Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY
SHEAF VALLEY AND
NEIGHBOURING AREAS
and
SOUTH AND WEST URBAN AREA
AREA BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
September 2007
For enquiries about ordering copies please telephone 0114 273 4404.
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas
11
3.
Scale of development in South West Sheffield
27
4.
Other options not taken forward
43
Appendix A: Delivery Schedule
49
Appendix B: The Relationship of SSV1 and SSW1 to National
Planning Policy and the Regional Spatial Strategy
53
Appendix C: South-West Sheffield Housing price comparing
to the Sheffield Postcode area (Aug 2007)
54
Appendix D: Existing Houses and Flats Commitments in the
SSW1 Policy Area (as in March 2007)
57
List of Figures
Page
1
Map showing boundaries of sub areas
10
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 background report sets out how they were taken into
account and why the Council proposed 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 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. A Planning Inspector through a process of public
examination will decide the soundness of the document.
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 is all found in the Background
Reports.
1.10 The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Development
Framework but they 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 two of the submitted policies, namely SSV1 ‘Jobs and
Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas’ and SSW1 ‘Scale of
Development in South West Sheffield’. Chapters 2 and 3 are based on each of
these submitted policies and they deal with each of the soundness tests in turn.
Chapter 4 deals with issues not followed through to the submitted Core Strategy.
Introduction to the Issues
1.13 This background report covers two broad areas of the city: (i) the Sheaf Valley
and Neighbouring Areas, corresponding to the area covered by policy SSV1 and
(ii) the South and West Urban Area, covering a wider area than that referred to as
‘South West Sheffield’ in policy SSW1. Figure 1 shows the boundaries of these
two areas. The overall scope of the ‘Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and
Neighbouring Areas’ policy relates to roles and locations for future employment
and housing in certain areas undergoing transition. The overall scope of the
‘Scale of Development in South West Sheffield’ policy relates to safeguarding and
enhancing the character of the south-west sector (principally between
Manchester Road and Abbeydale Road) in the face of strong housing market
pressures. Figure 1 also shows the boundary of south-west Sheffield (SSW1
policy area).
Overview of the Area
1.14 Taking the Sheaf Valley & Neighbouring Areas and the South & West Urban Area
together, they embrace the following panel7 areas and parts of panel areas. The
panel area boundary is shown in Figure 1.
1.15 The Broomhill-Central-Nether Edge (BCNE) panel area, but excluding that part
of the panel area within the city centre (which is covered by a separate
background report because of its strategic significance and complexity).
Therefore, the part of the BCNE panel area covered by this background report is
referred to as ‘Broomhill, Sharrow, and Nether Edge’ and it covers the
neighbourhoods of Sharrow, Highfield, Broomhall, Broomhill, Nether Edge,
6
The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4)
Sheffield City Council’s panel areas are 12 corporate areas covering the city, each serviced by an Area
Co-ordinator and overseen by a panel of local councillors.
7
-3-
Brincliffe, Endcliffe, and very small parts of Heeley (which falls mainly into the
Park Heeley panel area).
1.16 The Broomhill, Sharrow and Nether Edge area lies to the southwest of the city
centre reaching as far as Riverdale Road and Banner Cross in the west, Carter
Knowle Road in the south, and the Dore-Sheffield railway in the east. It is a
densely populated area.
1.17 Five major traffic routes into the city cross the area: Manchester Road-Glossop
Road (A57) from Manchester, Ecclesall Road (A625) from Hathersage,
Abbeydale Road-London Road (A621) from Baslow, London Road South-Queens
Road (A61) and Bramall Lane from the south. The area abuts a section of the
Inner Ring Road running from Granville Square to Brook Hill.
1.18 Broomhill, Sharrow and Nether Edge are vibrant, attractive urban
neighbourhoods populated by communities rich in diversity, talent and energy.
The area is home to two universities both of which are regionally significant
economic drivers. Good job opportunities are available in the locality and close
by in the city centre. This part of Sheffield has a better variety and quality of
shops and eating-out facilities than any other outside the city centre or
Meadowhall. Much of the local environment has heritage value. Most of the
open spaces are of good quality, but some are in need of investment and the
overall provision per 1,000 population is low.
1.19 Much of the area consists of very fine Victorian suburbs and many of these
remain stable and affluent residential neighbourhoods. In the inner city, many
properties are home to a more transient population; this is especially true of
shared houses in Victorian terraces. There is less Council housing than in any
other part of the city, most of it inner city flats and maisonettes with a few small
estates of traditional dwellings.
1.20 Large parts of both the city’s universities and a number of hospitals clustered
around the Royal Hallamshire are located in the area and these institutions have
significant impacts upon the local population profile, housing market, economic
activity, shops and other services, and environment.
1.21 Important elements of Sheffield’s heritage are located here, including the
Botanical Gardens as well as the Conservation Areas of Broomhall, Hanover,
Northumberland Road, Broomhill, Endcliffe, Ranmoor, General Cemetery, Porter
Brook, Nether Edge and the recently designated (2007) John Street / St Mary’s,
near Bramall Lane.
1.22 Economic activity is concentrated in a number of locations, particularly the four
district shopping centres of Broomhill, Ecclesall Road/Sharrowvale, London Road
and Banner Cross, the universities and hospitals and their environs, the Lower
Porter Valley office quarter, the Bramall Lane /John Street area (which is home to
Sheffield United Football Club), the Sheaf Valley and the Queens Road corridor.
-4-
Parts of the Bramall Lane/John Street area and Sheaf Valley are run down or
underused, offering a potential for new land uses. Much of the Broomhill,
Sharrow and Nether Edge area is within walking distance or a short bus ride of
the city centre, where South Yorkshire’s biggest concentration of jobs is to be
found. Changes in the sub-region’s economy towards services and office-based
businesses are expected to intensify the concentration of jobs in and around the
city centre, with a consequent impact on commuting through the Broomhill,
Sharrow and Nether Edge area.
1.23 Within the area’s boundaries lie some of the richest and poorest areas of
Sheffield and its population is one of the most culturally mixed in the city. On the
indices of deprivation Sharrow (now in Central ward) is among the 15% most
deprived wards in the country; in contrast, Broomhill is among the 10% least
deprived wards nationally8. The rich ethnic mix is due to various communities
settling in the area over the years and an increasing number of students from
abroad attending the universities. Also, the hospitals employ a high proportion of
ethnic minority staff within the professional ranks. Asylum seekers have recently
added to the trend.
1.24 There are communities of Irish, Somali, Bengali, Pakistani, African Caribbean,
Chinese and Yemeni peoples and the area is the traditional base for the Italian
and Polish communities who settled after the Second World War.
1.25 As well as adding to the cultural mix of the area, the growth of the universities
and hospitals has affected the population profile in other ways. There is a
significant transient population, predominantly made up of students. This influx of
transient groups is having a profound effect on the base population. Rising
student numbers have led to an increase in the overall population. 30.8%
(12,768) of the population of the panel area (this includes part of the city centre)
is students, compared to a city average of 8.1%. There is a high proportion of
people between the ages 20-24 living in the area. Many young families, who
would at one time have settled in the area, are now tending to buy their first
property elsewhere, partly in response to high property values generated by
private rented sector landlords catering for the student market. The 2001 census
showed that 18.1% of the panel area’s population moved during the previous
year (the highest proportion in the city) as opposed to 12% city average.
1.26 Changes in the local housing market, combined with the growth in student
numbers, have made the residential character of neighbourhoods and the desire
for balanced communities major concerns in this area.
1.27 There are several environmental issues affecting the area, including shortage of
open space, litter, fly-posting and graffiti and a desire to exploit the potential of
the rivers Porter and Sheaf, but the main one affecting people’s daily lives is the
adverse impact of traffic on residential amenity. Several general factors have
8
Broomhill, Central and Nether Edge 3 Year Strategic Area Action Plan 2005-2008, Sheffield City Council
-5-
contributed to the growth of traffic and parking pressures, including population
growth, increasing affluence, car ownership and usage, deteriorating public
transport services and rising fares, longer journeys to work, changing lifestyles,
shopping habits and parental choice of schools.
1.28 The wider South and West Urban Area also covers the south west part of the
South panel area. These includes an area from the eastern edge of Bradway
and Totley in the west, up to Hemsworth Road in the east, including
neighbourhood of Bradway, Totley, Beauchief, Woodseats, Norton, Greenhill,
Lowedges, Jordanthorpe / Batemoor, and Hemsworth. The rest of the South
panel area from the north east of Hemsworth Road (including neighbourhood of
Gleadless, Intake, Hollinsend, Charnock, Base Green) is covered in the South
and East Urban Area.
1.29 This part of the South panel area has a good quality living environment,
consisting mainly housing areas and green spaces. The Area benefits from a
number of large areas of open space and parkland used for both formal and
informal recreation purposes, including one of Sheffield’s ten city parks, Graves
Park, as well as Beauchief Golf Course and Greenhill Park. There are a number
of Historic Parks and Gardens in the South Area including Graves Park;
Beauchief Hall; John Eaton’s Almshouses in Norton; Oakes Park; and Woodland
View, Abbeydale. There are five Conservation Areas at Beauchief Abbey;
Beauchief Hall; Greenhill; Norton; and Oakes Park.
1.30 This part of the South panel area is relatively affluent residential predominantly
with owner-occupied housing stocks, although there are some Council estates
concentrated in Greenhill, Lowedges, Batemoor / Jordanthorpe, Woodseats. It
has higher concentrations of elderly people and disable people but lower
population of minority ethnic origin.
1.31 The connectivity of this patch is fairly good. The A61 Chesterfield Road and the
southern part of the Outer Ring Road are Strategic Roads, linking this area to the
city centre in the north, M1 in the east, and Chesterfield in the south. In terms of
public transport, A61 corridor enjoys high frequency bus services, which has over
10 services per hour during day time in working days. There are also regular bus
services linking the rest of the area to the City Centre.
1.32 There are two employment use areas: the Archer Road mixed use area which
contains a number of big retail and leisure facilities mixed with business and
housing, and the former Norton College which is general industry area. In terms
of services and facilities, Woodseats district centre is a successful shopping
centre and provides a good range of services and facilities for the local catchment
areas.
1.33 The South West panel area contains the electoral wards of Ecclesall, Fullwood,
Dore and Totley, and a small proportion of Crookes. It covers the
neighbourhoods of Abbeydale, Bents Green, Bradway, Crosspool, Dore,
-6-
Ecclesall, Fulwood, Greystones, Lodge Moor, Millhouses, Ranmoor, Totley, and
Whirlow. This panel area adjoins the Peak District on the west and North East
Derbyshire on the south, and covers an area south from the River Rivelin, to the
south and west of Netherthorpe/ Walkley/ Hillsborough Panel Area, west of
Broomhill/ Central/ Nether Edge Panel Area, and northwest of the River Sheaf
and South Panel Area. This area covers a large area of Green Belt, and includes
many of the most affluent parts of Sheffield.
1.34 The South West Area is a residential suburb being the second largest in the City
in terms of geographical area with close to 10% of the population of Sheffield
living in around 16% of the City’s area9. It has a larger elderly population and
lower than average proportion of young people.
1.35 This area enjoys high quality living environment and decent housing stock. It has
a number of open space and woodland, such as Ecclesall Wood. It has large
area of Green Belt and adjoins to the Peak District National Park. The area is
predominantly residential with majority of homes owner-occupied detached or
semi-detached large houses with large gardens, although small pockets of
relative deprivation do exist. The Area contains a very low proportion of council
owned properties at 5% of the total housing stock10.
1.36 There are a range of conservation areas and distinctive street scenes that merit
protection (see para 3.25 for more detailed description). The strength of housing
demand has resulted in some high density infill development which has adverse
impact on the local distinctive characters.
1.37 In terms of community facilities, Banner Cross District Shopping Centre is the
only District Shopping Centre in the South West panel area. It is located on the
northeast corner of the area, straddling the boundary with Broomhill, Central,
Nether Edge panel area, and acts as a hub of retail and small commercial
services and facilities for local residents. The district centre is supplemented by
several smaller scale but successful Neighbourhood Centres which provide a
range of good quality shops, pubs and restaurants. There are 13 primary schools
and 4 secondary LEA schools in this area, and educational attainment is well
above the average for Sheffield as a whole.
1.38 The three main radial roads, i.e. the A57 Manchester Road, the A621 Abbeydale
Road and the A625 Ecclesall Road, in this area are Strategic Roads and in good
condition. However these routes have reached nearly their capacity, and road
congestion has become a bottleneck for future development in the South West.
In terms of public transport, there are regular bus services running between the
area and Sheffield City Centre but, except part of A625 (from city centre up to
9
South West 3 Year Strategic Area Action Plan 2005-2008, Sheffield City Council
10
South West 3 Year Strategic Area Action Plan 2005-2008, Sheffield City Council
-7-
Banner Cross) and A621 (from city centre up to Millhouses), the vast majority of
the area is not served by high frequency buses. A621 Abbeydale Road South
has a bus priority lane. Dore Station is a local station along the strategic railway
links between Sheffield Centre / Manchester and Sheffield Centre / Derby &
Nottingham. There is a Park and Ride with about 200 car spaces in Abbeydale
Drive (next to the Tesco superstore on Abbeydale Road).
1.39 The area offers very limited scope of commercial or industrial development. This
reflects its largely residential character. Residents generally look to other areas of
the city for employment opportunities, and unemployment is much lower in this
area than elsewhere in the City.
1.40 A small part of Park-Heeley panel area where it forms part of the Sheaf Valley.
The ‘Sheaf Valley’ consists of the valley floor of the Sheaf north of Archer Road
and south of Heeley Bottom, and also including land east of the railway line
between Oak Street and East Bank Road, designated in the UDP as Fringe
Industry and Business Area.
1.41 The Netherthorpe-Walkley-Hillsborough panel area, except for those parts
falling in the Upper Don Valley (including Hillsborough District Centre) and in the
City Centre. These parts are covered in separate background reports because of
their strategic importance and complexity. This report includes the parts of this
area that predominantly consists of densely populated residential
neighbourhoods north west of the City Centre and also contains a significant
amount of open Green Belt land to the west.
1.42 This panel area covers the neighbourhoods of Middlewood, Wadsley, Wisewood,
Hillsborough, Langsett, Walkley, Walkley Bank, Woodland View, Crookes
Crookesmoor, Upperthorpe and Netherthorpe and is also made up of five wards,
Hillsborough, Walkley, and parts of Stannington, Crookes and Broomhill. The
population of the area is approximately 57,000 people living within 25,000
households, almost one eighth of the total population of Sheffield11.
1.43 The area is varied, with each neighbourhood having its own distinct character and
issues. Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe historically contained large numbers of
council owned tower blocks and maisonettes. Partial demolition and substantial
refurbishment has taken place in recent years. Crookes, Walkley and
Hillsborough consist of more privately owned terraced housing and have a
relatively large student and recent graduate population. There are significant
areas of council housing in Wisewood, Woodland View, Langsett and Winn
Gardens and also areas of more affluent suburban development overlooking the
Rivelin Valley.
Netherthorpe, Hillsborough and Walkley 3 Year Strategic Area Action Plan 2005 – 2008, Sheffield City
Council
11
-8-
1.44 Traffic is an important issue for the area including congestion, road safety and
parking issues. Much of the area is characterised by steep and narrow roads
with increased cars per household and significant on-street parking making
access and vehicular movements difficult. The Middlewood/Infirmary/Langsett
Road corridor borders this area and provides a major route from the north part of
the city to the City Centre via Hillsborough Centre where tram gates mean traffic
is diverted around the centre. Also along this corridor Supertram serves
Langsett, Middlewood and Malin Bridge.
1.45 This area is served by Crookes and Hillsborough District shopping centres
alongside a number of smaller Local Shopping Centres. Hillsborough District
Centre has been described as the retail and leisure hub of this panel area (see
Upper Don Valley Background Report). Crookes is also a successful centre and
offers a wide range of compatible uses that contribute toward a successful and
sustainable District Centre.
1.46 There are elements of contrast in this area between the densely populated
neighbourhoods and surrounding open Green Belt land. There are also a
number of prominent and valued open spaces that provide essential recreational
facilities and break up the network of neighbourhoods. Alongside Hillsborough
Park, other important open spaces include Crookes Valley Park, the Ponderosa,
Ruskin Park, Bole Hill Recreation Ground and Spider Park.
1.47 The river valleys are another important feature of this area that characterise the
landscape and historically the nature of land use in the area. The River Loxley
and Rivelin flow through this area and these valleys provide a picturesque setting
stretching out into the Green Belt to the west.
-9-
Figure 1: Map showing boundaries of sub areas
-10-
2
JOBS AND HOUSING IN THE SHEAF VALLEY AND
NEIGHBOURING AREAS
Introduction
2.1
Major spatial changes are proposed in the Core Strategy for parts of seven
neighbourhoods: Broomhall, Sharrow, Highfield, Heeley, Norfolk Park, Brincliffe
and Woodseats. In all cases, the areas affected are designated in the UDP as
Fringe Industry and Business Area, Mixed Use Area or Retail Park (all of which
are designations discontinued in the SDF) and they are predominantly occupied
(or previously occupied) by business, industry, leisure or large-format retail.
These are the places where strategic choices need to be made about their future
direction. For the purposes of analysis, these strategic choice areas (shown on
Figure 1) can be described as:
(a) Lower Porter Valley (in Broomhall). This area includes the existing office
developments (such as Norwich Union and Hallamshire Business Park)
and the former Wards Brewery (a mixed housing and offices scheme), and
extends along the Porter valley floor between the Ecclesall Road and
London Road District Shopping Centres. This location is well served by
public transport services as well as being within walking distance of the City
Centre and the two district centres. There is long term potential to provide
new office locations that complement those in the City Centre. A
continuing concentration of office-based employment here will also support
the long-term viability of both district shopping centres.
(b) Bramall Lane/John Street area (in Highfield and Sharrow). This area is
designated a combination of Fringe Industry and Business Area and Mixed
Use Area in the UDP. Up until recently the area has been almost entirely
non-residential but planning permissions for large-scale, purpose built
student housing (The Forge) and open market residential developments
(Anchor Point on Cherry Street) have now been implemented and further
applications are being processed. Being located within easy walking
distance of Sheffield Hallam University, London Road District Centre and
the City Centre, the area offers good opportunities for both student and
open market housing developments on former or underused industrial or
commercial land. The area contains Sheffield United’s football stadium on
Bramall Lane where the club has long-term regeneration proposals aimed
at improving football facilities and diversifying its leisure and entertainment
offer. The area features a newly-designated Conservation Area with some
listed buildings. Future land uses and development schemes need to be
sympathetic to the re-use and refurbishment of the historic fabric.
(c) Queens Road corridor (in Highfield and Heeley) between Heeley Bottom
and the Inner Ring Road at Granville Square / St Mary’s Road, is entirely
non-residential at present. As well as containing some existing business
-11-
and industry it has large-scale retail warehouses (such as the B and Q
outlet and the Guernsey Road retail park), a bingo hall / ice rink complex,
and various other commercial activities such as car sales. In the light of
the broad mix of existing uses here, it is not realistic to designate the area
for a narrow range of preferred land uses. The environment here is
generally unsuitable for the introduction of residential uses.
(d) Sheaf Valley (straddling the boundaries of Sharrow, Heeley, Norfolk Park,
Brincliffe and Woodseats). The valley floor of the Sheaf between Archer
Road and Heeley Bottom, and also including land east of the railway line
between Oak Street and East Bank Road, is predominantly business and
industrial uses, with virtually no residential uses at present, and serves as a
source of local jobs and premises for enterprises.
Policy SSV1 Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and
Neighbouring Areas
2.2
A mix of uses including employment will be provided for in the Sheaf Valley
and neighbouring areas that makes jobs available for residents of south and
south-west Sheffield seeking local employment:
(a) in the Lower Porter Valley, offices will be promoted, mixed with new
housing as a secondary land use;
(b) the Bramall Lane/ John Street area will be promoted as an area of
transition with new residential development, along with compatible
businesses and activities;
(c) the Queens Road corridor will be non-residential and will
accommodate business and industry and large-format retailing and
leisure outlets not appropriate to a City Centre or district centre
location.
(d) in the Sheaf Valley, the existing business and industry areas will
continue to provide for local jobs and enterprises.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
2.3 National planning guidance states that development plans should locate
employment uses in appropriate locations that are accessible, but also meet the
needs of businesses. PPG4 in paragraph 10 states:
‘The locational demands of businesses are therefore a key input to the
preparation of development plans. Development plan policies must take
-12-
account of these needs and at the same time seek to achieve wider objectives
in the public interest (see paragraph 11). Development plans offer the
opportunity to:
 encourage new development in locations which minimise the length and
number of trips, especially by motor vehicles;
 encourage new development in locations that can be served by more
energy efficient modes of transport (this is particularly important in the
case of offices, light industrial development, and campus style
developments such as science and business parks likely to have large
numbers of employees);
 discourage new development where it would be likely to add
unacceptably to congestion’
2.4 Policy SSV1 addresses the need to define appropriate locations for business and
industry. The policy encourages new office developments in those areas (Lower
Porter Valley and Bramall Lane/John Street area) closest to the city centre and
district shopping centres. By providing employment opportunities between the
residential parts of South and West Sheffield and the Inner Ring Road , policy
SSV1 helps to intercept trips which would otherwise add to congestion: some of
the most serious congestion hotspots on the Inner Ring Road are at the
intersection of routes from the south-west. In particular, the IRR/ Brookhill
roundabout, the IRR / A621 Bramall Lane roundabout, the IRR/ A625 Moore
Street Roundabout, the IRR/ Glossop Road are the worst congestion hotspots of
the whole city.
2.4
PPG4 in paragraph 18 states:
‘… planning authorities should consider carefully whether particular
proposals for new development may be incompatible with existing
industrial and commercial activities. The juxtaposition of incompatible uses
can cause problems for the occupiers both of the new and of the existing
development. For example, where residential development is proposed in
the vicinity of existing industrial uses, the expectations of the residents
may exceed the standards applied by the planning authority, and may give
rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use. This may be a particularly
acute problem where other legislation, such as that relating to
environmental pollution or public health, might subsequently result in costly
new conditions or restrictions being imposed on the industry as a
consequence of the new neighbouring development.’
2.6 Policy SSV1 differentiates between the various sub areas of the Sheaf Valley and
Neighbouring Areas according to their suitability for different land uses (business,
industry and housing) of varying compatibility. The ‘Planning Reasons’ section
further down goes into detail about the differences between the four sub areas.
-13-
Regional Policy
2.7 Policy E3 in the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (draft RSS) states that all plans will
seek to support the availability of sufficient land in sustainable locations to meet
the needs of a modern economy. Policy SSV1 aims to provide land for jobs and
enterprises in various mixes according to the character and locations of the sub
areas.
Sub-Regional Policy
2.8 The Local Transport Plan (LTP2) proposes to expand and accelerate the
programme of controlled parking zones in central areas, linked to adjacent
residents parking schemes, to limit parking in areas of congestion. These
measures offer a way forward to deal with existing and future parking and traffic
pressures in the inner areas such as John Street/Bramall Lane and the Lower
Porter Valley, where residents, commuters, shoppers and other visitors compete
for on-street spaces.
2.9 The LTP2 notes that traffic congestion in Sheffield follows typical patterns for
larger urban areas. Problems are more acute and becoming more of a 12 hour
problem around the central area (on and around the Inner Relief Road). This is
also the case along the main access spines through the Lower and Upper Don
Valleys. All the main radial routes into Sheffield are congested in both peak
hours during the week and on Saturdays. These factors support policy SSV1
where it offers locations for enterprises and employment serving South and South
West Sheffield, providing alternative locations for business and industry to the
City Centre and Don Valley, as well as bringing jobs and services within easy
travelling distance of South and South West Sheffield residents, thereby helping
to reduce the number of cross-town trips and congestion on the Inner Ring Road.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
2.10 The City Strategy12 recognises that ‘Sheffield’s success needs to be based
increasingly on innovation, enterprise and private investment. Sheffield has a
range of economic assets on which to build. We need to exploit these to the full
to bring about a step-change in our wealth creation and inward investment’. One
way of realising this ambition is to accelerate the growth of knowledge-based
businesses, such as by capitalising on links with the universities. The Lower
Porter Valley and Bramall Lane/John Street areas’ proximity to both universities
allows them to contribute to meeting this need under the terms of policy SSV1(a)
and (b).
12
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010, updated 2007.
-14-
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
2.11 Policy SSV1 is needed to help deliver the Core Strategy objectives of:
 S1.1 creating conditions for a balanced, diverse and sustainable high-growth
economy in the city region
 S1.2 provision for modern and high-technology manufacturing and
knowledge-based services, including links with the universities and
opportunities for the creation of dynamic business clusters
 S2.1 the city centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core
location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture
 S9.1 development located to limit the distances people and goods need to
travel
 S9.2 high-density development focussed on the most accessible locations
 S10.2 walking and cycling encouraged by design of places and routes and by
the location of facilities
 S10.3 new development that generates significant trips carried out only in
areas accessible by a choice of sustainable forms of transport
 S12.1 previously developed land and existing buildings in urban areas
reclaimed and re-used.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
2.12 There is high demand for housing in the south west of the city (see paragraph 3.2
below) and this is resulting in development pressure on land occupied (or
previously occupied) by business and industry in the Lower Porter Valley,
Bramall Lane/John Street area and Sheaf Valley. Three options have been
considered, each giving a different level of encouragement to new housing
development, the first of which was:
Option SW1a - Continue to use the current employment areas in the Porter
Valley, Bramall Lane/John Street area and Sheaf Valley mainly for business
and industry. This option precludes new housing because of the proximity
of industry.
2.13 The strengths of this option are:
(a) Maintains land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and jobs
(b) Offers alternative locations for business and industry to the city centre and
Don Valley
(c) Offers jobs and services within easy travelling distance of S and SW
Sheffield residents
(d) Provides land use options for sites some of which have poor living
conditions and/or are relatively unsustainable locations for new housing
-15-
2.14 The potential weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Limits the regeneration potential of vacant or underused land
(b) Reduces the possibility of high quality development and environmental
improvements (e.g. on riverside sites)
Option SW1b - Include some housing in the current employment areas in
the Porter Valley, Bramall Lane/John Street area and Sheaf Valley whilst still
using them mainly for business.
2.15 Option SW1b allows new housing developments to be introduced into the area
but only if business remains the dominant use. As housing is allowed under
option SW1b, new industrial development is resisted. The strengths of this option
are:
(a) Could help to make new business development more viable
(b) Encourages a mix of uses, creating vibrant new neighbourhoods
(c) Gives potential for people to live near their workplace
(d) Allows new housing in some highly sustainable locations
(e) Encourages new build student housing close to the Universities, but away
from established residential neighbourhoods
2.16 Potential weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry) which are
incompatible with housing
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses
Option SW1c - Include housing and compatible uses in the current
employment areas in the Porter Valley, Bramall Lane/John Street area and
Sheaf Valley, allowing business and industry to be replaced.
2.17 Option SW1c allows new housing developments, without requiring business to
remain a dominant use. As housing is allowed under option SW1c, new industrial
development is resisted. Under option SW1c, housing could eventually become
the dominant use. The main strengths of this option are:
(a) Encourages a mix of uses, creating vibrant new neighbourhoods
(b) Allows new housing in some highly sustainable locations
(c) Encourages new build student housing close to the Universities, but away
from established residential neighbourhoods
2.18 Potential weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry) which are
incompatible with housing
-16-
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses
(c) Does not safeguard any land for employment or business purposes
(d) Reduces the available locations for business and industry
2.19 The Queens Road corridor accommodates a broad range of non-residential
uses at present but is no longer dominated by business or industry. It is not
realistic to attempt to re-establish a dominance of business or industry. Two
options have been considered, the first of which is:
Option SW2a - Allow a wide range of non-residential uses to continue
2.20 The main strengths of this option are:
(a) Enables this major transport corridor to accommodate large-format
retailing and leisure outlets, as well as employment-generating business
and industry
(b) Provides land use options for sites some of which have poor living
conditions
2.21 Potential weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Having no dominant land uses leaves the corridor without a strong vision
to inspire its future development
(b) Resisting new housing development limits the regeneration potential of
vacant or underused land.
Option SW2b - Allow housing and compatible uses
2.22 The strength of the second option for the Queens Road corridor is that it provides
urban land close to the city centre for new housing.
2.23 Potential weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Reduces the scope for land uses (such as industry and warehousing)
which are incompatible with housing
(b) Encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses
(c) Allows housing in a local environment which offers poor living conditions
(d) Does not safeguard any land for employment or business purposes
(e) Reduces the available locations for business and industry
-17-
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
2.24 The spatial strategy for the city indicates provision for employment and services
that help reduce the need to travel and these locations in the Sheaf Valley and
Neighbouring Areas have an important role in continuing to provide jobs for
people living in the South and South West without having to make trips across the
busy Inner Ring Road. The existing mixes of land uses mean that the strategy
has to provide for different balances in different areas to meet the objectives of
the strategy.
2.25 The Lower Porter Valley lies between Ecclesall Road District Centre to the west
and London Road District Centre to the east, and between Ecclesall Road to the
north and Cemetery Road to the south. Policy SSV1 (a) takes forward emerging
option SW1(b) in this area. It is already an established office location, close to
the City Centre and both universities. It is within walking distance of high-density
residential neighbourhoods and readily accessible from South West Sheffield by
cycle or frequent public transport, encouraging commuters to use alternative
modes to the car. The case for a strong element of new office space in mixeduse schemes is further underpinned by continuing up-to-date evidence13 of
demand for good quality office accommodation.
2.26 There is also demand for new housing development14, which would be highly
sustainable in this location, with potential opportunities for new purpose-built
student housing. New-build student housing here would be close to the two
universities but away from established residential streets. Some residential
development could help to make new business development viable and a mix of
uses will help create a more vibrant neighbourhood. There are wider benefits to
the community from allowing or encouraging new housing here, that would
outweigh the flood risk associated with developing more vulnerable land uses in a
high probability flood zone (see also paragraph 2.40 below for details of the
SFRA).
2.27 The Bramall Lane/John Street area lies between London Road District Centre
to the west and Shoreham Street to the east, and between the Inner Ring Road
to the north and Hill Street to the south. Policy SSV1(b) takes forward a variant
of emerging option SW1(c) in this area. The proposed emphasis on housing
follows the pattern that has already started, of residential developments replacing
traditional industry and warehousing. New housing would also support the
London Road District Centre by boosting footfall. The mix of uses in the policy
will help to create a vibrant new neighbourhood. The policy allows the possibility
of more new-build student housing close to the universities but away from
13
Employment Land Assessment for the City of Sheffield, Arup (July 2006)
Chapter 4 of the Housing Background Report gives figures showing that the highest levels of housing
completions and existing commitments are in the South and West of the city
14
-18-
established residential streets and also creates opportunities for new affordable
housing to meet local needs. There are wider benefits to the community from
allowing or encouraging new housing here, that would outweigh the flood risk
associated with developing more vulnerable land uses in a high probability flood
zone (see also paragraph 2.40 below for details of the SFRA). However, smallscale business activity continues (especially in some of the historic industrial
buildings in the John Street Conservation Area) and the area’s closeness to the
Cultural Industries Quarter offers opportunities for small firms in the creative
sector to network and grow. Businesses that are compatible with housing include
most of those in the creative industries, which are already well represented in the
area. The policy is compatible with Sheffield United Football Club’s regeneration
proposals for new leisure, entertainment and visitor facilities, subject to them
having an acceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby
housing and to policies for the location of town centre uses.
2.28 The John Street Conservation Area includes numerous Metal Trades Buildings
including several which are Listed. Development proposals should ensure that
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area are safeguarded and that
the development would not detract from the character or setting of these
important buildings. There is potential for the reuse of these buildings for some of
the activities proposed for this part of the city under policy SSV1, such as
business workspace and residential.
2.29 It is not proposed that the area should continue to be used for industry, as
industrial uses have nearly all abandoned it and they would preclude new
housing. It is a more sustainable location for housing and compatible
businesses. Unlike the Lower Porter Valley Business Area (see paragraph 2.1(a)
above), the Bramall Lane/John Street area is not an established office location.
So, it would be unrealistic to require new office developments to dominate the
area. However, in the area to the west of Bramall Lane, where the creative
business sector is present, it will be necessary to ensure that new housing
developments do not push out business uses entirely. Therefore, the policy area
designation in the City Policies document and Proposals Map will need to include
both Business (B1) and Housing among the preferred uses. To the east of
Bramall Lane, where the football stadium occupies most of the area, a more
flexible approach is appropriate.
2.30 The Queens Road corridor lies between Duchess Road and Queens Road to
the west and the railway to the east, and between the ring road/Granville Road to
the north and Heeley Bridge to the south. Policy SSV1(c) takes forward
emerging option SW2(a) in this area. The area accommodates a broad range of
non-residential uses at present and, as a major transport route, it can cater for
traffic generated by businesses and activities in the corridor. Retailing and
leisure are generally town centre uses and should be located in or adjoining the
City Centre or district centres. However, some large-format developments are
inappropriate for existing centres and this area may be a satisfactory alternative
for users mainly from other parts of southern Sheffield. But, new housing would
-19-
not be built here as the environment is unsatisfactory and it would limit the
opportunities for new commercial development. There are no wider benefits to
the community from allowing or encouraging new housing here, that would
outweigh the flood risk associated with developing more vulnerable land uses in a
high probability flood zone (see also paragraph 2.40 below for details of the
SFRA).
2.31 The Sheaf Valley, for the purposes of this policy, is the existing business and
industry area between East Bank Road to the north and Archer Road to the south
and flanking stretches of the River Sheaf and railway. Policy SSV1(d) takes
forward emerging option SW1(a) in this area. The area is well located to continue
providing for a range of enterprises and employment uses serving South and
South West Sheffield. There are some development pressures for housing but
much of the local environment is not good enough for residential uses, the area
does not offer highly sustainable locations for housing, and introducing housing
would reduce the scope for employment uses and enterprises.
2.32 The policy will safeguard land and premises for a wide range of enterprises and
jobs. Its unique value is in offering locations for enterprises and employment
serving South and South West Sheffield. It provides alternative locations for
business and industry to the City Centre and Don Valley, as well as bringing jobs
and services within easy travelling distance of South and South West Sheffield
residents. This will help to reduce the number of cross-town trips and congestion
on the Inner Ring Road. Most of this area is not within easy walking distance of
the City Centre, the universities, a district centre or a high-frequency bus route,
so it is not the best location for new, high-density housing. There are no wider
benefits to the community from allowing or encouraging new housing here, that
would outweigh the flood risk associated with developing more vulnerable land
uses in a high probability flood zone (see paragraph 2.40 below for details of the
SFRA).
2.33 Offices are not promoted as a single preferred use because the area is not an
established office location and so it would be unrealistic to require new office
developments to dominate the area.
2.34 By excluding housing from this area, the regeneration potential of vacant or
underused land may be limited. However, the experience at Broadfield Park, a
new business park now being developed in the heart of the Sheaf Valley,
demonstrates that regeneration is not ruled out by restricting the preferred land
uses to business and industry.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.35 In the Lower Porter Valley, policy SSV1(a) gives preference to business
development but allows housing as a secondary use, promoting local
employment opportunities and exploiting the regeneration potential of the area.
This is the best solution for the Lower Porter Valley because of the existing office
-20-
cluster in close proximity to Ecclesall Road district shopping centre. The policy
will also contribute to creating a vibrant neighbourhood with a mix of house types
and active, safer streets as well as a quality built environment. The option of
maintaining the dominance of business and industry to the exclusion of housing is
not a realistic one because new housing developments have already taken place
and industrial uses have long departed from the area. More new business
developments here will generate additional traffic and parking pressures but
these can be managed through appropriate highways measures, parking
standards, on-street parking controls and travel plans.
2.36 The land uses sought by policy SSV1 (a) include residential, which is in the
SFRA’s more vulnerable category for flood risk. Most of the Lower Porter Valley
is in a high probability flood zone (category 3a), therefore the SFRA
recommendations apply:
(a)
The new national planning policy statement (PPS25)15on flood risk
requires local authorities to consider risk in both allocating sites for
development and determining planning applications. As part of this,
authorities are required to carry out a Sequential Test to steer new
development towards areas with the lowest risk of flooding. 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).
(b)
In Sheffield, a moderate proportion of land is within Zones 2 and 3a.
However, it is not realistic to rule out areas entirely through a Sequential
Test, as all of the available capacity is needed for development. Some
uses are permissible in the high-probability zones, but must pass an
Exception Test16. The uses are defined by vulnerability, and are shown
in PPS2517. Shopping and offices are classed as ‘less vulnerable’,
according to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in PPS25.
Development of these uses in Zone 3a is therefore not precluded by
PPS25, but developments will need to incorporate flood mitigation and
warning measures. Housing developments are classed as ‘more
vulnerable’, according to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in
PPS25. Therefore any housing development proposed in Zone 3a must
pass the Exception Test.
(c )
All developments in Zone 2 must have a detailed Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA) commensurate with the risk of flooding (see SFRA para. 6.3). 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.
15
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, DCLG, December 2006.
Annex D, Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, DCLG, 2006.
17
Annex D, Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, DCLG, 2006.
16
-21-
(d)
Future developments within Zone 3a will require a detailed FRA (see
SFRA para. 6.3). 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 8 m 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).
2.37 In the Bramall Lane/John Street area, policy SSV1(b) is conducive to inward
investment, regeneration and the creation of a quality built environment, creating
a vibrant new neighbourhood with a mix of house types and scope for active,
safer streets. The option of maintaining the dominance of business and industry
to the exclusion of housing is not a realistic one because housing developments
have already begun to be introduced. Lying adjacent London Road district
shopping centre, within walking distance of Sheffield Hallam University and the
city centre, and already featuring major investment in new housing, it is an
appropriate area for allowing housing and compatible uses to gradually replace
industry and warehousing. A policy that gives preference to business
development but allows housing as a secondary use is not the best solution for
this area because there is no existing office cluster (unlike the Lower Porter
Valley) to form a core for such developments and it is unrealistic to expect new
office developments to predominate. The policy has an apparent negative impact
on the economic development of this area, by replacing some employment uses
with residential. However, the policy allows business (B1a -offices) to be either a
preferred use alongside housing or an acceptable use. Also, some employment
will be provided by other land uses and activities (such as leisure) that are also
compatible with housing. The land uses sought by policy SSV1 (b) include
residential, which is in the SFRA’s more vulnerable category for flood risk. Much
of the Bramall Lane/John Street area is in a high probability flood zone (category
3a), therefore the SFRA recommendations apply (see paragraph 2.40 above).
2.38 In the Queens Road corridor, policy SSV1 (c) offers opportunities for local
employment, inward investment and locations for leisure venues and large-format
retail. Introducing housing here would reduce these opportunities and do little to
achieve other sustainability aims because the local environment offers poor living
conditions. New housing here would not be easily integrated into existing
communities. A continuation of existing UDP policy over most of the area would
attempt to establish a dominance of business and industry, but this option is
unrealistic (because industry has already lost its dominance of the area) and
limits the opportunities for new development. The land uses sought by policy
SSV1 (c) are in the SFRA’s less vulnerable category for flood risk. Most of the
Queens Road corridor is in a high probability flood zone (category 3a); however
the risk could be mitigated (see paragraph 2.40 above).
-22-
2.39 In the Sheaf Valley, policy SSV1(d) maintains the existing industry and business
uses. This is the appropriate strategy, even though the alternative options
perform better in the sustainability appraisal. The option to develop the area so
that it becomes dominated by offices, with housing as a secondary use, is
undesirable as the area is not a good location for office developments, being
distanced from district centres, the city centre and the universities. The option to
permit housing to replace employment uses is undesirable if weighed against the
policy of maintaining the area as a location for jobs and economic activity in
South and South West Sheffield. The policy may not lead to high value
regeneration schemes which significantly improve the quality of the built
environment, but this issue should be addressed by policies ensuring good
design of any new developments that do occur. The land uses sought by policy
SSV1 (d) are in the SFRA’s less vulnerable category for flood risk. Most of the
Sheaf Valley is in a high probability flood zone (category 3a), therefore the SFRA
recommendations apply (see paragraph 2.40 above).
Equality Appraisal
2.40 The main equality implication of the policy is the possible impact in the four sub
areas on access by people to employment opportunities. Both SSV1 (a) and (b)
will encourage jobs and housing in close proximity and it can be argued that this
is generally beneficial for people on low incomes, working parents and people
without cars. However, it is likely that people who do not live nearby will take
many of the jobs in these areas. SSV1c and d discourage jobs and homes in
very close proximity, but these areas are generally accessible by foot, cycle and
public transport to large numbers of residents.
Consultation Responses
2.41 During the Preferred Options consultations, one consultee commented (ref
5193.057) that promoting office developments in the Lower Porter Valley conflicts
with the policy of concentrating office developments within the city centre.
However, policy SB3 makes it clear that concentrating major offices in the city
centre does not conflict with locating some office developments elsewhere in the
city, particularly at the edge of the city centre such as in the Lower Porter Valley
or Bramall Lane/John Street area.
2.42 English Heritage commented (ref 46.098) that the John Street Conservation Area
includes numerous Metal Trades Buildings, some of them listed, and
development proposals should ensure that the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area is safeguarded and that the development would not detract
from the character or setting of these important buildings. The Metal Trades
Buildings offer potential for reuse. These points are acknowledged in paragraph
2.33 above.
-23-
2.43 Turley Associates on behalf of Sheffield United Football Club and Las Vegas
Sands commented (ref 5196.004) that the stadium lies at the heart of the Bramall
Lane/John Street area, the club has plans for future developments and
improvements, and the club’s local impacts (especially on match days) need to
be taken into account. Consequently, specific reference to the presence of the
club and their regeneration plans has been made in the Core Strategy. Policy
SSV1 provides a flexible framework for the future of the area which can
accommodate the club’s proposals, subject to other policies such as those for
town centre uses.
2.44 Sharrow Community Forum commented (ref 4512.002) that the preferred option
PSV2 (which has been taken forward as policy SSV1(b) in the Submission
Version) fits with the visioning process envisaged for Sharrow.
2.45 One consultee commented (ref 5179.002) that creative businesses should be
given priority in the Bramall Lane/John Street area and new student housing
should be resisted. This viewpoint is not accepted as new housing will contribute
to the regeneration of the area, bringing life to the streets and customers for local
shops and other businesses. It is not possible or justifiable to exclude student
housing altogether, and although Core Strategy policy SH7 aims to encourage
new student housing in this area among others, it also aspires to achieving a mix
of housing development.
2.46 The Little Sheffield Development Trust commented (ref 5147.007) in favour of a
mix of creative businesses and housing in the Bramall Lane/John Street area, but
also sought the retention and growth of creative activities (such as live music
venues) which may be incompatible with residential uses. It is considered
undesirable to designate the area for uses which are in direct conflict with each
other. Specific proposals for new live music venues will have to be considered on
their merits and the noise impact of existing venues will need to be assessed as
development proposals for sensitive uses come forward.
2.47 One consultee (ref 5193.058) supported the preferred option PSV3 (which has
been taken forward as policy SSV1(c) in the Submission Version) but also
advocated the designation of the Queens Road corridor as a district shopping
centre. There is no evidence to justify designation of a new district centre in this
part of the city.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
2.48 Policy SSV1 presents the most appropriate way for the Sheaf Valley and
Neighbouring Areas to contribute to the SDF’s objectives and spatial strategy,
having considered the alternatives in the light of existing land use patterns, local
demands and needs, sustainability appraisals and consultation responses.
-24-
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
2.49 Policy SSV1 will be implemented mainly through schemes promoted by private
sector developers, with assistance from Creative Sheffield18 where appropriate.
The policy will be supported by City Policies and related designations on the
Proposals Map. Where development sites over 0.4 hectare in size arise in a
policy area which has a preferred use, these will be allocated in the City Sites
document and shown on the Proposals Map.
2.50 Progress towards implementation of the policy will not be reported specifically in
the Annual Monitoring Report because the AMR focuses on the city-wide topicbased policies. However, the proportion of land or new floorspace developed for
offices (B1a) in the Lower Porter Valley, for business (B1) and housing in the
Bramall Lane/John Street area, for non-residential uses in the Queens Road
corridor, and for business and industry (B1, B2 and B8) in the Sheaf Valley will be
monitored and will be used to inform subsequent reviews of the Core Strategy.
The target proportions for different land uses in each sub area will relate to the
criteria and dominance definitions in the City Policies (see Preferred Options PB1
to PB5).
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
2.51 In the Lower Porter Valley there are two main risks. Firstly, there is a possibility
that no development sites come forward. This outcome would neutralise any
policy. Secondly, if sites do come forward, there is a probability that developers
will seek to develop them wholly or mainly for residential use (perhaps combined
with retail uses on ground floors) because of the strength of the housing market
and relative weakness of Sheffield’s commercial office sector. Although this
outcome reduces the economic benefits of the policy, it still means that some of
the other benefits (such as regeneration and an improved urban realm) will be
achieved. To reduce the risk, the City Policies will need to be formulated in such
a way that developers are persuaded to bring forward mixed use schemes which
contain a significant office element, with housing as a secondary use.
2.52 In the Bramall Lane/John Street area the risk is that new residential and
compatible business developments will be delayed by the difficulty of assembling
sites and overcoming amenity issues (such as noise and vibration) related to
existing industry and activities. However, developer interest is strong in this area
and is unlikely to be deterred by constraints that are typical of inner city,
brownfield sites.
2.53 In the Queens Road corridor the risk of residential development (in direct
conflict with policy SSV1c) is low because of the good opportunities on offer for a
Creative Sheffield is the city’s inward investment agency and offers support to developments which
bring significant economic benefits
18
-25-
wide range of other types of development and the poor environment available for
new dwellings.
2.54 In the Sheaf Valley there are two main risks. Firstly, there is a possibility that
very few development sites come forward. This outcome would neutralise any
policy. Secondly, if sites do come forward, there is a possibility that developers
will seek to develop them wholly or mainly for residential use because of its
relative profitability. The City Policies will need to be formulated in such a way
that they protect the business and industry-friendly character of existing
employment areas, and these areas will need to be drawn carefully on the
Proposals Map. Ultimately, policy SSV1(d) will be tested by developer pressure
and the outcome will depend largely on the strength of the evidence for retaining
land for business and industry (see Business and Industry Background Report).
Conclusion
2.55 Policy SSV1 is consistent with national policy (PPG4) and contributes to the aims
of policy E3 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (draft RSS). Policy SSV1 has
regard to the Local Transport Plan (LTP2) in addressing the relationships
between traffic congestion and development planning. Policy SSV1 will help to
realise the big ambition of the City Strategy to have an economy that matches the
best in Europe. It will help to deliver several Core Strategy objectives, in
particular the objectives of Economic Transformation’, ‘Serving the City Region’,
‘Reducing the Need to Travel’ and ‘Supporting Sustainable Transport’.
Consequently, the policy meets Soundness Test 4, 5 and 6.
2.56 Policy SSV1 is the result of consideration of alternative options, and represents
the most appropriate option for each sub area, in the light of the evidence,
sustainability appraisal and consultations, which satisfies Soundness Test 7.
2.57 Policy SSV1 is capable of being implemented by private sector developers, with
assistance from Creative Sheffield, and progress can be monitored (Soundness
Test 8). The policy is expressed in a way which allows it to be interpreted flexibly
when drafting detailed criteria in City Policies, or drawing policy area designations
on the Proposals Map, and therefore meets Soundness Test 9.
-26-
3
SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH WEST SHEFFIELD
Introduction
3.1 The overall emphasis for the South West urban area is one of stability and
enhancement. The general issues of the wider south west areas will be
covered by Topic Policies in Core Strategy and application of criteria for new
development in the City Policies document. They do not require specific areabased spatial policies. In particular, the principle set out in Housing policies
applies in the south west as in other parts of the city.
3.2 However, the strength of market demand in the south-west area (principally
between Manchester Road and Abbeydale Road, referring to as ‘South-West
Sheffield’ or ‘SSW1 Policy Area’ in the following sections) (see figure 1) has
placed particular pressures on this area. The housing market in the south-west
Sheffield is very strong, with the average house prices over one and half times of
the average Sheffield postcode area, and in the further suburban the average
housing price is nearly twice as the average Sheffield postcode area (see
Appendix C), although this is also a reflection of the size and style of houses
available locally. Recent years the tension between high housing market demand
and Green Belt and open space protection has resulted in some high-density infill
developments in existing housing areas. These include new housing
developments in large gardens of existing houses, as well as developments
involving the demolition and replacement of larger houses with large numbers of
flats. This has created particular pressures, giving rise to concerns about the
impact on local and sometimes distinctive character. The level of development
also needs to take account of the capacity of the transport corridors and the need
to stimulate demand in other parts of the city.
Policy SSW1 Scale of Development in South West Sheffield
3.3 In South-West Sheffield, priority will be given to safeguarding and
enhancing its areas of character. The scale of new development will be
largely defined by what can be accommodated at an appropriate density
through infilling, windfall sites and development in district centres and
other locations well served by public transport.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
3.3 Policy SSW1 supports achieving the national objectives of “Achieving high quality
housing” and “Providing housing in suitable locations” as set out in Planning
Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).
3.4 In particular, PPS3 Para 13 states:
-27-
“… Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the
opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area
and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”
3.5 Policy SSW1 gives the distinctive character a priority and allows housing at
appropriate level subject to what can be accommodated in respect of the local
character and encourages higher density development at the sustainable
locations. The rationale of SSW1 follows PPS3 Para 16 which is to take account
of the following considerations when accessing design quality:- (adapted from
PPS 3, paragraph 16):







Accessibility and connectivity especially to public transport and services
Integration with or complementation to the local character in terms of
scale, density, layout and access.
Provision of recreational space (including play space) as well as private
outdoor space
Good design
the efficient use of resources
Creating, or enhancing, a distinctive character and support for a sense of
local pride and civic identity
Retention of biodiversity within residential environments.
3.6 PPS3 Para also suggests that when considering housing density Local Planning
Authorities should have regard to the following elements (adapted from PPS3,
paragraph 46):






The vision and strategy for housing in the area
Current and future infrastructure capacity
Using land efficiently
Accessibility, specifically by public transport
Characteristics of an area
Desire to achieve high quality housing (criteria as listed above in the
previous paragraph)
3.7 SSW1 reflects the above guidance in PPS3. It is Sheffield’s locally distinctive
interpretation of PPS3. It reflects the vision and strategy for south-west Sheffield
and aims to respect and conserve the character of its distinctive neighbourhoods
while taking account of current and future infrastructure capacity and
accessibility.
Regional Policy
3.8 There is no direct link between SSW1 and the new draft Yorkshire and the
Humber Regional Spatial strategy (RSS). However, SSW1 would constrain
intensive development in the less accessible suburb and avoid direct competition
-28-
to the housing market in the low demand area. It would also help redirect some
investment to the low demand area, hence indirectly help restructuring of housing
markets in those areas, which is the aim of policy H2 of the Draft Revised RSS.
Sub-Regional Policy
3.9 SSW1 accords to accessibility of location. It has a clear link to the aims of the
Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2). The LTP2 notes that traffic congestion in
Sheffield follows typical patterns for larger urban areas (see para 3.30). A key
priority identified in the LTP2 is to improve accessibility, and one of the delivery
mechanisms is through local planning frameworks to achieve sustainable land
use patterns and locate new development in places well served by a choice of
mode, especially by public transport, cycling and walking. SSW1 responds to the
findings and helps deliver the LTP2 priorities by limiting population growth in the
south west suburb that is less well served by public transport and minimising
pressure on busy strategic roads and air pollution.
Other Sheffield Policies
3.10 This policy provides benefits to other areas across the City by redirecting
investment and demand. This is particularly relevant to the Housing Market
Renewal (HMR) areas in the north of the City. Limiting development in the most
attractive parts of the City will mean less competition for redevelopment
opportunities in other areas. This could also contribute towards the Council’s
‘Closing the Gap’ initiatives.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
3.11 The City Strategy aims to identify and protect Sheffield’s distinctiveness, and it
provides the framework for Sheffield’s continued transformation during the period
2005 to 2010. SSW1 can help delivery three key themes in the City Strategy
(July 2007).
3.12 The theme of ‘environmental excellence’ in the City Strategy19 is aimed at
“ensuring that Sheffield is a green city, with a high quality environment, and one
that is taking active steps to be more sustainable and tackle climate change”.
SSW1 could help achieve this aim and in particular contribute to the goal to
‘enhance natural and built assets’ by placing strong emphasis on local character
and the built environment.
3.13 The theme of “Sheffield being an attractive and low-carbon city” states that
Sheffield’s continued economic growth and regeneration will require a strategic
approach to the challenges of climate change. This will depend on low carbon,
affordable and secure energy and sustainable approaches to transport and
19
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010, updated 2007.
-29-
housing. SSW1 could contribute to this theme by encouraging a sustainable
settlement pattern and reducing the reliance on cars.
3.14 A key theme of the City Strategy is ‘Successful Neighbourhoods’, and its first goal
is to “successfully implement the projects aimed at transforming the city’s most
deprived areas and improving housing”. Although the SSW1 does not directly
contribute to this goal, restricting housing in the South West would reduce
competition with the Housing Market Renewal area and hence assist the success
of the transformation projects.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
3.15 The spatial vision for the South West area (Core Strategy paragraph 4.19 –
4.23) identifies the south-west sector as an area where the emphasis should be
on respecting its existing character.
3.16 SSW1 is needed to help deliver part 7 of the SDF vision, namely “ a city that
prizes, protects and enhances its natural environment and distinctive heritage
and that promotes high quality buildings and spaces“. It also responds to
Challenge 14 “A City with Character”, and Challenge 15 “Urban Areas that Look
Good and Work Well”. By giving local character priority in considering new
development, SSW1 can deliver the following strategic objectives:
S14.1 Enhanced character and distinctiveness of neighbourhoods, respecting
existing local character and built and natural features to provide the
context for new development
S14.2 Preservation and enhancement of buildings and areas that are
attractive, distinctive or of heritage value in urban and rural settings
S15.2 The built environment maintained and safeguarded in neighbourhoods
where it is already acceptable
3.17 SSW1 can also address Challenge 9 “Objectives for Reducing the Need to
Travel” and deliver the following strategic objectives: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.
-30-
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
3.18 At the Emerging Options stage, two options were considered. Both options
primarily referred to development on previously developed sites. The definition of
‘previously developed sites’ could include vacant land that was used before, infill
in gardens and redevelopment of existing houses.
Option SW5a – Promote housing development that seeks to meet the
market demand for the area
3.19 The strengths of this option are:
(a) Would attract movers to the city in support of economic transformation
(b) would meet high demand and help contain housing price rises
(c) Apartments would release family-scale housing in the area to satisfy
demand for dwellings
(d) Would provide opportunities for the provision of affordable housing in the
South West (See Housing Policy chapter).
3.20 The weaknesses of this option are:
(e) It would encourage high-density housing that could have a negative impact
on character and local distinctiveness.
(f) Increased population would put pressure on congested strategic routes.
(g) Major investment could be diverted from the Housing Market Renewal
areas.
(h) There would be less pressure to provide for the upper end of the market in
other parts of the city that could become as attractive as the South West.
(i) There would be increases pressure on existing local services (for example
schools).
(j) This would encourage increases in population in areas with limited public
transport and increased car use hence air pollution.
(k) It would result in loss of small open spaces and could affect wildlife.
(l) It would make existing neighbourhoods noisier.
Option SW5b – In the outer suburbs of South West Sheffield and inner
areas characterised by larger Victorian houses, the level of new house
building will be constrained. New building will mainly be limited the small
scale infill sites which are in keeping with the character of the area
3.21 The strengths of this option are:
(a) It would safeguard the existing character of the area.
(b) It could ensure that new developments to be in keeping with their
surroundings.
-31-
(c) It would encourage high quality design that takes account of local
distinctiveness.
(d) It could minimise pressure on busy strategic roads and local services.
(e) it would benefit to other housing areas from redirected investment and
demand.
(f) It could avoid significant increases in population in areas less well served
by public transport
3.22 The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) If redistribution of demand to other parts of the city does not occur it could
mean continued high inflation of house prices.
(b) It makes less efficient use of land
(c) It would limit opportunities to provide affordable housing in the South West.
Options Not Considered
3.23 The option of physically extending the southwest housing area beyond the
present built-up area was not considered as this would mean encroaching not
only into the Green Belt but also an area of high landscape value that adjoins the
Peak District National Park. The overall spatial vision of transformation and
sustainability means that the city should renew itself within its current boundaries
and this applied in the south west as in other areas (See the Strategy Policy and
Green Environment Policy chapter).
3.24 No options for greenfield development were considered. The Strategy and
Housing policies indicate that priority will be given to the development of
previously developed sites (See Housing Policy chapter in particular policy SH3).
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
3.25 The submitted policy is Option SW5b, which constraints the level of housing
development to small scale infill sites that are in keeping with the local character.
However, the emphasis has been refined slightly through revised wording in order
to give the policy flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and also reflect
comments received in the public consultations.
Planning Reasons
3.26 Priority is given to safeguarding and enhancing the existing character and street
scenes because of the concentration of attractive and distinctive
neighbourhoods in south-west Sheffield. Besides the many designated
Conservation Areas in Broomhill, Fullwood, Ranmoor, Whirlow, Dore, the South
West area has a high concentration of attractive neighbourhoods which are
characterised by large, stone-built and steeply pitched slate-roofed Victorian and
early Edwardian houses with big gardens. The street scenes are further
-32-
enhanced by series of linked open spaces, grass verges, mature trees and
hedgerows. Stone walls are a particular feature in this area. It has been widely
accepted that this extensive areas with distinctive townscape and natural features
merit safeguarding (see public consultation comments in the following section),
and continuing with the UDP policy in this area cannot offer the strong protection
that is needed.
3.27 The local character and distinctiveness is one of the reasons for the strong
demand for housing in south-west Sheffield. Compromising this would work
against the spatial objective for housing and for economic transformation.
Policy SSW1 would also be in keeping with the City’s objectives for conserving
local character and heritage.
3.28 SSW1 would have less adverse impact on the natural environment within urban
areas compared to the rejected option SW5a. Lower level of housing
development means less human interruption to the natural environment and
could help conserve potential wildlife habitats. This could also help maintain the
existing Green Network and protect landscape features in the South West area.
It would minimize the potential flood risk (see the following Sustainability
Appraisal).
3.29 SSW1 could meet some housing needs in south-west Sheffield. But compared
to the rejected option SW5a, policy SSW1 would have benefits this area in the
long term by addressing the imbalance in the housing market across the city as
whole.

20
In the recent years, the south-west Sheffield has seen strong market
demand and the housing prices are high. The SSW1 policy area has
very high level of existing commitments20 which also indicates the strong
market here. Appendix D listed all planning applications with full or
outline permissions for housing but construction yet is yet to start by the
end of 2007. As at 31 March 2007, there were 1,210 units as existing
commitment yet to complete. Whilst placing constraints on
developments at less sustainable locations, SSW1 would allow housing
development at appropriate locations and meet some housing needs.
There are three ways to provide housing in this area. Firstly, SSW1
encourages higher density housing in more sustainable locations, e.g.
district centres and near the high frequency bus routes. Secondly, some
provision will be made through housing site allocations. Thirdly, as the
south-west area does not have many major sites, it is expected that
windfalls would continue to make an important contribution to the future
housing supply in this area. Policy SSW1 can continue to allow this to
happen. The majority of the existing commitments were from unforeseen
windfalls on small sites (as shown in Appendix D): 98 sites were for
single dwellings, and 147 for development less than 10 dwellings and
Dwellings that already have either full or outline planning permissions.
-33-
only 24 sites for over 10 units. Together with the existing commitments,
SSW1 will help to provide some market choice, particularly at the upper
end of the market.

Over recent years, the market preference has been to build flats in the
South West and not just within the City Centre. In the SSW1 policy area,
houses make up a relatively small proportion of existing commitments.
Within the existing commitment of 1,210 units (at the end of March 2007),
1,043 are flats (86%) and only 167 are houses (14%)21. This suggests
an imbalance between what the market is currently supplying and what is
actually needed. SSW1 can help address this imbalance in supply by
restricting new housing development in less accessible suburban
locations to lower density schemes.

It is economically as well as environmentally unsustainable to meet all
the suppressed demand in this finite area. The spatial strategy and
housing policies have stated that the city should not expand outwards
and the emphasis will be placed on development on previously
developed land. The majority of the South-West policy area is less
accessible suburban and has limited physical capacity. . Therefore, in
this finite area, even promoting intensive housing development (rejected
option SW5a) would still mean the area would be unable to meet the
strong demand. But its detrimental impact on the local character would
weaken the housing market in the long term.
3.30 SSW1 reflects the constraints on road capacity in the policy area. Large
sections of residential area in South-West Sheffield are beyond the expectable
walking distance to a medium/high-frequency public transport route. Many new
residents in these areas would be unlikely to consider public transport as an
attractive option and therefore travel to work and services by private car which
would contribute to the congestion levels on the Key Routes. There are three
radial roads in south-west Sheffield: A57 Manchester Road, A625 Ecclesall Road
and A621 Abbeydale Road. Restricting new housing development would help
prevent further congestion. The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport
Executive’s latest road surveys on key route congestion and congestion hotspots
assessment took place between Autumn 2005 and Spring 200622. The surveys
show that:
Sheffield has 19 key routes under congestion monitoring excluding the
inner ring road, outer ring road and city centre roads. All the main radial
routes into Sheffield are congested in both peak hours during the week
21
Data Source: planning application records, Sheffield City Council. The data included planning
permissions in the South West panel area and Sharrow / Nether Edge / Broomhill panel area. The data
excluded 4 outline planning permission as no housing number were indicated.
22 Data source: South Yorkshire Key Route Congestion List and List of all Congestion Hotspots in South
Yorkshire, SYPTE, 2006.
-34-
and on Saturdays. However, over a quarter of the strategic congestion
hotspots are located along the three key routes in the South-West area.
Out of the 19 key routes and 98 hotspots, the A621 has 10 hotspots
(ranking second), the A57 has 9 hotspots (ranking fourth), and the A625
has 6 hotspots (ranking seventh).

Although precise information about the number of hotspots per
kilometres is not available, the distribution of congestion hotspots along
key routes in south-west Sheffield in general seems to be more intensive
than most roads in other parts of the city.

In the congestion hotspots assessment, the extent of congestion is
assessed by three indicators: ‘severity’, ‘duration’, and ‘people affected’.
When excluding the Ring Roads and city centre roads, although the
average congestion level of the three routes in the south west area is
similar to the city average, the number of people affected by each of the
congestion hotspot in this area is much higher than the city average.
Significant growth in this policy area (rejected option SW5a) would
increase the number of people being affected by congestion and would
increase the severity of congestion.

Congestion problems are becoming more of a 12 hour problem around
the central area on and around the Inner Relief Road. Some of the most
serious congestion hotspots on the Inner Relief Road are at the
intersection of routes from the south-west. In particular, the IRR/
Brookhill roundabout, the IRR / A621 Bramall Lane Roundabout, the IRR/
A625 Moore Street Roundabout, IRR/ Glossop road are the worst
congested hotspots of the whole city. Significant growth in the South
West (rejected option SW5a) could put significant pressure on the roads
and would have implications for the city centre economy.

A57 Manchester Road is in general the worst congested routes in the city
in terms of severity, duration and people affected. It not only takes the
commuting traffic flow into/ from the city centre and the industrial area in
Upper Don Valley, but also accommodate the traffic generated by
university core offices.

Congestion along the A621 Abbeydale Road and A625 Ecclesall Road
occurs along the whole routes but has clear concentrations near district
centres at Ecclesall Road/ Sharrow Vale, London Road, and Banner
Cross along Ecclesall Road. It is also concentrated around the Inner
Relief Road and employment areas in the Sheaf Valley and Bramall
Lane/ John Street area.
3.31 Despite the current high level of congestion along the South West key routes, the
physical capacity to overcome the congestion in the future would be limited.
-35-
Many parts of the radial routes in the South West area have already been
improved in the past 5 years and it is unrealistic to expect further improvements
at these hotspots. Road schemes that were built within 5 years include half of the
current hotspots (6 out of 12) along Abbeydale Road (A621), and one third (4 out
of 11) along Manchester Road (A57).23 SSW1’s restriction on significant
population growth in less accessible suburban areas would encourage
sustainable land use patterns.
3.32 In some parts of the city increased levels of housing are needed to raise support
for local services but this is not such a critical issue in this sub-area, where
district centres tend to be strong and the lack of neighbourhood centres reflects
high mobility rather than low demand. But provision for higher density
development near to district centres would provide additional support, as in other
parts of the city. However, the option of promoting large scale housing
development (rejected options SW5a) would increase the problems of road
congestion in district centres and the city centre, and could adversely affect the
viability of the district centres and the city centre.
3.33 It is expected that SSW1 could help focus development in the city centre and
the housing renewal areas and stimulate development in the weaker market
areas by providing greater opportunities for owner occupation than currently exist
at present. This would thus create a more equitable and inclusive housing
market, where there will be sufficient ability to meet the needs of all sectors of the
housing market, and should not hold back economic growth. Spreading demand
should lessen pressure to allow development on open space or Green Belt land,
whilst ensuring that the overall housing requirement can be met. It therefore
helps to maintain the green environment and contribute to quality of life. In
contrast, accommodating significant housing development in the south west to
meet demand (rejected option SW5a) would lead to intensive housing
development and investment in the South West area. This would potentially
compete with, and discourage development in the Housing Market Renewal
areas, which is contrary to the city’s strategic vision.
Sustainability Appraisal
3.34 Three options were appraised against the sustainability aims: Option A as the
submission policy, option B to promote housing development that seeks to meet
the market demand (Rejected Option SW5a), and option C to make decisions on
a site-by-site basis (continue with the UDP policy). Overall SSW1 was the most
sustainable option among the three.
3.35 All three options would allow new housing development and therefore provide
some decent housing available to people but at different scales. In different
ways, all three options could support an efficient transport network. All three
23
Data source: South Yorkshire Key Route Congestion List and List of all Congestion Hotspots in South
Yorkshire, SYPTE, 2006.
-36-
options would not have major impact on the provision of community facilities.
Option B and C were likely to decrease the provision of average amount of
community facilities, but the overall provision might increase as these might be
required for large scale development. All these options would have neutral impact
on safety and security, quality of natural landscapes and soil resource.
3.36 Policy SSW1 to give priority to local character and encourage lower density
development in less accessible suburban areas performed substantially better
than the other two options when it came to the aims of achieving sustainable land
use patterns that minimize the need to travel or promote the use of sustainable
forms of transport, helping safeguard a quality built environment and conserving
cultural heritage. By limiting the number of population living in less well served
suburbs this policy would help to reduce the use of private car journeys, and to
minimize pressure on the already busy roads and local services. It also scored
better in terms of conserving wildlife and important geological sites and hence
contributing to the green network, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions and a managed response to the effects of climate change. However
SSW1 had weaker performance in meeting the market demand.
3.37 Comparing to SSW1, although Option B had benefits of providing more homes to
meet more housing needs, this can be offset in some areas by the negative
effects on the built environment and increased congestion, and adverse impact of
making neighbourhoods noisier and increased light pollution and hence
decreased quality of life, and the loss of small open spaces and wildlife.
3.38 Option C (the current UDP policies) would allow larger scale housing
development on brownfield sites in principle subject to other considerations such
as design and highway considerations. This option had some advantages similar
to Option B in meeting some local housing needs, but many of the recent
developments have indicated that, although it could protect designated
conservation areas, Option C failed to offer as strong protection on the general
built environment in this area as needed.
3.39 The impact of the three options on flood risk was also assessed in the
sustainability appraisal. SSW1 scored better than the other two options in
minimising flood risk to human life and property, although Option B and C could
be mitigated and the flood risk minimised through the development control
system. The majority of South-West Sheffield is situated within low flood risk
area, but the scenario of more intensive development would increase ground
water run off and consequently increase the flood risk.
Equality Appraisal
3.40 In terms of equality appraisal, the obvious drawback of SSW1 is that it would
restrict large-scale housing development in the suburban South West hence
having less provision of affordable housing. However SSW1 would locate new
development in where is well served by public transport and benefit to vulnerable
-37-
people and children and their carers. However this disadvantage could be offset
by its benefit of diverting investment into the housing market renewal area and in
a longer term creating a more affordable, equitable and inclusive housing market
for the whole city. Option B could provide more affordable housing and also have
better chance to provide mobility housing and higher parking standards, but
would increase the risk of vulnerable people and children and their carers as
some development would not be well served by high frequency public transport.
The impact of Option C on equality will depend on the location and scale of the
development.
3.41 The weakness and risk for SSW1 as emerged in the Sustainability and Equality
Appraisal will be discussed in details in the following “Flexibility and Risk
Assessment” session.
Consultation Responses
3.42 For the South West area, the major issue identified in the UDP review process in
2001 was how to ensure the quality of the environment to be enhanced and
safeguarded at the same time as enabling some sustainable development.
3.43 During the Emerging Options Consultation, there were ten separate comments
logged for this issue. There was an overwhelming support for the option to limit
any additional housing development in the area (SW5a). Support for this option
was given from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Rivelin Valley
Conservation Group, Bradway Action Group, the Liberal Democrat Group,
Broomhall Park Association, Fulwood Branch labour Party and also by local
Councillors. In particular comments expressed a wish to ensure that
neighbourhood in this areas to be safeguarded from inappropriate development.
Concerns were expressed that continuing the current development trend in this
area would have significant long-term negative effects on character and that the
market would always choose to locate in the areas of greatest demand and profit,
to the detriment of the more sustainable renewable areas. There was one
support for the option of intensive housing development (SW5b) from a land
owner taking a view that intensive housing development would meet high
demand and help contain house prices, although this consultee also suggested
that SW5a would be acceptable if it encouraged a mix of high and low density
housing to help avoid concerns over impact on local character.
3.44 In the Preferred Option consultation, seven comments were received. Support
was shown in the comments from English Heritage, Totley Residents Association,
Broomhill Forum and Carter Knowles and Millhouses Community Group that this
option would preserve and enhance the existing local character. However
concerns were expressed on the possibility of over-development close to district
centre and transport corridor. In particular, Knowles and Millhouses Community
Group sought to tighten protection on quality houses by further restricting housing
density on small-scale infill site, and to prevent loss of domestic gardens and
greenspace. However, in contrast, a planning consultant suggested the deletion
-38-
of this policy in a reason that this policy would fail to meet housing market
demand, and it would increase the development pressure on the Green Belt.
There were also several comments relating to the Green Belt boundary change
both at site specific level or a strategic review of the boundary in order to meet
increased demand (see Green Belt policy background report for the issue of
Green Belt strategic review).
3.45 All relevant comments are listed as below, the details of which can be found in
the consultation schedules as published on the council’s website.
South West Representation reference number
Emerging Options
Preferred Options
202.01
5193.062
971.61
5086.003
4358.06
46.099
4571.07
5288.001
4766.09
4903.035
4796.02
5217.010
4802.03
5296.010
4865.67
4888.03
4898.01
3.46 Apart from the plan-making consultation process, the issue of increasing the
volume of housing through higher densities by construction of apartments have
been strongly resisted by the local people at the south west area panel public
meetings and in some planning application neighbourhood consultations. For
example, at South West area panel meetings on 2 March 2006 and 24 th January
2007, members of the public expressed strong concerns over high-density infill
development being allowed within large gardens of existing properties and their
detrimental impact on the local character and quality of life24. Some recent
planning applications for intensifying land use attracted huge local objections on
the ground of overdevelopment, loss of local character and adverse impacts on
roads and congestion. Examples include housing proposals in Furniss Avenue in
Dore, the former King Egbert school care takers house site, the former Weetwood
house and former Ecclesall Library site, 336 Ringinglow Road site, the 268
Ecclesall Road South site.
3.47 The issue of protecting the quality of built environment is high on local agenda. In
the updated South West Strategic Action Plan 2005 – 200825, produced by the
Council’s South West Area Panel, protecting urban heritage has been identified
as a key goal under the priority theme “Environment”. A local community group
Dore Village Society has prepared the Dore Village Design Statement, which
24
See South West Area Panel Meeting minutes of 24th January, 2007, and minutes of Special Meeting
held 2nd March, 2006: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/area-panels/south-west
25 South West 3 Year Strategic Action Plan 2005-2008, Sheffield City Council.
-39-
contains the Dore area locally determined priorities covering historic ‘township’
countryside, local special character and conservation. In particular, the Dore
Village Design Statement highlights the development pressures, and proposes
policies and actions for future development for example extending conservation
area and restricting lower density housing development. Although this document
is not formally adopted by the Council, it has indicated that local character is a
key issue concerning the local communities.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
3.48 In summary, SSW1 is consistent with the national planning policy PPS3 Housing
and could contribute to some aspects of the draft RSS and City Strategy. It is an
important policy to deliver the Core Strategy spatial objectives.
3.49 SSW1 represents the most appropriate options in all the circumstances, having
considered the relevant alternatives (the option of more intensive housing
development to meet the market demands or continuing the UDP policy by
determining applications on a site-by-site basis). SSW1 would protect and
enhance the local character and distinctiveness, meet some housing needs and
help address the imbalance in the recent housing supply and demand. SSW1
also reflect the brownfield potentials in the policy area, the considerations of
natural environment, and the capacity of the transport corridors. It would
promote sustainable land use pattern and prevent further road congestions hence
less impact on local centres and the City Centre economy. SSW1 could
indirectly help stimulate demand in other parts of the city and create a more
inclusive and affordable housing market.
3.50 SSW1 gained overwhelming support from the consultees in the previous public
consultations. By giving local character the priority it responds positively to the
long standing local concerns in south-west Sheffield. In the Sustainability
Appraisal and Equality Appraisal, the submission policy is the most sustainable
one among the three options being assessed, and it is expected that its main
weakness (e.g. housing affordability in the short term) could be offset or
mitigated.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
3.51 SSW1 will be delivered by house builders and land owners and supported by the
Council by using statutory planning powers mainly in two way (See delivery
schedules as in Appendix A):

Constraining the scale of land allocated for housing through the City Sites
document.
-40-

Managing the release of allocated sites by not permitting the release of
sites or larger windfall sites where it would prejudice targets for the
Housing Market Renewal Area.

Deciding on the suitability, density and design of development proposals
through the consideration of planning applications and by applying Core
Strategy policy SH5 and the criteria in the City Policies document, to
ensure consistency across the city.
3.52 The progress towards implementation can be measured by using some of the
Housing indicators. For example:

Percentage of new dwellings completed at:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

less than 30 dwellings per hectare;
between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare; and
above 50 dwellings per hectare
% of residential permissions granted which are for apartments
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
3.53 SSW1 gives priority to local character but this does not rule out larger scale or
higher density housing development at appropriate locations which gives the
policy flexibility. Higher density developments would be encouraged at more
sustainable locations in District Centres or near to High Frequency Bus routes.
The decisions about the suitability, density and design of specific development
proposals will be made by applying policy SH5 and the criteria in the City Policies
(see Preferred Option PH10).
3.54 Despite the strong reasons for SSW1, weaknesses and risks have been
identified, mainly: higher housing price and low level of affordable housing
provision, and these two aspects are interconnected. However it is expected that
the weaknesses could be offset by the many strengths of this policy which are
discussed earlier in this section. The negative effects of increasing development
pressure and widening the gap between housing demand and supply could be
offset in the longer term by encouraging high quality housing development in
other areas of the City, which have additional benefits such as less congestion. In
addition these could redirect investment to low demand housing areas, and thus
create a more affordable, equitable, and inclusive housing market for the city as a
whole. Core Strategy objective S3.1 is for successful housing markets in all
areas of the city and the citywide housing policies in Core Strategy and Housing
Policies (chapter 8) will help to create conditions in which this can occur. In
particular the phasing of the release of housing land across the city will contribute
to achieving this redistribution (see housing policies background report).
-41-
Conclusion
3.55 Policy SSW1 is Sheffield’s locally distinctive interpretation of national the national
planning policy PPS3 in terms of “achieving high quality housing” and “providing
housing in suitable locations”. It also supports LTP2 and the Council’s ‘Closing
the Gap’ strategy, and helps to achieve the City Strategy’s various themes in
particular ‘environmental excellence‘. Policy SSW1 is consistent with the Core
Strategy vision and supports the objectives of “A City of Character”, “Urban Areas
that Look Good and Work Well”, and “Reducing the Need to Travel”.
Consequently, the policy meets Soundness Test 4, 5 and 6.
3.56 SSW1 represents the most appropriate options in all the circumstances, having
considered the relevant alternatives of more intensive housing development or
continuing the UDP policy. SSW1 is the most sustainable option among the three
options as indicated in the Sustainability and Equality Appraisal, and the
weaknesses of SSW1 can be offset or mitigated. SSW1 has gained
overwhelming support by the stakeholders and local communities in the
consultations and has positively responded to the local concerns in south-west
Sheffield. Soundness Tests 7 has therefore been met.
3.57 SSW1 will be delivered by house builders and land owners and supported by the
Council by using statutory planning powers and monitored in the LDS by using
housing indicators. It is flexible and can deal with changing circumstances.
Therefore Soundness Test 8 and 9 has been met.
-42-
4
OTHER OPTIONS NOT TAKEN FORWARD
Issue SW3 - Archer Road Mixed Use Area
4.1 The Archer Road mixed use area accommodates a broad range of uses at
present, but there is no single use dominant. This area is designated as a mixed
use area in the UDP. The current uses include supermarkets, small business
premises, car showrooms and garages, restaurant, new retail and leisure uses
including fitness centres, a park and ride, some vacant buildings, and residential
properties particularly along Archer Road itself and off Abbeydale Road. The
main Sheffield – London railway line effectively divides the area into two, and the
River Sheaf runs along the northern fringe of the area, including a riverside walk.
Being located along a strategic road and well served by public transport and
within a high demand area for housing, the options for this area are opened up for
various uses that are compatible to the nearby residential properties.
4.2 The strategic direction of this area has therefore been considered and three
options emerged. The options were whether to continue promote the flexibility of
this area or to encourage a dominance of one use (for employment or
retail/leisure). Considering the good connectivity of the area and the high demand
for housing in the wider South West area, the introduction of residential element
were also considered. All options would support the city’s strategy of making the
best use of previously developed land, however would increase traffic congestion
but to different extent. No option for promoting industrial use was considered, as
this would be incompatible with the residential properties nearby. The three
emerging options are discussed as below in turn:
Option SW3a: Continue to encourage a mix of uses, but also encourage
new residential development as part of this mix
4.3 The main strengths of Option SW3a are:a) Would provide flexibility by not ruling out potential land uses, and support the
aim of creating vibrant communities.
b) Would support sustainable land use pattern that minimise the need to travel
and promote the use of sustainable forms of transport.
c) Would support local economy and provide employment associated training.
d) The residential element of mixed uses could meet some housing needs and
provide decent housing available to the whole community.
e) Would continue to provide leisure and recreational facilities which serve the
local community.
f) This option would benefit some disadvantaged people by providing some
mobility housing, and also benefit people with low access to private cars and
vulnerable people and their carers.
4.4 The weaknesses of Option SW3a are:-
-43-
a) Having no dominant land uses leaves the area without a strong vision to
inspire its future development
b) Residential amenity could be an issue.
c) Would encourages developers to maximise the housing component of new
developments, at the expense of job-creating uses
4.5 The second option was:
Option SW3b: Promote as an employment area and discourage other uses
4.6 The main strengths are:a) Could support a strong economy by providing good job opportunities available
to the whole community and by providing employment associated training
opportunities which build the skills and capacity of the population.
b) Would create job opportunities near to where people live and therefore lessen
journey to work for local residents, although this might increase level of carborne journeys from elsewhere in the city.
4.7 The main weaknesses are:a) In the absence of evidence of strong demand for more employment use in this
part of the city, this option would fail to meet the evident strong housing
demand in the south west area.
4.8 The third option was:
Option SW3c: Promote the area for retail and leisure use, with other uses
discouraged
4.9 The main strengths are:a) Could provide sufficient cultural, leisure facilities to the whole community.
b) Could provide employment opportunities for local people and support strong
economy.
4.10 The main weaknesses are:a) Although located near to high frequency bus routes, retail and leisure
development would be mostly likely to increase the traffic congestion as these
uses have strong correlation to car-borne journeys.
b) Leisure development might increase noise pollution for neighbouring
residents.
-44-
c) Would potentially deter housing on previously developed land in a sustainable
location.
4.11 After considering the three emerging options for this area, it has emerged
that the preferred direction for this area should be to continue the flexible
uses in the meanwhile to encourage residential element (SW3a).
4.12 The reasons for this preferred option are listed as below.
a) It is not realistic to promote any single land use (either employment or retail
use) to dominate this area. The existing uses in this area are relatively wellestablished and trading well, and the likelihood of land or buildings becoming
available for redevelopment is low.
b) The options for encouraging single use dominance either for employment or
retail/ leisure would preclude housing and therefore not be able to take into
account market demand for potential residential use. Designation of flexible
use area means housing would be one of the acceptable uses. Although it is
outside the priority housing areas, considering the available sites in this area
are limited and the area has good accessibility, some limited residential
development would help meet the housing needs, and this should not
significantly detract investment from the housing market renewal areas.
c) By encouraging flexible use, non-office business use and smaller-scale office
development would continue to be acceptable, and therefore the main
advantages of supporting strong economy and providing some employment
opportunities for local people would still be supported. In terms of large-scale
office development, this area is not within the key business area as identified
in the Core Strategy Business and Industrial policies (SB3 ‘Location for office
development’), so should not be promoted for those uses.
d) The Sheffield Retail Study by White Young Green Planning26 hasn’t identified
any shortage of retail facilities in this area, and this out-of-centre location is
not considered to be an appropriate area to promote further large-scale retail
development. Retail use needs to be assessed on its own merits and against
the Tests of Need, the ‘Sequential approach’, Impact and accessibility as
required by PPS6
e) The flexible use option was scored higher than the other two options in the
sustainability and equality appraisal. By continuing the current mix uses
and by encouraging residential development in this area (SW3a) it would keep
the flexibility and help to create vibrant communities and provide employment
opportunities and community facilities near to where people live and would
The Sheffield Retail Study (October 2003) is available on the Council’s website:
www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/backgroundreports/retail-studies-in-sheffield
26
-45-
help reduce the need to travel by private cars. Promoting employment use
(SW3b) was score well but it would not have all of the benefits of mixed use
development, also the benefit of providing jobs for local people might be offset
by attracting people in other areas travelling into South West. The option to
promote retail and leisure use (SW3c) would significantly increase car-borne
journeys, and was therefore the least sustainable option. In the equality
appraisal the option of mixed use with residential element was scored well as
it would benefit people in low income and vulnerable people by providing
some affordable housing, mobility housing, and locating housing near to
public transport.
f) During the emerging options public consultation there was three
comments with one support for retaining and expanding the current mix of
uses i.e. employment and retail development, to serve south and south-west
Sheffield, although no evidence was supplied on further demand for
employment and retail. Support was also given to the promotion of housing
development.
g) In the Preferred Options public consultation, the preferred option for Archer
Road (PSV5) received three comments, including suggestions to omit housing
and include business or retail or leisure uses. Carter Knowles and Millhouses
Community Group supported this option as long as the scale of residential
development being restricted to ‘lower density’ and more provision of
affordable housing. Carter Knowles and Millhouses Community Group also
suggested the existing Park and Ride to be retained at least until an
alternative site in the Sheaf Valley was identified and a riverside walk be
incorporated in the plan. One planning consultant suggested retail
development in this area, while a local councillor objected to housing element
on this area in a view that this area should be kept for business and retail to
provide jobs nearer to where people live. However in officer’s view, the two
proposed uses, e.g. business and retail, should not be promoted as dominant
uses for the reasons given above.
4.13 Therefore the preferred option of retaining the flexibility appeared to be most
appropriate one for this area.
4.14 Reflecting the most recent planning proposals in this area, however, it became
apparent that the local circumstances had changed by the time of the Core
Strategy Submission, and the opportunities to bringing in changes at strategic
level were lost. Proposals for the area need to consider its future role in terms of
the most appropriate use of land that remains undeveloped and any land or
buildings that become available for redevelopment. When this area was
considered in the emerging option stage in late 2004, there were large vacant
sites which could deliver significant potential change. However, by the time of the
Core Strategy submission, new developments have been proposed and
consequently approved on the two major undeveloped sites:-
-46-

Retail development has been implemented following the grant of
planning permission in December 2006 (planning application reference
06/03853/FUL) on the land North-West of 11 and 13 Archer Road
(between Sainsbury’s and the existing retail units). This application
was assessed against the Tests of Need and the ‘Sequential approach’
as required by PPS6, and it was concluded, although contrary to the
retail policies, the development of the retail unit on this site would not
cause harm on nearby centre or the city centre, and that no other
available sites would be suitable for the proposed development.

Regarding the former Jacob factory site, planning permission was
granted with conditions to the outline application to reconfigurate the
park and ride site to include new access road and residential
development of former Jacobs site (Ref: 06/02624/OUT, decision date
3 July 2007). The principle of residential development has been
agreed.
4.15 It is therefore felt the delivery of the policy direction for the Archer Road area as a
Flexible Use area would be more appropriate through the following SDF
documents rather than at the Core Strategy level. The preferred flexible uses of
this area could be achieved by policy designations in Proposals Map and City
Sites documents, and using regulatory policies in the City Policies (e.g. in relation
to design, transport or the environment) to guide future development.
4.16 The following proposals will be taken in the following SDF documents for the
Archer Road area, and be assessed and consulted in those contexts:

The majority of the Archer Road area to be retained as Flexible Use policy
area in the Proposals Map. Detailed criteria of the Flexible Use policy area
will be included in the City Policy document.

The former Jacob factory site to be designated for Housing policy area and
also be allocated for a housing site in the City Sites document and shown in
the Proposals Map. Detailed criteria of the Housing policy area will be
included in the City Policy.

It has been clear that the retention of the current Tesco park and ride is
crucial for providing an efficient transport network that maximises access
and minimises detrimental impacts in the South West area. This site has
also appeared in SYPTE’s list of future Park and Ride investment sites. In
order to ensure this use is retained, the site has been put forward in the City
Sites document for continuing its park and ride use. Justification and
implementation of this allocation will be found in the City Sites and the Area
Background Report.
-47-
APPENDIX A Delivery Schedule
Policy SSV1: Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas
A mix of uses including employment will be provided for in the Sheaf Valley and neighbouring areas that makes jobs
available for residents of south and south-west Sheffield seeking local employment:
(a) in the Lower Porter Valley, offices will be promoted, mixed with new housing as a secondary land use;
(b) the Bramall Lane/ John Street area will be promoted as an area of transition with new residential development,
along with compatible businesses and activities;
(c) the Queens Road corridor will be non-residential and will accommodate business and industry and large-format
retailing and leisure outlets not appropriate to a City Centre or district centre location.
(d) in the Sheaf Valley, the existing business and industry areas will continue to provide for local jobs and
enterprises.
Actions required
Agencies
(how)
(who)
Timing
(when)
Probability/risks
Medium probability. Recent
developments here have included a
mix of offices and housing, but
schemes have been housing-led.
Creative Sheffield’s predecessor body
has supplied evidence to a planning
appeal in support of new office
development in this location.
High probability. Recent proposals
and planning permissions here for new
(how likely)
To deliver:

New office developments in the Lower
Porter Valley, with housing as a
secondary use



Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Developers
ongoing

Introduction of more housing into
Bramall Lane/John Street area, along


Landowners
Developers
ongoing
-49-
with compatible uses


housing e.g. The Forge student
housing, Anchor Point apartments and
townhouses (and offices), apartments
(and offices) at former nursery school
on Denby Street. Residential
development normally generates
sufficient financial return to overcome
costs and constraints of site assembly,
demolition or refurbishment, noise
attenuation and flood risk measures.
High probability. The area continues
to offer good opportunities for largeformat schemes.
Medium probability. Broadfield
Business Park now nearing
completion.


Landowners
Developers
ongoing




Creative Sheffield
Landowners
Developers
Businesses
ongoing
City Policies and related designations
on the Proposals Map
Site allocations in the City Sites
document, shown on the Proposals
Map.
Determination of planning applications

Sheffield City Council
2010
High probability – included in LDS.

Sheffield City Council
2010
High probability – included in LDS.

Sheffield City Council
ongoing
On street parking controls in Lower
Porter Valley and Bramall Lane/John
Street area

Sheffield City Council
2007-08
High probability – statutory
responsibility.
High probability. Implementation in
progress.
Retain Queens Road corridor for
business, industry and other nonresidential uses
Provide for jobs and enterprises in the
Sheaf Valley
To support:




-50-
Monitoring Indicator(s): the proportion of land or new floorspace developed for the following uses in the Sheaf Valley: offices (B1a) in the Lower Porter Valley,
 business (B1) and housing in the Bramall Lane/John Street area,
 non-residential uses in the Queens Road corridor,
 business and industry (B1, B2 and B8).
Policy SSW1: Scale of Development in South West Sheffield
In South-West Sheffield, priority will be given to safeguarding and enhancing its areas of character. The scale of new
development will be largely defined by what can be accommodated at an appropriate density through infilling, windfall
sites and development in district centres and other locations well served by public transport.
Actions required
Agencies
(how)
(who)
Timing
(when)
Probability/risks
(how likely)
To deliver:

New house building

House Builders and Land
Owners
Ongoing
Moderate/ high probability, as some
house builders likely to be willing to
respect the local character. However
there could be some reluctance to
accept lower density schemes in
suburban if apartments offer a higher
profit.

Sheffield City Council
Ongoing
High probability –statutory
responsibility. Priority will be given to
local character when considering
planning applications, in particular
To support:

Determination of planning applications
-51-
using City Policies SH5 once adopted
in 2010.
2010 High probability – included in the LDS.
 Phased release of larger sites in the
 Sheffield City Council
2026
In the Emerging Options for City Sites
City Sites document, shown on the
document there are only five large site
Proposals Map, and the following
allocations for housing in the South
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
West area. Large windfall sites will be
assessed against the Core Strategy
SH4 and the City Policies criteria in the
planning application process.
2010 High probability – included in the LDS.
 City Policies and related designations  Sheffield City Council
2026
The particular relevant policy will be
on the Proposals Map
“Density of New Housing
Developments”
Monitoring Indicator(s): Will be using the same set of indicators as Housing chapter. For example:

Percentage of new dwellings completed at:
(iv) less than 30 dwellings per hectare;
(v) between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare; and
(vi) above 50 dwellings per hectare

% of residential permissions granted which are for apartments
-52-
Appendix B The Relationship of SSV1 and SSW1 to National Planning Policy and the Regional
Spatial Strategy
Connections with National Planning Policy
Core Strategy Submitted policy
Relevant National Policy
SSV1 Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas
PPS4, para 10, 18
SSW1 Scale of future housing development in South and West Sheffield
PPS3, para 13
PPS3, para 16
PPS3, para 46
Connection
with National
Policy27
3
2
2
2
Connections with Regional Spatial Strategy
Core Strategy Submitted policy
Relevant RSS Policy or
Paragraph
Connection
with RSS28
SSV1 Jobs and Housing in the Sheaf Valley and Neighbouring Areas
1
SSW1 Scale of future housing development in South and West Sheffield
5
27 1 = Local policy specifically required by national policy; 2 = Locally distinctive interpretation of national policy; 3 = Generally supplements/ supports national
policy; 4 = Repeats national policy; 5 = Not dealt with in national policy
28 1 = Required by RSS; 2 = Locally distinctive interpretation of RSS policy; 3 = Generally supplements RSS policy; 4 = Repeats RSS policy; 5 = Not dealt with
in RSS policy
-53-
Appendix C: South-West Sheffield Housing price comparing to the
Sheffield Postcode area (Aug 2007)
South-West Sheffield Housing Price
S7
£181,181
S10
£216,192
S11
£222,874
S17
£249,151
SW Average
£217,350
Sheffield Average (Sheffield Postcode Area)
Sheffield Postcode Area
£134,670
SW Sheffield/ Sheffield (postcode area)
Ratio
1.61
Note:
 The average property in this postcode district over the last 3 months, e.g. between
June-August 2007;
 Information reproduced by Calnea Analytics Limited based on data from Land
Registry House Prices for England & Wales last updated 29 Aug 2007;
 Information Source: www.mouseprice.com/property-stats/sheffield/houseprices.aspx
-54-
Appendix D: Existing Houses and Flats Commitments29 in the SSW1 Policy Area
(as in March 2007)
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
Land At Fulwood Road, Shore
Lane, Endcliffe Crescent, Endcliffe
05/04146/FUL
Ave, Oakholme Rd and Endcliffe
Vale Rd
Land At Abbeydale Road
06/01409/RG3
Abbeydale Road Sheffield
Royal Works 60 Priestley Street
03/02415/OUT 05/00194/REM
Sheffield S2 4DD
Riverdale Flats 15 Riverdale Road
05/00917/FUL
Sheffield S10 3FA
156 Ecclesall Road Sheffield S11
06/02720/ful
8JB
Land At Ranmoor Hall And Site Of
06/02711/FUL
67 Storth Lane Belgrave Road
17 Broomgrove Road Sheffield
06/01575/ful
S10 2LZ
Site Of Green Oak View Green
06/02834/FUL
Oak Avenue Sheffield S17 4FT
Fairthorn Townhead Road
05/03732/FUL
Sheffield S17 3AQ
Site Of The Jolly Buffer Public
03/02775/FUL
House, 144 Ecclesall Road
99/0945P 05/01469/FUL adj 268 Ecclesall Road South
04/01367/RG3
Green Oak Avenue
Site Of Gatefield Social Club, 536
04/00484/OUT 05/00488/FUL
Abbeydale Road Sheffield
48-54 Staveley Road Sheffield S8
05/02161/FUL
0ZQ
Garage Site At Kenilworth Place
06/03135/FUL
Sheffield S11 8TT
336 Ringinglow Road Sheffield
06/00546/FUL
S11 7PY
6 & 8 Ashgate Road Sheffield S10
06/02895/FUL
3BZ
29
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
377
377
64
64
52
52
26
12
36
36
35
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
24
12
25
24
22
10
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
14
14
Existing commitment refers to dwellings which already have either full or outline planning permission.
The data included dwellings having planning permissions but construction yet to start in the South West
panel area and Sharrow / Nether Edge / Broomhill panel area, and excluded 4 outline planning permission
as no housing numbers were indicated.
-55-
38
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
Curtilage 268 Ecclesall road 06/03010/FUL update applic number
06/03010/FUL
Long Acres, Site Of 73 Newfield
Lane (Now Numbered 1-61, 2-12
04/04359/FUL The Spinney)
05/02439/REM
Ventnor Court, Wostenholm Road
9 & 11 Victoria Road Sheffield S10
05/01603/FUL
2DJ
Former Totley Bridge Service
03/01991/OUT
Station, 288 Abbeydale Road
South, Dore
Greystones Hall Greystones Hall
06/01302/ful
Road Sheffield S11 7BA
Site of Blue Ridge, Ashfurlong
02/02810/FUL
Road
Rear Of 60-80 Grove Road
03/00031/OUT 05/04437/REM Sheffield S7 2GZ (Numbered 101117 Hastings Road)
Land to the rear of 40 Carter
03/04395/FUL
Knowle Road
Site Of 19-21 Nile Street Sheffield
06/02416/ful
S10 2PN
Site Of Broomspring Garage Filey
06/03081/FUL
Lane Sheffield S3 7RT
Land Adjoining 834 Ecclesall Road
04/03706/FUL
Sheffield
04/04659/FUL 335 and 337 Ecclesall Road South
Former Christian Science Church,
01/01669/FUL South View Road and Vincent
Road
05/01258/FUL 24 Victoria Road, S10 2DL
04/00295/FUL Albreda House', 1 Lydgate Lane
Hall Lane farm, Totley hall lane,
06/03799/FUL
Sheffield, S17 4AA
04/02912/FUL 131 Psalter Lane, S11
02/00688/FUL 140 Manchester Road, S10 5DL
2 Thornsett Road Sheffield S7
04/04649/FUL
1NA
Bell Hagg Public House,
02/00320/CHU
Manchester Road
-56-
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
14
14
12
14
14
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
6
6
7
6
6
3
5
6
2
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
Land Between 285 And 317
Psalter Lane Sheffield
06/00655/FUL Moorside Farm, Long Line
St Celia House, 65 Westbourne
06/00103/FUL
Road Sheffield S10 2QT
02/03626/FUL 38 Wostenholme Road, S7 1LJ
Priory Lodge, 40 Wostenholm
03/00969/FUL
Road, Sheffield
444-448 Abbeydale Road Sheffield
06/00891/FUL
S7 1FR
245 Cemetery Road Sheffield S11
06/03662/FUL
8FQ
67 Wostenholm Road Sheffield S7
05/00797/CHU
1LE
Site Of Garages And Stores At
04/00206/FUL Tullibardine Road And Strathtay
Road
66 Tavistock Road Sheffield S7
06/04201/FUL
1GG
57 Wilkinson Street Sheffield S10
06/02585/FUL
2GJ
59 - 61 Hangingwater Road
06/02668/FUL
Sheffield S11 7EP
9 Collegiate Crescent Sheffield
06/04785/FUL
S10 2BA
308-310 London Road Sheffield
05/00364/FUL
S2 4NA
05/01161/FUL 22A Priory Road Sheffield S7 1LW
Land To Rear Of 114 Totley Brook
04/03924/OUT
Road
02/00850/FUL 28 Grange Crescent, S11 8AY
02/01336/FUL 9-13 Ashgate Road
04/01114/FUL 31 Ashdell Road
04/01035/OUT 04/03320/REM 622-624 Abbeydale Road
130 Whitham Road Sheffield S10
06/02561/FUL
2SR
51 Sheldon Road Sheffield S7
06/04857/CHU
1GT
Flat 3 7 Ranmoor Park Road
05/00319/FUL
Sheffield S10 3GX
05/00679/FUL 209 Sharrow Lane Sheffield S11
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
06/01957/FUL
-57-
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Outline
Application
Number
-
Full
Application
Number
04/01322/FUL
06/01169/FUL
06/01762/FUL
06/03868/RG3
05/00120/FUL
05/04026/FUL
05/04738/FUL
06/03157/FUL
06/00893/OUT
06/04679/OUT
-
02/02623/FUL
02/02779/FUL
03/04387/FUL
05/04755/FUL
05/04942/FUL
06/00909/FUL
06/01330/FUL
06/03804/FUL
06/04209/FUL
07/00572/FUL
04/04675/FUL
05/00354/FUL
05/03047/CHU
Address
8AN
170 Chorley Road, S10
6 Causeway Head Road Sheffield
S17 3DT
778-780 Ecclesall Road Sheffield
S11 8TB
Land Between 35 And 47 Coniston
Road Sheffield S8 0UT
Land To The Rear Of 11-19
Brookfield Road Sheffield
6 Muskoka Avenue Sheffield S11
7RL
Site Of 41 Newfield Crescent
Sheffield S17 3DE
Curtilage Of Whirlow Croft Whirlow
Lane Sheffield S11 9QF
Land Adjacent 37 Sandygate Park
Sheffield S10 5TZ
Curtilage Of 57 Grove Road
Sheffield S7 2GY
10 Moor Oaks Road, S10 1BX
499 Glossop Road, S10 2QE
15 Roslin Road, S10 1FA
Land Between 20 And 24
Brookfield Road Sheffield S7 1DW
945 Ecclesall Road Sheffield S11
8TL
Flat 17 Graham Point 405 Fulwood
Road Sheffield S10 3GF
264 Sharrow Vale Road Sheffield
S11 8ZH
46 Wostenholm Road, S7 1LL
16 Snaithing Lane Sheffield S10
3LG
501 Glossop Road Sheffield S10
2QE
Land To Rear Of 16 Priory Road
Sheffield
526 Abbeydale Road
352 Abbeydale Road Sheffield S7
1FP
-58-
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
-
03/00961/FUL 78 Ranmoor Road, S10 3HJ
05/02072/FUL 383 Fulwood Road, S10 3GA
77 Baslow Road Sheffield S17
05/02294/FUL
4DL
15 Birchitt Close Sheffield S17
05/03016/CHU
4QJ
05/03087/FUL 291 Totley Brook Road
Stumperlowe Mansions
06/03232/FUL Stumperlowe Lane Sheffield S10
3QQ
Flat 19 Graham Point 405 Fulwood
07/00037/FUL
Road Sheffield S10 3GF
02/03425/FUL 9 Harcourt Crescent, S10 1DG
The Coach House, Broomhall
03/01152/FUL
Road
Land to rear of 176-178 Hunter
04/03476/FUL
House Road
Fountain House, 4-6 Broomgrove
05/00067/FUL
Road
05/00096/CHU 4 Taptonville Road
Kersal Lawns, Kersal Mount, 115A
05/00958/FUL
Manchester Road, Broomhill
Land adjacent to 35 Montrose
05/00213/OUT 05/02936/FUL
Road
Land Within Curtilage Of 145
03/00945/OUT 06/01611/ful
Chelsea Road Sheffield
Land Between No.1 And No.9
06/01879/FUL
Wigfull Road Sheffield
63 Redcar Road Sheffield S10
06/02016/CHU
1EX
Curtilage Of 2 Moncrieffe Road
06/02019/FUL
Sheffield S7 1HR
21 Redcar Road Sheffield S10
06/02021/CHU
1EX
Curtilage Of 65 Westbourne Road
Sheffield S10 2QT (Numbered The
06/03498/FUL
Coach House 6 St Cecelia House
65 Westbourne Road)
Curtilage Of 14 Park Lane
06/03769/FUL
Sheffield S10 2DW
70 Clarkegrove Road Sheffield
06/03806/CHU
S10 2NJ
-59-
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
06/04122/FUL
06/04727/FUL
07/00123/CHU
07/00156/FUL
07/00442/FUL
05/03563/OUT
05/03625/FUL
05/04829/FUL
05/04648/OUT
05/04096/OUT
05/02694/OUT
05/03505/CHU
05/01888/OUT
05/04430/OUT
05/01400/OUT
03/00843/OUT
03/00657/OUT
03/01297/OUT
05/01348/OUT
01/01527/FUL
02/00198/FUL
-
02/02194/FUL
-
02/03945/CHU
Address
Ranmoor Hall Belgrave Road
Sheffield S10 3LL
27 Marlborough Road, Sheffield,
S10 1DA
27 Priory Road Sheffield S7 1LW
50 Endcliffe Glen Road Sheffield
S11 8RW
937 Ecclesall Road Sheffield S11
8TL
Curtilage Of 7 Endcliffe Hall
Avenue Sheffield S10 3EL
Curtilage Of 16 Rutland Park
Sheffield
102 Edgedale Road Sheffield S7
2BR
Curtilage Of 38 Ranmoor Cliffe
Road Sheffield S10 3HB
Curtilage Of 2 Peterborough Road
Sheffield S10 4JE
Adjoining 7 Canterbury Crescent
Sheffield
50 Sandygate Road Sheffield S10
5RY
2 Den Bank Drive Sheffield S10
5PE
Land Within Curtilage Of 15
Cavendish Avenue Sheffield
Land To Rear Of 139 Ringinglow
Road And Between 26 & 38 Marsh
Hs Rd
Land adjacent to 200 Twentywell
Lane
Curtilage of 66 Tom Lane
Curtilage of 315 Ecclesall Road
South
c/o 70 Queen Victoria Road, S17
The Croft, Sandygate Road
Mayfield House, Mayfield Road, 10
Land within curtilage of 17 The
fairway
The Quarters Carsick Hill Way,
S10 3LY
-60-
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
-
03/00998/FUL 91 Onslow Road, S11 7AG
Land between 15 and 19
03/02077/FUL
Canterbury Crescent
Land at Castlewood Road and adj
02/03286/OUT 03/04577/REM
to 86 Crimicar Lane
04/03777/OUT 05/00547/FUL Curtilages of 17 Furniss Avenue
Old Whitelow Farm Whitelow Lane
05/00863/FUL
Sheffield S17 3AG
05/00866/FUL Curtilage Of 6 Weetwood Drive
05/01629/FUL c/o 16 Silver Birch Avenue
Land Within The Curtilage Of 2
04/04965/OUT 05/03514/FUL
King Ecgbert Road Totley Rise
8 Stumperlowe Hall Road Sheffield
05/03568/FUL
S10 3QR
Barn at r/o 2 Stumperlowe Hall
05/03653/FUL Road, Stumperlowe Hall Chase,
Carsick Hill
Bell Hagg Cottage Manchester
05/03927/FUL
Road Sheffield S10 5PX
19 Bushey Wood Road Sheffield
05/04468/FUL
S17 3QA
Land Rear Of 2-16 Cruise Road
05/04519/FUL
Sheffield S11 7EF
03/02708/OUT 06/00122/FUL Curtilage of 101 Darwin Lane
92 Ranmoor Road Sheffield S10
06/00199/FUL
3HJ
06/00262/FUL 159 Long Line Sheffield S11 7TX
9B/5028P 06/01030/FUL 27A Dore Road Sheffield S17 3NA
Curtilage 48 Bingham Park Road
06/01165/FUL
Sheffield S11 7BD
22 The Quadrant Sheffield S17
06/01332/FUL
4DB
Land Between 14 And 16
Ashfurlong Road Sheffield S17
06/01402/FUL
3NL (Numbered 14A Ashfurlong
Road)
51 Glenalmond Road Sheffield
06/01476/FUL
S11 7GX
7 Ashfurlong Drive Sheffield S17
06/01683/FUL
3NP
Curtilage Of 35 Springfield Avenue
06/02665/FUL
Sheffield S7 2GA (37 Springfield
-61-
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Outline
Application
Number
Full
Application
Number
Address
Proposed
Proposed
Houses Total
Flats No.
no.
Avenue)
06/02854/FUL 112a Causeway Head Road
Land Adjacent To 50 Marsh House
06/03509/FUL
Road And Rear Of 151 Ringinglow
Site Of 22 The Quadrant Sheffield
06/03708/FUL
S17 4DB
Site of 41 Newfield Crescent,
06/03780/FUL
Sheffield, S17 3DE
Within The Curtilage Of 59
06/03901/FUL Whirlow Park Road Sheffield S11
9NN
51 Newfield Lane Sheffield S17
06/03920/FUL
3DD
Curtilage Of 2 Den Bank Drive
06/03934/FUL
Sheffield S10 5PE
79-81 Woodholm Road Sheffield
06/04239/FUL
S11 9HS
Carsick Hill Farm 2 Stumperlowe
06/04451/FUL
Hall Road Sheffield S10 3QR
Curtilage Of 3 Cavendish Avenue
06/04752/REM
Sheffield S17 3NJ
417 Redmires Road Sheffield S10
07/00417/FUL
4LF
Land Between 216B And 218
06/04106/OUT
Twentywell Lane Sheffield
Farfield Townhead Road Sheffield
06/01679/OUT
S17 3AQ
Curtilage Of Half Acre 49 Church
06/01784/OUT
Lane Dore Sheffield S17 3GT
Curtilage of four Oaks, Ashfurlong
06/00548/OUT
Road, Sheffield
Curtilage Of 159 Long Line
05/04633/OUT
Sheffield S11 7TX
80 Ringinglow Road Sheffield S11
05/04114/OUT
7PQ
Total
(Data Source: planning application records, Sheffield City Council)
-62-
1043
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
167 1210