Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre

Home , Sheffield Supertram, West One

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 19/12/2011 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM

SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS

CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR Lucy Bond TEL 0114 2734556 ACCESS Chris Heeley NO: 0114 2736329

AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

10/01737/FUL 272 Glossop Road Sheffield 6 S10 2HS

11/01396/FUL NUM Headquarters Holly Building 13 Holly Street Sheffield S1 2GT

11/01864/FUL Site Of Gordon Lamb Limited 10 Summerfield Street 24 Sheffield S11 8HJ

11/02379/FUL 29 Glover Road Totley 51 Sheffield S17 4HN

11/02515/FUL 56 High Storrs Drive Sheffield 57 S11 7LL

11/02727/FUL 39 Firth Park Crescent Sheffield 64 S5 6HD

11/02801/REM Park Hill Flats Park Hill Estate 69 Duke Street And Talbot Street Sheffield S2 5RQ

11/02883/FUL Brentwood Lawn Tennis Club Brentwood Road 90 Sheffield S11 9BU

3 11/03115/FUL Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home 139 Derbyshire Lane 97 Sheffield S8 9EQ

11/03197/LBC Park Hill Estate Duke Street 108 Park Hill Sheffield S2 5RQ

11/03361/FUL 51-53 Stanley Street Sheffield 110 S3 8HH

11/03601/FUL SOYO 117 Rockingham Street 123 Sheffield S1 4EB

4 5 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The CITY CENTRE AND EAST Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 19/12/2011

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

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

Case Number 10/01737/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Retention of shop front and repositioning of cooling fan to rear

Location 272 Glossop Road Sheffield S10 2HS

Date Received 27/05/2010

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Mr R Bishop

Recommendation Refuse with Enforcement Action

Subject to:

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that the retention or relocation of the existing cooling fan on the rear of the building would result in the continuation of an unacceptable degree of noise and general disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring residential property. In these respects the proposal is contrary to Policy S10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The Director of Development Services or the Head of Planning has been authorised to take all necessary steps, including enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, if necessary, to secure the removal of the cooling fan. The Local Planning Authority will be writing separately on this matter.

2. The applicant is advised that the retention of the existing shop front is acceptable in this location.

7 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a retail shop unit in use as a newsagents and grocers shop. The property is a mid terraced unit sited between and an Indian restaurant and bar/restaurant.

Glossop Road falls within the Central Shopping Area as defined by the UDP. The immediate area is characterised by a mix of A1-A5 units many with first floor living accommodation. The area is also identified as falling within an Area of Special Character.

This is a retrospective application for the retention of a new shop front and to seek approval for the repositioning of an existing cooling fan to the rear elevation.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

84/01736/FUL New shop front and internal alterations to form building society office GC 24.10 84

85/00353/FUL Alts to shop frontage GC 13.03.85

95/02311/FUL: Use of ground floor for class A1 purposes. 1st and 2nd floor for residential purposes PD 04.10.95

10/01750/ADV Internally illuminated sign- Not yet determined.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Concern has been raised by the Environmental Health Officer with respect to the cooling fan. The existing fan which does not benefit from planning approval has previously been the subject of complaints from residents of adjoining residential property due to its excessive noise whilst in use. The relocation of the cooling fan onto the rear elevation of the building would not remove the concerns raised as this would be located near to bedroom windows of the neighbouring first floor flat.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application property is sited within the Central Shopping Area as defined by the UDP. The most relevant planning policies in determining this application are outlined in Policy S10 which states in part that new development will be permitted provided that (b) it will not cause residents or visitors in any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions, including air pollution, noise or other nuisance or risk to health or safety; (d) be well designed and of a scale and nature appropriate to the site.

Also of relevance is policy BE18’Development in Areas of Special Character’ which states than in such areas new development should respect the appearance and character of the Area.

Retention of new shop front

Being a retrospective application there is no record of the previous shop front other than the plans submitted with earlier planning applications. The latest plans in 1995 indicate a largely glazed front elevation with central access doorway.

The current frontage is in keeping with the previous shop front in that it incorporates full height glazing but with the entrance door located to one side. The shop windows are fixed into an aluminium frame with a framed fully glazed door with a level threshold. Vinyl advertisements have been affixed to the inner face of the glazing providing privacy to the lower shop windows.

The shop front benefits from security roller shutter which were inherited from the previous user. This is understood to have been in situ for at least 4 years and consequently although no planning approval exists for the roller shutter it is deemed to have approval. Since occupying the unit the applicant has upgraded the roller shutters and associated shutter box.

The retention of the existing shop front in this location is considered acceptable and does not detract from the appearance and character of the area.

Relocation of Cooling Fan to rear

10 The cooling fan is currently located on the lower side elevation of the two storey rear off shot to the property. The fan which is used in connection with an internal cold store/fridge, is currently located below first floor bedroom windows to the upstairs flat which is occupied as shared student accommodation. No planning approval has been obtained for the fan in its existing location.

No detailed specification of the noise output has been submitted with the application. A site visit to the property however confirms that the existing fan is performing poorly in acoustic terms, starting and stopping intermittently and is certainly not representative of a good or even acceptable standard in comparison to modern well maintained units. As existing the unit is considered intrusive to residential amenities in the late evening and at night time. The proposed relocation of the cooling fan onto the rear elevation, although giving more protection to the bedroom windows which are currently above it, would cause nuisance to the bedroom windows in the adjacent first floor flat which are located on the rear elevation of the property.

In order to overcome the concerns raised the applicant has been advised to consider replacing the existing cooling fan with a modern condenser unit or demonstrate that attenuation works can be carried out to the existing unit which will reduce noise levels. No information has been forthcoming.

In view of the continued noise output from the existing cooling fan it is considered that this is contrary to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The retention of the new shop front is considered acceptable in terms of its detail and form and therefore is considered satisfactory with regards to relevant policies.

The retention or relocation of the existing cooling fan on the rear elevation of the building is, due to excessive noise levels, unacceptable to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and consequently considered contrary to approved policies which aim to protect residents from unacceptable living conditions.

It is therefore recommended that the application is refused and authority is given to the director of Development Services or head of Planning to take all necessary steps, including Enforcement Action and the Institution of legal proceedings, if necessary to secure the removal of the existing cooling fan.

Case Number 11/01396/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal External remodelling and change of use to casino, bar and restaurant (Use Classes A3, A4 and sui generis) (Amended as per plans received on 15/11/2011 and 5/12/2011)

Location NUM Headquarters Holly Building Holly Street Sheffield S1 2GT

Date Received 09/05/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent DLP Planning Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

26488(04)01 Rev D; 26488(04)04 Rev C; 26488(04)03 Rev D; 26488(02)02 Rev G; 26488(02)03 Rev G; 26488(02)04 Rev G; 26488(02)05 Rev E; and 26488(01)02 Rev B all received on 15/11/2011 and 26488(04)02 Rev E; 26488(02)00 Rev J; and 26488(02)01 Rev J all received on 5/12/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13 In order to define the permission.

3 The roof top bar shall only be used between 0800 hours and 0030 hours on any day.

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

4 The ground floor restaurant units shall only be used between 0800 hours and 0100 hours on any day.

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

5 The upper ground floor outdoor seating area shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be used only between 0900 and 2300 hours on any day.

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

6 The development shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted unless the scheme of sound attenuation works described in the noise report produced by NoiseAssess ref: 10159-01-v3 dated May 2011 has been installed as specified in the report. Such works shall be thereafter retained and be capable of restricting noise breakout from amplified or live music played within the building to levels that do not exceed:

(i) background noise levels by more than 3 dBA when measured as a 15 minute LAeq and

(ii) any octave band centre frequency by more than 3 dB when measured as a 15 minute Leq when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties referred to at section 2.2 of the report.

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

7 All plant machinery and equipment shall be designed to achieve a noise level of 10dBA below background noise levels when measured as an LA90 at the site boundary. No externally mounted plant or equipment for heating, cooling or ventilation purposes, nor grilles, ducts, vents for similar internal equipment, shall be fitted to the building unless full details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and once installed such plant or equipment should not be altered without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

14 8 No live or amplified music shall be played, nor shall loudspeakers be fixed at anytime, outside the building.

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

9 The applicant shall submit for approval by the Local planning authority details of the fume extract and arrestment plant to be installed in the building ncluding plans showing the kitchen discharge stack. Advice on the discharge and arrestment of kitchen fumes and odours is given in the guidance document by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs ‘ (Defra), ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’, Annex B, ‘Information required to support a planning application for a commercial kitchen’.

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

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

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

11 No deliveries to the building shall be carried out between 2300 hours to 0700 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 2300 hours to 0900 hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

12 No movement, sorting or removal of waste bottles, materials or other articles, nor movement of skips or bins shall be carried on outside the building within the site of the development between 2300 hours and 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and between 2300 hours and 0900 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

14 Large scale details at a minimum of 1:50 of the curtain wall glazing system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority before the commencement of development. Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

15 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

16 Notwithstanding the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, the building shall be used solely for the uses hereby permitted and shall not be used for any other purpose within Class D2.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

S3 - Development in the Central Shopping Core S10 - Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas LR2 - New Leisure Uses and Facilities CS14 - City-wide Distribution of Shopping and Leisure Development CS15 - Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Development BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction

The proposed use accords with local and national land use policies and will bring back into use a building which has been vacant for over 20 years. It is considered that proposed alterations to the building’s exterior will make a significant contribution to the appearance of the building and the wider area and, while the impact of the proposal on residential amenity is a concern, it is felt that it will not cause significant harm taking into account the nature of the casino use and the building’s location in relation to nearby residential properties.

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

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

17 Site Location

18 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site comprises of a vacant office building constructed some years ago for the National Union of Miners (NUM) but never used. It is situated between Carver Street and Holly Street, to the west of the grade II* listed City Hall, and is linked to the grade II listed former Water Works building which fronts onto Division street, now used as a Lloyds Bar. To the west, the former Kendal Works, are occupied by the Crystal Bar. Land to the north of the application site is used as a surface car park.

There is no residential accommodation adjoining the NUM building though there are many apartments in the vicinity, including Holly House on Holly Street, approximately 65 metres north east of the application site, West Point on West Street 85 metres to the north and properties on Division Street approximately 30 metres to the south.

Planning permission is sought for the use of the building as a 24 hour casino, with a roof top bar and ground level restaurants, as well alterations to the building’s exterior.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

08/03487/FUL In October 2008 planning permission for two 6-storey mixed use blocks comprising offices (B1) with ground floor retail and bar restaurants (A1, A2, A3, A4) and associated car parking (an amendment to a previously approved application - 06/00850/FUL) was granted. The scheme involved the demolition of the former NUM office building.

06/00850/FUL Planning permission was granted in September 2006 for two 6-storey mixed use blocks comprising offices (B1) with ground floor retail and bar restaurants (A1, A2, A3, A4) and associated car parking (As amended by plans dated 31 July 06).

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

7 representations were received in connection with the proposed development, 5 from local residents, one from the Head of Facilities at City Hall and one from Cllr Robert Murphy (Central Ward).

Correspondence from the five local residents raised the following objections to the proposals:

- If allowed to stay open 24 hours a day the proposed casino will cause further harm to the amenities of local residents as a result of late night noise and disturbance. - Local residents already have to tolerate late night drinking and anti-social behaviour on a nightly basis. - A 24 hour casino should be situated on the periphery of the city where it can not harm peoples’ quality of life.

19 The Head of Facilities at the neighbouring City Hall commented that acts appearing at City Hall require access from Holly Street day and night and that development in the vicinity should not inhibit or restrict this access either during construction or the subsequent operation of the scheme.

Cllr Murphy raised a number of concerns on behalf of local residents who already encounter late night noise and anti-social behaviour from people frequenting nearby bars as well as noise from taxis. He states that city centre residents have limited noise free time to get the sleep they need and have a right to expect and questions whether this is the right location for a 24 hour casino. Cllr Murphy suggests that if consent is granted, opening hours should be restricted in line with pubs and clubs in the vicinity.

In addition, English Heritage responded to our consultation raising concerns that the application as submitted did not demonstrate the quality of detailing and materials appropriate to the location adjacent listed buildings, though they welcomed the creation of an improved ground level access and terrace directly off the existing paved pedestrian areas and recommended that the application be determined in accordance with national and local planning policy guidance.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Issues

The application site lies within the Central Shopping Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy S3 of the UDP (Development in the Central Shopping Area) states that shops, offices, food and drink outlets and housing are the preferred use of land in such areas while leisure and recreation facilities (use class D2) are described as acceptable. Casinos were removed from the D2 use category in April 2006 and are now a sui generis use. However Part 3 of the GPDO has also been amended to give permitted development rights for a change of use from a casino to any use within the D2 use class. They are also referred to as a town centre use in paragraph 7 of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Its Policy EC4.2 encourages local authorities to plan for a diverse range of complementary evening and night-time uses which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups. Since the proposal is within the boundary of the City Centre and will increase the range of evening and night-time uses there, it is supported by PPS4. Policy S10 of the UDP (Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas) permits changes of use provided they do not prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the area, they do not harm the amenities of residents, are well designed and adequately served by transport facilities.

The use of the NUM building as a casino will not prejudice the dominance of preferred uses which dominate the locality. Moreover, as the building has essentially remained empty since it was built, it has no established use and so there is no loss of a preferred use. The centrally located site is very well served by public transport and within walking distance of a number of multi-storey car parks. The amenity and design requirements of Policy S10 are dealt with below.

20 UDP Policy LR2 (New Leisure Uses and Facilities) promotes new leisure development particularly if it is easily accessible by public transport or would encourage tourism in the City Centre. The proposal conforms to this policy. LR2 also specifies that new leisure developments should be accessible for people with disabilities and the proposed scheme incorporates dramatic improvements to access.

Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy (City-wide Distribution of Shopping and Leisure Development) concentrates retail and leisure facilities with city-wide and regional catchments (as will be the case for this development) in the City Centre’s Primary Shopping Area and immediately adjacent Shopping Streets. While Holly Street is not included in the list of Shopping Streets in the Core Strategy the NUM building is only a few yards from the Primary Shopping Area. The proposal is therefore considered to conform to Policy CS14. Policy CS15 (Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments) also requires development of leisure facilities that serve the city and wider region, such as this, to be located in or at the edge of, the City Centre where possible.

Residential Amenity

Casinos raise much the same development control issues as pubs and clubs but because they tend to remain open longer, the concern is perhaps accentuated.

In April 2004, the Council adopted the City Centre Living Strategy (CCLS) which seeks to limit the potential conflict between city centre residents and late night uses. Guideline 10 of the Strategy states that where the amenity of residents will not be seriously affected late night hours might be appropriate provided that music is not the main attraction. However there are Quarters in which the amenity of residents, during night-time hours, is considered to be important and so, for developments involving pubs, bars and restaurants it is appropriate to restrict opening hours in order to prevent undue disturbance. It advises that, in the Heart of the City, pubs and bars will be permitted to open until 00.30 and restaurants to 01.00 hours.

In October 2005, further interim planning guidance (IPG) was adopted by the Council. Night Time Uses aims to protect the living conditions of residents by limiting the opportunities for noise and disturbance that might directly affect them. It identifies two ‘controlled areas’ in the city centre where there is a need to provide a greater level of protection against noise and disturbance and recommends that, in these areas, a 12.30 closing will normally be applied. The two areas where opening hours will be more vigorously controlled are the Heart of the City/Cathedral Quarter, to the east of Pinstone Street, and the section of the Devonshire Quarter to the west of Fitzwilliam Street.

In line with the guidance above, it is considered appropriate to restrict the opening hours of the roof top bar and ground level restaurant units to 0030 and 0100 hours respectively.

The Night Time Uses IPG also seeks to encourage choice and leisure activities where less emphasis is placed on drinking by young people. Casinos are arguably

21 such a use and they generally appeal to a less boisterous clientele to those visiting the city centre pubs and clubs. Casinos are usually very well managed and the dispersal of customers tends to be more widely spread resulting in less noise and disturbance.

The entrance to the proposed casino is on Holly Street, opposite the City Hall, while the nearest taxi rank is located on Barker’s Pool, a short walk to the east. The route to the taxi rank does not take people past residential properties - the nearest of which are approximately 30 metres to south, separated from the application site by Lloyds Bar. It is therefore considered that the proposed 24 hour casino will not cause significant harm to the amenities of residents given the character of the use and its separation from residential properties.

Conservation and Design

The application site lies within the City Centre Conservation Area and adjacent to two listed buildings, including the grade II* listed City Hall. Policy BE16 of the UDP (Development in Conservation Areas) states that permission will only be given to schemes which preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that the appropriate redevelopment of sites which detract from the Conservation Area will be encouraged.

Similarly, Policy BE19 (Development Affecting Listed Buildings) requires developments which affect the setting of a listed building to preserve the character and appearance of the building and its setting.

The NUM office building has remained vacant since its completion in 1988. In its current state it could be argued to detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the site has been part of larger proposals involving wholesale demolition and redevelopment. That said, this is a substantial and striking post modern building which makes reference to the neighbouring City Hall with its extensive use of stone and angular pillars, giving it a civic presence.

The proposals, as amended, involve extending the building – which currently has an elevated ground floor and entrance – down to ground level to form a new accessible entrance and active restaurant uses. The existing curtain walling will be updated and extended and the brown tinted glazing on the upper floors will be replaced by a clean, obscure glazed light box. A roof top extension, set back from the building’s front elevation, will form a roof top bar and terrace. A bronze coloured cladding system, the specification of which has yet to be agreed, will clad the bar and the base of the pillars.

The amended scheme is less extensive than the proposals as submitted, which included the replacement of the prominent full height triangular shaped entrance with a new glass lift tower, but the development has more character as a result. The grounding of the building will have significant visual benefits as well as introducing much needed active uses along the western edge of the City Hall precinct. And while key elements of the building’s original design maintain its civic feel, the proposed additions, including the light box and roof top bar, give the building a new, contemporary feel which are considered to enhance the structure

22 and the wider area in general. As such, it is felt that the proposed alterations comply with the requirements of Policies BE16 and BE19.

Sustainability

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy (Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Development) requires new buildings and conversions to achieve a high standard of energy efficiency and to use resources sustainably. The sustainability statement accompanying the application sets out a number of measures that show compliance with CS64, including making the best use of solar energy, heat recovery and low water consumption, and, though not required of conversions, a BREEAM pre-assessment has also been undertaken, achieving a 'very good' rating

In response to Policy CS65 (Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction) and the requirement for a 10% contribution to energy consumption from low and zero carbon sources, the applicant has appraised a number of options and concluded that connection to the district heating scheme is preferred. Should this prove to be unviable, a combination of air source heat pumps and solar thermal panels is proposed.

Highways

There is no parking within the site, however designated disabled parking bays are situated within the immediate vicinity (on Division Street and Balm Green). The building will be serviced from an existing layby on Carver Street.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Planning permission is sought for external alterations to the former NUM office building for use as a 24 hour casino, with a roof top bar and ground level restaurants.

Case Number 11/01864/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 8/9/10 storey mixed used development to include 175 student cluster flats (877 bed spaces) with ancillary facities, food and drink, leisure units, associated car parking and provision of riverside walk

Location Site Of Gordon Lamb Limited 10 Summerfield Street Sheffield S11 8HJ

Date Received 13/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Robinson Architects

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that owing to the considerable mass and scale of the development, it would present an excessively prominent and dominant built form to the junction of Napier Street and Summerfield Street, particularly when viewed from that part of Summerfield Street to the south. Such built form at this location would be out of scale and character with its immediate context, and as such the proposed development is contrary to the aims of Policies BE5, and IB9(c) of the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield, and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy.

24 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located approximately 50m to the south of Ecclesall Road, at its junction with Summerfield Street, and consists of a large vacant piece of land, formerly occupied by a car dealership, but which has been unused for many years.

26 The site is bounded by Napier Street to the south, Summerfield Street to the east, and Pomona Street and the Porter Brook to the north. The hard standings associated with the former car dealership use are present across the majority of the site, but the site has a landscaped edge, where planting associated with the former use has remained and is fully established. Naturally vegetated growth along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the Porter Brook is a further feature of the site.

Surrounding land uses are a mix of business units, in buildings of two storeys along Napier Street, three storeys along Summerfield Street, four storeys on Pear Street (to the west); and six storey residential units both on Pomona Street (the opposite bank of the Porter Brook), and at the junction of Ecclesall Road and Summerfield Street, on the former Ward’s brewery site.

The proximity of the site to the Porter Brook is such that the site sits in the valley, with land rising to the south (towards Cemetery Road), and to the north (Ecclesall Road, and Broomhall).

The north western boundary of the site is the southern bank of the Porter Brook, which forms the boundary of the Porter Brook Conservation Area. The site in the main therefore lies immediately adjacent to the Conservation Area, with a small portion of the development proposed straddling the Porter Brook and therefore within the Conservation Area.

The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a large student housing development with food and drink units, and the provision of a riverside walk. The development proposed consists of buildings of five, six, seven, eight and ten storeys, providing 175 cluster flats of 4, 5, 6 and 7 bedrooms with a total of 877 bed spaces. The food and drink units are located on the ground floor of the building on the Summerfield Street, and Porter Brook frontages of the site.

Communal open space is proposed within the scheme, for use by students, and which is not accessible to the public. Green roofs are proposed across the whole of the development. The buildings are flat roofed which allows for accommodating this feature. The predominant materials proposed for facing the buildings are red/orange brick, render, and cladding.

Vehicular and pedestrian access to the scheme is achieved from Napier Street. Vehicular access provides for service access, and car parking for ten vehicles (of which two are for disabled persons) within a short service road and parking area.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

04/03027/FUL – Erection of offices, 205 apartments, A3 unit, car parking, riverside walk/cycleway and landscaping Granted Conditionally Legal Agreement – December 2005

10/01246/FUL - Erection of offices, 205 apartments, A3 unit, car parking, riverside walk/cycleway and landscaping – Application to vary several conditions relating to the timing of submission of details in respect of the application 04/03027/FUL

27 Granted Conditionally Legal Agreement – August 2010

10/02739/COND – Application to approve condition details relative to the application 10/01246/FUL Granted – December 2010

10/02358/FUL – Use of land as a car park for a temporary period of 5 years Granted Conditionally – December 2010

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

At pre-application stage, the development was presented to the Sheffield Sustainable Development & Design Panel, in May, and December 2010. The comments made by the Panel are summarised below:-

May 2010 The design approach was broadly supported, but a number of key points needed further consideration:- - support re-knitting the street pattern along Napier Street and Summerfield Street, with finger blocks facing the Porter Brook allowing light and views through, but this is compromised by proposed scale of development and cross blocks which might create poor quality environment; - Strong reservations about scale overall; development needs to greater recognise surrounding context; - Note absence of building on portion of land at corner of Summerfield Street and Pomona Street, but feel introduction of a building here would help reduce mass elsewhere, shorten the distance to Eccelsall Road, obscure the unattractive gable of the neighbouring site, and provide an attractive gateway to the development. - Concerns about internal courtyard spaces given scale of development, which needed significant reduction, if to be successful; - Support riverside walk creation but need to balance ecology requirements; - Welcome use of brick and coloured glass, but some concern about the use of render for internal courtyards due to potential for future staining - Welcomed restrained approach to car parking in sustainable location but mindful of congestion at peak times, and location and size of drop off zone needs reviewing.

December 2010 The Panel recognised the scheme had developed significantly since the previous viewing in May. - reduction in massing welcomed including introduction of hierarchy; - concerns remain about light penetration to courtyard spaces, though the splitting of the Summerfield Street block was positive in this regard; - orientation of blocks, responding to shape of river would provide for meaningful space, and robust edge to the walk; - support introduction of new block at Summerfield Street/Pomona Street junction; - bridge link is positive move;

28 - support intention to investigate CHP and coherent approach to energy for the whole of the site; - positive orientation of blocks and solar shading; - quality of amenity space for students and public realm remain key challenges; - improvements to vehicular access noted; - significant reservations over use of a single point of pedestrian access, in a location (Napier Street) which seemed to increase walk distances and missed an opportunity to integrate the scheme better with the riverside walk; - the panel were firmly of the view that the site management was at odds with the overriding imperative to ensure the riverside setting was a success.; - relocation of the entrance, or provision of a secondary entrance facing on to the river would animate the space and provide natural surveillance; - recognised importance of the space fronting the Porter Brook, with its potential for creating a lively environment and attractive arrival point for the development. Detailed design is important, including provision of opportunities for sun and shade.

The Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group considered the scheme at pre- application stage and again on 18th October 2011. The comments of CAG are set out below:-

The Group welcomed the opportunity within the scheme, to extend the walkway along the Porter Brook and stressed the importance of public access to it. The Group felt that the scale, massing and height of the development were excessive, but if the height was no greater than that of nearby buildings it could be acceptable. The Group considered that the design was monolithic and was concerned by an apparent failure to consider either the frontage to the Porter Brook or the elevation to Summerfield Street. The Group felt that the new bridge was an unnecessary intrusion and would not be the obvious route for pedestrians. The Group felt that the development would partially obscure or impact on views of the Anglican Chapel, of the General Cemetery. The Group considered that the underlying issues which would arise if student use was unsuccessful, including the provision of parking, should be addressed.

Following neighbour notification letters, and the display of site notices, 19 letters of objection have been received, on the following grounds:-

Principle of Development

- no objections to the principle, if it draws first year students out of neighbouring houses, but most move out after the first or second year, and if it increases the number of students overall it becomes an issue as the area is already saturated with students; - this development, together with the approval on the opposite side of Ecclesall Road (former Devonshire Arms site) will exceed the Council’s limits on student development in an area; - it is the wrong development, what is needed is quality flats for private occupation;

29 - There are enough student flats in the city already; - No need for more student accommodation; - No need for a gym – Green’s is opposite; - No need for bars/restaurants – Ecclesall Road has plenty; - Would prefer to see a green space with affordable leisure facilities and riverside walk (tennis courts, football pitch, mini golf/pitch and putt); - Increased student fees will result in less students – accommodation not needed; - Sheffield City Centre suffers from a lack of housing for families arranged in a way to foster community. This site is a unique opportunity to create such a thing and would add to the mixed community of this area; - The huge number of students in the area already affects social balance, and more would make this worse; - Cluster flats are promoted as an alternative to shared houses, but with falling numbers of students and desire for freedom amongst second and third year students doubt whether development is needed/will be filled; - Excellent opportunity to build family units, for elderly/disabled with so many local facilities nearby; - Commercial units not needed, and will remain empty like in many other developments; - Out of character with predominantly office and private residential accommodation.

Scale and Design of Development

- the development is massively disproportionate to the space available and will jeopardise the current delicate balance between office, retail and private dwellings; - ten stories will overpower neighbouring buildings, at least four stories higher than its neighbour; - To be made acceptable trees along the river should remain, and the heights of buildings radically reduced; - Height of buildings is totally out of character, as they are twice the height of neighbouring buildings; - Too large – should be limited to 4/5 storeys; - Scale of development is inconsistent with protecting the Conservation Area; - 10 storey building would be an aesthetic intrusion. 5/6 storeys would be more appropriate; - Buildings are ugly and unimaginative;

Transportation Issues

- even if only 15% of students have vehicles it will mean an extra 135 parking spaces, clogging up surrounding streets; - area is already congested; - roads infrastructure is already over stretched on Napier Street, Summerfield Street, Pear Street and Ecclesall Road; - parked cars already cause single line traffic; - Summerfield Street/Napier Street is an accident waiting to happen; - Any increase in traffic would compound existing traffic problems;

30 - Already severe parking problems in the area; - Should include a minimum of 30% parking provision; - Parking provision is unrealistic – many students have cars and will just add to competition for parking on surrounding streets;

Impact on Existing Residents

- Large numbers of students returning from nights out during the week would create noise for existing residents; - View from the adjacent Porterbrook 2 flats would be dramatically affected; - The height of the building will deny residents of Porterbrook 2 opposite, of sunlight and natural light; - Increased noise, air pollution and congestion; - Existing residents in quiet location will be severely affected by noise; - No sun path analysis; - Noise and smells from food and drink units; - Litter and noise will increase dramatically; - Current density of student usage of Ecclesall Road gives residents problems with drunken behaviour, shouting, singing through the night, and other anti- social behaviour including overturned bins, urinating; - Buildings will directly overlook flats in the former Ward’s brewery development; - Lengthy construction period would bring noise, dust, litter etc; - The sheer number of students would bring noisy events; - Sunlight currently heats flats in Porterbrook 2, so obscuring sunlight will impact on energy use;

Flood Risk

- Will increase risk of flooding and pollution in Porter Brook to detriment of wildlife;

Other Issues

- Negative impact on the local ecosystem and wildlife, especially if trees and foliage at the side of the river is removed; - Small businesses in the area will be affected; - Would have negative impact on private letting market; - Development will block access to the Porter Brook; - 877 students will make the area less attractive to business and to private residents;

Non-Planning Considerations

- Property value will decrease (this is not a planning consideration); - Name of development ‘Manor Mills’ associates the area with the Manor, Sheffield (this is not a planning consideration);

Bernard Little – Sheffield/Broomhill Green Party

- Wholly inappropriate to the area and site; - Overlooking of residents in Porterbrook 2 and Ward’s brewery developments; - 877 students and no car parking will inevitably lead to parking problems in the area; - Summerfield Street and Napier Street is a permanent traffic jam in rush hours and up to 7pm; - Traffic concerns will add to existing air quality problems in the area; - Development of the approved scheme on the Devonshire Arms site, and the opening of Wetherspoon’s in the Ward’s development when combined with this development would complete a transformation to an area of late night noise and anti-social behaviour, to the detriment of existing residents;

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Context

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

The Government has issued the above document for consultation, with the intention of it replacing all existing national planning policy guidance. The consultation closed in October 2011. The draft NPPF is a material consideration, to be taken into account in determining planning applications; however the weight to be given to it is limited due to its draft status, and likelihood of change.

It is important however to acknowledge that the key message that can be taken from the draft NPPF is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, and that supporting economic growth should be given significant weight. The document summarises delivering sustainable development as planning for prosperity (economic role), for people (social role), and for places (environmental role).

Land Use Policy Issues

The application site is identified by the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield as being within a Fringe Industry and Business Area. Within such areas the Preferred Uses within the terms of Policy IB6 are Business, General Industry and Warehousing. Housing and Residential Institutions are Acceptable Uses, as are Food and Drink outlets. Sui Generis uses such as the purpose built student accommodation proposed must be considered on their individual merits.

Policy IB9 seeks to ensure that new development in such areas would not lead to a concentration of uses that would prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the area. Dominance in this context is considered to be 50%. The preferred uses are currently marginally below the 50% threshold for dominance. The previous permission on the site included office provision alongside the housing element, and therefore contributed towards the provision of the preferred use within the area. The current scheme does not contain any provision for Business use to address the dominance issue.

Alongside this, the Core Strategy – policy CS3 identifies this as a suitable site for offices and offices here would help achieve the 65% requirement for office development to be located in the city centre or at its edge. Core Strategy policy CS30a) also seeks to provide offices in the Lower Porter Valley mixed with new housing including purpose built student housing as a secondary land use. The absence of business units is therefore contrary to the aims of these policies.

Officers have encouraged the provision of business units within the scheme in order to address the above policy considerations. However, the applicant has resisted this request, and has provided a response which argues for the lack of business/office provision based primarily upon current market conditions. The case argues that only office provision in the very best, high profile locations are securing lettings, but others in more peripheral locations remain available with very little real interest. It further argues that rental levels are currently very low, and that in this context office provision on the site is not viable.

Whilst this is accepted, it is the role of the planning system to take a longer term view, and it could be argued that the site is good future office location, with other businesses nearby, and close to facilities. However, it is also noted that recently provided office accommodation in the Wards Brewery development has not let after a number of years, and other facilities in the fringe of the city centre are suffering a similar fate at present. In the current economic climate, and given the major element of the scheme (student accommodation) is also identified by CS30 as an acceptable use, albeit intended to be secondary, officers consider that the absence of business space should be accepted.

The proposal supports the aim of Policy CS24 to maximise the use of previously developed land for housing, and also those of CS26 which promotes efficient use of land and accessibility. The policy indicates that sites in locations such as this should achieve a density of 50 – 80 dwellings per hectare. The policy further states that densities outside this range may be acceptable where this reflects the character of the area. This scheme achieves around 210 dwellings per hectare but given its edge of city centre location, and presence of other substantial schemes (Wards Brewery) this is considered appropriate in this case.

Policy CS41 ‘Mixed Communities’ encourages mixed communities and promotes mixed price, size, type and tenure. Part c) allows for the provision of new purpose built student accommodation as part of a mix of housing accommodation, and part d) limits new provision that would results in an imbalance in the local community. This is assessed by considering properties within a 200m radius of the site and seeking to ensure that no more than 20% of properties are in the form of shared housing. Currently there is a concentration of 7% of properties in the area that are shared housing. Adding the 175 cluster flats proposed would increase the concentration to 26% which is in excess of the threshold, and the proposal is therefore contrary to this policy. However it is considered that the site is an excellent location for a high density student development, owing to its proximity to many city centre facilities, the Ecclesall Road District Centre, and to both Universities. In this context, whilst contrary to policy CS41, there is a case for overriding that policy objection.

The food and drink uses are listed within Policy IB7 as acceptable land uses however, so far as it relates to food and drink uses, and other key town centre uses, this policy has been superseded by Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ (Dec 09). Policy EC14 of the document requires a sequential approach to be taken to site selection for key town centre uses that are not located in the city centre or district centre. EC15 sets criteria for undertaking and assessing this approach.

The applicant has undertaken a Sequential Retail Assessment in accordance with the guidelines. This identified a number of vacant retail units along Ecclesall Road, but discounted all of them, primarily on the basis of insufficient size, and uncertainty of planning outcome (relating to mix of retail uses in the centre, disturbance to residents). Other sites within the London Road centre, and the edge of City Centre were considered but all reasonably dismissed.

In addition, the presence of food and drink units within the development has the potential to significantly enhance the riverside setting of the development, and encourage recreational activity along the length of the riverside walk, and in this context, it is considered that the food and drink outlets are acceptable in land use terms.

Sustainability

Policies CS63, CS64, and CS65 of the Core Strategy promote sustainable development, and encourage measures to respond to, and reduce impacts upon climate change, relating to the location and form of development, and also the requirement for minimising energy consumption, using resources sustainably.

The location of the proposed development is highly sustainable, and utilises previously developed land. The proposals are for a high density scheme, of around 210 dwellings per hectare on a site that lies within easy walking and cycling distance of the City Centre and of Ecclesall Road District Shopping Centre. It is well served by public transport with numerous frequent routes operating along Ecclesall Road.

The design and construction of the buildings, takes advantage, where possible of east/west orientation, to promote natural ventilation. Deeper window reveals are proposed on south facing elevations, to minimise solar gain. Large windows are proposed to minimise artificial lighting.

The applicant has stated that wherever possible materials will be sourced from local and renewable sources. A recyclable steel frame construction is proposed which also allows for internal walls to be of a lightweight construction and removable to allow for future changes in use.

Air source heat pumps will serve each individual flat, with individual temperature controls for occupants. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, including permeable paving, are proposed to minimise surface water run off.

34 The proposal includes the provision of green roofs across the whole of the roofscape, further reducing rainwater run off, and promoting biodiversity.

In this context, the proposal is considered to be compliant with the aims of policies CS63, 64 and 65 of the Core Strategy. Any permission would need to be conditioned accordingly to ensure the measures proposed are implemented.

Scale and Massing

The area surrounding the site contains a range of building forms and heights as described above. The buildings immediately to the south on Napier Street are low density two storey office buildings with substantial areas of car parking that creates a feeling of openness. Beyond this are areas of open space and two/three storey housing. To the east are a range of office buildings of three storeys, in larger blocks, which create a stronger urban edge to Summerfield Street.

On the opposite side of the Porter Brook is a stand alone six storey residential block, and a range of four storey office buildings that front Pear Street. A single storey kwik-fit operation lies on the opposite side of Pomona Street at its junction with Summerfield Street. Taller buildings up to six storeys form part of the Wards Brewery development and the recently constructed ‘Ecclesall Heights’ which has five storeys, both of which front Ecclesall Road, part of the strategic road network.

It is also necessary to acknowledge the previous consent on the site, which having been part implemented, is a material consideration. This scheme consisted of buildings wrapping around the road frontages of Napier Street, Summerfield Street and the Porter Brook, with heights varying from 5 to 7 storeys, with this taller portion on Summerfield Street, where it meets the Porter Brook.

This current application contains buildings which range from five to ten storeys. The ten storey block has a relatively small footprint and is located at the corner of Summerfield Street and Pomona Street, adjacent to an existing six storey residential block, and opposite the six storey block of the Wards Brewery development. Whilst significantly taller than its immediate neighbours, and the previous consent in this location, officers have concluded that in scale and massing terms, this block is acceptable. It’s height serves a function in ‘signposting’ the development, and the additional height helps to create a more slender structure than would be achieved with a building of fewer storeys. It is the tallest part of the scheme, and appropriately this is located in the portion of the site closest to Ecclesall Road, where given its width and strategic importance, taller buildings would be expected.

This block connects to an eight storey block which runs along Summerfield Street, via a footbridge, which has the potential to be an attractive focal point for the scheme, subject to appropriate detailing. The eight storey block is marginally taller than the previous consent where it meets the Porter Brook, and does not step down towards Summerfield Street, as the previous scheme did. However, it is shorter in length than the previous scheme, with a gap at upper floor levels of 10.5m creating views through to the remainder of the development, and some relief from extensive built form. This point was noted as an improvement in the evolving

35 design of the project by the Sheffield Sustainable Development & Design Panel owing to the improved light it would offer to courtyards in the scheme. Officers considered that this block would benefit from a reduction in height of one storey for part of it’s length, creating a step in the elevation (rising towards Ecclesall Road), as part of other suggested improvements, however the applicant has resisted this request feeling that the step in the eaves height would adversely affect the simplicity in the unified form of the building.

On the Napier Street/Summerfield Street corner is the commencement of a seven storey block, which continues along Napier Street, for a length of 52m, at which point the vehicular access to the scheme creates a break in built form. A second seven storey block of slightly shorter length then continues along Napier Street, stepping down to six and then five storeys at the edge of the site, adjacent the Porter Brook.

The Napier Street elevation of the scheme is of particular concern, especially at its junction with Summerfield Street. This part of the development will be highly prominent when viewed from the southern sections of Summerfield Street, looking north towards Ecclesall Road. This view will take in the context of surrounding buildings which in the foreground and to the east will consist of largely two and three storey buildings, with more significant form, including the remainder of the scheme beyond.

The seven storey block is a substantial form, and will result in an excessively prominent wall of development at this point that is out of scale with its neighbouring developments. The relatively open view of the corner is such that this block will continue to dominate views along the visible portion of Napier Street where it will lie opposite two storey structures. Again, the previous scheme is acknowledged as material in consideration of this point, however the scheme at this location had a building of four/five storeys, for a much shorter length, with a gap in built form before commencement of a five/six storey block that continued along Napier Street. This response is considered more appropriate than the current proposal. The current proposal does not adequately respond to the changing scale and context of buildings, from Ecclesall Road to Cemetery Road.

Officers have suggested the removal of a minimum of one storey from the Napier Street elevation, but the applicant has resisted this request, with alternatives including the reduction of the block being compensated by increasing the height of the 10 storey block to 12 storeys, however officers did not feel this could be supported, and in this context, the applicant has requested that the scheme be considered in its current form.

‘Internally’ within the scheme storey heights are considered acceptable in scale and massing terms. Views from a wider distance would be limited of these blocks, and partly obscured by the perimeter treatment on Summerfield Street and Napier Street. Neighbouring buildings, seen across the Porter Brook would not be dwarfed by these structures; officers are content that this arrangement is appropriate.

The scheme has responded in its pre-application evolution to many of the points raised by the Sheffield Sustainable Development & Design Panel who on second

36 consideration welcomed the reductions in scale and massing from its previous form, however CAG remain concerned about scale and massing overall.

Officers consider that in general the scale and massing of the development is acceptable, however, significant concerns remain over the form of the Napier Street/Summerfield Street block such that this is considered to be out of scale and character with its immediate neighbouring developments and would be excessively prominent and dominant when viewed from that portion of Summerfield Street to the south. This portion of the development does not allow the scheme to adequately respond to the changing scale and context of buildings, from Ecclesall Road to Cemetery Road. In this context the development is considered to be contrary to the aims of Policies BE5, and IB9 of the Unitary Development Plan, and CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy.

Design

Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy – Design Principles – states that high quality designs will be expected that respect and take advantage of the distinctive features of the city.

The design and overall layout of the scheme has evolved through pre-application discussions in particular and latterly through the process of the application. The approach to architectural treatment proposed by the applicant is considered to be acceptable. It uses a simple palette of materials, which broadly speaking is acceptable, however, there is some concern about the extensive use of render for example, in prominent exposed locations, and officers feel that this can be improved upon. Conversely, the use of large areas of a single facing brick is welcomed, and reflects the character of the area.

The grouping of windows and the architectural treatment of the fenestration on the main elevations is supported, and provides visual relief to what would otherwise be a series of monotonous elevations.

Detailed design of the elevations and the application of materials is an area where the timescale for determination of the application has prevented a conclusion from being reached, however officers are confident that this can be resolved through future discussions in pursuance of the discharge of planning conditions, in the event of an approval.

Part of the assessment of developments for compliance with policy CS74 – Design Principles – is assessing the scheme against the criteria set out in the CABE Building for Life (BfL) scheme. The policy sets a target of a BfL rating of ‘good’ as a minimum. The scheme has been assessed against this and currently falls short of this requirement. However, this is in part due to an absence of evidence that certain aspects have been achieved, and officers feel with additional information supplied the target could be reached. The timescale for determination of the application has not allowed for the completion of this exercise.

One significant concern that officers have with the scheme is the single point of pedestrian entry and exit from the scheme. This is on Napier Street, and means

37 that every student has to walk considerably further than might otherwise be necessary to gain access to and from the building. It also severely restricts interaction between the student facility and the riverside space, and the adjacent food and drink outlets. Whilst the student rooms overlook the space and provide a good degree of surveillance, this could be significantly enhanced if additional access points were created.

The applicant has resisted requests to amend this aspect of the scheme owing to the operational requirements of the facility, in particular the ability to manage comings and goings from the facility.

Impact Upon Conservation Area

Policies BE15, 16, and 17 relate to developments in and adjacent to Conservation Areas and seek high quality designs which use traditional materials, and contain sensitive designs that would enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area lies adjacent to the site, in the form of the brook, and takes the form of a dumbbell with the brook as the central element, Wards brewery to the east, and the General Cemetery and the listed Bow Works to the west.

The development is a large format proposal which has significant impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area, in particular the Porter Brook. However despite the large format of the scheme, it does not adversely affect the setting of the Conservation Area. It uses predominantly natural materials, with buildings that repair the street pattern, close up the back edge of pavement.

The Conservation Area does include large scale buildings (including the listed Bow Works) and the window arrangements of the proposal reflect the character of these structures, as does the predominantly red brick treatment.

In particular the proposed enhancements to the Porter Brook have the potential to significantly enhance the Conservation Area, subject to the use of high quality materials.

In this context the proposals are considered to comply with the aims of policies BE15-17.

Flood Risk

The key issues to consider in respect of flood risk relate to national policy guidance in the form of PPS25, and local policy contained within policy CS67 of the Core Strategy.

National guidance in the form of PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk – sets out the criteria against which development proposals should be considered. PPS25 states that ‘only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 and 2 should decision makers consider the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3,

38 taking into account the Flood Risk vulnerability and applying the Exception Test, if required’

Policy CS67 of the Core Strategy seeks to reduce flooding and the extent and impact of flooding by a number of means, which include not locating vulnerable uses in areas of developed floodplain. This policy states that housing in areas with a high probability of flooding will not be permitted before 2016/2017.

Sheffield’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies the application site as falling within the following categories:-

Approx 30% in Flood Zone 3 a) i) – Developed Floodplain – 1 in 20 annual probability of flooding; and Approx 10% in Flood Zone 3 a) – High Probability of Flooding – 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of flooding; and Approx 55% in Flood Zone 2 – Medium Probability of Flooding – between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding; and Approx 5% in Flood Zone 1 – Low Probability of Flooding – less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding.

The site was not subject to flooding in 2007, but did flood in 1973.

PPS25 requires that a Sequential Test is undertaken in order to ascertain whether there are alternative sites with a lower probability of flooding which could accommodate the development, and which are reasonably available.

A Sequential Test was undertaken by DLP Planning Ltd on behalf of the applicant in November 2011. The search parameters for the Sequential Test adopted were sites within a 1.75km walking distance of The Owen Building and Collegiate campus (both Sheffield Hallam University) and the Octagon Centre (University of Sheffield). This distance is the equivalent of the distance from the Endcliffe Student Village to the Octagon Centre and is considered reasonable.

On the basis of the information contained in the Sequential Test, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a lack of reasonably available sites in areas at less risk of flooding. For five of the sites chosen, their availability is discounted on the basis that planning permission has been granted for development of those sites. This is not evidence that the site is unavailable. The Inspector in the recent Beeley Street Call In Inquiry confirmed this view in her assessment of the availability arguments put forward in that case.

In this context officers are unable to confirm the Sequential Test is passed. PPS25 states that in the event of the Sequential Test being failed, planning permission should be refused. Officers have advised the applicant of this position, and at the time of writing the applicant is understood to be preparing further evidence to demonstrate a lack of availability of the sites in question.

In the event that further evidence can be supplied to demonstrate that the Sequential Test is passed, it is then necessary, in accordance with PPS25 for the development to pass the Exception Test.

For an Exception Test to be passed it must be demonstrated that the development:- a) provides wider sustainability benefits to the community, that outweigh flood risk; and b) is on developable previously developed land; and c) is the subject of a Flood risk Assessment which demonstrates that the development is safe, will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and where possible will, overall, reduce flood risk.

Officers are satisfied that parts a) and b) of the test have been satisfied, however part c) requires further assessment at this stage. Whilst the applicant has submitted a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by MJM Consulting Engineers, which demonstrates floor levels within the buildings will be above the 1 in 100 annual probability of flooding plus 30% for climate change level of 77.3m AOD, access to and egress from the building in the event of flooding is an important consideration.

Concentrating on the residential element, as this is the most vulnerable, access and egress takes place at one single access point, located on Napier Street. This access/egress lies within Flood Zone 1, and therefore has a low probability of flooding. Therefore, in the event of a flood this area is likely to form dry land and safe refuge for residents. However, given there is only one point of access to the building, serving 877 students, consideration should be given to the possibility of the single access point being unavailable (due to unforeseen events triggered by flood waters elsewhere e.g fire in the buildings affected by flood waters). In such an event occupants would seek to exit the building via emergency exits, some of which lead into parts of the site that are classified as Developed Floodplain.

However, officers have examined the likely water depths in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood event (the design event) and after further discussion and information from the applicant and the Environment Agency, are content that in the unlikely event that residents will have to evacuate via emergency exits the depth, velocity and duration of floodwaters would be unlikely to present a significant risk to residents ability to evacuate. Water depths would be in the order of 0.5m in the worst case (Pomona Street) with a velocity of 0.3m/s, and for a period of one to two hours.

This is an unlikely scenario, and can be mitigated against in any event with early flood warning systems, and evacuation plans, that can be made a requirement of any permission.

The Environment Agency have assessed the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment, and are satisfied with its conclusions and recommendations, however, they have objected to the development on flood risk grounds owing to the absence of evidence that the Sequential Test has been passed.

The proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy CS67 in that it locates vulnerable development in the Developed Floodplain (part g), and provides housing in areas

40 with a high probability of flooding (Zone 3). The policy states that ‘housing in areas with a high probability of flooding will not be permitted before 2016/17’.

However, Members need to be aware of the decision made at appeal on a nearby site, which is relevant to this application.

The appeal site in question lies at Beeley Street, close to the point where London Road joins the inner ring road and this is within approximately 500 metres of the application site at Summerfield Street. The proposal at Beeley Street was for commercial uses at ground and first floor with residential uses above. This site is also within Flood Zone 3a and was called in by the Secretary of State because the Council was minded to grant the application despite an objection from the Environment Agency.

The Inspector’s report to the Secretary of State ‘dismissed’ the appeal but this decision was overturned by the Secretary of State, who allowed the appeal on the grounds that the site was an important gateway into the city and important for the continued regeneration of this part of the city. There were also important links with the City Centre Masterplan for the redevelopment of the city centre, the benefit of additional housing provision, and potentially affordable housing.

Due to the relatively recent timing of the appeal decision (June 2009), and the similarities set out above, the case does represent a material consideration. The case highlighted that CS67 should not simply be read as a moratorium on housing in Flood Zone 3a, but that other material considerations should be weighed against this. Each case must however be considered on its individual merits and this decision does not set a precedent.

The key test is whether or not sufficient weight can be afforded to other material considerations of this application to outweigh the issues relating to possible flooding and satisfy the provisions of policy CS67.

To summarise on flood risk, therefore, the proposal is contrary to the aims of Core Strategy policy CS67, and has not successfully demonstrated through a Sequential Test, that there are no alternative, reasonably available sites that could accommodate the development, and be at less risk of flooding. The Environment Agency currently objects to the proposal on those grounds. This, on its own would represent a reasonable reason for refusal; however, this must be balanced against other material considerations.

The applicant’s flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the development can be accommodated in a safe manner, with floor levels above the relevant flood event water levels, and appropriate means of access/egress.

Affordable Housing

Policy CS40 of the Core Strategy requires developers of all new housing developments to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing where this is practicable and financially viable. The Council’s 2009 Interim Planning Guidance contains guidelines for the application of the policy, and clarifies within Guideline 1

41 that the threshold for seeking contributions is 15 or more dwellings (or 60 or more student bed spaces in purpose built student housing schemes). Guideline 2 identifies the target contribution level of equivalent to 30-40% of the units on the site.

The requirement in CS40 is qualified by the reference to where ‘practicable and financially viable’. Where developers feel that a viability case can be made, they can make this case by submitting evidence of the financial viability of the scheme in the form of a financial appraisal for consideration by the District Valuer, who in turn advises officers on the merits of the case. In the current economic climate, it is not uncommon for the target contribution of 30-40% not to be achieved, and much smaller contributions are agreed upon. In some cases, there is no contribution at all.

The applicant in this case has expressed a view that the scheme cannot financially support the provision of an equivalent of 30-40% of the units, as a financial contribution towards affordable housing. However, this has not been demonstrated with evidence to the District Valuer in the usual way. Officers are therefore unable to confirm the financial viability of the scheme.

Instead, the applicant has made an offer of a £1m off site contribution towards the provision of affordable housing. Officers consider that this is roughly equivalent to 8% of the value of the units, but in the absence of a financial appraisal, this is a pure estimate. This is clearly some way below the target figure within the policy, however, officers consider that the offer is a reasonable one in the circumstances, because it is not unusual for this level of contribution to be agreed following the District Valuer appraisal in the current climate; and the sum is a substantial one which can make a significant contribution on its own to providing affordable units within the vicinity of the site.

The contribution would need to be secured through a Planning Obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement to secure this contribution.

Open Space

Policy H16 of the Unitary Development Plan requires developers to ensure that there would be sufficient open space to meet the local needs of people living there. This includes student developments. To comply with the policy, the developer is expected to make an appropriate contribution to the provision or enhancement of open space within the area if the quantity of such space is below minimum guidelines, or there is sufficient space and it is need of enhancement.

In this case, an assessment of the catchment area has demonstrated that the catchment area provision of open space is significantly below the Council’s guidelines for informal and formal open space. In such circumstances a contribution towards enhancement of open space would be sought. Given the nature of the occupants, this contribution would be solely for informal open space, not for children’s play facilities (seldom utilised by students) or for youth/adult

42 sports facilities (existing University facilities cater for this). For a development of this size, the level of contribution would be £161,860.

However, the need for a contribution can be relaxed or waived where the proposals contain provision within the site. In this case two reasonable sized areas of open space are provided for use by the students; however these are not publicly accessible. The proposed walkway/cycle way is however publicly accessible, and is part of a wider space which will be used by the public for recreational activity (walking/cycling/congregating). The space is equivalent to approximately 10% of the area of the site, and subject to it being of appropriate standard and it containing features consistent with recreational use (seating, planting), which can be conditioned, this will be sufficient to comply with the aims of Policy H16, and a financial contribution is not considered necessary in this instance.

Impact on Porter Brook

The proposals will open the Porter Brook up to greater public use and benefit, with the provision of a surfaced walkway that will allow use by pedestrians and cyclists. This has the potential to be a significant enhancement of the current situation, where the Brook is inaccessible to the public, and will comply with the aims of UDP Policy GE17 which seeks to protect and enhance rivers and streams for the benefit of wildlife, public access and recreation.

The applicant’s proposals indicate complete removal of all vegetation on the southern bank of the brook, but that on the northern bank will remain. The applicant’s proposals also indicate re-grading of the southern bank to create planting plateaus and viewing platforms. This also allows for significant new tree planting along the southern bank.

Full details of this have yet to be agreed and it is anticipated that further discussions will be necessary in order to agree the details of the approach, to ensure the correct balance between recreational activity, public accessibility, and ecology interests, however, the principle is accepted, and such details could be resolved via appropriate conditions in the event of permission being granted.

Residents Amenity

The scheme provides two significant external communal recreation areas (courtyards) for future residents, both of which are intended to be good quality useable spaces, with mixed surface treatments. The areas are of reasonable size, and will provide for residents sitting out and socialising.

In addition, the creation of the riverside walk/cycleway is a significant provision on the doorstep for students which will be welcomed. It is regrettable that the design and management of the scheme as proposed does not allow direct access from the accommodation to the riverside route. This would have avoided a somewhat lengthy detour for many students wishing to access the Porter Brook, but nonetheless the feature will provide useful amenity space in very close proximity to the site.

43 The format and layout of the wider scheme is such that some of the courtyard areas will be subject to considerable shading. For example, a sun path analysis undertaken by the applicant demonstrates that by 5pm in early July, almost all external areas within the scheme are in shadow. Equally, at 1pm in August, large areas of the courtyards suffer from heavy shading. However, there will be periods of the day when all external areas enjoy a degree of sunlight.

In terms of the accommodation itself, this has communal facilities (student bar/café) and also communal dining/kitchen facilities are located within each cluster flat. Generally the majority of units will provide a reasonable outlook for residents, though there are some blocks where the proximity of neighbouring blocks is closer than ideal. For instance the outlook from the rear of the Napier Street block is just over 10m from the facing block. This is a shorter distance than would be acceptable in a more traditional residential format of development.

Similarly there are elements of the scheme where habitable room windows directly face each other across a courtyard, with separation distances of around 16m. Again this is less than would be expected in a typical residential situation; however, given that the units form part of a wider unit of quasi communal accommodation, in an edge of city centre location, it is considered that this minor level of shortfall is acceptable.

Impact on Existing Residents Amenity

The nearest existing residents to the proposed development are those in two six storey apartment schemes; one located immediately adjacent to the proposed 10 storey block on Pomona Street, whose rear elevation including projecting balconies faces the site across the Porter Brook, and one which forms part of the Wards Brewery development on the opposite side of Summerfield Street.

The rear elevation of the Pomona Street block is approximately 30m from the nearest portion of the proposed eight storey block of student accommodation. This reduces to approximately 25m if taking account of balconies. This distance is significantly in excess of guidelines for separation between habitable room windows of 21m for privacy purposes, and equally given the limited difference in height of these two elements, and the limited increase in height here over and above the previously consented scheme, it is not considered that this would represent an overbearing feature for existing residents. Indeed the previous scheme contained a continuous ‘wall’ of development opposite this block whereas the fingers of development generated by the blocks in this scheme will allow a significant degree of light to penetrate.

Clearly the blocks will be visible, and will change the outlook for those residents, however the protection of private views is not a planning consideration, and it could certainly be argued that the appearance of the new development will be an improvement over the existing view of the vacant and derelict land.

The limited footprint, immediate proximity of the adjacent 10 storey block to the Pomona Street block, and the absence of habitable room windows on the side facing gable of the latter, are such that this will have little impact upon the

44 amenities of existing residents. It will not result in an overbearing feature or in overlooking of private spaces. As such it is considered that the proposals do not result in significant loss of amenity for occupants of the Pomona Street block.

The Wards Brewery residents are to some degree separated from significant impacts by the fact that Summerfield Street is situated between the two schemes. This limits the effect of any potential impacts. The 10 storey block is the only element of the scheme with the potential to impact adversely on residents of the Wards Brewery scheme, as other elements are too distant. The 10 storey block lies approximately 10-15m from the nearest corner of the Wards Brewery scheme and there are balconies and habitable room windows at this approximate distance. This level of proximity however will not adversely affect the outlook for existing residents, due partly to the distance but also to the 45% angle in positioning of the blocks. In addition it is not uncommon in urban, edge of centre locations, for this kind of relationship to occur.

The sun path information submitted by the applicant does indicate that both existing residential blocks will experience some reduction in direct sunlight; however this is not to a degree that would be considered sufficient to resist the grant of planning permission.

The residential blocks are largely self-contained and it is not anticipated that the presence of even such a significant number of students on the site will lead to noise and disturbance for residents.

There may be some degree of noise and disturbance resulting from the external terraces associated with the food and drink units, particularly to the external balconies of the two residential blocks referred to. Any planning permission would therefore need to consider restricting the hours of use of the terraces, in a similar way that existing terraces along Ecclesall Road are restricted.

Transportation

The proposal deliberately includes a limited level of car parking provision, with 10 spaces provided at the Napier Street access to the scheme. All but 2 disabled spaces are provided for employees of the on site food and drink/commercial facilities. All servicing would be undertaken form this position also, and appointment based drop off facilities will be incorporated in this area.

The operator of the student accommodation would strongly discourage students from bringing cars to the facility by requiring them to sign an agreement as part of their leasing arrangements not to bring vehicles to the site. Indeed the lack of parking on the site, and in the immediate vicinity where permit parking schemes exist would make it extremely unlikely that such practice would occur. In this context the traffic generation from the development will be minimal, and certainly much less than would have been generated by the previous use. As such the proposals will not have any impact upon existing air quality in the area.

45 The site is in a highly sustainable location however, so is clearly accessible, with short walking distances to the city centre, to university facilities, and to services within the District Centre at Ecclesall Road.

In response to officers concerns about the potential pedestrian safety implications of such large numbers of student movements, the applicant has recently provided a Non Motorised User (NMU) Assessment, dated December 2011 which considers the likely desire lines of the occupants of the facility, and the adequacy of the existing highway network to safely accommodate them. This is carried out with knowledge of accident data at key junctions such as Napier Street/Summerfield Street, and Summerfield Street/Pomona Street.

This identifies the need for a number of improvements, mainly to provide improved crossing facilities by use of dropped crossings and tactile paving, which would have to form part of a package of off site highway improvements to be undertaken by the applicant, and secured via a Grampian condition.

However, this has not yet been fully assessed, and it is not therefore possible at this stage to confirm the full extent of such works. It is however anticipated that this will be resolved in time to be reported to Members in a supplementary report on the day of the Committee.

In addition, owing to the anticipated increase in public transport use resulting from the development, the developer has agreed to provide for the upgrading of the nearest bus shelter to the site, and in order to promote its use and assist students with timetabling, the applicant has agreed to provide two real time information displays within the communal areas of the accommodation. These would need to be covered by a Grampian condition also.

Archaeology

The site has potential for archaeological interest, as identified during consideration of the previous planning permission for the site. There is good potential for a variety of industrial premises here, as well as houses, pubs and a church. These were built in the 19th century and demolished in the 20th. One of the works here, shown on the 1890s OS map is the Yorkshire Wire Rope works. In addition, the limited nature of subsequent development means that remains here may survive in good condition.

The previous consent considered this issue and conditions were imposed requiring archaeological investigation. It is considered that this action would again be appropriate here in the event of permission being granted.

Impact on Vegetation and Ecology

The existing vegetation on the Napier Street and Summerfield frontages of the site would be removed as part of the proposal, as would all tree planting adjacent to the Porter Brook.

46 The area of the site with the most potential for ecological significance is the Porter Brook. The applicant has submitted an ecological survey prepared by Envirotech, and which was carried out in late Spring 2011.

The report does not highlight any existing high quality habitats or species of importance on the site. It does however refer to the medium quality foraging area that the existing tree planting on the banks of the Porter Brook provides for bats and suggests that risk of disturbance is low on the basis that there is no tree removal along these banks. However, the applicant’s tree removal plan indicates that all trees along the Brook will be removed.

The Brook itself is also identified as a suitable habitat for water based species including water voles, otters and white clawed crayfish; however none were noted during the survey. The report comments that the habitats will remain, with no proposed impact from the scheme.

Japanese Knotweed is identified in areas along the northern banks of the Brook, and the report suggests that this will not be disturbed. This is accepted on the basis that this is outside the scope of the applicant’s works.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposal represents a very substantial development of student accommodation, with food and drink uses and the provision of a riverside walk/cycleway adjacent to the Porter Brook. The site, identified as being within a Fringe Industry and Business Area in the UDP, has remained vacant since the closure and demolition of the former car showroom development on the site, some years ago. The main student accommodation element of the proposal represents a sui generis use and Policy IB6 states that in land use policy terms this must be considered on its individual merits. UDP and Core Strategy policies promote the provision of business use on the site, and the absence of business floor space within the scheme is such that the proposal is contrary to the aims of UDP Policy IB9(a) and Core Strategy Policy CS30. However, the applicant has presented a case for the absence of such business use within the scheme, based upon the current market conditions and performance of individual business facilities developed in the area in recent years, which in the circumstances is accepted.

The student accommodation element of the proposal is supported by policy CS30 as a secondary use, and CS41 seeks to ensure mixed communities by limiting concentrations of shared housing to 20% within a 200m catchment. This proposal would exceed that threshold at 26% and is therefore contrary to the aims of that policy. However, it is an excellent site, in terms of accessibility, and proximity to both Universities and other facilities within the city centre and Ecclesall Road District Centre.

The site also falls within flood zone areas identified in the Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as Developed Floodplain (Zone 3 a) i)), High Probability of Flooding (Zone 3), and Medium Probability of Flooding (Zone 2). This makes the development contrary to the aims of Policy CS67 which seeks to reduce the extent and impact of flooding by measures such as not locating vulnerable uses in areas

47 of developed floodplain, and stating that housing in areas with a high probability of flooding will not be permitted before 2016/17. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment that demonstrates the occupancy of the site will be safe, with measures such as raised floor levels. However, the development has failed to demonstrate compliance with the aims of PPS25 in so far as the evidence provided within the Sequential Test does not demonstrate that the development couldn't be accommodated on sites that are reasonably available, and at less risk of flooding. The applicant may yet provide further information on this matter, but this is the position at this stage. As noted in the Beeley Street case however, it is necessary to consider other material considerations alongside this, including the wider regeneration benefits than can ensue from the development.

Despite failure to comply with the Sequential Test approach, the FRA does demonstrate that the safety of occupants has been carefully considered and meets the Exception Test, in that the development is sustainable in many other regards, is to be built on previously developed land, and access and egress to and from the building can be achieved safely in the event of a flood. Significant in this, is the requirement for all occupants of the accommodation to enter and leave the site via a single point of access on Napier Street (within flood zone 1).

An affordable housing contribution of £1m is offered by the applicant in order to respond to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS40. This falls short of the target level of provision set out in the policy (30-40%), and although it has not been possible for officers to receive advice on the viability of the scheme, in the current economic climate, the offer is considered a reasonable one which officers recommend is accepted. The proposal also delivers tangible improvements to the Porter Brook, ensuring greater accessibility for the public and increased visibility.

A successful development on the site would bring significant benefits to the immediate locality. Construction jobs would be generated, the physical condition of the site would improve, the provision of additional student accommodation would potentially alleviate some of the pressure surrounding student occupancy in traditional housing areas, and the works to the Porter Brook would increase its accessibility, and improve its condition. In this context, the development is to be welcomed.

There are no significant outstanding highway safety considerations although further assessment is needed to determine the full extent of pedestrian safety measures that are necessary to accommodate the additional movements from the large numbers of students that will be present in the area. This matter will be reported upon prior to the Committee meeting.

However there remains a key outstanding issue relating to the scale and massing of the building. Officers acknowledge the existence of a previously approved scheme on the site, that has been (in part) implemented and remains extant. The previous consent has a substantial form, with buildings of up to seven storeys. The current proposal is a very dense scheme with large scale buildings of up to 10 storeys, and predominantly 8 storeys across the scheme. In general terms, officers are content that the increases in height, whilst not insignificant are acceptable, except for the area along Napier Street, particularly around its junction with

48 Summerfield Street, as this element of the scheme is seen in prominent views down Summerfield Street. Given the immediately surrounding context of largely small scale (2/3/4 storey) buildings, the presence of an unbroken 8 storey block on this prominent corner will dominate views along Summerfield Street to the north and appear out of character with its immediate context. The building form does not respond to the topography and surrounding context and is considered to be of too large a scale to be comfortably accommodated at this point. It also significantly exceeds the height of the previously approved scheme in this location. This approach is in conflict with Policies BE5, and IB9 of the UDP, and Core Strategy Policy CS74, officers consider that planning permission should be refused on this basis.

Officers have worked with the applicant in order to try to overcome the issues, with alternative suggestions considered by both parties, to achieve a scheme that is considered to be of appropriate quality and retains the project’s viability; unfortunately this has not been possible. The applicant has resisted suggestions to remove a minimum of one storey from the Napier Street block, potentially to be relocated elsewhere in the scheme, and has instead suggested a small portion of the corner block (approximately one third) could be reduced in height by one storey however officers do not consider that this would have sufficient impact upon the overall appearance of this block remove concerns about the impact on the street scene.

As discussed, there are some significant benefits to the scheme that would be welcomed, particularly at a time of little economic activity in the city. The applicant has indicated that the intention would be to make an immediate start on site if permission were to be granted. Alternative approaches to refusal of permission on the above grounds that Members may wish to consider would include deferral of the application in order for officers to secure design improvements to the scheme, or the grant of planning permission owing to the benefits that would accrue from the delivery of the scheme, as set out above. With this in mind Members are reminded that the main body of the report identifies the recently issued draft National Planning Policy Framework as a material planning consideration (albeit of limited weight) which establishes a presumption on favour of sustainable development.

However, officers view is that the scale and massing of the development, particularly at the Napier Street/Summerfield Street corner is simply too great and would result in a substantial and overly prominent built form at this point, and even acknowledging the benefits the scheme would bring, this is considered too significant a concern for approval to be recommended. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused.

Case Number 11/02379/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of raised decking in rear garden of dwellinghouse and erection of rear fence (retrospective application)

Location 29 Glover Road Totley Sheffield S17 4HN

Date Received 28/07/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Jane Cowen

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 The solid screen on the elevation of the decking area facing towards the curtilage No. 36 Laverdene Avenue shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans within 3 months of this decision and shall not be removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

3 The screen on the elevation of the decking area facing towards the curtilage No. 38 Laverdene Avenue shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans within 3 months of this decision and shall not be removed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

4 The reduction in the extent of the decked area as agreed as part of this approval shall be provided within 3 months of the date of this decision notice.

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

51 Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE6 - Landscape Design H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

The amended scheme to reduce the projection of the decking will reduce its visual dominance to a point whereby it will not overdominate the surrounding area and will be more in scale with surrounding garden paraphernalia. The proposed screening fences will prevent overlooking to neighbouring properties. The scheme will accord with the aims of policies BE6 and H14 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

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

52 Site Location

53 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The proposal refers to a detached house on Glover Road, which was constructed recently following planning permissions granted on 18/11/2008 (Ref: 08/04413/FUL).

Members may recall at the meeting held on 07th November that they were informed of a breach of planning control, involving an unauthorised erection of garden decking and wooden fencing at 29 Glover Road. It was determined at the meeting that the Director of Development Services or Head of Planning be authorised to take any appropriate action including, if necessary, enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings to secure the removal of the timber decked area to the rear of 29 Glover Road.

This application has subsequently been received and seeks planning approval for the decking area, proposing changes to the design to incorporate additional screening. Following additional negotiations, amended plans have been received proposing to reduce the projection of the decking area by 2m.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Under application 08/04413/FUL, permission was granted conditionally for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse, with amended hardstanding, off-street parking and roofing materials as agreed in a letter on 18/11/2008.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

One representation has been received with regards to this application. The representation objects to the deck on the basis that it is over-dominant and compromises the privacy of 36 Laverdene Avenue. The objection also notes that any plants for screening will take years to grow to soften the impact of the raised deck.

This representation will be considered in the assessment below.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy

The site is within a Housing Area as designated by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP), and attention will be given to policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ from this document. Weight will also be given towards policy BE6 ‘Landscape Design’.

54 provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking and not endanger pedestrians; and (e) it would not suffer from unacceptable air pollution, noise or other nuisance or risk to health or safety.

Policy BE6 – Landscape Design, states that; good quality landscape design will be expected in new developments and refurbishment schemes. Applications … should, where appropriate, include a suitable landscape scheme which: (a) provides relevant information relating to new planting and/or hard landscaping, and of existing vegetation to be removed or retained; and (b) provides and interesting and attractive environment; and (c) integrates existing landscape features into the development, including mature trees, hedges and water features.

Design and Appearance

The garden to 29 Glover Road is upon a steep slope. Behind the house lies a level patio area, which is in line with the original ground level, behind which the land falls away sharply. The decked area projects beyond the patio by 4.05m. Due to the fall in land, the present structure is very dominant when viewed from the wider area, with a total height of approximately 3.8m when viewed from the rear (including the proposed screening fence). When taken from the garden level of 36 Laverdene Avenue, the deck and screen would project approximately 1.5m above the height of their existing 1.7-1.8m high fence.

To reduce the visual dominance, the applicant has agreed to amended plans to reduce the projection of the deck by 2m, with screening proposed alongside the curtilage with 36 Lavderdene Avenue, and a screen to the rear. The reduced projection will ensure that the total height of the deck and screen will not project more than 700 mm above the existing fence to 36 Laverdene Avenue, whilst the visual height to the rear will be reduced to approximately 2.75m (including the associated screening). The reduced visual height and projection will reduce the dominance of the deck area when viewed from the wider area, and will ensure it is more in scale with surrounding garden fences and shrubbery. Climbing plants are also proposed to the rear elevation to further reduce the visual prominence of the deck over time.

With regards to privacy, the proposed screens will prevent direct views towards 36 Laverdene Avenue or the rear windows of 38 Laverdene Avenue directly opposite. No screening is proposed to the North. However, it is not considered that this would be required, as the curtilage boundary to 27 Glover Road consists of a hedgerow of sufficient height and density to prevent significant overlooking to this side.

ENFORCEMENT

As a condition upon any decision to grant the scheme, it would be required for the applicant to undertake the agreed works within 3 months of the decision notice. Should this not be undertaken, subsequent enforcement action may be taken.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

55 The amended scheme to reduce the projection of the decking will reduce its visual dominance to a point whereby it will not overdominate the surrounding area and will be more in scale with surrounding garden paraphernalia. The proposed screening fences will prevent overlooking to neighbouring properties. The scheme will accord with the aims of policies BE6 and H14 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and is therefore recommended for approval.

Case Number 11/02515/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Retention of decking to the rear of the property, with new boundary walls and fencing (As amended plan received 14/11/11)

Location 56 High Storrs Drive Sheffield S11 7LL

Date Received 09/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Mr Martin Downing

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

Drawing received on 14/11/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

2 A 1.7m high solid screen upon the side of the decking area facing towards 54 High Storrs Drive as shown on the approved plans shall be erected in accordance with those plans within 2 months of this decision notice. Thereafter the 1.7m high screen shall be retained.

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

3 The polycarbonate screen as shown in the approved plans shall be a 10mm Opal Twinwall polycarbonate sheets as confirmed in the approved plans, and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

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

The retention of the decking area complete with additional screening as shown in amended plans and elevations received on 14/11/2011 is considered acceptable with regards to policies BE5 and H14 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. The decking will not be out of character with the local area, the screening will prevent significant privacy issues arising, whilst the screening itself is not sufficient to raise any significant overshadowing issues.

58 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Members may recall that at the 17th October meeting, an enforcement report was presented regarding decking at 56 High Storrs Drive. Authority for action towards removal was granted, as in its current form the decking results in significant loss of privacy, and a valid application to retain it with proposals to overcome such concerns had not been received. Subsequently, this application was submitted.

This application seeks retrospective permission for the retention of a raised platform built to the rear of 56 High Storrs Drive. The platform is raised approximately 800mm from the original garden level, and has a 1.2m high fence above on the side facing the garden of the attached neighbour. The garden at 58 High Storrs Drive is at a higher elevation, set up approximately 500mm from the original level of number 56.

Amended plans received on 14/11/2011 have added screening to the side of deck facing towards 54 High Storrs Drive.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission was granted on 15/08/2002 for the construction of a two storey side extension to the dwellinghouse, including a garage (in accordance with amended drawing received 13th August 2002) under application reference 02/01953/FUL

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

60 One representation received from the neighbouring property at 54 High Storrs Drive objecting to the proposal on the basis that it allows for direct views into the rear windows of number 54, and that screening provided between the deck and number 54 would cause overshadowing concerns with regards to light reaching the patio of this property. Neighbours were re-consulted with regards to the amended plans and the representation did complain that the screen would block light reaching the rear windows of their property..

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The assessment refers to a dwellinghouse within a housing area as designated by the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). As a result, attention will be given towards UDP policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ in addition to BE5 ‘Building Design and Siting’.

Design:

UDP policy BE5 emphasises the importance of good design, alongside policy H14a which emphasises that development should be well designed and in scale and character with the local area.

In terms of visual appearance, it would be difficult to argue that the structure would be out of scale or character with the local area. The rear of properties in the local area are characterised by the presence of raised terraces and stairways due to the land drop. It is noted that the decking projects further to the rear than neighbouring structures, but the height at 800mm is not excessive, and does not result in a visually prominent structure that could be argued to be out of scale with the locality. In addition, the structure will not be visible from the public street scene to the front.

Impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties:

UDP policy H14c requires development to not result in a significant loss of privacy or significant overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

With regards to privacy, the originally received submission did raise concerns with regards to the views available into the main rear windows of number 54. Views towards the main patio area are also possible, but only by actively appearing over the side, which considering the height difference is only 800mm, would not result in an unreasonable perception of overlooking. Privacy towards number 58 will not be a significant issue, due to the fact that the garden level and house at number 58 is raised approximately 500mm above the original level of number 56, which alleviates any potential privacy issues to this side, as the 800mm high decking produces a total height very close to the height of this neighbour.

To rectify the privacy concern towards number 54, a screen has been shown on the side of the main decking area facing towards number 56, projecting up to 3m beyond the rear aspect of the properties. This screen will be up to 1.7m high, and will comprise of twin wall polycarbonate sheets above the 1.2m high fence, which will allow light through, whilst also preventing views towards this neighbours rear windows from the majority of the decking area, and from the area where casual

61 users would be standing. The polycarbonate will be Opal finished, which gives a very obscure finish that will prevent views through. The screen should not cause any significant overshadowing towards the rear garden of number 54 by virtue of the fact it will let light through.

In addition, the level of overshadowing caused will be less than would be caused by a single-storey extension done under Permitted Development (which would not require planning consent), and would allow for a total wall height of between 3 to 4m high. To limit any perception of overshadowing, the polycarbonate will only project 3m to the rear, and is considered to be an adequate response to the privacy issue, whilst minimising any potential overshadowing impact.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

ENFORCEMENT

As a condition of any approval, the applicant would be required to implement the screen facing within 2 months of the date of the decision. Failure to comply with this would result in enforcement action being pursued.

Case Number 11/02727/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Continuation of use of basement as self contained flat, with separate dwelling above

Location 39 Firth Park Crescent Sheffield S5 6HD

Date Received 25/08/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent YS Design Services Ltd

Recommendation Refuse with Enforcement Action

Subject to:

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that the continued use of the basement as self contained living accommodation would provide unacceptable living conditions for existing and future occupants of the basement flat and cause unacceptable privacy issues to the occupiers of the dwelling above. For these reasons the scheme does not comply with Policies H14, H5 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The Director of Development Services or the Head of Planning has been authorised to take all necessary steps, including enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, if necessary, to secure the cessation of the use of the basement as a self contained flat. The Local Planning Authority will be writing separately on this matter.

64 Site Location

65 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site relates to a semi-detached dwelling which occupies a corner position on Firth Park Crescent. The street scene consists of similar type bay windowed, hipped roofed semi-detached properties.

The application seeks retrospective consent to convert the basement of the semi- detached dwelling into a single bedroom self contained flat. The flat would not be ancillary to the continued residential use of the remainder of the property.

The dwelling has the benefit of a small front garden, with a strip of land to the side bordered by a small brick, boundary wall with hedging to an approximate height of 2 metres alongside the highway. The dwelling has a large rear garden with an existing garage to the rear of the site accessed from the side of the site. The dwelling is in an elevated position due to the natural slope of Firth Park Crescent.

PLANNING HISTORY

No relevant history.

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters have been received – 1 letter from the neighbour which includes a number of photographs, details issues which mainly relate to weakening of foundations, fire hazard and increased vermin activity which all relate to non-planning considerations. It should be noted that the Council’s Building Control Service currently have an enforcement case open at this site.

1 letter – 1 non-planning related matter details that all work previously begun at this site is never completed. In addition, the letter details an increase in on-street parking which is already at a dangerous level and that the dwellings in this location all relate to family dwellings and changing the use to flats would be out of character with the area.

For a response to these representations please see the main planning assessment section below.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The site lies within a Housing Area as designated by the Adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The relevant policies in assessing this application are Policy H14 (Conditions on Development In Housing Areas); Policy H10 (Development in Housing Areas) which supports the creation of residential units in Housing Areas with this being the preferred use; and Policy H5 (Flats, bed-sitters and Shared Housing). This policy relates to specific criteria: a) A concentration of these uses would not cause serious nuisance to existing residents; and

66 b) Living conditions would be satisfactory for occupants of the accommodation and for their immediate neighbours; and c) There would be appropriate off-street car parking for the needs of the people living there. The scheme would result in the creation of a second residential unit on this site that would consequently increase the amount of comings and goings to this site with subsequent intensification. The site relates to a semi-detached dwelling with the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling being used as a single family unit. The site has a large rear garden and smaller front garden with land to the side given its corner position. The site also has a separate access at the rear. It is not therefore considered that the characteristics of the site are such that the change of use would cause serious harm to residents of neighbouring properties.

The character of dwellings on Firth Park Crescent consists of semi-detached family style living accommodation with outside amenity spaces. The basement flat is considered to deviate from this purpose of a family dwelling which is at odds with the predominant character of this area.

One of the main issues with this application is the poor quality living conditions of the basement flat. The land falls away at the rear of the site owing to natural level differences at this site. There are 2 small windows and an access door to the rear elevation of this unit. The configuration of the flat is such that the lounge/bedroom area lies to the rear where one small window provides light. It is not considered that light gained from this window would provide enough natural daylight source to this main living area nor can it provide any sufficient outlook. The adjacent window serves a shower room and as such will not provide any additional light to this main living area. The kitchen area is located to the rear of the flat at the side of the dwelling and is served by a very small high level window providing very little light or outlook to this room. Use of an electric light would be necessary to carry out everyday tasks.

Between the visits of an Enforcement Officer and Planning Officer, a lightwell has been constructed to the front of the site below the existing bay window to the dwelling. However, given the configuration of the internal layout, it would seem that this lightwell will not provide any light to the flat area at the rear. The plans show that the rooms to the front of the site are used as a store and an ‘unused room’ where the door is locked providing no access to the tenant of the flat. The additionally constructed lightwell therefore is of little use in providing any additional natural light to the flat area.

The applicant details that the rear garden area is a shared communal area with the main house that exists above the basement flat. However, the main private amenity area is located to the rear of the site and given that the only access provided to the basement flat is from this area, it is considered that this could unacceptably infringe upon the privacy of occupiers of the main dwellinghouse. Similarly, the existing windows to the rear of the site, particularly the one which serves the bed/living area may cause unacceptable loss of privacy to residents of the dwelling above, given its position overlooking the main garden area.

67 Although it is accepted that there is adequate public transport within walking distance of the flat, the use of the flat may intensify the use of vehicles at this property. There is currently no vehicular access to the front of the site for the parking of vehicles. Although there is an existing garage to the side/rear of the site, this garage is currently blocked off and as such is unusable and the area to the front of this is too small to accommodate an off-street vehicle and may case overhanging into the highway thereby compromising traffic safety. In addition, there should be at least 2 car parking spaces for the size of the dwelling in addition to a space to serve the basement flat in this instance.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

In conclusion, it is considered that the use of the basement for living accommodation is unacceptable as it would provide unacceptable living conditions for existing and future occupants of the flat and could cause unacceptable privacy issues to the occupiers of the dwelling above. For these reasons the scheme does not comply with Policies H14, H5 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan and as such is recommended for refusal and that the Director of development Services or the Head of Planning be authorised to take all necessary steps, including enforcement action and the institution of legal proceedings, if necessary to secure the cessation of the use of the basement as a self-contained flat.

Case Number 11/02801/REM

Application Type Approval of Reserved Matters

Proposal Partial demolitions, refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing flats, erection of multi-storey car park with ancillary A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional) A3 (cafes/restaurants), A4 (bars), A5 (takeaways), C1 (hotel) D1 (health/education), D2 (assembly and leisure gym) and B1 (offices) uses and landscaping (Revised Reserved Matters in relation to Phase 1 in accordance with 06/00848/OUT)

Location Park Hill Flats Park Hill Estate Duke Street And Talbot Street Sheffield S2 5RQ

Date Received 30/08/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Hawkins/Brown

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents: Park Hill Phase 1 Updated Reserved Matter Application Design Report dated April 2011 received on 30th August 2011 unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

2 Prior to the construction of the temporary Phase 1 car park hereby approved, further details of the materials to be used on the surface of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car park shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 The use of floorspace within Phase 1 hereby approved for the purpose of Use Class D2 shall be restricted to use as a gymnasium. The gymnasium shall then be limited to the sole use of the future occupiers of Phase 1 and of later phases within Park Hill.

To ensure that the gymnasium is ancillary to the main residential function of Phase 1 and future phases such that it does not comprise an intensive sport and recreation use.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

H10 - Development in Housing Areas BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE6 - Landscape Design BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE17 - Design & Materials in Areas of Special Character or Historic Interest CS3 - Locations for Office Development CS74 - Design Principles PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

The proposed Reserved Matters application is considered to deliver the viable re-use of a Grade II* Listed Building of an appropriately high quality. As such, the application sufficiently complies with the relevant policies above and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant is advised that Conditions 3-30 of the outline planning permission in accordance with 06/00848/OUT and Conditions 1-4 of 06/00849/LBC and application 09/02582/LBC in relation to the Cut and Core are still applicable to this Phase 1 application. The applicant is also advised that Condition 2(i) of 07/02476/REM in relation to works to Phase 1 that have already been implemented is also still applicable to the enveloping works that have already been undertaken.

70 Site Location

71 INTRODUCTION

This application relates to Phase 1 of the Park Hill re-development, which is presently on site. Phase 1 extends to the units within the north block formerly comprising 1 – 84 Gilbert Row, 1-84 of Hague Row, 1-84 of Long Henry Row and 1-84 of Norwich Row.

Members may recall that outline planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Park Hill Estate was approved by this Planning Committee on 21st August 2006 (06/00848/OUT). This was followed by a subsequent Reserved Matters application for Phase 1 (07/02476/REM) to consider details of design, external appearance, matters of access and landscaping, which was approved by this Planning Committee on 1st October 2007. This represented the detailed design for Phase 1 at that time.

In the course of progressing Phase 1 to its present form, the original design of the scheme has evolved and the development has undergone some modification, primarily to address current market needs. This application seeks to consolidate the amendments to the scheme such that it represents a new Phase 1 scheme to discharge Conditions 1 and 2 of 06/00828/OUT, which require details of design, external appearance, matters of access and landscaping. This application will then form the approved scheme for Phase 1.

This report also relates to the associated Listed Building Consent (11/03197/LBC) for works to Phase 1, which will be subject to referral to the Secretary of State as it comprises works to a Grade II* Listed Building.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The Park Hill complex in its entirety extends to 17 acres and comprises four principal blocks that vary in scale from four to thirteen storeys, providing 995 flats. The entire estate is bounded by Duke Street to the North, Talbot Street to the east, which extends into Shrewsbury Road, South Street Park to the south and Anson Street and Park Square roundabout to the west. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with further housing areas to the north, east and west.

This application relates solely to Phase 1 as noted above. Phase 1 is bounded by Duke Street to the north, Anson Street and the railway to the west, South Street Park to the south and the access route between South Street Park and Duke to the west. Phase 1 comprises the North Block; it originally accommodated 312 residential units and is formed of three principal flanks that are cranked at obtuse angles of between 112 and 135 degrees. It varies in scale between 10 and 13 storeys but it retains a continuous roofline to emphasise the slope of the site, which is one of the characteristic features of Park Hill.

A predominant characteristic feature of the Park Hill Estate is the deck access ‘streets in the sky’ such that all the four main blocks are inter-linked by walkways. Decks occur at every third level will all front doors traditionally leading onto these. Park Hill developed around a three-bay, three storey unit system comprising a one

72 bed and a two bed flat below deck level and a three bed maisonette on and above deck level. Staircases are grouped in the centre where a reinforced H-section (with a pair of staircases in each arm) provided each block with structural strength.

The applicant, Urban Splash have clearly commenced the development of Phase 1 in accordance with the granting of the original outline planning permission and the subsequent Reserved Matters permission referred to above, principally in relation to the external enveloping of the scheme, which is evident on site. Indeed, the applicant has progressed the release of the first phase of flats for sale. However, as the scheme has evolved, a number of design changes and enhancements have been proposed, which this application seeks to consider.

Accordingly, this application represents a new Reserved Matters submission that seeks to discharge Conditions 1 and 2 of 06/00828/OUT, which require details of design, external appearance, matters of access and landscaping in relation to the current Phase 1. This will form the scheme the applicant now wishes to fully implement.

The details of the application comprise the following:

Design and External appearance

- Reconfiguration and refurbishment of the North Block to create 263 residential units to comprise 118 x 1 bedroom units, 138 x 2 bedroom units and 7 x 3 bedroom units. This is a reduction in the number of units approved as part of the previously approved Reserved Matters application (07/02476/REM), which proposed 321 units comprising 196 x 1-bedrooms, 107 x 2-bedrooms and 18 x 3 bedrooms;

- Reconfiguration of the lower level commercial areas. As part of the outline approval for the re-development of Park Hill, a range of commercial uses were approved as part of the mixed use scheme within Use Classes A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional), A3 (food and drink), A5 (take-ways), B1 (office) and D1 (non-residential institution) uses. As part of application 07/02476/REM, Levels 00 and 01 of Flank A were designated as retail/commercial uses within Use Class A1/A3 (retail/café and restaurant) with levels 02/03/04 of Flanks B and C designated for café/restaurant (Use Class A3) and bar (Use Class A4). This application still seeks to retain these areas in commercial use but proposes to extend the range of acceptable uses to include the following: Use Class A1 (retail), Use Class A2 (financial and professional), Use Class A3 (café/restaurant), Use Class A4 (drinking establishments), Use Class B1 (office), Use Class C1 (hotel), Use Class D1 (non-residential institution) and Use Class D2 (assembly and leisure). With the exception of Use Classes C1 and D2, these uses are consistent with the list of uses identified within the original outline permission for the Park Hill re-development (06/00848/OUT), which are controlled by Condition 27 of that permission, which states that the floorspace proposed for these uses shall be no greater than listed in the ‘Park Hill Outline Planning Application Report’ which allows for up to 2100 square metres of retail, up to 2100 square metres of office accommodation, up to 4600 square meters of community/health/gallery accommodation (D1/D2) and up to 4500 square metres of food and drink;

- Reconfiguration of the ‘streets in the sky’ corridors to improve storage within each flat and to introduce windows onto the street to enhance natural surveillance and to enliven the ‘street’ – this is achieved by creating an open lobby for 4 sets of flats; between each lobby, the flats are built out onto the street by approximately 1.1 metres and a corner window is installed into each build-out. This new external wall to the street is clad and rendered with the lobby area differentiated from the street by the flooring materials, which includes natural matting within the lobby. This reconfiguration reduces the width of the street between each lobby area from 3.4 to 2.3 metres;

- Confirmation of the revised ‘Cut and Core’ proposal, which was previously approved in accordance with 09/02582/LBC. The revised ‘Cut’ retains part of the vertical concrete grid structure in situ to provide an open double-height walkway through the building as the entrance to the Estate. Within this new space, a steel bridge with glazed balustrades is created at first floor level to provide a link between the upper levels of the double height ground floor commercial units. The internal walls within the Cut are fully glazed adjacent to the ‘Core’ area with the remainder of the internal walls and soffit constructed in white render with the retained concrete columns within the Cut treated with mosaic tiles. The Core, which comprises both lifts and stairs, is also integrated within the Cut as part of the existing structure such that the lift core sits within the external concrete frame, which is then in-filled with toughened glass that is fixed to the existing concrete structure. To the rear of the lifts, a lobby and concierge area is provided with a staircase from the concierge area to provide safe access to the upper floors. The stairs are helical in shape and metal in form and are externally visible from the front elevation to emphasize the main entrance;

- Confirmation of the glazing strategy to the lower floor commercial units. This has been designed to maintain the secondary horizontal datum defining the commercial units to ensure that the legibility of the building is retained. The strategy details that security shutters will be placed behind the glass, signage will be fixed to the glass only within a 600mm zone and ventilation intake will be integrated into the louvered zone adjacent to the ceiling line. In addition, the line of the fixed glazing is pushed forward to the front face of the grid to contrast with the residential glazing above, which is recessed from the grid. The line of the glazing with side hung inward opening glazed doors is pushed back to the inside face of the grid to allow for opening glazed sections above ground floor level to operate easily and to incorporate a glazed balustrade. The colour of the glazing will match the residential glazing above.

- The external alterations to the appearance of the Grade II* Listed facades, including the new cladding, residential glazing and balconies are as previously approved as part of applications 07/02476/REM and 07/02475/LBC with the exception of the ‘Cut and Core’ outlined above, which is in accordance with 09/02852/LBC. As such, these elements do not form part of the consideration of this application as they are already approved albeit that details of the ‘Cut and Core’ are outlined within this application to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the current scheme.

74 Access

The previously approved Reserved Matters application proposed the following principal works in relation to access:

- The opening up of the route between Duke Street and South Street for traffic by establishing a new junction to Duke Street, which will provide access to the Courtyard and the multi-storey car park;

- The implementation of a shared surface approach to this route from the new Duke Street junction to South Street to ensure pedestrian and cycle access;

- Creation of a new access road to the rear of the existing plant room, to the rear of the north block at the north end of Duke Street.

As part of the review of Phase 1, the applicant, Urban Splash, has advised that the multi-storey car park will not be undertaken as part of this first phase as originally proposed and a temporary surface car park will be constructed in its place, which is detailed within this application. This surface car park, which provides car parking for 60 vehicles, is shown to the east of the flank that adjoins Duke Street with access from South Street utilising the existing junction with Duke Street. Members are advised to note that the appropriate mechanism to approve these details is the submission of a ‘Discharge of Condition’ application in respect of Condition 7 of 06/00848/OUT, which advises that before development of the multi-story commences, full details of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the flats shall not be occupied unless the approved multi-storey car park or alternative temporary car parking arrangement to serve the relevant phase(s) has been approved. Further details of the junction improvements are also required by Condition 10 of 06/00848/OUT. However, the details are included within this application to keep Members up-to- date with current parking proposals and to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Phase 1 scheme. As such, this application proposes the following access arrangements:

- The provision of a 60-space surface car park to serve Phase 1 with access via South Street utilising the existing junction with Duke Street;

- The implementation of a shared surface to part of South Street – this represents a partial implementation of the previous Reserved Matters approval which proposed to implement the shared surface for the entire length of South Street and the introduction of a new junction with Duke Street. However, the surface car park generates significantly lower levels of traffic than the proposed multi-storey car park such that the junction improvements are not proposed as part of this phase and the shared surface works are reduced in scale to extend up to the existing cobbled pathway that slopes down from Park Hill to the tramway. The partial shared surface now proposed varies in width to create the sense of a ‘country lane’ with loading bay facilities integrated into the design. The roadway is constructed with a tar spray and chip surface dressing with stone drainage channels where required and planting to each side.

75 - Accessibility arrangements within Phase 1 remain as per the previously approved Reserved Matters application.

Landscaping

This application proposes to amend the approved Masterplan for the phased development of Park Hill with regard to the following:

(i) City Facing Terraces

The principle of city facing terraces remains unchanged from the previously approved Reserved Matters application but the configuration and the materials to be used in their construction have been updated, predominantly to improve their connection to the street with pedestrian routes constructed between the terraces to connect into the shared surface road.

(ii) The Courtyard Landscaping

On the basis that there is no longer a proposal to construct the multi-storey car park within Phase 1 (detailed further below), a revised landscaping strategy for the Courtyard (the area between the Duke Street façade of Phase 1 and Duke Street) is proposed within this Reserved Matters application.

The overall site master plan and outline planning consent identified the North block courtyard as a public open space. It was envisaged as a shared communal facility with a central meadow comprising a series of lawn plateaus and graded embankments with a Birch arboretum to the west of the central lawn.

The revised proposals are organized around two primary movement routes; the first provides an east/ west connection from the Cut to the Nursery and through to Duke Street whilst the second defines the courtyard whilst fitting into the broader landscape Masterplan strategy as a connecting link between this courtyard and other various external spaces throughout Park Hill.

Additionally, the courtyard pathway separates and defines the temporary car parking adjacent to Duke Street from the amenity grass areas, which are envisaged for use as a flexible space by residents. The car parking is designed to blend with the landscape through the use of natural surface materials such as gravel and implied parking bays to allow an informal space with trees growing throughout the site to further integrate the car parking into the landscape.

The proposals indicate that the courtyard will primarily be defined through a series of level plateaus that deliver a solution to the site’s level change; these further provide a flexible space that can be adapted over time to meet the needs of the residents and local community although in the interim, a large proportion of the area is to be ‘hydroseeded’ as a temporary measure to enable some ‘greening’ of the site in advance of the main landscape construction in due course. Proposed tree planting, including clumps, lines and avenues of trees, are used within the courtyard, which connects to the broader Masterplan identified for planting. Within the courtyard, these are used to create shelter from Duke Street and to define

76 spaces and uses. Landmark trees are also located adjacent to the Cut and the Duke Street pedestrian entrances to aid orientation and the sense of place associated with Park Hill.

Others Changes to the 2007 Reserved Matters approval

This revised Reserved Matters application also differs from the previously approved 2007 Reserved Matters application in the following respects:

(ii) Pedestrian link to the railway station through South Park

The pedestrian path through South Park is no longer proposed within Phase 1. The existing cobbled roads that lead up to the North Block from the station using the pathway adjacent to the tramway will be maintained as the pedestrian route until the pedestrian link through the Park is provided. Condition 9 of 06/00848/OUT requires the public access path through South Park to be implemented within the first phase of refurbishment such that the applicant in proposing to apply to vary Condition 9 of 06/00848/OUT in order to formally vary the timescale for this works. However, the details are included within this application to keep Members up-to-date with current proposals.

(iii) The Climbing Wall

The previously approved Reserved Matters application proposed the introduction of a climbing wall at the eastern end of Flank A (closest to Duke Street). This has now been omitted from the proposal and the area ‘reclaimed’ as commercial accommodation at Level 01 and residential accommodation at Levels 02/03/04 (Gilbert Row).

(iv) Neon ‘I love you will you Marry Me’ Bridge sign

The applicants have installed a neon sign over the existing graffiti on the city facing side of the uppermost (Norwich Row) link bridge between the North Block and the West Block, which requires Listed Building Consent as part of 11/03197/LBC.

This report also considers the concurrent Listed Building Consent (11/03197/LBC) for works to Phase 1, which relates to the works that affect the Listed Building that have not previously been approved, principally in relation to the proposed amendments to the ‘street’ outlined above, the commercial glazing strategy and the proposed neon sign.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The most relevant planning history is summarised below:

09/02582/LBC: Amendment to Listed Building Consent 07/02475/LBC comprising alterations to Cut and Core Design in relation to Park Hill Phase 1. Approved: 2nd November 2009.

77 08/02793/OUT: Application to vary condition 7 (details of multi-storey car park) and condition 12 (car parking strategy) of application no. 06/00848/OUT (Application under Section 73) to enable a phased approach to the delivery of car parking across the site, consistent with the phased approach to development. Approved: 01/10/2008

07/01962/OUT: Application to vary Condition 1 imposed by 06/00848/OUT to allow the phased development of the site. Approved: 10/07/2007

07/02476/REM: Partial demolitions, refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing flats, erection of multi-storey car park with ancillary A1 (retail), A3 (cafes/restaurants), A4 (bars), A5 (takeaways), D1 (health/education) and B1 (offices) uses and landscaping (Phase 1). Approved: 02/10/2007

07/02475/LBC: Partial demolitions, refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing flats, erection of multi-storey car park with ancillary uses and landscaping in relation to Phase 1. Approved: 02/10/2007

06/00848/FUL: Refurbishment and partial redevelopment of the Park Hill Estate to provide residential accommodation (Use Class C3), multi-storey car park, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access routes and A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 and D1 uses. Approved: 22.8.2006

06/00849/LBC: Removal of buildings and structures within the curtilage of Park Hill Flats. Approved: 08.09.2006

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The applications were advertised by means of neighbour notification and also by means of a Press Notice and by Site Notices. Only one response has been received from a member of the public from a resident of Duke Street who simply acknowledges receipt of the consultation letter. No further representations have been received.

The following statutory response has been received:

English Heritage: English Heritage note that Park Hill is one of the most important post-war housing schemes in Britain and the works covered by this application have a modest impact overall and any harm is outweighed by the public benefits of securing a sustainable reuse of the listed building, in line with Government objectives and policies in PPS5 such that English Heritage supports the proposals. Their response notes that the application provides details of several matters that have a modest impact on the special interest of the building in terms of the landscaping, lower level plans, commercial glazing, The Cut, the helical staircase and the neon bridge artwork. However, English Heritage make specific reference

78 to the proposed works to the ‘Streets in the Sky’/Residential Configuration and note that EH have worked with the Council and the applicants on the design development of the flats entrances and their interaction with the streets. They consider that the final proposals reproduce much of the original character whilst the small windows improve surveillance. The reduction in the width of the walkways harms the significance of the building but English Heritage are satisfied that this is outweighed by the benefits it brings in terms of the improved quality of the residential units, their improved management and therefore, the long-term viability of the listed building. In their view, the matters covered by the application meet the Government’s objectives for heritage, as set out in PPS5, Paragraph 7 and Paragraph 9.4 because the public benefits outweigh the harm. English Heritage therefore recommends that the application be approved.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

This application seeks the re-submission of Reserved Matters in relation to Conditions 1 and 2 of 06/00848/OUT in relation to Phase 1 of the Park Hill estate regeneration to confirm a number of design changes and enhancements that have been proposed in the course of the schemes development since the previous Reserved Matters approval in 2007. This application represents the scheme design that the applicant wishes to fully implement on site. Members are advised that the applicant has been in continuous liaison with Officers and with English Heritage throughout the programme of works undertaken to date and this application seeks to confirm the way forward. Accordingly, the principle issues to consider in the determination of these details include the following: i. Principle of development: Policy and Land Use ii. Design and External Appearance; iii. Impact of the Grade II* Listed structure and adjacent Conservation Area; iv. Landscaping v. Access; vi. Affordability;

Policy and Land Use

The principle of the refurbishment of the Park Hill Estate to include the conversion of the existing residential units and the creation of new commercial floorspace within the lower levels of the Estate was fundamentally established by the previous outline planning permission (06/00848/OUT), approved in August 2006 and the subsequent Reserved Matters and Listed Building Consent applications for Phase 1 approved in October 2007 (07/02476/REM and 07/02475/LBC).

However, in summary, it is advised that within the Sheffield Adopted Unitary Development Plan, the majority of the site falls within a Housing Policy Area (covering the area of the residential blocks), with South Park being an Open Space Area. Part of Flank A that previously accommodated a small group of retail units off Duke Street is designated as a Local Shopping Policy Area within the UDP.

Policy H10 of the UDP advises that within Housing Areas, the preferred use is residential (Use Class C3). Clearly, residential use previously existed on the site

79 and this application merely provides details of its regeneration, which conforms fully to the principle of Policy S10.

With regard to the proposed commercial uses within the lower levels of Phase 1, it is noted that these extend to the following areas – 952 square metres within Flank A (Level 00 and 01), 1876 square metres within Flank B (Levels 01-04) and 1254 square metres within Flank C (Level 03 and part Level 04) to create a total of 4082 square metres.

This application seeks a flexible approach to this space with consent being sought for uses within Classes A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional), A3 (café/restaurant), A4 (drinking establishments), B1 (office), C1 (hotel), D1 (non- residential institution) and D2 (assembly and leisure).

As noted above, the following mix of uses were approved in principle as part of the previous outline approval in relation to the site as a whole:

Retail (Use Class A1): 2100 square metres Food and Drink (Use Classes A3, A4 and A5): 4500 square metres Community Uses (Use Class D1): 3400 square metres Health (D1): 750 square metres Offices (B1): 2100 square metres Gallery (D1): 450 square metres

The purpose of this consent is to provide more definition to the uses within Phase 1 but with due regard to the fact that the principle of the above uses has broadly been established by the outline permission.

In planning policy terms, it is advised that up-to-date policy guidance on commercial development is principally set out within Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4): Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. This is applicable to a range of ‘town centre’ uses including retail development, entertainment facilities and the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive- through restaurants, bars and pubs) as well as offices, and arts, culture and tourism development including galleries and hotels. PPS4 applies tests to all economic development (Policy EC10) whilst two further tests - the sequential approach (EC15) and impact assessment for retail and leisure developments over 2,500 square metres gross (EC16 and EC17) are required for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan.

Policy EC10 of PPS4 provides advice on determining planning applications for economic development. It requires planning authorities to adopt a positive approach towards applications for economic development provided they secure sustainable economic growth and confirms that all proposals for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations: a) Whether the proposal has been considered over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and resilience to climate change;

80 b) Whether it is accessible by a choice of means of transport; c) Whether it secures a high quality and inclusive design; d) The impact on regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion; e) The impact on local employment.

Taking each in turn on the basis of the mix of uses proposed within this application:

(a) The strategy within Phase 1 (as approved within the outline permission) is to adopt a minimization approach – minimizing energy demand, minimizing waste, reduce car journeys and minimize the use of water. In the latter regard, it is envisaged that the existing district heating system will continue to provide heating and hot water, which is a positively sustainable solution. The Phase 1 scheme also utilizes the existing building, which offers a sustainable approach to development and it has therefore been designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and resilience to climate change;

(b) Park Hill is highly accessible in close proximity to Sheffield Supertram the mainline railway station and various bus routes;

(c) The proposed regeneration scheme offers a high quality and inclusive design solution as considered in the report below;

(d) The redevelopment of Park Hill offers a transformational approach to the estate and the creation of a new neighbourhood with an existing area of social deprivation. The introduction of new commercial uses will also offer the opportunity for new local jobs and more choice of facilities and services to promote social inclusion. This Phase 1 proposal will therefore have a positive impact on the regeneration of the area as a whole;

(e) The introduction of new commercial space offers the potential for new local job opportunities in accordance with Policy EC10(e).

This Reserved Matters proposal is therefore consistent with the aspirations of Policy EC10 of PPS4.

With regard to retail (Use Class A1), the extent of retail space within the Park Hill re-developed is restricted by Condition 6 of 06/00848/OUT, which states that retail development (Use Class A1) shall not exceed the 2180 square metres as detailed in the 'Park Hill Outline Planning Application Report' prepared by Hawkins/Brown unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority. As such, it is determined that there is no need to re-assess retail development in accordance with PPS4 as part of this application as the applicant intends to comply with the scope of Condition 6 above.

With regard to the proposed commercial floorspace within Use Classes A3-A5 and D1 (non-residential institutions such as a museum, a health centre or a crèche), Policy H10 of the UDP advises that whilst housing is the preferred use, the above uses are also acceptable such that the mix of uses proposed is in accordance with local planning policy. The extent of uses within A3/A4/A5 and also within Use

81 Class D1 are controlled by Condition 27 of 06/00848/OUT as noted above such that there is also no need to re-assess such uses in accordance with PPS4. Use Class A2 (financial and professional) is also identified as an acceptable use within Policy H10 and is included within the list of approved uses within the outline consent. It is also considered that there is no specific need in this instance to restrict uses within Class A2 (financial and professional) as such uses will form part of a commercial mix within the ground floor space and are unlikely to give rise to issues of amenity in relation to the residential units above. As such, the principle of these uses is in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan and PPS4.

With regard to office development within Use Class B1, this was clearly also established by the outline planning permission such that there is no need to re- assess it as part of this application although it is noted that Policy CS3 of the SDF Core Strategy advises that office development will take place in the City Centre and in accessible locations at the edge of the City Centre, such as Park Hill, such that the principle of office development is in accordance within an up-to-date development plan.

The applicant has advised that within Use Class D2, they are seeking permission for a gymnasium. However, it is understood that this facility will be for the future occupiers of Phase 1 and for occupiers of future phases, rather than as an intensive health and fitness centre that will serve a wider catchment. It is noted that Use Class D2 is identified as an acceptable use within a Housing Area in accordance with Policy H10 of the Unitary Development Plan such that the proposal is consistent with the UDP. With regard to PPS4, it is advised that this guidance relates to the more intensive sport and recreation uses. The PPS4 Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Assessment published in December 2009 advises that PPS4 relates to intensive sport and recreation facilities, such as health and fitness centres on the basis that they represent an intensive use of land, normally comprising built facilities which attract a large number of visits. Given that the D2 use proposed as part of this application is effectively ancillary to the main residential use and will be controlled as such by means of a planning condition, it is not considered to represent an intensive sport facility and a sequential assessment is not required in this instance. The principal of an ancillary D2 use as a gym is therefore considered acceptable.

With regard to the proposed hotel use, this is the subject of further discussion with the applicant with regard to PPS4 and further clarification is sough in respect of their proposed location and scale within the scheme as a whole. The outcome will be reported directly to members of the Planning Committee.

Phase 1 previously included the first phase of works to South Street Park, comprising the creation a direct link to the station. As noted above, these works have now been deferred to a later phase of development such that this Reserved Matters application will have no direct impact on the open space in this instance other than to enhance its setting.

Overall, this Reserved Matters application demonstrates that housing will remain the predominant use in accordance with Policy H10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and it will be supported by a range of commercial uses at lower

82 levels that are also consistent with Policy H10 and guidance within PPS4. This Reserved Matters application is therefore acceptable in principle.

Design and External Appearance

Policy BE5 of the UDP relates to building design and siting and advises that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new developments. It seeks to achieve original architecture and a design on a human scale with varied materials that break down the overall mass of development. Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy, which relates to design principles, advises that high-quality development will be expected, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods.

Members will note that enveloping works to the Phase 1 façade have already been completed; these works have been undertaken in accordance with existing consents for Phase 1 under 07/02476/REM, 07/02475/LBC and 09/02582/LBC (in relation to the Cut and Core). These works include the removal of the original brickwork panels at both the residential and core locations and replacement with composite aluminium infill panels that re-interpret the graded or layering of colours, the removal of the original fenestration and the introduction of new glazing with a new window ratio of 2/3 glazing to 1/3 brick, the repair of the concrete frame, the installation of new concrete balustrades and the removal of the original secondary metal balconies to the outer façade and replacement with smaller, lightweight balconies to the same proportion as the original. This application re-inforces these approved works but actually seeks consent for design and external appearance modifications to the previous Reserved Matters submission, which are detailed above and comprise the following:

- Reconfiguration and refurbishment of the North Block to create 263 residential units to comprise 118 x 1 bedroom units, 138 x 2 bedroom units and 7 x 3 bedroom units;

- Confirmation of the revised ‘Cut and Core’ proposal, which were previously approved in accordance with 09/02582/LBC;

- Confirmation of the glazing strategy to the lower floor commercial units.

The most significant difference between this Reserved Matters submission and the previously approved Reserved Matters submission relates to the ‘Streets in the Sky’ and the proposal as part of this application to reduce the width of the ‘street’. Following on from the previously approved Reserved Matters scheme, the applicant continued to review the design concept and had some concern that the scheme as approved presented doors directly onto the street with a minimal threshold and no defensible space, cramped linear entrance halls and no internal storage for 3 out of 5 flats. Whilst this reflected the character of the original Park

83 Hill design, in seeking to regenerate the site, the applicant considered that an enhanced design approach could be developed. As part of the review of the housing mix, the applicant has also refined the configuration of the flats and has amended the scheme from a 5-flat cluster previously approved to a new 4-flat cluster. This led to the opportunity to create a lobby to each 4-unit cluster and additional internal storage space by building out onto the street between the lobby areas as now proposed.

The impact of reducing the width of the ‘streets in the sky’ from 3.4 to 2.3 metres in terms of the buildings Grade II* Listed status is considered below. In design terms, however, it is noted that the revised width of the street does result in a walkway that is well proportioned and of a human scale. The introduction of a corner window into the lobby build out also improves the legibility of the walkway and provides improved interaction between the flats and the street. Externally, the build-out is finished with simple cladding that has a rendered appearance. Whilst it is considered that the wall finish is plain in finish, it is noted that English Heritage considers this to replicate much of the original character of the building whilst the small windows improve surveillance. The remainder of the walkway has been surfaced with a tile whilst the lobby is detailed with natural matting to delineate the lobby from the ‘street’. Overall, it is considered that the revised solution to the ‘street’ is of a sufficiently high quality in accordance with Policy BE5 and Policy CS74.

This Committee has previously considered the revised ‘Cut and Core’ proposals in accordance with 09/02582/LBC, which was approved in November 2009. This creates a generous gateway into Park Hill, as it remains four bays wide and four bays high. It retains part of the vertical concrete grid structure in situ and removes only a single horizontal concrete strut and two of the vertical columns between the ground and first floor to provide an open double-height walkway through the building as the entrance to the Estate. Within this new space, a steel bridge with glazed balustrades is provided effectively at first floor level, to provide a link between the upper levels of the double height ground floor commercial units. The internal walls within the Cut are fully glazed adjacent to the ‘Core’ area with the remainder of the internal walls and soffit constructed in white render with the retained concrete columns within the Cut treated with mosaic tiles to create a visually clean and interesting entrance space. The details are incorporated within this application as confirmation of the design approach but the Cut and Core has now been implemented in accordance with 09/02582/LBC and it is evident that it results in the creation of a high quality entrance with the metal helical staircase very visible from the City as a means of defining the entrance to the site.

With regard to the commercial glazing strategy, details of the glazing were the subject of extensive discussion between the applicant, Officers and English Heritage prior to its installation. It has now been implemented and is incorporated within this application as confirmation of the design approach. It is considered that the form and colour of the glazing sits appropriately with the approved glazing for the residential apartments above and does not detract from the strong horizontal line of the concrete H frame, which is a defining feature of the building. The position of the fixed glazing, to sit flush with the concrete frame, contrasts with the recessed glazing to the residential units above and adds visual interest to the

84 façade. It is therefore considered to represent an appropriately high quality of glazing in accordance with Policy BE5 and Policy CS74.

On this basis, it is concluded that the proposed alterations to the ‘street’, the retention of the works to the ‘Cut and Core’ and the fenestration to the commercial floors of Phase 1 represent an appropriate high quality design in accordance with Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy.

Impact of the Grade II* Listed Building

The architectural significance of Park Hill and its place in British housing design was recognised in 1998 when it received Grade II* listed building status.

In policy terms, Policy BE15 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan relates to buildings of special architectural and historic interest and advises that buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest will be preserved or enhanced and development that would harm their character of appearance will not be permitted. Policy BE19 requires that internal and external alterations of Listed Buildings and new buildings within the curtilage should preserve the building’s character, appearance and setting.

More up-to-date guidance on Listed Buildings is provided within PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Paragraph 7 of PPS5 clarifies that the Government’s overarching aim in respect of the historic environment and its heritage assets is to ensure that it is conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. A key feature of the PPS is its holistic approach to the historic environment; the elements of the historic environment that are worthy of consideration in planning matters are called ‘heritage assets’ and these include buildings, parks and gardens, standing, buried and submerged remains, areas, sites and landscapes, whether designated or not and whether or not capable of designation.

The PPS5 Practice Guide published by English Heritage in March 2010 advises that a heritage asset holds meaning for society over and above its functional utility. It is this heritage significance that justifies a degree of protection in planning decisions. The aim of the policies within the PPS is to conserve these assets, for the benefit of this and future generations. This is achieved by supporting their maintenance and by requiring that change to them is managed in ways that sustain and where appropriate enhances their heritage significance.

Policy HE7.1 advises that in decision-making, local planning authorities should seek to identify and assess the particular significance of any element of the historic environment that may be affected by the relevant proposal. Policy HE7.2 advises that in considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations. Policy HE9.1 of PPS5 confirms that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. It states that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of

85 the heritage asset or development within its setting and the loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

As part of this application, the key amendments to the building that affect the character of the Listed Building for which Listed Building Consent has not previously been formally approved comprises the following:

(i) The reconfiguration of the apartments; (ii) The proposed works to the ‘Streets in the Sky’ outlined above; (iii) The proposed commercial glazing works; (iv) The installation of the neon sign, which is affixed to the Listed Building.

As part of the previously approved Reserved Matters application, it was proposed that the building be reconfigured into 5-flat clusters by splitting a number of the original 3 bedroom units into 2 units (a one bedroom and a studio) and redesigning the existing two and one bedroom units. This resulted in the creation of 321 units comprising 196 x 1-bedrooms, 107 x 2-bedrooms and 18 x 3 bedrooms. Since 2007, the housing market has undergone a significant decline and the general interest in one-bedroom and studio units has reduced. Accordingly, the applicants have sought to review their housing mix in light of the current market and reduced the number of one-bedroom apartments whilst increasing the level of two and three bedroom apartments. The concrete H frame that is the primary character of the Listed Building is retained and a 4-flat cluster is created instead of a 5-flat cluster to result in the creation of 263 residential units to comprise 118 x 1 bedroom units, 138 x 2 bedroom units and 7 x 3 bedroom units. This will provide an improved living space and a varied mix of units. Overall, it is considered that the proposed internal amendments will not impact on the external structure of the building and will secure the long-term viability of Park Hill.

With regard to the proposed changes to the ‘streets in the sky’, it is important to acknowledge that the ‘streets in the sky’ are one of the defining features of Park Hill and a key part of their Listed status. As such, a reduction in their width does harm the significance of the building. However, Paragraph 9 of PPS5 states that the loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. In this case, it is considered that the viability of this development is key to securing the long-term future of the Park Hill Estate and of the Grade II* Listed Building. English Heritage accept that the harm done to the ‘street’ as a heritage asset is outweighed by the benefit it brings in terms of the improved quality of the residential units and the subsequent long-term viability of the Listed Building such that there is convincing justification in this case. As such, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with PPS5 in this regard.

The proposed glazing works do not alter the principal character of the Listed Building as they sit within the existing concrete frame such that it does not harm the significance of the building in accordance with PPS5. Finally, with regard to the neon sign, whilst this is affixed to the Listed Building, this sign reflects a piece of graffiti that is part of the history of the site. It is of a limited scale in relation to the scale of Phase 1 as a whole and does not detract from the building’s character.

86 It is therefore concluded that whilst the reduction to the width of the street is deemed to cause significant harm to the Listed character of the building, in this instance, the public benefit of securing the viable re-use of the building is considered to outweigh the harm as it will improve the quality of the flats and the long-term protection of Park Hill. The reconfiguration of the flats, the installation of the commercial glazing and the neon sign are not considered to detract form the buildings character and will sustain the heritage significance of Park Hill for the future. Thus on balance, the proposed works are considered to accord with Policy BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and guidance within PPS5.

Landscaping

Policy BE6 of the UDP relates to landscape design and advises that good quality landscape design will be expected in all new developments; it should provide an interesting and attractive environment and integrate existing landscape features into the development. It should also seek to promote nature conservation and use native species where appropriate.

The landscaping scheme that is presently being implemented on site largely reflects that approved as part of the previous Reserved Matters submission with a high quality landscape palette that includes granite setts and natural stone to will deliver an interesting and varied environment for future occupiers and visitors to the area. As part of that application, the Courtyard was envisaged as a tranquil green space with a gently graded lawn and low retaining/seating walls to create a series of terraces. This remains the long-term strategy but part of the courtyard must now accommodate the temporary surface car park for Phase 1 as the Multi- Storey car park has been deferred to a later phase. However, the revised proposals submitted as part of this application do ensure that two key pedestrian routes are provided, comprising an east-west link from the Cut to the Nursery and through to Duke Street and another that will link the courtyard with other external spaces throughout Park Hill as the site develops. In addition, it is acknowledged that the car park will be designed to appear as natural and subservient to the landscaping as possible through the use, for example, of natural materials such as gravel. New tree planting also forms part of the submitted landscape proposals comprising a variety of species in groups or avenues of trees to enhance the overall setting of Phase 1. Finally, it is noted that the Courtyard area will now largely be hydro-seeded as a temporary measure in advance of the main landscape construction as further phases of the site develop.

This Reserved Matters application retains the previously approved strategy of creating a landscaped terrace to the front face of the north block facing the City (Western terraces) to provide an external semi-private space for each commercial unit but seeks to establish more open terraces than previously proposed with a clear and open relationship to the interiors. This is achieved by creating a series or routes between the terraces that connect into South Street and providing improved linkages to South Street Park. The terraces are primarily constructed in Yorkstone Setts.

Overall, the landscape design in relation to Phase 1, the majority of which has now been implemented on site, represents a high quality design that provides an

87 attractive environment and an appropriate setting for this Grade II* Listed Building in accordance with Policy BE6.

Access

Policy H14 (d) of the UDP relates to conditions on development within Housing Areas and advises that new development must provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking and not endanger pedestrians.

As noted in the report above, this application proposes amended access arrangements to Phase 1 to take account of the revised parking arrangements with the provision of a temporary surface car park and the implementation of a shared surface to relate more closely to Phase 1.

The principle of creating a shared surface space along South Street was established as part of the previously approved Reserved Matters application and is still considered acceptable. Details of the materials to be used along the shared surface have been approved by the Council’s Highways Adoptions team and are acceptable in principle. Moreover, the access arrangement and associated landscape works are considered to represent a high quality design that will enhance the access to Phase 1.

The proposed surface car park is also considered to represent a sufficient provision of car parking to serve Phase 1 given Park Hill’s sustainable location in close proximity to tram, train and bus services.

Overall, revised details of access in relation to Phase 1 raise no issues in principle and are considered to provide a sufficient level of car parking that is appropriately access via a partial shared surface from South Street, which provides an attractive setting for the development in accordance with Policy H14 of the UDP.

Affordable Housing

Although the provision of affordable housing does not form part of this Reserved Matters submission as there is a specific condition (Condition 4) attached to the outline consent requiring details of affordable housing equivalent to no less than 20% of the dwelling, Members are advised that it is still the case that across the Park Hill complex as a whole (i.e. including future phases), a total of one-third of the units are designated as affordable. Within Phase 1, 56 social rented units and 12 shared ownership units will be provided as affordable units, which equates to a proportion of 26%.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application provides details of design, external appearance, landscaping and access and details for Listed Building Consent for Phase 1 of the Park Hill Estate, as outlined in the report above. It is concluded that these detailed proposals will retain and protect those features of the buildings that merited the Estate being awarded Grade II* Listed Building status whilst also delivering an iconic development that will deliver the required transformational effect to secure the

88 viable future of this phase of Park Hill and the benchmark for future phases in accordance with Policies H10 and BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the SDF Core Strategy.

The scheme provides for a mix of unit sizes and tenure and develops Park Hill as a new neighbourhood and destination to create a strong connection to the surrounding communities through the establishment of new bars, restaurants, shops and community and leisure uses in accordance with guidance within Policy H10 of the UDP, Policy CS3 of the SDF Core Strategy and guidance within PPS4.

The reserved matters submitted for consideration in this report are sufficiently in compliance with the principles of the outline planning application.

It is also considered that the details provided in respect of the Listed Building Consent provides appropriate justification that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the special character of this significant Grade II* Listed Building and deliver a viable long-term use of the building that will protect it as a heritage asset for the future in accordance with Policies BE16 and BE19 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and guidance within PPS5.

The applications are therefore recommend for approval subject to the following:

11/02801/REM – Approve subject to conditions.

11/03197/LBC – Minded to approve subject to the conditions and no adverse direction being received from the Secretary of State.

Case Number 11/02883/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application to allow use of existing floodlighting until 2200 (Application under section 73 to vary floodlighting hours condition on application 85/00433/FUL)

Location Brentwood Lawn Tennis Club Brentwood Road Sheffield S11 9BU

Date Received 12/09/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Barrs And Co Chartered Surveyors

Recommendation Grant

Subject to:

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas

The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to Policies H14 and BE16 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Overall it is considered that the development complies with these policies and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The Applicant is advised that all other conditions pertaining to permission 85/0641P remain in force.

90 Site Location

91 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a single tennis court at Brentwood Tennis Club, accessed from Brentwood Road, and occupying an area straddling the road and bounded on all sides by residential property.

The site falls within an allocated Housing Area as identified in the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and also within the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

The single court to which the application relates is bounded to the north by Brentwood Road, to the west by the club house and a further tennis court, to the south by another court and the rear garden of No. 114 Brincliffe Edge Road and to the west by the narrow drive, Brentwood Avenue, and the gardens of residential property.

The site as a whole is located on ground rising from north to south and the court in question lies in an elevated position relative to the highway of Brentwood Road. The difference in level to back edge of footway is estimated at 2 metres.

The sole building on site is a single storey clubhouse located adjacent to Brentwood Road with its main axis running alongside the court that is floodlit.

The court is lit by 8 small floodlights mounted on poles rising to a height of approximately 6 metres.

Permission is sought to extend the hours of operation of the floodlights to 22:00 hours each night, from the current permitted time of 2100 hours.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission was granted in 1985 (85/00433/FUL) for the erection of the floodlights. This permission carried a condition limiting the use of the floodlights to 21:00 each night in the interests of residential amenity.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

In total 4 letters of representation have been received following neighbour notification. Issues raised include:

There is already light pollution, and the proposal would intensify the amount of light to the detriment of residential amenity. It would also adversely affect wildlife in the locality.

The court is in close proximity to the bedrooms of children with special needs who would be disturbed by additional hours of play. Shouting and bad language will be extended by the ability to use the courts throughout the Winter months.

Players come into neighbouring gardens without permission.

An extension of playing hours would extend the period during which noise generated by the coming and going of club members disturbs local residents.

The increase in vehicular traffic would accelerate degradation of the road surface on Brentwood Road.

There is inadequate parking.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The site lies within an allocated Housing Area and within Nether Edge Conservation Area as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies are therefore:

Policy H14 ‘Conditions on development in Housing Areas’ states that:

In Housing Areas, new development or change of use will be permitted provided that:

(c) the site would not be over-developed or deprive residents of light, privacy or security… and, for non-housing (C3) uses, provided that it would also:

(k) not lead to air pollution, noise, smell, excessive traffic levels or other nuisance, or risk to health and safety for people living nearby Policy BE16 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that: In Conservation Areas permission will only be given for development, including erection of buildings and changes of use from originally intended uses of buildings: ‘which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area’

Residential Amenity Issues

Lighting

The floodlights themselves are mounted at a fairly low level but were erected in the mid 1980’s and as such are not fitted with the modern cowls that are more capable of directing light and preventing excessive light spill and glare. A lux contour plan was requested of the Applicant but they have chosen not to submit such information. A night time site visit was therefore conducted by the Case Officer in order to form a judgment as to whether excessive light spill was occurring.

The court is elevated above the level of the highway on Brentwood Road and, as such, the largest potential impact of the lights would be on the gardens of houses to the west on Brentwood Avenue and on the nearest houses on Brentwood Road.

93 The nearest dwelling to the court lies to the west on Brentwood Avenue though this house benefits from a reasonable intervening boundary treatment that reduces spillage to its curtilage and presents its side elevation facing the court.

To the south rising ground and intervening boundary treatments assist in reducing light spillage.

The nearest main aspect windows of those who have raised objection lie 30 metres distant from the floodlights to the east. It is considered that this represents a significant distance over which light levels fall considerably in intensity and it was noted that the floodlights themselves produce a relatively low level of illumination when compared to more modern floodlighting systems.

A visual comparison with the street lighting levels was made and it was considered that the maximum light levels, even discounting the topographical variation, are no more obtrusive than street lights located closer to residential property to the north and east. As such it is considered that the light levels fall within acceptable levels at 22:00 hours and should not interfere with conditions in main habitable rooms.

Environmental Protection Officers have not raised concerns regarding the implications of later operation in terms of light spillage.

Intensification of Use

During the Summer months (without floodlighting) play on all courts would be possible until 22:00 hours. Currently play is more limited in the Autumn and Winter. The relaxation of the current condition on the floodlights would enable a more extensive use of the single court in question up until 22:00 hours during these months.

The Officers site visit was conducted at 20:00 hours on a weekday night in December but play was in progress on the one floodlit court. Noise levels arising were minimal and although background noise levels were extremely low it was not felt that such activity represented any significant effect on residential amenity.

Similarly, any intensification of vehicular movement on Brentwood Road would be limited to the number of players capable of taking part in play. It is possible that additional people could be watching any game from the clubhouse but it is worthy of note that the license for the premises allows use of the clubhouse until 23:00 on weekdays and Saturdays and so the extension of playing hours on one court is unlikely to have a significant affect on the activities in and around the clubhouse.

Highways Issues

There are a limited number of courts on the site and only a single court that is fitted with floodlights. This would have a self limiting affect on the numbers able to play at any one time and the proposed floodlights would only enable extended play on one court. The Officer site visit revealed no significant on street parking though it must be accepted that vehicular activity would likely be higher during the Autumn months when the clubhouse could be the centre for more activity.

However, it is not considered that the proposal itself would contribute to a significant worsening with regard to on street parking.

Conservation Area considerations.

Since the physical presence of the floodlights and their mounting poles is already established it is not felt that the proposal would adversely impact on the character of the Conservation Area. The effect of an additional hour of lighting is not considered to represent any tangible impact on the character of the locality.

Other matters

The majority of matters raised in objection letters have been dealt with in the main body of this report.

Matters have been raised regarding swearing and grunting during play and the invasion of privacy caused by members going into neighbouring gardens to retrieve balls without permission. Whilst sympathising with residents with regard to inconsiderate behaviour these matters are not planning considerations.

Any degradation of the road surface due to vehicular traffic is not a material planning consideration.

An objector has made reference to the particularly sensitive nature of young children in a dwelling located adjacent the club to the east and the concern that additional playing time would adversely affect their medical condition. Once again, whilst sympathizing with the objector the house in question lies 33 metres to the east separated from the floodlights by an unlit court and presents its side elevation to the light source rather than its main aspect windows. It is considered that the activities on this intervening court, which is not the subject of this application, are likely to be the source of difficulties in regard to disturbance for these children rather than the floodlit court.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning permission was granted in 1985 for the original floodlights. These are of an old design and are not as efficient as more modern floodlight cowls in limiting light spill. However, they also offer a lower level of illumination than more modern counterparts. It is considered that the lights achieve a significant separation distance to the nearest residential properties and do not represent so intrusive a light source as to justify a refusal of permission on those grounds.

It is felt that the additional activity engendered by an additional hours play on one court, and associated vehicular movements, is unlikely to represent a significant impact on residential amenity.

The additional hour of lighting is not considered to harm the character of the Conservation Area.

95 It is therefore considered that, on balance, the proposed development accords with UDP Policies H14 and BE16 and so it is recommended that permission be granted to vary the condition.

Case Number 11/03115/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application to amend condition number 7 imposed by application 11/00674/FUL to include the provision of revised landscape proposals including the addition of a bin store, walkway and also providing additional rooflights (Application Under Section 73)

Location Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home 139 Derbyshire Lane Sheffield S8 9EQ

Date Received 23/09/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent SALT Architects

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 A 1.7m high solid screen from footpath level as shown on the plans shall be erected in accordance with those plans within 2 months of the date of the decision notice. Thereafter, the screen shall be retained unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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

2 1m high laurel tree planting shall be planted as per the details received in the approved plans within 3 months of the date of the decision notice. Thereafter the landscaped area shall be retained and shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

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

3 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed between the walkway and the curtilage of properties on Crawford Road without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

It is noted that there is significant opposition to the proposed development, which is partly retrospective. The present situation, with a raised path and reduced vegetation, does present privacy and security issues for properties on Crawford Road. However, the proposed use of dense vegetation and a screening fence as proposed would resolve these issues. The bin store is to be moved only 2m closer to neighbouring properties than the previous storage area before development commenced, whilst the existing storage area is already right up against the curtilage of properties on a different section of Crawford Road. As a result, the proposal will not cause any additional issues when compared to the existing situation. The style of the bins is such, that significant smell migration, noise or vermin issues should not arise towards neighbouring properties. The use of laurel planting will hide most of the gabion structure from view when planted, and will effectively hide the entire screening fence and supporting structure from view when grown to its full height. The rooflights will be positioned in a way to avoid privacy issues or any loss of amenity to the side, and are visually acceptable. It is noted that the planting and screening are needed to rectify the existing situation with regards to overlooking and security, and will be conditioned to be provided within a set time period from the date of decision. The scheme will accord with the principled of policies H14 and BE5 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

98 Site Location

100 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The proposal refers to Scarsdale Grange, a nursing home located behind properties on Cliffefield Road, Crawford Road and Norton Lees Road. The premises does benefit from planning permission for the construction of an extension to the North West of the site, which projects closer to properties on Crawford Road and Cliffefield Road, plus an extension to the East, towards Cliffefield Road and Norton Lees Road. The extensions have been constructed, albeit with roof lights that were not part of the original permission, with a single roof light upon the extension to the East, and another two upon the extension to the North West.

In addition to the roof lights, a raised footpath has been constructed upon the sides facing Crawford Road and Cliffefield Road to the North West of the site, alongside the extension. The original permission encompassed a footpath level with the original ground level. The present footpath has not been fully completed, and a temporary handrail is in place.

This application seeks planning permission, retrospectively, for the raised footpath and the roof lights within the extensions. In addition to the retrospective permission, planning permission is also sought for a bin store area upon the side facing Crawford Avenue, involving increasing the width of the footpath by 1.3m from the presently constructed width.

The natural ground level to the West of the site towards Crawford Avenue drops down towards the rear gardens of these properties. The presently constructed footpath is upon a concrete base, with a soil embankment to the side. The proposed bin store would be upon gabion baskets, which would project up to 1.5m in height above the existing ground level at present.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/01341/FUL: The application to construct the nursing home and associated parking was Granted Conditionally on 11/01/1993

07/03892/FUL: An application to construct a single-storey rear extension and two- storey side extension was refused planning permission . The extension was refused due to concerns it would lead to overshadowing towards properties to the East, and would negatively affect the outlook of some of the bedrooms of nursing home occupants. The application was Refused on 07/11/2007.

07/04591/FUL: A resubmission of 07/03892/FUL was withdrawn on 03/01/2008.

10/02987/FUL: An application to erect single-storey side and rear extensions to the nursing home to provide additional bedrooms and a conservatory for residents (as amended by plans received on 19/11/2010) was Granted Conditionally on 25/11/2010.

101 11/00674/FUL: An application to reposition the approved side extensions to the nursing home (Granted Conditionally under 10/02987/FUL), as per amended plans received on 22/03/2011, was Granted Conditionally on 27/04/2011.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Objection

Nine written objections have been received: eight from residents on Crawford Road, and two from residents on Cliffefield Road with regards to this application. The majority (9) object to the proposal on the basis that:

- The proposed bin store would cause problems for properties on Crawford Road by adding to noise (including through the clanging of bin lids and movement of the bins), encouraging vermin, and causing a problem with bad smells. - The roof lights would cast a strong light from the rooms towards properties on Crawford Road. - The footpath causes security issues for properties on Crawford Road by providing an open aspect towards these properties, making them ‘burglar friendly’. - Refuse collectors would be unable to access the proposed bin store area - The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the local area, by virtue of the placement of a bin store area raised up from the natural ground level (by more than the height of existing boundary fences on Crawford Road). - The existing walkway offers direct views towards properties on Crawford Road. - The raised footpath would offer easy access to the roof of outbuildings to the North. - Existing trees on the site offer little screening towards Crawford Road. . - The comments from residents on Cliffefield Road highlight that the bin storage area should not be moved to the rear of Scarsdale Grange due to issues with smells and visual appearance. - Comments from residents on Cliffefield Road also highlight that the rooflights may cause issues with light disturbance to their properties.

Other issues have been raised, that are not material planning matters and will not be discussed in the assessment below. These include issues of:

- Land ownership – questioning whether properties on Crawford Road actually own the site where the path has been built. - Effect on property values. - Issues with regards to the existing bins, and how they are used. - The present state of the existing pathway and hand rail (this is not a material consideration as the path is presently not completed, and is only in its present state with a temporary handrail until construction work re- commences). - Issues with regards to structural damage caused to fences on Crawford Road (this is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration).

102 - Questions as to whether the proposed gabion baskets would be structurally sound. This is a Building Regulations matter. - Issues from residents on Cliffefield Road questioning past permissions on the site for the construction of the nursing home and further extensions (including requests for additional screening to hide the residential home from view of Cliffefield Road). These issues are not related to this planning application and have already been judged as part of past applications on the site.

Support

A tenth representation raises no planning issues to the proposal, and states that they support the work of the Care Home.

In addition to the written representations above, a petition has also been received with 25 signatures from 12 different addresses on Crawford Road, stating that they strongly object to the planning application.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas, states that; new development or change of use will be permitted provided that: (a) new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings; and (c) the site would not be over-developed or deprive residents of light, privacy or security, or cause serious loss of existing garden space which would harm the character of the neighbourhood; and (d)it would provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking and not endanger pedestrians; and (e) it would not suffer from unacceptable air pollution, noise or other nuisance or risk to health or safety.

Design & Appearance

The proposed side footpath has been raised in height from the original ground level by approximately 1.5m at its greatest extent. The ground slopes upwards towards the extension, and has been filled so that it is approximately level with the footpath, which lies alongside the extension for much of its length. Towards the rear, the

103 footpath will be upon a raised metal platform (the temporary nature of the existing path in this position consists of a wooden platform), which will provide access around the rear of the extension. The height of this part of the path will be approximately level with the tops of fences between the extension and outbuildings to the North, accessed from Cliffefield Road.

Due to the siting of the raised walkway and proposed bin store area, the alterations will not be visible from the wider area, and will only be visible from the rear gardens on Crawford Road, and partially from Cliffefield Road. Due to the height of existing fences and position of outbuilding facing the raised footpath from Cliffefield Road, the visual impact of the proposal as viewed directly from this site is quite limited when compared to the original application. As a result, the assessment will focus largely upon the visual impact from Crawford Road.

Due to the existing lie of the land, the footpath lies at a height 1.5m higher up from the garden level of properties on Crawford Road. Due to the natural slope of the land, the visual height of the concrete supporting structure of the path is minimal, and the path itself has a very limited presence. The existing temporary railings are, however, very visible, as would be the proposed 1.7m high screening fence required to minimise privacy issues arising (see below). For the path itself, therefore, the proposal would effectively result in the formation of a visible 1.7m high fence above the bank. The scale of this screening fence would be in scale and character with typical garden fences visible in the local area. It should be noted that existing fences of a similar height exist with a similar visual relationship behind the properties on Crawford Road that back onto the front car park area of the subject site.

The proposed bin store area would be positioned on top of a gabion supporting structure, and comprise of a concrete platform to rest the bins atop of. A screening fence 1.7m high would be present. Due to the lie of the land falling in height towards Crawford Road, the gabions would be visible from the rear gardens of Crawford Road, and the combined height of the gabions and screening fence would have an effective height of approximately 3.2m high (with a 1.5m high gabion structure, plus a 1.7m high screening fence). The visual impact of this structure would not be ideal on its own and by itself, with no screening, would not comply with the aims of UDP policy BE5(b).

However, the scheme does include a significant degree of planting designed to screen the gabion structure from view. Laurel trees are proposed to be planted to provide a hedge area between the curtilages of Crawford Road and Scarsdale Grange. They are shown to be planted 60-90cm apart, and the elevations show their height at 1m high when planted (which can be conditioned). The effect of the planting would be to hide the majority (1m high section) of the gabion structure from view. Laurel trees grow up to 5-6m in height, and grow rapidly at 1m per year. As a result, after 1 year of growth, the trees would hide the entire gabion structure from view, with the entire screening fence hidden from view within 3 years. Consultation with tree officers highlights that Laurel would be able to grow on the site. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the landscaping sought would be appropriate in order to minimise the visual impact of the structures as viewed from Crawford Road.

104

It should be noted that the applicant has removed leylandi trees on the existing boundary, which is contrary to conditions on the original approval, and does result in the extension having a less favourable appearance when viewed from Crawford Road. The implementation of laurel trees would help to rectify the present situation, and after 3 years of growth would restore the semi-natural setting as viewed from the North West.

With regards to the retrospective roof lights upon the building, these only alter the external appearance very slightly, and are not considered to detract from the appearance of the development.

Impact upon the Amenities of Properties

The existing raised footpath does present privacy issues, as clear views into the rear gardens on Crawford Road are available. Residents have noted concerns that the associated removal of vegetation does allow easier access to their rear gates. However, it is noted that boundary fence barriers still remain.

The amended plans received on 17/11/2011 show the use of close boarded fencing to be used as a screen alongside the raised platform facing towards Crawford Road. This will have no gaps, and will be 1.7m high, and will prevent all views into the rear gardens of these properties. The laurel bushes proposed will aid with security, and will effectively restore the status quo situation before the development commenced, where dense planting had previously prevented views and easy movement into the rear gardens to the North West.

Views from the raised platform facing Cliffefield Road are not considered to significant impact upon the privacy or security of neighbours to this side. There is a garage block with public access located directly next to the path, and views towards this cause no significant privacy or security implications. A suitable hedge is already in situ on this side, that prevents significant views towards residential properties on Cliffefield Road, and the present arrangement on this site is therefore considered acceptable.

Objections to the bin store area proposed are noted. The proposal is to locate the bins a distance of 0.9m to 1.8m distant from the curtilages with properties on Crawford Road. This is approximately 2m closer than the location of the bins prior to the development. At present, the bins are stored within the front car park area, lined right up against the rear curtilage of another set of properties on Crawford Road. As the original development had no controls on where bin storage could be located, the present storage area is not unauthorised.

Due to the distance of the bin store areas from the houses on Crawford Road which feature long gardens that offer a separation distance of at least 25m from the edge of the bin store area, it is not considered that significant noise migration, or smells would affect the amenities of residents inside these properties. As a result, the assessment will focus upon any nuisance that would potentially occur towards users of the gardens.

105 With regards to noise and smells, the location of the bins is similar to where they were located prior to the development, and they are now proposed only approximately 2 metres closer to the curtilage of neighbouring properties. As a result, associated noise from the operation of the bins and the migration of smells will actually be very similar to the situation prior to the development commencing, and cannot form a valid reason for recommending a refusal of the scheme. Even ignoring this issue, however, it is not considered that the noise caused from the opening and closure of the bin lids would form a noise nuisance that would affect the use of the rear gardens of neighbouring property, as the actual movement of bins will be infrequent, occurring only for bin collection. The bins would be moved out into the car park area for refuse collection, then stored back afterwards. As the bins feature closing lids, smell migration should not be significant. The planning officer did visit the site on five separate occasions, and did not notice any issue with regards to smells next to the bin area.

The location of the bin store area will be close to a blank side wall of the nursing home, which will ensure that it will not affect any significant outlook for residents of the facility. As discussed above, screening and planting will avoid any significant effect upon the outlook from properties on Crawford Road.

With regards to vermin, the movement of the bins a short distance from where they are presently stored should not present any significant additional issues. Looking at the bins on site during each site visit, the officer notes that they have solid lids which are firmly closed. As a result, they should not in themselves encourage vermin. It is noted that the land to the side of the care home, which has now been cleared, was formally overgrown and encompassed dumped rubble, which would have provided a good habitat for vermin, which has now been mostly removed. In any event, this is a matter for the Environmental Protection Service.

The roof lights are a suitable distance away from neighbouring properties to prevent any significant migration of light that would cause any significant disamenity to neighbouring properties. The garden lengths to properties on Crawford Road and Norton Lees Road is greater than the 22m distance normally recommended to avoid disturbances between directly facing windows. A refusal of the windows on the basis of light migration could therefore not be reasonably considered. The height of the windows above room floor level will prevent any privacy issues arising. The position of the windows are not visible from Cliffefield Road.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

106 situation. The style of the bins is such, that significant smell migration, noise or vermin issues should not arise towards neighbouring properties. The use of laurel planting will hide most of the gabion structure from view when planted, and will effectively hide the entire screening fence and supporting structure from view when grown to its full height.

The rooflights will be positioned in a way to avoid privacy issues or any loss of amenity to the side, and are visually acceptable. It is noted that the planting and screening are needed to rectify the existing situation with regards to overlooking and security, and will be conditioned to be provided within a set time period from the date of decision. The scheme will accord with the principle of policies H14 and BE5 from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted conditionally.

107

Case Number 11/03197/LBC

Application Type Listed Building Consent Application

Proposal Partial demolitions, refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing flats, erection of multi-storey car park with ancillary A1 (retail), A3 (cafes/restaurants), A4 (bars), A5 (takeaways), D1 (health/education) and B1 (offices) uses and landscaping (Revised Reserved Matters in relation to Phase 1 in accordance with 06/00848/OUT)

Location Park Hill Estate Duke Street Park Hill Sheffield S2 5RQ

Date Received 30/09/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Hawkins/Brown

Recommendation Grant Conditionally Subject to S of S

Subject to:

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

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

2 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents: Park Hill Phase 1 Updated Reserved Matter Application Design Report dated April 2011 received on 30th August 2011 unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE17 - Design & Materials in Areas of Special Character or Historic Interest PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

108

For Report see 11/02801/REM

109

Case Number 11/03361/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing single storey building and erection of 3 storey call centre and administration hub with associated access, car parking and servicing arrangements

Location 51-53 Stanley Street Sheffield S3 8HH

Date Received 24/10/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Crowley Planning

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

Floor Plans received on 24 October 2011 (Ref: 808/004) Site Plan received on 24 October 2011 (Ref: 808/104) Elevations Plan received on 24 October 2011 (Ref 808/205) excludes front elevation Front Elevation received 7 December 2011 (Ref 808/200/D Window Details received on 24 October 2011 (808/204/B)

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 No taxis operating through the control system at the building shall set out from or return to the taxi office base hereby permitted for the purpose of collecting clients.

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

110

4 At no time shall customers be allowed to attend the premises to order a taxi, which includes the use of an intercom system or similar.

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

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

6 Large scale details, including materials and finishes, of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of development: a) Entrance Gates. b) Cladding to rooftop plant. c) Eaves and verges. d) Rainwater gutters, downpipes and external plumbing. e) External Walkways to rear elevation, which shall not have a galvanised finish.

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

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

7 Before development commences final details of the radio antenna, including location and associated equipment, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This equipment shall be erected in accordance with these details thereafter.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

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

9 At all times that construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been

111 submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

10 Unless it can be shown not to be feasible and viable, before development commences a report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying a strategy for providing a minimum of 10% of the developments overall predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy.

Any agreed renewable or low carbon energy equipment, connection to decentralised or low carbon energy sources or additional energy efficiency measures shall have been installed before any part of the development is occupied and a post-installation report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the agreed measures have been installed. Thereafter the agreed equipment, connection or measures shall be retained in use and maintained for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This condition shall not preclude an agreement being reached with the Council for a contribution towards an off-site carbon reduction scheme if it is demonstrated that it is not feasible to generate renewable or low carbon energy on site.

In order to ensure that new development makes energy savings in the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS65.

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

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

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

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

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

14 Before development commences full details of the finishes to the boundary fences and entrance gates, which shall not be galvanised, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details thereafter.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

113 18 All development and associated remediation shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Remediation Strategy. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy, or unexpected contamination is encountered at any stage of the development process, works should cease and the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Protection Service (tel: 0114 273 4651) should be contacted immediately. Revisions to the Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy.

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

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

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

20 The offices shall be designed to achieve an internal noise level of Noise Rating Curve NR45 (Noise Rating Curves should be measured as a 15 minute Leq at the octave band centre frequencies 31.5 kHz to 8 kHz).

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

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE1 - Townscape Design BE5 - Building Design and Siting IB5 - Development in General Industry Areas IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas CS17 - City Centre Quarters CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Development CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS67 - Flood Risk Management CS74 - Design Principles Wicker Riverside Action Plan.

114 As the building is to be used as a taxi base and for associated administrative and training purposes it is considered to be sui generis and as a result does not fall within any of the use classes discussed in the relevant land use polices. It must therefore be considered on its own merits.

The existing use of the site is for the sale of garden furniture, which is not a preferred use in the area. As such the introduction of a sui generis use on the site would not further prejudice the dominance of preferred uses.

The applicant has provided a Sequential Test that demonstrates there are no appropriate alternative sites within the Wicker Riverside Action Plan Area that could accommodate the development. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable.

Given the commercial nature of the area there are no sensitive uses that would be disturbed by the 24 hour nature of the business. Appropriate conditions will be in place to ensure that ground contamination is suitably managed during construction.

The development will provide a sufficient level of car parking and safe access points to the existing highway network.

The development will provide suitable access arrangements for all users, which includes level access points, mobility parking and an internal lift.

The scheme will boast excellent sustainability credentials, which includes meeting a BREEAM rating of very good.

115 Site Location

116

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an area of land that is occupied by a single storey flat roofed building fronting Stanley Street to the east and a large yard area to the rear fronting Nursery Lane. It is currently used by a business that sells various items of garden paraphernalia.

The applicant is seeking planning permission to erect a new three storey flat roofed brick building, which would front Stanley Street. The building would be utilised primarily as a call centre for a taxi business, but would also provide associated administrative facilities such as offices and training space. A reasonably large rooftop plant room is also required.

The applicant also proposes to create a car park (20 spaces) and landscaped area to the rear of the site, which would also provide secure cycle parking. The applicant wishes to operate the call centre 24 hours a day and, aside from occasional visits for administrative purposes, does not propose for any taxis to use the premises.

The area surrounding the application site is somewhat run down and has several surface level car parks and vacant areas of land. The predominant architectural style is pitched roofed red brick/rendered buildings that are or have been in industrial use.

The site is located in a General Industry Area as defined by the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and is also within the Wicker Riverside Action Plan Area. The majority of the site is also located within Flood Zone 3a, with a small section to the rear of the site being located within Flood Zone 3a(i) (Developed Floodplain).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

117 None

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use

Policy IB5: Development in General Industry Areas within the UDP lists a number of uses that are regarded as preferred, acceptable and unacceptable in such areas. The preferred uses are listed as General Industry (Use Class B2) and Warehousing (Use Class B8).

The site is also located in a Business Area as defined by the Wicker Riverside Action Plan (WRAP), which is a more up to date land use policy document in comparison to the UDP. In such areas Offices (Use Class B1) are the preferred use, with other uses such as small shops and housing being considered as acceptable.

Policy CS17(I): City Centre Quarters within the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), which is also more current than the UDP, identifies the area as being prioritised for business uses.

As the building is to be used as a taxi base and for associated administrative and training purposes it is considered to be a sui generis use and therefore it does not fall within any of the use classes discussed above. It must therefore be considered on its own merits. It is worth noting that the use would be most akin to an office building in terms of its impact and this is a preferred use in accordance with the WRAP and CS17.

Dominance

Section a) within Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development should not lead to a concentration of uses which would prejudice the dominance of industry and business in the area.

As the site is currently used to sell garden furniture and associated items it is considered to be Retail (Use Class A1), which is not a preferred use in accordance with the relevant land use policies. As such the replacement of one none preferred use with another would not prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the area.

Design

Policy BE1: Townscape Design within the UDP states that a high quality townscape will be promoted with a positive approach to conservation and a high standard of new design.

118 Policy BE5: Building Design and Siting within the UDP states that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new buildings.

Section c) within Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development should be well designed and be of a scale and nature appropriate to the site.

Policy CS74: Design Principles within the CS states that high quality development will be expected, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive feature of the city.

The height of the proposed building (three storeys with a flat roof) is not considered to be excessive or out of context with the area. Although the plant room does add some additional height it will be set back from the front elevation and its unusual shape and quality finish will add interest to the building.

The footprint of the building, although reasonably large, is considered to be appropriate on this generous site.

The applicant has proposed a simple elevation to the road frontage, which would be articulated by the use of deep reveals, a variety of window sizes and the use of a different brick at ground floor. Although sections of the ground floor are somewhat inactive this is as a result of the development being within the flood zone and is accepted for this reason.

As the rear elevation faces southwest it will provide more generous window openings and also has a rear balcony area at first and second floor for staff, which is very welcome.

Other details such as the security fencing and landscaping will be of a suitable quality, which will be assured with the imposition of planning conditions.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable from a design perspective.

Flooding

Policy CS67: Flood Risk Management within the CS aims to mitigate and manage the risk of flooding across the city. Flood proofing recommendations have been sent directly to the applicant.

The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 3a, with a small section to the rear of the site located within Flood Zone 3a(i) (Developed Floodplain). As a result the applicant has submitted as comprehensive Sequential Test (ST) for the site, which has been the subject of extensive discussions at the pre-application stage. This report demonstrates that there are no appropriate alternative sites within the Wicker Riverside Action Plan Area for the scheme to be located. The proposed development therefore passes the ST.

The Environment Agency has assessed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and considers it to be satisfactory.

119

The applicant has ensured that the section of the site that is within Flood Zone 3a(i) (Developed Floodplain) is only used for car parking, which is welcomed.

Amenity

Section b) within Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development or change of use applications should not cause residents or visitors in any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

There are no residential or other sensitive uses in the vicinity that could be impacted by the 24 operation of the business.

A condition will be attached to any consent requiring appropriate internal noise standards to be achieved for the offices before occupation.

The adjacent commercial units have no key windows facing onto the site that would be impacted by the development.

The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable from an amenity point of view.

Highways

Section f) within Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development or change of use applications should be adequately served by transport facilities and provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off street parking.

The proposed scheme includes 20 parking spaces, two of which will be mobility compliant. Given that at times the car park will be used to store specialist vehicles and also occasionally visited by drivers for administration and training purposes this provision is viewed as acceptable. It is also noted that there are good public transport links to the site via the city centre or Wicker, which is set 140 metres to the southeast.

The proposal would see vehicle ingress from Stanley Street and egress onto Nursery Lane. Both of these highways are considered to be able to cope with this limited increase in activity, whilst the proposed vehicle access points are viewed as acceptable.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable from a highways perspective.

Access

The scheme will provide level access from the street and car park, two mobility compliant parking spaces and suitable internal facilities, which includes lift access to all floors.

120

The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable from an access viewpoint.

Archaeology

The scheme is currently being assessed by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and their findings and any relevant conditions will be reported to Members at the Committee meeting.

Sustainability

Policy CS63: Responses to Climate Change within the CS sets out the overarching approach to reduce the city’s impact on climate change. These actions include:

- Giving priority to development and promoting higher densities in the city centre and other areas that are well served by sustainable forms of transport.

- Locating and designing development to eliminate unacceptable flood risk.

- Giving preference to development on previously developed land where this is sustainably located.

Policy CS64: Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Development within the CS sets out a suite of requirements in order for all new development to be designed to reduce emissions.

In practice, to satisfy the main body of the policy non-residential developments should achieve a BREEAM rating of Very Good. CS64 has further requirements that may fall outside BREEAM, such as designing buildings flexibly from the outset to allow a variety of possible future uses.

Policy CS65: Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction within the CS sets out objectives to support and require renewable and low carbon energy generation and also to further reduce carbon emissions. Policy CS65 requires new developments to provide a minimum of 10% of their predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy unless it can be demonstrated that it is not feasible and viable.

CS65 did until recently also require the generation of further renewable or low carbon energy, or the incorporation of design measures, sufficient to reduce the development’s overall predicted carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. As this is now a requirement of Building Regulations it is no longer being sought as part of planning applications.

The developer has confirmed that the building will meet the BREEAM Very Good standard. It has also been agreed that the development will meet the 10% requirement set out in section a) of Policy CS65.

121 In addition to the above the development is in a sustainable central location and also includes a number of additional features to promote sustainable design such as cycle parking and refuse and recycling facilities.

It is noted that the applicant also considered incorporating a green/brown roof into the scheme, but this was ruled out as they propose to use the roof to erect PV panels.

Given the above it is considered that the development will comfortably meet the sustainability requirements introduced by the CS.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

As the building is to be used as a taxi base and for associated administrative and training purposes it is considered to be sui generis and as a result does not fall within any of the use classes discussed in the relevant land use polices. It must therefore be considered on its own merits.

The development will provide a sufficient level of car parking and safe access points to the existing highway network.

The development will provide suitable access arrangements for all users, which includes level access points, mobility parking and an internal lift.

The scheme will boast excellent sustainability credentials, which includes meeting a BREEAM rating of very good.

In light of the above the scheme is recommended for conditional approval.

122

Case Number 11/03601/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application under Sec 73 to vary condition 2 (restricting opening hours) imposed by 07/02931/FUL (Alterations to building including single storey side extension and use of ground floor of building as bar and restaurant) to allow hours of operation to be 0800 to 0130 hours (on the following day) on Sundays to Wednesdays and 0800 to 0230 hours (on the following day) on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays immediately before Public Holiday Mondays and to allow the use of Temporary Event Notices

Location SOYO 117 Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB

Date Received 11/11/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent OMU

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed extension of hours is unacceptable based on the potential for further noise and disturbance to surrounding residents, which would detract from the aim of successfully balancing city centre living and a vibrant night-time economy. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H14 within the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and the aims of the City Centre Living Strategy and the Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses.

123 Site Location

124 BACKGROUND

The applicant received planning permission to use the ground floor of 117 Rockingham Street as a restaurant & bar (Use Class A3 & A4) in February 2008 (07/04931/FUL). Condition 2 within this original consent stated that:

‘The restaurant/bar shall only be used between 0800 hours and 0030 hours on any day.’

The applicant subsequently received consent in October 2008 to vary Condition 2, in order to allow the restaurant & bar to open during the following hours for a temporary period of twelve months from first operation:

08:00 to 00:30 hours on Sunday to Wednesday.

07:30 to 01:30 hours on Thursday to Saturday and Sundays before Bank Holidays.

A twelve month period was imposed in order to assess the true impact of the extended hours on the amenity of nearby residential properties such as Flockton Court and Smithfields. This twelve month period expired on 21st March 2010.

Since the twelve months period expired the applicant has submitted four further applications to extend the hours, one of which has been withdrawn, whilst the other three have been refused (please refer to Relevant Planning History section below for more details). One of these refused applications has been to appeal in which the Planning Inspector upheld the Council’s decision.

PROPOSAL

The applicant now wishes to vary condition 2 in order to operate between the following hours on a permanent basis:

08:00 hours and 01:30 hours the following day on Sundays to Wednesdays.

08:00 hours and 02:30 hours the following day on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays before bank holidays.

The applicant is also seeking to use Temporary Events Notices, which would allow the venue to undertake 12 events a year, with each event lasting up to 72 hours a time. These events would take place without hours restrictions from either planning or licensing.

LOCATION

The application building, which was historically a church hall, forms one of a grouping of buildings of high architectural merit located on the southern side of West Street, between Rockingham Street and Rockingham Lane.

Adjacent to the site to the south is a development of 75 one and two bedroom apartments with a basement car park, known as the Smithfield apartments. To the

125 immediate rear of the building is a small development of ten apartments known as Bishops Lodge. Further residential developments occupy much of Rockingham Street to the south and include Phoenix Court and Flockton Court.

The site is set in extremely close proximity (13 metres) to West Street to the north, which is one of the most vibrant areas of the city centre throughout the evening.

The application site is within the City Centre Conservation Area. The building is also set within a Housing Area as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The Central Shopping Area is set to the immediate north.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Permission was refused under planning reference 09/02424/FUL at City Centre South and East Planning & Highway Committee on 24 November 2009 to permanently extend the opening hours to 0800 hours - 0130 hours on Sunday to Wednesday and 0800 hours - 0230 hours on Thursday to Saturday and Sundays immediately before Bank Holiday Mondays.

Permission was refused under planning reference 10/00157/FUL at City Centre South and East Planning & Highway Committee on 9 March 2010 to extend the opening hours until 01:30 hours on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays before Bank Holidays for a period of two years. The applicant appealed against this decision and The Planning Inspectorate agreed with the Council on the restriction of the hours of use (discussed in more detail in the Planning Assessment below).

The reason for refusal was:

‘’The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed extension of hours is unacceptable based on the potential for further noise and disturbance to surrounding residential uses, which would detract from the aim of successfully balancing city centre living with a vibrant night-time economy. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H14 within the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and the aims of the City Centre Living Strategy and the Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses.’’

An application was submitted under planning reference 10/00808/FUL to extend the hours until 0200 hours on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays prior to Bank Holidays for a temporary 12 month period on 11 March 2010 and withdrawn on 25 March 2010.

Permission was refused under planning reference 10/02123/FUL at City Centre South and East Planning & Highway Committee on 24 August 2010 in order to operate until 02:00 hours Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays before bank holidays on a permanent basis. This application was refused for the same reasons as 10/00157/FUL discussed above.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Representation

126

Councillor Robert Murphy has submitted as representation which begins by highlighting the Planning Inspectorate decision to uphold a previous refusal to allow the bar to open beyond 00:30 hours (10/00157/FUL). This representation goes onto state that this section of Rockingham Street is largely residential in nature and that noise incidents associated with SOYO have been reported by both local residents and by the Environmental Protection Service.

This representation goes onto state that the Councillor has spoken to local residents in connection to the application and it is clear that nothing has changed in respect to past issues with the venue. The letter also points out that Flockton Court residents still only have double glazing, which can only keep out so much noise and Smithfield residents are too close to be able to sleep with the bass beat reverberating from the bar.

Letters of Objection

A letter has been received from the management agent of the Smithfield Apartments stating that during the period that SOYO had previously had an extension to their opening hours they regularly had to deal with complaints about noise and nuisance. Other issues of note have included broken bottles from people drinking outside and urine and vomit in the doorways of the apartments. This is a predominantly residential area and whilst residents of the city centre expect a level of vibrancy they also expect and deserve a certain level of peace and quite, certainly in the early hours of the morning.

A letter has been received from Sheffield Residential who are a business located on the ground floor next to the bar on the corner of Rockingham Street and West Street. This representation expresses concern that the queues outside SOYO encroach around the shop from Rockingham Street onto West Street, which results in people in the queue resting on the single paned windows of the unit, which could result in the window smashing. The queue can also lead to hand marks on the windows and food substances etc being left which Sheffield Residential have to deal with.

There have been nine letters of objection from local residents (1 from Phoenix Court – 6 from Smithfield – 2 from Flockton Court) which state the following:

- This section of Rockingham Street is primarily residential in character.

- People in the street shouting and screaming at night time is a real cause of nuisance for existing residents. Allowing this application would result in more people in the street later into the night, which would exacerbate this issue. Residents have described how this noise makes their lives a misery at present.

- Cars and taxis picking people up beep horns and play loud music is a nuisance.

- People randomly ring the buzzers for the apartments when intoxicated.

- Litter and bottles are left in the street.

127

- Noise breakout form the venue is a problem with bass music reverberating through apartments within the Smithfield block. An increase in the hours of opening would make this a problem later into the night.

- It is common to see young men urinating and vomiting outside the venue and the apartments.

- It is uncomfortable walking past the venue at night as intoxicated people congregate outside.

- The operation of the venue has not improved over the time that the various planning applications have been submitted and problems persist or have become worse, which includes in the week.

Letters of Support

23 individual letter of support have been received from existing employees of the bar and discuss the consequences on staff and the business if the additional hours were refused, which includes the loss of employment and the potential for the bar to go out of business. It is also pointed out that there are other sources of noise in the vicinity and the bar plays a vital role in the success of Sheffield’s nightlife.

It has also been stated that the bar does take steps to deal with issues raised by local residents such as sweeping up outside and asking patrons to leave in a quite fashion.

A resident from Bishops Lodge, which is set directly to the rear of the bar, has written to express support for the application. This representation states that the bar provides additional variety in the city and is very well designed. It concludes by stating that the success of such businesses is vital for the city’s economy.

One further representation has been submitted from an address not in the vicinity of the bar simply stating support for the scheme.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Appeal Decision

Following consideration of an appeal relating to a previously refused scheme the Planning Inspectorate issued a decision on 9 July 2010 which agreed with the Local Planning Authority’s decision to refuse permission to extend the hours of opening until 01:30 hours on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays before Bank Holidays for a period of two years, which was considered under planning reference 10/00157/FUL.

The Inspector considered that the main issue was whether allowing the premises to open during the extended hours would harm the living conditions of nearby residents through noise and other disturbance in the early hours of the morning.

128 The Inspector noted that the site’s immediate surroundings are unusual, in that Rockingham Street intersects two centres of late night activity, West Street to the north and Division Street to the south. On these streets there are many cafés, bars and other late night venues that open beyond 00:30 hours. However, Rockingham Street itself, specifically the part between West Street and Division Street, is almost entirely residential with no commercial uses that generate late night activity other than SOYO.

The Inspector goes onto acknowledge evidence gathered by the Local Planning Authority, which includes complaints to the Environment Protection Service, and the representations from local residents, which identify noise and anti social behaviour problems attributed to the bar, such as screaming and shouting, sounding of horns, increased traffic, trespass onto private property and urinating. The Inspector notes that these problems are generally related to street activity and, although it is difficult to associate street activity with a particular premise, it is held as likely that the operations of the bar generate at least some increased noise and activity on Rockingham Street, which is confirmed in the applicant’s noise report. In concluding, the Inspector notes that good management practice can reduce even street disturbance, but it cannot remove it entirely.

The commercial argument was also taken on board by the Inspector but was not considered to outweigh the need to maintain acceptable living conditions for nearby residents. On balance therefore, the Inspector considered that the primarily residential character of this part of Rockingham Street justifies somewhat tighter restrictions on late night opening than might otherwise be the case and the opening hours should therefore be limited to 00:30 hours.

It is noted that the applicant is now applying for hours that go well beyond the hours the Inspector and Members have previously turned down, which includes permission to use Temporary Events Notices.

Impact on Amenity

Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

Policy H14: Conditions on Development in Housing Areas within the UDP states that in Housing Areas new development or change of use applications should not lead to air pollution, noise, smell, excessive traffic levels or other nuisance, or pose a risk to health and safety for people living nearby.

City Centre Living Strategy (CCLS)

The CCLS was approved by Cabinet in 2004 and forms Supplementary Planning Guidance. One of the key goals of this document is to ensure that potential conflict between residential uses and late night venues is managed.

Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses (IPG)

The IPG aims to find a harmony and balance between city centre living and a vibrant night-time economy, in order to ensure a successful city centre in both

129 senses. This document was approved by Cabinet in 2005 and identifies two areas of the city centre in which the amenity of existing and future residents should particularly be protected from undue noise and disturbance after a reasonable time of night. The IPG identifies 00.30am as this reasonable time of night. The application site does not fall within one such area and must therefore be judged on its individual merits.

Guideline 2 within the IPG states that leisure and food and drink uses will only be allowed if: a) Conditions for nearby residents and people working in the area will not be harmed by noise breakout, traffic, parking on nearby streets, odours, street noise or general disturbance. b) They are unlikely to lead to anti-social behaviour that would disturb residents, workers or users of the area.

In considering this application the impact of the proposed increase in the opening hours on the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers, in what is a designated Housing Area, is the primary concern.

Given the large number of residential units in the immediate area, it was considered reasonable to apply more restrictive opening hours than on other late night uses in the wider area when the original restaurant & bar use was approved (07/04931/FUL). In this respect, 00:30 was considered to be a reasonable hour, given that the Interim Planning Guidance on Night Times Uses (IPG) advocates this in areas with high residential amenity value.

When considering the second application to extend the hours of opening to 01:30 hours on Thursday to Saturday and Sundays before Bank Holidays, it was considered reasonable to allow this for a temporary period of twelve months, given the proximity of West Street (13 metres to the north), which does create relatively high background noise levels. The rationale being that this temporary extension would allow a better understanding of whether operating the unit later into the night would suitably protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

The applicant then submitted further applications to retain and/or extend the later opening hours. It was evident from the representations of surrounding residents to these subsequent applications that the extension of the current operating hours was causing notable noise and disturbance, as was the general operation of the bar. This noise disturbance was largely as a result of ancillary behaviour associated with the use, including patrons leaving the premises or smoking outside.

When considering these further applications the bar was also the subject of three site visits by officers. The first two visits were on Friday the 19th of February 2010.

The first visit was at approximately 23:25 to 23:40. Officers observed several taxis waiting outside of the premises with their engines running, several people queuing and several people smoking outside of the premises making a moderate noise.

130 Two separate customers were also observed approaching the bar from West Street making extensive noise shouting to friends down their phones. Music, in particular base, was also audible coming from the bar.

The second visit was at approximately 01:25 to 01:40 during which time the bar was emptying. Officers observed taxis arriving to pick up patrons at the premises and continuously beeping their horns. Several patrons were also observed to be shouting in the street as they departed.

The third visit was on the 15th of May 2010 at approximately 00:15 to 00:50 and again activities associated with this bar were seen as creating noise and disturbance in the area. This included a long queue of patrons waiting to get into the venue, people smoking outside and taxis beeping horns, which all created some considerable noise.

As part of the submission of this application the applicant has stated that the venue has since undertaken a noise management strategy to try to manage such noise and disturbance. This includes introducing a well managed smoking area and stopping taxis waiting outside the venue. The applicant has also stated that the venue has become part of a City Centre Awareness scheme, which allows residents to attend meetings and raise issues.

While these measures are welcomed, the evidence that has been submitted by local residents as part of the representations clearly suggest the venue continues to harm their amenities, principally through associated street noise and anti social behaviour.

The venue was also the subject to a further officer site visit on Friday the 3rd of December 2011 between 23:30 hours and 00:20 hours, in order to witness the current situation at first hand. During this visit a number of concerning incidents directly relating to the venue were witnessed, these included:

- At 23:50 hours (approx) a male was forcibly removed from the venue by a doorman via the fire doors onto Rockingham Street. This resulted in these large doors being thrown open over the public highway and the associated alarms sounding loudly for a few minutes. The ejected male and his friends then began arguing between themselves and shouting at the door staff from the highway in a very aggressive manner.

- At 12:15 (approx) a male in the designated smoking area grabbed another male by the throat and began to threaten him. These two males were then involved in a loud aggressive argument, which also involved their friends and lasted for a few minutes.

- One ongoing incident involving a number of patrons from the bar who were having a loud and aggressive argument. This altercation began at around 00:05 hours and was still taking place at 00:20 hours. As part of this incident one group of four women were standing in the entrance to the Smithfield Apartments and a larger group of around 10 people were standing in the separate car park entrance to the Smithfield Apartments. This argument also involved people who were still

131 smoking in the designated area outside the bar with people shouting up and down Rockingham Street to each other.

- 2 Separate incidents of patrons leaving the designated smoking area to urinate in doorways. The first male urinated in one of the doorways to the Smithfield Apartments and the second urinated on the fire escape door of the bar itself fronting Rockingham Street.

- Two elderly pedestrians who could not walk past the bar as the footway was blocked by patrons of the venue acting in a drunken manner.

- People from the bar smoking on the footway and not in the designated smoking areas.

- General noise and disturbance from the patrons walking to the bar and leaving it.

The owner of the bar has been advised of the officer visit and has stated that much of this disturbance was unusual for the venue and was as a result of a Christmas party inside. The owner has also stated in writing that he has looked at the CCTV footage and there was no one urinating in the doorways. As these urinating incidents were observed at first hand the continuing denial of such events by the venue is a real cause for concern.

On a positive note it was observed that the problem with taxis waiting outside the venue does seem to have been addressed to an extent and at times general noise from patrons outside the venue was drowned out by the traffic on Rockingham Street.

In relation to noise breakout the Councils Environmental Protection Team has in the past not raised any issues with the venue. However they have recently received several complaints from local residents in this regard. The details of these are as follows:

- On 17/18th of October 2011 two calls were made from a resident at Smithfield complaining about noise from a band in the venue.

- On 20th of October 2011 a call was made from a resident at Smithfield complaining about loud music and bass from the venue.

- On 16th of November 2011 a call was made from a resident at Smithfield complaining that the music had been bad again for past week.

- On 17th November 2011 an email was sent from a resident of Smithfield stating that bass was making the walls and floor of the apartment vibrate.

- Further calls from 2 residents of Smithfield were also made on the 17 & 18th of November 2011 complaining about noise breakout from the venue.

It is noted that these complaints were from several residents in the block and these matters are currently being addressed by the Environmental Team.

132

In light of the above, it is therefore clear from the majority of representations of local residents, complaints to the Council’s Environmental Team and the evidence gathered by the recent and previous visits that the venue is a cause of notable noise and disturbance to existing residents, which was observed to be extremely intimidating at times. It should also be borne in mind that given the age of Flockton Court these apartments do not have the same sound attenuation and ventilation arrangements that other more recent developments have and as such, nuisance to them is heightened.

The applicant has stated that the venue could go out of business if this application is refused and a number of members of staff could be made redundant. No evidence such as accounts has been submitted to verify this. While this is an obvious concern the commercial argument was taken on board by the Inspector in the recent appeal decision who concluded that ‘it was not considered to outweigh the need to maintain acceptable living conditions for nearby residents.’

The applicant has also sited a number of bars in the area that operate beyond 00:30 hours. As part of his decision to dismiss the planning appeal the Inspector also recognises this but states that ‘the site’s immediate surroundings are unusual, in that Rockingham Street intersects two centres of late night activity, West Street to the north and Division Street to the south. On these streets there are many cafés, bars and other late night venues that open beyond 00:30 hours. However, Rockingham Street itself, specifically the part between West Street and Division Street, is almost entirely residential with no commercial uses that generate late night activity other than SOYO.’

There are also a number of examples of bars that only operate until 00:30 hours owing to there close proximity to residential properties such as West One at the top of Devonshire Street.

It is therefore considered that a further extension of opening hours beyond 00:30 hours would continue to exacerbate matters, would detract from the aim of successfully balancing city centre living with a vibrant night-time economy and will undoubtedly lead to further complaints.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The issues that have been identified within the representations have been addressed within the above Planning Assessment.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed extension of hours is considered to be unacceptable based on the potential for further noise and disturbance to surrounding residents, which would detract from the aim of successfully balancing city centre living and a vibrant night- time economy. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H14 within the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and the aims of the City Centre Living Strategy and the Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses.

133 The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

134