VIEWS: 16 PAGES: 160 POSTED ON: 3/30/2012
Transformation and Sustainability SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION VERSION CITY CENTRE AREA BACKGROUND REPORT Development Services Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street SHEFFIELD S1 2SH September 2007 CONTENTS Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 The Context ........................................................................................................ 1 The Emerging Options ........................................................................................ 1 The Preferred Options ........................................................................................ 1 Additional Options ............................................................................................... 2 Submission Version ............................................................................................ 2 The Scope of this Report .................................................................................... 2 Introduction to the Issues .................................................................................... 3 2 CITY CENTRE QUARTERS .............................................................................. 19 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 21 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 22 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 22 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 23 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 24 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 26 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 27 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 28 3. OFFICES IN THE CITY CENTRE ...................................................................... 29 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 30 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 32 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 32 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 33 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 34 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 38 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 39 4 SHOPPING IN THE CITY CENTRE .................................................................. 41 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 42 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 44 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 45 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 45 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 47 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 53 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 53 5 CULTURAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY CENTRE .............................................. 55 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 55 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 58 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 59 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 60 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 60 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 62 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 63 6 THE UNIVERSITIES .......................................................................................... 65 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 65 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 68 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 68 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 69 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 70 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 72 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 73 7 HOUSING IN THE CITY CENTRE .................................................................... 75 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 76 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 78 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 78 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 79 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 81 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 87 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 87 8 MANUFACTURING AND THE CITY CENTRE – TRANSITION AREAS ........... 89 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 90 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)............................................. 91 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................... 91 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) .......................................................... 91 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ..................................... 93 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ......................................... 96 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)........................................ 97 9 TALL BUILDINGS IN THE CITY CENTRE ........................................................ 99 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) ............................................................ 99 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)........................................... 101 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................. 101 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) ........................................................ 102 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ................................... 104 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ....................................... 107 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)...................................... 107 10 TRANSPORT IN THE CITY CENTRE ............................................................. 109 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) .......................................................... 110 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)........................................... 113 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................. 113 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) ........................................................ 114 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ................................... 115 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ....................................... 118 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)...................................... 118 11 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY CENTRE ................................. 121 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) .......................................................... 121 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)........................................... 123 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................. 123 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) ........................................................ 124 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ................................... 124 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ....................................... 126 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)...................................... 127 12 OPEN SPACE AND RIVERSIDES IN THE CITY CENTRE ............................. 129 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) .......................................................... 130 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)........................................... 131 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) ................. 132 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) ........................................................ 133 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) ................................... 134 Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) ....................................... 137 Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)...................................... 138 13 OTHER RELEVANT STRATEGY DOCUMENTS ............................................ 139 The City Centre Masterplan ............................................................................ 139 City Centre Living Strategy Supplementary Planning Guidance ..................... 140 Night-Time Uses – Draft Interim Planning Guidance ...................................... 140 Planning for Town Centres: Guidance on Design and Implementation Tools (2005) .............................................................................................................. 140 The Urban Design Compendium (September 2004) ....................................... 140 Cathedral Quarter Action Plan (2005) ............................................................. 141 CIQ Action Plan (1999) ................................................................................... 141 Sheaf Valley Masterplan (2006) ...................................................................... 141 The Moor Design and Development Framework (2004) ................................. 141 The Devonshire Quarter Action Plan (2000) ................................................... 141 St Vincent’s Action Plan (2004)....................................................................... 142 Castlegate Masterplan (2005) ......................................................................... 142 Kelham Island and Neepsend Action Plan (in preparation) ............................. 144 West Bar Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) (July 2006) .................................. 144 Wicker Riverside Action Plan (Expected 2007) ............................................... 144 APPENDIX 1 – DELIVERY SCHEDULES .............................................................. 145 APPENDIX 2 – CONNECTIONS WITH NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY ................................................................. 153 List of Tables Table 1 – Office Developments of at least 1,000 square metres Completed in Sheffield City Centre in 2006 & 2007 .................................................................. 5 Table 2 – Office Developments of at least 1,000 square metres Under Construction in Sheffield City Centre, July 2007 .......................................................................... 6 Table 3 – Sheffield City Centre Quarters and Related Area Documents .................. 10 Table 4 – Hierarchy of City Centre Retail Locations and Appropriate Development . 49 Table 5 – Major Development Schemes Undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield in Sheffield City Centre, 1993 to 2007 .............. 70 Table 6 – Buildings of 10 or more Storeys Proposed or Under Construction in Sheffield, July 2007 ......................................................................................... 103 1. INTRODUCTION The Context 1.1 This report provides background information and evidence to support the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development Framework. 1.2 The Sheffield Development Framework is Sheffield’s Local Development Framework, which the local planning authority is now required to produce. It will contain all of the City’s planning policies and proposals and will replace the outgoing Unitary Development Plan. Further information about the Sheffield Development Framework can be found in the project programme, known as the Local Development Scheme1. 1.3 The Core Strategy is the first of the development plan documents in the Framework. It sets out the overall planning aims and objectives and establishes the broad spatial framework for all the other documents. 1.4 The Core Strategy has been prepared in several stages, based on periods of consultation. These stages were about: Emerging Options Preferred Options Additional Options (for a few issues only) Submission, for final representations and public examination. The Emerging Options 1.5 The Emerging Options were the broad choices for the Core Strategy and they were set out in a separate document2. They were drawn up to enable the Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of drawing up the Strategy. The City Council consulted on these options and then decided which to take forward as Preferred Options. The other options have been rejected but this document sets out how they were taken into account and why the Council is proposing the Preferred Options instead. The Preferred Options 1.6 The Preferred Options were published3 and consulted on as the ones that the Council was minded to take forward to submission. However, the choice of option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging 1 Sheffield Development Framework: The Local Development Scheme. Sheffield City Council (revised October 2006). SDF Local Development Scheme 2006 2 Sheffield Development Framework: Emerging Options for the Core Strategy. (Sheffield City Council, May 2005). SDF Core Strategy Emerging Options 2005. 3 Sheffield Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council, (May 2005). SDF Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006 1 Options had been rejected. In most cases these Preferred Options were taken forward as policies in the draft submitted Core Strategy4. Additional Options 1.7 Further work indicated that there were a few issues to be covered that had not featured in the earlier options consultations and there were some issues that had been considered where a new option needed to be considered. These were set out in the Additional Options Report 5 and consulted on. Submission Version 1.8 Much of the Submission Version follows the approach proposed in the Preferred and Additional Options and takes account of comments made about those documents. However, the opportunity remains in the final period for representations to draw attention to any outstanding matters that it is still considered would make the submitted document unsound. The soundness of the document will be decided by a Planning Inspector through a process of public examination. 1.9 The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the Core Strategy is sound. They are prepared specifically to help consultees and the Inspector come to a view about the Council’s position. The Core Strategy itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies. So, the more detailed background information and analysis there is all found in the Background Reports. 1.10 The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Development Framework but they clearly contribute to the statutory process of preparing it. The regulations refer to ‘DPD [Development Plan Document] documents’ and these may include: “such supporting documents as in the opinion of the authority are relevant to the preparation of the DPD”6 1.11 The Background Reports all fall within this definition. The versions of the Background Reports supporting the submitted Core Strategy have been made available for inspection with the Core Strategy. The Scope of this Report 1.12 This report supports the submitted policies covering Sheffield’s City Centre. The chapters are based on each of the issues covered in the chapter on the City Centre in the Core Strategy document and they deal with each of the 4 Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Draft for submission to the Secretary of State. Sheffield City Council (September 2007) 5 Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Additional Options. Sheffield City Council (February 2007) SDF Core Strategy Additional Options 2007 6 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4) 2 soundness tests in turn. A final chapter deals with issues not followed through to the submitted Core Strategy. 1.13 The intention was to consider possibilities in a way that takes account of the wishes of communities and other stakeholders, and that is appraised for sustainability. In some cases, options were taken forward to become policies. Other options were discarded, but the next four chapters describe how they have been taken into account and why the Council has rejected them. In some cases the preferred option and subsequent policy is a combination of the earlier emerging options. 1.14 Stakeholders have been involved extensively through all stages. Their comments have been recorded as part of the statutory consultation process, and where relevant, their comments are referred to in the chapters. Stakeholders included Sheffield One, the urban regeneration company that is now part of Creative Sheffield. Introduction to the Issues 1.15 The following section provides the context for the policies and gives a brief introduction to the overall scope of the policies, what they include and what they omit and why. It is a general introduction to the wider policy influences on the Core Strategy policies, and supports the argument that the policies are generally sound. 1.16 The City Centre is recognised as a key economic driver for the City and the City Region, and the Core Strategy policies seek to promote this. It is defined as the area within the Inner Relief Road together with the Kelham/ Neepsend area (as shown on the Key Diagram). 1.17 The policies have been extensively informed by area action plans and the City Centre Masterplan (2000, reviewed 2007), which are needed to deliver the vision for the City Centre. Predominant forms of City Centre development are offices, shops, cultural and leisure facilities, the universities and housing, and the policies reflect this. Definition of the City Centre 1.18 The City Centre forms part of the City Centre-Nether Edge Panel Area. This panel area also covers the neighbourhoods of Sharrow, Highfield, Broomhall, Broomhill, Nether Edge, Brincliffe, Endcliffe and parts of Heeley. However, this Area Background Report covers just the City Centre because of the strategic importance and complexity of the City Centre, and its distinct and unique character. 1.19 For the purposes of this Background Report and strategies and policies in the Sheffield Development Framework, the area of the City Centre is considered to be the area within the existing Inner Ring Road to the west and south (Hoyle Street, Netherthorpe Road, Hanover Street, Hanover Way, St Mary’s Gate and St Mary’s Road), the railway line serving Midland Station, Park Square and the Parkway to the east, the railway line that runs over the Wicker 3 arches to the north and Rutland Road / Penistone Road to the north west. This area is virtually the same as the Central Area (Area 10) in the Unitary Development Plan, and the boundary is shown in detail on the Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options Proposals Map.7 History 1.20 Sheffield City Centre has grown gradually but sporadically over the centuries. The rivers were the initial focus of development in medieval times, but the city grew significantly during the Industrial Revolution. Much of the old street patterns have been retained but few of the older buildings remain as a result of clearance. Different areas of the City Centre have developed different primary functions over the years. The old markets area has retained its retail function, though this is currently in decline, whilst other retail areas have grown up around main routes such as Fargate and The Moor. Industrial areas that developed alongside houses on small sites have remained in these areas, despite the nature of their operations changing and their sites becoming less appropriate for modern manufacturing. The City Centre has always had an important role as a leisure destination and attractions have become well established. Sheffield City Centre, therefore, has developed an important role in the three major sectors of employment, shopping and leisure. In the very recent past it has also developed a strong residential function. Economy 1.21 The City Centre, with its wide range of sectors, is closely involved with the city’s overall economy. Gross Domestic Product per head of population in Sheffield has increased more than in most of the other 7 core cities (Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Nottingham) since 1996. But average weekly earnings have decreased and are significantly below average for core cities. 1.22 Employment is now concentrated in the distribution, hotels and restaurants and public services sectors of the economy - Sheffield having changed from being a primarily manufacturing employer to a mainly service employer. There has been an increase in employment in growth sectors such as banking and finance since 1997, although this is not as big as witnessed in the core cities as a whole and the absolute number of firms is relatively small. 1.23 Sheffield appears to be becoming a more attractive location for investment with a steady increase in the number of enquiries for investment opportunities received by Creative Sheffield, the organisation that deals with inward investment enquiries for the city. 1.24 This increasing demand is being translated into an increase in office development schemes in the City Centre, after several years of inactivity. The new offices built in 2005 at Riverside Exchange by Wilson Bowden, occupied by Irwin Mitchell, were the first major new offices completed since 2001 in the City Centre. This renaissance in City Centre office development has 7 Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Development Framework Emerging Proposals Map, Area 8, or http://sheffield.leadpartners.co.uk/pdf/map8.pdf 4 continued through 2006 and into 2007, with three significant schemes completed in 2006 and four schemes already completed, as detailed in Table 1 below. Two more schemes are expected to be completed in 2007, as detailed in Table 2 below. Table 1 – Office Developments of at least 1,000 square metres Completed in Sheffield City Centre in 2006 & 2007 Date Value Office Estimated Completed (£m) Floorspace jobs (sq.m.) Heart Of the City - New Offices March 24 8,800 500 - 1, St Paul's Place 2006 ‘Metis’ Former Parkwood June 2006 4 2,650 140 College, Solly Street / Scotland Street – part of mixed, mainly residential scheme ‘V1’, Solly Street / White Croft / November 8 3,800 200 Tenter Street – part of Velocity 2006 Living Housing Development 'The Circle', Rockingham Lane March 5 3,500 190 2007 Castlegate ('The Square') - 8 April 2007 5,000 260 Offices Phase 1 (Office No. 4) Butcher Works, 72 Arundel May 2007 9 2,300 150 Street '1 North Bank', Central June 2007 13 6,500 340 Riverside, Blonk Street / Wicker / Sheldon Row / Willey Street Total 71 32,550 1780 Source: Major Development Schemes database, Sheffield City Council 1.25 This improvement will continue in 2008, with at least five schemes currently under construction, which will deliver a significant amount of new office floorspace 2008. These are also shown in Table 2 below. These are clear signs that, after the lull in City Centre office development for 4 years, provision of new office floorspace is increasing dramatically to meet improving demand. 1.26 The environmental quality, particularly civic spaces and the ‘public realm’, has also improved dramatically in the last year or two. Improvements have recently been completed in the area in front of the Midland Railway Station, at Barker’s Pool, Howard Street, Surrey Street and in the Peace Gardens. 5 Table 2 – Office Developments of at least 1,000 square metres Under Construction in Sheffield City Centre, July 2007 Value Office Estimated Expected (£m) Floorspace jobs Completion (sq.m.) ‘Riverside Exchange' 38 22,150 1,000 2008 (Former Exchange Brewery), Bridge Street / Millsands 'Oneleven', 1-11 Arundel 9 2,000 100 November Gate 2007 Kelham Island - 4 1,200 130 Corporation Street / Alma Street Former Office World Site, 15 10,500 450 Late 2008 Furnival Square, Eyre Street / Furnival Street ‘V2' Tenter Street / Solly 8 6,200 350 December Street / White Croft 2007 'V3', Tenter Street / Solly 3 2,000 100 Spring Street / White Croft 2008 Castlegate ('The Square') 8 4,700 250 May 2008 Phase 2 - Offices No. 1 'City Gate S1', St Mary's 15 7,900 450 Autumn Gate / Young Street 2008 Heart Of the City - Offices 20 8,300 400 Phase 2 (No. 2 St Paul's Place) - Charles Street / Arundel Gate / Norfolk Street Heart Of the City - Offices 20 11,700 400 Early 2009 Phase 3 (3 St. Paul's Place) - Charles Street / Arundel Gate / Norfolk Street Total 140 76,650 3,630 Source: Major Development Schemes in Sheffield, Sheffield City Council8 1.27 Significant transport improvements are also being delivered, with the final phase of the Inner Relief Road due for completion in September 2007, and improvements to the Midland railway station completed in 2006. 1.28 There is also significant investment in other major construction schemes in the City Centre. The 4-star Mercure (formerly McDonald) hotel, part of Heart of the City, opened in 2005 and the Leopold Hotel, operated by Prem Group, has just been completed in the former Education Department buildings on Leopold Street. Another hotel development has started on the site of the former Office 8 Major Development Schemes in Sheffield. Sheffield City Council (July 2007) http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning- documents/background-reports/major-development-schemes-in-sheffield 6 World on Eyre Street. The City Hall has been refurbished and the Crucible Theatre is also undergoing a major refurbishment. The University of Sheffield have recently completed a building to house a bio-incubator laboratory and office block next to the Brook Hill roundabout, where a the learning resource centre, the Information Commons, has also just been completed. Another building is under construction nearby on Leavygreave Road. There is also major retail investment taking place with the recent redevelopment of Carmel House at the top of Fargate to accommodate H&M, amongst others. Redevelopment of the Moor, to include a new Markets building has begun with the clearance of several buildings. Preparation (or ‘enabling works’) for the £600 million New Retail Quarter (NRQ) is underway, with the scheme proper expecting to start in 2008 to create a new, bigger John Lewis store by 2011, with many more new shops to follow. In order to facilitate this, a new fire station is under construction on Eyre Street that will enable the existing station on Wellington Street to be demolished to make way for new John Lewis store. The City Centre’s largest open space, Devonshire Green, is also undergoing refurbishment. 1.29 Sheffield City Centre is a major employment centre for the wider city region. A workforce of over 1 million people live within one hour’s drive of the city and around 60,000 people work in the City Centre. Population 1.30 The City Centre is also becoming increasingly important as a place to live. The resident population within this area is rapidly growing. The City Council estimated, using Census of Population data,9 that 6,500 people lived in the City Centre in 2001. This represented a large increase on the figure for 1991, when approximately 1,600 residents were recorded in the Census. 1.31 In the 5 years since then, 1,705 dwellings and over 1,200 student bed spaces have been completed. This would put the current population at over 10,000. Currently there are around 5,000 committed residential units in the City Centre, which are either under construction, or where planning permission has been granted but construction has not yet begun, as well as 2,200 student bed spaces committed10. It is difficult to be sure about how many people this amount of new building will bring in, but if we assumed 1.5 persons per dwelling, plus another 2200 to account for student bed spaces, this would mean that at least 20,000 people would be living within the City Centre by 2016. These figures illustrate how the City Centre will increase in importance as a centre of population in the next decade. Context 1.32 The City Centre has a key role in the Sheffield City Strategy11 and a vital role in the spatial vision for a wide range of types of development. The City Centre 9 An Updated Baseline for Sheffield - A Final Report for Sheffield One. ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited (July 2002) 10 Sheffield Housing Land Survey 2006. Sheffield City Council (2007) 11 Sheffield City Strategy 2005-10 – Updated 2007. Sheffield First Partnership (September 2007). www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/Sheffield%20City%20Strategy.pdf 7 Masterplan12 was produced in 2001. Work is currently in hand to update this and a roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan will be produced in 2007. SDF policies have developed alongside this work and references to relevant initial findings are included in this report. The City Centre Core Strategy policies are needed to deliver the vision for both the City Centre and the city as a whole. They will form the context for future Area Action Plans for areas within the Centre. 1.33 The emerging roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan summarises the position of the City Centre at the present time as moving from arresting decline to starting recovery, with the next stage being transformation. This is very much in keeping with the transformational aims of the Core Strategy. The opportunities are increasing and the potential to maximise and capture these opportunities is greater than at any time in the recent past, but will require a variety of interventions in order to maximise this potential. 1.34 The City Centre Masterplan also recognise that the success of Sheffield City Centre is crucial to the economic performance of the whole city region, which is a fundamental premise on which both City Regional Development Plan and the emerging Economic Masterplan for Sheffield are both based. 1.35 The City Centre Masterplan identifies the need to create a critical mass of development, that can only be achieved by prioritising particular locations for the development and consolidation of business, education, shopping, culture, and housing, along with the creation of a diverse array of high quality shops, offices, universities, cultural venues, restaurants, cafes, clubs and parks, to give residents and workers a wider choice. 1.36 Predominant forms of City Centre development are offices, shops, cultural and leisure facilities, the universities and housing. Shops need to be concentrated in a strong single core and this is already about to be achieved through the redevelopment of the NRQ. Most large-scale headquarters-type offices seek to share prestigious locations with similar businesses and need good accessibility for their employees. The ‘Heart of the City’ area is already providing this but new locations need to be identified to enable the continued expansion of these sectors. Other types of business will require less expensive prestigious locations and less central locations are set aside for them. 1.37 The locational requirements for residential development are less specific but it is currently the most powerful player in the market for land and property. Provision needs to be made where it would support investment in new business and it should not be allowed where it would undermine the objective of economic transformation. It should also be in locations where the environment is acceptable for City Centre living needs. 1.38 The broad locations for other key uses are already well established, such as the two universities, which play a vital role for the economic and social life of 12 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Sheffield First Partnership (2001) - see http://www.creativesheffield.co.uk/DevelopInSheffield/CityCentreMasterplan/?WBCMODE=Presentatio nUnpublished 8 the city. Cultural facilities also form an important existing cluster centred around the Tudor Square area. 1.39 But extensive other areas are in a state of change as a result of strong demand from developers, run-down buildings that need renewal or both. Some of these areas already have distinctive roles to be developed. In others the future character reflects the best opportunities that are available to ensure that sustainable regeneration takes place. 1.40 Within this broad framework the 12 ‘quarters’ have been identified. The quarters are referred to in the draft Yorkshire and Humber Plan (the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, or RSS),13 on page 92. Needs and Opportunities - The City Centre Quarters 1.41 The City Centre is becoming more attractive to visitors of all kinds. Recent figures reveal that footfall in the City Centre is growing steadily. The number of visitors to Sheffield's most popular shopping streets in January 2006 was six per cent higher than the same month in 2005. Footfall counters in Fargate and Pinstone Street, recorded 1,240,000 pedestrian trips in January. This was an increase of more than 70,000 from the previous 12 months.14. 1.42 The variety of uses present and the vibrancy of the City Centre make it necessary to resolve tensions within the centre between competing claims. This is done by identifying broad areas where different uses will predominate - the quarters - and identifying broad priorities in different areas. This means that the Strategy has to ‘zoom in’ to the City Centre at a greater level of detail than would be appropriate for other, less intensively used, areas of the city. These quarters each have their own individual characteristics, and the Sheffield Development Framework seeks to apply different strategies for each of them, to capitalise on their unique character and improve the attractiveness and value of the City Centre as a whole. This has been the City Council’s approach for some time already, and this is reflected by the fact that there are already several Development Briefs, Action Plans, Masterplans etc., either published or in preparation, that cover many of these areas. Details of these various documents are set out later in this Report in Chapter 13. 1.43 For information, details of the identified quarters are set out below. Action Plans, Masterplans and other Guidance have been produced or are in production or for most of the quarters. These are discussed in detail in this chapter but are summarised in Chapter 13. 13 The Regional Spatial Strategy – The Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Draft for Public Consultation. Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (December 2005) 14 http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/view.asp?content_id=2671&parent_id=263 9 Table 3 – Sheffield City Centre Quarters and Related Area Documents Quarter Document Status 1. Heart of the Sheffield City Centre: Adopted by the City Council City / NRQ Supplementary Planning as a material consideration. Guidance For The New Retail Quarter. Sheffield City Council (July 2002) 2. Cathedral Cathedral Quarter Action Adopted by the City Council Quarter Plan 2004-2014. Sheffield as a material consideration. City Council (February 2005) 3. Cultural Cultural Industries Quarter CIQ Plan now largely Industries Action Plan - Sheffield City delivered. SV Masterplan not Quarter Council (1999), Sheaf adopted but will be Valley Masterplan - OCA incorporated into the City consultants (March 2006) Centre Masterplan. 4. Sheaf Sheaf Valley Masterplan. Not adopted but will be Valley OCA consultants (March incorporated into the City 2006) Centre Masterplan. 5. The Moor The Moor Design and Endorsed by the City Development Framework. Council’s Area Planning DB Real Estate Board as a basis for (November 2004) considering future development proposals. 6. Devonshire Devonshire Quarter Action Now largely delivered. The Quarter Plan. Sheffield City City Centre Masterplan will Council (2000) take on the future challenges for the area. 7. St. None The roll forward of the City Georges Centre Masterplan will address the issues for the area. 8. St. St Vincent’s Action Plan Adopted by the City Council Vincent’s 2004-2014. Sheffield City as a material consideration. Council (December 2004) 9. Castlegate Castlegate: Policy and Endorsed by the City Council Development Framework. as a contribution to the City Sheffield City Council / Centre Masterplan Review EDAW (October 2005). and to the emerging SDF. 10. Kelham / Kelham Island and In preparation. Anticipated Neepsend Neepsend Action Plan. completion August 2007. Sheffield City Council 11. West Bar West Bar Interim Planning Adopted by the City Council Guidance. Sheffield City as a material consideration. Council (July 2006) 12. Wicker / Wicker / Riverside Action In preparation – public Riverside Plan consultation undertaken in May 2007. Anticipated completion September 2007. 10 Heart of the City, including the New Retail Quarter (NRQ) 1.44 This area is the geographical core of the City Centre, and comprises the main civic, arts and cultural buildings and the prime retail streets. It has been the focus of intensive regeneration action over the last ten years, but this momentum needs to be continued and, to this end, three major projects are designed to extend and strengthen the attractions of the area: The Heart of the City project itself, which has created a series of popular public spaces – the Peace Gardens, Winter Gardens, Millennium Gallery, Hallam Square and Town Hall Square. These have acted as a setting and stimulus for private investment, which is now well under way around the new Millennium and St Paul’s Squares, in partnership with CTP St James and City Lofts. The New Retail Quarter - a joint initiative between the City Council and Hammerson Plc to develop a retail-led scheme with approximately 80,000 square metres of retail floorspace, including cafes, bars and restaurants and a new John Lewis anchor store, multi-storey car park, up to 300 apartments, transport interchange, and extensive public realm, over an 8 hectare prime City Centre site, at a cost of about £600 million. A planning application was approved by the City Council in August 2006, and there is Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for the NRQ that will inform the development of the project.15 The City Hall – the complete refurbishment of one of the Region’s premier concert halls, along with a dramatic improvement of the public realm setting. The City Hall re-opened and the refurbishment of Barker’s Pool was completed in 2006. Cathedral Quarter 1.45 This is one of the oldest parts of the City Centre, focussed on Sheffield's mediaeval Anglican cathedral and a number of good Georgian and Victorian buildings, streets and squares, which form part of the City Centre Conservation Area. Although originally a residential area it has been the city's professional, legal and financial district for over a century. However, in recent years changes in these businesses have forced some firms to seek relocation to modern, large floorplate buildings outside the Quarter, resulting in vacant properties and sites. These requirements are now being directed where possible to the St Vincent’s Quarter and Riverside, thus extending the business/professional district into former industrial areas. The Cathedral has completed a major expansion of its pastoral and community facilities to equip it for a role in the future of the City Centre. 15 Sheffield City Centre: Supplementary Planning Guidance For The New Retail Quarter. Sheffield City Council (July 2002) – see http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city- development/planning-documents/spg 11 1.46 The approved Cathedral Quarter Action Plan (2005)16 has been produced to guide the redevelopment. More detail of this plan is set out in paragraph 13.12 below. Cultural Industries Quarter (CIQ) 1.47 The CIQ contains parts of Sheffield Hallam University’s main campus. Hallam University has already invested heavily in consolidating its campus in the area, most recently by moving its student union into the iconic HUBS Building, and further investment in academic facilities is taking place around Arundel Street. The CIQ initiative has established a key cluster in the area focussed around Paternoster Row and in the Conservation Area. But companies are distributed throughout the Quarter, mainly in former industrial buildings like Jennec and Workstation 1 & 2, and high quality new space such as Persistence Works. Further development is anticipated at the listed Stirling and Butcher Works (now largely completed) but there is now a need for further incubation, spin- out and expansion space in the Quarter, which could be met in sites such as the Digital Campus and Porter Brook. 1.48 Opportunities for office development are also emerging along Eyre Street following works to reduce severance and enhance the public realm. Over the last five years the area has seen a rapid expansion of housing, mainly for students and concentrated around Shoreham Street. But there could be tensions between the established nightclubs in the area and new residential developments. 1.49 The area remains very short of open space. The balance between the demands of residential and employment uses is now becoming a critical issue. The Midland Railway Station has been improved. Major public realm and traffic improvements have created a new Sheaf Square as a principle pedestrian arrival point for the city with a high quality route to the Heart of the City and Hallam University via Howard Street and Hallam Square. Vehicle access to the City Centre is now via Matilda Street, relieving Paternoster Row of through-traffic. Key public realm and open space requirements remain at Paternoster Row / Brown Street, Charles Street, around the Porter Brook and over links to the South Street / Park Hill green space. All of these issues are currently being reviewed by consultants on behalf of Creative Sheffield and Sheffield City Council in updating the City Centre Master Plan (2000) and the Cultural Industries Quarter (CIQ) Action Plan (1999). This will be informed by work on the Sheaf Valley Masterplan17, that covers both the CIQ and Sheaf Valley Quarters. Sheaf Valley 1.50 This part of the City Centre is also experiencing major change. It contains Sheffield Hallam University's Central Campus, the core of South Yorkshire's Creative and Digital Industries, the city's main railway and bus stations and a 16 Cathedral Quarter Action Plan 2004-2014. Sheffield City Council (February 2005) www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/background- reports/cathedral-quarter-action-plan 17 Sheaf Valley Masterplan. OCA Consultants (March 2006) 12 number of key business development sites. Hallam University has particularly consolidated its campus in this area. The Quarter will complement the CIQ in helping to meet the need for further incubation, spin-out and expansion space in sites such as the Digital Campus. 1.51 The Sheaf Valley Masterplan18 has been the subject of extensive public consultation and has been adopted by the Sheffield One (now Creative Sheffield) board. It has yet to be adopted by the City Council, as it is expected that the principles it sets out will be taken up and incorporated into the new City Centre Masterplan. The Moor 1.52 This is a large, linear, 1950’s and 60’s retail area, with a range of shops from discount stores through to major department stores. In the past it has been perceived as a downmarket area and becomes something of a ‘ghost town’ once the shops close, as there are virtually no residents living here. These issues are being addressed through a new Design and Development Framework19 for the area. The City Council’s Area Planning Board endorsed the revised Moor Development Framework as a basis for considering future development proposals for The Moor. 1.53 Its location, between the NRQ, the CIQ and the Devonshire Quarter, gives it a unique opportunity to take advantage of the ever-increasing pedestrian flows between these areas as they are gradually developed. It is largely under a single ownership (RREEF, formerly known as Deutschebank), potentially making any comprehensive redevelopment a lot easier. 1.54 A major project will be starting in 2007 that will see the construction of an indoor market, to replace the Castle and Sheaf Markets, the introduction of major residential uses into the area, new office development and the provision of a new multi-storey car park. Further redevelopment on a block-by-block basis is anticipated over the next decade. Devonshire Quarter 1.55 The Devonshire Quarter, between the Inner Ring Road, Charter Row, West Street, Glossop Road, Cambridge Street and Holly Street, is already a thriving, distinctive part of the city with independent, niche shops, restaurants and bars. The area contains a mix of uses including retail, light industry/business and residential. Devonshire Green is the major open space in the area and is used for events and festivals for the city and provides a focal point for the quarter. An improvement scheme for Devonshire Green started in the summer of 2007. 18 Sheaf Valley Masterplan. OCA Consultants (March 2006) 19 The Moor Design and Development Framework. DB Real Estate (November 2004) http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning- documents/background-reports/the-moor-design-and-development-framework 13 1.56 The Devonshire Quarter Action Plan20 was adopted in 2000. It has largely achieved its goals and the roll forward of the City Centre Masterplan will take on the future challenges for the area. St. Georges 1.57 The St. George’s Quarter consists of the area north and south of Leavygreave Road, Portobello and Trippet Lane. It includes the former St George’s Church and is very much dominated by the University of Sheffield. However, there are also retail areas on the northern side of West Street and a significant business area between Trippet Lane and Broad Lane. St. Vincent’s 1.58 This is an area at the North West of the City Centre that has suffered decades of slow decline and dereliction. This is especially highlighted along and around Upper Allen Street and elsewhere. It continues to be an active business and employment area, and is home to numerous important industrial and service companies. It also retains a residential community in and around Edward Street flats. The Quarter includes three Conservation Areas at Kelham, Well Meadow and Furnace Hill. 1.59 Due to its location on the edge of the City Centre and close to universities, hospitals and the legal and professional quarter, the area has become the focus of great development pressure in the last two or three years, especially from the residential market. In December 2004, the City Council adopted the St. Vincent’s Action Plan21. This Action Plan was produced in response to these development pressures and an acknowledgement by the City Council that the planning policy designation afforded by the Unitary Development Plan, which identified much of the area as a General Industry Area where heavy industry was preferred and housing was unacceptable, was no longer appropriate or helpful. The Action Plan seeks to allow for residential uses to develop in the area as a catalyst for regeneration, whilst still allowing the area to perform an important role as an important City Centre employment location. The Action Plan has been adopted as a material consideration when determining planning applications, and has also informed the production of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy, City Policies, Proposals Map and City Sites. Over the last year or so, the aims of the Action Plan have begun to be realised, and the area has undergone a significant amount of change. This is expected to continue over the next few years. More detail on the Plan is set out in paragraphs 13.17 to 13.21 below. Castlegate 1.60 The Castlegate Quarter is one of the oldest areas of Sheffield, the site of the fortress founded in the early 12th century and the main market area of the 20 Devonshire Quarter Action Plan. Sheffield City Council (2000) 21 St Vincent’s Action Plan 2004-2014. Sheffield City Council (December 2004) - See www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/background- reports/sheffield-central-riverside 14 original settlement. The Quarter is seen as an important gateway to the City Centre from the north and east. 1.61 This area has been dominated by the Castle Market in the past and has a high number of buses that use Waingate and Haymarket. The markets are about to be relocated to The Moor, which would offer an enormous opportunity for redevelopment and for creating a new vision for this Quarter. It is anticipated that new development will focus on uncovering parts of the castle remains (built around 1270) and reconnecting the area to the river and down towards Victoria Quays. 1.62 A highly prominent site in the Castlegate area, by Park Square, is being developed by Carillion, to accommodate 33,500 square metres of offices, a multi-storey car park and a hotel. 1.63 Victoria Quays is the canal basin area that was redeveloped a number of years ago. The Quays consist of residential, commercial and small retail and leisure units. Currently the area is cut off from the rest of the City Centre to some extent, but with the redevelopment of the Castlegate area and the completion of the Inner Relief Road, connectivity will be greatly improved. 1.64 The Castlegate Masterplan (Policy and Development Framework document) was developed by EDAW consultants and approved at Cabinet March 200622. Cabinet endorsed the Castlegate Masterplan, comprising ‘The Vision’ and the ’Policy and Development Framework’, as the basis for guiding future regeneration of the Castlegate Quarter; as a contribution to the City Centre Masterplan Review and to the emerging Sheffield Development Framework. The plan provides a vision for the quarter, and will be used by the City Council to guide future development. It sets out the long-term vision for the area, that includes more commercial and leisure opportunities and less retail use. Kelham / Neepsend 1.65 The Kelham Island area is in a state of transition. The area remains firmly industrial, although many of the activities which existed in the area’s heyday have given way to light industry and business such as packaging, or information technology and office use, for example at Aizlewood’s Mill, Lion Works and Globe Works. However, industries that are traditional to the area still have a significant presence. 1.66 Residential uses have developed at Cornish Place and Brooklyn Works, and a further phase of residential development has recently been developed around Alma Street, but at present the area is not particularly welcoming, and can sometimes be threatening, due to anti-social behaviour. This is considered to be damaging to those businesses in the area that rely on attracting visitors, and to those business that need customers to visit their premises. The area also contains the city’s Industrial Museum, a major tourism asset. Although the museum was appropriately located in the days when heavy industry made 22 Castlegate: Policy and Development Framework. Sheffield City Council / EDAW (October 2005). See http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning- documents/background-reports/castlegate-masterplan 15 the area a typically ‘Sheffield’ bustling scene, the current run-down and vacant condition of buildings in the vicinity deters visitors and has helped account for relatively low attendance figures. The development of a livelier, safer residential area, with shops, cafes around the Alma Street and Kelham Goit open spaces, and a riverside walk to the City Centre, is seen as a positive improvement to the area that will also significantly benefit the museum. 1.67 Existing industries are important not only to the character of the area, but also to the wider Sheffield economy, and as such the City Council must consider what effort should be made to retain and nurture them in the area. However, it has to be recognised that heavy industrial operations falling within the industrial (B2) use class are incompatible with the new residential uses, so there will be no long-term future for industrial uses alongside or nearby. This does not mean that other kinds of employment in growth areas that can be unobtrusive neighbours cannot thrive in the cleaner, safer, restored historic environment. 1.68 As premises have been vacated, they have been identified by developers as possible sites for mainly residential redevelopment. This new influence is beginning to make a significant mark upon the area, and the anticipated major influx of students, young professionals and others will change the character of the area. 1.69 Work is underway to undertake a comprehensive survey of the Neepsend / Upper Don Area, which will identify all the businesses, residential complexes and other sites within the area, with a view to developing a Kelham Island and Neepsend Action Plan for this area. West Bar 1.70 From a business point of view, the West Bar quarter has a professional and legal focus, containing the main courts buildings, but including a large potential redevelopment area to the north, much of which has become ripe for development as a result of the provision of the final phase of the Inner Relief Road. 1.71 Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) has been produced for the West Bar Quarter23.. It was adopted as a material consideration for determining planning applications. Wicker / Riverside 1.72 This is an area at the northern edge of the City Centre that has suffered steady decline over many decades. The Wicker is a key pedestrian, public transport and private vehicle gateway into the City Centre that is underachieving and the volume of traffic along Nursery Street, as part of the de facto Inner Relief Road, has led to the river being inaccessible and the area becoming severed from the City Centre. 23 West Bar Interim Planning Guidance. Sheffield City Council (July 2006) 16 1.73 The area has recently benefited from residential development at Riverside Exchange and Nursery Street, and further new housing will be provided on the Hancock and Lant site (by Lady’s Bridge) and as part of the Priority Sites scheme at Blonk Street, proposing speculative office development and the refurbishment of Security House on Joiner Street for flexible live/work units. 1.74 An Action Plan for the area is currently under production and was the subject of a consultation exercise in May 2007. This is expected to be completed in September 2007. Areas where Change is not Envisaged 1.75 There are certain parts of Sheffield where we anticipate that little significant change will occur over the period of the forthcoming Core Strategy (i.e. to 2026). In these areas the Core Strategy would emphasise stability and the safeguarding of what we have. The nature of the City Centre is such that there are very few areas where little or no change is expected, but there are areas of residential use that are expected to continue for many years, especially where new residential uses have recently been introduced. These areas are: (a) To the west and south west of Devonshire Green, particularly West One and Broomspring. These were identified in the Unitary Development Plan as Housing Priority Areas and it is envisaged that they will remain as residential areas. (b) The housing area around St George’s Close has just been redeveloped, and its principle use will continue to be residential. (c) Other, smaller residential areas have developed since the Unitary Development Plan was adopted. These are also expected to remain for some time in residential use. Examples are either side of Leadmill Street, the Victoria Hall student flats on Wellington Street and the immediate area and the Alma Street area in Kelham Island. 1.76 Other parts of the city are also expected to retain their current primary uses: (a) The Transport Interchange, including the Midland railway station. (b) The academic institutions of Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield are expected to retain their presence in the City Centre. Indeed, some expansion of the universities, particularly their business partnerships, is likely (see policy SCC5, chapter 6). (c) Regionally important leisure facilities such as the City Hall, Lyceum Theatre, Crucible Theatre and Pond’s Forge and cultural facilities such as the Millennium Galleries, Winter Gardens, Graves Art Gallery and the Central Library will continue to provide sport and cultural facilities and tourist destinations for residents and visitors (see policy SCC4, chapter 5. 17 (d) Public Spaces at Devonshire Green, the Peace Gardens, Hallam Square, Cathedral Square, Sheaf Valley, Park Square, Tudor Square, Barker’s Pool and Fitzalan Square are expected to continue to provide an important recreational and environmental contribution to the City. 18 2 CITY CENTRE QUARTERS Introduction 2.1 The previous chapter has shown how the City Centre currently has many different areas that each has a distinctive character. The promotion of these as ‘quarters’ that can specialise in particular uses is a way of allowing as wide a variety of uses as possible in the City Centre 2.2 The City Centre is important in providing a wide range of types of development that serve the whole of the city and the City Region. This variety can create tensions within the centre between different competing claims. The main land uses in the City Centre are offices, shops, cultural and leisure facilities, the universities and housing. 2.3 The Council has produced an Urban Design Compendium24 for Sheffield City Centre following extensive consultation that outlined broad urban design principles for the City Centre and detailed guidance for a series of City Centre Quarters in terms of design and land use mix. More detailed guidance has been provided by a series of Action Plans for some of the Quarters, which have also been subject to public consultation. 2.4 Some uses stand out as candidates for segregation in specific areas or quarters. For example, night-time uses such as pubs, bars, cafes and nightclubs may not co-exist well with housing. The use of quarters that can ‘specialise’ in particular uses could be a way of allowing as wide a variety of uses as possible in the City Centre, whilst still keeping certain potentially conflicting uses apart to some degree. 2.5 ‘Quarters’ are defined as “A distinctive area of the City Centre that displays a unique character and is an area in which it would be appropriate to have a unique development programme and set of policies”. Policy SCC1 City Centre Quarters The distinctive and fundamental roles of different ‘quarters’ of the City Centre will be consolidated and strengthened, namely: (a) Heart of the City, including the New Retail Quarter – the prime office and retail streets and main civic, arts and cultural buildings, with high-quality public spaces. Shopping and visitor facilities, in particular, will be improved; (b) Cathedral Quarter – currently the main professional, legal and financial district, strengthened by the introduction of a richer mix of uses including residential, leisure and retail; 24 Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium, September 2004 19 (c) Cultural Industries Quarter – an area with a wide mix of uses and established as the main location for the city's creative and digital industries, as one of the key growth clusters for the economy of the City Region; (d) Sheaf Valley – an important gateway area and the academic focus for Sheffield Hallam University; (e) The Moor – a linear retail area anchored by several major stores and the proposed location for the new indoor market, that also has considerable potential for mixed office and residential uses and will experience major changes; (f) Devonshire Quarter – a thriving, distinctive and vibrant area with city living, niche shops, restaurants and bars and a variety of business uses with the City Centre’s largest green space, Devonshire Green; (g) St. George’s – a mixed area that is an academic focus for the University of Sheffield, with complementary retail and business uses; (h) St. Vincent’s – a mixed business, residential and educational area with links to the University of Sheffield and the legal and professional quarter and including a number of manufacturing companies that will require sensitive attention; (i) Castlegate – an area for a mix of uses including offices, housing, hotels and leisure, linking the Heart of the City with Victoria Quays, as a focus for mixed waterside uses – relocation of the central Markets will reduce the retail presence and create potential for the viewing of the Sheffield Castle ruins; (j) Kelham/ Neepsend – formerly dominated by industry but becoming a focus for new riverside housing and jobs with the Inner Relief Road as a catalyst to redevelopment – existing small businesses will continue to perform an important economic role for the City as a whole; (k) West Bar – a mixed area of predominantly business uses, with a possible emphasis on the legal and financial professions, being located close to the Courts complex; also a location for new housing and a new neighbourhood centre and public space; (l) Wicker/ Riverside – a gateway location on the Inner Relief Road and key business area with new housing taking full advantage of the opportunities presented by the river. 20 Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 2.6 The submitted policy accords with advice from the Government in its planning policy statement (PPS6), which suggests that local planning authorities consider the roles of different parts of their centres. Annexe A of PPS6 states: “In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.” 2.7 The policy will also help to deliver the aim of PPS6 set out in paragraph 2.31: “Local planning authorities may need to make choices between competing development pressures in town centres” 2.8 The submitted policy will help to balance City Centre uses and ensure they are all developed in the right places and at the most appropriate levels. Regional Policy 2.9 The submitted policy is in line with Policy SY1 B on page 92 in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, that seeks to: “Support the role of Sheffield as a major provider of jobs and the regeneration of much of Sheffield City Centre, with a range of quarters…” The RSS recognises that Sheffield City Centre has a unique character that is personified by the quarters, that bring economic benefits that should be supported. The Panel Report25 into the draft Plan has not recommended any changes to this policy. Sub-Regional Policy 2.10 This approach is further supported by the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy 26. The Urban Area Vision on pages 14 states: “The city will undertake major redevelopment of much of its commercial heart with different quarters designed to make the city centre into a visitor attraction in its own right.” Other Sheffield Policies 2.11 Current work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has recognised that the quarters are an important planning tool and an effective way of highlighting and enhancing the character and function of different parts of the 25 The Yorkshire And Humber Plan - The Regional Spatial Strategy Examination In Public 12 September–26 October 2006 -Report Of The Panel (March 2007) 26 Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy Vision for South Yorkshire. Ideasmiths Consulting Partnership / South Yorkshire Partnership (November 2004) 21 City Centre. It considers that the interfaces and integration between Quarters and the creation of strong physical and functional linkages between different parts of the City Centre are important. 2.12 The Night-time Uses Interim Planning Guidance27 imposes some restrictions on the hours of operation of night-time uses in three of the quarters where residential use is promoted, namely the Devonshire Quarter, Heart of the City and Cathedral Quarter, which supports this element of the submitted policy. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 2.13 There is no specific reference in the 2007 City Strategy document to the City Centre quarters, although there is considered to be no conflict with the policy. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 2.14 The policy specifically needs to help achieve the following Core Strategy objectives: S14.1 Enhanced character and distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting existing local character and built and natural features to provide the context for new development 2.15 Each of the City Centre quarters has its own particular local character, and as the City Centre will become an increasingly important residential area of the City, this element of the core strategy objectives will be increasingly met. 2.16 The policy is consistent with other Core Strategy policies within the City Centre chapter will assist in their delivery. Policy SCC3 refers the New Retail Quarter, several quarters that are particularly suited to residential uses are referred to in SCC6, and SCC7 recognises the transitional nature of four City Centre quarters. The promotion of quarters that can specialise in particular uses is a way of allowing as wide a variety of uses as possible in the City Centre, whilst still keeping certain potentially conflicting uses apart to some degree. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 2.17 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Rotherham’s Core Strategy28 makes no reference to Sheffield’s City Centre quarters, and the other neighbouring local authorities have yet to produce development plan documents that can be considered alongside this policy for compatibility. 27 Night-time Uses Interim Planning Guidance. Sheffield City Council (October 2005) 28 Rotherham Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Preferred Options. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (January 2007) 22 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 2.18 Two options were proposed for this issue. The first was to allow uses to disperse evenly throughout the City Centre if the market proposed such development, whilst the second was to concentrate particular types of uses in certain parts of the City Centre, to build on the existing distinctive quarters. Option CC5a Plan for types of development, e.g. leisure, retail, housing and offices to be dispersed in all areas of the City Centre. 2.19 The strengths of this option are: (a) Problems of nuisance could be dispersed throughout the City Centre. (b) This option could deliver more choice for restaurants, cafes, pubs, nightclubs, shops and offices for their locational decisions and their methods and hours of operation. (c) The option promotes greater mixing of uses that could mean less travel within the City Centre. 2.20 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) The dilution of certain uses, particularly retail and offices, could adversely affect their viability. (b) The distinctive leisure and cultural quarters that are more attractive for the evening economy of the city as a whole, would be diluted. (c) This option for mixing uses could also mean that people living in any part of the City Centre could be subject to disturbance, which could jeopardise the prospects for regeneration through City Centre living. Option CC5b Emphasise the distinctive role of different ‘quarters’ of the City Centre, e.g. plan for quarters where leisure development can be concentrated. 2.21 The strengths of this option are: (a) This option encourages parts of the City Centre that have a particularly distinctive character to develop their own identity and act as more of a draw, making it clearer to visitors and residents where certain facilities are likely to be located. (b) A concentrated retail quarter is likely to have significant economic advantages (see policy SCC3 below), as the greater the number of outlets and total retail floorspace, the greater the overall draw to the area. (c) The clustering effect of this approach means that the viability of the uses is increased. A concentration of offices can create a business destination 23 and can support hotel and conferencing facilities, for example, art and crafts outlets, if located together, can become a significant tourist and leisure draw. (d) Residential quarters can be concentrated in the better environmental areas, thereby improving their attractiveness as a residential location. 2.22 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) Such clustering of leisure uses like pubs, bars and takeaways can increase anti-social behaviour, that would be diluted if these uses were spread around the City Centre. (b) This option could also discourage mixed development, which can be more viable in individual schemes. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 2.23 Some of the quarters have developed over many years, others have more recently developed their unique characteristics. The two options considered were opposites, one favouring a market-led approach, where uses can develop in any part of the City Centre where development opportunities arise. The rejected option does not promote the quarters concept, whereas the submitted policy, to preserve, develop and create individual areas, seeks to continue recent trends in development and in policy, where the quarters have been seen to provide positive benefits to the City Centre and the City as a whole. Since the 1990’s, the City Council has promoted certain parts of the City Centre for specific development, and the approach has since been endorsed in other strategies. 2.24 The option to promote quarters was chosen as the submitted policy because it was considered that quarters that develop their own identity and functions can act as more of a draw than if the uses were dispersed. They can then be more vibrant and viable because they are likely to become destinations in their own right, rather than being simply a part of the City Centre. The existence of such Quarters makes it clearer to visitors and residents where certain facilities are likely to be located and also make it easier to visit alternative establishments that together might be able to offer a range of goods or services. Quarters can attract particular users and develop niche markets. 2.25 Some uses stand out as candidates for segregation in specific areas or quarters. For example, night-time uses such as pubs, bars, cafes and nightclubs may not co-exist well with housing. The use of quarters that can ‘specialise’ in particular uses could be a way of allowing the wide variety of uses needed in all successful City Centres, whilst still keeping certain potentially conflicting uses separate, something that is a particular challenge for such a compact City Centre as Sheffield’s. 24 2.26 The development of distinctive quarters will support urban renaissance by building on existing positive qualities, enabling creativity and vibrancy whilst not appearing too contrived. 2.27 Quarters with distinct roles and functions can attract particular users and develop niche markets. Similar businesses can cluster together and achieve economic benefits by sharing knowledge and resources, increasing the viability of the retail uses. For example, people are more likely to visit shops that are located close to each other than those that are isolated from other retail outlets. A concentration of offices can support hotel and conferencing facilities. 2.28 A concentrated retail quarter is likely to have significant economic advantages. Most retailers would prefer to be part of an area that had as high concentration of other shops as possible, as the greater the number of outlets and total retail floorspace, the greater the overall draw to the area, and the more potential customers will visit (see policy SCC3, chapter 4). 2.29 Reinforcing the distinctiveness of areas makes the City Centre more attractive as a leisure destination. Creating a concentration of a type of uses can make them into destinations in themselves. Art and crafts outlets, for example, if located together, can become a significant tourist and leisure draw. In particular, the cultural hub in the Heart of the City around the library, galleries and theatres, can be a strong and distinctive destination (see also policy SCC4, chapter 5). Where leisure uses are concentrated they also become more of a draw and make more efficient use of the transport infrastructure. This is particularly important for smaller operations such as cafes, pubs and bars. 2.30 Residential quarters can be concentrated in the better environmental areas, thereby improving their attractiveness as a residential location, and making the regeneration of certain parts of the City through City Centre living more feasible (see policy SCC6, chapter 7). 2.31 The new national planning policy statement (PPS25)29on flood risk requires local authorities to consider risk in both allocating sites for development and determining planning applications. 2.32 The Heart of the City (including New Retail Quarter), the Cathedral Quarter, the Moor, the Devonshire Quarter, St. George’s, St. Vincent’s Quarter and West Bar are situated in Zone 1 Low Probability. About half of the Cultural Industries Quarter (south and east) is situated within Zone 3a High Probability, due to flooding from the River Porter and the River Sheaf. The Sheaf Valley Quarter is partially situated within Zone 3a High Probability. Nearly all of Kelham/Neepsend and Wicker/Riverside are situated in Zone 3a High Probability, subject to flooding from the River Don. 2.33 Even in the quarters with areas with a high probability of flooding it is not considered that the risk is sufficient to influence the choice of option or the vision for that quarter. 29 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, DCLG, December 2006. 25 Sustainability Appraisal 2.34 As the submitted policy promotes different quarters for particular types of uses, it performs better that the rejected option in terms of delivering economic, educational and housing sustainability benefits. It is also considered to contribute towards providing a safer environment, improving transport accessibility and helping to preserve the city’s cultural heritage. Equality Appraisal 2.35 There were equality benefits of the policy over the rejected option, as it benefits those with low access to private transport and those on low incomes, by promoting a range of similar uses in the City Centre, in the same area, making choice more available to public transport users than if they were dispersed in several areas. Consultation Responses 2.36 This preferred option is derived from the emerging option CC5b (see paragraph (a) above). 2.37 There was virtually unanimous support for the policy at the Emerging Options consultation stage, including from Sheffield One, Yorkshire Forward and the CPRE. In particular, the CPRE said: [the preferred option] “supports the urban renaissance. These areas must build on existing qualities and functional relationships, be innovative and exciting but not too contrived.” 2.38 There was also overall support for the policy at Preferred Options stage, from the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Forward. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 2.39 A successful City Centre needs to provide a significant draw, and this will result from the facilities it provides, as well as the overall attractiveness of the place itself as a destination. For a City Centre to be ‘user-friendly’, it needs coherence, and one that has distinct areas within it, that each serve a particular purpose and have their own character will, taken together, make up a more viable destination than one without such an identity. The submitted policy is considered to be essential to ensure that Sheffield City Centre has this pull factor. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 2.40 The policy will be implemented by: The provision of Action Plans for each of the quarters identified in the policy, that focus on the particular character of the area and set out clear visions for how the strengths of the quarters will be capitalised and built on. 26 They will set out clear visions of how the areas will develop in the future. Current Action Plans / Masterplans, etc. that cover the City Centre are set out in detail in Chapter 13. Decisions on planning applications will also be made with regard to the character of the particular City Centre quarter in which the site is located. More details of delivery mechanisms are included in the Delivery Schedules in Appendix 1. 2.41 There is a balance to be struck between mixing uses and achieving a viable amount of development in a particular location. This balance will be monitored using the indicators for the Annual Monitoring Report. 2.42 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC1. However, a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the topic chapters are directly relevant and are described in the related Background Report: Business and Industry Background Report – see policy SB3. Shopping and Leisure Background Report – see policies SS1 and SS4. Housing Background Report – see policies Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). 2.43 The mix of new development in each of the City Centre quarters will also be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This would not, however, be reported in the AMR but the information will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 2.44 This is not a prescriptive policy, but is intended to guide development and avoid the mixing of uses that could damage the character of the quarters and the City Centre as a whole. It is considered relatively flexible, but also has weight due to its coherence with Regional and other strategies for the City, as well as support from consultees and sustainability benefits. 2.45 Such clustering of leisure uses like pubs, bars and takeaways can increase anti-social behaviour, that would be diluted if these uses were spread around the City Centre. Consideration will need to be given as to how some mixing of uses and urban design can help to deal with this possible negative outcome, without diluting the benefits of the clustering of the preferred uses. This will be a matter for Area Action Plans. 2.46 The potential for mixed development could be reduced by encouraging similar uses to cluster in specific quarters. Area Action Plans need to ensure that the quarters do not encourage single uses to become so dominant that they drive out all other uses and create a sterile and characterless environment and the 27 menus of preferred and acceptable uses in the City Policies document will help to encourage this. 2.47 A benefit of mixing uses rather than focussing on a dominant use for an area is that vitality can be retained throughout the day with two different uses such as business and leisure. Wherever possible this aspect of mixing should be encouraged within the quarters. Conclusion 2.48 The approach of promoting quarters has been well established in Sheffield and has become enshrined in other policy documents, although it was a new planning policy approach at the time of the Unitary Development Plan. With increasing competition between Sheffield City Centre and other centres, including other centres within the City, it is vital that the City Centre continues to perform a function as the main provider of a range of services for the City and the City Region. . It is considered that the character of Sheffield City Centre is defined very much by its quarters, and this needs to be supported and promoted by policies in the Sheffield Development Framework. 28 3. OFFICES IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 3.1 This chapter addresses the issue of how far well-defined office-dominated areas in the City Centre are necessary to attract the kinds of business needed to transform the city’s economy and enable Sheffield to become a major regional employment centre. It analyses the need to create ‘commercial zones’ in Sheffield, balancing this with an approach of allowing flexibility and choice of location by not specifying areas for concentrations of office uses. 3.2 Major office schemes need to be accessible to workers. The Government, in PPS6, has stated that offices are suitable only in existing centres as accessible locations. The City Centre is extremely well connected in terms of transport links, but some parts are more accessible for employees than others, and therefore could be more attractive to office occupiers. But more peripheral locations may be cheaper to develop and could be more accessible by car, which makes them attractive to other potential occupiers. There are several other important City Centre land uses, such as shopping, leisure and housing, which also need to be accommodated in the most suitable areas for them. The City Centre has limited space and needs to cater for many types of businesses and people, which have to be balanced with the need to accommodate the city’s requirement for offices. 3.3 As part of the background work for the Sheffield Development Framework, the City Council commissioned independent consultants to determine what the requirement for employment land should be (see Policy SB1 and the Business and Industry Background Report), as well as assessing the quality and suitability of identified sites to meet this requirement. This included separate need and supply assessments for office use, that will help to determine the extent of office areas that should be designated through the Sheffield Development Framework. 3.4 For the purposes of the SDF, ‘Offices’ are defined as ‘Uses falling within Class B1(a) of the Use Classes Order’. Policy SCC2 Offices in the City Centre New large-scale and high-density office development will be concentrated in the City Centre in Priority Office Areas: (a) in the Heart of the City and Eyre Street, particularly for prestige office accommodation (b) at Moorfoot and Charter Row, particularly for headquarters and other high-quality offices (c) the Digital Campus/ Sheaf Valley areas in front of the railway station, particularly for digital, creative and knowledge-based businesses 29 (d) along the new northern Inner Relief Road and Tenter Street, particularly for professional, financial and legal services (e) Castlegate, on the west side of Park Square, particularly for professional, financial and legal services. Major office development will be promoted and encouraged in these locations. Other uses that provide for active frontages and a vibrant street scene such as cafés, restaurants and leisure will be encouraged in small amounts. Mixed uses including a suitable proportion of housing may also be appropriate. Significant amounts of new office floorspace will also be located in other areas of the City Centre, including development as part of mixed schemes, together with housing where appropriate. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 3.5 Major office schemes need to be accessible to workers. Government guidance30 identifies offices as a main town centre use and requires offices to be in the most accessible locations where there is a need for them. The policy will also help to take forward the issue raised in PPS6 and set out in paragraph 2.31: “Local planning authorities may need to make choices between competing development pressures in town centres”. 3.6 Policy SCC2 will ensure that sufficient office development is completed to deliver economic aims, whilst allowing a balance of other uses. 3.7 Government guidance requires local planning authorities to undertake Employment Land Reviews to determine their employment requirements and seek to safeguard sites to meet the need.31 Accordingly, the City Council commissioned research to help determine the demand for employment land 32 and subsequently to examine the quality of the supply of employment sites.33 This research has suggested that the City is generally short of land for employment uses, including land for office use (the whole issue of employment land requirements and allocations is covered in greater detail in the Business and Industry Background Report and the City Centre Sites and Areas Preferred Options Background Report). As a result, there is a need to identify land in suitable areas that will be designated and protected for office uses. The City Centre (along with the edge of the City Centre) is the most important area for office use, as set out in Policy SB3, and designated priority office areas are needed to focus development and ensure that sufficient office development is achieved.. 30 Planning Policy Statement 6:Planning for Town Centres. ODPM (March 2005) 31 Employment Land Reviews: Guidance Note. ODPM (December 2004) ISBN 1 85112 759 3 32 Employment Land Demand Assessment for the City of Sheffield. Arup (July 2006) 33 Sheffield Employment Sites Survey. Atkins (March 2007) 30 Regional Policy 3.8 The overall approach in the Regional Spatial Strategy, in policy YH1, emphasises the need to improve accessibility to employment, to create more and better jobs and to facilitate fewer and shorter journeys. Concentrating employment in the City Centre, particularly in accessible Priority Office Areas, will help to achieve these policy aims (although the Panel Report has recommended deletion and replacement of this policy with a new policy setting out key spatial priorities). 3.9 Promoting office development in the City Centre is in line with Policy YH5 (iv) of the draft RSS, that seeks to “Strengthen the identity and roles of city/town centres as accessible and vibrant focal points for high trip generating uses”. 3.10 It is considered that the submitted policy will strengthen the role of the City Centre as a major office centre and help to deliver the aims of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy. Sub-Regional Policy 3.11 Page 11 of the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy recognises that: “The vision will require: building on the potential of the city centre with high- quality commercial sites and premises”. 3.12 Concentrating office uses in the City Centre and prioritising certain areas will help to deliver this aim, by creating strong, viable office locations. Other Sheffield Policies 3.13 Ongoing work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has so far identified the need to create a critical mass of development prioritise particular locations for the development and consolidation of business. It recognises the importance of office development and that strong commercial office development will drive job levels, the eating and drinking requirement in the city centre, increase hotel demand and improve the overall vibrancy of the City Centre. Major office development will complement projects such as the New Retail Quarter and underpin the long-term viability of the city centre economy. It is likely to advocate a new business district between the station and Arundel Gate to incorporate the digital campus development and the Heart of the City / Eyre Street, as research has indicated a latent demand for centrally located, quality office accommodation here that represents the best grade A office buildings in the most competitive location. Other Priority Office Areas identified in policy SCC2 are also likely to be supported by the Masterplan proposals. 3.14 Members of Sheffield 100 Forum attended a consultation exercise in the roll- forward of the City Centre Masterplan on July 26th, 2006. The report of their 31 comments,34 on page 5 shows that there was general support for the provision of new employment opportunities and high quality office accommodation. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 3.15 One of the ‘Big Ambitions’ of the 2007 City Strategy is for Sheffield to have an economy that matches the best in Europe. A City Centre that has distinctive office locations that will provide a draw for major occupiers will be a key to delivering this ambition. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 3.16 By concentrating office development in the City Centre in key locations, this policy addresses the following Core Strategy objectives: S1.1 Conditions created for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high- growth economy in the Sheffield city region; S1.3 Environments created, improved and conserved to attract business investment, including high-technology manufacturing and knowledge- based services; S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture; S5.4 Workplaces located where they are accessible to all by a range of transport options, including from areas of high unemployment; S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single journeys to serve several purposes; S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations; S10.3 New development that generates significant trips carried out only in areas accessible by a choice of sustainable forms of transport; S12.1 Previously developed land and existing buildings in urban areas reclaimed and re-used for all types of development, in preference to greenfield land. 3.17 The policy supports the Core Strategy policy on office locations, SB3, that seeks to locate the majority of office development in Sheffield in the City Centre as the most accessible location for major office development. But 34 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 32 some parts of the City Centre are more suited to office uses than others, and other key City Centre uses that also need to be accommodated. So the best office locations need to be specifically identified and promoted. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 3.18 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Rotherham’s Core Strategy Preferred focuses offices in its town centre. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 3.19 Two Emerging Options were considered, the first to concentrate office development in certain parts of the City Centre, the second to allow dispersal throughout the City Centre. Option CC2a Offices concentrated in important core office areas. These could be, for example, along the new Inner Relief Road, Tenter Street / West Bar, Eyre Street, the Digital-Campus area and Castlegate. Other uses will be strictly limited in these areas. 3.20 This option would seek to create new areas where offices would be very much the dominant use. 3.21 The strengths of this option are: (a) Well-defined office areas in central locations are necessary to attract the kinds of business needed to transform the city’s economy and enable Sheffield to become a major regional employment centre. (b) Defining Priority Office Areas enables the allocation of sites specifically for office use, helping to meet employment requirements and deliver job targets as set out in the City Strategy. (c) A concentration of offices in particular locations can support complementary developments, such as hotels and conferencing facilities. Established commercial zones can also help to encourage other compatible uses that will attract workers, such as cafes, bars and restaurants. (d) Offices are more attractive and viable if located in prominent, high-profile locations, where companies can ‘be seen’. (e) Creating areas with a high concentration of office development could improve accessibility and public transport provision. (f) There are parts of the City Centre that have potential for redevelopment, where there are opportunities for new business destinations to be created. 3.22 The weakness of this option is: 33 (a) There is a danger that the concentration of offices in Priority Office Areas could reduce the demand for offices in other parts of the City Centre, if they were to be seen as ‘secondary’. Option CC2b Offices dispersed throughout the City Centre 3.23 This option would allow for office development to take place in any concentrations anywhere in the City Centre. 3.24 The strengths of this option are: (a) It could achieve more mixing of uses throughout the City Centre. (b) Identified development sites could have more flexibility in terms of the uses they may deliver. 3.25 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) It gives no guarantee of delivery of the required scale of office uses, which could make it difficult to deliver the requirements set out in Policy SB1, and also to deliver Policy SB3. (b) The advantages of specific, focussed office locations may not be delivered. (c) Some office occupiers that would look to well defined office areas might not be drawn to Sheffield. (d) Office development is likely to take place in areas that are not the most accessible and sustainable locations. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 3.26 The policy represents the favoured option to focus office development in particular areas that are the most viable and suitable locations. This will attract a greater number and variety of office occupiers. The locations set out in the submitted policy are considered appropriate to appeal to a wide range of potential occupiers as demonstrated below. The policy also recognises that there is a need to also provide some office development in other parts of the City Centre. 3.27 It is clear from comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the two options that well-defined office-dominated areas in central locations are preferable and indeed necessary to attract the kinds of business needed to transform the city’s economy and enable Sheffield to become a major regional employment centre. The office market has picked up significantly in the last three years and there is a need for more modern, high-quality floorspace, to meet the requirements of potential occupiers and investors. There are parts of the City 34 Centre that present immediate and identifiable opportunities for redevelopment, where land is underused and buildings are old. 3.28 Offices are particularly appropriate in the City Centre as they deliver a greater density of employment per square metre of floorspace than other employment uses, so promotion of them through Priority Office Areas will increase the capacity for office development in the City as a whole. 3.29 Currently there are inadequate established ‘commercial zones’ in Sheffield, but most businesses would prefer to be located in areas that have a strong commercial character. Offices are more attractive and viable if located in prominent, high-profile locations and these need to offer modern, high quality premises, but many businesses prefer to be located in areas that have a strong commercial character. The customers of companies will tend to have greater respect for a business that is located centrally in a well-known location and close to other prestigious firms. This can only happen if there are suitable areas within the City Centre for offices to concentrate. 3.30 Creating areas with a high concentration of office development, rather than spreading development around the City Centre creates the potential for improved accessibility, as public transport links and public car parks can be located to serve an area where there is a significant level of visitor and worker activity. Public transport improvements, particularly, are only likely to be provided if there is a critical mass of new development and resulting commuters that create sufficient demand for new services. 3.31 The Heart of the City and Eyre Street area represents an extension to the first phase of the Heart of the City scheme that has created a new prime office location. Rental levels on phase one are the highest ever achieved in Sheffield and there is a need to increase this provision of grade A office space (as noted in the work on the City Centre Masterplan – see paragraph 3.13 above). This likely to be a priority of the City Centre Masterplan, which is seeking to create a new business district. 3.32 However, there is also a need (identified in the City Centre Masterplan work) to cater for prestige new development that may not be suited to the ‘prime’ or grade A locations. There are also limits on capacity in these areas. Moorfoot and Charter Row are locations that would be suitable for other large-scale office development and high-quality office floorspace, as established areas that offer significant redevelopment opportunities. 3.33 Policy SB4 has identified the need to cater for the main growth area, the knowledge-based, creative and digital sector. It is appropriate to identify a specific area that could provide for this type of business, and the Sheaf Valley area, being close to the Science Park and Hallam University main campus, is considered suitable. Its proximity to the railway station and Interchange make it highly appropriate and generally sustainable as an office location. 3.34 Because of the limited capacity for new office development in the City Centre, there is a need to take advantage of all sustainable opportunities for new development. The building of the northern section of the Inner Relief Road 35 has resulted in many old properties being removed and has created a significant amount of new, vacant, development land. Much of this is considered suitable for office development, particularly as the location next to the Inner Relief Road makes it accessible and highly visible. It is also not well suited to housing use, due to the amenity issues that result from its location next to a busy road. Therefore, it is considered beneficial to specifically identify an area close to this section of the Inner Relief Road for office use. It is also adjacent to an area that is established as a location for financial and legal companies, so should be identified specifically as suited to such companies and promoted accordingly. 3.35 Castlegate is an area that has several advantages. It is an area where recent new office development has taken place and there is a committed developer that is expected to produce more office floorspace here in the future. It is an important strategic location and a gateway area at the end of the Sheffield Parkway and close to the railway station and interchange. 3.36 These Priority Office Areas will be predominantly for office use, but there will also be a need for some mixing with other appropriate uses that complement offices. In particular, cafés, bars and restaurants will be needed to serve workers and customers. Most companies would expect to have a reasonable supply of these supporting facilities and lively uses within the areas they occupy. Leisure uses, such as fitness centres will also be required, as well as other uses that support business activity, such as hotels and conference facilities. Housing can also be appropriate, as it creates a presence outside of office hours that can improve security. Active street level frontages can be created in this way, adding not only to the viability of the office areas, but to the overall attractiveness and vibrancy of the City Centre. These uses, however, should be limited to an appropriate level to ensure that office uses dominate the area, in order to deliver the benefits set out in this chapter. 3.37 National policy on flood risk is noted in chapter 2 in the Planning Reasons section (paragraph 2.31. However, parts of Eyre Street, and the Digital Campus / Sheaf Valley are situated within Zone 3a High Probability, associated with flooding from the River Sheaf. Office development is classed as ‘less vulnerable’, according to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in PPS25. Development of these uses in Zone 3a is therefore not precluded by PPS25, but developments in the affected areas must satisfy the criteria in the City Policies document, incorporating flood mitigation and warning measures. Specific allocations in the City Sites document will also take account of the risk of flooding in the specific area in the light of current advice from the Environment Agency and any proposals for flood protection. There are no known localised non-river flooding issues within this area, though there is a susceptibility to culvert blockage and/or surcharging if regular maintenance is not carried out. Sustainability Appraisal 3.38 This option is considered highly sustainable, as it helps to create sustainable transport patterns and make efficient use of the transport network. There are economic advantages that will benefit job creation in concentrating office uses 36 in particular areas of the City Centre. Concentrated office areas are likely to be more secure than office uses dispersed throughout the City Centre, and can help to support the provision of cultural and leisure facilities are available to most of the population. Equality Appraisal 3.39 The policy concentrates office uses in particular locations that are along routes that have frequent public transport services, that reduces the need for private transport. This helps people with low access to private transport and those on low incomes. Consultation Responses 3.40 The policy is based on the preferred option, which, in turn, was derived from the emerging option CC2a (see paragraph 3.20 above). It was favoured by nearly all of the respondents, including stakeholders such as Sheffield First for Investment, Sheffield One and Yorkshire Forward. Sheffield First for Investment supported the Emerging Option because of: “the need to protect a range of sites suitable for offices and also express a clear long term strategy to developers for these uses.”35 3.41 However, Yorkshire Forward’s support for the Emerging Option was qualified, as follows: “a more dispersed approach to office development across the City Centre could support continued investment in mixed use schemes and ensure that the different Quarters remain active during both the day and evening. Offices as part of mixed developments are important to ensure the office offer in the City Centre continues to grow. So smaller scale office proposals, or offices as part of mixed use proposals could be dispersed through the City Centre.”36 3.42 It is considered that this concern is now addressed by the submitted policy by also identifying the role that other parts of the City Centre are expected to play in delivering office uses. 3.43 There was more limited comment on the Preferred Option, and more objections than support. Yorkshire Forward objected to the inclusion of the E- Campus (now Digital Campus) / Sheaf Valley area in the policy on the grounds that it should be more of a mixed development. This was not accepted, due to the suitability of the sites for major office development as a result of Its proximity to the railway station and Interchange making it a sustainable office location (see paragraph 3.33). 3.44 Other objections focussed on a perceived lack of demand for offices but this is considered to be more of an issue for policy SB1 and evidence for the requirement for office space is set out in the Business and Industry 35 Comment number 4513.09 36 Comment number 4558.53 37 Background Report. Concern was expressed about the size limits on out-of- City Centre locations originally proposed in the Preferred Option (size thresholds have not been included in the policy). Comments were also made on the need to support small businesses, create affordable business space and provide for the creative industries. These issues have been addressed through the City Policies. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 3.45 The submitted policy will cater for the needs of existing and new office occupiers by providing a range of locations that are attractive to companies for a variety of reasons. The locations identified have their own advantages and together should ensure that the City Centre contributes fully to meeting the requirement for new office development set out in policy SB1 and is the focus for office provision for the City Region. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 3.46 The policy will be implemented by: The contribution of City Site allocations to the provision of office development, and the operation of the minimum requirements on development in the City Policies. The City Sites, City Policies and Proposals Map together will ensure that appropriate amounts of office development can be achieved in order to deliver the aims of the policy. Working closely with landowners and developers in the private sector as well as with regeneration and funding agencies such as Creative Sheffield and Yorkshire Forward, to ensure that sites can be developed in accordance with the policy. Using public funding to deliver sites if required. Using Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to assemble the sites that would make up the areas. Ensuring that Action Plans for the relevant parts of the City Centre will be compatible with the policy and set out proposals for delivery clearly. The City Centre Masterplan and Economic Masterplan will also be compatible. Managing demand for other uses through partnership working and decisions about applications for planning permission. 3.47 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC2. However, the target and indicators for policy SB3 are directly relevant and are set out in the Business and Industry Background Report. The target is: 65% of new office floorspace developed in or at the edge of the City Centre 38 Progress against this target will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 3.48 The policy limits the freedom to developers to decide on the mixing of uses on individual sites, throughout the City Centre, but the benefits of a focused office areas will improve the overall supply of office uses in the City Centre. The precise limits will be set out in the City Policies document and the most appropriate balance and degree of flexibility will be further considered in that context. 3.49 There may be a risk that the concentration of offices in such Priority Office Areas could reduce demand for this type of business in other parts of the City Centre. But this will only be a serious problem if there is competition for office occupiers between sites within the City Centre. The requirement for offices indicated in policy SB1 will mean that land will need to be released in both priority and non-priority areas but the distinctive role of the priority areas will be to draw the ‘high-value’ businesses that need and are able to pay for locations in the priority areas. In the present market, evidence is that the overall, longer-term demand from occupiers for office buildings exists but the lack of sites for new development means that it is not being met by the provision of new buildings. It is considered that it would be possible to create the new office areas without having a significant adverse effect on existing office buildings in other parts of the City Centre. 3.50 The positive effects of this option are reliant on the transport infrastructure sustaining the level of journeys that will result from the anticipated increase in office provision in the City Centre. This issue will be considered in the context of policy SCC9, below. Conclusion 3.51 Policy SB3 in Part 2 of the Core Strategy sets out the reasons why the City Centre is the favoured location for offices in the City as a whole, and in the City Region and sub-Region. In order to achieve the aims of this policy, and to meet overall requirements for offices as set out in SB1, there needs to be a clear policy that guides office development within the City Centre to the most effective locations. Work on the City Centre Masterplan has identified particular opportunities and favoured locations. This submitted policy crystallises these into a clear strategy for office provision in the City Centre that will deliver a suitable amount of development, focussed in areas that are the most economically viable and sustainable, whilst also promoting appropriate mixing of uses and some dispersion of offices into other parts of the City Centre. 39 40 4 SHOPPING IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 4.1 Many people who travel into Sheffield City Centre do so in order to shop. The City Centre is a major retail location within South Yorkshire, the City Region and even beyond. Shopping facilities also complement the other major functions of the City Centre such as employment and leisure and act together as a draw to create a vibrant and viable City Centre. 4.2 However, the City Centre from a shopping point of view is currently under- performing, and some of this is down to it being too geographically spread out. There is no strong, distinctive ‘heart’ to the city for shopping, which needs to be addressed if the City as a whole is to move forward and develop economically and socially. Building up an identifiable, core area to act as a focus, and allowing the relative role of the more peripheral areas to reduce, will address this problem. 4.3 The City Council is committed to creating a new heart and focus for shopping in the City Centre. Together with Creative Sheffield and developers Hammersons, it has been working towards the creation of the New Retail Quarter (NRQ), which will cover a significant part of the future Core Retail Area of the City Centre. This £600 million project is expected to begin construction in 2008. The New Retail Quarter will be a large retail-led mixed- use development, to be developed in the area shown on the Key Diagram and in detail on the Proposals Map, centred on land west of Pinstone Street broadly bounded by Rockingham Street, Division Street and Barkers Pool. The site lies in the middle of the Core Retail Area between Moorhead and Fargate and is therefore the best location for additional floorspace to link these two key parts of the city’s retail area. The NRQ is a mixed retail, housing and leisure scheme in the centre of the City's shopping area. It is the subject of an outline planning permission (05/03933/OUT). It has these elements: up to 98,500 sq m (gross area) of new retail floorspace (Class A1-A5) including a 25,000 sqm department store. cafes, bars and restaurants and a new public square; up to 232 residential units (Use Class C3). a nightclub and a health and fitness club (Class D2) off-street public car parking for 2,200 cars 4.4 But there are issues as to the role of the rest of the City Centre, such as the extent of the Core Retail Area outside of the NRQ, and what the retail role of other parts of the City Centre should be. 4.5 Retail uses are defined here as those in Use Classes A1-5, The policy focuses on ‘major non-food retail development’, which is defined as ‘increases in gross floorspace for shops (in Class A1 use) retailing non-food goods, of more than 2,500 square metres’. The ‘Core Retail Area’ is as shown on the Key Diagram. 41 Policy SCC3 Shopping in the City Centre The focus of major new non-food retail development will be in the Core Retail Area, extending from Moorhead to the north end of Fargate. This area will be strengthened as the heart of a regional shopping centre by the development of the New Retail Quarter, a major comprehensive retail-led mixed-use development. Within and adjacent to the Core Retail Area development that might individually or cumulatively prejudice or delay the success of the regeneration of the Core Retail Area will not be permitted. In addition to the Core Retail Area, retail uses will also be required on the ground floor frontages of the following Shopping Streets at the approaches to the Core Retail Area: (a) The Moor (north of Fitzwilliam Gate) (b) High Street. More limited levels of new retail uses will be located on the ground floor frontages of Shopping Streets at the approaches to the Core Retail Area. The other Shopping Streets are: (c) Division Street and Devonshire Street (d) King Street (e) Angel Street (f) Haymarket (g) Arundel Gate between High Street and Norfolk Street (h) Surrey Street. On other streets leading into the Core Retail Area, small shops, food and drink outlets and services that would promote the vitality of the area will be acceptable on ground floor frontages. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 4.6 The submitted policy promotes shopping provision in a focussed retail core area and particularly in a specific development, the NRQ. This is consistent with the Government objectives as set out in PPS6, paragraph 1.5, as it will enhance consumer choice and support efficient and competitive retailing and will improve accessibility to a good range of shops and be well-served by a choice of means of transport. Specifically, the policy will help to: “promote economic growth of regional, sub-regional and local economies, to deliver more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring that locations are fully exploited through high-density, mixed-use development” and to: 42 “provide a sense of place and a focus for the community and for civic activity and ensure that town centres provide an attractive, accessible and safe environment for businesses, shoppers and residents.” 4.7 Paragraph 2.41 of PPS6 requires development of 'main town centre uses' to be appropriately related to the size of the City Centre and catchment that it seeks to serve: “the aim should be to locate the appropriate type and scale of development in the right type of centre, to ensure that it fits into that centre and that it complements its role and function.” 4.8 The City Centre is uniquely placed to cater for the highest order of goods and services to meet the needs of the wider city region. But, the policy also recognises that locations outside the core area may be appropriate for smaller-scale development. 4.9 One of the objectives of PPG13 is to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Paragraph 3 states that land use planning: “will help to reduce some of the need for car journeys (by reducing the physical separation of key land uses) and enable people to make sustainable transport choices.” 4.10 The NRQ and the Core Retail Area will be more accessible to residents of the City by public transport than alternative regional or sub-regional shopping destinations, so will accord with this objective. Regional Policy 4.11 The submitted policy, by seeking to consolidate the role of the City Centre as a focus of new and improved retailing, will help deliver the Core Approach of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which in Policy YH5 states: “Regional and Sub-Regional Centres will be the prime focus for …, shopping, [this] will be achieved through spatial planning and investment measures to … Strengthen the identity and roles of city/town centres as accessible and vibrant focal points for high trip generating uses”. 4.12 Policy YH8(A)(i) in the draft RSS seeks to: “Concentrate the majority of new development and redevelopment on the regional and sub-regional centres”. 4.13 In the same vein, policy E2 states that “City and town centres will be the main focus for … comparison shopping ….” 4.14 This is the clear emphasis of policy SCC3. 43 4.15 It should be noted, however, that the Panel Report into the draft RSS has recommended that Part A of policy YH8 be deleted, as it repeats other policies, in this case the reference above in paragraph 4.11 above. Sub-Regional Policy 4.16 The submitted policy is entirely consistent with the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy. Page 11 of the SYSS recognises that: “The vision will require: building on the potential of the city centre with … an expanded modern retail core”. Other Sheffield Policies 4.17 The City Centre Masterplan had four underlying strategic objectives. Work so far undertaken on the roll-forward of this plan suggests they remain as valid today as they did in 2000. One of these was create a vibrant City Centre for retailing. Research so far undertaken suggests that the City Centre still lags behind comparable cities like Newcastle and Nottingham, not least because the City Centre retail offer has yet to be refreshed, specifically with major schemes such as the NRQ and the Moor redevelopment. The City Centre is still not achieving its full potential in retail terms, and despite the progress towards delivery of the NRQ, the retail offer is not commensurate for a city of its size and there is a leakage of retail spending to Meadowhall and competing centres. There currently remains a lack of quality, diversity and capacity of retailing across the city centre core and consequently the ‘Meadowhall Effect’ is still a factor to overcome. The expansion of the range and quality of shopping has been identified as one of the main priorities in consultation on the Masterplan review. 4.18 Extending the range and quality of shopping and supporting the development of the NRQ were both strongly supported in consultation on the revised Masterplan proposals that was undertaken with the Sheffield 100 Forum.37 Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 4.19 The 2005 City Strategy includes a commitment to completing the NRQ by 2012 (page 39). The submitted policy builds on this commitment and enshrines it within planning policies. The 2007 update of the City Strategy notes the progress towards implementing the NRQ. 37 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 44 Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 4.20 The policy supports many of the Core Strategy objectives: S1.1 Conditions created for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high- growth economy in the Sheffield city region; S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture; S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single journeys to serve several purposes; S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations; S10.3 New development that generates significant trips carried out only in areas accessible by a choice of sustainable forms of transport;; S12.1 Previously developed land and existing buildings in urban areas reclaimed and re-used for all types of development, in preference to greenfield land. S4.11 for facilities to be accessible by all, including disabled people. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 4.21 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact significantly upon it. Rotherham’s Core Strategy Preferred Option PD4 sets out figures for retail floorspace that are not considered likely to have any significant impact on the submitted policy. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 4.22 The two options considered were to consolidate a smaller retail core around the NRQ, or to continue to support the existing, dispersed retail area. Option CC3a Consolidate the retail core by supporting the New Retail Quarter (NRQ) as the heart of a regional shopping centre within a reduced retail core area 4.23 This option would reduce the area classed as the Central Shopping Area in the Unitary Development Plan to a more compact, but hence more vibrant, core retail area. The UDP shopping area currently stretches from Moorfoot in the south to the Wicker Arches in the north, and west to Glossop Road. The distance from one end of this central shopping area to the other is over 1.5 45 kilometres. Few shoppers cover this sort of distance in one shopping trip, so different parts of the retail centre currently represent different destinations. 4.24 The strengths of this option are: (a) A more compact retail core would address the problem of the central shopping area being too ‘strung out’ and should attract more shoppers. (b) A more compact retail core area would be more viable and more attractive to shoppers. It is anticipated that more visits will be made and the retail turnover increased. (c) Other important City Centre uses can be located around and at the edge of the retail core, performing a complementary role. Having shops located next to each other, without other uses intervening improves attractiveness and viability. (d) A new focus for retailers will attract new occupiers and increase the range and value of the City Centre retail offer. (e) If all the major retail destinations are located close to one another, they can be accessed in a single trip. (f) A new and improved retail core will help to meet the increasing need from rising numbers of City Centre residents, workers and visitors. (g) Introducing new uses into the current peripheral retail areas will help to rejuvenate them. 4.25 The weakness of this option is: (a) Some of the existing retail operations currently on the edge of the shopping area would become more isolated and less viable. Option CC3b Continue to support shopping development in the existing larger central shopping area 4.26 This option would include the NRQ but within the existing larger central shopping area. Planning powers would not be used to restrict the current extent of the retail core, and the market would decide where retail development takes place in the City Centre outside of the NRQ. 4.27 The main strengths of this option are: (a) Shops in the more peripheral areas of the City Centre that have a specialised function can have a distinct value and a role to play in the overall retail offer that the City Centre provides. (b) Some peripheral areas are important pedestrian gateways into the City Centre. Their vibrancy and interest would be maintained if there were retail offers and attractions along them. 46 4.28 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) It is possible that maintaining these peripheral areas could undermine the viability of the NRQ. (b) This option would not address the fact that the current retail area is spread out too far to be attractive as a regional centre. (c) Maintaining retail uses in peripheral areas will restrict opportunities for other key uses to become properly established in the City Centre. This could lead to a loss of the beneficial opportunities that this mixing of uses within the City Centre would create and reduce its vibrancy. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 4.29 There is a qualitative need for a New Retail Quarter. The Supplementary Planning Guidance38 reports the structural failings of the City Centre: Its linearity - it extends 1.5 kilometres and contains two main parts, the Fargate / High Street / Haymarket area, and The Moor. A clear "mental map" of the centre is difficult to form. The elongated nature of the centre discourages shoppers since they have to choose which part of the centre to visit. The areas are linked at a weak point - Pinstone Street – where pedestrian flow is inhibited and where the shopping offer is poor. Shops there are smaller than in either Fargate or the Moor and have lower Zone A rateable values. The existing primary area (Fargate) is small, relative to the rest of the shopping area. It has only 33 shop units, many of which make inefficient use of floorspace and are not suited to modern retailing. There is no obvious way that the primary area can be extended by incremental development. Quality of shopping floorspace - there is a lack of large modern retail space in the primary area suitable for major retailers. and the quality of premises occupied by anchor stores, especially John Lewis, is poor. There is a lack of quality shopping, particularly of high price fashion and flagship stores. Facilities for shoppers are incomplete - weather protection for shoppers is limited and the shopping environment is poor, compared with centres of similar status. Car parking is dispersed, small scale, and poorly related to retail areas. 4.30 A New Retail Quarter would remedy these qualitative deficiencies. Located in the central part of the shopping area, it would draw the two main parts of the centre together and extend the primary area of Fargate. 38 Sheffield City Centre: Supplementary Planning Guidance For The New Retail Quarter. Sheffield City Council (July 2002) 47 4.31 These are the advantages of a more concentrated Core Retail Area that is focussed on a major regeneration scheme that has been in the planning process for several years. This option is, therefore, heavily favoured, and the option to continue with the current shopping area as a focus would perpetuate some of the problems that the City Centre faces, highlighted particularly in work on the City Centre Masterplan. The NRQ has a development partner and outline planning permission has been granted. Enabling works are being undertaken, so there is a serious commitment to the provision of this new retail destination in the City Centre. Further investment and consolidation in other parts of the retail core are expected to follow from this. 4.32 Achieving the vision for a core city that enriches its region requires major improvements to the layout of the central shopping area and the range of shops. For the city as a whole to develop economically and socially, a Core Retail Area must be promoted as the focus for new development and this does mean that the main role of the more peripheral areas must change. 4.33 There has been serious under-investment in shopping opportunities in the City Centre in recent years and this has been in the context of policy that is more akin to the rejected option. Consolidation of the Core Retail Area will encourage new investment that will enable the City Centre to provide a real alternative shopping destination to other town and city centres and Meadowhall. This new focus is likely to attract new types of occupiers and increase the range and value of the City Centre retail offer. 4.34 Other important City Centre uses would locate near the retail core, performing a complementary role. For example, provision also needs to be made for other shops that do not significantly contribute to the city region function (e.g. for City Centre workers’ day-to-day needs). Office workers will use shops at lunchtime and visitors can combine shopping trips with leisure visits. New roles and uses have been identified for those areas that are no longer part of the core shopping area, such as Castlegate and Moorfoot (see policy SCC1). The expected demand for non-retail uses in the City Centre over the next few years provides an opportunity to re-invent the more peripheral City Centre shopping locations and develop new functions including housing, offices, leisure and community facilities. 4.35 Concentrating retail development in the Core Retail Area would be consistent with Core Strategy policy SS1. The Core Retail Area includes: Fargate, Pinstone Street, the top of the Moor, and the area to be occupied by the New Retail Quarter. 4.36 Fargate is included because it is already Sheffield's primary area. This is shown by its Zone A rateable values, which are higher than anywhere else in the City Centre (for details of rateable values, see the Core Strategy Background Report on Shopping). The other areas - Pinstone Street and the top of the Moor - are included in the Core Retail Area because they are in the 48 centre of the shopping area. Major development here will help consolidate the centre whereas major development at either end of the shopping area would perpetuate its linearity and the problems associated with that. They are also identified in the CWHB study,39 in paragraph 2.22, as a pivotal location between Fargate and the Moor. Major development here would link retail areas of the City that are currently poorly connected. Restricting out-of-centre non-food retailing is a necessary part of the submitted policy. Out-of-centre non-food retailing would take up capacity in the NRQ that would make it more difficult to achieve development in the Retail Core. 4.37 The submitted policy does recognise that an element of the rejected option is still appropriate. Some of the day-to-day needs identified above do not need to be met in the core area and some smaller and ‘lower-value’ outlets may require a different, though still accessible location. This is reflected in the complementary provisions of the policy for ‘Shopping Streets’ and other streets leading into the Core Area. 4.38 The various types of area in the submitted policy represent a hierarchy of retail locations within the City Centre, as set out below in Table 4. Table 4 – Hierarchy of City Centre Retail Locations and Appropriate Development Tier Location Type of development Type of shop 1 New Retail Retail and leisure uses. Promotion of major non- Quarter 85% of this floorspace to food retail development. be used as shops. 2 Rest of the Retail and community Other focus for major Core Retail facilities (Class D1) at non-food retail Area street level frontage, but development. any 100 metres of frontage to have at least 85% in use as shops. 3 Shopping Any 100 metres of No major non-food retail Streets: The frontage to have at least development. Moor and High 85% in use as shops. Street 4 Other named Any 100 metres of street No major non-food retail Shopping frontage to have at least development. Streets half in use as shops 5 Other streets Small retail acceptable No major non-food retail leading into the development. Core Retail Area Retail: Units in Planning Use Classes A1-A5 Shops: Units in Planning Use Class A1 39 City Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods Retailing. Cushman Wakefield Healey Baker (June 2002) 49 4.39 Both this policy and policy SS1 aim to focus shopping in the Core Retail Area and the hierarchy of retail locations above reflects these aims. The table does not form part of policy SCC3 but it indicates how the twin aims of focusing major non food development in the Core Retail Area and of retaining a high proportion of shopping (A1) uses in the more central areas might be achieved when the policy SCC3 is translated into development control policies in the City Policies Document. The approach differs in some respects from the option that was consulted on in the City Policies Preferred Options but this is currently the subject of further work. 4.40 The column ‘Type of development’ requires explanation. The aim is to ensure a reasonably high proportion of shops in the Core Retail Area, since it is these that draw people from to a shopping centre and which provide daytime vitality. Non-A1 uses such as cafes will also enhance the City Centre’s vitality and, along with banks, provide a service to shoppers, but they are not likely to provide the necessary draw from a wide enough catchment to directly contribute to the policy’s aim of creating ‘the heart of a regional shopping centre’. 4.41 The levels of development in Table 4 are indicative at this stage. The figure of 85% is derived from Condition 7 on the planning permission for the New Retail Quarter (05/03933/OUT). This requires 85% of its commercial floorspace to be used as shops (Class A1), so that it provides enough retail floorspace to form a regional shopping centre. It seems reasonable to apply this figure to frontage in the rest of the Core Retail Area since the New Retail Quarter is designed to be an extension of it. The existing units in Fargate have irregular amounts of floorspace over several floors, only a proportion of which can be used for sales. Using frontage as a measure would therefore be more appropriate than using areas. 4.42 Other areas of the City Centre outside the primary shopping area can provide space for the non-A1 uses that are necessary to provide services for shoppers and visitors to the Centre. Nevertheless requiring at least half of their frontage to be shops would ensure vitality during both the day and night. 4.43 The expansion of shopping and its concentration in a more compact area will have implications for the flow of traffic. Modelling work to date for the New Retail Quarter proposal suggests that this can be accommodated and additional short-stay parking is being provided in the City Centre accordingly. The proposed investment in short-stay parking in the City Centre reflects confidence in the predictions but flows will be monitored if there are any signs that capacity could be exceeded. 4.44 New premises in less peripheral areas are likely to have higher rental levels and not all of the retailers may be able to afford these rents, in which case their outlets would be lost to the City Centre. But a thriving retail core should be able to provide for many of the needs of retailers wishing to operate in the City Centre. 4.45 All the areas identified in the policy are entirely located in the Zone 1 Low Probability of flood risk (see paragraph 2.31). 50 Sustainability Appraisal 4.46 The policy scores well on economic sustainability criteria, as it is considered the better option to maximise the strength of Sheffield as a retail destination. A strong and accessible retail area will benefit the majority of the population. A more focussed, smaller retail core that is more accessible is far more sustainable than the retention of the current, spread out retail centre. A stronger retail core will lead to major new investment in the City Centre and many related regeneration benefits that will improve the City Centre economy and benefit the City and the City Region as a whole. 4.47 The policy could lead to training opportunities in the retail trade, as has happened at Meadowhall with the ‘Source’ building. A new shopping centre is likely to be safer and more secure and minimise the risk of crime. More shoppers in the City Centre will improve the demand for other cultural, leisure and recreation facilities that the City Centre is able to provide, thus helping to maintain their viability and help to ensure their provision for all. 4.48 The City Centre is the most accessible part of the City for the majority of Sheffield residents, so new retail development located here that generates additional visits would be the most efficient use of the transport network. The Core Retail Area is in a particularly accessible part of the City Centre and a new midi-interchange will be provided as part of the NRQ, further improving accessibility (see Policy SCC9). If all the major retail destinations are located close to one another, they can be accessed in a single trip, whereas if they are situated apart from each other at different ends of a strung out retail centre, they may require more than one journey. This situation would not represent an efficient use of transport facilities and it could be particularly difficult for those dependent on public transport. Creating a more compact Core Retail Area could reduce the number of shops in more peripheral parts of the City Centre, which could reduce accessibility for some. But, overall, the development of a more concentrated core area in the more accessible parts of the City Centre would benefit most shoppers. This is reflected in the sustainability appraisal regarding the efficient use of land and the transport network. Reducing trips by private vehicles results in reduced vehicle emissions and less air pollution. 4.49 Concentration makes more efficient use of existing land in the City Centre and frees up peripheral sites for other development. A new concentrated retail centre and the new investment that this will bring can improve the built environment of the City Centre. Concentrating the retail core into a smaller area may make more efficient use of the physical infrastructure, as is currently happening with the provision of improved services in advance of construction of the NRQ. Equality Appraisal 4.50 There are significant equality benefits of the submitted policy. In particular, a new retail development is likely to be much more accessible for people with disabilities, compared with the existing centre, that is strung out and populated 51 with old buildings. A more concentrated retail core would make better use of the existing public transport network, which will benefit those who rely on public transport due to limited access to private vehicles, including those on low incomes. A new, compact and more enclosed shopping area will be more useable for physically frail or vulnerable people and their carers and dependent children and their carers. The loss of some peripheral parts of the retail core that are currently more accessible to residents on that side of the City Centre, could be a negative impact. But the policy will improve accessibility overall, and other residents will benefit from the concentration of the retail office in a more compact and accessible part of the City Centre. Consultation Responses 4.51 This submitted policy is derived from the emerging option CC3a (see paragraph 4.23 above), which was Preferred Option PCC2. 4.52 The policy was favoured by nearly all of the respondents at the Emerging Options stage, including stakeholders such as Sheffield One (now part of Creative Sheffield) and Yorkshire Forward. 4.53 Yorkshire Forward’s comment was: “There is significant commitment to the NRQ which should significantly improve the retail offer of Sheffield City Centre. This should in turn improve the city’s attractiveness for new occupiers, and increase the viability of the City Centre retail offer. In the transitional period some existing retail operations on the edge of the shopping area could become more isolated and less viable but the city will gain in the longer term from a more focussed and attractive retail core..”40 4.54 It is considered that the consultation responses to the emerging option strongly support the submitted policy. 4.55 There was a mixture of support and objections to the Preferred Option. Concerns were expressed, for example, about the omission of the Markets from the policy and provision for specialist and small-scale retaining. But the Markets are part of the Moor redevelopment that is more centrally located, and it is anticipated that the Shopping Streets will be a suitable location foe specialist shops, which will also still be able to locate in other parts of the City Centre. There was support for the principle of consolidation of retail into a more compact core area. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 4.56 There is clear evidence that a more compact retail area, focussed around the NRQ, will benefit the City Centre, which, in turn, benefits the City as a whole. There is clear support for this approach in other strategies and consultation responses. However, there is a need to accurately define the relative roles of other parts of the City Centre in retail terms. The submitted policy sets this 40 Comment Number 4558.43 52 out, and it is further explained in Table 4 above, which makes it clear what types and levels of retail development are appropriate in the various parts of the City Centre. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 4.57 The policy will be implemented by: Developing the NRQ, which has a development partner, outline planning permission and enabling works underway, as the focus of the Core Retail Area. Further investment and consolidation of the other key retail areas, particularly the Core Retail Area and Shopping Streets, such as The Moor. Promotion through City Centre Action Plans and Masterplans of the identified retail areas. Determining planning applications in line with the hierarchy of locations set out in the policy. 4.58 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC3. However, the target and indicators for policy SS1 are directly relevant (see Retail and Built Leisure Background Report). The target is: 98,500 square metres (gross area) of new retail (Class A) floorspace in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre Progress against the target will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 4.59 There could be a risk of creating excessive capacity in the City Centre by having a strong retail core and significant additional areas that could prejudice the NRQ or lead to decline in other areas. But the hierarchy approach of the policy should ensure that the relative scale of development is appropriate to support the priority locations. Conclusion 4.60 Previous policy approaches to retail in the City Centre have not helped to revitalise the City Centre and enable it to effectively compete with other centres, including Meadowhall. There needs to be a new focus in the City Centre and a more compact retail heart created. The submitted policy will achieve this, by focussing development in and around the NRQ, which will be the major catalyst for the rejuvenation of the City Centre as a retail destination. The policy will create more clarity as to the relative roles of the rest of the City Centre. A hierarchy of retail locations is proposed, which will enable a sequential approach to retail development to be clearly delivered, in 53 accordance with national policy. Further detail on how this will be achieved will be taken up in the City Policies document. 54 5 CULTURAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 5.1 This is an issue that was not included in the Emerging or Preferred Options stage, but a need for a specific policy to promote and protect the cultural role of the City Centre was suggested as part of consultation on the Preferred Options.41 Such an approach would be consistent with other strategies, that identify culture and leisure as important functions of city centres. 5.2 Arts and cultural facilities include uses such as galleries, museums, libraries, theatres, concert halls, cinemas, heritage centres and exhibition rooms. The ‘Cultural Hub’ is– the focus of cultural uses in the City Centre, as shown on the Key Diagram. Policy SCC4 Cultural Facilities in the City Centre The retention of arts and cultural facilities will be supported and new uses that relate to cultural activity will be encouraged, particularly in the Cultural Hub area around Tudor Square. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 5.3 The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism42 emphasises the importance of cultural facilities in helping to attract events and secure tourist spending that will boost the local economy. In paragraph 2.5 it says: “The revenue generated by tourism can help to support a broader and more vibrant and active community by attracting arts, sports or cultural events” 5.4 This is an integral part of the spatial strategy as it relates to the City Centre. 5.5 The Government’s Northern Way initiative43 emphasised the importance of culture to a City’s economy: “competition to select the UK’s nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008 demonstrated the importance of culture and creativity to the lives of our cities.” 5.6 This document, on page 48, specifically recognises the importance of the recent improvements in the Heart of the City in terms of improving the cultural offer of the City and: 41 Comment number 4524.002 42 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism. Department for Communities and Local Government: London (May 2006 reprinted July 2006) 43 Making It Happen: The Northern Way ODPM (February 2004) 55 “has become a symbol of Sheffield’s economic and cultural rejuvenation.” 5.7 This highlights the economic importance of the cultural facilities in the City Centre to the City’s overall economic performance and, therefore, the justification for promoting cultural facilities through the Core Strategy. Regional Policy 5.8 Cultural activity and facilities feature in various regional policies and it is only appropriate, given Sheffield’s role in its city region, to reflect these in the Core Strategy. 5.9 Paragraph 1.53 of the Regional Economic Strategy promotes cultural facilities as an important part of creating a ‘quality of place’ as an underpinning driver of regional economic performance: “The term ‘quality of place’ sums up all those factors that make an area – whether that be a town, city or region – an attractive place to live; incorporating quality of life factors such as culture” 5.10 Paragraph 2.14 identifies the need to address the importance of culture and raising aspirations, and one of the aims of the RES in paragraph 2.3 is: “Utilising the full potential of Yorkshire and Humber’s physical and cultural assets” 5.11 This is further recognised in the in RES in paragraph 3.113: “The Key Cities work (undertaken in a partnership approach by Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield and York) demonstrated the fundamental importance of collaboration which reflects distinctive assets – such as … cultural offer.” 5.12 The policy supports Objective 6E of the RES, as set out on page 92, to use culture to contribute to the economy, renaissance and profile and making the most of distinctive local assets. 5.13 The submitted policy is also consistent with policy E2 A of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which states that: “The role and performance of existing city and town centres will be strengthened. City and town centres will be the main focus for … cultural, … services … which generate a high level of people movements. These uses should not be located outside of these centres … “ 5.14 Creating a focussed area for these cultural facilities will enhance their viability and help to meet the requirements of the RSS policy. 5.15 This is also taken up in Policy E6 B iii: “Local Development Documents should set out policies and proposals that place particular priority on tourism related development that … Realise[s] 56 the potential of the heritage and cultural assets of … urban areas by promoting their roles as modern, varied and colourful destinations of choice” 5.16 The wider issue of promoting tourism is covered in the City Policies document, but the cultural element is supported by the submitted spatial policy. Creating a cultural hub will help to create a destination, that will help deliver the aims of the RSS and RES policies. The Panel Report has not suggested any fundamental changes to the wording of these policies. Sub-Regional Policy 5.17 Page 11 of the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy recognises that: “The vision will require: building on the potential of the city centre with … a vibrant cultural … offer and high-quality buildings and spaces”. 5.18 The submitted policy will help to deliver this by focussing cultural uses in an established area that already has good quality buildings in place. Improvements to the Crucible Theatre are also currently underway. 5.19 The Sheffield City Region Development Programme (CRDP),44 on page 25, also emphasises the economic importance of promoting culture: “In a wider sense, the cultural industries and culture in general will play a vital role in the regeneration and transformation of the City Region. This role for culture is recognised in the European Commission’s recent guidance on cohesion policy and cities which identifies the importance of a vibrant culture in attracting citizens, businesses, workers and visitors. Many of the regeneration projects already underway across the City Region are using culture to transform the key centres” Other Sheffield Policies 5.20 The Sheffield Tourism Strategy acknowledges the importance of the cultural offer in attracting leisure visitors (page 5) and Sheffield is a regional destination for culture (page 8). The strategy for culture reflects the Regional Economic Strategy aims (page 10): “Sustaining tourism through environmental and cultural quality and opportunity, and ensuring access” 5.21 On Page 11 it reiterates the Sheffield First Partnership objectives for the city, that include a good cultural offer. Page 22 sets out the growing importance of cultural tourism. It notes: “The diversity of the cultural resource in Sheffield means that the focused development of existing products in conjunction with sophisticated 44 Sheffield City Region Development Programme. The Northern Way (September 2006) 57 marketing techniques can potentially generate a number of similar positive impacts.” 5.22 The submitted policy will help to deliver the tourism benefits described by promoting a focussed cultural hub within an accessible part of the City Centre that can be effectively marketed. 5.23 The Creative Sheffield Prospectus45 on page 6, recognises the importance of culture ensuring that the City Region role of the City is delivered in full: “Cities boost Regions by providing a concentration of culture, leisure and sport” 5.24 The original City Centre Masterplan highlighted the provision of cultural facilities as a priority. The 2000 Masterplan proposed the creation of a lively mixed use area / destination in Tudor Square. Work on the roll-forward of the Masterplan has suggested the culture is still as important now as it was at the time of the original Masterplan. 5.25 The policy is supported by consultation on the Masterplan review, that has highlighted the provision of leisure, cultural and entertainment facilities as a priority. It was recognised that the cultural offer is largely concentrated in one area around Tudor Square and more could be made of this area to enhance its attraction. A key issue was the need to create a ‘destination city’ with a broad range of high quality cultural, retail and visitor facilities to make the City Centre the destination of choice for residents and visitors. The most successful drivers to increase market demand in the city centre will come from a growth in the visitor economy based on an event strategy and a clearly differentiated cultural offer. 5.26 Consultation on the emerging Masterplan with the Sheffield 100 Forum46 showed support for proposals that are in line with the submitted policy. Specifically, there was support for an enlarged cultural quarter around Tudor Square. 5.27 The submitted policy will help to deliver these priorities identified in the City Centre Masterplan work. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 5.28 As part of the Strong Economy theme, the 2007 City Strategy seeks to: “Raise Sheffield’s position as a city of cultural significance” 45 Creative Sheffield – Prospectus For A Distinctive European City In A Prosperous Region. Creative Sheffield (2006) 46 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 58 5.29 The creation of a strong cultural destination within the City Centre will be a key element in achieving this aim. Delivery through the Cultural Strategy is identified. The Sheffield Cultural Strategy,47 in the Foreword, states: “Cultural activities are increasingly important to Sheffield’s fast changing, diverse and cosmopolitan society. They are vital ingredients in the life of our creative city and the region and play a fundamental part in enhancing the civic pride and the daily life of individuals and communities. Significant changes in the city provide a powerful driver for a renewed vision for the sector, which firmly places Sheffield at the heart of the region, and culture at the heart of the city’s rejuvenation. … Sheffield believes that culture has now an even bigger part to play in the success of the city and by working together in partnership we will ensure that we achieve excellence.” Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 5.30 Promotion of the City Centre for cultural use supports the Core Strategy objectives, specifically those that promote culture and tourism and focus development on accessible locations, as follows: S1.6 Cultural and leisure facilities and tourism expanded and improved; S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture; S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single journeys to serve several purposes; S10.3 New development that generates significant trips carried out only in areas accessible by a choice of sustainable forms of transport. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 5.31 This policy is locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Rotherham’s Core Strategy seeks to focus cultural facilities in their town centre, so the general approach is consistent, although it makes no reference to Sheffield’s City Centre The other neighbouring local authorities have yet to produce development plan documents that can be considered alongside this policy for compatibility. 47 Sheffield Culture - A Strategy for Inclusive Cultural and Sporting Development. Sheffield City Council (January 2006) 59 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 5.32 The policy was introduced as a result of comments on the Preferred Options, so no other options were considered. However, the alternative would be to have no specific policy to promote and protect cultural facilities. It was introduced in the Additional Options document as Option ACC1. Option: The retention of arts and cultural facilities will be supported and new uses that relate to cultural activity will be encouraged, particularly in the Cultural Hub area around Tudor Square. 5.33 The strength of this option is: (a) Theatres, centres for the arts and other cultural facilities are an important core city contribution to the life of the city region. The existing cluster in and around the Tudor Square/ Millennium Square area creates an identity and makes for a strong destination. Visitors are more likely to use the full range of facilities if they are situated in a unique location. 5.34 The weakness of this option is: (a) Cultural facilities proposed in other parts of the City Centre could be discouraged, although the policy would not prohibit this. Option: No specific promotion of cultural facilities in any part of the City Centre. 5.35 The strength of this option is: (a) New cultural facilities can develop in any part of the City Centre if a developer proposes them, without any strategic requirement to focus such a use in a particular location. 5.36 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) The clustering advantages set out in paragraph 5.33 above may not be achieved if cultural uses develop in a sporadic way. (b) The current destination value of existing facilities centred around the Tudor Square/ Millennium Square area could be lost if they are not specifically promoted. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 5.37 The need to focus cultural uses in the City Centre is supported by national and regional policies. Their specialised nature, coupled with the quarters approach adopted (Policy SCC1) means that is sensible to focus them within a particular part of the City Centre, that is already well established for such uses. 60 5.38 Sheffield has a cluster of performance arts centres and civic buildings focused on Tudor Square. The theatres here represent a key regional cultural resource. These and other facilities in the City Centre should be supported and enhanced. 5.39 These facilities are an important core city contribution to the life of the city region. The existing cluster in and around the Tudor Square/ Millennium Square area gives a sense of area identity and they benefit from the linkages between them. 5.40 The spatial strategy of the Core Strategy states that the City Centre will be the focus for most leisure and culture services (paragraph 4.8). Theatres, arts and other cultural facilities are recognised as important anchors in the City Centre and give it a sense of local identity and vitality. They benefit residents, workers and shoppers and attract visitors to the City. 5.41 There is a consistency also with Policy SCC1(a), that identifies the Heart of the City, which contains the Cultural Hub, as a focus for civic, arts and cultural buildings. 5.42 The area identified is already established and existing facilities are expected to remain. This will make it easier to support the area by resisting new development that does not improve the cultural offer, and directing new cultural development towards the Cultural Hub 5.43 There are no flood risk implications as the hub area is all within Zone 1 Low Probability (see paragraph 2.31). Sustainability Appraisal 5.44 The submitted policy is more sustainable than the alternative option to have no specific policy promoting cultural provision in the City Centre. Encouraging arts and cultural facilities is likely to help support economic growth in the City Centre, as the City will be seen as an attractive and vibrant place to do business, encouraging job creation. The policy will lead to increased cultural provision, particularly in the City Centre, and will safeguard existing provision. The City Centre is highly accessible by sustainable modes of transport and supporting / encouraging provision of cultural facilities in the City Centre would enable people to access these facilities easily. Creating and maintaining a specific area devoted to cultural provision is more sustainable, as the facilities will benefit from being in a known area that will create a destination and enable linked visits. The location is extremely accessible by public transport. Equality Appraisal 5.45 Cultural facilities in the City Centre will be easily accessible by range of public transport facilities, that is likely to particular benefit those on low incomes. The proposed hub is well situated on Arundel Gate, which takes a large number of routes and has its own midi-interchange. It is also easily accessible from the railway station and Interchange. 61 Consultation Responses 5.46 This submitted policy is a new issue that was presented as an Additional Option, in response to comments made at the Preferred Options stage. Specifically, Yorkshire Forward48 stated that more emphasis on locating major leisure and cultural development in the City Centre was required, and the Theatres Trust49 expressed a view that the need for cultural provision should be made clear. 5.47 There was unanimous support for the option when it was introduced as the Additional Option, ACC1, including from Yorkshire Forward (recognising the compatibility with the Regional Economic Strategy, particularly Objective 6E), the Theatres Trust and Sport England. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 5.48 Consultations on the Preferred Options and recommendations in other strategies identified the importance of cultural facilities for the City and the need to focus within the City Centre in a concentrated location. Clustering of the most important facilities in single locations creates benefits for the uses by creating a major destination. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 5.49 The policy will be implemented by: Supporting the Cultural Hub through improvements to the facilities themselves and to the quality of design of buildings and spaces. Much has already been achieved in the Heart of the City and elsewhere and this progress will be maintained through the plan period. This will be done by existing operators, including the City Council, the Theatres Trust and central government. As the Cultural Strategy says on page 2: “Culture thrives on collaboration and partnership with a wide range of national and regional agencies, voluntary and community groups, successful businesses and independent practitioners and producers. Sheffield prides itself on possessing an outstanding range of cultural trusts and organisations, demonstrating entrepreneurship and innovation.” New developments that will threaten the retention of arts and cultural facilities in the area will be resisted by refusing planning permission for developments that would reduce the cultural provision in the area. 5.50 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC4. However, the target and indicators for policy SS4 are directly relevant in that the City Centre is one of the locations for leisure and cultural 48 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options comment number 4558.016 49 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options comment number 4524.001 62 facilities specifically named in the policy (see Retail and Built Leisure Background Report). The target is: 95% of major new leisure floorspace in named locations Progress against the target will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 5.51 The policy includes a measure of flexibility by not precluding cultural facilities outside the Cultural Hub. There are no risks associated with the outcome of the policy though it remains to be seen how much activity can be concentrated in the preferred area. Conclusion 5.52 The provision of cultural facilities is recognised in national and regional planning policies as an important function of major centres. Sheffield already possesses a high quality cultural destination in the heart of its City Centre, a major asset that adds to the economic value of the City as a whole, so needs to be encouraged and protected. 5.53 The Core Strategy needs to support this function if the City Centre is to continue to develop its sub-regional and City Region roles and to operate effectively as a Core City. 63 64 6 THE UNIVERSITIES Introduction 6.1 This is an issue that was not included in the Emerging Options but was introduced in the Preferred Options, as a result of comments submitted50 (see paragraph 6.39 below), that emphasised the important role of the two universities in ensuring the diversity and vibrancy of the City Centre. 6.2 Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield play a crucial role in the economic, cultural and social value of the City Centre, in particular, and the city and City Region as a whole. In terms of the economic role, the universities are excellent assets that help drive the knowledge economy, being located right in the City Centre. Policy SCC5 The Universities Provision will be made for the two universities to consolidate and expand their teaching and research operations within and adjacent to their existing campus areas. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 6.3 PPS1 promotes policies that will achieve sustainable development. Specifically, in paragraph 16, states that: “Plan policies should address accessibility (both in terms of location and physical access) for all members of the community to … education” 6.4 The submitted policy will assist in this, by promoting university development in the City Centre. Paragraph 23 also promotes this: “Ensure that suitable locations are available for public sector (e.g. health and education) … so that the economy can prosper” 6.5 Paragraph 27 re-iterates this approach: “In preparing development plans, planning authorities should seek to … provide improved access for … education … by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car” 6.6 The submitted policy is considered sound, in that it should be capable of delivering these aims of national planning policy. 50 Comment numbers 4513.05 and 4973.08 65 Regional Policy 6.7 The policy will assist in achieving the aims of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The Executive Summary of the RES emphasises the important business roles of our universities: “The region will help businesses find new markets and innovate in new products and processes, encouraging more businesses to collaborate with our excellent universities and other higher education institutions to exploit the region’s science and research base”. 6.8 The universities are also identified as physical development priorities in the RES (page102), and page 11 states that developers are being attracted to the City on the back of assets such as the universities. 6.9 The RES in paragraph 3.113 recognises the importance of the universities in terms of their economic value: “The Key Cities work (undertaken in a partnership approach by Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield and York) demonstrated the fundamental importance of collaboration which reflects distinctive assets – such as universities” 6.10 This role is also recognised in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (page 169): “The Regional Economic Strategy places great emphasis on developing links between business and the regions universities to support these aims. Though knowledge based resources may be dispersed around the Region, there are significant economic advantages to promoting the ‘critical mass’ of activity provided by attractive, multi-functional city and town centres.” 6.11 The submitted policy helps to support these economic by aims by enabling the growth and consolidation of the universities within Sheffield City Centre. Sub-Regional Policy 6.12 Page 11 of the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy (SYSS) recognises that:: “The vision will require: … harnessing the strength of the universities by translating high-level knowledge into market-leading economic applications, using local research to attract international business and retaining increasing numbers of graduates developing careers in the city.” 6.13 The submitted policy will encourage the universities to continue to grow and develop, which will help to achieve this aim of the SYSS. Other Sheffield Policies 6.14 The Creative Sheffield Prospectus51 on page 5, recognises the importance of the universities to the City Region: 51 Creative Sheffield – Prospectus For A Distinctive European City In A Prosperous Region. Creative Sheffield (2006) 66 “Cities boost Regions by providing a critical mass of public and private knowledge institutions” 6.15 The policy is supported by work being undertaken on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan. The four underlying strategic objectives from the original Masterplan are considered to be still valid. They include building a new high technology based economy in the City and creating a vibrant city as a centre for learning. 6.16 A challenge identified is to unlock more of the intellectual property and expertise in the universities and to encourage more commercialisation which will stimulate new technology based firm formation and growth. The Economic Masterplan is expected to promote a high level commitment from both universities to the transformation of the city economy and strengthening of links between the universities and business. Success is dependent on them improving their physical infrastructure to match that of their competitors. The submitted policy also encourages the universities to develop in this way. 6.17 Sheffield’s universities are identified as irreplaceable assets, providing a broad range of benefits, as major employers, through their own and students spending power, and their international, national and local work with businesses and other research centres. Both universities provide local business with access to the high quality expertise. 6.18 Work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan places great emphasis on the importance of the universities in their central location. Having two universities in such dominant City Centre locations sets Sheffield apart from many of its competitor cities and arguably the universities are the city’s most important economic asset. The contribution the universities make to the economy of the city region is huge, as borne out by the following statistics: In 2005/06, the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University had a combined annual income of £475m. Together, both universities directly employ 7,819 full time equivalents. More than 3,400 are academic staff whilst 4,381 are non-academics reflecting the wide range of other employment provided by the Universities. This direct employment creates a further 3,387 indirect jobs within the region – the total employment impact of the two universities is therefore 11,206. The two universities create an annual direct output of £451m. This creates an additional £308m in the wider region taking account of multipliers. 6.19 The physical presence of the universities is also an important economic driver, generating increased footfall through the significant numbers of student, staff and visitors and create a vibrancy and sense of place that increases investment potential and draw of the City Centre. 67 6.20 Initial Masterplan proposals suggest that the two universities work in partnership in order to enhance their respective campus environments and public realm and look to maximise physical links with the City Centre. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 6.21 The 2007 City Strategy on page 43 refers to consultation with residents who: “were keen to see the strengths of our two universities being utilised to engender a learning culture across the city.” 6.22 The policy encourages the universities to capitalise on their central locations, which will help to build on their existing strengths. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 6.23 The policy will help deliver a number of objectives, particularly those that focussing high trip generating uses in accessible locations and promoting the development of the knowledge economy S1.1 Conditions created for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high- growth economy in the Sheffield city region S1.2 Provision for modern and high-technology manufacturing and knowledge-based services, including links with the universities and opportunities for the creation of dynamic business clusters S1.5 Land provided for education and training facilities for developing a skilled workforce S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single journeys to serve several purposes S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations. S10.3 New development that generates significant trips carried out only in areas accessible by a choice of sustainable forms of transport. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 6.24 This policy is locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Rotherham’s Core Strategy makes no reference to Sheffield’s universities. The other neighbouring local authorities have yet to produce development plan documents that can be considered alongside this policy for compatibility. 68 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 6.25 As the issue was introduced at the Preferred Options stage, no alternative options were specifically suggested. However, the de facto alternative option would be to allow or encourage university and related uses to disperse beyond the area around them. Option: Provision will be made for the two universities to consolidate and expand their teaching and research operations within their existing areas. 6.26 The strengths of this option are: (a) The two universities attract large numbers of students, workers and other visitors. Encouraging them to consolidate and expand in their central locations would be highly sustainable and also add to the diversity and vibrancy of the City Centre. (b) Their expansion could further contribute to the City Strategy ambition for learning to be a part of everyone’s way of life. (c) Continuing close links with innovative businesses will assist economic transformation. 6.27 The weakness of this option is: (a) It could discourage university and related development elsewhere in the City, that could stifle further development. Option: Allow or encourage dispersal of university developments beyond in their existing areas. 6.28 The strength of this option is: (a) The universities would have a greater degree of flexibility in their development decisions. 6.29 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) The significant presence of the universities in the City Centre could be eroded if they are not encouraged to consolidate within the central area. The positive aspects of their central locations referred to in this chapter . (b) The option could encourage the universities to consider new out-of-centre campus developments that would not be as accessible or sustainable as the present City Centre locations. 69 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 6.30 The second option, for possible dispersal of university uses was rejected, as it would not deliver the economic, training and accessibility benefits referred to in 6.26 above. 6.31 The character of the City Centre (and the City as a whole) owes much to the presence of the universities, and the importance of the academic sector is likely to increase as student numbers remain high and the universities continue to forge close links with innovative businesses. They have tended to concentrate and expand their activities in their main City Centre campuses and this is to be encouraged, as the City Centre is a sustainable and accessible location for such uses that generate so many trips by students, employees and visitors. 6.32 The focus of much of the economic regeneration for Sheffield is in the growth sectors of innovation and research. The universities are pivotal in delivering this economic growth, and the SDF needs to create planning policies and strategies that encourage the physical development of these important institutions in the central locations that they currently occupy. 6.33 The universities can act as major drivers of enterprise within the City. The business start-up and growth potential of the universities should be planned for. 6.34 The universities are well established and are consistently listed as having a high demand for places from prospective students. They have both undergone significant expansion and development recently, much of this in the City Centre, as highlighted in Table 5 below. This shows that there has been over £80 million of physical development since 1993, that has provided over 22,000 square metres of new floorspace. Table 5 – Major Development Schemes Undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield in Sheffield City Centre, 1993 to 2007 Gross Year Value Location Description Floorspace Completed (£m) (sq. m.) University of Sheffield Portobello, Student Regent Street accommodation, 1993 11.9 9,500 / Mappin library, bookshop Street Broad Lane Student flats. 1993 2.8 1,500 Court St. George's Student 1994 1 0 Church, off accommodation and 70 Gross Year Value Location Description Floorspace Completed (£m) (sq. m.) Broad Lane lecture theatre. Glossop University health Road / Gell centre and 2005 3 2,398 Street pharmacy. Jessop Bio-incubator Building, laboratory and office 2005 6.9 3,100 Brook Hill block. Leavygreave Social Sciences Road / building. 2006 5.5 3,290 Victoria St Sheffield Hallam University Pond Street Central atrium, Expansion, bookshop, lecture 1993 28 0 Phase One theatre. 'Adsetts Lecture theatre, Centre', Pond library and teaching. 1996 14 0 Street 'Stoddart Business and 1997 10 674 Building', Technology Centre 'Hallam Improvements to Square', existing main 1998 1 1,859 Howard St entrance 53 2,533 Source: Sheffield City Council Major Development Schemes in Sheffield database. 6.35 The universities are continuing to develop research links with local companies, and this is identified as a priority in economic strategies. It is considered likely that the universities can continue to consolidate and expand and the policy to promote this is based on robust assumptions of future scenarios. 6.36 In terms of flood-risk, (see paragraph 2.31), the University of Sheffield is situated within Zone 1 Low Probability. Sheffield Hallam University’s City Campus is partially situated within Zone 3a High Probability. Universities are classed as ‘more vulnerable’, according to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in This means that consolidation and expansion of Sheffield Hallam University will require consideration of flood risk in selecting sites for development within and adjacent to its existing campus area. Sustainability Appraisal 6.37 The sustainability appraisal of this preferred option showed that this approach was more sustainable than making no specific provision for the continuing development of the universities in their existing areas. Both universities are mainly concentrated in the City Centre, so their consolidation and expansion within their central locations will help to reduce the need for travel by students, workers and visitors and redevelopment at the central campuses will improve accessibility to new development associated with the universities. It is a more 71 efficient use of land to locate university and related uses close together and encouraging redevelopment at the central campuses will reduce the need for journeys to outer locations and thus reduce vehicle emissions. The policy reduces the need for journeys by private transport and makes better use of the efficient public transport links to these locations. It also makes the most efficient use of the existing physical infrastructure. Equality Appraisal 6.38 The submitted policy will reduce the need for journeys by private transport, benefiting those people that do not have access to private transport, which will also benefit those on low incomes. The universities are obviously key players in providing educational opportunities, which will particularly benefit younger people of normal student age. Consultation Responses 6.39 The submitted policy was not presented at the Emerging Options stage, when consultation responses suggested that there should be such a policy. 52 This led to Preferred Option PCC5, which was supported by the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield First Health and Wellbeing Partnership. However, there were objections. One was from Sheffield One, that the wording was not strong enough to support expansion and the submitted policy now addresses this by encouraging expansion adjacent to existing areas as well as within them. Others from the Broomhill Neighbourhood Group suggested that the expansion of the University of Sheffield, in particular, would have an adverse affect on Broomhill. The City Council’s response is to reiterate the sustainability and locational advantages for the consolidation within the City Centre, which is highly accessible by a range of transport methods. The policy encourages expansion of the University in the City Centre, not in Broomhill. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 6.40 The economic roles of the universities, particularly their research links with knowledge-based companies and innovative businesses is identified in several economic strategies as very important for the City. So a policy that encourages their development will help to enhance these important roles. The central locations of the universities, in particular, give Sheffield a unique character. The central location delivers benefits to other City Centre operations, as it increases footfall and spending power in the City Centre, creates a diverse City Centre economy and is a sustainable location for two institutions that draw a lot of visitors.. This makes them even more important to the City in sustainability terms, so they need to be encouraged to develop in their existing locations. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 6.41 The policy will be implemented by: 52 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Emerging Options comment numbers 8.13 and 8.14 72 Working with the two universities to deliver this approach. The role of the City Council is considered to be ‘enabling’. Ensuring that City Policies, City Site allocations and designations on the Proposals Map encourage the continuing important role of the Universities. Determining planning applications. Suggestions for further delivery mechanisms have emerged from ongoing work on the City Centre Masterplan. Specifically they are: An agreement to joint working Production of comprehensive campus masterplans to guide investment and development in the future Further feasibility work to determine the potential for business incubation facilities associated with academic/ research activity; and, A commitment to investing in the quality of the campus environment and its maintenance. 6.42 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC5 because completion of specific developments will reflect the resources and more particular priorities of the providers and these may be subject to change. The planning process will ensure that development needs in the named areas are met. The amount of new completed D1 floorspace (including for education facilities) will, however, be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 6.43 The policy is considered relatively flexible in terms of the operation of the universities, as it encourages development in or next to their existing, but does not preclude their development elsewhere. Evidence presented in paragraph 6.34 above shows that the universities have redevelopment their central campuses significantly in the past, so there can be confidence that they will continue this in line with the submitted policy. Conclusion 6.44 As the roles of the universities diversify, and the importance of the knowledge economy grows, the value of Sheffield’s two universities becomes greater. They are large and successful organisations that already have a major influence on the social and economic structure of the City, and the fact that they are generally very centrally located makes them even more important players in the City’s economy. The locational advantages of the City Centre are many. It is the most accessible part of the City and the universities, that attract a lot of visitors, are well located to enable these trips to be made by 73 public transport. The universities will help to create a diverse, dynamic and attractive City Centre, as their students, staff and visitors will also support other key centre functions such as shopping, leisure and culture. They also can support local companies and offices that do business with the universities. 6.45 So the continued redevelopment of the universities in these areas can bring significant benefits of vitality and vibrancy to the particular quarters in which they are located and to which they bring a specific cosmopolitan character. Consolidation in a particular location creates a destination and a presence that strengthens the role of the universities and makes it clear to all users of the City Centre where they are located. Dispersal would make it more difficult for visitors to find facilities and dilute the impact that the universities have, reducing their effectiveness. Consolidation is highly sustainable, as it means they will be accessible by public transport, as they will have a critical mass of buildings that will make it worthwhile for bus companies to provide services. 74 7 HOUSING IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 7.1 Many of the recent changes to the City Centre have been as a result of new housing development in recent years. This has been due, in the most part, to a healthy market for City Centre living as Sheffield catches up with other cities. Current evidence is that this could continue if the city’s economy continues to grow. This will be monitored. City Centre housing can meet the needs of those who prefer not to live in houses in the suburbs and prefer the kind of living environment and location that the City Centre provides. The Government has encouraged more city-centre, higher-density living as a key component of the ‘Urban Renaissance’ outlined in the Urban Task Force Report53, and this has been reiterated in planning policy guidance. 7.2 Policy SH2 in the Core Strategy requires new housing development to be concentrated in the existing urban areas. In the period to 2020/21, the scale of new housing in then City Centre will be around 10,600 homes, so it will have an important role in providing for a significant amount of the City’s housing requirement. 7.3 The City Council commissioned DTZ to study the City Centre housing market.54 This study clearly identified potential for continued growth in the City Centre housing market (Executive Summary, page 2). 7.4 Student housing is likely to continue to be a significant factor in the City Centre as part of mixed housing developments, as student numbers in Sheffield rise and private companies and landlords take over from the universities themselves as providing accommodation. The DTZ report noted: “In terms of the student market, both of the Universities have high student numbers and plans for future growth and it is likely that the City Centre will continue to accommodate a large number of students in purpose built and general supply stock.” 7.5 But housing development affects the scope for developing and retaining other uses that are important for the City Centre and will need to be checked if the City Centre is to be strengthened as the main location for retail, employment, cultural and leisure destinations in Sheffield. One of the major benefits of City Centre living is to have facilities and attractions to hand but this only works if uses in the City Centre are truly mixed. So, ironically, the housing market could now be viewed as being ‘too’ successful for the good of the City Centre and Sheffield as a whole. The interest in building for other uses has been severely squeezed by the demand for housing. This has led to problems achieving a balance of uses. 53 Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance - An independent report by members of the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside. Urban Task Force (1999) 54 Sheffield City Centre Residential Market Assessment. DTZ / Sheffield City Council (June 2007) 75 7.6 Bearing in mind the need to balance the mix of uses in the City Centre, it is clear that housing is better suited to certain parts of the City Centre than others. So there is a need to promote particular areas for City Centre housing. Many of the Area Action Plans, Masterplans and other strategies referred to above for the various Quarters address these requirements. 7.7 Other issues that affect the location of housing in the City Centre are flood risk and the relative location of night-time uses. Some of the most suitable locations for City Centre living are located alongside the City Centre’s rivers, these being generally good quality and desirable living environments. However, the risk of flooding in these areas can restrict opportunities. The City Council has also considered the impact of uses such as pubs, bars, nightclubs, etc., and produced guidance on such uses in the City Centre.55 Policy SCC6 Housing in the City Centre Further expansion of City Centre living, with a mix of tenures and sizes of unit, including affordable housing, will be concentrated: (a) on the riverside at Kelham/ Neepsend and Wicker/ Nursery Street (b) between Netherthorpe Road and Edward Street. Housing will form part of a mix of uses: (c) between Netherthorpe Road and St. Vincent’s Church (d) at West Bar, north of the Crown Courts (e) around Devonshire Green (f) on upper levels along the Moor and in the New Retail Quarter (g) around the Peace Gardens (h) at Victoria Quays/ Castlegate (i) within the Cathedral Quarter (j) within the Cultural Industries Quarter. Limited housing will also be appropriate in other parts of the City Centre where needed as part of mixed schemes to achieve a viable balance of uses. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 7.8 The submitted policy is consistent with PPS3, which encourages housing in existing centres as part of mixed developments (paragraph 38): “Options may include … providing housing as part of mixed-use town centre development” 7.9 Government guidance in PPS6, paragraph 1.9, recognises that: 55 Night-time Uses: Interim Planning Guidance. Sheffield City Council (October 2005) 76 “housing will be an important element in most mixed-use, multi-storey developments.” 7.10 PPS6 also encourages town centre uses such as retail, leisure and offices to be located in or around the core area of the City Centre (paragraph 2.16 and others), in which case the fringe areas could be considered more suited for residential uses. 7.11 PPS6, in paragraph 2.31 acknowledges that local planning authorities may need to make choices between competing development pressures in town centres. This is certainly the case with housing and other City Centre uses, which necessitates the specific policy to deal with housing in the City Centre. Regional Policy 7.12 The provision of suitable levels of housing in the City Centre in the most appropriate areas supports the Core Approach of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which in Policy YH5 states: “Regional and Sub-Regional Centres will be the prime focus for housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural activities and facilities in the region. 7.13 The Panel Report has suggested no significant change to this element of the policy in the RSS. Sub-Regional Policy 7.14 The South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy encourages housing in accessible locations (page 7): “spatial investment in South Yorkshire will concentrate on focused housing and related investments on those settlements which are most sustainable or which have the capacity to become most sustainable.” Other Sheffield Policies 7.15 The City Centre Living Strategy Supplementary Planning Guidance, produced by Sheffield City Council in April 200456, encourages housing development as long as it takes place in a sustainable way that builds stable, well-resourced communities that enjoy a high quality of life. It seeks to ensure that housing regeneration is co-ordinated with wider steps to regenerate the City Centre. 7.16 The City Centre Masterplan was produced in 2000. Work is underway on a roll-forward of this plan. Initial results suggest that the four underlying strategic objectives remain valid, one of which is to create a vibrant city as a centre for living. 56 http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/spg 77 7.17 Consultation on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has shown that attitudes are changing to city living amongst Sheffield residents. There is support for the development of balanced communities subject to the provision of adequate social infrastructure. If the City Centre is to thrive, it needs to consider how to achieve a more sustainable resident base. A key issue identified is to make the City Centre an attractive place to live with thriving communities, a range of housing types and tenures and prioritise particular locations for the development and consolidation of housing. The consultation event with the Sheffield 100 Forum57 supported new neighbourhoods with a mix of housing, particularly in the Wicker area (page 4), as well as improvements and integration of existing housing, with the St. Vincent’s are specifically mentioned. These areas are specifically referred to in the policy. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 7.18 The 2007 City Strategy does not cover the issue of City Centre housing, but there is considered to be no conflict between the aims of the City Strategy and the submitted policy. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 7.19 Promotion of housing in the most suitable parts of the City Centre supports the Core Strategy objectives, specifically those to provide more housing with a wider range of types and create new sustainable neighbourhoods, as follows: S1.4 Housing provided to support economic transformation and provide for key workers S3.1 Successful housing markets across all tenures in all areas of the city and increased demand for housing in currently deprived areas S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created S5.3 Wider choice of housing provided through more mixing of housing types and tenures, to meet the needs of the whole community Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 7.20 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Sheffield’s housing market overlaps with Rotherham and further work will be undertaken as part of the Sheffield/ Rotherham Housing Land Availability Assessment to assess the deliverability of sites with permission. 57 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 78 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 7.21 The Emerging Options considered ranged from allowing more housing throughout the City Centre to restricting it in favour of other uses, with a compromise option to encourage it but focused in particular parts of the City Centre. Option CC1a Further expansion of City Centre living in all parts of the City Centre 7.22 This option would allow the current buoyant housing market demand for City Centre living to continue in virtually all parts of the City Centre, and is likely to lead to the highest number of new housing units in the City Centre. 7.23 The strengths of this option are: (a) Given the concentration of a variety of uses in the City Centre, residents of central Sheffield will generally need to travel less and will be more able to use public transport rather than the car. (b) If the City Centre housing market were to continue to be strong, encouraging large numbers of new dwellings would help to meet high demand and could assist in containing price rises. (c) An increase in the number of City Centre apartments could also help to release family-scale housing in outer areas that would satisfy a demand for larger dwellings. (d) A large City Centre population would improve the viability of local services, making them less reliant solely on workers or visitors. Customers would be available in evenings, at weekends and at holiday times, as well as during standard working hours. (e) Residential schemes currently generate greater financial returns and are less of an investment risk, so housing can be a vital financial component to create viability in mixed schemes. 7.24 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) As housing will usually give a greater return on investment than other uses, there is likely to be more developer interest in building residential schemes. If landowners had hopes that all City Centre sites have potential housing use then these high values could make it prohibitive for developers to deliver any non-housing use. (b) The option could lead to a dominance of housing uses, which could restrict office development and retail spending here by office workers. (c) This option could lead to housing dominating in any new mixed-use schemes. In time, the mixed character of significant parts of the City Centre could be lost. This could conflict with Policy SCC1. 79 (d) A large amount of new housing in the City Centre could divert investment from housing proposed for the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder areas. Option CC1b Further expansion of City Centre living concentrated in certain areas such as the west side or fringes 7.25 This option draws on the strengths of Option CC1a but only in certain parts of the City Centre. It would generally be in line with the guidelines contained in the City Centre Living Strategy. 7.26 The strengths of this option are: (a) It would lead to residential quarters tending to be concentrated in areas of higher environmental quality. (b) This would create a variety of uses in the City Centre that would not happen if housing were to dominate in all areas. (c) The detrimental effects on housing of other City Centre uses such as bars and clubs will be minimised if there is physical separation between them. (d) There is more scope for developing vibrant, homogenous communities that have ready access to employment, leisure and shopping facilities if some mixing is allowed but distinct residential, retail, business and cultural areas are promoted. (e) The City’s housing requirements can be met without the need for widespread development of housing throughout the whole of the City Centre. 7.27 The weakness of this option is: (a) Restricting housing in some areas could reduce the overall number of mixed regeneration schemes that come forward. Option CC1c Limit City Centre living in favour of investment in jobs to ensure a balanced mix of uses 7.28 This option would involve resisting proposals for housing in much of the City Centre. In spatial terms it would mean concentrating housing around existing City Centre housing areas such as Netherthorpe and Broomspring, and in Kelham along the riverside and prohibiting housing largely in identified business, leisure and retail areas. 7.29 The strengths of this option are: (a) It would encourage more investment in other uses, particularly offices. (b) The diversity of uses in the City Centre is one of its key characteristics, which would be lost if housing begins to dominate. 80 (c) The option prevents housing-dominated regeneration that may not be economically sustainable if employment opportunities are limited. (d) Aspirational residential land values would disappear from many, which would help encourage more investment in employment uses in the City Centre. 7.30 The main weaknesses of this option are: (a) Many investment opportunities may depend on mixed or predominantly housing development, using housing to cross-subsidise other important, but less profitable uses. If residential uses are restricted, some of these development opportunities may be lost. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 7.31 The submitted policy is derived from the emerging option CC1b. 7.32 Option CC1a for further expansion of City Centre living in all parts of the City Centre was rejected, as it was considered that this approach would be likely to conflict with achieving balanced economic regeneration. Sites that are considered best suited to office development, in order to achieve a balanced regeneration of the City Centre, would be lost to housing and this would prevent the City Centre realising its potential to provide jobs and services appropriate to the core of the city region. The spatial vision identifies the City Centre as the focus for offices, shops, leisure, culture, higher education and other services. On the other hand, the role of housing is seen as being to support and complement its primary role as a regional centre for jobs, shops and services. 7.33 Option CC1c to limit City Centre living in favour of investment in jobs was also rejected. This option could be argued to deliver the best economic scenario for the City Centre and City as a whole (as reflected in the sustainability appraisal results in 7.48 below), as it would help to deliver more employment and counter the problems currently created by high aspirational land values created by residential aspirations. But many investment opportunities rely on mixed business and housing development, using housing to fund less profitable uses. If residential uses are overly restricted, some of these development opportunities may be lost. 7.34 The promotion of housing in suitable City Centre areas is supported by the findings of the DTZ study. The Executive Summary, on page 3, states: “The renaissance of Sheffield City Centre has led to an upsurge in the supply of and demand for residential accommodation. As more employers move into the City, more employees are looking to live close to work. 81 Once a residential population is in place there is an opportunity to support a greater range of amenities and facilities i.e. health care, food retailers, gyms etc. In the current housing market, people are increasingly making decisions on were they want to work based on the quality and affordability of available accommodation in a reasonable commuting distance. Employers too are becoming more aware of this and look to locate or relocate to areas where they will be able to attract the right workforce. Having a resident population in a City Centre also contributes to the feeling of places being ’24 hour’ cities through people visiting bars, clubs, theatres and restaurants rather than places which are only busy during working hours. Housing has a key role in supporting mixed-use, flexible and sustainable development. Sheffield can position itself now to better respond to office and residential market changes. Some mixes work better than others and the market in Sheffield City Centre will take forward office, retail or residential development or a combination only if the development values and appraisals stack up financially. 7.35 Housing also has a very important role to play as one part of the mix of uses but, like all uses, it needs to complement these other uses and not displace them. The policy will contribute towards creating more sustainable travel patterns throughout the City as a whole. It would also help to maintain the distinctive Quarters that characterise the City Centre and maintain separation of housing and other uses, that will result in less potential conflict between them. 7.36 The provision of significant housing in appropriate areas of the City Centre has a potentially supportive role in relation to other City Centre uses. However, it is recognised that there is potential for conflict and so there is scope in the City Centre for achieving a level of separation. The submitted policy encourages a degree of separation between housing and other uses that could be incompatible, such as bars and nightclubs. So housing and other uses can still be located relatively close together in the City Centre, whilst still achieving an acceptable level of separation. But, this level of separation would be difficult to achieve if residential uses were to be encouraged in all City Centre areas. 7.37 Encouraging City Centre living improves the viability of City Centre businesses such as bars, cafés, restaurants and so on that may rely on customers throughout the day and week. This could have a knock-on effect that significant numbers of visitor outlets makes for a more vibrant location that would encourage more businesses to locate in the City Centre and further enhance the vitality and viability of the centre. Again, this will depend on the market delivering these facilities, as the option could allow housing to dominate in all areas in the City Centre. 7.38 The locations for housing are identified where they would not conflict with other uses, such as night-time uses. They are in areas of higher environmental quality (such as along riversides), and where there are lower 82 concentrations of conflicting uses, for example bars, pubs and nightclubs. The areas on the fringes of the City Centre are likely to be less attractive for other City Centre uses such as offices and shopping. Sheffield City Centre is relatively compact and housing has proved successful throughout, including the fringe areas. 7.39 This complementarity also enhances the City Centre as a place to live. The City Centre is an area that not only acts as a sub-regional and wider destination for work and leisure, but is also a local centre in itself, that can provide its residents with all the services they need, making it a highly sustainable location for living. 7.40 A major reason for supporting extensive housing in the City Centre is that land values are higher in the City Centre, so the costs of development are relatively high. If housing is included within mixed schemes, it can finance the provision of other important uses, such as offices, that do not currently generate such high financial returns. In this way housing can be a financial tool that can be used to deliver vital City Centre uses that may not be viable on their own in single use development schemes. This reason for supporting City Centre housing means that it has to be in areas where business uses are also acceptable. 7.41 The areas set out in the submitted policy are where housing is established, and there are lower concentrations of other, generally conflicting uses, such as bars, pubs and nightclubs, that would reduce the environmental quality, so the conditions there are already generally well suited to further housing development. The residential environment in these areas is good, so there are particular opportunities for mixed-use development that includes substantial amounts of housing. Where these areas are on the fringes of the City Centre, they are likely to be less attractive and less significant for alternative City Centre uses such as offices and shopping. 7.42 The greatest potential is identified in two areas: (a) On the riverside at Kelham / Neepsend and Wicker / Nursery Street – this area has particular development potential that could deliver much of the requirement for housing in the City Centre. There is a recently established residential community in this area, and there is a particular advantage of the riverside setting, that is well suited to housing use, as noted in Policy SCC1. (b) Between Netherthorpe Road and Edward Street – this is a long- established residential area that also has potential for contributing to the City’s housing requirement. 7.43 However, a wide range of other areas are identified in the policy and the scope for integrating with business uses is greatest here: (c) Between Netherthorpe Road and St. Vincent’s church – this has been identified as an opportunity area for housing in the St. Vincent’s Action Plan and the potential is identified in policy SCC1. This area is close to 83 existing housing and will be an attractive residential location, affording good views over much of the City and benefiting from a new open space area (see policy SCC11). (d) At West Bar, north of the Crown Courts – this is a large redevelopment area with significant opportunities for mixed development including housing that would benefit from a new neighbourhood centre and public space (see policy SCC1(k)). (e) Around Devonshire Green – this is already established as a residential area, close to the largest open space in the City Centre, which is undergoing refurbishment. (f) Upper levels along the Moor and in the New Retail Quarter – both the Moor and the NRQ are major new regeneration proposals offering redevelopment opportunities that can include housing as an appropriate mix of uses. (g) Around the Peace Gardens – new high quality city living is being introduced here in significant numbers, that will be located next to the best the City Centre has to offer in terms of cultural and leisure facilities and quality civic open space. (h) At Victoria Quays / Castlegate – Victoria Quays as a waterside location offers a quality environment, and there are opportunities that will arise as a result of redevelopment of the area, based around the Sheffield Castle ruins, where new open space will be created, and benefiting from the reconfiguration of the road network on completion of the northern section of the Inner Relief Road. (i) Within the Cathedral Quarter –policy SCC1(b) identifies the area as one with the potential for a wider mix of uses that offers residential opportunities. (j) Within the Cultural Industries Quarter – this area benefits from both a recently established new residential population and a riverside location, with proposals for a new open space (see policy SCC11). 7.44 Some of the areas identified are vulnerable to flooding though others are not. The areas between Netherthorpe Road and Edward Street, and between Netherthorpe Road and St. Vincent’s Church, West Bar (north of the Crown Courts), around Devonshire Green, the Moor and the New Retail Quarter, the Cathedral Quarter and the Peace Gardens are all situated within Zone 1 Low Probability. 7.45 But, a large proportion of Kelham/ Neepsend and Wicker/ Nursery Street is situated in Zone 3a High Probability, subject to flooding from the River Don. About half of the Cultural Industries Quarter (south and east) is situated within Zone 3a High Probability, due to flooding from the River Porter and the River Sheaf. Victoria Quays is situated in Zone 2 Medium Probability, subject to flooding from the River Don. 84 7.46 Housing developments are classed as ‘more vulnerable’, according to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in PPS25. Therefore any housing development proposed in Zone 3a must pass the Exception Test. The issue is discussed more fully in the Housing Background Report because of the need to weigh flood risk and the need for land to meet development requirements. Policy SH4 indicates that sites in priority locations (including the City Centre) without development constraints will be included in Phase 1 but the existence of flood risk means at least the deferring of development. If and when it is concluded that it is needed on sites at risk it will be necessary to take account of any flood protection measures taken by that time, the precise extent of risk as advised at that time and mitigation through design and layout. More specific guidance on the particular sites affected will be given in the City Sites document. 7.47 In the meantime, it is considered that the principle of housing in the named areas should remain with the provision to defer and restrict new housing as required. The sites in question are identified in the Housing Background Report in connection with policy SH4. Sustainability Appraisal 7.48 The submitted policy performs better than the one of the rejected options overall, and to a similar level as the other rejected option. It seeks to increase City Centre housing, which will boost the City Centre economy, whilst also limiting competition for sites for employment uses, thus achieving an effective balance between City Centre living and employment uses that will deliver the best overall economic performance. New City Centre Living accommodation is likely to be designed with security in mind and provide safe public spaces. Increased population will create a demand for cultural, leisure and recreation uses that will help to maintain and enhance their provision for the whole City. New housing development can also deliver new public spaces. The locations identified are all highly accessible by public transport, and the option also allows for significant provision of other uses within the City Centre such as offices, that also require accessible locations. Mixing of housing and employment in the City Centre will also help to reduce the need to travel, and this will help to reduce vehicle emissions. 7.49 In many cases it is possible to achieve greater quality of design with housing schemes in the City Centre, as they provide the greater financial return to developers. Also, the promotion of housing on sites with existing buildings that require protection is more likely to result in effective and sympathetic re- use of buildings where this is an option, as conversion of existing buildings to housing uses is often the most viable way of reusing the buildings. The option will promote good use of the City Centre’s physical infrastructure. 7.50 The policy scores better than the option to allow housing throughout the City Centre, as the rejected option could restrict other important City Centre uses that are necessary for a healthy and vibrant City Centre. It also is more economically sustainable than the other rejected option, as City Centre 85 housing is one of the uses that is considered to contribute to the economic performance of the City Centre. Equality Appraisal 7.51 This submitted policy was the joint highest scoring of the options, as more housing in the City Centre means more people living close to services and to public transport to access them. This will include people on low incomes. Consultation Responses 7.52 The policy was generally supported in responses to the Emerging Options, including by Sheffield One, Sheffield First for Investment (now part of Creative Sheffield) and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). 7.53 Caution was expressed by some consultees that the ‘city living’ boom may not last and is not delivering a diversity of people living in the City Centre. This is something that should be improved. The issue of the overall scale of provision in the City Centre is taken up in SH2. SCC6 is more about distribution within the centre. Action Plans can also require a mix of housing tenures to be provided in new developments. The St. Vincent’s Action Plan is an example of where this is an adopted requirement. 7.54 There was a mix of support and objections to the policy (as Preferred Option PCC3), with some responses wanting the policy to refer to provision of facilities and design, which are covered in other policies, and one objecting to specifying locations in the City Centre because it was considered that PPS3 put an emphasis on development within town and city centres on previously developed land and the policy was repeating this national guidance. Also that the specificity put forward in the Core Strategy is not suitable for this level of policy document. This equates to the rejected option CC1a. The City Council did not agree with this view, as the policy seeks to encourage City Centre living and identify the best areas for it, whilst promoting other uses in other parts of the City Centre where they are most appropriate. This is intended to achieve balanced regeneration of the City Centre, and prevent one use becoming dominant. Recent experience has suggested that, in general, developers consider most City Centre sites primarily for residential uses, due to the nature of the housing market, often at the expense of other vital City Centre uses. So there is a need to identify the parts of the City Centre where housing should be focussed, balanced with identifying areas where other uses need to be encouraged by restricting housing uses. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 7.55 City Centre living is clearly beneficial for reasons of changing household requirements and market demand, supporting regeneration and mixing of uses and sustainability in relation to use of land and transport.. But, of all the main City Centre uses, it is the one that requires the most robust of strategic policies in order to ensure that those benefits are maximised, as it has the potential, given the current market, to dominate over other uses that are distinctive to the City Centre. The Core Strategy must ensure housing is 86 focussed in the most suitable areas for further residential use, and restricted in other areas that are required for achieving adequate amounts of the other uses required to achieve a balanced redevelopment of the City Centre as a whole. This is what the policy sets out. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 7.56 The policy will be implemented by: Ensuring the City Policies, Proposals Map and City Sites documents reflect the priorities for housing set out in the policy. The drafting of appropriate Action Plans. Determining planning applications. Ensuring that the City Centre Masterplan is compatible with the submitted policy. 7.57 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC6. Policy SH2 does, however, set a target (10,600 dwellings) for new housing development in the City Centre over the period 2004/05 to 2020/21. Although it is not proposed to publish dwelling completion figures for SDF sub-areas in the Annual Monitoring Report, completions in the City Centre would contribute to the housing trajectory (see Housing Background Report). The number of completed dwellings in each of the sub-areas will, however, be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 7.58 This policy is primarily about the specific areas that are promoted for housing, but it is based on the need to balance housing with other uses throughout the City Centre, so the wider issue of the City Centre housing market is relevant. 7.59 There is a significant degree of flexibility within this provision that allows housing in other areas as part of a mix of uses. 7.60 Policy SH2 requires 10,600 new dwellings to be provided in the City Centre, to 2020/21. These will need to be substantially accommodated in the areas stated, and there would be a risk to the delivery of policy SCC6 if there was insufficient capacity in these areas. However, given that City Centre housing tends to be of a high density, it is considered likely that the areas can accommodate this scale of development. The Core Strategy Housing Background Report estimates the capacity. 7.61 The overall benefits of a balanced approach to housing and business in the City Centre will occur as long as there is effective mixing of uses in the City Centre as a whole, and that levels of development are high enough to ensure 87 a sustainable level of development that will deliver economic and social benefits. 7.62 If demand were to fall there could be a risk of not attracting a critical mass of development. But the DTZ report identified some risks to future delivery of housing in the medium to long term but considered that the market was currently strong enough to sustain the current level of development in the pipeline. The City Centre residential market still has further growth opportunities and there confidence in the strength of the City Centre housing market and an appetite for further development. The number of people in the 20-40 age group is likely to grow rapidly, which will fuel demand for City Centre living. The majority of new housing in the City Centre in the pipeline is one and two bed apartments, but rising interests rates and a cooling of the housing market, means there is a risk of over-supply. There is some latent demand from ‘empty nesters’, graduates, students, young families and those wanting larger apartments in the City Centre. 56% of the people questioned as part of the study indicated that they would consider the City Centre as a place to live. Conclusion 7.63 This policy is all about achieving the right balance between residential and other uses in the City Centre, both in terms of the amount of development achieved and the areas in which it takes place. The DTZ study has shown that there is a need to control City Centre living in order to get a balance in the types of housing that is developed. It is considered that the policy achieves the right degree of control in determining the spatial priorities for City Centre living locations, whilst also allowing significant freedom and flexibility to develop housing in a wide range of locations as part of mixed developments that deliver other priority uses. 7.64 The benefits of more City Centre housing are improved sustainability through use of the City Centre as an accessible location, a safer environment with a round-the-clock and weekend presence, greater vitality, liveliness, interest and attractiveness and the generation of new uses for vacant sites buildings. City Centre housing can also meet the needs of particular groups of people who would prefer not to live in houses in the suburbs. The Government has also encouraged more City Centre, higher-density living as a key component of the ‘Urban Renaissance’ outlined in the Urban Task Force Report, and this has been reiterated in planning policy guidance. 88 8 MANUFACTURING AND THE CITY CENTRE – TRANSITION AREAS Introduction 8.1 Sheffield grew predominantly on metal industries and many of these developed in areas that are now part of the modern City Centre. But it is debateable whether the City Centre, given its topography, restricted accessibility for industrial traffic and competition from other, possibly more suitable and viable uses, can deliver the locational requirements and expectations of modern heavy manufacturing and distribution. 8.2 The St Vincent’s Quarter is an example of an industrial area in the City Centre. Most businesses here are located in old premises on sloping, restricted sites with poor access. Many of the industries here have been present for many years, some have moved into the area because premises are old and of restricted use so are cheap to rent. 8.3 Industrial operations vary and some are relatively light, low-impact uses that may not have the same requirements for premises as heavy industry. This distinction is recognised in the Use Classes Order that identifies light industry as falling within the B1 class where it can operate alongside sensitive uses such as housing, whereas heavy manufacturing that would cause adverse impacts if located close to residential uses is in the separate B2 use class. So the fact that B2 uses (many of which operate in areas such as St. Vincent’s) and residential uses are incompatible could create problems where City Centre living is becoming more widespread. 8.4 ‘Manufacturing’ is defined as industrial uses designated as B2 uses in the Use Classes Order, or ‘general industrial’. The policy does not include light industrial uses, which are in Use Class B1, and defined as light industry appropriate in a residential area58. So the industrial uses referred to in this policy are, by definition, those that cannot operate alongside residential uses. ‘Transition Areas’ are locations where industrial and manufacturing uses are present but regeneration through alternative uses is happening. Transition areas in the City Centre are shown on the Key Diagram. Policy SCC7 Manufacturing and the City Centre – Transition Areas Manufacturing in City Centre transition areas should not expand where it would detract from the regeneration of the centre and it will be encouraged to relocate, providing suitable alternative sites and premises are available in the city. Transition areas include: (a) parts of St. Vincent’s area (b) part of Kelham/ Neepsend (c) part of Wicker/ Riverside 58 www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/genpub/en/1011888237913.html 89 (d) most of West Bar (e) the southern part of the Devonshire Quarter (f) parts of the Cultural Industries Quarter. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 8.5 PPS3 and PPS6 promote housing in centres (see paragraphs 7.8 to 7.11). By definition, industrial uses are incompatible in the same location as housing uses, so the submitted policy, that seeks to relocate manufacturing from the City Centre, will help to achieve the aims of this national guidance. Regional Policy 8.6 The draft RSS anticipates that ‘bad-neighbour’ and ‘low value’ industrial uses, may be displaced from existing sites. Paragraph 14.23 states: “LPAs will need to consider the provision of replacement sites for ‘bad- neighbour’ and ‘low value’ industrial uses, which may be displaced from existing sites.” 8.7 The Panel Report into the draft RSS has acknowledged a need to promote the re-structuring of manufacturing to promote industrial regeneration in the region. Recommendation 4.2 on page 36 of the Panel Report is to: “Include within Policy E1 a commitment to support the manufacturing sector of the economy and to encourage modernisation of manufacturing industries as part of the Region’s economy.” Sub-Regional Policy 8.8 The submitted policy is fully in line with the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy (SYSS), which on page 9:59 states: “Many viable economic and employment opportunities arise from industries which use a lot of space relative to the value-added, for example some light manufacture and logistical functions. For them, the more central urban locations are unlikely to be viable. They will be helped to find more competitive locations in outlying settlements easily accessible to the transport network and the labour pool.” 8.9 The policy is also supported by the SYSS on page 12: “It is proposed that manufacturing operations that wish to relocate from town and city centres should be supported in doing so.” Other Sheffield Policies 59 Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy Vision for South Yorkshire. Ideasmiths Consulting Partnership / South Yorkshire Partnership (November 2004) 90 8.10 Work on devising the office strategy in the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has also identified the need to screen out manufacturing uses from the areas promoted for office use, which is consistent with the submitted policy. This approach was supported by the consultation exercise undertaken with the Sheffield 100 Forum60, who supported the proposal to relocate industrial uses. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 8.11 The 2007 City Strategy has a Big Ambition that the City’s economy will match the best cities in Europe. The focus will be on boosting innovation, enterprise and private investment in the City (page 18). It is considered that the submitted policy will be broadly in line with this ambition, by seeking to create better conditions for business in the City Centre. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 8.12 The compatibility of this policy with the objectives is through the encouragement to housing that the restriction of manufacturing gives: S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture S3.1 Successful housing markets across all tenures in all areas of the city and increased demand for housing in currently deprived areas Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 8.13 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 8.14 The options suggested are whether to discourage the further development and expansion of industrial operations, or to allow industrial uses to continue. Option CC4a Industry in the City Centre should not expand and should be encouraged to relocate. 8.15 The strengths of this option are: (a) The presence of industrial uses along with this new housing could cause conflict. Relocating industrial uses from the City Centre would remove the 60 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 91 risk of conflict between the expectations of residents and the needs of industry and could make City Centre communities more attractive. (b) Relocation can improve the competitiveness and viability of companies, where it would result in the removal of constraints to their operation that they are currently suffering due to their central location. (c) Offices are more appropriate than industry as employment uses in the City Centre, and the relocation of industry would free up more sites for new office development. (d) Encouraging housing on existing industrial sites will increase land values, which would assist with the cost of industrial relocation to alternative sites. 8.16 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) Being in a central location has accessibility advantages for industrial companies, as it should generally be easier for their workers to get to their place of employment. (b) This option would place serious constraints on any expansion of businesses that are unable to relocate and this could reduce their competitiveness. Option CC4b City Centre industry of all kinds is free to continue and expand for as long as they wish 8.17 The strength of this option is: (a) There would be no disruption to the day-to-day operation of existing firms in the City Centre. 8.18 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) It would jeopardise the potential to achieve significant levels of regeneration of the run-down City Centre industrial areas due to the benefits of increased land values. (b) The ability to deliver regeneration that requires some element of housing will be severely limited by the continued presence of heavy manufacturing. (c) The development of the City Centre as a major regional office centre could be jeopardised by the continuing presence of industrial operations. A Preferred Option, PB6, has been amalgamated into this submitted policy, as it was considered to be an issue that was unique to the City Centre. 92 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Reasons for the areas selected Planning Reasons 8.19 The option to allow industry of all kinds to be free to continue and expand in the City Centre was rejected, as it would jeopardise the potential to achieve significant levels of regeneration of the run-down City Centre industrial areas through the benefits of increased land values and subsequent relocations. Regeneration of the City Centre through housing would be severely limited by the continued presence of heavy manufacturing. The development of the City Centre as a major regional office centre could also be jeopardised by the continuing presence of industrial operations, as some major potential occupiers could be put off by proximity to old, run-down industrial operations 8.20 Office uses deliver a greater density of employment and the nature of sites in the City Centre is such that they are often more suited to high rise development, which makes their capacity for providing a large amount of office space even greater. The presence of industry can also detract from the overall attractiveness of the City Centre. This can dissuade potential office occupiers and developers, as well as other potential visitors and investors. So a switch of employment uses from industrial to offices on City Centre sites would deliver considerable employment and regeneration benefits. 8.21 Some areas of Sheffield are in a state of transition with a trend away from ‘traditional’, well-established manufacturing, towards more sensitive uses, particularly housing. The renewal of these areas means managing and encouraging this process. Industry is unsuitable close to sensitive uses such as housing. In the City Centre, where housing is expected to develop, there is a direct conflict. 8.22 But relocation can only be considered in conjunction with other Core Strategy policies, for example PB1 that seeks to ensure there is sufficient land for manufacturing uses in the future, including any relocations required. 8.23 Industry in the City Centre, particularly when it is becoming run-down, can give a negative perception of the economic health of the City Centre. This does not fit in with aspirations to transform the economy of the city. Relocating industrial uses from the City Centre would encourage the regeneration of these transition areas and would give the signal needed to attract office developers and raise land values to a point where relocation becomes economically viable for the businesses. Relocation, funded by the sale of their existing premises, could be the only option for some companies to continue, and this could only be possible in many cases if the value of their site is raised by the potential for residential of office development. 8.24 Industry could cause conflict with sensitive uses, particularly housing. Preferred option PCC3 above seeks to promote housing in suitable areas of the City Centre, so the presence of industry in the City Centre will jeopardise both existing and potential new City Centre living. Relocating industrial uses 93 from the City Centre would remove this risk of conflict and could make City Centre communities more attractive, thus improving their viability. Redevelopment opportunities can help to fund such relocations. 8.25 If housing is encouraged on existing City Centre industrial sites, land values will greatly increase, as landowners recognise that their sites could have potential for residential and other non-industrial uses. This will greatly assist in the delivery of the regeneration of large areas of the City Centre, as set out in the Core Strategy. 8.26 It is clear that there are significant operational problems facing many industrial operations in the City Centre. For example, sites are often not flat and access for lorries and vans is restricted. Vehicle parking is limited. Buildings are old, cramped, on several levels and generally not fit for purpose. The relocation of these industrial operations from these City Centre sites to more suitable sites outside the City Centre would assist the continued operation of many existing firms that are currently struggling to do business on inappropriate sites in unsuitable locations. 8.27 Relocation will improve the competitiveness and viability of companies, where it would result in the removal of constraints to their operation that they are currently suffering due to their central location. Housing uses have already begun to be introduced into industrial areas in the City Centre and this is creating more problems for industry as constraints to their operation become more and more of a problem. Action Plans are advocating residential uses that require the removal of industrial uses if this is to be delivered. 8.28 Offices are the most appropriate employment use in the City Centre and the relocation of industry would free up more sites for new office development. Office uses deliver a greater density of employment per square metre of floorspace, and the nature of the City Centre sites means they are more suited to multi-storey development, which makes their capacity for providing a large amount of employment space even greater. Office buildings can make effective use of difficult, sloping sites with restricted access. The presence of industry also detracts from the overall attractiveness of the City Centre for office occupiers. So a switch of employment uses from industrial to offices on City Centre sites would deliver considerable employment, regeneration and environmental benefits. 8.29 National policy on flood risk is outlined in chapter 2 in the Planning Reasons section (see paragraph 2.31). Some of the Transition Areas are affected by flood risk: 8.30 St. Vincent’s, West Bar and the southern part of the Devonshire Quarter area is situated within Zone 1 Low Probability. A large proportion of Kelham/ Neepsend and Wicker/ Riverside is situated in Zone 3a High Probability, subject to flooding from the River Don. The remaining areas are situated within Zone 1 Low Probability. 8.31 About half of the Cultural Industries Quarter (south and east) is situated within Zone 3a High Probability, due to flooding from the River Porter and the River 94 Sheaf. There are no known localised non-river flooding issues within this area, however there a likelihood of susceptibility to culvert blockage and/or surcharging if regular maintenance is not carried out. Sustainability Appraisal 8.32 The submitted policy performs better than the rejected option overall. There are uses other than industry that can better capitalise on the locational advantages of the City Centre, particularly office uses, that could deliver greater economic and employment benefits. Removing industry from the City Centre could improve air quality, and new industrial premises are likely to be cleaner than older buildings. Limiting industry would improve the situation whereby pedestrian safety problems occur where large delivery vehicles, etc., are operating in the City Centre. New offices and housing to replace industry in the City Centre could encourage the provision of cultural, leisure and recreation facilities as a result of increased demand for them, which will make these facilities more readily available for all. Industrial uses do not benefit from high accessibility to the same extent as other, more intensive uses, such as offices, so the relocation of industry from the City Centre in favour of these alternative uses is a more efficient use of the transport network. The reuse of City Centre land for more intensive uses is a more efficient use of scarce land resources and relocated industry is likely to develop on brownfield land. Redevelopment of industrial sites and buildings in the City Centre is likely to lead to an improvement in design and quality of both existing and new buildings. This approach can help to save historic buildings, as redevelopment could take place for higher value uses, such as offices and housing, that should generally enable the retention of buildings. The redevelopment of industrial sites for other uses that generate more trips can make more use of public transport and enable emissions to be reduced. Many of the older industrial properties operating in the City Centre are alongside the rivers, and redevelopment could enable new flood protection to be installed where necessary. Equality Appraisal 8.33 The policy promotes more intensive uses in the City Centre than industry. As public transport provision to the City Centre is better than anywhere else in the City, this will benefit those with limited access to private transport, including those on low incomes. Consultation Responses 8.34 There was general support for the option at Emerging Options stage, including from Sheffield First for Investment (now part of Creative Sheffield) and Yorkshire Forward. Most of the concerns expressed about the option were actually to do with the role of light industrial uses, which are not affected by this policy. 8.35 The Preferred Option PB6, that has been amalgamated into this submitted policy, was the most favoured of the options by a fairly large margin, and by key stakeholders such as South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, 95 who supported that option as one that would encourage more intensive development in the City Centre. Yorkshire Forward and Sheffield First for Investment viewed this option as one that would improve the City’s economic performance, particularly in terms of creating a better working environment for manufacturers and improving the economic environment of the City Centre. But there was also some general concern that the success of the option was very much dependent on ensuring that sufficient land and sites in the right areas were available for relocation. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 8.36 There are very clear economic advantages for companies to relocate to more suitable premises, as well as being imperative to ensure that City Centre living can develop and deliver the benefits set out in Policy SCC6. The case was also clearly supported in the sustainability appraisal. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 8.37 The policy will be delivered by: Determining planning applications – new industrial development in the Transition Areas will not be permitted, as this would encourage manufacturing to continue here. Committing to the transformation of the affected areas and an effective strategy to provide land and sites for relocating companies. Masterplans and Area Action plans will need to tackle the issue of industry in the Transition Areas, as well as the need to identify and promote areas suitable for relocation. Ensuring assistance from the City Council’s regeneration partners and using funding options wherever possible. More detail is given on how this can be achieved in the Core Strategy Business and Industry Background Report, particularly relating to policy SB1 on the provision of land. Providing financial assistance where necessary for some companies to relocate. This could be addressed through masterplans and Action Plans and, wherever possible, through grant assistance. Again, more detail is given in the Core Strategy Business and Industry Background Report. Ensuring there are options for relocation for the companies involved as part of the overall strategy for transformation. The promotion of areas for industrial uses in other policies such 8.38 More details of delivery mechanisms are included in the Delivery Schedules in Appendix 1. 8.39 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC7. A number of targets and indicators in relation to policies SB1 and SB4 are, however, relevant (see Business and Industry Background Report). 96 8.40 The amount of industrial floorspace developed for non-B2/B8 uses in the named locations will, however, also be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 8.41 There will be disruption to the day-to-day operation of existing firms in the City Centre if this option is successful. They would not be allowed to expand and this would restrict the continued and intended future operations of the businesses. Successful relocation would be the only beneficial outcome, so this needs to be achieved. So, to be effective, the SDF would need to ensure positive provision for industry for relocation in more appropriate areas outside of the City Centre, as identified in policies SB4, SLD2, SLD3, SUD1, SNE2 and SCH1. 8.42 The relocation areas need to be suitable and in sustainable locations as far as possible. There may be issues of accessibility – one advantage of the City Centre as a location for industry is its accessibility for workers. 8.43 There is also a need to ensure that important industrial heritage is not lost through redevelopment, so relocation options will also have to consider the need to retain historic and important buildings. 8.44 Relocation can cause significant disruption to companies. Some companies are well established in City Centre locations and face serious practical difficulties to relocate. The costs of closing one operation, and moving staff and equipment to another location, can be considerable, especially where heavy or specialised machinery requires moving - and in some cases it may be extremely difficult and costly to relocate companies. Costs are even higher where new premises need to be constructed and financial support, using grant regimes, may be necessary to facilitate some moves. Where Action Plans are advocating such relocations, issues of how to facilitate them will be need to be addressed in these Plans. In the long term some firms could even face closure. There will be tough choices to be made and some financial hardship to be suffered by existing industries that would need to be relocated if this option was to be fully pursued. Relocation can cause significant disruption to companies. Financial support packages may be required to facilitate moves. There can be serious financial and logistical difficulties and constraints to relocation, for example where heavy or specialised machinery requires moving, and in some cases it may be extremely costly to move companies. However, residential values can generate good financial returns and there may also be funding assistance available. 8.45 Housing uses have already begun to be introduced into industrial areas in the City Centre. As this continues, constraints to the operation of existing firms are likely to become more and more of a problem. But redevelopment opportunities can help to fund relocation. 97 Conclusion 8.46 There are several policies in the Core Strategy that promote housing in the City Centre in a wide variety of locations (such as SCC1, SCC6, SH2). These policies will be difficult to deliver while there are manufacturing operations taking place in the City Centre that are incompatible with housing. So there is a need for a policy that seeks to achieve the relocation of these businesses from the City Centre to other areas where they can operate more effectively and efficiently, free of the constraints that their City Centre sites suffer, and enable city living to spread into appropriate areas. 98 9 TALL BUILDINGS IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 9.1 There are currently a limited number of tall buildings in Sheffield, but there are several either being proposed or under construction, many of which are listed in Table 6. They can be used to emphasize the dramatic contours of the city and to create landmark structures that make a bold and confident statement about the economic health of the City. In the City Centre, they can be used to achieve a greater density of development on valuable sites that are restricted in size. 9.2 The Urban Design Compendium (UDC)61 already gives specific informal guidance on general design and siting of potential new tall buildings. This issue would enable the strategic aspects of this guidance to feature in the formal planning framework. 9.3 The UDC) currently gives specific informal guidance on general design and siting of potential new tall buildings. But there are strategic implications of this guidance that needs to be covered by the Core Strategy. 9.4 As well as bringing economic benefits, these buildings can have a significant visual impact. So design issues are important, and the principles set out in the UDC should be closely followed. 9.5 For the purposes of the Core Strategy, ‘tall buildings’ comprise any buildings that are substantially higher than their context or that will shape the City’s skyline Policy SCC8 Tall Buildings in the City Centre Tall buildings may be appropriate in the City Centre where they: (a) help to define identified gateway sites, (b) mark an area of civic importance, (c) mark a principle activity node or a key route, (d) form the focal point of a vista or enhance the city skyline (e) re-inforce the topography (f) support the vision for City Centre quarters (g) reflect the strategic economic vision for the city. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 9.6 Tall buildings have been encouraged by central Government in PPS1 in paragraph 27, that promotes high-density development to make efficient use of land. PPS6 encourages higher density, multi-storey development in centres where appropriate. Objectives are set out, one of them being (paragraph 1.5): 61 Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium. Sheffield City Council (September 2004) 99 “to deliver more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring that locations are fully exploited through high-density, mixed-use development” 9.7 PPS362 encourages consideration of higher densities to make more efficient use of land in appropriate locations (paragraph 46). 9.8 High-density development in appropriate areas and centres is encouraged in PPS6. Paragraph 2.4 states: “Wherever possible, growth should be accommodated by more efficient use of land and buildings within existing centres. Local planning authorities should aim to increase the density of development, where appropriate.” 9.9 Paragraph 2.20 also says: “The Government is concerned to ensure that efficient use should be made of land within centres and elsewhere. Local planning authorities should formulate planning policies which encourage well-designed, and, where appropriate, higher-density, multi-storey development within and around existing centres,…” 9.10 It is considered that the submitted policy is compatible with this national objective to achieve high-density development in existing centres to a significant degree. 9.11 National guidance on tall buildings has recently been revised.63 This also recognises the importance of tall buildings – the opening line is: “Cities and their skylines evolve. In the right place, tall buildings can make positive contributions to city life.” 9.12 However, the guidance does also recognise that tall buildings can be unpopular, and their success is dependent on them being located in the right place, as well as being of an appropriate scale and design. But the guidance encourages local planning authorities to develop strategic policies to guide the location of tall buildings: “CABE and English Heritage advise local planning authorities to consider the scope for tall buildings, where they are a possibility, as part of strategic planning. This may include how they contribute to areas of change. In identifying locations where tall buildings would and would not be appropriate, local planning authorities should, as a matter of good practice, carry out a detailed urban design study.” 9.13 It is considered that the policy, in conjunction with the Urban Design Compendium advice, will contribute to the aims of this national guidance. 62 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing. DCLG (November 2006) 63 Guidance on Tall Buildings. English Heritage & CABE (July 2007) - http://www.cabe.org.uk/AssetLibrary/10173.pdf 100 However, unlike the Preferred Option that preceded it, it does not go so far as to identify locations. Ideally, they would have been included but it was concluded that more detailed work was required first and that this would be more appropriate in a Supplementary Planning Document instead of the Core Strategy. The Core strategy does, at least, identify the City Centre as a general location where tall buildings may be appropriate. Regional Policy 9.14 Policy YH2 A in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to increase urban densities and tall buildings would contribute to this. 9.15 The Panel Report has not suggested any changes to this policy that will affect its relevance. Sub-Regional Policy 9.16 There are no specific policies in sub-regional strategies such as the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy or City Regional Development Program that are directly relevant to this submitted policy. Other Sheffield Policies 9.17 Work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has considered the value of tall buildings in the City Centre, and is positive about the opportunities to deliver office accommodation in tall buildings, which will be highly visible and have the hallmarks of a dense and prosperous office district. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 9.18 The policy is compatible with the 2007 City Strategy. On page 33, when dealing with the spatial vision it states: “New development will be concentrated in the main urban area of Sheffield … Average densities will be increased within the existing built-up areas”. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 9.19 The submitted policy will help to deliver the following objectives, as the policy connects with economic issues, transport, the use of land, design etc.: S1.1 Conditions created for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high- growth economy in the Sheffield city region; S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture; 101 S6.2 A safer and more secure environment, minimising physical hazards and opportunities for crime. S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations; S12.1 Previously developed land and existing buildings in urban areas reclaimed and re-used for all types of development, in preference to greenfield land; S15.1 High-quality and inclusiveness in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the spaces around and between them, with provision for everyone wishing to use them. 9.20 Tall buildings deliver a large amount of floorspace on a small amount of land. Also, as the vast majority of dwellings or business premises are located away from the ground floor, are less at risk from crimes such as burglary and vandalism. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 9.21 This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 9.22 The emerging options provided a choice between having a promotional approach to tall buildings where appropriate, or having a relatively cautious approach. Option CC7a Tall buildings should be encouraged as far as possible in certain suitable areas of the City Centre. 9.23 This option would accord with the Urban Design Compendium (UDC) in that it encourages tall buildings in the City Centre, but only in certain locations where the character of the area and its location is considered appropriate. 9.24 The strengths of this option are: (a) Tall buildings make better use of limited land within the City Centre, allowing development to take place at higher densities. (b) Tall buildings make a statement about a City that can encourage investment. Their presence can give an impression of wealth, prosperity, dynamism and vibrancy. (c) The prominence of such buildings gives opportunities for bold design statements that can also send out very positive messages to people who are not familiar with the city. 9.25 The weakness of this option is: 102 (a) Tall buildings can be out of scale in some areas and can detract from existing, smaller scale quality buildings and settings. In the wrong places they can reduce the impact that Sheffield’s unique topography can have. Option CC7b The approach to tall buildings should be generally cautious. 9.26 The UDC, whilst accepting that there is scope for tall buildings in certain locations, also advocates a cautious approach to some degree. It suggests a measured approach where each proposal should be carefully considered against a set of criteria relating to topography, location and surrounding built form. 9.27 The strength of this option is: (a) The impact of such buildings on Sheffield, that currently has very few, and has a varied topography, needs to be carefully assessed. There is a role for tall buildings, but the general locations and scale of them needs to be right. 9.28 The weakness of this option is: (a) A cautious approach could mean that the accepted benefits of tall buildings that the city would achieve are limited. The city could be seen as cautious and not ready to embrace the opportunities that tall buildings can offer. Table 6 – Buildings of 10 or more Storeys Proposed or Under Construction in Sheffield, July 2007 No. of Gross Storeys commercial Location Description Developer Floorspace (sq. m.) Under Construction: 'City Gate S1', 122 bed Tulip Tiger St Mary's Gate / hotel 11 20,100 Developments Young Street Ltd 'I Quarter', Redevelopment Urban i (Blonk Lady’s Bridge / and new build - 16 1,800 Street) Ltd Blonk Street 122 flats Heart of the City Restaurant / CTP St - Registry Office café / bar and James / City 32 2,082 Site 322 Lofts apartments. Heart of the Multi-storey car CTP St City, Arundel park and 10 11,400 James Ltd Gate casino. Heart of the City Office building. CTP St - Offices Phase 11 11,700 James Ltd 3 103 No. of Gross Storeys commercial Location Description Developer Floorspace (sq. m.) Office World Office block and McAleer and Site, Furnival a hotel (254 17 25,200 Rushe Ltd Square beds) Other Proposed: The Moor Shops, offices, RREEF (UK) Redevelopment, apartments and 27 14,455 Ltd Charter Row a car park Broad Lane / Shops and B1 Watkin Jones Newcastle (Business) Group Street / below 48 10 2,320 Rockingham student flats Street Weston Tower, Mainly Hallana Ltd West Bar Green residential 23 5,200 tower. Hanover Way / Commercial Barewise Ltd / Milton Street uses and 233 22 2,500 (Lancaster) apartments Ltd Source: Sheffield City Council Major Development Schemes in Sheffield database. Schemes consisting of 10 or more storeys are included in this table. However, it should be stressed that this is not the accepted definition of a tall building – see paragraph 9.4 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 9.29 The submitted policy is effectively a combination of two emerging options. One option was to encourage tall buildings in suitable locations, the other to adopt a cautious approach. The policy is to encourage tall buildings in certain locations, but only if they meet certain criteria. So the two rejected elements of the options are considered to represent an overly cautious approach and a too positive approach, whereas the policy is a compromise, but one that is considered to deliver the advantages of tall buildings whilst limiting their potentially damaging visual impacts. It is also considered the option that best fits with the principles adopted in the UDC, although the UDC takes these principles further by identifying specific locations. 9.30 The policy has the advantages of the option CC7a, namely making better use of limited land within the City Centre, allowing development to take place at higher densities, providing large amounts of floorspace on City Centre sites that are often relatively small in size. This will help to achieve the aims of policies SH2, to deliver sufficient housing by building at high densities, as well as SB1 and SB3, that together seek to achieve a suitable and viable level of office development in the City Centre and it could be critical in achieving the required floorspace. It will also assist in the delivery of policy SCC2, to 104 achieve significant levels of office development in the most suitable City Centre locations. 9.31 This policy represents an efficient use of land, that is a scarce resource in the City Centre, where space is limited and land costs tend to be high. 9.32 Tall buildings are highly visible, and can make bold and confident statements about a city that can encourage investment, giving an impression of wealth, prosperity, dynamism and vibrancy, encouraging potential investors that Sheffield is a positive place in which to invest in new development, giving opportunities for bold design statements that can also send out positive messages about Sheffield, projecting a modern image and improving the visual impact of the City Centre by giving an air of importance, stature and prestige. 9.33 Tall buildings offer the potential for a wider range of land uses on a single footprint, and can assist in locating businesses effectively close to a range of different transport modes, close to other facilities and services. 9.34 Tall buildings, in relation to the role they can play as landmarks, can help ‘legibility’ and orientation within the city (page 61 of the Urban Design Compendium). High quality tall buildings in appropriate locations can add to the character of the City Centre, providing strategic landmarks and focal points to articulate parts of the city. 9.35 There are currently a limited number of tall buildings in Sheffield, so there is great potential to create landmark structures that can emphasize the dramatic contours of the City. But there are quite a lot of proposals in the table and a number do not re-inforce contours. 9.36 There could be advantages of tall buildings in terms of flood risk. Re-inforcing topography would locate tall buildings away from areas at risk of flooding though other criteria, e.g. relating to gateways and key routes in the valleys will be more at risk in some cases. Where a site does fall within a flood risk area and where there is less ground floor floorspace and more floorspace above ground, there will be less overall risk. The policy could have flooding implications relating to water run-off, but there could also be advantages that building up means less hard surfacing at ground level. This will be addressed in the City Policies document, currently in Preferred Option PR4. 9.37 The resulting policy is criteria-based rather than spatial but the criteria are mainly about location. The policy is proposed as an intermediate stage to a more fully spatial statement in the related Supplementary Planning Document. This will supersede the specific locations currently proposed in the Urban Design Compendium and take account of more recent needs and opportunities. 9.38 The submitted policy would enable the strategic aspects of the UDC to feature in the formal planning framework. The tall buildings aspect of the UDC would be reviewed before becoming the subject of an SPD. 105 Sustainability Appraisal 9.39 The policy is the only one of the options that delivers any significant sustainability, even though it all has some negative impacts. Tall buildings will aid economic prosperity, as higher employment numbers are achievable if buildings are built taller, as site densities will be greater. Tall buildings are also prominent landmarks that create prestigious locations for businesses and give a positive impression of economic prosperity that help to achieve the sustainability aim of A strong economy with good job opportunities available to the whole community. Taller buildings mean higher densities and more housing units, which will increase overall housing availability. Greater site density can reduce average development costs allowing improved quality and/or reduced costs. Tall buildings are likely to be more secure from break- ins than low-rise housing. Taller buildings mean more residents and workers in the City Centre, which will help to support cultural, leisure and recreation facilities. Building taller at a higher density is a more efficient use of land and could enable the redevelopment of difficult sites that are costly to re-use. Tall buildings are very prominent, so a good design has a greater impact. They create development at higher densities that mean more people can be served by the physical infrastructure. Equality Appraisal 9.40 More jobs and housing in the City Centre is more sustainable, as this is the most accessible part of the City and well served by public transport, reducing reliance on private transport, which is often required by those on low incomes. Consultation Responses 9.41 There was virtually unanimous support for the element of the Emerging Option that was taken forward as part of the submitted policy, to generally promote tall buildings in the City Centre. This included backing from Sheffield One, Sheffield First for Investment and Yorkshire Forward. The latter two in particular endorsed the economic benefits of tall buildings through improved image and efficient use of land in limited supply. YF also emphasised the need to ensure suitable mixing within developments. 9.42 English Heritage offered qualified support for tall buildings. Their comments were: “The overriding consideration will be whether the location is suitable for a tall building in terms of its effect on the historic environment at a city-wide as well as a local level. We commend the guidance on tall buildings, produced by English Heritage and CABE, for consideration, which outlines the issues which should be addressed in any Policy for tall buildings. The City needs a clear strategy setting out where tall buildings will and will not be acceptable and identifying key vistas across the city which ought to be safeguarded.” 9.43 This advice has been taken on board in terms of the submitted policy, as the policy sets out the criteria that will be used to judge the suitability of a location 106 for a tall building. The detail will be included in the SPD referred to in paragraph 9.13. 9.44 Consultation on the Preferred Options resulted in only one objection, from consultants Development Land and Planning, that suggested the policy did not need to set out the locations for tall buildings, and that the criteria were sufficient. The City Council agreed with this comment to some degree in that the locations are not included in the Core Strategy, but there is still a need to do this in the proposed SPD Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 9.45 Tall buildings are becoming part of the fabric of many major UK cities, and there are economic advantages to be gained by the development of well- designed and appropriately located high buildings. They should, therefore, be encouraged, but with a note of caution to avoid the negative impacts that they can have. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 9.46 The policy will be delivered by: Determining planning applications in accordance with the criteria set out and applying the principles of the Urban Design Compendium. This will include actively seeking taller buildings in locations satisfying the specified criteria, also in line with the proposed SPD. 9.47 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC8. This will need to be considered further as part of developing a monitoring framework for the submission version of the City Policies document (see Preferred Option PUD5). Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 9.48 The policy allows for a large amount of flexibility in terms of determining what is required from tall buildings and where they should be provided. This in turn implies little risk, other than the risk that poor quality design could create a negative rather than positive impact, so the need for good quality design of such prominent buildings is essential. This will be covered in the City Policies document – Preferred Option PUD5 deals with tall buildings. Conclusion 9.49 Tall buildings will be a very major feature of the city scene over the period covered by the Core Strategy and can make a major contribution to objectives for the economy, transport, use of resources and design. But they need to promoted as part of a bigger strategy and the policy represents the beginnings of such a framework. 107 108 10 TRANSPORT IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 10.1 Transport provision and the efficiency of the transport infrastructure are crucially important to the City Centre. The City Centre will be successful and deliver the Core Strategy policy objectives if people can effectively travel in, out and through the City Centre. So options for transport generally have major implications for the role and effectiveness of the City Centre. 10.2 At the time of the Emerging Options, no specific City Centre transport issues were identified, as they were dealt with as part of the citywide transport options. This view was revised for the Preferred Options, which did include options for specific City Centre transport policies, in response to various comments received during public consultation. Policy SCC9 Transport in the City Centre The transport network into and within the City Centre will be managed to enable the development of its core city functions. Increased demand for trips will be managed by measures including: (a) public transport improvements including: (1) a series of midi-interchanges to meet the needs of bus users at priority locations including: Moorfoot The New Retail Quarter (Charter Square) Howard Street/ Sheffield Station (2) bus-based park-and-ride links on the main radial routes at the edge of the main urban area to serve the City Centre (3) City Centre shuttle bus service providing connections between major destinations in the City Centre (4) improved penetration of the City Centre by public transport; (b) including the area inside the new Northern Inner Relief Road within the City Centre Controlled Parking Zone; (c) development of car club hubs at the following locations: (1) Arundel Street (2) Charles Street (3) Fitzwilliam Street (4) St James Street (5) Victoria Street (6) Brown Street (7) Millsands 109 (8) Moorfoot; (d) Providing for 9,500 public short-stay parking spaces but restricting long-stay public and private car parking and providing long-stay park-and-ride facilities on the edge of the urban area (e) Helping all users of the City Centre to understand and find their way round the City Centre, including extending the Connect Sheffield project in conjunction with development in the New Retail Quarter and The Moor. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 10.3 The most relevant national guidance to this policy is Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13).64 It requires local authorities to identify interchange improvements that need to be made. The submitted policy proposes new midi-interchanges that will serve bus users. Paragraph 72 also identifies the need for: “good interchanges, which matches the pattern of travel demand” 10.4 Paragraph 59 promotes the use of park-and-ride schemes: “Park and ride schemes, in appropriate circumstances, can help promote more sustainable travel patterns, both at local and strategic levels, and improve the accessibility and attractiveness of town centres.” 10.5 Paragraph 28 encourages good connectivity within the City Centre: “New development should help to create places that connect with each other sustainably, providing the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport.” Regional Policy 10.6 The draft Regional Spatial Strategy, in Policy T1 B, requires: “Transport authorities to make the optimum use of the existing highway network to address congestion and encourage modal shift, with road space being actively managed to support movement by modes other than the private car.” 10.7 Car clubs, as well as public transport improvements are encouraged by T1 D: 64 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2001) 110 “The growth of congestion should be addressed through positive measures including … encouraging of travel awareness campaigns, car clubs and car sharing.” 10.8 Parking strategies are advocated in T1 E: “Car use, particularly in peak periods, should be managed by local authorities taking a consistent approach to the formulation of parking strategies” 10.9 Policy T2 requires the use of parking policies, specifically parking standards, Controlled Parking Zones, a shift from long-stay to short-stay parking and the use of park and ride: “The Region will have a consistent approach to parking. Parking strategies will include: A The use of maximum parking standards for new developments in line with Table 16.5 B The Use of Controlled Parking Zones C A progressive reduction in long stay parking (other than at railway stations to serve rail users and at other locations serving a park and ride function) and transfer of some space to short stay, subject to consideration of possible implications for traffic congestion D A reduction of on-street parking to maximise pedestrianisation with high quality walking and cycling networks and environmental improvements E Park and ride facilities coupled with increased use of public transport through service level improvements” 10.10 Bus based park and ride is also promoted by Policy T3 B: “Provision of strategic bus- and rail-based Park £ Ride/ Parkway stations with associated high quality and reliable service provision” 10.11 None of the recommended changes made in the Panel Report will affect the relevance of these policies to the submitted Core Strategy policy. Sub-Regional Policy 10.12 The policy has been drawn up in conjunction with the Second South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011 (LTP2),65 produced by the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership, a joint group of the four south Yorkshire authorities and the Passenger Transport Authority. For example, the 5 Year Action Plan in paragraph 8.24 promotes car clubs. 65 The Second South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011. South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership. http://www.southyorks.gov.uk/index.asp?id=186 111 10.13 The Local Transport Plan gives priority to Key Routes that, in Sheffield’s case, largely converge on the City Centre. The policy complements this by helping to provide for movement of people and vehicles once in the City Centre. The Local Transport Plan leaves this issue to be resolved by the City Centre Transport Strategy. Other Sheffield Policies 10.14 The City Centre Masterplan was produced in 2000. Work is underway on an update of this, but one of the four underlying strategic objectives remains valid today, namely improving accessibility to the City Centre by all modes of transport. 10.15 Work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan has identified the need to make it easier for pedestrians to find their way around the City Centre, with an integrated wayfinding system, linking public and private transport and pedestrian information in a user-friendly format. The scheme serves to improve walking within the pedestrian dominated City Centre and ensure that people can navigate easily to their destination. Consultation with the Sheffield 100 Forum on the Masterplan review,66 (page 11) has highlighted significant support for enhanced public transport including what was referred to as a City Centre ‘hoppa’ bus loop. An improvement to interchanges was also supported. 10.16 The Masterplan is expected to put the case for considering the feasibility of a City Centre shuttle bus service that will enhance connectivity and tackle real and perceived barriers to movement around the City Centre, especially for those with mobility impairments. A common theme from consultations in Sheffield is that certain relatively short movements around the City Centre are problematic by foot, and are not well served by convenient and affordable public transport services. Particular problems are noted for the following journeys: Sheffield Midland Station / Sheaf Valley to Millennium Square / The Moor / New Retail Quarter The Moor to Castlegate Bus Station to The Moor / Castlegate 10.17 These difficulties are generally compounded by the topography of the City Centre and the elongated shape of the current City Centre core along its north-south axis. 10.18 To tackle these issues it is proposed that consideration be given to a bespoke shuttle service that offers a high frequency operation between key City Centre locations using a high quality comfortable fleet of vehicles. Whilst a similar service was operated in the past and withdrawn, it is considered that 66 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 112 subsequent changes to the built environment and economy in the City Centre suggests that a clipper service should be reintroduced. 10.19 A key issue so far identified is the need for improved accessibility within and to the City Centre. Other likely recommendations are the adoption of a strategy emphasising the management and control of traffic, supported by a high quality public transport system. Demand management is recommended in parallel with improvements to the public transport infrastructure. 10.20 On page 14 of the report of consultation there is support expressed for reducing car traffic in the City Centre and improving pedestrian signage and legibility, which also support the aims of the submitted policy, particularly sections (b) and (e). Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 10.21 A Big Ambition in the 2007 City Strategy is to establish an excellent public transport system. On page 18 it states: “Sheffield First Partnership is committed to exploring all available options to improve public transport services across and into the city” And on the following page: “We will underpin these improvements through effective spatial planning through the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Sheffield Development Framework.” 10.22 This demonstrates a close link between the City Strategy and the submitted policy. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives S7.1 Provision for transport and other services to improve accessibility for people getting to work and services S7.2 Improved access by sustainable transport to areas for economic development. S8.2 Effective and efficient movement around the city, making best use of routes and ensuring development would not increase congestion unacceptably. S10.1 Improvements to public transport supported and energy-efficient and low-polluting modes of travel given priority 113 S10.2 Walking and cycling encouraged by design of places and routes and by the location of facilities. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 10.23 There are no significant elements of adjoining local authority plans that have any impact on this submitted policy. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 10.24 The issue was introduced as a Preferred Option, following comments at the Emerging Options stage, so no alternative options were specifically suggested. However, the de facto alternative option would be to have no specific policy to manage the City Centre transport network. Option: The transport network in the City Centre will be managed to enable the development of its core city functions. Increased demand for trips will be managed. 10.25 The strengths of this option are: (a) Improvements to the transport network will help to encourage more use of public transport and improve accessibility to the City Centre. (b) An efficient City Centre transport network will improve prosperity for City Centre businesses by increasing the number of people travelling into the City Centre. 10.26 The weakness of this option is: (a) This is a demand management policy that can run contrary to making the City Centre more attractive to visitors, for example by car. Option: No specific management of the transport network in the City Centre. 10.27 The strength of this option is: (a) Restrictions on private transport can have adverse short-term economic impacts. 10.28 The weaknesses of this option are: (a) The efficient operation of the transport network in and around the City Centre is unlikely if management of the network is not undertaken. (b) Congestion is likely to increase, which has detrimental health, resource and longer-term economic effects. 114 Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 10.29 The advantage the rejected option would be that there could be some short- term benefits for car-borne traffic into the City Centre in the form of more parking and less competition for road space with public transport. However, it is considered that the increase in car traffic and the resultant congestion would significantly counteract such benefits. This would be overwhelmingly the case in relation to peak-period travel. 10.30 There is a limit to the capacity of any highway network, so transport policies must focus on the most efficient use of the existing network. Increased the capacity of the network to any significant degree is not programmed once the northern section of the Inner Relief Road is completed, so the realistic scenario must be the management of the existing infrastructure. 10.31 It is vital that the regeneration aims for the City Centre and the city as a whole are not stifled by the inability of the transport network to cope with the increased number of journeys that more employment, residents and visitors will bring. So management of the network will be required to ensure that people can still get around the city adequately to access jobs, homes, shops and leisure attractions. A wide range of measures is required to have sufficient impact and ensure that the best use is made of finite road space and cycle, pedestrian, rail, tram, bus and other transport modes. 10.32 Public transport improvements are the best way to make full use of the City’s wider transport infrastructure. Appropriate and optimal provision will be made for car use, balanced with the needs of public transport. 10.33 The proposed midi-interchanges will improve accessibility of City Centre destinations for bus users. The City Centre Transport Strategy Implementation Plan 2003 identified constraints on bus operation which can make accessibility in the City Centre for bus users difficult. The main interchange at Pond Street is not accessible for all parts of the City Centre and therefore the Masterplan identified the need to re-route and extend services to more accessible locations. Developing new midi-interchanges close to key regeneration areas of the City Centre is key to this. The sites identified are at existing clusters of stops. It is aimed to implement these midi-interchanges by 2011. 10.34 The Moorfoot location was chosen on account of the concentration of shops in the area and will serve the new development along The Moor including the new markets. The NRQ interchange will help make the new core shopping developments more accessible to users of public transport. The Howard Street location is relatively near to the existing Pond Street interchange but is intended to improve connections between bus and the railway station, which are important to connecting the city with its wider region and beyond. 10.35 The park-and-ride links are from the facilities identified in policy ST8. They, too, will need to connect as closely as possible with City Centre destinations. 115 10.36 The Shuttle service is another specific element of the overall strategy for improving public transport penetration of the City Centre (see also subparagraph (a)(4)). It is due to be implemented in October 2007. It is being tendered by SYPTE and will provide a free bus service at a 10-minute frequency connecting major areas of the City Centre. The service will take the form of a loop around the City Centre, which will improve penetration of public transport in the Centre. The purpose is to enhance connectivity and improve access particularly for those with mobility impairments. It recognises that short journeys around the City Centre can be difficult particularly due to topography and the extended nature of the Centre. The aim is to improve movement around the City Centre for public transport users. 10.37 The reference to improved penetration picks up the range of other initiatives that might be taken to increase accessibility. The City Centre Transport Strategy Implementation Plan 2003 identified improved penetration of the City Centre by public transport as paramount to enabling people to get to where they want to go now and in. Proposals include re-routing and extensions to existing services to tie in with the new midi interchanges and new developments. It also includes a series of bus gates at key points. The aim is to improve accessibility to key areas of the City Centre. 10.38 The proposal to bring the whole of the area within the Inner Relief Road into the City Centre Controlled Parking Zone is to ensure that all on-street parking within the City Centre is subject to the same charges and restrictions. This will provide continuity and a clear system for users. This will be implemented by 2011. 10.39 Car clubs are membership-based schemes providing short-term (pay-by-the- hour) car hire from convenient locations. They provide cars for hire to businesses and members of the public and have been set up by local authorities in conjunction with operators in a number of areas in the UK. The aim of a car club is to reduce the need for vehicle ownership by business and the public and to encourage more selective and sustainable use of cars. The City Centre is the initial focus for car clubs in Sheffield and is the area where they will be most viable. The club with the first four named locations for vehicles was launched in April 2007 and the other locations are expected to be operating by 2008/9. 10.40 The locations take into account that it is essential that the cars are placed conveniently for users and they must therefore be central to existing and future employment areas and residential developments. A Traffic Regulation Order is used to implement on-street spaces and enables their enforcement. 10.41 Providing short-stay parking is important for enabling a more accessible city by all modes, and supporting the shopping, leisure and other non-employment regeneration projects that are under way. The City Centre Transport Strategy Implementation Plan 2003 shows that large, high quality car parks are required which serve each of the City Centre districts. The Sheffield City Centre Parking Strategy was developed as part of the City Centre Masterplan. It identifies that 9,500 parking spaces are required to support the regeneration 116 of the city centre and these are due to be implemented by 2011. Two new multi-storey car parks are being developed to serve the NRQ. The case for these is further explained in the Transport Background Report in relation to policy ST8. 10.42 To get most benefit from their visit people need to be able to find their way round easily and quickly. This can contribute significantly to important first impressions of the city. It means signing to reduce the distances travelled to find car parks, providing more user-focussed public transport and creating a more coherent and welcoming ‘public realm’. Connect Sheffield is a project, which aims to achieve this for all modes of travel. Sustainability Appraisal 10.43 The preferred option performs significantly better than the rejected option overall. Traffic congestion has an adverse impact on businesses, as workers and customers spend time travelling, rather than being productive. So improving accessibility in the City Centre will have a positive impact on business, which might otherwise look to locate elsewhere. . Reducing congestion will reduce vehicle emissions and air pollution that would build up in the City Centre, that would otherwise have an adverse impact on health. Improving access to the City Centre will encourage people to use the cultural, leisure and recreation facilities that the City Centre provides. Provision of improved public transport facilities encourages the use of sustainable public transport and makes better use of the transport network. Equality Appraisal 10.44 Improving public transport facilities in the City Centre will help those with low access to private transport, including as those on low incomes. The LTP2 (paragraph 7.8) recognises that effective public transport provision is important to ensure that certain people do not become excluded from accessing facilities: “Poor access to work, education, health-care and other facilities can be a significant contributor to social exclusion.” Consultation Responses 10.45 This is a new option that was not presented for consultation at the Emerging Option stage. 10.46 There were some objections to the Preferred Option, PCC6. One requested a cross-City Centre, low cost public transport option, to allow speedy movement across the hilly and dispersed central shopping area. A proposal for a shuttle bus service has been included in the submitted policy. The Green Party requested Green Travel Plans to include all major employers in the City Centre and the encouragement of car pools for essential car users. The extent of Travel Plans and Car Clubs will be further developed through the Transport chapter of the City Policies document, and the submitted Core Strategy policy sets out locations to act as car club hubs. Greater integration 117 of cycling / walking with other transport modes was requested. These comments are considered to be about details of the content of the policy, rather than objections to the policy itself. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 10.47 This grounds for the choice of policy were overwhelming, following from the SDF objectives and Transport policies in Part 2 of the Core Strategy. The decisions have revolved more around how the overall aim of the policy should be achieved. The measures included are consistent with a range of other strategies, particularly the LTP2, and will help to deliver the aims of many other City Centre policies in the Core Strategy. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 10.48 The policy will be implemented by: Delivery through the City Centre Transport Strategy and Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2). Ensuring the local Area Action Plans and the City Centre Masterplan include the measures set out in the policy that are relevant to the area. Determining planning applications that contribute to the improvement measures set out in the policy. 10.49 The specific target for policy SCC9 is for the listed schemes to be completed by 2011 but other comparable measures may be introduced over the longer term in the light of progress during the currency of the present Local Transport Plan. Delivery of the schemes listed in policy SCC9 is also an important factor in determining progress against several of the targets for other Transport policies in the Core Strategy. The relevant targets and indicators are described in the Transport Background Report (see, in particular, the Monitoring and Implementation sections for policies ST1a, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6 and ST8). Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 10.50 The use of the LTP2, as the main prioritising programme for funding, is crucial for delivery. LTP2 commitments to the improvements set out in the policy means that there is good reason to be confident that they are likely to be delivered during the timescale of the SDF. Conclusion 10.51 Preceding chapters in this report have set out the economic, social, cultural and educational importance of the City Centre. But these policies canbe achieved effectively and the benefits maximised only if people can easily access the facilities that the City Centre can provide. So the transport network in and around the City Centre is crucial to the whole success of the City Centre and the policies relating to it in the Sheffield Development Framework. 118 10.52 There are physical and environmental constraints in the City Centre that mean large-scale building improvements to the road, rail and tram networks are unlikely in the foreseeable future. So the emphasis must be on making the best use of the transport network that is already in place. The submitted policy is considered to achieve this as far as possible, and delivery mechanisms, through the LTP2 and the planning system, are well established to deliver the necessary improvements. 119 120 11 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 11.1 This is an issue that was not included in the Emerging Options but was introduced in the Preferred Options, as a result of comments that emphasised the importance of pedestrian areas. Such areas could improve the attractiveness and vibrancy of the City Centre and improve the overall capacity of the City Centre for the movement of people. Policy SCC10 Pedestrian Environment in the City Centre A Pedestrian Priority Zone in which a high-quality environment will allow priority for the safe, convenient and comfortable movement of pedestrians within and through the area, will be established in the following areas of the City Centre: (a) Heart of the City (b) Fargate (c) The Moor/ NRQ (d) the Cultural Industries Quarter (e) Castlegate/ Victoria Quays (f) Devonshire Street (g) the University of Sheffield (Portobello/ Portobello Street) (h) routes to St Vincent’s (i) West Bar (j) Sheaf Square/ Howard Street (k) Kelham/ Neepsend. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 11.2 The policy will help to deliver the aims of national planning guidance, as set out in PPG13 in particular. One of the objectives of PPG13, set out in paragraph 8 is: “give priority to people over ease of traffic movement and plan to provide more road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in town centres” 11.3 Paragraph 65 acknowledges the economic benefits that can accrue from improving pedestrian movements: “roadspace might be reallocated to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in order to accommodate and facilitate the renaissance of towns and cities.” 11.4 This is further endorsed in paragraph 67: 121 “Within town centres and other areas with a mixture of land uses, priority should be given to people over traffic. Well designed pedestrianisation and pedestrian priority schemes generally prove popular and commercially successful, and local authorities should actively consider traffic calming and the reallocation of road space to promote safe walking and cycling and to give priority to public transport.” Regional Policy 11.5 Policy T1 D (page 61) of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy states that: “The growth of congestion should be addressed through positive measures including: … Improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians” 11.6 Policy T2 D seeks: “A reduction of on-street parking to maximise pedestrianisation with high quality walking and cycling networks and environmental improvements.” 11.7 The submitted Core Strategy policy supports both of these proposals in the RSS, which are not recommended for significant alteration in the Panel Report. Sub-Regional Policy 11.8 The LTP2 is committed to improving the pedestrian environment. Paragraph 8.4 on page 129 says: “We must implement measures that make the existing pedestrian and cycling environment more attractive and conducive.” 11.9 Part of the 5 year action plan in the LTP2 (paragraph 8.24) states that:- “Support local accessibility improvements through improvements to the pedestrian environment and network of walk routes” 11.10 The submitted policy will help to deliver these improvements in the City Centre. Other Sheffield Policies 11.11 Initial work on the roll-forward of the City Centre Masterplan identifies a need to make it easier to move around the City Centre and promote popular walking routes that link-up the city’s key landmarks and facilities. A hierarchy of pedestrian routes is proposed which coincide with the main nodes of activity and are continuous and well marked. Areas of focus are Victoria Quays, Castlegate, Fargate, Heart of the City, The Moor and Moorfoot, Howard St, Barkers Pool and Devonshire Green / University Precinct. 122 11.12 Consultation with the Sheffield 100 Forum on the Masterplan proposals produced general support for extending the pedestrian network and reclaiming road space for pedestrians, which supports the submitted policy.67 11.13 Sheffield’s Plan for Transport includes objectives to “Continue to provide pedestrian priority and redistribution of space to pedestrians in the City Centre” and to “Improve the pedestrian environment creating attractive and safe walking routes within local centres and the City Centre”. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 11.14 The spatial vision for the City Strategy acknowledges the need to make provision for pedestrians (page 33), so there is a consistency between the two policy documents. Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 11.15 The submitted policy is consistent with the following objectives of the Core Strategy: S1.3 Environments created, improved and conserved to attract business investment, including high-technology manufacturing and knowledge-based services; S6.2 A safer and more secure environment, minimising physical hazards and opportunities for crime; S8.2 Effective and efficient movement around the city, making best use of routes and ensuring development would not increase congestion unacceptably; S10.2 Walking and cycling encouraged by design of places and routes and by the location of facilities; S15.1 High-quality and inclusiveness in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the spaces around and between them, with provision for everyone wishing to use them. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans This policy is geographically very locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. 67 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 123 Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 11.16 As the issue was introduced at the Preferred Options stage, no alternative options were specifically consulted on. However, the de facto alternative option would be to have no specific policy to promote a Pedestrian Priority Zone. The choice of routes is related to the choice of areas for regeneration particularly for shopping, education, leisure and housing. Option: A Pedestrian Preference Zone in which a high quality environment will allow the safe, convenient and comfortable movement of pedestrians within and through the area, will be established in the City Centre. 11.17 The strengths of this option are: (a) The transformation of the City Centre will be assisted by improving the environment for workers and visitors. (b) The attractiveness and viability of the City Centre will be improved if there is a good quality pedestrian environment in which it is easy and safe to walk around. Connectivity improves the collective value of the City Centre assets. 11.18 The weakness of this option is: (a) Improving the pedestrian environment can be at the expense of vehicle movement. Option: No Pedestrian Preference Zone will be promoted in the City Centre. 11.19 The strength of this option is: (a) Some restrictions on vehicle movements that could result from an improved pedestrian environment will be avoided. 11.20 The main weaknesses of this option are: (a) The economic benefits resulting from improving the environment for workers and visitors will be lost. (b) The sustainability benefits resulting from a safer pedestrian environment will not be achieved. Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 11.21 The attractiveness and viability of the City Centre will be improved if there is a good quality pedestrian environment. Visitors and shoppers, in particular, will be attracted to the City Centre if it is easy and safe to walk around. Many 124 shoppers prefer a varied and attractive indoor and outdoor environment to improve their shopping experience. Improved connectivity between the various City Centre attractions gives them a greater collective value. 11.22 People will also be encouraged to work in the City Centre and companies will find it easier to attract employees to work for their businesses if the working environment, including the surrounding pedestrian area, is attractive. The same can be said for clients of businesses. Such conditions can deliver significant business advantages, and this is why business leaders often give great importance to providing an attractive setting for business premises. 11.23 The alternative approach may have short-term benefits in safeguarding road space for vehicles but the loss to quality of the environment would be longer- term and would detract not only from the appearance and character of the centre but also from its economic attractiveness (see objective S1.3). Pedestrian movement within the centre requires less space than vehicular trips and, for most people, is entirely viable for short trips. Complementary provision for vehicular movement is made, for which sufficient provision is made in policy SCC9. The planning benefits are described in more detail in the next section on sustainability. 11.24 The Heart of the City, Fargate and The Moor/ NRQ are then locations attracting the largest number of visitors and provision for pedestrians will greatly improve the experience of the many people coming to these areas both from within the city and the wider region. 11.25 The Cultural Industries Quarter and Portobello areas adjoin universities and there is a significant amount of student pedestrian movement. Provision for pedestrians in these areas will complement initiatives to encourage those working at the universities to use public transport. The Devonshire Street corridor is both a significant shopping street and link with student areas. 11.26 These areas and most of the others listed in the policy are significant regeneration areas with significant housing areas and opportunities for creating better pedestrian environments. These include Castlegate/ Victoria Quays, West Bar, the St Vincent’s area and Kelham/ Neepsend (see also policy SCC6 on where housing will be a significant use). 11.27 Sheaf Square/ Howard Street will continue to be a key link from the railway station to the Heart of the City and a vital gateway as well as artery for visitrs coming by train. Sustainability Appraisal 11.28 The submitted policy performs significantly better than the rejected option, by encouraging a healthier way of enjoying the City Centre, by creating a better pedestrian environment and greater separation of traffic and pedestrians. Improving pedestrian movements and the pedestrian environment in the City Centre will make it more attractive to workers, which should help businesses to attract new employees. Pedestrian-friendly routes may encourage more people to walk into and around the City Centre, which is generally better for 125 people’s health, and pedestrian routes are safer by separating pedestrians from vehicles. It will also reduce vehicular traffic and the resultant vehicle emissions and air pollution, with further benefits for health. Good pedestrian routes will encourage less reliance on other, less sustainable, transport methods, and generally help to make better use of the transport network. New pedestrian areas and routes are likely to be designed to a high quality. Equality Appraisal 11.29 Pedestrian friendly routes make it easier to move into and around the City Centre, without relying on private transport, which will benefit people on low incomes, who may rely on walking more so than others. Better pedestrian routes make it easier and safer for those with physical disabilities to move around, as well as physically frail or vulnerable people and dependent children and their carers. Consultation Responses 11.30 There was general support for the equivalent Preferred Option (PCC7). It was supported by the University of Sheffield, who suggested the addition of part of their campus in the Portobello / Portobello Street area and this has been included in the submitted policy. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 11.31 The policy scores strongly on grounds of sustainability, effective use of limited route capacity, environmental quality and economic attraction. Consultation on the City Centre Masterplan, in particular, has highlighted the need to improve connections between buildings and localities in the City Centre. Much of this can be achieved by making it easier for pedestrian movements, which are the easiest and most convenient way for most people to cover short distances within the City Centre. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 11.32 The policy will be implemented by: Delivering transport improvements with the help of funding and priorities set through the Local Transport Plan 2, 2006-2011. Producing and implementing the proposed Pedestrian Strategy The use of planning obligations to deliver improvements to the pedestrian environment, as suggested in PPG13 in paragraph 84. This is currently taken up in the Preferred Options for the City Policies (Preferred Option PPO1). Significant improvements will be achieved through the New Retail Quarter. Identifying the Pedestrian Priority Zones in Actions Plans and the City Centre Masterplan, and measures to deliver them. 126 Determining planning applications in the areas affected by Pedestrian Priority Zones in order to secure contributions towards their provision where appropriate and ensure new development does not detract from the quality of the pedestrian environment (see the reference to planning obligations above). 11.33 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC10. Delivery of the schemes listed in the policy, however, an important factor in determining progress against the target for policy ST4 (a 4% increase in walking trips as a proportion of all trips into the City Centre from 2008 to 2013). This is set out in more detail in the Transport Background Report. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 11.34 A Pedestrian PriorityZone could have an adverse affect on vehicular movements of all non-pedestrian transport methods. This could have an adverse affect on all movements through the City Centre, but the areas are not major vehicle routes, so the impact is likely to be small. 11.35 There may be some risks associated with the availability of resources, but the policy will ensure that the priorities are clear when resources are available. An improved pedestrian environment has already been achieved in many parts of the City Centre recently, and areas such as the Peace Gardens and Barker’s Pool have received support from various quarters. It is the City Council’s view that this support has created some momentum that can be carried forward to continue further improvements to the City Centre. 11.36 The policy will also be flexible in that it doesn’t preclude taking opportunities that arise to incorporate other routes if these are considered suitable. Conclusion 11.37 There are many sustainability advantages of increasing pedestrian movement within the City Centre. The most successful and popular parts of Sheffield, as with most and other City Centres, tend to be areas that are pedestrian-friendly. For those able to move around in this way, pedestrian movement is the easiest and most efficient way of moving around the City Centre, so it should be made as easy and desirable as possible, whilst also balancing the needs of other modes of transport. 127 128 12 OPEN SPACE AND RIVERSIDES IN THE CITY CENTRE Introduction 12.1 The environmental quality of city centres is a crucial element of their success. Businesses will locate to city centres only if the quality of the environment is of an acceptable standard. Sheffield City Council has improved its City Centre public spaces to a large degree in recent years, a major factor in recent improved economic performance. As more workers, visitors, shoppers and residents are present in the City Centre, there is more pressure on existing open spaces and an increased need to protect and enhance them. 12.2 Concerns have been expressed about the lack of open space and especially of greenspace in the City Centre. Open space is particularly important in the City Centre, as it serves a large number of people who visit the Centre, and not just local residents. So there is a need to also provide more open space to meet the extra needs of the people using the City Centre. 12.3 Rivers and riversides can provide passive recreational and quality of life benefits, as well as active recreational and tourism benefits that can accrue from the use of waterways. 12.4 The City Centre has significant stretches of rivers – the Don, Sheaf and Porter Brook all flow within the City Centre. In the past, Sheffield’s industries utilised the fast-flowing water of the rivers Don and Sheaf. However, the rivers lost their industrial function over time and became a less important part of the City Centre. They were generally ignored and the narrower stretches, particularly of the Sheaf and Porter, have been built on or covered over (culverted). Many channels, gulleys and weirs were also created to make best use of the waterpower. These and the rivers themselves then became largely hidden from view for many years and the rivers became polluted as they began to develop a different use as a means of discharging waste from factories. As a result these natural assets of Sheffield have become neglected. The River Don is severed from the City Centre, while the Porter and Sheaf flow into the Don through a network of tunnels or culverts, only occasionally surfacing in deep channels framed by the backs of industrial buildings. 12.5 So there is also a need to improve the quality of rivers and riversides and take advantage of the opportunities presented by riverside areas in the City Centre. In the last 20 years or so, there have been efforts to open them up the rivers and to improve their quality and flora and fauna have been returning. The Riverside developments have already taken some advantage of their location on the Don. Policy SCC11 Open Space and Riversides in the City Centre A network of informal, public open spaces in the City Centre will be provided and enhanced to cater for residents, workers, shoppers, tourists, students and other visitors. In particular, new spaces will be provided in the following locations: 129 (a) Nursery Street (b) Market Square/ Sheffield Castle (c) St. Vincent’s Park (d) Porter Brook (e) West Bar (f) Sheaf Valley Park Improvements will be made to the environment and accessibility of all rivers and riversides, opening up culverted rivers and providing walkways where appropriate. Policy Background (Soundness Test 4) National Policy 12.6 There are several elements of national planning policy that encourage the provision of open in general. The submitted policy promotes open space in the part of the City that is the most intensively used, namely the City Centre. For example, PPS1, in paragraph 20, says that: “development plan policies should take account of environmental issues including the provision of good quality open space.” 12.7 PPS6, paragraph 1.5, seeks to: “improve the quality of the public realm and open spaces” 12.8 In paragraph 4.4 of PPS6, the provision of open space is seen as a measure of health and vitality for centres. 12.9 PPG17 classifies rivers as open spaces, so the submitted policy conforms to this guidance in both aspects. Paragraph 31 of PPG17 also specifically recognises the visual value of water resources: “The visual amenity, heritage and nature conservation value of water resources should also be protected.” 12.10 PPG17 also recognises the particular value of open space provision in centres, which is particularly relevant to the submitted policy. In paragraph 20, when considering where to locate new open space, encourages local authorities to: “locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability” and “consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists” 130 Regional Policy 12.11 There is no specific commitment in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy to providing additional City Centre open space, although there is an acknowledgement in paragraph 4.62 that: “It is important that valuable habitats and open spaces are retained within settlements and that a vibrant mix of land uses is maintained.” 12.12 The Regional Economic Strategy (paragraph 1.22) recognises that public health issues are likely to have an increasing impact on the economy, and the provision of open spaces is identified as something that has to be factored into urban design. Sub-Regional Policy The City Region Development Programme on page 40 recognises the value of open space to city centres: “Key aspects of quality of place at a neighbourhood level include … access to good quality open space” Other Sheffield Policies 12.13 The 2000 City Centre Masterplan highlighted the importance of the waterways and the unique landscape asset of the River Don. Reconnection with the rivers has commenced with the development of riverside sites, but work on the roll-forward of the City Centre masterplan has recognised that the potential of the riverside and waterways has yet to be fully realised. It is essential that this reconnection with the rivers continues, whilst ensuring that development does not give rise to increased flood risk. 12.14 Work on the roll-forward of the City Centre masterplan has suggested that the four underlying strategic objectives remain as valid today as they did in 2000, one of which is to celebrate the public realm, bringing high quality public spaces to all parts of the City Centre and celebrating the city’s green heritage. 12.15 Work on the roll-forward of the City Centre masterplan has also identified a key issue as the creation of a more sustainable City Centre that is greener, with well-managed public spaces and green space provision. Consultation on this with the Sheffield 100 Forum showed unanimous support for improving open spaces (page 10).68 There was also strong support for a new City park and civic spaces. Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5) 12.16 The policy is in line with the 2007 City Strategy, that places a great emphasis on the importance of Sheffield’s open spaces and seeks to capitalise on this 68 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Review and Roll-Forward – Sheffield 100 Workshop. EDAW (2006) 131 asset. One of the five big ambitions is for Sheffield to be an attractive and sustainable low-carbon city. Part of the method of achieving this is to “Champion strategies for sustainable energy, waste, green and open spaces, and transport that contribute to a reduced ecological and carbon footprint for the city.” Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6) Core Strategy Objectives 12.17 There are a number of Core Strategy objectives that the policy will help to deliver. The policy is considered to have environmental, health, recreational, ecological and other benefits, many of which are reflected in the sustainability appraisal assessment below. The relevant objectives are: S1.3 Environments created, improved and conserved to attract business investment, including high-technology manufacturing and knowledge- based services S6.1 A healthier environment, which includes space for physical activity and informal recreation and does not subject people to unacceptable levels of pollution, noise or disturbance S6.3 Opportunities safeguarded for peaceful enjoyment of urban neighbourhoods and the countryside. S10.2 Walking and cycling encouraged by design of places and routes and by the location of facilities S13.1 Natural and landscape features, including valleys, woodlands, trees, watercourses and wetlands, safeguarded and enhanced S13.2 Biodiversity and wildlife habitats protected and enhanced throughout urban and rural areas S13.3 Areas and features of particular ecological or geological value protected and enhanced S13.4 Open space protected and improved and, where necessary, created S14.1 Enhanced character and distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting existing local character and built and natural features to provide the context for new development. Adjoining Local Authorities’ Plans 12.18 This policy is locally focussed, so it is unlikely that any neighbouring authorities will have policies that will impact upon it. Rotherham’s Core 132 Strategy seeks to promote open space provision in their town centre, so the general approach is consistent. The other neighbouring local authorities have yet to produce development plan documents that can be considered alongside this policy for compatibility. Options Considered (Soundness Test 7) 12.19 This submitted policy has been derived from two originally separate Preferred Option, one dealing with City Centre open space provision (Preferred Option PCC9), the other with rivers and riversides (PCC10). Both were seeking to deliver improvements to the open character of the City Centre and improve the quality and amount of areas that could be enjoyed for informal recreational purposes. For this reason, the City Council decided that they could be combined into one policy that seeks to improve the quality of the built and natural environment of the City Centre. 12.20 Only one element of the policy was considered at the Emerging Options stage, as there was no issue put forward at that stage that dealt specifically with City Centre open space. The latter was introduced as a Preferred Option. 12.21 A further change was made to the open space element of the policy after the Preferred Options stage. This was introduced as an Additional Option, and was the introduction of specific locations for new open space provision. 12.22 The two options considered at Emerging Options stage were either to make specific efforts to open up riversides in the City Centre, or to have no specific policy, that would require improvements to be delivered by means other than planning policies. Option CC6a Riversides better utilised with rivers unculverted and walkways provided where appropriate. Residential will be the preferred use by riversides. 12.23 The strengths of this option are: (a) Waterside areas are a key element in providing an attractive and vibrant City Centre that encourages development. (b) Wildlife benefits are likely to accrue from better treatment of riverside areas. (c) The visual impact of buildings can be greatly enhanced if they are located in a riverside setting, making the areas more attractive to potential investors and occupants. (d) Housing developments that take place by riversides are likely to prove popular with potential residents. (e) The opening up of waterside areas can provide recreational benefits where facilities such as marinas and landing areas are provided. 133 12.24 The weakness of this option is: (a) Provision of some of these beneficial measures, such as access points and walkways, can be costly, which could threaten the viability of some schemes and limit regeneration options. (b) Promoting the provision of housing next to riversides raises the issue of flood risk to housing Option CC6b No special efforts made to open up riversides. 12.25 Opening up riversides to a significant degree can be costly. 12.26 The main strength of this option is: (a) Fewer financial burdens will be placed on developers of riverside sites – this could help the overall economic attractiveness of the City Centre to potential property developers. Weaknesses of the Option 12.27 The main weaknesses of this option are: (a) It is likely that a lot of the potential long-term economic benefits that accrue from an improved environment will be lost if this option was followed. (b) The potential environmental, quality-of-life and recreational benefits will be harder to achieve. 12.28 Five specific locations were proposed in the Additional Options consultation: Paradise Square Nursery Street Riverside Park Market Square St. Vincent’s Park Porter Brook Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7) Planning Reasons 12.29 The alternative Emerging Option, to make no special provision to develop riversides, was rejected on the grounds that many of the potential long-term economic benefits that would accrue from an improved environment will be lost if this option was followed. Also, the potential environmental, quality-of-life and recreational benefits will be harder to achieve. 12.30 Although not considered as an Emerging Option, the only real alternative to the Preferred Option on open space would be to make no additional provision for open space above that already required to cater for new City Centre residents. This option was rejected, as the anticipated increases in workers, 134 shoppers and visitors would put unreasonable pressure on the existing open spaces in the City Centre. 12.31 Due to pressures of development throughout the City Centre over the years, most of the riversides have been either built over or development has taken place right up to the river edges, so that they are inaccessible to the public. This policy seeks to improve accessibility and remove development from riversides. 12.32 Many people find that water forms an attractive part of the urban environment and if rivers are incorporated into new development this will make new and existing buildings more attractive to residents, workers and visitors. This all helps to achieve a vibrant City Centre that is a major draw. This is particularly the case if these areas are easily accessible. More green space in the City Centre creates a change of pace from other City Centre activities such as shopping and work. 12.33 The submitted policy will deliver benefits to wildlife and the natural environment, that will improve the quality of life of all Sheffielders and help the City achieve its sustainability and biodiversity aims. 12.34 The provision of open space, both greenspace and hard areas, of good quality and design, can greatly enhance the attractiveness of the City Centre and improve its viability and vitality. 12.35 Experience elsewhere has also shown that accessible waterside areas are a key element in providing an attractive and vibrant City Centre that encourages development. Natural waterways form an attractive part of the urban environment and if rivers are incorporated into new development this will make new and existing buildings more appealing to residents, workers and visitors. This all helps to achieve a vibrant and attractive City Centre that is a major draw. There are economic benefits of utilising the riverside settings of development sites that should ensure they can be opened up, although this does rely on redevelopment. 12.36 Open areas of the City Centre are used extensively by non-residents as well as City Centre residents. Because of this it is important that sufficient informal civic open space of suitable quality is provided to cater for these groups of people. 12.37 The need to provide more and better open space in the City Centre is becoming more pressing and this is expected to continue as the City Centre becomes home to more residents, workers and visitors. Residential developers already contribute to open space provision, but there will be a need for other developments that attract employees, shoppers and other visitors to contribute to providing for the increasing demand that their developments create. 12.38 There can be significant ecological and wildlife value from creating City Centre open space. Green spaces with street trees could include bird and bat boxes and other greening to enhance the biodiversity of the City Centre. Wildlife 135 benefits are likely to accrue from better treatment of riverside areas, improving the quality of life of many Sheffielders and helping the city achieve its sustainability and biodiversity aims. They will also form important links in the Green Network for the city. 12.39 Development can also close up access points to rivers, if there are issues of security. This must be addressed as part of the planning application process. 12.40 There will be a need to promote and improve stewardship of these waterside areas in order to ensure that their quality is maintained and the benefits delivered. 12.41 This policy could possibly result in a decrease in flood risk with creation of green open space in flood risk areas. Green space allows water to percolate into the ground, and therefore reduces run off. This is particularly important in the City Centre, where there is a lot of impervious surfacing that can contribute to flood risk by preventing run off from percolating. In addition, opening culverted rivers can also help to reduce flood risk by making more space for water to flow when levels are high. Sustainability Appraisal 12.42 The submitted policy performs better than any of the rejected options overall. Improved open space facilities will boost the City Centre economy by making it more attractive, which will encourage more visitors, employees and customers. Better open space facilities encourage more people to use them, which could have related health benefits, and more open spaces create more separation between people and vehicles, improving safety. The policy specifically encourages the creation and enhancement of open spaces that will provide informal recreational space for all who use the City Centre. The built environment is improved by the provision of quality open spaces in themselves and as settings for buildings. Many existing open spaces have been present for many years and contributions to enhance them will add to the protection of the City’s historic assets. The policy would improve cultural, leisure and recreation facilities that would be available to all and health benefits through the encouragement of sustainable transport (walking and cycling) and reduction in air pollution. Alternative options to make no significant commitment to improving riversides and open spaces are not considered particularly sustainable, though they might have some short-term economic advantages. Equality Appraisal 12.43 Open spaces and riverside walkways can be particularly important to people with physical disabilities, who may need safe and suitable areas for resting. Children and their carers often require open space areas for play and rest whilst shopping or using the City Centre’s leisure facilities. 136 Consultation Responses 12.44 There was unanimous support for the waterways element of the policy at the Emerging Options stage, including from Yorkshire Forward, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrat Group, although with one warning on the need to consider flood risk. This support was repeated in the Preferred Options consultation, with support from English Heritage, English Nature, the Sheffield First Health and Wellbeing Partnership, the Environment Agency and Sheffield Wildlife Trust. 12.45 Support for the open space Preferred Option was received from the University of Sheffield, Sheffield First Health and Wellbeing Partnership and Sheffield Wildlife Trust. 12.46 There was support for the policy at Additional Options stage, that proposed five specific locations for open space provision, from Sport England. The Environment Agency noted the need to assess flood risk on each of the sites specified. Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy 12.47 The environmental quality of the City Centre is a crucial element in ensuring that it is attractive to workers, residents, visitors and shoppers. For this reason, it is necessary to have a policy that promotes environmental improvements of the City Centre, by creating and enhancing open space and making the best use of the natural assets of watercourses in the City Centre. Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8) 12.48 The policy will be implemented by: Using public funding and match funding where available, City Council- owned land and CPO powers, so the burden is not placed exclusively on developers. Seeking the beneficial development of rivers and riversides in partnership with developers when dealing with planning applications through the development control process and requiring contributions from developers (where appropriate) for new and improved open spaces as part of development proposals requiring planning permission. The issue of stewardship mentioned in 12.40 above is key to this. Implementing through Area Action Plans taking particular account of stretches of river that may not be likely to benefit from redevelopment. Allocating sites in the City Sites documents and on the Proposals Map. 11.38 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SCC11. However, completion of the Sheaf Valley Park by 2018 is the key target for policy SOS1 (see Open Space and Sports Facilities Background Report). Policy SCC1 is also relevant to the achievement of the target under 137 policy SE2 (see Environment Background Report). Progress against the targets for these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report. Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9) 12.49 The economic advantages will be balanced by a negative impact if a financial burden for open space provision and riverside improvements falls on developers and becomes an additional cost of development. So, although quality open space and riverside access is essential for the effective operation of the City Centre in economic and social terms, the financial burden must not be so high as to have an adverse impact on regeneration and levels of new development. The higher land values that are generally to be achieved in the City Centre should allow for this to be borne as long as expectations are reasonable and the financial situation will be considered by the City Council when assessing schemes to ensure viability, as well as other planning considerations, when making decisions on individual schemes. Conclusion 12.50 There are obvious environmental benefits that will result from the provision of improved and new open space areas in the City Centre, as well as better use of, and access to, the City Centre’s riversides. There are also additional economic benefits to City Centre businesses of this policy. This has been demonstrated by near universal support for the submitted policy as it has emerged through the consultation process. 12.51 The issue of delivery of the policy is important, as there are financial considerations and partnership working issues that need to be addressed. However, The City Council and development partners are committed to the delivery of the policy, which will encourage the business community to also assist in the delivery this option. This means that the aims of the policy are based on sound principles. 138 13 OTHER RELEVANT STRATEGY DOCUMENTS 13.1 Other documents that impact specifically on the City Centre are listed below. The City Centre Masterplan 13.2 Central Government policies over recent years have emphasised the important role of city centres and planning policy guidance issued in PPS669 has reiterated this approach. In Sheffield, the Government appointed an Urban Regeneration Company, Sheffield One, in August 2000, to work to achieve the maximum possible growth in the City Centre in order to ensure its full potential was reached. Sheffield One has since been amalgamated into a new City Development Company, Creative Sheffield, but was a partnership of Sheffield City Council, Yorkshire Forward and English Partnerships. The company's overall mission statement was: "To develop Sheffield city centre as a vibrant and attractive European city and a driver of regional economic growth and competitiveness". 13.3 Koetter Kim produced the first Sheffield City Centre Masterplan for Sheffield One in February 200170 after an extensive consultation exercise and the Plan was endorsed by key partners in Sheffield, and by the regional and national regeneration agencies. It sought to guide the revitalisation of the City Centre over the following 10 - 15 years. The Masterplan highlighted a number of key challenges and opportunities for the City Centre focused on the economy (including social exclusion), the property market, the retail, leisure and cultural offer and the transport system. The partners leading Sheffield's urban renaissance are working together to tackle these issues and transform the City Centre into an engine for economic growth for the whole of South Yorkshire. A primary objective is to create new jobs and ensure that local communities have access to them. The City Centre Masterplan focuses on the core of the City Centre and the delivery of 7 landmark projects as strategic priorities: The Heart of the City, the New Retail Quarter (NRQ), Sheffield City Hall / Barker's Pool, the E-Campus, Castlegate, Sheffield Midland Railway Station an Integrated Transport Strategy. 13.4 The plan is under review in 2007 and will take these areas on board in greater detail. Creative Sheffield is working with consultants EDAW to produce a roll- 69 ODPM, Planning Policy Statement 6:Planning for Town Centres, March 2005. www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143820 70 Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Sheffield First Partnership (2001) - see http://www.creativesheffield.co.uk/DevelopInSheffield/CityCentreMasterplan/?WBCMODE=Presentatio nUnpublished 139 forward of the City Centre Masterplan, to look to the next phase of regeneration of Sheffield City Centre. 13.5 Background work commissioned by Sheffield One71 suggested that many more jobs need to be created in the City Centre to turn the local economy around and bring in substantial private sector investment. City Centre Living Strategy Supplementary Planning Guidance 13.6 Produced by Sheffield City Council and approved by Cabinet in April 2004, the strategy is that “Housing development …takes place in a sustainable way which builds stable, well-resourced communities which enjoy a high quality of life. This Strategy … will give shape and direction to this movement and will ensure that it is co-ordinated with wider steps to regenerate the City Centre. Night-Time Uses – Draft Interim Planning Guidance 13.7 In response to the Licensing Act 2003, Interim Planning Policy Guidance relating to the night-time economy was issued by the City Council in February 2005, after approval of the Statement of Licensing Policy required under the 2003 Act, on 1 December 2004. This policy is aimed at delivering a Licensing Service that at all times promotes the licensing objectives in a manner that is consistent with other stated objectives of the Council, including planning policies and procedures, within the constraints of the legislation. 13.8 To respond to this, it was considered appropriate that clarification of the planning position relating to entertainment and night time uses for the City was produced, with a view to later incorporation into the SDF in a way that conforms with the emerging development plan policies. Planning for Town Centres: Guidance on Design and Implementation Tools (2005) 13.9 This guidance72 deals specifically with design issues for centres and implementation tools for town centre policies. It supports PPS6. The Urban Design Compendium (September 2004) 13.10 Seeks to ensure that Sheffield’s new direction and development energy is translated into improving the design and built form of the City as a whole, focusing on the City Centre in particular. This has been approved by the City Council and is a material consideration in determining planning applications. Consequently, it carries significant weight when considering options for the Core Strategy. 71 An Updated Baseline for Sheffield - A Final Report for Sheffield One, ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited, July 2002 72 Planning for Town Centres: Guidance on Design and Implementation Tools. ODPM (2005) 140 13.11 Alongside the City Centre Masterplan, a series of more detailed masterplans and action plans have been produced that set out how the aims and objectives are to be achieved at a local level. Cathedral Quarter Action Plan (2005) 13.12 The Action Plan73 proposes that vacant sites and buildings are encouraged to develop with mixed uses, including non-student housing, smaller offices, food and drink (but with controlled opening hours) and specialist retail, to create a more lively and sustainable combination of activity, enriching the area without undermining the still very significant office employment it supports. Public realm improvements are also proposed to improve pedestrian connections to the Riverside and St Vincent’s areas, as well as strategic enhancements such as Paradise Square and Campo Lane. CIQ Action Plan (1999) 13.13 The Cultural Industries Quarter (CIQ) initiative has established a key cluster in the area focussed around Paternoster Row and in the Conservation Area. It is currently being reviewed by consultants on behalf of Creative Sheffield and Sheffield City Council, with a view to updating the City Centre Master Plan (2000) and the CIQ Action Plan (1999). Sheaf Valley Masterplan (2006) 13.14 The Sheaf Valley Masterplan74 has been the subject of extensive public consultation and has been adopted by the Sheffield One (now Creative Sheffield) board. It has yet to be adopted by the City Council, as it is expected that the principles it sets out will be taken up and incorporated into the new City Centre Masterplan. The Moor Design and Development Framework (2004) 13.15 A ‘Design and Development Framework’, prepared by the Deutschebank, was endorsed in December 2004 to guide new development, including a new indoor market (relocation from Castlegate) and outline the framework for an improved public realm. The Devonshire Quarter Action Plan (2000)75 13.16 The Action Plan has now substantially achieved its goals, namely successful housing projects on derelict sites, Division Street and Charter Row now rebuilt and made pedestrian-friendly, Devonshire Green Skate Park relieving the pressure on other renewed public spaces, and CCTV extended thus improving 73 Sheffield City Council, Cathedral Quarter Action Plan 2004-2014, February 2005 www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/background- reports/cathedral-quarter-action-plan 74 Sheaf Valley Masterplan. OCA Consultants (March 2006) 75 Devonshire Quarter Action Plan. Sheffield City Council (2000) 141 public safety. In the pipeline is new pedestrian signage and the redevelopment of Devonshire Green / Gell Street Park. St Vincent’s Action Plan (2004) 13.17 The Action Plan was adopted by Sheffield City Council in 2004 following detailed consultation to assist the transition and regeneration of the area over the next 10 years. 13.18 The Action Plan has allowed for the introduction of housing to the south of Scotland Street and along and around Alma Street and Green Lane. Business Areas that retain and enhance employment space have been proposed for Tenter Street, Hollis Croft and North of Scotland Street. Housing around St Georges Close and University uses at the former Health and Safety Executive laboratory in the South have not changed. 13.19 The vision is for the creation of a vibrant, mixed, new population that takes full advantage of its position at the edge of the City Centre and transport links, with improvements to the pedestrian ways back into St Georges and the Cathedral Quarter. A business corridor is to be created along Tenter Street and Broad Lane providing office space for the expansion of the Legal & Professional Quarter. Business will also be accommodated North of Scotland Street with an emphasis on encouraging office uses along the Inner Relief Road frontage. This is to be encouraged through the marketing of the Sheffield City Council Hoyle Street Site, a key gateway, not only for St Vincent’s, but the City Centre on approaching from the Upper Don Valley. 13.20 The major challenges include: Ensuring a mix of tenure of housing (neither private, rented, student nor social housing to become dominant) Ensuring the retention of business space Protection of existing businesses in the area in the short to medium term Improving community safety Creating the right environment through the public realm for residents and businesses Providing or assisting with the movement of industry to more suitable areas of the City 13.21 The St Vincent’s Action Plan has led to the formation of a Steering Group to investigate the reuse of the St Vincent’s Church site and buildings. Castlegate Masterplan (2005) 13.22 The original ‘Castlegate Quarter Study’, also prepared by EDAW, was completed in November 2002. The key assumption for the original study in 2002, was that the Castle Markets would remain in the area. It then outlined a vision, based largely on continuation of the retail use of the area anchored by either a refurbished or a brand new market. 142 13.23 Since then there have been 3 significant changes - the construction of the northern section of the Inner Relief Road has started, it is now likely that the market will now relocate to a new site on The Moor and Carillion have made a substantial start on the redevelopment of the former Sheaf Markets site (see paragraph 1.62). So, it was apparent that the area needed a fresh look. Consultants EDAW were reappointed and commenced their study in September 2004. The new masterplan was produced in October 2005.76 13.24 The key assumption of the new Masterplan is that the indoor market will go from the area altogether. This gives the Masterplan a specific focus and allows a new “vision” to be developed. 13.25 This vision is also driven firstly by the likely large reduction in traffic on the edges of the Quarter, once the IRR is completed and the opportunities that this presents; secondly by recent and significant changes in the immediately adjacent areas, such as Exchange Riverside as well as proposed development such as at West Bar and Blonk Street; by the shift in the retail core towards the south-west as a result of the NRQ; and finally by the existence of significant archaeological remains under the market. 13.26 The markets’ gradual decline – in terms of turnover and the poor state of the buildings, has coincided with the general decline of this area over the past 10 years or so. The area has become increasingly reliant on value retailing, putting a question mark on the long-term future of the area in terms of retail use. The Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy proposes to contract the City Centre shopping area, so large-scale retail use would not fit well with the overall City Centre regeneration strategy, in which case such a use would be confined to the Primark / Co-op block, with the remaining area performing very much a secondary retail function. The time is therefore ripe for re-assessing Castlegate's future economic role, within a regenerated City Centre. 13.27 The area also has many vacant old buildings, such as the Old Courthouse (which needs bringing back into use); and the former BHS building (possible redevelopment). 13.28 The danger is that without a clear vision and a strategy, the area’s decline could continue. The Masterplan outlines a new vision and identifies key areas of intervention both to anticipate and steer the process of change. 13.29 At the strategic level the economic role of Castlegate will change from an overwhelming dominance of retailing to more of a mix of uses. 13.30 On a local level, the Castle Market block is identified as the key catalyst for transforming this area. Without a successful vision and an implementation strategy for this site, the rest of the area is unlikely to succeed in moving from the current, somewhat run down, shrouded in uncertainty image to a new purpose and identity, anchored by a clear economic role. This site has the potential for the most dramatic change. The archaeological remains can be 76 Sheffield City Council / EDAW, Castlegate: ‘A New Vision’ and ‘Policy and Development Framework’, October 2005 143 uncovered; the retaining wall on Castlegate (below the meat and fish market service area) removed or partially removed and access down to the River Don opened up or improved. A pedestrianised Castlegate, removing part of the culvert to expose River Sheaf (between Exchange Street and Castlegate) combined with much-enhanced public realm, will allow a new identity to be created for the area. This may take the form of restored castle ruins in a landscaped setting, along with a visitor and interpretation centre, interspersed with high value, tall residential and office buildings. 13.31 Wilkinsons store currently trades well and is likely to continue successful trading after the market has gone. This will bring people to the area and is a strength. 13.32 The City Council’s Cabinet broadly endorsed the new ‘Masterplan’ in March 2006, as the basis for guiding future regeneration of the Castlegate Quarter, as a contribution to the City Centre Masterplan Review and to the emerging Sheffield Development Framework. Kelham Island and Neepsend Action Plan (in preparation) 13.33 A draft Kelham Island and Neepsend Action Plan has been produced and is due for consideration by the City Council’s Cabinet in November 2007. 13.34 The production of an Action Plan is proposed to ensure a comprehensive coverage of planning and regeneration policy (this area is not covered by such a policy, in contrast to the adjacent regeneration areas); to provide a coherent development and design framework for the area; to identify key interventions as part of an implementation strategy. West Bar Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) (July 2006) 13.35 Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) has been produced for the West Bar Quarter77.. It was adopted as a material consideration for determining planning applications. 13.36 The Key Principles include the aim of linking the area with the core of the City Centre and to deliver a mix of uses. This mix must include at least 50% of office uses but will also allow for a range of other uses such as small shops, food and drink outlets, housing, leisure and open space. Wicker Riverside Action Plan (Expected 2007) 13.37 Proposals to regenerate the Wicker / Nursery Street Area were on show at an open day on Friday 30 September 2005 and a consultation event was also held in May 2007. The Action Plan will focus on land uses, open spaces, the future role of the area and its uses and the proximity of the river Don. 77 West Bar Interim Planning Guidance. Sheffield City Council (July 2006) 144 APPENDIX 1 – DELIVERY SCHEDULES Policy SCC1 - City Centre Quarters - Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: The provision of Action Plans for each of Sheffield City Council Likely to be Medium / High – significant the quarters on a rolling commitment to City Centre basis Action Plans is already in place reflecting and likely to continue. relative priorities for the different quarters Decisions on planning applications will Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility also be made with regard to the character of the particular City Centre quarter in which the site is located. To support: The City Centre Masterplan. Creative Sheffield / Being High – there is a strong Sheffield City Council reviewed. commitment to delivering Expected regeneration through master 2007 planning and Action Plans. 145 Policy SCC2 - Offices in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Working closely with landowners and Sheffield City Council Up to 15 High – fundamental aim of the developers in the private sector as well Creative Sheffield years Core Strategy. as with regeneration and funding Yorkshire Forward agencies, to ensure that sites are allocated and retained for office development in the areas specified. Allocation of sites in the City Sites Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – fundamental aim of the document Core Strategy. Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility To support: Action Plans Sheffield City Council Ongoing Medium / High – delivery mechanisms for the City Centre Quarters policy City Centre Masterplan Sheffield City Council Roll- Medium / High – required to Creative Sheffield forward to focus priorities for City Centre be regeneration produced in 2007 Economic Masterplan Sheffield City Council To be High – required to focus Creative Sheffield produced priorities for the City’s in 2007 regeneration 146 Policy SCC3 - Shopping in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Developing the NRQ Sheffield City Council 2013 High – Enabling work started Creative Sheffield and outline planning permission secured Further investment and consolidation Sheffield City Council Ongoing Medium – commitment to of the other key retail areas, development in many areas, particularly the Core Retail Area and e.g. The Moor Shopping Streets, such as The Moor. Determining planning applications in Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – once adopted, planning line with the hierarchy of locations set permissions should be granted out in the policy. in accordance with the SDF policy. To support: Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Creative Sheffield To 2010 High Policy SCC4 - Cultural Facilities in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Supporting the Cultural Hub Sheffield City Council Ongoing Medium – commitment to 147 Theatres Trust cultural development in the Central Government (Arts Culture Strategy and crucible Council) redevelopment taking place Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility To support: Action Plans and Masterplans Sheffield City Council Varies High Policy SCC5 - The Universities Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Working with the two universities to Sheffield City Council Ongoing Medium – partnership working deliver this approach. University of Sheffield established through the Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield First Local Strategic Partnership. Ensuring that City Policies, City Site Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility. allocations and designations on the Proposals Map encourage the continuing important role of the Universities Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility 148 Policy SCC6 - Housing in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Allocation of sites in the City Sites Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – fundamental aim of the document Core Strategy. Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility To support: Masterplans and Action Plans. Sheffield City Council Creative Sheffield Policy SCC7 - Manufacturing and the City Centre – Transition Areas Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Determining planning applications – new Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility industrial development in the Transition Areas will not be permitted Committing to the transformation of the Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – other policies deal with affected areas and an effective strategy Creative Sheffield relocation opportunities to provide land and sites for relocating companies. 149 Ensuring assistance from the City Sheffield City Council High – issues likely to be dealt Council’s regeneration partners and Creative Sheffield with also through the City using funding options wherever possible Yorkshire Forward Centre and Economic Masterplans To support: Masterplans – for the Upper Don, Lower Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – strong commitment to Don, Central Riverside, for example and delivering regeneration through Action Plans. master planning and Action Plans. Policy SCC8 - Tall Buildings in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Determining planning applications in Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility. accordance with the criteria set out and applying the principles of the Urban Design Compendium Sheffield City Council 150 Policy SCC9 - Transport in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Delivery through the Local Transport Sheffield City Council 2011 High – statutory responsibility Plan 2 (LTP2) South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility To support: Sheffield City Centre Masterplan Creative Sheffield To 2010 High Policy SCC10 - Pedestrian Environment in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Delivering transport improvements with Sheffield City Council 2011 High – statutory responsibility the help of funding and priorities set South Yorkshire Passenger through the Local Transport Plan 2, Transport Authority 2006-2011. Producing and implementing a Sheffield City Council ## ## Pedestrian Strategy Determining planning applications Sheffield City Council Ongoing High – statutory responsibility 151 To support: Action Plans and Masterplans Sheffield City Council Varies High Policy SCC11 - Open Space and Riversides in the City Centre Actions required Agencies Timing Probability To deliver: Using public funding and match Sheffield City Council Ongoing Medium – funding is limited funding where available, City Council- and will be prioritised.. owned land and CPO powers. To support: Many of these areas may also be the Sheffield City Council Varied Medium / High – several subject of Action Plans and masterplans / Area Action masterplans, that will ensure that these Plans are already in place and uses are effectively accounted for. new and reviewed plans are likely. 152 APPENDIX 2 – CONNECTIONS WITH NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY National Planning Policy Core Strategy Policy Relevant National Policy Connection with National Policy78 SCC1 City Centre Quarters PPS6, Annexe A 1 PPS6, paragraph 2.31 2 SCC2 Offices in the City Centre PPS6, paragraph 2.31 3 SCC3 Shopping in the City Centre PPS6, paragraph 1.5 2 PPS6, paragraph 2.41 2 PPG13, paragraph 3 3 SCC4 Cultural Facilities in the City Centre Good Practice Guide on 3 Planning for Tourism, paragraph 2.5 SCC5 The Universities PPS1, paragraph 16 1 PPS1, paragraph 23 1 PPS1, paragraph 27 1 SCC6 Housing in the City Centre PPS3, paragraph 38 2 PPS6, paragraph 2.16 2 PPS6, paragraph 2.16 2 PPS6, paragraph 2.31 2 SCC7 Manufacturing and the City Centre – Transition Areas General aims of PPS3 and 3 PPS6 SCC8 Tall Buildings in the City Centre PPS1, paragraph 27 2 PPS6, paragraph 1.5 2 PPS3, paragraph 46 2 78 1 = Local policy specifically required by national policy; 2 = Locally distinctive interpretation of national policy; 3 = Generally supplements/ supports national policy; 4 = Repeats national policy; 5 = Not dealt with in national policy 153 Core Strategy Policy Relevant National Policy Connection with National Policy78 PPS6, paragraph 2.4 2 PPS6, paragraph 2.20 2 Guidance on Tall Buildings 1 SCC9 Transport in the City Centre PPG13, paragraph 28 3 PPG13, paragraph 59 1 PPG13, paragraph 72 1 SCC10 Pedestrian Environment in the City Centre PPG13, paragraph 8 1 PPG13, paragraph 65 1 PPG13, paragraph 67 1 SCC11 Open Space and Riversides in the City Centre PPS1, paragraph 20 3 PPS6, paragraph 1.5 1 PPS6, paragraph 4.4 3 PPG17, paragraph 20 1 PPG17, paragraph 31 1 1 = Local policy specifically required by national policy; 2 = Locally distinctive interpretation of national policy; 3 = Generally supplements/ supports national policy; 4 = Repeats national policy; 5 = Not dealt with in national policy 154 Regional Spatial Strategy City Policy Preferred Option Relevant RSS Policy or Connection Paragraph with RSS79 SCC1 City Centre Quarters SY1 B 1 SCC2 Offices in the City Centre YH1 3 YH5 (iv) 3 SCC3 Shopping in the City Centre YH5 3 YH8 A i) 1 E2 1 SCC4 Cultural Facilities in the City Centre E2 A 3 E1 B iii 3 SCC5 The Universities Paragraph 14.5 1 SCC6 Housing in the City Centre YH5 2 SCC7 Manufacturing and the City Centre – Transition Areas Paragraph 14.23 1 SCC8 Tall Buildings in the City Centre YH2 A 2 SCC9 Transport in the City Centre T1 1 T2 1 T3 B 1 SCC10 Pedestrian Environment in the City Centre T1 D 3 T2 D 1 SCC11 Open Space and Riversides in the City Centre Paragraph 4.62 3 79 1 = Required by RSS; 2 = Locally distinctive interpretation of RSS policy; 3 = Generally supplements RSS policy; 4 = Repeats RSS policy; 5 = Not dealt with in RSS policy 155
"Sheffield Development Framework"