Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION VERSION
LOWER DON VALLEY
BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
September 2007
CONTENTS
.
Chapter
Page
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Meadowhall
11
3.
Tinsley Park
51
4.
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge
69
5.
The Boulevard of Sport
79
6.
Housing in Attercliffe and Darnall
89
7.
Darnall District Centre
107
8.
Other options not taken forward
121
Appendices
125
1
INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1
This report provides background information and evidence to support the
submitted policies 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.
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. For background to the options, see Chapter 1.
-1-
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 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 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:
3
Sheffield Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council,
(May 2005). SDF Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006
4 Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Draft for submission to the Secretary of State.
Sheffield City Council (September 2007)
5Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Additional Options. Sheffield City Council (February
2007) SDF Core Strategy Additional Options 2007
-2-
“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 for the Lower Don Valley. The
chapters are based on each of the issues identified and they deal with each of the
soundness tests in turn. A final chapter deals with issues not followed through to
the submitted Core Strategy.
Introduction to the Issues
1.13
The area of Sheffield covered by this document is known by many as the East
End, and the Lower Don Valley is a term used to refer to the existing employment
areas in the east end of the city. Lying to the north east of the city centre, the
Lower Don Valley area includes part of the Darnall Ward but also includes parts
of Manor and Castle Wards. The Lower Don Valley is also how the ‘Lower Don
Valley Vision and Masterplan Study’7 describes its area of concern.
Portrait of the Area
1.14
This area is one of the gateways to the City from the M1 motorway. Due to its
location beside the M1 motorway, the area is a strategic location for economic
activity and acts as a focus for employment, leisure, recreation and sporting
activities; these land uses benefit the whole city.
1.15
The River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal form green corridors right
through the area. The Supertram route from the City Centre to Meadowhall
follows a route through the valley to a transport interchange at Meadowhall, which
links the tram with a park-and-ride facility, a wide range of converging bus routes
and main line rail station.
1.16
The M1 motorway cuts across the northern edge of the area. The strategic
routes that connect this area to the rest of the city comprise:

6
7
From Junction 34North toward the City Centre - the A6109 Meadowhall
Road/Brightside Lane/Savile Street East (known also as the Don Valley
Link Road).
The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4)
See paragraph 1.35 below
-3-

From Junction 34 South into the City Centre - the A6178 Sheffield
Road/Attercliffe Common, and the A631 Shepcote Lane, both of which link
the motorway junction to the A6102 Broughton lane/Greenland Road
(known as the Outer Ring Road) towards Manor Top.

Europa Link, which provides a link to the Sheffield Airport from the
Motorway via the Parkway (A630).
1.17
The area includes Sheffield’s traditional manufacturing heart where older
industrial complexes, such as Sheffield Forgemasters, operate alongside
renewed industrial areas like Brightside Lane. Although the steel manufacturing
industry is smaller in size and number of employees today, the Lower Don Valley
is still home to firms with an international reputation including Sheffield
Forgemasters, Outokumpu, and Betafence (Tinsley Wire), and the steel industry
in the Lower Don Valley remains an important element of the local economy.
Despite this there are still many hectares of land that remain under-utilised or
derelict that could be put to alternative uses providing opportunity for a wider
range of employment.
1.18
Many new sectors of employment (retail, business, and leisure) are already
represented in the area. The area is home to Meadowhall Shopping Centre,
which is one of Europe’s largest shopping complexes located right next to
Junction 34 South and attracting around 24 million visitors a year. Attercliffe is
home to Meadowhall Retail Park, Don Valley Stadium, Sheffield Hallam Arena,
Centertainment, Ice Sheffield, and the English Institute of Sport.
1.19
Sheffield City Airport is located at Europa Link and the Sheffield Business Park,
located alongside the airport, is a major business location. It offers a
complementary location to the City Centre by offering space for those businesses
that need good access to the Motorway (e.g. via the Parkway).
1.20
The business and industrial areas around Carbrook, the Technology Park at
Attercliffe close to the Supertram route, and the Parkway/Kettlebridge area to the
south of the railway line, have attracted new office and business developments
widening the employment opportunities offered by the Valley.
1.21
Altogether more than 20,000 people find employment in the Lower Don Valley,
and this important contribution to the economic performance of the city needs to
be maintained.
1.22
Apart from Meadowhall Shopping Centre, which attracts shoppers from across
the region, and the Meadowhall Retail Park, which attracts shopper’s city wide,
retail activity is concentrated in two main areas.
1.23
The ‘Darnall Terminus’ is the district centre for this area. Situated around Main
Road and Staniforth Road it contains a reasonably good mix of both shops and
services, with the Darnall Library providing a well used local service. The whole
-4-
centre would benefit from environmental improvements. Traffic flows are high
through this centre, leading to poor environmental quality and congestion at
times, but it is served by a high frequency bus service, and is close to
surrounding residential areas.
1.24
There is a significant area of local shopping at Attercliffe Road. This was once
the major district centre for the Lower Don Valley, but it has suffered major
decline over the past 30 years following clearance of large areas of unfit 19 th
century housing. But it has developed a distinctive role with a number of
specialist shops and service functions with a citywide appeal.
1.25
There is a small shopping centre in Tinsley located at Bawtry Road.
1.26
Around 23,000 people currently live within the main residential areas located at
Darnall and Tinsley with a small community living at the Attercliffe Village
development close to the Attercliffe centre. They are ideally placed to take
advantage of job opportunities close by.
1.27
Darnall is the largest residential community within this area containing a mix of
older privately owned or rented terraced properties, some newer social rented
properties near to the district centre, and a large number of local authority
properties.
1.28
Apart from the Attercliffe Village and a very small number located above existing
business and commercial premises, there are very few residential properties
within Attercliffe.
1.29
Tinsley sees itself as a separate community and feels cut off from Sheffield
mainly due to the huge barrier presented by the M1 Motorway. Residents feel that
the impact of this on their environment has brought more problems than benefits.
1.30
Opportunities for new housing are needed in the area to provide greater choice
for new and existing residents and to help to create a more balanced community.
1.31
These areas include some of the most deprived communities in the city. Darnall
ward is amongst the 10% most deprived wards in the country, and as such has
been recognised as an area of priority for a range of government programmes
including Surestart, Objective 1, and the Regional Development Agencies
Strategic Economic Zone.
1.32
The area has a multicultural ethnic population. It has long been home to Asian
and Yemini communities, many families originally locating here to work in the
steel industry. More recently, it has seen an increase in the number of economic
migrants from Eastern Europe locating within the area.
1.33
Apart from its major leisure destinations, the area has a number of green spaces,
from small areas such as Phillimore Park and Tinsley Recreation Ground, to large
-5-
district parks such as High Hazels, and historically important open spaces such
as Tinsley Park (golf course). It has unique green areas such as the Five Weirs
walk along the River Don and the open spaces alongside the Sheffield and
Tinsley Canal, such as Tinsley Marina.
Other local visions and strategies
1.34
A significant amount of masterplanning work has been undertaken recently and is
still ongoing within the Lower Don Valley area. The following documents all raise
issues specific to the area and have contributed to the development of policy for
the Core Strategy. They are referred to more specifically in later sections of this
document to support proposed policy for the Core Strategy, and to show where
there are connections specific to the policy (soundness test 4). Other documents
including, The Yorkshire and Humber Plan, The Second Local Transport Plan,
The South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision, The Transform South Yorkshire 2 nd
Prospectus, and The Sheffield City Strategy are not documents specifically about
the Lower Don Valley. However, development of area policy has had regard to
components of these documents and the links are set out in more detail in the
following area chapters (soundness test 4 and 5).
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan Study.
1.35
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan was commissioned jointly by the
City Council and British Land Plc8. The document covers the area broadly
bounded by Darnall, Attercliffe, the River Don, and the Sheffield/ Rotherham
boundary; it sets out a vision to guide the development of the Lower Don Valley
over the next 20 years.
1.36
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan was developed around a number of
strategic principles which will influence the form of all future development within
the study area. They include:
8

Attract new investment and reposition the Lower Don Valley to meet the
challenges of a new economy. To help attract new business to the area, a
high quality environment will be promoted by the masterplan.

Build on the established strengths if the area. The Valley area policies
overall are aimed at retaining its status as one of the city’s foremost
location for employment and leisure. The masterplan strives to diversify
opportunities and improve the quality of employment by attracting
professional and financial sectors to the Meadowhall area. The future form
of development must complement the City Centre redevelopment.

Open up development sites to allow for future development. Development
sites are identified in the masterplan.
November 2004
-6-
1.37

Direct new uses to locations that already support appropriate
infrastructure, for example, by directing new high-density development
close to public transport links, such as Supertram. Any new roads should
facilitate additional new investment and foster enhanced accessibility to
and from districts in the area.

Create sustainable communities and provide social infrastructure for the
long-term success of the area. If new communities are created and
integrated with existing neighbourhoods provision of additional community
services and amenities can be justified to serve residents for the benefit of
them all.
The City Council’s Cabinet endorsed the principles of the masterplan9 and
approved the taking forward of the key elements for consideration as Emerging
Options in the Core Strategy. These issues figure most prominently, and are
discussed in more detail, in the policies for Meadowhall (Chapter 1 paragraphs
2.29 – 2.48), but are also discussed in the policies for The Boulevard of Sport
(Chapter 5 paragraphs 5.8 – 5.11) and Attercliffe/Darnall (Chapter 6 paragraphs
6.19 – 6.23).
Transforming Sheffield’s Gateway - A New Vision for the River Don District
1.38
The River Don District masterplan forms the output of the second stage of the
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan project, and has been prepared in
consultation with Sheffield City Council. The document continues to build and
support the principles set out in the original study. It updates the vision based on
a thorough analysis of existing conditions and it includes landscape,
environmental conditions, engineering constraints (including traffic, public
transport, service utilities), and market conditions. It proposes four character
areas with either business or residential as predominant uses, with a view to
providing a new mixed-use neighbourhood around the Meadowhall Centre.
1.39
The document is to be submitted to the Council’s Cabinet in September for
endorsement of the principles of the masterplan10. This document will support
the objectives of Core Strategy policy by indicating phasing and delivery of new
land uses.
Housing Market Renewal
1.40
9
Most of the Darnall Panel area forms part of the Transform South Yorkshire
Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area, and falls within the boundary of the
Sheffield East Area Development Framework. Three main reports have been
11th May 2005
To be submitted 26th September 2007
10
-7-
published to take forward objectives and proposals that cover the Lower Don
Valley area, and these are described below.
Sheffield East Area Development Framework
1.41
The East Area Development framework covers the areas of Burngreave, Darnall,
Fir Vale, Tinsley, and Attercliffe. It formed part of the second submission for
funding by Transform South Yorkshire (the Pathfinder) to the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister11.
1.42
The purpose of the Area Development Frameworks is to set out how the
Pathfinder’s strategic aims and objectives are to be translated into action at the
local and neighbourhood level. In the case of the East Area Development
Framework its strategy contains a vision ‘Building successful neighbourhoods
around a strong economy’, which supports the Area Development Framework
strategy.
1.43
The strategy proposes a range of initiatives aimed at creating sustainable
communities where a stronger and more varied housing market underpins a more
buoyant economy and an improved quality of life. It presents a vision of
strengthening existing communities by providing high quality aspirational housing,
close to local amenities, in areas that are well connected to places of work and to
leisure facilities. It asserts that there is capacity within the East area to
accommodate new workers for the city’s economy. The Area Development
Framework also sets out an investment framework to show how the area could
attract substantial additional resources to deliver transformation of the area from
HMR, other public sector funding partners, and through private sector direct
investment.
Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework
1.44
The Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework was
approved by the Council’s Cabinet in June 200712. The aim of the document is to
provide a framework to radically improve the character and diversity of the area
through site planning and landscape design, infrastructure and connectivity
improvements and land use planning. The objectives of the masterplanning
exercise is to create sustainable and attractive neighbourhoods; to undertake
physical renewal linked to social and economic initiatives in the area; to help
create a positive perception of the area and attract inward investment; to offer a
more attractive choice of housing in terms of tenure and type; and to create a
step change in design quality. This document has been an important reference
for evolving policy for this area.
11
Sheffield East Area development Framework (2006-2008), Transform South Yorkshire, July 2005. A
map of the boundary is available on the Council website at www.sheffield.gov.uk
12 13th June 2007
-8-
The East Sheffield – Rotherham West Baseline Study
1.45
This document13 provides a comprehensive evidence base for interventions in
priority neighbourhoods as set out in the East Area Development Framework and
the Darnall, Attercliffe, and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework. It
proposes an economic-led Sheffield/ Rotherham City Strategy, which promotes
employment-led growth, greater connectivity along the Don Valley and between
its communities, consolidates a sustainable supply of housing, and tackles the
structural problems of environmental quality and the legacy of industrial land.
Darnall Area Plan
1.46
The Area Plan14 produced by the Darnall Area Panel is a three-year strategic plan
setting out the longer-term vision for the panel area. It proposes four themes:
Environment, Children and Young People, Community Safety and Regeneration,
and Social Inclusion. The plan also identifies three transformational projects
within the area. These are; the development of the Tinsley Family Centre,
(opened in May 2006), the regeneration of Tinsley Recreation Ground, and the
regeneration of the Darnall Terminus.
1.47
A more detailed annual plan15 sets out the key activities and projects, which the
Darnall Area Panel will be supporting during 2007-2008. The one year plan
caries forward the four themes set out in the three year plan, and adds a fifth
theme ‘Health and Well Being’ to reflect the enhanced public health programmes
being developed in Darnall and Tinsley. The one-year plan sets out a number of
local priorities under these themes. For example the ‘Regeneration and Social
Inclusion’ theme includes; the monitoring of investment in the panel area through
Housing Market Renewal, and the redevelopment of the Darnall Centre, among
the local priorities for 07/08.
13
DTZ Pieda Consulting 2005
Darnall Area Plan 2005-2008
15 Darnall One Year Plan 2007-2008
14
-9-
-10-
2
MEADOWHALL
Introduction
2.1
The Lower Don Valley has long provided employment for people from across the
City and beyond, and more locally neighbouring communities rely on the area for
employment. The areas identified in the Core Strategy Lower Don Valley area
each have a different role offering different opportunities, primarily employment
opportunities.
2.2
The area around the Meadowhall Centre has a different character from the rest
of the valley and, for the reasons set out in this chapter, it justifies its own area
policy. Meadowhall has the Meadowhall Centre and Meadowhall Transport
Interchange at its heart, but its surrounding area has significant areas of vacant
land with good road and public transport access where a new range of
employment opportunities would contribute to the strategy for the Valley. Sites
around the Meadowhall Centre have been vacant or underused for a number of
years. In the lifetime of the UDP there has not been any strategy for this area to
direct its regeneration. This area has been the subject of considerable study
recently, which has resulted in detailed proposals for its regeneration, and new
land uses being proposed. This policy sets a context for the implementation of
the vision set out in those documents.
Policy SLD1
2.3
Around the Meadowhall centre, the predominant land uses will be for
employment, including office development and non-office business uses.
Housing may be included as part of a mixed-use development providing air
quality and other environmental conditions can be made acceptable
The shopping centre will remain at around its present size and large-scale
leisure uses that cannot be located in the City Centre may also be located
close to the Interchange.
All new development around the Meadowhall Centre should be integrated
with the existing development.
A wide range of transport measures, including Travel Plans, will be
employed to maximise the capacity of routes serving the strategic road
network and the new development and to reduce adverse impacts on air
quality. These will include:
(a) improved public transport services for workers and visitors,
including new bus rapid transit
(b) connections with the proposed park-and-ride site at Waverley
-11-
(c) restrictions on long-stay car parking other than to serve park-andride services to the City Centre and on other private non-residential
parking levels
(d) the creation of a car club
(e) provision of a new road link under Tinsley viaduct.
The scale and density of development will be consistent with the transport
capacity created by these measures.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
2.4
One of the issues for the Meadowhall area is how far uses should be located
here that could otherwise be located in other centres and, in particular, the City
Centre. Government Planning Policy in PPS616 identifies offices as a ‘key town
centre’ use. It states that a sequential approach to office provision is required 17,
noting that different office occupiers may have different locational requirements,
and that some locations are more sustainable than others. PPS6 states that
local authorities should define a hierarchy of centres that perform different roles
and that locating development needs to take account of travel needs of workers
and their impact on travel systems.
2.5
The Core Strategy spatial vision indicates that the City Centre will be the primary
location for office development. Meadowhall does not feature as a ‘town centre’
and it is not part of the hierarchy specified in PPS6. However, the spatial vision,
policy SLD, and Core Strategy policy SB3 18 do identify it as a complementary
employment location. This is primarily because of its sustainable location close
to the Meadowhall Interchange for good public transport links. This is consistent
with PPS6 which states that:
“For office development, locations outside the town centre but within 500
metres of a public transport interchange, including railway and bus stations,
within the urban area should be considered as edge-of-centre locations for
purposes of the sequential approach”19.
2.6
This does not limit the definition to interchanges within a town centre but relates
to those within the whole urban area. Policy SLD1 is therefore consistent with
PPS6 as an office location.
2.7
Limiting the scale of retailing at Meadowhall, at its present size, as stated in
SLD1 is also consistent with PPS6. PPS6 says that the expansion of existing
16
ODPM Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, March 2005
PPS6 Annexe A, table 2
18 Policy SB3 Locations for Office Development, and supporting text
19 PPS6, Annex A, page 30, footnote 17
17
-12-
out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres is unlikely to meet the
requirements of the key objective of the government’s town centre policy, which
is to promote the vitality and viability of town centres20.
2.8
PPS6 also refers to the inclusion of housing in out-of-centre mixed-use
developments, indicating that this should not, in itself, justify additional floorspace
for main town centre uses in such locations21. This is reflected in the relative
provision for shopping and housing at Meadowhall.
2.9
PPS6 also requires that a sequential approach be taken for the location of major
leisure, which along with retail and offices, is described as a ‘key town centre’
use. Policy SLD1 is consistent with PPS6 in that it states that if no sites are
available in the City Centre then large-scale leisure may be located close to the
interchange. This is one of the most accessible out-of-centre locations in the
city. PPG13 seeks to locate facilities where they are well served by public
transport and a choice of other transport modes22 and in the case of the Lower
Don Valley sites close to the Interchange would meet this requirement.
Regional Policy
2.10
Policy E3 in the Yorkshire and Humber Plan deals with the supply of land and
premises for economic development23. It recognises the need to support the
provision of land for employment in sustainable locations, including as part of
mixed development, specifically alongside residential uses. This would be
consistent with the mixed-use approach promoted in SLD1.
2.11
Policy E2Bi on town centres and major facilities refers to Meadowhall and states
that:
“No further development or large scale expansion of out-of-centre regional
or sub regional shopping centres, including Meadowhall and the White Rose
centres should be permitted”.
2.12
The Panel Report from the Examination in Public of the draft Yorkshire and
Humber Plan has addressed this policy. It recommends that the policy should be
rephrased to not allow any development24. The report also recommends that the
phrase ‘large scale’ be deleted from the policy because it is too open and its
meaning is not explained. If the panel’s recommendations are accepted by the
Government then the policy would read:
20
PPS6 paragraph 2.14
PPS6 paragraph 2.21
22 PPG13 paragraph 19. Accessibility
23 Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Section 14, Economy, page 172
24 Examination in Public Panel report, May 2007, pages 46-47
21
-13-
‘No further development or expansion of out-of-centre regional or sub regional
shopping centres should be permitted’
2.13
Policy SLD1 would be fully consistent with this policy.
Sub-Regional Policy
The 2nd Local Transport Plan (LTP2) 2006-2011
2.14
The 2nd Local Transport Plan acknowledges that congestion is a significant
problem on the motorway and ‘key routes’ in this area25. Internal accessibility
through sustainable transport links connecting jobs, services, and leisure
opportunities is important. Significant investment in bus, tram and train services
and road, rail and tram networks is vital, and indeed its proposals for ‘key
routes’26 are an important means of achieving the vision in this part of Sheffield
and to achieving the aims of the submitted Core Strategy policies for the Lower
Don Valley.
2.15
LTP2 proposes that a ‘Transport Intervention Strategy’ be developed to serve the
Lower Don Valley employment sites; and areas in greatest need of access to
employment (for example, the HMR areas). These need to be serviced by
complementary bus networks to reach the core services that link main centres.
Indeed a package of interventions and five different strategies are identified in
the document as part of a case study of a Sheffield to Rotherham route through
the Lower Don Valley, and although the case study does not represent a priority
for the Valley (as this is still being decided) it does illustrate the complex
relationships between land use, economic regeneration, transportation, and the
environment27.
2.16
Work on LTP2 included analysis of a list of key strategy elements for the Lower
Don Valley that will be incorporated into this strategy28. From this a preferred
strategy of public transport enhancements, traffic restraint, travel planning and
increased highway capacity has been identified as the most appropriate in terms
of tackling congestion in this locality. This is consistent with Preferred Option
PLD4 (see paragraph 8.5), which was subsequently translated into the area
policies that form the proposed policies SLD1 – SLD5.
2.17
Public transport investment will be a key requirement for delivering the job
opportunities that will arise at Meadowhall as a result of policy SLD1 and, in
particular, for meeting the requirements set out at the end of the policy. The
policy refers to a wide range of transport measures and has had regard to the
252nd
Local Transport Plan 2006-2011, paragraph 9.152 on tackling congestion
The ‘key routes’ network will be a focus for prioritizing expenditure on measures that they have
identified and most likely to bring benefits and meet targets – They are defined on page 50. In this area
they are the A6109 Meadowbank Road/Meadowhall Road and A6178 Sheffield Road
27 LTP 2, pages 99-103
28 LTP2 page 100
26
-14-
following elements of the preferred Lower Don Valley Transport Intervention
Strategy; travel plans, key routes (improvements to bus services focussed on the
Meadowhall Transport Interchange), Supertram extensions (or equivalent Bus
Rapid Transit service), and provision of new north/south bus services to better
serve residential communities.
2.18
The policy is therefore consistent with the aims of the Local Transport Plan.
South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision
2.19
This document was prepared for the South Yorkshire Partnership29 in 2004. The
Lower Don Valley is identified in this document as a priority for regeneration30.
The second ‘core theme’ in the spatial vision refers specifically to Meadowhall. It
states:
‘It is not anticipated that there will be any significant expansion of Meadowhall
in the future’.
2.20
Policy SLD1 is consistent with this document in its specific references to
Meadowhall.
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update
2.21
Policy SLD1 is consistent with the overall aims and objectives of Transform
South Yorkshire (TSY) for this part of the Pathfinder area. The Meadowhall area
is not one where HMR funding will be targeted, but in the prospectus overview
they state that their aim for South Yorkshire is to counteract the challenge of
large areas of poor quality housing. They believe that improving the quality and
choice of the South Yorkshire housing and neighbourhood offer is instrumental in
promoting economic competitiveness within the northern city regions31.
2.22
In their document the case for intervention in the housing market is to make it
more responsive to the needs of communities32. It is acknowledged in the DAT
NDF (see below) that there is a limited range of choice and types of housing in
the HMR area, and it refers to the potential of the wider Lower Don Valley to help
address this. The prospectus states that the urban offer has to be attractive to
economically active inward migrants, as well as aspirational households, to
encourage people to move to or stay within the area33. The Meadowhall area
can contribute to those aims by providing, in the longer term, opportunity for a
new quality housing market that can add to the housing offer that already exists.
29
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly
Page 11
31 Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005 Overview, page 3
32 Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, paragraph 2.22
33 Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, paragraph 2.13
30
-15-
2.23
Policy SLD1 is consistent with two of the strategic objectives of TSY. They are:
SO2: Expand the areas range of housing opportunities – There is no housing in
this area at present, but in the longer term it has the potential to bring forward
new housing, and so expand the range of housing available in the Darnall,
Attercliffe and Tinsley area overall.
SO3: Improve housing quality – The opportunity to bring new housing into the
area creates opportunity itself for high quality, well designed, sustainable and
affordable dwellings to be part of the range of housing available across the
Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley HMR area.
Other Sheffield Policies
Darnall, Attercliffe, and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework
(DAT NDF)
2.24
The DAT NDF considers that Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley does not suffer from
market failure in terms of high numbers of empty properties and significant house
value decrease, but faces a challenge in attracting quality housing developments
to the area that will add to the offer for the local community34.
2.25
The Housing Development Strategy35 in the NDF seeks to establish a framework
to facilitate housing development to; promote physical and community
regeneration; create a more balanced housing market/bring about housing
market renewal; accommodate forecast population and household growth, and,
be of sufficient critical mass to support the provision of additional or enhanced
services, such as local school places.
2.26
It acknowledges that the Lower Don Valley, in particularly the canal and river
environment, has been identified for housing as part of the Lower Don Valley
Vision and Masterplan (see paragraph 2.32 below) and refers to the potential for
higher value market housing in an area with excellent links to the City Centre and
the Motorway36.
2.27
The document does not concern itself with housing development at Meadowhall
or identify any projects for implementation in the Meadowhall area, but infers
reliance on the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan and its successors to
deliver this.
2.28
Policy SLD1 is consistent with the DAT NDF because, in identifying Meadowhall
as a potential new location for housing in the Lower Don Valley, it supports the
34
DAT NDF June 2007 paragraph 2.10
DAT NDF June 2007, paragraph 5.32
36 DAT NDF June 2007, paragraph 5.39
35
-16-
NDF Housing Development Strategy, provided that housing schemes are
implemented in line with HMR objectives set out in paragraph 2.21 above.
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan
2.29
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan sets out proposals for a 20-year
period. It refers to the Meadowhall area as two districts within the study area,
‘The Central Zone’ and ‘The Meadowhall Quadrant’37.
2.30
The Central Zone is the area adjacent to the Meadowhall Quadrant to the south
west of the Meadowhall Centre, and along the River Don as far as Janson Street.
2.31
The masterplan acknowledges the existing industrial uses currently within the
area (e.g. Forgemasters) and refers to continued support for them, and only
introducing new uses that are compatible with existing uses. However, this is the
area with potentially the most significant change, and the masterplan has a
longer-term vision for this area to achieve its wider regeneration objectives. It
states that some relocation and consolidation of industry will be inevitable.
2.32
The area currently has large areas of undeveloped land, together with areas of
mixed office and industrial use. The strategy for this area will be to capitalize on
the river frontage, and improve the public realm, so that will in turn be a setting
for higher value development and act as a catalyst for investment.
2.33
It proposes the creation of a high quality business park straddling the Central
Zone and the Meadowhall Quadrant. The northern end of the Central Zone is
promoted as an area where there is enough land available to create a critical
mass of development that is necessary to create the new environment envisaged
in the masterplan. Housing is then introduced as a land use that would
complement the proposed business park, by creating an area where it is viable to
live, to work, and shop all in one neighbourhood. They are recommending that a
minimum of 2000 housing units would be required to create the mass necessary
to rebrand the area from industry to a residential and business location38.
2.34
The Meadowhall Quadrant is centred on the Meadowhall Centre and the area
immediately around it. It is referred to in the masterplan as a ‘gateway’, to be
enhanced by attracting new uses that will benefit from the additional value of the
Meadowhall Centre. It proposes that the Meadowhall Centre be allowed to
‘evolve and respond to changing shopping and leisure trends’. It proposes that a
significant amount of quality new office accommodation would act as an anchor
for redevelopment. The proposed business park would be focussed around a
new public plaza and street, and served by a new Supertram stop (as was being
proposed at the time).
37
38
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Nov 2004, paragraph 6.0 page 65
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Nov 2004, paragraph 6.3, page 71
-17-
2.35
A combination of high and low rise office development within a well landscaped
environment is envisaged, supported by new convenience retail, and eating and
drinking establishments extending from the Meadowhall Centre on a new street
oriented frontage. These and other services will cater for the new residential and
business communities here39.
2.36
The Cabinet report40 recommended that the main land use proposals in the
masterplan be tested through the SDF process, and also recommended that
subsequent masterplans would be needed to take concept ideas in this
masterplan through to projects for implementation. This is now beginning with
the production of a further document ‘A New Vision for the River Don District’
(dealt with below), which takes forward the proposals for the Central Zone and
the Meadowhall Quadrant in more detail.
2.37
The basic idea of restructuring of land uses, especially around the Meadowhall
centre, moving away from the industry and business approach of the UDP
towards a more sustainable mixed use pattern; creating a new community where
people want to live, work and visit, is fully consistent with the theme of SLD1.
Through SLD1, employment is to be the predominant land use whilst allowing for
other uses (including housing and leisure) to be included as part of mixed-use
development.
2.38
This is consistent with the cabinet endorsement to take forward the key elements
for consideration in the emerging options stage of the SDF, and they are
represented in the different options considered below in paragraphs 2.71 – 2.90.
After consideration of representations made, and further discussion with
stakeholders during the emerging and preferred options stage, the proposed
policy for Meadowhall contains all the major land uses that were proposed in the
masterplan as being necessary for the regeneration of this area. The Lower Don
Valley Vision and Masterplan and its successors (the first of which is the River
Don District Plan) are accepted as tools for implementation of SLD1.
2.39
However, there are still some outstanding differences between the details of the
masterplan concepts and ambitions and SLD1 that, unless resolved through the
project working process, will hinder the masterplans as a means of delivery.
They include:
(a) The quantity and phasing of delivery of B1a office development and
mitigating consequent traffic impacts,
(b) The amount and type of housing and phasing,
(c) The amount of additional retailing proposed,
(d) Managing the environmental impacts especially flooding, traffic, and air
quality.
39
40
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Nov 2004, paragraph 6.4, page 73
11 May 2005
-18-
2.40
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan proposes a total of 218,250m 2 of
new office space41, but there was little evidence in the masterplan to support the
need for development of this order. According to SLD1, B1 business
development in the valley is acceptable subject to it being demonstrably
complementary to the City Centre. The case for offices as a part of SLD1 is
made at paragraph 2.91.
2.41
A limited number of headquarter type offices may be acceptable if well serviced
by public transport and supported by demand. The majority of the area would be
suitable for smaller scale B1 development (see also policy SB3). The second
part of SLD1 will be important here as effective ways to manage the transport
impact will be required.
2.42
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan has 2280 units of housing
proposed in the ‘Central Zone’33. The masterplan says that this is needed to
ensure a mass necessary to brand the area. Housing was initially rejected for
the Core strategy as a land use around Meadowhall and then reconsidered. The
reasons for this are explained at paragraph 2.106. Policy SLD1 supports the
option of housing at Meadowhall provided that it is part of a mixed-use
development and that the environmental conditions (in this case noise, air quality
and flooding measures) have improved.
2.43
Creating a critical mass of housing is accepted if this is to become a sustainable
place to live. But, we would need to ensure that the area is not isolated if
housing were to take place. However, the masterplan states that, to successfully
deliver a large-scale mixed-use scheme to create ‘a place’, it is critical that many
of the component parts be brought forward together, and this includes housing.
Policy SLD1 infers that before this can happen, the evidence that environmental
conditions have improved will need to be presented.
2.44
Development of housing here will require some restructuring and relocation of
existing industrial uses for housing to be environmentally acceptable, and further
technical work on air quality, and flood alleviation measures will be needed.
Whilst some of this is being addressed as part of the River Don District Plan,
these issues probably indicate a need for housing to be brought forward at a later
stage. Policies SH242 and SH443 also imply housing development being in the
relatively longer term.
2.45
A key issue still to be addressed is the effect new housing here may have on the
HMR areas, where a need for family housing and creation of sustainable mixed
communities is an important objective44. The proposal in the masterplan
indicates a majority of flats. Although SLD1 supports the introduction of housing
41
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Section 7.6 page 86
Policy SH2 Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land
43 Policy SH4 Priorities for Releasing Land for New Housing
44 DAT NDF section 3, page 23
42
-19-
into the area, the masterplan is inconsistent with proposed Core Strategy policy
SH745 which promotes development of housing to meet a range of housing
needs (see further comments on compatibility with River Don District Plan on
this, paragraph 2.50 below).
2.46
The overall amount of retailing proposed in the Lower Don Valley Vision and
Masterplan is unacceptably large, 40,170 m2 is proposed. This would constitute
large-scale expansion, which is contrary to policy at all levels.
2.47
Whilst it is acknowledged that some remodelling of the Meadowhall Centre, to
connect better into the local environment, would work towards creation of a
sustainable community for the area, this would only be consistent with SLD1
provided that it was minor work, such as refurbishment and redevelopment of
existing facilities, and does not lead to a net increase in gross retail floorspace.
This would be in line with City Policies preferred option PS446. SLD1 reaffirms
the view of regional guidance that Meadowhall should remain at its present size
and does not support the masterplan in these ambitions. The case for this is
made at paragraph 2.118 in the ‘Planning Reasons’ section.
2.48
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan has a supporting transport
statement. It is intended that this will be the subject of continuous review as the
details of the masterplan are developed. Because of the location of the study
area, adjacent to the M1 and Rotherham, the active involvement of the Highways
agency and Rotherham Borough Council is important, as both have expressed
reservations about the scale of development proposed in the masterplan. No
solution has been clearly demonstrated, and proposals arising from the
masterplan can only be progressed once a more detailed analysis of the effect
on transport has been undertaken, which must include consideration of how to
accommodate background traffic growth, and the effects if some of the proposed
solutions suggested in SLD1 cannot be achieved.
2.49
Flood alleviation is addressed in the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan but
was overshadowed at the time by more obvious environmental issues, especially
congestion at J34 and air quality. The flooding incident of 2007 has emphasised
the need for this to be a more prominent issue for future masterplans.
Transforming Sheffield’s gateway: A New Vision for the River Don District
2.50
Policy SLD1 has a very clear relationship with this document, as the policy sets
the context for the implementation of the details of the masterplan. The River
Don District plan provides a clear indication of land use aspirations for the
45
Policy SH7 Creating Mixed Communities
Policies Preferred Option PS4 Meadowhall (2007) says ‘Minor development will consist of
refurbishment and redevelopment and will not be permitted if it would lead to a net increase in gross retail
floorspace.’
46City
-20-
Meadowhall district and illustrates the area’s potential. The plan builds on and
supports the principles set out in the original study (see paragraphs 2.29 – 2.49
above).
2.51
The vision in this document is of a gateway area that is enhanced by attracting
new uses that capture the benefits of the proximity of the Meadowhall Centre.
The River Don District would be built around a new mixed-use core. Three new
public squares are envisaged, each supporting a different character, scale, and
style of development.
2.52
Four character areas are proposed in which to establish the proposed new land
use mix. These are:

River Don Park – a large-scale riverside park to both provide a setting for a
new riverside neighbourhood, and provide a comprehensive scheme for
flood alleviation.

Weedon Street and River Don Place – primarily a business location, but
that can accommodate a mix of other uses including residential,
institutional, and service retail uses

Don Terrace – a traditional residential area.

Carbrook Square and Bright Street - a location for prestige office
development.
2.53
Transportation will be integral to the land uses. The Meadowhall Interchange is
the transport hub for the area, and making use of spare capacity on the public
transport network will be an important feature of delivery. For example, Sheffield
City Council and Rotherham Borough Council are currently investigating possible
routing for a Bus Rapid Transit Scheme through the area (see paragraph 2.138).
2.54
It proposes that 120,000m2 of new B1 office space and 1300 housing units be
developed within the plan area47, but the plan does not include sufficient detailed
information about the implementation of these elements. This is stated to be part
of a future stage of project development and may change.
2.55
As with the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan the broad land uses are
consistent with SLD1, but there are elements of the plan in terms of quantities
and phasing of development that remain at odds with the principles of SLD1.
These include:
(a) Business uses - The quantity of office development proposed still needs
to demonstrate compliance with national policy (PPS6)
47
River Don District Plan 2007 Section 5.4, page 69
-21-
(b) Retail uses - in terms of the Core Strategy spatial vision and based on the
evidence prepared for the NRQ proposal, there is no case for the amount
of A1 retail development proposed (8,000m2)36. New proposals for
retailing will need to demonstrate that it is needed to meet the needs of
the new residential community and is integrated, as suggested in SLD1.
This issue is considered further in the Shopping Background Paper.
(c) Housing - Some housing in principle is consistent with SLD1 subject to
meeting sustainable development criteria identified in the policy. A further
important issue is achieving a sufficient number of units to create a viable
community. A figure in the order of at least 1000 is likely to be needed. If
the number is significantly below 1000, there is danger that an isolated
community would result, and this may not attract people as an good place
to live, and may not attract local services. It is unclear from the
information so far submitted as part of these masterplans that this critical
mass can be created in the space available, particularly if significant
office development is also envisaged.
(d) Transport – The City Council is continuing to work with the developer to
produce an acceptable transport solution for the masterplan area, and
support for the proposals have to be conditional on a satisfactory solution
to transport issues being agreed. A mix of possible measures is
suggested in SLD1, but no implementation solution has been suggested
or agreed yet.
(e) Flood alleviation – The developers have produced a flood alleviation
report, but this was before the flooding event of June 2007. Further
technical work on this element is under way.
2.56
In summary, the masterplans identify the need for a strong identity for the area.
They propose the concept ‘from grey to green’,48 a quality landscape able to
support a mixed use community in a sustainable fashion, and the land uses put
forward by SLD1 are consistent with this. The masterplan and its project group
are an important tool for implementation of SLD1. Notwithstanding this, there are
detailed issues especially regarding the amount and phasing of offices and
housing, transport impacts, and flood alleviation that are still to be resolved.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 (updated 2007)
2.57
48
The SDF is the spatial expression of the Sheffield City Strategy. This document
sets out the steps needed to realise the vision and secure transformational
River Don District Plan, Section 3.2, page 34
-22-
change within the city to 2010. The transformation of Sheffield's economy is seen
as the key to transformation of the city.
2.58
The policy, by providing for significant economic development that complements
the City Centre, contributes to the City Strategy theme of ‘a strong economy’ and
it supports the big ambition of ‘an economy that matches the best in Europe’ 49.
2.59
Another theme is ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’50. The creation of a new vibrant
community will enable people who want to stay in the Lower Don Valley area to
move within the area. A mixed development will enable opportunities to be
created for people to work close to where they live. One of the big ambitions is
‘Every Neighbourhood a Successful Neighbourhood’:
‘ The distinctiveness of the different neighbourhoods will be maintained,
each with its own character and identity, but with each one being a place
where people actively choose to live, with all the features and qualities of a
strong community’51.
2.60
This consistency is evident as the City Strategy actually incorporates the part of
the Core Strategy spatial vision relating to the Lower Don Valley:
‘The Lower and Upper Don Valleys will complement the city centre, as
primary locations for employment supported by a mix of related uses and
providing for developments not appropriate in the city centre. This
supports our ambition to have an economy that matches the best in
Europe’52
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
2.61
Policy SLD1 contributes to the achieving of a range of Core Strategy
objectives53.
2.62
For example, Challenge 1 – ‘Economic Transformation’, refers to protecting land,
services, and environments that will draw investment. The land uses promoted
for this area in Policy SLD1 will contribute towards the following objectives:
S1.1 ‘Conditions created for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high-growth
economy in the Sheffield city region’
49
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 Section 2, page 14
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010) page 22
51 Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 page 4
52 Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 Section 4, page 33
53 Core Strategy Chapter 3, Vision and Objectives
50
-23-
S1.3 ‘Environments created, improved and conserved to attract business
investment…’
S1.4 ‘Housing provided to support economic transformation and provide for
key workers’
S1.6 ‘Cultural and leisure facilities and tourism expanded and improved’
2.63
The overall aim of SLD1 is to regenerate this part of the valley by reinventing this
area as a place for living and for business. There are significant areas of vacant
land around Meadowhall. The masterplan concept ideas described in
paragraphs 2.29 -2.56 above illustrate what the opportunities, created by new
land uses, could be for this area to play an important role in the economic
transformation of the city. The masterplans will be an important resource in
implementation of land use change in this area.
2.64
Releasing sites for development, integrating development with the Meadowhall
Centre, making good use of the Meadowhall Interchange for good transport
connections, all feature in SLD1 and contribute to objective S1.1.
2.65
Introduction of new high quality land uses, such as offices and housing, as part
of a mixed use development, creating the opportunity for living close to
employment opportunities (for those who want it) and improving the environment
(for example by the riverside) to attract investors, are all part of the regeneration
strategy to achieve economic transformation for the area (as set out in the
masterplans). Policy SLD1 provides the framework within which all this can
happen and so will contribute to objectives S1.3 and S1.4.
2.66
Policy SLD1 also allows for leisure uses that may be attracted by the added
value of the Meadowhall Centre this would contribute to objective S1.6.
2.67
Challenge 4 – ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’ is a challenge aimed at improving
existing neighbourhoods and creating new vital and successful neighbourhoods.
Policy SLD1 will enable creation of a new vital, successful, and well served
neighbourhood as part of mixed-use development at Meadowhall where one
does not exist at present. This is in line with the planning objectives for
Challenge 4 (S4.1).
2.68
The policy could contribute to meeting Challenge 9 – ‘Reducing the Need to
travel’. By supporting and locating development (in this case employment and
housing opportunities) so as to minimise the distances that people have to travel.
In promoting mixed use in this relatively accessible location SLD1 is directly
related to planning objectives S9.1 and S9.2
2.69
For example, offices are promoted in an area well served by public transport,
opportunities exist through SLD1 to use a wide range of transport measures such
as park and ride, public transport, and travel plans to address how people travel
-24-
around the area whether it is for work or leisure. Introducing some housing will
also allow opportunities for those who want to, to live close to where they work
and shop. Linking the Meadowhall Centre with office developments and housing
developments will encourage the use of single journeys to serve several
purposes.
2.70
Meadowhall is an accessible location with the advantage of the Meadowhall
Interchange close by, vacant sites in the area will provide some opportunity to
locate some higher density uses close to a range of public transport options thus
contributing to planning objective S9.2.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
2.71
Emerging policy options considered the role of business and industry as
predominant land uses in the Lower Don Valley and elements of these were
carried forward into the Meadowhall policy and into the area policies for Tinsley
Park (SLD2), and Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge (SLD3) discussed
in later chapters. Also considered at emerging policy option stage was the
development direction of the Meadowhall Centre, and options discussed
Meadowhall as a location for new housing in the valley. They were presented
under two different issues in the Emerging Options report.
2.72
Brief strengths and weaknesses of the relevant emerging options considered are
indicated in this section and are referred to again in other chapters where they
have relevance to other area policies. The ‘Planning Reasons’ section for each
policy (paragraph 2.91ff for Meadowhall) carries forward and evaluates those
parts of options included in final policy in more detail to show why we are
proposing the final policy, and why we are not proposing the possible
alternatives.
Option DA1a
The Lower Don Valley to continue as a major area for the location of
industry in the city
2.73
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Most parts of the Lower Don Valley have very good accessibility to the M1
motorway for transporting, often bulky, products to customers and for
bringing in raw materials.
(b) The larger floor areas for industrial use often mean that fewer people are
employed and, together with the use of shift working patterns, there would
be less impact on peak hour congestion at J33/34 of the M1.
-25-
(c) Currently there is only a small amount of housing in the Lower Don Valley
and the area offers opportunities to locate those types of industrial use that
might otherwise harm living conditions.
(d) This area has been a location for industry for over two centuries with a
world-renowned reputation especially in the steel-making sector, and is still
a favoured as a location for many companies. The promotion of this as an
area where modern industrial processes and manufacturing, as well as old
traditional types of industry, are welcomed recognises the continuing
importance of manufacturing for the Sheffield economy.
2.74
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Newer employment sectors, such as business uses, retail and leisure, will
result in more competition between land uses for sites, and will result in
land values becoming higher. This may make it difficult to reserve sites
only for lower value, often large-scale industrial uses.
(b) Too much of an emphasis on old types of industry could give the wrong
message in an important gateway location and put off investors.
Option DA1b
The Lower Don Valley to be promoted as primarily a business area.
2.75
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Business use is important for the city’s future economy and their land
requirements need to be catered for.
(b) Some companies will be particularly dependent on locations close to the
national road network and the Lower Don Valley is well placed for that.
(c) Much has been done to bring declined areas back into use, but much land
remains underused and/or derelict, and promotion of this area for business
would create opportunities to transform the area.
(d) The promotion of business uses would not preclude cleaner industry from
locating nearby, many which are included within the same B1 use class as
offices.
2.76
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Major office development is liable to detract from the more accessible City
Centre and could be contrary to Government guidance (PPS6).
(b) Office development is a higher density employer than industrial uses and
large numbers of people coming to work in the area would add to peak-
-26-
period congestion, putting extra pressure on the motorway junctions that
are already at capacity.
(c) The City Centre has the advantage of being the most accessible part of
the city. The Lower Don Valley, although it has its own facilities such as
Supertram, Meadowhall, and Valley Centertainment, is out of the city
centre, its facilities are wider apart, and the overall environment of the
Valley is poor quality.
Option DA2c Create a new residential neighbourhood at Meadowhall
2.77
The strengths of this option are:
(a) It would bring the long-term derelict and unused sites around Meadowhall
back into use.
(b) It would establish a new housing market into an area where one doesn’t
currently exist, and make a contribution to long-term supply of housing in
the city.
(c) If at a sufficiently large scale, it would draw on the potential of housing for
regenerating the area and improving its image.
(d) It could make some contribution to the strategic objectives of the HMR to
provide housing range and choice within the HMR area.
(e) It would be close to employment opportunities in the Lower Don Valley
reducing the need to travel.
2.78
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It encourages housing into an area where public transport penetration is
poor in the evenings, lacking local services such as doctors and schools,
and where sites are isolated from other residential areas by the
topography of the steep valley side, and by large areas of industrial land
use.
(b) It would encourage housing into an area with poor air quality because of
the closeness of the motorway.
(c) The promotion of a sensitive use in this location would limit the expansion
of (or may force out) existing industrial uses that are not always compatible
with housing.
(d) It would encourage developers to consider only housing development on
sites at the expense of employment uses that the city needs.
-27-
(e) The promotion of a significant amount of housing here could result in land
in areas elsewhere with higher priority remaining undeveloped.
Option DA3a
No significant additional retail development at Meadowhall
2.79
The strength of this option is:
(a) No further significant retail expansion at the centre is in line with national
and regional policy to protect town centres. This is especially important in
Sheffield to protect the proposals for new retail and leisure in the New
Retail Quarter.
2.80
The weakness of this option is:
(a) In order to remain competitive against other regional shopping centres,
and to respond to changing shopping and leisure trends, Meadowhall may
seek ways, including expansion, to retain its attractiveness.
Option DA3b
Allow more retail development at Meadowhall and strengthen the
attractiveness of the Meadowhall Centre
2.81
The strength of this option is:
(a) Some retail development could be appropriate in certain circumstances,
such as the expansion of existing stores for operational reasons. It would
allow Meadowhall to respond to changing trends, to continue to compete
strongly in regional shopping centre market, and create more jobs.
2.82
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) This option conflicts with regional planning policy which states that there
will be no further development or large scale expansion of Meadowhall
and with national policy guidance PPS6, aimed at protecting the vitality
and viability of town centres, in this case, particularly the City Centre.
(b) People visiting Meadowhall shopping centre already comprise a
significant element of the existing congestion at junction 34 more retail
development will mean more traffic.
Option DA3c
Remodel the Meadowhall Centre to complement potential new office
development and housing to the west of Meadowhall (no significant
extra retail floorspace).
2.83
The strength of this option is:
-28-
(a) Creating a mixture of uses around Meadowhall can provide new interest
and vitality for the centre, attracting new customers and encouraging
wider use by existing ones. It could allow Meadowhall to adapt to
broaden its role without growing in size.
2.84
The weakness of this option is:
(a) If housing and offices were taken forward then this may lead to demands
for enlargement of the centre to meet the needs of this new community
which would then conflict with regional policy.
Option DA3d
Allow new major office development close to Meadowhall
2.85
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Not all businesses need to be in a city centre location. This area could be
an attractive, highly accessible alternative to the City Centre, with the
benefits of Meadowhall, Meadowhall Interchange, and the Motorway on its
doorstep.
(b) As a major office location it could complement the City Centre where site
capacity is constrained as it can offer large flat sites in a highly accessible
location.
2.86
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Larger, cheaper sites may divert interest and investment from the City
Centre and alter the emphasis of the regeneration of the City.
(b) Offices are a major trip generating land use and would add to the
congestion problem at Junction 34, and contribute to poorer air quality.
Option DA3e
Allow new major leisure development close to Meadowhall
2.87
The strengths of this option are:
(a) There are large flat sites in the area that could accommodate large
format leisure that may be too large or not appropriate for the City
Centre.
(b) The location immediately next to the Motorway makes it a highly
accessible location that would assist in drawing visitors from a wide
area.
-29-
(c) It would help to maintain the success of Meadowhall as a regional
attraction for visitors and economic asset for the city.
2.88
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Leisure would be a significant traffic generator, which, due to the long
opening hours of these types of uses, would add traffic for much longer
periods of the day to the already congested Junction 34S, creating a
greater air quality problem for those living close by.
(b) The location of such a use in next to Meadowhall could detract from
similar leisure facilities in the City Centre.
2.89
At the Preferred Options stage it was considered that the role of Meadowhall was
of citywide significance and best considered in relation to the City Centre. A
Preferred Option PS5 ‘Regeneration of the City Centre and the role of
Meadowhall’ was introduced, and the options detailed here were not explicitly
pursued in an area policy.
2.90
After the Preferred Options consultation, looking again at the specific roles that
different parts of the valley play, a number of factors were important in revisiting
the Meadowhall options for the submitted policies, including stakeholder
discussions following the preferred option consultation, and comments made by
the landowners. There is now reason for a policy that concentrates on the role of
the Meadowhall area, including the Meadowhall Centre.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
The case for offices as a land use at Meadowhall
2.91
There is a case for providing for alternative locations to the City Centre. Not all
businesses need to be in a city centre location. The policy promotes this area as
an attractive, highly accessible alternative to the City Centre with the benefits of
Meadowhall, Meadowhall Interchange, and the Motorway on its doorstep. The
area around Meadowhall then offers some choice in location for those
businesses that prefer to be near the motorway network for operational reasons
and/or for the business’s customers. This is in keeping with policy SB354 in
which Meadowhall is one of the locations named as a complementary non-City
Centre office location. The area would lend itself to non-office businesses as
well, particularly at those locations furthest from the Interchange. For further
background on the citywide context, see the Business and Industry Background
Report.
2.92
The policy identifies land at Meadowhall for primarily employment uses,
contributing towards meeting the citywide requirement for employment land.
54
Policy SB3 Locations for Office Development
-30-
The amount of land required for business use is based on the report of
independent consultants55 and reported in the background report on Business
and Industry.
2.93
The area is a suitable, accessible location for offices. With the Transport
Interchange nearby, and on a route being considered for Bus Rapid Transit, it is
readily accessible by public transport. It can also offer large flat sites enhancing
Sheffield’s economic attractiveness by widening choice for developers and
investors. All of the sites identified in the Meadowhall area are on brownfield
land, supporting policy SB256.
Issues for offices still to be addressed
2.94
The policy recognises that there are impacts from office development that will still
need to be addressed. These include impacts on air quality and transport
impacts.
2.95
Offices are a major trip generating land use and would add to the congestion
problem at Junction 34, and contribute to poorer air quality. Policy SLD1 puts
forward a range of transport measures that will be employed to address this (this
is discussed further in paragraph 2.132 below).
2.96
The flooding event of 2007, which affected large parts of the area are still being
analysed. It is likely that wider ranging methods of flood alleviation will need to
be brought into the area. The new national planning policy statement (PPS2557)
on flood risk requires local authorities to consider flood risk in both allocating
sites for development and determining planning applications58. As explained in
the Environment Background Report this will be done principally through the City
Sites document.
2.97
The Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) includes the Meadowhall
area and shows that large proportions of the area are situated in ‘Flood Zone 3a
- High Probability’. Some very small areas around edges of the area at its
northern end around Meadowhall Way, and around Vulcan Road are situated in
a Flood Zone 2 – ‘Medium Probability’59.
2.98
Land within the Zone 3a area should be restricted to the ‘less vulnerable’
category as defined in PPS2560. In terms of the mixture of land uses proposed in
SLD1 offices (and retail) are classed as ‘less vulnerable’, according to the Flood
55
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey, March 2007, Atkins/Lambert Smith Hampton
Policy SB2 Business and Industrial Development on Brownfield and Greenfield Land and supporting
text
57 PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. DCLG, December 2006.
58 There are 4 defined flood zones, which, excluding functional floodplains, range from Zone 1 Low
Probability (<1 in 1000 annual probability) to, Zone 3a High Probability (>1 in 100 annual probability).
59 Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007 Figure 005, S05 Meadowhall
60 PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, table D.2 Annex D
56
-31-
Risk Vulnerability Classification. Development of these uses in Zone 3a is
therefore not precluded by PPS25, but developments will need to incorporate
flood mitigation and warning measures.
2.99
All developments in Zone 2 areas must have a detailed Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA) commensurate with the risk of flooding61. They should also have; floor
levels situated above the 1% maximum flood level plus freeboard; implement
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS); and ensure that the proposed
development does not result in an increase in maximum flood levels within
adjoining properties.
2.100 Future developments within the Zone 3a area will require a detailed FRA 62. They
should also; have floor levels situated above the 1% maximum flood level plus
freeboard; ensure that dry access is provided above flood level at all locations to
enable safe evacuation; not utilise basements for habitable purposes; implement
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS); ensure that the proposed development
does not result in an increase in maximum flood levels within adjoining properties.
The requirements will be set out in the City Sites document.
2.101 Housing would be a ‘vulnerable’ land use, and so for mixed-use development to
include housing at Meadowhall, the requirements of the ‘Exception Test‘ defined
in PPS25 must be satisfied63. See paragraph 2.114 below.
The case for Housing as a land use at Meadowhall
2.102 Housing could make a contribution to long-term land supply of land in the area.
It would establish a new housing market into an area where one doesn’t currently
exist, and make a contribution to long-term supply of housing in the city. It
supports policy SH164, and it supports policy SH465. This area is within the HMR
area, and if land for housing is managed and released having regard to the aims
of HMR, and, if at a sufficiently large scale, it would draw on the potential of
housing for regenerating the area and improving its image.
2.103 It would provide a community close to employment opportunities in the Lower
Don Valley reducing the need to travel. This location close to the Meadowhall
Transport Interchange and close to the Motorway could reduce need for crosscity trips and associated congestion. But that would also depend on people living
here choosing jobs in the same area.
61
See SFRA paragraph 6.3
See SFRA paragraph 6.3
63 The Test provides a method of managing flood risk while still allowing necessary development to occur.
Details are in annex D of PPS25. The Exception Test is only appropriate for use when there are large
areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3, where the Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where
some continuing development is necessary for wider sustainable development reasons.
64 Policy SH1 Scale of the Requirement for New Housing, and its supporting text
65 Policy SH4 Priorities for Releasing Land for New Housing, and its supporting text
62
-32-
2.104 It also provides an opportunity to widen the choice for people in the neighbouring
housing areas of Brightside and Darnall who wish to stay near to the Lower Don
Valley. This also makes some contribution to the strategic objective of the HMR
to provide housing range and choice within the HMR area. The new housing
could also attract new investment in the services and facilities that are needed to
support the new residents that come to live here and they could benefit nearby
existing housing.
2.105 A new community here would provide day and night activity in an area currently
perceived as largely an industrial area that can, in parts, be unsafe and
unwelcoming particularly at night.
2.106 Initially the weaknesses of the option of creating a new residential community at
Meadowhall (set out in brief at paragraph 2.78 above) were given weight in
developing the preferred options, and housing was not promoted as a land use at
that stage. However, the possibility of housing was left open subject to any new
evidence and the policy also retains the option subject to the conditions specified
about the environment and transport.
Issues for housing still to be addressed
2.107 These outstanding issues are still being dealt with, and work is still ongoing with
stakeholders to resolve how they may be managed and mitigated (see also the
implementation section paragraph 2.178).
2.108 Some of the issues are about the type and extent of housing. They include:
(a) A critical mass is needed to create a sustainable attractive community
where people will want to live. Can it be satisfactorily accommodated
here? A phasing plan will need to be developed and agreed.
(b) What are the types of housing appropriate as part of a mixed-use
development in this location? According to the masterplan proposals, the
location next to Meadowhall and close to the Motorway is likely to result in
further City Centre-type units that are unlikely to be for family housing66.
This would result in a reduced choice for new residents, for example, not
offering the larger family dwellings that have been identified as a need in
the Sheffield Housing Need Survey67. The location would, therefore, not
contribute to the objectives of the HMR mentioned above in relation to
range and choice. Housing will only be supported if it complies with policy
SH7 on creating mixed communities68.
66
Lower Don Vision and Masterplan Section 6.3, page 71
Sheffield City Council General Housing Need Survey 2004
68 SH7 Creating Mixed Communities, and supporting text
67
-33-
2.109 Genuine mixed-use development will mean managing the balance of housing
and business use. Housing development at the expense of employment uses
that the city needs would not comply with the Core Strategy. This understanding
is essential so that changes in land values as a result of providing for housing
development in the area do not force out employment uses in this area without
consideration of the impacts on those businesses. The proposed proportions of
housing and offices will be set out further in the City Policies document.
2.110 Any housing here must relate to the HMR programme. The promotion of a
significant amount of housing in this area too early in the plan period could result
in land in areas with higher priority remaining undeveloped. This is consistent
with policy SH469.
2.111 Local services would need to be improved. Despite the Meadowhall interchange
being close to potential development areas, this policy encourages housing into
an area where public transport penetration is poor and where services can be
less frequent in the evenings. There are no local services such as doctors and
schools, and the sites around the Meadowhall Centre are isolated from other
residential areas by the topography of the steep valley side, and by large areas
of industrial land use. Supporting infrastructure will have to form part of detailed
proposals.
2.112 There are other constraints to be overcome in relation to the environment and
transport, which are the subject of criteria in the policy.
2.113 This area lies within the Air Quality Action Zone as originally identified in the Air
Quality Action Plan70. It straddled the Motorway as it cuts through this area.
Despite all the measures and advice promoted in the Air Quality Action Plan, and
supported by the by the Care4Air Partnership71, there will always be limited
opportunities to reduce emissions and improve air quality for the benefit of
residents because of the closeness of the motorway. Much will depend on
production of less polluting engines and the replacement of the older more
polluting vehicles. The policy specifically refers to environmental conditions
being improved before housing will be permitted, further technical evidence will
be needed as part of housing proposals.
2.114 The issue of flood risk has been introduced in the context of office development.
Housing developments are classed as ‘more vulnerable’ by the Flood Risk
Vulnerability Classification in PPS25. Therefore any housing development
proposed in Zone 3a areas (with relatively high probability of flooding) must pass
the Exception Test. That means:
69
Policy SH4 Priorities for releasing Land for New Housing refers to giving priority to the release of land
that supports the delivery of HMR strategies
70 Sheffield City Council, April 2004. In March 2006 the City Council revised this to include the whole of
the urban area of the city. However this area around the motorway has acute air quality problems.
71 www.care4air.org
-34-


The development must be shown to provide wider sustainability benefits to
the community that outweigh flood risk.
A detailed Flood Risk Assessment must demonstrate that the risk to life
and property can be mitigated over the lifetime of the development,
resulting in no worsening to adjoining properties. A reduction in flood risk
should be sought where possible.
2.115 Housing developments must also incorporate the flood mitigation and warning
measures presented above in paragraph 2.114.
2.116 These considerations will be followed up in the City Sites document when
specific sites will be allocated, and they will be applied in decisions about
proposals from the developers. As in the City Centre, the Core Strategy starts
from the position that mitigation will be possible, but this does not mean a
strategic presumption that would support housing where it would not be safe or
sustainable. Whether or not a potential housing development at Meadowhall
would pass the Exception Test depends on the individual proposal and other
alleviation measures that may be proposed, for example, by the developer as
part of the wider masterplan proposals. The requirement to pass the Exception
Test here supports the expectation that housing development should occur in a
later phase.
2.117 Transport is an issue for all types of possible development at Meadowhall. The
need for public transport penetration is noted above. Also account will need to
be taken of traffic generation. Although mixed use development will enable
working close to home, residents may also choose this location in preference to,
say, the City Centre because of its closeness to the motorway and this could add
to peak-period congestion
The case for not expanding shopping
2.118 Policy SLD1 recognises that, although Meadowhall is a successful regional
shopping centre, expansion there could harm the prospects of investment in the
City Centre and district centres. This issue has been considered above in the
context of national and regional policy. This is entirely consistent with the need
to regenerate the City Centre, which is a key part of Sheffield Development
Framework’s spatial strategy, and other town centres in the city region. The
citywide context is explained further in the Shopping Background Report.
2.119 The policy is consistent with Core Strategy policy SS172 which states:
‘Meadowhall shopping Centre will remain at around its present size and
major non-food retail development will not occur outside the core retail;
area and district centres and their edges’
72
Policy SS1 The City Centre
-35-
2.120 The term ‘around its present size’ allows for the possibility of minor non-retail
development.
2.121 If new land uses are developed at Meadowhall, then local facilities such as, post
office, small convenience stores, newsagents, community facilities, and eating
and drinking establishments could be needed. These should be developed close
to the new developments they would be serving but linked with the Meadowhall
centre for convenience of users. The possible scale of development needed to
meet the needs of new housing in the area is discussed in the Shopping
Background Report.
2.122 Flood risk is a further ground for not expanding the shopping centre. In the case
of housing and employment uses the lack of alternative sites places more weight
on the exceptions test than the sequential test. However, in the case of
shopping the preferred location in the City Centre does not suffer from flood risk
whereas Meadowhall is vulnerable.
2.123 Maintaining the shopping centre at its present size would help to avoid impact on
congestion at the motorway junctions. Although much of the traffic generated by
the shopping centre is off-peak, some is related to work trips and shoppers may
add to the evening peak. Not expanding shopping means that such capacity as
can be created through transport mitigation measures is available to uses that
would be more sustainable in this location.
The case for leisure
2.124 As with retail development, expansion at Meadowhall could harm the prospects
of investment in the City Centre and district centres. However, large-scale
commercial leisure development may not be suitable in the City Centre and the
Lower Don Valley, including Meadowhall, is one of the most accessible
alternative locations for such development. The location immediately next to the
Motorway makes it a highly accessible location that would assist in drawing
visitors from a wide area.
2.125 Policy SLD1 supports Core Strategy policy SS473’. The Lower Don Valley is
identified in this policy as a location for major leisure uses (if no sites are
available in the city centre or at its edge) so it is appropriate to deal with this use
in an area policy.
2.126 Including leisure as a land use here would create jobs in a relatively new
employment sector, in a location that is promoted for employment uses, that is
accessible by public transport.
73
Policy SS4 Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments
-36-
2.127 There are large flat sites in the area that could accommodate large format
leisure, which may be too large or not appropriate for the City Centre.
2.128 It would help to maintain the success of Meadowhall as a regional attraction for
visitors and economic asset for the city, and builds on other visitor assets in the
valley, such as the Hallam FM Arena, Don Valley Stadium, Centertainment, Ice
Sheffield and the English Institute of Sport.
2.129 The flood risk issues are similar to those for shopping and offices as other ‘less
vulnerable uses’, but there are likely to be fewer alternative locations for largescale leisure than for shopping.
2.130 Congestion is an issue that will still need to be addressed as for the other
proposed uses. Major leisure development would be a significant traffic
generator which, due to the long opening hours of these types of uses, could
overlap with the periods when congestion is greatest at motorway junction 34.
As with other major land use changes proposed around Meadowhall policy SLD1
proposed a range of transport measures which must be incorporated into
proposals.
Integration of land uses and development
2.131 The Meadowhall Shopping Centre would both benefit from, and contribute to, the
success of the rest of the Valley by being integrated with neighbouring
development. Its transport interchange means there is good accessibility to
sites in the area, and its facilities are available to those who work close by.
However, the centre is inward facing and surrounded by large areas of car
parking that separate it from surrounding sites. Creating a mixture of uses
around Meadowhall (as suggested in the Lower Don Valley Vision and
Masterplan) can provide new interest and vitality for the centre, attracting new
customers and encouraging wider use by existing ones. It could allow
Meadowhall to adapt to broaden its role without growing in size, by integrating
new development with the existing centre using new street linkages.
Transport
2.132 The location of this area will be attractive to land uses that will wish to take
advantage of the closeness of the motorway junctions. A number of transport
measures are promoted in SLD1 to help to minimise additional congestion on the
junctions created by new development, and to minimise any additional adverse
impact on air quality. Some measures are complementary and make a more
attractive alternative transport offer when delivered together (for example bus
rapid transit and park and ride).
2.133 To deliver a level of development that is anticipated, (given the number of
development site opportunities in this area), and create additional transport
capacity (to deal with the transport impacts of development), it is likely that a
-37-
complete package, making use of all the measures at some point in the plan
period, will be necessary. The reasons for inclusion of each of the transport
measures are as follows:
2.134 Travel plans have an important role to play in demand management, making
travel more sustainable and reducing the need to travel. They will be
implemented on all new development around Meadowhall that has significant
transport and accessibility implications, and will be required as part of the
supporting documents for planning applications74.
2.135 They can address any of the following areas which may be relevant for
development proposals around Meadowhall; commuter journeys, business travel,
fleet management, visitors and deliveries. The plan will be specific to the
location and operation of the development, and because the issues of congestion
and air quality are so prominent in this area, there is scope to make them more
challenging in what they can accomplish, making best use of the very good
public transport accessibility that already exists and that may be coming forward
in the future (see paragraph 2.132). This supports Core Strategy policy ST375
which deals with managing demand for car travel.
2.136 The importance of travel planning for the Lower Don Valley is emphasized by the
decision of the Highways Agency to progress scoping on an area wide travel
plan for the Lower Don Valley. The project is part of the Highways Agency’s
‘Influencing Travel Behaviour Programme’, which aims to reduce congestion on
the strategic road network76. This will involve public and private sector partners
in developing a holistic approach to travel planning. The work is still at an early
stage and began in 2007 with data collection on travel habits.
2.137 In the Meadowhall area improved public transport for visitors and workers will
focus on improvement of the ‘key routes’. This supports Core Strategy policy
ST677that identifies which ‘key routes’ will be improved by bus priority measures.
Two key routes for this area are included78, and could include for this area
improvements such as Quality Bus Corridors, improved information and waiting
times, bus lanes, and bus rapid transit. LTP2 also identifies in its preferred
Transport Intervention Strategy that these steps are needed and eligible for LTP2
funding79, and they will form part of future bids80.
2.138 In July 2006 SYPTE, Rotherham Borough Council, and Sheffield City Council
were advised by the Department for Transport (DfT) to investigate a bus based
74
The trigger level for requirement of travel plans will be set by the City Policies document.
Policy ST3 Demand Management and supporting text
76 This is part of phase two of the scheme, which is looking at sites in the north.
77 Policy ST6 Priority Routes for Bus/Tram Improvements
78 They are, the A6178 City Centre – M1 J34 South and the A6109 City Centre – M1 J34 North
79 LTP2 page 101
80 Priority for funding improvements to the ‘key routes’ network is also endorsed in the Plan For Transport
in Sheffield July 2007, Five year programme 2006-2011
75
-38-
alternative to the previous Supertram extensions scheme. This bus based
alternative would replace the Supertram extension proposed between Sheffield
and Rotherham and would include examination of the potential for a connecting
corridor between Meadowhall and Waverley.
2.139 The proposed scheme will deliver a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor between
Sheffield and Rotherham that comprises new purpose built busways, bus priority
lanes on existing highways, and some free running on existing highway. It uses
high quality vehicles with enough capacity to provide a high value, rapid transit
network. It can contribute to the wider package of transport measures proposed
in the policy by providing a ‘step change’ in the quality, capacity, reliability and
availability of public transport in the Sheffield/Rotherham corridor, making it
attractive to workers and visitors to the area who may otherwise use their cars. It
will also make a big contribution to the accessibility of the sites to the south of
Meadowhall as they lie along the line of the route that BRT is most likely to take,
maximising access to public transport for anyone who may live and/or work on
these sites in the future.
2.140 There are still issues to be addressed before the BRT project is confirmed as a
viable transport measure for Meadowhall. The strategic route options to deliver
BRT are now agreed and the first route (the southern route) Rotherham Town
Centre to Sheffield City Centre via Waverley has only recently been endorsed for
funding81. It is proposed that the additional routes which will serve the
Meadowhall area, the northern route (between Rotherham Parkgate and
Sheffield City Centre via Rotherham Town Centre and Meadowhall), and the
connecting corridor, (Meadowhall to Waverley) are to be taken to the Regional
Transport Board for funding endorsement in December 2007. The connecting
corridor in particular would be key to delivering access to Waverley park and ride
from the Meadowhall area (see below)
2.141 A strategic park and ride facility forms part of the ongoing Waverley Advanced
Manufacturing Park (AMP) development in Rotherham. The site was identified
through the South Yorkshire Park and Ride Strategy82 and negotiated as a
planning condition of the Waverely AMP development. The proposed
‘connecting corridor’ referred to above between Waverley and Meadowhall will
provide a BRT link between the proposed park and ride site and Meadowhall.
2.142 This is included as a transport measure for policy SLD1 because it offers
opportunities for a high-speed link between the two areas (via the Sheffield
business park on Europa Link). It will offer an attractive, high quality alternative
mode of public transport to Meadowhall for workers and visitors who can break
their journey at Waverley.
81
82
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly Regional Transport Board meeting 14th September 2007
SYPTA Park and Ride Strategy 2006-2011
-39-
2.143 However, there are still Issues still to be addressed before the park and ride is
available as a transport measure. The planning application for the park and ride
scheme is expected late in 2007, so a date for its operation can not be offered
yet. The BRT connection to the park and ride site (southern route and
connecting corridor to Meadowhall) will probably follow on later and its timetable
and phasing are also yet to be developed. Meanwhile a connecting bus service
would be used to service the park and ride
2.144 A Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is proposed for part of the Lower Don Valley,
the proposal includes the Meadowhall area. This will be shown on the proposals
map. The measure is included within policy SLD1 because it supports Core
strategy policy ST383 which deals with managing the demand for travel. The
details of the CPZ are still to be developed, but it is a way of managing the
number of trips by car within the area and encouraging car users to consider
alternative travel methods.
2.145 The introduction of a ‘car club’84 to the Meadowhall area will be a particularly
valuable transport measure that will encourage more sustainable use of cars for
private travel. A car club is a prominent way of reducing the transport impacts of
development. 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 by charging according to the time a vehicle is used. There are
substantial benefits for users, who avoid the fixed costs of purchasing, taxing and
servicing a privately owned vehicle.
2.146 The inclusion of this measure in the policy supports Core strategy policy ST3
which seeks the active promotion of more efficient and sustainable use of
vehicles. It will provide a means of car transport for those times when a car is
needed but where other journeys, for example the journey to work, have been
completed by other means.
2.147 Policy ST3 states that car clubs will be promoted wherever there is large-scale
development in the city. This area around Meadowhall is a good example of
where a critical mass of development is envisaged that would support such a
scheme. This is one of the measures that the City Council will wish to see form
part of the discussion and agreement of details in the River Don District
Masterplan.
2.148 A new road under the Tinsley Viaduct (known also as the Halfpenny Link Road85)
is proposed as an alternative route for local traffic between Rotherham and
Sheffield, and as an effort to reduce congestion at the M1 Junction 34South. It
failed to win the support of the DfT as a road scheme in December 2003, but is
83
Policy ST3 Demand Management and its supporting text
A car club is a membership-based scheme providing short-term (pay-by-the-hour) car hire from
convenient locations.
85 Named after the Halfpenny Bridge on the other side of the viaduct.
84
-40-
still being supported and pursued as a road link by the City Council in so far as it
is an integral part of the regeneration of the area.
2.149 It is seen as necessary to enable future development schemes to be progressed
in an area where there is very little spare capacity. It is included as a transport
measure within policy SLD1 because it offers real opportunity to reduce
congestion around the motorway as it completely bypasses Junction 34 and can
offer improved journey times between Rotherham and Sheffield.
2.150 It is likely that the road will be funded by a combination of public and private
funding, including potential Section 106 contributions. A project group has been
established86 to guide development proposals and infrastructure investments
around Meadowhall. In particular it is advising on the River Don District
proposals. The delivery of the road link has been identified as a project for this
group to address, but the work to progress the details of how it will be funded has
not been timetabled yet.
Rejected options
2.151 The continuation of industrial uses as a major land use (DA1a) was a rejected
option for Meadowhall because:
(a) As newer employment sectors, such as business uses, retail and leisure,
are attracted to Meadowhall it will be difficult to reserve sites only for lower
value, often large-scale industrial uses. There will be more competition
between land uses for sites, and will result in land values becoming higher.
(b) Sites will be needed for new types of businesses to assist in the
development of the economy, and too much of an emphasis on old types
of industry could give the wrong message in an important gateway location
and put off investors.
(c) Industry would not be compatible with any of the uses that are linked with
the present functioning of the Meadowhall Centre.
(d) These considerations outweigh the possible benefits of land uses that
would generate less traffic at peak periods.
2.152 The choice of employment uses here also corresponds with the citywide policies
SB387 and SB488.
86
Convened by the City Council and including private sector partners, commencing work in the summer of
2007
87 Policy SB3 Locations for Office Development
88 Policy SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/Warehousing and other Non-office Businesses
-41-
2.153 On the other hand, the option of a wholly business area at Meadowhall (DA1b)
was also rejected because:
(a) It could have led to a scale of office development that would have been out
of proportion with the City Centre. The City Centre remains the most
sustainable location subject to providing for the increased trips there and
policy SB3 proposes that two thirds of the new office development should
be located there. The option of larger, cheaper sites in the Lower Don
Valley could divert interest and investment from the City Centre and alter
the emphasis of the regeneration of the City.
(b) A wholly business area would have generated the maximum possible
traffic at the motorway junctions and would have been most likely to
contravene the Highways Agency requirements.
(c) Mixed-use development offers more prospects for regeneration in this
location with its existing uses.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.154 Sustainability appraisal was not carried out directly for the submitted policy SLD1
as it is a revised compound policy, derived from several parts of emerging
options (explained at paragraph 2.90 above). The emerging options (Issue
DA3) that covered several scenarios for Meadowhall89 were appraised, but the
options were not rejected because of sustainability implications.
2.155 When the issue was revisited the reasons for supporting mixed use development
at Meadowhall, rejecting expansion of the Meadowhall Centre, and reconsidering
business and major leisure development at Meadowhall, were reinforced by the
results of those earlier appraisals. The negative indicators were largely to do
with transport implications (congestion and poor air quality) and this will be a
factor for mitigation whatever development option is pursued at Meadowhall.
Policy SLD1 provides a series of transport measures to be included within any
proposals in this area. Introducing housing as part of the mix of uses can help by
providing opportunities for people to live close to their employment, if they do
choose this.
2.156 Also originally appraised at emerging options stage was whether the Lower Don
Valley should be a major area for industry or for business (issues DA1a and
DA1b which merged to become Preferred Option PLD1). Both land uses scored
well for reuse of brownfield land, and scored well for employment uses, but the
89
The scenarios were: DA3a No additional retail development; DA3b Allow more retail development at
Meadowhall and strengthen the attractiveness of the Meadowhall Centre; DA3c Remodel the Meadowhall
Centre to complement new office development and housing (no significant new floorspace) expanding as
a local facility; DA3d Allow new major office development close to Meadowhall; DA3e Allow new major
leisure close to Meadowhall
-42-
preferred option to retain industry and business uses at Meadowhall was rejected
in favour of a mixed use (to include housing). The appraisal concluded that, as a
location for business, a higher quality built environment and higher quality jobs
would be more likely to regenerate the area than industrial uses. Again the
inclusion of housing in the mix would help to address the negative sustainability
impacts by locating housing close to where people work.
2.157 At emerging options stage the issue of creating a new housing area at
Meadowhall (DA1c) was initially rejected. At this stage attention was still
focussed on promoting the Meadowhall area as a location for business and
industry for employment reasons. The negative indicators here were to do with
loss of land that could be used for employment, and the implications of locating
housing in a poor quality environment. Employment and housing can be located
together possibly reducing the negative impacts.
Equality Appraisal
2.158 None of the options were rejected because of impact on the seven groups tested
in the equality appraisal. Actual impacts will depend largely on the details of the
development and mix of land uses. For example, mixing housing and
employment can have benefits for people with low access to public transport to
get to work, and be a more economical way to live for those on low incomes as
the cost of travel is reduced. But, this is provided that the appropriate supporting
infrastructure is in place for new communities that include disadvantaged groups
and that it is an attractive, healthy place to live. The mix of housing types will
influence the extent to which housing at Meadowhall would meet the needs of
disadvantaged groups.
Consultation Responses
2.159 Consultation responses at emerging options and preferred options regarding the
Meadowhall area were based on options addressing industry or business for the
whole Lower Don Valley, and so do not relate directly to the submitted policy
SLD1 for Meadowhall. Responses to consultations that assisted in determining
proposed policy are therefore taken from several threads of comments, but it is
important to note that together they provided some of the reasoning for revising
the area approach in the Lower Don Valley to arrive at the range of submitted
policies.
2.160 There was a great deal of comment from consultants representing land interests
at Meadowhall particularly on the various options for Meadowhall presented as
emerging options90. G.L Hearn (representing British Land) suggested the
promotion of the Lower Don Valley as a sustainable mixed use area in line with
the proposals in the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan91. This comment
90
91
Comments Emerging Options 305.20 - 305.24
Emerging Option comment 305.18
-43-
was considered for the proposed policy, but rather than a new Lower Don Valley
mixed use policy, as suggested, the idea of character areas (as proposed in the
masterplan) was taken forward in the proposed area policies for the Lower Don
Valley, particularly the proposed mixed land use policy for Meadowhall (SLD1).
2.161 G.L Hearn also supported the emerging options that promoted expansion of retail
and office facilities at Meadowhall (DA3b, DA3c, and DA3d), and rejected
emerging option DA3a which proposed no expansion at Meadowhall92. There is
an explanation, presented as part of planning reasons (paragraph 2.118), why
the expansion of Meadowhall is not supported by proposed policy.
2.162 There were comments supporting the option of no expansion of retail at
Meadowhall (DA3a) which supports the proposed policy direction of SLD193
2.163 Most consultation responses were about the role of industry and business and
referred to housing locations. There was support for its industry and business
role94, and some comments supported our earlier rejection of housing at
Meadowhall. For example, Yorkshire Forward95 expressed concern that the
Housing Market Renewal programme may be affected if development of housing
around Meadowhall is supported. Rotherham Borough Council 96was concerned
that too much housing development in the valley would impact on Rotherham’s
aspirations for housing at Waverley. The Highways Agency97 did not support
large-scale development in the Lower Don Valley, on the basis that it would
increase traffic on the M1, and they stated that it would be contrary to the
provisions of PPG3 to provide housing in this location.
2.164 There was a great deal of comment from consultants representing land interests
in and around Meadowhall, supporting housing at Meadowhall as part of a mixed
development based on the proposals in the Lower Don Valley Masterplan and
Vision98. They saw it as a way to deliver a sustainable living and working
environment.
2.165 The importance of the masterplanning work was the subject of the majority of
comments related to Meadowhall, and considerable discussion with stakeholders
has taken place outside and following the formal consultation to refine this area
approach.
92
Comment Emerging Options 305.20, 305.21, 305.22, 305.23
Comment Emerging options Highways Agency 597.45, RPS Plc 928.12, CPRE 971.53, Yorkshire
Forward 4558.60 and Rotherham BC 4887.07
94 Comments Preferred Options 5025.012; 971.044; 4317.003; and 4558.029
95 Comment Preferred Options 4558.031
96 Comment Preferred Options 4887.013
97 Comment Preferred Options 597.034
98 Comment references Preferred Options 305 - includes 16 separate comments related to the role of
industry and business in the Lower Don Valley, the role of housing, and the importance of including within
policy the provisions and proposals of the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan.
93
-44-
2.166 Discussion with the Highways Agency is ongoing to consider the results of
modelling development scenarios within the valley to assess impact. More work
is needed on this and it will be possible to be more definitive about outcomes
when the City Sites document with its site allocations is prepared. In the
meantime, the transport aspects of the policy go a long way to address concerns
about trip generation and congestion on motorway junctions.
2.167 The Environment Agency made a comment regarding flooding99. They point out
that some of the areas are within a high probability category and to the need for
an SFRA to be produced, and they refer to the lack of detail on this issue in the
emerging policies. Since this consultation, an SFRA has been produced and the
output of this with regard to Meadowhall is dealt with under the planning reasons
section. It is agreed that more detail is required but it is the function of the City
Sites document to deal with this.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
2.168 The area is characterised by large vacant sites situated around the Meadowhall
Centre. Employment should continue to be the predominant land use, as in the
citywide spatial vision, but a mix of new land uses is promoted as the means to
secure regeneration and help meet citywide needs for land. Similarly, housing
development could help meet citywide needs and contribute to a new and
potentially sustainable community, though its contribution is still subject to a large
number of conditions about scale, mix, environment and transport. Growth in
shopping is not proposed, as it would undermine regeneration of the more
sustainable City Centre location. Development of large-scale leisure could
complement rather than compete with the City Centre.
2.169 Industry does not form part of the proposed mix. Other locations are better
located for meeting this need. But the wholly business based option was also
rejected, as it would have led to most risk of congestion whilst also undermining
the role of the City Centre.
2.170 Overall this is a complex area that has to deal with a number of issues that
whatever development scenario is pursued there will be impacts. Outstanding
issues for this policy include the scale and phasing of land uses, and
environmental impacts, especially traffic congestion and flooding. It is
anticipated that these can be dealt with by managing the implementation of
development proposals at a strategic area level by continued use of the
masterplan process already well established in this area. However, the policy
provides a clear steer, setting policy for the area in its wider context.
99
Comment Preferred Options 5218.036
-45-
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
2.171 Opportunities will be explored through SLD1 and its supporting masterplanning
work to link the centre to surrounding employment and leisure sites.
2.172 Sheffield City Council will allocate specific sites in its City Sites document and
this will deal with site-specific conditions and possible mitigation.
2.173 The area will be marketed as a business location by Creative Sheffield 100. The
City Council is contributing to this by the establishment of a dedicated Lower Don
Valley team in its City Development Division.
2.174 The preparation by the City Council in consultation with the landowner of detailed
site development briefs will guide and advise on development options for sites.
2.175 The Meadowhall area has the advantage of the two dedicated pieces of
masterplanning aimed at delivering a new vision for this area. It is a very
ambitious project and the Lower Don Valley masterplan proposes substantial
investment across the study area over a 20-year period. The landowners are
keen to see transformational change here. This work provides much of the
weight of evidence in deciding which way to go with the Meadowhall area
policy101.
2.176 The Lower Valley Vision and Masterplan proposes that the implementation
strategy should include:



Integrating the masterplan with the City Council emerging regulatory
framework;
Provide an appropriate delivery vehicle and related mechanism through an
effective organisational structure; and
Continue the community and stakeholder outreach involvement
programme that has characterized the production of the masterplan.
2.177 With regard to the above three points, submitted policy SLD1 provides the
strategic context for this integration in the Meadowhall area. The compatibility of
the policy with the masterplan proposals is dealt with in some depth at paragraph
2.39 above.
2.178 The second point is in the process of being established. The City Council’s City
Development Division has taken the lead role in working with the landowners
(British Land) and other partners, to take forward the principles of the
masterplans (as agreed by Cabinet). A dedicated project group with both City
Council and developer representatives has begun work to negotiate and agree
Creative Sheffield includes Sheffield’s inward investment agency
The masterplans have been endorsed by Sheffield City Council’s Cabinet (River Don District is to be
considered in September 2007)
100
101
-46-
some of the detailed proposals regarding quantity and type of development set
out in the River Don District plan, with a view to the delivery of early phases of
the masterplanning vision.
2.179 Thirdly, community and stakeholder meetings are programmed as part of the
project group process to consider and implement the River Don District plan.
2.180 The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan also states that a critical
component of implementation is identifying the key interventions (or phases) that
will bring the vision to reality. They have identified these as:

Foundation projects - additional pieces of research, masterplanning,
strategy development, implementation plans.

Priority projects - quick hit projects that will signal regeneration. This
should include some public realm improvement and creating environments
for investment

Medium term projects - these involve more partners, may be dependent on
infrastructure requirements, and take longer. The timing of these will be
dependent on the level of infrastructure funding and response of the
market to regeneration activities in the Lower Don Valley. This phase
would include significant elements such as the Halfpenny Link road and
Bus Rapid Transit. Most of the housing would come in this phase.

Longer-term projects - will follow on from successful implementation of
earlier projects.

Flagship projects - are ongoing and more capital intensive. These act as
regeneration catalysts for the whole area.
2.181 To deliver the new concept for land use around Meadowhall will require some of
the component parts to be brought forward together in a comprehensive but
more local approach, and the River Don District plan for the Meadowhall area is
the beginning of that process. This project has completed much of the first
phase above and will be considered by the Council’s Cabinet in September
2007. The ‘priority’ and ‘medium term’ projects are beginning to be discussed by
the project group with an agreed aim of submitting a set of planning applications
by the end of 2007. This will include a detailed application for a flagship scheme
in the proposed Carbrook Square area.
2.182 Realising the vision requires a long-term commitment and entails a series of both
public and private intervention. British Land own significant amounts of vacant
land in this area and are therefore in a very good position to bring forward the
development elements of the masterplan.
-47-
2.183 The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan is clear that a certain level of public
investment is needed up-front to improve the public realm and create settings
which will attract investors102. The masterplan does not identify any funding to
deliver this and suggests that Creative Sheffield be responsible for identifying
and securing funding. The River Don District plan is explicit in stating that in the
longer term non British Land elements of the plan will only come to fruition if
conditions change103. The River Don District plan therefore is advocating that
Creative Sheffield should champion this project to secure funding for critical
infrastructure104. Funding will be an issue that the project group (see paragraph
2.178 above) will investigate as part of its work.
2.184 The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan states that as these proposals are
to be delivered over an extended period, within which there will be changes in
demand, and the timing of delivery of development schemes will be market
dependent105. It envisages that early phases will be closest to the Meadowhall
Centre to address issues of development isolation, allowing for existing facilities
to be linked more easily to new residential and business development106.
2.185 There are significant issues especially regarding the amount and phasing of
offices and housing that will still need to be resolved as detailed proposals
continue to be worked up.
2.186 The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD1. However, a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the topic
chapters are indirectly relevant and are described in the related Background
Report:



Business and Industry Background Report – see policies SB1 and SB3.
Shopping and Leisure Background Report – see policy SS1.
Housing Background Report – see policy SH2.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
2.187 The mix of new development at Meadowhall and within its vicinity 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.
102
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Section 7.4 page 81
River Don District Plan, Section 5.2, page 66
104 River Don District Plan, Section 5.6, page 73
105 Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, Section 7.4, page 82
106 River Don District Plan, Section 5.2, page 66
103
-48-
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
2.188 The policy allows significant flexibility within which the remaining issues can be
resolved. It is explicit about the kinds of growth envisaged here and identifies
issues still to be resolved through the processes outlined above.
2.189 British Land own significant amounts of the area in question, and delivery of this
new mixed use area is a priority for them, their land ownership gives them a
great deal of influence about future regeneration and increased certainty about
regeneration being achieved here. But, there are elements (such as delivery of
transport infrastructure, and other sites not in their control) that the masterplan
can only have limited influence over.
2.190 A significant risk for policy SLD1 is that there may not be enough public funding
to fully realise the vision and create the right conditions to attract other investors,
and market conditions may delay or prevent some land uses from being
established.
2.191 Transport impact from proposed land uses has still to be assessed in detail in
consultation with the Highways Agency. A wide range of mitigation measures
has been identified in the policy, but the potential impact of these needs to be
investigated in more depth in the light of more specific proposals, and the scale
of development that would be acceptable to the Highways Agency will depend on
this.
2.192 The flooding event of 2007, which affected large parts of the area, is still being
analysed. The earlier Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)
includes the Meadowhall area107. The conclusion of the SFRA for this area was
that large proportions of the area are situated in ‘Flood Zone 3a - High
Probability’. In this case land use should be restricted to the ‘less vulnerable’
category as defined in PPS25108 unless a sound case can be made through the
exceptions test (see paragraph 2.114). The flood alleviation proposals presented
in the River Don District Plan will need to be reviewed and it is likely that wider
ranging measures will need to be developed; these may need significant public
funding support. We do not yet know what flood protection measures might be
put in place here and how they may be funded.
2.193 Housing would be a ‘vulnerable’ land use, and so mixed-use development to
include housing at Meadowhall will depend on adequate mitigation and
safeguards being included to make the development safe and sustainable.
2.194 Although Policy SLD1 will be implemented through the masterplanning process it
does not follow that the scale and type of development currently promoted by the
masterplans must be implemented. The policy provides a broad framework for
107
108
Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007 Figure 005, S05 Meadowhall
PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, table D.2 Annex D PPS25
-49-
developing the masterplans and responding to the outstanding issues. The
principles of the policy are sound independently of delivery mechanisms, and the
more precise forms of development that could follow.
Conclusion
2.195 Policy SLD1 is consistent with Soundness Tests 4, 5, and 6. It is a policy that
relates specifically to an area around the Meadowhall Centre and satisfies the
requirements of a spatial policy (test 4). It is consistent with national, regional,
and local policies, and with the Sheffield City Strategy (test 5).
2.196 Policy SLD1 also satisfies Soundness Test 7 by representing the most
appropriate land use allocation for the Meadowhall area in all the circumstances.
It provides for the regeneration of the area by promoting land uses that together
will work to create a new sustainable mixed-use community where people can
live, work and visit. A number of alternative options were considered, and where
elements were rejected, the reasons are explained in the planning reasons
section. The final policy represents a revised compound policy derived from
several parts of emerging options.
2.197 The need for regeneration is documented in the considerable amount of
background work done to produce masterplans for the area. Documents
including the ‘Sheffield Employment Sites Survey’ and the ‘Sheffield Housing
Needs Survey’ provide evidence that land is needed for these uses.
2.198 Policy SLD1 also satisfies Soundness Tests 8 and 9. There is a clear
mechanism for implementing and monitoring the policy by means of a well
established masterplanning process and supporting project group (test 8). The
policy allows flexibility about the scale of development and the opportunity to
respond to new evidence about constraints and opportunities and ongoing
masterplan proposals will be considered in this light (test 9).
-50-
3
TINSLEY PARK
Introduction
3.1
The areas identified in the Core Strategy Lower Don Valley area each have a
different role offering different employment opportunities. The location of Tinsley
Park makes it a good area for employment uses, as it is accessible to the national
road network, removed from housing areas yet reasonably accessible from
neighbourhoods such as Darnall and Tinsley. It is identified in policies SB3 and
SB4 for a range of employment uses including some offices but mainly industry
and distribution and warehousing uses.
3.2
This policy identifies the predominant employment land uses for this area.
Although still industrial in character in large parts, it is conveniently located for the
motorway at Junctions 33 and 34 which suits a different range of land uses to the
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge area (which is dealt with in Chapter
4).
3.3
Both policies SLD2 Tinsley Park and SLD3 Attercliffe/Newhall and
Parkway/Kettlebridge (Chapter 4) have their origins in the same emerging and
preferred options policy and they share the background information which deals
with the range of options considered (see paragraph 3.22 – 3.28).
Policy SLD2
3.4
At Tinsley Park the major land uses will be industry and warehousing/
distribution, making particular use of rail freight facilities. Tinsley Park will
also be a location for non-office business uses with other significant office
development located only south of Europa Way.
Public transport links to Tinsley Park will be improved and Travel Plans will
be required for all new developments to ensure that air quality does not
suffer and enable sustainable forms of transport to be used, including:
(a) public transport services for workers
(b) connections with the proposed park-and-ride site at Waverley
(c) transhipment facilities and direct links to the rail network for freight
(d) vehicle fleets with low emissions of pollutants.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Regional Policy
3.5
The third key spatial priority for the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) states
that all plans, major investment decisions, and programmes in the region will aim
to:
-51-
‘Transform economic, environmental and social conditions in the older
industrialised parts of South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and the Humber’109.
This supports the main objective of the Lower Don Valley area policies to pursue
a variety of job generating land uses in the Lower Don Valley.
3.6
Tinsley Park (and Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge dealt with in
Chapter 4) qualify as parts of the older industrial areas of South Yorkshire and,
taking advantage of investment over the last twenty years (for example, the
construction of the Lower Don Valley link road), there is still some potential to
modernise and improve industrial land in these areas.
3.7
The South Yorkshire sub area chapter also states that all plans, major investment
decisions and programmes for the South Yorkshire area will seek to support the
role of Sheffield as a major provider of jobs110.
3.8
Policy E3 refers to the supply of land and premises for economic development
and states that all plans, strategies and programmes in the region will seek to
support the availability of sufficient land in sustainable locations to meet the
needs of a modern economy111. It considers that allocation of sufficient
employment land is a key economic role of development plans. The Sheffield
Employment Sites Survey112 analysed a large number of sites in the Lower Don
Valley and recommended areas where sites should be reserved for employment
uses. Policies SLD2 and SLD3 take account of the importance of land for
industry and business uses by protecting these areas for primarily business and
industry (at Tinsley Park) and industry and warehousing/distribution (at
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge) these policies are therefore
consistent with Policy E3 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan.
3.9
SLD2 makes particular reference to the use of rail freight facilities in creating an
efficient environment for transporting goods to and from Tinsley Park. Once the
rail freight facility at Tinsley is functioning it has the potential to contribute to a
regional freight distribution system. This is consistent with draft RSS policy T4
which states that the region will develop an integrated freight distribution system
that:
‘Maximises the use of rail or water for freight movements from new
developments …and recognise the contribution these modes can make
to the transportation of bulk materials’, and
109
Yorkshire and Humber Plan - Section 4, YH3 Key Spatial Priorities
Policy SY1B page 92
111 Page 175
112 By Atkins for the City Council, March 2007
110
-52-
’ Locate developments with high levels of freight and commercial traffic
close to intermodal freight facilities113’
3.10
Policy SLD2 supports the job generating function of this part of the valley by
protecting it for employment uses. SLD2 is therefore consistent with regional
policy.
Sub-Regional Policy
The Second Local Transport plan (LTP2) 2006-2011
3.11
Policy SLD2 is consistent with, and has had regard to, the preferred Lower Don
Valley Transport Intervention Strategy proposed in LTP2. The details of this are
given in Chapter 2 at paragraph 2.15.
3.12
The policy contains specific requirements for measures that are needed for the
economic success and sustainability of the area. These are consistent with the
following elements of the preferred LTP2 Transport Intervention Strategy:

Travel plans - these will be required for all new development,

Enhanced park and ride via a link with the proposed Waverley Park and
Ride (see Chapter 2 paragraph 2.141),

‘Pump priming’ bus services to serve brownfield regeneration clusters - in
this case the links to Tinsley Park from surrounding neighbourhoods.
South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision
3.13
The Lower Don Valley is identified as a primary area for regeneration in this
document114. One of the five ‘core themes’ of the Vision is ‘Economic
Development’. It is concerned with locational priorities. For example, this theme
proposes that the economic performance of Sheffield will be assisted by offering
assistance for industries that are currently poorly located, such as those taking up
a lot of space in the city centre that don’t need to be located there, and to relocate
them to more competitive locations that are also easily accessible for public
transport and the labour pool.
3.14
The policies for Tinsley Park (SLD2) and Attercliffe/Newhall and
Parkway/Kettlebridge (SLD3) cover those areas of the Lower Don Valley that are
specifically protected for employment uses. Tinsley Park is well connected to the
national road network for those businesses that require it, and measures are
included in the policy to make it as accessible as possible for employees. Policy
SLD1 is therefore consistent with this sub regional document.
113
114
Yorkshire and Humber Plan, policy T3, page 280
Prepared for the South Yorkshire Partnership 2004
-53-
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
3.15
The Sheffield City Strategy (updated 2007) incorporates part of the Core Strategy
spatial vision related to the Lower Don Valley. The City Strategy states:
‘The Lower and Upper Don valleys will complement the City Centre as primary
locations for employment supported by a mix of related uses and providing for
developments not appropriate in the City centre115’.
3.16
The main objective of policies SLD2, SLD3, and SLD4 is to focus on those land
uses that generate employment. These policies are therefore consistent with the
spatial vision of the City Strategy.
3.17
Theme 1 of the City Strategy is ‘A Strong Economy’. Within this theme the first
‘Big Ambition’ is for ‘Sheffield to have an economy that matches the best in
Europe’116. The Lower Don Valley area policies propose Tinsley Park,
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge, and the Boulevard of Sport as
areas focussed on their job generating opportunities. Each area has its own
strengths and assets that will be suitable for different types of employment.
These are explained in the chapters relating to those areas in more detail.
Together they can contribute a broad range of economic opportunities to enhance
Sheffield’s reputation. These policies are therefore consistent with the city
strategy.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
3.18
Policy SLD2 identifies this area as suitable for a range of employment uses
including some offices, but mainly industry and warehousing/distribution. Its
accessible location, close to the national road network, and the availability of
large flat sites, make it attractive to a number of different businesses. In
promoting this range of employment uses, together with required transport
measures important for economic success and sustainability, this policy is
consistent with a number of Core Strategy planning objectives117.
3.19
Challenge 1 ‘Economic transformation’,
S1.2 Provision for modern and high tech manufacturing and knowledge based
services ….’ and
115Section
4, Page 33
Section 3, Page 16
117 Core Strategy Chapter 3, Vision and Objectives
116
-54-
S1.3 Environments created improved and conserved to attract business
investment…..’
3.20
A good deal of investment has already gone into the improvement of the
environment of this area in order to attract businesses, such as the construction
of the Europa Link and the planned layout of the Sheffield Business Park. SLD2
promotes the type of land uses that already thrive in this area, and there are
development sites available both sides of Europa Link to cater for them 118. The
transport measures included in the policy will ensure that development does not
worsen the already unacceptable air quality in the area, or add to congestion at
the motorway junction. SLD 2 is therefore consistent with these planning
objectives.
3.21
Challenge 2 ‘Serving the City Region’,
S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core
location for major expansion of business………..’
Policy SB3119 names Tinsley Park as an office location (south of Europa Link)
and policy SB4120 names Tinsley Park as a location for manufacturing and
warehousing/distribution uses. Policy SLD3 provides the spatial context for those
policies by defining the area in which they are promoted. It is an area identified
as a complementary area to the City Centre for employment and so SLD3 is
consistent with this planning objective.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
3.22
The submitted policy was one of several area policies derived from emerging
options which related to the role of business and industry in the Lower Don Valley
as a whole. These options are also relevant to policies SLD1 Meadowhall (in so
far as it deals with business location) dealt with in Chapter 2, and SLD3
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge, dealt with in Chapter 4. The
common theme in the range of options is the type of employment that should be
promoted, industry or business.
Option DA1a
The Lower Don Valley to continue as a major area for the location of
industry in the city
3.23
The strengths of this option are:
118
See City Sites Preferred Options 2007
SB3 Locations for Office Development and supporting text
120 SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/Warehousing and other Non-office Businesses and
supporting text
119
-55-
(a) This area has very good accessibility to the M1 motorway for transporting,
often bulky, products to customers and for bringing in raw materials.
(b) The larger floor areas for industrial use often mean that fewer people are
employed and, when coupled with the use of shift working patterns there
would be less impact on peak hour congestion.
(c) Land for industry is often best located away from housing.
(d) This area has been a location for industry for over two centuries with a
world-renowned reputation especially in the steel-making sector and is still
a favoured as a location for many companies.
3.24
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Competition between land uses for sites will result in land values becoming
higher. This may make it difficult to reserve sites only for lower value,
often large-scale industrial uses.
(b) Sites will be needed for new types of businesses. Emphasis on old types
of industry could give the wrong message in an important gateway location
and put off investors.
Option DA1b
The Lower Don Valley to be promoted as primarily a business area.
3.25
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Land requirements for new businesses needs to be catered for.
Businesses need choice about where to locate, for example, to serve the
particular nature of a business, or to meet the needs of clients. Some
companies will be particularly dependent on locations close to the national
road network and the Lower Don Valley is well placed for that.
(b) Much has been done to bring industrial areas back into use. This includes
substantial investment in infrastructure such as Supertram and the Don
Valley Link Road. However, much land remains underused and/or derelict
and promotion of this area for business could create opportunities to
transform the area.
(c) The promotion of business uses would not preclude cleaner industry from
locating nearby, many which are included within the same B1 use class as
offices.
3.26
The weaknesses of this option are:
-56-
(a) It is liable to detract from the more accessible City Centre and could be
contrary to Government guidance (PPS6).
(b) There are some appropriate locations for offices in the Valley such as near
the Meadowhall Interchange and the Sheffield Business Park, but this
option would mean more widespread provision throughout the area, and
more competition for sites.
(c) Office development is a higher density employer than industrial uses and
additional large numbers of people coming to work in the area would add
to peak-period congestion, putting extra pressure on the motorway
junctions that are already at capacity.
(d) The Lower Don Valley, although it has its own facilities such as Supertram,
Meadowhall, and Valley Centertainment, is out of the city centre, its
facilities are wider apart, and the overall environment of the Valley is poor
quality.
3.27
The reliance on the Lower Don Valley for employment is a particular issue for
neighbouring areas, for this reason the original emerging options, which
promoted the Lower Don Valley as either a location for industry, or a location for
business could be viewed as too polarised. The preferred option was a
combination of the two emerging options and was the basis of sustainability
appraisal and consultation.
Preferred Option PLD1 Business and industry in the Lower Don Valley
The Lower Don Valley will continue as a major area for industry,
warehousing and distribution. There will be limited office development
by the Meadowhall Centre and south of Europa Link. New business
development around Meadowhall will be integrated, where possible,
with the existing shopping centre.
3.28
Whilst it combined aspects of both emerging options, it is more strongly weighted
to industry, warehousing and distribution. Office development would be limited
and in two named locations. The submitted policies for Tinsley Park, for
Meadowhall and for the Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge areas take
forward the land use priority as set out in the Preferred Option and apply it to the
character of that area for a more area-specific policy. The submitted policies
allow for more precise area definition of where predominantly industrial uses
would be appropriate and those areas where some business uses would be
accommodated.
-57-
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
The case for Industry and Warehousing as the main land use
3.29
This area has been a location for industry for over two centuries with a worldrenowned reputation especially in the steel-making sector and is still a favoured
as a location for many companies. The promotion of this as an area where
modern industrial processes and manufacturing as well as old traditional types of
industry are welcomed recognises the continuing importance of manufacturing for
the transformed Sheffield economy.
3.30
Tinsley Park has a major contribution to make as an employment location and is
mentioned in the Core Strategy Spatial Vision121.
3.31
Competing land uses may make retention of industry impractical or unpopular in
some areas of the valley such as around Meadowhall or in Darnall/Attercliffe.
However, identifying clear areas in the Lower Don Valley to be promoted for
business use, and similarly identifying areas where industry is safeguarded and
encouraged, will enable investment to be directed to suitable sites and encourage
to co-location with similar land uses. There is land available in this area. For
example, the Sheffield Employment Sites Survey (the Atkins study) found that
more than 43% of the vacant land it studied was in the Lower Don Valley122.
3.32
Identifying land in the valley to be protected for employment as the Atkins study
recommends123 recognises the needs of the traditional employment sectors for
the city’s economy, which will continue here, as well as providing for new forms of
manufacturing and modern new businesses that will help to transform the
economy.
3.33
It is a strategic policy objective to create the conditions for high economic
growth124, and provide land for modern business use for both indigenous and
inward investors, so that further diversification of the economy can be supported.
There has been a great deal of investment in infrastructure (Europa Link) and site
preparation at Tinsley Park to contribute to this, and a successful marketing
campaign by the Sheffield Business Park has encouraged businesses to this
area125.
3.34
In its discussion with Sheffield First for Investment126 (now part of Creative
Sheffield) the Atkins study found that there have been problems in Sheffield
accommodating high-tech manufacturing firms. They found that indigenous firms
121
Core Strategy, Chapter 4 The Spatial Strategy, The Lower and Upper Don Valley
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey March 2007 paragraph 6.2.3
123 Sheffield Employment Sites Survey March 2007 paragraph 6.3.2
124 Core Strategy Chapter 3 / City Strategy Section 3 Theme 1: Strong Economy
125 See www.sheffieldbusinesspark.co.uk
126 The City Council’s inward investment agency
122
-58-
wanted to be near their clients (which can be other industrial uses or
manufacturing businesses), and inward investors want to be near the motorway
or universities127. Identification of this area for industry and business uses in the
strategic policy for the area will assist in promoting its image as a location.
3.35
Tinsley Park is close to Waverley, where there is a cluster of firms based around
advanced materials processing. This neighbour location will be highly
advantageous for Tinsley Park and it can provide space for firms who are allied
to, support, or supply the Waverley businesses.
3.36
The area has had recent success in attracting modern new industries (such as
the Polestar printing plant which established there in 2006).
3.37
Tinsley Park has very good access to the M1 for transporting, often bulky,
products to customers and for bringing in raw materials.
3.38
The larger floor areas for industrial use often mean that fewer people are
employed than in other employment-related developments. This may seem to be
a weakness when employment is being promoted, but when coupled with the use
of shift working patterns, as is often the case in industry, it means there would be
less impact on the peak hour congestion, which is becoming a serious issue at
Junctions 33/34 of the M1.
3.39
The area also has the benefit of the Tinsley Marshalling Yards site, shortly to be
developed as an intermodal transport depot128, this gives the area the added
benefit of rail access (see also issues to be addressed below paragraph 3.54).
3.40
Land for industry is often best located away from housing. Currently there is only
a small amount of housing and that is at the edge of Tinsley Park at Greasboro
Road (south of the motorway). The area offers major opportunities for those types
of industrial use that might otherwise harm living conditions to be located.
3.41
The identification of the area for a range of employment uses is consistent with
Core Strategy policy SB1129 which proposes what the provision for land for
employment and economic development in the city should be; and city wide
locational policy SB4130 which proposes where locations for manufacturing,
distribution/warehousing and development of non office business uses should be.
Large amounts of land are needed to meet requirements for employment and the
Atkins study has identified that there are sites in this area that can meet these
needs131.
127
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey March 2007, paragraph 3.5
Planning application numbers 01/05082/OUT and 05/01192/REM
129 Policy SB1 Land for Employment and Economic Development, and supporting text
130 Policy SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/Warehousing and other Non-office Businesses
131 Sheffield Employment Sites Study, March 2007, Evaluation Appendix F
128
-59-
Provision for offices
3.42
The area will complement the City Centre as an office location, though the
capacity for new development will be limited if the Blue Skies mixed use scheme
on Europa Link is developed out132. Businesses need choice about where to
locate, for example, to serve the particular nature of a business, or to meet the
needs of clients. For business efficiency some may be particularly dependent on
locations close to the national road network and Tinsley Park is well placed for
that.
3.43
The area has, therefore, been identified as one of the complementary non City
Centre office locations in policy SB3133. Government planning policy134 identifies
offices as a key town centre use and the City Centre would continue to be
promoted as the major office location for the city, but the area around
Meadowhall (see policy SLD1) and the land south of Europa Link could offer
some choice in location for those businesses that prefer to be near the motorway
network for operational reasons and/or for the business’s customers.
3.44
But the emphasis is still on limited provision, this is to ensure that the emphasis
for office provision remains with locations with better public transport access and
these are identified in policy SB3 (see Business and Industry Background
Report).
3.45
Tinsley Park can provide a location with less expensive sites, extending the range
and types of location available for investors.
3.46
The area south of Europa Link has had considerable investment largely through
the implementation of the Sheffield Business Park and activities associated with
the airport, bringing in high quality developments and an improved setting along
Europa Link135. This provides a cluster of B1 business uses with some
supporting services such as nursery, newsagents, dry cleaning and cafes that are
attractive to new B1 uses. The area north of Europa Link is still characterized by
large-scale land uses such as the Outokumpu steel plant, and larger shed-type
developments are located at Shepcote Way. This is a more industrial
environment attractive to similar uses.
3.47
The proposed policy draws on a combination of the emerging options
(DA1a/DA1b) applied to a specific location (a development of Preferred Option
PLD1). The issues addressed at emerging policy stage were, how far the Lower
Don Valley should continue to be the principal location for manufacturing; and
how far a more radical transformation should be promoted, giving greater
132
Planning Application 05.04338/OUT given consent 8th June 2007. Has permission for 27,871m2 B1(a)
office space with maximum floor space levels of 2,500m2. Reserved Matters applications are awaited.
133 Core Strategy paragraph 6.12
134 PPS 6
135 See www.sheffieldbusinesspark.co.uk and www.sheffieldcityairport.com
-60-
emphasis to offices and other new growth sectors. Rather than try and address
this as one all-encompassing area policy, different policies for sub areas now
assign land uses to the most efficient or beneficial location.
3.48
There are still issues to be addressed. In particular, the policy includes a range of
transport measures that will be requirements of SLD2 if the area is to be
successful and sustainable.
Issues still to be addressed
3.49
The transport measures proposed in the policy are important to help reduce and
contain impact on peak hour congestion at junction 33/34 of the M1. Enabling a
mix of business and industry uses that have a variety of employee density levels
and shift working patterns could help, and limiting the amount of office
development (and so reducing the traffic generation) could also help, but more
improvements to public transport to this area would make a huge contribution to
the success of this area.
3.50
The reasons for including the transport measures within the policy are as follows:
Travel plans have an important role to play in demand management, making
travel more sustainable and reducing the need to travel. They will be
implemented on all new development around Tinsley Park that has significant
transport and accessibility implications, and will be required as part of the
supporting documents for planning applications136.
3.51
For this area they can address some of the following areas; commuter journeys,
business travel, fleet management, visitors and deliveries. The plan will be
specific to the location and operation of the development. This supports Core
Strategy policy ST3 137which deals with managing demand for car travel.
3.52
Bus routes to the area are currently limited. The 261 bus service provides a
relatively infrequent link (two hourly) to the developments off Eurpoa Link from
the predominantly rural areas to the east of Sheffield. The 30-minute service of
the present A1 route has been the result of a gradual build-up of this service, as
more developments have established at Tinsley Park, and the passenger
numbers have increased. The ambition for this service is to secure further
contributions to its running and eventually add more services. This is supported
by LTP2 ambitions to improve public transport to this area (see paragraph 3.12).
Improvements in bus services from the immediate local areas of Tinsley and
Darnall also need to be investigated.
3.53
There is also a proposal to introduce park and ride as part of the Waverley
Advanced Manufacturing Park (AMP) development in Rotherham (see paragraph
2.141). This would be a benefit to accessing this area. The SYPTE are
136
137
The trigger level for requirement of travel plans will be set by the City Policies document.
Policy ST3 Demand Management and its supporting text
-61-
promoting this facility, it will enable higher frequency bus services to serve the
park and ride. In the future it is anticipated that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will run
via the Waverley site (for BRT see paragraph 2.138). A proposed ‘connecting
corridor’ will provide a BRT link between the proposed Waverley park and ride
site and Meadowhall. This will offer opportunity for a high-speed link between the
two areas (via the Sheffield Business Park on Europa Link). It will offer an
attractive, high quality alternative mode of public transport to Tinsley Park for
workers and visitors.
3.54
Core Strategy policy ST9138 encourages the movement of freight and refers to the
Tinsley rail freight terminal specifically. Planning consent has been given for an
intermodal railfreight facility to be developed on the site of the former Tinsley
Marshalling Yards on Europa Link139. If it becomes fully operational140 this is a
huge opportunity for this area to deliver sustainable transportation of goods in
and out, releasing some of the traffic movements that would otherwise have gone
by road. Travel plans developed for this area will need to include a freight
management strategy and will be encouraged to make use of this facility when it
is available.
3.55
The area is located within an area with particular needs for air quality
management, and given the mix of uses, industry (with HGV movements) and
offices (traditionally a high traffic generator) the impact of the continued
development of Tinsley Park is an issue for air quality. However, modern industry
is much less polluting and the biggest threat to air quality in this area is emissions
from road traffic141. The City Council is pursuing development of a low emissions
strategy for the city that would address air quality and carbon dioxide emissions
at a strategic level, and is working with other Air Quality Beacon Authorities on
developing some best practice planning guidance for this issue142. In the
meantime, for development proposals within this area, it is envisaged that this
would be addressed through the travel plan process to maximise the use of
sustainable forms of travel (see above) and for example by encouraging business
fleets operating in this area to have rolling programme of fleet renewal to bring
forward the most modern, low emission engines.
3.56
According to the Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)143 only a
small proportion of the Tinsley Park area is situated in Zone 2 Medium Probability
and Zone 3a High Probability of flooding to the west of the Shepcote Lane closest
to the canal. There are no known pressing localised flooding issues. However,
there may be a susceptibility to culvert blockage and/or surcharging. Future
138
Policy ST9 Freight and its supporting text
Planning application references 01/05982/OUT and 05.01192/REM
140 Construction of the first phase (warehousing) commenced Spring 2007
141 Air Quality Action Plan for Sheffield 2003, paragraph 1.5.1
142 The beacon scheme identifies excellence and innovation in local government, and is designed to allow
authorities to share best practice. Sheffield received ‘Beacon Status’ for working towards delivering
cleaner air in 2007.
143 Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007 Figure 005, S05 Meadowhall
139
-62-
development should ensure that there is no increase in local runoff in the Tinsley
Park area.
3.57
All developments in Zone 2 must have a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
commensurate with the risk of flooding144. They should also: have floor levels
situated above the 1% maximum flood level plus freeboard, implement
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and ensure that the proposed
development does not result in an increase in maximum flood levels within
adjoining properties.
3.58
Future developments within the very small area within a Zone 3a will require a
detailed FRA145. They should also: have floor levels situated above the 1%
maximum flood level plus freeboard; ensure that dry access is provided above
flood level at all locations to enable safe evacuation; not utilise basements for
habitable purposes; implement Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS); ensure
that the proposed development does not result in an increase in maximum flood
levels within adjoining properties. The requirements will be set out in the City
Sites document.
Sustainability Appraisal
3.59
The sustainability appraisal tested both industrial uses and business uses in this
location. It showed support for business use for its regeneration and job creation
impacts. But on many indicators the impacts are similar for business and
industry. Business offers more opportunity for environmental improvement
generally, with potentially higher quality buildings, and landscaping opportunities.
But business use is a significantly higher traffic generation than industrial uses,
creating a negative impact. A mixture of both industry and business use will
support the sustainability aims of job creation in a highly accessible location and
goes some way to address traffic generation and air quality. This was taken into
account by introducing the list of transport measures as requirements for the
policy.
Equality Appraisal
3.60
144
145
Since elements of both options are included in the proposed policy, the impact on
equality for the seven groups of people did not influence the choice of options.
However, the introduction of specific public transport measures does reflect the
need to address the accessibility of this area for people without access to private
transport.
SFRA paragraph 6.3
SFRA paragraph 6.3
-63-
Consultation Responses
3.61
The way in which consultation comments were taken into account in developing
policy is similar for Tinsley Park, and Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/
Kettlebridge.
3.62
There were no comments that related specifically to the employment role
provided at Tinsley Park and Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge.
However the degree of support for industry and business continuing in the Lower
Don Valley (at both the Emerging Options and Preferred Options stage) did assist
in developing the area policies that evolved from the preferred option that
covered the whole Lower Don Valley.
3.63
There were ten comments that supported the continued development of industry
and business uses in the valley146. The Highways Agency did express concern at
both Emerging Options and Preferred Options about development in the Lower
Don Valley that may put pressure on the motorway junctions147. This was
accompanied by similar concerns from Yorkshire Forward who also commented
on the need to protect the City Centre as an office location148. The comment
regarding the City Centre as the main office location is taken up by policy SB3
and this promotes complementary office locations to deal with this concern.
Measures to address trip generation are contained in the policy.
3.64
GL Hearn commented at Preferred Options stage that policies should include a
range of transport measures149 and this is carried forward as a way to deal with
concerns regarding transport impact. This also addresses the points raised by
the Highways Agency.
3.65
GL Hearn also commented at Preferred Options stage that policies should
include provision for a wider employment base150, and the move towards area
policies that promote employment opportunities in different sectors helps to deal
with this.
3.66
The East End Quality of Life Initiative commented that warehousing and
distribution uses should not be encouraged in the Lower Don Valley because they
take up too much land in relation to the quality of jobs, and there was also
concern from them about the impact on air quality and congestion from HGV
associated with warehousing and distribution uses151. However it must be
accepted that these land uses have to be accommodated somewhere, and these
146
Emerging Options comments 305.18, 4317.11, 4478.19, and 4865.53. Preferred Options comments
305.49, 305.053. 4558.029, 5072.001, 5182.001, 5198.007
147 Emerging Option comment 597.043. Preferred Option comment 597.034
148 Emerging Option comment 4558.58
149 Preferred Option comment 305.051
150 Preferred Option comment 305.052
151 Preferred Option comment 5254.020
-64-
are the most appropriate locations for accessibility. They are also reasonably
distant from housing and other sensitive uses.
3.67
There were ten separate comments supporting preferred option PLD4 on
congestion and air quality, these were taken into account when developing the
transport measures added to policies SLD2 and SLD3.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
3.68
The alternative options (DA1a, DA1b and PLD3) considered a policy that looked
at land uses for the whole Lower Don Valley. This was rejected in favour of area
policies that would more spatially and specifically determine the ambitions for
areas within the valley that would together provide policy to cover the whole
valley (SLD1 – SLD6).
3.69
The evidence base for this is the Sheffield Employment Sites Survey, which
identifies that Sheffield needs more employment land, and that sites should be
protected for employment uses. The broad location is identified in the citywide
policy SB4. Policy SLD2 more specifically protects this area for employment uses
and the option is both reasonably sustainable and acceptable to consultees. It is,
therefore the most appropriate in the circumstances and consistent with
Soundness Test 7.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
3.70
The policy will be implemented by making decisions on planning applications.
3.71
Sheffield City Council will identify sites in its Business and Industry Land Survey
to assist developers/investors find suitable sites. This will be based on policy
areas and site allocations in the Sheffield Development Framework. This is
ongoing work by the City Council and is published on the City Council website.
3.72
The area will be marketed as a business and industry location by agencies such
as Creative Sheffield152.
3.73
The preparation of site development briefs by the City Council in consultation with
landowners (such as the one prepared for the Outokumpu site153) will guide and
advise on development options for sites as they become available.
3.74
Implementation of the policy will depend on support and investment by a range of
stakeholders that will be co-ordinated by the local planning authority and bidding
for resources through for example, the South Yorkshire Investment Plan. The
City Development Division of the City Council will coordinate this. Identification of
This is Sheffield’s new economic development agency, it now includes the former Sheffield First for
Investment (SF4I)
153 May 2007, available by contacting Sheffield City Council City Development Division
152
-65-
funds from private organisations will form part of the site development brief work
and individual project work.
3.75
The policy specifically mentions the use of rail freight facilities. Construction of the
intermodal rail freight terminal at the former Tinsley Marshalling Yards
commenced this year. Once it is operational this will pave the way to attracting
businesses that can make use of its facilities, or will supply it.
3.76
Travel Plans will be a requirement of all planning applications generating
employment at Tinsley Park. The Sheffield Business Park has set a marker for
this by appointing a travel plan coordinator who organises regular meetings with
occupiers154.
3.77
Land at Waverley has been secured by the PTE for park and ride. A planning
application is expected later in 2007.
3.78
More public transport investment will be delivered on the back of the Waverley
park and ride (see paragraph 3.53), and developer Section106 contributions for
the A1 route will continue to be a requirement for relevant planning applications in
this area. It is important that this route become self-sustaining without any
subsidy, so bus services to the area are promoted by the PTE as a part of regular
employee forums organised by Sheffield Business Park. These are held regularly
and this will continue to be supported by the PTE.
3.79
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD2. However, a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the topic
chapters are directly or indirectly relevant and are described in the related
Background Reports:


Business and Industry Background Report – see policies SB3 and SB4.
Transport Background Report – see policies ST2, ST3 and ST9.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
3.80
The mix of new development at Tinsley Park 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)
3.81
154
There are very few risks with this policy. The area is well established for the uses
promoted in the policy and it has a reasonable reputation. With the benefits of
See details at www.sheffieldbusinesspark.co.uk
-66-
marketing (mentioned in paragraph 3.72) the area should prove attractive to new
investors.
3.82
The policy is flexible in that it provides for a wide range of employment land uses
at Tinsley Park, but it does not specify the scale and exact nature of what those
developments should be. This would be influenced by demand and the degree of
success of the proposed transport measures.
3.83
There are still two uncertainties about transport and delivery. The first is about
how much improvement can be achieved in making the area more accessible and
attractive to employees, especially those in neighbouring areas (such as Darnall
and Tinsley) where addressing links to employment is one of the objectives of the
HMR work155 and public transport improvements are key to this (see paragraph
3.52).
3.84
Secondly, the policy depends on travel plans being both developed and adhered
to. The appointment of a travel plan coordinator at Sheffield Business Park to
monitor this (at least for some of the area), and enforcement of planning
conditions will help to support the implementation of travel plans.
Conclusion
3.85
Policy SLD2 is consistent with Soundness Tests 4-9. For test 4 the policy is a
spatial policy, relating specifically to development within the area identified as
Tinsley Park in the Lower Don Valley. It is consistent with the RSS in the way it
addresses the future development of one of the older industrialized areas of the
Lower Don Valley. In promoting a wide range of employment opportunities it
contributes to the role of Sheffield as a major provider of jobs.
3.86
Policy SLD2 is also consistent with the Sheffield City Strategy and the SDF
Objectives, in that it helps to promote a strong economy by providing an area with
available development sites, in a business and industry environment that has
been improved to attract suitable business investors and new businesses. Policy
SLD2 is therefore consistent with Soundness Tests 5 and 6.
3.87
In developing the policy for Tinsley Park options for an all-encompassing
business and industry policy for the Lower Don Valley were considered. This was
rejected in favour of focussing on the different roles that individual parts of the
valley could play in delivering economic success. This together with the other
proposed Lower Don Valley policies represents a more appropriate policy than
the alternatives examined. This is consistent with Soundness Test 7.
3.88
It is clear that, as an established business and industry location, the proposed
policy will be implemented primarily through the development control process,
and will be supported by marketing the area to investors. The policy is flexible
155
DAT NDF paragraphs 2.13 and 4.18
-67-
enough to accommodate a range of employment uses whilst still protecting the
area for employment. It also allows account to be taken of the effectiveness of
transport and air quality measures. This is consistent with Soundness Tests 8
and 9.
-68-
4
ATTERCLIFFE/NEWHALL and
PARKWAY/KETTLEBRIDGE
Introduction
4.1
The areas identified in the Core Strategy Lower Don Valley area each have a
different role offering different employment opportunities. These two areas are
identified for their industrial and manufacturing contribution to land use in the
valley.
4.2
This policy identifies the predominant employment land uses for this area. It is
mainly industrial in character and although further away from the motorway
junctions than the Meadowhall or Tinsley Park areas, Attercliffe/Newhall has good
access via the Don Valley Link Road through the valley and into the City Centre,
and Parkway/Kettlebridge has good access via the Parkway to the motorway and
into the City Centre.
4.3
Both submitted policies SLD2 Tinsley Park (Chapter 3) and SLD3
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge have their origins in the same
emerging and preferred options policy and they share the background information
which deals with the strengths and weaknesses of the range of options
considered. To avoid duplication this is dealt with in Chapter 3
paragraphs 3.22 – 3.28.
Policy SLD3
4.4
Traditional and modern manufacturing and distribution will be located
within Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge and more sensitive
uses that would prejudice such development will not be located here.
Public transport links will be improved between these areas and the rest
of the city, including surrounding neighbourhoods, to maximise
accessibility for employees and reduce reliance on the private car.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Regional Policy
4.5
Policy SLD3 for Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge supports the job
generation function of these parts of the Lower Don Valley by protecting them for
primarily employment uses. Policy SLD3 is consistent with regional policy for
economic development and job provision.
4.6
The policy support for the economic role of this area is the same as the reasons
for the Tinsley Park area. It is just the land use emphasis which is different. The
-69-
details of this policy support are not repeated they can be seen at Chapter 3
paragraph3.5.
Sub-Regional Policy
The Second Local Transport Plan (LTP2)
4.7
SLD3 is consistent with and has had regard to the preferred Lower Don Valley
Transport Intervention Strategy proposed in LTP2 (the details of this are at
Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11).
4.8
Policy SLD3 contains specific reference to improving public transport links
especially to the City Centre and surrounding neighbourhoods. This is consistent
with the elements of the preferred transport strategy which refer specifically to:
 Key routes – in this case improving services on Brightside Lane and routes
that are focussed on the Meadowhall Interchange, and
 Provision of new north/south bus services to better serve residential
communities156.
South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision
4.9
Policy SLD3 is consistent with Core Theme 1 of the spatial vision157, which is
‘Economic Development’. As both areas are concerned with economic
development and job provision the reasons for the consistency are the same as
for the Tinsley Park area and this not repeated. It is set out at paragraph 3.13 in
Chapter 3.
4.10
Both Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge are well connected to the
national road network and to the City Centre. The policy contains measures
requiring improvements to public transport to make it as accessible as possible
for employees.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
4.11
156
157
Policy SLD3 has taken account of the themes and objectives of the Sheffield City
Strategy in deciding its predominant land uses and supporting transport
measures. The consistency of this policy with the City Strategy is the same as
that for the Tinsley Park area, supporting ‘A Strong Economy’, and this case is
not repeated here, it can be seen at paragraph 3.15 in Chapter 3.
LTP2 page 101
Prepared for the South Yorkshire Partnership in 2004
-70-
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
4.12
Policy SLD3 is a complementary policy to SLD2. It identifies this area as suitable
for a range of employment uses, specifically traditional and modern
manufacturing and distribution. In promoting this range of employment uses this
policy is consistent with some of the Core strategy planning objectives 158.
4.13
Challenge 1 ‘Economic transformation’ includes planning objectives:
S1.2 ‘Provision for modern and high tech manufacturing …’ and
S1.3 ‘Environments created, improved, and conserved to attract business
investment…’
4.14
The investment in improving Brightside Lane, and other infrastructure
improvements around Newhall carried out in the 1990’s, has paved the way to
attracting more modern businesses to this part of the Lower Don Valley, but the
area also provides sites for the older and more traditional industrial uses. SLD3
promotes the type of land uses that are already well established in this location
and there are available suites identified to cater for new investment in this
area159.
4.15
Challenge 5 ‘Opportunities for all’ includes planning objective:
S5.4 ‘Workplaces located where they are accessible to all by a range of
transport options, including from areas of high unemployment’
4.16
Both Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge are accessible by a choice of
transport options for employees. Attercliffe/Newhall is very well connected to the
City Centre and Meadowhall by high frequency bus routes, and Brightside Lane
offers high quality access to the motorway and City Centre by car. Parkway/
Kettlebridge has the benefit of Supertram close by, and good access to the
Parkway.
4.17
The policy includes a requirement to improve public transport to neighbouring
communities to improve accessibility to job opportunities.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
4.18
The submitted policy was one of several new policies derived from emerging
options, which related to the overall role of business and industry in the Lower
Don Valley (see DA1). Two main polices, SLD2 Tinsley Park and SLD3
158Chapter
159
3 Vision and Objectives
See City Sites document 2007
-71-
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge, (and elements of SLD1 Meadowhall
as it deals with business location) resulted from the range of options considered.
The common theme in the range of options is the type of employment that should
be promoted, industry or business. The strengths and weaknesses of the range
of options are discussed in Chapter 3 paragraphs 3.22 – 3.28.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
The case for industry and warehousing as the main land use
4.19
This area has been a location for industry for over two centuries with a worldrenowned reputation especially in the steel-making sector and is still a favoured
as a location for many companies. The promotion of this as an area where
modern industrial processes and manufacturing as well as old traditional types of
industry are welcomed recognises the continuing importance of manufacturing for
the transformed Sheffield economy.
4.20
The valley will retain its status and tradition as a major location for employment by
promoting these areas as major locations for employment. The importance of the
Lower Don Valley as an employment location is specifically mentioned in the
Core Strategy Spatial Vision for Sheffield160.
4.21
Other areas of the valley (covered by area policies) such as Meadowhall and
Attercliffe/Darnall have other uses (offices and housing) competing to locate
there; and this may result in industry being impractical or unpopular in these
parts. It is important therefore to identify some areas where industry is to be
safeguarded and encouraged so that investment can be directed to the most
appropriate locations.
4.22
There are sites available in these areas. The Sheffield Employment Sites Survey
found that more than 43% of the vacant employment sites it studied were in the
Lower Don Valley161. The study recommended that the 68 best sites it identified
as most suitable for employment be afforded protection against development for
competitive land uses162. Sites in this category, and any future as yet unknown
employment sites, will be protected for employment by policy SLD3 as it
specifically excludes uses that would prejudice employment.
4.23
These areas have had recent success in attracting new development such as
‘The Quadrant’ development on Kettlebridge Road developed by the Manor and
Castle Trust163.
160
Chapter 4 The Spatial Strategy
Sheffield Employment Sites Survey by Atkins for the City Council, 2007, paragraph 6.2.3
162 Paragraph 6.3.2
163 This provides 66,000ft2 of office development.
161
-72-
4.24
Attercliffe/Newhall has very good access for transporting goods and materials to
the City Centre and Meadowhall along Brightside Lane, this road was specifically
improved to replace historic street linkages and provide a high quality direct route
through the valley as part of infrastructure improvements implemented by the
Sheffield Development Corporation in the 1990’s. Parkway/Kettlebridge also has
good access directly to the Parkway and onto the motorway and into the City
Centre.
4.25
Land for industry is best located away from housing, and because of the historic
development of these areas, primarily for large industrial uses, there are no
significant areas of housing located here. This offers major opportunities for
those types of industrial use that could harm living conditions, to locate where
they will cause least harm.
4.26
The identification of this area for industry and warehousing/distribution is
consistent with Core Strategy policy SB1164 which indicates how much land is
required for industry (B2) and warehousing/ distribution (B8) uses in the city. It is
also consistent with city wide locational policy SB4165, which proposes Attercliffe/
Newhall and Parkway/ Kettlebridge as locations for manufacturing and
distribution/warehousing and other non-office business. The Sheffield
Employment Sites Survey has identified that there are sites in these areas that
can meet these needs166.
4.27
Offices are not promoted as a primary land use for this area. This is consistent
with policy SB3167, which proposes where office development will take place.
This area is not identified as a complementary location to the City Centre as other
locations in the Lower Don Valley are. This is because both Meadowhall and
Tinsley Park have particularly good transport links for businesses that need
access to the national road network, and Meadowhall is close to the Meadowhall
Transport Interchange for public transport links. The area covered by SLD3,
although reasonably accessible for transportation links do not have direct access.
But, policy SB3 would provide for small-scale offices on high frequency public
transport routes and this could include locations within these areas.
Issues still to be addressed
4.28
Public transport improvements are specifically mentioned as a requirement in
this policy. These measures are needed to help reduce congestion at junction
34 of the motorway. In this area improved public transport for workers will focus
on improvement of the ‘key routes’. This supports Core Strategy policy ST6168
will be improved by bus priority measures. The key routes that serve these
164
Policy SB1 Land for Employment and Economic Development, and supporting text.
Policy SB4 Locations for Manufacturing, Distribution/Warehousing and other Non-office Businesses
and supporting text
166 Sheffield Employment Sites Survey, Evaluation appendix F
167 Policy SB3 Locations for Office Development and supporting text
168 Policy ST6 Priority Routes for Bus/Tram Improvements
165
-73-
areas are included169, and it could include, for this area, improvements such as
Quality Bus Corridors, improved information and waiting times, bus lanes, and
bus rapid transit. LTP2 also identifies in its preferred Transport Intervention
Strategy that these steps are needed and eligible for LTP2 funding170, and they
will form part of future bids171.
4.29
The objective of the transport measures in this policy, to improve the accessibility
of the area for workers, is also consistent with the aims of area policies SNE3172
and SMW1173 which both seek to improve accessibility to employment areas for
residents of those areas. Improvement of the routes that link to the ‘key routes’
will need to be investigated as part of future bids through LTP2.
4.30
For flood risk the Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) has placed
those areas adjoining the river corridor in Attercliffe/ Newhall within a Zone 3a
High Probability. Large parts of the remaining area are situated within Zone 2
Medium Probability174. The Parkway/Kettlebridge area is situated within Zone 1
Low Probability.
4.31
All developments in Zone 2 must have a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
commensurate with the risk of flooding175. They should also: have floor levels
situated above the 1% maximum flood level plus freeboard; implement
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS); and ensure that the proposed
development does not result in an increase in maximum flood levels within
adjoining properties.
4.32
Future developments within Zone 3a, especially those directly next to the river,
will require a detailed FRA176. They should also: have floor levels situated above
the 1% maximum flood level plus freeboard; ensure that dry access is provided
above flood level at all locations to enable safe evacuation; not utilise basements
for habitable purposes; implement Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS);
ensure that the proposed development does not result in an increase in maximum
flood levels within adjoining properties; and apply an 8m buffer zone to ‘top of
bank’ within sites immediately adjoining the river corridor (this may be negotiated
with the Environment Agency in heavily constrained locations). The requirements
will be set out in the City Sites document.
These are the A6178 City Centre –M1J34 South, the A6109 City Centre – M1J34 North, and the A630
link towards M1 J33 (Sheffield Parkway)
170 LTP2 page 101
171 Priority for funding improvements to the ‘key routes’ network is also endorsed in the Plan For Transport
in Sheffield July 2007, Five year programme 2006-2011
172 Policy SNE3 Access to wider employment opportunities for residents in the North East Urban Area
173 Policy SMW1 Employment and services for people living in Mosborough/Woodhouse
174 The maps can be seen on the Council website www.sheffield.gov.uk
175 SFRA paragraph 6.3
176 SFRA paragraph 6.3
169
-74-
Sustainability Appraisal
4.33
The sustainability appraisal tested both industrial uses and business uses in this
location. It showed support for industrial use for its job creation impacts. But on
many indicators the impacts are similar for business and industry. Business
offers more opportunity for environmental improvement generally with potentially
higher quality buildings and landscaping opportunities and the appraisal shows
business use has a significantly higher impact for traffic generation than for
industrial uses. The latter point lends support for the emphasis on industrial uses
as the area does contribute to the levels of traffic at the congested motorway
junctions.
4.34
But, other issues than sustainability indicators were mostly responsible for the
choice of policy for this area.
Equality Appraisal
4.35
The inclusion of improvements to public transport links as a requirement of this
policy will improve the impact that this policy may have on people with no access
to private transport (one of the seven groups). This could open up employment
opportunities for those in or out of work who are on low incomes. The policy
specifically takes account of the opportunity these areas create to provide jobs for
people in neighbouring Housing Market Renewal Areas, both north of Attercliffe/
Newhall and on both sides of the Parkway/ Kettlebridge area. There were no
other impacts on disadvantaged groups that significantly influenced the choice of
policy specifically.
Consultation Responses
4.36
The way in which consultation comments were taken into account in developing
policy is the same for both Tinsley Park and Attercliffe/Newhall and
Parkway/Kettlebridge, as both policies are derived from the same emerging and
preferred options. This is not repeated here, it can be seen at paragraph 3.61 in
Chapter 3.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
4.37
Policy SLD3 for Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge is very similar to the
policy for Tinsley Park (SLD2). They are both areas specifically identified for
promoting and securing employment uses in the Lower Don Valley.
4.38
The alternative options (DA1b and PLD3) considered a policy that looked at land
uses for the whole Lower Don Valley. This was rejected in favour of area
policies that would more spatially specific.
-75-
4.39
SLD3 offers a variation on the role of SLD2. SLD2 includes limited office
provision as a complementary location to the city centre, and is consistent with
policy SB3 in this respect. SLD3 then offers more traditional industrial areas and
it can offer large flat sites suited to those uses away from areas of significant
housing.
4.40
SLD3 protects these areas for industry and warehousing/distribution, and having
considered the alternatives, and having regard for the complementary role of
other Lower Don Valley policies, this is considered the most appropriate policy. It
is therefore consistent with Soundness Test 7.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
4.41
The policy will be implemented by making decisions on planning applications.
4.42
Sheffield City Council will identify sites in its Business and Industry Land Survey
to assist developers/investors find suitable sites. This will be based on policy
areas and site allocations in the Sheffield Development Framework. This is
ongoing work by the City Council and is published on the City Council website.
4.43
The areas will be marketed as suitable areas for industry and
warehousing/distribution location by Sheffield’s inward investment agency177.
4.44
The preparation of site development briefs by the city council in consultation with
the landowner, on appropriate sites, will guide and advise on development
options for sites as they become available.
4.45
Implementation of the policy will depend on support and investment by a range of
stakeholders that will be co-ordinated by the local planning authority and bidding
for resources through for example, the South Yorkshire Investment Plan. The
City Development Division of the City Council will coordinate this.
4.46
Travel Plans will be a requirement of all planning applications that involve job
creation/preservation or visitors in these areas.
4.47
As an output of the preferred Transportation Intervention Strategy for the Lower
Don Valley178, the PTE will prepare future funding bids to improve public transport
routes serving these areas, specifically those which lie on the key routes (such as
Brightside Lane), and routes that are focussed on the Meadowhall Transport
Interchange.
4.48
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD3. However, a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the topic
177
178
Creative Sheffield formerly Sheffield First for Investment (SF4i)
LTP2 pages 99-103
-76-
chapters are directly or indirectly relevant and are described in the related
Background Reports:


Business and Industry Background Report – see policy SB4.
Transport Background Report – see policies ST2, ST3 and ST9.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
4.49
The mix of new development at Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/ Kettlebridge 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)
4.50
Policy SLD3 is a very similar policy to SLD2 but it addresses a different area.
They are intended to work together as part of a layer of local policies to cover the
Lower Don Valley. The flexibility and risks are also very similar.
4.51
The policy is flexible in that it provides for a range of employment land uses at
Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge, but it does not specify the scale and
exact nature of what and where those developments should be within that area.
This would be influenced by demand and the degree of success of the proposed
transport measures.
4.52
One of the uncertainties is about how much improvement can be achieved in
making the areas more accessible and attractive to employees, especially those
in neighbouring areas (including Brightside, Burngreave, Darnall and
Manor/Wybourn) and public transport improvements are key to this. Efforts are
being made by the PTE through LTP2 to address ‘Key routes’ (see paragraph
4.28).
4.53
The policy also depends on travel plans being both developed and adhered to;
enforcement of planning conditions will help to support the implementation of
travel plans.
Conclusion
4.54
Policy SLD3 is consistent with Soundness tests 4 – 9. For test 4 the policy
applies to specific areas of the Lower Don Valley, it is a spatial policy. It is
consistent with regional policy because it is one of the policies of the Lower Don
Valley that addresses the older industrialized areas of South Yorkshire as
promoted in the RSS. Whilst it retains these areas for industrial use, it can
provide sites for modern and traditional forms of industry. It is also consistent
-77-
with the RSS in that it will make a contribution to job opportunities for the city as
part of Sheffield’s role as a major provider of jobs. The policy is therefore
consistent with Soundness Test 4.
4.55
The policy is consistent with the Sheffield City Strategy and with some of the
Core Strategy Planning Objectives. Its makes a contribution to the strong
economy of the city (promoted by both these documents) by providing sites in an
accessible environment suited to industrial uses, and close to other similar uses.
4.56
Whilst the objective of ‘strong economy’ here is to broaden the economic base of
the city’s economy, by looking to new and innovative uses, this area provides
sites for those uses that have traditionally been and continue to be an important
part of the city’s economy and need to expand. This is consistent with
Soundness Tests 5 and 6.
4.57
In developing the policy for Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge, options
for an all-encompassing business and industry policy for the Lower Don Valley
were considered. This was rejected in favour of focussing on the different roles
that individual parts of the valley could play in delivering economic success. This
together with the other proposed Lower Don Valley policies represents a more
appropriate policy than the alternatives examined. This is consistent with
Soundness Test 7.
4.58
These are established industrial locations and the proposed policy will be
implemented primarily through the development control process, and will be
supported by marketing it to investors as an industrial location. The policy is
flexible to accommodate a range of employment uses and it does not specify the
exact locations or scale of use. These can be tailored to meet demand, subject
to other policies in the SDF, which control scale and location of uses. This is
consistent with Soundness Tests 8 and 9.
-78-
5
THE BOULEVARD OF SPORT
Introduction
5.1
Existing facilities such as English Institute of Sport, Ice Sheffield, Don Valley
Stadium, and the Hallam FM Arena already form a nucleus of sports related
leisure facilities in the Lower Don Valley. The area forms an appropriate location
for large-scale leisure uses for the Lower Don Valley, benefiting from the
clustering of related activities, access from the tram, and a Key Route through the
Valley.
Policy SLD4
5.2
In the area around the Don Valley Stadium, sports-related leisure will
continue to be the principal land use. Other large-scale leisure uses, if any,
that cannot be located in the City Centre will be located here.
A wide range of transport measures, including Travel Plans, will be
employed to maximise the accessibility of the area for visitors and
workers and ensure that air quality does not suffer. Measures will
include:
(a) improved public transport services for visitors
(b) measures to contain parking at levels that are sustainable.
(c) a high quality, safe pedestrian environment between facilities.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Regional Policy
5.3
Policy E1 of the draft RSS refers to creating a successful and competitive
regional economy. It states that all plans, strategies, major investment decisions
and programmes will aim to,
‘Recognise and support the potential of non-business class sectors including
health, sport and leisure, and tourism and education, as key economic and
employment sectors’179.
5.4
179
Policy SLD4 builds on the concentration of sport and leisure uses already existing
in the central part of the valley, and supports and protects them by confirming this
as a principle land use here. Policy SLD4 is consistent with this aspect of
regional policy.
Yorkshire and Humber Plan, policy E1, page 168
-79-
Sub-Regional Policy
The Second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) 2006-2011
5.5
Policy SLD4 is consistent with, and has had regard to, the preferred Lower Don
Valley Transport Intervention Strategy proposed in LTP2 (the details of this are
contained in Chapter 2 paragraph 2.15).
5.6
The policy includes a wide range of transport measures intended to maximise the
accessibility of the area for visitors. This is consistent with the elements of the
preferred Transport Intervention Strategy180 which refer to:

Travel plans (see paragraph 5.42 below).

Provision of new north/south bus services to better serve residential
communities – to give both workers and visitors better accessibility to the
sporting and leisure facilities in the valley. This is linked to policy SNE3,
which identifies the same issue as important for the communities of the
North East Urban Area181.
South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision
5.7
Theme 1 of this document is ‘Economic Development’. It proposes that clusters
of leisure uses will be developed in urban centres and out of town locations
accessible to public transport to cater for existing Sheffield residents and
visitors182. Policy SLD4 reflects and is consistent with this.
Other Sheffield Policies
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan
5.8
The vision for the Lower Don Valley as presented in the ‘Lower Don Valley Vision
and Masterplan’ is divided into four districts. The area covered by SLD4
‘Boulevard of Sport’ is represented by the ‘sports and leisure hub’ district in this
document183.
5.9
The idea is to present a series of market focussed land uses that will contribute to
a Sheffield ‘brand’. To do this, each district has its own character and
development opportunities184. The masterplan considers that whilst there are
assets of national significance located here, the contribution of them to the
Sheffield ‘brand’ is less than it could be. It proposes that, improvements to the
180
LTP2 pages 99-103
Policy SNE3 Access to wider employment opportunities for residents in the North East Urban Area
182 Page 12
183 The others are Attercliffe Village, Central Zone and Meadowhall Quadrant
184 Page 65
181
-80-
public realm, improved connectivity between the area and adjacent areas
(including Centertainment and Darnall), and more focussed development around
the tram stops, be pursued to make this area a more prominent part of the
‘brand’.
5.10
The masterplan proposes that individual detailed masterplans be produced to
develop achievable and realistic proposals and to research the development
opportunities185.
5.11
The character and ambitions for this area set out in the masterplan, are
consistent with the principle land use aims of proposed policy SLD4.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
5.12
Policy SLD4 has taken account of the themes and objectives of the Sheffield City
Strategy in deciding its predominant land uses and supporting transport
measures. The consistency of this policy with the City Strategy is the same as
that for the Tinsley Park area, supporting ‘A Strong Economy’, and this case is
not repeated here, it can be seen at paragraph 3.15 – 3.17 in Chapter 3.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
5.13
Policy SLD4 promotes the area around the Don Valley Stadium for sport-related
leisure uses. It is consistent with Challenge1 ‘Economic Transformation’186 in that
it can assist in the achieving of planning objective S1.5 which states:
‘cultural and leisure facilities and tourism expanded and improved’
5.14
The policy supports the already established cluster of sports related uses in this
area, and will provide the planning framework to expand and improve them when
opportunities are identified.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
5.15
185
186
The issue of major leisure in the Lower Don Valley as a whole was not addressed
at emerging policy stage, so there are no options to review in this section.
Relevant principles about the location of major leisure were addressed when
exploring the future development direction specifically for Meadowhall (see DA3e
paragraph 2.87) and this has been taken forward in submitted policy SLD1. The
details of this can be read in Chapter 2 paragraph 2.124.
Section 7.1 page 79
Core Strategy Chapter 3 Vision and Objectives
-81-
5.16
The issue of the relationship between the Valley and the City Centre was
considered in the Emerging Options leading to policy SS4187. It refers to the
Lower Don Valley as a location for major leisure facilities if no sites are suitable or
available in the City Centre. After the preferred options consultation it was
concluded that the role of sport and major leisure was not given enough
prominence in the preferred options for the valley. The submitted policy identifies
a location within the valley where large-scale developments would be best
located.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
5.17
The Lower Don Valley already represents a focus for leisure, recreation, and
sporting investment in the region and this will continue.
5.18
Policy SLD4 promotes the land uses that will build on the reputation of this cluster
of existing developments188 and add to the attractiveness of this part of the valley
as a place to work and visit. This is consistent with the spatial vision for South
Yorkshire (see paragraph 5.7).
5.19
This policy offers local context and support for Core Strategy policy SS4 which
deals with types of facility that may be too large for a central location but which
need easy access by public transport to be attractive. This policy states that
‘Major facilities will be located in the Lower Don Valley if no sites are suitable
or available in the City Centre or at its edge’.
5.20
The policy also identifies the Lower Don Valley as a location for leisure
development serving smaller catchments if no sites are available in existing
centres (see Retail and Leisure Background Report on policy SS4).
5.21
Policy SLD4 offers a planning policy framework to assist in developing the aims
and objectives of the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan for this area. This
area is called the ‘sports and leisure hub’ in the document. It states that:
‘this unique Sheffield asset will continue to function as the focal area for
recreational activities across the city’189
5.22
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan states that there is a real
opportunity to establish the Lower Don Valley as Sheffield’s ‘Leisure and Sports
Corridor’ and it is expected that the focus will be on sports oriented uses at every
187
Policy SS4 Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments, and its supporting text.
They are The Don Valley Stadium, The English Institute of Sport, Ice Sheffield, The Don Valley Bowl,
Hallam FM Arena, and Centertainment
189 Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, paragraph 6.2, page 68
188
-82-
level. These are the land uses that SLD4 seeks to promote and protect. To
make the area a success the masterplan states that:
‘Establishing a quality, year round formal and informal activity programme,
that utilises the stadium, the canal, the Don Valley Bowl and the arena is
critical’.
5.23
The masterplan considers that although Sheffield has the assets in the Lower
Don Valley to be a sporting city of national significance, it does not contribute as
much as it could to the ‘Sheffield brand’. Promoting a leisure and sport oriented
land use policy specific to this area should help attract developments that will add
to this character aim. Indeed the title of the policy ‘Boulevard of Sport’ is taken
from the masterplan in that it proposes a united image for the area that draws all
the elements together190. Policy SLD4 proposes that the principle land use
around the Don Valley Stadium should be sport related leisure and this will assist
in the consolidation of these types of land uses, and uses that support them or
are allied to them, toward this area.
5.24
The area is accessible by a range of transport measures, it is close to the M1
junction 34, located on a major route to the City Centre, it has the benefit of
Supertram running through its heart, with dedicated trams stops at Don Valley
Stadium the Arena and Centertainment.
5.25
These are land uses that can generate a lot of traffic, particularly when there is a
major event at one of the venues. For the success of the area, the impact of any
new major uses must be minimised. Although current public transport through
the area is good, in order to protect the area from additional impacts the policy
includes a range of transport measures that aim to maximise the accessibility for
visitors and employees, and ensure that air quality does not suffer (see
Implementation paragraph 5.41 – 5.44). So, the policy indicates access and
transport measures that should be taken alongside those to develop this area.
5.26
The policy aims to support an identity for this area as primarily a sports and
leisure area, however, the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan has identified
that the area is not well connected, and that improvements to infrastructure that
will draw the elements together more coherently is vital. The aim is to create a
destination area where visitors can move freely from one venue to another. This
does not happen at the moment. Further work needs to be done to address the
linkages within the area, and with areas such as Darnall, Attercliffe, Brightside,
and Burngreave. This would include things like improvements to the pedestrian
environment and coordinated street furniture.
5.27
The canal is an important resource for this area and improvements to the canal
environment and towpath links will encourage linkages within the area. The
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan proposed that a more detailed
190
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, paragraph 6.2. 3, page 90
-83-
masterplan is developed for the area to research the opportunities offered on the
ground191.
5.28
This links with the proposed accessibility strategy in the DAT NDF to promote
links between Attercliffe and Darnall and facilities in the wider Lower Don
Valley192.
5.29
According to Sheffield’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) most of the
area is in Zone 1 Low Probability. The Attercliffe end of the area is within Zone 2
Medium Probability and only a small proportion (on its eastern edge closest to the
river, and south of Don Valley Bowl) is situated within Zone 3a High Probability.
Some mitigation action may be required but most of the area will not be affected.
Sustainability Appraisal
5.30
As this is a new policy not carried forward directly from any emerging area policy
no sustainability evidence is available to assist in determining between options.
However, the appraisal for policy SS4 is relevant.
5.31
Alternative policies for the Lower Don Valley were considered and appraised but
they did not include leisure uses, they only considered the industry and business
role. This is a gap identified by comments on the emerging policy, and this is
addressed by policy SLD4. The main differences from the industry and business
options are that it also supports the sustainability objective for culture, leisure and
recreation facilities and, with the necessary transport measures, it also creates a
land use pattern that promotes the use of sustainable transport. Sports activities
also help to engender good health.
Equality Appraisal
5.32
The location on routes well served by frequent public transport ensures that these
facilities will be accessible to those without access to a car, which will include
people on low incomes and many young people.
Consultation Responses
5.33
There were no comments that relate specifically to the leisure and sport role
promoted by SLD4. However, two comments at Preferred Option stage 193 raised
the issue of accommodating large-scale leisure in the Lower Don Valley. This
added to the recommendation in the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan,
that there was a role for these uses in the valley, gave weight to the decision to
develop the policy.
191
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan paragraph 7.4, page 81
DAT NDF Appendix C
193 Comment numbers 4558.03 and 4731.012
192
-84-
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
5.34
Policy SLD4 represents one of the six area policies identified for the Lower Don
Valley. Moving from a preferred option of a Lower Don Valley wide policy, to
support industry and business as a primary land use for the area (PLD1), is was
considered that the area would benefit more from focussed area policies that
promote appropriate land uses to deliver success within parts of the valley.
5.35
In developing area policies it was noted that there was a major cluster of land
uses in the central part of the valley that were not provided for. SLD4 provides a
planning framework to deal with the role of this part of the valley. This is further
supported by the identification of this as a role for this area in the Lower Don
Valley Vision and Masterplan.
5.36
Having considered the alternatives, in this case a Lower Don Valley wide policy,
this represents the most appropriate in all the circumstances. It can provide a
more specific local policy. It is therefore consistent with Soundness Test 7.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
5.37
The policy will be implemented largely by making decisions on planning
applications.
5.38
Sheffield City Council will identify sites to assist developers and investors to find
suitable locations. This will be based on policy areas and site allocations in the
SDF.
5.39
The area will be marketed as a sports and leisure destination by Creative
Sheffield, Sheffield’s Inward Investment Agency194.
5.40
The preparation of site development briefs by the City Council in consultation with
the landowner will guide and advise on development options for major sites that
become available in this area.
5.41
The transport measures identified in the policy will be an important part of the
implementation of these land uses in this location. They will be important for the
image of the area as a visitor destination as well as its general accessibility. For
example, travel plans will be a requirement of all development in this area that
generates jobs or visitors, to identify the most efficient way to deal with access.
5.42
Travel plans have an important role to play in demand management, making
travel more sustainable and reducing the need to travel. They will be
implemented on all new development around this area that have significant
transport and accessibility implications, and will be required as part of the
194
Formerly SF4i
-85-
supporting documents for planning applications195. In this area they could
address any of the following areas that may be relevant; commuter journeys,
business travel, fleet management, visitors and deliveries. The plan will be
specific to the location and operation of the development.
5.43
In the Boulevard of Sport area, improved public transport for visitors and workers
will focus on improvement of the ‘key routes’. This supports Core Strategy policy
ST6 which identifies which ‘key routes’ST6, which identifies which ‘key routes’,
will be improved by bus priority measures. A key route for this area is
included196, and improvements could include things such as Quality Bus
Corridors, improved information and waiting times, bus lanes, and bus rapid
transit. LTP2 also identifies in its preferred Transport Intervention Strategy that
these steps are needed and eligible for LTP2 funding197, and they will form part
of future bids198.
5.44
The objective of the transport measures in this policy is to maintain accessibility
of the area for visitors and workers. This is consistent with the aims of area
policies SNE3199 and SMW1200 which both seek to improve accessibility to
employment areas for residents of those areas. Improvement of the routes that
link to the ‘key routes’ will need to be investigated as part of future bids through
LTP2.
5.45
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD4. However, a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the topic
chapters are directly or indirectly relevant and are described in the related
Background Reports:



Business and Industry Background Report – see policy SB4.
Retail and Built Leisure Background Report – see policy SS4.
Transport Background Report – see policies ST2, ST3, ST4 and ST6.
Progress against the targets in these policies will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
5.46
The mix of new development in the area around the Don Valley Stadium 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.
195
The trigger level for requirement of travel plans will be set by the City Policies document.
This is the A6178 City Centre – M1 J34 North
197 LTP2 page 101
198 Priority for funding improvements to the ‘key routes’ network is also endorsed in the Plan For Transport
in Sheffield, July 2007, Five year programme 2006-2011
199 Policy SNE3 Access to wider employment opportunities for residents in the North East Urban Area
200 Policy SMW1 Employment and services for people living in Mosborough/Woodhouse
196
-86-
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
5.47
The main risk identified with this policy is that there are very few current
development sites identified in the area so the emphasis is likely to be on
consolidation of the area for sport and leisure rather than expansion of major
facilities.
5.48
It will support the development of complementary infrastructure and greenspace
improvements, or smaller scale complementary developments such as small
business uses (especially if they are leisure/sport oriented) if they come forward,
and other facilities such as hotels and cafes that will add to the visitor experience.
5.49
There is a risk that, if the transport aspects of the policy are not successfully
implemented, large-scale development could add to congestion and air quality
problems, as they are generally large traffic generating uses. It will be vital to
ensure that these measures are a requirement of development and are properly
developed and enforced.
Conclusion
5.50
Policy SLD4 is consistent with soundness tests 4-9. The policy refers to a specific
area of the Lower Don Valley where sport related leisure is promoted as the
principle land use, and it is a spatial policy.
5.51
The policy is consistent with national planning policy. It supports core strategy
policy SS4, which identifies locations in the city where large-scale leisure and
cultural developments can be located; this in turn is consistent with national
guidance PPS6.
5.52
It is also consistent with the draft RSS policy that supports the potential of nonbusiness class sectors (including sport, leisure and tourism) as key economic and
employment sectors. Policy SLD4 promotes this area as a significant
employment area for these sectors. Policy SLD4 is therefore consistent with
Soundness Test 4.
5.53
Policy SLD 4 is consistent with the Sheffield City Strategy and the Planning
Objectives of the Core Strategy that support ‘A Strong Economy’. By promoting
land uses that produce a strong identity for Sheffield, attracting investment and
visitors to the city, as well as creating jobs in a relatively new job sector, they are
making a valuable contribution to promoting a strong economy. Policy SLD4 is
therefore consistent with Soundness Tests 5 and 6.
5.54
In developing a policy for a sport and leisure area (‘Boulevard of Sport’) an area
wide policy that covered land uses throughout the Lower Don Valley was
considered and rejected. Instead, a policy that focuses on the role this particular
area can play in delivering economic success in the valley is proposed. This,
-87-
together with other Lower Don Valley policies, provides a more local policy in a
strategic Lower Don Valley context, and is a more appropriate policy. This is
consistent with Soundness Test 7.
5.55
The policy will be delivered primarily through the development control process
and supported by marketing of the area. This is indicated in the implementation
section. It is clear that to deliver this sport and leisure character some flexibility
will be needed. There may not be the large sites available to accommodate
major leisure or sporting facilities, but the policy does not require this. It can
though support land uses that will contribute to the protection of this area for
these uses. This is consistent with Soundness Tests 8 and 9.
-88-
6
HOUSING IN ATTERCLIFFE AND DARNALL
Introduction
6.1
In past years, the area around Attercliffe was an area where people both lived
and worked. After the decline of the steel industry in the 1970s Attercliffe lost
most of its housing to clearance and its link with the existing residential
communities in Darnall has withered. Very few people live in this area now, but
there is renewed demand and an opportunity exists to create new areas of
sustainable housing close to where people work.
Policy SLD5
6.2
A mix of uses including housing, services and employment will be
promoted around the canal between Attercliffe and Darnall and the
extension of this development will be encouraged, as opportunities arise, in
the direction of the City Centre.
Public transport links will be improved between this area and the city
centre and to employment opportunities in the valley.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Regional Policy
6.3
One of the key spatial priorities for housing in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy
seeks to ensure that new house building is managed in a way that supports the
restructuring of housing markets in areas where there is low demand, and that
increases the amount of affordable housing across the region, particularly in
areas of high need201.
6.4
Policy SLD5 is intended to tie in with and provide a planning framework for the
ongoing housing market renewal work in Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley that
supports this regional priority. The DAT NDF (see paragraph 6.15) looks
specifically at the housing markets in the Darnall, Attercliffe, and Tinsley areas
and picks up the opportunities in the area to attract quality housing development
and widen the housing offer to the community. Attercliffe is considered to have a
role in the city’s housing market that supports HMR objective to create
sustainable communities.
6.5
The draft Regional Spatial Strategy also states that:
201
Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Policy H2, page 151
-89-
‘There will be joined up working across the region to manage the release of
land for housing in a manner that will support interventions to address both
fragile and failing housing markets and affordability’202.
6.6
Core Strategy policy SH4 203 names HMR areas as areas for priority release of
land, and policy SLD5 puts forward the Attercliffe area as an area that has been
identified in HMR masterplans for new housing development to support
regeneration.
6.7
SLD2 is consistent with regional policy in that it identifies the importance of
Attercliffe in delivering HMR objectives which in turn are aimed at addressing and
improving the housing market in line with regional housing policy.
Sub-Regional Policy
South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy Vision
6.8
The ‘settlement vision’ in this document204 states:
‘To adopt a strategy with respect to housing location that provides for better
access to employment centres than in the past, whilst locating housing in
places where people want to live, and where their journeys to work can be as
sustainable as possible’.
6.9
This is consistent with the primary aim of policy SLD5 to provide a new mixed use
sustainable community as an extension to the existing community at Darnall. The
aim is to create an environment where people can live and work, but that is well
connected to sources of employment in the wider Lower Don Valley.
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd prospectus: Scheme Update
6.10
Policy SLD5 is consistent with the aims and objectives of Transform South
Yorkshire (TSY) for this part of the Pathfinder area. In the section on vision they
state that their purpose is to counteract the challenge of poor quality housing in
large parts of South Yorkshire. The issue for HMR in South Yorkshire is not large
areas of abandonment but pockets of low demand with many neighbourhoods at
risk of major decline is action is not taken205.
6.11
In their document the case for intervention in the housing market is to make it
more responsive to the needs of communities206. For example, the current
housing offer in Darnall and Attercliffe is not good enough or wide ranging
202
Yorkshire and Humber Plan, paragraph 13.36
Policy SH4 Priorities for releasing Land for New Housing, and supporting text
204 Prepared for the South Yorkshire Partnership, March 2007
205 Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, page 8
206 Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, paragraph 2.22, page 10
203
-90-
enough to attract new residents who may be looking to live close to employment
opportunities, or for existing residents who aspire to better or larger houses.
Promoting Attercliffe as a new area for housing is an opportunity to address this.
6.12
Policy SLD5 is consistent with all three of the strategic objectives of TSY. They
are:
SO1: Achieve a radical improvement in the character and diversity of
neighbourhoods – SLD5 by introducing a mix of land uses where people can
live and work can assist in creating a vibrant new area from an area that is
characterised by vacant and underused former industrial land.
SO2: Expand the areas range of housing opportunities – there is very little
housing in this area at present, and it has been identified in both the DAT NDF
and the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan as a suitable area to bring in
new housing and so expand the range of housing available in Darnall overall.
SO3: Improve housing quality – the opportunity to bring new housing into the
area creates opportunity itself for high quality, well designed, sustainable and
affordable dwellings to be part of the range of housing available in Darnall.
6.13
TSY see their role as:
‘To invest in the resolution of housing quality and choice issues, assisting
in developing places where people want to live…207’.
The support of TSY for the DAT NDF in its proposals to create a new community
at Attercliffe is an example of this. Policy SLD5 seeks to provide the planning
means to deliver it.
6.14
Attercliffe/Darnall is identified by TSY as a high priority for HMR investment
(2006-2010)208. This priority has been set because TSY believe that this area is
amongst the areas with greatest opportunity for change. This is a reason for
including SLD5.
Other Sheffield Policies
Darnall Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework
(DAT NDF)
6.15
The main thrust of the DAT NDF is its strategy for sustainable communities209.
Within this it proposes that housing be a key component of the regeneration of
Attercliffe and Darnall.
207
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, paragraph 3.20, page 54
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Update 2005, paragraph 3.54, page 60
209 DAT NDF, paragraph 5.5, page 35
208
-91-
6.16
A strategic development area at ‘Darnall and Attercliffe Waterside’ is identified
within the NDF as a major development project.210. The vision for this project is:
‘A dynamic new neighbourhood for Darnall and Attercliffe which capitalises
on the canal corridor. A mixed-use area with a vibrant housing market that
reinforces the links between Darnall and Attercliffe, the City Centre, and the
Boulevard of Sport. A mixed neighbourhood that feels integral to the wider
community. An area that provides a range of house types and tenure for all
sections of the community; but also attracts new people to the area’
6.17
Policy SLD5 is entirely consistent with this vision in the types of land use it is
proposing here. It has available sites alongside the canal that can accommodate
new housing to widen the range and choice already available in Darnall, and
employment sites that can act as a buffer between residential uses and the wider
industrial area of the valley.
6.18
A key issue for the NDF strategy in creating a sustainable community is the
improvement of links between Darnall and Attercliffe, and the wider Lower Don
Valley211. The redevelopment of underused and vacant areas between Attercliffe
and Darnall will promote accessibility and offer Darnall better links to Attercliffe
(for Supertram, for better connections to sport and leisure facilities, and to
employment opportunities) and Attercliffe to Darnall (for access to facilities
including schools, and jobs in the district centre). It will increase housing
opportunities for those who work in the Lower Don Valley and make routes safer
and more attractive between the two areas. The mix of uses offered, and the
inclusion of improved public transport links within the policy, is consistent with this
strategy.
The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan
6.19
Policy SLD5 is also consistent with the proposals in the Lower Don Valley Vision
and Masterplan for this area.
6.20
The vision for the Lower Don Valley is presented in four districts. The area
covered by this policy is within the ‘Attercliffe Village’ district212.
6.21
The Vision for Attercliffe in the Lower Don Valley Masterplan proposes existing
industrial uses to remain, but be consolidated elsewhere over time to allow for the
introduction of new uses. With the changing pattern of land uses, housing at
Attercliffe Village would become integrated with the existing Darnall
neighbourhood to the southeast. It envisages traditional lower-rise house forms
suitable for families that will blend with existing housing towards Darnall, whilst
210
DAT NDF, paragraph 6.0, page 51
DAT NDF, paragraph 2.59, page 115
212 The others are Sports and Leisure Hub, Central Zone, and Meadowhall Quadrant
211
-92-
more contemporary higher density residential developments would front onto the
canal and along the High Street to provide activity around the clock213.
6.22
The masterplan envisages this area as an ‘authentic urban village within the heart
of the Lower Don Valley’ and sees not only residential development but
improvement of the waterway (canal) and footpath routes to link through the area
as key interventions for renewal214.
6.23
The masterplan proposes that further work is needed to develop the details of his
district vision215 and this has been supported by similar proposals in the DAT
NDF (see paragraph 6.16 above).
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
6.24
Policy SLD5 is consistent with revised City Strategy Theme 2 ‘Successful
Neighbourhoods’. The aim is for every neighbourhood to be a successful
neighbourhood, where people enjoy living; that are safe, and have good quality
services and economic opportunities216. The land uses promoted in SLD5 can
encourage this.
6.25
Housing Market Renewal work has identified that this area would be a good place
to promote new housing as part of a mixture of new land uses, including housing
and employment opportunities, to regenerate the area and create a new addition
to the Darnall neighbourhood.
6.26
There are genuine opportunities (see paragraph 6.16 – 6.18 above) to improve
the wider community of Darnall, and thereby encourage a successful
neighbourhood, by using development sites to improve the links between
Attercliffe and Darnall making the whole neighbourhood safe and more attractive.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
6.27
Policy SLD5 is consistent with several planning objectives identified in part 1 of
the Core Strategy217.
6.28
Challenge 4 ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’ is about improving existing
neighbourhoods, creating sustainable neighbourhoods that are active, thriving
and well served’. A planning objective of this challenge is:
213
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, paragraph 6.1
Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, paragraph 6.1.3, page 67
215 Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan, paragraph 7.5, page 85
216 Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010, page 22
217 Core Strategy Chapter 3, Vision and Objectives
214
-93-
‘S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created’.
6.29
Policy SLD5 encourages a mix of land uses that would help create a new vital
neighbourhood. It would also be an extension of the existing neighbourhood with
the benefits of an established neighbourhood close by, and with shops (district
centre), schools, and other facilities in Darnall itself. It would also be close to the
wider benefits of the Lower Don Valley (for Supertram, employment, and
entertainment). There is enough development opportunity here to create
opportunities for living and working, and introduction of new high quality land
uses (such as housing and business uses), as part of mixed development will
attract investors that have been lacking in the area to date.
6.30
Challenge 9 is ‘Reducing the need to travel’. This means supporting and locating
development, in this case employment and housing opportunities, so as to
minimise the distances that people have to travel. By promoting mixed use at
Attercliffe which is well served by public transport, SLD5 is directly related to
planning objectives S9.1 and 9.2, which are:
‘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. ‘
6.31
Vacant sites in the area will provide some opportunity to locate some higher
density uses close to a range of public transport options.
6.32
Challenge 15 is ‘Urban Areas that look good and work well’ – Policy SLD5 is
consistent with the planning objectives of this challenge. The planning objectives
include:
‘S15.1 High quality in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the
spaces around and between them’, and
‘S15.3 New character and improved design and townscape in neighbourhoods
where the environment has become run down’
6.33
New housing is proposed especially for the canalside, which currently has a very
neglected and industrial image. There is opportunity then to bring forward well
designed, sustainable development that will meet this objective.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
6.34
Three options were considered at emerging options stage with a common theme
of housing location to address the issue if, or where, should new housing be
located in the Lower Don Valley.
-94-
Option DA2a
Do not allow any new housing to be developed in the Lower Don Valley
6.35
The strength of this option is:
A wide range of industrial uses can continue to expand in the area.
6.36
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) There is a lot of vacant and unused land in this area that has been this
way for a number of years.
(b) Contribution to HMR objectives, such as sustainable neighbourhoods,
would be made by the reconnection of the businesses at Attercliffe and
Attercliffe Village and Darnall, which have for many years been
separated by industry and vacant land.
(c) Without promoting development via new land uses (including housing)
then these areas would remain separated, and the regeneration benefits
of a safer and more attractive housing environment would not happen.
(d) One of the strategic objectives of HMR is to contribute to
transformational change in the HMR areas by providing housing range
and choice. There are limited site opportunities to do this within Darnall.
Sites in the Lower Don Valley that could meet this challenge would be
lost.
Option DA2b
Allow a mix of uses (housing/services/ local employment) to be located
around the canal at Attercliffe and between Attercliffe and Darnall
6.37
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Allowing housing development in this area, where there is a significant
amount of underused and vacant land, could create a vibrant new
neighbourhood and bring investment into the area.
(b) It would establish a new housing market where one does not currently
exist, creating new interest in Darnall as a place to live.
(c) It would make a contribution to long-term supply of housing in the city.
(d) It would provide a community close to employment opportunities in the
wider Lower Don Valley, on good public transport routes, reducing the
need to travel.
-95-
(e) A mixed community here would provide day and night activity in an area
currently perceived as being unsafe and unwelcoming, particularly at night.
(f) More business and residential activity would have a positive impact on the
Attercliffe Centre providing new customers and added vitality, creating an
incentive for businesses to locate there.
(g) There are limited sites for new housing in Darnall. Housing development
in this location could provide for family housing and provide a significant
opportunity to widen the choice of housing.
(h) There would be an opportunity to create high-quality development with an
attractive waterside frontage to the canal, replacing low quality or vacant
ex industrial land.
6.38
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) The promotion of sensitive uses in this location would limit the use of land
for other uses that have traditionally looked to locate in this part of the city,
and which may generate jobs, but are not compatible with housing.
(b) It could result in there not being enough land in appropriate locations for
business and industry needs.
Option DA2c
Create a new residential neighbourhood at Meadowhall
6.39
This is dealt with in Chapter 1 paragraph 2.77.
6.40
Option DA2b was the emerging option that was pursued to a preferred option and
was the basis of sustainability appraisal and consultation.
Preferred Option PLD2
New housing in the Lower Don Valley
A mix of uses including housing, services and employment will be
promoted around the canal between Attercliffe and Darnall and the
extension of this development will be encouraged, as opportunities arise, in
the direction of the City Centre.
6.41
Following Preferred Options consultation Option DA2c is taken up again for the
submitted Meadowhall area policy in Chapter 1.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
The case for regeneration
-96-
6.42
The area has long been an area in transition where larger industrial uses have
declined and not been replaced, and where redevelopment opportunities have
existed for many years. Policy SLD5 proposes a mix of land uses that will
support regeneration.
6.43
The city has worked hard for over a decade to broaden the base of its economy
and away from reliance on industry. For example, the introduction of business
uses at Carbrook, and leisure uses around the Don Valley Stadium has created
new sector of employment.
6.44
Creation of mixed-use areas, as promoted at Attercliffe/Darnall is a way of
bringing less attractive areas back into economic use by promoting housing and
employment uses, instead of industry. The inclusion of this area into the HMR
NDF area of study enables the opportunities for regeneration to be studied in
detail.
6.45
There is a lot of vacant land around this area that has been this way for many
years. Regeneration and renewal is needed. Employment led regeneration
would seem the obvious route for this location, it has been an employment area
most recently, and employment land is needed in the city218. But policy SLD5
promotes housing led regeneration instead, reflecting much work done already to
create a sustainable community here. The DAT NDF promotes it as a major
objective for Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley219. There is enough development
opportunity at Attercliffe/Darnall to create both living and working opportunities,
and introducing housing to the mix of uses will create a vitality that is often
missing from industrial areas where few people are seen out on the streets,
especially at night.
6.46
Regeneration of the area around the canal is needed to secure the future of the
Attercliffe centre if it is to remain. The Attercliffe centre is one of the oldest
shopping centres in the city, but it is of poor quality and is declining as a
traditional shopping area. New businesses and residents in the area will
generate a need for local services, and have positive effect on the centre. The
centre is well located to provide a service function for this part of the Lower Don
Valley and its loss would leave a gap in provision in the valley. Industrial uses
are less likely to need the services of a local centre.
6.47
The location of vacant land in this area is an opportunity to create an
improvement in the overall quality and appearance of the area. New housing with
an attractive waterside frontage, together with opportunity for water based
recreation along the canal, will go a long way to improving the image of this area,
replacing low quality or vacant ex-industrial land. This will in turn attract more
investors who may otherwise consider this area.
218
219
See Core strategy SB1 Land for Employment and Economic Development, and supporting text
DAT NDF Chapter 4 page 31
-97-
The need for housing
6.48
Housing development in this location would make a long-term contribution to
supply of housing in the city (see Housing Background Report).
6.49
The location is included in policy SH2220 as an area where housing development
would meet the challenges and objectives of the spatial strategy for development
to be focussed in the main built up area of the city.
6.50
Policy SLD5 supports policy SH4, which gives priority to releasing land where it
supports HMR strategies221.
Housing Market Renewal
6.51
New housing in this location would broaden the appeal of the HMR area. Darnall,
Attercliffe, and Tinsley faces the challenge of how to attract quality housing
development that adds to the housing offer here. There is no market failure in
Darnall in terms of large numbers of empty properties or significant house value
decrease. The issue here is that there is not a broad range of housing types and
size in Darnall that would prove attractive to new residents, or provide properties
that existing residents can aspire to.
6.52
There are only a few opportunities within the existing housing area at Darnall to
create this extra housing offer. Work done as part of the NDF indicates that most
land opportunities are alongside the canal222, because this is where land is either
vacant or underused.
6.53
The area introduces opportunity for a sustainable extension to the Darnall
neighbourhood. The reconnection of communities at Attercliffe (which is largely a
business community with a small pocket of housing at Attercliffe village), and the
existing large residential community at Darnall would make a big contribution to
the creation of a ‘successful neighbourhood’. This will support Core Strategy
Planning Objectives (see paragraph 6.27) and the Sheffield City Strategy (see
paragraph 6.24). A successful neighbourhood would be a sustainable
community, which is a key HMR objective.
6.54
The neighbourhood would be more successful or sustainable because the route
between Darnall and Attercliffe has for years been characterised by vacant and
underused sites and industrial land uses; not a very safe and attractive route
between the two. Reconnecting them, by making use of vacant sites and
creating a safer and more attractive route, would benefit both Attercliffe and
Darnall. It would benefit Darnall by improving access to Supertram, to sport and
220
Policy SH2 Locations for New Housing and Maintaining a Supply of Land, and supporting text
Policy SH4 Priorities for Releasing Land for New Housing, and supporting text
222 DAT NDF plan at page 42
221
-98-
leisure facilities in the Lower Don Valley, and to employment opportunities, and
would benefit Attercliffe by promoting improved access to the district centre for its
shopping and other facilities (such as library, doctors and schools) and its
employment opportunities. ‘Well Connected’ and ’Well Served’ are two of the
aims of a sustainable community.
Issues still to be addressed
6.55
Housing is promoted as the major land use proposed for this area, but there is a
need for employment land in the city223. There will still be room for the
employment uses. In fact, they are needed to contribute to the sustainable
community being created, and they are also needed on the southern and eastern
edges of the area to create a buffer to the existing and continuing industrial area
of the wider valley.
6.56
A study has been commissioned to look at the development capacity of this area
and determine the best location and viable quantities of housing and business
uses that are needed to regenerate this area224. This is expected to report later
in 2007 and will inform future decisions on implementation of this policy in terms
of determining the most appropriate mix.
6.57
This area is well located for public transport for some trips. For example, it has
the benefit of Supertram to link it to the City Centre and locations along the Lower
Don Valley including Meadowhall, and good bus route connections similarly. But
the connections within the area, to the Darnall Centre, and to locations across the
valley (to Burngreave and Brightside/Wincobank) could be improved. This is
needed to connect the area properly and create good accessibility to employment
opportunities in the valley. This connects with and is consistent with area policy
SNE3 which seeks transport improvements for access to wider employment
opportunities for the communities of north east Sheffield. The policy, therefore,
indicates the need to improve public transport links.
6.58
According to the Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) the Darnall
and Attercliffe areas, covered by policy SLD5, are mostly situated within a Zone 1
Low Probability area225, apart from a very small area around the Attercliffe end of
Darnall Road where a Zone 3a High Probability is identified close to the
aquaduct. If any housing is proposed in this small area, then housing
developments are classed as ‘more vulnerable’, according to the Flood Risk
Vulnerability Classification in PPS25226. Therefore any housing development
proposed in Zone 3a must pass the Exception Test227.
223
See Core Strategy SB1 paragraph 6.2 and Sheffield Employment Sites Survey 2007
By the City Council and landowners in the area
225 Sheffield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007 Figure 004, S04 Lower Don West
226PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification, table D.2 Annex D PPS25
227The Exception Test is only appropriate for use when there are large areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3,
where the Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where some continuing development
is necessary for wider sustainable development reasons.
224
-99-
6.59
For the majority of the area covered by the policy within Zone 1 Low Probability,
there is no significant impact on development from flood risk to be taken into
account.
Sustainability Appraisal
6.60
The sustainability appraisal compared the Emerging Options of, no new housing
in the Lower Don Valley (DA1a) and the proposed mixed-use area (that includes
housing) at Attercliffe/Darnall (DA1b)228.
6.61
The proposed policy is developed from DA1b. The appraisal for this was overall
more positive than DA1a (no new housing), in that housing will have a significant
regeneration impact on several indicators (including reuse of brownfield land,
quality of environment, and efficient transport network). Although much of the
impact will depend on the scale and nature of development eventually
implemented.
6.62
The sustainability appraisal supported the choice of proposed policy on the basis
of the regeneration impact of housing, but raises the issue that local job
opportunities need to be part of this new community for it to be a sustainable
community. This needs to be taken into account when developing the strategy
for implementation of the policy (see Implementation paragraph 6.79).
6.63
The option of no new housing in the valley was rejected on the basis of the
potential of housing as a regeneration tool, and because it ignores the aims of the
HMR project. This applies both at Meadowhall and Attercliffe/Darnall and is
explained in the planning reasons paragraphs 2.104 and 6.51 – 6.54.
Equality Appraisal
6.64
Similarly the equality appraisal tested the options of housing and no new housing.
In terms of that appraisal positive equality implications could arise from new
housing between Attercliffe and Darnall. People who may have currently poor
access to private transport will benefit from the opportunity to move to an area
where new housing is being provided, which has good access to public transport,
and is closer to sources of employment.
Consultation Responses
6.65
228
229
At Emerging Options stage there was support for new housing at Attercliffe in that
it supports the Lower Don Valley Masterplan’s vision for the area229.
A new neighbourhood at Meadowhall was a third option (DA1c). This is dealt with in Chapter 1
Emerging Option comment 8.05
-100-
6.66
Four groups supported a regeneration of the area through mixed-use
development around the canal230. Yorkshire Forward supported housing at
Attercliffe if it is needed to meet housing land requirements, and delivers the
HMR programme. Mixed uses are favoured as a way of developing a sustainable
community231. Rotherham Borough Council were concerned about the impact
that housing development at Attercliffe may have on Rotherhams’ aspirations for
housing. Both of these pointed to the need for more work to support the
option232.
6.67
No comments were made that provided evidence that housing was an unsuitable
land use for the Lower Don Valley, though comments did point to the need for
further study of the area, and this is being pursued.
6.68
The majority of comments supported the idea of housing led mixed-use
regeneration as a preferred option. At Preferred Options stage the CPRE
offered continued support for mixed use development around the canal233 and
two other comments noted the benefits this would bring for Attercliffe 234.
6.69
The level of support has helped in the process of deciding on more specific area
policies for the Lower Don Valley rather than a Lower Don Valley housing policy.
6.70
Most of the comments referred to the exclusion of housing at Meadowhall from
the preferred options, this was taken up in the Meadowhall policy (see Chapter
2).
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
6.71
Proposed policy SLD5, in promoting mixed use at Attercliffe/Darnall represents
the most appropriate policy for this part of the Lower Don Valley.
6.72
In arriving at the proposed policy the alternative option of no housing was
considered and rejected in favour of a policy that promotes housing as a
regeneration tool as part of mixed development.
6.73
The policy is the most appropriate because regeneration and renewal of the area
has been established as needed by two separate masterplanning exercises 235.
6.74
They both studied the opportunities offered by the location of Attercliffe/Darnall,
and concluded that a new sustainable community could be created here that
would benefit the Lower Don Valley by raising the quality and attractiveness of
230
Emerging Option comments 971.52, 4249.01, 4478.20, 4865.54,
Emerging Option comment 4558.59
232 Emerging Option comment 4887.04
233 Preferred Option comment 4887.04
234 Preferred Option comments 7.65, 5302.024
235 The Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan and the DAT NDF
231
-101-
the area, and would particularly contribute to improving the success of Darnall as
a neighbourhood.
6.75
The land uses proposed in the policy will encourage the promotion of a
neighbourhood that can offer a broad range of housing and employment
opportunities (both within Attercliffe and at Darnall centre), and is well connected
to other parts of the city and the City Centre by public transport.
6.76
It is appropriate because there are genuine development opportunities in
Attercliffe/Darnall to develop a place where people can live and work. The
benefits of a sustainable mixed community (in terms of renewing the housing
market) outweigh the reserving of this area for continued industrial development.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
6.77
This proposed policy promotes the regeneration and renewal of Attercliffe/Darnall
particularly around the canal. The policy will be delivered through partnership
working and implementation of planning consents through the development
control process.
6.78
The City Council and landowners have already begun working together, and have
agreed that further detailed study of what would be a viable mixture of uses, and
where they should be located, is needed before detailed development proposals
can be developed.
6.79
A study has been commissioned by the City Council and landowners. The study
will report late in 2007, and the results will inform further masterplanning work to
develop a strategy for introducing mixed uses (to include housing and
employment opportunities) in the study area.
6.80
The DAT NDF proposes that proposals for ‘Darnall/Attercliffe waterside’ (as it is
called in this document) be worked up into an action plan236. It recommends that
it be developed in consultation with the landowners and the DAT NDF project
group237. This is now underway as part of separate work discussed above at
paragraph 6.56, and is being partly funded by HMR 238.
6.81
A number of agencies would be required to be involved in the implementation of
this policy to achieve successful regeneration. This would include Sheffield City
Council, private developers and landowners, existing local businesses, and the
DAT NDF project group.
236
DAT NDF paragraph 6.27, page 54
After the approval of the DAT NDF a project group is to be established to steer the implementation of
the NDF. This will commence in November 2007.
238 The commitment to more detailed work is expressed specifically by Transform South Yorkshire in their
Scheme Update see paragraph 3.54
237
-102-
6.82
If commitment to this project continues then implementation could start in the next
five years, phasing though would be over a longer time period, and that would be
determined through further masterplanning work discussed above.
6.83
The need for improvement in public transport links identified in the policy will be
an important part of the implementation of these land uses in this location.
In the Attercliffe/Darnall area improved public transport for residents and workers
will focus on improvement of the ‘key routes’. This supports Core Strategy policy
ST6 that identifies which ‘key routes’ will be improved by bus priority measures.
‘The key route for this area is included239, and improvements could include for
this area improvements such as Quality Bus Corridors, improved information and
waiting times, and bus lanes. LTP2 also identifies in its preferred Transport
Intervention Strategy that these steps are needed and eligible for LTP2
funding240, and they will form part of future bids241.
6.84
The objective of the transport measure in this policy is to improve accessibility to
and from the area for residents and workers. This is consistent with the aims of
area policies SNE3242 and SMW1243 which both seek to improve accessibility to
employment areas for residents of those areas, improvement of the routes that
link to the ‘key routes’ will need to be investigated as part of future bids through
LTP2.
6.85
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD5. However, policy SH2 indicates that 600 new homes will be built in the
Lower Don Valley a number of the targets and indicators for policies in the
Housing chapter are relevant to policy SLD5. These are described in the
Housing Background Report (see Implementation and Monitoring sections for
policies SH1 and SH2). Progress against the targets in these policies will be
reported in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).
6.86
The number of dwellings completed at Attercliffe/ Darnall 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.
For this area it is the A6109 city Centre – M1J34 North
LTP2 page 101
241 Priority for funding improvements to the ‘key routes’ network is also endorsed in the Plan For Transport
in Sheffield July 2007, Five year programme 2006-2011
242 Policy SNE3 Access to wider employment opportunities for residents in the North East Urban Area
243 Policy SMW1 Employment and services for people living in Mosborough/Woodhouse
239
240
-103-
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
6.87
The policy is flexible enough to allow change to happen gradually, in line with
other policies in the Core strategy for phasing of development, or to deliver
radical proposals for large-scale changes as is currently being investigated.
6.88
There are risks attached to promoting large-scale change, for example,
agreement on the appropriate mix and scale of uses has not yet been reached
with landowners in the area, this is awaiting the outcome of further work which is
ongoing (and discussed at paragraph 6.56 above).
6.89
It may prove difficult to deliver the scale of change that the HMR NDF envisages
is needed to deliver a new sustainable community. There is still a considerable
amount of existing industrial uses within and adjacent to the area, it may prove
difficult to establish the appropriate environmental conditions to introduce more
sensitive land uses such as housing.
6.90
If no further work was done on this, through HMR or through discussions with the
landowners, it does not prevent other development proposals coming forward,
provided they promote the mix of use proposed in the policy.
Conclusion
6.91
Policy SLD5 is consistent with Soundness Tests 4 to 9.
6.92
It is a policy that refers specifically to the Attercliffe/Darnall area of the Lower Don
Valley. It is a spatial policy that aims to secure the regeneration and renewal of
the area by using housing as the main regeneration tool, supported by an
appropriate mix of other uses. It is consistent with and supports the proposals of
HMR for improving the housing market. SLD5 is therefore consistent with
Soundness Test 4.
6.93
SLD5 is providing the planning framework to deliver the Sheffield City Strategy
aim, and Core Strategy Planning Objective of ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’ by
enabling the extension of the Darnall area to deliver a new mixed-use community.
SLD5 is consistent with Soundness Test 5.
6.94
SLD5 considered the options of housing or no housing as an appropriate land
use in the Lower Don Valley. It takes account of all the masterplanning work
done to analyse the regeneration needs of Attercliffe/Darnall, and the proposals
for delivering transformational change here. The research done on providing a
sustainable community supports the decision that the policy should provide mixed
use rather than business and industry here.
-104-
6.95
Having looked at the alternatives SLD5, is the most appropriate policy for the
area, and so is consistent with Soundness Test 7. The detailed case is made at
paragraph 6.42 – 6.59.
6.96
SLD 5 is also consistent with Soundness Tests 8 and 9. It is identified that
partnership working will be needed to implement the change in land uses
encouraged by the policy. The mechanisms for delivery are being discussed by
the City Council with the landowner, with a view to securing commitment to
deliver transformational change here.
6.97
Further work is needed to identify timescales and prepare detailed development
strategies. However, if circumstances change, and no further work is done on
developing the strategic case for a new land use mix, the policy could still be
delivered by gradual development and change of use of land over time.
-105-
7
DARNALL DISTRICT CENTRE
Introduction
7.1
The Darnall Terminus is the local focus for financial, retail and administrative
services in the Darnall area. It is a highly accessible centre situated around Main
Road and Staniforth Road and it contains a reasonably good mix of shops and
services, including the Darnall Library and the local Area Housing Office.
However it only has one small discount foodstore and no large supermarket.
7.2
The issues for the centre are concerned with meeting the needs of existing and
new users, the quality of the environment, the mixture of uses, and accessibility
and safety around and within the centre. The Housing Market Renewal spatial
strategy244 attaches importance to the part centres can play in the overall
regeneration of the areas they serve. Improvements to Darnall centre could
therefore be of strategic importance for this part of Sheffield.
Policy SLD6
7.3
Regeneration, renewal and expansion of floorspace within Darnall District
Centre will be promoted to provide a wider range of retail and other
services.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Regional Policy
Draft Yorkshire and Humber Plan
7.4
The draft Regional Spatial Strategy recognises that limited development in Local
Service Centres would be allowed245. One of the outcomes by 2021, stated in the
RSS is:
‘Urban centre focussed regeneration has transformed the structure of the
economy and addressed housing market failure with high quality new
jobs and housing’.
7.5
244
245
The work done on HMR projects and identified in the DAT NDF (discussed at
paragraph 7.12) has identified the important role that an improved district centre
would play in addressing the HMR issues for Darnall. An improved centre would
increase the attractiveness of Darnall as a place to live and work.
Transform South Yorkshire. 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Framework Update 2005 paragraph 3.19
Yorkshire and Humber Plan Policy SY1 paragraph E, page 93
-107-
7.6
Policy SLD3 is consistent with this regional policy in that it addresses the role that
a centre such as Darnall can play in regenerating housing areas and serving the
local, and potentially the wider, neighbourhood.
Sub-Regional Policy
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Framework Update
7.7
In its case for intervention the HMR 2nd Prospectus identifies that:
‘There is a potential lock-in effect whereby the existing housing and
neighbourhood offer will do little to attract new, skilled population groups.
Without transformational change in our Pathfinder housing market, this current
pattern will perpetuate itself and the distinctions will appear ever sharper.’246
7.8
The Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework
identifies the regeneration of the Darnall Centre as a transformational project (see
paragraph 7.14 below), and this supports policy SLD6.
7.9
A Key Themes is ‘Development of high quality and successful neighbourhoods’.
Key theme 1 in the prospectus says:
‘Housing is not however the only factor that influences the state of a
housing market. Households will consider other attributes such as the
quality of the retail services and facilities, state of the local environment
and access to education, health and employment opportunities.’247
7.10
This all points to support in the prospectus for the regeneration of a district centre
that is at the heart of the local housing market. SLD6 is therefore consistent with
this sub regional objective.
Other Sheffield Policies
Darnall Area plan
7.11
The regeneration of the district centre is identified as a key project in the Darnall
Area Plan248. This is further confirmed as a local priority under the ‘Regeneration
and Social Inclusion Theme in the Darnall One Year Plan for 2007/2008249.
246
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Framework Update 2005 paragraph 2.15
Transform South Yorkshire 2nd Prospectus: Scheme Framework Update 2005 page 40
248 Darnall Area Plan (2005 -2008), page 12
249 Darnall One Year Plan 2007/08, page 21
247
-108-
Darnall Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework
7.12
The vision of the Darnall Centre as a community hub is part of the vision for
Darnall, which forms part of the Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood
Development Framework (DAT NDF)250. The Darnall Centre forms the heart of
the Darnall Community. The existence of a thriving, high quality, safe district
centre is seen as a key component of a sustainable community in the NDF
document and is a key objective of the HMR Pathfinder programme.
7.13
The Vision for Darnall Centre as set out in this document is:
‘Darnall Centre is the thriving heart of the Darnall and Attercliffe communities.
A district centre that enjoys a high quality environment, and offers a full range
of district retail, leisure, community and employment opportunities. A centre
that is highly accessible by all forms of transport, but is not dominated by
vehicular traffic. A centre that is attractive for investors, retailers and local
entrepreneurs. A centre that is safe and welcoming to all sections of the
community. A centre that showcases all that it best about Darnall and
Attercliffe’
7.14
The protection and enhancement of the Darnall centre is a catalytic project that is
identified in the DAT NDF. An illustrative Masterplan for the Darnall Centre is
included within the Neighbourhood Development Framework251.
7.15
The NDF strategy for the Darnall centre will continue to be developed in detail
through consultation with local stakeholders through the formation of a dedicated
project group for the NDF. According to the NDF the project should be seen as
an early priority for detailed feasibility work to unlock potential development
opportunities. Headline outputs for the project group should include: an
enhanced quality and range of housing around the centre; increased retail
floorspace; an increase in the number of businesses; an improved environment
and a reduction in crime and the fear of crime.
7.16
Further detailed work on the opportunities for Darnall is to commence in October
2007 with the appointment of consultants to do a specific study of centres in the
east ADF. Darnall is part of the brief for that study.
7.17
Policy SLD6 will provide the planning context and planning reason for the
implementation of this project through the Neighbourhood Development
Framework. The Darnall plan target ‘regeneration of the centre’ will be achieved
through implementation of this project.
250
251
Darnall Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework, June 2007, Section 6
Appendix D Key Development Project Profiles – Site 2 Darnall Centre
-109-
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010
7.18
Policy SLD6 is consistent with revised City Strategy Theme 2 ‘Successful
Neighbourhoods’252. Access to good quality services and opportunities is a key
part of this theme. Sheffield City Council, as part of the ‘Closing the Gap’ policy,
has identified a number of major initiatives across the city that can help to drive
the transformation of particular neighbourhoods to help deliver Theme 2253.
7.19
The City Strategy third ‘Big Ambition’ is for every neighbourhood to be a
successful neighbourhood254. It states that:
‘Sheffield remains characterised by a stark divide between very affluent
areas – desirable neighbourhoods that work well, where people choose to
live – and neighbourhoods characterised by disadvantage that don’t work
so well. Narrowing this divide by improving our most deprived
neighbourhoods is a key ambition of this strategy’.
7.20
Darnall centre is a very important part of the character of Darnall. A successful
regeneration of the existing district centre, offering a much improved quality of
shopping and other services, (including a new community hub and library), will
make a big contribution to the success and attractiveness of Darnall as a
neighbourhood. SLD6 promotes the regeneration of Darnall Centre and so is
consistent with, and supports the City Strategy.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
7.21
Policy SLD6 is closely related to Core Strategy objectives. It is supporting the
city’s ongoing regeneration by helping to address some of the challenges for the
future identified in Chapter 3 of the Core Strategy255.
7.22
This includes Challenge 4 ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’. This challenge is about
improving existing neighbourhoods, creating sustainable neighbourhoods that are
active, thriving, and well served. It is closely related to Housing Market Renewal
where the project to regenerate the Darnall Centre sits. The planning objectives
for Challenge 4 are:
S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created
252
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 updated 2007 Page21
Cabinet resolution 22nd September 2004
254 Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010 updated 2007 Page22
255 Core Strategy Chapter 3 Vision and Objectives
253
-110-
S4.2 Local economic and development initiatives promoted at the district and
neighbourhood level to support local communities and small
businesses
S4.3 ‘Provision at district and neighbourhood level of local community,
health, education, training, shopping, open space, leisure and other
services and facilities’.
7.23
Policy SLD6 promotes the regeneration of Darnall Centre. The successful
implementation of a regeneration project for Darnall Centre will bring forward
improved quality of services and facilities in the centre, and will support all three
of these objectives.
7.24
New or improved floorspace will attract new businesses and customers to the
centre helping to restore the confidence of Darnall Centre. This will make a big
contribution to the vitality and success of the whole neighbourhood (objective
S4.1). The ability to provide a wider range of services in an improved centre can
include specific local initiatives to support local communities as part of its
implementation, and the inclusion of a new community hub, which is part of the
proposals for Darnall Centre, will specifically meet objectives S4.2 and 4.3. SLD6
will provide the planning framework for a project to be implemented.
7.25
Challenge 9 ‘Reducing the need to travel’ Includes planning objective S9.1 which
states:
‘ 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’
Although there is a range of retail services in the Darnall Centre, it does not have
a large food store, and overall the centre could be better. Supporting the location
of an improved retail offer, together with other improved facilities at Darnall,
would reduce the need to travel for Darnall residents and create more
opportunities for a single journey to serve several purposes, consistent with
planning objective S9.1.
7.26
Challenge 15 is ‘Urban Areas that look good and work well’. Policy SLD6 is
consistent with the planning objectives of this challenge. The planning objectives
include:
S15.1 ‘High quality in all aspects of the design of new buildings and the
spaces around and between them’ , and
S15.3 ‘New character and improved design and townscape in neighbourhoods
where the environment has become run down’
-111-
SLD6 proposes regeneration of the centre, and the details of how any
regeneration project would be implemented are being discussed and negotiated
(see implementation paragraph 7.63). A prime objective will be to make the
district centre high quality and more attractive.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
7.27
There were two options for Darnall Centre with a common theme of addressing
the type and scale of change within the centre.
Option DA4a
Promote significant expansion of the Darnall centre so that it functions as
the main shopping and service centre for East Sheffield
7.28
The strengths of this option are:
(a) It would widen the overall retail and service offer of the shopping area
making it more attractive to a wider range of shoppers.
(b) It provides opportunities for more jobs and services to be provided in a
sustainable and accessible location and potential for new employment and
training opportunities to be made available.
(c) Trips for work, shopping and other business can be linked.
.
(d) This option would give strong support to the HMR strategy in East
Sheffield.
7.29
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) There would be difficulty identifying suitable development sites at the
edges of the centre.
(b) More development and wider use of the centre would lead to increased
congestion and parking problems within the centre especially at peak
shopping times.
Option DA4b
Rely on environmental and area management measures to maintain and
support its role as a District Centre but without significantly increasing its
influence through further growth
7.30
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Promoting environmental improvements to the existing buildings and
streetscape of Main Road and Staniforth Road, and providing attractive,
-112-
convenient and safe parking will increase the attraction of the centre to
shoppers and support the economic viability of the centre.
(b) This could attract some new trade into the area without requiring additional
land to be made available, and would include measures to improve the
links between the centre and adjacent housing areas as part of Housing
Market Renewal.
7.31
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) The management and care of the centre would have to be a priority, the
centre could decline if environmental and management measures are
not maintained over a long-term.
(b) The existing centre only has a small supermarket and the centre may
become less viable if it fails to offer a choice that is available in other
centres.
7.32
The Preferred Option was DA4b and this was the basis of sustainability appraisal
and consultation.
Preferred Option PLD3 Darnall centre
Darnall District Centre will be maintained and supported at around its
present size through environmental and area management measures.
7.33
However this option was changed further in the submission version. The reasons
are explained below in paragraph 7.42.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
The case for regeneration and renewal
7.34
Policy SLD6 is consistent with proposed policy SS2 ‘District Centres’. It is one of
the 17 district centres named in the policy, and is one of three centres 256 named
for improvement and expansion where possible.
7.35
Policy SS2 states that the role of the district centre is more likely to be secure if
they can attract both public and private investment. Measures that will make the
existing centre stronger and more attractive to investors will be encouraged.
7.36
This could be done by promoting environmental improvements to the existing
buildings and streetscape of Main Road and Staniforth Road, and by providing
attractive, convenient, and safe parking to increase the attraction of the centre to
shoppers and support the economic viability of the centre. This could attract
256
The others are Spital Hill and Manor Top
-113-
some new trade into the area without requiring additional land to be made
available.
7.37
But the reality is that management and care of the centre has to be a priority to
retain confidence in the centre for traders and make it a pleasant environment for
customers, and this is lacking in the current centre. For Darnall, a management
and maintenance programme as suggested by the rejected preferred option
(PLD3), would not be enough to improve the centre and attract new investors.
There are other issues impacting on the attractiveness of the centre as well.
7.38
For example, a key issue is that the existing centre only has a small supermarket.
There is a good chance that the centre may become less viable if it fails to offer a
choice that is available in other centres. Shoppers do, and will continue to, make
lengthy journeys to larger convenience stores outside the area, further
threatening the vitality and viability of the existing centre. Many of the premises
are outdated and run down, the centre suffers from a poor public realm, high
traffic flows especially along Staniforth Road, and the lack of a strong ‘sense of
place’.
7.39
Regeneration and renewal of the centre would widen the overall retail and service
offer of the shopping area making it more attractive to a wider range of shoppers,
more facilities could be located locally, and as the area becomes more selfcontained for main shopping needs, there would be less need to travel.
7.40
Encouraging further investment would ensure that the area remains a viable
District Centre, and being located within a successful district centre may help
maintain or improve the viability of the existing shops. The risk of the centre’s
decline would be minimised.
7.41
The Housing Market Renewal Strategy recognises that service centres have a
strong role to play as a focus for good quality sustainable neighbourhoods. This
option would give strong support to the HMR strategy in East Sheffield.
The opportunities for regeneration, renewal and expansion.
7.42
Further work, completed after the preferred options stage, developing the
proposals of the DAT NDF, and discussions with a major landowner in the centre
has identified a need for a stronger policy to direct improvement of this centre. In
addition new landowner interests within the centre have identified new scope for
regeneration of the centre that had not been identified at emerging policy stage
and so the preferred option PLD3 (originally DA4b) was rejected in favour of a
return to emerging option DA4a.
7.43
A more attractive centre would create increases in traffic to the centre, but
measures such as improved parking facilities, better public transport, and better
pedestrian connectivity, as part of the improvement package would deal with this.
-114-
7.44
Opportunity could exist to promote environmental improvements to the District
Centre and to improve the links between the centre and adjacent housing areas
as part of Housing Market Renewal (see paragraph.7.46 below).
7.45
It provides opportunities for more jobs and services to be provided in a
sustainable and accessible location and potential for new employment/training
opportunities to be made available. Trips for work, shopping and other business
can be linked.
Opportunity to integrate with housing market renewal
7.46
The successful implementation of policy SLD6 has a major potential contribution
to the success of Housing Market Renewal in the area. The improvement of the
Darnall Centre is seen as addressing a number of key sustainable community
and HMR objectives. Listed amongst them in the DAT NDF are:

Provide a focus for enhanced community identity, pride and belonging,

Provide an enhanced location for improved community and other services,

Improve access to key services and economic opportunities,

Create a vehicle for community engagement and capacity building through
local involvement in the regeneration process,

Contribute towards reducing the need to travel and promote scope for
walking and cycling,

Contribute towards economically viable and attractive town centres.
These also tie in well with the Core Strategy planning objectives mentioned in
paragraph 7.21 above.
7.47
The improvement of the range of services and to enhance the retail function of
the Darnall Centre is identified as a key project in the Darnall Attercliffe and
Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework257 (see paragraph 7.12 above).
Issues still to be addressed
7.48
257
There would be difficulty identifying suitable development sites at the edges of
the centre on which to promote new district centre uses to investors. Other ways
of improving the attractiveness and vitality of the centre for investors and
shoppers must be pursued. This is the reason for the wording of SLD6 ‘within
Darnall District Centre’. Expansion would be achieved by intensification of uses
Darnell Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework, June 2007 Chapter 6
-115-
through redevelopment of the core of the existing centre, to provide more modern
and flexible retail and community space. This would be supported by improving
the quality of the environment, the mixture of uses, and accessibility and safety
for pedestrians. This is currently being pursued as a project for Darnall and is
discussed in more detail in the implementation section paragraph 7.63.
7.49
The centre is located on Staniforth Road, which is already a main and heavily
used route between Attercliffe and Darnall. More development and wider use of
the centre would lead to increased congestion and parking problems within the
centre especially at peak shopping times. This is an important issue for Darnall
and would need to be addressed in the context of any development proposal for
Darnall Centre.
Sustainability Appraisal
7.50
Two options were appraised for the Darnall Centre, and both had mostly positive
indicators for sustainability. The regeneration option came out more positively for
job opportunities, but less favourably for impact on the transport network. Both of
the options are aimed to generate more use of the centre, which would probably
create more traffic, but expansion could have a greater impact.
7.51
However, this could be outweighed by better public transport provision (from
greater demand) or by more people walking to the centre who may otherwise
have travelled to another centre.
7.52
There are no negative results from either option for indicators that would improve
the centre (for example quality of the environment would be improved for both,
safety and security could be improved for both options). The district centre is in
Zone 1 Low Probability risk for flooding, so there are no impacts to take into
account for this issue. The selected option scores better overall supporting the
reasons for a stronger policy to improve the centre.
Equality Appraisal
7.53
In terms of equality, for people with poor access to private transport, ensuring that
the centre thrives can ensure continuation of local facilities within walking
distance, or provision of safe car parking. A regenerated centre is more likely to
offer improved public transport and parking opportunities. It is likely also to
benefit people with disabilities or infirmities, who would benefit from more modern
design.
Consultation Responses
7.54
There has been very little comment at both emerging and preferred option stages
of consultation on this issue. At the emerging options stage there was support for
expanding the centre on the basis that it would enable better links between
-116-
Darnall and the Sheffield Business Park/Airport to be promoted. There was
support for limited expansion from the Sheffield Green Party 258.
7.55
Yorkshire Forward also supported limited expansion and want to see the viability
and vitality of the centre maintained but are concerned that growth would lead to
congestion and reduced accessibility259. It was a concern for the expansion
option that there was no arrangement in the pipeline that would manage the
change, and build in measures to cater for this concern.
7.56
The time that this preferred option was drafted was before the HMR work had
evolved and prior to new landowner interests in Darnall, and it was felt then that
managing the centre to enable it to thrive, and looking at environmental
improvements to improve its vitality, was as much as could be hoped for.
7.57
The only comment on Preferred Option PLD3 related to the policy being too
location specific260 and duplicated with other topic policies in the Core Strategy.
But these area policies are required to provide a local and place-based dimension
to a spatial plan and the district centre is an important issue that needs to be
covered at this level.
7.58
There has been specific discussion on the appropriate policy for Darnall Centre
with landowners since the preferred options stage; this is dealt with in detail in
paragraph 7.42 above. The consultation responses at the emerging options
stage had supported some expansion, and these further discussions influenced
the choice of proposed policy SLD6. A project group has now been set up to
steer a regeneration project for the centre (dealt with in paragraph 7.63 below).
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
7.59
The planning reasons spell out why the preferred option was rejected and a
former emerging option (for regeneration and expansion of the centre) was
pursued instead of the proposed policy.
7.60
A case is made for the regeneration and renewal option above, and it supports
the District Centre policy (SS2) in the shopping chapter of the Core Strategy. In
reality the reasons for ‘just managing’ the centre rather than seeking its
improvement have been superseded by further work done on HMR and
discussion with landowner interests, that were not in evidence at the emerging
policy stage.
7.61
Having considered the alternative option, and with the support of the DAT NDF
and supporting project group for implementation, this policy represents the most
appropriate policy for Darnall Centre in all the circumstances (soundness test 7).
258
Comment number Emerging Options 4317.2, and 4478.22
Comment number Emerging Options 4558.61 and 4478.22
260 Comment number Preferred Options 5193.072
259
-117-
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
7.62
This proposed policy promotes the regeneration of the district centre.
Regeneration would be delivered through partnership working, and
implementation of planning consents through the development control process.
Though it is likely that the private sector, through their land ownership, will lead
on any development proposals to implement SLD6.
7.63
The City Council and developers have already begun working together to develop
ideas, and a formal project group has been established to guide the project. In
addition the City Council Cabinet has begun negotiation on a development
agreement with the landowners to indicate its level of support for a regeneration
project for Darnall261.
7.64
To guide the details of the project an informal planning guidance note is being
prepared by the City Council This guidance will include policy guidance (currently
UDP) and guidance on design and transport, for the benefit of developers within
Darnall Centre. The guidance is being prepared in consultation with the project
group and the proposed developer, and will be updated as circumstances dictate.
Policy SLD6 will provide the planning framework for this guidance in the future.
7.65
The DAT NDF proposes that proposals for the Darnall Centre are worked up into
an action plan, which will be the subject of public consultation.262. Work on this
has commenced. As part of further work on HMR in the East ADF a study of all
the centres has been commissioned. A ‘mini masterplan’ to look at the issues
and opportunities for the Darnall Centre is included within the brief for this study.
It is expected that the results of this study will be used by the project group in the
development of the Darnall Centre regeneration scheme263.
7.66
A number of agencies would be required to be involved in the implementation of
this policy to achieve a successful regeneration of Darnall Centre, including the
Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley Neighbourhood Development Framework Project
Group264, Sheffield City Council, private developers and landowners, and
businesses within the centre. Stakeholders are generally supportive of this as an
action and public consultation on the principles of the regeneration project are
due to commence in October 2007265.
7.67
If commitment to this project continues, then it is likely that implementation of this
policy could start the next five years but with phasing over the next ten years. It
is likely that bids would need to be made to Transform South Yorkshire and other
261
Cabinet 11th July 2007
DAT NDF Section 6 paragraph 6.12
263 It will report in March 2008
264 To be established in November 2007 to guide up the implementation of the DAT NDF
265 The dates for this are yet to be confirmed
262
-118-
funding sources for some of the transport and public realm works that may be
identified in the additional masterplanning work that is underway.
7.68
The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy
SLD6. However, the target and indicators for policy SS2 in the Retail and Built
Leisure chapter are also relevant to policy SLD5 and are described in the related
Background Report (see Implementation and Monitoring sections for policy SS2).
Progress against the targets in this policy will be reported in the SDF Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR).
7.69
The mix of new floorspace in Darnall District Centre 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)
7.70
The policy is all about promoting change within the district centre. There is little
doubt that change will occur as businesses change within the centre and sites
become available. The policy does not state at what scale the regeneration
should occur, so the policy is flexible to cope with change and renewal gradually
over time as well as a radical proposal for large-scale change.
7.71
The current development proposal does have risks attached. For example,
although the City Council had signalled willingness to negotiate on a development
agreement to deliver a scheme for Darnall’s regeneration, the work on this is still
ongoing and has not been finalised. There is also a risk that the scheme could
be scaled down if proposals cannot be agreed or investor confidence slips, and
elements can no longer be delivered. There is also the possibility that CPO will
be needed to bring about the scale of redevelopment currently being discussed,
this is a lengthy and costly process with any number of pitfalls.
7.72
The policy does not depend on the development proposal currently under
discussion to be implemented. The DAT NDF, although it recommends
regeneration of the centre as a major project, is proposing further work before
details are developed, and this has only just begun. If no further work were to be
done, or development no longer pursued, by the current landowner, it does not
prevent any other development scheme coming forward.
7.73
Informal planning guidance is being prepared that will indicate the Council’s
aspirations for the centre, and this can continue to be used to support SLD6 on
any development proposal.
-119-
Conclusion
7.74
The above evidence shows that Policy SLD6 is consistent with Soundness Tests
4 to 9.
7.75
The policy is one which relates specifically to improvement of the Darnall centre
and it is a spatial policy. Paragraph 7.4 shows how it is compatible with regional
policy. It has had full regard to the proposals in the DAT NDF. This also
promotes the improvement of the Darnall Centre as a key project to drive the
transformation of the Darnall neighbourhood as part of HMR objectives for
Darnall, Attercliffe, and Tinsley. The policy therefore is consistent with
Soundness Test 4.
7.76
The policy is consistent with Soundness Tests 5 and 6. Paragraph 7.18 shows
the compatibility with the City Strategy theme for ‘successful neigbourhoods’.
Paragraph 7.21 shows how SLD6 will meet several Core Strategy planning
objectives, particularly in relation to improving neighbourhoods (related to HMR
priorities), reducing the need to travel, and creating an urban area that looks good
and works well, the policy will encourage renewal that will in turn encourage more
use of the centre as a result of better shopping and other facilities, and promote a
more attractive public realm.
7.77
The evidence base for selecting the proposed policy from the two options
considered is given at paragraphs 7.34 – 7.49. Given the support for a renewal
of the Darnall Centre in the DAT NDF (which was the subject of widespread
consultation in the area before approval), and given that the proposed option also
is consistent with the Core Strategy shopping policy on district centres (SS2), the
alternative option (managing the centre in its current form and size by
environmental and other measures) was not considered appropriate.
7.78
SLD6 will be implemented through the development control process by approval
of planning applications, but to get to the planning application stage it will be
guided by the DAT NDF work on centres, and by the project group set up to steer
implementation. The means to implement the policy is explained in detail in
paragraph 7.62, and paragraph 7.70 then explains how the policy would respond
if circumstances changed and a different approach was needed, this is consistent
with Soundness Tests 8 and 9.
-120-
8
OTHER OPTIONS NOT TAKEN FORWARD
8.1
Three options proposed at Preferred Option stage have not been taken forward
directly into submitted policy. However, the issues have been taken forward in
the more place-based policies. The options not specifically taken forward are set
out in the following paragraphs together with reasons and actions.
Air quality and congestion
8.2
Probably the biggest issue and constraint to realising development potential in
the Lower Don Valley is traffic congestion and poor air quality, particularly at
Junction 34. This congestion affects accessibility in and around the Lower Don
Valley and could be exacerbated by additional development. Measures to
relieve traffic congestion may not relieve air quality and vice versa.
8.3
Several options were considered at emerging options stage that could contribute
to reducing congestion and improving air quality. Five options addressed a
common theme of how poor air quality and congestion problems (especially at
Junction 34) could be addressed to improve air quality and attract new
investment. These were:
DA5a A new link road could be provided between Meadowhall Way and
Sheffield Road to cater for local traffic between Sheffield and Rotherham to
avoid the motorway roundabouts (the Half Penny Transport Initiative).
or
DA5b A specified zone would be identified and parking within that zone would
be constrained. Developers and users of land within this area would need to
prove a need for parking spaces.
or
DA5c Travel Plans would be a requirement from all developments within the
Lower Don Valley to promote/provide alternative modes of travel to the car.
or
DA5d Invest in Quality Bus Corridors throughout the valley and linking to
Rotherham.
or
DA5e Reroute Supertram between Sheffield Road (Meadowhall Retail Park),
via Weedon Street, to the Meadowhall Transport Interchange. An alternative
to a new tram route would create an additional reserved route for public
transport only along the same route.
-121-
8.4
It was recognised and confirmed by comments following the emerging options
informal consultation that it was unlikely that there is one single solution, and in
fact several complementary options would be needed266.
8.5
The options were amalgamated into a single Preferred Option:
Preferred Option PLD4
Air quality and traffic congestion in the Lower Don Valley
Air quality will be improved and traffic congestion contained (especially
around Junction 34) by complementary measures including trip demand
management, improved public transport, additional road links and
management of the mix and density of new development.
8.6
The Preferred Option was not taken forward in this form. Comments supported
the objectives of this policy but commented that it was more a vision than a
policy267. Indeed in appraising the sustainability of the preferred option no
negative impacts were recorded on any of the elements. However, specific
impacts were difficult to judge as they depended on the land use that the
measure was aimed at, and they are all generally aimed at improving the issues
of both congestion and poor air quality. For example even a new road, which
was considered as unsustainable by the CPRE268, can be considered positively
if, for example, it is promoted as a low emission route or as a public transport
route so improving services.
8.7
The view that the Preferred Option is just a vision is accepted, but we still
considered the issue important enough to incorporate into the policies for the
Lower Don Valley. Most of the emerging options have been carried forward into
one or more of the proposed policies SLD1 to SLD4. For example, DA5a, DA5c,
DA5d and DA5e are included within policy SLD1 as transport measures that can
assist in the mitigation of transport impacts from new land uses around
Meadowhall (see paragraph 2.132 for reasons). SLD2, SLD3 and SLD4 all
incorporate specific mention of public transport improvements, and travel plans
are also mentioned as important as a measure for ensuring that impacts from
traffic are at acceptable levels (DA5c and DA5d).
Sustainable development in the Lower Don Valley
8.8
This issue was added at Preferred Options stage in response to consultations
with stakeholders. It refers to an aim to improve the image and sustainability of
the Lower Don Valley taking advantage of its twin assets the river and canal, a
266
Comments Emerging Options 4558.62, 4875.20
Comments Preferred Options 5171.061 and 5254.023
268 Comment Preferred Options 971.048
267
-122-
key theme for the Lower Don Valley Vision and Masterplan269. It became clear
as an issue from further work carried out by Groundwork during 2005, and has
been carried forward by Groundwork into their River Don Park project’ 270.
Preferred Option PLD5
Sustainable development in the Lower Don Valley
The Lower Don Valley will be a focus for sustainable development and
for measures to improve the appearance of the area and enhance the
natural environment. The area between the river and the canal will
form the heart of a green setting for the whole area.
8.9
The preferred option was not carried forward to a submitted policy. It is agreed
that there are great opportunities through redevelopment to achieve regeneration
and environmental improvements, which in turn will attract new users and
businesses to the area, and increase investor confidence. But as the area
policies for the Lower Don Valley were revisited after the Preferred Option
consultation, it is was concluded that the first part of the option was too general.
There was not enough clarity yet about how the more specific area, ‘between the
river and the canal’, would be made the ‘green setting for the whole area’. The
area based approach (discussed in Chapters 2-7) allows for a more tailored form
of spatial policy to better meet the needs of different parts of the valley. Other
aspects of sustainable development can be more appropriately dealt with by the
City Policies document in its policies on sustainability and urban design.
Regeneration and Green Belt at Sheffield Airport
8.10
The Sheffield City Airport currently sits partly within the Green Belt. The
boundary of the Green Belt at the airport is not tenable as it is no longer visible
on the ground. The case was also considered at the Emerging Options stage
whether there was a regeneration-based case for a change here. The two
options were:
DA6a Make no changes at all and retain the current Green Belt designation.
or
DA6b Release land currently within the Green Belt for business development,
and exchange Green Belt land (e.g. remove Green Belt designation at the
airport runway but add land at the south of the airport runway to the Green
Belt).
8.11
Option DA6b was the option pursued to the Preferred Option stage.
Lower Don Valley Vision & Masterplan, Core strategy 1: Maximise the value of the area’s natural
heritage -paragraph 5.3, page 51
270 Groundwork Sheffield - River Don Park Business Plan, Nov 2005
269
-123-
Preferred Option PLD6
Green Belt and economic regeneration at Sheffield Airport
Tinsley Park Hill will be added to the Green Belt and land on the former
runway will be released for business development.
8.12
The option was not taken forward as a policy because it is a particular example
of a more general technical issue about the Green Belt boundary, rather than a
matter of policy for economic regeneration in this specific area. Had the Green
Belt boundary still been visible on the ground no change would have been
proposed. The matter is taken forward in the same way as other Green Belt
changes where exceptional circumstances exist, and that is through the
Proposals Map. Because of the amount of land involved it is mentioned as a
specific example in the context of policy SE1 on the citywide Green Belt.
8.13
It is still proposed to compensate for the loss of land at the runway by adding
land at Tinsley Park Hill, as this is consistent with the character and function of
this area as an integral part of the openness of the area between Sheffield and
Rotherham. It would not mean the loss of developable land from the city. There
would be a net increase in the amount of Green Belt land in the area and a
broadening of the Green Belt south of the airport, and this would strengthen the
Green Belt without loss of development capacity.
8.14
There were comments supporting the decision to amend the Green Belt
boundary in this location271. One comment was received opposing the swapping
of land uses, and suggesting just the addition of more land to the Green Belt
here instead, but the comments were about the details of the boundary rather
than the principle of the amendment.
271
Comments 971.046, and 4317.004
-124-
APPENDIX A
Delivery Schedules
Policy: SLD1 Meadowhall
Around the Meadowhall centre, the predominant land uses will be for employment, including office development and non-office
business uses. Housing may be included as part of a mixed-use development providing air quality and other environmental
conditions can be made acceptable
The shopping centre will remain at around its present size and large-scale leisure uses that cannot be located in the City Centre may
also be located close to the Interchange.
All new development around the Meadowhall Centre should be integrated with the existing development.
A wide range of transport measures, including Travel Plans, will be employed to maximise the capacity of routes serving the
strategic road network and the new development and to reduce adverse impacts on air quality. These will include:
(a) improved public transport services for workers and visitors, including new bus rapid transit
(b) connections with the proposed park-and-ride site at Waverley
(c) restrictions on long-stay car parking other than to serve park-and-ride services to the City Centre and on other private
non-residential parking levels
(d) the creation of a car club
(e) provision of a new road link under Tinsley viaduct.
The scale and density of development will be consistent with the transport capacity created by these measures.
-125-
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:
Maintain and promote employment uses
as the main land use




Next ten years







Sheffield City Council
Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
(LTP2)
SYPTE
Local transport operators
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council
Identification of sites in Business &
Industry Land Survey

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing Council responsibility
Identification of sites in the City Sites
Document
Production of development briefs for
sites as needed and publication on the
website

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing and
reviewed
annually
2009

Sheffield City Council
As needed over
the next ten
years
Development, implementation, and
monitoring of proposals in the Lower


Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Over the next
20 years
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowners with
advice
Risk: Proposals still being developed
and discussed at detailed level. They
Transport measures to maximise
capacity of routes and minimise adverse
impacts on air quality
Planning applications approved and
implemented
Policy designation on Proposals Map
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Funding not realised through
LTP2
Risk: Operators not supportive
Ongoing over
next ten years
A statutory responsibility
Next ten years
To support:
-126-
Part of SDF family
Don Valley Vision and Masterplan and
River Don District Plan
Marketing of the area as an employment
location
Development and implementation of
Transport measures:
Travel plans
Improved public transport
Bus rapid transit
Park and ride at Waverley
Long stay parking and car clubs
Link road

Environment Agency

Creative Sheffield



Sheffield City council
SYPTE
Developers
(market
dependent)
Next ten years
Risk: Transport impact to be assessed
by Highways Agency.
Risk: Scale and nature of measures
dependent on scale and nature of
proposed development, may be
onerous for developers, requires
cooperation and implementation by
developers.
Risk: Travel plans require monitoring
by users
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD1. The mix of new
development in the Meadowhall area will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This
would not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites
document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
-127-
Next 5 years
and as
development
come forward
may change as they are being
developed.
Part of Creative Sheffield’s remit
Policy: SLD2 Tinsley Park
At Tinsley Park the major land uses will be industry and warehousing/ distribution, making particular use of rail freight facilities.
Tinsley Park will also be a location for non-office business uses with other significant office development located only south of
Europe Way.
Public transport links to Tinsley Park will be improved and Travel Plans will be required for all new developments to ensure that air
quality does not suffer and enable sustainable forms of transport to be used, including:
(a) public transport services for workers
(b) connections with the proposed park-and-ride site at Waverley
(c) transhipment facilities and direct links to the rail network for freight
(d) vehicle fleets with low emissions of pollutants.
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:
Maintain and promote business and
industry uses
Access and transport improvements
Planning applications approved and
implemented










Sheffield City Council
Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
(LTP2)
SYPTE
Local transport operators
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
-128-
Next ten years
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Funding not realised through
LTP2
Risk: Operators not supportive
Ongoing over
next ten years
A statutory responsibility

Sheffield City Council
Next ten years
Identification of sites in Business &
Industry Land Survey

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing Council responsibility
Identification of sites the City Sites
Document
Production of development briefs for
sites as needed and publication on the
website

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing
reviewed
annually
2009

Sheffield City Council
As needed
over next ten
years
Marketing of the area as a business and
industry location
Development, implementation and
monitoring of transport measures:
Travel plans
Improved public transport
Park and ride link to Waverley
Increased use of freight link

Creative Sheffield
Ongoing
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowner with
guidance needed
Part of Creative Sheffield’s remit



Sheffield City council
PTE
Developers
Policy designation on Proposals Map
To support:
Risk: Park and Ride may be delayed
in its implementation
Risk: Freight depot may take longer
than 5 years to become established
Risk: Requires cooperation of bus
operators
Risk: Travel plans require monitoring
by users
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD2. The mix of new
development at Tinsley Park will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This would
not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites document and
future reviews of the Core Strategy
-129-
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Part of SDF family
Policy: SLD3 Attercliffe/Newhall
Traditional and modern manufacturing and distribution will be located within Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/Kettlebridge and more
sensitive uses that would prejudice such development will not be located here.
Public transport links will be improved between these areas and the rest of the city, including surrounding neighbourhoods, to
maximise
accessibility for employees and reduce reliance on the private car.
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:
Maintain and promote Industry and
Warehousing/Distribution Uses
Access and transport improvements
Planning applications approved and
implemented
Policy designation on Proposals Map




Next ten years







Sheffield City Council
Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
(LTP2)
SYPTE
Local transport operators
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing and
reviewed
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Funding not realised through
LTP2
Risk: Public transport operators not
supportive
Ongoing over
next ten years
A statutory responsibility
Next ten years
To support:
Identification of sites in Business &
Industry Land Survey
-130-
Ongoing Council responsibility
annually
2009
Identification of sites the City Sites
Document
Production of development briefs for
sites as needed and publication on the
website

Sheffield City Council

Sheffield City Council
As needed over
next ten years
Marketing of the area as an industrial
and warehousing/distribution location
Development and implementation of
transport measures:
Travel plans
Improved public transport

Creative Sheffield
Ongoing
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowner with
guidance
Part of Creative Sheffield’s remit



Sheffield City Council
PTE
Developers
Next five years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Requires cooperation of bus
operators
Risk: Travel plans require monitoring
by users
Part of SDF family
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD3. The mix of new
development at Attercliffe/Newhall and Parkway/ Kettlebridge will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning
applications database. This would not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform
allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
-131-
Policy: SLD4 Boulevard of Sport
In the area around the Don Valley Stadium, sports-related leisure will continue to be the principal land use. Other large-scale
leisure uses, if any, that cannot be located in the City Centre will be located here.
A wide range of transport measures, including Travel Plans, will be employed to maximise the accessibility of the area for visitors
and workers and ensure that air quality does not suffer. Measures will include:
(a) improved public transport services for visitors
(b) measures to contain parking at levels that are sustainable.
(c) a high quality, safe pedestrian environment between facilities.
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:
Maintain and promote the area for
sports based leisure uses
Access and public transport
improvements
Planning applications approved and
implemented
Policy designation on Proposals Map











Sheffield City Council
Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
(LTP2)
SYPTE
Local transport operators
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council
-132-
Next ten years
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Funding not realised through
LTP2
Risk: Public transport operators not
supportive
Ongoing over
next ten years
A statutory responsibility
Next ten years
To support:
Identification of sites the City Sites
Document
Production of development briefs for
sites as needed and publication on the
website

Sheffield City Council
2009
Part of SDF family

Sheffield City Council
As needed over
next ten years
Marketing of the area as a sport and
leisure location
Development, implementation and
monitoring of Transport measures:
Travel plans
Improved public transport

Creative Sheffield
Ongoing
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowner with
guidance
Part of Creative Sheffield’s remit



Sheffield City council
PTE
Developers
Risk: Requires cooperation of bus
operators.
Risk: Travel plans require monitoring
by users.
Risk: Extra measures may be needed
to cope with large-scale events.
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD4. The mix of new
development in the area around the Don Valley Stadium will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning
applications database. This would not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform
allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
-133-
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward.
Policy: SLD5 Housing in Attercliffe and Darnall
A mix of uses including housing, services and employment will be promoted around the canal between Attercliffe and Darnall and
the extension of this development will be encouraged, as opportunities arise, in the direction of the City Centre.
Public transport links will be improved between this area and the city centre and to employment opportunities in the valley.
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:
Promotion of area for new housing, and
employment uses as part of a mixed use
area
Access and public transport
improvements
Planning applications approved and
implemented
Policy designation on Proposals Map





Next ten years







Sheffield City Council
Landowners
Private house builders
Housing associations
Sheffield City Council
(LTP2)
SYPTE
Local transport operators
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing and
reviewed
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward
Risk: Funding not realised through
LTP2
Risk: Public transport operators not
supportive
Ongoing over
next ten years
Statutory responsibility
Next ten years
To support:
Identification of sites in Housing land
Survey
-134-
Ongoing Council responsibility
annually
2009
Identification of sites the City Sites
Document
Production of development briefs and
market briefs for sites as needed and
publication on the website

Sheffield City Council

Sheffield City Council
As needed over
next ten years
Marketing of the area as a housing and
employment location


Creative Sheffield
Sheffield city council
market briefs
2008 onwards
Implementation of proposals in DAT
NDF




Sheffield City Council
Transform South Yorkshire
Landowners
Over next ten
years
Development, implementation, and
monitoring of Transport measures:
Travel plans
Improved public transport



Sheffield City council
PTE
Developers
Next 5 years
and as
developments
come forward.
Part of SDF family
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowner with
guidance
Part of Creative Sheffield’s remit
Risk: HMR programme may change
as delivery plans are submitted and
agreed for future funding rounds
Risk: HMR funding may not be
available
Risk: Other sources of funding may
not come forward
Risk: Dependent on private sector
involvement to deliver
Risk: Requires cooperation of bus
operators.
Risk: Travel plans require monitoring
by users.
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD5.
The number of dwellings completed at Attercliffe/ Darnall will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning
applications database. This would not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform
allocations in the City Sites document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
-135-
Policy: SLD6 Darnall District Centre
Regeneration, renewal and expansion of floorspace within Darnall District Centre will be promoted to provide a wider range of retail
and other services.
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
Probability/risks
(how likely)
(when)
To deliver:






Sheffield City Council
Landowners
Developers
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council
Next ten
years
2009-2012
Preparation of development brief for
Darnall centre

Sheffield City Council
2007/8
Partnership working with stakeholders to
develop a regeneration scheme


Sheffield city council
Landowners
2007 -2012
Scheme of public realm improvements


2009 - 2012
Public transport investment in centre


Sheffield City Council
Landowner (Planning
obligations)
PTE
Landowner (planning
obligations)
Promotion of the renewal of Darnall
Centre
Planning applications approved and
implemented
Policy designation on Proposals Map
Statutory responsibility
Next ten
years
To support:
-136-
Risk: Staff resources available to
deliver
Risk: Cooperation of landowner with
guidance
Risk: Partnership working may change
over time and agreements
renegotiated as scheme develops.
Risk: Funding not realised
Next five
Risk: Funding not realised
years and as Risk: Cooperation of public transport
scheme
operators needed
Support for CPO to assemble land to
deliver a regeneration scheme
Centre management (coordination of
wider environmental improvements)




Sheffield City Council
Landowners
Sheffield City Council
Landowner
develops
2008-2010
Risk: CPO time consuming and costly
and may fail
Risk: Funding not realised or
insufficient
2009 and on
completion
of
regeneration
scheme
Monitoring Indicator(s): The Core Strategy does not identify any specific targets or indicators for policy SLD6. The mix of new
floorspace in Darnall District Centre will be monitored and data recorded on the City Council’s planning applications database. This
would not be reported in the Annual Monitoring Report but the information will be used to inform allocations in the City Sites
document and future reviews of the Core Strategy.
-137-