Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011
Key: Grey = general/business workshop feedback form; Blue = officer workshop notes; Green
= business workshop notes. The number of times a comment is repeated by each stakeholder
group is shown in brackets, for example (x2 +1) means twice by the officer group and once by the
business group.
1)
Vision – integrated, sustainable, low energy infrastructure for a Modern
Living and Working Valley
2)
Executive Summary
3)
Purpose
 Mainly focused on infrastructure and delivery
 Set key priorities across boundaries (x2 +1) towards realistic overarching
aims/vision that everybody can work together to achieve
 Approved by Sheffield and Rotherham Cabinets as a material consideration
and by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Board – high level
champions engaged (+1)
 Opportunity to establish commitment (+1), e.g. with LEP, businesses,
community, members in Sheffield and Rotherham
 Strong working group/high level stakeholder board (x2)/Don Valley
Business Forum (x3)/land owners group – targeting specific strands
 Developing local partnerships and leadership and overcoming limitations to
cooperation, e.g. between companies
 How relate to the rest of the city? Wider connection ensuring consistency
with the City Region and Enterprise Zone (EZ), e.g. Doncaster airport,
capacity on rail and tram, north Midlands
 Dynamic model (+1), not static – respond to opportunities
 Make linkages between projects which can be delivered better by
stakeholders working together in a coordinated way
 Effective investment – coordinated for maximum impact
 Serve planning and development needs in Sheffield and Rotherham
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011


Creating a platform for long-term sustainable growth, encouraging
exporters
Defining the Don Valley’s unique selling point
4)
Context – Background, recent regeneration history, challenges,
opportunities
 Jacobs Study for European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Objective
1 for Sheffield-Rotherham Don Valley (S-RDV)/M1 Corridor (J33-35) –
existing resource still rings true
 Blackburn Valley masterplan. May stretch scope too far, but good to refer
to
 Sheffield City Council (SCC) Infrastructure Delivery Plan – should be
mapped by January, need and demand will then be overlayed
 Pipeline of industrial premises stock study
 Local Enterprise Partnership and Enterprise Zone
 Insurance increases due to flood (60% confirmed at Business Workshop)
5)
Policy review – summary of recent plans and policy and gap analysis
6)
Development Opportunities
 Joint 2nd priority to respondents of the Business Workshop feedback form
 Developing relations with existing land owners and developers
 Issue of lots of vacant land (x2) and land banking
a) Manufacturing
 Right property offer – issue of lots of empty units that don’t meet the
requirements of modern manufacturing
 Issue of no speculative development for manufacturing –
accommodation required for manufacturing support services/supply
chain
b) Commercial
 Empty offices
 Economic analysis to demonstrate what employment property is
needed.
 Flagship
 Drop-in hot-desking facility with travel links for all users
 Issue of no speculative development of new offices
c) Sport and Leisure
d) Housing
e) Retail/local Centres
 Ann Cadman and the Source as key champion for retail
 British Land development proposal
 Retail policy
f) Jobs and Training
 Skills (+2) especially strong in manufacturing, local labour, up-skilling,
apprenticeships (quality currently needs strengthening), basic skills,
workplace discipline
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011



Engage and inspire young people
What is our target market, who are we delivering for?
High level, e.g. for Rolls Royce, advanced manufacturing opportunities
(x2), etc
 Local skills and links to Rotherham
 Higher commuter rate and links to public transport needs
g) Utilities (x2)
 Sewage, electricity, gas, telecoms
 Reliability/resilience of power/energy supply (x2), e.g. IT, data
centres
 Broadband/digital region (x2 +1)/high speed broadband – links to job
and skill opportunities, data centres (x2)
 Infrastructure availability schedule required for all utilities – too difficult
and disjointed at present so utility companies need to be engaged now
7)
Enterprise Zone and other incentives
 Clarify Local Enterprise Partnership’s endorsement process flowing on to
tax income distribution
 Establishing the actual benefits of the Enterprise Zone beyond marketing
and promotion
 Ensuring that EZ monies are used to support and further grow the area
a) Innovation
b) Investment
 Ensure LEP Board are bought in to the Masterplan to secure LEP
funds
 Gearing up opportunities for businesses – loans increase
8)
Transport
 Top priority and top barrier to respondents of the Business Workshop
feedback form (+3), as well as a priority for the LEP
 Congestion reduction a priority (+1), including at Arena Square and in
Attercliffe – area not attractive at the moment
 South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) as a facilitator for
travel and traffic issues – SY Local Travel Plan and funding for sustainable
travel in South Yorkshire
 Cross-boundary transport issues
 Higher commuter rate and links to public transport needs
 Snow plans
a) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) North/Tinsley Link (+1)
 Junction 34 management (+1)
 BRT as an example of co-working across boundaries to be replicated
on other projects such as flood and district heating
b) Tram-Train and tram extension (+2)
 Stops at Magna – to be championed through the Masterplan
c) Walking and Cycling
d) Highways Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
e) High Speed Rail 2 (+2 +1) – including links to London and Sheffield
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011
f) Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) routes
 Impact on local business environments
g) Park and ride
 M1 Junctions 33 and 34 – Advanced Manufacturing Park
9)
Air Quality
 Controlling motorway emissions/air quality
 Penalties for impact on the environment which can restrict further growth
 Weighting of penalties on impact of manufacturing on air quality versus
impact of transport
 Dilemma of traffic associated with development and impact on air quality
(x2)
10) Renewable Energy, Heat and Cooling networks
 Joint 2nd priority and joint 2nd barrier to respondents of the Business
Workshop feedback form (+1)
 Not just district heating and energy – energy conservation too
 Gas refuelling
 Localised energy generation
 Green roofs – economic arguments to developers
 ‘Newtork Rail’ type arrangement for governance of energy/district heating,
creating opportunities for accessing other sources of funding
 Biomass, solar and hydro power
 Carbon reduction and reuse of waste hot water are priorities
 Secure supply, competitive prices (through Combined Heat and Power?)
 Opportunity to exploit lead on district heating
a) For industry
b) For commercial buildings
c) For housing
11) Managing Water and Flood Risk
 3rd priority and joint 2nd barrier to respondents of the Business Workshop
feedback form (+5), as well as a priority for the LEP
 Opportunity to share modelling and intelligence
a) Protection for existing properties and infrastructure
 Impact of flood damage to power infrastructure
b) Protection for new development
c) Making space for water and habitat
 Links to green infrastructure, sustainable drainage – timing and cost
efficiency benefits, but issues of delays/timing, up-front costs and buyin from communities, land owners and developers
d) Management and maintenance
 Payment towards River Stewardship Company maintenance work…?
12) Housing
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011



Barrier – upgrading works as part of the Waverley planning consent
Waverley, Bassingthorpe Farm, Attercliffe Waterside
Issue of lack of housing for new workers, especially in the Don Valley as a
priority
13) Urban Design and public art
 Opportunity to improve design and quality standards, develop a design
code/guide (x2), though the cost of ‘quality’ is an issue
 Local Development Orders – need to balance simplified planning with
quality design
 Priority of public art for businesses in the current climate is lower than flood
defence and releasing transport infrastructure capacity for example
 Sustainable building and quality character are a priority
 Poor signage is an issue
a) M1 Gateway Public Art
 Consistent line on developer contributions for M1 Gateway Public Art
 Sponsorship from the general public and from businesses
14) Green Spaces and Corridors
 Landscape study including the East End Park
 Links to flood management, sustainable drainage – timing and cost
efficiency benefits, but issues of delays/timing, up-front costs and buy-in
from communities and developers
 South Yorkshire Forest Partnership as a key stakeholder
 Opportunities to open up more of the river – boat trips…?
15) Sport, Leisure, Culture and Conferencing
 Plans for upgrade of Sheffield Arena
 Promoting Sheffield and Rotherham tourism, especially in the face of
competition from Leeds Arena, Trinity, etc
 Pedestrian and public transport (BRT North and Tram-Train) links to Magna
 Complementary venue, meeting and event offer, e.g. The Big Blue Shed,
Magna
16) Marketing, Branding and Communication
 Good engagement to gain consensus
 Communications strategy – repeat, repeat, repeat – raise profile
 High level champion
 Poor image and international perception – defining the Don Valley’s unique
selling point
 Issue of poor self-promotion – ‘Team Sheffield’!
 City Region message
 Add Sheffield to iPhone app
 Opportunity for better communication through a Lower Don Forum?
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011
17) Existing mechanisms
 Stakeholder networks
 Consultation Strategy required
 Community ownership and buy-in (x2) – residents and employers,
meshing area assemblies
 Commitment from businesses, major landowners/developers like
Sheffield International Venues, Enterprise Zone, Advanced
Manufacturing Park
 Joint ventures
 Stewardship
 Issue of poor coordination between different authorities/agencies
 Better integration is needed
 Removing bureaucracy/red tape
 Difficulty in understanding public sector agencies
 Statutory
 Planning –
 Section 106 (x2)
 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (x4) policies which need to
be aligned with Development Framework sites on a similar
programme
 Local Development Orders (LDOs) – need to balance relaxed
planning with quality design, speed without losing control and
coordination, use of non-statutory guidance
 Need to ensure planning policy balances development control
with ‘making it happen’ (x3)
 Local business rates (x3)
 Finance
 Retaining business rates, TIF (Tax Incremental Finance) if viable (x4),
JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City
Areas), Business Improvement Districts (x3), joint asset vehicle,
Prudential Borrowing, Green Banks, Local Enterprise Partnership
funds, public private partnerships
 Ensure strategic links to funding organisation’s priorities
 Engaging businesses – making the case for financial commitment
 Issue of lack of funding and investment
 Issue of focus on short-term returns instead of long-term investment
decision-making
18) Integrated infrastructure Plan
 Clear plan on infrastructure (x2) to embrace private sector buy-in
 Phasing
 How to integrate/fit together
 Strong working group – all parties
 Realistic
 Establish infrastructure priorities across boundaries, e.g. Section 106
 Freiburg model – one/common trench for delivery of infrastructure (x2), or
other models appropriate to land in various ownership
Sheffield-Rotherham Masterplan – Workshop Feedback July 2011

Dynamic model, not static – respond to opportunities
 Make linkages between projects which can be delivered together to
get stakeholders working together in a coordinated way
19) Implementation – action plan
 Less rhetoric, more action (+1)
a) Programme
 Focus on a small number of key projects for stakeholders to get
behind
 Quick wins
b) Resources
 Funding (including Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL))
 Funding strategy required to coordinate multiple initiatives and
mechanisms
 Opportunity to make joint funding bids, e.g. European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF)
 Better use of limited resources
 Make best use of internal resources – Sheffield CC and Rotherham
MBC
 Funding
 Legal
 Technical and engineering
 Urban design, landscape design, highways design
 Marketing and market intelligence/research – Creative Sheffield
and Rotherham Investment and Development Office (RIDO)
 Statutory bodies
 Landowners
c) Delivery
d) Governance
 Issue of maintenance responsibilities following investment