SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATION 08/02594/OUT

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed use development comprising employment and business facilities (Use Class B1), residential accommodation (including serviced apartments) (C3), hotels (C1), commercial office floorspace (A2), food and drink facilities (A3, A4 and A5), community and civic facilities (D1), leisure uses (D2), retail floorspace (A1), and ancillary commercial and non-commercial uses, car parking spaces (including multi-storey car parking), public and private open space, and landscaping, highways, access and engineering works

ADDRESS: Land and Buildings at Weir Head Carbrook Street Meadowhall Way Meadowhall Drive and Weedon Weedon Street Sheffield

1. LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Site Location and Description

The application site occupies an area of approximately 25 hectares. It is located in the lower Don Valley which is predominately industrial and commercial in character. Meadowhall shopping centre adjoins the site to the north, the southern boundary of the site is formed by the river Don with Jessop Riverside Business Park and the huge Forgemasters River Don Works located on the opposite bank of the river. The western boundary of the site is also formed by the river Don whilst to the east there is the Howco engineering works and Carbrook offices.

The site mainly comprises of vacant land although there are some large, mainly unused, workshops on part of the site adjoining Weedon Street. It incorporates a substantial section of railway embankment and a section of the Five Weirs Walk between Carbrook Street and the Meadowhall Way. Other than the railway embankment the site is relatively flat. The vegetated areas are located on the railway embankment and on land immediately adjoining the Five Weirs Walk and river.

Application Submissions

The application is in outline with all matters of detail reserved for future approval. The application is supported with an Environmental Statement. Outline applications have to provide sufficient information to enable the planning authority and community to understand the nature of the development and the likely impacts. The applicant has therefore submitted a series of parameters plans with associated regulatory text, (regulatory text provides further clarification and explanation of the information contained in the parameters plans) that defines the limits of the development proposed. These show the site boundary, the maximum footprint of development, the uses proposed and maximum and minimum amount of floor space to be developed, the maximum building heights and the zones within which access and egress points will be located. A design code is proposed which proposes a framework for guiding the detailed design of the development. The Environmental Statement assesses the impact of the scheme under different chapter headings and puts forward proposals for mitigating the impact. The parameters plans and regulatory text, the design codes, the mitigation proposals and planning conditions and legal agreements will define the development permitted and the constraints of how the site can be developed.

Indicative Masterplan and Proposed Development

The applicants have prepared an indicative Masterplan. They have adopted a series of principles that have underpinned the development of the Masterplan. These are:

- Making it Green;

- Making it Connected;

- Making Places and Creating Destinations; and

- A Statement of Innovation and Success.

The site has been divided into a series of plots numbered 1-5 and illustrated in Appendix 1. Plot one will be predominantly residential use with office and possibly some small scale retail, leisure, food and drink and community uses. Plot 2 will be a mixed-use neighbourhood centre combining a range of uses at the heart of the scheme including residential, office, hotel, local retail, leisure, food and drink and community uses. Plot 3/4 will be predominantly developed for offices and some residential, ancillary retail, leisure, food and drink uses. Plot 5 will be either office or hotel use.

The parameters plans define the maximum and minimum amounts of floor space that can be developed for different uses across the whole site and on a plot by plot basis. There is an overall floor space cap of 210,140 sqm of development. Within this the office floor space will range from 60,000 sqm to 120,000 sqm. There will be between 800 and 1300 dwellings, and between 2000 sqm and 2499 sqm of retail floor space. Between 2000 sqm and 6,600 sqm of food and drink, financial and professional services offices, community and leisure uses and proposed and there may be a hotel of up to 10,000 sqm. The maximum number of car parking spaces is 2818. The parameters plans allow for a large degree of flexibility such that the range of uses and amount of floor space that can be developed on individual plots can vary between the maximum and minimum floor space caps. Appendix 1 shows the plot by plot breakdown of uses by maximum and minimum floor space. An indicative layout has been submitted which illustrates one way of developing the site, see Appendix 1. It shows one way in which the site could be developed incorporating the maximum office floorspace. Plot 1 is shown as largely residential with housing provided in perimeter blocks with private/shared space in courtyards. Public open space is provided next to the river and Weedon Street, incorporating the Five Weirs Walk, children’s play facilities and informal recreation space. Offices are proposed along part of the Carbrook Street frontage to provide a buffer between the residential uses and the Howco Works. A flood relief channel connects the River Don between Weedon Street Bridge and Meadowhall Way Bridge. A new dual carriageway links Weedon Street and Meadowhall Way. Plot 2 is shown as a neighbourhood centre incorporating retail, food and drink, community hotel and apartments. A central public space is shown surrounded by the other uses. Plot 3/4 is illustrated as being developed for a campus style office development with a series of office buildings around a central water feature. Multi- storey car parking is cut into the railway embankment. Plot 5 is part of a larger plot that already has permission for a series of car showrooms. The indicative layout shows this plot being developed for a free standing office building or hotel. The scheme has been designed to accommodate a potential office occupier with a requirement for approximately 60,000 sq m.

2. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbouring business and residents of the nearest properties in Brightside were consulted directly by letter, (approximately 650 letters were sent out). Community groups, Area Co-ordinators and Ward Councillors were also consulted in the Darnall, Tinsley and Brightside areas. The adjoining authorities of Rotherham and Barnsley were consulted and letters were sent to the local MPs. Copies of the Environmental Statement were displayed at Darnall Library and the Central Library in addition to First Point. Site notices were also erected around the site and the application was advertised in the press. The appropriate technical consultations were undertaken both within and external to the Council.

Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

Yorkshire and Humber Assembly have advised that they would only wish to see an initial phase of office development of 60,000 sqm to be delivered in order to ensure that the City Centre is the focus for office development. Any additional phases should be subject to monitoring of the performance of the City Centre office market. They support the development of a high quality ‘campus style’ office development suitable only for large occupiers who could not be accommodated in the City Centre. They consider that if it were available to a number of smaller or medium sized users it would be contrary to policies that seek to ensure the City Centre is the prime focus for offices. They consider the retail element of the scheme should be limited to convenience shopping that is ancillary to the development and that it should be physically separate from Meadowhall Shopping Centre so that there is no functional retail link between the two sites. The Assembly consider it is important that the development secures an appropriate mix of housing and proportion of affordable units taking into account RSS policies that suggest between 30-40% of affordable units should be provided, and the Council’s housing needs assessment. Parking levels should be in line with or lower than RSS guidance and the Council should impose a condition to ensure the detailed design and layout facilitates the efficient use of nearby public transport by walkers and cyclists. Details should also be provided of how at least 10% of on site renewable energy will be secured.

Yorkshire Forward

Yorkshire Forward considers this proposal is not consistent with securing the regeneration of the City Centre and establishing it as the main location for office development. They do however recognise that the development will regenerate the site and could act as a catalyst for wider regeneration along with ensuring that there are a broad range of offices for local businesses and inward investors. They find it difficult to support the scale of development proposed because of the potential impact on the City Centre. They are aware of interest in this site by a major investor and the negative impact it would have on the City if this investment was lost. Given this, they support the proposal provided that there is a contractual commitment between the applicant and the investor and there are no suitable City Centre sites. As the major investor would not take up all the office space the development should be phased to ensure that a 65%/35% City Centre/out of town split of office development is secured before further out of town development is allowed to proceed. If the single investor does not go ahead at this location they consider the level of office space is inappropriate. Yorkshire Forward welcome the use of renewable energy and the applicant’s commitment to BREAAM excellent standard for the offices and Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. They have suggested the developer should consider a feasibility study into incorporating Combined Heat and Power into the scheme and suggest linking the development to the district heating network or utilising the waste heat from the planned biomass power station at Blackburn Meadows. The developer’s intentions to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport including green travel plans are welcomed. The Council should ensure the buses and pedestrian/cycle routes to the site are improved. They also advise that the project offers the opportunity to provide recycling facilities locally to serve the development.

Creative Sheffield

Creative Sheffield has advised that they are only concerned with the office element of the scheme. They point out that the Regional Spatial Strategy and Planning Policy Statement 6 point to the primacy of the City Centre as the place for offices. They also note that the Core Strategy highlights the City Centre and the area around Meadowhall as suitable locations for offices with the City Centre and its edge accommodating 65% of the total office development in the City. They point out that a key theme of the Economic Masterplan is the development of a knowledge based and innovative economy in order to drive employment growth and productivity growth. To achieve this, the range and quality of office accommodation needs to be significantly improved. They consider the clear priority is to create a premier commercial location in the City Centre of sufficient quality and vibrancy to attract major high value service companies. The City Centre has a crucial role in delivering the central objective of the Economic Masterplan and a key element of this is the creation of New Business District in the City Centre as proposed in the City Centre Masterplan 2008. Creative Sheffield welcomes the proposals to regenerate this area of the Lower Don Valley. However they consider 120,000 sqm of offices in this location would undermine the aspirations of the City Centre Masterplan to develop the City Centre as a major centre of office employment and also the broader aims of the Economic Masterplan. The Core Strategy is proposing to limit City Centre and out-of-centre offices permissions to proportions of 65% and 35% respectively. Permitting one development to take up all the available out of town office space is not necessarily an appropriate basis for ensuring a balance of offices across the City. They also consider insufficient information has been submitted to address the sequential test in PPS6, the degree to which the proposal is complementary rather than in competition with the City Centre, and its impact on the City Centre. They do accept that some office development is appropriate in this location but consider no more that 60,000 sqm should be granted consent. They have suggested that this should be developed in phases of 15,000 sqm with the first phase allowed to proceed immediately but subsequent phases only approved if they are in accordance with the development plan office location policies at the time. If a single company required more than one phase of accommodation this could be considered in the light of the above and its impact on the City Centre and City as a whole. They also consider that a condition should require the development to take the form of a campus development to ensure it would be complementary to the City Centre.

Rotherham Council

Rotherham Borough Council does not wish to object to the above proposal providing that:

- The amount of initial office floorspace built is restricted to 65,000 sqm and that no further office floorspace resulting in an increase beyond this figure is built until a re-assessment is undertaken of the ability of Rotherham town centre to accommodate new office floorspace.

- It has been assessed that traffic levels on roads within Rotherham Metropolitan Borough would not be significantly increased as a result of the development

- It has been assessed that the risk of flooding within Rotherham Metropolitan Borough would not be increased as a result of the development

- The proposed improvements to M1 Junction 34(N) include the A6109 Meadowbank Road arm.

Transform South Yorkshire

Transform South Yorkshire have commented that whilst they support the early regeneration of the Weedon street area, even at the maximum level the residential population is not capable of supporting community facilities (particularly education and health). Residents would therefore be required to travel to other communities such as Wincobank and Tinsley from which the development is divorced and there are barriers to movement. Therefore the concept of a sustainable community appears flawed. Residential development at Weedon Street should be after 2015 at the earliest.

Transform South Yorkshire may be able to support the development if it were the first phase in a series of linked communities where the whole was sustainable and the masterplans had demonstrated that it is practical and deliverable to link the Weedon Street area with Tinsley, Brightside and the new canal community.

The site is located in the housing market renewal Pathfinder. In the east of Sheffield the regeneration of the existing communities is predicated on securing significant private sector housing investment. These projects often require public sector funding and there is a risk that the strategy can be undermined by development that is relatively isolated from the existing communities. The development should not be considered without the risk to the strategies being analysed and strategies put forward to minimise the risk. There is no design framework to demonstrate how the development will create places of distinctive character and how it will link with adjoining communities. Transform South Yorkshire is in favour of the principle of new residential neighbourhoods in the Lower Don Valley. However these need to be of sufficiently large scale to be sustainable, the phasing needs to complement the regeneration of the surrounding communities, the surrounding communities need to derive maximum social and economic benefit from the development, and the neighbourhoods need to be of a distinctive character.

Natural England

Natural England has advised that development should not only mitigate against damage to wildlife but should make a positive contribution. The development has the potential to contribute to biodiversity through measures related to landscaping, integrating nesting sites into buildings, provision of green/brown roofs, and sustainable urban drainage. Native species of planting should be used and artificial nesting sites may need providing for bats or birds.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have advised that they consider there is sufficient public transport capacity to support the development. They consider the location is potentially highly accessible being close to the Supertram network and between two bus corridors with frequent services. However it is important that the applicant undertakes the necessary measures to unlock the accessibility of the site and to facilitate and promote the use of public transport. They recommend the following measures:

- Direct, attractive pedestrian links should be provided to bus stops on Weedon Street, Attercliffe Road and Brightside Lane and to the tram stops. Building accesses should be within 600m walk of a tram stop or 400m walk of a bus stop. All pedestrian cycle links should be well lit and maintained.

- Bus shelters through the site and on the adjoining corridors should be up-graded and include real time passenger information displays.

- Planning conditions should secure the implementation of a residential and employee travel plan including the measures already identified by the developer. The provision of discounted public transport tickets should be part of the travel plan. The developer should be conditioned to provide each household with a public transport season ticket as this will encourage sustainable travel behaviour. Employees should be provided with subsidised public transport tickets and Personal Journey Plans.

- A contribution should be secured for the Fixed Link as an integral part of the Bus Rapid Transport Scheme.

Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce

Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce strongly support the proposal as they consider the development will make a significant positive contribution to Barnsley and Rotherham’s economic development through the delivery of the major mixed use development incorporating a differentiated office campus to complement existing strategies across the City region. This should include significant job opportunities during the construction and operational phases. They also note the applicant’s commitment to sustainability and training focussing on local people seeking jobs.

Sheffield’s Urban Design Review Panel

Sheffield’s Urban Design Review Panel considered the design Masterplan at pre-application stage and made the following comments:

The Panel applauded the approach taken to developing this strategic site and welcomed the appointment of a strong design team that had clearly undertaken a thorough analysis of the site and its context and has a strong track record in developing sustainable campuses. The development of a series of key Masterplan principles was supported, but the Panel had some detailed reservations about how the proposals would contribute towards achieving them, and effectively realise the opportunities stated.

Wider Context

The approach to recreate a grid of streets was noted, but it was felt inevitably raised questions at the points were the grid dissolved; particularly in relation to adjacent sites that were beyond the scope and control of this Masterplan.

The Panel felt that it was disappointing that the tram sheds were not part of the site so that they could be better integrated into the proposals, and there was a strong feeling that sites would inevitably emerge in the near future such as the car dealerships, which at present cause some awkward wedge-shaped plots: it would be good to consider how the Masterplan would respond in this eventuality.

The Panel felt that this raised a wider question about what the long term aspiration and vision for the site might be; how it would ultimately function and connect effectively to the surrounding area, particularly Attercliffe town centre and the River Don. The archaeological site seemed to offer further potential for the area designated for community activities, depending on what was discovered.

Levels

The importance of considering the potential flood risk across the site was appreciated, but there were strong reservations about the proposed approach to raise the land 1.9m across the site; particularly when the road network would remain at its existing level.

The Panel felt that this raised significant design challenges and they were not convinced that the environment that this would create between the buildings and the road network or riverside would be successful; leading to wider implications for how the site would function and the roads and buildings would integrate with its surroundings;

Car Parking

The Panel acknowledged that the proposed multi storey car parking solution had developed directly from the client’s brief, and noted that they appeared to be relatively fixed on this requirement. Notwithstanding this, it was felt that this approach produced a solution that was particularly unconvincing in terms of its location and execution and which also exacerbated other problems surrounding the site, including the levels issues referred to above. There was also concern about the quality of the open spaces between the car parks and the office buildings.

Recognising the complementary flooding issue, the natural solution to car parking was felt to be the introduction of ground floor car parking below the buildings, which would eliminate the need for separate car park structures, which contradict the sustainable objectives of the development in a highly visible way. The Panel was firmly of the view that this approach needed to be reconsidered at a fundamental level.

Permeability

The Panel noted the Masterplan principle of creating a well-connected and integrated development, and were concerned to ensure that the development as a whole, and the office/ campus in particular, did not become inward looking and result in a gated community in both office and residential areas. The connectivity to the edges of the scheme, and further design development of the access strategy was felt necessary to avoid this, and ensure a positive relationship with the surrounding area and the clear delineation of private and public spaces.

Building Massing

The Panel supported the architects’ proposal for massing and building heights in principle, subject to the testing of detailed layouts and design. It felt that the large scale neighbouring Forgemasters buildings are very much a part of the character of the Don Valley and it is appropriate to pick this up in the new developments.

Conclusion

The Panel complimented the approach taken to this site, but felt that there were a number of key detailed issues that required further design development, particularly the approach to car parking and the associated impact on the levels, as well as the development of an access strategy to ensure wider connectivity of the proposals.

The Panel also considered a submission from the applicant on 15 th of May which explained how the scheme had been amended to respond to the previous comments of the Urban Design Review Panel. Their comments were summarised by officers and are as follows:

The Panel applauded the approach taken to developing this strategic site and welcomed the appointment of a strong design team that had clearly undertaken a thorough analysis of the site and its context. Previous concerns raised regarding car parking, levels, permeability and massing have been considered at a detailed level through the parameters plans and design code. Some of the concerns have been addressed, however different car parking solutions should be explored at the reserved matters stage as this is still of concern.

East End Strategy Group

The East End Strategy Group have made comments and suggested improvements to the Sustainability appraisal. These are summarised as follows.

- There is a concern that the new housing will be isolated from surrounding communities due to the topography. This could be improved by creating safe and attractive links.

- The development has the potential to impact most on existing communities, eg. additional traffic.

- There is no guarantee that local facilities will be provided or supported.

- Given the type of housing proposed it is not clear how many children will live in the development, avoiding isolation will be more critical if the numbers are only small.

- The schools are too far away and uphill and this is likely to result in additional car usage.

- Whether the development provides housing to meet the needs of everyone including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups will depend on how social housing is secured. The scheme could be improved by fully supporting the need to bring forward a good range of social housing.

- The development will slightly worsen air quality and any adverse impact is a concern. In the early years air quality will be worse until the improvements to air quality are fully realised. Additional health facilities may be needed. It is important that impacts on health are monitored.

- Improved public transport to the area is welcomed. Routes to facilities, particularly to schools and doctors need improving; access to primary schools is particularly poor. The group are not convinced that all facilities needed are within easy reach by non-car owning families.

- The transport mitigation measures are welcomed but could take years to be implemented and be effective. The transport assessment suggests there will be increased traffic in some residential areas of Bawtry Road/ Sheffield Road, Tinsley and Greenland Road, Darnall. The development should assume a nil impact and measures should be brought forward to achieve this. Car parking standards should be the same as the City Centre and car parking should be progressively reduced over subsequent years to demonstrate that the mitigation measures and alternatives to the private car are working. The improvements suggested in the Bawtry Road feasibility study should be considered.

- The Group is not convinced with the air quality mapping and the air quality zone for plots 1 and 2 shows it to be unsuitable for housing. The air quality modelling does not take into account cold starting of vehicle engines. The development will worsen the air quality on Bawtry Road. The air quality assessment considers the impact when the development is complete and it is not clear whether the intervening years will be worse in terms of the air quality impact. The applicant should make a firm commitment to the measures listed in the air quality assessment to address air quality issues. These are: parking permit schemes based on vehicle emissions, priority parking for low emission vehicles, low emission travel incentives for employees, use of low Nox boilers, use of procurement policies to include deliveries in low emission vehicles. Air quality monitoring should be extended to include Brightside School.

- The project information states that it aims to be carbon neutral, the issues of carbon off setting should be addressed by an agreement to offset carbon locally. Code for sustainable homes level 3 will need to be achieved anyway. The developer should aim for a higher code. Will the development maximise the use of recycled and secondary aggregates? Will it improve the resource efficiency of buildings? Will it maximise the use of non fossil fuels? Will it encourage the efficient use of physical infrastructure? Will it minimise the production of waste? Will it re-use or recover waste through recycling, composting or energy recovery? Will it provide access to all to facilities that encourage the minimisation, reuse, and recycling of waste and recovery of energy from waste? Will it increase awareness and provide information on resource efficiency and waste?

The applicant has provided a detailed response to the questions raised by the East End Strategy Group and this has been conveyed to the group.

Five Weirs Walk Trust

The Five Weirs Walk Trust welcomes the opportunity the development provides to extend, enhance and connect the riverside park at Meadowhall to the Five Weirs Walk. However they would wish to see detailed plans and firm conditions to secure these improvements before full planning permission is granted. In particular:

- The new riverside space should provide improved access to the water’s edge for enhanced recreation, canoe access, fishing and river maintenance.

- The flood relief channel should be designed to provide an attractive and naturalistic feature which enhances the habitat. It should provide a permanent wetland habitat and careful design is required where the footpath crosses the channel in order that it does not prejudice the safety of users of the walk.

- A signal controlled Toucan crossing should be provided where the walk crosses Weedon Street.

- Much more detail is required for the section of walk north of Weedon Street. Generally the walk should be surfaced, lit and landscaped to the same standard as the section through Meadowhall with bins, benches and recreational features such as children’s play, canoe launch points and fishing platforms.

- Public interpretive boards and signage must be included in the scheme.

- A footbridge link between Weirhead and Jessop’s Business Park would be welcomed.

- The future maintenance of the park should be ensured preferably through the Riverside Stewardship Company.

Sheffield Forgemasters

Sheffield Forgemasters International (SFI) has confirmed that they support the application. They have met with British Land and their consultants who have provided additional information and assurances on various matters. Forgemasters has now confirmed that they are satisfied with the following:

- The measures to ensure the noise climate in the residential units will be satisfactory and the conditions necessary to secure this. They have suggested a minor wording change to one of the conditions which has been adopted.

- Air quality on the site and within the valley meets acceptable levels.

- The flood prevention measures will not exacerbate the present flood risk to the River Don Site. British Land has agreed that Forgemasters can use the flood model to assess the feasibility of flood alleviation measures for the Forgemasters site.

- The package of traffic and pedestrian safety improvements agreed for Brightside Lane which will be jointly funded. This includes a pedestrian crossing facility and anti-skid surfacing adjacent to Forgemasters site access.

Howco

Howco Group has commented as follows:

- They are concerned that the location of two potential zones for accessing the development on the Weedon Street and Carbrook Street frontages opposite their main entrance and access to the Heat Treatment Plant may compromise the access to their site by heavy vehicles. They consider parking will be an issue as they currently experience egress problems with privately owned vehicles parking on Weedon Street and Carbrook Street.

- They are concerned about the impact of raising land levels on flooding levels and whether there will be any further risk to increased height of flood water on their site.

- They point out that their normal hours of operation are between 6am Monday to noon on Saturday and that they require access doors to be open 24 hours in order to move material between the external stock holding areas and the buildings. The machinery in the factory operates at noise levels in excess of 85 db and hearing protection is mandatory throughout the factory. They consider locating residential buildings on the Carbrook Street frontage will cause unnecessary conflict between neighbours particularly in the evening when local traffic noise is reduced. They also advise that the plant produces odours from the heat treatment plant which could be deemed to be a nuisance to residential occupiers.

Following a meeting with the applicant’s consultants to clarify issues, Howco have submitted the following additional comments. They have advised that provided further consultation is takes place on the following points at the detailed stage they do not wish to object to the outline planning application.

- The location of access/egress points so that it does not affect current site activities.

- The residential properties are designed so that no valid complaints can be made against Howco in the future in the form of statutory nuisance.

- The planning parking permit scheme does not affect deliveries to the factory.

The also confirmed that they fully support the flood alleviation scheme and would like to assist with lobbying government for financial support for the scheme.

Hammersons

Agents acting on behalf of Hammerson UK Properties, the developers of the City Centre New Retail Quarter scheme have said that they recognise the requirement to stimulate the professional and business service sectors but have concerns about the scale and location of these proposals.

Hammerson draw attention to the national and regional policies that seek to promote office developments in existing centres and ensure the City Centre is the focus for office development. They say the provision of 120,000 sqm of office space would undermine the viability of the office market in the City Centre and the applicants have provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the level of floor space would not have a detrimental impact on the City Centre. The evidence they have relied on is not site specific enough to justify the need or is out of date. They also consider that they have not properly applied the sequential approach by considering the availability of sites in the City Centre for smaller units that might occupy the office campus.

The application fails to demonstrate that necessary community facilities to support this mixed development will be provided. It fails to recognise the growth in demand for education and health provision that will result from the development.

Regional policies seek to prevent the large-scale expansion of existing out-of-centre regional shopping centres. The development lies next to Meadowhall and could be considered as an expansion of the centre which would be contrary to regional policies. The Planning Authority should consider how this can be controlled in the future. Developing a new community next to the centre could lead to it being viewed as a strategic town centre in its own right and this would conflict with existing policy.

Government guidance on outline applications states that an indication of the upper and lower limits for the width and length of each building should be provided and this is missing from the application and it is therefore incomplete.

Other Neighbour Responses

Richard Caborn MP has written in support of the application on the basis that it will demonstrate Sheffield can deliver high quality offices and long term employment that will not detract from the City Centre and strengthen the local and regional economy. It will also provide new housing including affordable housing.

A representation has been received from the developer of an out-of- centre retail, leisure, hotel and food and drink scheme close to J34N in Rotherham. They are concerned about the impact of additional new development using J34N and wish to be assured that the applicant has taken into account the traffic generated from the Rotherham development. They also consider there is no need for further hotels given the hotel adjoining Barrow Road and the two which form part of the Rotherham scheme which are proving difficult to let.

Three individual representations have been received. The comments are as follows:

- One reply welcomes a quality development.

- Two objections have been received. The grounds of objection are summarised below.

- There is insufficient information on the environmental impact in the consultation letter. The layout should be considered.

- One neighbour would object to Council housing and they also enquired as to what improvements are proposed for the Jenkin Road junction.

Statement of Community Involvement

Early community involvement in the preparations of plans is encouraged by national planning guidance in Planning Policy Statement 1 and local guidance in the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The Statement of Community Involvement submitted by the applicant describes the consultation undertaken by the applicant; the responses received, and explains how the scheme has evolved to take into account comments made.

Meetings have taken place with Darnall and Brightside and Shiregreen Area Panels and also with Tinsley and Handsworth Forum. The East End Strategy Group were consulted along with Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Rotherham and Barnsley Chamber of Commerce. Favourable comments were made about the sustainability of the site, and local employment was seen as a key component of the scheme and the benefits to the City Region were noted. Concern was expressed that the new residents would not integrate with the wider community and about air quality. Questions were raised about transport to the site, pedestrian safety and how the public spaces are to be managed.

A three day public exhibition was held at the Meadowhall Centre which was manned by British Land Staff and their consultants. Over 750 people were spoken to by the team although many thousands more saw the exhibition. 120 questionnaire responses were received and 96% thought the regeneration of this area is a good idea, 89% agreed with the mixture of houses, offices local retail and leisure. People were in favour of the amount of open space. Suggestions were made about including seating and a cafe and the safety of open spaces was a concern. People wanted to see more bio diversity included in the scheme. A comprehensive list of facilities was suggested to be included within the scheme and local shops were seen as a clear priority. Facilities for children and young people were seen as important, particularly sports provision. Some concern was expressed about transport and people were keen to see that suitable transport facilities are provided. People were keen to see improved pedestrian and cycle links. Concern was expressed about flooding but the majority of people were satisfied with the explanations given of the flood mitigation measures proposed. Concern was expressed about the proximity of housing and industrial uses. Some people thought that there would be insufficient demand for offices and others wanted to see the return of manufacturing. There was strong support for the use of local labour and people were keen to see a high standard of design. There was also support for increased provision for fishing along the river.

A web site has been produced which provides information on the scheme and has been visited by many people.

Pre and post application consultation with officers and other relevant organisation such as the Environment Agency, adjoining local authorities, Yorkshire Forward, Government Office, Creative Sheffield, Primary Care Trust, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, adjoining businesses including Forgemasters and Howco and the Sheffield Urban Design Review Panel was undertaken.

MPs were briefed and some Members

A more detailed description of the comments received and how the scheme has responded to the comments is included in the Statement of Community Involvement. The scheme is a good example of an applicant making significant efforts to engage the community and take into account their views. The views expressed in the Statement of Community Involvement should be given weight in determining the application.

3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

3.1 Parameters Plans

This is a large and complex outline planning application that is seeking permission for the amount and nature of development that can be put on the site. The parameters plans along with the associated regulatory text, the design codes, the mitigation measures in the environmental statement and the planning conditions define the development. The design codes and mitigation proposals are referred to in the relevant sections below.

There are five parameters plans.

Parameter Plan 1

This defines the application site and records the existing site levels. It is worthy of note that the site includes the whole of Weedon street and Meadowhall Drive, part of Carbrook Street and Meadowhall Way, the railway embankment between Weedon Street and Sheffield Road and the much of the eastern bank of the river Don to the north of Weedon Street.

Parameter Plan 2

The second plan defines the maximum built footprint. This does not mean that all the area shown will be covered in buildings but it will allow buildings to be constructed anywhere in this area. Areas outside the Maximum Building Footprint may accommodate landscaping and open space features or engineering works such as roads and footpaths and the flood defence and alleviation works but will not accommodate buildings, multi-storey or surface car parks. This plan also includes a zone for the route of the realigned Meadowhall Way, which cuts through the railway embankment, a zone for flood alleviation works which runs from Weedon Street bridge to Meadowhall Way bridge and a zone for providing access to plots 3/4 from Meadowhall Way which will also cut through the railway embankment. It is generally the case that the maximum building footprint extends to the back edge of footpath to all the street frontages but it should be noted that on plot 3/4 and to a lesser extent on plot 2 it cuts into the railway embankment, this is discussed in more detail in the design section below. It shows that there will be no buildings within 25m of the River Don on plot 1. The area between the river bank and the Maximum Building Footprint Extent will form part of the proposed public park linked to the riverside. The public park and riverside walkway provide the setting for the proposed residential community and will in combination provide an area of no less than 14,000 sqm of open space, within which will be accommodated the local areas for play and recreation.

Parameter Plan 3

Plan three defines the uses and the maximum and minimum amounts of development including car parking. It defines limits for the whole site and limits for each of the individual plots. It provides a considerable degree of flexibility in that it allows for varying amounts of residential accommodation on plots 1, 2, 3/4. Similarly varying amounts of office accommodation can be provided on plots 1, 2, 3/4 and 5. The indicative Masterplan layout shows one way in which a scheme that maximises the amount of office floorspace can be accommodated on site. Other indicative plans have been submitted to show how the other maximums of the various uses can be accommodated on site. These plans show how buildings could be laid out and how high they would be. It is important that the Local Planning Authority assesses whether the quantums of development proposed and the different options can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. It is not intended that each of the plot by plot maximums would be delivered in combination hence the need for further restriction as provided by the overall maximums across the site. A minimum number of 800 and a maximum of 1300 residential units will be developed on the site as a whole. The minimum is defined in order that a sustainable size of residential community is established; this is considered in further detail below.

The regulatory text with this plan states that the residential development on plot 3/4 will be located near to plot 2 to maximise links with the neighbourhood centre.

Parameter Plan 4

Plan four defines the maximum building heights above Ordnance Datum Level. The maximum heights are six residential storeys for plot 1, six residential and one commercial storey for plot 2 and six office storeys with one of commercial height for plots 3/4 and 5. Buildings will not be constructed to the maximum height across the whole of the site as this would exceed the maximum floorspace levels and would also be inconsistent with the design codes which are referred to in more detail below.

Parameter Plan 5

This plan defines broad zones for potential access points, the precise locations will be determined at the reserved matters stage. It also identifies points on the site that will be linked by pedestrian and cycle connections, the detailed location and design will be determined at the reserved matters stage.

A planning condition is proposed that will ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the parameter plans.

3.2 Offices

Sheffield Policy

The Unitary Development Plan policies are due to be replaced by Local Development Framework (LDF) policies. All the Unitary Development Plan policies referred to subsequently in this report are saved by a letter issued by the Secretary of State that took effect on 28 th September 2007, until such time as they are replaced by LDF policies.

In the Unitary Development Plan all the plots except plot 5 are allocated in Fringe Industry and Business Areas. Policy IB6 identifies business, industry and warehousing as the preferred uses.

Policy IB3 supports the development of major offices in the Meadowhall area as a means of enhancing the City’s role as a regional office centre.

Whilst both the above policies support office development they have been superseded to some extent by national and regional guidance which is referred to below.

Policy IB9 (a) requires that Preferred Uses are dominant in Fringe Industry and Business Areas. It is not possible, given the parameters approach that sets out a range of possible total amounts of office use, to determine exactly what the extent of the resulting land uses will be. However, the policy would normally require that at least half of each of the individual plots that make up the application is given over to office or other ‘B’ Use Classes on their ground floor. It is unlikely that this will be achieved on all the plots, so the proposal is likely to be contrary to this policy, but this would only become clear when reserved matters are submitted. This policy objection can be balanced against the benefit that the overall proposal would deliver a significant proportion of the preferred office use. A condition is proposed that will secure a 50/50 balance of office uses and other uses across the whole of the site.

The Lower Don Valley Masterplan was considered by the Council’s Cabinet in May 2005 where the principles of the Masterplan were endorsed subject to B1 development in the Valley being demonstrably complementary to the City Centre. A limited number of larger “Headquarter” type offices may be acceptable if well serviced by public transport and supported by demand. The Masterplan for the Central Zone (River Don Development and Forgemasters) envisages 108,585 sqm of offices. This compares with a figure of between 60,000 sqm and 120,000 sqm of offices, proposed within this application. The proposed scheme is broadly consistent with this. The more detailed Masterplan for the River Don District considered by the Cabinet in 2007 was endorsed in principle subject to the scale of offices proposed being complementary with the City Centre. This Masterplan proposes between 60,000 m2 and 120,000 m2 of offices and in terms of office floorspace the Masterplan is consistent with the current planning application.

Regional Policy

Policies E2 and E3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 require the City Centre to be the focus for office development. Policy SY1 also requires a particular emphasis on the City Centre, whilst acknowledging that the Lower Don Valley also has a role as a provider of jobs. The key question is what constitutes a ‘focus’ and ‘emphasis’. It is considered that this equates to the approach that has been set out in the emerging LDF, the Sheffield Development Framework, as submitted Policy SB3 in the Core Strategy. Whilst this LDF policy should be given no weight in determining this application it is however the City Council’s interpretation of how the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy policies should apply. It is considered that the focus / emphasis on the City Centre can be achieved if a minimum of 65% of new office development takes place in or at the edge of the City Centre. This allows for no more than 35% of all new office development in the City in other, non-City Centre locations. Of these other locations, the Meadowhall area is specifically identified in this draft policy as being particularly suitable due to its high accessibility by public transport, making it a highly sustainable location.

The most recent assessment of committed schemes suggests that there is currently some capacity for an out of City Centre scheme in line with the policy approach stated, with existing out-of-centre commitments amounting to 22%. If permission were granted for 67,500 sqm of offices, (which is the amount needed to serve a major occupier that has an interest in the scheme) the proportion of out of City Centre development then proposed would amount to 34.5%; just within the 35% maximum. This means that this amount of office development could be allowed under the policy, but any approval for the remaining 52,500 sqm of offices would need to be phased so that it only proceeds when sufficient office space is committed in the City Centre to maintain the required balance of out-of-centre and in centre offices. This approach will ensure that the level of development proposed outside the City Centre will not reach proportions that would jeopardise the approach to concentrate development in the City Centre. Office development is crucial for the transformation of the City’s economy and the creation of a vibrant City Centre. The City Centre is important as a centre for headquarters offices and to support initiatives to attract more trips by sustainable forms of travel. But complementary locations with less expensive sites as well as good transport links are also required for other types of office development. Locations that are accessible from deprived neighbourhoods help to bring the benefits of the new developments to a wide range of workers and sites close to public interchanges are especially sustainable, and Meadowhall has a public transport interchange.

Based on the trends of the last 5 years 67,500 sqm would represent nearly 7 years’ supply of out of City Centre offices. However, take-up rates have been increasing rapidly, and this 5 year take-up figure is expected to have doubled by 2009, in which case the 60,000 sqm would only represent 3 years’ supply.

However the current difficult economic climate may well slow down the rate of office take up. Given these figures and the likely timescale of constructing the first phase of offices it is considered that a reasonable case can be made for a first phase of office development of 67,500 sqm.

Other relevant policies from the Regional Spatial Strategy include the following:

Policy YH1 seeks to transform the economic, environmental and social conditions in the Regeneration Priority Areas which includes the older industrialised parts of South Yorkshire. Given that the site is located in an older industrialised area and the economic and environmental benefits of the office element of the scheme as a whole it can be considered to be supported by this policy.

Policy YH7 relates to the location of development. It states that first priority should be for the re-use of previously developed land and buildings. This proposal is in accordance with this policy, although the vast majority of all development land in Sheffield is previously developed.

The development is supported by Policy E1 which is seeking to create a successful and competitive Regional Economy by encouraging economic growth particularly of the knowledge driven economy. A campus development is more likely to attract knowledge economy companies, but the development will be available for any occupier.

Policy E4 seeks to support the development of key sectors of the economy which includes financial and business sectors. Again the applicant argues that a campus development is more likely to attract companies in this sector.

National Policy - Planning Policy Statement 6

Planning Policy Statement 6 seeks to promote the vitality and viability of town centres. It requires all development proposals of main town centre uses (including offices) that are not in an existing centre or allocated in an up to date development plan to be assessed against five criteria listed below. The site is not within a town centre and the UDP pre dates PPS 6 and therefore cannot be considered to be up to date in this respect. Therefore the applicants are required to demonstrate the need for the development, show that the scale is appropriate, demonstrate that the sequential approach to site selection has been applied, that it will not have a significant impact on existing centres and that it is served by a choice of means of transport.

Need

The applicant argues that the offices are needed to attract nationally mobile and international inward investment which the City is current losing out on to other competing centres. Also to retain existing occupiers who are undergoing change or expanding that might wish to consolidate on a single site. They have produced evidence to show that traditionally Sheffield has performed less well than other comparative cities at attracting inward investment. They say that Creative Sheffield have advised that the lack of grade A space is an issue in capturing large scale and mobile inward investment and they also refer to the shortage of large floor plates of 2000 sqm plus. They consider the development provides the opportunity to attract financial and secondary business functions that are cost driven, government occupiers, national mobile occupiers, indigenous growth companies driven by cost and quality, corporate companies that wish to promote a work style and corporate image and retain graduates by providing an attractive work environment and opportunities. In order to deliver the transformational change the City needs, Sheffield has to attract businesses from those sectors where growth is forecast to be highest – finance and business services, finance, technology, IT/software, media, education, health etc. Occupiers in these sectors demand modern, flexible and accessible business locations of the nature that can be provided at the River Don District. Whilst they will also need City Centre sites, it is necessary to provide a wide spectrum of locations in order for the City to capture the full demand. They argue that a number of occupier types are specifically attracted to out of town locations. These occupiers are looking for flexible floor plates, lower densities, an attractive landscaped environment and good transport facilities which a campus development such as the River Don development would provide. They argue that out- of-centre campus developments allow certain occupiers to control site security more effectively and to be able to reserve land for future expansion. They have provided a number of examples of similar developments in other cities that have been successful in attracting companies from these growth sectors (although only a very small number of these bear close comparison with the River Don Development /Sheffield situation). They consider that the development will enable the City to compete for significant corporate investment. The applicants have estimated that the development will bring in over £300 million of investment and over 5700 jobs and over 600 construction jobs.

It is accepted that the City needs growth in the office economy in order to achieve growth in the sectors that can potentially provide the additional jobs and income needed to improve the economic performance of the city. The case for providing some of the additional floor space in an out-of-centre campus development to attract those companies that might favour such locations is also understood. However, little firm evidence has been supplied to show that Sheffield has been losing out on investment as a result of not having a major out- of-centre office campus development. That is, evidence of investment enquiries that Sheffield has been unable to meet and has consequently lost, or evidence from companies that they would only be willing to invest in Sheffield if such a facility were available. It is however known that there is interest from a single major occupier in a development of approximately 60,000 sqm. It is therefore necessary to make a judgement on whether the need for this out-of-centre office campus has been sufficiently proved.

Scale

It is argued that the scale of development is appropriate as it provides a suitable location for large Headquarters office facilities that are of a format that cannot be accommodated in the City Centre. It is stated that the scale of development proposed will fit within the expected take-up of offices over the next 10 years. Given the accessibility of this location this is accepted for an initial phase of 67,500 sqm. The provision of further office floor space will be dependant on maintaining an appropriate balance between out-of-centre offices and the primary City Centre focus for offices.

It should be noted that this consent for an initial phase of 67,500 sqm will mean that there is limited flexibility for further out-of-centre office development on other sites throughout the City unless matched with further permissions in the City Centre at a ratio of two to one. However Meadowhall is one of the preferred locations for out-of-centre offices as identified in the emerging Core Strategy. The other preferred locations have much smaller capacity to accommodate offices and therefore the lion’s share of the capacity would be expected to be provided a Meadowhall.

Sequential Approach

The RDD office campus has been designed to meet demand from major occupiers; including headquarters requirements at a lower density than would be provided in the City Centre and with the following key characteristics:

- a strong landscaped framework – a green & natural environment; - a series of separate but linked buildings of between 4-6 storeys, capable of being occupied by one or several occupiers; - the flexibility to build in long term expansion space for a major occupier; and - the flexibility to provide a series of bespoke buildings, in a managed and secure campus environment.

In essence the development is a higher quality business park than the City is currently able to offer in a highly accessible location.

In terms of the sequential approach the applicant argues it is not appropriate to disaggregate the development into its component parts as this would not deliver the critical mass or viability of development required in order to secure the regeneration of the site. In addition the scale of the initial phase is being driven by the interest of a single occupier who could take up the entire office campus site. The details of the potential occupier are confidential but the interest has been confirmed by the City’s regeneration agencies. Their interest in the site is known to be strong and it is understood that this is the only site they are considering in the City as it is the only site that can meet their requirements. They have also argued that to disaggregate the office campus into City Centre blocks would duplicate what is offered in the City Centre. They have therefore selected a site of 3 to 4 hectares which they consider reflects the level of space which would be needed for a campus office development including landscaping and parking. It should be noted that the office element of the whole development occupies an area of approximately 10 hectares. The applicants have considered the availability of alternative sites within the City Centre or edge of City Centre. In addition to the size of the site they have assessed whether they are available in a reasonable period of time, whether there are any ownership difficulties, the accessibility of the site, development plan allocation and the ability to meet the need for the proposed facilities. They have concluded that there are no sequentially preferable sites which are viable, suitable or available within or on the edge of Sheffield City Centre.

In your officers’ view it is reasonable to search for an alternative site in or at the edge of the City Centre which could accommodate the first phase of development, that is 67,500 sqm. It is considered that there are sites available that can accommodate this amount of floorspace. For example the West Bar site already has planning permission for over 80,000 sqm of office floorspace. However it is accepted that there are no sites available for this scale of development in the campus type format that is being proposed or for which the interested occupier requires.

Impact

In terms of impact it is argued by the applicant that there is a need for the offices in addition to the offices planned in the City Centre and that they provide a different offer and so are complementary rather than competing. A key element that differentiates the project will be its green spaces. There will be a strong landscaped framework for the office campus and it will provide office space at a lower density than can be provided in the City Centre. They have compared the density of the scheme with other recent City Centre office developments and demonstrated that it will be of a lower density than averaged by recent City Centre developments and is thereby catering for a different market. It is argued that it will complement Sheffield’s existing office environment by differentiating supply and widening choice and availability from the City Centre offer, defining a clearer hierarchy of provision and expanding its portfolio of products. The applicant points to evidence from other cities that show that out-of-centre campus developments can result in an overall uplift in demand. They argue that the development will not be capturing investment that would otherwise have been secured by the City Centre but will be attracting investment that would otherwise have been lost to the City. They have provided evidence to show that other cities have successfully attracted office development in the city centre whilst also providing successful out-of-centre campus schemes. There is limited evidence from some authorities that an out-of-centre office campus has been complementary and created an overall uplift in demand. Officers are not aware of any other local authorities that have closely examined any possible negative effects of out-of-centre office development on their city centres, because this seems to be something that has only recently been considered.

Access

The site’s accessibility is considered in more detail in the ‘Access Issues’ section of the report below. It is concluded that the site is well served by a choice of means of transport.

Other Planning Policy Statement 6 Considerations

After considering the above criteria PPS 6 advises that other considerations including local issues may be material to the choice of locations. These are:

- Physical regeneration: the benefits of developing on previously developed sites which may require remediation.

- Employment: the net additional employment opportunities that would arise in a locality as a result of a proposed allocation, particularly in deprived areas.

- Economic growth: the increased investment in an area, both direct and indirect, arising from the proposed allocation and improvement in productivity, for example arising from economies of scale

- Social inclusion: this can be defined in broad terms and may, in addition to the above, include considerations, such as increasing the accessibility of a range of services and facilities to all groups.

As the proposed development will take place almost exclusively on previously developed land that is in need of reclamation, this can be given some weight in supporting the development proposal. It may generate significant numbers of jobs in a part of the City where the adjoining wards are some of the most deprived in the City. This will be dependant on how many of the jobs are new jobs rather than jobs transferred from elsewhere in the City and also whether local people will benefit from these jobs. The applicant has stated that they will utilise training opportunities presented by The Source to assist local people in gaining access to these opportunities. They propose to establish a training and skills strategy and accompanying steering group. They have indicated that The Source will build bespoke community training programmes, work with the Sector Skills agencies and Learning Skills Council, apprenticeships will be developed with employers and marketed in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley. Placement support will be offered to schools, Employment Plus and community groups and vocational training will be developed with employers to develop jobs for communities of Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley. Targets will ensure places on courses run by The Source will be reserved at an appropriate proportion for residents of Sheffield and the adjoining authorities. They intend to work with these authorities to promote jobs and training for maximum take-up of opportunities offered by the development. They also intend to set up virtual business parks to match supply chains. The provision of training skills strategy is to be secured through a clause in the S106 agreement. It is hoped that the development will secure investment of approximately £300 million and therefore can be considered to score well on this criteria.

Other Policy Considerations

Sheffield Economic Masterplan seeks to increase Gross Value Added by more that £1 billion, create 30,000 additional jobs, bring 16,000 more residents into employment and increase average incomes. It seeks to stimulate the professional and business service sector particularly banking and finance. It states that Sheffield must be able to offer a significantly improved range and quantity of good quality office premises. The clear priority is to create a premier commercial location in the city centre. In order to achieve this, a new priority office location in the City Centre is proposed, (New Business District). However it also recognises that Sheffield also needs a range of optimal office locations. It identifies the Lower Don Valley as a secondary office location which needs to be complementary to the City Centre.

The economic case put forward in support of the River Don Development Masterplan states: “In order to deliver transformational change in Sheffield’s economy the City needs to attract businesses from those sectors where growth is forecast to be highest – finance and business services, finance, technology, IT/software, media, education, health etc. Occupiers in these sectors demand modern, flexible and accessible business locations of the nature that can be provided at the RDD. In addition, a number of these occupier types are specifically attracted to out of town locations.”

In the applicant’s view the office campus is designed to attract a range of occupiers, in particular national mobile and international inward investment which the City is currently losing to competing centres.

Conclusion

Planning policy is supportive of the office element of this scheme provided it does not compromise the objective of focusing office development in the City Centre, in line with the Regional Spatial Strategy, and provided it can meet the tests for out-of-centre development in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6. It has been shown that provided the offices do not conflict with the office led regeneration of the City Centre, there will be significant economic and regeneration benefits from this proposal.

The initial first phase of 67,500 sqm of offices can be permitted without compromising the City Centre / out-of-centre office balance. A planning condition is proposed which will ensure that no further development is permitted unless it can be demonstrated that it will not conflict with this objective. A separate condition will ensure that the majority of the offices are provided in a campus format that is distinctly different to the City Centre offer.

In terms of the tests in Planning Policy Guidance Statement 6 a case has been made that there is a need for an office campus to capture investment that would otherwise be lost to Sheffield and that a development in this form would be complementary to the City Centre and provide a distinctly different offer. The arguments put forward are considered to be reasonable and the case is accepted. However there are some uncertainties as there is limited hard evidence to support this theoretical need other than the known interest by a single occupier for approximately half the office floorspace. The evidence from other cities as to whether such developments have been complementary to their City Centres is limited and inconclusive.

In these circumstances there are some policy reservations about the office element of the scheme. However the City has accepted that a level of out-of-centre office development can be beneficial, through promoting emerging Core Strategy policies which allow for out-of-centre offices. The proposal is consistent with the emerging policy in that it will meet this need and the planning conditions proposed will ensure an appropriate City Centre / out-of-centre balance of office development is maintained. This is arguably the best site in the City for out-of-centre offices due to its highly accessible location. It is also likely to bring economic benefits to local deprived communities adjoining the site. To not grant consent would run the risk of missing out on major footloose occupiers that are needed to secure the economic regeneration of the City and risk losing out on the jobs that would be secured by the major occupier that has shown interest in the site. Given these factors it is considered that the office policy reservations are outweighed by the potential benefits of the scheme.

3.3 Housing

Policy

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ is seeking to achieve high quality affordable homes in sustainable communities. It states that the planning system should deliver a mix of housing to support a wide variety of households and housing in locations that offer a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. It states that particularly where family housing is proposed it is important to ensure the needs of children are taken into account and there is good provision for recreation areas including private gardens, play areas and informal play space. It describes the key characteristics of a mixed community as a variety of housing and a mix of different households such as families with children, single person households and older people. On larger sites planning authorities should ensure the proposed mix of housing reflects the proportion of households that require market and affordable housing and achieves a mix of households. The national annual target is for at least 60% of housing to be on previously developed land. The density of development should have regard to the demand for housing and the availability of land, the capacity of infrastructure, services and facilities such as public and private open space, the desirability of using land efficiently, access to public transport, the character of the area and the desire to achieve good quality design.

Regional Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 seeks to prioritise housing development on brownfield sites, (Policy H2). Policy H3 states that the delivery of additional housing should support strategies and programmes for interventions in the housing market including the Transform South Yorkshire Pathfinder areas. Policy H4 advises that the region needs to increase the provision of affordable housing and advises that provisional estimates of the proportion of new housing that may need to be affordable in Sheffield are in the range of 30-40%. Policy H5 states that the housing mix should reflect the needs of the area, including homes for families with children and single persons and older persons to create sustainable communities.

Sheffield Policy

In the Unitary Development Plan all the plots earmarked for potential housing development lie within Fringe Industry and Business Areas. Policy IB6 describes housing as an acceptable use. The commentary on this policy states that this will only happen when living conditions are satisfactory and it will not hinder industry and business development. Policy IB11 states that housing will be permitted only where it would not constrain existing industry and business, it would be next to an existing residential area and where residents would not suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

Policy H3 states that action will be taken to ensure that there is enough readily available land for housing in the next 5 years. Policy H4 promotes affordable housing within large housing schemes when a need is identified. Policy H7 seeks to secure a minimum of 25% of housing to be designed to mobility standard. Policy H16 seeks to ensure sufficient open space is provided to meet the needs of residents including informal open space, sports facilities and children’s play facilities.

The Lower Don Valley Masterplan was produced as a joint City Council / British Land project to guide the development of the Lower Don Valley. It was considered by the Cabinet in May 2005 where the principles of the Masterplan were endorsed subject to the overall level and timing of housing needs being addressed further in the light of the emerging RSS and Local Development Framework figures. The location of new housing should have regard to the Housing Market Renewal objectives, and the Urban Capacity Study. Cabinet also approved taking forward of key elements for consideration as Emerging Options in the Core Strategy for the Sheffield Development Framework.

The Masterplan for the Central Zone (River Don Development and Forgemasters) covering a larger area than RDD, envisages a mixed use business and housing regeneration with 2280 residential units. This compares with a figure of between 800 and 1300 units proposed within this application. There is, therefore, a level of consistency between the two proposals.

In September 2007 the Cabinet considered the River Don District Masterplan prepared for British Land and endorsed in principle the Masterplan proposals subject to the amount, phasing and timing of housing creating a viable sustainable community, achieving a balance between apartments and family housing and ensuring priority for HMR areas. This Masterplan proposes 800 to 1300 units and in terms of floorspace the Masterplan is very consistent with the RDD planning application. In design terms the land uses are in the same location but this Masterplan shows different design solutions to that now proposed.

The Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance approved in July 2006 states that in Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Areas the developers contribution to affordable housing shall be equivalent to 15% of the units being provided for sale at the current affordable price. The policy states that these requirements may be relaxed where the scheme would provide substantial regeneration benefits or where there are other abnormal development costs and application of the guidance would make the scheme unviable. This guidance has been updated by the Affordable Housing Interim Planning Guidance (2008) and the target for affordable housing provision increased to reflect updated evidence of need, however the new guidance will continue to take economic viability into account. The new guidance does not take effect for existing applications submitted before October 2008 until January 2009.

Housing Supply

PPS3 requires a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites to be maintained. The total requirement for the 5-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13 is 8,180 dwellings after taking into account over performance since 2004 (more dwellings were constructed since 2004 than required by the RSS targets) and likely losses through demolition / conversion over the next 5 years. The 5-year supply of deliverable sites is 10,869 units and this therefore represents 133% of the total requirement. Consequently, it is unnecessary, at the current time, to bring this site forward in order to maintain a supply of housing land. Under current projections, the supply of housing land exceeds the requirement to 2020/21 by a significant margin but the 15-year supply (to 2023/24) is fairly tight. It is, however, expected that the RSS 2009 Update could increase Sheffield’s annual housing requirement and the recent successful South Yorkshire Growth Point bid is based on a 12% uplift in Sheffield’s housing requirement over the period 2008-2016. This site forms part of the identified housing land supply after 2020/21 but could be needed sooner than that if the housing requirement is increased. More importantly, however, national planning policy states that local planning authorities should only refuse planning permission for housing development on suitable sites if it would undermine achievement of policy objectives. The only reason for holding back the development of this site for housing in policy terms would be if it would be likely to undermine targets for the housing market renewal areas.

Impact on Housing Market Renewal Targets

The emerging SDF identifies the housing market renewal areas in the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area as priority locations for new housing development. This is also supported by the RSS policies. The River Don District, although in the Housing Market Renewal Area, does not form part of a housing renewal area where there is existing residential development in need of regeneration, and is therefore not a priority. Other sites may be developed for housing where development would not prejudice targets for the Housing Market Renewal Area. The key question is whether this development will prejudice or set back regeneration objectives in the priority housing market renewal areas. Transform South Yorkshire have commented that there is a risk that the regeneration strategy can be undermined by development that is relatively isolated from the existing communities. The applicant has indicated that given the level of infrastructure works required and the current market conditions it is unlikely that the first phase of residential development would be available for occupation until 2012. There is a lack of certainty about the completion dates of many of the Housing Market Renewal Schemes. Of the sites where a date for completion is indicated, 6 are due for completion in 2012 which could be the first phase of application housing completions. Five of the 6 are in Southey Owlerton and only 1 (Flower) is close to the application site. It could be argued that this scheme will provide a very different type of housing offer than that being provided in the remainder of the housing market renewal area, and potentially some will already have been sold prior to 2012. Given these factors there is considered to be insufficient evidence to justify limiting the phasing of housing on the basis that it might prejudice the housing market renewal targets.

Mix of Housing

The applicant has agreed to a mix based on housing market information; that is a minimum 40% two bedroom units, 30% 3 bedroom units and the mix of the remaining 30% of units to be decided by the applicant. Whilst this has been accepted by the applicant they would like the option to review in the future the mix in light of changing market need and other information. The applicant has committed to a minimum of 5% of the units to be 3 or more bedroom houses with gardens and a minimum of 4% of the units to be ground floor three or more bedroom apartments. Given the quantum of development that the applicants are seeking permission for it is likely that the residential development will take the form of 3-6 storey buildings surrounding courtyards of private and shared amenity space as shown on the indicative layout plan. Although a detailed layout has not been determined at this stage it is likely that only the houses and ground floor flats will have a significant area of private amenity space. The majority of the units, approximately 90%, will have the use of shared amenity space and /or small terraces and balconies. All the units will have easy access to a high quality open space along the river frontage and along the realigned Meadowhall frontage of plot 1 which will provide informal open space and children’s play facilities.

Although the applicant has produced some evidence to show that high density housing association schemes in highly accessible locations in London include family occupiers, your officers have reservations as to whether these examples are truly comparable to a private residential development in a mid urban location such as the application site. It is accepted that the houses will be attractive to families and probably the larger ground floor apartments with attached private amenity space with their own front door. However these are a relatively low proportion of the whole scheme. In your officer’s view, given the high density apartment led scheme that is likely to be developed on this site and the limited number of traditional family houses with gardens, it is likely that the number of households with children, particularly young children, will be smaller than would be expected in a genuinely balanced community. It is therefore considered that the proposed residential development is unlikely to fully comply with the objectives of policies in the RSS and PPS 3 which are seeking to secure a balanced community. This view is supported by evidence submitted by the applicant in connection with assessing education capacity issues. In this evidence they have argued that studio, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments will generate low pupil yields. The agreed mix allows up to 70% of the units to be 2 bedroom flats or small units. Whilst this is not fixed, given the overall quantum of development proposed it is likely that it will be a predominantly apartment led scheme.

However it should be noted that there are many neighbourhoods of Sheffield that are homogeneous in terms of house types. Therefore whilst the scheme is not ideal in that it is unlikely to provide a genuine mixed community there is perhaps room for a development of this type which is offering something different to City Centre apartments and also different to traditional suburban housing. It can therefore be argued that whilst the development will not be particularly well connected to the existing communities in the Housing Market Renewal Area (HMRA) it will add to the range and type of housing available in the HMRA which is one of the objectives of this regeneration programme. It should also be noted that the area is characterised by larger scale industrial and commercial development. Consequently the site lends itself to a significant proportion of the accommodation being provided in apartment blocks as opposed to traditional housing. This is because apartment blocks can more readily provide the scale and massing of built form which is appropriate to this site. Furthermore to reduce the density of the development in order to incorporate more family housing will reduce the size of the community. As is discussed below there are concerns about the new residential community’s access to some services and facilities and reducing the residential population would increase the risk of the development not being able to support a range of facilities in the neighbourhood centre.

Sustainable Community

Given that the development is unlikely to provide a fully balanced community there are some reservations about its sustainability. A sustainable community is defined in PPS 3 as one where the mix of housing will support a wide variety of households. It should also have a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. The new residents will certainly have good access to jobs and public transport. The access to community facilities and services is considered in more detail below. It is concluded that access to comparison shopping, leisure facilities and public transport is good but the access to schools, convenience shopping and some community facilities is not ideal.

Affordable Housing

The applicant has agreed to a condition to provide up to 15% affordable housing across the site as a whole, subject to viability, which is consistent with the 2006 policy that applies to this proposal. The current viability appraisal shows that the development is not really viable as it does not deliver the normal rate of return. There is therefore, a significant risk that when the viability is tested for each phase, the level of affordable housing may be lower than 15%. It is clear that the high infrastructure costs mean that it is unable to support more than 15% affordable housing. Therefore because viability is a consideration in the application of both the 2006 and 2008 Affordable Housing Policies it is unlikely that that the application of the 2008 policy would have made a difference to the percentage of affordable housing delivered. A sustainable community is one that meets the needs of all the community including providing affordable housing. Therefore if it is not possible to secure a significant element of affordable housing the community will be less sustainable.

Other Matters

The provision of open space to serve the housing is considered in more detail below. The environmental conditions for residents and the potential for conflicts between industry and residents are considered in the noise and air quality sections below.

3.4 Access to facilities and services

Context

The application site lies in an industrial / commercial area of the Lower Don Valley and is separated from the nearest residential community of Brightside by the River Don, the busy Meadowhall Road and commercial/industrial uses located on the lower slopes of the valley sides. The nearest houses are 700m away and uphill from the site. The Tinsley community is approximately 1.5km to the east of the site. The walking routes to Tinsley are through industrial / commercial areas that are heavily trafficked and there is the significant barrier of the M1 junction 34S to be negotiated. Given the infrastructure barriers, intervening uses and topography issues it is considered that the site is not well integrated with existing residential communities. It is therefore particularly important to consider how accessible local services and facilities will be to the new residential community as this will be a factor in how sustainable it is to develop part of the site for residential use. In addition to off site facilities it is also necessary to consider what facilities are proposed on site and whether the scale of the development is sufficient to support on site facilities.

Neighbourhood Centre

Plot 1 is where most of the residential accommodation is likely to be located. The proposed neighbourhood centre is within 5 minutes walk of the rest of the site. Permission is being sought for between 800 and 1300 residential units, up to 2,499 sqm of retail floor space, and 6600 sqm of leisure, food and drink, community and professional office uses to be accommodated within the development as a whole. Most of the commercial, community and leisure uses are likely to be within the neighbourhood centre. The applicant has looked at the expenditure that would be generated by a development of approximately 1000 dwellings and 100,000 sqm of office floor space. Based on the assumption that the neighbourhood centre could capture 50% of the top up shopping for both residents and workers employed in the new development they have concluded that the development could support approximately 600 sqm of convenience goods shopping and approximately 2,500 sqm of comparison goods shopping. However the assumption that the neighbourhood centre would capture half of employee top up expenditure is very questionable. It is also questionable whether it is appropriate that the centre should accommodate comparison goods shops as the scale of the residential community does not justify 2500 sqm of comparison goods shopping and there is no need to provide for comparison goods facilities for the working population particularly as Meadowhall is very close to the site which is a regional scale location for comparison goods shopping.

The neighbourhood centre could accommodate a convenience store and a number of small shops, (a Tesco metro is approximately 500 sqm). The applicants have suggested that other possible uses might include a chemist / pharmacy, hairdressers, DVD rental, dry cleaners, hardware stores, newsagents and card shops, florists, sandwich shops, banks and estate agents, cafes, restaurants, pub / bars, crèche or other training facility, gym or leisure facilities, dentists and other health care providers. They have taken advice from commercial agents who have pointed out that up to 9000 people could work or live on the site. The neighbourhood centre is well connected with the other parts of the site and public transport so that the likelihood of linked trips is increased and the mix of residential and business populations is likely to be attractive to a broader range of users. It is their opinion that they would not have any difficulty letting the floor space.

The applicant has agreed to the first reserved matters for residential development being no less than 250 units. They have also agreed that no more than 250 residential units may be occupied until a minimum of 100 sqm of floorspace for retail and leisure uses and 75 sqm of floorspace for community use is available for occupation. The same condition requires the retail / leisure / community floorspace to be increased to 500 sqm, of which 300 sqm would be for convenience goods, before 799 residential units can be occupied, (800 units is the minimum number to be provided when the whole development is completed). 150 sqm gross is approximately the size of a local Spar store where as 300 sqm gross would allow for a Tesco Express. Members need to be aware that these conditions do not guarantee the construction of 250 dwellings nor the occupation of the retail, commercial, leisure floorspace; this will be dependent on market demand. The concern is that the scale of residential community proposed will not on its own support a wide range of local facilities. The offices will be needed to support a wider range of services in the neighbourhood centre and there are no guarantees when or what level of office floor space will be developed. This means that there is a risk that a small residential community could be established on the site with few, if any, services available in the neighbourhood centre. It is however considered likely that should the whole development be built out that it will support a convenience shop, a newsagent and food and drink uses. The likelihood of securing other retail and leisure uses is much less certain given that a number of the other shop uses suggested by the applicant already exist within walking distance in the Meadowhall Centre and Leisure and crèche facilities already exist at The Source. The applicant has committed to a minimum of 2000 sqm of A1 retail floor space on plot 2 and 2000 sqm of food and drink, leisure and community uses if the whole development is built out. However they are unable to commit to provide significant amounts of retail or leisure floorspace in tandem with the provision of the residential units or the office space, as they consider this would be commercially too risky.

Meadowhall Shopping Centre

In terms of access to existing services and facilities the Meadowhall Shopping Centre is just over 10 minutes walk from the site and includes a large number of comparison goods shops but also accommodates banks, newsagents, chemists, opticians and food and drink uses and a cinema. Whilst some of the shops sell convenience goods there is a limited range of food and fresh goods available, although there is a butcher. There is also a food court in the Marks and Spencer unit but this is approximately 18 minutes walk from the centre of plot 1 there is also a food hall in Meadowhall Centre, but this comprises of restaurants and takeaways rather than fresh food. The current opening hours of the centre are 10am to 9pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 7pm on Saturday and 11am to 5pm on Sunday. An Aldi food store is approximately 10 minute walk from the site at Meadowhall Retail Park.

Schools

The nearest nursery school is Brightside Nursery and Infant School which is within 10 minutes walk of the site; this takes children between 3 and 6 years old. Most children then transfer to Limpsfield Junior School which is 15 to 20 minutes walk uphill. The nursery school is therefore within a convenient walking distance of the site and improvements to the Jenkin Road junction will facilitate more convenient and safer pedestrian access. However given the busy roads and topography it is likely that a significant number of children will be transported by car to the Junior School. The next nearest nursery and junior schools in Wincobank and Tinsley are beyond reasonable walking distance from the site. It is highly likely that if pupils were to attend these schools they would travel by car. There is a proposal within the Brightside and Shiregreen Neighbourhood Development Framework to combine the nursery and junior school into a new building on one site. The current programme for this is 2013+ although it has been a proposal for some considerable time. The site identified will be a little nearer to the application site and if it goes ahead pedestrian access to the junior school will be slightly more convenient and to the nursery school slightly less convenient. The nearest secondary schools are Hinde House School and Fir Vale School. These are both approximately a 40 minute walk from the site. Due to the distance, topography and nature of highway network in this area it is unlikely that children would walk or cycle to either of these schools. It would take between 35 and 45 minutes to get to and from Fir Vale School by bus, taking into account school start and finish times. However the journey is not particularly convenient as it incorporates only a short bus journey with walking journeys of 5 and 10 minutes either end. Access to Hinde House School is however more convenient by bus, in that an existing service stops on Meadowhall Drive and also outside the school, with the journey taking approximately 35 minutes taking into account school start and finish times. As will be seen below the local schools do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all the expected demand from the development and it is not clear at this stage in which of the local schools additional capacity will be provided.

Community and Leisure Facilities

The nearest dental services are available at Tinsley Dental Practice and the Wincobank Medical Centre which are approximately 2 km from the site. There are also practices at Fir Vale, Firth Park and Darnall. The Tinsley dental practice is the only one taking on new patients but this would not be able to accommodate all the residents. The development itself is not large enough to warrant its own dental practice. It should be noted however that patients may choose to go to a dentist near to where they work or keep the dentist where they have moved from. The Primary Care Trust (PCT) have advised that the development will put pressure on existing dental services and it seems likely that some residents will need to travel outside the local area to access a dental service.

The PCT have advised that there are four medial practices within the area that could provide service for this development. However the Wincobank Medical Centre, which is a new building, is the only practice with current capacity. The PCT have concluded that the existing medical facilities, primarily the Wincobank Medical Centre, are adequate to serve the development.

Given that dental and medical services are generally required less frequently it should not perhaps be expected that residents can walk to them. However they might reasonably expect to be able to get there easily by public transport. There is a half hourly service to the Wincobank Medical Centre, the travel time to which is approximately 16 minutes.

The nearest library is at Limpsfield. There is a post office at Grimesthorpe and also at Tinsley but neither of these are within walking distance and the Grimesthope post office is on the list of possible closures. Built leisure facilities are available in the Oasis (cinema), approximately 10 minutes walk from the site, the Source (Health and Fitness) and Centertainment (Cinema, bowling and restaurants) approximately 15 minutes walk from the site.

The nearest community buildings are St. Margret’s Church and Castledine Tenants meeting room (approx 1 km) and Grimesthorpe Family Centre (approx 1.2 km via unattractive walking routes). The applicants have agreed to make provision for on site for a small community meeting space (75 sqm) which will help to meet on site needs; this is secured by a planning condition.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the site is well served by comparison shopping facilities, built leisure facilities and restaurants due to the proximity of Meadowhall Shopping centre and Centertainment. It is however less well served by convenience shops and community facilities and the walking and cycling route to local schools, other than the local nursery/infant school, are not likely to be perceived as convenient or attractive. Access to Hinde House Secondary School by bus is convenient but less so to Fir Vale Secondary School. Whilst the distance to some of the community facilities is not excessive, because of the barriers to movement, such as busy roads, topography, poor environmental quality of walking and cycling routes, the residents are likely to perceive themselves as being separate from and not well integrated or connected with existing local communities at Brightside / Shiregreen and Tinsley. It is considered that there is a good chance that the development as a whole will support a local convenience shop, a newsagent and some food and drink uses in the neighbourhood centre, whilst the provision of other facilities is less certain.

The residential community will have good access to other areas of the City by public transport given that the bus corridors along Brightside Lane and Sheffield Road are approximately 5 minutes walk from the site and the proximity of Carbrook tram stop and Meadowhall interchange. It also needs to be recognised that applicants will be making significant improvements to the highway and pedestrian network which will help to improve residents’ accessibility to facilities and services. In particular there will be good pedestrian links between the various plots and the neighbourhood centre including pedestrian crossing facilities. Improved connections will be provided to the Meadowhall Shopping Centre, the Passenger Transport Interchange and Carbrook Tram stop along with improvements to the Five Weirs Walk, connections to it, and new cycle connections through some of the plots.

3.5 Open Space and Private/Shared amenity space

Policy Background

Unitary Development Plan Policy H16 states that for new housing, developers will be required to ensure there is sufficient open space to meet the needs of people living there. This includes well designed informal open space; children’s play facilities that are visible from houses but not so close that they would be likely to cause disturbance, and outdoor sport facilities. For sites over 1 hectare it is expected at least 10% of the site is laid out as open space except where;

- Recreation space would continue to exceed the minimum guideline following development. - The developer makes a contribution to the improvement of open space in the catchment area. - It would be more appropriate to enhance recreation space off site but within the catchment area.

The policy also states that children’s play facilities must cater for various age ranges and that 15 sqm of play space is needed for each family home.

Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Open Space Provision in New Housing Development’ states that, within new housing developments, developers should ensure that there are areas available for outdoor recreation that meet the needs of people living there which are within easy walking distance. It also states that there should be an equipped play area within 400m of the site. The catchment area for informal open space and children’s play facilities is defined as 400m. It advises that the catchment area for informal open space and children’s play facilities should take account of how people (especially children) can walk or cycle safely to the site. The catchment area for youth and adult sports areas is 1200m. The policy also provides guidance on the level of contributions required if open space is to be provided off site.

Informal Open Space and Children’s Play

Given that the site is located within an industrial area and it is important to create an attractive setting for the housing and much of the open space in the surrounding area is either beyond 400m and/or not easy to walk to due to busy roads, topography, and infrastructure, it is considered essential that informal open space and play facility needs are met on the site.

The indicative layout and information in the design and access statement shows one way that open space needs can be met on site. This demonstrates that significantly more that 10% of the site can be provided as open space in a form that could meet the needs of residents. This open space is predominantly located on the riverside and realigned Meadowhall Way frontages. By providing open space in this form it has the potential to create an attractive setting for the development and should be able to meet the informal recreation needs of residents. The retained or remodelled areas of railway embankment will also be open space that will provide a setting for the development although it will be less valuable in terms of meeting residents’ recreational needs. The Five Weirs Walk within the adjoining Meadowhall Shopping Centre site will also help to meet the informal recreation needs of residents.

The applicant has demonstrated on the indicative layout that they could provide approximately 2200 sqm of children’s play facilities in the form of equipped play areas and multi surface pitches in the areas of public open space. These are shown as being reasonably well overlooked and between 20-30m from the nearest housing which should help to minimise the risk of disturbance. They have also suggested that additional play provision for young children could be provided within each of the semi private courtyard spaces surrounded by the apartment blocks. At this stage it is not clear whether the development could fully meet the 15 sqm per family dwelling as set out in Policy H16. However the applicant has demonstrated that they should be able to come close to this level and it is considered that they have demonstrated that there is sufficient space to meet the play needs of future residents at the detailed design stage. A planning condition is proposed that will ensure that appropriate informal open space, play facilities and landscaping is provided to serve each phase of housing development.

Formal Open Space

There is a shortfall of formal open space in terms of the minimum guideline set out in Policy H16. The site is not large enough to provide youth and adult sports provision on site and therefore a contribution will be secured for off site improvements in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance on ‘Open Space Improvements in New Housing Development’. The level of this contribution is still the subject of discussions between officers and the applicant, It will be secured by a legal agreement.

Policy Background for Private and Shared Amenity Space

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) ‘Housing’ states that, access to private outdoor space such as gardens, patios and balconies are key considerations when assessing design of new housing developments. PPS3 also says that where family housing is being provided, the needs of children need to be taken into account. This includes provision of private gardens as well as public play areas and informal play space.

The only planning policy that relates to the provision of private open space for housing is contained within the Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘Designing House Extensions‘. This states that the Council consider 50 sqm as the normal garden size for a 2 or more bedroom house. The policy does not apply to flats and the indicative scheme prepared by the applicants proposes a predominantly apartment led scheme.

Assessment of Private / Shared Amenity Space

Although this is an outline application the applicant is seeking permission for a specified amount of residential floor space which is defined in the parameters plans. The only means that the Council has to judge whether the amount of floor space proposed can be adequately accommodated on site is the indicative layout submitted by the applicant. This shows the housing laid out around a series of courtyards, with private and shared amenity space provided in the courtyards and public space proposed along the riverside and realigned Meadowhall Way frontages. The applicant has produced a series of sketch schemes in the design and access statement that show how the courtyards might be laid out. They have shown 3 storey and 3 bedroom town houses with 50 sqm gardens which is consistent with the above policy. They have also shown 20 sqm of private terraces attached to ground floor 3 bedroom flats, the intention being that larger ground floor flats with attached small areas of private space and their own front door might be more likely to appeal to families. They have suggested that 5% of units could be 3 bedroom town houses and 4%, 3 bedroom ground floor flats with a small terrace. The remainder of the units would need to share the communal space but could also have access to elevated balconies and terraces.

There is no specific standard for provision of private / shared amenity space for flats. However appeal decisions have supported an absolute minimum of 5 sqm of communal space per unit. Based on the indicative layout for plot 1 most the courtyard blocks provide between 5-10 sqm of shared communal space. One courtyard provides well above this level, and two courtyards would need communal roof gardens to meet the 5 sqm minimum. It should however be noted that there will be opportunities to provide additional private space in the form of balconies and roof terraces. On plot 2 the applicant has demonstrated through indicative plans that the apartments could be provided with approximately 10 sqm of communal garden space at ground floor and roof level. Residential development on plot 3/4 is likely to achieve similar proportions of private and shared communal amenity space as plot 1 since it could be developed to a similar density.

Conclusion

The scheme will result in a significant increase in the quantity and quality of open space in the area, particularly the riverside space forming part of plot 1, the public square forming part of plot 2 and the landscaped area at the centre of the office development. The riverside space and public square will be accessible to the wider community and not just the site occupiers. The riverside space will also enhance the setting and recreational value of the Five Weirs Walk.

It is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that they can meet the informal and children’s play needs on the application site. The formal open space provision will be met by improving facilities off site. The provision of private or shared amenity space is considered to be quite tight. However many of the units are likely to adjoin a substantial area of public open space adjacent to the river and the realigned Meadowhall Way. Given this the provision of private amenity space can be considered to be acceptable. Assuming the scheme is built out to the maximum density as set out in the parameters plans it will produce a dense housing scheme. It will differ from a typical suburban scheme which would typically be lower rise with more private amenity space. It will also differ from City Centre schemes in that it will have a wider mix of units with greater provision for private amenity space and public open space.

3.6 Noise

Policy

UDP Policy IB6 ‘Development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas’ describes housing as an acceptable use. The commentary to this policy states that: “The better environment of these areas might, exceptionally, allow some houses, residential institutions and visitor accommodation. But this will only happen where living conditions are satisfactory and they would not hinder industrial and business development.”

Policy IB11 ‘Housing and Residential Institutions in Industry and Business Areas’ states that housing will only be permitted where the development would

- not further constrain industrial or business development to protect the environment of the new housing; and - not suffer from unacceptable living conditions, including noise.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ states that where practical the planning system should ensure that noise sensitive developments are separated from major sources of noise, including certain types of industry. Where it is not possible to achieve separation of land uses the local planning authority should consider whether it is practical to control or reduce noise levels or mitigate the impact of noise through planning conditions. It states there are circumstances where it is acceptable and indeed even desirable in order to meet other planning objectives to allow noise creating activities on land adjoining or near noise sensitive development. It also advises that when determining applications for noise sensitive development local planning authorities should consider both the level of noise exposure at the time of the application and any increase that can reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future. This guidance also introduces the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (NEC). These are intended to guide authorities in assessing an application for residential development near a noise source. Noise surveys allow sites to be categorised into different NEC categories. The following advice is provided for the NEC categories.

NEC A - Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission.

NEC B - Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise.

NEC C - Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

NEC D – Planning permission should normally be refused.

The guidance says that NEC categories should not be used for assessing the impact of industrial noise on residential development because of the nature of this type of noise. However in a mixed noise site where industrial noise is present but not dominant, its contribution should be included in the noise level to establish the appropriate NEC.

Noise Assessment

The noise assessment shows that the site is affected by both traffic noise and industrial noise. At certain times, particularly in the night, industrial noise is likely to be dominant at particular locations within the site. The assessment of traffic noise shows that the majority of the site areas fall within NEC noise exposure categories A and B with small areas adjacent to the roads lying within category C during the daytime. A similar picture emerges during the night time although the areas within category C are much smaller.

As the precise location of outdoor living areas is not known at the outline application stage it is not possible to accurately judge the likely impact of noise. This will be considered further at the reserved matters application stage when the need for noise mitigation measures such as walls and fences can be assessed.

The parameters plans submitted with the application define the maximum extent of the building footprint. This will enable residential development to take place within 25m of the River Don boundary on plot 1 and along the back edge of footpath on most of the plot frontages.

The two main sources of industrial noise affecting the site arise from Forgemasters River Don Works, where steel is melted and forged in a 24 hour operation, and from the Howco Engineering works, where metal billets are heat treated and cut to size. The Forgemasters site is located approximately 100m to the south west of plot 1, whilst the Howco works is situated to the east of plot 1, approximately 10 metres from the site.

The main concern relates to the potential for conflicts between residential development on plot 1 and the industrial uses on the Forgemasters and Howco sites. It is necessary to ensure that the noise climate is satisfactory for residential occupiers and they will not be disturbed by industrial noise. It is also important to avoid a situation where residential development results in noise complaints leading to the Council being obliged to take action against the industrial operations under the Environmental Protection Act. If complaints were to arise the Council would be obliged to investigate them and this could lead to restrictions on the industrial operations which may affect their viability. For this reason the applicants have been asked to assess the impact of industrial noise on the residential development assuming that windows will be open. Development can be designed to provide a satisfactory internal noise climate with windows closed and an alternative means of ventilation. However it is considered highly likely that some residents will want to sleep with windows open, particularly in the warmer months. If industrial noise leads to sleep disturbance it could result in complaints from residents and the Council being obliged to take action which may jeopardise the viability of the adjacent industrial operations.

Noise from Forgemasters

The character of the noise from Forgemasters is impulsive or irregular. Noise assessments have identified the night time movement of scrap which is used in the electric arc furnaces as the potentially most disturbing noise source from the Forgemasters’ site. The recorded noise levels from this source have therefore been used to assess the potential impact on the residential development. The analysis shows that the predicted noise levels at the majority of the facades as illustrated on the indicative layout would be sufficiently low to not disturb sleep in bedrooms with windows open. In all locations the appropriate internal noise levels could be met with windows closed. In those locations where noise levels are such that sleep disturbance would be likely with windows open the applicants have demonstrated that there are design solutions that allow satisfactory internal noise levels to be achieved in most locations. These include providing recessed balconies adjoining bedroom areas which create a noise shadow and provide sufficient attenuation against Forgemasters noise to allow windows to be opened. Alternatively secondary glazing can be provided with staggered openings to windows on the internal and external glazed surfaces. Another option would be a glazed conservatory outside the bedroom window. The applicants have tested the indicative layout and these designs would provide sufficient attenuation for most locations except the ends of the blocks nearest to the River Don. Bedrooms would not be acceptable in these areas and therefore living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens and bathrooms would need to be position on the ends of the blocks. At this stage the housing layout is not fixed. However the applicant has demonstrated that housing could be developed in the form shown on the indicative layout whilst providing a satisfactory internal noise climate for residents and minimising the risk of complaints against Forgemasters. A condition is therefore proposed that defines an internal noise level to be achieved with bedroom windows open and this will be assessed against the maximum recorded noise levels as measured on the site from the Forgemasters operation.

Noise from Howco

With respect to the Howco site it is noise from the workshops that is the main concern. Operations take place at night and in the summer months the roller shutter doors to the workshops may be open. The industrial noise from this source is considered to be more continuous and regular in character. The assessment undertaken by the applicant assumes an office building will be erected along a substantial section of the Carbrook Street frontage opposite one of the main steel stock yards, as shown on the indicative layout. This would provide acoustic shielding for residential development on part of plot 1. The noise assessment of the indicative layout shows that for most of the site the industrial noise would be unlikely to cause sleep disturbance for most of the site with windows open. In those locations closest to Carbrook Street the design solutions proposed above will be sufficient to attenuate industrial noise with windows open. The applicant has therefore demonstrated that with a noise barrier along the southern section of Carbrook Street and appropriate mitigation in place, they should be able to provide a satisfactory internal noise climate for residents and minimise the risk of complaints leading to potential additional constraints on the Howco operation. A condition is proposed that will set internal noise levels to be achieved in bedrooms with windows open which will be measured over a longer period as the noise from Howco is considered to exhibit less variation.

Traffic Noise

In terms of road traffic noise, at locations where such noise levels are elevated, a satisfactory internal noise climate will only be achieved if windows are closed and an alternative means of ventilation provided. The approach being adopted for traffic noise is different to that for industrial noise because it is a more anonymous noise source and therefore less likely to result in annoyance or complaints. If complaints arise due to residents in the affected areas opening their windows, it is unlikely that it will affect viability of the existing businesses. A condition is proposed that will ensure the residential properties are attenuated to a satisfactory level against traffic noise, where appropriate.

Noise Affecting Offices

Although commercial uses are less sensitive to noise it is likely that attenuation will be required in certain areas to provide a satisfactory internal noise climate. A condition is proposed to secure the appropriate level of attenuation.

Conclusion

Whilst the applicant has shown that it is possible to provide an acceptable noise climate for residential occupiers, Members should be aware that there are some risks and uncertainties. By its very nature, industrial noise is varied and irregular. Whilst the applicant has carried out thorough noise surveys over an extended period there is a small risk that they may not have picked up all the noisiest events because they are intermittent. There is also a risk that existing businesses could change their operations or new uses could be introduced which may change the characteristics of the noise climate. Changes in operational practices and different occupiers within the same use class would not come within planning control. However as the existing local business are heavy engineering uses it could be argued that the risks of more un- neighbourly uses being introduced are small. In addition environmental standards are improving all the time therefore the risk of the noise climate worsening might be considered to be limited.

3.7 Air Quality

The air quality assessment considers the following issues.

- Dust annoyance and elevated concentrations of airborne particles (PM10) during demolition and construction works.

- The suitability of the site for residential development in terms of air quality.

- The suitability of the site for development in terms of the potential for complaints regarding odour from nearby industry.

Dust

In terms of dust there are no highly sensitive receptors within 200m of the site and therefore there are unlikely to be complaints. Brightside School is within 200m of the site but because it is upwind in terms of the prevailing wind and with the mitigation in place it is unlikely that annoyance will be caused due to dust. Offices are located 100m south east of the site and down wind in terms of the prevailing wind. However with mitigation they are unlikely to be affected by dust from the site due to the screening effect of existing low sensitivity industrial buildings. The new residential occupiers will be sensitive receptors to dust during construction. Although the applicants argue that they will be more tolerant to dust, having moved in with knowledge that construction works will be ongoing.

The short term air quality objective for particulate matter is 50 µg/m3 measured as a 24 hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year. At current background concentrations it is possible that the number of days with an average concentration greater than 50 µg/m3 where there is relevant exposure could increase by over 20 days, although the objective is still likely to be achieved.

The demolition and construction impacts will be minimised through use of a scheme of mitigation measures, which are based on guidance provided by the Greater London Council. These include measures such as sheeting of vehicles, damping down in dry conditions etc. These measures will be required to be adopted via a planning condition. With mitigation the impact zone is reduced, typically to around 100m or less of major dust generating activities. Special consideration of the use of control measures will be made where construction activities are undertaken in close proximity to offices in the area and when construction occurs close to occupied new dwellings to reduce the risk of dust complaints and public exposure to elevated PM10 concentrations.

Nitrogen Dioxide and Small Particles (PM10)

Potential constraints on the use of the site for residential development arise from local poor air quality due to emissions from local road and rail traffic and from the steelworks at Sheffield Forgemasters International (SFI). The impact on local air quality has been assessed in terms of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and PM10 (small particles) concentrations, as these are the main pollutants associated with traffic, biomass boilers and the steel works.

The assessment of baseline conditions shows that the air quality objectives for small particles (PM10) are likely to be achieved currently, but the annual mean NO2 objective is likely to be exceeded close to the main roads in the area. However, with the gradual introduction of cleaner vehicles and other pollution abatement measures air quality is predicted to improve in future years.

In 2007 the model shows that for most of the site the annual mean concentration of nitrogen dioxide is below the national air quality objective for nitrogen dioxide, (40 ug/m3). This air quality objective has been set in the interests of protecting human health. The exception is close to the road frontages of plots 1, 2 and 3 where the level is predicted to be between 40-45 ug/m3. Nitrogen dioxide levels are predicted to improve from 2007 to 2018 as a result of the implementation of pollution control measures, such as the gradual introduction of cleaner vehicles. By 2010, which is likely to be before any housing is occupied, the annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide meet the national air quality objective across the whole site. This also applies in 2018 when the development is expected to be completed. In 2018 with the development completed and the mitigation in place (that is the road improvements) there is a small area of plot 1 where annual mean concentrations would exceed the objective. However this area corresponds with the alignment of the realigned Meadowhall Way and there will be no residents living in this area.

The impact of the development on nitrogen dioxide levels in Tinsley has been considered. In 2007 the air quality model and monitoring results show that nitrogen dioxide in areas of Tinsley, particularly around junction 34S and Bawtry Road, already exceed the annual mean air quality objective by a significant amount. In 2018, due to improved vehicle emission standards and without the development, the areas and level of exceedance are significantly reduced. In 2018 with the development in place and with the development and mitigation in place the changes in the areas of exceedance are marginal. Annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted to increase by a maximum of 0.6 µg/m3 as a result of the development with and without the mitigation measures referred to below. This represents an increase of approximately 1.7%. With mitigation more receptors close to the M1 J34S roundabout are affected than without mitigation, this is considered to be due to the change on the general pattern of traffic as a result of the proposed fixed road link. This will result in lower levels of traffic delay at J34S, which will in turn make this route more attractive to some other traffic.

Many of the measures which are being adopted to minimise the transport impact of development will also help to limit the air quality impact. These are contained within the Transport Assessment and Transport Strategy and include limiting parking for office and residential uses, establishing a controlled parking zone, providing sustainable travel information to employees and residents, providing incentives to reduce car travel for employees and residents, encouraging car sharing and car clubs, improving cycling and pedestrian facilities, use of local procurement policies to encourage deliveries in low emission vehicles. These measures have all been taken into account when modelling the air quality impact. Other proposed measures that could further mitigate the impact of the slight worsening of air quality are traffic calming, provision of electric charging points, parking permit schemes based on vehicle emissions, priority parking for low emission vehicles, low emission travel incentives for employees, use of low NOx boilers.

The Highways Agency has commented on the Air Quality Issues. They consider the impact on air quality should be assessed as being of minor adverse significance based on the most widely used guidance as published by the National Society for Clean Air (NSCA). They say the applicants have not used this because it is not formal guidance and has no statutory basis, and the significant criteria are only examples. The Agency therefore disagree with the applicant’s conclusion that the impact is not significant they also consider that the applicant has not adequately justified their assessment criteria. The Agency has questioned figures in a table of results provided by the applicant which state that only one receptor near to the M1 in 2018 is predicted to experience a concentration in excess of 40 ug/m3 whereas contour maps for 2018 show concentrations at many receptors above this level. However the Agency concludes that their differences with the applicant are a matter of professional judgement and they do not object to the grant of planning permission on air quality grounds.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the development will marginally increase nitrogen dioxide levels. This will not result in the extension of an air quality management area nor render the air quality management plan unworkable. However it is likely to contribute to a delay in the achievement of the air quality objective in Tinsley. Given that the contribution is small, and the measures within the scheme to minimise the transport impact, this is considered to be of minor significance and is not sufficient to justify resisting this proposal. The applicants have used a nationally accepted modelling methodology to assess the air quality impacts. This predicts that air quality will improve over time due to improved vehicle emission controls and this is reflected in the model results. It should be noted that whilst the modelling approach adopted is acceptable this predicted trend is not entirely consistent with the trends of measured concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at the Tinsley Nursery Infant School / residential location monitoring site. It does however show consistency with trends from the Tinsley DEFRA monitoring station, although there are concerns that data is missing from this station and therefore it may not show the full picture. This does raise some concerns; however it could be argued that these discrepancies are due to the particular characteristics of the monitoring locations at Tinsley.

The operation phase of the development is not predicted to have a significant impact on particulate matter (PM10) or result in any exceedances of national air quality objectives.

Odour

An odour assessment was carried out in relation to potential odours from the Howco Engineering Works which adjoins plot 1. Odours were detectable on the Carbrook Street frontage of the site and are probably due to quenching activities; that is the heat treatment of metals. Given the location of the plant it is only likely that plot 1 will experience odours. The prevailing wind blows from the site towards the Howco plant, carrying odour away from Plot 1. Plot 1 is most likely to receive odour from the plant during light winds from the east through to the south and calm conditions. These conditions occur approximately 14% of the time. Depending on the location of the odour sources individual receptors will be downwind significantly less frequently. In addition, precipitation may remove odour and it is understood that the odour emissions are not continuous due to the production process being a batch process. These factors will reduce the risk of odour annoyance to the future occupiers of Plot 1. The applicants have concluded that for most of the time the site is unlikely to experience any significant odour annoyance from the Howco plant. However there is a small risk of odour complaints during adverse meteorological conditions. Following a number of visits to the site by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service officers it is accepted that these conclusions are reasonable and it is unlikely that odour will significantly affect the amenity of future residents.

3.8 Education

Policy

The Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning and Education Contributions’ dated August 1998 states that contributions towards the capital costs of providing additional school accommodation will be negotiated with developers of proposed new housing sites in areas where:

(a) the school serving the catchment area within which new housing developments would fall is already full; or

(b) new developments would result in the total number of pupils exceeding the capacity of the school; and

(c) spare capacity in adjacent schools cannot be used to meet the deficiency of school places; and

(d) there are no existing proposals for financing the additional places which are required.

Capacity Issues

The Children and Young People’s Directorate have advised that a development of the scale proposed could yield 27 pupils per year group. This will depend on the nature of the accommodation provided and therefore this figure should only be considered to be an estimate at this stage.

In this case the site is situated on the edge of Philimore Park’s catchment for primary education. This is 2.3km from the site and tends to send pupils to Park Academy. Whilst there is a small number of surplus spaces at the moment, forecasts indicate that pupil numbers will increase by the time housing on the application site could be expected to be occupied. There are also a number of housing developments under construction or planned that are likely to further increase demand. It is therefore considered that there is no significant capacity available in this school.

The site is geographically closer to Brightside Nursery and Infant School which is approximately 750m from the site and Limpsfield Junior School, approximately 1.4km. In these schools there are expected be 3/4 spaces per year group in 2009/10 which is not sufficient to serve the development. Wincobank Nursery and Infant School and Concord Junior School are estimated to have 80 spaces across all year groups by 2010/11. However the junior school admits a lower intake which means that if the nursery was filled to capacity a number of pupils would not be able to attend the junior school. Taking this into account these schools are predicted to have 5 surplus spaces per year group (11 if no account is taken of the reduced intake at the junior school). By 2009/10 the forecasts indicate that Wincobank and Brightside Infant and Nursery will be admitting 120 pupils per year which is sufficient to take up all the available capacity in the linked junior schools. It should also be noted that neither the Philimore Park, Wincobank nor Concorde Schools are within walking distance of the site. Given these considerations there is a strong case for requiring a contribution towards the capital costs of providing additional accommodation at primary level, ideally at the schools closest to the site, in order to allow children and parents the opportunity to walk to school.

At secondary school level the site lies within the catchment of Hinde House School. This is forecast to remain full and there is no significant capacity to accommodate pupils from this development. The site is situated close to the boundary of Fir Vale Secondary School but this is already operating over capacity by a significant amount and pupil numbers are expected to increase over coming years. Therefore a contribution is also needed towards providing additional capacity at secondary level.

The Children and Young People’s Directorate have advised that the provision of additional education capacity will be developed as part of a wider strategy which will be the subject of a full consultation process. Should this development proceed the local schools will be the starting point to be considered for expansion.

At this stage, as the application is in outline, the precise contribution is not known as this will be dependent on the type of housing accommodation provided and the type of education accommodation required. The S106 agreement will ensure that contributions are made for both primary and secondary facilities in line with the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Education Contributions.

Two Bedroom Flats

The applicant has submitted evidence based on a general analysis of Sheffield census data and a more detailed consideration of two areas dominated by flats that shows the yield of school age children from two bedroom flats will be very low. They therefore argue that it is unreasonable to secure a contribution towards the capital costs of providing additional education capacity for these types of units. The consultants acting for British Land have stated that they agreed this approach with colleagues in the Children and Young People’s Directorate before submitting the application and that in the past contributions have not normally been secured for 2 bedroom flats. They have also pointed out that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on ‘Open Space’ states that contributions for children’s play facilities will not be required for small flats, which are defined as one or two bedroom flats.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning and Education Contributions’ states that: “The main factors to be considered in determining the number of school-age children expected to come from a development will be the number and size of family houses.” It also advises that: “The yield per house will be applied to all types and sectors of housing with the exception of houses and flats with only one bedroom which are unlikely to yield school-age pupils.” The applicant’s case has been put to colleagues in the Children and Young People’s Directorate and they have been asked to provide any counter evidence. They have pointed out that in recent years the emphasis has been on managing surplus places across the city. This has changed and there are pockets of rapid growth and the proposed development will be within and adjoining such catchment areas. Whilst these points are noted, no evidence has been produced to counter the applicant’s evidence that two bedroom flats are likely to generate few school age children. Given this, wording of the legal agreement heads of terms for the education contribution makes it clear that a contribution will not be required for either one or two bedroom flats.

3.9 Neighbourhood Centre Uses

Policy

The proposed shops, cafes and bars, leisure uses and hotel are main town centre uses. Planning Policy Statement 6, ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS 6) requires main town centre uses to be focused on town centres. Where these uses are proposed outside town centres they must pass the tests of need, sequential approach, scale, impact and accessibility.

Need

The applicant has made a reasonable case that a new neighbourhood centre will be needed to serve a mixed residential / employment community of up to 8000 people. They propose a neighbourhood centre with a rich mix of uses that could include a hotel, health and fitness, local shops, cafes and restaurant, a pharmacy and subject to need, consulting rooms and a medical centre.

Scale

PPS 6 requires the scale of development to relate to the role and function of the centre within the wider hierarchy and the catchment served. Up to 2,499 sqm of retail (class A1), up to 6600 sqm of other town centre uses and a hotel of up to 10,000 sqm are proposed.

The applicant has shown that there is a need for approximately 600 sqm of convenience goods floorspace to support the residential and working population. In order to allow for some flexibility but also to prevent a larger supermarket occupying the site, for which there is no need and which would be out of scale with the centre, a condition is proposed that would limit the convenience goods floorspace to a maximum of 1000 sqm. There is a limited need for comparison goods and therefore a condition is proposed that will limit comparison goods floorspace to a maximum of 1250 sqm. This could easily accommodate comparison uses such as a pharmacy or florist. The floorspace not occupied by convenience and comparison goods could accommodate a hairdressers, dry cleaners or similar uses. An additional condition is proposed requiring the non convenience goods floorspace to be split between a minimum of 4 units with a maximum floorspace of 500 sqm. This will ensure the centre is made up a range of small shops of a local nature which are appropriate to a neighbourhood centre, as opposed to larger units which could draw from a wider area.

The quantity of other food and drink, professional services offices, leisure and community uses are large, (6600 sqm). However such facilities may enhance the vitality of the development and are unlikely to have an impact on existing centres. A condition is proposed to prevent a permitted development change of use from food and drink uses or professional services uses to retail class A1 uses as this could significantly increase the amount of retail floorspace in the neighbourhood centre which would not be justified.

Sequential Approach

The proposed neighbourhood centre is needed in this location to provide for the day-to-day needs of residents and workers. These needs would not be met by locating the facilities in or on the edge of the City Centre or a District Centre. The nearest District Centre to the site is Darnall District Centre over 2 km distant from the site. There is a neighbourhood centre on Tyler Street but this is approximately 750m from plot 1. The Council aims to provide neighbourhood centres within 500m of residential locations. Consequently there are no sequentially preferable locations.

Impact

The scale of retail and leisure development is such that it is unlikely to become a destination in itself. It is sufficiently separated from the Meadowhall shopping centre to not function as a retail extension to the centre.

Accessibility

The proposed main town centre uses would be accessible on foot to the working and residential population within the development. They do not need to be accessible from elsewhere as they are unlikely to serve a significant number of people from elsewhere.

Hotels

Hotels are identified as a main town centre use in PPS6. The applicant has not applied the PPS6 tests of need, sequential approach, scale, impact and accessibility to the proposed hotel. Available evidence, from South Yorkshire Serviced Accommodation Needs Survey dated July 2001, suggests that Sheffield is well provided with hotel bed spaces, so does not need any more. It is the needs of this particular development that justify providing a hotel to serve the offices and other business and leisure uses in the Lower Don Valley and create a vibrant centre and there is no other location that could serve this need. Any small impact is likely to be outweighed by these benefits.

Conditions to ensure a Phased Development

Unless conditions were placed on the permission, it would allow development of just the retail or leisure elements. It would be possible to develop an out-of-centre leisure complex of 6,600 sqm with ancillary retail of up to 2,499 sqm. This would be different in character to the form of development that is currently proposed. To ensure that the retail and leisure elements remain ancillary to the residential and office development, rather than acting as stand alone development, conditions are proposed to limit the amount of retail/ commercial / leisure floorspace that can be developed until a certain amount of office / residential floorspace is committed.

3.10 Access Issues

National Policy

National Transport policy guidance is contained in PPG 13 ‘Transport’. The key objectives are:

- To promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight. - To promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and - To reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

Key policy areas include:

- The need to link land use and transport planning to promote more sustainable transport patterns. - The need to manage demand, including through the application of maximum parking standards; and - The promotion of public transport.

The maximum parking provision for offices is 1 space per 30 sqm.

Regional Policy

Policy T1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 aims to reduce travel demand, traffic growth and congestion, shift to modes with lower environmental impact and improve journey time reliability. It states that congestion should be addressed in urban areas by giving priority to public transport, use of employers travel plans, incentives to use public transport in new housing developments, improved facilities for pedestrian and cyclists, encouragement of car clubs and car sharing, and encouraging a shift from car based to public transport based commuting. Public transport accessibility criteria are established to ensure that development is appropriately located. These state that employment uses should be within a 5 minute walk to bus stops offering a 15 minute frequency to a major public transport interchange. When considering residential development the policy provides criteria for assessing the accessibility of residential locations. Policy T2 establishes a maximum parking standard for offices above 2500 sqm of one space per 60 sqm of floor space.

Local Policy

Unitary Development Plan Policies T1 and T2 seek to promote public transport use including by developing a network of bus priority routes. Policies T7 and T8 seek to promote walking and cycling by providing better facilities and safer, more convenient and attractive routes. Policy T21 states that provision will be made for parking where it would meet the operational needs of business and be essential for the viability of new development. Policy T22 states that for new office developments outside the City Centre within approximately 500m walking distance of Supertram stops, frequent bus services or railway stations, or where there is a combined adequate level of public transport provision up to one space per 100 sqm of gross floor space is allowed. Outside these areas up to 1 space per 35 sqm is allowable. The Council’s parking guidelines for housing allow for up to 2 spaces per unit depending on the number of bedrooms per unit and 1 space per 4 units for visitors. The emerging parking policy which will form part of Local Development Framework is proposing 1 space per 75sqm for offices and between 1 to 1.5 spaces per housing unit depending on size.

Access to the Development

The site is located just to the south of Meadowhall Shopping Centre and is in relatively close proximity to Junction 34 of the M1 motorway. Two main arterial routes from Junction 34 pass each side of development, these being A6170 (Sheffield Road) and the A6108 (Meadowhall Road/Brightside Lane), these routes continue on towards the City Centre passing through the A6102 (Greenland Road / Howe Street / Upwell Street) outer ring road just to the south of the development.

Two major routes connecting these arterial routes pass through the site; these being Weedon Street and Meadowhall Way, and it is anticipated that all access to the development will be taken off these routes.

General zones for vehicular access points are identified on the parameters plans. The precise location and design will not be fixed until the reserved matters stage. For plot 1 access will be from Weedon Street and potentially three accesses from Carbrook Street, for plot 2 from Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive, for plots 3/4 from Meadowhall Drive Weedon Street and Meadowhall Way (the latter via a new cutting through the railway embankment). Plot 5 will be accessed from Meadowhall Way. It is considered that the parameters plans identify sufficient and suitable broad locations for vehicular access points to serve the traffic generated by the development.

Highway Impact

A Transport Assessment (TA) has been produced by the developer in support of the application, it considers the impact of a worst case scenario comprising of 120,000 sqm of offices, 900 residential units, 150 bedroom hotel and 3140 sqm of retail and leisure uses. In order to minimise the impact of the private car the lower emerging Sheffield Development Framework parking guidelines have been used. For offices these are 1 space per 75 sqm and for residential accommodation 1 space for a one bedroom unit and 1.25 spaces for 2 to 3 bedroom units. The transport assessment adopts 2018 as the point when the development will be fully open. It compares the traffic flows that are expected at that time taking into account traffic growth, committed developments and road schemes likely to be in place with the additional traffic generated by the development. It also considers the impact of the development with the proposed mitigation in place which includes the Fixed Link and the realignment of Meadowhall Way. The Fixed Link is a scheme to create a new road between Sheffield Road to the north of junction 34S of the M1 to Meadowhall Way to the north side of the Meadowhall Centre. This would allow traffic to bypass junction 34S which is already at capacity. The new link road would also form part of the Northern Bus Rapid Transit route, which is proposed to link Sheffield City Centre with Rotherham Town Centre via Meadowhall.

Traffic generation figures for the site have been agreed with both the City Council and Highways Agency, so that an assessment of the existing highway network can be undertaken. The generation figure adopted is based in part on the levels of parking for each use, the details of which are given later in the report, and parking demand controls provided on the existing public highway via the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Considerable emphasis is also placed on Travel Planning measures.

The predicted traffic generation for the morning peak hour is 1,739 trips, and for the evening peak hour this is 1,474 trips. These are clearly very high figures for new vehicle movements, although it should be borne in mind that there are several access points into the development, so the additional traffic is distributed onto a number of existing / new junctions, rather than being concentrated at one point.

The traffic generation figure was then inputted into the Council’s SATURN model, to allow a general assessment of the highway network to be undertaken.

In general terms the modelling indicated that the development would result in a significant increase to delays on large parts of the network, mainly due to capacity problems at Junction 34 and capacity problems at the Meadowhall Road / Weedon Street junction and Hawke Street / Upwell Street / Brightside Lane junction.

When the model was run with the major highway improvement works (including the fixed link) included, the results indicated the local network should operate at “no worse off” with some journey times actually improving (again this is down to the improvements generated by the fixed link).

Some residual problems were still present at Junction 34 (north) as the fixed link scheme has only a marginal impact on this part of the junction; however a scheme to improve this junction has now been agreed and tested by the Highway Agency, which will bring the operation of this part of the junction back to at least “no worse off”. Highway Mitigation Works

The main mitigation works to improve vehicle capacity are:-

- Provision of the new link road which will connect Meadowhall Way to Sheffield Road (nearly opposite Ferrars Road). This is a very major element of infrastructure, which could certainly not be funded in full by any single development. At present it is envisaged that some element of public funding will be made available towards these works, but some shortfall will exist. A bid for the Northern Bus Rapid Transit Route of which the Fixed Link forms a key part will be made to the Department for Transport. The Council is seeking a 90% contribution from the Department for Transport, with 10% to be found locally. The Council will not hear if the bid is successful until 2010/11.

Developer contributions will be sought to ensure the local contribution is met, and this will be based on the level of traffic each development will place through Junction 34 (South). This development will take up approximately 40% of the capacity through Junction 34 (South) created by the link road, and will therefore be required to pay 40% of the local contribution.

As the actual level of public funding is not known at this time, the developer contribution identified within the Section 106 agreement is to be based on the Council securing 90% public funding for the scheme. There is a risk that the public funding will be less than this or that that there will be no public funding at all. In such circumstances other developments or the later phases of this development will only be able to proceed if they are able to bridge the shortfall in the funding gap or if alternative transport measures can be brought forward which would compensate for the capacity that would have been provided by the Fixed Link. The applicant has made it clear that they would not be able to contribute more than the £1.6m that is secured by the legal agreement.

Payment of this contribution will be secured as each phase of development is brought forward, but the full contribution will be required by the time the level of development reaches 67,500 m² of B1 and 250 dwellings (or equivalent mix of development in terms of the traffic generation). As at this stage additional congestion due to development traffic will have reached an unacceptable level, and no further development will be permitted to commence until funding for the fixed link has been fully secured.

It should be noted that permitting this development will mean that it is unlikely that further development on other sites can be permitted where it would result in a material increase in traffic at junction 34S, unless the Fixed Link is in place or fully funded. As this development will only fund up to 40% of the cost of the Fixed Link it is difficult to see how the remaining 60% of the cost of link will be secured unless it is funded up front by public funding or a major development is brought forward that can fund the whole of this amount, in order that it can proceed. If any subsequent development adds additional traffic to junction 34S and funding for the Fixed Link is not secured it is considered likely that the Highways Agency will issue a direction to prevent the planning authority granting permission.

If at the time the threshold of development (67,500m2) is reached, it has been determined that the Fixed Link scheme is not to be progressed, the developer may bring forward an alternative scheme to create some additional highway capacity to allow further development to proceed, making use of the contribution the developer was to pay for the fixed link. It is unlikely that an alternative scheme would bring similar levels of traffic benefit, but the level of benefit would be agreed in advance between the developer, Highways Agency and the City Council.

- The realignment of Meadowhall Way will take some pressure off the Jenkin Road junction and provide a route for traffic using the Fixed Link and travelling towards Sheffield without adding further pressure to Meadowhall Road. Meadowhall Way will be realigned so that it cuts through the existing railway embankment and links with the Weedon Street and Brightside Lane junction. The existing connection to Meadowhall via the Meadowhall Way Bridge will be retained but downgraded to a secondary route. These works will not be necessary until at least half of the development has been completed, although it may well be brought forward far sooner to facilitate some sections of the site to be constructed at an early stage.

- Improvements to the junction of Meadowhall Road / Weedon Street.

- Improvements to the junction of Brightside Lane / Hawke Street / Upwell Street.

- Improvements to the junction of Weedon Street / Sheffield Road.

- Review and modifications of the traffic signal operations at the Meadowhall Road/Passenger Transport Interchange junction and an operational review of all signal timings to a maximum value of £10,000.

- Improvements to the Variable Message car park signage on the main roads surrounding Meadowhall if not already secured and agreed with the shopping centre directly.

Car Parking

Parking levels are to be restricted to be broadly in accordance with those put forward in the emerging SDF rather than the current UDP guidelines. The conditions allow office parking to be within the range of one space per 50 sq m to one space per 75 sq m of floorspace with an average of 1 space per 60 sq m. This is higher than the emerging SDF guidelines but in accordance with the Regional Spatial Strategy. Residential parking is limited to one space per unit which is lower than the emerging SDF guidelines.

In order to ensure this does not result in additional on street parking and in order to reinforce the objectives of the travel plan a controlled parking zone is proposed for the area surrounding the site. This will cover a wide area of the Lower Don Valley from the M1 west towards the Don Valley Stadium. These CPZ proposals are very much in line with those proposed in the emerging SDF. It is likely to be operated during the working day and there will be limited waiting parking bays in order to prevent all day commuter parking.

The CPZ will be subject to separate consultation and objection procedures, and objections from existing business operators can be anticipated. This is however, an essential element of not only this development, but for other potential sites within the Lower Don Valley and members need to be aware that approval of this application is not only approving the development itself, but is also giving approval for the advertisement of the CPZ order. Although the Council will be committing itself to the introduction a CPZ, every effort will be made to accommodate representations that are received when the order is advertised and a further separate report to Area Board on the results of the CPZ consultation will be made when this has been undertaken.

The developer will be funding the detailed design and implementation of the CPZ, and it is anticipated that the scheme should be in place prior to any of the offices being occupied.

In addition, management controls have already been introduced to prevent commuters parking within the Meadowhall Shopping Centre car parks; the strategy includes automated vehicle number plate recognition along with vehicle clamping to deter non shoppers from parking within the car parks. The effectiveness of this strategy will be kept under regular by the developer, shopping centre management and the City Council. It should be noted that plots 2 and 5 are used to accommodate limited overspill parking at peak periods in the shopping centre approximately 10/12 times a year. Therefore the management of the shopping centre’s parking demand within the existing Meadowhall ring road is an important issue in connection with this development, which is why any enhanced scheme of Variable Message Signs for the shopping centre is being brought forward.

Public Transport

The application site is considered to be well served by a range of transport options. 693 buses depart from Meadowhall Interchange per weekday, 287 train journeys serve Meadowhall Station and there are 6 trams an hour in peak times. A significant proportion of South Yorkshire can be accessed in less than 60 minutes by public transport from the site. The interchange is between 800m and 1.2 km walk from the site. Carbrook Tram stop is between 450m and 850m from the site. Carbrook tram stop can be accessed from all the plots within a ten minute walk time.

Meadowhall interchange is within 11 to 15 minutes walking distance of the site. There are several bus stops within 5 minutes walk, the Institute of Highways and Transportation guidance states that a new development should be within 400m or a five minute walk time of bus stops.

An assessment of the capacity of bus, rail and tram services shows that there is spare capacity except the rail service from Sheffield to Leeds via Dearne which is suffering significant seat capacity issues in both the morning and evening peaks.

Apart from improving pedestrian links to several public transport access points, the developer will also be upgrading 12 bus stop facilities adjacent to the site including the provision of new shelters with real time information displays.

Within the travel plan initiatives occupiers will be required to actively promote the use of public transport, which will include some early financial incentives for ticketing.

SYPTE have confirmed that sufficient capacity within existing services does exist to accommodate the extra trips generated by the development, and are confident that should the travel plan measures prove to be very successful, operators will be keen to provide additional services.

Footpath / Cycle Measures

To promote walking and cycling both within and to the development, the following measures are being proposed as part of the development:-

- Extension of the Five Weirs Walk including new Toucan crossing facilities to Weedon Street.

- Provision of dedicated pedestrian crossing facilities to the existing signals at Meadowhall Road/Meadowhall Way / Jenkin Road junction.

- Inclusion of improved pedestrian/cycle facilities within the junction improvements at Weedon Street and Upwell Street.

- Creation of an improved pedestrian route through Meadowhall to the existing interchange and improvements to the route to the Carbrook Tram stop.

- Improvements to the cycle route along Colliery Road. - Pedestrian cycle link through plot 3/4 between Weedon Street and Meadowhall Way.

- Provision of a pedestrian cycle link along the edge of the railway embankment to link the Five Weirs Walk with Sheffield Road.

Travel Plan Measures

The applicant has proposed a Transport Strategy which will include a detailed travel plan for the River Don project area. It is intended to deliver a range of transport measures that include measures to promote reduced reliance on the use of the car, measures to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes, and measures to provide improvements to the highway for pedestrians, cycles and vehicular transport. The proposed transport measures will perform best if they are implemented in an integrated manner, and their effects monitored and reviewed as the development progresses. A steering group made up of key stake holders including the local authority, the Highways Agency, Passenger Transport Executive and the developer will be responsible for the overall implementation and management of the Strategy. They will be supported by a Transport Co-ordinator employed by the developer. The strategy would be made up of four plans, these would comprise of a sustainable travel plan, a public transport plan, a parking plan and a lorry management plan.

The sustainable travel plan would comprise of a Don District travel plan that will deal with wider issues and individual plans that will be produced by the residential or commercial occupiers. The parking plan will deal with the management of parking on and off the site to minimise the impact on the surrounding area and uses. The public transport plan would consider how public transport services might best serve the area, linkages with the Bus Rapid Transport System and the provision of transport information and ticketing proposals. The lorry plan will consider lorry routing and off peak delivery services.

The sustainable transport measures being funded by the developer include a number of key elements these being:-

- Funding for a travel coordinator. - Monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy. - A Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). - Improvements to bus stops (including the provision of real time information. - Provision of detailed Travel Plans for each phase of the development. - Support for the provision of a Car Club. - Discounted public transport tickets.

It the sustainable transport measures fail to limit traffic generation to predetermined levels a separate Supplementary Measures Fund is to be used to allow either, the sustainable transport measures to be extended, or further new measures to be introduced.

Ultimately if both the sustainable measures and supplementary measures fail to restrain the vehicle trip rates to/from the site to the levels predicted, development will be required to cease, until such time as further works are introduced to reduce the trip rates back to the approved levels.

Highways Agency Comments.

The Highways Agency, Council Highway Officers and the developer have been holding detailed discussions to consider the impact of the development on the motorway and the means to mitigate the impact. The Highways Agency has confirmed that they are satisfied that the proposals will maintain the effective continued operation of the strategic road network, and comply with policy and ensure the level of trip generation associated with the development is minimised provided that the developer enters into a S106 agreement to secure a series of transport and highway mitigation measures. These measures are referred to in detail above and are secured in the proposed Heads of Terms at the end of the report. They have therefore recommended that permission should only be granted subject to the signing by the Local Planning Authority and the developer of an agreement under section 106 which addresses all the clauses set out in the agreed Section 106 Heads of Terms, issued by Peter Brett Associates, document ref HoT – 08/02594/OUT dated December 2008. This document forms the proposed Heads of Terms in the recommendation and therefore addresses the Highways Agency comments.

Conclusion

The TA that has been produced in support of this application concludes that the scheme accords with and complements national, regional and local transport policy. In particular the development supports the strategic priorities as set out in the emerging SDF, including maximising accessibility, containing congestion levels and promoting choice by developing alternatives to the car.

It goes on further to say that the transport strategy for the River Don District will deliver long terms governance of the transport proposals, thus maximising their effectiveness, and providing over much of the network a nil detriment impact where the mitigation measures listed above have been provided.

Following a very detailed review of the TA, it is considered that the document does represent a robust assessment of the impacts the development will have on the highway network and the mitigation works proposed are fair.

In the short term the initial phases of development will give rise to a slight increase in congestion, but the amount of development is being controlled and with the fixed link the local network is generally brought back to pre development levels of congestion.

Bearing in mind the above considerations, and the general benefits to the Sheffield economy this development would bring, it is considered acceptable in highway terms subject to appropriate conditions and controls with a Section 106 agreement.

3.11 Flooding and Drainage

Relevant Policy

Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (PPS 25) seeks to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is exceptionally necessary in such areas, planning policy aims to make it safe without increasing risk elsewhere and where possible reducing flood risk overall.

Local planning authorities should ensure applications are supported by Flood Risk Assessments, apply the sequential approach by directing the most vulnerable development to the areas of lowest flood risk, ensure that all new development in flood risk areas is appropriately flood resilient and resistant including safe access and escape where required. The sequential approach is to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development proposed. The sequential approach should be applied within the site by directing more vulnerable uses to those parts of the site that are at less risk of flooding. If after applying the sequential approach it is not possible to locate development in lower risk areas the exception test must be applied. In this particular case the exception test should be applied where more vulnerable uses, (houses, hotels or drinking establishments) are located in flood zone 3. For the exception test to be passed it must be demonstrated that there are wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk. It should be on previously developed land and it must be safe without increasing the overall flood risk elsewhere.

Background

The June 2007 floods have been estimated to be a 1 in 200 year flood event with blockages to bridges resulting in flood levels above this in certain locations. During this flood event plot 3/4 flooded and parts of plots 1 and 2, Weedon Street, Carbrook Street and Meadowhall Drive adjoining the site also flooded. The peak recorded flood level in the Weedon Street area was 35.50 AOD.

Most of plots 1, 3, 4 and parts of plots 2 and 5 are shown on current EA mapping to lie in flood zone 3a. Flood zone 3a is defined as land at risk of flooding in a 1 in 100 year flood event.

The flood zones were defined with a relatively crude ‘in banks’ model that basically extrapolated the ‘in banks’ flood levels across the flood plain. A more sophisticated modelling of flooding has been undertaken by the applicant using the TUFLOW modelling package which has widespread acceptance by the Environment Agency. The impact of various flooding events has been modelled taking into account the recent upgrading of flood defences at the Meadowhall Centre which is now defended against a 1 in 200 year event plus climate change. The modelling has now been accepted by the Environment Agency and they will be amending their flood zones shortly. The modelling shows that the majority of the site falls in flood zone 2 with limited areas around Brightside Bridge, Weedon Street and Vulcan Road in flood zone 3a. The flood zones ignore flood defences and so it is likely the extent of flood zone 3a is conservative.

Impact of Flooding and Mitigation

The modelling shows that a small part of the site would flood in a 1 in 100 year flood event. In order to ensure that development is resilient to climate change PPS 25 requires new development to be tested against a 1 in 100 year flood plus climate change. The modelling shows that such a flooding event would affect a much larger part of the site. The applicant therefore proposes to defend the site to a 1 in 200 year flood level plus climate change by landscaping the banks behind the Five Weirs Walk along the River Don frontage between Brightside Weir and Weedon Street bridge and also by realigning Meadowhall Way such that it will form a flood defence on the western boundary of plots 1 and 2. In addition to the above it is proposed to set the lowest ground floor building level to 36.70 AOD for all plots except plot 5 which does not include any residential accommodation. This provides a minimum of 600mm freeboard above the 1 in 200 year flood level plus climate change based on the flood level in the river channel.

PPS 25 requires that development does not worsen the flood risk to other properties. The modelling shows that there is an insignificant change in flood levels as a result of defending the site and that there is no need for flood mitigation in a 1 in 100 year flood event. PPS 25 only requires compensation to be provided for flood plain lost to development in a 1 in 100 year flood event. However a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to consider the impact of the scheme on flooding outside the site during 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year events plus climate change. In order to mitigate the impact of increased flood levels on others a flood mitigation scheme is being proposed. This involves minor lowering of the Five Weirs Walk along the riverside boundary of plot 1, the top of the regraded bank along the river frontage being set back 20m, compensatory storage upstream and downstream of Brightside bridge by altering land levels and demolishing buildings, works to partially protect an existing stone masons yard, creation of a flood relief channel that will run under Weedon street along a realigned Five Weirs Walk and connect back into the river by Meadowhall Way bridge.

Impact on the flooding of other sites

The impact of the flood defence scheme and the flood compensation measures on the flooding of other sites has been modelled. This shows that in a 1 in 100 year flood there will be some reduction of water levels on the Jessop Riverside site in the order of 4.5cm and an increase in water levels on the stone mason’s yard on Weedon Street of approximately 1.5 cm. Further downstream there will be increased water levels of up to 4mm. For the sensitivity tests of 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year floods plus climate change the model shows reduced water levels of up to approximately 5 cm on the Forgemasters site and 17cm on the Jessops Riverside site and increases in water levels of up to approximately 8 cm on the stone masons yard and up to 5 cm elsewhere further down stream. The proposed flood defence and flood alleviation scheme does not change the probability of being flooded for any other buildings identified in the assessment; it does however slightly change the depth of flooding. The flood defences will also prevent other properties from flooding that would otherwise have done so in the Carbrook area, on Sheffield Road and the M1 distribution centre in flood events of 1 in 100 plus climate change and greater.

The development of the site is likely to take place in a phased way and therefore the applicants have considered what phases of development might be able to proceed in advance of the flood alleviation scheme. They have concluded that as plot 5 lies outside the 1 in 100 year flood zone it can be developed independently. Plots 3/4 and plot 1 can be defended so that they are protected against flooding whilst allowing for dry access to areas outside the 1 in 100 flood zone. Plot 3/4 would have no impact on flooding elsewhere in a 1 in 100 year flood as it is outside the 1 in 100 year flood zone. A sensitivity assessment of the impact of raising the site levels on plot 3/4 and not providing the flood alleviation works, based on a 1 in 100 year flood plus climate change, shows increases in water levels of less that 10mm from Brightside Weir to Weedon Street bridge, up to 22mm from Weedon Street bridge to Hadfields weir and less than 10mm beyond the Supertram bridge. The increased water levels as a result of developing plot 1 in the absence of the flood alleviation scheme would be less than this.

PPS 25 requires safe access and egress to be available for a 1 in 100 year flood event plus climate change. With the flood defence works in place this will be achieved for the whole development. Without the flood alleviation scheme in place, defence works will be included in the design for each plot development and such defence works will facilitate safe access for occupants of plots 1, part of 2, 3/4. That part of Plot 2 which is in Flood Zone 3 will not be developed until the construction of the flood alleviation scheme. Plot 5 is in Flood Zone 1 and there are no flooding issues.

Environment Agency Response

The Environment Agency has confirmed that they are satisfied with the flood risk assessment and has no objections to the proposals. They have proposed a series of conditions that establish minimum floor levels, require the flood alleviation scheme to be in place before development is commenced in flood zone 3 and before a specified quantum of development is constructed and put limits on the surface water run off from different plots. They have advised that whilst the proposals will result in a small but insignificant increase in flood levels elsewhere, large areas will benefit significantly from the proposed Flood Alleviation Scheme. It is therefore their view the flood risk, overall will be reduced.

Sequential Approach

PPS25 requires the sequential test to be undertaken for all development in flood zones 2 or higher. The sequential test is intended to direct development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1). The test has been passed if there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the development proposed. As stated above the applicant’s flood modelling shows that the majority of the site lies in flood zone 2 (67%), the area in flood zone 1 is 25% with 8% being in flood zone 3a. The sequential assessment must therefore consider if there are any comparable alternative sites reasonably available in flood zone 1. The applicants have considered the availability of alternative sites with a minimum area of 20.5 hectares this is 20% less than the application site area to allow for a degree of flexibility. They have also established a series of other criteria which must be met for the site to be comparable. These are that it must be able to secure major regeneration benefits for Sheffield including creating a mixed development that can accommodate residential, office, retail and leisure uses. It must be sustainable in terms of transport accessibility and be at least comparable in terms of susceptibility to flooding and of equal environmental quality in terms of air quality, noise and contamination. In addition the site search considered the flood zone allocation, whether the site was available and whether it is suitable in planning policy terms. The applicant came up with four alternative sites which were considered in more detail. Whilst being in a lower risk flood zone the Smithywood site at Chapeltown was rejected because it is not suitable in land use policy terms, is not reasonably available and unlikely to deliver the regeneration benefits of the application site. A site at Tinsley Marshalling Yards is also in flood zone 1 but is unsuitable in planning policy terms, is currently being developed for a distribution centre, not suitable for residential development and not well served by public transport. The Outokumpu site on Shepcote Lane is in flood zone 1 was rejected as not being reasonably available and unable to provide a satisfactory environment for residential uses. A site at Parkwood Springs was identified which lies in flood zone 1 but rejected as being unsuitable as it is not currently available or suitable under adopted or emerging policy.

Exception Test

Where the sequential test is passed it is necessary to consider the exception test where development of certain uses is proposed in flood zone 3a. Following the revised flood modelling only part of plot 2 falls in flood zone 3a. The uses proposed for this plot that are classified as more vulnerable and therefore need assessing against the exception test are the housing, hotel and food and drink uses. The regulatory text that goes with the parameters plans excludes residential and food and drink uses from being located in flood zone 3a of plot 2. The applicant argues that the neighbourhood centre is the most appropriate location for the hotel and the neighbourhood centre needs to be on plot 2 in order to be at the heart of the development and serve both the office and residential uses. It is argued that it passes the exception test as the scheme as a whole provides major regeneration benefits, it is on previously developed land and the flood risk assessment demonstrates that it can be developed safely without significantly increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. The Environment Agency has confirmed that they accept that the site can be developed safely and the scheme will not significantly worsen flooding elsewhere. It is accepted that the scheme satisfies the sequential test and the exception test.

Drainage

Yorkshire Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within the public sewers to accommodate the foul water drainage from the whole development. None of the surface water drains into public sewers and there is insufficient capacity for this to be directed to public sewers and consequently it will be directed to the adjacent water courses and this has been accepted by the Environment Agency. Plots 1, 2, 5 are undeveloped and subject to Greenfield runoff. Plots 3, 4 drain to the River Don via the Carbrook culvert. The runoff from plots 1, 2, and 5 will be limited by condition to Greenfield runoff rates and SUDs techniques will be used to control the runoff which may include permeable paving, tanks, oversized pipes, ponds and swales. Plots 3 and 4 are considered to be previously developed and the runoff will be reduced to 50% of the existing estimated runoff. It is intended to direct the surface water runoff from plots 1-4 to the Carbrook culvert which connects to the river Don and from plot 5 to the Vulcan Road watercourse; however this will need to be agreed with the Environment Agency at a later stage.

3.12 Design and Scale

Context

The application site is largely flat (with the exception of the railway embankment) and is located in the valley bottom. The steep sides of the valley to the north comprising of the Brightside and Wincobank area provide elevated views onto the site. The Don Valley is characterised by a rectilinear street pattern and large scale industrial buildings. Within the site there are no structures worthy of retention. Buildings of historic character that adjoin the site include the listed Tinsley Tram depot which is of significance for its social and historic interest, and an attractive unlisted two storey former public house located on the Carbrook Street frontage. The surrounding area is characterised by industrial sheds, modern offices and commercial buildings with none place specific architecture whose layout often does not relate well to the street. The large scale industrial sheds and the brick faced industrial buildings are strong features of the valley’s character.

Indicative Masterplan

The applicant has prepared an indicative layout / Masterplan to show how the site might be developed and to demonstrate that the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory way. This is for information only and the development will not be tied to this layout.

The layout for plot 1 has been designed to respond to the historic grain with a rectilinear street pattern although this breaks down on plots 3/4 where the campus office layout does not allow this approach to be followed through. Retail, leisure and community uses are shown concentrated on plot 2 at the centre of the site, (the neighbourhood centre), with residential uses close to the centre on plots 1 and 2. The parameters plan approach proposed also allows flexibility for residential use on plot 3/4 close to the neighbourhood centre. Residential uses are mainly intended to be located on plot 1 next to the River Don to take advantage of the riverside environment and proposed amenity space. The office campus which is more self contained and likely to be less permeable is located close to the Meadowhall Shopping Centre.

The layout has a strong landscape framework comprising of a riverside public open space along the River Don frontage which continues along the realigned Meadowhall Way and the remodelled railway embankment to form a green corridor between the river and Sheffield Road. The embankment would be significantly altered to accommodate new road connections and multi storey office car parks that would be cut into its west side. A new mainly pedestrian orientated route is shown running through the development linking plots 1, 2, and 3/4 via a series of connected spaces. A new pedestrian cycle link is proposed along the edge of the realigned Meadowhall Way from the river to Sheffield Road. Meadowhall way is to be realigned to accommodate development traffic, take pressure off the Jenkin Road and Meadowhall Way junction and accommodate traffic from the Fixed link. A flood relief channel will run parallel to the road to mitigate any significant impact on the surrounding area as a result of the flood defence works proposed as part of the scheme.

Plot 1 is laid out as a series of residential blocks surrounding courtyards containing private and shared amenity space. Public open space, incorporating informal open space and children’s play facilities, is located along the riverside and the realigned Meadowhall Way frontage. Office buildings are proposed on part of the Carbrook Street frontage to create a buffer between the housing and the Howco engineering works. Vehicular access to the site would be from Weedon Street and Carbrook Street with car parking mainly accommodated in basements. Building heights would need to be in the range of three to six storeys with the taller elements located on the Weedon Street frontage. The neighbourhood centre is located on plot 2 and would potentially include retail, leisure, community and hotel uses. Buildings are shown addressing the Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive street frontages and a new service road to the north adjoining the remodelled and reshaped embankment. A new public square is laid out in the middle of site to which there would be restricted vehicular access. Buildings would need to be between three and seven storeys high, the three storey element is located at the Weedon Street/Meadowhall Drive corner with the taller elements on the northern part of the site. Plot 3/4 is illustrated as being developed for an office campus which could accommodate the majority of the 120,000 sqm of offices proposed for the site as a whole. It could accommodate a single large scale occupier or multiple occupiers. The layout shows buildings set back from the road frontages with a service road running around the perimeter of the site serving multi storey car parks cut into the embankment and adjacent to the eastern boundary. Buildings are laid out in a horse shoe shaped arrangement around a large central landscaped space. It is intended that the development would have a shared sense of identity, centralised access and, shared parking. Vehicular access would be from Meadowhall Way (a new cutting through the embankment), Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive. A public cycle footpath route connects between Weedon Street and Meadowhall Way along the perimeter service road. The car parks would have three levels the upper level being open. Buildings would be between three and six storeys high. Weedon Street in intended to be a tree lined boulevard to emphasise its importance. Plot 5 forms part of a separate site to the north of the railway embankment the majority of which already has permission for a multi dealership car showroom development. An office or hotel use is proposed that would be up to six commercial storeys high. Access would be from Meadowhall Way and shared with the car showroom development.

Assessment of the Indicative Masterplan Layout

The indicative layout is intended to show one way in which the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory way. It has been supplemented with other plans to show that the other development parameters for which permission is being sought can also be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory way. It has also been used to formulate the parameters plans, regulatory text and design codes that will define and guide the future form of the development. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the indicative layout does demonstrate that the range of development options proposed fit on the site or that there is at least sufficient flexibility for a satisfactory layout to be secured at the reserved matters stage.

Plot 1

The indicative layout of plot 1 responds to the surrounding streets and the characteristic street pattern of the area. The layout is permeable and provides connections through to the riverside and to the neighbourhood centre. Development on the northern boundary is set back from the Weedon Street/realigned Meadowhall Way in order to provide a green link across the site to the railway embankment and accommodate the flood relief channel. Setting development back from the river frontage allows the creation of a significant riverside space which will provide an attractive environment for the housing and can accommodate some of the open space needs of future residents such as, informal open space and play facilities. The landscaped space along the river frontage and the frontage to the realigned Meadowhall Way will provide an enhanced setting for the Five Weirs Walk cycle footpath route. The provision of residential accommodation in a series of courtyard blocks enables the built form to respond to the character of the area which comprises of larger scale buildings. The indicative layout shows the built form scaling down towards the riverside which is considered to be appropriate in that it will help to provide more breathing space to the riverside open space. This is complemented by the opened ended courtyards along the river side frontage which will allow the public open space to merge into the private courtyards. The provision of office buildings along part of the Carbrook Street frontage will help to create a buffer between the noise from the adjacent engineering works whilst ensuring that residents are not overlooking the more unattractive yard and industrial buildings. The three storey office buildings will create a reasonable transition with the smaller scale former public house on the Carbrook frontage. The parameters plans limit the scale of buildings to 6 residential storeys with the taller buildings being restricted to the Weedon street frontage. The indicative layout plan shows buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys. This scale of development is considered to be acceptable given the general context of large scale industrial and commercial development within the valley bottom. The provision of car parking within basements is welcomed as it will allow the buildings and landscaping to dominate rather than the car.

Plot 2

The indicative layout of plot 2 shows the proposed buildings responding to the Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive Street frontages. The mix of uses allows for residential (possibly serviced apartments), hotel, leisure, food and drink uses, shops and offices. The provision of a central square provides the potential to create a sense of place and a vibrant location with the opportunity for active uses to occupy the ground floor spaces. The building adjacent to the Weedon Street / Meadowhall Drive corner is shown as 3 storeys high to reduce overshadowing of the square. Vehicular access is indicated as being limited to the perimeter of the site with car parking accommodated within basements. This will allow the square to be a pedestrian dominated space. The scale of development is limited to 6 residential storeys and 1 commercial storey. The increase in scale will help to mark the neighbourhood centre as a node of activity. The illustrative plans submitted with the application show how some limited shared amenity space could be provided at ground level and in roof gardens to serve the residential accommodation. The public square also has the potential to contribute to the amenities of the flats. The success of the neighbourhood centre will be very much dependent on whether the development will sustain a range of active uses at ground floor level such as shops and restaurants.

Plot 3/4

The indicative layout for plot 3/4 shows a campus style office development with buildings arranged around a central landscaped space. Vehicular circulation is limited to the perimeter of the site and consequently buildings are set back from the road frontage. Multi storey car parks are cut into the side of the railway embankment in order to provide parking above the 1 in 100 year flood levels which the applicants consider future occupiers are likely to insist on. Building heights would be up to 6 storeys with one of these being a taller commercial story (4.5m high). The scale of the buildings is considered to be acceptable in principle given the context of this site. Office buildings within 10m of the listed tram shed will be limited to the equivalent of no more than 4 commercial storeys stepping upwards to the maximum 6 storeys beyond this point. It is considered that limiting the scale of buildings in this way should adequately protect the setting of the listed building.

The campus style of office development shown on the indicative layout plan does not respond particularly well to the street frontages as buildings are set back behind access roads and landscape areas, which will accommodate the level differences between the street and raised site levels. Whilst the layout is only indicative, this out-of-centre office development has been justified on the basis of the need for a campus style development which is required to attract mobile investment. It is argued that a campus office development would be distinctly different to city centre offices thereby ensuring it complements rather than competes with the city centre. Therefore conditions are proposed to ensure that a distinct office campus scheme is developed and consequently it is likely that the form of development will be similar to that shown on the indicative layout rather than a traditional back edge of footpath scheme.

The provision of car parking in multi storey car parks that are cut into the railway embankment is also considered to be less than ideal in urban design terms and an underground solution is preferred. The application does not preclude an underground parking solution but it will allow the applicant the flexibility to pursue either option at the reserved matters stage. The multi storey car parks will be substantially screened from the public highway by the retained section of railway embankment and the new office buildings. However they will detract from the green linear embankment feature when seen from certain higher level views from Brightside and Wincobank. The indicative sections show the upper level of the car parks will rise approximately 2m above the top of the railway embankment with lifts extending above this. It will be challenging to design multi-storey car parks that contribute positively to the appearance of the office scheme. The applicants have however sought to minimise the visual impact by limiting the encroachment into the embankment. The design codes restrict the heights of the car parks and include a requirement for green/brown roof strips to soften their appearance and provide wildlife stepping stones into the interior of the site. They also include proposals for greening the facades of the car parks. The provision of green/brown roofs on 50% of the buildings will help to reduce the visual impact of the development as a whole from high level views.

The parameters plans which define the development for which permission is sought allow for the provision of some residential accommodation on plot 3/4. If permission is granted it would enable up to approximately 28,000 sqm of residential floor space to be built on plot 3/4. Based on the indicative layout for plot 1 this could accommodate up to approximately 370 units. Sketch plans have been prepared to show how some public open space could be provided and landscape buffer zones created to secure a satisfactory setting for a residential scheme. The regulatory text requires the residential development to be at the Meadowhall Drive end of the site to ensure links with the neighbourhood centre are maximised.

Plot 5

The indicative layout for plot five shows a rectangular shaped building orientated to face Meadowhall Way. The parameters plans would allow this site to be developed for either a hotel or offices. The buildings could be up to 6 storeys high with one of the storeys being of commercial height. The scale of development proposed is considered to be acceptable provided the layout and massing responds to Meadowhall Way and the permitted car showroom scheme on the remainder of plot 5.

Design codes

A public realm and urban design code and building design code form part of the application submission. These are intended to provide a framework for the detailed design of the site and provide some assurances that a development of a certain quality and vision will be delivered. They enshrine many of the design elements adopted in the indicative Masterplan layout.

Public Realm Design Code

The public realm and urban design code establishes the requirement to provide a riverside public space, a green space at the centre of the plot 3/4 and a public square in the neighbourhood centre. It secures a mainly pedestrian orientated route between plots 1-4, a grid pattern of streets on plot 1 and ensures consideration will be given to establishing home zones. It sets out the requirement to provide a pedestrian connection between the River Don and Sheffield Road and provide links to the riverside space. It ensures that the retail, commercial and leisure uses will be mainly located on plot 2 and the residential uses on plot 1 near the amenity space and on plot 3/4 near to the neighbourhood centre. Design codes are also proposed for each of the plots which are split into sections covering landscape, ecology, urban design, streets and edges, environment and air quality.

The plot 1 code includes for the retention and enhancement of the Five Weirs Walk and the creation of a riverside park including play and recreation areas. It requires the provision of central spine from the river to Weedon Street and the neighbourhood centre; buildings are to be set back a minimum of 25m from the river Don to avoid the creation of a continuous frontage to the river. Six storey buildings would be limited to the Weedon Street frontage and to no more than 4 adjacent to the riverside park. Acoustic and visual screening should be considered along the Carbrook Street edge to the south of the former public house.

The design code for plot 2 seeks to secure the provision of a public square with limited vehicular access, a central spine linking through to plot 3/4 and higher buildings to the north with lower buildings to the south to avoid excessive overshadowing of the square. It provides for remodelling of the embankment and its retention as a green link with a pedestrian cycle route along its edge to link through to Sheffield Road.

The code for Plot 3/4 makes provision for the green link and footpath / cycle connections and commits to providing a central landscaped amenity area as a focus for the development. It limits the height of development in relation to the listed tramshed and the height of car parks that will be cut into the side of the embankment. The code limits housing to the western part of the site near to the neighbourhood centre and allows for buildings to be located close to the back edge of footpath or set back to allow a green edge to the street.

The plot 5 building code allows for development to be set back or up to the back edge of footpath.

There is also an embankment code, and streetscape codes that establish principles for street hierarchy, streetscape design, on street parking, street furniture, signage and street lighting. There are planting design codes, accessibility and inclusive design codes and a public art strategy.

Building Design Code

The Building Design Codes include sections on creating active frontages, creating elevations that are interesting, varied and legible and on the design of building entrances. There is a vehicle parking and servicing design code which establishes principles for the design of the multi storey car parks shown on the indicative plan and for underground and undercroft parking. With the exception of designated areas of on street parking, surface parking is to be avoided. The building design codes provide guidance on the design of building services and plant and on the selection of materials and use of colours. The core materials are listed as red brick, local sandstones, limestone, glass, concrete, metal, stainless steel, timber cladding and woven mesh finish. The code suggests that a limited palette of selected materials and colours should be used. More detailed building design codes are provided for office and residential buildings and also for other small structures. There is also a section on design approaches to be avoided.

Conclusion

The design and access statement demonstrates that the indicative Masterplan developed for this site has been design led. The indicative layout along with the other supporting plans demonstrates that the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory way adopting good urban design principles. The design codes and regulatory text give some confidence that a high quality design will be delivered at the reserved matters stage. Whilst there are reservations about the urban design implications of the multi-storey car parking solution and the provision a of campus office design these are not sufficient to justify opposing the development. Overall the development will significantly enhance the appearance of these vacant and derelict sites and should significantly uplift the quality of development in the area.

3.13 Sustainability

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Creating Sustainable Communities’ sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. These are:

- Development that creates socially inclusive communities. - Protection and enhancement of the environment. - Prudent use of natural resources. - Sustainable economic development.

- The principles of sustainable development have been incorporated in the Government’s vision for sustainable communities, set out in Sustainable Communities – building for the future, which was launched in 2003. The aim is to build communities that:

- Are economically prosperous - Have decent homes at a price people can afford - Safeguard the countryside - Enjoy a well-designed, accessible and pleasant living and working environment; and - Are effectively and fairly governed with a strong sense of community.

Regional Policy

The Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 seeks to secure more sustainable patterns of development, investment and activity and a greater emphasis and matching needs with opportunities and managing the environment as a key resource. Policy YH1 sets the key approach and overall priorities. These are:

- Transform economic, environmental and social conditions in the regeneration priority areas which include the older industrial parts of South Yorkshire. - Enhance the role of Sheffield as an important business location within the wider city region. - Avoid increasing flood risk, and manage land and river catchments for flood mitigation, renewable energy generation, biodiversity enhancement and increased tree cover. - Ensure that transport management and investment support help deliver the spatial strategy

Policy YH2, ‘Climate Change and Resource use’ states that investment decisions should:

- Increase population development and activity in cities. - Encourage better energy resource and water efficient buildings. - Minimise resource demands from development. - Reduce traffic growth through the appropriate location of development, demand management and improving public transport and facilities’ for walking and cycling. - Encourage development of previously developed land. - Facilitate effective waste management. - Increase renewable energy capacity and carbon capture.

Local Policy

Unitary Development Plan policy SP1 ‘A City for People’ states that a balance will be struck between competing land uses, and between new development, conservation and transport, which would meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Although it has little weight the Council’s Sustainability guidance published on the web site asks developers to identify how their proposals:

- Support and help revitalise the local economy - Reinforce Sheffield's neighbourhoods and communities - Provide a range of transport options and inclusive access - Protect and enhance Sheffield's natural environment and resources; and - Integrate high quality design and construction.

Sustainability Assessment

The applicant has produced a sustainability brief which sets targets and objectives under a number of headings. These are:

- Site and neighbourhood; - Resource consumption; - Environmental quality: - User and occupant satisfaction; - Stakeholder relations and dialogue.

Site and Neighbourhood

Under the site and neighbourhood heading the applicant has set the following performance targets in relation to bio diversity.

- A proportion of trees and plant species within the formal landscaped areas to be native, food providing species - Species habitat creation alongside the River Don - Provision of bat and bird boxes on buildings adjacent to the riverside and rail embankment - Extensive brown roofs within the development - Enhancement of the retained element of the rail embankment - A proportion of the total Riverside Park area comprising wildflower grassland - Extending riverside and embankment habitats into the site; and - Provision of water based habitat within the site.

In addition to the above the Environmental Statement sets out the following mitigation strategies.

- Minimising unavoidable habitat losses to the former rail embankment - Enhancement of the remaining embankment by re-shaping, landscaping and sowing with appropriate seed mixes - Incorporation of brown roofs to compensate for the loss of herb- rich grassland communities - Extensive tree planting within the development, including native species to compensate for the loss of woodland habitats - Creation of a major parkland area along the riverside, with species-rich neutral grassland as part of a mosaic with native and non-native scrub and trees; and - Management of the embankment and riverside park areas to promote biodiversity.

These sustainability / ecological issues are controlled by planning conditions that require an ecological management plan to be submitted and details of green / brown roofs to be provided on 50% of the new buildings.

In terms of local amenity, the applicant has set targets in relation to noise and air quality. Noise conditions will secure a satisfactory internal noise climate.

The air quality assessment shows that the air quality is acceptable; the conditions controlling the transport impact of the development will hopefully ensure that the air quality impact is in line with predictions in the report.

In relation to flooding, the applicant has set objectives in relation to compensating for the loss of flood plain and mitigating the impact of surface water runoff by setting run off targets and utilising sustainable urban drainage techniques. Planning conditions that have been agreed with the Environment Agency will secure the necessary requirements.

The vast majority of the site is previously developed land and will be reclaimed to a level appropriate for the proposed after use. Planning conditions are proposed to ensure this is secured.

In terms of local character and distinctiveness the applicants have proposed design and building codes to set standards for good design.

In relation to the local economy and regeneration the applicants have established performance targets for the following elements.

- Favourable consideration of contractors’ proposals at tender stage which demonstrate measures to encourage the use of local construction workforce - Favourable consideration of contractors proposals at tender stage which demonstrate measures to encourage the use of local materials and suppliers; and - Some office space to be designed for flexibility to enable use by Small and Medium Enterprises and business start-ups.

The high numbers of jobs created at the construction stage and during the operational stage means that the development will make a strong contribution to the local economy and regeneration. The submission of a training strategy to maximise access of local people to jobs, and measures to encourage the use of locally sourced materials are to be controlled by a S106 agreement.

In relation to transport the applicant has set targets in relation to the following issues.

- Properties within 400m of tram/bus stops; - Journeys to and from the site by walking / cycling; - Journeys by non-car modes.

The application site is well served by public transport and enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections will be provided through the development to the Meadowhall Shopping Centre and public transport facilities.

Resource Consumption

Under the heading of resource consumption the applicant has set the following performance targets.

- Reduction of carbon emissions to at least 20% better than the requirements of the Building Regulations Part L2: 2006 - 10% energy supply to be met from renewable sources - BREEAM Excellent rating for offices; and - Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 rating for residential development.

These targets are secured by planning conditions. However as the development is likely to be implemented over a long period the conditions allow for these sustainability measures to be enhanced as policy aspirations change.

In relation to building materials the applicant has set the following targets.

- Recycled material incorporated into the design - All timber used to be from certified sustainable sources - Green Guide ratings for windows and internal partitions; and - A proportion of cement in concrete mixes to be replaced with sustainable alternatives.

In terms of waste the applicant has set the following performance targets.

- Reduction in construction waste below national average (as defined in BRE document ‘Developing a Strategic Approach to Construction Waste’) - Reducing the proportion of construction and demolition waste to landfill - Balancing cut and fill to minimise waste; and - Production of detailed Waste Management Plans for all construction contracts.

It is anticipated that material from the site will be reused to provide the increased flood levels avoiding the need for importing materials. The sourcing of materials to be used in construction and the measures to minimise construction and demolition waste are not normally controlled through the planning process. These are voluntary targets set by the developer but some of the measures may be necessary for the developer to achieve the appropriate Code for Sustainable Homes or BREEAM rating.

To improve the efficiency of water use the applicant has set the following targets.

- Water for toilet flushing and other uses (e.g. irrigation) to be obtained from rainwater harvesting; and - Use of water efficient appliances and fittings throughout the development.

The use of sustainable urban drainage systems will provide the opportunity to reduce consumption further by using runoff water to irrigate landscape areas. The surface water drainage planning conditions ensure that SUDs will be considered at the detailed design stage.

Environmental Quality

Under the heading of Environmental Quality the applicant has set the following target for surface and ground water.

- Maintaining or enhance the quality of surface and ground water.

This is to be achieved through a construction code of practice.

User and Occupation Satisfaction

Under the heading of User Occupation and Satisfaction the applicant considered the distance of dwellings from public transport and basic local shops. This is assessed in more detail in the Access to Services and Facilities section above.

In terms of crime and security the applicant has stated that ‘Secure by Design’ principles will be incorporated into all areas of the site.

With respect to employment issues the applicant’s objective is to work with The Source and other regional and local facilities to provide employment and training opportunities for the local community.

In terms of the public realm the applicant’s objective is to enhance the public realm. This will be achieved by high quality design as set out in the design codes and provision of new landscaped areas and the public square in the neighbourhood centre. The conditions requiring the detailed design to be in accordance with these codes will help to deliver the design quality.

Stakeholder relations and Dialogue

With respect to stake holder relations and dialogue the applicant is intending to give sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to input to the design and construction of the project.

In terms of community the applicant intends to engage with the local community in development of the Masterplan and points to the community consultations carried out. In terms of measures to increase community integration they point to encouragement of training and employment opportunities, incorporation of flexible space for the community and open spaces for the benefit of the community.

Conclusion

It is clear that the applicant has taken a comprehensive approach to considering sustainability across all aspects of the development. Due to the accessibility of the location it is one of the most sustainable out-of- centre sites for a major mixed development. If the wide mix of uses is delivered across the site the demand for travel will be reduced. The renewable energy, BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes targets need to be reviewed through the development period to ensure that the targets keep pace with increasing sustainability aspirations. There are some sustainability concerns about the residential community relating to its poor integration with existing communities and consequently less than ideal access to some community facilities, the uncertainties about whether the neighbourhood centre will support a wide mix of facilities and the concerns that the apartment led scheme will not deliver a fully balanced community.

3.14 Energy Strategy

Policy

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate change, Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 states that tackling climate change is a key Government priority for the planning system. It states that planning authorities should have an evidence based understanding of the local feasibility and potential of renewable and low carbon technologies. Taking account of this and housing and economic objectives local planning authorities should set a target percentage of the energy to be used in new development to come from renewable and low carbon energy sources where it is viable. Where there are particular opportunities for greater use of decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy above the target percentage to bring forward specific site targets to secure this potential.

Regional Policy

Policy ENV 5 ‘Energy’ of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan seeks to maximise improvements in efficiency and renewable energy capacity. It states that new developments of more than 10 dwellings or 1000 sqm of non residential floorspace should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised or renewable low carbon sources, unless having regard to the type of development involved and its design, this is not feasible or viable.

Energy Needs

The applicant has produced an energy statement that considers the feasibility of meeting some of the development’s energy needs by on site renewables. The development is estimated to have an annual energy demand of 19,000 MWh. This would discharge approximately 19,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. By generating 10% of energy needs from renewables it will be possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5% or approximately 950 tonnes annually. Renewable Energy Options

The applicant has concluded that biomass heating is likely to be the most appropriate option for meeting 10% of energy needs of the residential development. Because the office development is likely to include a lake it could produce approximately 5% of the offices energy needs for heating or cooling, the other 5% could be produced by biomass boilers for heating.

E.ONs biomass plant will produce heat which could be used in a district heating system. It is estimated that it could meet up to 40% of the development’s energy needs relating to annual reduction of approximately 5000 tonnes of Co2. This would require underground pipes and a supplementary heat supply for when the biomass boilers were not in use. Its implementation cannot be guaranteed as it is likely to be dependent on Veolia operating the district heating system, viability issues and agreements being reached between the parties.

It is likely that over the development period of the project the policy context will change and the amount of renewable energy that projects need to provide on site will increase. In addition the E.ON biomass plant offers the prospect of increasing the proportion of renewable energy that can be utilised on site. It is possible that if securing heat from the E.ON biomass plant is feasible that higher site specific renewable energy targets may be set. It is therefore proposed to condition a minimum of 10% of the energy needs of the development to be met from local renewable energy. This would apply to the first phase of development and following this the requirement for future phases will be judged on the basis of policy prevalent at the time that reserved matters applications are made and considering the most appropriate renewable energy options available at the time.

The energy hierarchy establishes the priority for energy related issues under the planning system. It states that the first priority is to reduce the need for energy, followed by using energy more efficiently, followed by supplying energy from renewable sources and then any continuing use of fossil fuels to use clean technologies. All the buildings on the development will be designed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels to heat, cool, light, power and ventilate the buildings. The residential and commercial buildings for the River Don District will be designed to use less energy and discharge less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This ethos is underlined by the target to build homes at the site that achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and BREEAM Excellent for commercial buildings. The Code 3 target requires a Building Emission Rate (BER) which is 25% lower than the Target Emission Rate (TER) for carbon dioxide emissions from the building under the current building regulations. Similarly in order to achieve BREEAM excellent for the commercial buildings they will need to be significantly more energy efficient than is required by the building regulations.

3.15 Carbon Statement

National Policy

Planning and Climate Change: Supplement to PPS1 (2007) requires new development to contribute to delivering the Government’s Climate Change Programme, and achieve a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as well as being resilient to the impacts of climate change. In the determination of planning applications the new PPS requires local planning authorities to give due consideration to the Key Planning Objectives which require planning authorities to prepare and manage spatial strategies that:

- Deliver the Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies

Regional Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and The Humber to 2026 seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 2016 by 20-25% compared to 1990 levels, with further reductions thereafter, (Policy YH2).

Carbon Impact

The potential impact of the proposed development on CO2 emissions has been assessed taking account of the emissions from the traffic generated by the development and the energy used within the proposed buildings. It has not been possible to include the CO2 emissions from the manufacture and transport of construction materials as details of the materials to be used are not available. However the applicant has advised that they are committed to the selection of building materials taking account of their relative CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions were estimated for 2018, the proposed year of completion of the development. It has been assumed that the baseline CO2 emissions across the RDD site without the development are negligible.

The Council has calculated that the City’s total carbon footprint is 5,798,361 tonnes of carbon per year. This is equivalent to 21,261 kilo tonnes (1,000 tonnes) of CO2 per year in 2004/05.

The applicant is committed to building dwellings to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes which requires a 25% reduction in the Building Emission Rate (BER) compared to that in Part L of the 2006 Building Regulations. He is also committed to reducing the CO2 emissions from commercial buildings by 20% compared to the requirements of Part L of the 2006 building regulations. The development will provide 10% of its energy needs from on site renewable sources which are likely to be biomass boilers and the use of the proposed lake as a heat sink. A series of mitigation measures are proposed that will reduce car trips in the area and encourage the use of more sustainable modes of travel, these are referred to in more detail in the Access section of the report.

With the above measures in place it is estimated that the total energy use and traffic from the development will increase the baseline CO2 emissions of the area by 32.8kt/year, equivalent to a 3.5% increase. This is equivalent to less than 0.2% increase on the current CO2 emissions in Sheffield. As stated above this does not include construction. Construction is typically responsible for approximately 25% of the energy used during a building’s lifetime, although this is dependent on the life of the building and how it is constructed.

Conclusion

Because the site is undeveloped it currently produces negligible CO2 emissions. Clearly developing the site will increase CO2 emissions and therefore will not help to meet the policy targets referred to above. However the measures outlined above will ensure that development produces less carbon emissions than a scheme designed to meet the minimum statutory requirements. It is concluded that proposed measures to reduce carbon emissions are reasonable and in this respect the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

3.16 Ecology

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation aims to ensure that development and regeneration should have minimal effects on biodiversity and enhance it where possible.

Regional Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 has biodiversity enhancement as one of the key spatial priorities, (Policy YH1). Regional cities are to be transformed into attractive, cohesive and safe places where people want to live by creating and improving existing networks, corridors and areas of green space, including the urban fringe to enhance biodiversity and recreation, (Policy YH4). Policy ENV8 also seeks to safeguard and enhance biodiversity.

Local Policy

The railway embankment is identified as a Green Link in the Unitary Development Plan. Policy GE 10 states that Green Links will be protected from development which would detract from their mainly green and open character or which would cause serious ecological damage, and enhanced by encouraging development which increases their value for wildlife and recreation.

The River Don is identified as an Area of Natural History Interest. Policy GE13 states development which would damage Areas of Natural History Interest will not normally be permitted. Harm to nature conservation interest should be kept to a minimum and compensated for by creation or enhancement of wildlife habitats. Policy GE17 states that rivers will be enhanced for the benefit of wildlife and where appropriate access and recreation. Development is expected to be set back an appropriate distance to allow for landscaping.

Nature Conservation Interest of the Site

The applicant has undertaken a habitat survey, a botanical survey, protected species surveys, bird breeding surveys, a reptile survey, an invertebrate survey and also consulted with the City Ecologist and local wildlife interest groups.

The survey work allowed the various habitats across the site to be categorised. The most significant of which is the former railway embankment which is a mosaic of ruderal, grassland, tall herb, scrub and immature woodland with a mix of native and non-native species. The survey work revealed one building on plot 3 was being used for roosting pipistrelle bats and there was bat activity along the railway embankment and river corridor. There is also evidence of Otter activity in the River Don corridor. A total of 16 bird species were recorded on the former railway embankment, three of which are considered to be of high conservation concern. A total of 230 species of terrestrial invertebrates was recorded during all the surveys. Fifteen of the recorded species are listed formally as National Local (meaning they are only recorded in a limited number of Km squares across the country).

Ecological Impact

The development would result in the loss of approximately 50% of the total area of secondary woodland which is semi-mature silver birch, willow and sycamore dominated woodland. Open grassland habitat situated within the proposed development site will also be lost. There is a risk of construction activities causing river pollution. The removal or disturbance of a large part of the former railway embankment will result in the loss of the associated mosaic of habitats which support a variety of birds on this part of the former railway embankment. The demolition of buildings will result in the loss of a bat roost and the removal / alteration of a significant part of the embankment will result in the loss of foraging territory, although there is considered to be similar suitable foraging territory along the River Don Corridor. Bats are the only protected species likely to be affected, the mitigation proposals for otters and black red starts are sufficient to mitigate against negative impacts. The loss of a significant part of the former railway embankment will result in the loss of habitat for the range of invertebrates present. The loss of or disturbance to a significant part of the railway embankment will involve the loss of the secondary woodland on the banks of the former railway embankment which is currently being colonised by birch, willow and sycamore secondary woodland, the grassland and scrub mosaic present on the trackbed and slopes of the embankment. The applicant has assessed these impacts to be significant at a local level.

Mitigation Measures

The applicant is proposing the following mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures.

- The design of the development footprint to ensure that a green link is retained across the site along the line of the former railway embankment.

- The creation of new green spaces and brown roofs to increase the permeability of the new developed landscape to encourage the movement of wildlife.

- Re-design of the car park locations to minimise loss of the former railway embankment habitat.

- Creation of brown roofs across the car parks adjacent to the former railway embankment to compensate for the residual loss of track bed habitat. This amounts to an additional 900 m2 of new brown roof habitat adjacent to the retained trackbed habitat of the former railway embankment.

- The creation of brown roofs on new buildings to compensate for the loss of grassland habitat. Brown roofs will be created on top of approximately 50% of the buildings proposed for Plot 1, 2, 3/4 and 5 amounting to approximately 19,887 m2 based upon the Illustrative Masterplan.

- The creation of species-rich riverside grassland as part of the riverside park which will be a total area of up to 14,000 m2.

- The planting of trees and scrub along the riverside to compensate for the loss of secondary woodland and scrub. The applicants estimate in total 10 hectares of new parks, formal and informal open space, recreation areas and brown roofs will be created.

- The creation of green walls to provide feeding, over wintering and nesting opportunities for birds and invertebrates.

- The creation of a new wetland with marginal planting to encourage biodiversity.

- Extensive tree planting within the development to compensate for the loss for secondary woodland.

- The preparation and implementation of a site wide Ecology Management Plan.

- The implementation of a Construction Management Plan to protect retained habitats, to prevent pollution and ensure that works are undertaken in accordance with wildlife legislation.

- The provision of new nest boxes for key breeding bird species and new foraging habitat.

- The use of ornamental plant species in formal areas that also provide foraging, nesting and over wintering habitat for wildlife.

- The provision of new roosting and foraging habitat for bats.

- The construction of an otter holt.

- The provision of nest and overwintering boxes for invertebrates.

Conclusion

The ecological impact on the key elements of ecological interest of the site has been assessed by the applicants, taking into account the mitigation and enhancement proposals. They have concluded that the impact on most features of interest would be negligible but there would be moderate beneficial effects in the long term on the potential ecological impacts associated with the loss of railway embankment, partial loss of woodland and the loss of breeding/feeding habitat for birds. They have however concluded that the loss of invertebrates would have an adverse significant impact at the site level.

The City Ecologist has advised that the removal and disturbance of habitat contained on the existing railway embankment will cause severe ecological damage in the short term and therefore the proposal is contrary to policy GE10. It is considered that the intention of this policy is to prevent damage to the nature conservation interest of green links rather than accepting that damage can take place and then attempting to mitigate the harm by restoring the habitat. Whilst it is accepted that the provision of the green / wildlife roofs will be a positive benefit, it is also clear that the impact on the invertebrate fauna will be negative. It is difficult to judge if the mitigation proposals are likely to be successful as there are numerous examples where translocation of soil and vegetation has not been successful and therefore there are concerns that the proposal will be harmful in the long term in that it may not be successful in restoring the existing habitat. It the mitigation is successful the City Ecologist has advised that it will retain an adequate green link and produce a habitat that is equal to the one being destroyed. There are long term benefits from the introduction of an Ecology Management Plan which will help to safeguard the restored habitat in the longer term. Without management the existing ecological resource will change.

3.17 Contamination

Policy

Planning Policy Statement 23 “Planning and Pollution Control” requires, where practical, that contaminated land be brought to a standard where it is suitable for its actual or intended use.

Ground Conditions

The contaminated land assessment has considered readily available sources of public information and also collected specific data through boreholes and trial pits to provide information on the ground and ground water.

Former uses of the site include steel works, brick and tile works and railway land therefore there is a significant risk that previous uses will have contaminated the site. The study shows the site is contaminated with a wide range of substances including asbestos, arsenic, chromium, nickel, copper, organics, lead and dioxins. The investigations reveal that the ground water has been contaminated by metals, inorganics and organics and there are elevated levels of carbon dioxide ground gases in certain areas. There are underground structures and foundations through much of the site which will need treatment to varying degrees.

Remediation Strategy

An outline remediation strategy is put forward which describes how site workers can be protected and how the escape of material during construction, which might affect adjoining sites can be minimised. The strategy outlines proposal for mitigating the impact on controlled waters, and protecting buildings and services against chemical attack and ground gas.

For the final development the strategy outlines proposals for the removal of contaminated material, gas protection measures to buildings and cover systems for landscaped areas and gardens. It also refers to the importation of clean cover materials for gardens, landscape areas and open space.

Conclusion

In summary it is concluded that with appropriate mitigation there is no reason why the development of the site cannot be carried out safely and have a negligible impact on pollution. There is also no reason why the site contamination should have any significant impact on the permanent uses proposed for the site. Detailed remediation strategies will need to be prepared for each phase of the development to ensure the proper mitigation measures are in place. These are controlled by planning condition.

3.18 Archaeology

National Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ advises that archaeological remains are irreplaceable. It advises that it is not always feasible to save archaeological remains. Where nationally important archaeological remains exist there should be a presumption in favour of their preservation. With remains of lesser importance local authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of the archaeology against other factors including the need for the development.

Local Policy

Policy BE22 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to archaeological sites and monuments. It seeks to ensure that sites of archaeological interest will be preserved, protected and enhanced. Development will not normally be allowed which would damage or destroy significant archaeological sites and their settings. Where disturbance of an archaeological site is unavoidable, the development will be permitted only if:

- An adequate archaeological record of the site is made; and - Where the site is found to be significant, the remains are preserved in their original position.

Desk top Assessment

The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of the site. This has revealed that there are likely to be remains from the late medieval and post medieval period of Brightside Mill and Forge and related goit on Plot 1. Plot 1 also contained Jessop's Low Forge / Brightside Steel Works which was founded as far back as the year 1792. Tinsley Brick and Tile Works occupied part of plot 4 during the mid to late 19th Century. The railway embankment which cuts across plots 2, 3/4 and 5 was constructed in the late 1890s. Tinsley Steel Works / Staybrite Works (Plots 3 – 4) was built by Firths in 1907 to make crucible steel for tools, some of the buildings are still standing on this site. The works were renamed Staybrite Works in the early 1920s when they were adapted for stainless steel production and became an important stainless steel works. Vulcan Rivet and Brass Works occupied part of plot 2. Imperial Steel Works founded in the late 19 th Century once occupied a significant portion of land to the north and north east of the River Don Development site and incorporated plot 5.

The assessment has identified a range of likely archaeological remains on the application site. The heritage resources mostly relate to the steel industry of mid 19th to late 20th Century age and will be of local and up to regional value. On Plot 1, late-Medieval and Post-medieval remains may survive and would be potentially of regional and up to national value.

Impact of the Development

The construction works have the potential to destroy or damage features of archaeological importance. Plot 1 is considered to contain late- Medieval, Post-medieval and Industrial aged remains. If these are found and are well-preserved they are likely be of major value potentially warranting in-situ preservation. The applicants have demonstrated through sketch schemes that they can still achieve the quantum of development proposed on plot one by carefully planning basement car parks should important remains be discovered.

Conclusion

Planning conditions are proposed which will ensure that no development proceeds until the appropriate archaeological investigations have been carried out. These investigations will identify the appropriate mitigation and will inform the detailed design of the development. For the areas expected to have the greatest archaeological interest a condition is proposed which will require detailed evaluation to be carried out before any reserved matters applications are submitted. This will ensure the form of development can be adapted to accommodate archaeological remains if they have to be preserved in situ. For areas that are expected to have lesser interest no development can take place until a programme of archaeological work has been implemented. A separate condition is proposed to secure recording of existing structures or buildings of interest before they are demolished.

3.19 Hazardous Substance Zone

At the time the application was submitted a Hazardous Substance Consultation Zone covered part of the application site. This existed as a result of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) storage tanks used by Henry Whitham and Son, the former occupiers of the Howco site. The storage containers were removed over 5 years ago and Howco no longer wish to store LPG. The Council have now revoked the Hazardous Substance Consent and this was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 29 th July 2008. Therefore this is no longer a restriction on developing the application site.

3.20 Viability Appraisal

British Land have prepared viability appraisals in respect of the proposed development with a range of different scenarios dependent upon the mix and amount of offices and residential uses. These appraisals have been independently assessed on the Council's behalf by an external firm of chartered surveyors in order to advise on whether the appraisals are a reasonable assessment of the scheme's viability. In carrying out the assessment the surveyors have assumed 'that the economy has returned to a state of normality'. There appears to be no cost allowances made in the appraisals for either affordable housing or off-site open space contributions. Allowances have been included for flood defence works and other infrastructure costs.

In respect of the office elements the assessment states that 'based on historic take-up levels this amount of space will not be absorbed by the existing Sheffield business community in this timeframe (2011-15) and the accommodation will need to be targeted towards major inward investment, which we understand is the strategy for this development'.

On the residential side it states that the location 'is somewhat visionary and if the proposed sales figures are potentially to be achieved the scheme, as is the intention of British Land, must be of the highest quality in terms of building design, quality of materials and public realm works'

The conclusion of this independent assessment is that 'From the information made available to us we have not been able to identify any points within the appraisals that would suggest that the viability of the development is understated and that there is an ability for the developer to fund a higher level of S106 payments'.

It also concludes 'our opinion is that projected sale prices and disposal periods could be viewed as optimistic. This being the case adjusting these would have a negative impact on the viability of these schemes. The effect of that would be that the profit level would be reduced and therefore the ability to fund abnormal costs and S106 requirements would be reduced form those figures currently calculated'.

4. RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

This section responds to those points not covered in the body of the report.

Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

The Assembly consider the offices are only suitable for large occupiers who could not be accommodated in the City Centre and if small to medium sized companies were to occupy the site this would be contrary to policies that seek to ensure the City Centre is the focus for office development. The policies that seek to ensure the City Centre is the focus for office development do not distinguish between large and small scale occupiers. The key issue is that the majority of the office development takes the form of an office campus that is distinctly different from the City Centre offer and due to its scale and character cannot be accommodated in the City Centre. Provided the development takes this form it is not necessary or in fact possible to control the size of companies that occupy the space.

The Assembly consider there should be no functional link between the retail element and the Meadowhall Centre. The neighbourhood centre will be physically separate from the Meadowhall Centre and this is controlled by the parameter plans. The proposed conditions will ensure that it will operate as a neighbourhood centre serving the development rather than a separate retail destination.

Creative Sheffield

Creative Sheffield has expressed concerns that the proposed offices will undermine the aspirations to develop the City Centre as major centre of office employment. This has also been a concern of planning officers but it is considered that the conditions which control the phasing of the offices and the fact that they will be provided in a distinctive campus development will guard against this risk.

Rotherham Council

The applicant has argued that the type of office development likely to be attracted to Rotherham and Barnsley Town Centres is smaller scale indigenous growth from local professional services and public sector organisations and agencies. It is considered that the River Don Development is targeted at a different market and therefore there is no need to review the ability of Rotherham Town Centre to accommodate additional offices after the first phase of development.

Rotherham has had sufficient information to judge the impact on traffic levels. Sheffield Highway officers are of the view that the proposal will not significantly increase traffic on Rotherham’s roads. The proposed improvements to J34 north will take the form of improved traffic signals which will include all legs of the junction. Any increased flooding within Rotherham that will result from the development will be insignificant and consequently the Environment Agency have raised no objections to the proposal.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

Planning conditions are proposed that will secure the upgrading of bus shelters adjoining the site including the provision of real time information and a scheme for provision of discounted public transport tickets.

East End Strategy Group

Many of the issues raised by the ground are covered in the relevant sections of the report, Access to Facilities and Services, Housing, Education, Air Quality, Access and Sustainability. The applicant has provided a detailed response to the questions raised by the group. The Air Quality has been remodelled since the original submission taking into account more accurate information. This demonstrates that plots 1 and 2 are suitable for residential development. The applicants have also provided additional supporting information to show that they have modelled the worst case scenario.

The impact of traffic associated with the new development is very minimal as regards Bawtry Road. The worst case is with the full development and no mitigation when the additional traffic would represent around a 1% increase (between 8-14 vehicles) in two way flow in the peak periods. With regards to Broughton Lane / Greenland Road the impact of development traffic is an extra 20 two way trips in the morning peak and 117 two way trips in the evening, this represents a 1% and 4.5% increase respectively, with the proposed mitigation the morning peak figure is increased to 49 (2.5% increase) but the increase is reduced to 88 in the evening (3.5% increase). All these potential changes are very small additions which do not give rise to the need for mitigation measures on these routes.

Five Weirs Walk Trust

A condition is proposed to secure improved access to the riverside for fishing/ canoeing and to ensure that seating, lighting and interpretive panels are provided as part of the riverside space. The detailed design of the walkway, riverside space and flood relief channel will be considered at the reserved matters stage. A condition is proposed which requires a Toucan crossing to be provided where the walk crosses Weedon Street.

Howco

The noise and flooding issues are considered above. The parameter plans identify wide zones for accessing the individual plots. It will be at the reserved matters stage when the precise location of access points is fixed. They will be carefully positioned to avoid conflicts with existing access points. The controlled parking zone will ensure that on street parking is minimised and on street bays will be positioned so that they do not restrict the operation of existing site access points.

Hammersons

The site of the neighbourhood centre is physically separated from Meadowhall by surface car parks, Meadowhall Way and the railway embankment. It will therefore not be perceived as an extension to Meadowhall. The proposed conditions will ensure it cannot be built independently of the office / residential development and that it will not become a retail destination. It is for the Local Planning Authority to control whether a shopping centre is defined as a town centre. It is very unlikely that the Council would wish to give Meadowhall Shopping Centre this status. There is also no reason to suppose that a residential community of up to 1300 units would result in Meadowhall Shopping Centre being designated as a town centre.

The applicants have provided additional information on the upper and lower lengths of buildings which addresses the point raised by Hammersons. The maximum lengths of buildings are up to 220 metres and the maximum widths up to 80 metres. Although this could potentially result in very large buildings the upper limits allow for buildings to be connected by atria. To safeguard against the creation of monolithic buildings text has been introduced into the plot development codes to ensure that stair cores, entrances and set backs will be provided to reduce the massing of buildings.

Other Neighbour Responses

The traffic assessment has taken into account traffic from other developments with planning permission. The applicants have produced a reasonable case of the need for a hotel to serve a major mixed development such as that proposed. The construction of a hotel will not have a significant impact on other centres and the impact on other out- of-centre hotels should not be given any significant planning weight.

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’, (PPS 1) sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies on delivering sustainable development. It states that where the development plan contains relevant policies, planning applications should be determined in accordance with those policies unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

The office element of this application is considered, on balance, to be consistent with policy given the controls that are secured by the planning conditions. The offices have the potential to secure significant employment and economic benefits and make a substantial contribution towards achieving the transitional change that the economic Masterplan is seeking to deliver. The scheme will therefore contribute to one of the key objectives of PPS 1 which is to facilitate sustainable economic development.

The Employment and Training Strategy is a key element of the scheme and will help to ensure that local people have the maximum opportunity to benefit from the employment opportunities and economic regeneration that will be created by the development. This will support another key objective of PPS 1 which is to promote social inclusion.

The potential for large scale offices having a harmful impact on the regeneration of the City Centre or other centres has been guarded against by attaching planning conditions that will control the phasing of the offices and ensure that they provide a different offer to that available in the City Centre or other centres. These conditions will ensure that offices in this location are only developed if the City Centre will remain the focus for office development. They will also ensure that the offices are developed as part of a high quality landscaped campus of a certain critical mass which is a form of development that the City is currently unable to offer.

There are concerns that concentrating such a large amount of the City’s out-of-centre offices in one location could limit the choice and variety of out-of-centre office sites. A smaller quantum of office floorspace would provide more flexibility for permitting other out-of-centre office developments whilst maintaining the focus of office development in the City Centre. However the River Don District is probably the best location for out-of-centre offices in the City because of its accessibility. In addition a larger scheme on a single site is more likely to achieve the transformational change needed to attract mobile investors and a larger scheme is needed to secure the necessary value to fund the substantial infrastructure works. A smaller initial phase would also not be able to accommodate the needs of the known interest from a major potential occupier.

Although this site is not needed for housing development in the short term it is likely to be needed in the medium to longer term to accommodate the expected increase in housing land requirements. The site will accommodate a significant number of residential units and therefore will help to minimise the pressure on green belt land and minimise the need for Sheffield’s housing needs to be met outside its boundaries in the medium to longer term. There are significant benefits in providing for these medium to longer term housing needs on a brownfield site in a location that is highly accessible by public transport and within the urban area. The indicative plans of the type of housing proposed suggest that it will add to the variety of housing within the housing market renewal area.

At the more detailed level housing is acceptable provided it delivers a mixed community with access to a good range of community facilities, jobs and services and open space. The environmental quality needs to be satisfactory and it must not be likely to prejudice the operation of local businesses.

The Environmental Statement has provided sufficient information to assess the main environmental effects of the development. It demonstrates that the environmental quality of the site is suitable for residential development and the risks of conflicts between residential and business uses are small. The residential community will have good access to employment, shopping and leisure facilities. Whilst the provision of private open space is likely to be tight, it is acceptable. The generous provision of public open space will compensate for the limited private space.

There are however concerns that the new residential community will not be well connected to adjoining local residential communities and that access to some community facilities and local services is less than ideal. Whilst the applicants are hoping to develop a neighbourhood centre with a wide range of local shops and services there is no guarantee that this will be delivered. The residential community is not large enough, even if the maximum number of permissible units is built, to support a wide range of retail, food and drink and leisure uses. The office development will help to support additional facilities as will the sites location close to other employers in the Lower Don Valley. However there is a risk that the residential properties could be occupied with few support facilities in the neighbourhood centre. It is also likely that the development will prove less attractive to families given the density and nature of accommodation being promoted. Given this and the risk that the high infra-structure costs will limit the amount of affordable housing that can be delivered there is a concern that the residential community will not be fully mixed and inclusive. However these concerns are not considered to be sufficient to justify resisting the proposal. It should be recognised that creating transformational change on a large scale on a challenging site such as this carries with it certain risks and that all aspects of the scheme will not be ideal. These risks and concerns need to be balanced against the benefits of providing a mixed development and securing land needed for housing on an accessible urban site.

The application site is highly accessible by public transport and suitable for this major travel generating use. The scheme is designed with restricted parking and incorporates transport measures and parking controls which will promote public transport and limit traffic generation. There will however be some limited additional traffic congestion until the mitigation works come into effect. The main areas of additional congestion will be at junction 34S of the M1 and along the Brightside Lane corridor. In both cases the impact will mainly be within the peak period and it will represent less than a 5% increase on existing congestion levels. This initial worsening of congestion is considered to be acceptable as the impact is manageable, the economic benefits of securing a first phase of development are significant and because the development cannot fund the Fixed Link on its own. There are however some concerns that this development will soak up all the highway capacity at J34S, leaving little flexibility for further development in the locality. Additional capacity is only likely to be provided when the Fixed Link is in place, which is only likely to proceed if supported by significant public funding.

Planning Policy Statement 25 seeks to direct development to the lowest risk flood zone. In this case the applicant has demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites in lower risk flood zones. They have also demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency that the site can be defended against flooding by raising site levels and that the flood defence works will not significantly worsen the impact of flooding on other sites whilst securing some betterment for some adjoining sites.

The indicative Masterplan and design and access statement demonstrates that the quantum of development proposed can be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory way by adopting sound design principles. There are some reservations that a campus office development with car parking built into the side of the railway embankment is not the best design solution in townscape terms. However it is recognised the approach has been driven by the need to create a distinctive campus development that is resilient to flooding. These design concerns are not sufficient to justify opposing the development, particularly as it will secure the development of vacant and derelict land with high quality buildings in a strong landscaped setting, in an existing industrial area of mixed quality. The principles of layout, design and landscaping enshrined in the design codes, parameter plans and regulatory text will establish a strong framework for securing good quality design since reserved matters applications will need to follow these principles.

The scheme is considered to be highly sustainable in terms of the benefits it will bring to the local economy and because it will locate a major travel generating use on a site that is very accessible by public transport. Sustainability is embedded in the design through the sustainable use of resources and the provision of green roofs, renewable energy generation on site, sustainable urban drainage, BREEAM excellent offices and, Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. There is likely to be a detrimental impact on the sites natural history interest and it is not easy to judge if the mitigation proposed will be successful, this aspect of the scheme is considered to be contrary to policy.

This application has the potential to secure the regeneration of a major brownfield site that has remained vacant for a number of years. Overall the development is considered to be in accordance with the development plan. Whilst there are some reservations which are outlined above the benefits of the scheme outweigh these concerns and it is therefore recommended that planning consent be granted subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure the following heads of terms and subject to the conditions listed on the agenda.

It is also recommended that authority is given to advertise a Controlled Parking Zone Order based on the area shown on the displayed plan.

HEADS OF TERMS

Transport Heads of Terms

1 Transport Strategy

1.1 Prior to Commencement of the Development to submit for the approval of Sheffield City Council (“the Council”), in consultation with South Yorkshire PTE and the Highways Agency, a Transport Strategy containing the following:

(a) proposals for the composition and operation of a Transport Steering Group described in paragraph 1.3;

(b) proposals for the appointment, roles and responsibilities of a Transport Co-ordinator described in paragraph 1.4;

(c) a Sustainable Travel Plan incorporating the proposals described in paragraph 1.5;

(d) a Parking Plan incorporating the proposals described in paragraph 1.6;

(e) a Public Transport Plan incorporating the proposals described in paragraph 1.7;

(f) a Lorry Management plan incorporating the proposals described in paragraph 1.8;

(g) a Delivery Framework described in paragraph 1.9, containing the agreed transport measures to be provided and the triggers that control their implementation.

Cessation of the Transport Strategy shall be the earlier of three years after completion of the Development or 11 years from First Occupation of the Development.

1.2.1 Prior to First Occupation of the Development [approval not to be unreasonably withheld - LIST ANY EXCLUSIONS]:

(a) the Transport Strategy shall have been approved; (b) the Transport Steering Group shall have been appointed; (c) the Transport Co-ordinator shall have been appointed.

1.2.2 The approved Transport Strategy will be implemented in accordance with the agreed terms, subject to any variation agreed with the Council.

1.3 Transport Steering Group: The Transport Steering Group will be constituted in accordance with Appendix 1 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The TSG:

(a) will consist of representatives of the Developer, the Council, the Highways Agency and SYPTE, (Governance to be agreed).

(b) will review the Transport Strategy annually against the expected values, and shall provide recommendations to the local planning authority about the ongoing implementation of the strategy and any supplementary measures that may be required. Detailed review will be undertaken at years 4, 7 and 10 after First Occupation of the Development.

(c) will be kept in place until cessation of the Transport Strategy.

1.4 Transport Co-ordinator: The role of the Transport Co-ordinator will be in accordance with Appendix 2 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The Transport Co- ordinator will be employed, or other appropriate resources provided, until the cessation of the Transport Strategy, and in proportion to the workload at each stage of the development process. The Transport Co-ordinator will be responsible for:

(a) the management and implementation of the Transport Strategy, (b) establishing baseline transport data. (c) arranging and implementing baseline surveys as required for the effective implementation of the Sustainable Travel Plan (d) preparation of the annual monitoring report (e) arranging and recording meetings of the Transport Steering Group (f) providing advice on the review process to the Transport Steering Group.

1.5 Sustainable Travel Plan: This shall accord with the principles set out in the Appendix 5 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The Sustainable Travel Plan will set out the proposals for:

(a) the provision of travel information and marketing, and access to internet based travel information services for occupiers of the development,

(b) the residential travel plan and workplace travel plan guidance, and the mechanisms for securing the preparation and implementation of the site specific travel plans for phases of residential development, office buildings and relevant uses within the neighbourhood centre;

(c) proposals for access to and promotion of a car sharing scheme;

(d) proposals for access to and promotion of a car club and a cycle pool which will be subject to a reasonable test of viability and annual review; (e) provision of shower and storage facilities for cyclists in commercial buildings together with the provision of cycle storage facilities within the residential blocks;

(f) funding sources for the Sustainable Transport Fund;

(g) co-ordination with area wide travel plan initiatives.

1.6 Parking Plan : This shall accord with the principles set out in Appendix 6 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development The Parking Plan will set out the proposals for:

(a) the provision of on site car parking, phasing and management;

(b) the provision of on site cycle parking, phasing and management;

(c) the implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone Scheme.

In addition:

(d) the Developer will use reasonable endeavours to collaborate with Meadowhall Shopping Centre to enhance the outcomes arising from the implementation of the Site Wide Travel Plan and in particular implement proposals that seek to minimise the incidence of commuter parking from the River Don District site in the shopping centre car parks;

(e) Prior to the commencement of development on the last area of overspill parking within the application site, the Developer will agree the details of the VMS scheme (or other scheme on Meadowhall Way designed to mitigate the effects of the loss of overspill parking on the south side of Meadowhall Shopping Centre) with the Local Planning Authority and make a contribution towards the agreed scheme, if such a scheme has not already been funded or delivered by a third party.

1.7 Public Transport Plan : This shall accord with the principles set out in Appendix 7 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The Public Transport Plan will set out the proposals for:

(a) the funding and provision of 12 new bus shelters including real time information displays for services and upgraded kerbing/ footway to provide suitable standing area, unless already provided by SYPTE or other third party;

(b) the provision of bus service information and ticketing, including proposals for the provision of real time bus information in B1 office buildings over 2500 sqm; and

(c) a scheme for the provision of discounted public transport tickets for new occupiers and residents of the development for up to three months on a sale or return basis.

1.8 Lorry Management Plan : This shall accord with the principles set out in Appendix 8 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The Lorry Management Plan will set out the proposals for:

(a) the Lorry Management Guidelines including proposals for service vehicle parking and loading, and routing and co- ordination of goods vehicles, and will be agreed within six months of first occupation of commercial development;

(b) the adoption of a Freight Quality Partnership, to be agreed within six months of occupation of commercial development.

1.9 Delivery Framework: This shall accord with the principles set out in the Appendix 4 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. The Delivery Framework will include:

(a) the implementation programme for the proposed transport measures, including those committed measures contained in paragraphs 1.5 to 1.8 above which are now agreed;

(b) identification of roles and responsibilities of the main stakeholders including the estimated costs and mechanisms for securing funding for the proposed transport measures.

1.10 Monitoring and Review: The Transport Strategy and its constituent elements shall be subjected to monitoring and review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 3 of the RDDTS which will be approved by SCC prior to occupation of development. Annual Monitoring shall compare observed trip generation from the development against the Interim and Final Expected Values.

1.11 Supplementary Measures : In the event of Substantial Variation from the agreed Expected Values, the Developer will undertake supplementary monitoring and review, and implement supplementary measures if required in accordance with Appendix 3 of the RDDTS, as follows:

1.12 The Developer will undertake further monitoring to assess the causes of the variation within three months of the relevant Annual Monitoring Report, and the Transport Steering Group will review the particular circumstances prevailing at that time and make recommendations to the Council about the need for supplementary measures within six months of the relevant Annual Monitoring. In the event that supplementary measures are agreed as being required, such measures should be implemented within six months of the agreement from SCC to the proposed supplementary measures.

1.13 In the event that monitoring one year after the implementation of supplementary measures shows that the Expected Values are still being exceeded, no further development will be permitted to commence until monitoring shows that the Expected Values have been met to the satisfaction of the Transport Steering Group.

[1.11 to 1.13 is now based on the following agreed timescales:- 2 consecutive breech’s of targets (1 year); agreement and design of supplementary measures (6 months); implementation of supplementary measures (6 months); monitoring the effectiveness of the supplementary measures (1 year); giving a maximum timescale of 3 years before restrictions on further development are triggered].

1.14 Supplementary Measures Fund : The Developer will provide a “Supplementary Measures Fund” of £300,000 for the purpose of implementing supplementary measures. If this is not fully used three years after completion of the development, the balance will be returned to the Developer.

2.0 Obligations relating to the provision of transport infrastructure

2.1 Controlled Parking Zone

2.1.1 Using reasonable endeavours, BL will enter into a Section 278 agreement for the preparation and implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone Scheme before first occupation of development.

2.2. The Fixed Link Contribution (FLC)

2.2.1 Calculation of the Fixed Link Contribution shall be made on a pro-rata basis, and payment shall be due at the commencement of each phase of development up to the threshold, such that the full contribution will have been received when development up to the threshold is reached.

2.2.2 The payment shall be made either directly to Sheffield City Council or secured to the satisfaction of the City Council, so that the monies will be paid within 3 months of payment being formally being requested, upon confirmation that a delivery programme for the Link Road has been committed.

2.2.3 A payment of up to 10% of the total contribution sum will be made in advance of the delivery programme for the Link Road being committed, if requested by the City Council, provided it does not exceed the pro- rata payment due at the point when the payment is requested.

2.2.4 SCC shall place any payments in an interest bearing account until it is used for the construction of the Fixed Link.

2.2.5 SCC will use best endeavours to secure delivery of the Fixed Link.

2.2.6 Following completion of the Fixed Link scheme, any unused monies from the FLC will be returned to the developer.

2.3 The Fixed Link Alternative Scheme

2.3.1 In the event of the Fixed Link not being progressed at the time of the first reserved matters application above the Threshold, no development will be permitted until SCC, the Highways Agency and the Developer have agreed the Fixed Link Alternative Scheme and the quantum of development that this scheme releases.

2.3.2 The development permitted will be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme.

2.4 Junction 34(North) Scheme

2.4.1 No development above the Threshold shall be commenced until the Developer has entered into S278 for the design and construction of the J34(N) Scheme. [BL/ SCC seeking to agree a mechanism for controlling or capping costs for the defined scheme].

2.4.2 No development above the Threshold shall be occupied until the J34(N) Scheme is completed and open to traffic.

2.5 Meadowhall Way Realignment and Local Junction Improvements (LJI)

2.5.1 No development shall be commenced until details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure the implementation of Local Junction Improvement LJI1.

2.5.2 No development shall be occupied until Local Junction Improvement LJI1 have been carried out.

2.5.2 No development above the Threshold shall be commenced until contracts for the construction of the Meadowhall Way Realignment and the Local Junction Improvements LJI2, LJI3, LJI4 have been entered in to, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

2.5.2 No development above the Threshold shall be occupied until the Meadowhall Way Realignment and the Local Junction Improvements are completed and open to traffic.

2.6 Local Improvements for Pedestrians and Cyclists (LIPC)

2.6.1 No development shall be commenced until details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of arrangements which have been entered into which will secure the implementation of LIPC1, LIPC2, LIPC3 and LIPC4.

2.6.2 No development shall be occupied until LIPC1 and LIPC2 have been carried out.

2.6.3 LIPC3 and LIPC4 shall be carried out to a timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 2.6.4 Prior to the improvement works listed above being started on site, full details of these improvements shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.0 General matters

3.1 Obligations on Council to utilise contributions.

3.2 Template drafts of Section 278 agreements to be annexed to agreement - to address works to be carried out by the Developer on highway land and works to be carried out by the relevant Highway Authority at the Developer’s expense.

3.3 All contributions to be subject to indexation (pursuant to the Construction Output Price Index published by the Association for Consultancy and Engineering) from the date of the agreement.

3.4 Claw Back Clause to cover what happens to any contributions which are made, but not used within a reasonable period of time, with a view to maximising the transport benefit accruing for the regeneration of the RDD and LDV.

3.5 If Annual monitoring indicates that observed trip generation from the Don District development shows a substantial variation below the calculated Expected Values as measured for two consecutive annual reviews, in line with Appendix 3 of the RDDTS, those “saved” trips can be “banked” to facilitate further development above the threshold.

SCC and the Developer will work together to identify a suitable method for assessing the number of non-RDD trips “saved” arising from sustainable transport measures provided by the Developer, for the purpose of “banking” for further development above the threshold.

The Annual Monitoring Report will identify the "saved" development trips and, if the method can be agreed, the "saved" non development trips arising from sustainable transport measures provided by the Developer. The Transport Steering Group will review this information, and recommend to SCC the number of trips that can be added to the Interim Expected Values for the purpose of releasing development above the threshold, for approval by SCC (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld).

4.0 Definitions

4.1 Threshold: The threshold is defined as being 67,500 square metres of B1 office floorspace and 250 residential units or its trip generation equivalent in B1 office floorspace and residential units.

4.2 Trip Generation: Trip Generation will be assessed annually on the basis of trips passing in and out of the site plus a proportion of any Kiss and Ride trips in accordance with Appendix 3 of the RDDTS. An allowance for additional trips arising from cars parking off site will be made if this has been shown to have been occurring in previous surveys or substantiated by SCC.

4.3 Trip Generation Equivalent: The trip generation equivalent is calculated using the following assumptions:

• the B1 office floorspace quoted is the maximum quantum of B1 office floorspace allowable, and that • 100 square metres of B1 office floorspace shall be equivalent to 2.5 residential units.

4.3 Expected Values : Expected Values are the trip generation targets for the development as set out in Appendix 3 of the DDTS for the following levels of development:

• Interim Expected Value to be used for development at the Threshold.

• Final Expected Value to be used at completion of the development as approved under the outline permission.

4.4 Substantial Variation : “Substantial Variation” shall be defined as an exceedance of the expected values [as set out in Appendix 3 of the DDTS] by 10% or more for two consecutive annual reviews.

4.5 Supplementary Measures : Sustainable transport or demand management measures designed to reduce car driver mode share relating to the development which are to be implemented in the event of substantial variation of the Expected Values.

4.6 Fixed Link: A scheme to provide a route for public transport and cars running underneath the M1 which aims to provide relief to Junction 34 (North and South) and improved conditions for public transport between Rotherham and Sheffield.

4.7 Fixed Link Alternative Scheme : a scheme to mitigate the impact of the River Don District development traffic on Junction 34(S) in the event of the Fixed Link not being delivered. This may take the form of physical infrastructure enhancements, MOVA at Junction 34(South), demand management and/ or sustainable transport measures to reduce car use through the Rotherham to Sheffield corridor.

4.8 Fixed Link Contribution: A contribution towards the design, promotion and construction of the Fixed Link. The value of the contribution shall be £1,600,000. The maximum proportion of the contribution (or any pro rata payment) that can be used for design works of the Link Road, shall not exceed 10% of the total contribution sum.

4.9 Controlled Parking Zone Scheme: A CPZ scheme to control parking using traffic regulation orders within a specified area within the Lower Don Valley as shown on Figure 3 of the PBA CPZ report, designed to prevent non essential parking and deter development parking on roads in the vicinity of the development. In the event of an alternative method of parking control being required by SCC, BL will not be required to fund any additional costs.

4.10 The VMS scheme : a Scheme consisting of variable message and static signing limited to Meadowhall Way specifically devised to manage parking behaviour at Meadowhall at busy times.

4.11 Junction 34 North Scheme: A scheme to provide improved capacity at Junction 34 North by introducing MOVA at the junction.

4.12 Meadowhall Way realignment : A scheme to realign Meadowhall Way in general compliance with Plan PO2 as contained in Schedule [ ]

4.13 Local Junction Improvements (LJI): Local Junction Improvements at the following locations:

LJI1. Meadowhall Road/Jenkin Road/Meadowhall Way improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities [ref 18859/101/017 Rev P7]

LJI2. Brightside Lane/Hawke Street/Upwell Street improvements to follow the principles shown on drawing No. 18859/101/TA/021 Rev.A (+Forgemasters pedestrian crossing)

LJI3. Meadowhall Road/Weedon Street, improvements to follow the principles shown on drawing No. 18859/101/TA/020 Rev. P8

LJI4. Sheffield Road/Weedon Street, improvements to ensure a four lane approach along Weedon Street (2 lanes for left turning and 2 for right) is created.[ref 18859/101/016 Rev P6)

LJ15 Modifications to traffic signal controllers (including the provision of SPRUCE) at Meadowhall Way/Meadowhall Road/ Alsing Road and signal timing adjustments along the Sheffield Road/Attercliffe Common and Meadowhall Road/Brightside Lane corridors, all subject to a maximum cost of £10K.

4.14 Local Improvements for Pedestrians and Cyclists: Local improvements at the following locations:

LIPC1: Improvements to the pedestrian route from Sheffield Road to Meadowhall Retail Park tram stop as described in the Design and Access Statement including new paving and lighting to Lock House Lane, [ref….]

LIPC2: Provision of a new/ improved pedestrian route from Meadowhall Way to the PTI [ref….DAS]

LIPC3: Extension of Five Weirs Walk from the south side of Weedon Street through to the North side of Meadowhall Way including Toucan crossing facilities at all road crossings, [ref…]

LIPC4: Provision of a new route to the north of the embankment to link 5 Weirs Walk with Sheffield Road …..[ref…DAS]

Non Transport Matters Heads of Terms

2 Education

2.1 A financial contribution shall be paid to the Council on the commencement of development of each phase of housing, for primary and secondary education facilities needed to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils living in the development, in accordance with the Supplementary Guidance on Planning Obligations and Education Provision dated August 1998. No contribution is required for studio, one bedroom and two bedroom flats.

3 Employment and Training

3.1 Prior to Commencement of the Development the Developer shall have submitted and the Council shall have approved (not to be unreasonably withheld) an ‘Employment and Training Strategy’ in accordance with the principles set out in Schedule [Training and Employment Strategy Summary dated 24.11.08]. The Strategy shall include arrangements for its implementation and monitoring.

4 Adult Recreation Space

4.1 A contribution to be paid on the commencement of development of each phase of housing for formal open space in accordance table 1 of Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Open Space Provision in New Housing Development’ Approved 1999 and updated in 2007 unless otherwise agreed by the LPA.

5 General

5.1 Enforcement protocol - obligations to be enforced against owners of the relevant part of the development, to be specified in the Section 106 Agreement.

Appendix 1