set – developers cannot be expected to contribute to infrastructure improvements unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed and have to be delivered (at least partly) through developer contributions. It is already very clear that a CIL would not fund all infrastructure needs, so a set of priorities that have been agreed through a comprehensive and wide-ranging consultation process would provide the robust justification for the CIL charges. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan would look at infrastructure delivery in the wider sense beyond what could be achieved through developer contributions (see paragraph 2.100 onwards).
2.38 Policy A1 sets out the proposals for the types of infrastructure that would be expected to receive CIL funding, so is an important starting point for assisting in the implementation of a CIL. However, it is not a comprehensive list of all infrastructure types that could be appropriately funded by a CIL.
CIL – Neighbourhood Proportion
2.39 The Government has amended the CIL to take account of its localism policies. CIL Regulations published in 2013 (see paragraph 2.22) will require a proportion of CIL revenue to be retained by the local community in order to fund the needs of the neighbourhood and to support the development of the area (the ‘Neighbourhood Proportion’). Where there are parish councils, the funds will be handed over directly to them. In non-parish areas, the Council will consult with local residents to determine how to use the Neighbourhood Proportion. This proportion will be 15%, rising to 25% where there is a Neighbourhood Plan in place. Criterion b. of policy A1 will ensure that these local priorities are reflected in the spending of developer contributions.
The Scope of Policy A1
2.40 The wording of policy A1 assumes that a CIL will be adopted by Sheffield City Council. Sheffield City Council’s Cabinet agreed in principle to the setting of a CIL in September 2011. 21 The reasons for this were:
“A CIL is recommended on grounds of transparency, efficiency, strategic effectiveness, predictability and the scaling back of the previous provision for developer contributions towards necessary infrastructure”
21 http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/cabinet-decisions/28th-september-2011 and http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2011/agenda-28th-september-2011
-20- 2.41 In December 2012 Cabinet agreed to publish a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and agreed the proposed rates that are included in the Schedule (see paragraph 2.6.22
Relationship with Local Strategies
2.42 National policy does not go into the local detail that is required in a development plan policy. In particular, the priorities for infrastructure provision and developer contributions should take into account local needs and priorities set out in Sheffield strategies.
Core Strategy
2.43 The policy will assist in achieving many of the Objectives set out in the adopted Core Strategy.23 The priorities for infrastructure improvements in the policy have been largely informed by the Core Strategy. The specific Objectives are:
2.44 Economic Transformation:
- S1.1 – adequate infrastructure is one of the conditions required to achieve a sustainable high-growth economy in the City Region. The priorities for infrastructure improvements in the policy have been largely informed by the Core Strategy policies so the policy will be instrumental in helping to deliver adequate infrastructure through effective prioritisation.
- S1.3 – green infrastructure is an identified priority in line with the Core Strategy objective. The provision of green infrastructure will help to create, improve and conserve environments to attract business investment (see paragraph 2.135).
2.45 The City Region will be better served:
- S2.2 – improvements in transport infrastructure, particularly in achieving the capacity of the network, will significantly improve connections.
2.46 Housing markets will be transformed:
- S3.1 – whilst not specifically a housing policy, criterion f. sets out a focus on delivering new housing through infrastructure provision.
2.47 Successful Neighbourhoods will be promoted:
22 http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/cabinet-decisions/12-december-2012 and http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2012/agenda-12th-december-2012 23 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council, 2009. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/core-strategy
-21- - S4.3 – the provision of infrastructure at district and neighbourhood levels will be promoted through the policy, specifically criterion d. and the CIL Neighbourhood Proportion.
2.48 Opportunities for all will be provided:
- S5.1 – criterion h. focuses specifically on infrastructure that enhances equal opportunities.
2.49 Health and well-being will be promoted:
- S6.1 – through criterion h. to enhance quality of life and i. that seeks to reduce carbon emissions that can also help to improve air quality.
- S6.3 – new green infrastructure improvements to meet the needs of new development will help to safeguard areas where peaceful enjoyment of urban neighbourhoods is already present.
2.50 Better connections will be achieved:
- S7.1 – transport network capacity improvements as a key infrastructure priority will help to improve accessibility to work and services.
- S7.2 – network capacity improvements will help to improve access in general by sustainable transport means.
2.51 More efficient use of the transport network and infrastructure will be delivered:
- S8.1 – the efficient use of infrastructure is clearly a key for priority when considering how to target developer contributions in the policy in criterion k.
- S8.2 – similarly, increasing the capacity of the existing transport network will help to ensure it is used as efficiently as possible.
2.52 More sustainable use of transport and sustainable development and use of resources:
- S10.1 – many of the priorities for transport investments will be to improve public transport and energy-efficient transport modes. The policy promotes network improvements, which will include public transport facilities. Efficient use of resources will encourage energy efficiency in transport and focussing on reducing carbon emissions will prioritise low- polluting modes of transport.
- S10.2 – the provision of better walking and cycling facilities could be supported through the policy as a way of reducing carbon emissions and
-22- increasing the network capacity by reducing the number of motor vehicles otherwise using the network.
- S11.2 – funding of renewable energy projects is promoted through the priority of reducing carbon emissions in the policy.
- S12.4 – waste reduction, recycling and re-use will be encouraged by an infrastructure policy that seeks to make the best use of resources.
2.53 The natural environment will be improved:
- S13.1 – criterion m. sets out a commitment to provide improved green infrastructure to meet the needs of new development. This will mitigate the impact on existing green infrastructure and help to safeguard and enhance natural features.
- S13.4 – the policy is clearly crucial to the delivery of new and improved open space where it will be needed as a result of new development.
2.54 Policy A1 will also help to deliver several Core Strategy policies:
2.55 The Core Strategy policies deal with infrastructure issues broadly and at a strategic level and do not, with some exceptions, identify specific infrastructure requirements, schemes or projects. They do not specifically prioritise infrastructure needs or set out the key areas that should form the focus of infrastructure investment. Policy A1 draws on the broad approach of the Core Strategy and identifies what this means for infrastructure provision and for the priorities that should be specifically identified. It will help to deliver the Core Strategy policies by prioritising infrastructure that will help to deliver the strategic policies. Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy sets out how the policies will be implemented, and many of them refer to ‘negotiating developer contributions’ as a mechanism for delivery (this was before the CIL was introduced). Where funding is limited and viability marginal, these negotiations will benefit from a policy that determines what infrastructure should be prioritised for delivery.
2.56 Criterion a. focuses on the need to provide infrastructure to ensure the aims of the Local Plan can be delivered and criterion f. focuses on the need for infrastructure to contribute to meeting housing and employment land requirements. In particular, the provision of new employment and housing development requires the supporting infrastructure to also be provided, so policy A1 is needed to ensure that such supporting infrastructure is provided as a priority through developer contributions. This is particularly relevant to Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS22, that deal with employment and housing requirements, respectively.
2.57 Criterion b. reflects locally generated priorities rather than Core Strategy policy. However, local concerns about green space and community facilities mean some
-23- overlapping of strategic and local priorities. So, indirectly, this criterion could contribute towards the delivery of aspects of Core Strategy policies CS43 (schools), CS44 (health centres), CS45 (quality and accessibility of open space), CS46 (quantity of open space) and CS73 (strategic green network).
2.58 Many of the policies relating to employment and the promotion of business and industrial uses will benefit from an approach to prioritising infrastructure provision set out in criterion e. (policies CS4, CS5, CS7 to CS13, CS27, CS28, CS30, CS32 and CS33).
2.59 Criterion g. will assist in the delivery of policy CS68, that supports the production of energy from waste.
2.60 Criterion i., that prioritises infrastructure that helps to reduce carbon emissions will assist in delivering:
- CS63(d), that deals with climate change and the need for carbon emission reduction.
- CS65, that deals with renewable energy and carbon reduction and, again, the policy will assist in making the best use of resources in this respect (criterion g). In particular, the requirement for development to contribute towards off-site carbon reduction schemes will be supported.
2.61 Criterion i. will also assist in delivering CS51 and CS53 (see below).
2.62 Criterion k., that encourages the provision of infrastructure that would increase the capacity and quality of the transport network and promotes public transport, could help deliver some, at least, of the following:
- Policy CS12, that identifies the need to improve walking and cycling in the Blackburn Valley;
- CS21, that recognises the need to improve public transport as a priority;
- CS51(c) and (f) and CS53(d), by making reducing congestion a priority for investment from developer contributions and reducing carbon emissions, that will be compatible with improving air quality (CS66);
- CS52(a), that identifies specific improvements required on Key Routes and, along with CS53(c), focuses on making the best use of the existing road capacity;
- CS54 and CS55, that identify the Pedestrian Routes that will be a priority for improvement and walking and cycling routes to be improved, including those that are part of the green network;
-24- - Measures to target investment on congestion reduction in the policy will help to achieve the aims of CS56, that seeks to reduce the impact of congestion on Key bus routes;
- CS57, that sets out some specific projects for Park-and-Ride and Car Parking in the City Centre. It seeks to identify new locations that would make the best use of the network;
- CS60, that includes a wide range of transport improvements that will be required in the City Centre, including midi-interchanges, park-and-ride, a shuttle bus service, improved bus routes, demand management measures, car clubs, short-stay car parking and improved information and signage. All of these could be provided wholly or in part through developer contributions as they will help to make better use of the resources in the City Centre, increase the network capacity and reduce emissions. Pedestrian improvements as set out in CS61 could also be provided through the policy for the same reasons.
2.63 Criterion l. that prioritises the provision of schools where there is evidence of insufficient local space for demand arising from new development will assist in the delivery of CS43, that specifically requires that new school places where there will be insufficient, will be funded by developers.
2.64 Criterion m., that promotes new or improved green infrastructure to meet the needs of new development will help to deliver CS45, CS46, CS48, CS50 and CS73, that determines where new open space will be provided and existing space improved, including improvements to the green network.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
2.65 Now the CIL legislation has been introduced, the role of planning obligations has changed. The Overview of CIL note (see paragraph 2.33) in paragraph 60 requires planning obligations and the levy to operate in a complementary way and for local planning authorities to clarify the purposes of the two regimes. The regulations scale back the way planning obligations operate, to ensure the local use of the levy and planning obligations does not overlap; and limits pooled contributions from planning obligations towards infrastructure which could be funded by the CIL.
2.66 Paragraph 61 of the Overview note emphasises that the purpose of planning obligations is to seek only essential contributions to allow the granting of planning permission, rather than more general contributions which are better suited to use of the levy.
2.67 This could encourage developers to challenge local authorities on contributions that have previously been requested but which may be claimed not now to meet
-25- the three tests set out in the NPPF (see paragraph 2.20). The Council will need to clarify how the CIL and S.106 will operate under the new regulations.
2.68 The generic term ‘developer contributions’ in the Core Strategy covers both CIL and planning obligations, and site specific developer contributions are referred to in the Site Allocations – where they could not be covered by a CIL then planning obligations would still be used. There will be a need to clarify the new approach through a revision of previous Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on planning obligations. 24
2.69 Policy A1 deals with the need to focus developer contributions for infrastructure improvements that may be triggered as a consequence of development rather than to ensure it can take place, and are likely to be required away from the site of the actual development itself. It deals with the need to make more general contributions that the CIL is intended to cover.
Other Districts’ Policies
2.70 The NPPF in paragraph 31 requires local planning authorities to work closely with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development. The approaches in neighbouring authorities are important, especially given the recent changes in the national planning policy approach to regional planning, that has abolished the Regional Spatial Strategy and is looking to replace it with a more localised approach where neighbouring local authorities work jointly on issues that are of a wider concern than individual authorities.
2.71 Neighbouring authorities are at different stages of their local plan preparation. Rotherham is of particular importance to Sheffield as a neighbour, as it is recognised that Sheffield and Rotherham is effectively a single local economy. 25 There are also important physical connections, particularly transport routes in the Don Valley and in the Waverley area.
2.72 Rotherham Council consulted on the Publication Core Strategy in summer 2012.26 Reviewing the representations received led to a reassessment and the publication of the Core Strategy Focused Changes 2013. 27
24 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/supplementary- planning-guidance.html 25 The Sheffield Rotherham Economic Study. CURS for Sheffield City Council and Rotherham MBC, 2007. 26 Rotherham Local Plan Publication Core Strategy. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, 2012. http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/6665/publication_core_strategy_june_2012 27 Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy Focused Changes. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, 2013. http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/consultations/Local_Plan_Core_Strategy_focused_changes_consultation/ind ex.php
-26- 2.73 The 2013 document recognises in paragraph 2.13 that the Rotherham Core Strategy should have been prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development. It is likely that some of the infrastructure priorities set out in the policy would benefit regeneration across the Sheffield – Rotherham boundary, for example, the Waverley link road, Tinsley Link, Bus Rapid Transit and tram-train. While there is no specific reference to cross boundary provision or the city region, CIL and Section 106 allow for spending across local planning authority boundaries.
2.74 Rotherham have produced an Infrastructure Delivery Study 28 that recognises the need to assess infrastructure requirements and provision across the Sheffield- Rotherham boundary, particularly transport, education, emergency services, waste and telecommunications.
2.75 Waverley on the Sheffield-Rotherham border is proposed as an urban extension area where infrastructure improvements will be required (as has also been recognised by the SEWIS study – see paragraphs 2.104 to 2.108).
2.76 Further joint work on strategic infrastructure issues across the District boundary would follow from the priority in policy A1 for transport, particularly on Key Routes. The range of Rotherham’s other requirements does not throw up any issues for Sheffield’s strategic priorities.
2.77 Barnsley ’s Core Strategy was adopted in September 2011. 29 There are policies dealing with Climate Change, Renewables, Transportation Strategy, Green Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure that are not at odds with policy A1 and there is also a commitment to deliver infrastructure improvements through planning obligations, including the pooling of contributions to provide infrastructure. There are no specific infrastructure schemes mentioned that would have an impact on Sheffield. The policy approach is considered consistent with policy A1.
2.78 The Peak District National Park Core Strategy was adopted in October 2011. 30 Policy GSP4 on planning conditions and legal agreements states that the National Park Authority’s use of broader mechanisms will pay close regard to the advice of County and District Councils and other relevant service and infrastructure providers in each part of the National Park. There are no proposals that would create any major infrastructure demands.
28 Rotherham Infrastructure Study Report. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. May 2012. http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/6668/rotherham_infrastructure_study_report_may_2012 29 Barnsley Core Strategy. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2011. https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/local-development- framework/core-strategy 30 Peak District Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Peak District National Park, 2011. http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/planning/how-we-work/policies-and-guides/core-strategy
-27-
2.79 North East Derbyshire consulted on their local plan in 2012. 31 Their Core Strategy Issues and Options recognised that whilst additional infrastructure will be necessary, simply providing ever more capacity on roads is not the answer in the long term. The Local Plan Booklet intends to foster links with the Sheffield City Region through strong transport infrastructure. These aims are all consistent with policy A1.
2.80 The South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority in conjunction with the Local Enterprise Partnership have produced a Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy 32 that is the key policy document for 2011 to 2026 and will inform decisions on transport priorities for infrastructure. Four main goals are set out in this Strategy. The first and primary goal is for the transport system to support the economic growth of the city region. Criterion e. of policy A1 will help to deliver this aim. The second and fourth goals are to enhance social inclusion and health and make transport increasingly safe and secure, which will be assisted by criterion h., to enhance quality of life. The third goal to reduce the emissions from vehicles is specifically supported by criterion i..
2.81 Page iii of the Transport Strategy sets out a list of policies covering 4 cross- cutting topics, one of which is to squeeze more from existing assets. Criterion g. in the policy is particularly relevant to this. Other specific policies in the Transport Strategy that are also supported by policy A1 (and the relevant A1 criteria) are:
• To deliver interventions required for development and regeneration (e, n); • To develop high-quality public places (m); • To focus new development along key public transport corridors and in places adjacent to existing shops and services (k); • To develop public transport that connects people to jobs and training in both urban and rural areas (h); • To reduce the amount of productive time lost on the strategic road network and improve its resilience and reliability (k); • To develop user-friendly public transport, covering all parts of Sheffield City Region, with high quality integration between different modes (g); • To ensure public transport is accessible to all (h); • To provide efficient and sustainable access to our green and recreational spaces, so that they can be enjoyed by all residents and attract tourism (m); • To work to improve the efficiency of all vehicles and reduce their carbon emissions (i); • To encourage active travel and develop high quality cycling and walking networks (k);
31 North East Derbyshire Core Strategy. North East Derbyshire District Council, 2009. http://www.ne- derbyshire.gov.uk/environment-planning/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-2011-2031/ 32 Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy 2011 to 2026 . South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership. http://www.syltp.org.uk/strategy.aspx
-28- • To support the generation of energy from renewable sources, and use energy in a responsible way (g, i); • To improve air quality, especially in designated Air Quality Management Areas (h, j).
2.82 In terms of other policies covering the provision of school places, there are no long-term plans for future school place provision – the current Sheffield Children and Young People’s Plan 33 runs from 2011 to 2014, so will not inform requirements before the CIL and local plan are adopted. The experience of the Local Education Authority is that the incidence of pressure points and capacity in schools is not readily predictable but that it is often possible to adapt to respond to unforeseen changes through the management and distribution of places. Provision for schools where new development would still create capacity problems is covered in part l. of the policy.
2.83 Green infrastructure features heavily in various corporate strategies. Unlike some other identified priorities, there is currently no national capital funding programme for green infrastructure and investment is largely through discretionary Council budgets, developer contributions and other available grant- funding that is secured on an opportunistic basis. Developer contributions towards the provision and enhancement of open space historically has been a significant source of funding in Sheffield. The implications of CIL for overall funding have still to be developed in the context of broader infrastructure requirements but the emphasis on greenspace in current policy supports the provision in part m.. Further detail on the relevance of other policies is contained in the Green Environment Background Report (see chapter on policy G2, Green Network).
2.84 Reducing carbon emissions is one of the main priorities as reflected in the Council’s strategy documents such as the Corporate Plan and City Strategy. The SEWIS energy study (see paragraphs 2.104 to 2.108) recommended that carbon reduction should be a key element of any decisions on energy provision and will need to be considered when setting infrastructure priorities and targeting investment. This is reflected, accordingly, in part i..
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Emerging Strategy
2.85 The Sheffield City Region LEP is a collaboration between the public and private sectors to encourage economic growth in the local economy. It has produced a draft Economic Overview document 34 that identifies key priorities for economic
33 Sheffield Children and Young People’s Plan 2011 to 2014. Sheffield Children and Young People's 0- 19+ Partnership. https://www.sheffield0to19.org.uk/professionals/strategy/children-and-young-peoples- plan/cypp-2011-14.html 34 The Sheffield City Region Economic Overview – Draft for Consultation. Sheffield City Region, December 2013. https://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/economic-overview/
-29- growth in the Sheffield City Region and sets overarching priorities and workstreams.
2.86 The city region’s Manifesto for Growth 35 identifies the need for increased capacity in motorways and rail services. This is promoted by criteria e., g. and k.. Another major issue highlighted is the need for better-skilled employees, particularly young people and school-leavers, that would benefit from improved school provision (criterion l.).
2.87 One of the 5 workstreams that set the priorities for the LEP is to improve connectivity to markets and jobs, that will be delivered partly through improving the digital infrastructure to enable a change in work patterns. Broadband access and speed improvements would benefit businesses and residents across the City Region. Policy A1 could assist in this, subject to its criteria for prioritising.
2.88 Securing new forms of finance for businesses and infrastructure projects is also a key priority, to be delivered by creating a range of new financial instruments and a sustainable investment fund, the Sheffield City Region Investment Fund (SCRIF). More detail on these funding mechanisms is set out later in paragraph 2.194. SCRIF is intended to deliver the infrastructure needed to promote growth and change. These infrastructure priorities would be assisted by criterion c. of the policy.
2.89 The Economic Overview also refers specifically to the Don Valley Carbon Capture and Storage Project, that:
“represents one of the most advanced full chain carbon capture and storage projects in Europe and represents up to £5 billion of capital investment into UK infrastructure.”
2.90 Criterion i. is of specific relevance here and could help deliver this project.
Corporate Plan
2.91 The City’s Corporate Plan, ‘Standing up for Sheffield’,36 recognises that part of the Council’s approach to being business-friendly is to ‘get the basics right’ including the provision of infrastructure and transport that the city needs.
2.92 The Plan has an ambition to make Sheffield a ‘Great Place to Live’. This includes many explicit references to infrastructure:
35 Manifesto for Growth 2012. Sheffield City Region - http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/Manifesto-for-Growth-2012.pdf 36 Standing up for Sheffield: Corporate Plan 2011-14. Sheffield City Council 2011. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/policy--performance/what-we-want-to-achieve/corporate- plan.html
-30- “We want Sheffield to have excellent parks, streets and other physical infrastructure.
We want to have a sustainable and safe transport infrastructure that makes neighbourhoods easy and safe to move around when walking, cycling or by public transport.
We want to attract, and work in partnership, with creative environmental companies to create a green energy and transport infrastructure necessary to reduce the city’s environmental impact and to enhance our competitive advantage. We want to reduce carbon emissions.
Making the city resilient to climate change is a further aim. This is about making sure the infrastructure of the city is able to cope with the impacts of climate change in the future.
Delivering this will depend on the Council leading this agenda for the city, including, working with energy companies to improve our energy infrastructure.
We can work with business and our partners more effectively to help us deliver green infrastructure, improving our energy security and affordability, and helping the city to become more resilient to climate change.”
2.93 The references to transport, parks, physical infrastructure, green energy and reducing carbon emissions are in line with the broad priorities set out in the policy, which will therefore be a key policy approach to support the delivery of the Corporate Plan.
City Strategy
2.94 The Sheffield City Strategy,37 produced by the Local Strategic Partnership, recognises that there is a need to improve transport links to and within the city and to address geographical inequalities in education. Parks and open spaces are identified as a key asset. These issues are consistent with the priorities set out in the policy.
Other Strategies
2.95 Other strategies such as Sheffield’s Green and Open Space Strategy 38 and the South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure Strategy 39 also support the priorities for
The Sheffield City Strategy 2010-2020 - Sheffield 2020: Where People Shape the Future . Sheffield First Partnership 2010. https://www.sheffieldfirst.com/key-documents/city-strategy.html 38 Sheffield's Green and Open Space Strategy 2010 – 2030. Sheffield City Council, 2010. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/green-and-open-space- strategy.html
-31- infrastructure projects under policy A1, and are consistent in their aims with the policy.
Summary of Infrastructure Priorities of Other Strategies
2.96 The message that emerges from looking at these local strategies is that the priorities related to infrastructure are:
• Core Strategy - better transport connections and improved accessibility local health, education, training and open space provision open space and informal recreation efficient use of transport, water, electricity, gas and telecommunications infrastructure low pollution, renewable energy
• LEP Emerging Strategy - transport connections digital infrastructure new funding sources carbon reduction
• Corporate Plan - improved transport infrastructure green energy green infrastructure carbon reduction
• City Strategy - address geographical inequalities in education, parks and open spaces
2.97 The common themes of these policy documents are:
• Transport improvements; • Improving parks and open spaces; • Reducing the City’s carbon footprint;
2.98 All of these priorities are reflected in the wording of the policy.
39 South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure Strategy - Creating and Improving our Green Network . South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, 2011. http://www.syforest.co.uk/projects.php?p=273
-32- Justification
General Evidence
Evidence for CIL
2.99 The decision to pursue a CIL and publish a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 40 was based on evidence from a CIL Viability Study undertaken by independent specialist consultants. 41 Other evidence will be presented as the CIL process goes forward, such as an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, that will incorporate an Infrastructure Needs Assessment, a draft ‘Regulation 123’ list that will set out what infrastructure projects will be a priority for CIL and a statement setting out what infrastructure will be delivered through CIL and what will remain to be delivered by Section 106 agreements. A revised Supplementary Planning Document on planning obligations will be produced to replace the current Supplementary Planning Guidance (see paragraphs 2.65 to 2.69).
Infrastructure Planning - The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)
2.100 The need to have a robust evidence base and to identify what infrastructure will be delivered, where, when and by whom, is a key requirement in order to successfully plan for new infrastructure provision. Much of this evidence will be brought together as an IDP, which will draw together the capital and investment programmes to deliver the priorities set out in the key strategic documents referred to above and the local plan as a whole. The IDP will provide a framework to ensure the necessary physical, social and green infrastructure is in place to deliver Sheffield’s vision and objectives.
2.101 The IDP will be a central source of knowledge on infrastructure programmes and future plans in key topic areas, based on a common evidence base, to allow multi-agency understanding of infrastructure programmes and the future requirements in the City.
2.102 The IDP has a dual role:
• A Corporate strategic role; to be a key document to support and inform other strategies in the City and underpin the implementation of the City’s vision as set out in the City Strategy and Corporate Plan.
• A planning role; to comply with national planning policy and to complement and inform the Local Plan by identifying key pieces of infrastructure needed to achieve the objectives and policies.
40 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/community- infrastructure-levy.html 41 Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study. BNP Paribas Real Estate, 2012. http://sheffield- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cil/pdcs/cil_viability_study
-33-
2.103 The IDP will engage key infrastructure stakeholders in the city to improve efficiency and integration of service areas. It is likely that there will be significant infrastructure requirements identified in the IDP and it may also flag up potential limits to the funding that may be available to provide it. The priorities in policy A1 will be essential in guiding decisions on infrastructure provision in the IDP and implementing its targets.
Utilities – Energy, Water and Telecoms
2.104 Economic development can only be achieved if physical infrastructure provision is present and adequate. Where economic aspirations require new development, this can only be delivered if there is adequate provision of electricity, gas, drinking water, sewerage, drainage, telecommunications and flood protection. The Sheffield Energy and Water Infrastructure Study (SEWIS) 42 was produced in 2010, to ensure the delivery of the Economic Masterplan aims, to support the emerging Sheffield Local Plan and help deal with the implications of CIL and the new planning obligations regime.
2.105 The SEWIS study has been used as background evidence for the policies and site allocations and includes an assessment of load growth on water, waste water, energy, telecoms and CO 2 emissions to 2026, the projected infrastructure need to 2026, planned investment and projected shortfalls in capacity to deliver 319 identified development sites in Sheffield.
2.106 It highlights the potential benefits to suppliers of long-term forward planning to meet demand, assesses potential constraints and abnormal costs for each development site, sets out options for joint working to reduce costs and numbers of excavations and protect the public realm, and makes recommendations for connections to renewable energy facilities such as biomass and energy from waste.
2.107 The headline results of the Study are that the provision of energy and water infrastructure in Sheffield is generally good and will meet the needs of the Local Plan without significant abnormal developer or public sector investment. Some investment in sewerage treatment will be required to meet development levels in certain areas but if allocated in the Local Plan, the funding will be met by the provider. Further investment in electricity provision will be required in the City Centre and investment in District Heating is recommended to meet policy requirements and make best use of assets and provide competition in the market place. Existing telecommunications infrastructure is sufficient to meet the needs of the Local Plan (this is in accordance with the NPPF, paragraph 43).
42 Sheffield Energy And Water Infrastructure Study. WYG Engineering, 2010. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/infrastructure- planning.html
-34- 2.108 More detail on the findings and potential requirements are set out in Appendix 1.
Infrastructure Needs and the Funding Gap
2.109 CIL will only be one of several mechanisms for delivering infrastructure improvements – indeed it is seen as a mechanism for funding where other sources are lacking (see criterion c.). The need for additional infrastructure funding is recognised in the Core Cities Report on new funding mechanisms. 43 The Core Cities are England's major regional cities: Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, that form the economic and urban cores of wider surrounding territories, the city regions. The Executive Summary of the report states:
“One factor that is key to city competitiveness is infrastructure and its role in supporting productivity and growth. The Core Cities have suffered from a legacy of persistent underinvestment in their infrastructure. Most have benefited in recent years from increases in public spending on housing, transport and public services, but there is still a large and growing need for investment in new and replacement infrastructure. Moreover, as the OECD observes, there is insufficient public funding available in the UK to satisfy the competing demands for improving and expanding existing infrastructure (Infrastructure to 2030, OECD 2007).”
2.110 This highlights the importance of ensuring that private sector development makes a fair contribution to meeting the infrastructure demands that it generates, particularly given reduced public sector funding for the forseeable future.
2.111 The report also notes that, despite the recession and the limited availability of private sector funding, demand for new infrastructure projects remains robust. There is also a need to ensure that inadequate infrastructure does not prevent or delay the recovery from the current difficult economic climate:
“Immediate action aimed at bridging the infrastructure deficit in the Core Cities could also act to boost market confidence during challenging economic conditions and bolster investment activity.”
2.112 Whilst the CIL is intended to fill a funding gap it is not always going to be capable of funding whole projects. In many cases there will be a need to consider CIL funding alongside other funding sources, where a particular project has a financial gap. Other funding sources are, therefore, relevant to the delivery of this infrastructure, as recognised in criterion c. of the policy and the associated definition of other sources.
43 Unlocking City Growth - Interim Findings on New Funding Mechanisms. Core Cities Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2008. http://www.corecities.com/what-we-do/publications/unlocking-city- growth-interim-findings-new-funding-mechanisms-full-report
-35- 2.113 The scale of the funding gap is not easy to determine. The Local Government Group’s report into funding for infrastructure 44 estimated that the national figure for meeting infrastructure needs is at least £500 billion by 2020. Pro-rata, Sheffield’s share of this would be around £5 billion. It is unlikely in the current climate that this need will be met, but these figures highlight the importance of optimising developer contributions for infrastructure. The approach set out in the policy will secure this by identifying the priorities for infrastructure investment and a clear mechanism for delivery through a charging schedule.
Alternative Options
2.114 The Sheffield Development Framework City Policies: Emerging Options 45 were published in February 2006. When presenting Emerging Options EPO1 and EPO2 the City Council asked for views on an extensive list of infrastructure types and the level of strategic guidance which the policies should give towards prioritising between planning obligations in relation to specific development schemes. Some suggestions for additions to the list were put forward (see paragraph 2.174).
2.115 The approach adopted in the Preferred Option 46 was to condense the range of obligations set out in the Emerging Options and relate them to the other Preferred Options that would deliver these requirements. At the same time, a new Preferred Option relating to Conditions on Development was included, to reflect the different types of developer contributions that had been recognised by the Emerging Options.
2.116 So the policy has emerged from Preferred Option PPO1, that dealt with planning obligations and PC1, that dealt with Conditions on Development, to create a new policy approach that sets out priorities for the provision of infrastructure and a mechanism for its delivery. A Rejected Option is to continue with the UDP approach of no specific planning obligations policy, which also means continued reliance on Section 106 contributions for funding infrastructure (see paragraphs 2.121 and 2.122).
2.117 At the Preferred Options stage, consultation responses suggested an additional criterion dealing with environmental sustainability / climate change should be added to the policy. Policy A1 now specifically deals with transport congestion, green infrastructure, carbon emissions and the specific use of resources.
44 Funding and Planning for Infrastructure. Local Government Group 2010. http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/13757366 , Page 9 45 Emerging Options for City Policies. Sheffield City Council 2006. Sheffield City Council - Emerging Options 2006 46 Preferred Options for City Policies. Sheffield City Council 2007. Sheffield City Council - Preferred Options 2007
-36- Alternatives Considered
2.118 The main alternative options for this policy are:
(a) Adopt the policy as worded (b) No policy / Retain UDP / Rely on the Core Strategy
Option A1a – Adopt the Policy as Worded
2.119 The strengths of this option are:
(a) It will introduce a mechanism for prioritising decisions on the spending of developer contributions that is related to the needs arising from new development promoted by the Local Plan in Sheffield as a whole.
(b) It creates a policy framework that is required by the NPPF to justify the implementation of the CIL.
(c) The policy responds to new legislation, is flexible, reflects infrastructure needs, is fair and will maximise potential (see the Justifications section of this chapter, paragraphs 2.99 to 2.113, for more detail).
2.120 The weakness of this option is:
(a) For the development industry, a mechanism for focusing developer contributions, particularly through a CIL, will mean that more development schemes will have to make a contribution than at present. But this is a weakness perceived in the CIL mechanism rather than the policy per se .
Option A1b - No Policy / Retain UDP / Rely on the Core Strategy
2.121 The strengths of this option are:
(a) In the absence of a policy, developer contributions can be agreed without the need to link them to infrastructure priorities, if agreed by the applicant. This gives wide flexibility to developers to determine what the level of contributions are and what they are used for.
(b) In the same way, maximum flexibility would remain for prioritising for the ‘Regulation 123 List’.
(a) It would not put strategic priorities normally appearing in a Core Strategy in a different local plan document.
-37- 2.122 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Infrastructure improvements will still be delivered, but the absence of a statement setting out priorities in one over-arching policy and relating these to future developer contributions, could limit the ability to deliver focused and good value infrastructure improvements through explicit prioritisation.
(b) Omitting priorities would create uncertainty and erode confidence about commitment to provision for transport, schools, green infrastructure and carbon reduction.
(c) The lack of a policy on developer contributions would fail to support the Council’s decision to implement a CIL, which should be based on infrastructure requirements and priorities set out in the local plan (NPPF paragraph 175 and CIL Guidance paragraph 4). It would make it difficult for the Council to determine priorities for infrastructure spending in a comprehensive and consistent manner and would not provide a strategic context for producing necessary policy documentation such as the ‘Regulation 123 List’ of CIL spending priorities, the IDP setting out wider infrastructure spending priorities and the statement regarding the future role of Section 106.
(d) The lack of a policy scores poorly in terms of sustainability, as measured by the Sustainability Appraisal (see paragraphs 2.162 to 2.167). It would not contribute to improving the economy by making job opportunities available to the whole community, as infrastructure provision would not be focused on what is required to support new economic development and deliver jobs where they are needed.
(e) The Equality Appraisals show that, while the UDP seeks to improve public transport, it does not give top priority to it or specify a funding mechanism. It would deliver some benefits for people with low access to private transport, but not as much as the policy approach. The UDP approach would not assist people on low incomes, children and their carers and young people (see paragraphs 2.168 to 2.170).
(f) It would not adequately meet the national policy requirement for strategic infrastructure priorities to reflect current delivery mechanisms.
(g) The Core Strategy provided for specific infrastructure needs but does not identify how to weigh generic infrastructure types against each other to determine their relative priorities where funding is not available for all needs.
-38- (h) The Core Strategy assumed individual developer contributions but does not address how to draw on funds (such as CIL) that are available city- wide for a wide range of potential infrastructure.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
2.123 The weakness of the policy is not essentially about the policy itself, but more a criticism of national policy that is now well established and unlikely to change soon. It is about impact on perceived ‘losers’ from the new national system without regard to the major benefits it brings in. CIL is now established in legislation and Sheffield would be disadvantaged by not adopting it. So the impact on bodies or individuals who would not have made S.106 payments is not a strong enough reason for not introducing the CIL. Once the decision is made to adopt a CIL, a new Local Plan policy is needed to make best use of CIL funds. By contrast, the weaknesses of not having a policy or relying on the Core Strategy are compelling, whilst their strengths are slight.
2.124 The option to adopt the new policy approach is driven largely by the need to have a new approach to developer contributions as a result of CIL legislation. Also, because there is significant evidence that adopting a CIL in Sheffield would bring significant overall advantages compared to a decision not to adopt a CIL.
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
2.125 The NPPF sets out three key dimensions to sustainable development, that determine how the planning system performs:
• An economic role, to ensure sufficient land and infrastructure is delivered; • a social role, to deliver strong communities, housing and accessible services; • an environmental role, to protect the environment, mitigate climate change and move to a low carbon economy.
2.126 These dimensions of sustainable development are key considerations when determining priorities for infrastructure provision and are reflected in the criteria set out in policy A1.
2.127 The approach in policy A1 is to set out a process to determine priorities for CIL spending. It adopts a two-stage ‘sieve’ methodology, where general approaches are first used to effectively exclude any projects that would not require CIL funding, then a second stage to set criteria for determining which infrastructure projects are appropriate for CIL funding. The policy then identifies the generic types of infrastructure that are most likely to meet the criteria, and concludes with a statement to ensure the flexibility that the CIL allows in allocating funding is recognised (see paragraph 2.26).
-39- Sieve One
Criteria a. to d.
2.128 The first sieve, to establish qualifying schemes, comprises of criteria a. to d. in the policy. To qualify for CIL funding, schemes must relate to the needs of the Local Plan, or priorities set locally that qualify for the Neighbourhood Proportion, as required by the NPPF (see paragraphs 2.14, 2.35, 2.56 and 2.57).
2.129 As CIL is intended to meet infrastructure needs generated by new development, it should not be used to provide new infrastructure that would be financed from other identified sources (see paragraph 2.34). CIL monies are the funding of last resort for critical infrastructure where no alternative funding is available to support new development. Similarly, it should not be saved for projects that are so long- term that they are beyond the reasonable timescales of the Local Plan.
2.130 Infrastructure projects that pass all of these tests can then be judged under more specific criteria. It is likely that sieve one will let many schemes through, more than can be funded by CIL, so that further prioritising through a second sieving process is needed.
Sieve Two
2.131 Sieve two uses the strategic planning and policy criteria that are appropriate to judge the relative importance of a wide range of infrastructure projects and programmes. These are criteria e. to j., and the reasons for their inclusion are:
Criterion e. – Releases potential for regeneration
2.132 Sustainable economic development and regeneration are key priorities in all of the main relevant strategy documents such as the NPPF (see paragraphs 2.9 to 2.11 and 2.15), the CIL regulations (paragraphs 2.22 and 2.31), the Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.44 and 2.58), the city region economic and transport strategies (2.80 and 2.85) and the Corporate Plan (2.91). Economic development and the need to be more business-focussed is a key Council priority and a specific aim of the city’s planning service. 47 Providing infrastructure to support economic development is necessary to deliver this policy and the criterion reflects this.
2.133 The impact that an infrastructure project has on regeneration may vary depending on its location. There will be a greater impact in key strategic areas and priority locations, so infrastructure that would directly support needed and identified regenerative development (such as site allocations) will be of particular value. Geographical location is, therefore, a key consideration in applying this criterion.
47 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/our-customers/planning-for-business.html
-40- 2.134 Infrastructure that would trigger other improvements in a priority regeneration area or release additional capacity of land that would contribute to the area’s regeneration would also be of particular importance.
2.135 Research by the University of Sheffield has identified a consensus across North West Europe that economic values can be attributed to investments in urban green infrastructure, although the nature of these valuations is dependent on the size, location and functionality of each investment.
2.136 Input-Output analysis used to analyse changes in final demand and the subsequent effect on output, employment and income shows that every pound spent on the VALUE investments in Sheffield generates an additional 94 pence for the regional economy (see VALUE final report, pages 75 and 106).48
Criterion f. – Supports meeting of the city’s housing and employment land targets
2.137 The NPPF requires that local planning authorities ensure infrastructure to meet forecast demands is provided (see paragraphs 2.11 and 2.15 and the NPPF paragraph 7). The provision of infrastructure to deliver the development strategy of the area was the main reason for the Government setting up the CIL process (paragraph 2.22). Ensuring that sufficient land for housing and economic development is a primary function of the Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.44, 2.46 and 2.56). If the infrastructure is needed to release sites for new housing or employment development needed to achieve the Core Strategy requirements it should be prioritised (this criterion is not about benefiting the occupants of the new development directly as the infrastructure would be considered essential and expected by any resident or occupier). A project should score well against this criterion if the absence of the infrastructure would prevent significant development from occurring (e.g. for reasons of statutory obligation or physical capacity ceilings).
Criterion g. – Maximises the benefits from scarce resources
2.138 Initial work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (see paragraphs 2.100 to 2.103) has shown that there is a shortage of funding for infrastructure across the city. But infrastructure is crucial to economic development and the need to use resources efficiently to provide necessary infrastructure will help to stimulate new development and create a cycle of economic recovery. The local transport strategy in particular has recognised the importance of this approach (paragraph 2.81). An infrastructure project would score well against this criterion if, for example, it contributed to making more efficient use of finite resources such as road space or land, or conserved or sustained the use of scarce natural resources or completed an existing scheme and made it more economic. It
48 The University of Sheffield as part of the Interreg IVB North West Europe VALUE project. The VALUE Project Final Report, September 2012. http://www.value- landscapes.eu/news/14/VALUE+Final+Report.html
-41- should also be a high priority if a contribution from the CIL helped to lever in other funding for this infrastructure.
Criterion h. – Enhances quality of life and equal opportunities
2.139 This is a fundamental function of the planning system (NPPF, paragraph 7, ‘social role’), reflected in the Core Strategy objectives (see paragraphs 2.48 and 2.49) and is a core aim of the Corporate Plan, to make Sheffield a ‘Great Place to Live’ (paragraph 2.92). Schemes that result in improved health (e.g. healthcare facilities, healthier environment or enabling healthier lifestyles) or that make an area and its occupants safer (e.g. catering for emergency services) should be prioritised under this criterion. Also projects that benefit disadvantaged people or groups, contribute to personal and community development or enhance or safeguard the contribution of the physical environment to people’s quality of life would be a priority under h..
Criterion i. – Reduces carbon emissions
2.140 Climate change is a major global challenge and a ‘think global, act local’ approach must be reflected in the local planning policy approach. Accordingly, criterion i. reflects national and local strategies (paragraphs 2.12, 2.49, 2.60 to 2.62, 2.80, 2.81, 2.84, 2.89, 2.92, 2.96 and 2.97). Infrastructure projects that reduce the need to travel, especially by car, improve energy efficiency and help reduce fossil fuel consumption would be priorities under this criterion, as well as those that mitigate carbon emissions, especially where it can be demonstrated that that scale of the of emission reduction is significant.
Criterion j. – Increases the resilience of the area to long-term change
2.141 Schemes that deliver this criterion will represent good value for money, as they will have a major positive impact on the area they serve for a sustained period of time, reflecting the need for sustainable development (paragraphs 2.9, 2.52 and 2.92). Examples of where a project would be prioritised highly are where it would provide improved energy security and supply networks, create resilience to extreme weather events, mitigate or be resilient to flood risk or contribute to adapting to adverse long-term economic changes (e.g. energy or food cost increases). Schemes that can be shown to be compatible with new technologies in the long term would also be prioritised (infrastructure that would merely survive technological change would receive only a low score).
2.142 All of these criteria in sieve two are key components of sustainable development and cannot be omitted from a comprehensive approach to evaluating priorities. Their relative importance is not specifically a component of the policy approach but will need to be determined in order to agree detailed priority projects for CIL spending (and as part of the IDP process). Weighting of the criteria using the Council’s service priorities gave initial indications on potential CIL priorities. This
-42- gave similar weightings to each of the criteria, which suggests that they are all key considerations with no great variation in their relative importance.
Specific Priorities
2.143 These priority assessment criteria can be used to anticipate the types of infrastructure that are likely to be priorities resulting from this approach. Criteria k. to m. are the general results of the two sieves and reflect three main infrastructure categories, namely transport, schools and green infrastructure. The summary list in paragraph 2.96 shows that, along with the generic criterion of carbon reduction in i., the three categories will include the majority of future priority infrastructure projects for CIL funding. These also reflect past and current achievements through S.106 agreements (these 3 categories have accounted for 97% of the S.106 funding set out in Table 1 on page 50)49 .
Criterion k. – Transport
2.144 Transport improvements, or more specifically the need to improve the capacity of the existing network, is a particular priority within most local strategies. Sheffield is a city constrained by topography and the scope for major new networks is limited for this reason, especially given limited funding streams for new local transport. The Core Strategy, the Rotherham Local Plan, the City Region Transport Strategy and Manifesto and the Corporate Plan all support a focus on improving the transport network capacity (paragraphs 2.45, 2.50 to 2.52, 2.62, 2.71 to 2.76, 2.81, 2.86 and 2.92).
2.145 A number of transport schemes, particularly public transport, are likely to score well on the use of scarce resources, reducing carbon emissions and equal opportunities. Significant transport spending will come from other pots, but CIL is still likely to be required. For example, developer contributions are a significant source of funding for the Tinsley Link and if a gap remains the route would have a strong case for CIL funding.
Criterion l. – Schools
2.146 The shortage of suitably qualified school leavers and graduates and the need to improve education and skills to better serve businesses in the local economy is an issue that is often raised by the business community (see paragraph 2.86). Education has been at the top of the Council’s agenda for some time and this is also reflected in local strategies (see paragraphs 2.63, 2.82 and 2.94).
2.147 Provision of additional school places to support new housing is likely to score well against several of the criteria, especially if it is within a regeneration area. This reflects the Council’s statutory duty to provide a school place for every child who requires one, and the need to ensure that new housing development is supported
49 Sheffield City Council S.106 database
-43- by an adequate number of school places. This means that the provision of school places is strongly supportive of meeting the city’s housing requirement. It makes a critical contribution to enhancing quality of life and equal opportunities and is especially supportive in regeneration areas, but is also desirable where the schemes are outside regeneration areas.
Criterion m. – Green Infrastructure
2.148 Sheffield is considered to be a particularly green city and this has been reflected in a planning policy approach that has prioritised open space and green infrastructure. UDP policies have been successful in securing financial contributions to open space provision and improvements thorough the S.106 system (see paragraph 2.83). In the past, 80% of S.106 financial contributions have been for open space. 50 This approach has been reiterated in recent local strategies (see paragraphs 2.44, 2.49, 2.53, 2.64, 2.83, 2.92 to 2.94 and 2.97).
2.149 Projects that are judged highly against the criteria are likely to be the provision of new local space or improvements to existing space in areas where there is a current local shortage. Removing identified shortages in open space would release housing land capacity ensuring that policy requirements are satisfied. New or improved green space would make a significant contribution to enhancing quality of life, especially where there is a shortage. Investment in scarce and finite amounts of open space where scope for more space is constrained represents good use of scarce resources.
2.150 Public spaces in the City Centre are likely to be prioritised through the regeneration criterion (see paragraphs 2.135 and 2.136) and, given the lack of open space here, the improvement to quality means they will score well on use of scarce resources.
2.151 However, some green schemes may not score so highly, especially where a shortage does not exist. Where there is enough open space already it would be hard to make the case that more is needed to enable development of the city to proceed. The issue in these areas is the need to improve the quality rather than the quantity of open space, that reflects the intrinsic value of green space and that CIL is appropriate to fund these improvements.
Flexibility
2.152 The approach to setting priorities and the types of infrastructure projects that are likely to be priorities, as set out in the policy is considered sound, as it is a reflection of national and local strategies and policies. It is also realistic in reflecting current policy approaches, whilst being based on clear planning criteria.
50 Sheffield City Council S.106 database
-44- Criterion n. – Additional measures
2.153 However, as the Local Plan looks long-term, there has to be a way for the policy to be robust should conditions change significantly. Criterion n. will focus on situations where strategies change and other priorities may emerge. For example, there is no specific reference to digital infrastructure in the policy, although it is relevant to some of the criteria (see paragraph 2.16). Given the increasing reliance on communications technology, this may become more of an issue in the future. Energy shortages, particularly gas and electricity supplies, may also become more of an issue in future as changes in supplies take place and create uncertainties. This could also affect the approach to setting priorities.
2.154 The criteria in the policy reflect local and national political and policy agendas as well as strategic planning policies. They are not overly prescriptive, as the delivery of specific projects will be through the CIL process.
2.155 The criteria for setting priorities are relatively comprehensive and there are no obvious criteria missing (none have been suggested in consultation). Other criteria could have been included, such as a straight consideration of projects that would maximise income through a measurement of gross value added (GVA), for example. This has not been specifically included as it forms part of the assessment under criterion e., and regeneration is not just about wealth creation. GVA does not always benefit the local area so is not included specifically. However, it could form part of the assessment process for the IDP.
2.156 Other infrastructure types have not been specifically referred to in the policy, such as health, utilities, community facilities and waste. This does not mean that there will be no provision of developer contributions for these infrastructure types, as the preceding criteria within the policy could mean that they are appropriate. For example, improvements to energy or heating provision could be more efficient and help reduce carbon emissions. Improvements to waste facilities could deliver some elements of the Council’s spatial strategy. An enhancement to a community hall could enable it to be used for a wider variety of functions, thus enabling the more efficient use of resources. Paragraphs 2.125 to 2.155 have explained how the choices have been made, and criterion n. could allow for some variation in choices in the future. For these reasons, other infrastructure types are included in the infrastructure definition.
2.157 The policy also prioritises other measures that will be critical in delivering the City’s spatial strategy (criterion n.). This reflects the fact that there may be specific issues and projects that are of city-wide importance whilst being fairly specialised and not easily fitting into any of the infrastructure types that are clearly prioritised. There could also be schemes that are extremely significant to a particular part of the City. Examples could be improvements to cultural or tourist facilities (prioritised in the Core Strategy Objective S1.6) through better signage or tourist information facilities. Facilities such as toilets or seating could
-45- help improve the value and viability of district and neighbourhood centres. Better recycling facilities could assist in waste reduction as identified in Objective 12.4.
2.158 There will be a need for further prioritisation within these broad and generic infrastructure types, but this level of detail will be determined through the Regulation 123 Statement, which will be informed by the IDP.
2.159 The justification for a CIL is based on an evidenced gap of projected infrastructure need for new development. Essential investment priorities for strategic and economic infrastructure in the city region are being identified through the Sheffield City Region Investment Fund (see paragraph 2.194) - decisions on priorities for 2015-2020 are expected later in 2013.
2.160 The current list of priorities for CIL identifies an investment shortfall of around £80 million between 2014 and 2021. The top priorities are mainly themed around education, transport, open space and carbon reduction, broadly in line with the policy.
2.161 Further work on needs and priorities will take place through the IDP, which will be subject to public consultation later this year. The IDP will take account of a more detailed assessment of infrastructure needs based on corporate priorities using an evidence based approach and the Council’s capital delivery programme of essential, strategic infrastructure investments.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.162 The policy scores relatively well in terms of sustainability, as measured by the Sustainability Appraisal 51 . The aim to make efficient use of physical infrastructure will be assisted, as the policy encourages the efficient use of a range of types of physical infrastructure and prioritises funding to improve many of them. Policy A1 also scores well in terms of delivering a strong economy with good job opportunities available to the whole community, as it will help to achieve infrastructure improvements that have been identified in order to deliver the Council’s economic development objectives.
2.163 It will help to provide education and training opportunities (criterion l.), as it is likely that the criteria for priorities set out in the policy will result in infrastructure funding to increase capacity in schools in areas where development would give rise to a deficiency.
2.164 An efficient transport network which maximises access and minimises detrimental impacts would be encouraged, as the policy seeks to improve the transport
51 Sustainability Appraisal Report 2013 – Appendix 3a – Matrices for City Policies. Sheffield City Council, February 2013. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/city- policies-and-sites/sustainability-appraisal-report-2013.html
-46- network, particularly to encourage regeneration, maximise the use of existing resources and reduce carbon emissions (criteria e., g. and i.).
2.165 The policy will specifically help to reduce air pollution and minimise greenhouse gas emissions and encourage a managed response to the effects of climate change, as reducing carbon emissions is a specific priority (criterion i.).
2.166 Conditions and services which engender good health will be promoted through enhancing quality of life (criterion h.) and the improvement of green infrastructure (part m.). An efficient transport network which maximises access will be encouraged, through the priority given to transport improvements that improve the efficiency of the network, reduce carbon emissions and make the best use of resources (criteria g. and i.).
2.167 Other sustainability aims may be assisted to a lesser degree, through the provision of infrastructure, which, while not specified in the policy, might be still provided as consistent with its criteria. Safety and security for people and property could be encouraged by infrastructure improvements for emergency services as examples of enhancing quality of life (criterion h.) and also through safer public spaces (see part m.). Good cultural, leisure and recreation facilities could benefit from funding if identified (again under parts h. or m.) and quality natural landscapes may be maintained and enhanced through the improvements in green infrastructure (part m.). Water resources could be protected as the policy states that resources will be used effectively and efficiently (criterion g.). Risk to human life and property from flooding could be reduced, as flood protection would be suitable for investment (criterion j.). Prudent and efficient use of energy is encouraged by the policy, as is the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste (through criteria g. and i.). However, not all of these are specific priorities in the policy, so their provision may be dependent on increased resources or local priorities (criterion b.).
Equality Appraisal
2.168 The policy also has equality advantages over the rejected options described above. The Equality Appraisal 52 shows that it should help people with low access to private transport, as improving the quality of public transport and the service provided will assist those that are reliant on public transport. This will also assist people on low incomes.
2.169 Some (albeit limited) assistance might also be give to people requiring personal support services and people with physical disabilities or infirmities or physical ill- health, through the priority given to enhancing equal opportunities (criterion h.).
52 Equality Appraisal Report 2013 – Appendix 2a – Matrices for City Policies. Sheffield City Council, February 2013. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/city- policies-and-sites/equality-appraisal-reports-2013.html
-47- Children and their carers and young people of school age will be helped by improvements to schools (part l.).
2.170 The policy has positive equality benefits for nearly all of the groups of people identified, due to the setting of distinct priorities and a mechanism for delivery through funding.
Consultee Preferences
2.171 Many of the comments on the 2010 draft, particularly the objections, tended to reflect the uncertainty over the Government’s approach to CIL at the time, rather than the approach to determining infrastructure priorities set out in the draft policy. Such comments are now out of date following the Government’s introduction of CIL and its continued support and promotion of it.
2.172 Some responses expressed concerns about viability. This has since been addressed by the viability study and recommendations made for the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (see paragraphs 2.176 to 2.178). Under the CIL legislation the charges have to be viable and will be subject to public consultation and public inquiry with an independent examiner.
2.173 There was some support for Policy A1 from infrastructure providers, such as British Waterways, Yorkshire Water, Network Rail and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.
2.174 The Emerging Options and Preferred Options included potential lists of what should be included as infrastructure (EP01 and EP02 on pages 161 to 163 of the Emerging Options and PP01 on pages 207 to 209 of the Preferred Options). Consultations at these stages suggested adding certain other types of infrastructure to the list, specifically on-site sustainable energy generation, ecologically effective surfaces, biodiversity enhancement, public transport ticketing or travel packs, off-site open space maintenance, waterways stewardship, solar powered street lighting, pavement renewal around sites, electric vehicle recharging points and car sharing. The approach in the policy has changed and there is now no need to list in detail all infrastructure types. The generic types included in criteria k. to m. are sufficient for the purposes of the policy.
Options Proposed by Consultees
2.175 There were no additional options proposed by consultees. Objections generally favoured the option of no policy (usually meaning no CIL).
-48- Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
Viability
2.176 As referred to above in paragraph 2.99, a CIL Viability Study has been undertaken that suggests some development in the city is sufficiently viable to make a CIL payment in addition to affordable housing and other contributions required by the policies in the Sheffield Local Plan.
2.177 The key findings of the viability study were:
• Most residential schemes can make CIL contributions, but this varies depending on location, the current use of the site and the amount of affordable housing that the Council will seek to secure.
• Office, industrial and warehouse developments are unlikely to be sufficiently viable to absorb CIL contributions.
• New retail space in the prime retail areas (the City Centre and Meadowhall) is sufficiently viable to afford a CIL. Retail park, superstore, student housing, hotel, D2 out of town leisure and car retail developments are viable throughout the City and can also make a CIL contribution.
• The results reflect current market conditions, which are likely to improve over the medium term. It is therefore important that the viability situation is kept under review so that levels of CIL can be reviewed, if necessary, to reflect any future changes.
• Paragraph 2.3 of the viability study recognises the requirement in the CIL regulations referred to earlier in paragraph 2.14 that the charges should aim to strike what appears to be an appropriate balance between revenue maximisation and the potentially adverse impact upon viability.
• Crucially, the study authors conclude:
“For developments in the City, the application of CIL of is unlikely to be an overriding factor in determining whether or not a scheme is viable. When considered in context of total scheme value, CIL will be a modest amount, typically accounting for between 0.5% and 2.5% of value. This is lower than a typical contingency allowance that developers include in their appraisals. 53 At the rates proposed, CIL is a marginal factor that is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the viability of development of the area
53 A contingency of 5% on build costs is included as an assumption in the Viability Study
-49- as a whole.”
2.178 This justifies the policy approach to seek developer contributions and to effectively prioritise its spending.
Affordable Housing
2.179 Affordable housing requirements for Sheffield have applied only to schemes of 15 units or above,54 reduced to 10 units in policy D3, so there will be considerable scope for achieving developer contributions on small-scale housing developments where no affordable housing provision is required.
Relationship between CIL and Section 106
2.180 In Sheffield, the City Council has been monitoring payments received and negotiated through Section 106 agreements for several years. Table 1 below shows that there have been significant levels of contributions in the past for off- site and pooled infrastructure. It shows that Sheffield has been successful for a number of years in achieving Section 106 funding to contribute to the provision of infrastructure.
Table 1 - Section 106 Agreements Income in Sheffield
Year Total Income Averages
1994 £70,215 1994 to 2012 £1,078,123 1995 £112,020 1996 £494,120 1997 £204,515 1998 £187,185 1999 £420,599 2000 £718,418 2001 £1,000,383 2002 £2,155,042 2003 £1,152,820 2003 to 2012 £1,512,183 2004 £854,055 2005 £1,714,498 2006 £3,046,673 2007 £2,777,400 2008 £1,940,609 2008 to 2012 £1,115,277 2009 £557,281 2010 £561,118 2011 £1,289,644
54 Sheffield Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance Update. Sheffield City Council, 2009. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/supplementary-planning- guidance.html
-50- Year Total Income Averages
2012 £1,227,736
Total £20,484,330
2.181 There have been significant variations in the levels achieved in different years. The lower levels in the earlier years can be attributed to the time needed for the various policies and mechanisms for negotiating and collecting S.106 payments to become established. Once this had occurred, relatively high levels of contributions were achieved in the years 2005 to 2008, when significant development was taking place. There was a fall in 2009, reflecting the downturn in the economy, but levels started to recover in 2011.
2.182 The Background Report to the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 55 in paragraph 5.5 estimated that CIL income could reach £4 million a year on average when identified development sites come forward (see paragraph 2.189 for more detail).
2.183 These figures show the potential for securing finance through developer contributions, even in difficult economic conditions. With the scope for securing S.106 being significantly scaled back, a CIL and an effective policy to focus spending efficiently is essential to deliver infrastructure improvements that will support economic regeneration.
2.184 Whilst the policy deals only with one particular type of infrastructure funding, there will be opportunities to combine developer contributions with other potential funding sources in order to ensure that priority infrastructure projects can be delivered. This wider issue of infrastructure provision and other funding is a role for the IDP, but is also relevant for the policy, as other funding mechanisms need to be combined with CIL to fund the priorities set out in policy A1. Details of potential alternative funding sources are set out later in this report (see paragraph 2.193 onwards).
Mechanism and Agency
2.185 The policy is focussed on the implementation of the CIL to deliver the majority of infrastructure improvements funded by developer contributions. The programme for implementing the CIL is underway, and adoption is expected just prior to full adoption of the Local Plan.
55 Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Background Report. Sheffield City Council, January 2013. http://sheffield- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cil/pdcs/cil_preliminary_draft_charging_schedule_background_report_- _january_2013
-51- 2.186 So the Council will put in place a system to determine how individual infrastructure priorities will be agreed, not just for CIL, but also for other infrastructure spending that is controlled by the City Council. Stakeholder groups and a decision-making process will be required. The Council will be the main agency for delivery, but engagement with partners at the city region level and infrastructure delivery agencies will also be necessary.
2.187 Potential priorities for spending the receipts from the CIL will be developed further as part of the evidence for producing the Charging Schedule that will be informed by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (see paragraph 2.100 onwards). The IDP will establish the costs of delivering the infrastructure priorities and the relative contribution of CIL receipts. The Council will use an income generation model to predict future levels of CIL income as part of the CIL auditing process.
2.188 The IDP will identify which agencies will be responsible for delivering each individual infrastructure project, but the Council will be responsible for releasing CIL funds.
2.189 It is anticipated that the CIL income will be increase gradually once the Levy is adopted, as schemes will need to be granted permission and commence development after the anticipated adoption date, which is not expected to be before the autumn of 2014. So there is unlikely to be significant CIL income until 2015/16 and even then some of the developments that start will have received permission before the CIL comes into effect. As part of the viability work on the CIL, an income generation model has been produced that can be used to assess potential CIL income given assumptions on future development levels. This predicts very limited income up to 2015, but an average annual income of over £5 million in the five years from 2016 to 2020. This would reduce to an average of over £3 million for 2021 to 2025 (although this reduction is due to the expectation that identified sites will be far fewer by this date – other sites are likely to have come forward by then). The level of CIL income will be crucial for how much of the priorities in k. to m. will be delivered.
2.190 The Council will need to put operational and governance mechanisms in place, both for collecting and spending CIL revenue.
Resources
2.191 Resources required to deliver the CIL will also assist in delivering the policy. CIL Regulations allow for a proportion of CIL receipts to be used to cover delivery costs. In-house resources are being identified to deliver this work and have funded the process so far that has led to the priorities in the policy being identified, particularly in deciding the scope of k. to m. in the policy.
2.192 Delivery of the policy is feasible given that developer contributions will be set at a reasonable and viable level, especially if developer contributions are linked with other possible funding sources for infrastructure provision. CIL funding could
-52- support infrastructure provision partly financed from other funding sources. For this reason, part of the delivery mechanism could be the availability of alternative funding mechanisms.
2.193 A number of studies and reports have identified the need to create a new funding source for infrastructure provision, for example, the Core Cities Report on new funding mechanisms 56 identified Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as a potential major new delivery mechanism, as did a report in September 2010 on funding and planning by the Local Government Group. 57
2.194 Similarly, the Local Enterprise Partnership in its Economic Overview document 58 has identified the need to find new ways of funding infrastructure projects. This includes establishing a JESSICA programme from the European Regional Development Fund, and an Accelerated Development Zone (ADZ) to allow prudential borrowing secured against future uplifts in business rates. The City Deal initiative is seeking to establish the Sheffield City Region Investment Fund to bring forward infrastructure projects. The Deal incorporates the New Development Deal for Sheffield City Centre that will use TIF to unlock development. A £23 million JESSICA fund has also been established, which utilises the Growing Places Fund as a recyclable investment fund. 59
2.195 ADZ’s and TIF’s are a concept based on the TIF system that has been pioneered in the United States. It is designed to allow cities to ‘participate in the growth dividend’ – or, in other words, allow local authorities to capture incremental value in the form of tax revenues generated from new development. It allows local authorities to borrow against the future value of schemes. This also reflects a section in the CIL regulations that allows local authorities to ‘prudentially borrow’ against future CIL income.
2.196 A TIF scheme for Sheffield allows for borrowing for the up-front financing of capital investment for a defined area to be developed. The increment from the TIF area needs to be sufficient to meet repayments on borrowing.
2.197 More detail of these and other potential infrastructure funding mechanisms are set out in Appendix 2.
56 Unlocking City Growth - Interim findings on new funding mechanisms. Core Cities Group, 2008. http://www.corecities.com/what-we-do/publications/unlocking-city-growth-interim-findings-new-funding- mechanisms-full-report 57 Funding and Planning for Infrastructure. Local Government Group 2010. http://www.lgcplus.com/Journals/3/Files/2010/9/14/LGA%20infrastructure%20report.pdf 58 The Sheffield City Region Economic Overview – Draft for Consultation. Sheffield City Region, December 2013. https://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/economic-overview/ 59 http://www.scrjessica.co.uk/
-53- Timing
2.198 The CIL is expected to be adopted in 2014. With a lot of the funding schemes mentioned above there are uncertainties due to the financial cutbacks in the public sector. However, the Local Plan looks long term, beyond the current round of spending cuts and also, hopefully, beyond the current recession. So even if the short-term prospects for private and public sector funding of infrastructure may not be good, there needs to be a policy approach in place and mechanisms available that will enable improvements to be delivered once the upturn in development and infrastructure spending occurs.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
2.199 As referred to earlier in paragraph 2.177, the CIL rates will be set at a level that will not prevent development coming forward, so the funding required to deliver the priorities in A1 will come forward as the development that creates the infrastructure demand takes place.
2.200 The policy recognises that there will be other policies elsewhere in the Local Plan that will rely on developer contributions for their delivery (paragraphs 2.2 and 2.10 of the City Policies and Sites).
2.201 The policy deals with broad strategic priorities rather than a prescriptive set of priority projects and targets, so allows for significant flexibility. However, the delivery of the policy and the priorities in k. to m. are particularly dependent on achieving reasonable levels of development in order to fund infrastructure provision. The economic downturn has hit levels of private development in Sheffield and the programme of public spending cuts will inevitably delay or curtail development and the revenue stream that would result, and this is a major risk in the policy. But lower levels of development mean lower levels of need for infrastructure as well, so this risk is one that can be managed within the criteria and mechanisms of the policy. Also, as the policy is long-term, the assumption is that the conditions for the implementation of the policy will be right at some stage in the plan process and levels of development and investor confidence will have improved. But the CIL Viability Study and the subsequent proposed CIL rates have been assessed using current viability assumptions, so should not pose a risk in themselves to the delivery of the policy.
2.202 The alternative funding mechanisms set out in paragraph 2.193 onwards could help to deliver infrastructure improvements in the short term that may not be immediately be funded using CIL before the economy recovers.
Monitoring
2.203 There is no longer a requirement to produce an Annual Monitoring Report, so it is unlikely that the policy will be monitored regularly. However, some monitoring will be necessary to establish whether the policy is working successfully, when the
-54- time comes for a review of the Local Plan. Also, the CIL regulations require that local authorities are open and transparent in terms of CIL spending, so should publish a short CIL monitoring report on their websites each year.
Conclusions on Soundness
2.204 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
2.205 It is positively prepared:
• Policy A1 is positive in setting out a clear mechanism for securing funding from new development for infrastructure in order to focus on delivering planned sustainable development, economic regeneration, new housing and employment.
• The policy is required to help achieve strategic policy aims in Sheffield, particularly the Core Strategy, but also the Corporate Plan and City Strategy. The priorities set out have been derived specifically from the priorities in these strategy documents.
• Infrastructure provision is key to delivering a huge range of strategic objectives and policies, especially those in the Core Strategy. The demands on infrastructure are such that a clear framework for setting priorities, as in policy A1, is crucial.
• There have been some objections in consultation on the proposal for a policy, but these have been concerns over the implementation of a CIL and have not suggested an alternative approach.
2.206 It is justified:
• The policy will create a fairer and more accountable framework for securing developer contributions towards infrastructure such as transport improvements, schools and green infrastructure. It will also make for better use of existing resources and reduce carbon emissions. Sustainability and equality appraisals have shown that the policy is appropriate in addressing the needs of the city and vulnerable groups of people.
• The regeneration aims of the Local Plan to provide new housing and jobs cannot be delivered without adequate infrastructure. The policy will help to ensure that, as new development takes place, funding for the required infrastructure improvements will be effectively targeted.
-55- 2.207 It is effective:
• Whilst the policy will not deliver all of the City’s infrastructure needs in the future, it is expected to contribute to a better way of assessing priority infrastructure projects and improved decisions on infrastructure provision. It will help to ensure statutory planning policies for infrastructure influence wider corporate and national spending priorities.
2.208 It is consistent with national policy:
• The NPPF requires local plans to provide for a range of economic, social, transport and green infrastructure and to plan positively to deliver infrastructure requirements.
• In assuming the adoption of a CIL, the policy reflects the approach that the Government has developed through national legislation and policy guidance.
-56- 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT
Introduction
3.1 Delivering the Core Strategy vision, objectives and policies means ensuring that conditions in business and industrial locations are such that they contribute to creating areas that attract new businesses and encourage existing businesses to grow and prosper. The broad locations for employment are identified in the Core Strategy and they are defined more precisely through the policy areas on the Proposals Map and the menus of land uses in policy H1 (see chapter 6).
3.2 Policy A2 sets out one of the guiding principles, that sensitive uses should not be located where they would frustrate the strategic objectives for economic development and employment. In keeping with this, policy H1 already precludes residential uses, in principle, in Business and Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and General Employment Areas. But the principle needs to be made more explicit to cover cases where there is pressure to override the ‘in-principle’ position in policy H1 or where sensitive uses would be treated on their merits (as, for example, with community facilities and hotels). There could also be situations where Business and Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas or General Employment Areas adjoin other policy areas in which sensitive uses may be acceptable or allowed on their merits. In these cases there is a need for a policy to manage the effects adjoining uses have on each other.
3.3 Policy H1 addresses the issue of the potential tensions between major employment uses and residential communities. The provisions for acceptable and unacceptable uses are intended to keep incompatible uses apart. However, there may be benefits of mixing uses that are normally incompatible that would need to be mitigated and managed through conditions or legal agreements on planning permissions for employment uses. One issue when considering local impacts is that development in an area fully delivers the potential benefits to its catchment area, specifically through the provision of new employment, by ensuring that the resulting employment benefits are ready available to the local community. That is the issue taken up by the second part of policy A2. Whilst employers should not discriminate between job candidates on their place of residence, they can ensure that local people are given the best possible opportunities to gain employment and training benefits from a new development nearby.
-57-
Policy A2
Requirements for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Employment
Development providing for sensitive uses should not take place close to industrial or other uses in industrial employment areas where the environmental needs of residents or other occupiers or users of such development would constrain the neighbouring businesses or industrial activities.
Local employment will be promoted, by expecting major employment-generating schemes to encourage as many employment opportunities as possible to be taken up by local people.
Definitions
‘Sensitive uses’ – these will include housing (C3, C4), residential institutions (C2), hotels (C1), hostels, many community facilities (D1) and certain types of leisure use (D2), theatres and outdoor leisure. Other uses not listed may also be considered sensitive.
‘Industrial or other uses’ – includes general industry (B2), warehouses and open storage (B8) and uses such as waste management facilities and sewage treatment works and other unclassified industrial processes.
‘Industrial employment areas’ – policy areas in which general industry is an acceptable use, i.e. Business and Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and General Employment Areas (see policy H1) and Waste Management Areas (see policy F2).
‘Major employment-generating schemes’ – schemes employing 100 or more workers, either during the construction phase or on occupation. If an occupier is relocating within the City, the net additional jobs will be counted.
‘Employment opportunities’ – Includes jobs, apprenticeships, training opportunities and work placements, both during construction and on occupation.
‘Local people’ – those living within the urban area (and its surroundings) in which the development takes place. The areas are identified in the Core Strategy and consist of the main urban area and outer built-up areas of Mosborough/Woodhouse, Chapeltown/High Green and Stocksbridge/Deepcar.
As there are two distinct elements to Policy A2, this chapter is split to deal with them separately. The first paragraph of the policy will be referred to in this chapter as ‘Sensitive Uses’ and the second paragraph ‘Local Employment’.
-58- SENSITIVE USES
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
3.4 By protecting businesses from the limiting impact of sensitive uses, the policy allows for existing and future businesses to continue to operate and grow unencumbered, thus promoting sustainable economic development.
Relationship with National Policy
3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 60 in paragraph 10 recognises that there is a need to consider the local impacts of development in order to ensure that development is sustainable. Specifically it requires plans to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.
3.6 The policy will discourage sensitive uses such as housing from locating in inappropriate areas where the quality of life would be poor, also encouraging sustainable development.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
3.7 The policy will assist in achieving several of the objectives and policies set out in the Core Strategy.61 These are:
3.8 Economic Transformation:
- S1.1 – providing the right conditions for businesses where they are free to expand and develop will help to achieve a sustainable high-growth economy in the City Region.
- S1.3 – Similarly, the policy will help to create, improve and conserve environments to attract business investment.
- Specifically, policy CS9 seeks to ensure that sensitive uses are not located in the specific manufacturing areas of Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge.
3.9 Successful Neighbourhoods will be promoted:
60 National Planning Policy Framework. Communities and Local Government, March 2012. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf 61 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council, 2009. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/core-strategy
-59- - S4.1 – by ensuring that housing and industry are separated, the policy will assist in creating successful neighbourhoods.
3.10 Health and well-being will be promoted:
- S6.1 – the separation of housing and employment will help to create a healthier and safer environment.
Other Districts’ policies
3.11 The local plans of neighbouring authorities have been referred to earlier (see paragraphs 2.70 to 2.78 above for more detail of the stages these plans are at).
3.12 The Rotherham Core Strategy Focused Changes 2013 has a policy (CS26) that seeks to protect mineral areas from limits presented by sensitive uses. This is a similar approach to policy A2, although it deals with different uses so the similarity is limited.
3.13 Barnsley’s Development Sites and Places Consultation Draft 62 , issued in 2012, has a draft policy MU1 regarding mixed use development, that states that:
“Mixed use development will not be supported where the operation of a current or potential employment use would be stifled by being adjacent to a more sensitive use”
3.14 This approach is very similar to that in policy A2.
3.15 There are no equivalent policies in the other adjoining authorities.
Corporate Plan
3.16 The City’s Corporate Plan, ‘Standing up for Sheffield’63 aims to ensure the Council is business-friendly. Protecting businesses from sensitive uses will be a contribution to this policy approach.
62 Development Sites and Places Consultation Draft . Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2012. http://consult.barnsley.gov.uk/portal/development/planning/dsap/dsap?pointId=1164684 63 Standing up for Sheffield: Corporate Plan 2011-14. Sheffield City Council 2011. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/policy--performance/what-we-want-to-achieve/corporate- plan.html
-60- Justification – Sensitive Uses
Issues that the Policy addresses
3.17 The Core Strategy deals with the general distribution of economic activity but there is a need for a development management policy that addresses the local impacts this may have.
3.18 As referred to in paragraph 3.3, it is not always possible to ensure incompatible uses are kept apart using policy area designations alone. Circumstances may arise where a proposal is in accordance with policy H1 but would still have a detrimental impact on the operation of a business (see paragraph 3.34 for more detail). It is therefore necessary to have a development management policy that allows this potential impact to be considered with due weight at the planning application stage. Policy A2 will achieve this and will effectively continue an approach established in the Unitary Development Plan, whilst also consolidating and refining it.
3.19 Unitary Development Plan policy IB11(a) states that:
“In Fringe Industry and Business Area, residential institutions (C2) and housing (C3), including redevelopment, will be permitted only where the development would not further constrain industrial or business development to protect the environment of the new housing”
3.20 The aims of the UDP policy were very similar to those of policy A2 and it was a consideration in determining at least 63 planning applications since 2004. IB11 is a policy that deals with conditions on development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas, where residential uses were listed as acceptable, so it has generally not been used as a reason for refusal. But it has been successful in mitigating the impacts of residential development in business and industrial areas.
Alternative Options
3.21 The policy was not introduced at the Emerging Options stage and was first proposed as a Preferred Option, PC1(e), in 2007, so no specific alternatives (other than no policy) have been considered.
Alternatives Considered
3.22 The main options for this policy are:
(a) No policy / Rely on the Core Strategy (b) Retain UDP (c) Adopt the policy as worded
-61-
Option A2a – No Policy / Rely on Core Strategy
3.23 An alternative option to the policy would be to have no policy dealing specifically with sensitive uses and relying on other policies to deliver them. The Core Strategy defines strategic locations for business and industrial uses but does not specifically keep them separate (other than policy CS9).
3.24 The strength of this option is:
(a) Both businesses and sensitive uses would be free to set up and operate without any policy restriction.
3.25 The weakness of this option is:
(a) The lack of a policy could result in situations where sensitive uses develop and expand in unsuitable areas, thus creating nuisance for the occupiers or users of the development. This would result in complaints and restrictions being imposed on the operation of nearby businesses, adversely affecting their economic viability, and disturbance and an unsatisfactory environment for residents or users of the sensitive use.
Option A2b - Retain UDP
3.26 UDP policy IB11(a) applies only to Fringe Industry and Business Areas, where both industrial and housing uses were either preferred or acceptable.
3.27 The strength of this option is:
(a) IB11(a) has proved successful in supporting industry and business areas by mitigating the impact of residential uses on existing businesses (see paragraph 3.20).
3.28 The weakness of this option is:
(a) The UDP policy only applies to certain industrial areas and to residential uses. It is therefore more restricted in its operation than policy A2, which applies to all areas where industrial uses are acceptable and to all sensitive uses. Paragraph 3.34 lists examples where policy A2 would protect businesses but policy IB11(a) would offer no protection.
Option A2c – Adopt the Policy as Worded
3.29 Policy A2 builds on the UDP approach but applies it to all industrial employment areas and all sensitive uses.
-62- 3.30 The strengths of this option are:
(a) The policy would minimise situations where the operation of a business causes nuisance through, for example, noise, fumes, or operation at unsociable hours that would lead to unacceptable living conditions for residents, or disturbance to occupiers or visitors to a sensitive use.
(b) Living conditions will be improved for residents close to industrial areas.
(c) The policy will apply to all industrial employment areas (Business and Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and General Employment Areas). It will apply to all sensitive uses (housing, residential institutions, hostels, hotels, community facilities and certain types of leisure – see paragraph 3.33 below).
3.31 The weakness of this option is:
(a) The policy could reduce the potential for some new housing and other sensitive uses, albeit in areas that are marginal for housing due to living conditions.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives – Sensitive Uses
3.32 In short, having no additional policy would remove the UDP policy, which has been successful in protecting businesses from the restrictions that could be placed on them by the close proximity of sensitive uses (the UDP Monitoring Report did not note any issues with IB11). Policy A2 is effectively a development of the UDP, but with a wider perspective, as the advantages summarised above demonstrate.
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
3.33 The purpose of the policy is to ensure that constraints on business activity are minimised in areas that are specifically designated for those uses. It will also guide new development to appropriate areas. Examples of sensitive uses that are named in the policy are:
• Housing (C3 and C4) – these are probably the most sensitive uses of all and create the most potential for conflict. Residents will expect to be able to live in conditions where there is no nuisance from noise, smells, heavy vehicle movements, pollution and contamination, or operation at unsociable hours.
• Residential institutions (C2) and hostels – have the same potential to suffer nuisance as with housing, although residents may not be permanent so the potential for complaint may be less. However, the right to a decent living environment is the same.
-63- • Hotels (C1) – are normally only temporary residences, but the potential for complaints about nuisance is high, as the comfort and enjoyment of the customer is a key element of the business of the hotel. The potential for problems is also greater with higher quality hotels, where customers pay higher charges and have more expectations for comfort.
• Community Facilities (D1) – the potential for conflict will depend on the type of facility, but many D1 uses would expect to have high quality local environments. Nurseries, crèches and schools would expect good air quality and low pollution and disturbance; schools, places of worship, libraries, museums and galleries will expect low noise levels.
• Certain types of leisure use (D2), theatres and outdoor leisure – there could be conflicts if the leisure use is outdoor, where air quality and fumes from industrial operations would be a problem, or where noise could be an issue, such as with theatres and cinemas.
3.34 Negative impacts from sensitive uses could be a significant constraint on the development of industrial sites and such a situation would potentially constrain the supply of land for industrial uses. Examples of where the potential for conflict between sensitive uses and industrial operations could occur are:
• Where sensitive uses in Business and Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and General Employment Areas would not be prohibited under policy H1. Hotels are a sensitive use that are listed in policy H1 to be determined on their merits. In some cases they may be appropriate in industrial areas where they are accessibly located or can complement businesses. However, as they are residential uses they could also suffer from nuisance if located too close to industrial operations, so policy A2 is required to ensure this does not occur. Other sensitive uses, such as hostels, community facilities (D1) and leisure (D2) are also to be determined on their merits, so will need the check on suitability that policy A2 would provide.
• Where different policy areas adjoin each other. There are locations where business and industrial areas adjoin housing areas. This creates the potential for industrial and sensitive uses to be close. In most cases, business and industrial areas are separated from housing areas by distances or physical boundaries, but examples of where they adjoin each other are:
• in the Sheaf Valley along Aizlewood Road and Chippinghouse Road, where a Business and Industrial Area sits across the road from a Housing Area. • Johnson Lane at Ecclesfield where Housing and Business and Industrial Areas adjoin with no major physical boundaries.
-64- • Darnall (north of Handsworth Avenue and west of Collister Drive).
Policy H1 does not cover uses in adjoining areas, so in all of these cases, there will be a need to consider the impacts of sensitive uses and mitigate accordingly.
• Where a sensitive use would normally be Unacceptable in principle but could be granted planning permission contrary to Policy H1. There may be exceptional situations where it is considered that other factors may outweigh a policy objection to a sensitive use in a business and industrial area that would normally be unacceptable. If this were the case, the impact of the sensitive use should be mitigated to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on industrial uses, in order to justify allowing a development that is contrary to policy H1. Policy A2 will ensure that this mitigation is provided as part of the development. Possible mitigation measures could include acoustic and visual screening.
Sustainability Appraisal
3.35 The policy supports a strong economy with good job opportunities by protecting and encouraging businesses to locate in the city and expand without constraint.
3.36 Good health will be encouraged as residential uses will not be negatively impacted by the proximity of industrial uses.
Equality Appraisal
3.37 There are no significant equality impacts other than the potential that households on low incomes are more likely to live in areas with poor living conditions.
Options Proposed by Consultees
3.38 Yorkshire Water commented at the Preferred Options stage (comment number 592 on Preferred Option PC1(e)) that the policy should apply to all areas, not just employment areas. This would not be appropriate, as industrial uses where they exist in, for example, housing areas should not receive protection through the policy, as they are not appropriate in such areas.
3.39 Corus Engineering Steels suggested that the policy in the Consultation Draft should have additional wording “unless appropriate mitigation can be provided” (comment no. dcps84). This would not provide a useful alternative as the policy as worded would require new development to provide mitigation in any case in order to comply with the policy, so the additional wording is unnecessary.
-65- Effectiveness of the Policy – Sensitive Uses
Delivery
Viability
3.40 The policy could restrict flexibility for a range of uses in industrial employment areas, by discouraging sensitive uses that may be more financially profitable than the preferred uses. However, when compared with the overall negative financial impact that would result from the lack of a policy, general viability is improved by the policy.
3.41 The need to locate sensitive development away from industry should not be significantly affected by market conditions, although there may then be more pressure to build housing on cheaper industrial land. The need to support businesses, especially in difficult financial conditions, should override this.
3.42 Viability implications would be little different from those of the UDP policy, which has not raised viability objections.
Mechanism and Agency
3.43 The mechanism for delivery is through the development management process in determining planning applications. Where sensitive uses are proposed that would be contrary to the policy, they would either be refused, or mitigation measures put in place to ensure they comply. The agencies in this case are the local planning authority and the applicant / developer. There may also be environmental health considerations to be taken in to account.
3.44 As this is a continuation (albeit refined) of the UDP approach, developers should be committed to implementation, as indicated by the low number of objections.
Resources
3.45 There would be no significant additional resources required to implement the policy.
Timing
3.46 The policy approach is largely a continuation of the UDP approach, so there are no timing issues and the policy can be implemented immediately.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
3.47 The policy seeks to protect businesses from the unexpected impacts of new sensitive uses. At the same time, judgements about potential impacts from
-66- particular proposals in particular locations will allow some flexibility and the policy will encourage negotiation and agreements on mitigation as part of the development management process.
3.48 Pressure for new housing land could work against protecting land for industry from the impact of sensitive uses and the policy provides a safeguard against this risk.
3.49 The Government has recently introduced new permitted development rights that allow certain changes of use such as offices and retail to residential use without the need for planning permission. 64 These rights could restrict the ability of the Council to prevent sensitive uses where they would not be in line with policy A2. However, they will be in place for a period of three years from 30 May 2013, so will not be in place for the whole duration of the Local Plan, and for less than 2 years from adoption of the Plan. Also, the Government’s Impact Assessment 65 suggests the number of conversions that will take place under the new regime will be minimal. They are also expected to be almost exclusively in the south of England where residential values are sufficiently high to make such schemes financially viable. 66
Monitoring
3.50 There is no longer a requirement to produce an Annual Monitoring Report, so it is unlikely that the policy will be monitored regularly. However, some monitoring will be necessary to establish whether the policy is working successfully, when the time comes for a review of the Local Plan. This will identify how far the measures agreed have been implemented.
Conclusions on Soundness – Sensitive Uses
3.51 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
3.52 It is positively prepared:
• The policy builds on a successful UDP approach. It supports the Core Strategy objectives to attract and encourage new businesses and the Corporate Plan approach to being business-friendly.
64 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-breathe-life-into-empty-buildings-and-boost- growth 65 Relaxation of planning rules for change of use from offices to residential – Impact Assessment. CLG, 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197820/change_of_use_fro m_offices_to_residential_-_impact_assessment.pdf 66 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1179682/office-to-resi-changes-will-create-north-south- opportunity-divide/
-67- 3.53 It is justified:
• It protects businesses and encourages them to locate and grow by reducing the risk of unexpected constraints on their operations.
• It protects sensitive uses from nuisance and threats to well-being and health by avoiding unsuitable locations.
3.54 It is effective:
• The policy can be delivered through the development management process and requires no additional resources so can be implemented swiftly and easily.
• There are mechanisms in place and expertise available that can support delivery of the policy and limit risk to achieving its aims.
3.55 It is consistent with national policy:
• It encourages sustainable development and considers local impacts, as required by the NPPF.
• It will help to deliver national policy aims that seek to create sustainable patterns of development and deliver suitable locations for businesses and housing.
• It will build on an established and successful UDP approach to creating suitable conditions for businesses.
LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
3.56 Paragraph 10 of the NPPF requires plans to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. The policy encourages development to take account of its local impact to be sustainable.
3.57 Paragraph 37 requires planning policies to aim for a balance of land uses so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment and other
-68- stated purposes. Policy A2 contributes to achieving this aim with its encouragement of a more local workforce.
3.58 In turn this forms a solution which supports reductions in congestion and greenhouse gas emissions (see NPPF paragraphs 18 and 30) and air pollution (paragraphs 109 and 124).
3.59 In 2008, the All Party Urban Development Group published a report that looked at ensuring local communities gain employment from regeneration. 67 This report includes research that is useful in helping to assess the economic and social value of a local employment policy. One of the recommendations (page 5) was that:
“City councils need to do more to use their existing powers to promote local employment around major regeneration projects”
3.60 The report identifies some key benefits that can accrue from increasing employment for local people, both for the residents and businesses themselves and also for the local and national economy. These advantages are set out on page 8 of the report:
• “individuals receive increases in their personal incomes and should feel more included in change in their locality;
• the city benefits from more money in the local economy to help sustain regeneration, as well as hopefully becoming more equal and inclusive;
• nationally there should be lower levels of worklessness and an increase in skill levels; and
• businesses have better skilled employees and a local consumer market in which to sell goods.”
3.61 As the report notes, these benefits make a strong argument for the prioritisation of local employment during and after physical renewal. Overlooking local people exacerbates social exclusion that leads to higher levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. This in turn has a negative impact on the willingness of businesses to invest in the area:
“A failure to engage local people ... can create a perception that regeneration is something that is being done to them rather than for and with them.”
67 Building Local Jobs: Ensuring Local Communities Gain Employment From Regeneration. All Party Urban Development Group, 2008. http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/APUDG- BuildingLocalJobsFINAL.pdf
-69- 3.62 This report shows that there are economic benefits to local people, developers and occupiers of new development in full engagement between all parties. It is not just a social responsibility for business, but also represents good economic practice for businesses.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
3.63 The policy will assist in achieving several of the objectives and policies set out in the Core Strategy.68 These are:
3.64 Successful Neighbourhoods will be promoted:
- S4.2 – promoting local employment represents a local economic and development initiative that will support local communities and local businesses.
- S4.3 – the policy would also encourage training of people at a neighbourhood level to assist them into employment.
3.65 Opportunities for all will be improved:
- S5.2 – requiring developers to seek to employ people that live locally will ensure that benefits are focussed on the needs of the local area.
3.66 Some objectives that relate to creating jobs close to where people live will also be made more achievable by the policy, notably S5.4, S6.1, S7.2, S8.2, S9.1 and S10.2. The policy should encourage more jobs to be taken up by employees living within the local area, that will:
• Improve accessibility by a range of transport options • encourage healthier forms of transport such as walking and cycling • reduce vehicle emissions • reduce congestion and the distances people need to travel • allow single journeys to serve several purposes.
3.67 The policy will also assist in delivering Core Strategy policy CS51(b) and (c), as A2 seeks to maximise accessibility and contain congestion, so will encourage the location of jobs close to where people live.
68 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council, 2009. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/core-strategy
-70- Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Emerging Strategy
3.68 The Draft Economic Overview 69 focuses heavily on the need to improve the city region’s workforce skills, particularly advocating an employer-led approach through apprenticeships, etc. It emphasises the need for skills provision to be ‘business-informed’. The City Deal referred to earlier in paragraph 2.194 will have an emphasis on ensuring skills are a focus for funding. Policy A2 is employer-focussed, so will help to deliver these LEP priorities.
3.69 The city region’s Manifesto for Growth (see paragraph 2.86) highlights the need for better-skilled employees, due to a skills gap in terms of ‘basic employability’, ‘technical’ and ‘higher’ skills. It makes reference to a LEP Skills Infrastructure Plan that will need to be delivered to ensure a successful city region economy. Policy A2 will focus the attention of developers on the potential for local employment and training so will assist in delivering the improvement in employability skills that the LEP is seeking.
Corporate Plan
3.70 The Corporate Plan recognises that part of the Council’s approach to being business-friendly is to ‘get the basics right’ including the provision of skills that the city needs. The Plan seeks to ensure that local people and communities actively involved in making decisions about their lives and areas. The Plan states:
“We want Sheffield to be a city that has successful places and sustainable communities with access to high quality housing, local services, shops, and jobs,”
Sheffield needs people with the right skills for the jobs that are created and available in the city. We will work to develop a highly skilled workforce which meets the needs and expectations of existing and potential employers in Sheffield and helps local people to find work. We will help to develop people with the skills employers tell us they need to enable their businesses to grow.
Learning beyond school-age will be an important feature of the city.
There will be more and better jobs for people seeking work. People will be supported to build the life skills and ‘entry to work’ skills needed to get into work and to move away from benefit-dependency.”
3.71 The policy encourages sustainable communities and providing skills for new jobs. Its key focus is helping local people gain employment and skills, so it will greatly assist in achieving the aims of the Corporate Plan.
69 The Sheffield City Region Economic Overview – Draft for Consultation. Sheffield City Region, December 2013. https://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/economic-overview/
-71-
Other policies / proposals
3.72 The policy will assist in delivering the broad aims of the Council’s Employment Strategy,70 one of which is to reduce the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits by supporting more local people into work. Mechanisms for achieving this are set out in the Executive Summary:
“Help workless people to take the necessary steps to re-engage with the labour market, increasing their employability and opportunities to find work.”
“It is not the job of this strategy to create jobs. That is down to the private sector and economic growth strategies. However, we must ensure that unemployed and workless people are connected into any jobs created.”
3.73 Specific objectives include influencing employer attitudes, to dispel the myths about recruiting workless people. Also, more specifically relevant, to:
“maximise the training, work and enterprise opportunities for local people through new major developments, inward investments, large scale public sector contracts and business growth support.”
3.74 By encouraging employers involved in new developments to engage with local people when recruiting, the policy will help significantly in delivering the Employment Strategy.
Justification – Local Employment
Issues that the Policy addresses
3.75 The Core Strategy deals with the general distribution of economic activity in the city, but this policy addresses the impact that economic development has on the local area in which it takes place and seeks to ensure that they benefit from new economic development.
General Evidence
3.76 There have been examples of targeted recruitment being used on a voluntary basis when determining previous applications, particularly in larger retail schemes. These are:
• Costco (planning application number 04/04512/OUT) – recruitment was
70 Sheffield 2012 – Sheffield’s Employment Strategy. Sheffield First Partnership, 2012. https://www.sheffieldfirst.com/key-documents/employment-strategy.html
-72- targeted at residents in areas of high unemployment;
• Sainsbury’s at Wadsley Bridge (10/03381/FUL) – included a legal agreement to implement an Employment and Training Initiatives Scheme for construction and occupation to be targeted at local firms and to use local labour initiatives;
• Asda, Chaucer (09/03952/FUL) – included in the legal agreement were commitments to send details of jobs available in the food store to the Council’s Lifelong Learning and Skills Service, to sign up to the Jobcentre Plus Local Employment Partnership scheme, to agree an Employment and Skills Plan with the Council that sets out employment and skills targets, to use reasonable endeavours to use local contractors and subcontractors in the construction of the food store and to offer as many positions of employment in the food store as possible to local people;
• Asda, Beighton (10/04024/OUT) – includes a legal agreement to utilise the developer’s national agreement with Jobcentre Plus and Remploy to target jobs locally;
• Sheffield Housing Company sites – agreement was reached with the Council’s development partners to target recruitment and training for construction to local people. This was not secured through the planning application process as the Council is the landowner, so agreement could be secured through the procurement process. Nevertheless, it is further evidence that a local employment policy is achievable.
Alternative Options
3.77 The policy was first introduced as Emerging Option EB9 in 2006, that also included a focus on areas of relatively high unemployment. This was carried through to the Preferred Options in 2007 (Option PB9), that set out a definition of local people as those living within 1 kilometre of the development. The Consultation Draft of 2010 omitted the reference to areas of high unemployment – a question had been raised in consultation on the Preferred Options about the definition of ‘relatively high unemployment’ and the Council then took the view that the policy should instead focus on all areas where a development would have an adverse impact.
3.78 The definition of ‘local people’ has evolved through the various stages of the development of the policies. Originally it was defined as a simple geographical catchment distance, but the current definition of ‘within the urban area’ more accurately reflects the actual local economic areas and the transport network that define a meaningful geographical local catchment area.
-73-
3.79 The reference to an ‘adverse effect’ has now been removed, partly because it was difficult to define, but mainly because all major development should take account of the people living in the area in which it is located, whatever the impact it may have on the environment. The development management process should also have ensured through mitigation that there is limited adverse effect. It is explained above that there are benefits to businesses of engaging with their local community (see paragraphs 3.59 to 3.62).
Alternatives Considered
3.80 The main options for this policy are:
(d) No policy / Retain UDP / Rely on Core Strategy (e) Policy as Worded
Option A2d - No Policy / Retain Unitary Development Plan / Rely on Core Strategy
3.81 There was no policy on local employment in the UDP, so the no policy alternative is also a continuation of this. This approach does not prevent local employment initiatives, as these have previously been achieved on a voluntary basis (see paragraph 3.76).
3.82 The strengths of this option are:
(a) For developers, this option would continue the current situation where agreements are negotiated on a site-by-site basis and agreed voluntarily, so there is no obligation on developers to seek to deliver local employment or training. Companies would be free to target their recruitment as they saw fit.
(b) Less enforcement and engagement would be required, reducing costs to the Council.
3.83 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) In the Core Strategy there are only limited requirements to consider local employment impacts (policies CS30 for the Sheaf Valley and CS33 for Stocksbridge / Deepcar) and even these are about making jobs available without the means to connect local people to them.
(b) Local residents could see limited, if any, benefits accruing to the local community from new development.
(c) It would be a lost opportunity to reduce the need to travel with associated benefits for congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and air quality.
-74-
Option A2e – Policy as Worded
3.84 The strengths of this option are:
(a) It will help to ensure that at least some of the economic benefits of major investment are enjoyed by the people living in or near the area in which the development takes place.
(b) It has clear sustainability benefits in terms of widening job opportunities beyond the sectors of labour markets that developers and occupiers may tend to target.
(c) It is in the interests of the city’s communities to ensure that local people are given every opportunity to contribute to the labour pool required. It is more environmentally sustainable if jobs are close to where people live.
(d) It is the only option that that properly addresses citywide employment objectives in the Core Strategy and Corporate Plan.
3.85 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It could place an additional responsibility on the developer or occupier of the building.
(b) It could require some additional local planning authority resources to enforce.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
3.86 There are several advantages of this policy, particularly related to sustainable development and addressing issues of low employment opportunities and skills shortages. There are also potential economic benefits to employers through goodwill and moral responsibility. The policy represents a localism approach, whereby businesses and the local community work together to achieve mutual benefits.
Other Planning Justification for the Policy
3.87 A further policy choice was how to define ‘local area’ and paragraphs 3.77 and 3.78 outline the different approaches taken at successive stages of policy development. It was concluded that the main settlements within the District are the most appropriate as they have the greatest potential for self-containment with people living and working within the same area. The definition uses the Core Strategy approach to defining the urban area (and its surroundings), which means that there are four areas, and each of these areas have a distinct role:
-75- • The main urban area of Sheffield – has a general role for a wide range of employment uses – further disaggregation would have been inappropriate in view of the strong concentrations of employment in certain areas serving the whole remainder of the area (e.g. City Centre, Don Valley);
• Mosborough / Woodhouse – new jobs will be focused in established industry and business areas and at the edge of Crystal Peaks (Core Strategy policy CS13);
• Chapeltown / High Green – business and industry will be concentrated at Thorncliffe, Ecclesfield Common and Smithywood (CS32);
• Stocksbridge / Deepcar – surplus industrial land will provide wider employment opportunities (CS33).
3.88 The emergence of specialist and new industries and businesses in Sheffield means that they may not be located in areas where there are matching skills. There could be significant local benefits if new development was encouraged to improve the skills of people in the area in which they locate.
3.89 Employers should not discriminate between job candidates on their place of residence, as this is unlawful, but they can ensure that local people have been given the best possible opportunity to gain employment from a new development nearby.
3.90 Major development is often granted planning permission partly on the basis that it will bring new jobs and training opportunities to an area. But these potential benefits can be lost or diluted if employees are brought in from outside of the local area without considering the potential of local people. The policy will help to avoid this to a large degree.
3.91 It has been stated in general terms that employing local people is also good for the employer as it generates goodwill towards the employer and a positive image and reputation (see paragraphs 3.60 to 3.62.)71 The extent of this will depend to some extent on the size of area. In a large urban area such as Sheffield, the links between local people and workplaces may be relatively tenuous. However the three smaller local areas as defined have a stronger sense of community identity and the goodwill argument applies more fully there.
3.92 Local jobs also help to support the local economy, as employees who live in the area are more likely to spend time in the neighbourhood and use local services, thus retaining wealth in the local economy.
71 Promoting Local Labour in Section 106 Agreements. Alec Samuels in Journal of Planning Law, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, August 2007.
-76- 3.93 Delivering local employment opportunities should not be a major financial burden on major investors (the policy only applies to schemes employing 100 or more workers). It has been defined in relation to employee numbers rather than floorspace because the job opportunities a development provides will have the main positive impact on communities. The threshold of 100 workers is selected because it will target schemes that have a significant impact whilst not being too onerous for small or medium-sized developments. Using the HCA Employment Densities Guide 72 , 100 workers would represent an office scheme of around 1,000 square metres, an industrial building of around 4,000 square metres or a food retail unit of around 1,700 square metres. These would all be classed as major schemes in terms of the Council’s monitoring document, Major Development Schemes in Sheffield. The latest version of this lists only 87 major schemes in the whole city, 73 so the policy would apply only to a minority of planning applications. Construction jobs are also included in the definition, so housing projects may also qualify. The number of jobs can be estimated by the Council using the Davis Langdon model (see paragraph 3.112).
3.94 If the figure was to be higher than 100 it would result in many major schemes that would have a significant impact not delivering the benefits of the policy. If it were lower than 100 too many schemes would qualify and implementation of the policy would be too onerous.
3.95 There will be a cost, but the fact that there are schemes and initiatives already in place that the employer or developer can tap into means that the additional costs should be small. When factored in to the overall costs of developing major schemes it should be a very minor element (see paragraph 3.113). However, the Council does accept that this will be an additional responsibility that is not currently required from businesses. Currently these benefits can only be achieved on a voluntary basis with companies.
3.96 The policy refers to ‘as many employment opportunities as possible’. This means that all opportunities to engage local people in the recruitment process have been exploited and that, within reason, no local person has been denied an opportunity to compete to with other applicants for job vacancies. As referred to in paragraph 3.89, it would not be lawful to set actual targets for local employment that would form part of the actual implementation of the policy. The policy is aimed at maximising opportunities, rather than manipulating employment decisions.
3.97 Local employment policies have been implemented by several other local planning authorities. Examples are:
72 Employment Densities Guide, 2 nd Edition. OffPAT / HCA, 2010. http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/employment-densities-guide-2nd-ed 73 Major Development Schemes in Sheffield, January 2013. Sheffield City Council . https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/background- reports/major-development-schemes-in-sheffield.html
-77- • Southampton’s Core Strategy 74 was adopted in January 2010. Policy CS24 states that measures will be sought from major employment-generating development to promote access to the jobs it creates amongst those residents of the city who can have difficulty entering or returning to the labour market. This policy applies to schemes generating 50 jobs or more.
• Newcastle-Upon-Tyne have been securing employment and training obligations through planning agreements and through the Council's procurement of works and services contracts for a number of years. This was originally based on a training policy in the Unitary Development Plan, but has been refined to focus on wider employment benefits in the local plan.75 So Policy EE4 – ‘ Securing training and employment opportunities’ in the Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan 76 , has been adopted as a DPD in the Newcastle local plan. The policy states:
“Developers will be required to enter into targeted training and employment agreements, through Section 106 Agreements where appropriate and necessary, to ensure local residents are able to capitalise upon the training and employment opportunities generated by investment in the Plan area.”
• The adopted South Tyneside Core Strategy 77 has a Policy E1 that states:
“Targeted training and employment agreements will be used to assist in maximising the benefit of developments that occur in the Borough.”
• In Newham in East London, Policy J3 of the adopted Core Strategy 78 seeks to improve access to jobs and skills.
• Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy Policy SP07 79 seeks to increase the number of local people obtaining access to employment opportunities and support developments that promote local enterprise, and the employment and skills training of local residents.
74 http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Core%20Strategy%20FINAL%20ADOPTED%20VERSION%20J AN%202010_tcm46-270106.pdf 75 http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/planning-a-future-newcastle 76 Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council, 2009. http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/benwell-scotswood-area-action-plan 77 South Tyneside LDF Core Strategy South Tyneside Council, 2007. http://www.southtyneside.info/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2468&p=0 78 http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09585585-7EE1-44BB-BB50- A7DD94017406/0/AdoptedCoreStrategyInterimVersion2.pdf 79 http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/851-900/855_planning_consultation/core_strategy.aspx
-78- • Islington’s Core Strategy 80 was adopted in February 2011 and includes a requirement in Policy CS13(C) for development to provide jobs and training opportunities/support.
3.98 There are also policies in operation in Glasgow and the West Midlands (see paragraphs 3.113 and 3.114).
Sustainability Appraisal
3.99 The policy will encourage a strong economy by making good job opportunities available to the whole community. It will also significantly encourage education and training opportunities which build the skills and capacity of the population, as the employment opportunities promoted in the policy include training.
3.100 Reducing commuting distances will be encouraged as the policy will increase the numbers of people who work close to where they live, thus reducing the pressure on the transport network. This will also assist in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and assist in improving efficiency in the use of the transport network.
Equality Appraisal
3.101 The Equality Appraisal has shown that the policy will significantly benefit people with low incomes and low access to private transport, as it will provide more employment and training opportunities in the local area. It will increase the opportunities for people to work closer to where they live.
3.102 Other, less direct benefits will accrue to people requiring personal support services and those with physical disabilities or infirmities or physical ill-health, who are likely to benefit particularly from opportunities for jobs located nearby. For working carers, opportunities for jobs in the local community will reduce journey-to-work time and may allow them to work and combine caring responsibilities. It will also particularly help young people, who may be less mobile in terms of employment.
Options Proposed by Consultees
3.103 There was significant support for Preferred Option PB9, but also some opposition on the basis that it put too much of an obligation on developers, that it was unduly restrictive and onerous and could discourage potential occupiers. The policy would not be onerous (see paragraphs 3.95 and 3.113) and the modest resources necessary to implement it would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on viability.
80 http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/library/Environmental-protection/Quality-and- performance/Reporting/2011-2012/(2012-03-03)-Core-Strategy-February-2011.pdf
-79-
Effectiveness of the Policy – Local Employment
Delivery
3.104 Some detail on delivery is set out in the City Policies and Sites document in paragraph 2.14, but this section builds on that and adds more detail on how the policy would be delivered in practice.
3.105 The developer or occupier of a new development can liaise with the City Council and local groups to ensure that the new jobs have been publicised as widely as possible among the local community. Many companies are familiar with the benefits of using local people for employment and are keen to engage with local communities when undertaking development in order to be seen in a favourable light as ‘good neighbours’ (see paragraphs 3.62 and 3.91). So there are advantages for developers to adhere to this policy that can be put to them and will help in implementation. Many will also already be aware of the mechanisms available to help achieve this, which makes the implementation of the policy easier.
3.106 The two recent agreements reached with Asda (see paragraph 3.76) show that there are several potential delivery mechanisms already in place.
3.107 Research on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) 81 shows that there is no legal impediment to the use of Planning Agreements in relation to targeted training and recruitment and, indeed, there are now several such agreements in operation. These represent best practice examples of where employment benefits have been secured through planning policies. This research has provided both legal and economic justification for setting agreements on local employment and procurement.
3.108 The consultants that undertook the JRF research have also produced a 'toolkit' of clauses that can be used in planning agreements and procurement contracts.82 The toolkit in paragraph 4.3 suggests a form of wording that might reasonably be used in a planning obligation:
“The developer shall not commence development or allow it to be occupied or used before they have agreed a programme of targeted recruitment and training with the Planning Authority that will achieve ……, and shall not allow it to be occupied or used until the requirements of the programme
81 Local Jobs From Local Development – the use of Planning Agreements to target training and employment outcomes . Richard Macfarlane for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/185935310x.pdf 82 Tyne & Wear Collaborative Efficiency Programme - Targeted Recruitment & Training Toolkit (Construction). Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP & Richard MacFarlane, 2007. http://www.northeastiep.gov.uk/documents/document_display.htm?pk=279
-80- have been met.”
3.109 The Council is proposing that the Sheffield policy will use planning conditions or Section 106 agreements in order to deliver it. If Section 106 agreements are needed, the Council is confident that these can be achieved within the remit of the new planning agreements legislation, described in detail in Chapter 2 of this Report (particularly paragraph 2.65 onwards). This would require any planning obligation to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The policy will establish that the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and that it is related to the development. As the policy will apply only to larger schemes and is not considered particularly onerous and it will be proportionate in terms of scale.
3.110 Delivery through conditions on planning permission rather than legal agreements would make the policy easier and less resource-intensive to deliver, and therefore more likely to succeed. For this reason it is proposed that conditions rather than S.106 agreements are used wherever possible.
3.111 Delivery of the policy could also see developers engaging with schools, supporting work experience, creating apprenticeships, and contributing to wider educational benefits, including curriculum development.
3.112 The first stage of delivery for individual projects is to identify which schemes qualify as major employment-generating schemes and will employ at least 100 workers. In many cases, developers will provide information on employment numbers, but the Council also has the Davis Langdon Employment Forecasting Model,83 that can be used to estimate employment and training requirements generated by developments, both in the end use and during construction. The policy applies to schemes employing 100 or more workers during the construction phase or on occupation. The forecasting tool allows us to identify where this will be the case and will apply to the total number of jobs, not full-time equivalents, as it is important to focus on the number of individuals that will benefit.
Viability
3.113 There are examples elsewhere in the UK that show that the inclusion of employment requirements does not increase costs significantly. A case study for Glasgow Housing Association 84 concluded that including Targeted Recruitment and Training requirements in contracts did not deter bidders and helped the contracting authorities to achieve their policy objectives without additional cost to the contracts.
83 http://www.davislangdon.com/EME/OurBusiness/NewsCentre/Brochures/Labour-and-skills-forecasting- model/ 84 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/02/13140629/10
-81- 3.114 The West Midlands Procurement Framework 85 influenced over £3.5 billion of public sector spending decisions in the West Midlands in 2011. None of the pubic sector bodies that applied the Framework indicated that it had increased their cost base.
Mechanism and Agency
3.115 Delivery will essentially be through the development management process, specifically negotiating conditions or legal agreements on planning permissions. The agency will be the City Council through the planning process, involving the Council’s Lifelong Learning, Skills and Communities Service and Opportunity Sheffield,86 a Council service to assist Sheffield employers. Other non-City Council agencies, such as Jobcentre Plus and the Skills Funding Agency may also be involved.
3.116 The City Council will support businesses in the delivery of this policy through the Council’s Lifelong Learning, Skills and Communities Service. They have guidelines for contractors and suppliers that can also be offered to developers. Another mechanism for delivery will be the use of the services of Jobcentre Plus and other named agencies in Sheffield, who can assist businesses with their recruitment requirements. The Council can nominate a contact at Jobcentre Plus and other named agencies to tailor a package to deliver the policy requirement. This might include:
• agreeing to offer a number of Work Trial opportunities; • developing pre-employment training and offering opportunities for people who complete it; • trying new ways to help people take up a job in the business, e.g. offering flexible working patterns; • giving current employees the chance to represent the business and mentor people who want to return to work; • publicising employment opportunities widely within the local community, using local community groups and agencies where available; • encouraging work placements, apprenticeships and graduate placements.
3.117 Specific projects could include:
• Work experience opportunities • Provision for young people who are not in education, employment, or training • Apprenticeships • Mentoring
85 The West Midlands Procurement Framework for Jobs and Skills - A Toolkit for Stakeholders . The West Midlands Economic Inclusion Panel, March 2010. http://hub.westmidlandsiep.gov.uk/uploads/files/smes/toolkit.pdf 86 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/business-economy/development/opportunitysheffield.html
-82- • Working with schools to improve curriculum development • Ambassadorial work with teachers
3.118 Ultimately, it is down to developers and employers to deliver tangible benefits through new local jobs and training. The policy can only create the right conditions to support this and assist employers as much as possible.
3.119 A standard condition such as the one referred to in paragraph 3.108 may be required to ensure the policy is delivered effectively.
Resources
3.120 The Opportunity Sheffield service and the Lifelong Learning, Skills and Communities Service are committed to engaging with developers as part of the delivery of the policy. They currently have sufficient resources to devote to assisting companies to meet the policy requirement. Many companies have already engaged with them on a voluntary basis (see paragraph 3.76).
3.121 There will be some implications on resources for delivering policy A2 through conditions on planning permissions or legal agreements. There may also be some resource implications for enforcing the policy requirements. But it has been noted in paragraph 3.93 that there are likely to be a relatively low number of projects that are likely to qualify as major employment-generating schemes.
Timing
3.122 To some degree, the policy approach is already happening and there are resources in place, so the policy can be implemented immediately.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
3.123 At one level, there is certainty in the policy but little flexibility, in that all major schemes will be expected to comply with the requirements. However, there is a degree of discretion about precisely how its conditions are satisfied.
3.124 There could be some financial impact (albeit minor – see paragraphs 3.91 and 3.113) on developers delivering employment opportunities. If this has any impact it would be a minor one of timing of the development rather than whether it happens at all.
3.125 The planning system is limited in the amount of control it can exercise over employers. For this reason there is a risk that some of the potential benefits of the policy may not be realised in terms of the numbers of jobs that can be delivered, but it can still have a significant impact. The key to delivery is to work together with partners to ensure that developers are provided with the support they need to be able to meet the requirements of the policy.
-83- 3.126 There may be some risks, at least in the short term, arising from cuts in public sector budgets. Other organisations and funding schemes can help developers and the City Council deliver the aims of the policy. For the time being, resources are identified and the Council has commitment through the Lifelong Learning Skills and Communities Service and Opportunity Sheffield, but there may be a need to review the potential of these initiatives in the longer term.
3.127 The developer may be obliged to pass the responsibility for the implementation of the policy on to tenants or buyers of the property. However, this can be done as a condition of a lease or sale. Any standard planning condition or legal agreement may need to be worded to cover this eventuality.
3.128 The option to deliver the obligation through a financial contribution to the local planning authority is not ruled out, if the developer would prefer to do this. The S.106 and CIL mechanisms within the Council could be used to administer this. An auditing mechanism would therefore be required, but this would form part of the standard CIL / S.106 auditing process.
Monitoring
3.129 There is no longer a requirement to produce an Annual Monitoring Report, so it is unlikely that the policy will be monitored regularly. However, some monitoring will be necessary to establish whether the policy is working successfully, when the time comes for a review of the Local Plan. This will identify how far the measures agreed have been implemented. Monitoring will be done as part of the process of support offered by the Lifelong Learning Skills and Communities Team, who have a monitoring role as part of their service. If this shows that the developer has failed to deliver the requirements, enforcement measures would be undertaken through the development management process.
3.130 For a future assessment of the policy, a measure of success would be that significant numbers of local people have secured employment with the companies or organisations occupying new development. Some degree of interpretation may be required, in order to assess how many jobs would have been secured anyway without the policy. The monitoring assessment will also take account of the fact that the policy is about securing opportunities – it does not set targets for putting a certain number or proportion of the jobs with local people. Other measures could be the number of unemployed people securing jobs, school leavers securing apprenticeships and contracts won by local businesses.
Conclusions on Soundness – Local Employment
3.131 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
-84- 3.132 It is positively prepared:
• It depends on positive initiatives by developers and businesses, supported by the Council, rather than setting negative conditions.
• It is already operating on occasion on a voluntary basis and could deliver significant benefits to Sheffield.
3.133 It is justified:
• It will link investment in new development to investment in the workforce, so bringing about more comprehensive regeneration and area renewal.
• It will encourage shorter journeys to work with benefits for easing congestion and pollution reduction.
• It will strengthen community cohesion particularly in the smaller local areas and help local communities to be more self-sufficient.
• It is proportionate in applying only to larger developments.
3.134 It is effective:
• The policy can be delivered through the development management process and requires limited additional resources, so can be implemented swiftly and easily.
• There are mechanisms, resources and expertise already in place within the City Council that can support delivery of the policy and limit risk to achieving its aims.
• Experience in the city and in other areas indicates that it does not place an unreasonable or onerous burden on developers or occupiers of new development. In fact, it should lead to economic benefits to both businesses and local residents.
3.135 It is consistent with national policy:
• It will help to deliver sustainable development, for example by helping to reduce journey lengths, which in turns reduces congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
• Local employment is consistent with the Government’s emphasis on localism, allowing local people to benefit from investment in their area
-85-
4 CITY CENTRE DESIGN
Introduction
4.1 Policy B1 is intended to establish the key design principles for development in the City Centre generally and the individual approach taken to regeneration for each of the City Centre Quarters. The Core Strategy sets out roles of the City Centre in general and the Quarters in particular and policy B1 shows what this means in terms of character and design. It does not cover more generic design matters, which are dealt with in other policies in the document.
4.2 The City Centre is the economic driver of the City and the City Region, and it is important that the potential and distinctiveness of each of the Quarters is maximised, in order to provide variety, flexibility and choice for businesses. High quality design is recognised as an important factor in attracting businesses as well as in ensuring a vibrant, successful City Centre. The city has taken steps in recent years to provide strategic projects to help deliver an attractive, City Centre with a good environment for people to live as well as work in. Policy B1 seeks to reinforce this.
4.3 The Quarters that comprise the City Centre offer different regeneration opportunities, depending on their character, townscape and heritage value, as well as their prominence and strategic location within the City Centre. Policy B1 sets out three broad approaches to development in response to these qualities.
4.4 Part (a) to (e) sets out the expectations in relation to quality design within the City Centre, whilst parts (f) to (r) are concerned with setting out the detailed characteristics of each of the Quarters within the City Centre.
Policy B1
City Centre Design
The following design principles will be adopted throughout the City Centre:
a. promoting high quality, sustainable development that reflects the distinctive role of the City Centre within the city region, and with exemplary design at strategically important or other prominent sites;
b. ensuring high quality, innovative design of public spaces and streets;
c. taking opportunities to introduce landscaping and green spaces;
d. improving and enhancing routes along waterways and connections to them;
-87- e. ensuring an active streetscene with well designed ground floor environments, particularly on strategic and well used pedestrian routes and around key public transport hubs; f. promoting and reinforcing the specific qualities and character of the Quarters to provide a catalyst for regeneration through their variety and distinctiveness, with three broad approaches:
i conservation-led ii emphasising repair and recovery; iii emphasising reinvention and reconfiguration.
Quarters requiring a conservation-led approach are: g. The Cathedral Quarter , which should be revitalised through sensitive, well proportioned and designed new development that retains the unique historic character reflected in the street pattern, urban grain and townscape and responds to the Quarter’s distinctive topography and resulting views; h. Heart of the City , which is defined by its significant public buildings complemented by a series of public spaces connected with high quality public realm and where high quality innovative development should respond to the Quarter’s strategic and civic role; i. Kelham/Neepsend where the emphasis should be on enhancing the qualities provided by the wealth of intact industrial heritage together with the accompanying scale of development and the unique street pattern.
Quarters with an emphasis on repair and recovery are: j. Castlegate/Victoria Quays , where heritage buildings and historic routes will be conserved and enhanced, with more major redevelopment projects promoted in the east of Castlegate making connections to the riverside setting, and taking advantage of any historic or archaeological potential, particularly relating to Sheffield Castle; k. Cultural Industries Quarter , which should seek to enhance and retain the existing form, scale and arrangement of buildings and the original street grid pattern, and work with the clusters of significant Metal Trades buildings together with associated courtyards and works buildings; l. Devonshire Quarter , which should continue to encourage innovative opportunities and a fine grain of development that will promote a variety of uses that enhance the existing ‘urban village’ character of the Quarter, whilst maximising the recreational potential of Devonshire Green;
-88- m. St George’s, continuing the redevelopment of the Quarter with a sympathetic mix of contemporary architectural styles and materials alongside the conservation of historic buildings; n. St Vincent’s , where development should respond to the topography and take opportunities to adapt and reuse vacant historic industrial buildings alongside contemporary infill development to realise opportunities to repair the character of the Quarter.
Quarters with an emphasis on reinvention and reconfiguration are: o. The Moor , where redevelopment should enhance and strengthen its strategic role, including an important City Centre shopping street, indoor market and office area; p. Sheaf Valley , where advantage should continue to be taken of the Quarter’s strategic location as a gateway to the City Centre, the proposed improvements and new links to the neighbouring Sheaf Valley Park and the capacity for major development, dramatic change and contemporary architecture; q. West Bar, where opportunities should continue to be taken for major redevelopment that provides a new, distinctive identity at this strategic location at the edge of the City Centre, as well as creating positive connections, where possible, to the River Don; r. Wicker/Riverside , where development should reflect the existing street pattern and grain, the significant concentrations of historic buildings and archaeology, and, in riverside locations, take advantage of the distinctive setting whilst avoiding unacceptable flood risks.
Connections between the Quarters and adjacent neighbourhoods will be promoted.
Definitions
‘Quarters’ – the 12 districts comprising the City Centre, each having distinctive roles, characters and townscapes . Their roles are set out in Core Strategy policy CS17 and they are identified on the Core Strategy Key Diagram and on the Proposals Map.
‘Strategic or well used route’ – including three strategic routes, defined in the Sheffield City Centre Masterplan, which run through the City Centre and link Quarters and adjacent neighbourhoods:
-89- • the Gold Route, from the railway station in the Sheaf Valley to the Heart of the City; • the Steel Route, running through the Moor and the Heart of the City to Castlegate/ Victoria Quays; • the Blue Route, following the river corridors, in particular the River Don; and other well used routes that are important because of their location and pedestrian footfall, including West Street and Arundel Gate.
Relationship with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
4.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 7 highlights the environmental role of the planning system in contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. In pursuing sustainable development, it emphasises the need to replace poor design with better design, improve the connections in which people live and widen the choice of quality homes (paragraph 9). Policy B1 assists this by promoting high quality, sustainable design and by requiring an active streetscene to encourage pedestrian movement.
4.6 Section 7 of the NPPF deals with good design. Paragraph 57 highlights the importance of achieving high quality design for individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Policy B1 sets out the importance of good design within the City Centre and the requirement for high quality in the design of public spaces and streets.
4.7 Paragraph 58 states that local plans should set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area, based on an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics, and ensure that developments: function well and add to the overall quality of the area; establish a strong sense of place; respond to local character and history; reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials; create safe and accessible environments and are visually attractive. Policy B1 identifies the different Quarters within the City Centre, and sets out the quality and approach to development required, based on an evaluation of their respective character.
4.8 Paragraph 59 states that design should ‘ concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. ’ Policy B1 assists this by specifying the characteristics that should be enhanced and responded to in order to ensure the quality of particular Quarters across the City Centre.
4.9 Paragraph 60 indicates that planning policies should not impose architectural styles or stifle innovation, but that it is appropriate to seek or promote and
-90- reinforce local distinctiveness. Policy B1 sets out the detailed characteristics of different Quarters that contribute to local distinctiveness, and also highlights where a more innovative approach will be encouraged. This does not prescribe a particular approach or solution, enabling and facilitating new, innovative architecture to either reinforce local distinctiveness or assist in revitalising parts of the City Centre.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
4.10 The Core Strategy sets out the Local Plan objectives for prizing, protecting and enhancing the natural environment and distinctive heritage and promoting high- quality buildings and spaces. Policy B1 directly relates to the delivery of five of the Core Strategy objectives:
S14.1 Enhanced character and distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting existing local character and built and natural features to provide the context for new development.
S14.2 Preservation and enhancement of buildings and areas that are attractive, distinctive or of heritage value in urban and rural settings.
S15.1 High-quality and inclusiveness in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the spaces around and between them, with provision for everyone wishing to use them.
S15.2 The built environment maintained and safeguarded in neighbourhoods where it is already acceptable.
S15.3 New character and improved design and townscape in neighbourhoods where the environment has become run down.
The policy has an important role in achieving these objectives by encouraging high quality design and ensuring that development responds to the character of individual Quarters within the City Centre.
4.11 Core Strategy policy CS17 City Centre Quarters defines the Quarters that comprise the City Centre and outlines the predominant roles and land uses that are encouraged within each Quarter. Policy B1 provides objective criteria to achieve development that helps to support the roles and characters proposed in policy CS17 and to reinforce the qualities of the respective Quarter. Specific relationships with policy CS17 for each quarter are identified in the section on Planning Reasons below.
4.12 Policy CS54 Pedestrian Routes defines priority pedestrian routes, which includes the City Centre and highlights links to transport nodes. Policy B1 sets out criteria
-91- that will assist in ensuring that development helps to encourage pedestrian movement by seeking to ensure that development along these routes is attractive and encourages activity, animation and surveillance.
4.13 Policy CS74 Design Principles sets out the city-wide design principles, indicating the overarching requirements for all development within the city. It draws out some of the distinctive components of the townscape and landscape of Sheffield but only at a citywide level. Policy B1 develops these principles for the City Centre, reflecting its crucial importance for effectively serving the City Region. It proposes high quality of design to reflect the importance of the City Centre within the city region.
Other strategies and policies
4.14 The policy addresses issues raised by the Sheffield Economic Masterplan 87 . The Masterplan’s Strategic vision is to encourage sustainable growth and improved performance of the Sheffield economy, and recognises the economic importance of design quality. It sets out the need to provide a flexible office and business offer, and highlights the importance of cultivating niche markets. Components of the strategy for change include the provision for an improved range of assets, as well as strengthening specific niches to aid specialisation. It recognises the need to maximise the image and identity of the city and of the need to provide a connected and accessible City Centre. Policy B1 contributes to this by identifying the distinct differences between the different Quarters and highlighting how these qualities can be enhanced. It also provides flexibility, setting out a variety of approaches across the city, responding to different scales of development in order to deliver a range of site opportunities. This variety enables the provision of a range of types of business, assisting in strengthening the diversity of offer across the City Centre. The policy also promotes an active streetscene, with particular attention to pedestrian routes, which will assist in achieving a well connected and accessible City Centre.
4.15 The policy also takes up aspects of the vision of the Sheffield City Centre Masterplan 88 . This includes objectives to diversify the economy through supplying complementary office space of a range of size and price, creating a vibrant City Centre and improving movement and safety. The Masterplan also sets out objectives to create a high quality, attractive and sustainable City Centre, and to promote a positive, visitor friendly image. Policy B1 seeks to assist in the delivery of a range of spaces through reinforcing the character of the different Quarters. The policy will assist in improving movement and safety by encouraging an active streetscene with an emphasis on improving the ground floor environment. These elements, together with the continued promotion of green spaces and the use of water throughout the City Centre will assist in promoting a positive, visitor friendly image.
87 Sheffield Economic Masterplan Creative Sheffield 2008 88 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Sheffield City Council 2008
-92-
4.16 The Council produced the Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium in 2004, which set the design framework for development across the City Centre. The Compendium originated the development of the distinct Quarters that are reflected in the Sheffield Development Framework, setting out a vision for development and setting design principles. Policy B1 draws on the guidance in the Compendium, whilst updating to reflect the Core Strategy and changing opportunities and circumstances.
Justification for the Policy
Issues that the policy addresses
4.17 The Policy deals with all aspects of design within the City Centre, and the quality and character of each of the individual Quarters. Sheffield City Centre lies at the heart of the Sheffield city region and, therefore, has a pivotal economic, social and environmental role for businesses, communities and organisations within it. Ensuring a high standard of design for buildings and spaces is necessary to reflect this important role. The policy highlights the different characters of individual Quarters across the City Centre, and the importance of recognising and responding to these characteristics in ensuring that development promotes or reinforces local distinctiveness.
Background Evidence for the Policy
4.18 A key aspect of the city’s recent renaissance has been the emphasis on creating a high quality network of public spaces and pedestrian routes throughout the City Centre. A hallmark of these initiatives has been bespoke, quality design and use of materials, which have helped to create an attractive, vibrant and well used City Centre. It is important that development proposing public space continues this approach and maintains the high standards that have been set across the City Centre. Subparagraph (b) recognises this and requires high quality, innovative design of public spaces.
4.19 Sheffield has an extensive network of woodlands and green spaces that help to justify its claim as the greenest city in Britain. Proximity to green space has also been shown to have a positive impact on economic regeneration (see also paragraphs 2.135 and 2.136)89 . This has informed subparagraph (c) of the Policy, which requires development to take opportunities to introduce landscaping and green space within their proposals.
4.20 Sheffield’s waterways formed the focus for the city’s industrial past, but now provide both recreational opportunities and natural habitats for wildlife. It is important that new development seeks to enhance the connections to the
89 Sheffield’s Great Outdoors – green and open space strategy 2010-2030, Sheffield City Council
-93- waterways, in order to enhance this role within the city, and subparagraph (d) of the Policy seeks to ensure that development acknowledges this.
4.21 A key component of maximising the potential of the City Centre is in making it liveable, attractive and safe to be in and move around. Walking is a key mode of transport and it is important that the design of buildings and in particular ground floors encourage this. Subparagraph (e) seeks to address this through requiring development to consider the manner in which it relates to the street, which will assist in providing animation and activity.
4.22 The Sheffield Urban Design Compendium identified a series of different Quarters covering the City Centre, each with its particular character and identity. Whilst there has been successful development across the City Centre, this has not always responded to the distinctive qualities of these respective Quarters, leading to a suppression of character within the particular area, or to the regeneration opportunities present. The net effect has been that development has tended to homogenise the character of the City Centre, rather than celebrate its differences. This has a direct impact on the image of the city, its local distinctiveness and ease of navigation. Subparagraph (f) sets out the three development approaches for the Quarters, which seek to promote distinctiveness and act as a catalyst for regeneration.
4.23 A number of the City Centre Quarters have a strong identity, but have still been subject to some change that is threatening that character. Within these Quarters, policy B1 proposes that development seeks to emphasise repair and recovery, building on the positive existing qualities to produce a coherent area. These Quarters are identified in subparagraphs (g-i).
4.24 There are also a number of Quarters that offer a significant regeneration opportunity, due to their more fragmented character; and policy B1 seeks to emphasise this approach to utilise redevelopment opportunities as a catalyst for positive change within these Quarters. These Quarters are identified in subparagraphs (j-n).
4.25 In addition, there are Quarters that have retained a strong historic character, through their collection of buildings, styles of architecture, street pattern and form as well as their historical associations. It is important to help protect these characteristics, in order to reinforce the identity of these Quarters. These Quarters are set out in subparagraphs (o-r).
4.26 This three tiered approach to development offers a considerable range of opportunities, preserving the character where it is necessary and seeking to utilise regeneration to promote new character where this is necessary. Overall, policy B1 seeks to reemphasise the character of all the Quarters, so that the distinctiveness of each can be maintained, enhanced or created.
-94- Alternative Options for Overall Policy
4.27 Policy B1 is a new policy, which was not covered in at the Emerging and Preferred Options stages. However, there are options in relation to design quality that were subsequently considered to inform the overall approach and emphasis of the policy. The two alternative options considered are:
(a) No specific reference to a standard of design quality for the City Centre;
(b) Specific reference to expectations of design quality;
Alternatives Considered
Option (a) No reference to a standard of design quality in the City Centre
4.28 The strength of this option is:
(a) Not providing for standards of design quality across the City Centre might reduce costs of development across the City Centre
4.29 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It would not provide for high quality, sustainable development, which would support the importance of the City Centre, recognised as the key economic driver for the city and the city region;
(b) Core Strategy policy CS74, together with other policies within this document would not be sufficient to achieve design quality;
(c) Increased potential for lesser quality design, which would reduce the opportunity to respond to wider regeneration opportunities, which is a key element in enhancing the image and identity of the City Centre
Option (b) Specific reference to design quality within the City Centre
4.30 The strengths of this option are:
(a) It promotes the objective of providing a high-quality environment to support the transformation of the city’s economy;
(b) It supports the transformation of the city through requiring a higher standard of development on prominent and visible sites;
(c) It reinforces the city’s distinctiveness by relating to the city’s approach to regeneration of public space and landscape quality;
-95- 4.31 The weakness of this option is:
(a) It may deter some types of investment in the city through demanding high quality design and materials;
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
4.32 Option (a) was rejected because the need to ensure high quality, sustainable development outweighed the potential for additional development through a general design policy. This is a clear requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework, which urges local planning authorities to include comprehensive policies on design (see paragraphs 0 to 4.8 above) and of Core Strategy policy CS74.
4.33 An important issue that flows from the options is the concern that too great an emphasis on design will overshadow the local economic need for development, a point made in one of the consultation responses (dcps 457). Whilst this requires sensitive balance, the importance of the nature and role of the City Centre, and the strengths set out in Option (b) outweigh these concerns. The City Centre is the principal location for development and the preferred location for new office development and is increasingly becoming popular for residential development, and it is essential that this development is sustainable and high quality, which will similarly be of economic benefit to the city and the city region.
Other Planning Justification for the Overall Policy
4.34 Parts (a) to (e) of the policy support the delivery of high quality, sustainable design, which is consistent with national policy and the Core Strategy (see paragraphs 4.10 to 4.13 above). Achieving high quality design is essential within the City Centre in order to provide the necessary environment to encourage business and associated investment within the region. Omitting these elements of the policy would run the risk of not achieving the appropriate standard of design on key sites. Design criteria are also needed to support pedestrian movement within the City Centre and make it an attractive and convenient place to be.
4.35 Criterion (a) of policy B1 requires a high standard of design quality within the City Centre and, in particular, at specific locations within it. The aim is to ensure that the quality of development responds to the strategic importance of this location, and achieves a standard that supports economic transformation. The City Centre is the most prominent part of the city, and acts as the visible face of the city for visitors, investors as well as the city’s communities. This may be innovative. Recent examples, such as the new car park in the Heart of the City and Sinclair’s on West Street illustrate this, exhibiting a high quality of design to produce new, iconic buildings.
-96- 4.36 The criterion also requires sustainable development, which is an implicit component of high quality design, and is indivisible from it. This flows from the Core Strategy, where a key theme is sustainability.
4.37 Whilst a high quality of design is required throughout the City Centre, the criterion also recognises that there are certain sites that, due to their prominence and visibility within the city, require an exemplary standard of design. Design in this instance should reflect and recognise the particular location, which may result in extensive and/or regular views of these sites. Recent examples of where this has been achieved, and the impact that it has, can be seen in the Information Commons and the Jessop West buildings of the University of Sheffield, at Brook Hill roundabout.
4.38 Criterion (b) seeks to ensure that the high standards of public realm design and implementation are maintained throughout the City Centre. Creative and imaginative design and the use of high quality materials has been a clearly identifiable and particularly distinctive component in recent public realm projects, contributing greatly to the renaissance that has taken place within the City Centre. The criterion seeks to continue to encourage imaginative design and high quality materials within public realm schemes to continue this distinctive approach.
4.39 Criterion (c) recognises the importance of landscaping and green space within the City Centre. Sheffield is a green city, with a considerable number of parks and green spaces, as well as river corridors linking through to the City Centre. The characteristics of large parts of the City Centre are, by contrast, more urban in nature, with Devonshire Green forming the one large area of green space at present. The City Centre Masterplan advocates the development of a series of neighbourhoods within the City Centre, as it becomes a place to live and work. An important element within this is ensuring that development is matched by an appropriate amount of greenspace. Green space also acts as a positive means of countering the Urban Heat Island effect, which is most marked in the City Centre. The criterion, therefore, seeks to promote opportunities for new green spaces, which can create a more attractive living environment.
4.40 Criterion (d) of the policy seeks to achieve enhancements to the city’s waterway corridors, and improve connections to them. Water is an important element in the life of the city; the rivers and streams gave the city the means to grow and became the focus for the original industry in the city. Improving links and encouraging connections to the city’s waterways is, therefore, an important component in reinforcing distinctiveness, but it also contributes to achieving wider environmental and social objectives through increasing their potential as an important recreational resource.
4.41 Criterion (e) aims to ensure that the City Centre has a network of attractive, safe streets that make it easy and comfortable for people to move around. The criterion recognises that a key component of this is the design and quality of the
-97- ground floor of buildings, which is the part that people experience most directly, and that therefore can have a considerable impact on how successful, safe and ultimately well-used a place is. The criterion seeks to encourage active ground floors, which can be achieved through the design of doors and entrances, the amount of glazing and the uses facing onto the street, all of which can help to provide interest, stimulation and promote safety through increased activity.
Alternative Options and Planning Reasons for the Quarters
4.42 The second part of Policy B1 (criteria (f) – (r)) relates to the approach to individual Quarters within the City Centre. Again, a range of options were considered to inform the approach and extent of the policy. The two alternative options considered are:
(a) Do not distinguish between individual Quarters, removing any description of characteristics;
(b) Set out detailed design characteristics for each of the individual Quarters, without grouping them to emphasise an overarching development approach;
Alternatives Considered
Option (a) No reference to Quarters
4.43 The strength of this option is:
(a) It may facilitate a more open approach to development across the City Centre;
4.44 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It does not articulate the variety and diversity of scale, form and massing that exists in different parts of the City Centre
(b) It fails to enhance the image and identity of the City Centre
(c) It fails to recognise local distinctiveness
Option (b) Set out characteristics of Quarters, without a development approach (Omitting subparagraph f (i, ii and iii))
4.45 The strength of this option is:
(a) It may facilitate a more open approach to development across the City Centre;
-98- 4.46 The weakness of this option is:
(a) It does not successfully balance the competing requirements to simultaneously respect and conserve local distinctiveness and promote economic growth.
4.47 The preferred option includes both a reference to individual Quarters, as well as indicates a broad development approach for the Quarters, which provides an appropriate balance between retaining and conserving the essential character of the City Centre and its constituent Quarters, whilst also encouraging regeneration.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
4.48 Option (a) was rejected because of the need to respond to the local distinctiveness of different parts of the City Centre. The Core Strategy and the Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium have identified twelve distinct Quarters within the City Centre, each of which has its own unique history, urban form and land use patterns. This approach has informed Area Action Plans in various Quarters. Reinforcing local distinctiveness is a clear requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (see paragraph 4.9 above).
4.49 Option (b) recognises the different Quarters, but does not bring out the more strategic pattern within their diversity or their underlying rationale. The defining characteristics of each Quarter each fit within one of the several development approaches without affecting the distinctiveness of each Quarter.
4.50 Criterion (f) of the policy introduces the chosen approach, setting out three broad approaches for development, depending on the existing character and quality of each individual Quarter. The first series of Quarters (see subparagraphs (g) to (i)) generally relate to the city’s Conservation Areas, and advocate an approach that responds to their strong historic context, promoting the continued reuse of buildings alongside modern introductions that complement the existing rhythm.). In Quarters provided for in subparagraphs (j) to (n) the emphasis is on the need for repair and recovery, as set out in the Urban Design Compendium, in order to continue to manage their development to retain and realise their potential. The final four Quarters (subparagraphs (o) to (r)) require a more regeneration- orientated approach, assisting with targeting comprehensive regeneration and recognising the key objectives set out in the City Centre Masterplan and Economic Masterplan. This is a clear requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (see paragraphs 2.5 – 2.8 above), which seeks to ensure that development functions well and adds to the overall quality of the area.
-99- Other Planning Justification for the Quarters
4.51 Subparagraph (g) of the policy relates to the Cathedral Quarter . This Quarter has a large number of Listed Buildings, as well as unlisted significant buildings that contribute to the character of the area, together with a unique street pattern that reflects the city’s medieval origins. A significant portion of the Quarter is designated a Conservation Area. Development should respond to the sensitivity of this setting and be in scale with the prevailing building heights and using a contextual palette of materials.
4.52 The Quarter offers extensive views across the Don Valley, exaggerated by the steep slope and significantly stepping buildings, and development should respond to this characteristic in order to reinforce the topography. In view of these factors, the emphasis for this Quarter is a conservation-led approach.
4.53 Subparagraph (h) of the policy relates to the Heart of the City Quarter , which is the strategic and civic core of the City Centre, containing the largest collection of public buildings including the Town Hall, the City Hall, Cutlers Hall and the Winter Gardens. A significant portion of the Quarter is designated a Conservation Area. The collection of civic buildings within the Quarter provides a strong backdrop for development, and innovative insertions should continue to reinforce the identity of the Quarter to ensure that it is readily identifiable as the centre of the city. This flows from Core Strategy Policy CS17a, which identifies the Heart of the City Quarter as being the prime focus for a range of different uses: civic; office; retail; cultural and arts buildings to respond to this important location.
4.54 The Quarter has a number of specific functions: it acts as the civic focus for the City Centre, with a series of historic public buildings; it is the location for the principle public spaces within the City Centre, which act as key attractors for public life and activity; it contains the principal retail focus and is also a desirable office location. This represents a particular design challenge in terms of introducing new, innovative development within a strong historic context. Recent modern development, such as the Winter Gardens, Millennium Galleries and Hotel, has illustrated how innovative design can complement the traditional buildings to create an exciting and vibrant Quarter.
4.55 Subparagraph (i) relates to the Kelham/Neepsend Quarter , which contains the largest and most intact collection of industrial buildings in the city. This, together with its unique early industrial street pattern and the presence of the Industrial Museum, provides a clear context for any redevelopment within the Quarter, and a conservation approach to development is promoted as a result. A significant portion of the Quarter is designated a Conservation Area. Core Strategy Policy CS17(j) indicates an important economic role for new housing within the Quarter, but the extent of the retained industrial buildings mean that development will be introduced with a strong context, and the focus should be on retaining and enhancing the industrial character of the area. This may take advantage of the
-100- riverside setting; though it will also be necessary to observe the constraints created by flood risk (see Core Strategy policy CS67).
4.56 The next five Quarters do not require such a strong conservation component but their distinctive characteristics should still inform the approach of ‘repair and recovery’
4.57 Castlegate/ Victoria Quays Quarter (subparagraph j) contains a significant number of strong heritage assets, including the former Crown Court, Victoria Quays Terminal and Grain Warehouse and the former Sheffield United Gas Co. buildings. Whilst there are a number of important historic buildings, they are not clustered within one part of the Quarter and this means that a conservation-led approach would not be appropriate. Castlegate/Victoria Quays has also been subject to significant and far reaching change, where poor quality development has a negative relationship with the street and surrounding spaces.
4.58 The relocation of Castle Market provides a significant regeneration opportunity, which will help to foster a new identity for the Quarter. Maximising the potential of the Quays and opening up the canal basin in order to maximise its recreational potential will need a locally conservation-led approach based on the distinctive collection of historic buildings surrounding the Quays. The form that this regeneration takes will depend on the archaeological findings in relation to Sheffield Castle or other remains from the city’s mediaeval or early industrial eras. The extent of historic buildings across the Quarter indicates an approach to repair and recovery, building on these heritage assets and integrating new development that can help them to realise their potential. Although there is not a sufficient group of heritage assets to dictate a wholesale ‘conservation approach’, this approach needs to be encouraged where there are clusters of buildings. This approach will help to realise the ambitions in Core Strategy policy CS17(i).
4.59 The Cultural Industries Quarter (subparagraph k) is another with considerable opportunities for both economic growth as well as historic restoration. The Quarter contains a wide mix of uses and its creative and digital industries make a significant contribution to the City Region economy, in new and existing premises (as at Persistence Works) – see Core Strategy policy CS17c.
4.60 The Quarter is strategically placed within the City Centre in a number of respects. Its location adjacent to the railway station means that it is a visible and well used gateway into the City Centre. In addition, the northern part of the Quarter is also the campus for Sheffield Hallam University, resulting in considerable activity and movement within and between different buildings and spaces in the area. The approach to this area, therefore, needs to be carefully focussed on both repairing and reinstating the historic fabric, where appropriate, as well as realising opportunities to expand upon the strategic location of this Quarter at the heart of a city campus and regionally important cultural industry.
-101- 4.61 The Devonshire Quarter (subparagraph l) is a mixed area that contains some intact, historic streets as well as heritage assets – particularly Metal Trades ranges and workshops – alongside some modern development. There are distinctive character areas within the Quarter that respond to different activities: around Gell Street, which has retained a nineteenth century street pattern together with a remaining group of attractive Georgian and Victorian buildings; Devonshire Green; Holly Street, which has retained a number of industrial and residential buildings; Milton Street, which contains a significant series of Metal Trades ranges and workshops including Eyewitness Works and Beehive Works and is being proposed as a Conservation Area. Although important and significant, there is not a single character within the Quarter that might dictate a conservation approach and therefore a ‘repair and recovery’ approach is proposed.
4.62 The Quarter is developing as a vibrant ‘urban village’ where mixed use residential development, together with niche retail, restaurants, bars and businesses (see Core Strategy policy CS17f), has created a distinctive neighbourhood to the west of the City Centre, linking with Sheffield University campus. The encouragement of a fine grain of uses will help to support the ‘urban village’, through providing variety and a sufficient range of smaller premises, helping to reinforce this distinctive characteristic that has seen bespoke, local businesses locate in this area in recent years.
4.63 Devonshire Green is the main focus of the Quarter and is highlighted in the City Centre Masterplan; with the emphasis on taking advantage of the recreational potential of this key City Centre resource through complementary development that will benefit from and have a relationship with the open space.
4.64 St George’s Quarter (subparagraph m) contains a mix of historic buildings, centred on St George’s church and the Mappin Building, alongside more recent development, for the most part associated with the University of Sheffield campus. Although there has been a considerable amount of newer development, the historic buildings are prominent and act as landmarks within the Quarter, which exhibits a strong, distinctive character. The emphasis proposed is on repair, rather than either conservation or reinvention because of the need to integrate new development within this framework of historic buildings.
4.65 The emphasis of the Quarter will continue to focus on the University of Sheffield with complementary retail and business uses around West Street (see Core Strategy policy CS17g). This diversity offers a range of different opportunities, the mix of styles provides the key to the character of future development.
4.66 Criterion (n) relates to the St Vincents Quarter , which enjoys a unique position, given its topography and the extensive views it allows across the Upper Don Valley. The Quarter retains much of its original 18 th and 19 th Century street pattern, together with a range of significant buildings including St Vincent’s Church, which provides a distinctive landmark on the skyline. In addition to the
-102- church, there are clusters of buildings associated with the Metal Trades Industry, including Cementation Furnace and various cutlery workshops and residences within and around the character areas of Well Meadow, Solly Street and Furnace Hill. This area has been in some decline, however, and the quality and extent of some of these workshops is quite poor. Despite this, the historic nature of the Quarter, and its visual prominence within the city, mean that a ‘repair’ approach is advocated, which will seek to retain the best examples of the existing metal trades workshops whilst introducing sensitive new infill development.
4.67 The topography of St Vincents is particularly distinctive, with the ridge prominent from both outside and within the City Centre. It is important that development recognises the topography, through regular stepping, providing a strong ground floor relationship and also ensuring that the form of development within the Quarter reflects the contours of the hillside.
4.68 The Core Strategy outlines a mixed role within the Quarter (see Core Strategy policies CS17h and CS6a). There are a significant number of vacant industrial buildings within the Quarter, and it will be important to retain the best examples in order to retain and reinforce its distinctive characteristics. This approach should include both good physical examples, as well as those in prominent or strategic locations. This approach offers sufficient scope to both encourage new development, which will attract new investment into the area, whilst also retaining the character of the Quarter.
4.69 The policy advocates contemporary infill development, which should respond to the historic buildings through their form, scale and materials to reinforce the Quarters’ character.
4.70 In the four remaining quarters there is much less to conserve and the paramount need is re-invention and reconfiguration.
4.71 The Moor Quarter (subparagraph o) suffered extensive bomb damage during the Second World War, resulting in comprehensive redevelopment in the following two decades. Whilst this was undertaken on a piecemeal basis, the buildings along the Moor were unified through their scale and the use of Portland Stone. This scale and continuity is an important characteristic on the Moor, but the surrounding streets have a varied character, comprising low rise industrial buildings and warehouses, which have been the subject of considerable change over the years. In view of this, reinvention and reconfiguration is proposed.
4.72 The Moor is a key shopping street in the Central Shopping Area (see policy B2) where the Market is being relocated and new office and residential uses introduced above ground-floor levels (see Core Strategy policy CS17e). The strategic proposals for the New Business District at Moorfoot (see Core Strategy policy CS4) will also assist in transforming the identity of this key gateway into the City Centre.
-103- 4.73 Subparagraph (p) relates to The Sheaf Valley Quarter, which is extremely prominent, being visible from the railway as well as the Inner Ring Road. The Quarter contains some historically important buildings, including the former Post Office at its northern edge, but also a significant amount of large-scale development that lacks character, including the Odeon, the Roxy and more recently Ponds Forge. An emphasis on reinvention and reconfiguration is proposed in order to encourage a new character and identity for the Quarter to develop, and improve links to Sheaf Valley Park on the opposite side of the valley.
4.74 The Quarter is a key strategic gateway into the City Centre and the academic focus for Sheffield Hallam University (see Core Strategy policy CS17d). The Masterplan for this part of the City Centre envisages the development of the Digital Media campus, as it becomes the technological hub of the city, linking to the neighbouring Cultural Industries Quarter as well as the University campus and its strategic location adjacent to the Midland Station. These factors combine to suggest an approach to development that will encourage this ongoing emphasis on innovation that will assist in reinforcing its renaissance.
4.75 West Bar Quarter (subparagraph q) has suffered significantly due to its location and poor connectivity, but has recently benefitted from the development of the Inner Relief Road, which extends along its northern boundary (see also Core Strategy policy CS4d). There are a small number of industrial warehouse buildings remaining within the Quarter, with a number of new developments taking place to the east of the courthouse, but these are too isolated and dispersed to consider ‘repair and reconfiguration’, and the emphasis within the Quarter is on reinvention and reconfiguration.
4.76 The Quarter forms a strategic gateway to the north of the City Centre, lying in the river valley with the neighbouring Cathedral Quarter rising up to the south. The role for the Quarter indicated in the Core Strategy (policy CS17k) is for a mix of mainly business uses with opportunities to relate to the Courts Complex. The River Don offers a key regeneration opportunity within this Quarter, and the proposed emphasis is on development realising the potential and taking opportunities to reconnect with the river.
4.77 The Wicker/Riverside Quarter (subparagraph r) was an historic gateway into the city; developing a network of industrial premises during the 18 th and 19 th Century. The Quarter has retained the strong urban form developed from this period, and contains a number of historical buildings, such as Aizlewoods Mill, Trinity Church and the Wicker Arches, which, along with any archaeological artefacts and remains, provides the context for the Quarter and should be integrated into any new proposals. The strong form and well defined historic street pattern should be adhered to, as it contributes significantly to the character of the area, but alongside this there is, however, considerable scope to continue the Quarters’ reinvention.
-104- 4.78 The Core Strategy envisages the gateway role continuing, enhanced by its position on the Inner Relief Road with a mix of business and housing taking advantage of the opportunities created by the river (Core Strategy policy CS17l). There has been significant decline, with the Quarter cut off from the City Centre by the River Don and parts by the Inner Ring Road. There has been some innovative recent development, such as North Bank, that have started the revitalisation that is necessary to alter perceptions within this area and realise its ambition to be a distinctive mixed use neighbourhood within the City Centre. The River Don, in particular, offers particular potential that has yet to be exploited, linking to the proposed ‘Blue Route’ identified in the City Centre Masterplan.
4.79 Whilst the policy identifies the individual Quarters that make up the City Centre, it is also important that development recognises links between the Quarters, and also to the neighbouring areas outside the City Centre. This is a key aspect of the Core Strategy, which seeks to connect up the city, improve access by sustainable transport and encourage walking. Policy B1 seeks to address this by promoting connections between Quarters and to neighbouring parts of the city.
Sustainability Appraisal
4.80 The sustainability appraisal indicated that the policy would assist in realising a number of sustainability objectives, particularly objectives relating to a quality built environment, safety and security for people and property, historic environment protected and enhanced and water resources protected and enhanced. The promotion of an active streetscene and encouragement of active ground floors will assist in safety and security by making streets and spaces more vibrant and attractive. The recognition of different approaches for the Quarters creates a flexible approach, which is considered to be more effective in both reinforcing local character and distinctiveness and in providing opportunities for development.
Equality Appraisal
4.81 The equality appraisal highlighted that the policy would benefit a number of planning impact groups, in particular children and their carers and young people, through ensuring a more attractive, interesting and safe environment, with a range of spaces, features and attractions.
Consultee Preferences
4.82 This is a new policy and, therefore, there has been limited consultation on its contents to this point. One key element that has arisen so far is in relation to how the policy integrates, both between adjacent Quarters and between Quarters at the edge of the City Centre and surrounding neighbourhoods. This is an important point, and reference to this integration has been included at the end of the policy to reflect this.
-105-
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery of the Policy
Viability
4.83 Policy B1 may have certain implications in relation to development costs, in that it requires high quality, sustainable development, together with exemplary design at strategically important sites. The policy has taken into account the importance of viability, and the need to ensure that development is not prohibited by onerous demands, whilst also ensuring that it is of an appropriate standard across the City Centre, and will stand the test of time in future years.
4.84 The economy will have a significant impact on viability, and is difficult to predict as the exact position will inevitably alter in the coming years. Despite this, it is important that policies set out clearly the intentions and aspirations of the city, and its expectations for development. This may be even more important in an economic downturn, where there is strong pressure to accept development to stimulate the economy irrespective of its broader and longer-term contribution to the city as a whole.
4.85 The approach to reinforce local distinctiveness and to highlight the uniqueness and individuality of the different Quarters reinforces the approach that has been adopted with some success since the introduction of the Sheffield Urban Design Compendium in 2004.
4.86 The consideration and integration of sustainability into proposals will have positive implications in relation to whole-life cost for buildings, when taking into account choices of materials and decisions made in relation to energy systems and heating and cooling. To offset any additional costs, important and prominent sites do, by their nature, enjoy a high degree of marketability through their visibility and prominence.
4.87 The three broad approaches to development set out within the policy will also assist in achieving viability. Those Quarters where a conservation-led emphasis is encouraged dictate a sensitive approach that responds to the presence of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, but this does not preclude modern, innovative design. Quarters where the emphasis is ‘repair and recovery’ similarly seek the adaptation and reuse of historic buildings, but there are also opportunities within these areas to introduce new infill development. Although there are potential cost implications for adapting and reusing buildings, this can be offset to a degree through reduced demolition costs. In addition, market feedback has indicated that historic or older buildings can be a significant draw to certain types of business, who see bespoke, unique office and commercial floorspace as a particular asset. This should also help to offset any additional
-106- construction costs. Quarters where there is an emphasis on reinvention and reconfiguration allow greater scope for flexibility that can assist in the transformation of these parts of the City Centre.
4.88 Reinforcing local distinctiveness and character is an important component in the broader regeneration of the City Centre, and the approach seeks to ensure that the right type and scale of development takes place, which will provide a broad range of opportunities throughout the City Centre.
Mechanism and Agency
4.89 Delivery of the policy will be primarily through the development management process and by imposing conditions on development. A Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document will set out in detail how the criteria in the policy will be satisfied. Planning Briefs for key sites will also be prepared which will spell out how specific criteria can be met on a particular site.
4.90 Internal design advice on both pre applications and planning applications will be provided by urban design, conservation and landscape design specialists as part of the development management process and in the development and production of Briefs and Masterplans. The Design Team will seek to engage in discussions concerning sites at the earliest possible stage to ensure that the appropriate level of design quality is achieved, and that specifications, planting schedules and design details are appropriate.
4.91 The Council has set up an independent Sustainable Development and Design Panel, which offers expert design advice on strategic as well as important schemes within the city. The Panel has a key mandate to advocate high quality, sustainable design and their recommendations form a key consideration for Members in making decisions on Planning Applications, in line with the NPPF that advocates the creation of Local Design Panels. The Panel also contains representation from both English Heritage and the local Conservation Advisory Group; and the work of the Panel will be strengthened through the introduction of strong design policy for development across the city. This policy will assist the Panel in resisting poor design and provide consensus in relation to design quality.
4.92 The implementation of the policy will involve working in partnership with other agencies advising on, facilitating, funding and undertaking regeneration across the City Centre. These bodies include Sheffield First Partnership and English Heritage.
Resources
4.93 The Council’s in-house Urban and Environmental Design Team has significant expertise in the design of public spaces, landscaping, streets and routes throughout the City Centre. The Team will have a role in commenting on and, where appropriate, contributing to the design of significant spaces within the City
-107- Centre. Design standards and materials palette specifications have been set out for the hierarchy of streets within the City Centre and these are set out in the Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium.
4.94 As the policy will be implemented through the development management process, there are no obvious resource constraints on delivery. The main risks arising from the policy relate to the associated build-costs for developers, although these will be offset by greater returns, increased appeal of development and greater lifetime durability through using high quality materials.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
4.95 There is obvious concern in relation to the economic climate and the long-term implications of prolonged recession, and the temptation to accept development, regardless of quality, in the interests of stimulating the economy. It is recognised, however, that this situation will not always be the case, and that the overriding emphasis should be to ensure that development maintains a high standard and meets the various criteria set out, which will benefit the city in the longer term and act as a catalyst for investment and growth through making the City Centre attractive, liveable and vibrant.
4.96 The criteria a - e of policy B1, however, allow some flexibility in how they are realised, which need not involve onerous cost implications for developers. The achievement of the criteria will also add value to projects and help to ensure that they are more attractive and marketable, which will be of critical importance in a poor economic climate.
Monitoring
4.97 All development throughout the City Centre is monitored by the Urban and Environmental Design Team to ensure the highest standards of development.
Conclusions on Soundness
4.98 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons:
4.99 It is positively prepared:
• It relates directly to the Core Strategy by expanding on the design principles established in policy CS74;
• It identifies local distinctiveness across the City Centre and the roles of Quarters set out in policy CS17;
-108- • It reflects objectively assessed requirements for different types of development across the City Centre.
4.100 It is justified:
• It is needed to deliver Local Plan objectives such as creating environments to attract business, prizing its green environment, enhancing character and distinctiveness and preserving buildings of heritage value already in the Core Strategy;
• It is the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives for the City Centre and its quarters through balancing conservation and local distinctiveness with economic growth and innovative design;
• It supports the principle that development should contribute to place- making and take advantage of the townscape and landscape character of the City Centre Quarters.
4.101 It is effective :
• It is deliverable over the plan period, taking into account considerations of viability and would ensure that the appropriate level and quality of development is achieved across the City Centre.
• It responds to the economic climate and provides opportunities for a range of different development across the City Centre, following from the different characteristics of the City Centre’s Quarters.
4.102 It is consistent with national policy by:
• Helping to ensure a high standard of design within the City Centre through helping to establish a strong sense of place, responding to local character and history and reflecting local identity, whilst not discouraging innovation.
• Elaborating on what constitutes good design (NPPF paragraph 56).
-109-
5 DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRAL SHOPPING AREA AND THE CULTURAL HUB
Introduction
5.1 It is crucial to maintain and enhance the attraction of the City Centre if it is to help realise the Core Strategy vision of enriching the City Region. The City Centre ‘will play a crucial role in the transformation of the city’s economy and in the development of Sheffield’s role as the core city for its city region’.90
5.2 Policy B2 guides development in and around the City Centre to support the Core Strategy vision. It does this in three ways:
• Hierarchy of Areas and Consolidation : The first two paragraphs set a hierarchy of preferred shopping areas within the City Centre and a sequential approach which steers development to more central locations
• Concentration of uses The third and fourth paragraphs set appropriate concentrations of retail and other uses in these areas to maintain and enhance their attraction.
• Cultural Hub : The fifth paragraph supports cultural uses in the Cultural Hub and the Central Shopping Area and discourages their redevelopment to other uses. This will support the City Centre as a cultural destination.
Policy B2
Development in the Central Shopping Area and the Cultural Hub
Where possible, shops with citywide and regional catchments should be located in the Central Primary Shopping Area. If suitable sites are not available there to accommodate the proposed development, it should be located elsewhere in the Central Shopping Area, including The Moor.
Shops selling bulky goods with a citywide catchment that cannot be located within the Central Shopping Area should be located at the edge of the Area, including appropriate locations at or near to Moorfoot.
A high concentration of shops should be maintained in the Primary Shopping Area. The proportion of street frontage in use as shops (A1) 50 metres on either side of a proposed development in Fargate, Orchard Square, Chapel Walk and Pinstone Street/ Moorhead, should not fall below 70%. In Fargate the proportion in use for financial and professional services (A2) should not increase beyond 20%.
90 Core Strategy, Spatial Strategy paragraph 4.10
-111-
Elsewhere in the Central Shopping Area the proportion of street frontage in use as shops (A1) 50 metres on either side of a proposed development on High Street, the remainder of The Moor, Division Street or Devonshire Street should not fall below 50% unless it can be shown to enhance the vitality of the area for shopping.
In the Cultural Hub, cultural facilities will be the preferred uses. Changes from these uses will be allowed only if, as soon as practicable, equivalent or better cultural facilities are provided within or adjacent to the Cultural Hub or the Central Shopping Area.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
Relationship with National Policy
(i) Hierarchy of areas
5.3 The first two paragraphs of the policy encourage shops with a citywide or regional catchment area in a location that is as close as possible to the centre of the City Centre. This is consistent with the NPPF requirement 91 to ‘promote competitive town centre environments’ by ‘encouraging the development of shops of appropriate type and scale’.
5.4 Shops with a citywide or regional catchment area are appropriate in type and scale for the City Centre because such locations are highly accessible. Development there will be supported by ‘high quality public transport facilities’ consistent with NPPF Para 35. City Centre locations also offer the opportunity for customers to link trips and improve the vitality and viability of the City Centre, consistent with paragraph 23 bullet point 1. Locating large shops near each other supports comparison between them and increases competition.
5.5 The NPPF requires plans to ‘set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period’ 92 . The strategy itself, and the City Centre’s needs, are already set out in the Core Strategy and as the Core Strategy makes clear, the City Centre needs a qualitative improvement to its shopping area to help consolidate it and improve its standing as regional shopping centre. The sequential approach set out in B2, in conjunction with site allocations and designations on the Proposals Map will help meet these anticipated needs.
5.6 The sequential approach in B2 is consistent with the sequential approach outlined in NPPF paragraph 24. This directs retail development to town centres where possible, then to edge of centre sites, and then to sites that are capable of
91 NPPF paragraph 23 92 NPPF paragraph 21 bullet pt 2
-112- forming links with the centre. This policy deals with the first two preferences of the sequential approach relating to the City Centre and edge of centre locations. Policy B3 deals with out of centre development. Policy B2, in conjunction with the Proposals Map, designates a hierarchy of retail areas:
a. The Central Primary Shopping Area is the most central location and the first preference for retail development and includes the site allocated for the New Retail Quarter (also known as Sevenstone). It is where there should be a high proportion of retail uses to continue to attract people to the City.
b. The rest of the Central Shopping Area, also including secondary frontages, where most units should be retail to maintain the vitality of the Centre, then
c. For shops selling bulky goods with a citywide catchment that cannot be located within the Central Shopping Area, edge of centre sites and appropriate locations at or near Moorfoot.
5.7 As required by the NPPF 93 , these areas are defined on the Proposals Map. The policy’s three tier approach manages the Centre’s growth by making clear which uses will be permitted in each type of location.
5.8 If there are no suitable sites in the Central Shopping Area for proposals such as bulky goods retailing, policy B2 directs development to locations around Moorfoot. This conforms to bullet pt7 of NPPF paragraph 23, which advises LPA’s to ‘allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses’ . Retail uses are ‘Main town centre uses’ 94 and for retail purposes, the NPPF defines ‘edge of centre’ 95 as ‘a location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area’.
5.9 It should be noted that the Central Primary Shopping Area is defined with the purpose of consolidating the City Centre shopping area and improving the range and quality of shops and facilities (see Core Strategy paragraph 7.2 and the section on the Core Strategy below). This is a need distinctive to Sheffield and the area defined reflects the outcome that the Local Plan seeks to achieve. The definition of ‘primary shopping area’ used in the NPPF serves a different function – to identify current areas with a concentration of shops, which, in turn, provides a basis for assessing what is within convenient walking distance for shoppers (300 metres). The area identified as the Central Shopping Area on the Proposals Map includes shopping streets that would satisfy the NPPF definition of ‘primary’ and, so, sites within 300 metres of the edge of the Central Shopping Area would usually comply with national policy for edge-of-centre locations. The definition of the area is explained in greater detail in the Justification section below. Locations
93 NPPF paragraph 23 NPPF bullet pt3 94 NPPF Annex 2, definition of ‘Main town centre uses’ 95 NPPF Annex 2, definition of ‘Edge of centre’
-113- around Moorfoot comply as they are well connected to the City Centre, the edge of the area is 300 metres of the Central Primary Shopping Area and the whole of the area is within 300 metres of The Moor, which although not part of the Central Primary Shopping Area, satisfies the NPPF requirements, based on current concentrations of shops, for edge-of-centre.
5.10 The Justification Section shows in greater detail how the Primary Shopping Area and Central Shopping Area were defined.
(ii) Concentrations of uses
5.11 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the policy require minimum proportions of shops in the Central Shopping Area and the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area. The designation of areas and specification of proportions of retail uses is consistent with NPPF paragraph 23 bullet point 3 which asks local planning authorities ‘set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations’ .
(iii) Cultural Hub
5.12 Sheffield’s Cultural Hub includes two theatres, a gallery, two churches that can be used for concerts and other events and a hotel. Annex 2 of the NPPF confirms that these are both cultural facilities and main town centre uses 96 and should be encouraged in town centres. The Cultural Hub is within the City Centre and fulfils that requirement.
5.13 NPPF paragraph 7 requires the planning system to support the cultural well-being of a community. The policy’s protection of cultural facilities in the City Centre conforms to that requirement since the City Centre is highly accessible by a choice of means of transport to most people in the City.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
5.14 The Core Strategy’s Spatial Vision is for the city to be the most attractive and sustainable location
“for regional services, jobs and facilities’ 97 . Within the City it is the Centre that ‘will play a crucial role in the transformation of the city’s economy and in the development of Sheffield’s role as the core city for its city region”.
5.15 The City Centre will be the
96 The definition of main town centre uses at Annex 2 includes culture and tourism, ‘including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities’. 97 Core Strategy Spatial Vision paragraph 3.4
-114- “focus for most new development of offices, shops, leisure, culture, higher education and other service” 98 .
5.16 The Core Strategy recognises that the existing central shopping area is overextended and the quality range of shops and facilities is significantly short of the potential for a major core city.
“A major regeneration initiative is imminent in the form of the New Retail Quarter, which is needed to consolidate the shopping area and improve the range and quality of shops and facilities”99 .
5.17 The Core Strategy Vision remains valid. Sheffield is one of England’s eight largest city economies outside London which drive local and underpin national economies. It is in the Core Cities group 100 , which aims to enhance the economic performance of each city. Evidence at paragraph 5.38 et seq shows that the needs that gave rise to the Core Strategy are now even more pressing and that it is essential for the current policy to help deliver the strategy.
5.18 The Core Strategy’s aim to consolidate shopping and cultural facilities in the Primary Shopping Area is supported by policies:
• CS14 City-wide Distribution of Shopping and Leisure Development , which concentrates new shops and leisure facilities with city-wide and regional catchments in the City Centre Primary Shopping Area and immediately adjacent shopping streets of the City Centre. This area should be ‘strengthened through a major retail-led, mixed-use regeneration scheme, which will form the New Retail Quarter ’.
• CS18 Shopping in the City Centre , which defines the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area as ‘extending from Moorhead to the north end of Fargate’ . The extent of the area is illustrated in the Key Diagram.
• CS19 Cultural Facilities in the City Centre , which supports arts and cultural facilities in the City Centre, particularly ‘in the Cultural Hub area around Tudor Square’ . This area too is shown in the Key Diagram.
5.19 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Policy B2 support the Core Strategy’s Vision and its policies CS14 and CS18 through its prioritisation of retail development in the Central Primary Shopping Area and then the remaining Central Shopping Area. The Central Shopping Area is not identified as such in the Core Strategy but complies with policy CS14 as it is all within 300 metres of the Core Strategy
98 Core Strategy Spatial Strategy paragraph 4.10 99 Core Strategy paragraph 7.2 100 The Core Cities Group , started in 1997, is a self selected and self funded cross-party group, led by the City Leaders.
-115- Primary Shopping Area. Policy CS14 specifically identifies edge locations for major non-food retail development.
5.20 Paragraphs 3 and 4 require minimum proportions of frontage to be in retail use. This is consistent with CS18, which requires retail uses on specified ground floor frontages in the City Centre, particularly The Moor (north of Fitzwilliam Gate) and High Street. Both fall within the Central shopping area shown on the Proposals Map. However, it is now recognised that the “more limited levels of new retail uses” in the other Shopping Streets in policy CS18 will vary and only some are included in the Central Shopping Area and requiring the 50% of frontage as retail in policy B2. In the Shopping Streets with more limited potential for new retail development and outside the Central Shopping Area, future non-retail proposals should be determined in the light of policy CS18 and any other material considerations.
5.21 Paragraph 5 supports policy CS19 by maintaining cultural uses in the Cultural Hub and requiring such uses to be replaced by other uses only if equivalent or better facilities are provided in or next to the area or other more central parts of the City Centre.
5.22 The Proposals Map identifies the precise extent of the Cultural Hub and this conforms to the broad area shown in the Core Strategy Key Diagram
LEP Emerging Strategy
5.23 Section 5.4 of the strategy identifies key areas of change where there is significant potential for development which will help to grow priority sectors in the Sheffield City Region. One of these is the New Retail Quarter.
“This project will help to transform the retail offer of the city centre, complementing the diverse traditional and modern retail offer of the City Region as a whole.”
5.24 The LEP Strategy is supported by the Proposals Map’s allocation of the New Retail Quarter site and by policy B2’s requirement for ‘shops with citywide and regional catchments’ to locate in the Primary Shopping Area.
The City Centre Masterplan
5.25 The Masterplan (2008) provides a framework for regenerating the City Centre through projects that promote retailing, housing and jobs. It was approved by the City Council following extensive public consultations. A key priority is to consolidate the shopping area through development of the New Retail Quarter, which is to contain ‘a diverse mix of uses - the creation of a more vibrant and inclusive City Centre- not just a commercial centre but a mix of employment, educational, retail, cultural, leisure, entertainment and residential uses with activity throughout the day’. Consolidation of the retail core will increase the
-116- range and value of the city centre retail offer and act as a catalyst for other complementary leisure and cultural activities.
5.26 Policy B2’s promotion of retailing and cultural facilities in the Central Shopping Area is consistent with the Masterplan aim of consolidating the retail and leisure uses in the core of the city.
5.27 The Masterplan is currently being reviewed and a new version has been prepared for consultation. This recognises the continuing emphasis on the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area.
Culture Strategy
5.28 The fifth paragraph of policy B2 supports the clustering of cultural developments in the City Centre. This will make it more attractive as a cultural destination and is consistent with the City Council’s Cultural Strategy 101 , which encourages participation in culture and the arts, confirms a commitment ‘to strive for excellence’ and support the economic benefits of culture such as creating and sustaining jobs and bringing income and investment into the city.
Justification for the Policy
Issues that the policy addresses
5.29 Both the National Planning Policy Framework and the Core Strategy support improvements to the quality of shopping in the City Centre and support its cultural facilities. Policy B2 sets out in more detail how these aims will be achieved.
General evidence on need for leisure and retail development
5.30 Policy B2 has been formed in the context that development plans should take account of need for leisure and retail development over the plan period, as required by the NPPF (paragraphs 21 and 161).
5.31 Needs can be considered in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Both ‘have a role to play in reaching an overall judgement about the scale and form of development which should be planned for and facilitated through development plans’ 102 .
5.32 This policy deals specifically with the City Centre and its role in meeting needs. In terms of the need for retail floorspace it is non-food goods that are particularly important for the City Centre, since shops that serve a city-wide and regional
101 The Culture Strategy ‘Created and made in Sheffield’ (2011) was produced by a grouping of arts and culture organisations and the City Council. 102 Practice Guidance paragraph 3.2
-117- catchment area and attract people to the City Centre are likely to be selling non- food goods rather than food. Policy B2 is based on latest evidence of both quantitative and qualitative needs for non-food retail floorspace from:
• The Sheffield Retail Study (the ‘Cushman & & Wakefield Report) 103 and • The Sheffield Homeware Retail Study (the ‘GVA Report’) 104
5.33 The Council has recently commissioned a more detailed quantitative assessment of sustainable capacity to update these studies 105 .
Quantitative need for floorspace.
5.34 Table 2 shows allocations and current commitments in the Central Shopping Area, demonstrating that there is scope for a considerable amount of further redevelopment to support retailing in the City Centre. Other than the New Retail Quarter these commitments do not represent significant increases over the amount of retail floorspace that are there already, and all of them are either within the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area or within the Central Shopping Area. Nevertheless both Retail Studies show that beyond these commitments there is unlikely to be a foreseeable quantitative need for further comparison retail space.
Table 2: Commitments in City Centre Shopping Areas City Centre Commitments Retail Scheme Gross Progress Area sq. m. Primary Shopping Area New Retail Quarter (also 95,710 11/02565/OUTR renewal approved an allocation) 2011, not yet constructed, reserved matters to be submitted by 2016 The Moor (Block 1) 12,440 12/03759/FUL Approved 2010, work site demolished, construction to begin December 2013 The Moor (Block 8) 5,163 11/02250/FUL approved 2011, not yet constructed Rest of Central Shopping Area The Moor (Block 6) 8 shop 15,350 12/00031/FUL approved 2012; units and new market under construction. Completion in (also an allocation) 2013
103 Sheffield Retail Study (2010), by Cushman & Wakefield, commissioned by Sheffield City Council 104 Sheffield Homeware Retail Study 2012, by GVA, commissioned by Sheffield City Council to update the Sheffield Retail Study 2010 in relation to retailing of homeware goods and determine whether policies were needed specifically for homeware retailing. 105 From G L Hearn (to be published in September 2013
-118- 5.35 Cushman & & Wakefield reported that at 2016, after implementation of commitments, there would be a ‘modest oversupply of comparison goods floorspace when compared to available expenditure’ 106 . There would, therefore, be no quantitative need for more floorspace in the City as a whole. The Study anticipated there would be scope for more floorspace after 2021 but this projection was based solely on the assumption that the New Retail Quarter would be completed and would draw extra spending into the City Centre as a whole.
5.36 The GVA Report updated the assumptions in the 2010 Cushman & & Wakefield Report. It took the view that 107 :
• The growth forecasts used in the 2010 study were unrealistically high and internet sales have risen, so capacity forecasts in the 2010 Study were optimistic.
• The Sevenstone (New Retail Quarter) scheme would not be delivered by 2016 and would not increase the City’s share of the market to the extent that the Cushman & Wakefield Report anticipated. The uplift of spending on which Cushman & Wakefield’s forecast of capacity was based would not occur. Therefore there is no quantitative need for further floorspace.
• The supply of comparison goods floorspace relative to spending has increased since 2010, mostly in supermarkets, and this has further reduced the quantitative need for further floorspace 108 .
5.37 These conclusions bear out the need to continue with the consolidation spatial strategy already set out in the Core Strategy.
Qualitative Need for floorspace
5.38 Both the 2010 Sheffield Retail Study and the subsequent Homeware Study agree that, if the City Centre is to play the regional role compatible with the Core Strategy Vision (paragraph 0 above), there is a qualitative need for it to attract development of sufficient scale and quality to increase its currently low market share in the city and city region. Evidence that the City Centre does not currently perform its intended role is in both the 2010 and 2012 Studies 109 .
• An assessment of indicators of vitality and viability showed that ‘for a centre of this nature and intended role and retail function there is a clear qualitative need for significant improvement ahead’ (2010 Study Para 5.26).
106 Sheffield Retail Study para 9.21 107 SHRS Chapter 3 108 SHRS Table 3.3 109 See Retail Studies in Sheffield
-119- • The City Centre’s ranking has declined from 26 th in the UK in 2005 to 35 th in 2011 110 , a level that does not befit a regional role.
• The City Centre’s shopping role is increasingly fragile. In 2011, 144 (24%) of all units in the centre were vacant, representing an increase of 33 vacancies since 2010. The proportion of vacant units in the City Centre is 12% higher than the UK average 111 . Although many vacancies reflect uncertainty about future development in the City and preparation for the start of the New Retail Quarter redevelopment, such high vacancy levels are a significant cause for concern 112 .
5.39 There is therefore a continuing need to promote the City Centre as a regional retail and leisure destination and for this need to be satisfied in the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area. The Core Strategy’s vision is still capable of being achieved. Development of the New Retail Quarter was delayed by the recession in 2009 and has not started but the CPO has been implemented, the developer, Hammersons, has renewed the outline planning permission and the Council and Hammersons are in discussion over the scheme.
Need for Leisure and cultural development
5.40 While policy B2 prefers central locations for cultural development and policy B3 sets out a criteria-based approach for large-scale leisure development, the Council has not assessed the need for commercial leisure uses or cultural facilities 113 in the City, largely because of the problems of forecasting such needs and their land use requirements. The Practice Guidance 114 notes that there are important differences and constraints which mean that assessments of need for leisure uses cannot be the same as for retail assessments, including:
• Less detailed and reliable information is available
• Greater diversity and change in the sector over time in the range of activities and associated property requirements due to the sector’s dynamic nature.
• Greater elasticity of demand for leisure activities compared to the retail sector.
5.41 However, the Hub as identified in the Core Strategy is to maintain the benefits of the current concentration of facilities rather than create capacity for expansion.
110 Sheffield Homeware Retail Study 2012 , GVA, Table 3.10 111 Sheffield Homeware Retail Study paragraph 3.22 112 Sheffield Homeware Retail Study paragraph 3.33 113 Cultural Facilities are defined in the policy as ‘Theatres, museums, art galleries and exhibition halls, public libraries, places of worship and religious instruction, church halls, concert halls, cinemas’ 114 Practice Guidance paragraph C2
-120- Alternative options – Hierarchy of areas and consolidation
Hierarchy of shopping areas
5.42 Some options are already established as obligatory requirements. These include the need to adopt a sequential approach, which is outlined in national policy, and the need to consolidate retail development in the City Centre required by Core Strategy policy CS14. Both the sequential approach and the need for consolidation require a hierarchy of preferred areas to be defined in the City Centre. The main alternative options for identifying the hierarchy were:
(a) To extend the Primary Shopping Area to include The `Moor and/ or other streets
(b) To identify and define a third tier in the hierarchy.
Option (a) - To include The Moor and other streets in the Primary Shopping Area
5.43 The north end of The Moor is already within the proposed Primary Shopping Area but this option would also include the rest of the street.
5.44 The strengths of including The Moor in the Primary Shopping Area are:
(a) It recognises that the Moor already has a high current proportion of A1 uses in its frontage, consistent with the definition of Primary Shopping Area in Annex 2 of National Planning Policy Framework
(b) There is a qualitative need to improve the City Centre and valuable opportunities for doing so on The Moor are already being taken up, whereas the New Retail Quarter has been subject to delays.
(c) In particular the new market is approaching completion at the south end of The Moor.
(d) It is second to Fargate in terms of footfall.
(e) The Moor is well served by frequent public transport from many parts of the city, e.g. on Furnival Gate and Fitzwilliam Gate.
5.45 The weaknesses of the option are:
(a) It would be contrary to policy CS18 which defines the Primary Shopping Area as extending from Moorhead to the north end of Fargate.
-121- (b) Development of the New Retail Quarter would no longer be preferred to development elsewhere in the Primary Shopping Area. This would detract from the priority that the Core Strategy attaches to the New Retail Quarter.
(c) Whilst The Moor is currently attracting valuable redevelopment the location is not drawing the kinds of stores that will expand the City Centre’s catchment into the city region.
(d) Recent indications are that the requirement for comparison goods floorspace in the City Centre is less than when the Core Strategy was adopted and the need for a compact Primary Shopping Area is greater rather than reduced.
(e) The significance of the new market is reflected in the newly proposed designation of the Central Shopping Area. But The Moor will tend to improve provision for mid/low end of comparison retailing, for needs primarily arising within the city, rather than providing for the wider city region (neighbouring town centres already have their own excellent markets).
(f) Footfall is a long way short of that on Fargate in the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area (see (Table 4)).
(g) Although well served by public transport Furnival Gate also serves the Central Primary Shopping Area, the services on Fitzwilliam Gate also run close to the Primary Area and the Primary Area also has the advantage of the adjacent Supertram and High Street bus routes and being significantly closer to the Interchange and railway station.
5.46 The option exists of including the other shopping streets to the north and west of the defined Primary Shopping Area – High Street, Division Street and Castlegate. The strengths and weaknesses of these options are summarised below.
5.47 The strengths of including these streets are:
(a) The Potential arising from high accessibility by bus and tram and nearness to the Primary Shopping Area
(b) The Retail presence here supports neighbouring Primary Shopping Area
5.48 The weakness of including these areas is:
(a) It would not encourage the consolidation of shopping within the City Centre
5.49 However the advantages offered by their proximity to the tram network and to the Primary Shopping Area itself mean that High Street and Division Street should be
-122- included within the Central Shopping Area. They are listed as ‘shopping streets’ in CS18
5.50 The Castlegate area is more distant so its inclusion in the Primary Shopping Area would detract further from the Core Strategy’s aim of consolidating the shopping area within the City. In keeping with consolidation strategy, it is omitted from Central Shopping Area. But its omission does not preclude a continuing retail presence, ancillary to the new role for this area (see Central Area Background Report)
5.51 The reasons for identifying the Primary Shopping Area as it is are discussed in more detail below, reflecting the policy contexts of NPPF and Core Strategy and statistical evidence about current patterns.
Option (b) – The third tier of locations
5.52 As described at paragraph 5.6, the hierarchy of retail areas chosen in Policy B2 consists of:
a. The Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area, first preference for retail development with citywide and regional catchment. Then,
b. the rest of the Central Shopping Area, where most units should be retail to maintain the vitality of the Centre, then
c. for shops selling bulky goods with a citywide catchment that cannot be located within the Central Shopping Area, edge of centre sites and appropriate locations at or near Moorfoot.
5.53 Several options were considered:
(a) Whether it was necessary to have a third tier
(b) If so which areas of the City it should consist of
5.54 The merit of identifying a third tier is that it makes it clear that alternative, more central, sites are available for retail development that might otherwise be located out of centre.
5.55 The weakness of identifying a third tier of locations is that development there could lead to undermining of the Core Strategy’s aim of consolidating retail development in the Primary Shopping Area. The relative merits of the different options are considered further below.
-123- Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
Option (a) – To include The Moor and other streets in the Primary Shopping Area
Justification in terms of policy
5.56 The principles about the definition of the Primary Area have been discussed above in relation to the NPPF and the Core Strategy. The issue is taken up in greater detail in this section, taking account of local evidence and trends. The NPPF Glossary 115 defines ‘Primary Shopping Area’ in factual rather than policy terms as the ‘Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are adjoining and closely related to the primary shopping frontage). In turn, primary frontages are defined as ‘likely to include a high proportion of retail uses which may include food, drinks, clothing and household goods.’ On this basis the rest of The Moor would qualify as Primary Shopping Area since it has a high concentration of retail uses (see Table 3), along with areas already included - Fargate, Barkers Pool, Orchard Square and Pinstone Street. On this basis too the Primary Shopping Area would exclude the part of the site allocated to the New Retail Quarter that is outside these streets because currently only 43% of its units are in A1 use.
Table 3: Retail (A1) Concentrations in the City Centre Streets Street All units A1 units % A1 In Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area Fargate 34 29 85% Barkers Pool 8 6 75% Orchard Square 18 16 89% Pinstone Street 50 39 78% North end of The Moor 4 4 100% New Retail Quarter allocation (excluding units in the streets above) 51 22 43% Outside Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area Rest of The Moor 42 53 81% High Street 24 14 58% Data from 2012 Business Rates
5.57 However, the boundary of the Primary Shopping Area in the Proposals Map, as in the Core Strategy, has been identified for policy purposes to identify it as the sequentially preferred area for retail development in relation to future outcomes rather than past distribution of development. It is where new ‘shops and leisure facilities with city-wide and regional catchments’ are to be concentrated (Core
115 NPPF Annex 2 definitions
-124- Strategy policy CS14). The reasons for CS14’s aim to concentrate new retail development here are still valid.
a. This location is the most central within the distribution of shops in the City Centre (see Map 1).
b. It is at a nodal junction of three main shopping routes - Division Street, Fargate and Pinstone Street so is accessible to all parts of the shopping centre.
c. It is accessible to residents of all parts of the City since it is near tram stops and the frequent bus routes that run up High Street
d. The relatively compact area reflects the need for consolidation and broadening of the shopping area and the latest projections of central area shopping.
-125- Map 1: City Centre Shopping Areas
Source: Valuation Office and Business Rates
Linking Fargate and The Moor
5.58 Development in the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area as designated on the Proposals Map will reinforce the link between the two currently most important shopping areas of the City Centre – Fargate and The Moor. Pedestrian footfall data (Table 4) shows the importance of these two areas 116 . Fargate has the
116 The Practice Guidance (paragraph 6.4) notes that pedestrian flows can be used in the identification of primary shopping frontages.
-126- highest pedestrian flows in the City, followed by Debenhams on the north end of The Moor, which is also in the designated Primary Shopping Area. The intervening Pinstone Street is less attractive to customers, as shown by the footfall data and remains a weak link between the two main shopping areas. The Primary Shopping Area (and the New Retail Quarter allocation) include Pinstone Street and retail development here can help link Fargate with the Moor and integrate the offer of the wider Central Shopping Area.
5.59 It is accepted that the New Retail Quarter site (other than Pinstone Street and Barkers Pool) currently has few shops but it is included in anticipation of the development of 65,000 square metres of retail floorspace in accordance with the Core Strategy. It will include a redeveloped John Lewis, the City Centre’s anchor store. By including the New Retail Quarter in the Primary Shopping Area it becomes a preferred site in the sequential approach described in B2 and in keeping with Core strategy policies CS14 and CS18.
5.60 Inclusion of the New Retail Quarter site in the Primary Shopping Area also complies with the Practice Guidance that the nature of a proposal and ‘its physical and functional linkages with the rest of the primary shopping area’ are more important than a literal interpretation of what constitutes in-centre based on the currently defined primary shopping area 117 .
Table 4: Footfall Measures
Street ‘Customers’ in Dec 2012
Fargate 1,137,964 Moor Debenhams 626,466 Moor Sainsburys 604,900 Division Street 426,312 Pinstone St 336,487 'Customers' are people counted by cameras located at each of the 5 locations across the city centre provided by Springboard, an automated customer counting service. Information from Sheffield City Centre Management.
The Central Shopping Area
5.61 The Central Shopping Area includes the Primary Shopping Area and adjoining shopping streets of Division Street and High Street, including secondary frontages. The NPPF Annex notes that secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses such as restaurants, cinemas and businesses. Accordingly Policy B2 proposes a lower requirement for retail representation – 50%. This is sufficient to ensure a retail majority in these streets to maintain their vitality.
117 The Practice Guidance ‘Planning for Town centres’ (DCLG) paragraphs 6.18-6.20. The guidance is still current.
-127- 5.62 The Central Shopping Area as defined on the Proposals Map is more constrained than on the UDP Map, in acknowledgement of the need expressed in the Core Strategy’s Policy CS14 to consolidate retailing in the more central part of the city.
Option (b) – The third tier of locations
5.63 The NPPF requires local authorities to ‘allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail … development needed in town centres.118 It says that ‘ it is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites 119 .
5.64 As reported at paragraph 5.34, there appears to be no quantitative need for more retail development beyond the commitments shown in Table 3. However the Council has commissioned a Retail Study to provide further evidence about the validity of this assessment (GL Hearn Study). Nevertheless the GVA Report concluded that there was a shortage of sites ‘to accommodate different ranges in scale and type of retail’, including bulky goods retailing, in the City Centre. GVA recommended that the Council should appraise town centre and edge of centre sites to ensure ‘a flexible supply of suitable retail sites to enable a range of retail formats to be located in or edge of centre’ 120 should the need arise. The GVA Report recommended a three-tiered phased approach to retail allocations, which directs retail development to:
‘1. The New Retail Quarter – in the first instance, likely to be most suitable for high/mid end comparison retail and anchor retail stores;
2. The Moor – where there are no sites that are available or suitable to accommodate the proposed development in The New Retail Quarter, this area is likely to be most suitable for mid/low end comparison retail with a mix of floorplate sizes; and
3. Moorfoot and land north of Moore Street and Charter Row and other suitable edge of centre sites – where there are no sites that are available or suitable to accommodate the proposed development in the New Retail Quarter or in The Moor, such edge of centre locations are likely to be most suitable for large retail warehouse units and foodstore developments.’
5.65 The less central location for bulky goods retailing advocated in the third tier is justified by the Practice Guidance, which recognises that forms of development selling ‘bulky durable goods such as DIY, furniture, carpets and domestic appliances’ are regarded as ‘complementary to the role of town centre retailing,
118 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 23, bullet points 6 and 7 119 GVA Report paragraph 5.29 120 GVA Report paragraph 8.18
-128- and do not generate sufficient sales productivity to trade in prime town centre locations’ .
5.66 The wording of Policy B2 takes account of the GVA recommendations. It proposes ‘ appropriate locations at or near to Moorfoot’ as the third tier in the hierarchy The Moorfoot area is the best location for such sites. It allows for larger building floorplates than elsewhere at the edge of the centre and it is close to existing retailing, allowing for linked trips.
Map 2 - Buffer of 300 metres around the Primary Shopping Area
5.67 The policy accords with the NPPF, which prefers the allocation of appropriate sites to be ‘edge of centre’ and ‘well connected to the town centre’ , when suitable and viable town centre sites are not available 121 . The National Planning Policy Framework prefers defines ‘edge of centre’ as:
121 National Planning Policy Framework Para 23 bullet point 8
-129- ‘For retail purposes, a location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area’ 122 .
5.68 Although some locations around Moorfoot are further than the 300 metres from the Primary Shopping Area (see Map 2) the NPPF definition also notes that ‘In determining whether a site falls within the definition of edge of centre, account should be taken of local circumstances.’ The Practice Guidance 123 explains that these local circumstances include:
- local topography will affect pedestrians’ perceptions of easy walking distances from the centre.
- barriers, such as crossing major roads and car parks,
- the attractiveness and perceived safety of the route and
- the strength of attraction and size of the town centre.
5.69 Also relevant is ‘the degree of functional linkage’ between sites and the centre, which will ‘have a major effect on the level of linked trips’ . People may be more willing to walk between an edge of centre site and the Primary Shopping Area if they each have strong, complementary attractions. (Paragraph 6.7).
5.70 The local circumstances of areas around the Moor mean that they are effectively edge of centre locations. They are adjacent to the Central Shopping Area, well- connected to the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area by attractive flat pedestrian routes. There are no major roads or car parks to cross, They also are clustered to form an identifiable area to form a ‘functional linkage’ with the City Centre to encourage linked trips. Although these locations are barely ‘edge of centre’ in relation to the Core Strategy Primary Shopping Area their identification as suitable complies with bullet pt 7 of para 23 of the NPPF, which says that ‘if sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified’, plans should set policies for meeting the identified needs ‘in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre’.
5.71 The sites will have the advantages of edge of centre over out of centre development noted in the Practice Guidance. Development here can divert expenditure from less accessible out-of-centre locations to more accessible edge- of-centre locations 124 . It will achieve the two important policy objectives of the sequential approach 125 :
122 National Planning Policy Framework Glossary 123 Practice Guidance paragraph 6.6 124 PG paragraph 3.25 125 PG paragraph 6.2
-130- - First, the assumption underpinning the policy is that town centre sites (or failing that well connected edge of centre sites) are likely to be the most readily accessible locations by alternative means of transport and will be centrally placed to the catchments established centres serve, thereby reducing the need to travel.
- The second, related objective is to seek to accommodate main town centre uses in locations where customers are able to undertake linked trips in order to provide for improved consumer choice and competition. In this way, the benefits of the new development will serve to reinforce the vitality and viability of the existing centre.
5.72 The reasons for choosing the particular sites for a location are set out in greater detail in the City Centre Areas and Sites Background Report.
Alternative Options - Concentration of uses
5.73 Policy B2 seeks to manage the proportions of retail (A1) uses on the ground floor frontage in streets in the Central Shopping Area at certain levels to maintain the retail vitality of the City Centre.
Alternatives considered for concentration of uses
5.74 The option of not having a ‘frontage’ policy that preferred shops (A1) in the Central Shopping Area was considered. Not having a policy would mean that the default position of Policy H1 would be relevant. In the absence of a general requirement for a majority of development in these areas to be retail (as in the UDP), policy H1 would allow existing shops to change to any use listed as acceptable for the Central Shopping Area. This would consist of any Class A use, offices, houses, hotels, community uses and leisure and recreation facilities.
5.75 The strength of not having a ‘frontage’ policy was:
(a) that occupiers would be more likely to be found for vacant units and that a unit would support the vitality of the City Centre more if it were occupied than if it were vacant.
5.76 The weakness was
(a) that units might be occupied by uses that did not attract shoppers as much as shops would, which would lessen the vitality of the City Centre.
Alternatives considered for measuring vitality
5.77 Once a frontage policy was adopted, options for assessing degree of retail (A1) dominance were considered. Proportions of uses in a street can be measured by:
-131-
(a) their floorspace, or by numbers of units or by their frontage.
(b) relative to the street as a whole or to properties a distance either side of the property.
5.78 The strengths and weaknesses of such measurements are assessed below.
Planning Justification for the Choice between Alternatives
5.79 Keeping frontage in the Central Shopping Area in predominantly A1 use (more than 50%) and A1 frontage in the Primary Shopping Area at more 70% will help consolidate the shopping centre, which is elongated and fragmented. In particular, the Primary Shopping Area is crucial to the City Centre’s retail draw and the retail character and daytime vitality of its streets needs to be safeguarded. Café uses in the area also add vitality and attract shoppers to the centre but should not detract from the prime retail function of the streets. The figure of 70% in the Primary Area reflects current provision on the most successful streets, which should be maintained, and represents a ration of two shops to every one none retail use. The simple majority in the wider Central Shopping Area provides opportunities for more diversification should the requirement for retail uses not require the current concentration of shops on all its streets.
5.80 Financial and professional services (Class A2 uses) are not included in the National Planning Policy Framework’s definition of main town centre uses. They are services that are ancillary to a centre rather than a main attractor and can be located in more secondary areas. They could take up premises that could otherwise have been occupied by main town centre uses. Therefore their representation in Fargate, the current de facto primary shopping area, need not be increase beyond its current level of 20%.
Alternatives considered for measuring vitality
5.81 An assessment based on the number of units in a centre in a certain class may not truly indicate a centre’s vitality or whether retail uses predominate if those units vary in size or frontage. For example if properties in use as shops were generally smaller than those in other uses an indicator based on their number would tend to overestimate their predominance.
5.82 Floorspace is a better indicator of the extent of a service in a centre, but the measure that best indicates vitality and mirrors the experience of the user of a centre is frontage. People using centres walk past properties and their perception of a centre’s vitality is likely to be based on the frontages they walk
-132- past. Measures based on frontage also reflect the wording in the NPPF describing existing Primary Shopping Areas in terms of their frontage 126 .
5.83 Measures that relate to distance either side of a property have the advantage over whole-street measures in that they encourage a dispersal of non-retail uses throughout the centre. This will tend to encourage vitality in both daytime and the evening, avoiding excessive concentrations of retail or non-retail uses in any part of the area.
Sustainability Appraisal
5.84 The policy will attract shopping development to the City Centre and support leisure and cultural uses. This will encourage other economic development to locate in the City Centre and so strengthen its economy. The City Centre is the location in the City that is most accessible by public transport so development here will be available to the whole community including those who do not have access to a car.
5.85 Locating main town centre uses in a central location will allow greater opportunity for people to make linked trips. This will reduce the need to travel and so reduce CO 2 emissions.
Equality Appraisal
5.86 Encouraging main town centre uses to locate as close as possible to the City Centre will support linked trips and accessibility by public transport. The City centre is accessible by public transport so development here will be available to the whole community including those who do not have access to a car.
Consultee Preferences
5.87 The Draft Consultation policy B2 dealt just with retail proportions and development in the Cultural Hub (i.e. the subject of paragraphs 3-5 of the current policy) so comments were received on just these two issues.
5.88 The owners of The Moor, the Scottish Widows Investment Partnership, considered that the policy’s restriction on non-retail frontage was too inflexible and in any case based on an arbitrary percentage figure. They considered it could prejudice beneficial mixed use development. However policy B2 maintains the distinctive role of City Centre areas described in Core Strategy policy CS18 and identifying quotas will support the Core Strategy's requirement for retail uses in the Primary Shopping Area and nearby streets (CS18). The Core Strategy requirement for retail uses will support the vitality of the centre (see paragraph 5.61)
126 NPPF Annex 2
-133- 5.89 Consultees, including the Sheffield Theatres Trust, supported the policy in the draft Consultation document as it related to the cultural hub and repeated in Policy B2. There were no objections to this part of the policy.
5.90 Because the GVA Report was produced after the consultation period for the first Draft and because policy B2 was added to after the GVA Report, no consultation responses have been received on the amended policy. However responses from land owners of the sites allocated for bulky goods retailing were generally favourable and none of the respondents were against the principle of having a third tier of sites.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
5.91 The aim of the first part of policy B2 is to promote shops with citywide and regional catchments in the Central Primary Shopping Area. The New Retail Quarter development is the main mechanism for delivering this. The New Retail Quarter will be delivered through a partnership between the City Council and its preferred developer. Development of the New Retail Quarter was delayed by the recession in 2009 and has not started but the CPO has been implemented, the developer, Hammersons, has renewed the outline planning permission and the Council and Hammersons are in discussion over the scheme. Hammersons envisages that the New Retail Quarter could be complete in 2017.
5.92 The development management process will assess proposals for their conformity with the policy. GIS technology will help determine whether a proposal conforms to the policy by simple measurement of frontages either side of a proposal.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment
5.93 The sequential approach described in the first part of policy B2 is flexible because it would not preclude development that could benefit the City. It expresses a preferred hierarchy of locations but if these locations are not suitable nor available for the proposed development the policy does not preclude the proposed development from locating elsewhere.
5.94 The part of policy B2 that specifies minimum frontages acts as a ‘long-stop’ to ensure retail predominance in the relevant areas. The ratios are set at a low level relative to existing frontages (see Table 2) so most proposed development are likely to be consistent with the policy. The policy is also flexible in that it would not preclude development that could otherwise enhance the vitality of the area for shopping. But if a proposal neither conformed with the minimum frontage nor enhanced the vitality of the area for shopping it would be unlikely to be consistent with the area’s characteristics outlined in the Core Strategy’s policy CS18.
-134- 5.95 Changes to the GPDO 127 now allow up to 150 square metres of floorspace in any building to change from Use Class A, B1 or D to any of Use Classes A1, A2, A3 or B1 for a period of two years, without planning permission. Changes might occur that would otherwise be contrary to policy B2, but the two year period will allow an opportunity to assess the contribution of any change to the vitality of these streets.
Monitoring
5.96 There is no longer a requirement to produce an Annual Monitoring Report, so it is unlikely that the policy will be monitored regularly. However, some monitoring will be necessary to establish whether the policy is working successfully, when the time comes for a review of the Local Plan. The policy will be monitored through measuring frontages using the Council’s GIS system.
Conclusions on Soundness
5.97 The policy is considered sound for the following reasons.
5.98 It is positively prepared :
• It meets development requirements by setting out a hierarchy of areas where development is to be preferred
• It will encourage retail, leisure and cultural facilities that support the vitality of the City Centre
5.99 It is justified :
• it puts into effect the Core Strategy’s aims of promoting the consolidation of shopping within the Primary Shopping Area, as expressed in Policy CS14 by setting it as the preferred area for the New Retail Quarter
• it supports the characterisation of shopping areas in policy CS18 by setting out the proportions of retail frontage that are appropriate in these areas and which support their vitality
• it supports cultural facilities in the Cultural Hub within the City Centre, consistent with policy CS19
5.100 It is effective :
127 Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 1101
-135- • The New Retail Quarter, promoted within the Primary Shopping Area, can be delivered through joint working between the Council and the preferred developer
• The Policy permits a range of appropriate uses within the Central Shopping Area to support its vitality but without unduly constraining alternative uses
5.101 It is consistent with national policy :
• it sets out a hierarchy of areas to support the sequential approach outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework
• It will help deliver retail and leisure development within the City Centre, consistent with the NPPF’s town centre first policy
-136- 6 SHOPPING AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES OUTSIDE EXISTING CENTRES
Introduction
6.1 National policy promotes retail and leisure development in or at the edge of centres but also sets out a framework for deciding if a development should be allowed outside a centre. The policy set out below refines the national framework to suit Sheffield’s circumstances.
6.2 The policy has three main purposes:
• To set accessibility criteria for locating new shops, leisure and community facilities (the first two paragraphs of the policy)
• To set out the sequential approach to be followed for proposals for new development (the third paragraph)
• To set criteria for deciding when proposals require impact assessments and how impact on centres should be considered
Policy B3
Shopping and Leisure Development and Community Facilities outside Existing Centres
Shopping and leisure development and community facilities should be located as close as possible to other such uses and where they would be most accessible for local users of public transport, and for pedestrians and cyclists.
Large-scale out-of-centre shopping and leisure development should be readily accessible by public transport.
Decisions about out-of-centre shopping and leisure proposals should conform to the sequential approach, giving priority to locations in centres and then at the edge of centres. Sites should be suitable and available to accommodate the need or demand that the facilities are intended to meet.
Impact assessments will be required for any proposals relating to development that could have a significant adverse impact on a designated centre including development that is:
a. large-scale; or b. near a centre that is vulnerable or has planned investment; c. where there have been significant recent developments in the centre’s catchment area.
New developments or changes of use or conditions will be permitted only if,
-137- combined with recent commitments and developments in the catchment area, they would not have a significant adverse impact on:
d. the vitality and viability of any centre; or e. planned investment and investor confidence in any centre.
Definitions
‘Shopping and leisure development’ – shops, restaurants, bars and pubs and leisure and entertainment and cultural facilities. For further detail see definition of main town centre uses in the National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2.
‘Large-scale ’ – more than 1,000 sq. m. gross floorspace.
‘Centres’ – the City Centre and the District and Neighbourhood Centres.
‘Readily accessible by public transport’ – within either:
• 800 metres of a Supertram stop, or • 400 metres of a bus route with a service frequency of at least 3 buses per hour to the City Centre during the day (9.00 am to 6.30 pm, Monday-Saturday) and a half hourly service in the evenings (6.30pm to 11.00 pm, Monday- Saturday) and on Sundays (9.00 am to 10.00 pm).
‘Sequential approach’ – as described at paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
‘Combined with recent commitments and developments’ – the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and developments completed within the previous five years.
6.3 The background to the policy is explained under headings that refer to its three main purposes:
• Accessibility • The sequential approach • Impact
Accessibility
6.4 The purpose of the first two paragraphs of Policy B3 is to create sustainable and accessible development. They have two aims:
• to cluster such facilities to minimise need for travel and;
-138- • to maximise the accessibility of development to forms of transport other than the car.
6.5 The aims are similar to those of policy C1, which promotes housing in accessible locations near shops and community facilities. The arguments that justify the need for accessibility are similar for both policies B3 and C1 and some of the arguments below will also be found in the background report on ‘Attractive and Sustainable Neighbourhoods’ chapter on policy C1.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
6.6 The policy follows directly from the aims of the planning system to help achieve sustainable development. This can be achieved through:
“supporting strong, vibrant, healthy communities with accessible local services that reflects the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being” and
“using resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution and mitigating and adapting to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”. 128
6.7 Within these roles, one of the twelve core principles listed by the NPPF is to:
“actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’ 129
6.8 The NPPF requires local plans to
“support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.” 130
6.9 Accordingly Policy B3 promotes the clustering of facilities to allow people the opportunity to link visits between them, so reducing the need to travel, and encourages facilities where they are accessible by modes of travel which use less energy and create less air pollution.
6.10 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF (third bullet point) indicates that planning policies and decisions
“should create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses and support local facilities and transport networks .”
128 National Planning Policy Framework paras 6 and 7 129 National Planning Policy Framework para 17 130 National Planning Policy Framework para 30
-139- 6.11 Policy B3 applies this by helping to concentrate large scale commercial facilities where they are accessible by public transport and, so, support patronage of public transport and maintain its economic viability.
6.12 The UK Sustainable Development Strategy states that:
“We need to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions – at home, at work and when travelling, so that we can change the course of climate change” 131 .
6.13 The Government continues to recognise that transport planning has to make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 132 . It follows that the location of new development should support the Government’s objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable travel. Policy B3 supports this objective by requiring clustering of retail, leisure and community facilities to maximise the opportunity for linked trips, and by encouraging them near non-car modes of transport.
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
6.14 Sustainability is a recurring theme in the Local Plan. Paragraph 3.3 of the Core Strategy highlights the critical role the plan can achieve in this by encouraging appropriate patterns of land use and methods of travel. Part 3 of the Spatial Vision (page 13) says that Sheffield will
“have attractive, sustainable neighbourhoods where people are happy to live, offering a range of facilities and services.”
6.15 Another Core Strategy objective is to deliver a city that will
“provide opportunities, well-being and quality of life for everyone’ , including people with low access to private transport and people on low incomes”133 .
6.16 Policy B3 supports these aims by encouraging the clustering of retail, leisure and community facilities, where they are relatively accessible by public transport.
6.17 Policy CS51 sets out the strategic priorities for transport. These include promoting choice by developing alternative to the private car, maximising accessibility and containing congestion levels. Policy B3 supports these three priorities by requiring large-scale development to be accessible by non-car modes of transport.
131 UK Sustainable Development Strategy, 2005, page 73 132 National Planning Policy Framework para 30 133 Core Strategy paragraph 3.15
-140- 6.18 Core Strategy policy CS63, Responses to Climate Change, indicates at part (a) that action to reduce the city’s impact on climate change will include giving priority to development in areas that are well served by sustainable forms of transport. Policy B3 interprets what this means for the location of new retail, leisure and community facilities.
6.19 The Core Strategy emphasises that new development should be located where sustainable modes of transport can be used but does not set out criteria for determining the sustainability of locations in terms of access to public transport. Policy B3 specifies criteria that help achieve these aims.
Sheffield City Strategy
6.20 Part of the vision in the City Strategy 134 is for Sheffield to be a sustainable city . Sheffield should play a role on the international stage in protecting our environment. Policy B3 helps Sheffield ‘play its role’ by impacting on travel patterns through the location of new commercial development.
Corporate Plan
6.21 The City Council’s Corporate Plan 135 is structured around eight outcomes. Policy B3 helps achieve three of these:
• Better health and well-being – encouraging people to walk or cycle to access local facilities and services promotes physical health through exercise. People are also better able to live independent lives if they have services and facilities near where they live. Policy B3’s support for pedestrian accessibility will contribute to this.
• Great place to live – having local services and facilities close together helps to create thriving communities and makes places more vibrant. Policy B3’s encouragement of the clustering of facilities will help achieve this.
• An environmentally responsible city – by encouraging more sustainable modes of travel and reducing the distances people need to travel, policy B3 helps reduce carbon emissions.
Justification
Issues that the Policy addresses
6.22 Policy B3 seeks to locate development where it is as accessible as possible to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport. While in an ideal world people would be able to walk to a nearby shop or leisure facility, most facilities need catchment populations spread over a larger area than would allow easy
134 Sheffield First - The Sheffield City Strategy 2010-2020 . 135 Sheffield City Council - Standing up for Sheffield: Corporate Plan 2011 - 14 .
-141- walking distance for everyone. The size of catchments requires some sort of transport for people to get to them. The benefit of clustering shops, leisure and community facilities is that it enables and encourages people to make linked trips. This will help reduce the distances that people need to travel and reduce the time and inconvenience of trips to dispersed facilities.
6.23 Some retail and leisure developments serving smaller predominantly walk-in catchment areas, like small convenience shops and pubs, may serve a neighbourhood well despite being poorly served by public transport. They may serve a ‘top-up’ function, for which linked trips are less important. However, the greater average trip lengths for larger-scale developments, which attract a lot of people from a wider catchment area and which are beyond walking distance for most people, mean they should be located where they are ‘readily accessible by public transport’ , as required by the policy.
6.24 In the light of the need to reduce carbon emissions and requirements of accessibility, it is appropriate to require large retail and leisure development to be ‘readily accessible’ by public transport. The justification for the definition of ‘readily accessible’ is similar to that for policy C1. The frequencies of bus services defined in these policies have been agreed with South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) and are already achieved in much of the city. Indeed, a large proportion of the urban area is served by the Core Public Transport Network (the Supertram routes and bus routes with at least 6 buses per hour between 10.00am and 12.59 pm). SYPTE is also of the opinion that three buses per hour is generally the minimum level that will be acceptable if public transport is to be an attractive transport option.
6.25 No large scale retail or commercial leisure development is likely to be justifiable in rural areas so there is no need for different criteria for rural areas.
6.26 The 1,000 square metre threshold at which the accessibility requirement comes into play reflects the point at which a development’s catchment area ceases to be predominantly walk-in. So the threshold excludes stores serving local neighbourhoods with everyday items and most pubs, but will include larger shops such as retail warehouses and superstores.
Sustainability Appraisal – Accessibility issues
6.27 The sustainability appraisal confirmed the clear benefits of policy B3 in terms of reducing the need to travel and promoting more sustainable transport modes and consequently reducing carbon emissions. Allowing large-scale retail and leisure developments where there is limited public transport would mean that users would be more dependent on the private car.
Equality Appraisal – Accessibility issues
6.28 Concentrating retail and leisure development in areas which are well served by public transport has particular benefits for people who do not have access to the private car. It is therefore very important for people on low incomes,
-142- older people and disabled people who tend to have lower rates of car ownership.
Consultee Preferences
6.29 The requirement for shops and leisure facilities to be ‘as close as possible to other such uses’ and for all shopping and leisure development to be ‘within 800 metres of a tram stop or 400 metres of a bus stop’ appeared in policy C5 of the Consultation Draft Plan. Broomhill Forum and SYPTE supported the distance criteria but Legal & General said they were too inflexible and Sainsburys Ltd said that it would not always be possible to locate shops to comply with these criteria.
6.30 The revised policy wording, now in policy B3, recognises that compliance with the distance criteria may be impractical for smaller shops serving a more local catchment area. The revised wording requires those criteria to be satisfied by only larger shops, over 1,000 square metres in area, which need to be accessible to more people. Most proposals for shops and leisure uses are likely to achieve these criteria.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery – Accessibility Issues
6.31 The policy will be implemented through the development management process. In assessing a planning application, the Council would examine whether the proposal was to be located near other similar facilities and for proposals over the 1,000 square metre threshold, whether they satisfied the accessibility criteria.
6.32 The distribution of the retail and leisure facilities is recorded on the City Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS). This information will be made available to developers on request, prior to submitting a planning application. Developers would be encouraged to submit supporting information with their planning application, setting out the availability of, and the distances to, the facilities listed in the policy. It is envisaged this would form part of the Planning Statement.
6.33 South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) maps public transport routes and frequency of services and the information is used by the City Council.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment – Accessibility Issues
6.34 The policy’s requirement for development to be ‘readily accessible’ is not unduly onerous. It only requires access to routes with at least three bus services per hour during the day. In practice, most large scale retail and leisure developments are located near the Core Public Transport Network which has a higher frequency of service (at least 6 buses per hour). The
-143- required service frequencies have been agreed with the SYPTE (see paragraph 6.24 above) as generally being the minimum level that will be acceptable if public transport is to be an attractive option. The number of sites where an exception may need to be made is likely to be small and it would be appropriate to refuse planning permission where the proposed development is large and would be highly car-dependent.
Sequential Approach
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
6.35 The National Planning Policy Framework requires a sequential approach to be applied to proposals for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and contrary to the development plan. The NPPF lists ‘main town centre uses‘ as: ‘retail development…, leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreation uses, offices; and arts, culture and tourism development’ and gives examples of such uses 136 . Policy B3 is concerned with how the sequential approach applies to the shopping and leisure uses in the NPPF list. The list also includes offices, but Core Strategy policy CS3 applies to these.
6.36 The National Planning Policy Framework describes the sequential approach: Locations should be found:
“in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.”
6.37 In applying the sequential approach the term ‘town centres’ includes ‘city centres, town centres, district centres and local centres’. As the NPPF requires 137 , these centres are identified in the Local Plan: Core strategy policy CS34 identifies 17 district centres by name and the Proposals Map shows their boundaries.
6.38 The Proposals Map also shows the boundary of the City Centre’s Central Shopping Area and 102 ‘Neighbourhood Centres’. Although ‘local centres’ are not defined in either the NPPF or the Practice Guidance, it is clear that the Sheffield Plan’s ‘Neighbourhood Centres’ serve an equivalent function to ‘local centres’. The role of Neighbourhood Centres described in the Core Strategy 138 : to provide ‘a basic range of shops and services within walking
136 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2 description of main town centre uses 137 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2 description of town centres 138 Core Strategy paragraph 8.73
-144- distance’ and to provide ‘for basic top-up needs and for people without their own transport’.
6.39 The inclusion of local centres in the definition of ‘town centres’ in the NPPF supports its statements that planning policies “should plan positively for the provision and use of … community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places …)” and (in that context) “guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services” . Designation of Neighbourhood Centres satisfies the intention of the NPPF that local planning authorities “should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality” 139 The only limit placed on qualifying as ‘town centres’ is that they should “exclude small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance”. The designation of Neighbourhood Centres is therefore much more selective than in the Unitary Development Plan.
6.40 The Proposals Map also shows the ‘Primary Shopping Areas’ (PSAs) of both the Central Shopping Area and of four district centres – Stocksbridge, Hillsborough, Spital Hill and Crystal Peaks. The chapter on policy B2 explains that one of the purposes of designating the Central Shopping Area’s PSA is to identify it as the preferred area for major retail development within the Central Shopping Area. Similarly, the purpose of identifying PSAs in the four district centres is to show that they are the preferred areas for retail development within each of these centres.
6.41 While there is no reference to the District Centres’ PSAs in the Core Strategy or in the City Policies and Sites document, these PSAs have a role in the interpretation of the sequential approach. The NPPF’s sequential approach specifies the preferred location for retail development as the ‘primary shopping area’, while edge of centre locations are second preference. Edge of centre locations are defined by reference to their connection with the ‘primary shopping area’ 140 :
“For retail purposes, a location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area”’
6.42 So defining the Primary Shopping Area in turn defines the extent of ‘edge of centre’ locations.
6.43 Only four district centres have Primary Shopping Areas. These centres are distinct from the others because they have been, or are committed to be, substantially extended. Identifying Primary Shopping Areas within them will mean that the sequential approach will prefer sites within the more central part of the centre to sites at its periphery. This will support potential new development in locations that are more accessible by public transport, where new retail development is more likely to support a variety of existing facilities.
6.44 There is no need for the sequential approach described at Policy B3 to be followed in any way other than as prescribed by national policy guidance.
139 National Planning Policy Framework, para 23, first point 140 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2
-145- Policy B3 therefore reflects national policy guidance on the sequential approach given in the NPPF and clarified in the Practice Guidance. The wording of the policy, which requires alternative sites to be suitable and available to accommodate the ‘need or demand that the facilities are intended to meet’ , therefore echoes paragraph 6.37 of the Practice Guidance, which says that consideration of suitability should have ‘due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility, whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the proposal is intended to meet.’
Relationship with Local Strategies
Core Strategy
6.45 The local dimension to the sequential approach includes the identification of locations where certain types of development is preferred. The preferred locations are expressed at various places in the Local Plan: Types of development and preferred areas are:
• Non-food retail development with at least a city-wide catchment is preferred in the City Centre Primary Shopping Area and adjacent streets. (Core Strategy policy CS14 and policy B2. See section on policy B2 for background)
• If suitable sites are not available there the proposal should be located elsewhere in the Central Shopping Area , including The Moor. (Policy B2)
• Shops selling bulky goods with a citywide catchment that cannot be located within the Central Shopping Area should be located at the edge of the Area, including appropriate locations at or near to Moorfoot.
• ‘A range of retail, leisure and community facilities’ is encouraged in District Centres and, specifically, the Primary Shopping Areas within them (CS34 and see section on policy C4 for background)
• ‘New development for local shops and community facilities to serve the everyday needs of the community’ will be encouraged in Neighbourhood Centres (CS39 and see section on policy C4 for background).
6.46 The boundaries of the centres and their Primary Shopping Areas, if they have them, are shown on the Proposals Map.
6.47 Policy CS14 has a strong town centre first preference for non-food retail development: It states: ‘major non-food retail development will not occur outside the City Centre's Primary Shopping Area and District Centres and their edges ’. However its supporting text (at paragraph 7.4) clarifies that out of centre applications will be considered ‘in the light of current national retail policy, supported by any other local considerations in the Sheffield Development Framework’. The spatial dimension and overall objectives of the
-146- Core Strategy therefore need to be considered alongside the Plan’s development management policies, which reflect the relevant national planning policies.
Justification
6.48 The process of the sequential approach described in policy B3 is intended to replicate national guidance and is included in the policy for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt about its relevance. As noted at paragraph 6.45 above the local dimension to the sequential approach consists of the Plan’s identification of locations where certain types of development are preferred, and the strength of those preferences.
6.49 Just as CS14 expressed a strong preference for in and edge of centre non- food retail development, Table H1 limits shops in many areas where housing is an acceptable use, to 200 square metres convenience shops “unless development permitted through the application of the tests of acceptability set out in national policy and policy B3”. This is the size of a corner shop that would serve a local walk-in catchment area and is in fact over twice the median shop size in Sheffield of 67 square metres 141 .
Consultee Preferences
6.50 The sequential approach was not referred to in the Consultation Draft, since the intention was that the Local Plan should not unnecessarily replicate national guidance. Consequently no one commented on it at any stage.
Effectiveness of the Policy – sequential approach
6.51 The sequential approach has been required by Government guidance since 1996 and it will continue to be implemented through the development management process. Developers will provide, with their application, an assessment of whether suitable alternative sites exist in preferred locations. The assessment will take account of information on possible alternative sites provided by the City Council.
Impact
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
6.52 The NPPF sets a floorspace threshold of 2,500 square metres (gross) above which retail, leisure and office development proposals should be assessed for their impact on investors’ confidence and on town centre vitality and viability.
141 Valuation Office data
-147- However the figure of 2,500 is a ‘default threshold’ in case there is no ‘locally set floorspace threshold’ 142 . Policy B3 provides the local threshold in preference to the national default.
6.53 At criterion (a) following the fourth paragraph, policy B3 sets a local floorspace threshold of 1,000 square metres, above which impact assessments are required for retail and leisure development proposals. (The approach to office development is set out at policy CS3 and H1).
6.54 Setting a local threshold is clearly allowed for by the NPPF (Para 26) and the NPPF describes how its own role is limited to setting out the Government’s requirements for planning:
“only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.’143
Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.” 144
6.55 In setting local thresholds, the Practice Guidance notes that “important considerations are likely to include the scale of known proposals relative to town centres; the existing vitality and viability of town centres; the cumulative effects of recent developments; the likely effects on a town centre strategy and the impact on any other planned investment.”
6.56 The 1,000 square metre threshold has been set to ensure that the types of impact that are a concern of the NPPF – impact on investors’ confidence and on town centre vitality and viability – are properly assessed. The local circumstances that justify setting thresholds are explained below.
Justification
6.57 It is particularly important to examine the impact of development on the confidence of investors in the City Centre, given its relatively low national ranking, the high shop vacancy rates in the City Centre, the lack of need for further non-food floorspace outside the City Centre145 , the need to develop the New Retail Quarter and the importance attached to this aim 146 . The GVA Report on Homewares Retailing concluded that:
142 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 26. 143 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 1. 144 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 10 145 GVA Report paragraphs 3.22, 3.37, 8.16 146 See Core Strategy CS14
-148- “Sheffield city centre is vulnerable; and its long term problems are being exacerbated by current market conditions. It will be important to maintain and build investor confidence in the city centre, and to secure new investment in improved retailing”147 .
6.58 The GVA Report says that securing this new investment, and maintaining investor confidence, depends on a range of factors, including:
“Managing risks, including impacts on tenant demand, rental levels, rental growth and future investor confidence in the city centre”.148
6.59 It is therefore important to assess whether out of centre development proposals could have a significant adverse impact on these factors.
6.60 Developments at Meadowhall could have a particular impact on investor confidence in the proposed New Retail Quarter because they could have a similar focus on fashion to the New Retail Quarter. The GVA Report concluded that:
“until the necessary new investment can be secured, we consider it would be damaging to plan for any further significant out of centre comparison retail development, or support any major expansion of Meadowhall if it was likely to undermine retailer or investor confidence in the centre”.
6.61 Policy B2 sets a local floorspace threshold of 1,000 square metres (gross) for requiring impact assessments for retail and leisure proposals. The value of 1,000 sq m is proposed because developments of this size are relatively large compared with existing shops. For example the median shop (A1) unit size in the Central Shopping Area is only 127 square metres149 . The same threshold was set in the Consultation Draft policy C5. The GVA Study agreed that the 1,000 square metres threshold is an appropriate level to require an impact assessment’ and the Sheffield Retail Study 150 recommended that a threshold of 1,000 square metres was appropriate for considering development at Meadowhall.
6.62 Impact on district and neighbourhood centres is also a concern. Developments of 1,000 square metres, and less than 2,500 square metres might include discount retailers, extensions to existing shops and shopping centres, retail warehouses, cinemas, health and fitness centres etc. It is at least conceivable that developments of this size might have a ‘significant adverse impact’ 151 on the City Centre, District or Neighbourhood Centres so as a precautionary measure they should be assessed for their impact. The 1,000 square metres floorspace would be substantial compared with the
147 GVA Report paragraph 3.25 148 GVA Report paragraph 3.54 149 Valuation Office data, 2012 150 Sheffield Retail Study 2010 paragraph 11.10-11.12 151 At paragraph 27 the NPPF prescribes that ‘any development that is likely to have a significant adverse impact’ on a centre’s investor confidence or vitality and viability should be refused.
-149- median total shop floorspace of the 17 district centres of 7,500 square metres and the median convenience business total of only 2,500 square metres 152 . For neighbourhood centres with a median total floorspace of only 1075 sqm, the 1,000 square metres figure would be even more significant. It is reasonable in these circumstances to require an assessment of impact on District or Neighbourhood Centres and their function of providing for everyday needs 153 . There have been appeal cases where discount retailers have been refused on grounds of impact 154 .
6.63 Out of centre leisure developments such as night clubs and casinos are listed as main town centre uses in the National Planning Policy Framework Glossary and can fall within the 1,000-2,500 square metres category. Out of centre proposals may impact on the evening economy of existing centres if, for example, similar developments were proposed within those centres.
6.64 Development smaller than the 1,000 square metres floorspace threshold may on occasion impact on centres – where they are near a centre that is vulnerable or has planned investment; or where there have been significant recent developments in the centre’s catchment area. Policy B3 therefore includes criteria (b) and (c) requiring impact assessments on such occasions.
6.65 The final paragraph of the policy, with its criteria, reflects guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework – development should be refused if it has a ‘significant adverse impact’ 155 and criteria (d) and (e), relating in turn to vitality and viability and investor confidence, echo the wording of the bullet points at paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
6.66 Although the NPPF does not refer to the need for assessments of cumulative impact, such a requirement is reasonable. Otherwise, instead of applying for a single large development, applicants could evade a proper assessment of impact by proposing a series of developments, none of which could individually be shown to have an impact on a centre but which might cumulatively have a significant adverse impact. The cumulative assessment of the effects of recent developments is in any case advocated as good practice in the Practice Guidance 156 .
Consultee Preferences
6.67 The same criteria for impact assessments, with the 1,000 square metre threshold, were included in Consultation Draft policy C5. Yorkshire Forward and supported the policy but potential out of centre developers, British Land, Standard Life Investments and Ikea said the proposed 1,000 square metre threshold was not justified. However, justification for the threshold is presented above.
152 Valuation Office data on gross floorspace at 2012 153 Core Strategy CS34 and CS39 154 e.g. Lidl at Newhaven, 2005, APP/P1425/V/03/1132932, Lidl at Banbury, 2007, APP/C3105/A/07/2054123/NWF, Aldi Longbridge (2008) APP/P4605/A/07/2047819) 155 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 27 156 Practice Guidance table on p54
-150-
6.68 The Consultation Draft policy C5 also put a cap on growth at Meadowhall, limiting retail development there to a maximum of 2,500 square metre in any 5 year period. This aim was to support policies CS14 and CS7, which aim to keep Meadowhall shopping centre at ‘around its present size’ Hammersons (the developers of Sevenstone within the City Centre) and Yorkshire Forward supported the cap on development at Meadowhall while Scottish Widows, the developers of The Moor, said that it was too permissive. On the other hand British Land (the owners of Meadowhall), Standard Life Investments and Ikea criticised it on the grounds that it was neither justified nor consistent with policy.
6.69 The equivalent current policy B3 does not now include caps on development at Meadowhall. The Council has taken the view that the statement of the Council’s strategy in policies CS7 and CS14, combined with consideration of proposals under national guidance, are sufficient for the purposes of development management, and that there is no evidence to justify specific levels of development or time periods at which development would become unacceptable.
Effectiveness of the Policy
Delivery
6.70 Like the sequential approach, the requirement for developers to provide impact assessments with their applications has long been part of Government guidance and the process of agreeing the scope of these assessments and then considering them has long been part of the Council’s planning practice. So no additional difficulties are expected in putting the policy into practice.
6.71 Although advice on the subject is not given by the National Planning Policy Framework, previous Government guidance has advised that assessments should not involve excessive detail. So, for example, applications for superstores could require detailed numerical assessments of impact and trade draw based on household surveys whereas applications for smaller developments would require less numerical more discursive assessments. The Practice Guidance gives more detail on the required scope of impact assessments 157
157 Practice Guidance Appendix D: Quantifying impact
-151-
7 POLICY AREAS
Introduction
7.1 The policy areas are a vehicle for expressing the broad spatial policies of the Core Strategy in more detail, showing how they apply on an Ordnance Survey map base and identifying implications for a wide range of uses. Every part of the city lies in one or other policy area and their boundaries are shown on the Proposals Map.
7.2 Most policy area types have a preferred use or uses and these determine the character of the area. However, the areas are not single-use zones and they make provision for the benefits of mixing uses, identifying other uses that would be acceptable alongside the preferred uses. Their acceptability may be because they are needed as ancillary uses to the preferred use or because they would be compatible, not prejudicing the preferred use.
7.3 Some uses would be neither ancillary to nor consistent with the preferred uses and they are identified as unacceptable. In other cases it is either unnecessary or impossible to prescribe acceptability or otherwise and these uses are unnamed and left to be dealt with on their merits.
7.4 In drawing up the policy areas, account is taken of the need for land for the preferred use. But this may be relaxed to an extent to increase flexibility and broaden the options available to secure regeneration where that is an issue.
7.5 In all cases the identification of these uses is ‘in principle’. Preferred and acceptable uses are still subject to the criteria of development management policies in the preceding part of the City Policies and Sites document. It is also acknowledged that other material considerations may need to be taken into account.
7.6 Some policy areas do not have a preferred use. This is to increase flexibility, particularly in regeneration areas, as the areas evolve a new identity. But even these areas may have uses that are unacceptable in principle and this will influence how the area develops (e.g. General Employment Areas, where a range of employment uses but not new housing are acceptable and Flexible Use Areas, where housing is acceptable but not new industry or warehousing).
7.7 Nine types of policy area have been identified to help implement the policies for Economy and City Region. These are:
- Priority Office Areas - Business Areas - Business and Industrial Areas - Industrial Areas - General Employment Areas - City Centre Cultural Hub - City Centre Primary Shopping Area
-153- - City Centre Secondary Shopping Area - Meadowhall Shopping Centre
Priority Office Areas
7.8 The Priority Office Areas are the focus for new large-scale and high-density office development, that will be concentrated in the City Centre. This reflects the Core Strategy policies CS3 and CS4 and these are the most suitable areas for offices in Sheffield, where ‘Grade A’ office development consisting of prestige, ‘headquarters’ offices will be promoted.
Business Areas
7.9 These areas have a wider role in delivering a range of important employment uses that are suitable for these accessible locations, particularly those that are not specifically provided for in other policy areas, such as hotels, leisure and sui generis uses. Non-employment uses, specifically housing, will need to be limited to some degree in order to maintain the intended emphasis of these areas on employment and economic development. They will also have a role in providing a location for office development, so will help meet the City’s overall need for office development, and will help deliver offices in the most appropriate locations.
Business and Industrial Areas
7.10 These are particularly suitable locations for non-office business and industrial development. They will have a better quality environment than the Industrial Areas so will be suitable for a wider range of business uses. They may also be closer to policy areas where more sensitive uses are acceptable.
Industrial Areas
7.11 Industrial Areas are particularly appropriate locations for general manufacturing and distribution / warehousing development, and are more suited to pure industrial uses than the Business and Industrial Areas. Fewer environmental constraints will be needed here and they will tend to be further from policy areas where sensitive uses are acceptable.
General Employment Areas
7.12 These are suitable for a wide range of employment uses and no preferred use is specified in order to give maximum flexibility to support regeneration. Housing uses are not appropriate, in order to allow for industrial uses and promote the widest possible range of employment uses.
City Centre Cultural Hub
7.13 The area is centred on Tudor Square and forms the focal point for cultural facilities within the City Centre. Cultural facilities are the preferred use here and should take up at least half the policy area but other uses are acceptable.
-154- Take-aways would detract from the cultural focus of the area and could cause nuisance.
City Centre Primary Shopping Area
7.14 This is the area where retail development should be consolidated. It includes not just the main shopping frontages but also the New Retail Quarter area, where major shopping development is proposed. In this area the proportion of frontage in use as shops should remain high, to keep the area vital and viable as a shopping area.
Central Shopping Area
7.15 The City’s Central Shopping Area is the main shopping area of the City Centre where most City Centre shops are located. Uses are encouraged here that support the centre’s vitality. Most frontages here should be in use as shops.
Meadowhall Shopping Centre
7.16 Meadowhall is successful as a regional shopping centre. No particular uses are preferred within the area but a variety of retail and leisure uses are acceptable but the Plan aims to keep it at around its present size to minimise the likelihood that development there would harm investor confidence in the City Centre.
University/ College Areas
7.17 The University/ College Areas are strategic, mainly central, locations to provide for the consolidation of the universities and Sheffield College. The preferred uses are Community Facilities because they include educational use, and research and development businesses, which the Core Strategy supports close to the universities.
Proportions / Mix of Uses
7.18 There is a need for a mechanism to ensure that these policy areas deliver sufficient amounts of the preferred and acceptable uses to ensure their roles and functions are achieved, including delivering the requirements for employment land set out in the Core Strategy in policies such as CS1, whilst not being overly prescriptive and allowing for flexibility in the mix of uses, that will reflect variations in market demand.
7.19 Housing and industry are the two types of use that require the most land to be designated in the Local Plan. But their locational and environmental requirements are very different and they are incompatible in the same area. There is a need to cater for both as far as possible due to pressures on land supply for housing and employment. Table 5 below summarises the policy areas where either housing or industrial uses are likely to be delivered in significant amounts and shows the spectrum from Industrial to Housing Areas. It provides a summary and not to add anything new.
-155- Table 5 - Spectrum of Housing and Employment Areas
Policy Area Preferred Uses Housing (C3) Industry and Comments acceptable? warehousing acceptable? Industrial Area B2 General Industry No Yes Areas to accommodate heavier industry and bad neighbour B8 Warehousing and Storage uses without needing to safeguard sensitive uses. Business and Industrial B1(b) Research No Yes Areas also providing for businesses and light industry that Area B1 c) Light industry require a better environment. B2 General Industry B8 Warehousing and Storage General Employment No preferred uses No Yes As Business and Industrial Areas but could include other Area employment uses, e.g. leisure-related Business Area No preferred uses Yes (up to 40% of No Providing mainly for businesses (e.g. offices) that require a gross floorspace) higher quality environment. Environmental standards also need to satisfy basic requirements of housing. Flexible Use Area No preferred uses Yes (no upper or No Environmental standards need to satisfy basic requirements of lower limit) housing. This designation is suitable for employment areas in transition. Central Housing Area Housing Yes (at least 30% No Housing forms part of a broader mix of land uses – appropriate of gross in City Centre. Environmental standards need to satisfy basic floorspace) requirements of housing. Housing Area Housing Yes (at least 70% Housing is dominant and environmental standards need to be of the area) high.
Not all policy areas are included in the table (Centres, University and College Areas, Hospital Areas as well as Primary Office Areas). But they don’t figure in sets of alternative options with either housing or industry so aren’t part of this particular spectrum. Those identified above illustrate potential stages in the process of transition from manufacturing industry to housing.
-156- 7.20 The Council has recently published an Employment Land Review (ELR) 158 that sets out an assessment of the need for employment land and sites for a range of employment uses, examines the current suitability of employment land requirement figures in policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, evaluates the degree to which the requirement can be met by identified and allocated sites and makes recommendations on which sites should be retained for employment uses and which should be reallocated or deallocated.
7.21 The ELR has concluded that there is a general shortfall of employment land. particularly for industrial uses, so there is a need to ensure the policy areas deliver employment uses to address this issue (ELR paragraphs 11.16 and 11.24 - more detail on this is set out later in paragraphs 7.219 to 7.223). The ELR in Table 8.12 and paragraph 8.59 suggests a need for 305 hectares of employment land by 2031, an average of around 18 hectares / year. This compares to 29 hectares in policy CS1. Paragraph 11.14 concludes that there is a supply of 236 hectares. The clear message is that suitable employment land and sites need to be protected. In paragraph 10.56 it states:
“As this study has shown, given the shortfall in available employment land to meet the identified requirement, Sheffield should be seeking to protect its existing employment land supply and should take a strong line in resisting pressure on such land in order to avoid the loss of any significant amounts of employment land in the future.”
7.22 Paragraph 10.58 considers that, as the methodologies used were consistent, it is appropriate to consider the updated requirement figure in the ELR as a material consideration when applying the Core Strategy requirement in CS1.
7.23 Policy H1 sets out the requirements for preferred and acceptable uses in each of the policy areas and the proportions of certain uses that are appropriate. These will be delivered in various ways depending on what proportions are suitable in each policy area. In the business and industrial areas these are delivered either through a proportion of floorspace or land within all or part of the policy area. In retail areas a proportion of the street frontage is required to be a preferred use.
7.24 Where floorspace measures are used, all references are to gross internal area, as this the most common approach used by the development industry, for example, the Community Infrastructure Levy legislation, which calculates CIL charges using gross internal area.
7.25 Details of the specific methodology for calculating the proportion of required uses in each of the different policy areas are set out later for each policy area.
158 Sheffield Employment Land Review. Sheffield City Council / Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2013 http://sheffield-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/sdfcps/presub-cps/city_policies_and_sites_pre- submission?tab=files
-157- Priority Office Areas
7.26 The plan below shows the extent of the Priority Office Areas, which are all located within Sheffield City Centre.
Map 3 - Priority Office Areas in Sheffield
7.27 They have been reduced in scale and increased in flexibility as the Local Plan has been through the various stages of public consultation, to respond to the increased uncertainties about the economy and to allow for a greater variety of uses within the City.
7.28 The total area of Priority Office Areas on the different versions of the Proposals Map (referred to as Core Office Area on the Emerging Options map) were:
• Emerging Options (2006): 41.5 hectares • Preferred Options (2007): 32.6 hectares • Draft for Consultation (2010): 33.9 hectares
7.29 This compares with the latest extent of the areas at just 11.4 hectares.
-158- Role and Character of the Areas
7.30 The Priority Office Areas are the only locations in Sheffield where office development is required by policy H1, so these are the only areas that can be considered to have the potential to deliver significant levels of new office use and retain existing office space where needed. They are the focus for the city’s aspirations for the provision of new, high-quality, modern ‘Grade A’ office space and have been designated due to their sustainable locations, both in terms of economic value and accessibility.
7.31 Grade A offices are the most prized and sought-after, that are typically brand new or have been recently redeveloped or refurbished. The properties are prestigious and usually occupy prime locations within major cities. As well as the building itself being of a high design standard, Grade A offices will also possess high-quality furnishings, state-of-the-art facilities, and excellent accessibility. Properties will be finished in order to compete for premier office users, and will usually demand rents that are above average for the area. 159
7.32 In recognition of the importance of these areas for office use, the Council submitted an application for exemption from the permitted development rights for automatic changes of use from B1a offices to C3 residential. 160 In common with all areas outside of the South of England except Manchester, this application was unsuccessful. However, the CLG’s assessment of the application concluded that the Priority Office Areas all scored 75% when measured against the exemption assessment economic criteria; a high score that shows they are economically important for the city region economy.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
7.33 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out 3 key dimensions to sustainable development. The first is an economic role, specifically to ensure sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth. The Priority Office Areas are crucial to meeting the aims of national policy within Sheffield and the city region.
7.34 Paragraph 21 of the NPPF requires local plans to identify priority areas for economic regeneration. The Priority Office Areas are the key locations for economic regeneration through the provision of new office uses.
7.35 Paragraph 23 requires planning policies to promote a competitive town centre environment, and to manage and grow centres to meet office needs in full. Specifically, it states that:
159 See http://www.officebroker.com/What-is-Grade-A,-Grade-B-and-Grade-C-office-space%3F.obart 160 Letter to Chief Planning Officers, CLG, January 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68937/Letter_about_per mitted_development_rights_for_change_of_use_from_commercial_to_residential__24_January_2013 _.pdf
-159- “in drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability.”
7.36 The Priority Office Areas are the mechanism for the Local Plan to promote office development in the City Centre and identify areas within the City Centre where B1(a) offices should be the predominant use.
7.37 These areas need to be promoted for B1(a) office use in order to deliver the aims of the NPPF to provide sufficient land for office use. The Core Strategy in Policy CS1 has a requirement to deliver a 5 year supply of land for office use of 20 hectares. This represents 4 hectares per year; a figure that has been largely supported by the recent Employment Land Review (see Table 8 in paragraph 7.222 later). The Priority Office Areas extend to 11 hectares and also allow for 40% of other uses, so will be sufficient only to meet part of this 5-year requirement. This shows that the Priority Office Areas will be vital to deliver the NPPF aims.
7.38 There are some site allocations for office use in Business Areas that could also contribute to meeting the office requirement (see paragraph 7.121), but these will not be sufficient to provide the concentration of Grade A offices without the office requirement of the Priority Office Areas.
Core Strategy
7.39 The spatial strategy identifies a key role for the City Centre as the focus of most new office development (Core Strategy paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11). Policy CS1 then sets out the requirement figure for offices and CS3 identifies the main locations for office development, recognising the potential and importance of the City Centre to deliver new offices, and setting a minimum requirement for 65% of all office development to be in the City Centre or at its edge.
7.40 The strategy to deliver most new office development in the City Centre is then taken further in CS4, that identifies the key locations within the City Centre to deliver the requirement, which are the basis for the Priority Office Areas.
7.41 The Core Strategy in Appendix 2 sets out a target of land for 80,000 square metres of office development to be available. The Priority Office Areas have the potential to deliver 45,500 square metres of new office space, therefore meeting the majority of this target (see Table 6 on page 177 – this represents the totals in Column I minus B,), but only given the assumptions on the capacity of vacant sites in the areas. For example, it is assumed that the City Centre is suitable for high density office development (as provided for in policy G11), so the Priority Office Areas have a high capacity, and that the majority of the floorspace in the Priority Office Areas is developed for office use.
-160- 7.42 Policy CS4 identifies the Priority Office Area locations, where new large-scale and high-density office development will be concentrated:
a) the Heart of the City and Eyre Street b) Moorfoot and Charter Row c) the Digital Campus/Sheaf Valley areas in front of the railway station d) along the new northern Inner Relief Road and Tenter Street e) Castlegate, on the west side of Park Square.
7.43 The role of these areas is considered in detail in the Delivery section in paragraph 7.72 onwards.
Other Strategies
Local Enterprise Partnership
7.44 One of the 5 key factors in the Sheffield City Region Draft Economic Overview 161 is to improve the quality of place, including delivering vital and vibrant town centres. A consolidated business district is a key to delivering City Centre vitality and viability when located alongside a strong retail core in the most accessible and sustainable location within the City Region. A strong and established office core is necessary to deliver this.
City Centre Masterplan
7.45 The 2013 draft of the City Centre Masterplan 162 sets out a Vision for the City Centre as the major driver of the City Region economy especially for the key growth sectors of Knowledge, Creative and Digital Industries, Higher Education, Culture and Business Services. It states:
“We will grow the three new Business Districts – the Central, Riverside and Sheaf Valley (including Cultural Industries Quarter) each with a differentiated appeal and distinctive setting”
7.46 The majority of the Priority Office Areas (with the single exception of Moorfoot) fall within these new Business Districts.
7.47 The Masterplan notes on page 21 that:
“for the first time in a decade there is no Grade A space available in the Central Business District or in any current construction pipeline, a position which brought stagnation to the City Centre office market in the 80s and early 90s.”
161 The Sheffield City Region Economic Overview – Draft for Consultation. Sheffield City Region, December 2013. https://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/economic-overview/ 162 Sheffield City Centre Master Plan 2013 – Consultation Draft. Sheffield City Council, May 2013. http://sheffield-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/city_centre_masterplan/city_centre_master_plan_2013
-161- 7.48 The Priority Office Areas will play a crucial role in ensuring that this threat to the city’s future prosperity is addressed.
Justification for the Preferred Use
Summary
7.49 Map 1 on page 158 shows how these Core Strategy Priority Office Areas have been represented on the Proposals Map. Area d) (along the new northern Inner Relief Road and Tenter Street) is yet to become established as an office location, so is suitable for major office development only in the longer term. It is not, therefore, designated as a Priority Office Area at this time. The four other locations are already established as office areas, so have the greater potential to meet the more immediate requirements for office floorspace noted in the Employment Land Review in paragraph 10.7.
7.50 Paragraph 3.21 of the Core Strategy City Centre Background Report 163 sets out the reasons why the Priority Office Areas are needed:
a. “Well-defined office areas in central locations are necessary to attract the kinds of business needed to transform the city’s economy and enable Sheffield to become a major regional employment centre.
b. Defining Priority Office Areas enables the allocation of sites specifically for office use, helping to meet employment requirements and deliver job targets as set out in the City Strategy.
c. A concentration of offices in particular locations can support complementary developments, such as hotels and conferencing facilities. Established commercial zones can also help to encourage other compatible uses that will attract workers, such as cafes, bars and restaurants.
d. Offices are more attractive and viable if located in prominent, high- profile locations, where companies can ‘be seen’.
e. Creating areas with a high concentration of office development could improve accessibility and public transport provision.
f. There are parts of the City Centre that have potential for redevelopment, where there are opportunities for new business destinations to be created.”
7.51 The selection of the Priority Office Areas has struck a balance between being extensive enough to deliver a significant proportion of the requirement for offices referred to above, and being relatively tightly drawn to provide a focus of development in the most suitable locations. Their geographical extent
163 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Submission Version City Centre Area Background Report. Sheffield City Council, September 2007. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning- and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/core-strategy/background.html
-162- represents a balance between being a maximum to ensure flexibility for the mixing of uses elsewhere in the City Centre and being the minimum required to deliver employment land requirements and the need for viable and concentrated areas for high quality new offices. The closest alternative designation to a Priority Office Area would be the more flexible Business Area but Business Areas do not require office uses and are drawn extensively in order to deliver the flexibility required for a range of uses. So they may only make a small contribution to providing for office requirements and. particularly for Grade A offices.
The Need for Office Floorspace
7.52 Lack of office space in general in Sheffield is not a widespread barrier to business growth, but there are potential shortages of particular types of office space. The availability of Grade A office space within the City Centre needs to be improved, particularly in the business, professional and financial services sector, to ensure that the commercial offer matches the exemplary public realm in the area.
7.53 The Employment Land Review in paragraph 4.37 and 4.51 (‘the reference to strategic sites’), 5.7a, b and d (under ‘Office Market’ on page 44), 7.92 and 10.7 notes that the demand for high-grade offices is strong but is limited by supply. This demand will increase as the supply constraint lifts. Insufficient Grade A offices in the City Centre are highlighted as a weakness for the City in paragraph 4.38 and the SWOT analysis on page 31. This is reiterated in paragraphs 6.16 to 6.17 and on page 44:
“Sheffield City Centre does not have a particularly strong office offer, and that much of the stock built before the recession has now been taken up, resulting in a lack of Grade-A office accommodation. … this has acted as a major blockage to growth within Sheffield, and a major reason contributing to Sheffield losing out to other cities, such as Leeds and Manchester;
Creative Sheffield recognised a need for an appropriate Central Business District [CBD], and that defining a suitable boundary was a priority. The CBD would form the central prime location for new Grade A office development in the City;
Although there are Grade A offices along the Ring Road, these are not in the prime central locations which the office market requires;”
7.54 The Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and local agents and developers agree that there is a shortage of quality, Grade A office space in Sheffield is supported by (as noted in Chapter 5 of the ELR). Meeting the needs of business is seen as a key to ensuring that there are no adverse local economic impacts.
-163- 7.55 These observations are backed up by other independent research, such as Knight Frank’s office stock study,164 that notes that the spread of Grade A offices across the City Centre is very disparate and most supply is either Grade B or C, with evidence that the quality of the supply is diminishing. However, demand is greatest for Grade A, which represents 47% of take up. Research by Lambert Smith Hampton also suggests that demand for office space is rising, with take up in the first quarter of 2013 52% up on the previous quarter.165
7.56 The City Centre remains the key driver of the City Region economy especially for the Knowledge, Creative and Digital Industries and it is also the location for most of the public sector administrative offices. Improved take up rates prior to the recession ensured high quality office space is all but used up. The ELR has highlighted the importance of the City’s office market for the city region as a whole (ELR paragraph 6.45). It also notes the locational advantages Sheffield has over other major cities and the importance of a good supply of Grade A office stock to press home this advantage and effectively compete with other northern cities (ELR paragraphs 7.20 and 7.21). Growth prospects and demand for high-grade offices is likely to remain strong (ELR paragraphs 7.91 and 7.92).
7.57 The ELR encourages the protection of employment sites identified in the study. In paragraph 10.67b it recommends:
“Continued and stronger Local Plan policy protection for certain employment sites reducing the potential for residential ‘hope value’ pricing out development”.
The Need for Quality Office Buildings
7.58 As noted in paragraph 7.31, Grade A offices need to be new, so there is a need for vacant sites to be protected to deliver them. These sites have been identified in sustainable locations, as they are highly accessible and will deliver high density uses that will generate significant numbers of trips. They are more suited as locations for intensive employment uses than housing. These locations are therefore important in concentrating offices in accessible locations supporting public transport provision and sustainable transport policy.
7.59 Currently there is no strong, established central business district in Sheffield, but most businesses would prefer to be located in areas that have a strong commercial character. The customers of companies will tend to have greater respect for a business that is situated centrally in a well-known location and close to other prestigious firms. This can only happen if there are suitable areas within the City Centre for offices to concentrate, but there are currently inadequate established office areas in Sheffield and a shortage of modern, high-quality accommodation.
164 Sheffield Office Stock Study. Knight Frank, 2013. 165 Sheffield Office Market Pulse, Q1. Lambert Smith Hampton, 2013. http://www.lsh.co.uk/office- pulses/sheffield-office-market-pulse-q1-2013
-164-
7.60 Provision of sufficient Grade A office space will ensure the City can capitalise on the future upturn in the economy and attract footloose high quality office occupiers to help bridge the gap between Sheffield and other competitor cities.
7.61 The Priority Office Areas have the capacity to deliver 42,350 square metres of new office floorspace (see Table 6 on page 177). This amount of office floorspace would be expected to generate over 4,000 jobs using the figures set out in the HCA Employment Densities Guide 2 nd Edition 2010 166 .
Viability
7.62 The proportion required for the preferred office use within the Priority Office Areas is 60%. This has been chosen as it needs to be significantly above 50% in order to ensure the areas are predominantly in office use and have an office ‘feel’. But in order to ensure that there is the maximum scope for viability there may be a need for significant amounts of other uses, and 40% is considered the maximum flexibility while still ensuring that the office character prevails. So the 60% proportion serves:
• To ensure the preferred use dominates to create and retain areas that are predominantly office-focussed in character, function and appearance. Any less would allow for areas that are too mixed to have a specific character;
• To enable other appropriate alternative uses of a suitable proportion that can be complementary and enhance the office role of the area;
• To ensure there is sufficient land to deliver the land requirements for office uses, by requiring the majority of new floorspace in the Priority Office Areas to be B1(a) offices;
• To create the right conditions for businesses to thrive whilst allowing for certain other compatible uses that can provide services to the businesses;
• To allow for a reasonable degree of flexibility that the market requires, which will help to ensure the viability of development sites for predominantly office use.
7.63 It is accepted that the 60% figure is not mathematically refined, but represents nearly two thirds of the area, a figure that is a reasonable requirement to maximise flexibility whilst maintaining a dominant character of one type of use in the area.
166 Employment Densities Guide 2 nd Edition . Homes & Communities Agency, 2010. http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/employment-densities-guide-2nd-ed
-165- 7.64 The 60% minimum for offices will normally allow for the ground floor of developments to be given over to non-office uses, whilst retaining the upper floors for office development.
7.65 Alternative options to set lower or higher thresholds than 60% were considered, but these were rejected because:
• Less than 60% office use could result in Priority Office Areas that do not deliver a characteristic ‘office feel’
• More than 60% would limit the flexibility and viability of the areas
7.66 The Consultation Draft of the City Policies and Sites in 2010 set the requirement at 70% of the floorspace in Priority Office Areas to be office uses, rather than the 60% in the current policy. 70% was considered too high by Scottish Widows (comment number dcps 556) in their consultation response, so the policy as now worded will address this concern.
Justification for Other Uses
7.67 There are two main reasons why other uses may be beneficial in the Priority Office Areas. Some uses can be complementary to the main office use, such as convenience shops, cafés, takeaways, crèches, gyms, hotels and restaurants. These complementary uses will make it easier for companies occupying office space to attract highly skilled and qualified workers. Other uses such as residential may help to make an office development more financially viable. Core Strategy policy CS17 encourages the mixing of uses in locations where the Priority Office Areas are sited, specifically in CS17(a), Heart of the City, (c), Cultural Industries Quarter, (e), The Moor and (i), Castlegate.
7.68 Other uses are appropriate, as they can improve the viability and vibrancy of office buildings by providing complementary uses, and this is encouraged in the Local Plan policies, specifically Core Strategy policy CS4:
“Other uses that provide for active frontages and a vibrant street scene such as cafés, restaurants and leisure will be encouraged in small amounts. Mixed uses including a suitable proportion of housing may also be appropriate”
7.69 The NPPF in paragraphs 17, 58 and 69, promotes mixed use development. Other ‘town centre uses’ are clearly the most appropriate for potential mixing with office use in the City Centre. This has not been specifically reflected in the policy area menu, which does not list any other uses as either preferred or acceptable. However, a wide range of other uses are to be considered on their merits, so could be included in a mixed scheme if they meet other policy requirements. This gives a large degree of flexibility in terms of the range of uses that could be mixed with the preferred office use.
-166- 7.70 The suitability of the other uses will vary depending on the location within the City Centre (for example, the suitability of retail uses will depend on scale and proximity to the Central Shopping Area) and other impacts as measured under Core Strategy policies and the NPPF. For this reason, whilst generally appropriate, other uses are left to be considered on their merits. Retail uses would not automatically be acceptable in all of the Priority Office Areas and the acceptability of leisure uses will depend on the type and scale of the use. However, in reality, retail and leisure uses as part of mixed developments with office uses are likely to be of a scale that is appropriate within the City Centre. Housing could be acceptable in all areas on principle, but the amenity considerations may vary from one location to another (there may be issues with mixing ‘night-time’ and residential uses, or locating residential uses on busy roads, for example), so not all sites will be necessarily suitable.
7.71 Industrial and related uses are listed as Unacceptable, because they would conflict with the environmental demands of most occupiers of prestige office developments. This reflects the approach in the Core Strategy policy CS6 that manufacturing in the City Centre should be encouraged to relocate, and partly to take into account that the Priority Office Areas do not exclude housing, which is incompatible with industry.
Effectiveness
Delivery of Dominance of the Preferred Use – Calculating the Balance of Uses
7.72 While complementary uses can be beneficial, there has to be a mechanism for ensuring that these complementary uses do not dominate the areas and dilute the office uses to such an extent that the commercial function of the area is undermined, so other uses should not exceed 40% of the area.
7.73 In order to effectively deliver the intended outcomes for the Priority Office Areas, there needs to be a development management tool to ensure that sufficient levels of office development are achieved in these areas.
7.74 Policy H1 requires the preferred uses to be dominant and Table H1 sets out how that is to be achieved in each of the policy areas. Many of the Priority Office Areas will be appropriate for tall buildings, so it is necessary to consider the overall floorspace rather than site areas when measuring the uses within them. The Employment Land Review notes that likely plot ratios for offices in the City Centre are around 200% (i.e. a 1,000 square metre site on average would have capacity for 2,000 square metres of floorspace [ELR paragraph 8.45]). For these reasons, it is appropriate that the 60% requirement for offices will be calculated using the gross floorspace figures for all floors of the buildings in the area.
Methodology - Subareas
7.75 The Priority Office Areas vary in their location and character and it will therefore be appropriate to vary the methodology used to determine the 60%
-167- requirement. In some Priority Office Areas, it is preferable to require the proportion of the preferred use to be achieved within parts of the policy area, rather than looking at the whole policy area. Policy H1 in paragraph 11.12 recognises the need to subdivide policy areas where they are large, and suggests that areas considered when assessing dominance are no larger than 10 hectares. This general approach needs to be focused further in the case of Priority Office Areas, which are small in scale (only amounting to 11 hectares in total) but likely to be developed at high densities.
7.76 This sub-division is appropriate as a single site within a Priority Office Area, if developed for a predominantly non-office use while complying with the maximum 40% required by H1 within the wider area, could undermine the office character of the area. So some Priority Office Areas need to be divided into ‘blocks’, within which the dominant use must still be offices.
7.77 This is a particularly appropriate approach to use in Priority Office Areas that are linear in character and focussed on major prominent transport corridors. Sub-dividing the area will ensure that there are no physical breaks in the frontages where non-office uses dominate. This is also appropriate in smaller Priority Office Areas where a single non-office building could seriously dilute the predominantly office character of the Area. These ‘Priority Office Subareas’ will be assessed to ensure that all of the buildings in the area will be predominantly used for offices. In other Priority Office Areas, particularly the larger ones or those where some additional flexibility would be appropriate, it would be better to allow for some buildings to be predominantly non-office in character for viability or other reasons, whilst still ensuring that the area as a whole retains a predominantly office role.
Methodology - Floorspace Calculations
7.78 When estimating the likely floorspace that could be achieved in each of the Priority Office Areas, account is taken of the proposals in policy G11, which gives an indication of possible heights of tall buildings in the City Centre. Core Strategy Policy CS76 also sets out criteria that define where tall buildings may be appropriate in the City Centre, and this is also taken into account. The floorspaces of existing buildings are measured in order to determine the existing balance of uses in the area and assess the relative impact of new development on the mix of land uses, to determine whether policy H1 can be delivered in each area.
7.79 The gross floorspace assessed as a particular use will include any car parking accommodation which is within the footprint of the building (but not external car parking) and the floor space of any storage, electrical switchgear or similar utilities provision which may be within either the basement or roof top plant room. Any external areas such as seating or landscaping areas are not included, even those which would be within the footprint of the building in the form of an external courtyard area or similar.
7.80 Floorspace data from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has been used, or, where this is unavailable, floorspace was measured using GIS mapping.
-168- Other information such as planning records has also been used. Where only net floor space figures were available (such as the VOA data) a general multiplier has been used to calculate the gross floor space. The multipliers used are dependent upon the use class proposed. The multipliers used to convert net to gross floorspace are as follows:
• Offices (Use Class B1a) – a factor of 1.18; • Residential uses (Use Classes C1/C3/C4) – a factor of 1.11; • All other uses – a factor 1.05.
7.81 Any buildings that are redundant or vacant are assessed on their last previously-known land use. Derelict buildings are classed as vacant land (i.e. zero floorspace) where the building has decayed to such a state that it is no longer capable of re-use without substantial rebuilding works.
7.82 Committed schemes are then considered for their impact on the balance of uses, and are defined as those that have advanced plans that are likely to be developed and where information about them is freely in the public domain. They do not include those which are still at the confidential pre-application stage. Those committed schemes included will have been subject to significant pre-application discussions with the City Council, and there will be a commitment from developers, landowners and the Council to delivering the specific development. Projects may be included in masterplans or Area Action Plans.
7.83 Schemes with extant planning permissions are included in the calculations. Extant permissions are defined as developments with planning permission still valid (i.e. the (normally) 3 year time limit has not yet expired) and therefore the development could still be built at any time, subject to any conditions or requirements. The footnotes for Table 6 explain further how the calculation is done at the various stages explained in paragraphs 7.79 to 7.83.
7.84 VOA data will be updated annually as it is received. Information on extant permissions and committed schemes will be updated on a rolling basis using the latest data on planning applications and pre-application discussions to ensure that the figures used for each assessment are as accurate as possible.
7.85 All developments that clearly fall in to a specific Use Class are appropriate for inclusion in the calculations of the balance of uses, but certain non-classified (or sui generis ) uses would not be appropriate for inclusion or exclusion. Specifically:
• Utilities are an essential use in all locations, so it would be inappropriate to include the floorspace of an electricity substation, for example, in the overall calculations.
• Car parking that is ancillary to a main office use should not be included, whereas commercial parking that services a range of areas and users (such as a multi-storey City Centre car park), is appropriate to include.
-169- Individual Subarea Assessments
7.86 There are slightly varied approaches to measuring the dominance of office uses in each Priority Office Area that are described in paragraphs 0 to 7.77. To explain the approach used, each of the Priority Office Areas is described separately below.
7.87 The Priority Office Areas and subareas are described with reference to the locations identified in the Core Strategy in policy CS4 (see paragraph 7.42). Table 6 on page 177 sets out the balance of uses in each of the Priority Office Areas and subareas.
CS4(a) Heart of the City / Eyre Street
POA1
POA 2
POA 3
7.88 This area is identified particularly for prestige office development in the Core Strategy Policy CS4. It is located within the Central and Sheaf Business District identified in the City Centre Masterplan as a key business area and an opportunity to expand the Central Business District in co-ordination with the New Retail Quarter (NRQ).
7.89 This area is centrally located, close to the main civic and cultural buildings and highly visible. There is a natural synergy with the NRQ, the Cultural Hub and redevelopment of The Moor, with demand from office workers sustaining and contributing to the success of the City Centre’s leisure and retail economy.
-170- 7.90 Development of the NRQ will stimulate investment and attract new businesses to the City Centre that has recently been the subject of a successful £32.8 million New Development Deal which will transform Sheffield City Centre, creating thousands of jobs, as part of the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership’s City Deal (see paragraph 2.194).
7.91 In order to provide a competitive business environment, the area will need to continue to build a critical mass of Grade A office space and protect the prime rental potential of the area. This Grade A location is clearly distinguished from other office space in edge of centre locations. It is critical that the quality and type of provision meets the evolving standards required by leading occupiers including sustainability and energy efficiency, flexible floorplates and generous floor to ceiling heights. Accordingly, the Core Strategy Policy CS17(a) requires that the role of this area as a prime office location is consolidated and strengthened.
7.92 The Priority Office Area focuses on the Heart of the City project offices and buildings to the north and east of Furnival Square. There is physical separation between the northern and southern ends of the area that requires the area to be divided up. As there are three distinct blocks, they have been divided into three separate subareas within which it would be beneficial to achieve 60% office use.
7.93 If each of these 3 subareas were not developed predominantly for office uses, it could result in gaps in office frontage, particularly along Arundel Gate and Eyre Street, the spine of this office location. For ease of reference, these subareas have been individually numbered and are:
POA1 - Heart of the City Phase 2 – Charles Street / Norfolk Street / Millennium Square / St. Paul’s Place
7.94 This subarea consists of Phase 2 of the Heart of the City office buildings; numbers 1, 2 and 3 St. Paul’s Place. Numbers 1 and 2 are completed and occupied; number 3 has planning permission and is awaiting construction. There is some vacant and likely future retail floorspace, but the 3 blocks provide 90% office space, so the policy aim is more than met.
POA2 - Heart of the City Phase 1 – Charles Street / Pinstone Street / Furnival Gate / Arundel Gate
7.95 This subarea includes office buildings Redvers House, Derwent House and Howden House (the latter two being Phase 1 of the Heart of the City office buildings), the Tower and Midcity House. It also includes retail and public house uses on Charles Street, Furnival Gate, Pinstone Street and Union Street. Currently office uses form 70% of the existing floorspace with no major proposals to reduce this figure, so the policy aim is achievable in this subarea.
-171- POA3 - Eyre Street / Matilda Way / Matilda Street / Furnival Gate
7.96 This block consists mainly of a multi-storey car park, retail units fronting Eyre Street, Furnival Gate and Matilda Street and Furnival House offices. Given the large multi-storey car park, the current level of office space in the sub-area is 23%. The 60% requirement can only be achieved with a major redevelopment of the block. Policy G11 encourages building heights of up to 8 storeys in this area, so if the site were redeveloped with 5 floors of offices and 3 of other uses, this would achieve the policy aim by providing 62% office floorspace in the subarea. The policy areas are designated to reflect potential outcomes rather than current use and, in this case, indicate what would be envisaged were the car park to be redeveloped.
CS4(b) - Moorfoot
POA 4
7.97 The majority of this area is already occupied by office floorspace, particularly the large Moorfoot offices. Retaining this office floorspace and providing new space will bring workers in to the area that will support the extensive new development that is taking place on The Moor. Scottish Widows are redeveloping the area for new retail, student accommodation and a cinema, and new shops and a relocated Central Market are also being built. There is also a continuation of the significant public realm improvements to the pedestrianised Moor.
7.98 The Core Strategy in policy CS4 identifies this area as important for headquarters and other high quality offices and policy CS17(e) requires that the potential of this area to provide office uses is consolidated and strengthened.
-172- POA4 - Moore Street / St. Mary’s Gate / Eyre Street / Cumberland Street / Fitzwilliam Gate
7.99 This is the largest of the Priority Office Areas and is a major long-term regeneration project of city-wide importance.
7.100 As there are existing single-use large blocks in this area it is appropriate to apply the 60% office requirement over the whole of the Priority Office Area.
7.101 The majority of the area is already occupied by large-scale offices, particularly the Council offices at Moorfoot, as well as numbers 1 and 5 Young Street and the vacant new office block on St. Mary’s Gate (the Tiger Developments scheme). For the short and medium term, the City Council intends to retain Moorfoot as Council offices (the City Centre Masterplan considers this is an opportunity to consolidate office space for at least the next 15 years), so the policy aim is achievable.
CS4(c) - Digital Campus / Sheaf Valley
POA 5
POA 5
-173-
7.102 This area contains three sites that are site allocations for offices in the Local Plan (numbers P00070, P00100, P00470). The City Centre Masterplan identifies the location as a Key Business Area.
7.103 The Digital Campus is an important element of the city’s regeneration strategy as set out in the Economic Strategy and City Centre Masterplan. It has provided a high quality and flexible business environment targeted at companies in the knowledge, creative and digital industries and other niche sectors. Phase 1 has been completed and the Priority Office Areas include the sites earmarked for phases 2 and 3. The sites will create offices with modern infrastructure and excellent academic, ICT and specialist business services. The Digital Campus contains a hub-managed office facility for small and growing Creative and Digital Industries (known as Electric Works). Phase 2 could provide a 4,500 square metre building and Phase 3 a further 25,000 square metres of office space and ancillary ground floor retail uses. The proximity of the Digital Campus/Sheaf Valley to parts of Sheffield Hallam University’s City Campus also makes this location particularly suitable for knowledge-based businesses, as recognised in Core Strategy policy CS17(d). These sites are in a key part of the City Centre, in a competitive business location immediately adjacent to the railway station and Sheaf Square.
7.104 Given its inherent strengths, this site offers the potential for prime office floorspace in a landmark development of the highest design quality which will complement the recent investment in the public realm in Sheaf Square and continue the development of a high quality gateway to the City which reflects its strategic location. This location will attract occupiers seeking distinctive accommodation to reflect their image. For these reasons the area needs to be promoted for Grade A office space.
7.105 Paragraph 21 of the NPPF also specifically encourages knowledge-driven industries and their importance is also acknowledged in the Employment Land Review in paragraph 2.68.
POA5 - Digital Campus, Sheaf Street
7.106 There are two physically separate Priority Office Areas in this location but for both the emphasis will be on digital, creative and knowledge-based industries. Much of the Priority Office Area is covered by 3 office site allocations, where 60% office floorspace is required in each. For this reason there is no need to create subareas and the two areas can be assessed together, as the site allocations will achieve the same aim, to ensure one single site is not developed for a predominantly non-office use.
7.107 Phase 1 of the digital campus is built and occupied, and occupies the most prominent and largest part of the policy area, so the area currently consists of 100% office development. Phase 2 has planning permission and is also 100% offices. The remaining phases will deliver at least 60% office floorspace due
-174- to the site allocation requirements, so the Priority Office Area here should be easily deliverable.
CS4(d) Along the Northern Inner Relief Road and Tenter Street
7.108 This area is not included on the Proposals Map as a Priority Office Area – see paragraph 0. The Core Strategy aims here are likely to be delivered in the longer term and Business Area designation is used to anticipate this, with the possibility of Priority Office Area designation at in a later version of the Local Plan.
CS4(e) Castlegate
POA 6
7.109 This area has the potential to provide an important complementary offer to the Riverside Business District, promoted in the City Centre Masterplan, with which it has close physical links.
7.110 Castlegate is another area that has seen significant new development recently. Grade A office development is part of a mixed use area including retail uses, a hotel and a multi-storey car park. The area complements office development in the more central Heart of the City and Sheaf Valley locations. A critical mass of businesses has developed in the area that needs to be maintained.
-175- 7.111 Castlegate benefits from its own distinctive high-quality public realm including the canal and river corridor, canalside retail, housing and leisure activities at Victoria Quays and the proposed Castle Park open space and riverside location. It also is near to the Law Courts and most of the City Centre hotels and the new Inner Relief Road, offering easy access to the strategic highway network.
POA6 - Castlegate
7.112 This area includes a site allocation, the Square (P00045), that will require at least 60% office uses, but there are already some recently developed non- office uses that have been built to support business uses in this area such as a hotel and a multi-storey car park. For these reasons it is appropriate to treat the Priority Office Area as a whole.
7.113 These existing buildings mean that the current proportion is only 39% office floorspace, but there are three remaining office blocks that have planning permissions that would deliver sufficient office space to raise the proportion to 62%. The delivery of these office buildings will be crucial for the effective delivery of the Priority Office Area and should be promoted as far as possible.
Summary of the Balance of Uses within the Priority Office Areas
7.114 The balance of uses within the Priority Office Areas are shown in Table 6 overleaf. The figures show that the dominance requirement of 60% is deliverable in all the Priority Office Areas, given the assumptions on the balance of uses in future developments. The health of the wider economy will influence how long it takes to achieve this but with the proposed concentration of these areas it is considered deliverable over the Plan period.
-176- Table 6 - Balance of Uses in Priority Office Areas A B C D E F G H I J K Likely Likely Likely Capacity Current Current Current Potential Potential Future Future Future for new Potential Ref Subarea Office Total % Office Total Office Total % office % Office Space Space Office Space Space Space Space Office space Heart of the City Phase 2 – Charles POA1 Street / Norfolk Street / Millennium Square / St. Paul’s Place 17,100 19,100 89.5% 25,000 27,700 90.3% 7,900 25,000 27,700 90.3% Heart of the City Phase 1 – Charles POA2 Street / Pinstone Street / Furnival Gate / Arundel Gate 27,536 36,573 75.3% 26,206 36,573 71.7% 0 26,206 36,573 71.7% Eyre Street / Matilda Way / Matilda POA3 Street / Furnival Gate 3,438 15,073 22.8% 3,438 15,073 22.8% 16,000 16,000 25,600 62.5% Moorfoot / New Business District South - Moore Street / St. Mary’s POA4 Gate / Eyre Street / Cumberland Street / Fitzwilliam Gate 50,151 64,284 78.0% 50,151 67,284 74.5% 0 50,151 67,284 74.5% POA5 Digital Campus – Sheaf Street 11,410 11,410 100.0% 15,910 15,910 100.0% 7,650 23,560 36,310 64.9% POA6 Castlegate. 9,700 24,630 39.4% 23,900 38,830 61.6% 0 23,900 38,830 61.6%
ALL PRIORITY OFFICE AREAS 119,335 171,070 69.8% 144,605 201,370 71.8% 31,550 164,818 232,297 71.0%
All figures are in square metres
Column B - Existing gross internal office floorspace, using VOA or other known data Column C - Existing gross internal total floorspace, using VOA or other known data (includes figures in Column B) Column D - Current office floorspace as a percentage of the total floorspace Column E - Existing gross office floorspace (Column B) plus known and expected new development, minus floorspace lost as a result of the new development Column F - Existing gross total floorspace (Column C) plus known and expected new development, minus floorspace expected to be lost as a result of the new development Column G - Expected future % of office floorspace Column H - Potential net additional new office space given the capacity on vacant land or other sites expected to be developed. The figures reflect the policy aim of 60% office floorspace Column I - Policy-On' Figure of future total office space, taking account of the figures in Columns E and H Column J - Policy-On' Figure of future total space, taking account of the figures in Columns F and I Column K - Future % of office floorspace, given assumptions in Columns I and J
-177- Management of Flexibility
7.115 There is flexibility in policy H1 that may be of particular relevance to these Priority Office Areas that may be small in size or complex, or where there may be wider issues regarding regeneration to consider. Policy H1 states:
“Exceptions may be made where:
it involves development of a small site and the physical characteristics of the site make achievement of the required proportion of preferred use(s) impractical; or
there are significant other regeneration benefits arising from the proposal.”
7.116 These are important exceptions that shows that the policy will not be applied so rigidly as to prevent development proposals coming forward that would otherwise be of benefit in terms of other policy aims within the Local Plan.
7.117 New temporary permitted development rights are now in place that allow for a change of use from B1a offices to C3 residential use. This could make it more difficult to achieve office uses in areas where there is also residential demand. Given this new national policy, the Priority Office Areas are even more important in the short term to meet the recognised need for good quality office development. However, it is expected that this new policy will have little impact, for the reasons set out earlier in paragraph 3.49.
Monitoring of Development
7.118 Monitoring of land use change will be closely related to the development management process. This will measure the balance of uses in each of the policy areas and subareas as specified above on a rolling basis, as new development proposals come forward. This will inform decisions on planning applications and in turn help to deliver the policy.
7.119 Monitoring will establish whether the policy is working successfully, when the time comes for a review of the Local Plan. This will identify how far the measures agreed have been implemented.
-178- Business Areas
7.120 The locations and extents of the Business Areas in the City are summarised in the plan below:
Map 4 - Business Areas in Sheffield
-179- Role and Character of the Areas
7.121 Business Areas have a wide-ranging role to provide employment opportunities using a highly flexible policy approach. They reflect the office locations specified in the Core Strategy, so are concentrated in accessible areas such as the City Centre, the edge of the City Centre, Meadowhall and Hillsborough. Others such as those at Manor and Graves are highly accessible by public transport (as shown on Map 4) and have an important local employment role.
7.122 In order to promote flexibility, no preferred uses are specified for Business Areas, which reflects their role both to provide for a range of employment uses and allow for mixing of these uses and maximum flexibility. Acceptable uses include shops, offices, research and development, light industry and leisure, all of which could provide for significant numbers of jobs.
7.123 Business Areas are the most extensive policy areas covering the City Centre. In the city as a whole the Business Areas total around 200 hectares, of which 160 hectares are located within the City Centre. The City Centre covers 290 hectares in all, so the Business Areas make up more than half of the City Centre. The Business Areas are not needed to deliver extensive residential uses to help meet the City’s housing requirements. This is more the role of the Central Housing Areas, that cover 88 hectares of the City Centre and are located where it is currently most appropriate to encourage housing.
7.124 The primary role of the Business Areas is to provide for employment, particularly in areas where concentration is most appropriate and especially in the City Centre and near public transport interchanges. The Core Strategy proposes a policy of concentration both for the attractions it holds for businesses and for the potential for employees to commute by viable high- frequency public transport, reducing the need to travel by private car. But the role of these areas extends beyond office employment.
7.125 In terms of office uses, Business Areas serve a different purpose from the Priority Office Areas in that they would be more appropriate for a wider variety of office types. Generally speaking, they do not require office uses (although some specific site allocations do), so while the Priority Office Areas are most likely to be the prestige locations for high profile companies, Business Areas are generally less visible and lower profile locations that are more likely to provide smaller-scale or lower-value offices that serve the mid-range of the office market (see also paragraph 7.135).
7.126 Outside of City Centre locations the Business Areas could also help to serve the local office market. These locations will generally deliver lower rental returns on office floorspace, so there may be a need for a wider mixing of uses in order to ensure development is viable. The Business Areas offer significant flexibility and scope for mixing of uses, so they will have an important role to play in helping both the City Centre and the outlying Business Areas achieve the variety of functions that have been identified in the Core Strategy and to allow the role of the areas to evolve. This flexibility will be important in facilitating regeneration of the City centre as the economy recovers.
-180-
7.127 In order to ensure employment uses are promoted, in line with the purpose of these areas in realising Core Strategy intentions, there will be a limit on residential uses, of 40% (see paragraphs 7.147 to 7.150).
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
7.128 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF as set out in paragraph 17 is to promote mixed use developments. The flexibility that the Business Areas require will be consistent with this national policy approach, though it enables rather than requires mixing.
Core Strategy
7.129 The Core Strategy encourages a wide range of uses in the City Centre and Policy CS17 aims to consolidate and strengthen the roles of the different areas within the City Centre that have a distinctive and fundamentally separate character. These are the City Centre ‘Quarters’, and most of them are identified as suitable for a mix of uses. The Business Areas offer the opportunity to achieve a wide mix of uses, as many of the Quarters have significant proportions of the Business Areas within them. Specifically:
(a) – Heart of the City – There is a small Business Area around the City Hall, that could help to deliver the prime office uses that the Core Strategy promotes. (b) – Cathedral Quarter – The Quarter is almost exclusively a Business Area, so there is significant scope for delivering a range of professional, legal and financial uses. (c) – Cultural Industries Quarter – Well over half of this is a Business Area, so the aim to promote the City’s creative and digital industries can be met. It also corresponds with a Transition Area (Core Strategy policy CS6(f)) from which manufacturing uses will be encouraged to relocate. A Business Area designation will also help to achieve this, as well as the retail warehouse allocation (number P00528). (d) – Sheaf Valley – Given the presence of the Priority Office Areas, university and station, less than half of this quarter is covered by Business Areas. But this is still a significant proportion and will give flexibility that would allow for good quality design in buildings that would enhance the role of the area as a gateway location and assist in developing the Hallam University campus. (e) – The Moor – There are small Business Areas at Moorfoot that could assist in delivering retail uses such as the retail warehouse allocations (numbers P00526 and P00527) as part of a mix of uses (see policy B2). (f) – Devonshire Quarter – Business Areas are located along Hanover Way and Moore Street. Business and retail uses can be promoted here and the designation will help to deliver the Transition Area identified in Core Strategy policy CS6(e).
-181- (g) – St. George’s – About a third of the Quarter at the eastern end is covered by a Business Area that will help to promote a mixed area that could include university, retail and office uses. (h) – St. Vincent’s – Just over half of the Quarter is a Business Area, that will help to deliver the Transition Area (policy CS6(a)) and a mixed use area that would include residential and education uses and legal and professional services. (i) – Castlegate / Victoria Quays – Extensive Business Areas mean that the mix of uses promoted will be assisted in their delivery, particularly offices, housing, hotels, leisure, retail and open space focused on the ruins of Sheffield Castle. (j) – Kelham / Neepsend – Half of this Quarter is covered by Business Areas and this will assist in delivering the Transition Area (policy CS6(b)) as well as promoting small businesses. (k) – West Bar – This is totally covered by a Business Area and a site allocation (P00121) that requires 30% office uses as well as a Transition Area (CS6(d)). The Business Area will be a key factor in delivering new offices, residential, retail and open space. (l) – Wicker / Riverside – Half of this Quarter is covered by Business Areas and this will assist in delivering the Transition Area (policy CS6(c)) and new businesses and housing.
7.130 The Core Strategy in Policy CS3 also lists other parts of the City, outside the City Centre, where offices are considered particularly suitable. These are areas where the transport facilities and the general location mean that office development is both attractive to occupiers and accessible to workers. In some cases, this has led to Business Area designations, specifically, at Hillsborough and Meadowhall.
7.131 CS20 encourages the universities to expand adjacent to their campus areas. Much of the area around the Sheffield Hallam University central campus is designated as a Business Area that would allow significant levels of educational use as well as other businesses that might be related to the university (see the last paragraph of Core Strategy policy CS5). Similarly, most of the non-housing areas around the University of Sheffield in or at the edge of the City Centre have Business Area designations. Business Areas offer the flexibility that will also enable educational uses in these locations.
7.132 Although Business Areas are not such key locations for offices as the Priority Office Areas some could still have a role to consolidate the city as a regional office centre. For example, there are several site allocations that would benefit from some office use, namely:
• P00013 – Former Hartwell Site, Carlisle Street / Savile Street, at the edge of the City Centre, with planning permission for 5,330 square metres of offices. • P00043 – Carver Lane / Holly Street (at least 60% offices required in a prestigious location) – potential for around 5,000 square metres of offices.
-182- • P00073 – Hanover Way / Milton Street (where office are a specified preferred use, though not required) – potential for 3,000 square metres of offices on two floors. • P00083 – Pond Street / Sheaf Street (Former NMB) (where office are a specified preferred use, though not required) - potential for 3,700 square metres of offices on two floors. • P00121 – West Bar Triangle (at least 30% offices) – capacity for 32,000 square metres of offices.
7.133 The role of some sites in Business Areas to deliver significant office uses was supported by the local Chamber of Commerce and representatives of the local development industry when the Council submitted an exemption application for the Priority Office Areas (see paragraph 7.32). Specifically they said:
“the Exemption should … cover established buildings that might be converted. While some of the existing stock may be old e.g. Fountain Precinct, The Balance, Synergy, Peel House, HSBC Griffin House. if key stock such as this was lost to residential use it would not be replaced and so would damage the City’s economic offer.”
7.134 This highlights the importance of offering potential for office uses in City Centre areas other than the Priority Office Areas, as in the Business Areas.
Other Strategies
7.135 The City Centre Masterplan states on page 21:
“In light of the changes in the economy it is likely that more demand will come from smaller scale enterprises, often homegrown and not in the first instance offering the ‘good covenant’ sought after by institutional investors. This may require a more pro-active and creative approach and product from property managers and investors.”
7.136 The flexible nature of the Business Areas will help to deliver the aim of the Masterplan to support smaller businesses, as explained in paragraph 7.125.
Justification for No Preferred Use
7.137 The Priority Office Areas have capacity to deliver the majority of the city’s office requirements (see paragraph 7.41), supported by the possible additional office allocations referred to in paragraph 7.132. While some contribution will also be required from Business Areas, the benefits of the flexible approach outweigh the need to guarantee additional office floorspace through a requirement in the Business Areas.
7.138 The Employment Land Review (ELR) has identified that there is a general oversupply of office floorspace in the City (ELR paragraph 6.15), and, given the shortage of Grade A space referred to earlier (paragraphs 7.52 to 7.55 and ELR paragraph 6.16), this shows that there is limited requirement for secondary office space, which is the type of space that would tend to be
-183- located in the Business Areas. The potential slight reduction in the requirement for land for office uses suggested by the Employment Land Review from 4 hectares per year for B1a uses to 4 hectares combined for B1a and B1b uses (see paragraph 7.222 later) means that a more flexible approach to Business Areas than suggested by the Core Strategy is appropriate. There are insufficient Priority Office Areas identified to meet this requirement, but the Core Strategy also has a target for new office development of 80,000 square metres (see paragraph 7.41). This paragraph notes that capacity of the Priority Office Areas is insufficient to meet all of this requirement, so a contribution to the target will be required from the Business Areas, which can be met by the Business Area sites identified in paragraph 7.132).
7.139 The economic benefits of mixed uses through cross-subsidisation will be achievable in the Business Areas – this is explained in the ELR in paragraph 10.67, especially sub-paragraph (c). In this way, mixed use developments will help facilitate and cross-subsidise the creation of B-class uses. Paragraph 10.73 suggests reallocation of some poor office sites or a more flexible approach to alternative development proposals. For example Hanover Way and Chatham Street are recommended for mixed use allocations and Spital Hill and Nunnery Sidings for deallocation. The approach of having no required use in the Business Areas will deliver this recommendation for flexibility.
7.140 The Business Areas have a role in providing additional opportunities for town centre uses such as leisure and retail that are complementary to office uses. The ELR on page 44, paragraph (f) concludes that improving the retail and leisure offer within the Centre as being essential to continue to grow the City’s office market. The focus for retail use will be the Central Shopping Area but Business Areas would be appropriate for edge-of-centre and small scale ancillary shopping.
7.141 At the Preferred Options stage in 2007, 167 the Business Areas were intended to deliver 50% office uses (Preferred Option PB2). Consultation led to an objection on the grounds that a wider mixing of employment uses would be preferable to reduce the need to travel. The extent to which it would achieve that is open to question but it was concluded that more flexibility was appropriate and, so, the next version of the policy in the 2010 Consultation Draft reduced the office requirement to 30%. However, this also led to several objections that even 30% was not viable or deliverable in the current economy and there was a need for further increasing flexibility and the capacity for wider mixing. There was support for the reference in the Preferred Option to exceptions, as it promotes flexibility, and the scope for exceptions has been increased in H1 (see paragraph 7.115). More significantly the % requirement for office uses was omitted, whilst retaining the employment focus of these areas. The current approach to Business Areas should address the concerns the objectors had at these previous stages.
167 http://sheffield-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/sdfcp/cppo/city_policies_- _preferred_options?pointId=project_15
-184- Justification for Acceptable Uses
7.142 As referred to in detail earlier in paragraph 7.129, Core Strategy policy CS17 sets out various roles for the City Centre Quarters that a Business Areas designation will help to achieve, and the acceptable uses listed will deliver most of the types of development referred to in CS17.
7.143 Certain uses can be complementary to employment uses (see paragraph 7.67) and policy H1 lists these as acceptable. They are:
• A1 small convenience shop development (<200 square metres gross floor area) that is associated with existing or proposed housing - these uses can also benefit employment uses by providing opportunities for convenience shopping for workers or visitors.
• B1a offices – are particularly appropriate in Business Areas for the reasons set out in paragraphs 7.121, 7.125, 7.126, 7.132 and 7.133.
• B1b research and development – this can be appropriate in most areas of the City Centre, especially where it is associated with the universities and teaching hospitals, in line with Core Strategy policies CS5 and CS17(d), (g) and (h). Class B1b uses could also be important in the Sheaf Valley and St. George’s Quarters (CS17(d) and (g)) where the focus on the universities is important.
• B1c light industrial – in some of the City Centre Quarters, such as Kelham/Neepsend where small businesses will be promoted and Wicker/Riverside, there are established businesses that provide an important role and should be encouraged to remain or expand. Creative industries are important and these could include B1c uses.
• C2 residential institutions – are self-contained residential accommodation that do not have the same need to be located in purely residential areas as mainstream housing uses.
• C3 housing – housing uses are usually compatible with employment uses, as they can result in a 24-hour presence in the areas where they are located, that improves safety and security, and makes the area more attractive and viable. If housing markets are strong, it can often be provided in a mixed scheme as a higher value use that could make the provision of employment floorspace more viable.
• D1 community facilities – these may be beneficial to workers and visitors, so are complementary to employment uses.
• D2 leisure – are suitable uses in accessible locations and can also complement employment uses.
7.144 These acceptable uses can complement each other by contributing to the viability of a mixed scheme, thereby ensuring that employment floorspace can
-185- be provided where it may otherwise not be viable. Higher value uses can cross-subsidise less viable uses. Previously, particularly in the case of City Centre living, residential uses have performed this function, but the recent decline in the City Centre residential market may have reduced the potential for this until the market recovers. However, other commercial and retail uses can also perform this function of enabling viability.
7.145 The Business Areas will also support the delivery of Policy B3, that encourages shopping, leisure and community facilities in accessible locations, where central and edge-of-centre locations are not available. There are also several retail warehouse allocations in Business Areas that promote A1 uses. This is also in line with the Employment Land Review recommendations (see paragraph 7.140).
7.146 The City needs to provide for a range of uses to ensure balanced economic growth and employment and also needs to target investment into growth sectors. The extensive nature of the Business Areas provides flexibility to improve viability given the depressed economic climate.
Justification for a Restricted Use (Housing)
7.147 Residential use in the City Centre will generate much greater financial returns than offices, given current rental values. In such cases, land owners and developers may favour residential development in established office areas, so there is a need to encourage predominantly employment uses in appropriate locations.
7.148 In any case, there is significant capacity for residential uses in the City Centre housing areas, that cover 30% of the City Centre, so there is no need for Business Areas to become predominantly residential. The Central Housing Areas are similar to the Business Areas in that they allow flexibility for the development of a range of important City Centre uses including those that are not preferred in other policy areas. The difference is that the City centre housing areas are particularly suited to housing and their designation points developers to the most appropriate locations for residential development. There are two principal purposes in the distinction between areas where housing is encouraged and Business Areas where it is accepted up to a point. Firstly, the Central Housing Areas are those where there are benefits for new housing in terms of providing services and a good living environment. By contrast, Business Areas with their employment-focussed role, may be less suitable and could experience more conflicts between uses. Secondly, designations that are housing-friendly may encourage hope values that lead to the loss of employment uses. That is accepted in areas where housing is being encouraged, but it is helpful to signal where housing is accepted up to a point rather than promoted. The Business Ares designation, with the cap on residential development, affirms the distinctive role of the Business Areas in helping to provide for the jobs and services that are distinctive roles of the City Centre
-186- 7.149 There is a need to promote Business Areas as wider employment areas in line with the NPPF and the Core Strategy. Employment uses are best located in accessible areas. The Business Areas are in these locations, but employment uses can only be delivered if housing is restricted, to ensure the predominant character of the Business Areas is for employment.
7.150 While the policy could allow up to 60% of one particular use to dominate, this should be unlikely in practice due to the demand for a variety of uses in centres, as well as the Core Strategy policy CS17 that set out the character of the City Centre Quarters, that would not be achieved if a single use were to dominate. However, in the final analysis, the purpose is to provide flexibility and to enable rather than guarantee mixing of uses. So no limit has been placed on any of the acceptable uses.
Uses Not Listed
7.151 These include a range of retail uses (A2 to A5) and hotels (C1), that should be assessed against retail and town-centre uses policies and their suitability could vary from one Business Area to another. Table H1 of the City Policies and Sites document indicates that applications for these uses will be determined on their merits although, in practice, such uses will often be acceptable in Business Areas because the living environment would be satisfactory and they would not conflict with the preferred use.
Unacceptable Uses
7.152 General industry (B2) and warehouses and storage (B8) are often incompatible with office uses, particularly in City Centre locations, where the environmental quality is important to create an attractive location for office and other occupiers. Core Strategy policy CS6 discourages such uses in the City Centre. These uses are also, by definition in the Use Classes Order, incompatible with housing, which is an acceptable use.
Effectiveness
Delivery of Acceptable Uses
7.153 The principles used to draw the boundaries of the Business Areas differ from Priority Office Areas as they are much more mixed use in character, and cover a much wider area. There is no need to focus the Business Areas so tightly on key locations or sites as they are not the primary areas for concentrations of office development.
7.154 The methodology used for measuring the balance of uses is the same as with the Priority Office Areas (see paragraphs 0 to 7.85).
7.155 The requirement for a limit of 40% housing will apply to the total floorspace within the Business Areas. The use of floorspace as the measure reflects the tendency for both commercial and residential development in centres to be multi-storey so that ground area would not give an appropriate comparison.
-187-
7.156 As the Business Areas can be extensive, particularly in the City Centre (over 60 hectares in one case), there is a need to subdivide some of the areas in order to ensure that the employment and housing elements are spread across the policy areas and could not concentrate in certain locations. The City Policies and Sites document in paragraph 11.12 recognises the need to subdivide policy areas where they are large, and suggests that areas considered when assessing dominance are no larger than 10 hectares. Where there are major physical barriers or separation between parts of a Business Area, it may be appropriate to define areas smaller than 10 hectares. This will also prevent certain uses from dominating major parts of the Business Areas, which would avoid creating areas that are dominated by a use that is not part of their primary role. These concerns mean that a methodology is required to subdivide Business Areas.
7.157 It is therefore proposed that the Business Areas are divided into smaller areas in which the 40% limit can be measured and delivered. This refines the approach set out in the City Policies and Sites document and the methodology for this will be as follows:
• Firstly, areas are divided up according to the Quarters boundaries, shown on the Proposals Map. This is because the Quarters are established in the Core Strategy as being distinctive areas, each with a specific character and appropriate uses. This has been reflected in a different approach to design proposed in policy B1 which applies different policy approaches to different Quarters. Policy G11 also proposes different approaches to building heights in the various Quarters, that could be used when assessing the floorspace capacity of vacant sites. Where a small extent of a Business Area straddles a Quarter boundary but adjoins a larger area in a different Quarter, it would be included with the larger area for clarity and to avoid creating areas for assessment that are very small.
• Secondly, the assessment will take account of any major physical boundaries that create separation between parts of the policy area. These could be major roads or waterways, and follow the principles set out in policy H1. This also follows on from the approach that has previously been used in the Unitary Development Plan for measuring dominance, (see Appendix 1 of the UDP). This has proved to be an accepted and reasonable technique over 15 years for managing the assessment of preferred uses in the UDP.
• Thirdly, the areas should not be so large that there is significant geographical and physical separation between parts of the area. Where parts of an area are more than 500 metres apart, 168 they will need to be further subdivided. The Cultural Industries Quarter is the only one of the Business Areas where this subdivision would need to be made. It is proposed that the area is divided approximately in half along Matilda
168 Based on PPS4 Annex B as a measure of a reasonable walking distance for offices (this relates to the ‘edge-of-centre’ definition in the NPPF)
-188- Street. The Kelham / Neepsend Business Area is also more than 500 metres in length but has a site allocation at one end that will determine the mix of uses within it and therefore removes the need for subdivision.
BA1 – City Hall
BA1
7.158 The subarea consists mainly of offices (including the Fountain Precinct, Alliance House, and the Former NUM buildings on Holly Street) and residential uses (Holly House, York House, 17 Holly Street). Other major uses are the City Hall, Leopold Hotel and A1 and A4 retail uses, including Leopold Square, Crystal Bar, the Viper Rooms, Steel House and Reflex Bar. Residential uses total around 30% and are not expected to change significantly, so the Business Area policy is achievable here.
-189- BA2 – West Bar
BA2
7.159 Much of this area is covered by a site allocation (P00121) that requires 30% office uses. This is in line with the Employment Land Review paragraph 4.10 and 10.72 identifies the area as important to provide for some of the City’s Grade A office requirements, but with a flexible approach that should incorporate complementary uses including residential.
7.160 There are several new buildings in this subarea, particularly the law courts, office buildings at Millsands, a multi-storey car park and flats at Coode House. The current proportion of residential uses is 16%. The area is likely to change significantly when the West Bar Triangle site is developed. As long as the proportion of residential uses on this site does not significantly exceed 40%, the policy aim is achievable.
-190- BA3 – Cathedral Quarter
BA3
7.161 There are 200 separate properties in this subarea. Around two-thirds of the existing floorspace is offices, the largest being HSBC, Peel House, 3 West Bar, Cathedral Court, New Bank House, Omnia One, North Church House, Queens House, Sovereign House, Weston House, Gladstone Buildings, Hartshead Square and Sheffield Newspapers on York Street. Other major buildings are retail uses on Angel Street, the Banker’s Draft public house, the Premier Inn hotel, Armadillo Self Storage and Sheffield Cathedral. Residential uses make up 10% of the area, the main ones being The Chimes flats, Croft Buildings and houses on Hawley Street.
7.162 There are no significant vacant sites in the area so limited possibilities for new major uses. Planning permissions could alter the balance of uses slightly but would not increase the proportion of residential uses, so the policy aim is achievable.
-191- BA4 – St. Vincent’s – Furnace Hill
BA4
7.163 Manufacturing and distribution / warehousing uses (the largest being Oscar Works on Meadow Street) make up around half of the floorspace in this area. Core Strategy Policy CS6a encourages the relocation of these uses, so there is scope for new uses in the future. There are large office uses (Greenfield House and HSBC, Hoyle Street) and residential uses such as Lambert Street and White Croft Works. Currently residential uses account for 16% of floorspace in the sub-area. Planning permissions for 137 West Bar and the Nicholls Building would increase this to 23%. There is a major vacant site south-east of Matthew Street at its junction with Doncaster Street, that could provide around 13,000 square metres of new floorspace. If this were to be 100% residential it would take the proportion up to 34%, still below the policy objective. The policy is therefore achievable in this subarea.
-192- BA5 – St. Vincent’s – Garden Street
BA5
BA6
7.164 The majority of the uses in this subarea are business and industrial and residential. This is not an ideal situation, as residential and industrial uses are incompatible, so Core Strategy policy CS6a encourages industrial uses to relocate from the area. Most of the residential uses are new developments, mainly Metis on Scotland Street and City Point on Solly Street. The industrial units are located mainly along Hollis Croft. There are also some significant office uses, mainly along Tenter Street.
7.165 Residential uses account for 35% of the floorspace and planning permissions could raise this slightly to 36%. Assuming the older industrial floorspace is redeveloped, there will be a need to limit new residential floorspace in order to achieve the emphasis on employment uses. If the industrial areas on Hollis Croft were to be redeveloped, residential uses would need to make up no more that 45% of the new floorspace in order to deliver the policy aim. However, it should be noted that the area to the north is a Central Housing Area and this was defined to help focus housing development within that part of St Vincent’s, where the environment is more suitable, The cap on residential floorspace in the Business Area complements purpose of the Central Housing Area here.
BA6 – St. George’s
7.166 Offices are the predominant use in the area, accounting for just under half of all floorspace. Much of this office floorspace is located in The Balance, formerly City Plaza, on Pinfold Street. Other significant uses in the area are
-193- warehousing and industry such as the I Grunwerg warehouse on Rockingham Street and opposite this on Bailey Lane are Flame Hardeners Limited.
7.167 Residential uses are mainly located in Mandale House on Bailey Street and Rockingham House on Newcastle Street. They account for 28% of all floorspace in the area and a handful of relatively small-scale permissions could reduce this slightly to 26%. It is considered that, without any major residential redevelopment proposals, the Business Area mix of uses is deliverable.
BA8 BA7
BA7 – Victoria Quays – Derek Dooley Way
7.168 The area is occupied almost exclusively by Hartshead House, an office building occupied by Capita. There is vacant land to the east, but this is landlocked between two railway lines.
7.169 The area is nearly 100% occupied by offices, which have only recently been built and occupied, so the requirements of the policy area designation will easily be met.
BA8 – Victoria Quays
7.170 Nearly half of the floorspace in the area is in office use, mainly HBOS on Furnival Road, Nabarro Nathanson in South Quay, Parexel in Navigation House and the Learning and Skills Council in Straddle Warehouse, Victoria Quays. Other buildings are the Hilton Hotel and a multi-storey car park. There are also various small-scale manufacturing and warehouse operations. There are residential uses at the Warehouse, the old Terminal Warehouse at the end of the canal. These account for 10% of the total floorspace in the area.
-194-
7.171 There are no significant proposals for new development or changes of use in the subarea. The only vacant land is on top of the railway viaduct to the east of the Victoria Hotel car park. The development potential of this land is severely limited by the viaduct location, which prevents foundations of any significant depth. Unless the conversion of currently occupied buildings takes place, it is not considered likely that the balance of uses will change significantly in the area, so the policy requirement is achievable.
BA9 – Castlegate
BA10
BA9
7.172 The majority of the existing floorspace in this area is retail, the larger units being Wilkinson’s, Primark and the Co-op building, Castle House (the majority of which is currently vacant). There are also significant office uses, particularly the Police Headquarters on Snig Hill, and sui generis uses, mainly the magistrates court. There are various residential uses, which currently account for 7% of the total floorspace in the area.
7.173 Planning permissions could change the balance of uses in the area slightly, by removing existing floorspace and adding a small amount of new residential use, that would increase the proportion to 9%. There are two vacant or predominantly vacant buildings in the area, the Court House / old Town Hall building, Waingate and the Castle House Co-Operative building. Both of these are listed buildings, so are most likely to be converted for a new uses rather than the sites being fully redeveloped. If all of the available vacant floorspace were converted to residential use, this would increase the
-195- proportion of residential floorspace to 24%. There are no other available sites within the area, so the policy aim is achievable here.
BA10 – Wicker / Riverside
7.174 The area currently has a wide mix of uses, with hotels, residential, industrial, office and retail uses all at significant levels. The majority of the residential floorspace is located mainly in the new North Bank building adjoining the River Don. There are three major hotels, the Holiday Inn Victoria, the Holiday Inn Express and the Metropolitan. Most of the office space is located at North Bank and industrial uses are spread around the area, as well as storage uses including in the Wicker Arches. There are also significant sui generis uses such as the Blonk Street car park. This mix of uses means that residential floorspace currently makes up 16% of the total.
7.175 There are no major planning permissions in the area, but there are 4 significant vacant sites at Spitalfields, Stanley Street, Sheldon Row and The Wicker. Even if all of these were to be developed for 100% residential use, this would raise the proportion to just 39%, below the maximum proportion required by the policy. The designation of this policy area is therefore achievable.
BA13 BA12
BA16
BA11
BA11 – Cultural Industries Quarter - North of Matilda Street
7.176 The most common use in this sub-area is educational floorspace for Sheffield Hallam University. There are also residential uses such as Exchange Works
-196- on Arundel Street, AG1 on Furnival Street and Butcher Works, that make up 19% of all of the floorspace in the subarea. There are many office buildings throughout the area, the largest being the Workstation on Paternoster Row, as well as several small scale light industrial operations and the Jury’s Inn hotel.
7.177 There are 3 significant planning permissions that could affect the balance of uses in the area, namely Hallam University’s proposed new building on Arundel Gate / Charles Street / Eyre Lane / Clay Lane / Brown Lane, the office building that is part of the Jury’s Inn development on the former Office World site on Furnival Square and the Freeman’s College building on Eyre Street. If built, these would reduce the proportion of residential floorspace to 16%. There is one cleared site in the area used as a surfaced car park on Charles Street (previously proposed as an allocation - P00041) that could be built on. If this was for a residential use it would raise the proportion to 18%. The policy area designation here is therefore deliverable.
BA12 – Heart of the City - St. Paul's Square
7.178 This is a small Business Area mainly occupied by City Lofts residential tower, the Charles Street (‘Cheesegrater’) multi-storey car park and the Genting Club casino. There are no planning permissions or vacant sites so the current balance of uses is not expected to change. Residential uses are currently 40% of the floorspace in the area, so the policy aim is being achieved. If the area were redefined on account of its small size, to be included in BA11 the percentage of residential use would be much less than the 40% limit.
BA13 - Heart of the City - Charles Street
7.179 This is another small Business Area that is mainly a mix of retail units at ground floor level with residential uses at upper levels. Currently housing consists of 34% of the total floorspace with no significant planning permissions or vacant sites likely to change the balance of uses. Given the small size of this ‘remainder’ area the outcome here is not critical.
-197- BA14 BA15
BA14 - Heart of the City - Mulberry Street
7.180 This is a small subarea mainly occupied by offices, retail, the Cutlers Hotel and a health clinic. There is only one small residential property, so the policy aim is easily achieved in this location.
BA15 - Sheaf Valley - Pond's Forge / Fitzalan Square
7.181 This area consists mostly of offices (the former Central Post Office, 1-11 Arundel Gate, Commercial House, Aspect Court and Sheffield Interchange) and leisure uses (Ponds Forge and Mecca Bingo), and some retail floorspace. The current proportion of residential use is 8%, well within the policy requirement. There are no planning permissions or proposals that would significantly affect this proportion. The Central Post Office building is currently vacant and has permission for conversion to education (D1) use. If, however, this plan were to change to residential, this would still only raise the proportion to 16%, so the policy designation for this area is achievable.
BA16 - Sheaf Valley – Sheaf Street / Howard Street (see map on page 196)
7.182 This is a small subarea that only contains two retail units. There are no planning permissions, but much of the area is vacant, including the former Sheffield Hallam University Nelson Mandela building site, that is a site
-198- allocation (P00083) for offices and previously had planning permission for a hotel that has now lapsed.
7.183 If the allocated site is developed for non-residential uses, the proportion of residential floorspace in the area would reduce to 8%. Given the site allocation, the policy can be achieved in this subarea. Again, the small size of area means it could have been combined with the neighbouring BA11 but this would make no difference to the outcome.
BA17 – Cultural Industries Quarter - South of Matilda Street
BA17
7.184 There is a wide mix of uses in this subarea, with industrial and warehousing, office, retail and residential being the predominant uses. The largest buildings are Jet Centro on St. Mary’s Road (residential), Deacon House (vacant office), Decathlon (sports retail) and Staples (stationery retail) on Eyre Street. Currently residential uses make up 22%, with the potential to increase to 34% if a scheme on Sidney Street / Matilda Street / Arundel Street / Sylvester Street (11/02386/FUL) is built.
7.185 There are two retail warehouse allocations (P00527 and P00528) in the area that would not alter the balance of uses significantly if developed.
7.186 Core Strategy policy CS6(f) promotes the relocation of industrial uses from this area. If this were to take place there would be a need to limit any proposed conversion to residential uses in order to deliver the policy. It should be noted that the boundary of the Business Area was drawn to exclude this
-199- area from the neighbouring Flexible Use Area, which is the designation designed to facilitate transition to residential use.
7.187 Assuming future residential uses are managed in line with the above, the policy aim of encouraging employment rather than residential uses can be achieved.
BA18 – Devonshire Quarter – Hanover Way / Moore Street
BA18
7.188 This Business Area is predominantly in office use, the largest buildings being Eldon House and Milton House on Charter Row and King’s Court on Hanover Way. There are also significant retail, industrial and storage uses in the area such as Stokes Tiles on Moore Street and Pryor Marking on Hanover Way. Residential uses make up 4% of the floorspace in the area. There are no planning permissions that would affect this balance.
7.189 There are site allocations in the area; P00073 on the former car retail site on Hanover Way is for office use and P00526 is for retail warehousing covering the Wickes site on Young Street. Implementation of these would not have a significant impact on the floorspace levels. There are also potential development sites that have been proposed for allocation previously but not taken forward (Egerton Street / Hanover Way [P00060] and Moore Street / Fitzwilliam Street [P00081]). If, despite possible environmental disadvantages, these were to be redeveloped for predominantly residential use, the balance of uses in the area would still be below the 40% target. The policy is therefore achievable in this area. As in equivalent locations, there is an adjoining Central Housing Area where residential use would be more appropriate.
-200-
BA19 – Kelham / Neepsend - Gibraltar Street
BA19
7.190 This Business Area is currently dominated by industry and warehousing uses, but there are also Moorfield Flats on Gibraltar Street, so residential floorspace currently accounts for 17% of the floorspace in the area. There are no significant planning permissions that would alter this balance and little vacant land. However, if some of the existing low value uses were to discontinue and redevelop for residential use, there is potential that the 40% target could be reached. However, in the absence of any firm plans for this, the aim of the policy is achievable. It is also desirable as this is one of the areas identified in the Core Strategy for priority office development (policy CS4d) and the Business Area designation keeps this option open in this accessible location. Alternative, more suitable areas for housing are included in the neighbouring Central Housing area at Kelham.
-201- BA20 - Kelham / Neepsend - Rutland Road / Penistone Road
BA20
7.191 This Business Area consists of mainly industrial floorspace in large units on Cornish Street and Penistone Road, and the Wickes DIY retail warehouse on Rutland Road. There are a handful of residential uses that account for 4% of the floorspace in the area. There are no planning permissions or vacant sites, so this balance is unlikely to change and the policy is achievable. This is not an attractive location for residential use and a Central Housing Area has been defined nearby.
-202- BA21 - Rutland Road / Penistone Road
BA21
7.192 This subarea consists of mainly industrial floorspace in a number of units located throughout the area. There is only one small residential unit, so the current proportion of residential floorspace is less than 1%. There are two planning permissions that do not significantly alter the mix of uses. There are no cleared sites, but there is the vacant former Canon Brewery site within the area. This is a prominent site on Rutland Road and, if redeveloped to a height of 4 storeys with half of the ground floor used for commercial uses and the remainder for residential use, this could raise the proportion of residential uses in the area to just under 40%, in line with the policy requirement. Given this, the policy aim can be delivered in this area. Future possibilities for this area are considered in the Central Area Background Report in the context of the Business Area in the Upper Don Valley.
-203- BA22 - Kelham / Neepsend - Mowbray Street / Harvest Lane
BA22
7.193 This area is dominated by industry and warehousing uses, and residential floorspace accounts for only 1% in the area. There are no significant planning approvals and no vacant sites, so this balance is unlikely to change significantly.
7.194 However, Core Strategy policy CS6(b) promotes the relocation of industrial uses from this area. However, the extent of change to residential use is likely to be limited and accommodated within the provisions for Business Areas.
7.195 Assuming future residential uses are managed in line with the above, the policy aim can be achieved and the policy is deliverable.
-204- BA23 – Spital Hill
BA23
7.196 This Business Area is predominantly business and industrial in character and there are no residential uses currently present. There are two site allocations that take up most of the area. P00013 between Spital Hill and Savile Street has planning permission (09/00523/FUL) for offices as part of the Tesco development of the former Hartwell site. The other, covering most of the subarea between Spital Hill, The Inner Relief Road, Spital Street and Brunswick Road (P00022) is a flexible allocation due to multiple ownerships on the site. If this site is developed for no more than 50% residential uses, the policy aim can be achieved. However, the designation as Business Area reflects that a significant part of it would be environmentally unsuitable for housing.
BA24 BA25
-205- BA24 – Lower Porter Valley / Ecclesall Road
7.197 This Business Area already has significant residential use in Ward’s Exchange, Napier 01, Porter Brook House, Shire House and Porterbrook 2. There are major offices at Ward’s House, Portergate, Pomona House, Hallamshire Business Park and Porterbrook House. There is also vacant car retail space at the former Hartwell’s. Overall, residential uses make up 39% of the area, but there is a planning permission for a student accommodation and retail development on Summerfield Street (11/01864/FUL) that would take this to 45%, which would not deliver the policy aims. As stated in the City Policies and Sites in paragraph 11.7, there may be other material considerations that could justify such a development that would normally be contrary to the policy.
7.198 However, it is considered on balance that the area should retain an employment emphasis and although the current and proposed residential floorspace exceeds the 40% the intention of the Business Area remains valid. The planning permission that took the figure to above 40% has yet to start despite receiving permission in 2011. A more robust approach could be taken to further residential development here in future in the light of the new policy. The designation would ensure that if unforeseen redevelopment takes place, it will provide additional employment that would be beneficial in the area.
BA25 – Bramall Lane / John Street / Denby Street
7.199 The 40% limit in this area is being significantly exceeded – residential uses account for 58% and this could increase to 67% with existing permissions. The majority of the residential use is within The Forge student village. The upper limit for residential use is unlikely to be achieved overall in this location.
7.200 However, the use of floorspace as the measure of dominance is more questionable here. The majority of the residential use is student accommodation in high-density multi-storey blocks that generate a large amount of residential floorspace. This will make it difficult to achieve 60% of floorspace for employment uses in this particular area, but the unusual mix of high-density residential element and low-density employment means that it is still appropriate not to abandon the aim to achieve employment uses in the remainder of the area. These uses will be extensive in terms of the proportion of the land area covered and can still deliver an area that is an employment location in character. As indicated in the Central Area Background Report this area forms part of a larger employment area including the Cultural Industries Quarter and the John Street Conservation Area.
7.201 As noted earlier in paragraph 7.115, there is also flexibility built in to the way that policy H1 will operate, and this is a case in point. For these reasons, a Business Areas designation here remains the most appropriate. The designation would ensure that if unforeseen redevelopment takes place, it will provide additional employment that would be beneficial in the area.
-206- BA26 – Manor Development Centre, Alison Crescent
BA26
7.202 This area is given over solely to business use (the Manor Development Centre) and the remaining land has planning permission (09/02033/FUL) for more business space. Consequently, the policy aim will be achieved in this location.
BA27 – Hillsborough
BA27
-207-
7.203 This area is given over solely to business uses. Consequently, the policy aim will be achieved in this location. The designation will support mixed use development if housing is pursued as part of future development only in parts of the policy area where residential amenity is suitable and encourage employment uses to complement Hillsborough Centre. More detail on the justification for a Business Area is presented in the Central Former Community Assembly Area and Sites Background Report.
BA28
BA29
BA28 – Meadowhall North
7.204 The main uses in this area are the Meadowcourt and Hayland Street business park and Brightside Junior and Infant School. There are very few residential uses and no planning permissions, so the policy can be delivered in this area.
BA29 – Meadowhall South
7.205 The area currently consists mainly of B8 and B2 uses in the M1 Distribution Centre and car retail (Mercedes Benz on Sheffield Road). There are also significant office uses at The Source. There is no residential floorspace within the area.
7.206 There are two significant planning permissions in the area. 10/01792/FULR is for car retail use and 08/02594/OUT, the River Don District scheme that also includes a site allocation (P00127). This permission conations a significant residential element that could result in 33% of residential uses in the area. If new development reflects this permission, the policy is achievable. A larger proportion of housing would not reflect Core Strategy policy (CS7).
-208-
BA30 – Graves Leisure Centre
BA30
7.207 This area is occupied solely by the Graves Leisure Centre, so there the policy can clearly be delivered in any redevelopment.
-209- Table 7 - Balance of Uses in Business Areas
A B C D E F G H I J K Capacity Likely Likely Potential Current Current Likely for new Potential Current % Future Future Total Potential % Subarea Residential Total Future % Non- Total Residential Residential Total Residential Residential Space Space Residential residential Space Space Space Space Space BA1 City Hall 21,572 68,316 32% 21,572 72,058 30% 0.0 21,572 72,058 30% BA2 West Bar 7,552 47,008 16% 7,552 47,008 16% 62,720 52,352 146,483 36% Cathedral BA3 Quarter 21,819 217,168 10% 21,819 223,930 10% 0 21,819 223,930 10% St. Vincent’s – BA4 Furnace Hill 11,867 75,362 16% 16,903 74,601 23% 0 29,703 87,401 34% St. Vincent’s – BA5 Garden Street 18,011 50,702 36% 36,386 72,455 50% 30,720 44,034 110,855 40% BA6 St. George's 18,011 68,420 26% 18,795 73,301 26% 0 18,795 73,301 26% Victoria Quays - Derek Dooley BA7 Way 0 7,935 0% 0 7,935 0% 0 0 7,935 0% BA8 Victoria Quays 5,113 50,098 10% 6,196 52,461 12% 0 6,196 52,461 12% BA9 Castlegate 6,036 83,980 7% 6,869 80,130 9% -12,289 19,158 80,130 24% Wicker / BA10 Riverside 17,035 104,524 16% 17,035 104,153 16% 0 125,935 322,075 39% CIQ - North of BA11 Matilda Street 28,314 150,552 19% 28,314 181,930 16% 0 36,496 198,295 18% Heart Of The City - St. Paul's BA12 Square 35,249 88,018 40% 35,249 88,018 40% 0 35,249 88,018 40% Heart Of The City - Charles BA13 Street 3,630 10,788 34% 3,630 10,789 34% 0 3,630 10,789 34% Heart Of The City - Mulberry BA14 Street 290 10,253 3% 290 10,252 3% 0 290 10,252 3%
-210- Table 7 - Balance of Uses in Business Areas
A B C D E F G H I J K Capacity Likely Likely Potential Current Current Likely for new Potential Current % Future Future Total Potential % Subarea Residential Total Future % Non- Total Residential Residential Total Residential Residential Space Space Residential residential Space Space Space Space Space Sheaf Valley - Pond's Forge / Fitzalan BA15 Square 5,883 74,680 8% 5,883 74,669 8% 0 13,052 81,838 16% Sheaf Valley – Sheaf Street / BA16 Howard Street 0 750 0% 0 750 0% 260 780 9,291 8% CIQ - South of BA17 Matilda Street 10,918 50,396 22% 20,005 58,081 34% 29,216 32,981 87,297 38% Devonshire Quarter – Hanover Way / BA18 Moore Street 2,511 58,972 4% 2,511 58,972 4% -2,293 32,616 86,785 38% Kelham / Neepsend - BA19 Gibraltar Street 3,046 18,123 17% 3,046 18,123 17% 0 3,046 18,123 17% Kelham / Neepsend - Rutland Road / Penistone BA20 Road 500 12,926 4% 500 12,926 4% 0 500 12,926 4% Kelham / Neepsend - Rutland Road / BA21 Boyland Street 173 39,899 0% 173 39,577 0% -5,115 22,498 56,786 40% Kelham / Neepsend - BA22 Mowbray 286 26,756 1% 286 26,756 1% 0 286 26,871 1%
-211- Table 7 - Balance of Uses in Business Areas
A B C D E F G H I J K Capacity Likely Likely Potential Current Current Likely for new Potential Current % Future Future Total Potential % Subarea Residential Total Future % Non- Total Residential Residential Total Residential Residential Space Space Residential residential Space Space Space Space Space Street / Harvest Lane
BA23 Spital Hill 0 8,325 0% 0 8,325 0% 25,700 20,370 54,395 37% Lower Porter Valley / BA24 Ecclesall Road 38,173 97,861 39% 53,923 118,621 45% 0 53,923 118,621 45% Bramall Lane / John Street / BA25 Denby Street 26,259 45,423 58% 45,085 67,412 67% 0 45,085 67,412 67% Manor Development BA26 Centre 0 3,689 0% 0 5,249 0% 0 0 5,249 0% BA27 Hillsborough 0 20,114 0% 0 20,371 0% 0 0 20,371 0% Meadowhall BA28 North 309 12,774 2% 309 12,774 2% 0 309 12,774 2% Meadowhall BA29 South 0 34,107 0% 62,381 189,249 33% 0 62,381 189,249 33% Graves Leisure BA30 Centre 0 23,503 0% 0 23,503 0% 0 0 23,503 0%
ALL BUSINESS AREAS 282,556 1,561,422 18% 446,210 2,020,377 22% 93,073 798,017 2,436,652 33% . All figures are in square metres
-212- Column B - Existing gross internal residential floorspace, using VOA or other known data Column C - Existing gross internal total floorspace, using VOA or other known data (includes figures in Column B) Column D - Current residential floorspace as a percentage of the total floorspace Column E - Existing gross residential floorspace (Column B) plus known and expected new development, minus floorspace lost as a result of the new development Column F - Existing gross total floorspace (Column C) plus known and expected new development, minus floorspace lost as a result of the new development Column G - Expected future % of residential floorspace, taking account of existing floorspace and planning permissions Column H - Potential net additional new floorspace given the capacity on vacant land or other sites expected to be developed. The figures reflect the policy aim of a maximum of 40% residential floorspace. Minus figures indicate expected clearance of current non- residential development. This column represents future capacity in addition to the potential from planning permissions Column I - 'Policy-On' Figure of future residential space, taking account of the figures Columns E and B. This assumes the maximum amount of residential development takes place that is still within the policy limit Column J - 'Policy-On' Figure of future total space, taking account of the figures in Columns F, H and I Column K - Future % of residential floorspace, taking account of Columns I and J
-213- Management of Flexibility
7.208 The exceptions test referred to in paragraph 7.115 and 7.116 will apply to the Business Areas, so there may be situations where the 40% figure is not rigidly adhered to, as long as there is a clear explanation as to why an exception is being made. It is not proposed that the 40% limit would be applied to the absolute limit should circumstances in a particular area with a specific proposal suggest some flexibility of approach is required.
7.209 The Bramall Lane / John Street and Lower Porter Valley / Ecclesall Road subareas are examples of where the target figure for the policy may not be achieved, for valid reasons (see paragraphs 7.198, 7.200 and 7.201). In cases like these the overall intention of the policy to encourage employment uses is more important than the specific figures.
7.210 It is likely that some flexibility will be needed in the application of the policy to account for uncertainties about assumptions and evidence on floorspace. This is in addition to the significant flexibility in the policy itself.
Monitoring of Development
7.211 See paragraphs 7.118 and 7.119.
-214- Map 5 - Business and Industrial Areas in Sheffield
-215-
Business and Industrial Areas
Role and Character of Areas
7.212 The Business and Industrial Areas are particularly suitable for non-office business and industrial development. They have a better quality environment than the Industrial Areas so will be suitable for a wider range of business uses. They may also be closer to policy areas where more sensitive uses are acceptable, and will need to deliver manufacturing and distribution / warehousing uses in order to meet the City’s employment land requirements.
7.213 They will help to meet the need identified in the Employment Land Review, paragraph 4.48, for a focus on quality and location for the supply of industrial land. These areas will help to address the shortage of quality modern industrial stock (ELR paragraph 5.7).
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
7.214 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF requires plans to ensure sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth. The designation of the Business and Industrial Areas is necessary to contribute to the range required for achieving this.
Core Strategy
7.215 Business and Industrial Areas are required to ensure that the locations set out in the Core Strategy, particularly in Policy CS5, will be developed for manufacturing and distribution / warehousing and non-office businesses. They vary from Industrial Areas in that they will be promoted as providing a higher quality environment for businesses that makes them more suited to B1b and B1c uses and to meeting the specific requirement set out in policy CS1(b). They are often located closer to more sensitive uses such as housing and perform a more mixed business and industrial role. B1b and B1c uses have particular locational requirements that require specific policy area designations – they are located particularly in 5 areas of the City:
• Tinsley Park – reflecting Core Strategy policy CS8 • Parkway / Kettlebridge – reflecting the need for modern manufacturing in CS9 • Upper Don – reflecting CS10 and the gateway route policy, CS75 • Lower Don – reflecting CS5 and CS75 • Sheaf Valley – reflecting CS30 and the proximity of residential areas
217 Other Strategies
7.216 The Sheffield City Region Enterprise Zone 169 is focused on delivering modern manufacturing and technology. It is located in the East End of the City and largely corresponds to Business and Industrial Areas in that location. The promotion of non-office B1 uses will help to deliver the aims of the Enterprise Zone.
Justification for the Preferred Uses
7.217 70% is considered a suitable level of development of B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 uses as it is the minimum level of development required to deliver the right balance of uses to achieve various aims:
• To help deliver land requirements set out in the Core Strategy. These areas are the prime locations for the preferred uses and will be the mechanism for delivering much of the land requirement targets in Core Strategy policy CS1. In this respect they are similar to the Priority Office Areas, that are also designed to consist of primarily the preferred use(s);
• To maintain the business and industrial character of the areas;
• To create the right conditions for businesses to thrive whilst allowing for certain other compatible uses that can provide services to the businesses operating in the area that will help them to be viable and competitive.
7.218 In the Priority Office Areas, only 60% of the preferred uses are required compared with 70% in the Business and Industrial Areas (and Industrial Areas). There is a need for a higher proportion because the requirement for land and sites is higher in relation to available areas (see paragraphs 7.219 and 7.220 below). Both Business and Industrial Areas and Industrial Areas have been drawn relatively tightly and a large proportion of their area needs to be safeguarded for the preferred uses in order to meet requirements. Also, the need for the mixing of complementary uses is less in industrial areas.
7.219 The recent Employment Land Review has shown that demand for industrial land is expected to remain high. The ELR states in paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19 that Sheffield has a strong industrial property market with demand for all types of properties and very low vacancy rates (see also ELR paragraphs 6.14 and 6.18). Paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32 report that demand for small-scale industrial units reached a 2-year high in 2012 and demand for medium-sized units is also high, meaning that stock was reducing due to high take-up rates. Paragraph (j) on page 46 refers to the views of local property agents that there is a shortage of good quality modern industrial buildings. Paragraph 6.28 also notes that, in general, industrial stock is relatively old, which would increase the demand for new properties and vacant industrial land.
169 http://www.sheffieldenterprisezone.co.uk/
218 7.220 Land requirement figures need to reflect this high demand. The Core Strategy set out requirement figures in Policy CS1, that identifies the need for 25 hectares as a 5-year supply of land for non-office B1 uses (Use Classes B1(b) and B1(c)). The policy also requires that there is sufficient land identified and allocated for the next 10 years, which is a long-term time-span that requires the designation of policy areas that will ensure significant business and industrial development. The Business and Industrial Areas are the only policy areas proposed that list these uses as preferred in Policy H1, so are likely to be the main source of land for these uses.
7.221 Policy CS1 also has a requirement for a 5-year supply of 100 hectares for manufacturing and distribution / warehousing (Use Classes B2 and B8), as well as a need to also identify land to meet a 10 year requirement. These uses are also preferred in Business and Industrial Areas, which will be crucial in helping to meet this demand, along with the Industrial Areas.
7.222 However, these requirement figures were set in 2008, before the current economic slowdown took hold, so there is a need to review how appropriate they are for the Local Plan. The ELR has reassessed demand and suggested updates of the requirement figures of 305 hectares to 2031, made up of 150 hectares for B1c/B2, 63 hectares for B1a/b and 92 hectares for B8 (Table 8.13 on page 104). The Core Strategy and ELR figures are summarised in the Table below:
Table 8 - Employment Land Requirements
hectares Core Strategy 2009 Employment Land Review 2013 Requirement 5 years Per year 17 years Per year Use B1a 20 4 B1 a / B1b 63 4 B1b and B1c 25 5 B1c / B2 150 9 B2 / B8 100 20 B8 92 5 Total 145 29 305 18
7.223 Given these requirement figures, paragraph 10.5 of the ELR concludes that there is an undersupply of employment land in the City, with only 236 hectares identified to meet the requirement of 305 hectares. However, the Core Strategy requirement is for a 10-year supply, which would require around 200 hectares, so the sites identified would meet this requirement. But the demand can only be met if the 70% proportion for the Business and Industrial Areas is delivered. Otherwise there would be insufficient land to meet the revised requirements.
7.224 The lack of suitable premises in the right locations has, in the past, been a severe restriction on the ability of existing firms to expand or relocate within Sheffield or to locate to the city, and established business and industrial areas
219 need to be retained to accommodate the demand that has previously gone unmet. Compared to the Unitary Development Plan, the Local Plan has identified a smaller area city-wide for business and industrial uses but the policy approach is to ensure that the preferred business and industrial uses are more concentrated within these established locations, as required by the Core Strategy. Concentrating on the better industrial locations and allowing less of a concentration of other uses will create more certainty that should help to deliver business and industrial development. For this reason, the 70% figure represents an increase on the 50% in the Unitary Development Plan in policy IB9.
7.225 It is accepted that the 70% figure is not mathematically refined, but represent broadly two thirds of the area, a figure that is the minimum requirement to maintain a dominant character of one type of use in the area. A higher proportion than 70% would be too prescriptive and not allow for a reasonable degree of flexibility that the market requires. It would not therefore be viable or deliverable in many of the Business and Industrial Areas, especially given the issues about the delivery of the 70% requirement in several of the areas (see paragraph 7.233). A lower percentage would reduce the ability to deliver our land requirement figures.
Justification for Other Uses
7.226 Business and Industrial Areas will help to deliver strategic aims and the requirement for 70% business and industrial uses will ensure they are predominantly business and industry-focussed in character, function and appearance. However, other uses can be complementary and enhance the business and industrial role of the area.
7.227 A 30% allowance for other uses is intended to allow a level of non-preferred use that can be complementary to the main uses without being so high as to dilute the character of the areas to be predominantly business and industrial. Small-scale offices can be suitable in these areas as they can perform an ancillary function.
7.228 In many cases, the non-preferred uses are either compatible with the preferred uses (such as offices), or are uses that are not promoted in other policy areas so it is reasonable to allow them in Business and Industrial Areas.
7.229 Open storage is unacceptable, as these areas are relatively high quality business and industrial locations and open storage would detract from their appearance. Other unacceptable uses in Business and Industrial Areas are any residential uses, as these would constrain industrial operations (contrary to policy A2) as well as creating unacceptable living conditions. Some consultation objections were made to Preferred Option PB4 on the grounds that hotels, restaurants and leisure facilities should be listed as acceptable, but these should be determined on their merits according to the circumstances in each location and the locational policies in the Core Strategy and NPPF.
220 Effectiveness
Delivery of Dominance of the Preferred Use
7.230 The extent of the Business and Industrial Areas is shown on the map on page 215. Subareas have been defined using the methodology set out in paragraph 11.12 of the City Policies and Sites document, and these are shown on the map and have been numbered individually. Each of these subareas have been examined in order to determine whether they meet the requirements of policy H1. To assess this, each property in the subarea was assigned to a preferred or non-preferred use. Individual plans have been produced for all of the subareas, but as there are 83 in total, they are not reproduced in this Background Report. However, any can be made available on request. This report focuses only on those Business and Industrial Areas and subareas (and Industrial Areas) where there appears to be a question as to whether the target can be achieved.
7.231 The approach to defining subareas of less than 10 hectares is a continuation of that used over 15 years in the Unitary Development Plan in policy IB9 and Appendix 1, and is intended to ensure that the predominantly business and industrial character of the policy area is not diluted by other uses. In the UDP up to 50% of the area could have been given over to non-business and industrial uses, allowing a 5 hectare development in a 10 hectare area. The change in policy H1 means that no non-business and industrial development could cover more than 3 hectares. This tightening of the restriction is considered justified as the business and industrial areas are now less extensive than the UDP so need to deliver more of the preferred uses (see paragraphs 7.223 and 7.224).
Subareas where the preferred uses can be delivered
7.232 It can be demonstrated in 63 out of the 83 Business and Industrial subareas that 70% should be deliverable with preferred uses.
Subareas where the preferred uses may not reach 70%
7.233 Research suggests that 20 of the areas may struggle to achieve the 70% requirement. However, in all cases there are reasons why the Business and Industrial Area designation is the most appropriate. They are all located in areas that are identified in the Core Strategy as suitable for manufacturing and distribution / warehousing uses in policy CS5. The areas are dealt with in turn below (the numbers correspond to those shown on Map 5 above). Policy H1 allows for some flexibility where there would be regeneration or other benefits. The menu of uses for Business and Industry Areas remains the most appropriate here and local factors in a few areas are not a sufficient reason for reducing the requirement to a ‘lowest common denominator’ in all areas.
7.234 If sites within these subareas that currently have non-preferred uses come up for redevelopment, the policy will require only B1b, B1c, B2 or B8 uses (rather
221 than the previous use) where possible, in order to achieve an area that is business and industrial in character.
7.235 One option to achieve the 70% requirement in more areas could have been to combine subareas and accept a more local concentration of non-preferred uses. This would have the advantage of still delivering the minimum amount to meet the land requirement figures in policy CS1b and c, but was ruled out as it would adversely affect the character of the areas.
7.236 Some of the subareas comprise physically self-contained areas that are too small to merit a different policy area designation (e.g. small pockets of General Employment Area) simply to reflect current uses. Incorporation within the wider Business and Industry Area reflects the broader strategic intention for the area.
5 – Penistone Road – Hillfoot
7.237 This area is currently only just under the 70% requirement at 67% (5.7 hectares of preferred uses out of 8.5). There are some significant non- preferred uses fronting Penistone Road, which are almost all car retail. These are not promoted specifically in any policy areas so can reasonably be judged on their merits. Business and Industrial Areas are appropriate for these uses, especially given their location on a busy main road that gives the retailers a highly visible location. The prominence of this route is recognised by the Core Strategy, that in policy CS75 has identified it as a Gateway Route, where good quality design of buildings would be expected. This means that industrial buildings may not be as appropriate here as in other Business and Industrial Areas, so a relaxation of the 70% requirement may be reasonable.
7.238 Given these factors and that preferred uses still make up two thirds of the area, a business and industrial designation is the most appropriate here. A General Employment Area that would reflect the car retail uses would not be appropriate for the rest of the Business and Industrial Area that doesn’t front on to the Gateway Route.
16 – Savile Street / Attercliffe Road
7.239 Only a third of this subarea is currently taken up by preferred uses (1.3 of 4 hectares). The majority of the non-preferred uses are offices and car retail. This is appropriate given the location of the area on a major Gateway Route to the East End of the City, as recognised in Core Strategy policy CS75.
7.240 Although offices are not preferred in the Business and Industrial Areas, they are one of the more appropriate non-preferred uses, especially in a location such as this that is on the edge of the City Centre, identified as suitable for offices under policy CS3. Car retail is also appropriate here for the same reasons as set out in paragraph 7.237. However, in then event of redevelopment of sites with non-preferred uses, the preference would still be for Class B uses. A Business and Industrial Area designation is the most appropriate to deliver this here.
222
17 – Savile Street / Attercliffe Road (Twelve O’clock Court)
7.241 Around 40% of this subarea is currently taken up by preferred uses (2.7 of 7 hectares). As with Area 16 above, the majority of the non-preferred uses are offices and car retail, but this is appropriate for the same reasons.
19 – Nunnery Square (West)
7.242 The largest building in a non-preferred use in the area is the Dixon’s call centre. This is a B1a use that, while not a preferred use, is considered compatible with the Business and Industrial Area designation, which is the most appropriate, given that there are also several industrial uses in the subarea.
20 – Nunnery Square (East)
7.243 Much of this area is taken up with the Supertram park and ride facility and tram depot. These are important uses use that are compatible with Business and Industrial Areas so the designation is appropriate. A General Employment Area would not be appropriate as the location is industrial in character and would not suit the full range of employment uses.
42 – Blackburn Road
7.244 The site is next to Junction 34 North of the M1 motorway and much of it is taken up with the slip road and Blackburn Road, that run off the motorway junction. The main other uses are a petrol filling station, which is an appropriate use in this location given the proximity to the motorway and offices that are not inappropriate given the accessibility of the location. The designation and balance of uses are therefore appropriate here. A combination with subarea 41 would deliver the required percentage, although the area would be larger (at 14 hectares) than that required by the policy H1.
45 – Sheffield Road (Junction 34 South)
7.245 68% of this subarea is vacant (4.2 out of 6.2 hectares) and has outline permission for B1, B2 and B8 uses, which would be close to delivering the policy requirement. The majority of the uses in the area are offices, which are generally compatible with this business park location and also some retail uses that act as a local centre. There is one small property in a preferred use. The vacant site has planning permission for preferred uses so the policy can be largely delivered and the Business and Industrial Area designation is appropriate.
46 – Sheffield Road
7.246 Around half of the site is vacant and the rest is used as a hotel, restaurant, petrol filling station and a factory; only the latter is a preferred use. The area is close to Junction 34 South of the M1, so the non-preferred uses are
223 appropriate for this location. A Business and Industrial Area is appropriate to ensure that the vacant site that is a site allocation (number P00164) where preferred uses are required is delivered.
53 – Sheffield Business Park (West) 56 – Sheffield Business Park (Central) 57 – Sheffield Business Park (East)
7.247 These subareas make up Sheffield Business Park, that is identified in the Core Strategy in policy CS3 and CS8 as suitable for office uses, though policy CS8 also indicates mixing with non-office businesses. The majority of the current uses in these areas are offices, but the Business and Industrial Area designation is appropriate as B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 uses are also appropriate if offices uses are not taken up under policy CS3. Other uses present are a car supermarket, and police operations centre, these uses are situated here to benefit from the motorway accessible location. Designation as a Business and Industry Area to be applied with a degree of flexibility is expected to produce the most appropriate outcome
62 – Olive Grove Road
7.248 The majority of this subarea is used as the Olive Grove bus depot, a sui generis use. Whilst not a preferred use, it is similar to the preferred uses and compatible with them, so appropriate for this policy area. In the event of relocation of current uses and redevelopment of the site the designation indicates that non-office businesses and industry would be the most appropriate uses.
64 – Broadfield Road
7.249 There is a wide mix of uses in this area that means the current proportion of preferred uses is just under the 70% target. Non-preferred uses are generally retail and leisure and tend to be located on the Broadfield Road frontage, with the preferred uses concentrated behind these. There are insufficient non- preferred uses to justify an alternative designation and they are dispersed through the policy area, so the Business and Industrial Area is the most appropriate designation.
65 – Broadfield Park
7.250 This area is a Business Park that is made up mainly of B1a office uses. However, the area is not identified for offices in the Core Strategy and policy CS30d identifies the area as one where existing business areas should continue to provide for local jobs and enterprises. In most locations in this part of the city business and industrial uses are the most common form of employment uses, but Broadfield Park has developed over the years as one of the few office park locations serving the south and west of the City, so does serve an important employment purpose. However, in the event of redevelopment (which is not anticipated) the preferred uses for Business and Industrial areas would be the most appropriate.
224
66 – Woodseats Road
7.251 Around half of this subarea (the properties on Woodseats Close) is currently in non-preferred office use. As with area 65 above, the Core Strategy policies mean that the Business and Industrial Area designation is the most appropriate and the office uses area compatible.
67 – Attercliffe Common
7.252 This subarea is in a very visible and high profile location, and consists mainly of non-preferred uses, particularly offices/call centres, but also a public house and a hotel. This is reasonable given the location of the area on a major Gateway Route to the East End of the City, as recognised in Core Strategy policy CS75. High quality design of buildings is required on the frontage of the area, so a higher value use such as offices is appropriate.
68 – Carbrook Hall
7.253 Around half of this subarea is currently in non-preferred office use. As with subarea 67 above, the Gateway location makes these uses suitable but the strategic approach in the Core Strategy in policies CS5a and CS9 means that a Business and Industrial Area is the most appropriate designation to inform any redevelopment over the Plan period.
69 – Jessop Riverside
7.254 This is a Business Park in a prominent location that has several B1a office uses within it. As with other sites referred to above, the gateway location, accessibility of the site and compatibility of B1a and preferred uses make office uses appropriate, but a Business and Industrial Area designation is in accordance with CS5a.
78 – Thorncliffe Park
7.255 The southern end of the site is taken up by the Rotunda Office Park, which has non-preferred B1a office uses within it. As these uses are compatible with the preferred uses and serve a local employment purpose they are appropriate to a degree (policy CS32 identifies the area as important for business), but the Business and Industrial Area designation is most appropriate given the strategic approach to promoting manufacturing and distribution / warehousing set out in policy CS5d.
79 – Churchill Way
7.256 Preferred uses currently make up just under 60% of this subarea (3.4 out of 5.9 hectares), but the non-preferred uses are made up exclusively of offices. For the same reasons as with subarea number 78 above, this is acceptable and the designation appropriate.
225
Management of Flexibility
7.257 See paragraphs 7.208 and 7.210.
Monitoring of Development
7.258 See paragraphs 7.118 and 7.119.
226 Map 6 - Industrial Areas in Sheffield
227 Industrial Areas
Role and Character of the Areas
7.259 Manufacturing operations are making increasing use of high technology to automate processes but there is still a need for locations where heavy industrial processes can operate without restrictions. Economic development and new employment creation can only take place effectively if there is an adequate supply of land for investment, and the Local Plan has a key role to play in ensuring this is achieved. As with the Business and Industrial Areas, the Industrial Areas are located in the key strategic areas identified in the Core Strategy and will be needed to deliver employment land requirements (see paragraphs 7.212 and 7.213).
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
National Policy
7.260 See earlier paragraph 7.214.
Core Strategy
7.261 Industrial Areas will be required to ensure that the locations set out in the Core Strategy, particularly in policy CS5, will be developed for manufacturing and distribution / warehousing. They vary from Business and Industrial Areas in that they will be promoted as an environment suitable for heavier manufacturing and other industrial operations that cannot easily operate in proximity to more sensitive uses. For this reason they are normally located away from uses such as housing or separated by significant physical barriers that act as a buffer between these different uses.
7.262 B2 and B8 uses have specific locational requirements that require their own policy area designations – they are proposed to be located particularly in 6 areas of the City:
• The Lower Don Valley – reflecting Core Strategy policies CS5(a) and CS8 • The Upper Don Valley (Clay Wheels Lane area) – reflecting CS5(b) and CS10 • The Blackburn Valley – reflecting CS5(c) and CS12 • The Holbrook area of Mosborough – reflecting CS5(d) and CS13(a) • Stocksbridge – reflecting CS5(d) • Ecclesfield (Smithywood and Thorncliffe) – reflecting CS5(d) and CS32.
Other Strategies
7.263 See paragraph 7.216 – the policies for Industrial Areas could assist with the delivery of the Enterprise Zone.
228 Justification for the Preferred Uses
7.264 The reasons for the 70% figure are similar to those for Business and Industrial Areas as set out in paragraphs 7.217 to 7.225, although applying to use classes B2 and B8 only. The land requirement figures in the Core Strategy in policy CS1 is significant for B2, B8, other general industrial / processing uses and waste management facilities. This reflects the fact that they are land- intensive uses that create a high demand, so there needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that suitable levels of B2, and B8 can be delivered. This is an important role of the Industrial Areas where these are the only preferred uses.
7.265 The Employment Land Review has concluded that there is a shortage of deliverable land for industrial uses and good quality, modern industrial premises (see ELR page 45, paragraph (c) and page 46, paragraph (j)). Table 8.13 on page 104 of the ELR shows that the majority of land needed is for B1c, B2 and B8 uses (242 out of 305 hectares); those that are preferred or acceptable in Industrial Areas.
7.266 Industrial Areas have a particular role to play in accommodating the heavier manufacturing and distribution uses, that are not suited to being located close to more sensitive uses such as housing. Industrial operations prefer to be located away from uses such as housing that can constrain their activities, and a dedicated supply of land in these locations will help new industries to establish themselves and existing firms to grow and prosper.
Justification for Other Uses
7.267 Other uses are acceptable in Industrial Areas as they can be complementary and enhance the industrial role of the area. Offices can be suitable in these areas as their business can be complementary to an industrial operation. However, they should only be small-scale unless they are in locations that are accessible and meet the locational criteria set out in Core Strategy policy CS3.
7.268 Other B1 uses, research and development (B1b) and light industry (B1c) are largely compatible with industrial uses. They would normally be better suited to the higher quality environment on Business and Industrial Areas (where they are among the preferred uses), but they may often benefit from co- locating with industry so are entirely acceptable in Industrial Areas.
7.269 Open storage is acceptable. This is a use that is unacceptable in nearly all other policy areas, including Business and Industrial Areas, as it has a high detrimental visual impact. However, there is a demand and need for this use and the Industrial Areas are those where it would have the lowest impact, so open storage should be encouraged to locate to these areas above any others.
7.270 There are several uses that could be appropriate in Industrial Areas as complementary to industrial uses, such as shops (A1), cafés (A3), take-aways (A5), hotels (C1) and leisure facilities (D2). These will also need to be considered in relation to the specific location, in line with other Local Plan
229 policies and national planning policies, so will be determined on their individual merits.
7.271 In consultation, there was support for Preferred Option PB5 for the promotion of industrial uses in these areas, but objections were made to housing not being included. Housing is unacceptable as it would constrain industrial operations (contrary to policy A2) as well as creating unacceptable living conditions.
Effectiveness
Delivery of Dominance of the Preferred Use
7.272 Policy H1 explains how the dominance of preferred uses will be assessed. Paragraph 11.12 of the City Policies document sets out the areas over which the dominance of preferred uses will be measured. The approach will be the same as in the Business and Industrial Areas (see paragraphs 7.230 and 7.231), intended to ensure that the predominantly industrial character of the policy area is not diluted by other uses. Policy H1 means that no non- industrial development could cover more than 3 hectares.
Subareas where the preferred uses can be delivered
7.273 It can be demonstrated in 79 out of the 84 Industrial subareas that 70% of preferred uses should be deliverable.
Subareas where the preferred uses may not reach 70%
7.274 5 of the areas do not currently achieve the 70% requirement. These are:
5 – Stadium Way
7.275 The majority of this subarea is in preferred uses, except for the RSPCA animal welfare sanctuary, which is a sui generis use. However, given that this use can be noisy, it is wholly suitable for an Industrial Area and the policy area designation is the most appropriate.
31 – Blackburn Meadows
7.276 This area is exclusively in use as a sewage works, a sui generis use. This important infrastructure use serves most of the City and generates smells that make it appropriate to be designated in an Industrial Area.
57 – Greenland Road
7.277 This subarea is currently dominated by a B&Q retail warehouse, with preferred uses making up around a third of the area. An alternative retail designation within the Darnall District Centre would not be appropriate as this is an out-of- centre location not normally suitable for retail uses. Reasons why this would not be appropriate are discussed further in the district centres paragraphs in
230 chapter 2 of the East Area Background Report). The presence of industrial uses in the rest of the subarea makes it suitable for designation as an Industrial Area and points to the preferred uses in the event (not anticipated) of the retail warehouse relocating. A combination with the adjoining subarea number 56 would achieve the 70%, but would create an area of over 14 hectares, larger than that required by policy H1.
66 – Station Road, Mosborough
7.278 Housing uses currently make up 7% of this area (0.7 out of 10.2 hectares). These are normally unacceptable uses but have been included in the Industrial Area so that the policy area boundary follows Station Road. Policy A2 will help to ensure that their presence does not significantly constrain the operations of the businesses here. Other uses are mainly depots and car repair that are sui generis uses that are industrial in nature and the Century Park office park that are also compatible with industrial uses.
Management of Flexibility
7.279 See paragraphs 7.208 and 7.210.
Monitoring of Development
7.280 See paragraphs 7.118 and 7.119.
231 General Employment Area
Map 7 – General Employment Areas in Sheffield
Role and Character of the Areas
7.281 General Employment Areas are areas that deliver the widest possible flexibility in terms of the range of uses that can be suitably accommodated there.
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.282 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF as set out in paragraph 17 is to promote mixed use developments. The flexibility that the General Employment Areas allow will be consistent with this national policy approach, though it would not preclude any one use dominating.
7.283 The main locations of the General Employment Areas and the policy justification for them are:
• The Sheaf Valley , particularly along the Queens Road corridor. This will assist in delivering Core Strategy policy CS15 that promotes the area for large leisure uses and CS30c that also identifies the area for large-format retailing where land is not available in or at the edge of centres.
• The Lower Don Valley – Policy CS21 promotes the area around Don Valley Stadium as a Boulevard of Sport location, where sports-related leisure uses are appropriate. Also, as with the Sheaf Valley, the General Employment Areas designation will also help to deliver policy CS15.
232 • The Upper Don Valley – around Owlerton Stadium, in line with policies CS15 and CS49, that identify the area for large leisure uses.
• In the south east around Crystal Peaks – in line with Core Strategy policy CS13b to promote new jobs in the Mosborough area.
Justification for No Preferred Use
7.284 General Employment Areas are suitable in principle for a wide variety of employment-related uses. They are intended to cater for many uses that are either not promoted in other policy areas, or whose suitability may be better considered in wider spatial terms under Core Strategy policies and national guidance, particularly relating to town centre uses such as leisure as set out in the NPPF. These uses are likely to have some level of demand to be located somewhere in the City, so areas should be designated where they could be located without the limits on the amount of non-preferred Uses that are set out in other policy areas. The difference between the General Employment Areas and other employment policy areas is the opportunity for developing these wider employment-related uses that could be developed.
7.285 The main benefit of General Employment Areas is to provide maximum flexibility for employment uses, including by precluding sensitive uses in keeping with policy A2. They are therefore housing-free flexible use areas in order to promote employment.
7.286 This flexible approach is important to secure regeneration, which is about more than securing jobs in the B-Use Classes. This is recognised in the Employment Land Review in paragraph 7.9 that concludes the City’s growth will be driven largely by non-manufacturing sectors, although this will include many uses that would not look to a General Employment Area, so there is still a need for the Business and Industrial Areas and Industrial Areas. The ELR also encourages mixing of uses (see paragraph 7.139).
7.287 The high level of flexibility will help to keep options open to make some form of regeneration as attractive as possible or because there are no pressing reasons for any one particular use. A secondary benefit is to provide potential locations for large-scale uses that might be constrained in policy areas or subareas where only a relatively small percentage of non-preferred uses would be allowed (such as leisure and recreation uses that could not be accommodated in a centre but would need a large part of any one policy area or subarea).
7.288 Other types of uses suited to General Employment Areas may be small in number or may not readily fit into certain categories. These may be relatively rare or ‘one-off’ developments that would also benefit from a flexible policy area where there is no requirement for any particular use.
7.289 What the General Employment Areas do not provide is a degree of safeguarding for the business and industrial uses required by Core Strategy
233 policy CS1. This means that General Employment Areas have been designated where there is a clear case for non class B uses.
Justification for Acceptable Uses
7.290 B-Class uses are listed as acceptable because they are always likely to deliver employment benefits (assuming they comply with other spatial policies).
7.291 In the consultation on the Preferred Options, objections were made that retail uses should be acceptable and it should be recognised that they contribute to employment. But they also need to be judged on locational criteria against strategic policies in the Core Strategy and national policies, particularly sequential testing. It was suggested that leisure uses should also be acceptable, but built leisure uses too should be determined by other locational criteria. Consequently, these uses are left to be considered on their merits but the General Employment Areas include locations that might qualify for out-of- centre leisure and recreation use if no suitable sites can be found in centres (see Core Strategy Policy CS15). It was suggested that infrastructure should be listed as acceptable, but infrastructure is needed in all types of area and its provision is best dealt with on its merits, as the impact of different types of infrastructure and the sensitivity of locations can vary considerably. A suggestion that housing uses be listed as acceptable was considered inappropriate as they are not compatible with acceptable B2 and B8 uses. A non-housing environment is fundamental to the very role and character of these areas and consistent with the approach in policy A2.
Effectiveness
7.292 These areas will have an important economic role in providing land that is flexible in terms of what it can be used for. This will assist the market and promote economic development.
Monitoring of Development
7.293 The high level of flexibility that the policy brings means that there is no imperative to monitor the types of uses that are taking place in the General Employment Areas (other than to ensure that unacceptable uses are not locating in the areas). Large-scale leisure uses, sport-related development and large-format retailing are recognised in the wider locations by the Core Strategy, so it could be beneficial to monitor these in the General Employment Areas.
234 Shopping and Cultural Areas
7.294 There are three policy areas for shopping with a citywide or regional catchment, with two in the City Centre and one at Meadowhall. The City Centre also provides a range of cultural and higher education destinations for the city and region and these are catered for in the City Centre Cultural Hub and the University/ College policy areas.
City Centre Cultural Hub
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.295 The Cultural Hub, which the Plan seeks to enhance and support, is an area drawn around the City’s two theatres, the Central Library and Graves Art Gallery and the Millennium Galleries and the Winter Garden. The Hub forms the focal point for cultural facilities within the City Centre. The area is introduced in the supporting evidence for policy B2 (Chapter 5).
7.296 The role of planning in sustaining the cultural well-being of the community is stressed by the NPPF (paragraphs 7, final point of 17, 70)
7.297 By encouraging and sustaining cultural facilities here policy B2 contributes to these aims. It precludes changes cultural facilities unless equivalent or better facilities are provided in or next to the Cultural Hub. The policy defines cultural facilities as ‘Theatres, museums, art galleries and exhibition halls, public libraries, places of worship and religious instruction, church halls, concert halls, cinemas ’. The policy accords with NPPF para 70, which says policies should guard against the unnecessary loss of values cultural facilities.
7.298 The identification of the Cultural Hub is supported by the Core Strategy Key Diagram, which shows the area and by policies CS15 and CS19. CS15 states that ‘Development of leisure and cultural facilities that serve the city and wider region will be located in, or at the edge of, the City Centre where possible’ while policy CS19 supports ‘the retention of arts and cultural facilities’ and ‘new uses that relate to cultural activity will be encouraged, particularly in the Cultural Hub area around Tudor Square.’
Justification for Preferred and Acceptable Use(s)
7.299 The Cultural Hub provides a distinct point of attraction in the centre of the City for both residents and visitors to the City. The Core Strategy supporting text to CS18 notes that ‘In particular, theatres, centres for the arts and other cultural facilities play an important part in the life of an attractive and thriving city region. The existing cluster in and around the Tudor Square/Millennium Square area gives a sense of area identity and they benefit from the linkages between them.’
7.300 The list of uses at policy H1 reflects these preferences. Cultural facilities are preferred and should take up at least half the policy area. Other main town
235 centre uses (Classes A1-A4 and hotels) are acceptable if they do not reduce the proportion of the area taken up by cultural facilities to less than half and take-aways and industrial and institutional uses are listed as unacceptable. Take-aways would detract from the cultural focus of the area and could cause nuisance. The NPPF does not list take-aways as Main Town Centre Uses in its Glossary so does not promote them in central locations. Industrial uses would not be proposed in any case due to high land values.
7.301 The current draft policy wording relating to the Cultural Hub in policy B2 appeared in the consultation draft and received no objections.
Effectiveness
7.302 Delivery will be through investment decisions by the Council, the Sheffield Theatres Trust, and through the development management process.
7.303 The use of the minimum ‘at least half the area’ approach to dominance ensures the maximum flexibility consistent with identifying a policy area with a main use.
Central Shopping Area
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.304 The City’s Central Shopping Area includes the main shopping areas of the City Centre. It includes not only the Primary Shopping Area (see below) but also the primary and secondary frontages described at the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses which may include food, drinks, clothing and household goods. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses such as restaurants, cinemas and businesses’.
7.305 The importance of town centre shopping is recognised by the NPPF which says that in drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. They should also define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations.
Justification for Preferred and Acceptable Use(s)
7.306 Shops are the main attraction in shopping centres and the Central Shopping area will be where retail (A1) is the preferred use. However restaurants, leisure and cultural facilities can also support the City Centre’s vitality and attract visitors. The purpose of identifying the Central Shopping Area is to designate an area within which a level of retail uses should be maintained that is high enough to retain its retail role and character. The proportions are set out in policies B2 and H1. In the area not also in the Primary Shopping Area (see below), they set out a minimum requirement for retail (A1) frontage of
236 50% either side of a proposed change of use. In those parts also within the Primary Shopping Area the requirement rises to 70%.
7.307 The policy H1 menu of acceptable and unacceptable uses at street frontage for these streets indicates that shops are the preferred use, although major non-food shop development outside the Primary Shopping Area that prejudiced or delayed the New Retail Quarter would be unacceptable (footnote 8), consistent with the second paragraph of policy CS18. Provided that the percentage ratios of use class A1 were maintained (either at 50% or 70%) all other Class A uses, community uses and leisure and recreation uses listed as main town centre uses in the National Planning Policy Framework 170 would be acceptable. These activities would help to maintain the vitality of the streets.
7.308 Ensuring dominance of class A1 uses will maintain the Central Shopping Area in its predominantly retail role. It is retail use that is the main attraction for people to come to the City Centre. Financial and professional services need to be present in shopping centres to provide complementary services for shoppers and visitors but they are not as attractive as the ‘main town centre uses’, as listed in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
7.309 The menu of acceptable uses at street frontage for these streets precludes developments with dead frontages. Housing and offices on the street level frontage detract from the vitality of these streets whereas, for example, cafés, restaurants and other activities would help maintain their vitality. Class B uses other than offices (class B1a) and residential institutions would be unacceptable because their design and scale would detract from the vitality and attractiveness of the City Centre. High City Centre land values would in any case make such proposals unlikely.
7.310 Restricting changing the use of their properties inevitably constitutes a loss of flexibility but this is necessary to ensure the vitality and viability of the City Centre and its distinctive functions.
Effectiveness
7.311 The simple majority of shops should not be difficult to achieve. All main streets in the Central Shopping Area currently have more than 50% of frontage in A1 use. Nevertheless the restriction will act as a ‘long-stop’ that will ensure that retail dominance is maintained. Setting the threshold at a low level will allow flexibility for other uses such as cafes and restaurants that will help these areas retain their vitality and viability.
7.312 Flexibility is also allowed by Policy H1b which would allow changes where ‘there are significant regeneration or other benefits arising from the proposal’.
170 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2
237 The City Centre Primary Shopping Area
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.313 Within the Central Shopping Area, the Primary Shopping Area is to be the focal point for development. Its designation is justified in connection with policy B2 at paragraph 5.2 of this report. It has been identified for policy purposes and includes not just de facto primary shopping frontages but also the New Retail Quarter area, where major shopping development is proposed. The Practice Guidance supports the approach: ‘A key component of the town centre strategy is the identification of sites to accommodate new development, where needed. This includes opportunities to expand the centre, which may entail expansion of the primary shopping area’ (Para 2.8)
7.314 The area identified as the Primary Shopping Area is consistent with the Core Strategy Key Diagram’s illustration of the synonymous ‘Core Retail Area’ and CS18’s statement that the Primary Shopping Area extends ‘from Moorhead to the north end of Fargate’ .
7.315 In the Primary Shopping Area, policies B2 and H1 require 70% of the length frontage either side of a proposed change of use is to remain retail (A1). Other uses listed as acceptable or unacceptable reflect the need for the area to remain vital and viable as a shopping area.
Justification for Preferred and Acceptable Uses
7.316 The City Centre’s Primary Shopping Area is planned to have a higher minimum percentage of the preferred retail (A1) use. As in the rest of the Central Shopping Area, restaurants, leisure and cultural facilities can also support its vitality and attract visitors. But more a more intensive retail presence is needed to attract shoppers not only from the rest of the city but also the wider City Region. Fargate will be a particularly important primary frontage in the critical period up to the completion of the New Retail Quarter, and a high proportion of retail uses should be maintained (see policy B2). Banks and similar uses are needed but may be located in more peripheral areas. They are not listed as ‘main town centre uses’ by the National Planning Policy Framework‘s Glossary.
7.317 The option of completely restricting non-shop (A1) uses on Fargate (Emerging Option ES1b) was rejected. A small proportion of non-A1 uses would add to its vitality without detracting from its retail role. Policy H1 allows that any Class A use that would increase the vitality and viability of the Primary Shopping Area would be acceptable in principle.
Effectiveness
7.318 The figure of 70% is currently exceeded for the total frontage within the Primary Shopping Area – figures are at paragraph 5.34in the justification for B2. It will therefore be easy to retain 70% of properties in retail (A1) use and the figure offers flexibility for other acceptable uses. As with the 50% figure for
238 the rest of the Central Shopping Area, it will act as a long stop to ensure current levels of vitality and viability are maintained.
Meadowhall Shopping Centre
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.319 The Proposals Map shows the designated Meadowhall Shopping Centre’s boundary as the area within its Ring Road. Policies CS7 and CS14 of the Core Strategy seek to maintain the Centre at ‘around its present size’ and this would apply within this boundary. The Council takes the view that policies CS7 and CS14 would also apply to development at the edge of the area but whether this view is valid will be informed by the forthcoming Inspector’s Report on a recent inquiry into the Council’s refusal of a development near Meadowhall 171 .
7.320 Table H1 lists no particular preferred uses within the area but, provided that any development is consistent with policies CS7 and CS14, allows all Class A and D uses and offices as acceptable. Leisure and recreation facilities would have to follow the sequential approach, giving preference to locations within the City Centre.
7.321 The list of Unacceptable Uses at table H1 includes those that would detract from Meadowhall Shopping Centre’s appearance and function such as industrial and residential uses. In any case these are unlikely to be proposed because of high land values.
Effectiveness
7.322 Delivery will be through the development management process.
171 APP/J4423/A/13/2189893/NWF
239 University/ College Policy Area
Consistency with National Policy and Other Strategies
7.323 The National Planning Policy Framework makes limited references to education and these are mainly related to school choice. It does not refer specifically to the needs of universities or other higher or further education. However it does require local planning authorities to assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for education and to take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas (paragraph 162). The universities and colleges comprise strategic infrastructure and the two universities are of national significance, drawing students from across the country. The University/ College Area designation reflects their strategic importance and is consistent with national policy.
7.324 The Core Strategy is explicit about the significance of the universities and the broad locational strategy for them. Higher education is a key role for the City Centre (paragraph 4.10) and policy CS20 provides for them to consolidate and expand their teaching and research operations within and adjacent to their existing campus areas. The two policy areas based on the universities reflects this.
7.325 The Core Strategy also promotes new and expanding businesses close to centres of research, including near the universities (policy CS5). So one of the preferred uses in University/ College Areas is research and development (class B1b).
Justification for Preferred Use(s)
7.326 The University/ College Areas reflect the strategies of both of the universities to concentrate activities on their central campuses. But the policy area is also relevant to other central campus areas, where a major concentration of educational development is envisaged, as for Sheffield College. The preferred uses are community facilities (D1), which include education uses, and research and development, to support policy CS5 (see above). This would mean that, technically, non-educational community facilities would be treated as preferred but, in view of their location, these are expected to be few, small- scale or ancillary to educational use.
7.327 Concentration also supports viable frequent public transport for students and staff. It does create potential congestion with private traffic and pressure on parking in the surrounding areas. However, these are not sufficient reason to disperse university locations but, rather, to manage travel sustainably through travel plans. The universities are already doing this 172 . Dispersal would make it more difficult to encourage students and staff to use public transport as services to the more scattered destinations would be less frequent.
172 http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/communityrelations/transport
240 7.328 Other acceptable uses are those compatible with educational use or that could complement university functions (e.g. residential institutions, other housing and small-scale offices and shops).
7.329 Policy H1 requires that at least half the area is taken up by the preferred uses. In practice this is already very significantly exceeded. But a higher figure, though broadly appropriate in strategic terms would have been arbitrary and unnecessary to achieve the intended concentration. Area is used as the measure of dominance as it is the simplest for comparing different types of land use. The extent of multi-storey development tends to increase the percentage of floorspace beyond the ratio at ground-floor level but this is not seen as a problem where the university or college is, itself, recognising the need for more intensive development.
7.330 The only objection to the approach came from Sheffield Hallam University, but this was more about the extent of their area rather than the principle of a policy area for universities and colleges. They recommended that the area covered all sites in their ownership. However, the policy area is intended to be used only to establish the dominance of the university or related use at its core. There are areas close to the universities, especially Sheffield Hallam University, where a greater mix of uses may be appropriate, as, for example, where the Hallam campus merges into the Cultural Industries Quarter. The policy areas are designated as a planning tool rather than to demonstrate the extent of university premises.
Effectiveness
7.331 Delivery will be through investment decisions by the universities and Sheffield College and through the development management process. The universities’ and College’s own policies are consistent with the proposed dominance.
7.332 The use of the minimum ‘at least half the area’ approach to dominance ensures the maximum flexibility consistent with identifying a policy area with a main use.
7.333 The mix of uses and dominance of preferred uses within the University/ College Areas will be reassessed as part of future reviews of the Local Plan. New proposals for university and college development will also be identified through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
241 8 OTHER OPTIONS NOT TAKEN FORWARD
The Visitor Economy
8.1 An Emerging Option to promote tourism was proposed:
Emerging Option EB8
Tourism will be promoted, supported and encouraged. Visitor attractions will be encouraged in sustainable locations to promote leisure tourism. Facilities such as hotels and conference facilities will be encouraged to improve the business and conferencing tourism market.
8.2 This issue was referred to as ‘Tourism’ in the Emerging Options, then re-titled the ‘Visitor Economy’ in the Preferred Options.
8.3 It is unnecessary to include a policy for either tourism or visitors since the attractions of Sheffield to tourists and visitors, such as hotels, conference facilities, shopping, cultural facilities and open space are themselves the subject of policy in their own right. The policies that encourage or manage the development of such uses more directly will benefit tourists, visitors and residents alike.
Open Space in New Employment Developments
8.4 This was put forward as a Preferred Option:
Preferred Option PB10
Where a new development will generate a significant number of workers, developers will be required to provide and maintain a proportion of the site as high quality, multi-purpose informal open space if:
(a) there is an identified quantitative shortage of open space in the local area; or
(b) the site is more than easy walking distance, via a safe pedestrian route, from a local open space or priority open space for improvement.
Alternatively, developers will be expected to contribute towards the improvement of open space within the surrounding local area.
8.5 It was not taken forward as a policy because:
• There would have been an obligation on developers to create the open space where appropriate, that would have been an additional cost to development.
242 • The need for additional open space is proportional to the number of employees at a particular business, but this is something that will be difficult to determine at the planning application stage. It is therefore difficult to deduce an appropriate standard for the amount of open space that would need to provided on-site.
• Core Strategy policy CS74 requires all developments to contribute to a “healthy, safe and sustainable environment” and policy G10 stipulates that all development should include a comprehensive scheme of hard and soft landscaping. These requirements would ensure the creation of a quality business environment and requiring the provision of recreational space in addition to this could be considered onerous.
8.6 In principle, the option would enhance the wider working environment by providing areas of amenity space for employees, although this benefit is considered to be outweighed by other factors. The need for open space created by new employment developments would be limited to short breaks during the day and so the demand is less constant than, for example, in residential areas. The policy would also present a financial burden to developers and in many cases, the need to provide additional open space in business and industrial developments is not as high a priority as the delivery of other infrastructure. Furthermore, existing and proposed policies (Core Strategy policy CS74 and policy G10) focusing on urban design provide an adequate framework to ensure that the landscape immediately surrounding new employment development is of high quality. In light of these factors, Preferred Option PB10 has not been taken forward.
Small Businesses
8.7 At the Emerging Options stage, following on from consultation with key stakeholders, a need for a policy on small businesses was considered. It was intended that such a policy would help small companies and those in niche areas, such as artists and crafts people, to occupy business space at preferential, or subsidised, rates. This reflected the fact that, due to the nature of their operation, they often could not afford competitive rents. The importance of this sector to the City was recognised, and an attempt to provide for assistance through the policies was made.
8.8 The following option was considered at the Emerging Option stage but has not been taken forward.
Emerging Option EB10:
Small business will be encouraged to start up by the provision, where possible, of affordable business space as part of major new development schemes. Planning agreements and other initiatives will be used to achieve this where appropriate.
243 8.9 This option was not taken forward as it would be difficult to deliver through development management policies and the planning system. There is no mechanism available to deliver it through the planning system as planning agreements would be difficult to word and to enforce.
Cap on Development
Consultation Draft policy C5
8.10 This policy limited retail development at Meadowhall to 2,500 square metres over any 5 year period. As explained at paragraphs 6.68 and 6.69, the equivalent current policy B3 does not now include caps on development at Meadowhall. The Council has taken the view that the statement of the Council’s strategy in policies CS7 and CS14, combined with consideration of proposals under national guidance, are sufficient for the purposes of development management, and that there is no evidence to justify specific levels of development or time periods at which development would become unacceptable.
244
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE SEWIS STUDY
Sewerage
1. Further significant expansion in the catchment of Woodhouse Mill Sewage Treatment Works would require investment to increase the treatment capacity. Stocksbridge Sewage Treatment Works is a relatively small works with very limited capacity for additional growth. Consequently there is only limited capacity for further housing growth in Stocksbridge and the redevelopment of former industrial sites will be dependent on further investment resulting from site allocations. Some further investment at Blackburn Meadows was brought forward.
2. Sewerage undertakers are required to invest in new infrastructure to serve developments that have been allocated in a development plan. These plans are set out in 5 yearly Asset Management Plans (AMPs). The latest, AMP5, covers 2010 to 2015, so new allocations arising in the Sheffield Local Plan will be adopted in time to be accounted for in AMP6, which would cover the 5 years from 2015. A key recommendation within the SEWIS report in the Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps in paragraph 9.1 is to ensure that:
“any new allocated site gets adopted within the Sheffield Development Framework at the earliest opportunity as this effectively mandates the Sewerage Undertaker to invest in sewage treatment facilities. Adoption of the Sheffield Development Framework in 2013 should allow any further investment ... within AMP6 (2015 to 2020).”
Surface or Stormwater Sewerage
3. No abnormal costs are identified that would require additional investment in the existing infrastructure above what would be expected to be provided onsite.
Electricity
4. Consultation between WYG and YEDL determined that there are currently capacity shortfalls at Wheatacre Road, Dronfield, and Claywheels Lane 33/11kV Primary Substations. Additionally capacity shortfalls will be triggered at Ellin Street and Arundel Street Primary Substations within the next few years as a result of development planned within the Local Plan.
245 Water
5. Water provision network capacity is generally not a problematic issue for Sheffield, although there are some development sites identified that would require off-site reinforcement of the network before development.
Gas
6. The report concludes that there are no strategic gas network shortfalls that would affect the development of the sites identified.
7. The increase in the demand for gas is slowing and can be encouraged to reduce further through the encouragement of alternative technologies.
Telecommunications
8. The report did not highlight any significant shortfall in these networks and identified current investment by Digital Region.
Flood Defence
9. An Addendum to the SEWIS report was commissioned that looked at flood risk and flood defence assets. 173 The report noted that there are 9 elements of critical infrastructure located within high flood risk areas (paragraph 4.25). A recommendation of the report (paragraph 1.11) was to look into how to defend these assets in future. These are requirements that could benefit from future development contributions.
District Heating
10. The study recognises the potential for better and expended use of the District Heating system and the potential to connect future development sites to the network.
173 Sheffield Energy and Water Infrastructure Flood Risk Study. WYG Engineering 2010. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/sdf-background- reports/city-policies-and-sites-background-reports-ju
246 APPENDIX 2 – POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES OTHER THAN DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
1. Sheffield City Region Investment Fund (SCRIF) 174 is a framework of funding streams to deliver essential strategic infrastructure to increase economic growth and jobs in the Sheffield City Region. SCRIF brings a range of funding streams together into a single assessment and prioritisation approach determined at a city region level by elected leaders and the Local Enterprise Partnership. SCRIF is a way for local authorities to deliver the economic schemes essential for future growth. While the primary objective of SCRIF is economic growth, this is balanced with a desire to ensure that the benefits of the programme are reasonably distributed across the city region.
2. New Homes Bonus 175 - a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The Council is expected to consult communities about how to spend the money, especially communities where housing stock has increased.
3. Regional Growth Fund 176 – a £2.6 billion fund operating across England from 2011 to 2016. It supports projects and programmes that lever private sector investment to create economic growth and sustainable employment. On 19th October, the Government awarded £25 million of the Regional Growth Fund to the Sheffield City Region LEP 177 .
4. The City Deal 178 - Sheffield City Region has announced a deal with the Government to take responsibility for funding major schemes at a local level. The ‘City Deal’ means that more decisions on how money is spent on skills and transport in the Sheffield City Region will now be made by local businesses and partners who understand what is needed in the region. A key element of the ‘City Deal’ scheme will be focused on job creation and skills, with 4,000 new apprenticeships created across the region and an additional 2,000 adults trained in new skills to help the local economy grow. The deal provides better certainty in transport funding for the City Region, allowing more flexibility in how the money is used, up front funding, and allowing longer term planning for the needs of the City Region. The deal commits to a tram-train between Rotherham and Sheffield, and also to making Sheffield a prime mover for new funding arrangements with bus operators to improve services and bus punctuality and investment.
5. The Public Works Loan Board 179 is a statutory body operating within the United Kingdom Debt Management Office, an Executive Agency of HM
174 http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/projects/sheffield-city-region-investment-fund/ 175 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes/supporting- pages/new-homes-bonus 176 https://www.gov.uk/understanding-the-regional-growth-fund 177 http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/update-for-new-projects/ 178 http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/projects/city-deal/ 179 http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=PWLB/Introduction
247 Treasury. PWLB's function is to lend money from the National Loans Fund to local authorities and other prescribed bodies, and to collect the repayments.
6. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) 180 – Are a mechanism for traders in a local area to join together and pay supplements to improve the quality of the area in order to improve their businesses’ performance. Sheffield is pursuing a BID to provide for flood defence in the Lower Don Valley. 181
7. European Funding – JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) 182 – is a European funding scheme that loans money to help deliver projects that are otherwise ‘ready to go’ but are lacking immediate funding. The Sheffield City Region JESSICA Fund 183 has started looking for infrastructure and real estate investment opportunities in the Sheffield City Region. The fund, which has an initial pool of £23 million to invest, made up of European Regional Development Fund’s (ERDF) and Growing Places money, aims to provide capital for projects at competitive commercial rates where funding sources are currently proving difficult to find in the ordinary commercial capital markets. Money from the repayment of these loans will be recycled back into the fund to finance new projects. The fund will commit capital to regeneration opportunities with a focus on office and industrial developments which meet the ERDF’s targets on employment, remediation and floorspace outputs.
8. Direct Developer Provision – Developers can provide infrastructure directly through their own business funding sources. These facilities can be retained and operated by the developer, or passed on to a third party or the City Council for ownership or operation. Such provision would need to be secured through a planning agreement on top of any tariff payment, unless it was agreed as ‘payment in kind’ under the CIL regulations. With some types of infrastructure, for example electricity generation, this could provide additional revenue for developers, as well as meeting the needs of a new development. Again, current prospects are likely to be limited due to the current difficult economic climate.
9. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) 184 / Local Asset Backed Vehicles (LABVs) 185 - Public-private sector partnerships can help deliver infrastructure. LABVs enable areas to invest local authority assets in a joint venture with private sector partners.
10. Growing Places Fund 186 - Sheffield City Region LEP has secured a total of £18.5m for the Sheffield City Region as part of the national Growing Places
180 http://www.ukbids.org/ 181 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/whats-new/newsreleases.html?showdetails=Show&uuid=b3131b92- ad7c-4cb8-9c85-3e447f573b41&isDirectorySearch=true 182 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/jessica_en.cfm 183 http://www.scrjessica.co.uk/ 184 A new approach to public private partnerships . HM Treasury, December 2012. http://cdn.hm- treasury.gov.uk/infrastructure_new_approach_to_public_private_parnerships_051212.pdf 185 http://www.localpartnerships.org.uk/userfiles/file/LocalAssetBackedVehicles.pdf 186 https://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/projects/growing-places/
248 Fund (GPF). The money will be used to unlock projects which create economic growth and create employment in the City Region. For example, £2m of Growing Places Funding has been approved by the LEP for the Doncaster-Sheffield Airport link road.
11. The Green Investment Bank – as set out in paragraph 3.6 of the National Infrastructure Plan. 187 The Government is carrying forward its commitment to establish a Green Investment Bank which will support economic growth through stimulating investment in the green economy. The new institution will have an explicit mandate to take on risks that the market currently cannot adequately finance. Local communities and voluntary organisations can also secure funding for food growing or community orchards projects.188
This will not be an exhaustive list and many of these schemes are evolving and some may be removed and new sources added in the future.
187 The National Infrastructure Plan 2010. HM Treasury / Infrastructure UK, October 2010. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/nationalinfrastructureplan251010.pdf 188 Potential funding for community green spaces . CLG, August 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/potential-funding-for-community-green-spaces
249
250