Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 28/02/2011 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM

SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS

CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR Chris Heeley TEL 0114 2736329 ACCESS Kate Mansell NO: 0114 2736141

AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT

OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

10/04120/RG3 Greenhill Park Gresley Road 5 Sheffield S8 7HN

10/04021/FUL Asda Supermarket Handsworth Road 17 Sheffield S13 9BN

10/02357/FUL Alibi Lounge And Bar 23 - 27 Trippet Lane 27 Sheffield S1 4FG

10/02077/FUL Land To The South Of Arnold Lavers (Accessed From Roundabout On Oxclose Park 42 Road) Sheffield 20

3 4 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The CITY CENTRE AND EAST Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 28/02/2011

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

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

Case Number 10/04120/RG3

Application Type Application Submitted by the Council

Proposal Multi-Use Games Area (Full application under Reg. 3 - 1992)

Location Greenhill Park Gresley Road Sheffield S8 7HN

Date Received 20/12/2010

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Sheffield City Council

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

2 The floodlights hereby approved shall be turned off by 2130 hours everyday.

In accordance with the submitted details and in the interests of the amenities of the locality, including the surrounding residential properties.

3 Before the boundary treatment to the Multi Use Games Area is erected, details of it (including samples and finish) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality, including the surrounding residential properties.

4 There shall be no rebound boards erected around the perimeter or within the Multi Use Games Area hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality, including the surrounding residential properties.

5 The floodlights hereby approved shall be as specified in the Thorn Lighting Limited document (dated 13/1/11) and they shall be installed in accordance with the installation data specified in the Light Report which accompanied the application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interest of the amenities of the locality, including the surrounding residential properties, and to ensure that the lighting environment is as per described and assessed.

6 Before the use of the development is commenced, a Validation Test of the floodlights shall have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such Validation Test shall:

a) Be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement,

b) Demonstrate that the light spillage levels at the nearest light sensitive receptor, as stipulated in the lighting assessment details on the Thorn Lighting Limited ‘HORIZONTAL @ 0M’ (Page 4 of 6) drawing showing light spill, have been achieved.

In the event that the specified light spillage levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the attenuation works thus far approved, a further scheme of light attenuation works capable of achieving the specified light spillage levels and recommended by a lighting consultant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the development is commenced. Such further scheme of works shall be installed as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.

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

6 7 The landscaping scheme shown on the approved drawing shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

8 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the landscape works are completed.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

9 The entrance gates to the Multi Use Games Area hereby granted consent shall be 1000mm in width, and shall also be constructed with an additional clear width of 300mm.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

10 The ramps leading to the entrance gates to the Multi Use Games Area as shown on the approved drawings are not hereby approved. Prior to use of the development hereby approved commencing, or within an alternative time-schedule agreed with the Local Planning Authority, alternative details of the ramps shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The ramps shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

11 The Multi-Use Games Area hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with Sport England/NGB Technical Design Guidance Notes to include ‘Access for Disabled People 2002’ unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Sport England.

In order to ensure that the sports facilities provided are of an acceptable standard.

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

Approved Drawings/Documents; - G.H.P. / 01 - G.H.P. / 02 - THORN Areaflood Lighting Documents - Sure Shot Gladiator Basketball Goals - FOT-199F 7-a-side Aluminium Goals

7 - CR-055 Spring Back Practice Stumps

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

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

GE1 - Development in the Green Belt GE2 - Protection and Improvement of the Green Belt Landscape GE3 - New Building in the Green Belt GE4 - Development and the Green Belt Environment

Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

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

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

8 Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located immediately to the south of the Lowedges Housing estate.

The application proposes the construction of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) in close proximity to the existing Youth Centre building, which is accessed from Gresley Road.

The MUGA is required as a replacement for the hardcourt play area which previously existed adjacent to the Youth Centre. The space occupied by the hardcourt play area forms the location for the Childrens Centre building, which was granted consent as part of planning application 10/00950/RG3 and which is

10 currently under construction. This consent included a condition to require the hardcourt play area to be replaced by an appropriate provision, and this application is the proposal which seeks to meet the requirements of that condition.

The MUGA is proposed to be located adjacent to the northern perimeter of the Park, slightly to the east of the entrance gates from Gresley Road. A new entrance gate would be formed from the public footpath which runs along this northern edge of the park. It would measure 40m x 20m and would be surrounded by 3metre high ball court fencing. The sports facilities which are proposed are; youth football, basketball, casual tennis and cricket stumps. These would involve the provision of the necessary goals, hoops/boards and stumps.

Four floodlight columns, each at 12m in height are proposed at the perimeter to the MUGA.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

10/00950/RG3; Single-storey Children's Centre located toward the rear of the site – Approved, 03.06.2010

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Representations of Objection

A petition has been submitted with 58 signatures in objection to the proposal. This states that the games area should be repositioned elsewhere in the park, and floodlights should not be installed.

Following neighbour notification nine representations have been received in objection to the proposal. The comments can be summarised as follows

- Proximity of MUGA to houses is too close. - Floodlights will attract youths at night-time. Query control of lights. Bright lights will lead to loss of sleep. - Noise impacts. Concern that current noise from motorbikes in park, will be worsened by MUGA in this location. - Green Belt location is an attractive feature of Lowedges Close. - If it is let out to sports clubs, where will the users of the area park. - There are other more suitable locations, such as near the bowling pavilion. - The significant amounts of money would be better spent upgrading the swing/ play equipment area, or introducing cycle proof gates to park entrances. - Previous basketball court was not well used, only for anti-social behaviour. - Skate park has led to anti-social behaviour problems. Existing issues discourage other children from using the park. Vandalism has meant picnic tables / furniture have been removed from the park. - Concern regarding health and safety monitoring of activities at the site. - No actual costings are proposed on the application forms.

11 - Request for confirmation that such a development would not cause a depreciation in property value

Representations of Support

Items of support have been received from Greenhill and Bradway Residents and Tenants Association, Lowedges Community and Safety Forum, the Friends of Greenhill Park and Lowedges Youth Forum. These comments can be summarised as follows:

- The proposed MUGA location is fully supported, close to the park’s main entrance and with easy access to the Youth Club. Other locations were felt to be inappropriate due to health and safety issues. - Floodlights will enhance use of the facility in winter. They will be less intrusive than the lights at the previous basketball area. The new location is also much further from neighbouring properties. The lighting characteristics have been shown not to be harmful. If the issue of floodlighting would prevent the scheme being approved their removal from the current scheme would be supported. - If the development is delayed beyond 31 March 2011 the funding will be lost. - Local young people have campaigned for such a facility. - A full day consultation programme with community by local young people was undertaken at the Lowedges Festival. No objections were received at that time. - Floodlights are desirable, as they allow use in winter months. They meet requirements of the Council’s young people strategy, as they provide somewhere for young people to go and take part in an activity, the MUGA would be a new facility for Lowedges and enable organisations to hold supervised sessions where young people can gain new skills, meet new friends, play team sports and build self esteem. There is also concern that without the lights crime/fear of crime would increase. - The old facility was in a poor state, but it was still used. The youth centre did use it for activities, i.e. during school holidays, and it did have floodlights which could be turned off at the youth centre.

Councillor Clive Skelton has commented that he fully supports the MUGA, adding that it would be a great facility for the area. He raised some concern about the floodlighting as proposed, but stated if the residents were happy with the floodlights then he was too.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Greenhill Park is located within the Green Belt as defined within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. The implications of the proposal on the Green Belt are required to be assessed. Additionally, the impacts of the proposal on nearby residential occupiers are required to be considered.

In Green Belt terms Policy GE1 states that development will not be permitted where it would, amongst other things; lead to unrestricted growth of the built up

12 area, contribute towards the merging of existing settlements, or lead to encroachment of urban development into the countryside.

The proposed MUGA would be considered to constitute a stand alone facility which would not be viewed as a part of the built up area. Instead, it would be seen very much as a feature typical in parks. Whilst it would be operated in association with the Youth Centre, there would not be any linkages connecting the MUGA to the built up area. It is not considered that it would constitute the growth of the built up area. The MUGA would be seen as a facility typical of a park, rather than having the characteristics of urban development.

Given the purpose and nature of the MUGA there is no scope for it to result in the merging of existing settlements.

Overall, the proposal would not be considered to conflict with the restrictive criteria given within this policy.

UDP Policy GE2 deals with the ’Protection and Improvement of the Green Belt Landscape’ and requires that in the Green Belt measures are taken which maintain and enhance areas with a generally high landscape value, and improve poor landscapes. The proposal is within the park area which is of significant visual amenity, but is also characterised by physical structures and permanent additions. The physical structures proposed as part of this application would be relatively modest in scope, with the 3m fencing and the 12m floodlights being of the greatest significance. This is not considered to be significant in visual terms, and it is considered that it would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt in this vicinity, or significantly harm views of the Green Belt.

As a result it is considered that the proposed MUGA would adequately protect the character of the Green Belt in this location, and therefore satisfy the requirements of this policy.

UDP Policy GE3 deals with ‘New Building in the Green Belt’ and states that new buildings will only be allowed for purposes including essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. In order for facilities to be considered essential they have to be genuinely required for such uses.

The MUGA is required to meet a condition imposed upon the planning consent authorising the Children’s Centre, in order to replace the hardcourt play facility which previously existed there. The loss of that area was considered to lessen recreational options within the area, particularly by users of the Youth Club, and therefore a replacement was made a condition of the consent. Without a hardcourt area play options in all seasons through the year would be severely compromised and the youth centre would not be able to provide outdoor play/sports. As such the scheme is considered to represent an essential facility to enable outdoor recreation amongst the community in the area.

It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of this policy.

13 UDP Policy GE4 covers ‘Development and the Green Belt Environment’, and requires the scale and character of development in the Green Belt to be in keeping with the area, and wherever possible, conserve and enhance the landscape and natural environment.

As already covered, the proposal is considered to be in line with the type of additions which would be expected to exist within a park such as this. Paths are commonly lit in public areas of this nature, to lessen crime and safety concerns. Since the principle of lighting for differing purposes in parks is common, the proposed floodlighting would not be out of keeping in the area. It is not considered that it would be possible to base a reason for refusal upon the floodlighting.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in regards to this policy.

It is also necessary to assess the proposed MUGA in terms of its impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. The primary potential impacts relate to the floodlighting and the noise which would be generated by activity at the MUGA.

In considering these issues it is of relevance that the previously existing hardcourt games area was floodlit. It was also located in closer proximity to some residential dwellings than the proposed area. The neglected condition of the previous court did not prevent it from being used and does not mean that it can be ruled out of consideration here, as with basic maintenance and some additional equipment it could have been similar to the currently proposed facility.

The proposed MUGA would be approximately 55metres from the nearest residential dwellings. Details have been submitted with the application which show that the luminance levels which would arise from the proposed lighting would dissipate to zero at a distance of approximately 30metres from the edge of the games area. The nearest residential dwellings would be separated by approximately 55metres from the MUGA. Therefore, at the neighbouring dwellings there would not be considered to be any additional light intrusion as a result of the proposed floodlighting.

The need for floodlighting is appreciated in that it allows use of the facility to continue when natural daylight is insufficient. The facility would be operated under the auspices of the youth centre, but it would not be used solely by them. There would be no management / supervision and the facility would not be locked when not in use. In order to prevent use during late evening hours, it is considered that it would be appropriate to impose a condition on any consent granted requiring the lights to be switched off by no later than 9:30pm. This restriction would be considered to prevent activity at the MUGA from harming amenities of neighbouring occupiers to a detrimental degree.

Additionally, it is considered that it would be appropriate to require the fencing and rebound boarding at the facility to be selected to minimise noise generated in this way. On this basis an appropriate condition can be added to any consent granted.

14 With the imposition of relevant conditions it is considered that the use of the MUGA would not have a harmful impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Many of the points raised have been addressed in the above assessment. In relation to the remaining items the following points can be made:

Concerns relating to existing anti-social behaviour and related noise impacts would not form material planning considerations. They would not form adequate reasons to resist the proposed MUGA, or its location.

A range of comments have been made relating to the amount of use of the previous hardcourt area. Even if its use was infrequent, it was capable of being more regularly used and it is therefore appropriate to seek a replacement facility.

A number of suggestions regarding a preferable alternative location have been raised. The current location has been proposed due to its proximity to the Youth Club venue, which will be the main co-ordinator of use of the MUGA. Additionally, the current location has been assessed on its own planning merits and it is considered its impacts will be acceptable.

Health and safety monitoring will be the subject to separate legislation, and is not required to be assessed as part of the planning application.

The proposed MUGA will not be expected to be associated to uses which will generate additional levels of vehicular traffic to the site.

Comments on the cost of the equipment etc. and preferential alternative uses for the finances are not material planning considerations.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact on neighbouring property value depreciation. This would not form a material planning consideration.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application seeks full planning permission for a Multi Use Games Area within Greenhill Park. This is to replace the previously existing hardcourt play area which existed adjacent to the Youth Centre building. This previous court has been subsumed into the development of the Lowedges Children’s Centre. The planning consent relating to the Centre required the hardcourt play area to be replaced, and this application seeks consent for that replacement facility.

Greenhill Park is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan as Green Belt. The proposed MUGA would be considered to have an acceptable impact upon the character and the openness of the Green Belt. In addition the MUGA would avoid the generation of detrimental impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

15 Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and conditional approval is therefore recommended.

Case Number 10/04021/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Reconfiguration of store car park, forecourt area and access road; creation of taxi lay-by; alterations to recycling area; provision of additional cycle parking and trolley bays, and associated works and landscaping

Location Asda Supermarket Handsworth Road Sheffield S13 9BN

Date Received 03/12/2010

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Drivers Jonas Delottie (Leeds)

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

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

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

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

Plan reference numbers PL-11 rev A, PL-12, PL-100 rev A and PL-09

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 Prior to the commencement of development details of 10 low emission vehicle priority parking spaces, to include their location on site, specification, management and signage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter the parking spaces shall be provided and remain operational in accordance with the approved details for the life time of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of air quality.

4 Prior to the commencement of development details of the location and specification of real time public transport information displays within store shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The real time information displays shall thereafter be retained unless otherwise agreed in wring with the Local Planning Authority.

In the interest of promotion of public transport

5 Notwithstanding the submitted Travel Plan a revised Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any part of the development, the detailed Travel Plan(s) shall be, designed to: reduce the need for and impact of motor vehicles, including fleet operations; increase site accessibility; and to facilitate and encourage alternative travel modes. Detailed Travel Plan(s) shall be developed in accordance with a previously approved Framework Travel Plan for the proposed development, where that exists. The Travel Plan(s) shall include:

1. Clear and unambiguous objectives and modal split targets; 2. An implementation programme, with arrangements to review and report back on progress being achieved to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the 'Monitoring Schedule' for written approval of actions consequently proposed, 3. The results and findings of the monitoring shall be independently verified/validated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 4. The verified/validated results will be used to further define targets and inform actions proposed to achieve the approved objectives and modal split targets.

On occupation, the approved Travel Plan(s) shall thereafter be implemented, subject to any variations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of delivering sustainable forms of transport, in accordance with the Transport Policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield and PPG13.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas CS66 - Air Quality

Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to

18 any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

19 Site Location

20 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site comprises of the existing Asda Supermarket, associated access and car parking. The site is located at the junction of Handsworth Road and the Sheffield Parkway.

The application seeks permission to alter the existing car parking arrangements by removing ‘dead ends’ within the car park to improve vehicle circulation, as well as alterations to the alignment of the internal access roads to provide 86 additional car parking spaces. It also includes associated landscaping, improvements to the on- site recycling facilities, the provision of new trolley shelters and a taxi pick up lay- by.

Vehicular access to the site is currently gained from Handsworth Road via a signal controlled junction with a secondary access from the Parkway slip road.

The application site is located in an allocated Fringe Industry and Business Area as defined in the Adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

The area surrounding the application site is mixed in character. The properties immediately opposite the site on Handsworth Road are primarily residential. Lying to the south of the site is a staff car park, which is on a higher plateau accessed from Richmond Park Road. The Turner Business Park is on the opposite side of Richmond Park Road, which has recently received planning permission to be redeveloped for a mix of retail (A1) public house (A4) and hybrid business units (B1 b,c). To the west, the site backs onto the rear of dwellings on Richmond Park Crescent.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

10/00273/FUL -Side extension, provision of additional mezzanine floorspace, alterations to car parking accommodation and associated works to supermarket - Withdrawn

07/04493/FUL - Extension to warehouse, erection of external stairway, erection of canopy, erection of single-storey extension to form home shopping pod, alterations to service yard, lengthening of existing pedestrian route and erection of boundary wall to service yard (In accordance with email dated 08.01.2008) – Granted Conditionally.

02/02805/LD2 - Installation of mezzanine floor (Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development) – Granted

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

4 individual letters of objection have been received in addition to a 33 signed named petition. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

- No effort is made to keep trolleys within the site; there are trolleys in Bowden Woods and on Handsworth Road.

- Traffic flows very slowly on Handsworth Road at peak times due to ASDA and the nearby housing development on Halesworth Road; any increase in parking will exacerbate the problem. - The site is not big enough for the development. - Additional parking will lead to additional congestion and pollution. - Existing congestion issues between the Parkway roundabout, Asda and Halesworth Road, which will be compounded by the provision of additional parking. - The granting of Aldi will lead to further congestion, increase journey times and deterioration in air quality. - The old Asda site at Orgreave was a far more appropriate location for the development.

The applicant has submitted a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which outlines the outcome of pre application meetings with the Handsworth Community Forum and the East End Quality Initiative following the withdrawal of the previous application for an extension to the store. Consultation letters were sent to residents on Richmond Park Crescent, as well as the East Community Assembly. An in-store consultation event was also held on the weekend of the 15th and 16th October 2010 which included presentation boards and opportunities for customers to take away leaflets explaining the proposals as well as freepost feed back cards. Clive Betts MP and David Blunkett MP were also informed of the proposed scheme by letter.

The applicants SCI states that feedback gained as part of the in-store consultation on the previous applications indentified that 87% of respondents thought the car parking layout and car park was unsatisfactory and needed improving. The outcome of the most recent consultation meeting identified that 19 of the 22 responses received were supportive of the proposals to reconfigure the car park. The three unsupportive comments identified that although the car park is congested, it is adequate, and that a method should be devised to reroute traffic at peak times.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

Within the Unitary Development Plan the site is designated as a Fringe Industry and Business Area. The existing supermarket and car parking is an established use in the policy area. As such, the main issues for consideration in this application are highways, air quality impacts, the impact on the amenities of residents and the visual amenities of the locality.

Layout and Landscaping

Policy IB9 ‘Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas’ part (c) seeks to ensure that development is well designed with buildings and storage of a scale and design appropriate to the site. The proposed changes have little affect on the appearance of the streetscene and visual amenities of the locality. The

22 changes are contained within the existing site area and involve the removal of landscaping adjacent to the west boundary of the site and alterations to the landscaping adjacent to Handsworth Road to accommodate the reconfiguration of the car park. The changes are minor and suitable landscaping is retained around the perimeter of the site to provide an appropriate buffer to the adjoining highways/dwellings. Minor changes are proposed to the recycling area adjacent to the Handsworth Road entrance to enlarge and provide screen fencing. The proposed changes to the car park necessitate the provision of new trolley stores, which will be located at regular intervals throughout the car park and grouped around the entrance to the store. The proposed changes are considered acceptable and comply with Policy IB9.

Amenity Issues

The proposals do not give rise to any amenity issues. A small area of landscaping is to be removed from the north western corner of the site adjacent to the rear of properties on Richmond Park Crescent and the existing Parkway slip road to accommodate the changes to the car park. However, a 2 metre high solid timber fence and mature tree planting will be retained along the western site boundary, which will provide a suitable buffer between the site and the rear of properties on Richmond Park Crescent.

Highways

Policy IB9 part (f) seeks to ensure that new development is adequately served by public transport facilities and provides safe access to the highways network and appropriate off street parking. The applicant has prepared a transport assessment which has been submitted for consideration.

The existing Handsworth Road signalised junction and Parkway slip road access will remain unchanged as part of the development. However, the car park configuration and internal circulation routes within the site will be altered to cater for additional car parking spaces. From the Handsworth Road access of the site, this involves removing the redundant on-site bus turn around area and moving the internal access road closer to Handsworth Road. The existing length of car parking spaces will be removed from the northern boundary adjacent to the Parkway slip road and will be replaced with a new section of internal access road with the existing car parking spaces accommodated elsewhere as part of the reconfiguration of the car park.

Currently there are 616 customer car parking spaces on site inclusive of disabled and parent and child priority spaces. It is proposed to add a further 86 customer car parking spaces inclusive of a further 3 parent and child spaces and 4 disabled parking spaces. This increase represents a car parking ratio of 1 space per 22 sq m gross floor area plus disabled spaces based on the stores current gross floor space of 14,780 sqm. The government has recently removed requirements for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to impose maximum parking standards. However, current Council parking standards remain relevant to the consideration of this application. They currently require car parking provision for developments in excess of 7000 sq m gross floor area to be decided on their individual merits.

In this instance, it is considered that the proposed increase in parking will address current demand for parking at peak times rather than seek to attract additional customers, and the alterations to the car park layout will help to improve vehicle flows within the site. This in turn, will prevent vehicles queuing back through the junctions at peak times, which currently causes congestion on the adjoining network.

A taxi turnaround area will be provided in place of the existing on site redundant bus turnaround area as it is not used by any bus services as they stop at the existing north and south bound stops on Handsworth Road, adjacent to the application site. A further 8 secure cycle parking spaces will be provided, bringing the total to 30 spaces. The applicants have also updated their travel plan as part of this development, which sets a series of updated priorities and objectives to reduce car travel and increase cycling, walking and the use of public transport. In light of the above, the proposed development is not considered to give rise to any unacceptable highways implications and therefore complies with Policy IB9 (f).

Air Quality

Planning Policy Guidance Note 23: Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality advises at Paragraph 1G.1 that ‘any air quality consideration that relates to land use and its development is capable of being a material consideration. Wherever a proposed development is likely to have significant air quality impacts, close co-operation between the LPA’s and those with responsibilities for air quality and pollution control will be essential’. Policy CS66 of the Core Strategy also advises that action to protect air quality will be taken in all areas of the City and action to improve air quality will be taken across the built up area and particularly where residents in road corridors with high levels of traffic are directly exposed to levels of pollution above national targets’.

Although this application is for a small increase in parking provision only with no associated extension or increase in the retail floor space, the applicant has completed a qualitative assessment of the impacts of potential traffic emissions associated with the development.

The Council have presently designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Nitrogen Dioxide for the whole of the urban area of Sheffield. The AQA considers the current conditions in the area of the site, and the potential impacts arising from traffic movements associated with the development and any necessary mitigation measures proposed to avoid or reduce any impacts that are identified.

The AQA also considers data from the community diffusion tubes for nitrogen dioxide that are presently based on Handsworth Road.

In terms of the completed development, the Air Quality Assessment considers existing air quality conditions and qualitatively assesses the impacts from the proposed reconfiguration of the parking area and increase in parking provision. Higher emissions tend to be generated by vehicles travelling at low speeds,

24 particularly stationary vehicles and those who are forced into stop start movements rather than smooth driving conditions. The reconfiguration of the car parking area and provision of additional car parking spaces is predicated to have a minor beneficial impact on air quality. The changes to the car parking layout will help to reduce queuing traffic and general congestion, prevent vehicles queuing back onto Handsworth Road particularly at peak times when customers are trying to locate parking spaces, and removes the need for vehicles to make unnecessary manoeuvres within the car park. Although an increase in parking spaces is proposed, it is considered that this will help to satisfy existing demand rather than attracting additional trips to the site.

In addition to the changes highlighted above, the applicant is also proposing a series of mitigation measures. These include the provision of real time bus information in store, which will help to encourage the greater use of public transport. Ten low emission priority parking spaces will also be designated close to the store entrance, which will incentivise people to arrive in low emission vehicles. In light of the proposed changes, it is considered that the proposed development will reduce stationary traffic and alleviate congestion, which will result in a slight improvement in air quality.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Asda have indicated in their supporting submission that a dedicated trolley collection service will be commissioned from April 2011 whereby a sweep of the area will take place to retrieve abandoned trolleys. In addition, customers will be able to report abandoned trolleys to the in store customer services who will then instruct the retrieval team.

All other issues raised are covered in the main body of the report.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application seeks full planning permission to reconfigure the car parking area, forecourt and access roads to alleviate on site congestion caused by vehicles unable to find a parking space at peak trading times, creation of a taxi rank, alterations to the recycling area, provision of cycle parking, new trolley bays and associated works and landscaping.

The site is in an allocated Fringe Industry and Business Area within the adopted UDP and is an established development. Accordingly the principle of the development is accepted and the main issues for consideration are highways, amenity and air quality.

The proposals involve the removal of ‘dead ends’ in the existing car parking layout and reconfiguration of the access roads to create an additional 86 customer car parking spaces. This brings the total number of parking spaces to 706, which falls within the acceptable levels of provision in accordance with Council parking guidelines for a store of this size. Although the proposal seeks an increase in parking provision, it is considered that this will help to satisfy existing demand

25 rather than attracting additional trips to the site and as such, there will be no unacceptable highways implications.

The changes to the car parking layout will help to reduce queuing traffic and general congestion, prevent vehicles queuing back onto Handsworth Road particularly at peak times when customers are trying to locate parking spaces, and remove the need for vehicles to make unnecessary manoeuvres within the car park, which will help to improve air quality conditions in the locality. The applicant has also agreed to a series of mitigation measures which include, low emission vehicle priority parking spaces, real time bus information in store and updated travel plan priorities, which are secured by condition.

The proposals do not give rise to any amenity issues for adjoining sensitive or residential uses and appropriate landscaping is retained to the site perimeter to ensure that the development does not detrimentally impact upon the appearance of the streetscene or the visual amenities of the locality.

In light of the above, the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy IB9 of the Unitary Development Plan and CS66 of the Core Strategy.

Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposed development is in accordance with current local and national planning policy and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Case Number 10/02357/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Opening of the premises until 0130 hours on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays before Bank Holidays, and until 0030 hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Sundays other than before Bank Holidays for a period of one year from the date of this permission, as amended 11.12.10 (Application under Section 73 to vary Condition 19(e) attached to Planning Permission 06/00412/FUL)

Location Alibi Lounge And Bar 23 - 27 Trippet Lane Sheffield S1 4FG

Date Received 15/07/2010

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Anglo Bars Limited

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the 2nd May 2006.

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

2 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and before the development is commenced further revised details showing the following shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Improved masonry articulation to the central bay of the main façade to Trippet Lane (b) Introduction of glazing to the façade above the main entrance between Nos 23 and 27 (c) Full construction detail of the black slate cladding to the ground floor of the Trippet Lane façade and string course above (d) Replacement of pressed metal fascia beneath the black slate cladding with brickwork or stone work infill panels (e) Improved articulation of main grouped windows through use of deeper mullions and transoms

27 (f) Improved emphasis to central bay windows using visually stronger frames (g) Improved quality and colour of cladding to upper level

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 Before the development is commenced, full details of the following external materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Facing bricks (b) Roofing slates (c) Eaves details (d) Heads and sills to windows (e) External panelling (f) Balconies

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

4 The facing brickwork shall not be constructed except in accordance with an approved sample panel, which shall have been erected on site and shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

5 No building on the site shall be demolished nor works carried out (except for those works specified the Method Statement dated 24 November 2004 by Capita Symonds) before evidence of a binding legal contract for the redevelopment of the site has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and before planning permission has been granted for such redevelopment.

In order to enhance the setting of the listed building.

6 Before the development is commenced full details of the proposed external works (including retention of existing stone flags, kerbs, steps, and cellar heads and reinstatement of the footways in Sheffield Slab and granite kerb) shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to enhance the setting of the listed buildings.

7 The development shall not be occupied unless the large rear windows to Flats 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been provided as shown on the drawings hereby approved, and such large rear windows shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

28 8 The ground floor commercial unit shall not at any time be used as a shop (Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987).

In order to protect shopping facilities within the Central Shopping Area in the city centre.

9 The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall:

(a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey, (b) Be capable of achieving the following noise levels: Bedrooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 35 dB (2300 to 0700 hours), Living Rooms: LAeq 15 minutes - 45 dB (0700 to 2300 hours), (c) Include a system of alternative acoustically treated ventilation to all habitable rooms.

Before the scheme of sound attenuation works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of amenities of the future residential occupiers of the building.

10 Before the use of the building for Food and Drink purposes (Use Class A4) is commenced a scheme of sound attenuation works shall have been installed and thereafter retained. Such a scheme of works shall:

(a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey, (b) Be capable of restricting noise breakout from the Use Class A4 use to the street to levels not exceeding: (i) the background noise levels by more than 1 dBA when measured as a 15 minute LAeq, (ii) any octave band centre frequency by more than 1 dB when measured as a 15 minute Leq, (c) Be capable of restricting noise breakout from the Class A4 use to the flats above to levels complying with the following: Bedrooms: Noise Rating Curve NR25 (2300 to 0700 hours), Living Rooms: Noise Rating Curve NR35 (0700 to 2300 hours), (These Noise Rating Curves should be achieved for every measurement period when measured as a 15 minute linear Leq at the octave band centre frequencies 31.5 kHz to 8 kHz).

Before such scheme of works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

29 In the interests of the amenities of the locality and of the residential occupiers of the building.

11 Before the use of the building for the purposes hereby permitted is commenced, written confirmation shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that the approved scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed in the building in full.

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

12 Before the use of the development is commenced a Validation Test of the sound attenuation works shall have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such Validation Test shall:

(a) Be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement, (b) Demonstrate that the specified noise levels have been achieved.

In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the sound attenuation works thus far approved, a further scheme of sound attenuation works capable of achieving the specified noise levels and recommended by an acoustic consultant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the development is commenced. Such further scheme of works shall be installed as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.

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

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

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

14 No amplified sound shall be played within the building except through an in- house amplified sound system fitted with a sound limiter, the settings of which shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

30 15 No movement, sorting, or removal of waste bottles, materials or other articles, nor movement of skips, shall be carried on outside the building within the site of the development between 2300 hours and 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 2300 to 0900 Hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

16 No deliveries to the building shall be carried out between the hours of 2300 to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 2300 to 0900 hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

17 The fire exit doors shall only be used as an emergency exit and shall not at any other time be left standing open.

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

18 All opening windows/shutters shall be kept closed between 2000 hours and 0700 hours, and shall not at any time be opened otherwise without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

19 The ground floor unit shall not be used except between 0900 hours and 0130 hours the following day on any day in accordance with the following:

(a) Between 0030 and 0130 hours the following day on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Sundays other than before Bank Holidays the unit shall not be used for any purpose (b) Between 0030 and 0130 hours the unit shall not be used for dancing (c) Between 0030 and 0130 hours no amplified sound shall be played in the unit without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority of the sound volume (d) After 2300 hours on each day, and until commencement of the operation on the following day, customers shall not enter or leave the ground floor unit unless through the door to Holly Street except in an emergency (e) The unit shall not be used for any purpose after 0030 hours after the expiry of a period of 1 year from the date of this permission.

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

31 20 Prior to the use commencing, full details of a system of fume extraction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This system shall provide a flue terminating 1 metre above the sixth floor window level and shall be fitted with a low resistance cowl.

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

21 The development shall not be used unless at least 25% of the residential accommodation has been provided with Mobility Housing facilities consisting of the following:

(a) Single doors giving 800 mm clear opening width, within a 900 mm structural opening, (b) Any double doors giving 800 mm clear opening width to each door leaf, all set within an 1800 mm structural opening (c) Staircases to ambulant disabled standards (d) Corridors 1200 mm wide (e) Easy access facilities to shower units for people using wheelchairs.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

22 The Food and Drink unit shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

To ensure ease of access for disabled persons at all times.

23 Before the development is commenced, details of Public Art work forming part of the development shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such Public Art work has been provided as approved and thereafter retained.

In order to enhance the development in line with the Council's public Art Scheme.

24 Before the development is commenced, a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Risk Assessment, to characterise the contamination on site and propose a remediation scheme to ensure safe redevelopment, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should any previously unsuspected contamination be encountered during the development, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified within one working day of its discovery, together with any proposed amendments to the proposed remediation scheme. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and the applicant shall provide written verification that the remediation has been completed as approved, within 21 days of the approved scheme being completed.

32 In the interests of the health and safety of the occupiers of the proposed development.

25 No development shall take place within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

To ensure that any archaeological remains present, whether standing or buried, are preserved - either by being left in situ or recorded and removed in accordance with an agreed method, before they are damaged or destroyed.

26 The development shall not be occupied unless the adjoining footways have been extended to 2m width minimum and marked on the ground in accordance with details, which shall have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

27 Before the development is commenced further details of cycle parking provision shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority, and the development shall not be used unless such cycle parking accommodation has been provided in accordance with such approved details which shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of sustainable transport.

28 Before the building is occupied a proposal to incorporate interpretive information about the history of the buildings within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved interpretive information shall be implemented on site within an agreed timescale.

In the interests of public amenity.

29 The new build part of the development shall not be occupied until Nos 23 and 27 Trippet Lane have been rebuilt and made ready for occupation.

In order to protect the original fabric of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

30 The outdoor seating area shall not be used except in accordance with the revised Method Statement dated 11 December 2010 forming part of this application.

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

33 Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

CS17 - City Centre Quarters CS27 - Housing in the City Centre IB6 - Development in Fringe Industry and Business Areas IB9 - Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas

As revised the proposal is not considered likely to detract from the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, and to be consistent with the objective of mixed use regeneration for this part of the city centre.

Considerable weight has been attached to the management of the outdoor seating area, to noise breakout and their likely impact upon city centre levels of residential amenity. This has been balanced with the promotion of mixed use regeneration.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The applicant is advised that condition No(s) 1-18 and 20-29 were imposed by planning permission No. 06/00412/FUL and are reproduced on this notice to provide you with a complete record of all conditions, regardless of whether some may have already been discharged.

2. You are reminded that Condition 14 of the existing permission, repeated in this permission, requires the prior submission for approval of sound limiter settings.

3. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

34 Site Location

INTRODUCTION

Members may recall that this application was reported to Committee on 17 January 2011 with a recommendation for approval. Members deferred it because Council officers from the late night service had visited the site late on Saturday night on 15th January and into Sunday morning of the 16th January and found noise breakout in breach of conditions attached to the original permission granted 2 May 2006 (App No 06/00412/FUL). The outdoor seating area was being used by stand- up drinkers at 0122 hours in breach of the Method Statement for its operation, which confirms no outdoor eating or drinking after 2230 hours. The Method Statement, which the applicant confirmed in writing, is not yet approved, but did form part of the recommendation for approval of this application.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This is a ground floor unit at the corner of Trippet Lane and Holly Street in a Grade 2 listed former metal trades building known as Anglo Works. The upper floors of the listed building are in use as student accommodation, as is a large 7 storey extension block behind.

The ground floor unit has recently re-opened as a bar and restaurant under a 2006 permission for the erection of the student accommodation and reconstruction of the listed building with a ground floor drinking establishment (Class A4). Condition 19

36 of this permission allowed the bar to open late until 0130 hours in the latter part of the week, but only for a 3 year trial period, which expired on 1 October 2010.

The proposal is to open permanently until 0130 hours on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays before Bank Holidays, and until 0030 hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Sundays other than before Bank holidays.

HISTORY

Prior to the redevelopment and refurbishment of the buildings, the site had a complex development history.

06/00412/FUL and 06/00437/LBC: The development was completed under a revised planning permission and listed building consent for the partial demolition, conversion and erection of a 7-storey building to form drinking establishment (Class A4) and accommodation for 87 persons in 13 shared flats (amended scheme). These were granted on 2 May 2006.

The student flats were first occupied on 1 October 2007.

07/02950/FUL: Planning permission was granted on 22 January 2008 for the use of the ground floor and basement as a Virtual Reality Sports Centre (Drinking Establishment Class A4, Restaurant/Café Class A3 and Assembly and Leisure Class D2) with Outdoor Seating Area. This was subject to a “use stated in the description only condition.” This use did commence but closed after a time.

REPRESENTATIONS

4 Objections received from West Point flats, Trippet Lane: (1) Already opening to 0130 hours at weekends, which means noisy until 0200 hours; (2) Increased noise since Alibi opened in May; (3) Noise from outdoor seating – laughing, shouting, screaming, car horns – while bar is open; (4) On Saturday 1.8.10 large group of drunken people at 0238 hours; (5) August Bank Holiday noisy until 0330-0400 hours; (6) Late noise outdoors as customers disperse, staff clear empty glasses and taxis pick up passengers; (7) Drinking in the street; (8) Have to close window to keep out noise – difficult in summer; (9) Do Alibi supervise their customers? (10) If approved will mean weekend noise and drunken behaviour until at least 0400 hours; (11) Alibi in breach of planning requirement for customers to leave via Holly Street after 2300 hours; (12) Outside furniture not removed overnight – fixed to wall; (13) Should close every night at 0030 hours; (14) Glut of noisy bars on Trippet Lane; (15) Masses of drunken people in early hours who fight, vomit, throw bottles, screech and chant near our flats; (16) Noisy bars should move away from residential flats.

2 Objections received from Broughton House flats on West Street/Holly Street: Additional comments: (17) Noise on Holly Street worse since Alibi took over; (18) Empty bottles and glasses left on Holly Street; (19) Work in Manchester and have to get up at 0600 hours every day, so need to sleep at night.

37 7 E-Mails in support: (20) Poor treatment of Alibi by Council; (21) Alibi one of top bars in UK; (22) Shorter hours and loss of outdoor seating will damage Sheffield’s culture and night life; (23) Bars bring money, jobs and good times; (24) Alibi is for all ages not just students; (25) Council should embrace the industry and not shut it down; (26) Alibi is professionally run; (27) Outdoor seating area is used mainly for smoking; (28) No sympathy for nearby residents who should know there will be noise at weekends, (29) No benefit in making outdoor customers stand up, (30) Area near Alibi is mainly offices and student accommodation.

Clarification requested by Green Party about rationale behind Condition 19(e), date of coming into force, and neighbour notification of Anglo House above the ground floor bar.

Support from Cllr J Creasy provided that: (31) Closing time of 0100 hours on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays before Bank Holidays; (32) Only Holly Street entrance is used after 2300 hours; (33) Outdoor Seating is used only until 2230 and furniture stored away by 2300 hours; (34) Fixed outdoor seating is removed in any case, as contrary to listed building legislation; (35) Noise from servicing, waste collection and deliveries is controlled.

ASSESSMENT

Land Use

Core Strategy Policy CS27 provides for a further expansion of city living with a mix of tenures and sizes of unit. In the vicinity of the site limited further housing is envisaged as needed as part of mixed use schemes to achieve a viable balance of uses.

The site is within the St Georges Quarter. Policy CS17 aims to consolidate and strengthen the St Georges Quarter as a mixed area that is an academic focus for the University of Sheffield, with complementary retail and business uses.

There are no Core Strategy polices guiding hours of opening for night time uses.

The site lies within a Fringe Industry and Business Area in the Unitary Development Plan. Policy IB6 lists Food and Drink (former Class A3) and Housing (Class C3) as acceptable uses. Policy IB9 requires that residents should not be made to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

The site is also within the City Centre Conservation Area. Policy BE16 requires development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.

The buildings are Grade 2 listed. Policy BE19 requires that development including external alterations should preserve the character and appearance of the building and its setting. The original use of the building will be preferred, but other uses will be considered where they would enable the future of the building to be secured.

The site lies within the St George’s Quarter in the adopted City Centre Living Strategy adopted 28 April 2004, whose recommended closing times were

38 superseded by the Interim Planning Guidelines on Night Time Uses adopted by Cabinet 26 October 2005. These identify the site as being outside the quiet zone in the Cathedral/Heart of the City Area where venues should close by 0030 hours.

However, Guideline 2 requires that Leisure and Food and Drink uses will only be allowed outside the quiet zone if (a) conditions for nearby residents and people working in the area will not be harmed by noise breakout, traffic, parking on nearby streets, odours, street noise, or general disturbance, (b) anti-social behaviour is unlikely, that would disturb nearby residents or people using the area, (c) neither parking of cars nor provision of signs, tables, chairs outside the premises is likely, that would impair safety or ease of movement of pedestrians and road users. In considering these criteria the Guidance requires that the cumulative harmful effect of existing leisure and entertainment uses be taken into account.

Under existing policy, the planning issue is whether noise breakout, street noise, general disturbance, and anti-social behaviour from the proposal are likely to detract materially from the residential amenity of nearby occupiers, taking into account cumulative impact of all venues in the vicinity.

Noise Breakout

Since the present occupiers re-opened the bar earlier this year complaints about noise breakout have been received from neighbours, and these have been confirmed by site inspection by Council officers. The applicant has accepted these criticisms, and states that improved management procedures have been put in place, including regular reminders in their operational review meetings. In particular, following discussions with the applicant, he has confirmed that further constructive action has been taken to rectify the situation:

(i) New door staff have been employed to enforce admissions policy. A representative of the new door staff company attends regular meetings with Police and Licensing Officers, which the previous company did not.

(ii) The Duty Manager has been dismissed, and a new manager appointed. Strict instructions have been given to the Operations Manager to adhere to the admissions policy.

(iii) No outdoor drinking is to be allowed at all.

(iv) Doors will now close to new customers 45 minutes before the time limit for the serving of alcohol.

(v) The Trippet Lane entrance will not be used after 2230 hours, when all access/egress will be via Holly Street.

(v) Both noise lobby doors and all windows are to be kept shut.

(vi) A sound limiter has been ordered for the music system.

39 The applicant points out that the new door staff company had already been appointed before the reported problems on 15/16 January, but did not commence work until 21 January.

The revised proposal confirms that in future acoustic lobby doors will be kept shut except when people are passing through, and the emergency exit to the cobbled area will only be used for emergency evacuation.

The applicant also proposes to fit a sound limiter to the PA system in the building in compliance with Condition 14 of the existing permission. This is welcome, but the settings should first be submitted for approval, as required by Condition 14.

The applicant wishes Members to know that for the last two weeks, the new policy has produced good results with “excellent feedback” from customers once again. Although they are turning away a lot of customers, they are keen to rebuild the reputation of the venue as one of “sophistication.”

The applicant also states that the final hour on Fridays and Saturdays are the busiest of the whole week, and without it the venue would be insolvent and have to close.

Overall, these measures are considered satisfactory.

Outdoor Seating Area

A Method Statement for the cobble sett area outside No 27 has been submitted as part of this revised proposal. As requested it confirms amongst other things that (i) its use will cease by 2230 hours and furniture will be cleared away and stored indoors, (ii) no stand-up drinking will be permitted, (iii) the behaviour of customers will be monitored by management including through CCTV, (iv) behaviour of customers on the perimeter footways who are smoking will be monitored by management.

These measures are welcome and if implemented should ensure that difficulties experienced earlier will cease.

Residential Amenity

Noise created in the street by customers entering and leaving the building remains a planning concern.

However, experience gained in the wake of the Licensing Act 2003 has generally confirmed that late opening until 0130 hours in the latter part of the week can maintain a balance between city centre levels of residential amenity and night time entertainment. The proposal is consistent with this approach.

Whilst the venue is close to residential flats, it is of modest size. Under previous management it proved possible to manage the venue effectively to limit street noise at closing time to reasonable levels compatible with its surrounding.

40 Trial Period

Whilst the applicant has applied for a permanent extension of hours, in light of the above, in this instance, a trial period of one year is recommended in order to test the proposal in practice.

Effect on Listed Building

The proposal has no effect upon the character of the listed building or the conservation area.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Objections (1) – (35): All generally relevant to the balance between night time venues and residential amenity; (35) Deliveries and Removal of waste covered by condition.

ENFORCEMENT

The unauthorised use of the cobbled sett area on Trippet Lane near No 27 as an outdoor seating area has ceased. The fixed timber seating, which was of a poor visual quality and had been fitted without listed building consent, has been removed.

Two large signs have been painted on the walls on Trippet Lane and Holly Street without advertisement or listed building consent. The applicant has been advised to remove the signs. This is being pursued separately.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to comply with Policy IB6 and IB9, and with the Interim Planning Guidelines on Night Time Uses. Considerable weight has been attached to the management of the outdoor seating area, to noise breakout and their likely impact upon city centre levels of residential amenity. This has been balanced with the promotion of mixed use regeneration.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant for a temporary trial period of one year subject to the recommended conditions.

Case Number 10/02077/FUL

Application Type A Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of retail superstore with car parking, petrol filling station, service and delivery areas, access roads and ancillary works and uses

Location Land To The South Of Arnold Lavers (Accessed From Roundabout On Oxclose Park Road) Sheffield 20

Date Received 02/07/2010

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Sigma Planning Services

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement such that its development as a supermarket would represent an inefficient use of land that would undermine the Council’s objective of maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable sites and a further supply of developable land contrary to Policy CS22 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy and Planning Policy Statement 3.

42 Site Location

43 LOCATION

This application relates to a 6.98 hectare piece of vacant land that presently comprises rough open grassland. The site is broadly rectangular and is situated directly to the north of modern residential properties on Ox Hill, to the east of new residential properties on Deepwell Drive and approximately 80 metres to the south of Arnold Laver Works with further residential properties situated to the north-west on Oxclose Park Way.

The site is set within the context of the Rother Valley, which runs to the east of the site and separates the urban areas of Halfway, Killamarsh and Eckington. It is presently characterised by open grassland and includes an area of Alder and Birch scrub towards the southern edge of the site and Birch woodland along the eastern periphery, where there is also a wetland area and an area of Willow and Alder. To the north-east of the application site, the established birch woodland has been designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). This SNCI is permeated by a number of public footpaths and is deemed to be an area of ecological value with a range of species evident.

The application site is historically part of a wider 9.98-hectare development site for which outline planning permission was granted in 1998 for residential, business and industrial development as well as a new link road between Deepwell Avenue and Oxclose Park Road North. A ‘reserved matters’ application was subsequently approved in 2001, granting detailed consent for the houses that now form the properties on Oxclose Park Road, Oxclose Park View and Oxclose Park Rise as well as approval for new industrial and business development on the remaining land situated to the south of Arnold Lavers, to the north of Ox Hill and to the west of Oxclose Park Rise. Clearly, this mix of industrial and business units were not constructed as part of this land now forms the application site. The remaining land, which comprises a 1.8 hectare plot to the north-west and 1.2 hectare site to the north, is yet to be developed and is excluded from the application site.

The immediate area surrounding the application site is primarily residential, comprising the houses on Ox Hill, Deepwell Avenue, Deepwell Drive and Deepwell Mews to the south and east and those on Oxclose Park Way to the north-west. Also to the west, within the residential estate, lies a green space that is known as Heathlands. This space, which provides a green connection to Rotherham Road, comprises a programme of works to be undertaken by the Council to deliver a pocket park, an area of open grassland and associated greenspace as part of the development of the wider Deepwell estate. Further to the north lies the more industrial character of Arnold Lavers and associated buildings. The existing Morrison’s superstore on Oxclose Park Road North, which has a sales area of 4182 square metres, lies approximately 300 metres from the application (as a direct line route).

Topographically, there is a significant change in level across the site, which rises to a high point in the south-west corner (nearest to Deepwell Avenue) with the lowest level to the north-east, comprising a slope of approximately 16-20 metres from south-west to north-east. The site is presently used informally for public recreation with the permission of the landowner.

The nearest means of vehicular access to the application site is from Deepwell Drive, in the south west corner of the site, where an access road has been constructed to provide access to the houses on Deepwell Mews with a turning head at the boundary of the site. This was built pending the future re-development of the site, which included the construction of an access road as outlined above. A pedestrian footpath runs along the southern boundary, to the rear of properties on Ox Hill, which provides a connection to the wider footpath network from east to west.

PROPOSAL

This application proposes the construction of a new retail superstore with a gross external floorspace of 8254 square metres and a net sales area of 5364 square metres. The applicant has advised that the store will primarily sell food (convenience goods), which will extend to approximately 3048 square metres of the net sales area (56% of floorspace) as well as 2315 square metres (44% of net floorspace) of non-food products (comparison goods) such as toiletries and household products as well as clothing, books, CDs and DVDs, homewares and electrical products.

The application also includes the construction of a car park with accommodation for 503 vehicles (revised from 519 originally proposed) and 72 cycles, a petrol filling station with six pumps and an 80 square metre retail kiosk, a detailed landscape scheme around the boundary of the site and the construction of a new vehicular access.

The retail store is positioned towards the southern boundary of the application site with the rear (southern) elevation of the store at a minimum distance of 51 metres from the rear boundary of residential properties on Ox Hill. The western elevation of the supermarket is sited at a distance of 43 metres from the flank wall of the nearest properties on Deepwell Mews.

The proposed store is a single storey structure extending to a main building height of 9.2 metres. The main store is rectangular in form and extends to 102 metres in length and 70 metres in depth. However, to the southern elevation, the length of the store extends by a further 36.8 metres to accommodate the servicing and delivery facility. This section of the store is lower than the main building, extending to a height of 5.4 metres for 15.6 metres of this section of the building and then reducing further to 4.6 metres for the remaining length. As part of the revised submission dated 18th January 2011, it is now proposed that part of the service yard be covered such that the height of the structure over the service yard now extends to 6.8 metres above ground level.

Architecturally, the proposed supermarket represents the applicant’s ‘Environmental Format’ store. Accordingly, the building is of timber frame construction and is primarily built in timber cladding and glazing.

To the primary northern elevation, facing the car park, the store is fully glazed. It incorporates a 7.4 metre deep projecting timber canopy to provide some solar

45 shading and also includes a projecting main entrance, which is 7 metres deep and 13 metres wide. The entrance is partially glazed with the remaining structure constructed in larch cladding. The east elevation (to the service yard) comprises a light grey cladding to the lower level with larch cladding above and a row of clerestory type windows to the eaves level. This is replicated to the west elevation albeit with a narrower grey clad plinth to this elevation. The south elevation (rear) incorporates a narrow grey cladding plinth with larch cladding and high level glazing to only part of the elevation at the south-east corner of the store.

The roof of the store is constructed with a ply membrane roofing system that incorporates twelve six metre square roof lights to provide natural daylight to the sales floor. The roof also comprises twelve wind catchers to allow warm air to escape and cool air to enter the store as appropriate as well as sun pipes to provide additional daylight into the back room offices.

The petrol filling station, which is situated in the north-west corner of the site, comprises an 80 square metre single storey kiosk building that extends to a height of 3.4 metres. The kiosk is constructed in a combination of grey composite cladding and larch timber cladding. A 5.5 metre high aluminium canopy covers both the kiosk and the six pumps.

As a consequence of the sloping topography of the existing site, this application proposes an extensive cut and fill exercise and a change in levels to accommodate the store. A flat plateau will be created within the site by removing material from the highest point in the south-west corner of the site (nearest to Deepwell Drive) and filling the lowest level, in the north-east corner. Accordingly, land levels across the site will change significantly. For example, at the south-west corner of the store, the existing land level will be reduced by a maximum of approximately 6 metres as the store is built into the land. Opposite the flank wall to 12 Deepwell Mews, the site will be excavated by a maximum depth of approximately 8 metres such that the ground floor level of this property is at the eaves level of the store. To Ox Hill, the site will be excavated such that in relation to the property at 7 Ox Hill, the roof of the store is at the equivalent of the first floor level of the property. By comparison, the north-east corner of the car park will sit at a level that is 11 metres above the existing land level.

As a consequence of the cut and fill strategy, a strong retaining wall is proposed around the edge of store and car park, which varies in height from 5 metres at the south-west corner of the store to up to 8 metres at the edge of the car park at the north-east corner of the site, adjacent to the existing woodland.

The application includes a landscape strategy around the store:

To the southern boundary the application seeks to retain the majority of the strip of Alder and Birch woodland that lies almost centrally between the boundary of the site and the footpath to the rear of properties on Ox Hill with the exception of approximately 11 trees on the south-west corner, which will be removed and replaced with new planting. At this part of the site, the 5-metre retaining wall lies approximately 2.6 metres from the edge of the store such that it is proposed to introduce new tree planting adjacent to the retaining wall, effectively between the

46 store and the existing vegetation. Further tree planting is proposed to the north of the footpath that runs to the rear of Ox Hill.

To the eastern boundary, adjacent to the SNCI, it is proposed to remove a small area of existing vegetation at the south-east corner of the site and on the eastern edge. This extends to approximately 9 trees and surrounding vegetation to accommodate the construction works. However, further new tree planting is proposed along this boundary comprising a variety of native semi-mature tree species. The land slopes away from the application site and the cut and fill exercise will result in a retaining wall along this edge, which is intended as a vegetated crib wall. The additional tree planting is proposed adjacent to the retaining wall as the land slopes down to the existing vegetation. The remaining area within the application site will be planted with a wildflower meadow mix with some additional under-storey planting beneath the tree canopies to the north-east corner.

Along the western boundary, between the edge of the retaining wall that is sited adjacent to the proposed store and car park and the proposed link road, a narrow landscaped strip is proposed. This extends to a depth of between 10 metres at the narrowest point adjacent to the pedestrian access route to a maximum depth of 25 metres. It is intended as a wildlife corridor route to connect to the adjacent Heathland’s project. This area will be planted with a mixture of native semi-mature tree planting adjacent to the retaining wall within the widest part of this landscaped strip with more formal tree planting as the landscape strip. A wildflower mix will again be incorporated beneath the tree canopy.

To the northern boundary, adjacent to the petrol filling station and access road, a further landscape strip is proposed at an average depth of approximately 10 metres. This will comprise some native shrub planting and some native semi- mature tree planting.

In addition, within the car park, small areas of ornamental shrub planting are proposed at the entrance to the site with 37 trees also proposed within the car park.

Vehicular access to the site is achieved via the construction of a new link road from the existing Oxclose Road North and Oxclose Park Way roundabout to a new roundabout to be constructed at the entrance to the site with the vehicular entrance to the store from the eastern arm of the roundabout. The southern arm of this new roundabout will continue via a further extension to the link road, which will then connect into the partially constructed access road from Deepwell Drive, which presently provides access onto Deepwell Avenue. The link road between the new roundabout and Deepwell Avenue will be a bus only route to provide a public transport link only rather than a through route for general traffic. As part of the revised plans submitted in January 2011, the previously proposed on-site bus turning facility has been replaced with a bus stop on the link road by the pedestrian entrance.

Pedestrian access to the site is primarily achieved from the western boundary of the site (from the new link road) via a series of steps or via a ramp, which

47 comprises a shared pedestrian/cycle link. Two further pedestrian routes are provided through the car park from the bus drop-off area, which lies adjacent to the petrol filling station.

The application was determined to require an Environmental Impact Assessment such that the application is supported by the relevant EIA submission documents.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The most relevant planning history is summarised below:

01/10219/REM: Residential, Industrial (Use Class B2) and Business (Use Class B1) Development (Amended Scheme). Approved: 10.04.2005

This reserved matters application was submitted following the granting of outline approval in accordance with 98/0844P. The residential element of this consent comprises Oxclose Park Way and Oxclose Park View, which was constructed by David Wilson Homes Ltd. The industrial and business component was not completed. It also included details of the link road between Oxclose Park Road and Deepwell Drive/Avenue, as proposed in this application, which incorporated a bus gate.

00/00137/REM (9A/0006P): Provision of road access and services for future industrial development. Approved: 30.03.2000

This application related to the construction of a link road from the roundabout adjacent to Morrisons to the bus turning area at Deepwell Avenue. Clearly, the section of this road at the southern end (as now proposed) was not completed.

99/0888P: Residential development Approved: 15.03.2001

This consent comprised a reserved matters application for the residential development on the corner of Rotherham Road and Station Road (off James Walton Drive)

98/0844P: Residential, business and industrial development Approved: 19.11.1998

This is the original outline planning consent for the re-development of the site.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The application was advertised by means of a press notice (Sheffield Telegraph on 15th July 2010) and site notices (as a major development and as a departure from the Unitary Development Plan) as well as by direct neighbour notification.

48 A total of 182 representations have been received from the public consultation exercise comprising 157 objections to the scheme, 17 letters of support and 8 letters providing comment only.

Of the 157 objections to the scheme, 88% were from the S20 postcode area with the remaining objections from a variety of postcodes across the City and beyond. Of the 15 letters of support, 93% are from the S20 postcode.

A further 6 letters were submitted without an address of which four raised objections to the scheme with the remaining 2 letters comprising comments.

In addition, a further ‘petition’ was received on 11th February comprising 785 signatures from the A.I.M (Action in Mosborough) Stop Tesco Group.

Letters of objection

The primary grounds for objection to the proposed development were broadly consistent across the representations received and are summarised below:

Traffic

- Traffic congestion in the local area is already severe, particularly in the mornings, evenings and weekends and another large superstore will increase traffic congestion, air and noise pollution; - The scheme will result in a significant increase in traffic on the quiet estate roads that will endanger children playing on the estate and add to noise pollution; - A new bus route in the area is not necessary and the current buses travelling to Morrisons could be used for this purpose; a bus route would create safety problems for children playing on the estate; - Traffic already speeds on Deepwell Avenue and it requires traffic calming or a lower speed limit as additional traffic will add to the problem, particularly as residents of Deepwell Avenue seem to park their cars on the road, which creates an additional traffic hazard; - The development should not be allowed without the roads being improved as the area is log-jammed at peak periods; - The proposed local bus gates will not be enforced properly and Deepwell Avenue will become a rat-run; - The link road should be scrapped – no need for a bus as residents can walk up to Rotherham Road; - Further investigations should be undertaken on Rotherham Road as it has a high volume of traffic without the extra volume created by Tesco traffic; - The roundabout at Oxclose Park Road North will need to be altered as it is already dangerous because cars presently enter the roundabout without stopping and the addition of a further exit will make matters worse; - To access Halfway Junior and Infant School, parents have to cross Rotherham Road, which is already very busy with limited crossings, which will be made worse by the proposed development;

49 - Concern about the build-up of traffic on the access road, creating problems for residents accessing the Oxclose Park Estate; another access road from either the Deepwell Estate or Station Road might alleviate some of the traffic.

Retail Issues

- Detrimental impact on smaller shops in local areas in Eckington, Halfway, Mosborough, Killamarsh and Beighton as well as Crystal Peaks; - There is no need for another supermarket in this location; there is an established supermarket in place and more than enough to serve the local community; - Not necessary for a conglomerate business to build as many shops as they can in one City to increase their profits – should encourage a return to local businesses to give local areas the community feel; - There is no benefit to local people and the area is already well served by supermarkets and the net impact will only be negative; - There is no evidence that this out of centre store is required – there are a number of similar sites (Old Westfield Campus) in the local area that are sufficiently away from residential areas to not cause objection; - The scheme will have a dramatic effect on local shopkeepers considering the large range of white goods that Tesco stock; - There are already two superstores in the area as well as Crystal Peaks and the Drakehouse Retail Park so there is no need for the development; - The residents are not against Tesco in principle but consider that the store will have a detrimental impact on many peoples’ lives as a result of where they want to build.

Design and Layout

- Large unsightly building; - Why does the store have to be positioned in such close proximity to housing when it could be located nearer to Lavers – the store could be switched by 180 degrees? - The height of the building will interfere with the skyline.

Noise Pollution

- The proposed 24 hour store would increase the amount of noise for residents; if Tesco open 24/7, no doubt Morrison’s will apply to do the same? - The store should not be allowed to open on a 24 hour basis; - The service yard will cause noise pollution to the area 24 hours a day and it is sited towards residential properties; - Concern about noise from the plant room, which will operate 24/7; - Concern about noise from air conditioning units, delivery vehicles, fork lift trucks etc; - The construction process will be disruptive to the local environment; - Concern about the extra noise created by buses and lorries;

50 - Noise and vibration sensors should be located on Rotherham Road and Eckington Way as well as the application site to monitor the ‘ambient’ noise and vibration caused by current traffic levels as without it, residents will continue to suffer from noise pollution.

Light pollution

- The proposed 8 metre light towers would affect both the residents and the wildlife in the area, particularly in the autumn/winter months.

Air pollution

- The increase in traffic will result in increased air pollution and degrade air quality in the surrounding area.

Land Use issues

- It would be more beneficial to use the land for residential purposes as this would be in line with the current development and would satisfy the demand for housing in the area; - The area is a very desirable Green Belt and residents do not want to look at an elevated supermarket; - Light industrial or residential use would be preferable on this site as it would be more sympathetic to the existing landscape and wildlife and, apart from peak hours, have a lesser impact on traffic.

Ecology

- Adverse impact on the local wildlife in the surrounding areas; - The supermarket will be on a Greenfield site, which no doubt contains high levels of bio-diversity; whist a wildlife corridor is proposed, such wildlife will clearly be disturbed by machinery; - The scheme will endanger wildlife; - The site will decimate the biosphere in the area such that it will be unlikely to recover. Wildlife tunnels are not considered viable and would represent a danger to children; the store will also be affecting the fauna on which the bats in the area depend upon; - It would be a shame to see the natural environment spoilt by future development.

Employment issues

- In terms of new jobs, there will just be a shift from Morrisons to Tesco rather than new jobs per se; - The store will not create the local jobs as claimed as the management team will be brought in from existing stores and the jobs they create will be mostly part time.

51 Other issues

- The development will impact on house prices; - The store will spoil the last piece of green land; - The development will significantly increase carbon dioxide output through the store itself and by queuing traffic; - The resident only purchased their house because they were advised that this land would either be developed as small business units or houses, which is why they chose it as a safe place to live. The proposed retail store is a breach of that understanding.

Letters of support

The primary grounds for support of the proposed development are summarised below:

Retail issues

- The development will give shoppers a much broader choice of outlets; - Competition in the food industry can only benefit the general public; - Residents currently have to travel 8 miles to Tesco and would welcome a store locally; - Competition is healthy and may encourage the management at Crystal Peaks to focus on securing ‘big name’ retailers to join their development as they have already done with Next, Clarkes and WHSmith; little incentive for the resident to visit Crystal Peaks at present and would rather visit the City Centre or Meadowhall.

Employment

- The development will increase employment opportunities; - The scheme will increase jobs in the area at a difficult time.

Land Use issues

- Halfway is becoming overfull with housing; - Far more attractive proposition than industrial or housing; - Benefits of convenience and competition.

Traffic

- Having a Tesco store would generate practically no additional traffic as there is only so much produce that would be bought by people already making purchases; - No objection as long as Deepwell Avenue is not used for construction traffic and it is not used as a back access for customer traffic or deliveries.

52 Design

- The store is attractive to look at and is environmentally friendly;

Letters of comment

The representations expressing a comment raise the following issues:

- Whilst the resident would rather the site is not developed, the Tesco proposal is the ‘least bad’ option. However, there are still major concerns about the bus gate and the need for a bus service through the Deepwell Estate; - Resident questions the need for a bus link through the Deepwell Estate and considers that this will quickly become a rat run; - No objection subject to a proper road infrastructure and the changing of road markings in order for traffic driving towards Eckington to have a free flow; - Can the Council ensure that construction only occurs during normal working hours?

Other issues

- The wildlife corridor will not mitigate the impact on wildlife. - Will there be any community benefits (Section 106) arising from this development? - Can the Council condition dust management procedures? - No provision shown for renewable energy? - Little community consideration regarding the new access through Deepwell Avenue; - A secondary entrance off Station Road would be best for the store; - An additional supermarket in the area will address the issue of Morrisons being overcrowded; there is often a queue into the petrol station, which will be addressed by having a second petrol station at Tesco.

Additional Representations

In addition, the following representations have been received:

(i) An objection has been received on behalf of WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC (Morrisons) to object to the proposed development. With regard to planning policy, they argue that given the site’s allocation for housing development within the Sheffield Development Framework Draft City Sites and Policies Document, it is considered important to maintain potential housing sites in order to meet the 5-year requirements of the Growth Point target such that the site should be retained to meet the housing requirements set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy but also within the Adopted SDF Core Strategy.

With regard to the Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) Sequential Approach, as set out within the submitted Retail Assessment, whilst Morrisons accept that there

53 are no available, suitable and viable sites, this does not, in their view, provide justification for the development of 8254 square metres gross of retail floorspace in an out of centre location.

In response to the submitted Impact Assessment, which also forms part of the PPS4 document, the objection refers to the Sheffield Retail Study, which identifies that there is no need for additional large scale foodstore developments in the area and that any qualitative deficiencies linked to the overtrading of the Morrisons store should be located within the District Centre. Peacock and Smith consider that the Morrisons store currently serves the need of the local population and a further superstore would likely attract trade from not only the centres in the local area, but also further afield. They also state that the level of overtrading at their Halfway store (in quantative terms) is not sufficient to support a new superstore and it may be more beneficial to provide qualitative improvements to the existing Morrisons store, which would have less impact on the District Centre.

In summary, Morrisons consider that the new store will draw trade away from established centres, to the detriment of their vitality and viability and consider that the site should be retained for housing as proposed within the SDF Draft City Sites and Policies document.

(ii) An objection has been received on behalf of Hermes Real Estate, who owns the Crystal Peaks shopping centre, principally because they consider it to contravene PPS4 on the following grounds:

The scheme would have a detrimental impact on future investment in the catchment area including proposals to bring forward further retail floorspace at Waterthorpe Greenway (Note: the Council has advised that this land will not be released for sale). The cumulative effect of further competing provision at Oxclose Park will not contribute to the on-going vitality and viability of the Crystal Peaks District Centre and will have a commercial impact upon the future delivery of this site.

Hermes would question the approach adopted by the applicant in the Retail Assessment in terms of likely trade diversion. Hermes consider that the vitality and viability of the Crystal Peaks District Centre would be adversely affected as significant trade will be diverted from the Sainsbury store, which acts as an important anchor for Crystal Peaks and underpins its retail offer. A reduction in trade for Sainsbury’s will have a detrimental knock on effect on the remainder of the centre through reduced footfall and linked trips.

The Sheffield Retail Study indicates that Crystal Peaks has 16% vacant units, which is higher than both the District Centre average (10%) and the National Average (11%), which indicates that the centre is showing signs of vulnerability and a new store could impact further on the number of vacancies and future occupation.

Hermes has a number of concerns regarding the submitted retail assessment. Firstly, it is unclear how the 2016 pre-impact turnover figures have been derived for a number of retail destinations within the catchment area. Hermes also considers

54 that the strong trading performance of the existing facilities has been overstated. The latest trading information (Verdict Grocery Retail 2010) suggests that the store is trading at broadly expected levels rather than overtrading as the applicant suggests.

Hermes question the anticipated levels of trade diversion set out in the Retail Assessment and consider that this has been underestimated and does not reflect current shopping patterns.

The proposals will not help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as the access to the site by means other than the car is poor.

Hermes conclude that the Tesco scheme will result in a reduction in trade at the Sainsbury’s store and comparison goods shopping in general at Crystal Peaks District Centre; Hermes consider that this will lead to a reduction in linked trips and footfall at the centre, which, given the above average vacancy rates, would lead to further vacancies and result in a loss of consumer choice and confidence. Cumulatively, this would lead to significant adverse impacts on the District Centre, which would warrant the refusal of this application.

(iii) A letter has been received from Sainsbury’s Supermarket to object to the development. Sainsbury’s have had sight of the above response from Hermes and consider that the proposal will lead to significant adverse impacts at the Crystal Peaks District Centre. Sainsbury’s therefore conclude that the development would be contrary to national and local planning policy and should therefore be refused.

(iv) Derbyshire County Council has made the following representations:

Derbyshire County Council consider that the application proposals for the foodstore would not be in accordance with a number of key requirements of Government policy for retail developments in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

They consider the methodology, assumptions and data applied in the Retail Impact Assessment to be robust and provide an appropriate analysis of the key technical issues, particularly the likely impact and trade draw of the proposed store. They also consider the catchment area/study area to be appropriate.

However, Derbyshire County Council determines that the proposal is contrary to the principles of the plan-led approach set out within the Core Strategy. They note that at no time in the preparation of the Core Strategy did the owner of the site or applicant seek to promote the site for retail development. It was previously considered suitable for business and industrial development in the draft Core Strategy and then following representations made by the owner of the site and the recommendation of the Inspector at the Examination-in-Public, it was identified as being suitable for residential uses. The on-going preparation of the City’s Policies and Sites DPD identifies the site as being suitable for housing development.

Derbyshire CC highlight that the most up to date supporting retail evidence base - the Sheffield Retail Study - concludes that there is a localised quantitative need for

55 new convenience retailing in the area which should be met by new modest scale retail development within a district shopping centre in the area. Paragraph 8.40 of that document states that this is ‘not sufficient to provide for a large new foodstore in the locality’;

In terms of location and the sequential test, Derbyshire CC consider that although there are no sequentially preferable sites available in the catchment area, the proposed site is not in the most sustainable location as it is not within or on the edge of a town or district centre. It is in an out-of-centre location remote from any town or district centre and is the least preferable location in the sequential test. In its proposed location, the store would have no potential to provide for any linked shopping trips on foot between the store and any other centre in the area or any associated spin-off benefits for other businesses, which would be likely to occur with a more appropriately located town centre or edge-of-centre site;

In terms of retail impact, Derbyshire CC considers that the proposed store would divert significant amounts of trade from Eckington and Killamarsh town centres in Derbyshire. Whilst they consider that it would be difficult to argue that the levels of trade diversion would be likely to undermine the vitality and viability of these centres, the trading impact overall would be negative on these centres and do little to positively enhance the health of these centres. In this respect, the out-of-centre location of the store would have none of the advantages and positive benefits of an in-centre or edge-of-centre store in generating linked shopping trips and spin-off benefits for other town centre businesses;

In terms of accessibility, the store would be relatively well served by public transport and facilitate some pedestrian accessibility from nearby areas of housing development. Nevertheless, in its proposed out-of-centre location remote from any shopping centre, the store would be accessed predominantly by private car and would not have the levels of accessibility to all modes of transport which would be likely with an in-centre or edge-of-centre location;

In terms of wider impacts, Derbyshire CC consider that this area of Sheffield is not regarded as having high levels of environmental, economic or social deprivation that exist in other parts of the city. The site is currently rough open grassland that has some informal recreational value. The vast majority of the surrounding area is made up of large areas of residential development, particularly more recent and modern private market housing. It is not an area with high levels of housing deprivation. In terms of social inclusion, the area is already served by an existing Morrison’s superstore approximately 400 metres away and a large Sainsbury’s foodstore at the Crystal Peaks shopping centre. Local residents therefore already have access to a good level of main food shopping in the local area. Overall there are considered to be no overriding benefits of the proposed site in terms of meeting any environmental, economic or social deprivation problems in the locality, which would balance in its favour given the negative impacts of the store outlined above.

(v) South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has provided the following comments on the proposal:

56 - Mitigation measures need to be in place to ensure that this development does not become car dependent because the store entrance is in excess of 400m from a bus stop; - Initial discussions with a bus operator have taken place, who has indicated that a service diversion from Rotherham Road could be provided subject to further discussion and to identify a suitable level of service for this development; - SYPTE welcome the bus turning circle within the car park, which will ensure that there is a viable travel alternative to the private car; - The proposed link road between Oxclose Park Road and Deepwell Avenue (beyond the store entrance) needs to be kept car free in order to prevent ‘rat-running’ through the estate and to ensure that bus services can keep to the schedule timetable; - Bus stops should be sited on the bus only link road; - The stepped entrance to the store should be kept as free from landscaping as possible to ensure that the pedestrian entrance is as clear and well lit as possible; - SYPTE recommend that the applicant is required to install a real time display screen in the store, with up to date information on bus services; - SYPTE are concerned about the location of the petrol filling station in terms of creating queues onto the link road, which might block the flow of traffic onto Oxclose Park Road.

The following statutory responses have been received:

Natural England raises no objection to the proposal. They consider the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to be an accurate reflection of the visual impacts likely to be experienced by nearby receptors following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the form of extensive landscape planting. With regard to Ecology, Natural England are satisfied with the ecological assessment and recommend that the Local Planning Authority consider the use of planning conditions to ensure that the ecological enhancement referred to in the Environmental Statement ecology chapter are delivered. Finally, Natural England recommends that a management plan be established to ensure that the ecological enhancements remain of value to wildlife in the future and that consideration is given to the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage.

The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to surface water run-off and details of drainage.

Finally, the Sheffield Sustainable Development Design Panel reviewed the proposal on 26th August 2010. The Panel provided the following comments:

The Panel agreed that further information was necessary to support the decision of where the building was located on the site, together with how far it was cut into the slope. Whilst the assessment on the construction zone was noted, the Panel had some misgivings about the true impact of these works on the surrounding landscape and the valley. The layout also needed to demonstrate that the left over land was useable. The position of the building also resulted in the introduction of a

57 large retaining wall, which presented a design challenge both visually and in terms of promoting accessibility to the site.

The Panel considered that the proposed landscape works needed to enhance the existing environment, respond to the context and integrate the site into an overwhelmingly green valley. There was strong agreement that more needed to be done to achieve this, to mitigate the impact caused by site development and associated earthworks. The proposal to introduce a natural landscape strip along the western edge of the site was noted, but the Panel had some reservations about how successful this would be. There was some concern that this would inevitably take some time to establish, and prove difficult to maintain, and the consensus was there may be pressure to provide a more instantly attractive and clean boundary along this part of the site.

The car park was of particular concern, due to the extent of the surface area and the fact that it would be highly visible from numerous locations around the valley. Whilst the strategy for marking the pedestrian walkways with trees was understood, the net result was that a large amount of the car park was left exposed with only a minimal amount of planting. The Panel felt that this needed further consideration in order to respond to the location and to provide a proper green setting for the building.

With regard to sustainability, the intention to meet BREEAM Very Good was recognised, but the Panel urged the design team to go further, given the green aspirations for the building. The Panel welcomed the extent of glazing and natural light, together with the natural ventilation and exposed timber construction. The large expanse of car parking, however, was felt to be a missed opportunity and the Panel felt that consideration needed to be given to the surfacing and drainage of the car park.

With reference to the building’s architecture and elevational treatment the Panel welcomed the proposal to introduce a lightweight, timber framed building, together with full height glazing to the front elevation and clerestory glazing to the sides. This was considered a positive step, which would prove a key asset in ensuring that the internal shopping environment was bright and welcoming. The siting of the building into the hill, coupled with the surrounding topography resulted in the roof being visible at eye level, and consequently becoming the fifth elevation for the proposal. The Panel considered that the choice of material, articulation and detailing of the roof needed to respond to this. Further information was needed to make an adequate assessment of the visual impact of the roof from a range of vantage points. It was also noted that signage had not been included within the visual material presented, and the Panel commented that the size, scale and visibility of these elements needed to complement the architecture being presented.

Finally, with regard to access, the Panel remained unconvinced about the access arrangements for the scheme. It was determined that the location of the bus stop, pedestrian links to the surrounding housing and circulation within the site would benefit from further consideration.

58 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

This application proposes the construction of a new retail superstore on land to the south of the Arnold Lavers site and the north and west of residential development within the Deepwell Avenue and Oxclose Park Way estates to deliver a superstore with a gross external floorspace of 8254 square metres and a net sales area of 5364 square metres. It also proposes the construction of a petrol filling station, a new link road and associated highway works, a car park to accommodate 503 vehicles and external landscaping.

The key issues to consider in the determination of this application include the following: a) The principle of development: Policy and Land Use including housing land supply; b) Retail Policy issues; c) Design and external appearance; d) Highways and Access; e) Landscaping; f) Air Quality; g) Accessibility; h) Flood Risk; i) Ecology; j) Sustainability.

The Council is also required to consider any representations received as a result of the public consultation exercise.

Policy and Land Use

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The application must be assessed against current national and local planning policies, the latter being set out within the saved policies within the Unitary Development Plan and more up-to-date policies within the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Core Strategy.

Policy IB5 of the UDP relates to development in General Industry Areas and advises that General Industry (Use Class B2) and Warehousing (Class B8) are the preferred uses. A number of other uses are also deemed acceptable, including

59 small shops (Use Class A1), food and drink outlets (Use Class A3-A5), and business (Use Class B1) uses. This application proposes large-scale retail and is therefore contrary to the principles of Policy IB5. In this regard, the application has been advertised as a Departure from the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy IB7 of the UDP relates to development in Business Areas and determines that Business (B1) is preferred but a range of other uses are acceptable including small shops (A1). Once again, this application proposes large-scale retail and is therefore contrary to the principles of Policy IB5 although it is noted that Planning Policy Statement 4, which is considered below, principally guides retail policy.

With regard to open space, Policies LR4 and LR5 of the UDP have effectively been superseded by relevant policies within the SDF Core Strategy.

Policy CS45 of the Core Strategy advises that the safeguarding and improvement of open space will take priority over the creation of new areas. The application boundary incorporates an area of designated open space between the southern elevation of the store and the rear of properties on Ox Hill. No physical development is proposed on this part of the site and in this regard, it is broadly retained such that the proposal is not considered contrary to Policy CS45.

Policy CS46 of the Core Strategy relates to the quantity of open space and advises that as opportunities arise, new open space will be created where (a) a quantitative shortage of open space per head of population is identified in the local area or (b) where it is required for extending the City’s Green Network. It is relevant to note that in gathering the supporting evidence for Policy CS46, it was necessary to evaluate the parts of the City where the Council should be aiming to increase open space provision because there is a local shortage and Halfway is identified as one such neighbourhood. However, Policy CS46 seeks to create open space as opportunities arise such that this application is not contrary to the Policy per se as the opportunity does not arise in this instance.

Policy CS47 of the Core Strategy seeks to safeguard open space and determines that development of open space will not be permitted under the following circumstances where:

(a) It would result in a quantitative shortage of either informal or formal open space in the local area; or (b) It would result in the loss of open space that is of high quality or of heritage, landscape or ecological value; or (c) People in the local area would be denied easy or safe access to a local park or to smaller informal open space that is valued or well used by people living or working in the local area; or (d) It would cause or increase a break in the city’s Green Network.

In this case, as noted above, only a small part of the site towards the southern boundary is allocated as open space and no built development is proposed on this part of the site. Furthermore, although designated in the UDP as open space, it is not included within the Council’s open space audit as it is a more informal area of open space that is accessible to the public only with the landowner’s permission

60 and primarily has the function of a green corridor. The proposed development will not, therefore, result in the loss of open space such that it is not contrary to Policy CS47 (a).

With regard to Policy CS47 (b) relating to the loss of open space that is of a landscape or ecological value, as noted in the proposal above, this application proposes to strengthen and enhance the level of planting along the southern boundary of the store such that the proposal is not contrary to Policy CS47 (b).

Although acknowledging that the application site is presently used for informal recreation by people in the local area, access is permitted only with the landowner’s permission such that the development will not deny local residents easy or safe access to a local park, particularly following completion of the Heathlands project, which will provide residents locally with a pocket park, an area of open grassland and associated greenspace. As a result, the proposal is not considered contrary to Policy CS47(c).

It is noted that within the SDF Draft Proposal Map, the application severs a proposed green link between the SNCI and land to the west around the Heathlands project. However the Proposals Map presently has no weight for the purpose of Development Management. It is also noted that the application does seek to enhance planting to the southern boundary to continue the site’s function as a green wildlife corridor. As a result, there are insufficient grounds at this time to maintain that the proposed development is contrary to Policy CS47 (d).

Housing Land Supply

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. Paragraph 7 of PPS3 confirms that Local Planning Authorities need to assess and demonstrate the extent to which existing plans already fulfil the requirements set out in PPS3 to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

Paragraph 53 of PPS3 relates to the delivery of a flexible supply of land for housing. It confirms that Local Planning Authorities should identify broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption (of the Local Development Document, which in this case is the SDF Core Strategy March 2009). Paragraph 54 confirms that drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and/or other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities should identify specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. To be considered deliverable, the sites should be available now, suitable as a location for development and able to contribute to the creation of sustainable mixed communities and achievable, such that there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered within the next five years.

Paragraph 55 confirms that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years

61 11-15. It states that where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11- 15, broad locations for future growth should be indicated.

Finally, Paragraph 60 of PPS3 relates to maintaining a flexible, responsive supply of land and confirms that, to ensure that there is a continuous five year supply of deliverable land available for housing, Local Planning Authorities should monitor the supply of deliverable sites on an annual basis, linked to the Annual Monitoring Report review process.

With regard to local policy, Policy CS22 of the SDF Core Strategy confirms the requirement for new housing over the period 2004/5 to 2007/08 (an average of 1,025 net additional dwellings per year) and 2008/09 to 2025/26 (an average of 1,425 net additional dwellings per year). In addition, it states that sufficient sites will be allocated to meet the housing requirement to at least 2020/21 and a 5-year supply of deliverable sites will be maintained at all times. Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy relates to housing in Greenfield sites in the period 2025/26 and advises that no more than 12% of completions will be on Greenfield sites in the period between 2004/5 and 2025/26 and will only be developed (as relevant to this site) in sustainably located larger sites within or adjoining the urban areas and larger villages if annual monitoring shows that there is less than a 5 year supply of deliverable sites.

Within the SDF Draft City Sites and Policies document, for which a public consultation exercise has recently been completed, the 8.08 hectare Oxclose Farm site has been allocated for housing (Site Ref P00384). It is also proposed for re- allocation as a housing area within the SDF Proposals Map. This re-allocation complies with the recommendations of the Core Strategy Inspector who noted that whilst the Council considered that the site could be developed for business or industrial use, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) recognises that the site would, in principle, also be suitable for housing and could potentially accommodate around 250 dwellings. From the evidence, the Inspector also considered the site to be equally suitable as a housing site. The landowner also submitted representations as part of the SDF process to seek the designation of the land for housing.

Officers have recently undertaken an update of the SHLAA, from which it is concluded that the overall housing land supply to 2026 is only just sufficient to meet the housing requirement, with only a small margin to provide flexibility. Nearly two thirds of the land supply is concentrated on Brownfield sites in the City Centre and the Housing Market Renewal Area. Less than 8% of the potential housing land supply is in the South East Community Assembly Area and the application site makes up 10% of the potential supply in that part of the city. Furthermore, the 5-year housing land supply (for the period up to 2015/16) is likely to be over 20% below the (adjusted) 5-year requirement. Although this is largely due to the current depressed state of the housing market, it means that, at the present time, the Council does not have a 5-year supply of deliverable sites which is contrary to guidance within PPS3 and Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy.

The submission of this application for the development of the land would suggest that the site is available. It is also in a suitable location for housing given the

62 predominantly residential character of the existing area and the proximity to local shops and services. Indeed, the representations submitted by the landowner (Hallam Land Management), as part of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Public Examination, maintain that it is also deliverable. Representations submitted on behalf of Hallam Land Management in relation to housing land supply in September 2008 argued that ‘Oxclose Farm is more suited to housing than employment’ and the re-allocation of the site would be a more efficient use of land. Moreover, the representations maintain that ‘Oxclose Park would help to redress the balance between apartments and conventional housing and between City Centre and non-City Centre locations; it is capable of being delivered before 2013 to plug any gaps in the housing supply resulting from the lack of market demand for apartments and the City Centre location’. As one of only a few potential Greenfield housing sites in the City, the application site is particularly important in providing housing choice and would be highly suitable for family housing. It also lies in an area where demand for housing is likely to be strong once the overall housing market recovers.

On the basis of the assessment above, it is concluded that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement. Its development as a supermarket would represent an inefficient use of land that would undermine the Council’s objective of maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable sites and a further supply of developable land, as required by Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and PPS3.

Retail Policy

Policy S6 of the Unitary Development relates to retail developments outside the Central Shopping Area and District Centres and advises that retail development other than within or at the edge of the Central Shopping Area or District Shopping Centres will only be permitted where it meets specific criteria principally relating to impact and accessibility and where the development is in a retail park. The impact and accessibility criteria are now included within National Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, which is assessed below.

The key policy in relation to current retail development is set out in National Planning Policy Statement 4, ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Development’. PPS4 applies tests to all economic development (Policy EC10) and two further tests - the sequential approach (EC15) and impact assessment (EC16 and EC17) that apply to all out-of-centre retail development such as that proposed. These are considered in more detail in the report below.

It is relevant to note that PPS4 replaces the former Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) and differs from PPS6 in that it removes the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate the need for a proposed retail development. PPS4 postdates the Unitary Development Plan (UDP 1998) and supersedes it if they differ. Most significantly, PPS4 requires more comprehensive assessments of retail development than set out within the UDP.

The principle objective of PPS4 is to help achieve sustainable economic growth. With specific regard to out of centre retailing, PPS4 states that out-of-centre retail

63 development must be assessed in terms of its impacts and subject to the sequential approach, which seeks to ensure that more central options in the catchment area have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. This application has been fully assessed against PPS4 as summarised below:

Policy EC10 of PPS4 provides advice on determining planning applications for economic development. It requires planning authorities to adopt a positive approach towards applications for economic development provided they secure sustainable economic growth. It states that proposals should be assessed against the following impact considerations: a) Whether the proposal has been considered over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and resilience to climate change; b) Whether it is accessible by a choice of means of transport; c) Whether it secures a high quality and inclusive design; d) The impact on regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion; e) The impact on local employment.

Considering each in turn:

Policy EC10(a) makes reference to Paragraphs 9 and 42 of Planning and Climate Change: Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (CLG, 2007), which relate to delivering spatial strategies that secure a range of measures such as securing the highest viable resource and energy efficiency and reduction in emissions and conserving and enhancing biodiversity and also designing environmental performance into development. The issue of sustainability is considered further in the report below but overall, it is determined that the design of the proposed retail store has been considered over the lifetime of the development such that it cannot be considered contrary to Policy EC10(a).

EC10(b) requires proposals to be accessible by walking, cycling, public transport and car. This is considered fully in the highways section but in summary, it is considered that the applicant can introduce sufficient measures to ensure that the store is accessible by a range of means of transport such that there are insufficient grounds to warrant refusal in accordance with Policy EC10(b).

Policy EC10(c) requires a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. This is considered further in the design section below but it is broadly concluded that the proposal can achieve a design of an appropriate quality within the context of the site.

Policy EC10(d) of PPS4 requires any out of centre application to be assessed in terms of the impact on economic and physical regeneration. This includes the impact on deprived areas, social inclusion objectives and local employment. This part of Sheffield is not considered to be an area with high levels of environmental, economic or social deprivation, particularly in comparison to other parts of the City.

64 Indeed, the surrounding area largely comprises recent residential development and a substantial proportion of private market housing. As noted in the report above, in terms of social inclusion, the area is already served by an existing Morrison’s superstore approximately 400 metres away and a Sainsbury’s foodstore within the Crystal Peaks District Centre such that local residents already have access to a good level of main food shopping in the local area. On this basis, it is determined that there are no overriding benefits of the proposed site in terms of meeting any environmental, economic or social deprivation problems in the locality such that its impact in accordance with Policy EC10(d) is neutral and there are insufficient grounds to override the Council’s view that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement as set out above.

With regard to Policy EC10(e) in relation to the impact on local employment, the proposal is again considered neutral in its impact as the area does not require physical regeneration, is not in an area of deprivation, and while the proposal will provide local jobs, these may be offset by losses in shops from which it will take trade.

Overall, it is concluded there are no overriding benefits to the development of the proposed site as a superstore such that whilst it is not contrary to Policy EC10 of PPS4, there are insufficient grounds to override the Council’s view that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement.

PPS4 Policy EC14 sets out the need for a sequential approach to development to ensure that all more central options in the catchment area have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered in accordance with Policy EC15 (The Sequential Assessment). In essence, all in-centre options must be thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. Where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations (a location that is well connected to and within easy walking distance (i.e. up to 300 metres) of the primary shopping area) which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access.

As the proposal is an out-of-centre retail development that does not accord with an up to date development plan, the applicant has submitted a Retail Assessment that incorporates the sequential test in accordance with Policy EC15 of PPS4.

The applicant has considered vacant units at Crystal Peaks, which presently extend to only 336 square metres in total. The Assessment concludes that the quantum of vacant floorspace can neither accommodate the Tesco proposal or a foodstore of any significant size.

Reference is also made to the Waterthorpe Greenway site, which, although sequentially preferable as an edge of centre site, the Council has confirmed is no longer available and is therefore discounted. Officers accept the findings of the Retail Assessment with regard to the sequential approach and agree that there are no sites suitable or available that could accommodate the store even taking account of the need for flexibility such that the proposal is not contrary to Policy EC15.

Policy EC16 of PPS4 relates to ‘impact assessments’ for retail applications that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. EC16.1 requires ‘impact assessments’ for such applications that would be likely to have a significant impact on other centres in terms of investment in centres, town centre vitality / viability, and trade in the wider area.

Moreover, Policy EC17.1 of PPS4 relates to the consideration of planning applications for development of main town centre uses not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan and advises that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where either (a) the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach; or (b) there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. Policy EC17.3 states that judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan (where this is up to date) or recent local assessments of the health of town centres.

In this case, it is determined that impacts should be assessed on centres in the store’s catchment area. These are Crystal Peaks, Woodhouse, and Eckington and Killamarsh in Derbyshire. Impact on the City Centre is also a concern since its comparison goods catchment area includes the Tesco store. Impact on out-of- centre shops such as the nearby Morrisons is not a material concern.

Criterion EC16.1(a) of PPS4 relates to the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal. Officers are unaware of any committed public and private investment in a centre within the catchment area that would be affected by this development.

Criterion EC16.1(b) of PPS4 relates specifically to the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

The Retail Assessment determines that they would expect Tesco’s turnover to be £36m (convenience goods) and £21m (comparison), based on national ratios of turnover to floorspace for each type of goods. They anticipate that half of the convenience turnover would be diverted from the nearby Morrisons; a sixth from Sainsbury’s at Crystal Peaks; a quarter in out-of-centre stores at Asda at Handsworth and Morrisons at Catcliffe. They also expect a quarter of the comparison turnover to be diverted from the City Centre and a quarter in Meadowhall; 11% would come from Crystal Peaks and only 7% from the nearby Morrisons, which sells relatively few comparison goods. These turnover assessments are accepted and considered reasonable in accordance with PPS4 guidance.

66 On the basis of the turnover assessments, in terms of the impact on the City Centre, its comparison turnover is deemed large enough (over £800m) to withstand a £5m trade withdrawal.

With regard to the impact on Crystal Peaks, it is determined that this District Centre is trading well in terms of comparison goods sales (as evidenced at Paragraph 10.72 of the Sheffield Retail Study by Cushman & Wakefield dated March 2010) and could withstand some comparison trade loss.

The key consideration is the impact on convenience turnover. The Retail Assessment submitted with the application and the additional response received 18th January 2011 states that £6.2m of Sainsbury’s estimated £38.3m convenience turnover would be diverted, which would leave it with £32.1m. The applicant maintains that they do not consider that such a loss from the Sainsbury’s store will have a material impact on other non-food retailers and service providers at Crystal Peaks because the centre is generally in good health.

Officers were initially concerned that a loss of £6.2M (approximately 16%) in Sainsbury’s’ convenience trade would reduce its turnover to below company average levels, which could impact on the convenience retail offer in the centre as a whole as a loss of customers would reduce footfall to the rest of the centre from customers who would otherwise have made linked trips with consequent impact on other shops. However, having reviewed the further information submitted by the applicant in January 2011 it is determined that Sainsbury’s ‘benchmark’ turnover based on company average sales per floorspace is £38m. Their current turnover, based on the Sheffield Retail Study household survey is £42m, which would suggest that the store is overtrading by £4m. A withdrawal of £6.2M to Tesco would result in a consequent turnover of approximately £36M, which would equate to approximately 5% under benchmark (£36m compared with £38m). The representation received on behalf of Hermes (who own Crystal Peaks) suggested that the latest 2010 company average figures on sales per floorspace show that Sainsbury’s benchmark is £42m rather than £38m. However, this updated benchmark has not been converted to 2006 prices as per the comparative Sheffield Retail Study figures and no information is available with regard to Sainsbury’s actual turnover.

Hermes also maintain that the assumption that 17% of trade at the proposed Tesco will come from Sainsbury’s is too low on the grounds that Sainsbury’s currently takes 25% of main food spending in the Sheffield Retail Study Zone 9, where Tesco would be located, such it could be assumed that Tesco would draw a similar proportion of its trade from that area. However, the application site is on the edge of Zone 9 and Zone 14 and including an appropriate proportion (half) of Zone 14 in the calculation decreases the proportion to 20%. Further including top- up shopping would reduce its trade draw to less than 17%. In comparison, the Sheffield Retail Study has examples of two main food store operators trading at 5% and 20% below benchmark (Asda at Chapeltown and Waitrose).

Thus, having considered the information submitted with the application, it is, on balance, the view of Officers that there is insufficient evidence to maintain that the proposed store would be so detrimental in terms of its impact on the existing centre

67 at Crystal Peaks to warrant a refusal of the application in accordance with Policy EC16.1(b) of PPS4.

The application has also been assessed in terms of the impact on nearby smaller centres at Woodhouse, Aston in Rotherham, and Killamarsh and Eckington in North East Derbyshire. With regard to Woodhouse, the Retail Assessment concludes that it is a linear centre anchored by a small Co-op such that only £0.14M will be diverted from the convenience retailers in the centre, with no impact on comparison goods retailers. This level of diversion equates to an impact of just 1%, such that the future vitality and viability of the centre will not be threatened, which is accepted. Aston (in Rotherham) is also considered to be reasonably healthy with a vacancy rate of 8% although Killamarsh has a 17% unit vacancy rate, and Eckington’s is 24.6%, suggesting that both centres are operating below capacity.

The submitted Retail Assessment assumes that only 0.35% (£201,626) of Tesco’s turnover would be drawn from each of Eckington and Killamarsh. As a consequence, these two centres would lose 2.4% and 2.9% of their trade and the Retail Assessment contends that such a loss would not cause significant impact to these centres. However, it is the view of Officer’s that the figure of 0.35% is an under estimate because the proposed Tesco would be less than 2 miles from Eckington and Killamarsh and because the Halfway Morrisons is already popular with shoppers from Eckington and Killamarsh. With its greater comparison offer, the proposed Tesco could be at least as popular as the nearby Morrisons; of which 20% of the turnover comes from S21. Furthermore, because the predicted turnover of the Tesco store is large compared with the turnover of these centres, small changes in trade draw assumptions clearly make substantial differences to calculations of trade loss.

The applicant has responded in their revised submission to advise that the household survey, which underpins the Sheffield Retail Study, shows that no residents in Zone 9 currently visit either the co-op in Eckington or the Co-op in Killamarsh for main food shopping. It is argued that the local residents that use these stores for main food shopping are likely to do so out of brand loyalty, convenience or because they cannot access the larger food stores further afield. They consider that such shopping patterns are unlikely to change as a result of the proposed development given that they already choose not to shop at the adjoining Morrisons. They also highlight the response from Derbyshire Council Council, which states that it would be difficult to demonstrate an impact on Killamarsh and Eckington. Accordingly, it is the view of Officers that whilst the proposal would likely have some impact, it would be difficult to provide ‘clear evidence that the proposal would lead to significant adverse impacts’ as required by PPS4 EC17.1. On this basis, the impact on Eckington and Killamarsh cannot be considered contrary to Policy EC16.1(b).

Criterion EC16.1(a) of PPS4 relates to the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan. Officers are unaware of any proposals on such sites that would be affected by this proposal.

68 Criterion Policy EC16.1(d) of PPS4 relates to the impact of the proposal on in- centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made.

In this regard, the submitted Retail Assessment contends that there is capacity for the proposed store in the catchment area. It states that convenience spending in the area exceeds floorspace to accommodate it. It also maintains that an undersupply of floorspace means that the Tesco is unlikely to undermine future investment and that residents of the catchment area spend £156M on convenience goods. However, the Retail Assessment also states that there is floorspace capacity to accommodate only £88M and that a new Tesco, which would add £36M to that capacity. This would still bring it to only £124M, which is substantially less than spending.

Having reviewed the Retail Assessment, Officers consider that the undersupply is exaggerated. The assessment of capacity makes a notional allocation of some of the floorspace in the area to accommodate spending by people who live outside the area without making a similar allowance for residents of the area who go to shops outside. For example, people living in Woodhouse and the north part of the catchment area are nearer to the Handsworth Asda and the Catcliffe Morrisons (which are outside the catchment area) than they are to the proposed Tesco. These customers spend £29m in these two stores and can be expected to continue to do so. Taking account of these outflows, following the Tesco development, capacity would exist for £153m (£88M+£29M+£36M) such that capacity would match spending.

The agreed catchment area for the Retail Assessment is derived from Zones 9 and 14 of the Council’s Sheffield Retail Study prepared by Cushman and Wakefield in March 2010. This Retail Study assesses the need for new shopping floorspace in the city and provides evidence for the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) City Policies and Sites document. In the ‘inner’ Zone 9, which includes the application site, the Sheffield Retail Study states that there is scope for only a modest increase in convenience retailing but advises that there is ‘not enough to provide for a large new food store in the locality’ (Paragraph 8.40).

In their revised submission dated January 2011, the applicant accepts the Council’s observation that there will continue to be some leakage of expenditure beyond the catchment area but they consider this will reduce from its current level of £29M because some people will choose to visit the proposed Tesco store rather than travelling further a field. Even assuming that 10% of the convenience expenditure leakage to these destinations is clawed back (i.e. £26M continues to leak beyond the catchment area), the applicant maintains that there will still be a £6M surplus expenditure capacity at 2014, after the proposed Tesco development.

In summary, whilst the Sheffield Retail Study states that there is scope for only a modest increase in convenience retailing in the inner Zone 9, albeit ‘not enough to provide for a large new food store in the locality’, the Retail Assessment submitted with this application demonstrates that there may be capacity for a larger store such as the Tesco proposed, taking into account the wider catchment area.

69 Officers accept this finding although consider that the capacity for further convenience floorspace development in the area is unlikely to as substantial as originally claimed by the applicant. However, on these grounds, the application is not contrary to Policy EC16.1(d) of PPS4.

It is acknowledged that PPS4 recognises the importance of competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice but the guidance advises that this should be achieved through the provision of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town centres. Clearly, this is an out-of-centre location.

In conclusion, in accordance with Policy EC17.1of PPS4, which states that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where the applicant has not demonstrated either (a) compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact assessment), the following is advised:

Whilst the proposed store is located out of centre such that it is less accessible than the nearest District Centre at Crystal Peaks with less potential for linked trips, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach and it is concluded that it would be difficult to provide ‘clear evidence that the proposal would lead to significant adverse impacts’ on either Crystal Peaks or Eckington and Killamarsh in Derbyshire as required by PPS4 EC17.1 such that overall, the application must be considered to accord with the overriding sequential and impact principles of PPS4.

Policy Summary

The proposed development of the site for a retail superstore does not accord with the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan which proposes industrial and business development in accordance with Policy IB6 and IB7 of the UDP, such that it represents a departure from the UDP. It is acknowledged, however, that the weight to be attached to Policies IB6 and IB7 is reduced because the UDP was adopted in 1998 and the application must be considered with due regard to more up-to-date policy, primarily set out within the SDF Core Strategy and national planning policy statements.

In this regard, it is concluded that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement and its development as a supermarket would represent an inefficient use of land that would undermine the Council’s objective of maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable sites as required by Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and a longer term supply in accordance with guidance within PPS3. On this basis, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy CS22 and guidance within PPS3.

With reference to PPS4, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach and it is concluded that it would be difficult to provide ‘clear evidence that the proposal would lead to significant adverse impacts’ on either

70 Crystal Peaks or Eckington and Killamarsh in Derbyshire as required such that overall, the application must be considered to accord with the overriding sequential and impact assessment principles of PPS4.

Siting, Design and External Appearance

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

In this case, the key issues to assess include the position of the store within the site and its external design.

With regard to layout, the proposed store is positioned towards the southern boundary of the application site. Due to the existing topography of the site, which presently slopes downwards from the western boundary to the eastern boundary by as much as 16-20 metres, the construction of the store requires a level plateau to be created to accommodate the superstore, resulting in alterations to the existing site levels. Accordingly, the location of the store towards the southern boundary results in the building being ‘dug in’ to the land at the south-west corner of the store (closest to the properties on Deepwell Drive and Deepwell Mews) by approximately 6 metres. In contrast, the south-east corner of the store (which is situated to the rear of properties on Ox Hill) is raised above the existing land level by approximately 5 metres. The north-west corner of the site (at the location of the petrol filling station) is situated a minimum of 3 metres above the existing ground level whilst the north-east corner (within the car park) is raised 11 metres above the existing ground level.

The position of the store towards the southern boundary of the site is a key ground for objection for residents within the Deepwell Estate, who are in closest proximity to the site. Indeed, a number of consultation responses have questioned whether the store should be more appropriately located towards the northern boundary towards Arnold Lavers. The Sheffield Sustainable Development Design Panel also advised that further information was necessary to support the decision of where the building was located on the site, together with how far it was cut into the slope. Accordingly, the applicant was asked to review the store’s location and assess the impact of re-locating it to the northern boundary or the eastern boundary, which has been undertaken as part of their revised submission.

The applicant advises that to relocate the store to the northern side of the site would make it considerably more prominent in views from the surrounding area. This is borne out in the additional landscape information, which demonstrates that the store would become more visible in views from the north-east and south-west from across the Rother Valley, and also from the north-west. The applicant also advises that the relocation of the store to the north boundary would result in the

71 main elevation facing southwards, which would give rise to excessive solar gain that would disrupt the balance and energy efficiency potential of the building. Finally, the applicant notes that a store in this location would require the re-routing of mains sewers.

The applicant has also stated that the relocation of the store to the eastern boundary fails to maximise the localised topography and would result in the long eastern elevation of the store being a prominent feature, particularly in views from the east. This is evidenced in the submitted 3D drawings, which illustrate that the store in this location would be particularly prominent from the north-east and south- east (across the Rother Valley) to the detriment of the longer valley views.

On balance, having reviewed the revised store location information, it is considered that there is insufficient justification to require the applicant to relocate the store to either the northern or eastern boundary, which would have a more prominent impact on views of the site from the wider Rother Valley. Whilst the location of the store on the southern boundary is in closest proximity to the residential properties within the Deepwell Estate, the southern (rear) elevation of the store is set approximately 53 metres from the side and rear elevation respectively of the nearest residential properties at 5 and 6 Ox Hill. It is acknowledged that the sloping nature of the existing site requires the construction of a sub-structure such that the ground level at the south-east corner of the store is raised by 5 metres above the existing ground level; as a result, the height of the store in this location (the delivery area) is above the ridge height of the nearest property at 14 Ox Hill by approximately 1 metre. However, the distance between the rear elevation of the store and the front elevation of 14 Ox Hill is 74.5 metres such that it cannot be argued that the store will result in a loss of privacy to No.14, nor will it be overbearing.

Similarly, in relation to the nearest properties on Deepwell Mews, the ground level of the south-west corner of the store (which lies nearest to Deepwell Drive and Deepwell Mews) is set 7 metres below the existing ground level such that the roof of the proposed store equates approximately to the ground floor level of the nearest property at 12 Deepwell Mews. Moreover, the nearest properties on Deepwell Mews present a flank elevation to the store rather than a primary elevation; they also lie more than 40 metres from the store such that, once again, it cannot be argued that the proposed store in the location proposed will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining occupiers by virtue of being over-bearing or resulting in loss of privacy.

Accordingly, the present location and layout of the store is not so detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residents to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds or to insist on its relocation to another part of the site, which will result in the store being more visible and having a greater impact in wider views from the Rother Valley.

With regard to the design and appearance of the store, it is noted that the architecture of the proposed store is contemporary in approach and incorporates a fully glazed northern elevation to the car park with the remaining elevations constructed in a combination of light grey cladding, primarily to the lower levels,

72 with larch cladding to the main flank elevations. The design is consistent with the applicant’s ‘eco’ approach to the store and is intended to allow for natural ventilation (via roof mounted air vents/windcatchers) and natural lighting. The proposed petrol filling station towards the northern boundary of the site is single story in scale and also constructed in a composite cladding system to the lower part of the building with larch cladding above, to match the design of the store. Overall, the external appearance of the store is considered to comprise the use of materials of a sufficiently high quality. Furthermore, the introduction of natural timber cladding to a significant proportion of the elevations and the large expanse of glazing to the front elevation does result in a store that is of a reasonably high standard in the context of supermarket design.

However, due to the sloping topography of the site and the steep topography of the surrounding valley, there is a concern regarding the visibility of the store and, in particular, the prominence of the large expanse of roof, particularly as the proposed store is partially built into the site such that the roof effectively becomes visible at eye level and can therefore be considered the fifth elevation for the proposal. The applicants were subsequently asked to address the design of the roof to mitigate its visual impact, with a suggestion that consideration be given to the introduction of a full or partial green roof.

The applicant has responded to advise that they consider there to be no visual or landscape benefit to the provision of a green roof as the roof will not be significant in the context of local or wider views. To this extent, the applicant has provided an addendum to the Landscape Assessment to provide a visual analysis of the impact of the roof elevation as existing, at Year 1 of the store completion and at Year 10 in longer distance views from the east (across the valley). This does demonstrate that the store is visible in longer views – and particularly the northern and eastern elevations; but it is accepted that the building is viewed against the backdrop of the urban setting of Halfway and the roofscape is visible but not overly dominant.

Similarly, the addendum to the landscape assessment considers localised views from the south (nearest to Ox Hill) and to the west (Deepwell Drive). With regard to the former, once again, the roofscape is visible but cannot be considered to be overly dominant from this view as planting screens the proposed store. The roof is potentially most visible in views from the west, from Deepwell Drive and the link road. However, it is accepted that in the long term, the extent of existing and proposed planting will ensure that only glimpsed views of the roof will be available.

It is disappointing that the applicant is unwilling to consider the introduction of at least a partial green roof as the longer views from the east do demonstrate the visibility of the store as a whole, which would be softened by the introduction of at least a partial green roof along the edge of the existing roofscape. In this regard, the applicant has advised that the roofspace in this instance is designed to reduce the energy and water demand for the building with roof lights, rain water harvesting and a walkway for maintenance such that the roof is essentially a ‘chequer board layout’ that would make a green roof difficult to maintain. Whilst it is still considered that there would be scope for a partial green roof, at least to the edges, it is concluded that the impact of the roofscape on longer views and more localised

73 views is not sufficiently detrimental to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed design and layout of the store and petrol filling station does utilise materials of a sufficiently high quality and represents a contemporary design approach that maximises the sustainable credentials of the store to provide natural daylight and natural ventilation that it is, on balance, considered to be consistent with the objectives of Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy.

Highways and Access

Policy IB9 of the Adopted Unitary Development relates to development in Industry and Business Areas and advises that new development will be permitted provided that it would be adequately served by transport facilities and provides safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking (IB9 (d)). In addition, guidance within PPG13: Transport advises that its objectives are to promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

It is noted that PPG13 has recently been amended with regard to parking controls (3rd January 2011) such that local authorities will need to set parking standards for their areas, but it will be for them to determine what that standard should be, depending on individual circumstances. The Government has also taken the opportunity to encourage electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new development, where this does not affect the development’s overall viability.

This application principally proposes the following highway works within the boundary of the application site:

(i) The construction of a 503 space car park (revised from 519) to serve the proposed supermarket, which comprises 434 standard spaces, 35 disabled parking spaces, 24 parent and child spaces, 10 spaces for low emissions vehicles and 10 spaces reserved for electric car recharging points. Sheffield cycle racks will be provided near to the store entrance; (ii) The construction of a new link road from Oxclose Park Road North; (iii) The continuation of the link road, as a bus only route, onto Deepwell Avenue.

A full Transport Assessment (TA) also supports the application. The TA confirms that access to the proposed development will be via the link road from Oxclose Park North, which was previously consented as part of the original outline application for the development of this site. The link road will provide a dedicated access point into the store at a new roundabout, which will also provide an arm to serve a future development site to the north-east of the store. The link road will continue on to connect to Deepwell Avenue (as per the original approval), which will be a bus only section.

With regard to pedestrian accessibility, the TA confirms three access points into the store; via the existing infrastructure from Oxclose Park Road and the new link

74 road using footways, from the residential area to the west using existing footways and the new link road, and from the residential area to the south using existing footways and the footway to the new link road connecting Deepwell Avenue. The TA states that the store has a significant potential walking catchment and is also accessible to cycles with shared cycle paths to the north, west and south.

With reference to public transport, the TA confirms that a 400-metre distance is generally accepted as a reasonable walk distance to access services. In relation to the application site, the nearest bus stops presently (5 stops) are located within Morrisons and on Rotherham Road and are positioned just outside the 400 metres recommended distance. These stops presently offer a total of 6 bus services with 11 buses per hour available during the day (Mondays to Saturdays). However, the applicant has undertaken discussions with SYPTE regarding the provision of a bus service along the new link road through to Deepwell Avenue as an extension to an existing service. It is proposed that beyond the access to the store, the link road is utilized by buses only with appropriate enforcement introduced (such as a CCTV camera). The TA advises that the re-routing of a high frequency bus service to serve the site would further improve public connectivity and new bus stops would bring accessibility well within the recommended 400 metres distance.

It is also noted within the TA that the Supertram is within 1km walking distance and the site layout incorporates a customer drop off/pick-up-point and now also incorporates a dedicated taxis lay-by.

With regard to servicing, the TA outlines that the proposed development includes the provision of a Tesco Dot Com Home Delivery Service, which requires docking facilities for 5 vehicles and a further facility for 5 vehicles to be positioned in the waiting area within the service yard. This is proposed within the service yard to the south eastern end of the site.

In assessing the impact and trip generation, the TA has taken into account the extant planning permission for this site for 13,470 square metres (145,000 square feet) of industrial and office development. It also includes traffic generation from committed development sites such as the Holbrook Business Park.

In its scope, the TA has undertaken a junction analysis of the junctions at:

- The proposed store access and the new link road junction; - Rotherham Road/Mill Road/Sheffield Road junction; - Rotherham Road/Greenway; - Rotherham Road/Deepwell Avenue; - Rotherham Road/Morton Mount/Oxclose Park Road North junction; - Oxclose Park Road/Oxclose Park Road North junction; - Eckington Way/Station Road junction.

The applicant has also carried out traffic surveys on all these junctions as well as Eckington Way/Owlthorpe Greenway, Eckington Way/Holbrook Avenue and Station Road/High Street/Queen Street, which were undertaken on Friday 4th December 2009 and Saturday 5th December 2009 during the AM (0700-0900) peak and PM (1600-1900) peak and on the Saturday peak (1200-1500).

In its conclusion, the TA determines that the majority of junctions within the study area would operate within capacity and satisfactorily during the scenarios tested, to include the traffic generated by the Tesco proposal. However, it does show an impact on capacity at the Oxclose Park Road/Oxclose Park Road North roundabout and the Oxclose Park Road/Eckington Way/Rotherham Road roundabout. However, the TA determines that this impact can be appropriately mitigated through highway improvements, which then enable the junctions to operate within capacity. The Station Road/Rotherham Road/Eckington Way junction is also shown within the TA to have pre-existing operational issues during peak periods and determines that the proposed store would lead to an imperceptible increase in delay per vehicle.

The Council’s Highways Officers have considered the Transport Assessment and plans submitted by the applicant and note that the TA has identified a number of locations that would require works to mitigate the increased traffic volume resulting from the proposed development were it to be recommended for approval. A range of outline proposals have been submitted as part of this application, which includes widening the carriageway to provide extra lanes to: a. Station Road / Eckington Way roundabout. b. Rotherham Road / Oxclose Park Road roundabout. c. Oxclose Park Road / new road roundabout.

The Council’s Highways Officers consider that such works would be acceptable in principle subject to further detailing. It is also noted that consideration has been given within the application to the accessibility of the store in highway terms and in this regard, the Council’s Highway Officer concludes that based upon the current submission, the proposal does not give rise to any highway issues that would warrant a reason for refusal of the application as long as the following works were undertaken:

1. Construction of the link road between the new road providing access to the store from Oxclose Road roundabout to Deepwell Avenue, as secured in the previous outline permission for development of this site and proposed as part of this application. The issue of the bus link is considered further below.

2. A signalised crossing on Rotherham Road to provide a safe and appropriate crossing point for both pedestrians and cyclists travelling to the new store and to accommodate existing pedestrians and cyclists crossing due to the increased volume of traffic resulting from the development.

3. Provision / completion of a dedicated pedestrian / cycle route from Rotherham Road to the development, to encourage sustainable travel to and from the new store.

4. Provision / improvement of cycling and pedestrian facilities from the new store along Oxclose Park Road North to link with the James Walton Drive area or the Connect2 route.

76 5. A contribution of £50,000 towards footpath widening and road safety treatments of the 'Old Lane section' of the Halfway--Killamarsh Multi-user route (Connect2) to make sustainable connections to the proposed site from the east, especially the town of Killamarsh.

6. A contribution of £50,000 towards the proposed £120,000 Halfway Junior School Links improvement scheme (Phase1). Many pupils of Halfway Junior School need to cross Rotherham Way or Station Road, and will be adversely affected by increased road traffic resulting from the development.

7. A right turn harbourage to accommodate the turning manoeuvre onto Hollow Lane and prevent queuing traffic towards and past the Oxclose Park Road/Rotherham Road roundabout.

The applicant has confirmed by letter dated 18th January 2011 that were the application to be considered for approval, subject to further detailed discussions, the measures outlined above would be incorporated as part of the proposed development to be secured either by means of a planning condition or a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The applicant has sought clarification regarding (2) and (4) above in terms of the exact location of a crossing point on Rotherham Road and whether there is sufficient room within the highway boundary to accommodate improvements cycling and pedestrian facilities from the new store along Oxclose Park Road North to link with the James Walton Drive area as there are highway ownership issues that may prevent a link to James Walton Drive and the Highways Officer concurs that this would have to be resolved through further discussion.

The Council’s Highway Officer advises that the following additional measures would also need to be addressed to satisfy the Council that the existing highway can accommodate the increased volume of traffic the development will create:

1. Renew centre lines on Oxclose Park Road;

2. Renew stop lines on all arms of Oxclose Park Road / Oxclose Road North roundabout;

3. Provide and install new illuminated keep left bollards on all arms of Oxclose Park Road / Oxclose Road North roundabout;

4. Change current road signs on Oxclose Park Road to install a '20' speed limit side on west side of road, southbound, install a '30' and '20 Zone Ends' sign on east side of road, northbound and remove the 'Give Way' sign from west side of road, northbound.

5. At the northbound splitter island at Oxclose Park Road roundabout, it would be necessary to re-locate the speed limit and post to the rear of the illuminated 'keep left' bollard;

77 6. Provide and install a K Frame anti-motorcycle barrier on the footpath linking Oxclose Park Road North and Old Lane (this will require consultation if sited adjacent to a property).

Once again, the applicant has confirmed by letter dated 18th January 2011 that they are agreeable to these measures in principle. On this basis, it must be considered that these works could mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development and there are no highway issues to warrant a further reason for refusal of the application on these grounds.

With regard to car parking, the Council’s Highways Officer advises that the overall parking levels for the location and size of the development are appropriate. In response to the originally submitted plans, the Highways Officer did note that the layout of the disabled parking required further consideration as the walking distance from the cars is the greatest distance from the store as currently proposed and should be reduced. A trolley bay close to the bus stop was also considered desirable, as was the provision of a taxi rank rather than a taxi pick up point to further enhance public transport provision and potentially greatly improve the service to shoppers and staff.

In response, the applicant has submitted revised plans to relocate the disabled parking spaces in closer proximity to the store, to provide a dedicated taxi lay-by at the front of the store and to demonstrate the provision of a 3 metre shared pedestrian and cycle ramp into the site from the new link road, which addresses the key concerns of the Highways Officer outlined above. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking in accordance with Policy IB9(d) of the UDP.

The Proposed Bus Link through Deepwell Avenue

As noted above, this application includes the provision of the link road (approved as part of previous permissions on this site) from the new roundabout at the entrance to the store to connect to Deepwell Avenue, which is proposed in this application as a bus only section with a narrow single width carriageway for part of the road.

A significant number of the objections to this application from residents who presently live on the Deepwell Estate raised issues regarding the new bus route and expressed concerns that the bus route is not necessary and would create safety problems for children playing on the estate. As a result of these initial objections, Officers requested that Tesco undertake a further consultation exercise of all residents within the Deepwell Estate and on Oxclose Park Road and adjoining roads to determine local residents’ preference regarding the proposed link road. This was undertaken by Tesco between Friday 22nd October and Friday 5th November 2010 and approximately 1,000 consultation leaflets were delivered to the Deepwell and Oxclose estates as well as James Walton Drive and Old Lane with a website option also set up. Residents were provided with three options:

78 Option 1 – No road at all; Option 2 – Bus gate, and Option 3 - Full access road

The applicant has advised that 297 consultation responses (30% response rate approximately) were received via the freepost comment card and the website of which 71% supported Option 1 (no road at all) with 10% supporting option 2 (Bus gate) and 18% supporting Option 3 (full road access). From those that responded in writing and who provided postcode details, there was a clear geographical split in the response; of the 149 written responses that supported Option 1 (no road at all), 123 live on the Deepwell Estate, with 2 from the Oxclose Estate and 19 from the wider area (roads such as James Walton Drive and Old Lane). By comparison, of the 42 respondents that supported Option 3 (a full access road for cars and buses), 27 were from the Oxclose Estate, 5 from the Deepwell Estate, 9 from the wider area and 1 did not state their address.

The consultation exercise demonstrates that residents in the immediate locality of the site prefer the no link road option but there is a significant geographical influence affecting the outcome of the consultation response.

It is the view of the Council’s Highways Officer that were the application site to be developed for the Tesco proposal (or any other development on this land), a link road is necessary and there is no highway objection to the provision of a bus link road, as proposed, subject to appropriate enforcement mechanisms comprising an enforcement camera. However, it is appropriate to note that the Council’s Highways Officers also consider that the option of greatest benefit to the local highway network would be to provide a two lane link road with no restrictions at all, that would permit access to the proposed Tesco store and also allow access through to the Oxclose Park Road / Eckington Way roundabout from the east. Indeed, the outline permission that established the requirement of providing a bus gate at this location was for the development of industrial units on the site and the bus gate was seen as a way to prevent potentially noisy commercial vehicles travelling through the Deepwell Avenue residential area at any time. This is no longer necessary, as there would be relatively few commercial vehicles visiting the site. Moreover, Deepwell Avenue has been constructed to a specification that is appropriate to permit vehicles to access the proposed Tesco store via the link road and it is the view of the Council’s Highways Officer that there would be no adverse effect on that section of highway other than the increase in traffic volume and this demand can be controlled by adjusting the cycle times of the Deepwell Avenue / Rotherham Road junction traffic signals to make the use of Deepwell Avenue less attractive.

Accordingly, it is determined that there is no highway objection to the link road as proposed.

It is also relevant to note that to comply with requirements for accessibility by public transport as noted in the retail section above, it is necessary to ensure access by means other than the provide car. Compliance with Policy YH7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy would require retail development to be within a 5 minute walk (400m) of a bus stop offering a 15-minute frequency service to a major public

79 transport interchange. To achieve compliance, the applicant would need to ensure, by arrangement with SYPTE, that a bus service extends its route and frequency to stop at the new Tesco store or submit alternative proposals that will satisfy the requirement for access by public transport.

In this regard, the applicant has advised by additional information submitted on 18th January 2011 that SYPTE has confirmed that Stagecoach is willing to divert its existing service 120 (Westfield / Halfway - Waterthorpe - Frecheville - Intake - Manor Top - Park Hill - Sheffield - Lodge Moor) to serve the new store and link road, should a contribution be made to its diversion costs for a period of one year. The service offers a frequency of 10 minutes or less during Monday to Saturdays (day-time) and 15 minutes during evenings and Sundays. SYPTE also recommend a further contribution of approximately £100,000 for period of up to five years to ensure the service is maintained.

The applicant has subsequently confirmed by e-mail dated 3rd February 2011 that Tesco would be willing to fund the initial provision of this service to set up the diversion after which they anticipate that it will be self-financing. Nevertheless, Tesco are prepared to fund the service, if necessary, for a full five years although they consider the contribution stated by SYPTE is disproportionate.

Overall, it is considered that Tesco have demonstrated that they can achieve the diversion of the 120 service, to include the provision of a bus stop within the store and an additional bus stop on the new link road. This ensures compliance with Policy YH7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy that requires retail development to be within a 5 minute walk (400m) of a bus stop offering a 15-minute frequency service to a major public transport interchange. In this case, the 120 service serves the interchange at Crystal Peaks Bus Station. It is also considered that securing this bus service meets the main objectives of PPS4 to deliver more sustainable patterns of development.

Thus, whilst this site is less accessible than the nearest District Centre at Crystal Peaks with less potential for linked trips, it is determined that the incorporation of the measures outlined above results in a development that sufficiently meets the nominal objectives of regional and national planning policy by notionally securing access to at least one bus with a 15-minute frequency service to a major public transport interchange whilst ensuring that any traffic impact can be appropriately mitigated through the measures outlined above.

It must therefore be concluded that the proposed development is in accordance with Policy IB9 of the UDP, Policy YH7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and guidance within PPS4 and PPG13 such that it is concluded that there are no highway impact issues to mitigate a refusal on these grounds.

Landscaping

Policy BE6 of the UDP (Landscape Design) advises that good quality landscape design will be expected in new developments and refurbishment schemes. It advises that applications for planning permission for such schemes should, where appropriate, include a suitable landscape scheme that provides an interesting and

80 attractive environment, integrates existing landscape features into the development, including mature trees, hedges and water features; and promotes nature conservation and uses native species where appropriate.

As set out in the ‘Proposals’ section above, this application does propose the retention of existing planting around the site as well as the introduction of new planting as part of a landscape strategy around the store. This is supported by a Landscape and Visual Assessment document, which seeks to assess the impact of the store and landscaping on both localised and long-distance views.

The Council’s Landscape Officer has considered the proposed landscaping strategy and Landscape and Visual Assessment and broadly concurs with the submission, that overall, the short term impact would be moderately adverse reducing to a neutral or a minor beneficial impact. In response to the originally submitted drawings, the Council’s Landscape Officer considered that the perimeter landscape proposals to be well thought out and the sizes of planting would give an immediate mitigating effect, whilst the scale of planting would benefit over the longer term. The Landscape Officer notes that full screening to the longer views could take up to 20 years to achieve worthwhile benefit although it is acknowledged that the short local views would benefit sooner.

However, the Landscape Officer did raise some initial concerns in terms of the flat roof design of the store and advised that the partial or complete coverage of the building with a green roof or roofs would allow it to integrate better within the landscape (considered in the section above). It was also advised that the internal landscape treatment of the car park was less well considered with a large expanse of tarmac and a total of 14 trees, which was considered insufficient. Incorporating a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme into the car park was also recommended, which would contribute favourably to the ecology of the area.

In response, the applicant has submitted revised landscaping proposals, which introduces an additional 23 trees into the car park. The applicant advises that the potential for additional landscaping is limited by the fact that it is a functional car park that has been kept to a minimum in terms of the number of spaces and to allow the maximum amount of peripheral landscaping.

The Council’s Landscape Officer has considered the revised proposals and it is still considered that further landscaping is appropriate to mitigate the dominance of the car parks hard surfaced area. It is considered that all the rows of car parking and the pedestrian routes should be tree lined rather than just 5 of the 9 rows as currently proposed. It is also determined that the row of car parking bays to the eastern edge of the car park adjacent the service access road could be broken up with tree planting, which would help to mitigate the impact of this rather abrupt edge on top of the retaining wall and to make a better connection with the planting at the foot of the retaining structure. Finally, it is suggested that the two large planting beds between the northern end of the car parking area and the fuel filling station and to the east of the filling station could be enhanced as these will be important in providing a setting for the development and if designed well, could enhance the image of the main supermarket building.

81 In response, the applicant has confirmed by e-mail dated 11th February 2011 that they would be willing to provide enhanced planting and different styles to pedestrian routes and car parking bays, having due regard to the existing drainage runs and easements that currently restrict tree planting in some locations and, with some caveats, would be willing to increase tree planting in the two large beds near the filling station and agree, in principle to tree planting alongside the service road along the eastern borders of the site.

On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the landscape treatment as currently proposed and taking into account the applicant’s commitment to improve the present layout, is sufficient to accord with the objectives of Policy BE6 of the UDP.

The issue of Sustainable Urban Drainage is considered in the Flood Risk section below.

Air Quality

The applicant was required to undertaken an Environmental Impact Assessment as part of the application, which includes an Air Quality Assessment. The Assessment considers the baseline situation and then determines both the direct and indirect effects of the development at completion phase. Mitigation measures are also identified where appropriate.

With regard to planning policy, Policy CS66 of the Core Strategy advises that action to protect air quality will be taken in all areas of the City and further action will be taken across the built-up area, and particularly where residents in road corridors with high levels of traffic are directly exposed to levels of pollution above national targets.

The Air Quality Assessment (AQA) notes that the Council has designated the entire eastern part of the City, including the application site, as an Air Quality Management Area due to concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter being at risk of exceeding their respective air quality objective and limit values in some locations. The main source of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter in the city centre is identified to be road traffic emissions on main routes.

In terms of baseline figures, the AQA utilizes the UK Air Quality Archive Background Concentrations document as there are no monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of the site although results from the nearest monitoring site on Church Street, Eckington were utilised.

The Air Quality Assessment suggests that there is no predicted exceedance of the objective values for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter as a result of the completed development. A change in the annual mean concentration of nitrogen dioxide is predicted for the opening year (2012) in the area around the Oxclose Parkway roundabout on Rotherham Road to an annual mean of 25 micrograms per cubic metre but this is well within the statutory environmental assessment level of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. It is also noted in the AQA that a receptor close to the Oxclose Park Road and Rotherham Road roundabout would experience a marked change in annual mean concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide but this

82 increase is within an area where the existing standard of local air quality is below the level of breach of the statutory environmental assessment level such that the development would have an effect of minor significance at affected properties in the vicinity.

Overall, the assessment acknowledges that the proposed development would lead to an increase in annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter but it would not cause any breach of relevant statutory environmental assessment levels at any location within the air quality study area and would generally have an effect of negligible significance and minor significance at the Oxclose Park Road and Rotherham Road roundabout. As such, no particular mitigation measures were initially proposed with the application albeit that the EIA notes the inclusion of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant within the store.

The Council’s Air Quality Officer has considered the AQIA and confirms that the assessment method that has been used is known and acceptable. It is noted that the specific pollutants considered were nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particle matter (PM10) of a size less than 10 micron, which are produced largely from internal combustion systems, such as motor vehicle engines and or combined heat and power (CHP) plants. The Air Quality Officer confirms that the proposed development is predicted to have a medium Nitrogen Dioxide impact and a small ‘PM10’ impact at receptors in the local area, based on Scott Wilson’s Assessment Criteria. The AQIA also suggests that background levels of the two pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed site are below their respective prescribed standards. The Council’s Air Quality Officer therefore accepts that the predicted Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 levels are considered to be negligible as a result of this development. However, it is still considered desirable for some mitigation to be sought given that the development is in an Air Quality Management Area and on this basis, the following recommendations were proposed to the applicant:

(i) The introduction of a control of dust and emissions during the construction phase – this could be secured by means of a planning condition and reference is made to the use of the London Councils’ Best Practice Guidance, November 2006, “The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition”, as a guide to evaluate and manage dust emissions during the construction phase;

(ii) The provision of a minimum of 10 electric charging points for electric vehicles;

(iii) The reservation of a minimum of 10 parking spaces by signage for low emission vehicles;

(iv) The adoption of a Green Travel or Transport Plan.

In response, the applicant has submitted revised plans to indicate the provision of 10 electric charging points for electric vehicles and the reservation of a minimum of 10 parking spaces by signage for low emission vehicles and were the application to be considered favourably, the applicant would accept conditions relating to a Travel Plan and a Construction Method Statement. On this basis, it must be concluded that the development as proposed will not be unduly detrimental to air quality and is sufficiently in accordance with Policy CS66 of the Core Strategy.

Noise

Policy IB9 (b) of the UDP, in relation to development within industry and business areas, advises that new development will be permitted provided that it does not cause residents or visitors in housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

As part of the application submission, the applicant was required to submit a noise assessment, which was prepared by Sharps Redmore as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The Noise Assessment confirms guidance within Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise, which states that changes in noise levels of less than 3dB(A) are not perceptible under normal conditions whilst a change in noise level of more than 10dB(A) is perceived as approximately a doubling of noise loudness. In-between, a change in noise levels of between 3-5 dB(A) is perceptible but minor than 3dB(A). It is noted, however, that this criteria is most applicable to road traffic noise impact. To compare the likelihood of noise disturbance from development that is ‘industrial’ in character, a British Standard is utilised (BS4142), which compares the rating noise level of the noise source being assessed with the background noise level of the area; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the likelihood of complaint.

To complete the Noise Assessment, the applicant undertook a survey of noise levels at two locations during March 2010 on one site adjacent to Oxclose Park Way and another adjacent to Deepwell Avenue. These surveys conclude that road traffic (near and distant) was the predominant factor noted in the noise climate with occasional noise from freight and other rail traffic. It is also relevant to note that following a public meeting with residents in September 2010 where concerns were raised about the noise measurements undertaken, the applicant agreed to undertake a further noise survey by placing a noise meter within the garden of a premises on Ox Hill. This confirmed the findings of the originally submitted Noise Assessment.

In assessing the proposed development, the Noise Assessment considers both the construction and operational phase. In this context it is relevant to note that having due regard to the concerns of residents in respect of noise impact, the applicant has advised in writing by letter dated 18th January 2011 that they intend to revise the proposed opening and delivery hours of the store from the 24 hour store originally proposed to 8am to 10pm Mondays to Saturdays, between 10am and 4pm on Sundays and between 8.30am and 7pm on Bank Holidays.

The findings of the submitted Noise Assessment are summarised below:

In the course of construction, as a result of machinery etc, noise levels would cause a minor adverse noise impact on a small number of properties during periods of the general construction activities, although these will occur within daytime working.

84 Whilst the store is operational, the Noise Assessment considers car park activity (opening and closing of doors etc) and concludes that the car park is approximately 28 metres form the nearest existing housing on Deepwell Mews to the west of the car park. This section of car parking will be largely screened by the retained cut such that the area of car parking that is directly visible from these houses is at a distance of 60 metres. At this distance, it is considered that the noise from the car park activity would be below ‘World Health Organisation’ values and there would be no adverse effect from noise at any residential property.

One of the key concerns of local residents is noise from service yard activity and from the home shopping activity. In this regard, the Noise Assessment concludes that the introduction of 10dB screening attenuation from the building structure would ensure that there would be no sleep disturbance at the nearest property at 7 Ox Hill as the noise impact would be below the ‘World Health Organisation’ guideline values. In addition, the applicant has made two relevant amendments to the application, relating to the reduced opening hours as noted above, and the proposal to provide a canopy over part of the servicing area, to further minimise the potential for noise impact.

With regard to the home shopping activity, the key noise source is the period when the van’s on-board refrigeration equipment is used to provide the initial cooling of the refrigeration section, which can take up to one hour, as well as the period of up to two hours when the van is being loaded and the refrigeration equipment operates intermittently. The refrigeration plant is only required in the morning as during the day, it occurs whilst the van is on its rounds. The noise assessment concludes that the loading activity is not noisy and with regard to the refrigeration, the assessment concludes that the noise level is below a level where complaints are likely. The Noise Assessment also concludes that the petrol filling station and the recycling centre will have no adverse noise effects.

Another key concern of residents is noise generated by the increase in traffic. In this regard, the Noise Assessment considers changes in traffic flow and concludes that any increase in noise will be below 3dB, which is imperceptible. Accordingly, the Noise Assessment concludes that the changes in road traffic will not cause any adverse noise effects.

Finally, in respect of any mechanical services plant, the Noise Assessment determines that this is not yet specified and cannot therefore be fully assessed, although plant noise is typically controlled by design using target noise levels.

The Environmental Protection Service have considered the submitted Noise Assessment and determined the method to be broadly appropriate.

Whilst the main concern of EPS is noise from plant and equipment and from deliveries and home shopping activity, it is determined that such impacts could be mitigated through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions were the application to be approved. Such mitigation would be secured in the form of limits in noise levels measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises (i.e. the nearest houses) to ensure that the development was not detrimental to the amenity of these residents. The applicant has confirmed in writing by letter dated 18th

85 January 2011 that such mitigation (subject to agreed wording) would, in principle, be acceptable. Additional conditions on the revised opening hours and delivery times, as proposed by the applicant, would further protect the amenity of nearby residents.

On this basis, it must be concluded that the noise impact of the proposed development can be appropriately mitigated and would not be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding residential properties to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds and is therefore in accordance with Policy IB9(d).

Accessibility

Policy BE7 of the UDP relates to the design of buildings used by the public and states that in all buildings, which are to be used by the public, provision will be expected to allow people with disabilities safe and easy access to the building and to appropriate parking spaces. It adds that the provision of other facilities for people with disabilities or with young children will be encouraged.

The applicant has submitted an access statement, which confirms that the proposed site is on one level with no significant change between the car park and the store. Within the store, the sales area is on one level and it is confirmed that all doorways will be of a suitable width to accommodate wheelchairs. Within the car park, a total of 35 disabled parking bays (7%) are provided with tactile paving incorporated as appropriate within pedestrian routes and crossing points, which will have dropped kerbs and appropriate levels of lighting.

In terms of pedestrian access to the store from the surrounding area, it is acknowledged within the Access Statement that pedestrian access is from the western side of the site with the store being 9 metres lower than the adjacent highway (link road). To address this change in level, a series of steps are proposed from the link road to the store with a ramp also proposed, which starts at the location of the new roundabout to the north-west of the store, to achieve the appropriate gradient.

The Council’s Access Officer has considered the application and whilst identifying a number of minor issues relating to matters such as manifestation on the glazing and suitably tactile steps, it is determined that such issues could readily be resolved by means of a planning condition were the application to be recommended for approval, and they are not considered to warrant a reason for refusal as in broad terms, the store is suitably accessible and will necessarily have to comply with Building Regulations. There is a concern with regard to the location of the access ramp, which is presently directed away from the housing to the south and the Access Officer considers that lift access between the pedestrian approach from the south and the store should be provided, either free-standing or connecting to a lift within the store. However, it is the case that a ramp of an acceptable gradient is provided and the provision of a lift within the public realm is not considered to be warranted in this instance.

86 Accordingly, the application is considered to allow people with disabilities safe and easy access to the building and to appropriate parking spaces in accordance with Policy BE7 of the UDP.

Flood Risk and Drainage

The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 such that it is at a low risk of flooding. However, flood risk management remains important and in this regard, Policy CS67 of the Sheffield Core Strategy states that the extent and impact of flooding will be reduced by a range of means, including (a) requiring that all developments significantly limit surface water run-off and (b) requiring the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems or sustainable drainage techniques on all sites where feasible and practicable. The supporting text to Policy CS67 states that surface water must be reduced to 5 litres per second per hectare on all sites over 1 hectare. This reiterates guidance within PPS25: Development and Flood Risk, which confirms at Annex D that all uses of land are appropriate in Flood Zone 1 but for development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or above, the vulnerability to flooding from other sources and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off, should be incorporated in a Flood Risk Assessment. The policy aim of PPS25 in this regard is to ensure that developers and local authorities seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development, and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage techniques.

The applicant has confirmed by letter dated 18th January 2011 that surface water drainage of the site will follow sustainable drainage principles consistent with and providing the benefits of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. In particular, they confirm that existing surface water discharges by infiltration and then run-off into the adjacent ponds. As part of the proposed development, proposed run-off is discharged either by direct infiltration to the ground via an infiltration/soakaway tank or the porous paving solution now proposed to the car park such that the surface water infiltration replicates the existing situation. Moreover, surface water discharge is restricted to a Greenfield run-off rate of 1.9 litres/second/hectare and an overflow is connected to the public sewer to prevent site flooding during extreme events.

The Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed development subject to the application of appropriate planning conditions, principally relating the attenuation of surface water run-off to Greenfield rates and further details of drainage. Such conditions would be applicable were the application to be recommend for approval.

Nevertheless, it is determined that the proposed development will not give rise to any undue concerns in relation to flood risk or drainage and is sufficiently in accordance with Policy CS67 of the Core Strategy and guidance within PPS25.

87 Ecology and Nature Conservation

National Government Guidance set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, advises that development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design.

The submitted Environmental Impact Assessment includes an assessment of Ecology and Nature Conservation and the direct and indirect effects of the development at construction and completion phase, which is in close proximity to the Holbrook Heath and Ponds Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and a small part of which is within the eastern margin of the application site. It is also noted that the site also lies within 1.3km of the Moss Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The EIA considers the impact on habitat and fauna within and around the application site, which includes a varied range of habitats and a number of protected species.

The Assessment notes that in the course of construction, measures such as the careful consideration of lighting and dust mitigation will be required to ensure no adverse impact on the ecology of the area.

With regard to habitats, the Assessment concludes that no rare plants or habitats will be adversely affected by the proposals as the habitat that will be affected is ‘species poor semi-improved grassland’, which is considered to be of negligible ecological value. It does state that a number of habitats of minor-moderate ecological value are present at the site, and indeed, the ponds are of a high ecological value. However, the Assessment advises that the vast majority of these habitats, including all of the ponds, will be retained as part of the proposals with a significant number of habitat enhancement measures proposed such as extensive additional tree planting and wildflower planting to enhance the ecological diversity of the site.

The Assessment does note the presence of protected species on site, including Great Crested Newts and Grass Snakes but it is stated that the vast majority of habitats will be retained and enhanced. Where small areas of habitat are affected, the applicant considers that sufficient mitigation measures, such as providing enhanced ecological areas, are proposed. Indeed, the Assessment advises that there will be no net loss in the conservation status of any protected, rare or notable species as a result of the proposed development such that the development will not result in any significant adverse impacts.

Finally, it is noted that a wildlife tunnel is proposed beneath the new link road to provide a connection between the application site and the Heathlands Open Space.

Sheffield Ecology Unit has considered the submitted Assessment and has advised that they broadly accept the method and findings of the Assessment. They do note that in their view, the loss of 57% of the land is a significant loss of habitat and

88 the Ecology Unit do not necessarily concur with the view expressed within the application that this can be seen as an ecological gain because what remains will be enhanced. They also note that Holbrook Heath and Ponds are a proposed Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and the presence of five protected species indicates that the site is very significant for biodiversity.

The Sheffield Ecology Unit also highlights a number of key issues that would require further consideration were the application to be approved. These include lighting, which it is acknowledged can be very detrimental to wildlife as many species behaviour is determined by day length (rather than temperature); altering the behaviour in terms of breeding, feeding and migrating. The Ecology Unit consider that this is an issue both during and post construction albeit that this concern has subsequently been somewhat mitigated by the proposed reduction in opening hours and the move away from a 24-hour store. The Ecology Unit have raised some concerns regarding the impact on protected species within the site and the extent of the wildlife buffer zone; however, it is the case that these species are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act such that any works that may impact upon these species are strictly controlled by other legislation.

The Ecology Unit notes the introduction of the wildlife tunnel, which they state were also used under the road at Tinsley, where they appear to have been successful. They also advise that a 10 year management plan would be appropriate at this site were the development to progress. The applicant has subsequently confirmed in writing that they would agree to a 10-year management plan were the application to be recommended for approval, and they would also agree to transfer a piece of suitable land within the landowner’s ownership outside the site to the Council or a local body, together with a commuted sum to cover management costs to further enhance the ecological value of the area.

Overall, the Ecology Unit conclude that the assessment of Ecology and Nature Conservation is acceptable and that appropriate mitigation can be introduced to sufficiently protect the bio-diversity of the site such that a refusal on these grounds cannot be sustained.

Sustainability

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy relates to climate change, resources and the sustainable design of developments and advises that all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and function in a changing climate. They must also be designed to use resources sustainably. The supporting text to CS64 advises that to satisfy the policy, all new non-residential developments over 500 square metres should achieve a BREEAM rating of very good (or equivalent).

Policy CS65 of the Core Strategy, which relates to renewable energy and carbon reduction, applies to both new buildings and conversions and requires all significant developments to secure the following, unless it can be shown not to be feasible or viable:

89 (i) Provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy AND (ii) generate further renewable or low carbon energy or incorporate design measures sufficient to reduce the development's overall predicted carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. This would include the decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy required to satisfy (i).

This application includes the submission of a Sustainability Statement to address the requirements of Policy CS64 and CS65. With reference to Policy CS64, the applicant has submitted a BREEAM pre- assessment document and have also confirmed within the Design and Access Statement that the store can achieve a target of BREEAM Very Good, to accord with Policy CS64.

With regard to Policy CS65, the Design and Access Statement states that the core design principle of this store is to achieve a 50%+ carbon saving versus 2006 emissions, which is achieved by energy reductions within the store construction (30%) and from low carbon technology (20%). Indeed, the submitted energy statement advises that a range of low carbon technologies are viable at this site and could be utilised to reduce the carbon emissions of the development to 1410 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum from the Part L: 2006 compliant base (which has recently been amended) of 2115 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. The key technologies proposed are building fabric and energy efficiency measures such as the use of natural daylight, natural ventilation and intelligent, efficient lighting and a gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit. It is estimated that 26% of the site’s overall energy demand would be provided through on-site decentralised low carbon energy.

Measures incorporated into this ‘eco-store’ design include air sealing, rainwater harvesting (at least 50% of the rainwater that falls on the roof is to be captured to provide grey water for toilet flushing to reduce run-off), roof lights to provide natural daylight, high level glazing to each flank elevation, roof vents to allow warm air to escape and cooler air to enter when ambient conditions are suitable, sun pipes to provide additional daylight with zero solar gain to back offices where roof lights are less viable and solar shading where necessary.

Overall, it is determined that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence with the application to demonstrate that the proposed retail store could sufficiently meet the objections of Policies CS64 and CS65 of the Sheffield Core Strategy and is acceptable in this regard.

Archaeology

Policy BE22 of the UDP advises that development will not normally be allowed which would damage or destroy significant archaeological sites and their settings. Where disturbance is unavoidable, it is determined that development will only be permitted where there is an adequate archaeological record of the site and if the find is significant, that remains are preserved in their original position.

90 Although no archaeological assessment was submitted as part of this application, South Yorkshire Archaeology Service have advised that were any development to be permitted at this site, it has the potential to have a major impact on archaeological features in the proposal area and archaeological investigations would be necessary to understand the implications of the site and whether there would be a need for archaeological mitigation.

SYAS note that very little archaeological work has been undertaken in this area but there is evidence indicating that a Roman road ran through Halfway, close to the application site. In addition, finds of coins dating from the Roman and pre-historic periods respectively have been found south of Holbrook, indicating that the area may have been utilised in the pre-historic and Roman periods. SYAS therefore recommend that a desk-based assessment is prepared at the earliest opportunity, which SYAS consider to be prior to determination in accordance with guidance within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. In this instance, on the grounds that the application is recommend for refusal, a desk-based assessment has not been requested although the archaeological potential of the site is noted for future development opportunities.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

In response to the objections submitted to this application as a consequence of the public consultation exercise, the following is advised:

Traffic

It is considered that the objections relating to traffic, principally in terms of traffic congestion generally, the new bus route and link road, the effect on Deepwell Avenue, the impact on the Oxlose Park North Roundabout and the implications on the wider highway network to Rotherham Road have been fully assessed in the report above.

Retail Issues

A number of the objections submitted in relation to retail issues advise that there is no need for a further supermarket in the area and it will have a detrimental impact on smaller shops in local areas in Eckington, Halfway, Mosborough, Killamarsh and Beighton as well as Crystal Peaks.

These matters are fully addressed in the report above. In particular, however, it is noted that the new National PPS4, which replaced the former Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) removes the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate the need for a proposed retail development. Moreover, it is relevant to note that the submitted Retail Assessment does indicate sufficient convenience expenditure capacity within the area to support the proposed Tesco.

Design and Layout

Objections submitted in relation to the design and layout of the store are addressed fully in the report above.

91 Noise Pollution

The objections submitted in relation to noise pollution are addressed fully in the report above.

Light Pollution

The objection submitted in relation to the proposed 8 metre light towers, which the objector considers would affect both the residents and the wild life in the area, particularly in the autumn/winter months is noted. However, it is not considered that the impact of light pollution is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application as lighting schemes can be appropriately designed to minimise light spill and light pollution, particularly as the store will no longer be open for a 24-hour period.

Air Pollution

The matter of air quality is addressed fully in the report above.

Land Use issues

The Council concur with the objection that it would be more beneficial to use the land for residential purposes as this would be in line with current adjacent development and would satisfy the demand for housing in the area. In response to the objection that the area is a very desirable Green Belt and residents do not want to look at an elevated supermarket, it is advised that the application site does not comprise Green Belt land, as noted in the report above.

Ecology

The matter of ecology is addressed fully in the report above.

Employment issues

In response to the objections relating to employment issues, it is not possible to determine whether there will be a shift from Morrisons (or any other retailer) to Tesco rather than new jobs per se. With regard to the objection that the store will not create the local jobs as claimed as the management team will be brought in from existing stores and the jobs they create will be mostly part time, it is advised that Tesco did confirm at their public meeting that a small number of the management team would initially be brought in from other stores. However, it is still the case that some new jobs (both full time and part time) would be created as a result of this store although the regeneration benefits of these jobs is not considered to outweigh the Council’s objection to the land use as outlined in the report above.

Bus link and Bus Gate

The issue of the link road and bus gate is fully addressed in the report above.

92 Construction Hours

In response to the comment regarding construction hours, it is advised that this application is recommended for refusal. However, construction hours on sites in close proximity to residential properties are generally restricted to daytime hours to comprise Monday to Friday: 8am to 6pm, Saturday: 8am to 1pm and Sunday and bank holidays: no noisy activities on site.

Other issues

The impact of the development on house prices is not a planning matter.

The objection that the store will spoil the last piece of green land is noted; however, the land is presently allocated for Industry and Business and has extant permission for business development rather than being allocated as an open or green space.

The objection that the development will significantly increase carbon dioxide output through the store itself and by queuing traffic is considered in the sustainability section above.

The objection that a resident only purchased their house because they were advised that this land would either be developed as small business units such that this is a breach of their understanding is noted. However, an applicant can clearly submit a planning application at any time, which is then assessed against relevant land use as in this case.

In response to the objection that the wildlife corridor will not mitigate the impact on wildlife, this matter is addressed in the report above.

The application is recommended for refusal such that there is no Section 106 Legal Agreement in place although it is noted that were the application recommended for approval, the highway infrastructure improvements and bus link would have formed part of any agreement?

With regard to the comment that no provision is shown for renewable energy, this is not the case as set out in the sustainability section above.

In response to the comment that there has been little community consideration regarding the new access through Deepwell Avenue, the impact of the store on residents of Deepwell Avenue is considered fully in the report above.

In response to the comment that a secondary entrance off Station Road would be best for the store, it is considered that this route is unlikely to be viable and would involve land that is not within the applicant’s ownership.

In response to the formal objections submitted on behalf of other retailers and statutory consultation, the following is advised:

The objection submitted on behalf of WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC (Morrisons) relates principally to the site’s allocation for housing development within the

93 Sheffield Development Framework Draft City Sites and Policies Document and the failure of the application to justify 8254 square metres gross of retail floorspace and the subsequent impact. It is considered that these matters are fully addressed in the retail section above.

The objection submitted on behalf of Hermes Real Estate, who owns the Crystal Peaks shopping centre also relates principally to retail issues in accordance with PPS4, which are fully considered in the report above. It is noted that Hermes state that the strong trading performance of the existing Sainsbury’s at Crystal Peaks has been overstated as the latest trading information (Verdict Grocery Retail 2010) suggests that the store is trading at broadly expected levels. However, it is the Council’s view that even if Sainsbury’s is trading at expected levels at £42M per annum (which is £4M over the benchmark turnover set out in the Sheffield Retail Study), the subsequent anticipated loss to Tesco of £6M per annum would result in an annual turnover of £36M and Officers consider that this is insufficient to demonstrate an unacceptable impact that would lead to the closure of Sainsbury’s. Indeed, the Sheffield Retail Study has examples of two main food store operators trading at 5% and 20% below benchmark (Asda Chapeltown and Waitrose). This is addressed fully in the report above.

The objection from Sainsbury’s, that the development would be contrary to national and local planning policy and should therefore be refused, is considered fully in the report above.

In response to the representations submitted by Derbyshire County Council, these are fully considered in the retail section above.

In response to the comments submitted by South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, these are fully considered in the highways section above.

Natural England raised no objection to the proposal and their comments have been considered fully in the report above.

Finally, the comments of the Sheffield Sustainable Development Design Panel are addressed in the Design and Layout section above.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes the construction of a new retail superstore with a gross external floorspace of 8254 square metres and a net sales area of 5364 square metres. Of the total net sales area, 56% (3048 square metres) will be used to sell food (convenience goods) with the remaining 44% (2315 square metres) used to sell non-food products (comparison goods) such as toiletries and household products as well as clothing, books, CDs and DVDs, homewares and electrical products. It includes the construction of a car park with accommodation for 503 vehicles and 72 cycles, a petrol filling station with six pumps, a bus turning circle within the car park, which is to be landscaped.

A link road is also proposed from Oxclose Park North to provide a dedicated access point into the proposed store at a new roundabout, which will also provide

94 an arm to serve a future development site to the north-east of the proposed store. The link road will continue on to connect to Deepwell Mews and then Deepwell Avenue, which will be a bus only section. The position of the link road is as per the original approval for the mixed-use development of this site in 2001.

Within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan the application site extends over three land use designations. A significant proportion of the site is designated as General Industry with Special Industries. A smaller strip of land closest to the properties on Ox Hill and to the east of Deepwell Drive is designated as a Business Area whilst a part of the site towards the southern boundary is designated as Open Space. Relevant polices within the UDP in relation to General Industries Areas (Policy IB5) and Business Areas (IB7) advise that only small shops (less than 280 square metres) are acceptable within these designated areas such that large scale retail is contrary to both Policies IB5 and IB5 and the application represents a Departure from the Unitary Development Plan.

With reference to the designation of part of the site as open space, only a small part of the site towards the southern boundary is allocated as open space and no built development is proposed on this part of the site. Furthermore, although designated in the UDP as open space, it is not included within the Council’s open space audit as it is a more informal area of open space that is accessible to the public only with the landowner’s permission and primarily has the function of a green corridor. As such, the application is not considered contrary to Policy CS45, CS46 or CS47 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy.

However, Policy CS22 of the SDF Core Strategy confirms the requirement for new housing over the period 2004/5 to 2007/08 and 2008/09 to 2025/26 and states that sufficient sites will be allocated to meet the housing requirement to at least 2020/21 and a 5-year supply of deliverable sites will be maintained at all times, in accordance with guidance within PPS3: Housing. Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy relates to housing in Greenfield sites in the period 2025/26 and advises that no more than 12% of completions will be on Greenfield sites in the period between 2004/5 and 2025/26 and will only be developed (as relevant to this site) in sustainably located larger sites within or adjoining the urban areas and larger villages if annual monitoring shows that there is less than a 5 year supply of deliverable sites. In this regard, it is concluded that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement. Its development as a supermarket would represent an inefficient use of land that would undermine the Council’s objective of maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable sites and a further supply of developable land, as required by Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and PPS3. On this basis, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy CS22 and guidance within PPS3.

With reference to retail policy principally set out in PPS4, whilst the proposed site is an out-of-centre site with less potential for linking trips to other shops within an existing centre, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach and it is concluded that it would be difficult to provide ‘clear evidence that the proposal would lead to significant adverse impacts’ on either Crystal Peaks or Eckington and Killamarsh in Derbyshire as required such that, overall, the application must be considered to accord with the overriding sequential and impact assessment principles of PPS4.

With regard to highways, the applicant has confirmed their willingness to accept a range of mitigation measures identified by the Council’s Highways Officer to mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development such that there are no highway issues to warrant a reason for refusal of the application on these grounds. The applicant has also demonstrated that they can achieve the diversion of the 120 service, to include the provision of a bus stop within the store and an additional bus stop on the new link road. This ensures compliance with Policy IB9 of the UDP, Policy YH7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and meets the main objectives of PPG13 and PPS4 to deliver more sustainable patterns of development.

The proposed design and layout of the store and petrol filling station is concluded to use materials of a sufficiently high quality and represents a contemporary design approach that maximises the sustainable credentials of the store to provide natural daylight and natural ventilation that it is, on balance, considered to be consistent with the objectives of Policy BE5 of the UDP and Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy. The development can also deliver a sufficiently high quality of landscaping in accordance with Policy BE6 of the UDP and be appropriately accessible in accordance with Policy BE7.

With regard to noise and air quality, it is considered that appropriate mitigation could be provided to ensure that, were the application to be considered favourably, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers in accordance Policy IB9 (b) of the UDP nor would it breach the objectives of Policy CS66 of the Core Strategy in relation to Air Quality.

Whilst an important site in terms of bio-diversity, the Sheffield Ecology Unit are satisfied that, through appropriate mitigation, the impact of the development is not sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application on these grounds. Furthermore, the application fully accords with the sustainability objectives set out in Policy CS64 and CS65 of the SDF Core Strategy and does not give rise to any undue concerns in relation to flood risk or drainage such that it is sufficiently in accordance with Policy CS67 of the Core Strategy and guidance with PPS25.

In conclusion, it is determined that whilst acknowledging that a number of new jobs will be created as a result of the proposed development, this part of Sheffield is not considered to be an area with high levels of environmental, economic or social deprivation, particularly in comparison to other parts of the City to override the Council’s view that the application site is required to meet the City’s housing requirement. Its development as a supermarket would represent an inefficient use of land that would undermine the Council’s objective of maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable sites and a further supply of developable land, as required by Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and PPS3 and is recommended for refusal on these grounds.