Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION VERSION
RETAIL AND LEISURE
BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
September 2007
CONTENTS
Chapter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
The Context
The Emerging Options
The Preferred Options
Additional Options
Submission Version
The Scope of this Report
Introduction to the Issues
Shopping and Leisure in the City Centre
Introduction
Policy SS1
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Consistency with other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
Conclusion
District Centres
Introduction
Policy SS2
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
Conclusion
Neighbourhood Centres
Introduction
Policy SS3
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
Conclusion
Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments
Introduction
Policy SS4
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
Page
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
7
7
7
8
14
14
15
20
39
39
39
41
41
42
42
44
45
45
49
61
61
61
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
67
67
67
69
69
69
69
70
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1. Plan of the New Retail Quarter
Appendix 2. Sheffield City Centre Comparison Goods Catchment
Appendix 3. Sheffield District Centres – Units and Sales Area
Appendix 4. Most Deprived Areas, Sheffield
Appendix 5. Sheffield City Centre Visitors Survey
Appendix 6. Increases in floorspace permitted at Meadowhall
Appendix 7. Destination of Main Food Spending in Sheffield
Appendix 8. Delivery Schedules
70
70
71
72
75
75
75
77
79
81
82
86
87
89
91
92
List of Figures
Figure 1: Zone A Rateable Values and Shop Sizes in the City Centre
Figure 2: Current Catchment Areas: Sheffield City Centre and Meadowhall
Figure 3: Comparison of shop types at Meadowhall and City Centre
Figure 4: Cars in household - Meadowhall and City Centre shoppers
Figure 5: Social Grade of shoppers at Meadowhall and City Centre
Figure 6: Ages of shoppers at Meadowhall and City Centre
Figure 7: Mode of Transport to Sheffield City Centre and Meadowhall
Figure 8: Capacity for New Convenience Floorspace in the City
Figure 9: Capacity for Food Superstore Retail Facilities in the City – revised
23
27
28
29
30
31
37
54
56
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1
This report provides background information and evidence to support the
submitted Policies for the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development
Framework.
1.2
The Sheffield Development Framework is Sheffield’s Local Development
Framework, which the local planning authority is now required to produce. It
will contain all of the City’s planning policies and proposals and will replace
the outgoing Unitary Development Plan. Further information about the
Sheffield Development Framework can be found in the project programme,
known as the Local Development Scheme1.
1.3
The Core Strategy is the first of the development plan documents in the
Framework. It sets out the overall planning aims and objectives and
establishes the broad spatial framework for all the other documents.
1.4
The Core Strategy has been prepared in several stages, based on periods of
consultation. These stages were about:
 Emerging Options
 Preferred Options
 Additional Options (for a few issues only)
 Submission, for final representations and public examination.
The Emerging Options
1.5
The Emerging Options were the broad choices for the Core Strategy and they
were set out in a separate document2. They were drawn up to enable the
Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of
drawing up the Strategy. The City Council consulted on these options and
then decided which to take forward as Preferred Options. The other options
have been rejected but this document sets out how they were taken into
account and why the Council is proposing the Preferred Options instead.
1
Sheffield Development Framework: The Local Development Scheme. Sheffield City Council (revised
October 2006).
2 Sheffield Development Framework: Emerging Options for the Core Strategy. (Sheffield City Council,
May 2005).
-1-
The Preferred Options
1.6
The Preferred Options were published3 and consulted on as the ones that the
Council was minded to take forward to submission. However, the choice of
option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment.
The Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them
and the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging
Options had been rejected. In most cases these Preferred Options were
taken forward as policies in the draft submitted Core Strategy4.
Additional Options
1.7
Further work indicated that there were a few issues to be covered that had not
featured in the earlier options consultations and there were some issues that
had been considered where a new option needed to be considered. These
were set out in the Additional Options Report 5 and consulted on.
Submission Version
1.8
Much of the Submission Version follows the approach proposed in the
Preferred and Additional Options and takes account of comments made about
those documents. However, the opportunity remains in the final period for
representations to draw attention to any outstanding matters that it is
considered would make the submitted document unsound. The soundness of
the document will be decided by a Planning Inspector through a process of
public examination.
1.9
The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that
the Core Strategy is sound. They are prepared specifically to help consultees
and the Inspector come to a view about the Council’s position. The Core
Strategy itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen
policies. So, the more detailed background information and analysis there is
all found in the Background Reports.
1.10
The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Development
Framework but they clearly contribute to the statutory process of preparing it.
The regulations refer to ‘DPD [Development Plan Document] documents’ and
these may include:
“such supporting documents as in the opinion of the authority are
relevant to the preparation of the DPD”6
3
Sheffield Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council,
(May 2005).
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
6 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4)
-2-
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 gives the reasoning behind the Core Strategy Retail and Leisure
policies. The chapters are based on each of the issues covered in the chapter
on Retail and Leisure and they deal with each of the soundness tests in turn.
A final chapter deals with issues not followed through to the submitted Core
Strategy.
Introduction to the Issues
1.13
The policies set out the Council’s approach to the location of development in
the City and the support of town centres. The policies are concerned not just
with shops but with the sort of leisure developments that make intensive use
of land and which the Government, in its Planning Policy Statement 6:
Planning for Town Centres (PPS6), describes as main town centre uses.
These include:
 Leisure, entertainment and the more intensive sport and recreation uses
(including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs,
night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres
and bingo halls),
 Arts, culture and tourism (theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls,
hotels and conference facilities).
They exclude more informal or less intensive leisure and recreation activities,
such as golf courses or playing fields.
1.14
Certain policy documents and studies are relevant to all Core Strategy retail
and leisure policies and have been taken into account at all stages of its
preparation. Those of particular relevance are introduced below and referred
to in more detail in later chapters.
Government policy – PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development
1.15
PPS1 sets out planning policies to achieve sustainable development. Planning
authorities should seek to improve access for all to retail and leisure facilities,
by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access it on
foot, by bicycle or by public transport. In addition, authorities should focus
developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail and
leisure development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability,
social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development7.
1.16
The aims of improving accessibility and promoting town centres underlie all
policies SS1-4.
7
PPS1 paragraph 1(v and vi)
-3-
Government policy – PPS6: Planning for Town Centres
1.17
PPS6 explains how to plan for the uses described at paragraph 1.13. The
Government’s key objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and
viability by:
 planning for the growth and development of existing centres; and
 promoting and enhancing existing centres by focusing development in
such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good
environment, accessible to all.8
1.18
Other Government objectives include providing consumer choice to meet the
needs of the whole community, supporting efficient, competitive and
innovative retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, and improving
accessibility and ensuring that development is well served by a choice of
means of transport.
1.19
Local planning authorities, through their local development documents, are
required to9:
1.20
a
develop a hierarchy and network of centres;
b
assess the need for main town centre uses and ensure there is
capacity to accommodate them;
c
focus development in, and plan for the expansion of, existing
centres and identify development sites;
d
promote town centre management
e
monitor and review the effectiveness of policies
The individual contributions made by policies SS1-4 to meeting these
requirements are described in more detail below under each policy heading,
but together, policies SS1-4 achieve these objectives in the following ways:
a
They identify a hierarchy and network of town centres in the
City. It is a three-tier hierarchy of centres of different sizes and
functions serving a range of catchment populations, consisting
of the City Centre, 17 district centres and 160 neighbourhood
centres10. Meadowhall is not identified as a town centre.
b
Policies SS1-4 are based on an assessment of need for town
main town centre uses. The City Council has commissioned
studies to assess quantitative and qualitative11need for both
non-food and food retailing. The Core Strategy is a spatial
8
PPS6 paragraph 1.3
PPS6 paragraph 1.6
10 PPS6 paragraphs 2.1, 2.15. The references to ‘town centres’ in PPS6 is to all types of centre in
Table 1 of Annex A - City, town, district centres and local centres.
11 PPS6 paragraph 2.16
9
-4-
strategy, so it prioritises locations to meet these needs. Policy
SS1 prioritises the City Centre as the location for non-food retail
floorspace while Policy SS2 prioritises district centres to meet
the need for main food shopping. Need is therefore discussed
in the appropriate chapters for these policies.
c
Appropriate sites or locations for development are identified in
individual policies.
Government policy – PPG13: Transport
1.21
12
PPG13 requires proposals for shopping and leisure to be located in areas
accessible by public transport, walking and cycling12. All major generators of
travel demand should be focused in city, town and district centres and near to
major public transport interchanges. Sites which are highly accessible by
public transport should be allocated for travel intensive uses, such as offices
or retail, but incorporating a mix of uses where possible.
PPG13 paras 6, 19, 21
-5-
2.
SHOPPING AND LEISURE IN THE CITY CENTRE
Introduction
2.1
The spatial strategy identifies the City Centre as the most sustainable location
for new shops and leisure facilities that attract people from beyond their
district or neighbourhood and that cannot be met more locally in other town
centres in the city region. However, the existing central shopping area is
overextended and becoming run-down in parts. The quality range of shops
and facilities is also significantly short of the potential for a major core city. A
major regeneration initiative is imminent in the form of the New Retail Quarter
(NRQ), which is needed to consolidate the shopping area and improve the
range and quality of shops and facilities. The policy affirms the priority that is
attached to this scheme.
2.2
There are implications for large shop development in other locations. It is
envisaged that Meadowhall will continue to be a major regional draw. But, the
priority to City Centre regeneration, the provisions of the Yorkshire and
Humber Plan and the lack of need for further out-of-centre non-food retail
development means that shopping space there should not expand beyond its
current capacity.
Policy SS1
2.3
New shops and leisure facilities with citywide and regional catchments
will be concentrated in the Core Retail Area and immediately adjacent
shopping streets of the City Centre, which will be strengthened through
a major retail-led, mixed-use regeneration scheme, which will form the
New Retail Quarter.
Meadowhall Shopping Centre will remain at around its present size and
major non-food retail development will not occur outside the Core Retail
Area and District Centres and their edges.
2.4
Four elements of this policy are considered separately, where necessary, in
relation to the Soundness Tests:
a
concentration of town centre uses with large catchments in the
Core retail Area of the City Centre
b
promotion of the NRQ
c
restriction of major non-food retail development outside the
Core Retail Area and district centres
d
restriction of Meadowhall.
-7-
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
Development in the City Centre
National policy - PPS6
2.5
Policy SS1 promotes the City Centre as the major location for non-food
shopping development and for the proposed NRQ in particular. This is
consistent with the Government’s key objectives for town centres described in
PPS613

promoting their vitality and viability by planning for their growth and
development and

promoting and enhancing them by focusing development there.
2.6
PPS6 requires local development plan documents to plan positively for the
growth of town centres. They should assess the need for further main town
centre uses and ensure there is the capacity to accommodate them14. Policy
SS1’s promotion of the NRQ is consistent with this guidance. As explained at
paragraph 2.89 below, the Council has assessed that the City Centre needs
further retail development and has initiated development of a ‘New Retail
Quarter’ in the City Centre. Policy SS1 supports this. As also explained below
the NRQ is consistent with the Government objectives at PPS6 paragraph 1.5:
it will enhance consumer choice and support efficient and competitive retailing
and will improve accessibility to a good range of shops and be well served by
a choice of means of transport.
2.7
PPS6 requires development of ‘main town centre uses’ to be appropriately
related to the size of the City Centre and catchment that it seeks to serve:
‘the aim should be to locate the appropriate type and scale of
development in the right type of centre, to ensure that it fits into that
centre and that it complements its role and function.’ 15
Uses that attract a large number of people should therefore be in centres that
reflect the scale and catchment of the development proposed. The City Centre
is the largest centre in South Yorkshire, currently having about 150,000 sq m
of Class A1-A5 floorspace so for large non-food shopping development such
as proposed, the City Centre is the best location.
2.8
PPS6 also supports retail development that promotes the economic growth of
regional, sub-regional and local economies16. The NRQ will do this, as will be
explained below.
13
PPS6 paragraph 1.3
PPS6 paragraph 1.6
15 PPS6 paragraph 2.41
16 PPS6 paragraph 1.5
14
-8-
National Policy - PPG13
2.9
One of the objectives of PPG13 is to reduce the need to travel, especially by
car. Land use planning ‘will help to reduce some of the need for car journeys
(by reducing the physical separation of key land uses) and enable people to
make sustainable transport choices’.17 . The NRQ will be more accessible to
residents of the City by public transport than alternative regional or subregional shopping destinations, so will accord with this objective.
The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy
2.10 The draft Yorkshire and Humber Plan continues the support shown in the
current RSS for the City Centre as a focus for retail development. The Overall
Approach of the Core Strategy (YH1) is to
Reverse the long term trend of population and investment dispersal
away from cities and major towns
Improve people’s accessibility to housing, employment, shopping,
cultural, health, education and leisure facilities and services
Transform cities and major towns as attractive, cohesive and safe
places where people want to live, work, invest and spend time in
2.11
The NRQ is in accordance with this policy. It will be an investment that will
attract people to the City Centre, improving peoples’ access to shopping and
housing and making it more attractive.
2.12
The RSS lists Leeds and Sheffield, as the two regional centres18. Policy YH5
of the Core Approach states that:
“Regional and Sub-Regional Centres will be the prime focus for
housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural
activities and facilities in the region.
…. [this] will be achieved through spatial planning and investment
measures to develop a strong sense of place with a high quality of
public realm and well designed buildings within a clear framework of
routes and spaces … Strengthen the identity and roles of city/town
centres as accessible and vibrant focal points for high trip generating
uses”.
2.13
The RSS gives the context for this policy19. Focusing development, investment
and activity on these cities will be sustainable. It
‘offers the greatest scope to: re-use land and buildings; make the most
of existing infrastructure and investment; reduce greenhouse gas
17
PPG13 paragraph 3
Core Approach p 52
19 Paragraphs 4.38-4.41
18
-9-
emissions and related impacts by reducing the need to travel; .. and
encourage the use of public transport.’
2.14
Development in these centres will also help conclude ‘major unfinished
business to achieve urban renaissance.’ Although much progress has been
made over recent years,
‘much of the physical fabric of urban areas remains outmoded for
modern day living and working and meeting the needs of the 21st
century. It is vital that the momentum of urban renewal is not only
maintained but increased. Major ‘step change’ is required to deliver
high quality urban places.
2.15
Core Policy YH8(A)(i) also seeks to
‘Concentrate the majority of new development and redevelopment on
the regional and sub-regional centres'.
2.16
Economic Policy E2 identifies City and town centres as
‘the main focus for main focus for office, comparison shopping, health,
education, casino, leisure, recreation, entertainment, cultural, public
services, business services and other uses which generate a high level
of people movements.’
2.17 South Yorkshire Sub Area Policy SY1 seeks to
‘Develop Sheffield as a major Regional Centre offering high order
shops and services, as well as jobs and homes needed to serve its
extended city region’ ·
‘Support the role of Sheffield as a major provider of jobs and the
regeneration of much of Sheffield City Centre’
‘Focus most new development at Sheffield and the Sub Regional
Centres of Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham – with particular
emphasis on city centres and inner areas’
2.18
The Examination in Public (EiP) of the Draft RSS took place in 2006 and in
May 2007 the EiP Panel recommended changes to be considered by GOYH.
Their proposed changes support the emphasis on existing centres. They
recommend that SY1 should be more specific about locations in Sheffield,
such as the New Retail Quarter, with ‘the emphasis on the centre’.20 They
recommend that the draft policy E2B(i) should state that ‘no development’
should take place at regional shopping centres.
2.19 In summary, both the adopted and emerging RSS are fully supportive of the
principle of the New Retail Quarter.
20
RSS Panel report Vol.1 paragraph 11.19
-10-
2.20
The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) defines six objectives to achieve a
prosperous and sustainable economy, including ‘Stronger Cities, Towns and
Rural areas’. In Sheffield this was to be achieved by ‘integrated renaissance
programmes’ delivered by Sheffield One21. The RES notes that
“Retail can change the fortunes and image of a town or city. The
renaissance approach will focus on quality retail that adds to the
shopping experience in existing towns…. Good retail and leisure
development can play a role in encouraging full use of the centre by the
whole community throughout the day, rather than have centres that are
typified by single uses like shopping by day and drinking by night” 22
2.21
The Northern Way, a Government-supported plan to transform the economy
of the North, identifies Sheffield as a ‘city region’ that is a key to economic
growth23. Sheffield City Region Development Programme, produced for the
Northern Way, reports that the successful economic renaissance of the City
Region depends on ‘re-establishing the main cities and towns as retail,
commercial and business centres’24 and that significant investment in the city
and town centres in Sheffield City Region ‘is making them more attractive as
locations for further commercial, retail and residential investment’25. The New
Retail Quarter is therefore seen as an urban renaissance scheme that will
enhance Sheffield’s role as a city region.
The South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy
2.22
In 2004 the Council Leaders of each South Yorkshire local authority agreed a
Sub- Regional Spatial Strategy Vision as a basis for the future spatial
development of South Yorkshire. The South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy 26
states that:
“Sheffield will be a creative producer and design city on a par with the
best performing in Europe with a vibrant city centre offering a range of
retail, leisure and commercial opportunities strongly competitive with
other cities of its size.”
Other Sheffield Policies
2.23
Sheffield One commissioned a City Centre Masterplan to set out a strategy
for the City Centre. It was given extensive consultation and received
overwhelming public support. It was agreed by all key partners in Sheffield
21
Sheffield One was an Urban Regeneration Company supported by Sheffield City Council, Yorkshire
Forward (the Regional Development Agency) and English Partnerships. Its mission was "to develop
Sheffield city centre as a vibrant and attractive European city and a driver of regional economic growth
and competitiveness"
22 Regional Economic Strategy - Ten year strategy for Yorkshire & Humber 2006-15, (Yorkshire
Forward) paragraph 3.125
23 Sheffield City Region contains the major urban areas of Sheffield, Doncaster, Rotherham,
Chesterfield and Barnsley.
24 Sheffield City Region Development Programme (September 2006), pages 6 and 7
25 Sheffield City Region Development Programme (September 2006), page 21
26 Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy Vision for South Yorkshire. Ideasmiths Consulting Partnership/
South Yorkshire Partnership (November 2004)
-11-
and by the regional and national regeneration agencies. It was formally
approved by the City Council as its strategy for the City Centre on 18th
December 2000. The Plan proposes key projects for the Centre’s revitalisation
over the next 10-15 years. The Plan’s vision is of a ‘cohesive central area
where individual projects, programmes and strategies reinforce and support
each other and the whole is greater than the individual parts’.
2.24
One of the Masterplan’s key projects is ‘Retail at the Heart of the City’. A
successful retail centre will help make the City Centre more attractive and
encourage more jobs there, to the benefit of the rest of the city. A third of the
City’s jobs are in the central wards of Sheffield, and nearly half of the City’s
higher managerial and professional jobs. The Masterplan notes that
regeneration of the City Centre will not succeed unless the Core Retail Area
can be revitalised and given a strong new focus. A retail analysis carried out
for the Masterplan had identified the retail deficiencies of the City Centre and
concluded that the City needed a development of about 65,000 sq m of
modern retail floorspace anchored by a to re-establish its position as a
regional centre.
Limits on out-of-centre development
National Policy
2.25
SS1 prohibits major non-food retail development outside the Core Retail Area,
the District Centres and their edges. This is consistent with PPS6, which
requires that, in the plan-making process, local planning authorities should
assess the need for new retail floorspace, identify deficiencies in provision and
assess the capacity of existing centres to accommodate new development,
including the scope for extending the primary shopping area27. The City
Council has done this. As explained at paragraph 2.89, the qualitative need for
the New Retail Quarter was established in studies reported in the
Supplementary Planning Guidance for the New Retail Quarter28, and the
CWHB study of quantitative need for non food retail floorspace29 showed that
there was no quantitative need for more out-of-centre non-food retail
floorspace in the City.
2.26
Local development plan documents should plan positively for the growth of
town centres. They should assess the need for further main town centre uses
and ensure there is the capacity to accommodate them30.
2.27
Retail development is equally likely to impact on development in the City
Centre regardless of whether it is within or outside a district centre.
Nevertheless, there may be a valid qualitative need for development within
district centres to broaden the range of goods sold or add to its vitality and
viability. Promoting retail development in district centres that is of an
appropriate scale is consistent with the Government’s town centre policy. SS1
27
PPS6 paragraph 2.16
Supplementary Planning Guidance, paragraphs 3.2, 3.12
29 Citywide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods (Cushman Wakefield Healey Baker, June 2002),
commissioned by the City Council. Chapter 7
30 PPS6 paragraph 1.6
28
-12-
therefore makes an exception to the prohibition of major non-food
development that is within or at the edge of district centres.
2.28
This is justified by an assessment in the Sheffield Retail Study31 that ‘it would
be inappropriate to seek to restrict the sale of certain goods which are typically
sold in the city centre (e.g. clothing and footwear) from new development in
district centres, on the basis that broadening the range of goods sold in a
centre adds to its vitality and viability.’
2.29
Policy SS1’s promotion of the New Retail Quarter and its prohibition of out-ofcentre ‘major non-food retail development’ is therefore consistent with national
policy.
Meadowhall
National Planning Policy
2.30
SS1 states that ‘Meadowhall Shopping Centre will remain at around its
present size’. Controlling Meadowhall’s expansion is consistent with PPS6,
which says that the expansion of existing out-of-centre regional or subregional shopping centres is unlikely to meet the requirements of the key
objective of the Government’s town centre policy, which is to promote the
vitality and viability of town centres.32 PPS6 says, however, that renewal or
replacement of existing facilities, not involving additional floorspace, may be
appropriate33. PPS6 says that any need for an expanded out-of-centre regional
shopping centre should be addressed through the RSS. The draft Yorkshire
Humber RSS does not identify such a need. There is therefore no need to
expand Meadowhall.
Regional Spatial Strategy
2.31
The provision in SS1 for Meadowhall Shopping Centre to remain at around its
present size is supported by Policy E2 of the Draft RSS:
No further development or large-scale expansion of out-of-centre
regional or sub regional shopping centres, including the Meadowhall
and White Rose centres, should be permitted.
2.32
The RSS explains the context of Policy E2: focusing retail and other
development that attracts large numbers of people in the Region’s main towns
and city centres is necessary to support their renaissance and their crucial
role in achieving sustainable economic growth and investment in the Region.
It describes Policy E2 as an integral component of the overarching direction of
the Plan. The combination in SS1 of promoting development in the City Centre
development and limiting it at Meadowhall is therefore justified.
‘The Sheffield Retail Study’ by White Young Green, published in July 2003 and updated in 2005 to
take account of new retail developments in the City and revised forecasts of spending growth. The text
of the reports is available on the Sheffield City Council website.
32 PPS6 paragraph 2.14
33 ibid.
31
-13-
2.33
The EiP Panel recommended that the draft policy E2B(i) should state that ‘no
development’ should take place at regional shopping centres. At the time of
writing it is not known whether this recommendation has been accepted by the
Government or what the eventual regional policy will be. Under these
circumstances it is appropriate to leave a degree of flexibility in a broad
strategic policy such as this. If the Panel’s wording were included in the
approved RSS then that would influence how the flexibility in policy SS1 would
be used in relation to the City Policies document, the Area Action Plans and
development control decisions.
2.34
Nevertheless the indication from both national and regional policy guidance is
clear that any development at Meadowhall should be marginal rather
constituting moderate expansion of Meadowhall centre.
2.35
The Council has consulted on a robust application of this approach in its City
Policies Preferred Options, which do not incorporate the degree of flexibility in
the strategic policy. The submission version of this will take account of the
final wording of the RSS policy (see 2.114)
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
2.36
The City Strategy says that the city centre will be the driver for the
transformation of the city’s economy ... supporting our ambition for Sheffield to
have an economy that matches the best in Europe and to be known for
learning and enterprise. It acknowledges that the revival of the city centre has
been led by a Masterplan34. This was commissioned by the city centre
regeneration agency, Sheffield One. The Masterplan identified the New Retail
Quarter as a ‘transformational project’ that can help achieve a vibrant City
Centre. The final Masterplan project to be completed will be the New Retail
Quarter, providing a brand new shopping area for the city.
Consistency with other Planning Documents (Soundness Test
6)
Core Strategy Objectives
2.37
By attracting major retail development to the City Centre, and through
consequent benefits to the economy, the Policy will support parts 1 and 2 of
the SDF Vision - that Sheffield will be ‘economically prosperous and attractive
to business and new investment and will sustain employment for all who seek
it’ and ‘enrich the Sheffield city region, as the most attractive and sustainable
location for regional services, jobs and facilities’.
2.38
It will also help achieve the Core Strategy’s Objectives for Serving the City
Region (Challenge 2): S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas
regenerated as the core location for major expansion of business, shopping,
leisure and culture.
Sheffield City Centre Masterplan. Sheffield First Partnership (2001).
http://www.creativesheffield.co.uk/DevelopInSheffield/CityCentreMasterplan/
34
-14-
2.39
The policy supports the Core Strategy Spatial Vision, which identifies the City
Centre as:
‘the driver for the transformation of the city’s economy, providing
sustainable new employment opportunities and excellent regional
services, supported by sustainable transport and a high-quality
environment.’
2.40
It is consistent with The Spatial Vision’s view of the role of the City Centre in
the transformation of the city’s economy and in the development of Sheffield’s
role as the core city for its city region. The Spatial Strategy says that the City
Centre will be ‘the focus for most new development of offices, shops, leisure,
culture, higher education and other services’.
2.41
The Core Retail Area and its relationship with the rest of the City Centre are
discussed in relation to policy SCC3.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
2.42
Policy SS1 is consistent with the Preferred Core Strategies of adjoining
authorities Barnsley and Rotherham. Neither of their Preferred LDF Options
view their respective town centres as having a regional retail role – which
would be in conflict with SS1. The Barnsley Preferred Options intend to
develop Barnsley town centre as ‘a strong and varied centre which serves the
whole borough and performs a vital role over a wider area.’ Rotherham’s LDF
will be consistent with the view in the South Yorkshire Spatial Strategy that
“Rotherham's economy will benefit from the planned growth in both Sheffield
and Doncaster, but Rotherham will maintain and enhance its distinct identity
through the creative regeneration of its centre’.
2.43
There will be scope for closer working between Sheffield and Barnsley and
Rotherham authorities at a later stage. Restraint at Meadowhall could benefit
regeneration of centres in other districts.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
2.44
The core strategy policies must be consistent with national and regional
policies that support town centres. Nevertheless, within these constraints,
alternative policy options exist that would have still been consistent with these
aims. This section shows that, as required by Soundness Test 7, the Council
has given due consideration to all options before deciding on which policies to
submit.
2.45
Two issues were given explicit consideration in the Emerging Options
Report35:
 S1 How to distribute town centre uses within the City, and
 S2 The role of Meadowhall in relation to the City Centre.
35
Emerging Options for the Core Strategy, SCC, May 2005
-15-
The pros and cons of the Options within these Issues are considered briefly
below, and in more detail under Planning Reasons (paragraph 2.74).
S1 Distribution of facilities
2.46
The issue of dispersal / concentration is one that PPS6 requires local planning
authorities to consider. PPS6 requires them to consider whether there is a
need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres36.
Accordingly, three options were considered:
S1a Dispersal of shops an emphasis on local facilities
S1b Concentration of shops in centres
S1c Allocate land on edges of City Centre and District Centres
2.47
Option S1a was to disperse shops and facilities in centres throughout the city,
and encourage small shops outside existing shopping centres for local
workers and residents and next to existing retail / leisure facilities where
readily accessible by a choice of means of transport.
2.48
The strengths of option S1a are:
 It would reduce the distances people need to travel to basic shops and
services
 It would provide facilities for people who can’t get about easily including
disabled people
2.49
The main weaknesses of S1a are:
 Facilities would be difficult to get to by public transport because most
routes are radial
 It would allow proliferation of shops at the expense of those in existing
centres
2.50
Option S1b was to concentrate shops and facilities in the City Centre or in
district centres such as Banner Cross, Broomhill, Buchanan Road,
Chapeltown, Crookes, Crystal Peaks, Darnall, Ecclesall Road, Firth Park,
Heeley, Hillsborough, London Road, Manor Top, Spital Hill, Stocksbridge,
Woodhouse, Woodseats. Some retail formats serve a large catchment so are
best associated with the larger centres.
2.51
The strengths of Option S1b are that
 Concentrating of shops and facilities would allow people to link trips to
work, shopping and other business and maintain the vitality and viability of
centres
36
PPS6 paragraph 2.9
-16-
 Centres provide a wider range of goods including non-food and other
comparison goods as well as food and other convenience goods37
2.52
The main weaknesses of S1b are:
 People would have to travel longer distances than to more dispersed
shops
2.53
Option S1c was to allocate sites on the edge of the City Centre and District
Centres rather than within them, in the case of bulky goods retailers and largescale leisure facilities.
2.54
The strengths of Option S1c, allocating edge-of-centre sites, are:
 Bulky goods would be almost as accessible as the range of goods already
provided in the existing centres·
 Allows linked trips by shoppers to the existing centres and the new
developments·
 Allows for large-site requirements of retail warehouse format without
recourse to dispersed, out-of-centre locations·
 Out of centre retail parks and superstores could be accessible locations,
allowing linked trips, if no suitable town centre sites existed.
2.55
The main weaknesses of S1c are:
 Buildings and layout are unattractive and would not improve the
appearance of most centres
 In practice these large units operate separately from the centre – being
close does not necessarily mean people will use both the existing and new
facilities
 Comparison goods could be sold in shops of different format in the City
Centre and District Centres. Government policy is that most goods can and
should be sold from town centres.
2.56
The Section on Planning Reasons at paragraph 2.72 explains how the choice
was made between these options.
Role of Meadowhall
2.57
Although RSS E2 does not permit large-scale expansion at Meadowhall, there
were choices to be made within these constraints of the amount and type of
development that should be allowed. Policy Options, shown as ES2(a) – (c) in
the Emerging Options Report, were:
Convenience goods’: everyday essential items, including food, drinks, newspapers/ magazines and
confectionery – Annex A, Table 3, of PPS6
37
-17-
S2a No expansion – focus on City Centre
S2b Complementary role – maintain market share
S2c Some expansion of shopping – e.g. with District Centre status
S2d Some expansion of leisure
2.58
Option S2a: No expansion: no retail and leisure development at and around
Meadowhall. Focus on City Centre.
2.59
The strengths of Option S2a are:
 Would support retail and leisure development in the New Retail Quarter.
Meadowhall’s retail offer, format and catchment area overlap with what
could otherwise be brought into the City Centre through the New Retail
Quarter.
 Any leisure development that increased Meadowhall’s attraction as a dayout leisure experience could harm the prospect of such development in the
City Centre.
 Consistent with current regional policy
2.60
The weaknesses of 2a are:
 Loss of potential development opportunities from the Lower Don Valley
and the city more generally
 Would preclude large-scale leisure that could not be located in the City
Centre
2.61
Option S2b: Complementary role: Only limited retail and leisure development
needed for Meadowhall to maintain its present role and share of the regional
market
2.62
The strengths of Option 2b are:
 Small scale retail development might be appropriate in certain
circumstances such as the expansion of existing stores for operational
reasons
 It would help maintain Meadowhall’s success.
 Would be compatible with current regional policy. This does not allow
large-scale expansion at Meadowhall and leaves the scale of appropriate
development to be decided by local planning authorities.
2.63
The weaknesses of 2b are:
 Less certainty for potential developers and retailers in the City Centre than
with Option S3a
-18-
 Being complementary means accepting that certain sectors of goods and
shoppers who would normally go to the core City Centre are diverted to the
out-of-centre location. Regeneration of the central shopping area and
restoration of its regional function will mean competition rather than being
complementary
 Loss of potential large-scale leisure development opportunities from the
Lower Don Valley and the city more generally
 Would preclude large-scale leisure that could not be located in the City
Centre
2.64
Option S2c: Expand shopping under certain circumstances, e.g. expand
Meadowhall as a local facility with District Centre status
2.65
The strengths of Option 2c are:
 Meadowhall is highly accessible by public transport
 Local facilities could be needed if housing and office development were
promoted to the west of Meadowhall (see BP for Lower Don Valley).
2.66
The weaknesses of 2c are:
 Further shops would enhance Meadowhall’s role as a regional shopping
centre to the detriment of the City Centre
 Inconsistent with Regional Spatial Strategy
 The impact on the regeneration of the City Centre and confidence of
investors would be considerable
 Major development could result in unacceptable levels of traffic at
congested Meadowhall and Tinsley motorway junctions
2.67
Option S2d: Some expansion of leisure
2.68
The strengths of Option 2c are:
 Meadowhall is highly accessible by public transport
 Meadowhall is an economic driver for the city so its success should be
maintained.
2.69
The weaknesses of 2d are:
 Inconsistent with Regional Spatial Strategy·
 Major development could result in unacceptable levels of traffic at
congested Meadowhall and Tinsley motorway junctions
-19-
2.70
The Section on Planning Reasons at paragraph 2.125 explains how the
choice was made between these options.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
2.71
Four main elements of this policy will be justified:
a
Why large retail and leisure development should be
concentrated in the City Centre
b
Why the Core Retail Area is identified as it is
c
Why the New Retail Quarter is needed
d
Why non-food retail development should be restricted out-ofcentre, and particularly at Meadowhall
Concentration / Dispersal - Options S1a and b
2.72
The paragraphs below examine the strengths and weaknesses of S1 options
(a) and (b) – whether to concentrate town centre uses in larger centres or
disperse them more evenly (see paragraph 2.45) – and justify the approach
taken in policies SS1-SS4.
2.73
Supporting shops outside centres would be contrary to Government guidance,
which requires all out-of-centre shops, regardless of size, to be assessed
against the tests of need, scale, the sequential approach, and accessibility, so
the option of encouraging small shops outside existing shopping centres has
been rejected. However this does not exclude the option of encouraging
dispersed development in the 100 or more smaller neighbourhood centres that
have been identified around the city in the draft Proposals Map (see policy
SS3).
2.74
Dispersal would put shops and facilities close to where people live and
shorten the distance that people need to travel and this would be consistent
with SDF objective S4.3. PPS6 emphasises the importance of distributing
shops to be accessible for the whole community, provided the sequential
approach is followed38. However unless facilities are within easy walking
distance they are likely to involve a car trip to get there, whereas the City
Centre and larger district centres tend to be more accessible by bus and tram
than local centres, and some people may find it easier to go to these larger
centres than to local centres. Promoting an even distribution of shops would
allow a proliferation of shops at the expense of those in existing centres.
PPS6 also notes that local centres will generally be inappropriate for largescale new development. Uses that attract a large number of people should
therefore be in the larger centres.
38
PPS6 paragraph 2.35
-20-
2.75
Dispersal would also mean that shops would have smaller catchments so
could offer only a restricted range of goods and therefore be less viable than
larger shops. This option may therefore be unattractive to some retailers and
difficult to achieve. The Sheffield Retail Study39 noted that
“In spatial terms, there has been a growing trend towards larger stores
serving an extensive catchment area replacing a number of smaller
stores and this is likely to continue throughout all retail sectors.”
2.76
If the trend towards larger stores serving larger catchment areas is to be
accommodated, then the most sustainable location for them would be the
larger centres such as those listed in Option S1b. Other than the City Centre,
these centres are categorised in the UDP as District Centres.
2.77
Neighbourhood and district centres are unlikely to be suitable locations for
large-scale new development that serves a citywide catchment area. An upper
limit for the scale of developments in these centres would encourage larger
development in centres higher up the town centre hierarchy40. The Preferred
City Policy Option PS6 proposed options for such limits.
2.78
Concentrating shops and other facilities allows people to link trips to work,
shopping, leisure and other business. It maintains the vitality and viability of
existing centres. Having shops in the same location allows people to compare
goods and the centres listed in this Option are large enough to provide a wide
range of food and non-food goods.
2.79
Concentration would support development in locations that are generally well
served by a choice of means of transport so would be more accessible than
smaller centres.
2.80
In conclusion, the merits of dispersal (Option S1a) or concentration (Option
S1b) depend on the type of development proposed and the catchment it will
serve. Submitted options policies SS1-4 therefore identify a hierarchy of
centres with a role that depends on the type of shopping they provide. Small
shops and services for everyday use are preferred in local centres where they
would be accessible on foot to most residents of the city and offer the benefits
of allowing linked trips to other facilities in the centre. Larger facilities serving
larger catchments are best in the larger centres that are more accessible by
public transport. SS1-4 promote the City Centre as the most suitable centre
for infrequent purchases of non-food items, since it is the most accessible
centre for most people and its variety of shops provides a good opportunity to
compare goods. However, district centres are well distributed around the city
and are accessible for everyday purchases where comparison is less
important. Neighbourhood centres are useful for top-up shopping within
walking distance of a large number of households.
2.81
PPS6 allows the policies to put upper limits on the size of developments
permissible in different types of centres to ensure that larger developments go
39
40
Sheffield Retail Study, paragraph 7.03
PPS6 paragraph 2.42
-21-
to centres higher in the town centre hierarchy. This is proposed in the City
Policy Preferred Options.
Edge-of-centre sites for bulky goods retailers and large-scale leisure
facilities – Option S1c
2.82
Although PPS6 states that town centres are the best location for main town
centre uses, not all district centres in Sheffield have land available, and largescale new development may be unsuitable for some centres. Some retail and
leisure operators with large business formats may find it impossible to locate
there, even allowing for flexibility. For example, shops selling bulky goods or
large-scale leisure operators may provide benefits to consumers41 but the
New Retail Quarter, or other development sites within the Core Retail Area,
may be an inappropriate location for units requiring large amounts of space.
2.83
PPS6 notes that larger stores may deliver benefits for consumers and local
planning authorities should make provision for them if they are needed. In
these circumstances it may be best for them to locate in larger sites on the
edge of the City Centre and district centres. They would be a short walk from
the centre, and customers could link trips to them with trips to existing centres.
2.84
In accordance with PPS6, then, SS1 does not prohibit major non-food retail
development from locating on edge-of-centre sites. Consistent with PPS6,
edge of centre locations are those within easy walking distance of the City
Centre’s Core Retail Area, or from the primary area of district centres; and
providing pedestrian links that could be made attractive and safe and would
integrate the development with the centre, and, in the case of district centres,
providing car park spaces that could also be used for the centre.
2.85
Several terms must be defined:
41
a
The term ‘major non-food retail development’ refers to a gross
internal area of more than 2,500 sq m allocated to the sale of
non-food goods. For this calculation, the floorspace figure will
include all other floorspace of the type specified in, or adjacent
to, the policy area that has been permitted or is under
construction or has been completed over the last 5 years. The
floorspace figure will be the sum of all gross internal areas,
including mezzanines, and areas such as access space, mall
areas and storage that are used to support that use, but net of
any replaced floorspace.
b
The term ‘development’ includes new development;
redevelopment of existing facilities; extensions to existing
facilities; changes of use; renewal of planning permissions; and
applications to vary or remove existing planning conditions,
which would have the effect of changing the range of goods
sold or creating additional floorspace (e.g. mezzanine floors).
The level of 2,500 sq m has been chosen because national
PPS6 paragraph 2.6
-22-
policy shows that this is the level of floorspace above which
there is concern over impact on town centres: it is the threshold
above which PPS6 requires impact assessments42 for out-ofcentre developments and the threshold above which the
Secretary of State needs to be informed about retail planning
applications43.
Identification of the Core Retail Area
2.86
SS1 encourages major retail development not just in the City Centre, but
specifically in the ‘Core Retail Area’, an area in the heart of the City Centre.
Concentrating retail development here will counteract the linearity of the
centre. The Core Retail Area will be identified on the proposals map44 and
includes
 Fargate,
 Pinstone Street,
 the top of the Moor, and
 the area to be occupied by the New Retail Quarter.
2.87
Fargate is included because it is already Sheffield’s primary area. This is
shown by its Zone A rateable values45 shown in Figure 1, which are higher
than anywhere else in the City Centre.
Figure 1: Zone A Rateable Values and Shop Sizes in the City Centre
Street
Fargate
Pinstone Street
The Moor
Average Zone A
Average Shop
Rateable Value per sq Floorspace
m
£2,106
840 sq m
£709
242 sq m
£877
1,563 sq m
Source: VOA 2005 Rating List
2.88
The other areas - Pinstone Street and the top of the Moor - are included in the
Core Retail Area because:
42
PPS6 paragraph 3.23
Circular 15/93 - 'Town and Country Planning (Shopping Direction) (England and Wales) (No 2)
Direction 1993' requires local authorities to inform the Secretary of State of applications for retail
development with more than 2,500 sqm gross retail floorspace if the sum of this and all similar
applications, permissions or completions within the last five years within a 10-mile radius exceeds
20,000 sq metres.
44 PPS6 Annex A requires the Primary Area to be identified on the Proposals Map
45 Rateable value is related to the annual rent that a property could achieve if let on the open market.
Rents are quoted in terms of the Zone A price. Zone A is the most valuable part of a shop, usually the
first 6.1 metres of depth from the front.
http://www.mybusinessrates.gov.uk/valuation/rateable_value/index.html
The VoA 2005 Rating lists give rateable values for individual properties in England.
43
-23-
 They are in the centre of the shopping area. Major development here will
help consolidate the centre, connecting with the New Retail Quarter,
whereas major development at either end of the shopping area would
perpetuate its linearity and the problems associated with that.
 They are identified in the CWHB study46 as a pivotal location between
Fargate and the Moor. Major development here would link retail areas of
the City that are currently poorly connected.
Need for the New Retail Quarter and need for non-food retail floorspace
2.89
Within the Core Retail Area SS1 supports the development of a New Retail
Quarter. The following paragraphs explain why a New Retail Quarter is
needed, and justify its promotion in SS1.
2.90
There is a qualitative need for a New Retail Quarter. The existing central
shopping area is overextended and the range and quality of shops and
facilities is significantly short of the potential for a major core city. The failings
of the City Centre have been identified in the City Centre Masterplan and the
Supplementary Planning Guidance for the New Retail Quarter47. They are
summarised below.
 Its linearity. It extends 1500m and contains two main parts, the
Fargate/High Street/Haymarket area, and The Moor. A clear “mental map”
of the centre is difficult to form. The elongated nature of the centre
discourages shoppers since they have to choose which part of the centre
to visit. The areas are linked at a weak point - Pinstone Street – where
pedestrian flow is inhibited and where the shopping offer is poor. The
weakness of Pinstone Street is shown in Figure 1. Shops there are smaller
than in either Fargate or the Moor and have lower Zone A rateable values.
 The existing primary area48 (Fargate) is small, relative to the rest of the
shopping area. It has only 33 shop units, many of which make inefficient
use of floorspace and are not suited to modern retailing. There is no
obvious way that the primary area can be extended by incremental
development.
 Quality of shopping floorspace. There is a lack of large modern retail space
in the primary area suitable for major retailers. and the quality of premises
occupied by anchor stores is poor. There is a lack of quality shopping,
particularly of high price fashion and flagship stores
46
paragraph 2.22 of the CWHB study
City Centre Masterplan, produced for Sheffield One and adopted by the Council in 2000; the New
Retail Quarter Supplementary Planning Guidance (NRQ SPG) SCC, July 2002. See in particular NRQ
SPG, paragraphs 3.2 and 3.12.
48 ‘Primary Shopping Area’ is described in PPS6 Annex A as an area where retail development is
concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are contiguous
and closely related to the primary shopping frontage).
47
-24-
 Facilities for shoppers - Weather protection for shoppers is limited and the
shopping environment is poor, compared with centres of similar status. Car
parking is dispersed, small scale, and poorly related to retail areas.
2.91
The documents recommend a New Retail Quarter to remedy these qualitative
deficiencies and enhance the City Centre’s attraction as a regional shopping
centre. The proposed site for it is the best location for additional floorspace: it
is in the central part of the shopping area on land west of Pinstone Street
bounded by Rockingham Street, Division Street and Barkers Pool49. It would
draw together the two main parts of the centre - The Moor and Fargate - and
extend the primary area of Fargate50.
2.92
Extending the primary area in this way conforms to national policy guidance51,
which recommends that this should be done if additional shopping floorspace
is needed that cannot be accommodated in the existing primary area.
2.93
There is also a quantitative need for the New Retail Quarter to provide for
non-food retailing spending growth. The CWHB study52 showed that the City
Centre could support between 53,000-74,000 sq m of net additional
comparison retail sales floorspace by 2012. The study showed that these
increases were indeed feasible: spending was expected to grow substantially
and, there was scope for increasing the City Centre’s share of spending in the
sub-regional study area (roughly a forty minute drive). The Study also showed
that there was no need for the increase in spending to be accommodated in
locations other than town centres53.
2.94
The New Retail Quarter is being implemented. Outline Planning Permission
(05/03933/OUT) has been given for a retail led mixed development with
68,000 sq m of additional shopping floorspace gross lettable area. It has these
elements:
 up to 98,500 sq m (gross area) of new retail floorspace (Class A1-A5)
including a 25,000 sq m department store.
 cafes, bars and restaurants and a new public square;
 up to 232 residential units (Use Class C3).
 a nightclub and a health and fitness club (Class D2)
 off-street public car parking for 2,200 cars
2.95
The CWHB Study also concluded that there was no need for any more out-ofcentre non-food retail floorspace in the City. The study recommended a
49
Appendix 1 shows the location of the New Retail Quarter.
The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the New Retail Quarter, paragraphs 3.21-3.24, describe
the advantages of this location
51 PPS6 paragraph 2.5 – 2.6
52 A City Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods Retailing’ (Cushman Wakefield Healey Baker,
June 2002).
53 CWHB Study Chapter 7
50
-25-
strategy of support for the New Retail Quarter and limiting non-food retail
development elsewhere. These recommendations are carried forward in
Policy SS1. The policy affirms the priority that is attached to the NRQ and the
implications for large non-food retail development in other locations.
Restricting major non-food retailing outside the Core Retail Area
2.96
Restricting out-of-centre non-food retailing is a necessary part of Policy SS1.
Out-of-centre non-food retailing would take up capacity that is being provided
for in the New Retail Quarter. This would make it more difficult to achieve
development in the Core Retail Area and for the City Centre to enhance its
market share.
2.97
Given the capacity of the New Retail Quarter to absorb growth, and increase
its share of spending, as well as developments in other districts, there is no
quantitative need for further out-of-centre non-food retail floorspace. The
CWHB Study54 reported that retail warehousing commitments in the Sheffield
area were already excessive. Current levels of retail warehouse commitment
would result in this section of the market enhancing its market share at the
expense of existing town centres. If they were all implemented, the share of
non-food spending taken by retail warehousing would rise from 18% in 2002
to 21% in 2008. Given this surplus, the Study concluded that there was no
quantitative need to plan for additional sites over the period of the Local
Development Framework.
2.98
There might however be a qualitative need for non-food retail development
outside the City Centre to support district centres. This is recognised by the
Sheffield Retail Study55 which notes that ‘broadening the range of goods sold
in a centre adds to its vitality and viability’.
Restricting retail development at Meadowhall
2.99
Of all out-of-centre development, development at Meadowhall is particularly
likely to damage the City Centre because of the overlap in their potential retail
offer. There is already overlap of roles between the City Centre and
Meadowhall and there will be further duplication between Meadowhall and the
new facilities proposed in the New Retail Quarter. Where the two centres
currently complement rather than duplicate each other it is as a result of the
very weaknesses that the New Retail Quarter is intended to address:
Meadowhall currently has younger and more affluent consumers than the City
Centre. The overlaps are described below.
Catchment Areas
2.100 Their catchment areas will increasingly overlap as the New Retail Quarter
develops. The CWHB Study shows that for the New Retail Quarter to be
successful it would have to become a destination for a shopping/day-out
experience and an alternative to other centres, including Meadowhall. The
54
CWHB Study Executive Summary para 34 see http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planningand-city-development/planning-documents/background-reports/retail-studies-in-sheffield
55 Sheffield Retail Study (2003) paragraph 4.56
-26-
NRQ would have to increase significantly the City Centre’s share of the
market from an area that is wider than its current limited catchment area,
shown at Figure 2. (Appendix 2. Sheffield City Centre Comparison Goods
Catchment shows the potential catchment area of the New Retail Quarter).
Meadowhall and the New Retail Quarter would therefore be catering for trade
within an increasingly similar wide catchment area.
2.101 Meadowhall is located at Junction 34 of the M1 so is more accessible by car
than the City Centre for people living in Chesterfield, Rotherham, Barnsley,
Worksop and beyond56. It also has free parking for over 12,000 vehicles. To
increase its market share from these areas the City Centre would have to
compensate for its lower car-based accessibility by improving its retail offer
and by providing additional attractions that can be linked with a shopping trip.
The CWHB Study assessed the likelihood of the City Centre being able to
increase its share of the market from each zone in the Study Area57 and
concluded that a ‘substantial opportunity’ for an increased share from the
wider catchment area did in fact exist, although this would be reduced if
Meadowhall were allowed to expand.
Figure 2: Current Catchment Areas: Sheffield City Centre and Meadowhall
Share of Retail Turnover from the Study Area, 2002
Catchment Area
Mean distance from
City Centre
Sheffield
City Centre
Meadowhall
Primary
6 miles
76%
27%
Secondary
12 miles
14%
29%
Tertiary
22 miles
5%
20%
Beyond Tertiary (CWHB Estimate)
5%
25%
100%
100%
Total
Source: Table D of a City-Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods
Retailing (page 30). Mean distance calculated by SCC
Type of goods
2.102 The type of goods they will sell overlap. Regional centres differ from smaller
centres in that they offer of a wide range of clothing and footwear58. To
enhance its role as a regional centre the City Centre must therefore improve
its current fashion offer so that it becomes more similar to Meadowhall’s.
Figure 3 shows that Meadowhall has more clothes shops than the City Centre.
56
These areas are identified by CWHB as being within the Secondary and Tertiary catchment areas of
the NRQ
57 CWHB Study, Chapter 6
58 CWHB Study paragraph 4.20
-27-
Figure 3: Comparison of shop types at Meadowhall and City Centre
160
140
City Centre
Number of units
120
Meadowhall
100
80
60
40
20
0
Food, CTN Clothing
Other non- Service &
food
Financial
Food and
Drink &
Others
Vacant
(Class A)
Shop type
Source: GOAD Maps of the City Centre and Meadowhall, 2005
Customer base
2.103 Their customer base will overlap. The City Centre must attract leading
developers, investors and occupiers to be successful. These in turn require
younger and more affluent consumers than the City Centre now has.
Meadowhall’s customers are currently upmarket of both national and local
population profiles. They have higher car ownership than City Centre
shoppers (See Figure 4), are more likely to be in higher social grades (Figure
5) and are younger: 29% were aged 18-34, compared with only 18% of those
who last went to the City Centre59 (
59
NEMS Household Survey Respondents to Q20: Where did you last go to buy clothes, footwear and
other fashion goods?
-28-
Figure 6).
Figure 4: Cars in household - Meadowhall and City Centre shoppers
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No Car
50%
Car in hhold
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Meadowhall
Sheffield
city centre
Survey
Base
Source: NEMS Telephone Survey for CWHB Study 2002
-29-
Figure 5: Social Grade of shoppers at Meadowhall and City Centre
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
C2DE
ABC1
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Meadowhall
Sheffield
city centre
Survey
Base
Source: NEMS Telephone Survey for CWHB Study 2002
-30-
Figure 6: Ages of shoppers at Meadowhall and City Centre
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
55+
35 to 54
18 to 34
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Meadowhall
Sheffield
city centre
Survey
Base
Source: NEMS Telephone Survey for CWHB Study 2002
Shopping-as-Leisure destination
2.104 To attract customers from farther away, the City Centre would have to become
a destination that makes a long trip worthwhile. The 2002-3 GB Day Visits
Survey60 showed the popularity of leisure shopping - 71% of ‘tourism leisure
day visits’ in Britain were to towns and cities (rather than to the seaside and
the countryside) and for 60% of these trips the main purpose was eating /
drinking out, entertainment and shopping. The average round trip was 30
miles. Cafes, bars and restaurants and other leisure uses would therefore
encourage day visits. Meadowhall and the City Centre would be seen as
alternative day-out destinations so it would be inappropriate to permit nonretail proposals at Meadowhall that would divert people from the City Centre
as a destination for a day out retail experience.61
60
GB Day Visits Survey 2002-3. The survey was sponsored by a consortium of national agencies
responsible for recreation and tourism in Great Britain.
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Publications/articles/Publication_tcm2-19277.asp
61 The City Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods Retailing paragraph 36vii
-31-
Size and type of their retail units
2.105 The size and type of their retail units will overlap. Shops in the New Retail
Quarter would be of similar size and quality to those at Meadowhall. Many
retailers seeking a presence in the Sheffield area will want only one shop, so
take-up of new units at Meadowhall would lessen the likelihood of take-up or
development of new units in the City Centre.
Conclusion on retail development
2.106 In conclusion, If Meadowhall and the City Centre are ‘complementary’, it is in
ways that should not be perpetuated if the City Centre is to be revitalised.
Policy SS1 therefore rejects Options S2b, which would allow for Meadowhall
having a complementary role and retaining its market share. The potential
overlaps between Meadowhall and the City Centre are substantial enough to
mean that to the retailer, developer and shopper, they would be seen as
genuine alternatives. Allowing development at Meadowhall would therefore
have a direct effect on the likelihood of developers investing in the City
Centre, retailers locating there, or people going there to shop. The City Centre
should be given priority and competing development at Meadowhall limited if
the New Retail Quarter is to be successful and if the City Centre is to be
regenerated - a key part of Sheffield Development Framework’s spatial
strategy. The CWHB study recommended that the Council should:
seek to resist all planning applications for additional retail or leisure
floorspace at Meadowhall, at least prior to the development of the NRQ.
Meadowhall is a regional centre having significant overlaps in retail
goods, formats and catchment areas etc. with Sheffield City Centre. In
circumstances where the City Council and other regional regeneration
bodies are, through the promotion of the NRQ, seeking to differentiate
the City Centre’s retail and leisure offer from centres, such as
Meadowhall, for sound social and economic reasons, it would be wholly
inappropriate to permit additional floorspace that would either
consolidate or enhance its attraction. 62
Arguments for and against a total ban against retail floorspace
2.107 Option S2a would prohibit all retail development at Meadowhall. It has been
argued that such a ban on retail development would not allow Meadowhall to
evolve and respond to changing shopping and leisure trends63. However, as
shown in the paragraphs below, it has until now been possible for Meadowhall
to adapt its existing floorspace to new circumstances without need for further
planning permissions.
2.108 Since 1995 national planning policy has become increasingly restrictive
towards extensions of out-of-centre regional shopping centres64 and the
amount of additional floorspace for which planning permission has been
62
CWHB Study, (vii)
Comment 305.10 by G L Hearn on behalf of British Land, owners of Meadowhall in response to
Emerging Option S2a
64 Compare PPG6(1995) and PPS6 (2005)
63
-32-
sought, and which has been permitted, at Meadowhall has been fairly small.
Appendix 6. Increases in floorspace permitted at Meadowhall shows that only
4,643 sq m of retail floorspace has been allowed over the past ten years, most
before 2000.
2.109 However Meadowhall has shown that it is possible to optimise the use of
floorspace and generate more turnover without needing planning permissions.
Since 2000 Meadowhall’s retail and leisure area has grown from 1,340,000 sq
ft (124,500 sq m) () to 1.5m sq ft65. This is largely due to reconfiguration of
internal space, which has, until May 200666, not needed planning permission.
The Valuation Office Agency Ratings List67 shows that mezzanine floorspace
now exists in more than 20% of Meadowhall’s units and amounts to 13,100 sq
m. The two largest floorspace increases have been
 7,570 sq m of floorspace that was developed in 1999 to form BHS, H&M,
Sportsworld and Mothercare, out of the unit that used to be Savacentre,
and
 a new mezzanine to extend the first floor mall, started before May 2006 but
to be opened in late 2007, that will provide an additional retail area of
around 4,300 sq m68.
2.110 Despite the new definition of development, there is still scope for units at
Meadowhall to expand through mezzanines, since mezzanines of less than
200 sq m will still not need planning permission.
2.111 Refurbishment and re-development is possible even without increases in
floorspace at Meadowhall. A major refurbishment programme for Meadowhall,
featuring improvements to the lighting and installation of mall cooling, started
in June 2005 and is set for completion in autumn 2007, at a total cost of £38
million. The physical structure of Meadowhall is flexible enough to
accommodate changes in retailer’s requirements. Adjustments have been
made to walls between units to increase or decrease floorspace, and retailers
have moved premises. The Meadowhall Fact Pack 2006 reports that when
Meadowhall opened in September 1990 there were 217 retail outlets. Ten
years later, 45% of the original stores remain, although 20% of these stores
have relocated to new addresses within the Centre.
2.112 Space previously used for storage has been changed to retail. Meadowhall’s
‘Accelerated Response Centre’ (ARC), established in 2002, provides retailers
at Meadowhall with 25,000 sq ft (2,300 sq m) of nearby warehousing and a
delivery service that allows retailers to create additional sales floor space by
65
British Land Annual Reports for 2000 (p23) and 2007 (p49)
Circular 01/2006 ‘Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System’ states that internal
floorspace increases, such as mezzanine floors, of 200 square metres or more in buildings used for
retail purposes (other than for the sale of hot food), are to be classed as development and as such will
require planning permission.
67 Valuation Office Agency Ratings Lists
68 British Land Annual Report 2006 p 15
66
-33-
relocating their stock to the ARC. The service was continuing to expand in
200669.
2.113 Nevertheless, the amount of floorspace that can be used for mezzanines or
changed from storage to retail is finite. In the course of the next 10-20 years
there may be need for refurbishment or enhancement of Meadowhall’s
facilities that could benefit the City as a whole, outweigh any harm to the City
Centre and be achieved without substantial increase to Meadowhall’s
floorspace. The SS1 statement that Meadowhall should ‘remain at around its
present size’ does not preclude retail development. SS1 could allow it in the
form of replacement floorspace, provided that provided that Meadowhall
remained at around its present size. PPS6 indicates that this may be
acceptable. It says that the renewal or replacement of existing facilities at
regional shopping centres may be appropriate where this would involve
‘neither additional floorspace nor additional car parking facilities’.70
2.114 The City Policies document will specify more exactly what sort of development
and how much would be appropriate at Meadowhall. The wording in the
Preferred Options takes a robust position on this and it accords with the EIP
Panel’s recommendation that there should be no development at regional
shopping centres. If the Government did not accept this, then it would be
preferable for the City Policies to specify appropriate levels of marginal growth
in floorspace over certain time periods, rather than use criteria policies. This
will give greater certainty to all those concerned in retail development in the
City. In the meantime, the Core Strategy Policy provides the broad context for
the more precise regulatory policy.
Consideration of other Options
2.115 The emerging options (see paragraph 2.57) dealt with the amount and type of
development that should be allowable at Meadowhall, within the constraints of
national and regional policy and the need to prioritise City Centre
regeneration. Two options, S2a and S2b, were considered above. Two other
options, S2c and S2d, dealt with exceptional circumstances that might exist to
justify large-scale development at Meadowhall. The paragraphs below
evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
Expand Meadowhall as a local facility with district centre status, S2c
2.116 The option of expanding Meadowhall as a local facility with district centre
status was rejected for several reasons.
2.117 It would support further retail development there under the sequential
approach, since district centres are identified as town centres in the Plan. This
could be contrary to the RSS policy E2’s prohibition of large-scale
development at Meadowhall.
2.118 If Meadowhall were a district centre, its de facto role as a regional shopping
centre would not be extinguished, so any large scale retail expansion
69
70
BCSC Purple Apple Marketing Award 2006
PPS6 paragraph 2.14
-34-
allowable as a consequence of its designation as a district centre would be
indistinguishable from an expansion to it as a regional shopping centre. This
would be unacceptable in terms of national and regional policy guidance.
2.119 Meadowhall has little surrounding residential population for which it can act as
a focus for civic activity so does not qualify for having town centre status. It is
over 700 metres from existing housing areas and does not provide a broad
range of facilities and services or fulfil a function as a focus for the local
community. It has no offices, housing, cultural facilities, libraries, hotels,
conference centres, and educational facilities.
2.120 There is unlikely to be any future need to establish Meadowhall as a district
centre. Policy SH2 of the Core Strategy proposes housing in the longer term
(after 2020/21) in this part of the Lower Don Valley, though development could
take place before then if certain constraints can be overcome. Policy SLD2
would accept some housing as part of a mixed-use development subject to
certain conditions being satisfied. However, if housing were built in the
Meadowhall area, the amount of retailing needed to support that housing
would not be great. A small supermarket could cater for the top up
convenience spending of the 700 homes suggested in this part of the Lower
Don Valley in the Housing Background Report. Many of these would be built
in the longer term.
2.121 In any case there are sites in or adjacent to nearby district centres such as
Spital Hill and Darnall, which could accommodate further need and which are
nearer to existing residential communities (see policies SNE4 and SLD6). The
emphasis should be on regenerating existing centres, where they are
accessible and where they would support HMR investment.
2.122 Although not proposing a district centre, the River Don District Plan 71 has
proposed an additional 7,500 sq m of retail space at Meadowhall to serve a
new residential and office areas that the Masterplan proposes nearby. The
City Council has expressed its concerns about the amount of retail floorspace
proposed in the Plan and consider that this amount of retail floorspace would
constitute large-scale expansion of Meadowhall and would be contrary to both
the RSS and PPS672.
2.123 Similarly the City Council will not support a major foodstore in the Meadowhall
area. The guidance given in PPS6 directs the Council to considering, through
a sequential test, the location of convenience retailing in existing District
Centres. The nearest appropriate centres are Spital Hill where there is
Cabinet approval for a major supermarket to support the Centre; and Darnall
where we are working with a private sector developer to bring about the
regeneration of an under performing centre. There are also further
supermarket proposals at Chaucer to the north, which indicates there will be
no scope for another major supermarket at Meadowhall. The development of
71River
Don District Masterplan commissioned by British Land and the City Council from Urban
Strategies (2007)
72 Cabinet Report on the LDV Masterplan, 11th May 2005
-35-
some 700 dwellings in the District will clearly not support a major supermarket
on its own.
Expand Meadowhall as a leisure facility e.g. as a casino or leisure destination
– Option S2d
2.124 Options S2d was to allow leisure development under some circumstances.
Opportunities to develop large-scale leisure developments may arise during
the plan period. Meadowhall is highly accessible by public transport and if new
sites were unavailable in or at the edge of the City Centre, Meadowhall could
be an appropriate location. Further leisure development could attract people to
the City and benefit its economy.
2.125 The impact of leisure development on the City Centre is likely to be less than
that of retail. Compared with shopping, there appears to be less overlap
between any large-scale leisure development that is proposed, or is feasible,
in the City Centre and any in Meadowhall or the Lower Don Valley. However it
still needs to be ensured that traffic levels at congested Meadowhall and
Tinsley motorway junctions are acceptable, that the final RSS policy E2 is
satisfied and that the tests of PPS6 are satisfied. The issue of leisure
development is dealt with in more detail from paragraph 5.27 on, in relation to
SS4, and in policy SLD1.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.126 Concentrating development in the City Centre will encourage linked trips, and
facilities in larger centres are more likely to be accessible by public transport
for a larger number of people than other centres in the City. Within the City it
is therefore the most appropriate and sustainable location for major non-food
retail development such as the New Retail Quarter.
2.127 A representative of the Green Party in Sheffield who objected to the policy
(see under Consultations) was concerned that the NRQ would harm existing
small shops and businesses and destroy heritage sites. However as well as
being accessible, it would bring economic benefits to the City as a whole,
leading to increased development and more job opportunities, so supporting
the sustainability aim of achieving a strong economy. Incremental change
would not bring the degree of change required to achieve these aims. The
NRQ would not involve wholesale destruction. It is recognised that there are
concerns about aspects of the specific current proposals but these are about
maters that are not integral to the strategic policy. Under the proposals, two of
the three listed buildings and the façade of Pinstone Street would be retained
and enhanced.
2.128 Although both the City Centre and Meadowhall are accessible, Meadowhall is
less accessible than the City Centre by public transport or on foot from
surrounding residential areas. Bus and tram routes radiate from the City
Centre, rather than Meadowhall and 20,000 people live in the Central Area,
while Meadowhall is over 700 metres from the nearest residential area. These
differences are reflected in the mode of transport that people select to reach
the two destinations (See Figure 8). Development in the City Centre rather
-36-
than Meadowhall, as promoted by SS1, is therefore consistent with the
sustainability aims associated with reducing the need to travel and increasing
people’s access to facilities.
Figure 7: Mode of Transport to Sheffield City Centre and Meadowhall
Mode
Sheffield
City Centre (1)
Meadowhall (2)
Walk / cycle
19%
-
Bus
42%
10%
Train
3%
4%
Tram
5%
4%
Car / motor cycle
30%
80%
Total
100%
100%
Source: (1) Appendix 5. Sheffield City Centre Visitors Survey (NEMS ) and
(2) Meadowhall Transport Plan
2.129 Development in the city centre is also more likely to support its revitalisation
as an economic driver for the sub-region and therefore be consistent with
sustainability aims relating to achieving a strong and sustainable economy.
2.130 The rejected dispersal option minimises travel distances but unless facilities
are within easy walking distance they are more likely than under the policy to
involve a car trip to get there, as bus and tram routes generally pass through
the larger centres. Whether the policy achieves the sustainability objectives
depends on where development would otherwise have been located. Edge-ofcentre development is more sustainable than out-of-centre development but
less than in-centre development. The merits of each option depend on the
type and size of leisure or retail facility proposed, the catchment area it would
serve, whether it is accessible by public transport, the number of people
visiting it and whether it is likely to promote linked trips.
2.131 By concentrating provision in larger centres some people will not have these
facilities close to their homes, so it will be important to ensure that there is
good access by sustainable modes of transport from residential areas to
District Centres and the City Centre.
2.132 The preferred option in the policy is also supported in relation to the flood risk
sustainability objective. The Core Retail Area and the New Retail Quarter is
situated within Zone 1 Low Probability. Almost all of Meadowhall shopping
centre is in Zone 3a High Probability although two areas of the car park are in
Zone 1 Low Probability. This does not mean that development at Meadowhall
would be ruled out on sustainability grounds. Shopping is classed as ‘less
vulnerable’, and so development of this use in risk areas is therefore not
precluded by PPS25, but developments will need to incorporate flood
mitigation and warning measures. But the sequential approach points strongly
to the City Centre as the preferred location. There is more choice between
locations for shopping than other major land uses, and the sequential
-37-
approach has greater weight in relation to the exceptions test than it does for
those activities where the supply of land is more limited.
Equality Appraisal
2.133 Locating facilities in larger centres would be more likely to make them
accessible by public transport. The option of distributing facilities outside
centres minimises travel distances but for people living beyond walking
distance from the facility a car trip is more likely to be needed to get there, as
bus and tram routes generally pass through the larger centres. For these
reasons development at the edge of centres is more sustainable than out-ofcentre development but less so than in-centre development.
2.134 Nevertheless the merits of each option depend on the type and size of leisure
or retail facility proposed, the catchment area it would serve, whether it is
accessible by public transport, the number of people visiting it and whether it
is likely to promote linked trips.
Consultation Responses
2.135 Most respondents to consultation on the Preferred Options supported retail
development in the town centres wherever possible, better shops, better
restaurants and tidy, attractive streets. All consultees except the Green Party
supported the development of a New Retail Quarter in the City Centre (PS1).
The Green Party response is discussed at paragraph 2.127 above 2.126
above. For the consultation on the New Retail Quarter Supplementary
Planning Guidance all respondents had supported the New Retail Quarter.
2.136 There was overall agreement that Meadowhall and the Lower Don Valley were
accessible locations but opinions differed on the scale of any expansion to be
allowed at Meadowhall (PS5). British Land objected that the strategy should
provide for further development in the area. Their agents’ view was that
Meadowhall should be encouraged as a major economic asset for the City,
that it should be allowed to respond to changing shopping and leisure trends,
that retail development at Meadowhall was needed to support new residents,
that Meadowhall was complementary to the City Centre, and that Meadowhall
was highly accessible. The Core Strategy acknowledges that it is accessible,
and that development, including leisure development, in the area can
contribute to the economy of the City. Nevertheless the arguments about
complementarity and need for new floorspace were not accepted, for reasons
given above.
2.137 Other comments on the retail / leisure policies were almost entirely from
organisations rather than individuals, and most wanted the policy to control
development at Meadowhall. They included Sheffield One, the CPRE South
Yorkshire, Derbyshire County Council, the Highways Agency, Sheffield First
Partnership, Sheffield Green Party, Yorkshire & Humber Regional Assembly
and Yorkshire Forward.
-38-
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
2.138 Construction of the New Retail Quarter is expected to begin in early 2008 with
completion by 2012. The target for Policy SS1 is:
 98,500 square metres (gross area) of new retail (Class A) floorspace in the
Core Retail Area of the City Centre. (The New Retail Quarter)
2.139 The indicators are:
a
Amount of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area
of the City Centre
b
Percentage of completed retail development in the Core Retail
Area of the City Centre
c
Amount of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area
of the City Centre
d
Percentage of completed retail development in the Core Retail
Area of the City Centre
2.140 Provision for non-food development outside the Core Retail Area, where
appropriate, will be considered in the light of the criteria in the City Policies
document.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
2.141 In the unlikely event that the current proposals for the New Retail Quarter
were significantly modified, the aims of the policy in supporting retail
development in the best location are still valid and would be implemented.
Further expansion at Meadowhall would undermine the policy but the national
and regional policies provide strong support for resisting further expansion of
an already very substantial centre.
Conclusion
2.142 National, regional and local policies give priority to retail development in the
City Centre, and in the New Retail Quarter in particular. A policy of
concentrating major non-food retail development in the City Centre is the best
for supporting the vitality and viability of the City Centre. Concentrating it in the
Core Retail Area will further support the vitality and viability of the City Centre.
A quantitative and qualitative need for the New Retail Quarter exists. To
achieve the successful development of the New Retail Quarter major non-food
retail development elsewhere, particularly at Meadowhall, should be
discouraged. The approach is decidedly more sustainable than alternative
options and received significant support in the consultation.
-39-
3.
DISTRICT CENTRES
Introduction
3.1
The spatial policies for shopping are based on a three-tier hierarchy of centres
of different sizes serving a range of catchment populations: the City Centre,
district centres and neighbourhood centres. The typology conforms to Annex
A of PPS6. District centres are groups of shops often containing at least one
supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services. They are well
served by public transport and near where people live. Neighbourhood centres
might include a small supermarket, a newsagent, post office, a pharmacy, a
hot-food takeaway and launderette. The distinction between the two types of
centre is mainly one of scale. District centres are accessible by public
transport and should provide for main food shopping whereas neighbourhood
centres are intended to serve small catchments in residential areas, providing
a basic range of shops for top-up shopping and services and community
facilities.
3.2
Over the past twenty years the role of Sheffield’s district centres has changed.
More people use the car to go shopping and patterns of working life have
encouraged the one-stop shop. Superstores, both in-centre and out-of-centre,
have taken a larger share of people's food spending. However District Centres
still have a vital role as focal points for communities within the city and for
strengthening local identity. They are near to where people live and accessible
by public transport, so can help to reduce the need to travel. They can
provide a choice of shops and essential services. They include the public
buildings and community facilities that have grown up alongside the shops.
They provide the opportunity to make linked trips and save time and
resources.
3.3
They are likely to have a more secure future if they can attract both public and
private investment and, in some cases, distinctive roles. Policy SS2 affirms
the contribution of District Centres. It identifies where significant renewal and
expansion will support the renewal of housing areas and help to satisfy the
need for food retail provision in the city. Centres will be strengthened by
complementary small-scale offices and housing though shopping should
remain their primary purpose.
3.4
District centres also have a role to play in providing local employment. New
retail development can create new employment opportunities locally, although
these may displace other retail jobs in the wider catchment area.
3.5
Food retailing is important to most District Centres even though food retailers
may form only a minority of the shops. It provides a regular reason for going to
the centre and the shop windows of food retailers can add to the identity of a
centre.
-41-
Policy SS2
The District Centres are:
Banner Cross
Broomhill
Chapeltown
Chaucer (proposed)
Crookes
Crystal Peaks
Darnall
Ecclesall Road
Firth Park
Heeley
Hillsborough
London Road
Manor Top
Spital Hill
Stocksbridge
Woodhouse
Woodseats
District Centres will be encouraged in fulfilling their role of providing for
everyday needs with a range of retail, leisure and community facilities,
appropriate in scale and function to the role of the centre. They may
also include concentrations of specific shops or services in response to
the market in their particular area. Smaller-scale offices and residential
development away from shop frontages will complement shops and
services.
Centres at Darnall, Spital Hill and Manor Top, will be improved and,
where possible, expanded. A new centre will be developed at Chaucer.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National policy
3.6
PPS6 requires development plans to plan positively for the growth and
development of town centres73 (see also paragraphs 1.19 - 1.20 of this report).
Policy SS2 meets these requirements in the following three ways.
3.7
First, it designates district centres that form part of a hierarchy and network of
centres. SS2 promotes the role of district centres in ‘providing for everyday
needs with a range of retail, leisure and community facilities’. The envisaged
role is consistent with the PPS6 description of district centres:
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing
at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail
services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as
local public facilities such as a library.74
3.8
73
74
The 17 District Centres are ‘town centres’ that are evenly distributed
throughout the city and are in locations that serve residential areas, where
people’s everyday needs can be met at the local level, in conformity with
PPS6 para 1.6
PPS6 Annex A Table 1
-42-
PPS6. Most are existing centres, but a new district centre has been identified
at Chaucer Buchanan.
3.9
Second, the Planning Reasons Section shows that need for further main town
centre uses has been assessed in relation to district centres.
3.10
Third, it focuses development in centres and identify sites in development plan
documents. Policy SS2 identifies locations where there is capacity to
accommodate development that would be of a scale and type appropriate in
district centres, such as supermarkets and superstores.
3.11
SS2 proposes that district centres include ‘concentrations of specific shops or
services in response to the market in their particular area. Smaller-scale
offices and residential development away from shop frontages will
complement shops and services.’ This is consistent with PPS6, which
promotes diversity of use in district centres.
Improvement and Expansion
3.12
SS2 names the centres of Darnall, Spital Hill and Manor Top for improvement.
These centres serve areas that are amongst the 10% most deprived super
output areas (SOAs) in England75 (See Appendix 4. Most Deprived Areas,
Sheffield) so their identification as suitable centres for development is
consistent with PPS6, which requires local planning authorities to support
deprived areas by
 Taking account of Government objectives to promote social inclusion and
to encourage investment to regenerate deprived areas, creating additional
employment and an improved physical environment (para 1.5)
 Planning for investment in deprived areas by strengthening/identifying
opportunities for growth of existing centres or, where appropriate,
designating new centres (para 2.53)
 In assessing the need for further development, giving additional weight to
identifying a range of sites to serve deprived areas (para 2.35)
 When applying the sequential test, giving weight to locations that best
serve the needs of deprived areas (para 2.44)
 In assessing sites, giving particular consideration to the potential for
additional employment in deprived areas (para 2.51)
 With regard to access to local shops and services for deprived areas,
identifying opportunities to strengthen existing centres/propose new
centres to remedy deficiencies in provision. (para 2.56).
75
Sheffield Overall Index Map
-43-
Regional Policy
3.13
SS2 is consistent with YH6. It includes Chapeltown and Stocksbridge in its list
of district centres to be supported. Chapeltown and Stocksbridge are listed in
the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy Policy SY1 as Main Towns, distinct from
the urban area of Sheffield itself. SY1 states that development here should be
promoted to support their regeneration and strengthen their role as service
centres.
3.14
The reasoning for Policy YH6 states that Main Towns perform ‘a similar role to
Principal Service Centres’ and that they will be the main local focus for
housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural
activities and facilities. It says that the role of Principal Service Centres, and
by implication the Main Towns, as accessible and vibrant places to live, work
and invest in should be enhanced through spatial planning. Policy YH8(ii)
requires land for development to provide for sufficient development at
Principal Service Centres to enable them to fulfil their service centre role.
3.15
The other district centres listed in SS2 are within the city’s urban area. RSS
Policy YH5 says that Sheffield, as a Regional Centre, should be made an
attractive and safe place ‘where people want to live, work, and invest in’. This
will be achieved through spatial planning and investment measures to …
iv) Strengthen the identity and roles of city/town centres as accessible
and vibrant focal points for high trip generating uses
3.16
SS2’s encouragement of retail, leisure and community facilities in District
Centres will help achieve these aims.
Other Sheffield Policies
3.17
The Sheffield Statement for Transform South Yorkshire notes the importance
of centres to sustainable neighbourhoods: ‘There is a wealth of published
research, which demonstrates the importance and value of investing in
neighbourhood centres as a key component of sustainable
neighbourhoods.’76. The individual Area Development Framework Strategies
for Housing Market Renewal in Sheffield aim to create sustainable
neighbourhoods of ‘choice and distinction’. In this context, investment and
improvement in neighbourhood retail centres and the shopping and
community facilities they provide will be instrumental in creating sustainable
neighbourhoods. The Sheffield Statement for Transform South Yorkshire
promotes all three district centres that are within HMR Areas (Spital Hill, Firth
Park, Manor Top) as well as certain local centres. Studies have been or are
being undertaken to assess the role of all centres within the three HMR areas.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
3.18
76
The Policy is consistent with the City Strategy’s Ambitions to promote
successful neighbourhoods:
Sheffield Statement paragraph 4.24
-44-
‘We will continue the development and implementation of the
masterplans for our most deprived neighbourhoods, which provide a
framework for the regeneration of housing areas and district shopping
centres so that they are attractive, sustainable places to live and work.’
3.19
District and neighbourhood centres have an important role to play in this
ambition and this is also recognised in the ‘Sheffield Statement’ for Transform
South Yorkshire - the spatial strategy for Housing Market Renewal.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test
6)
Core Strategy Objectives
3.20
SS2 aims to support the vitality and viability of district centres by encouraging
a variety of town centre uses there and expanding them where appropriate.
Their concentration in one place will maximise the opportunity for linked trips.
The policy therefore supports the following objectives of the Core Strategy;
 S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created
 S4.3 Provision at district and neighbourhood level of local community,
health, education, training, shopping, open space, leisure and other
services and facilities
 S5.4 Workplaces located where they are accessible to all by a range of
transport options, including from areas of high unemployment
 S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to
travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single
journeys to serve several purposes
 S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
3.21
The district centres have no significant impact outside the city boundary and
there are, therefore, no inconsistencies with adjoining local authorities’ plans.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
3.22
Two issues relating to district centres were considered explicitly in the
Emerging Options Report as Issues S4 and S5:
 Changes to the hierarchy of district and neighbourhood centres (S5); and
 How district (and neighbourhood) centres should be developed (S4)
Their strength and weaknesses of their associated options are identified
below.
-45-
Changes to the hierarchy of district and neighbourhood centres
(Emerging Issue S5)
3.23
The Plan takes as its starting point the hierarchy of centres shown in the UDP.
Currently Sheffield has 17 designated District Centres. The list of UDP centres
is the same as proposed in SS2, except that the UDP list includes Gleadless
and does not include Buchanan/ Chaucer. Options existed for identifying new
levels in the hierarchy, downgrading the status of existing centres or
designating new centres. Explicit Options considered were:
3.24
Option S5a: Define a higher level of ‘town centre’ between the City Centre
and District Centres for the larger or more detached District Centres, such as
Hillsborough, Crystal Peaks, Stocksbridge, Chapeltown to allow larger scale
retail or office development.
3.25
The strengths of Option S5a were:
 Would concentrate larger scale development in centres where it was most
needed or most accessible for nearby residents.
 Would protect larger centres from impact from out-of-scale development in
smaller centres.
3.26
Its weaknesses is:
 Loss of potential for large-scale development in the smaller District
Centres.
3.27
Option S5b: Downgrade those District Centres, e.g. Gleadless Townend and
Heeley, that do not now satisfy the criteria for District Centres to
‘neighbourhood centres’
3.28
The strength of Option S5b is:
 Would concentrate large scale retail development in the larger centres
where they would allow linked trips with other shops and businesses, be
more accessible by public transport and help reinforce the vitality and
viability of those centres.
3.29
Its weakness is:
 Loss of opportunities for larger scale retail development for residents of
that area
3.30
Option S5c: Designate the proposed new centre at Buchanan Road as a
District Centre.
3.31
The strengths of Option S5c are:
 Would help ensure the success of the Buchanan Road centre by
potentially attracting further retail development
-46-
 District centre shopping facilities here would retain spending in the area,
reducing the need to travel to Hillsborough or out of centre superstores
 More and better shops could attract new residents, in accordance with the
spatial strategy for Housing Market Renewal.
3.32
Its weaknesses are:
 Would be a loss of school playing field area if this meant significant
expansion
 Over-development could mean a loss of trade from existing centres
How district centres should be developed (Emerging Issue S4)
3.33
The options set out below for supporting district centres are not necessarily
mutually exclusive but reflect different emphases: supporting the shopping
environment, encouraging a wider range of uses, enlarging their boundaries,
and supporting their potential specialisms.
3.34
Option S4a (Conservation): Support the shopping function of existing
centres through safeguarding shopping facilities, safeguarding existing shortstay shopper car parks and encouraging new ones where needed,
environmental improvements and area management measures.
3.35
The strength of Option S4a is that
 Environmental improvements and attractive, convenient and safe parking
will increase the attraction of centres to shoppers and support the
economic viability of the centre.
3.36
Its weaknesses are:
 Sites will have to be retained for parking and properties retained for retail
so there will be fewer opportunities for new housing, offices and other non
retail developments in District Centres.
 Demand for shops may be insufficient to sustain shop uses in some
centres (especially in light of the strength of out of centre supermarkets
3.37
Option S4b (Expansion): Seek to significantly increase the size and quality
of the shopping function of District Centres
3.38
The strengths of Option S4b are:
 Can contribute to urban renaissance enabling District Centres to serve a
greater role as hubs for their areas
 Reduces need to travel into the City Centre or to out-of-centre superstores
 Meets need for public transport accessibility
-47-
 Particular resources and opportunities exist in some District Centres that
have a key role in the spatial strategy of the Housing Market Renewal
Area.
 More modest measures may not be sufficient to maintain the role of
centres and their vitality
3.39
Its weaknesses are:
 In most centres there is not space for large new stores nor market demand
for smaller units.
 Resources for other improvements to centres are limited outside Housing
Market Renewal Areas
 Needs of through-traffic place limits on scope for improvements in many
centres
 There may not be the demand for increased shopping functions in some
District Centres.
3.40
Option C (Increase variety): Encourage a greater variety of service uses,
restaurants, takeaways, businesses and housing and not just shops
3.41
The strengths of Option S4c are that
 Would provide facilities in accessible locations
 May help maintain or improve the viability of the remaining shops
 Would maintain the vitality and viability of declining centres
3.42
Its weakness is:
 Could detract from provision of basic shopping for local residents
3.43
Option D (Market-based approach): Allow the market to bring about
changes in functions of centres, including specialist roles, e.g. development of
cafes and bars in Ecclesall Road, London Road.
3.44
The strengths of Option S4d is that
 Reflects the need for centres to adapt to changing patterns of demand and
mobility ·
 Allows centres to meet specific local demands·
 Allows specialisation to satisfy citywide needs e.g. small comparison
shops, second-hand shops need low-cost premises and these would not
be available in other equally accessible locations·
-48-
 Diversification that reflects centres’ distinctive characteristics could
increase their popularity as retail and leisure destinations
3.45
Its weaknesses are:
 Major change of use from basic shopping could harm the provision of retail
facilities that offer a service to local residents
 Non-shopping uses could take up buildings that occupy key positions in the
role of the centre that could otherwise be used for shops and would add
vitality and viability to the centre.
 Some non-shopping uses (e.g. takeaways) are incompatible with living
over the shop.
3.46
The Section on Planning Reasons explains how choices were made between
these options.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
Introduction
3.47
The elements of policy SS2 to be justified are:
 Why certain centres are included in, or excluded from, the list of district
centres
 Why a new centre should be developed at Buchanan / Chaucer
 That the identified centres can and should be expanded to accommodate
retail development that is needed
 The appropriateness of the strategy for other district centres
3.48
77
78
Central to all these issues is the PPS6 requirement for local development plan
documents to:
a
plan positively for the growth of all town centres, including
district centres.
b
in doing this, assess the need for further main town centre
uses, ensure there is the capacity to accommodate them77 and
allocate sufficient sites to meet the identified need for at least
the first five years from the adoption of their development plan
documents78, (i.e. up to 2015 in the case of Sheffield).
PPS6 paragraph 1.6
PPS6 paragraph 2.52
-49-
3.49
3.50
To inform the Plan in the light of these PPS6 requirements, the Council
commissioned a Sheffield Retail Study79. Its brief was to:
a
assess the levels of vitality and viability within the district
centres in Sheffield and recommend policies for district centres
b
assess the quantitative and qualitative need for new
convenience goods retail floorspace over the period to 2016,
particularly in the Southey Owlerton area of North Sheffield.
(This area lacks both a district centre and a food superstore).
c
carry out a qualitative assessment of need for non-food retailing
outside Sheffield City Centre. (Quantitative assessment of nonfood retailing was excluded from the study brief because such
an assessment had only recently been completed80)
The conclusions of the Study were taken into account in forming SS2. The
original study of 2003 was updated in 2005 to take account of changes in
spending forecasts and in shopping provision in the City.
List of District centres
3.51
The identification of district centres in Policy SS2 is based on designations in
Sheffield’s Unitary Development Plan. SS2 list the same 17 district centres
listed in the UDP, except that it leaves out Gleadless Townend and includes
Buchanan / Chaucer. The list is largely the same because most centres still
perform the district centre function described at Annex A of PPS6 (see
paragraph 3.7). Appendix 3. Sheffield District Centres – Units and Sales Area
shows that most district centres currently listed in the UDP have a variety of
food and non-food shops and other facilities. Except for the Southey Owlerton
area, where a new district centre is proposed, the existing district centres are
well distributed throughout the City and accessible by a choice of means of
transport.
3.52
The list of district centres in SS2 was compiled after considering Emerging
Option S5b - whether to downgrade some centres to a lower level in the
hierarchy, together with evidence from the Sheffield Retail Study. The Study
concluded81 that Spital Hill, Manor Top, Stocksbridge, Woodhouse, Crookes
and Gleadless Townend displayed the lowest levels of vitality and viability, as
did Heeley, apart from its retail warehousing. Nevertheless the Study
recommended that only Gleadless Townend and Heeley be downgraded to
local centres, and that the health of Spital Hill district centre should be closely
monitored over the Local Development Framework period to determine
whether it too should be downgraded.
‘The Sheffield Retail Study’ by White Young Green, published in July 2003 and updated in 2005 to
take account of new retail developments in the City and revised forecasts of spending growth. The text
of the reports is available on the Sheffield City Council website.
80 City Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods Retailing’ (Cushman Wakefield Healey Baker,
2002)
81 Sheffield Retail Study (2003) para 7.07
79
-50-
3.53
The submitted SS2 follows the SRS recommendation to downgrade
Gleadless. Gleadless Townend has least floorspace of all district centres in
Sheffield and does not have a large supermarket, nor a site for one, so does
not fit with the description of district centres given in PPS6 Annex A.
Downgrading it would concentrate retail development in the remaining larger
district centres and would allow linked trips with other shops and businesses,
be more accessible by public transport and help reinforce the vitality and
viability of those centres.
3.54
However SS2 maintains Heeley as a district centre because it is highly
accessible by a choice of means of transport and has potential for
development of a food supermarket. There is currently an outstanding
permission for a supermarket there.
3.55
SS2 also maintains Spital Hill as a district centre because it has an edge-ofcentre site, identified after the SRS (2005) was produced, which has potential
for a food superstore development that could enhance the vitality and viability
of the centre (See Area Background Paper for the North-East Urban Area).
Defining a higher level of ‘district centre’
3.56
Emerging Option S5a identified a possible new, higher level of ‘town centre’,
between the City Centre and district centres, for the larger or more detached
district centres. Examples of such centres might include such as Hillsborough
and Crystal Peaks, which are the largest centres outside the City Centre, and
Stocksbridge and Chapeltown, somewhat separate from the main built up
area of the City and which are listed as ‘main towns’ in the RSS Settlement
Network82.
3.57
The option would have produced a four level classification of centres. This
would have been one more level than the classification in Sheffield’s Unitary
Development Plan, which identifies only the City Centre, District Centres and
Local Centres although a 4 level classification would be consistent with the
general description of the role of different ‘town centres’ in Annex A of PPS6:
 city centres – the highest level
 town centres – the second level
 district centres – groups of shops often with at least one supermarket or
superstore and a range of non-retail services
 local centres – including a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a
small catchment
3.58
82
This option would have prioritised higher-level centres for retail and office
development over smaller ones and would have limited development in the
Yorkshire and Humber Plan - Draft for Public Consultation December 2005, Core Approach p52
-51-
smaller centres. Such restriction is allowed by PPS6, which suggests that
local authorities may83.
‘consider setting an indicative upper limit for the scale of developments
likely to be permissible in different types of centres, and developments
above these limits should be directed to centres higher up the town
centre hierarchy.’
3.59
Nevertheless, for retail planning, maintaining a two-level district centre
hierarchy would not have allowed for the need for flexibility. It may have meant
that opportunities to develop new sites in smaller centres could not have been
taken if it meant that the size limit on smaller centres would have been
breached. This would have been unduly inflexible as it would have limited the
opportunities for in-centre development in the City.
3.60
There may be advantages to locating large-scale development in the smaller
district centres (to encourage regeneration, fill gaps in the network, improve
the distribution of access to facilities, for example) that could outweigh the
benefits of maintaining the current size ranking of district centres within the
City.
3.61
Discouraging large scale development at a lower level of the hierarchy would
not necessarily cause it to be located at a higher level
3.62
There appeared to be no advantage in maintaining a higher tier of district
centres, for retail planning purposes.
3.63
For office development, on the other hand, there are fewer realistic
opportunities for development in the smaller centres. Given that the larger
district centres are generally more accessible by public transport than the
smaller ones, it was considered that there were advantages to maintaining a
two-tier approach to office development. In practice, this distinction was not
sufficient to merit including in the policy for the distribution of offices (see
policy SB3)
New district centre Chaucer / Buchanan Road –Option ES5c
3.64
Reasons for identifying Chaucer Buchanan as a centre are given in the Area
Background Report for the North East. The Council has approved a Cabinet
Report recommendation to designate Buchanan Road / Chaucer as a district
centre84. This recommendation has been carried through into the Plan. The
identification is consistent with PPS6 because:
a
PPS6 says plans should designate new centres of an
appropriate scale where there are deficiencies in the existing
network of centres (paragraph 2.3).
83
PPS6 paragraph 2.42
Report on the Southey Owlerton Redevelopment sites and Neighbourhood Centres Masterplans,
approved by Cabinet on 12th January 2005
84
-52-
b
It addresses deficiencies in the network by promoting an
existing centre (Buchanan Road) to ‘function at a higher level in
the hierarchy’ (paragraph 2.9)
c
The new centre would improve access to local facilities
(paragraphs 2.55–2.59)
d
It is in a deprived area. Where deficiencies are identified in the
existing network of centres, ‘new centres may be designated
through the plan-making process, with priority given to deprived
areas.’ (Paragraph 2.7). ‘Deprived areas’ are “typically those
within the most deprived 10% of ‘super output areas’, as
identified in the English Indices of Deprivation and defined by
the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)”.85 The areas to be
served by the proposed Chaucer Buchanan centre would
conform to this definition (see Appendix 4. Most Deprived
Areas, Sheffield).
e
PPS6 says local authorities should plan for investment in
deprived areas by, where appropriate, designating new centres
(paragraph 2.53)
Strategies for district centres
3.65
The Emerging Options Report for the Core Strategy considered four strategies
to improve district centres: Expansion, Conservation, Increasing variety, and
adopting a Market-based approach. These are outlined at paragraph 3.33
3.66
The four strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive and policy SS2 is
based on the conclusion that any of these approaches may be appropriate,
depending on the circumstances of the individual centre. For instance, the
improvements described at paragraph 3.33 in relation to the ‘Conservation’
approach may be put into effect in a centre at the same time that ‘Expansion’
may be the proposed strategy for that centre.
3.67
So, in line with PPS6, which recommends that plans should promote the
growth and development of existing centres86, SS2 promotes improvement
and where possible, expansion, of certain centres - Darnall, Spital Hill, Manor
Top, together with a new centre at Chaucer. However, where there is little
scope for expansion, diversification and market-oriented specialisation may
help maintain or improve the viability of the remaining shops and could
maintain the vitality and viability of declining centres. Diversification that
reflects centres’ distinctive characteristics could increase their popularity as
retail and leisure destinations. Allowing them to specialise could satisfy
citywide needs, e.g. small comparison shops, second-hand shops need lowcost premises which would not be available in other equally accessible
locations. Although planning policy has little influence over what type of shop
is in a centre, it can affect the balance between retail uses in general and
85
86
PPS6 Footnote 8 to paragraph 2.7
PPS6 paragraph 1.3
-53-
other uses such as houses, cafes, pubs and leisure uses. The accessibility of
community facilities can be improved if they are located in existing centres.
They can help support centres’ vitality and viability. So SS2 promotes their
role of providing for everyday needs with a range of retail, leisure and
community facilities of appropriate scale and allows development of local
specialisms. Smaller-scale offices and residential development away from
shop frontages will complement shops and services.
Improvement and Expansion
3.68
Darnall and Spital Hill both currently lack large supermarkets and have sites
available for development that could improve their vitality and viability. Further
detail on each of the centres in Housing Market Renewal Areas is given in the
relevant background reports (Lower Don Valley – policy SLD6, North East
Urban Area – policy NEU4 and South East Urban Area – policy SSE1).
Need for food retail floorspace
3.69
PPS6 requires Plans to take into account the need for retail floorspace. The
Core Strategy is a spatial strategy for development, so Policy SS2 prioritises
district centres to meet the need for main food shopping. This is reasonable
because food retailing constitutes an important part of a district centre’s role
(district centres are described as having ‘at least one supermarket or
superstore’ in PPS6 Annex A) so, in planning for district centres, particular
consideration should be given to the need for and provision of food shops.
3.70
Policy SS2 takes into account the need for food retail floorspace identified in
the Sheffield Retail Study (SRS). This calculated the increase in spending on
food over the plan period and how much new floorspace for food
supermarkets and superstores87 the City would need to accommodate it. The
SRS (2005) says that the figures, replicated in Figure 8 below, indicate that by
2010 there is ‘residual capacity to support two additional food superstores in
the City, and a significant number of smaller stores.’ 88.
Figure 8: Capacity for New Convenience Floorspace in the City
2005
2010
2016
Residual
Spending
£21m
£79m
£155m
Superstore
Floorspace
1,388 sq.m. net
5,177 sq.m.net
10,080 sq.m.net
Small Store
Floorspace
1,419 sq.m.net
5,294 sq.m.net
10,308 sq.m.net
Source. Sheffield Retail Study Revised Convenience Goods Expenditure
Capacity Assessment (June 2005) paragraph 6.02
PPS6 Annex A Table 3 describes supermarkets as: ‘Self-service stores selling mainly food, with a
trading floorspace less than 2,500 square metres, often with car parking’ and superstores as ‘Selfservice stores selling mainly food, or food and non-food goods, usually with more than 2,500 square
metres trading floorspace, with supporting car parking.’
88 Sheffield Retail Study (2005) paragraph 6.03
87
-54-
3.71
However, more recent projections of spending on convenience goods 89 show
that spending will grow at 0.9% per annum from 2005 rather than the 1.2%
assumed in the Sheffield Retail Study (2005). Lower spending growth
forecasts would reduce the need for floorspace needed shown above.
3.72
On the other hand the closure of Sainsbury’s superstore at Meadowhall was
not taken into account in the Sheffield Retail Study because it happened after
the Study was published. Replacing that store would increase the number of
superstores needed in the City.
3.73
Need will be examined in greater detail in a forthcoming revision of the
Sheffield Retail Study, but Figure 9 shows how the two changes described
above would affect the requirement for superstore floorspace shown in Figure
8. It suggests that there will be capacity to support three more superstores by
2010, rather than the two suggested by the Sheffield Retail Study, and a need
for four by 2016. These figures are however likely to be maxima because they
are based on assessments of ‘main food spending’ rather than spending in
superstores. Although most main food spending is done in superstores, as
much as 23% is done in other local shops and supermarkets in Sheffield (see
Appendix 7. Destination of Main Food Spending in Sheffield) so supermarkets
as well as superstores will be able to cater for main food spending.
89
Maplnfo Information Brief 06/02, Table 2, shows that expenditure per head on convenience goods is
projected to rise at 0.9% per annum from 2005. The Sheffield Retail Study had used the equivalent
figure of 1.2% from the now out of date Maplnfo Information Brief 04/02.
-55-
Figure 9: Capacity for Food Superstore Retail Facilities in the City – revised
2005
2010
2016
1
Residual
Expenditure
- SRS
2
Residual
Expenditure
- updated
3
Superstore
Floorspace
– SRS
Sq m net
4
Superstore
Floorspace
– updated
Sq m net
5
Additional
superstores
6
Additional
superstores
(plus one)
£21m
£79m
£155m
£21m
£64m
£120m
1,388
5,177
10,080
1,388
4,187
7,809
.6
1.7
3.1
1.6
2.7
4.1
Source:
Col 1: Same as Figure 8, Col 1
Col 2: Row for 2010: The Increase of 58m (i.e. 79m minus 21m) over the five year period 2005-2010 indicated in Col 1 is
multiplied by (1.009/1.012) 5 = 74.5%, to account for lower annual growth rate over the period. The resulting figure of 43m is
added back on to the 2005 figure of 21m to give 64m
Similarly for the row for 2016: The increase of 134m (i.e. 155m-21m) given in Col 1 is multiplied by (1.009/1.012) 11 = 74%. The
resulting figure of 99m is added back on to the 2005 figure of 21m to give 120m.
Col 3: Same as Figure 8, Col 2
Col 4: Column 3 figures adjusted in same way as figures in Col 2.
Col 5: Column 4 figures divided by 2,500 sq m, which is the minimum amount of trading floorspace in a superstores, according to
PPS6 Annex A.
Col 6: Column 5 figures plus one, to account for the closure of Meadowhall Sainsburys after the Sheffield Retail Study was
completed.
-56-
3.74
No equivalent changes have been made to the projection of need for small
store floorspace shown in Figure 8. The Core Strategy would become
unnecessarily detailed if it attempted to specify the many sites required for
smaller stores. It is enough that policies SS1-3 support development of such
stores in central locations.
Need for non-food retail floorspace
3.75
District centres also have a role for non-food retailing. The Sheffield Retail
Study advised that although major non-food retail development that serves a
city-wide catchment area should be in the City Centre, policies should
distinguish this form of development from other proposals that serve more
local needs:
‘major non-food retail development should be promoted within the city
centre’s Prime Retail Area, whereas other non-food retail development
can and should be encouraged in district centres where it is appropriate
in scale to the role and function of that centre in order to help maintain
and enhance its vitality and viability.’90
3.76
Policy SS2 adopts this approach. Its wording would encourage non-food retail
development if it would widen the range of retail facilities to provide for
everyday needs and provided it was appropriately sized. Its wording
represents an appropriate balance between the need to support development
of the New Retail Quarter and need to maintain the vitality and viability of
district centres. The City Policies, as a development control document, will
contain criteria for deciding what scale of development is appropriate to the
role and function of each centre.
Locations for food superstores
3.77
Policy SS2 identifies centres that can be expanded to help provide for the
need for food stores in the City. Where more retail floorspace is needed,
expanding centres will improve the quality of their offer and could attract
people to live in the surrounding areas. This is particularly important in
Housing Market Renewal areas where improving and expanding centres can
make them more of a focus for the community and attract more people. In
particular, superstores are best located in district centres, where they will be
accessible and encourage people to link trips with other facilities in the centre,
reducing the need to travel. This approach accords with the Government’s
key objective for town centres91.
3.78
The plan identifies the district centres of Darnall, Spital Hill, Manor Top as
appropriate for improvement, and where possible, expansion. It proposes a
new centre at Buchanan / Chaucer. All four centres are in Housing Market
Renewal areas, where investment will benefit deprived areas, help regenerate
the centres, create additional local jobs, strengthen the local housing market
90
91
Sheffield Retail Study paragraph 4.55
PPS6 paragraph 1.3
-57-
and improve the physical environment. This accords with PPS6 advice that
local authorities should:
develop spatial policies and proposals to promote and secure
investment in deprived areas by strengthening and/or identifying
opportunities for growth of existing centres92
As noted in paragraph 3.64, PPS6 describes deprived areas in terms of the
English Indices of Deprivation. The centres all serve areas within the most
deprived 10% of ‘super output areas’ (see Appendix 4. Most Deprived Areas,
Sheffield).
3.79
Sites exist in Darnall, Spital Hill, and Buchanan / Chaucer which will meet
most of the quantitative need for new superstore floorspace and which should
be given priority for development. Of all known sites in the City they conform
best to the requirements of PPS6 since they will be within or at the edge of
centres in deprived areas and contribute to their success. As long as these
sites remain undeveloped there would be no need to develop other stores
outside existing and proposed centres. Nevertheless the City Policies
document will set out criteria-based policies, for assessing applications for
new development which are out-of-centre, once they are developed. Any
development sites to satisfy need should promote the vitality and viability of
town centres, conform to the sequential approach93 and be accessible to the
whole community, particularly people living in deprived areas94.
3.80
Consultees mostly supported the aim of enhancing district centres but some
objected that the list of centres should include other centres – in the Lower
Don Valley, Attercliffe, and Queens Road. These are considered below:
a
Reasons for rejecting the Lower Don Valley option have been
given at paragraph 2.116.
b
Attercliffe, although it has a large number of units (104) is
classified as a neighbourhood centre rather than a district
centre and it is not listed in policy SS2. The main practical
difference between a neighbourhood centre and a district
centre, in terms of development control, is that large scale
development such as superstores are appropriate in district
centres but inappropriate in neighbourhood centres. Attercliffe
is likely to be an inappropriate location for a large superstore.
First, it would be largely a car-based destination, since not
many people live nearby, and second there are more
appropriate sites for larger scale development at the nearby
district centres at Spital Hill and Darnall, where development is
closer.
92
PPS6 paragraph 2.16
The sequential approach gives preference to town centre and edge-of-centre sites for main town
centre uses. It is defined at paragraphs 2.44 - 2.47 in PPS6.
94 PPS6 paragraphs 2.34, 2.35
93
-58-
c
Queens Road does not have the variety and range of shops to
make it appropriate as a district centre.
Rejected Options
3.81
Policy SS2 is a mixture of the emerging options. Some aspects of each have
been retained while some have been rejected. Nevertheless, for most centres
the option of expansion is unfeasible due to the apparent lack of development
sites.
Sustainability Appraisal
3.82
The policy has sustainable objectives - to minimise travel and maximise
accessibility to shops. The centres are well distributed throughout the city, well
served by public transport and near where people live. They are places where
people can do everyday shopping. They usually comprise groups of shops
with at least one supermarket and a range of non-retail services, such as
banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such
as a library.
3.83
The key difference between the options is that the rejected Option S4b would
not have allowed large-scale retail or leisure development in the smaller
district centres. The policy takes a more flexible approach to development in
the smaller centres, which will mean greater opportunity for them to expand
Retail and leisure development in the smaller centres can help regenerate the
economy of areas.
3.84
Several District Centres contain areas with a high (at least 1 in 100) probability
of flooding (zone 3a):
 Heeley - between Meersbrook Park road and Albert Road
 Most of Ecclesall Road – between Hunters Bar and Pear Street
 London Road – between St Mary’s Gate and Boston Street
 Darnall – Very small area to the north
 Hillsborough – around Hillsborough Arcade
 Chapeltown – a strip along the east side
 Stocksbridge – small strip to the north
3.85
The risk is not considered grounds for excluding these centres from the list of
those with district status as they are unique and well established and well
located in relation to their catchment areas and public transport. Any land that
becomes available in the centres would be previously developed. Shops are
included among the ‘less vulnerable’ uses in national planning policy (PPS25).
However, specific site allocations or proposals in the high risk areas would
need to be informed by evidence on flood risk and include appropriate
-59-
mitigation measures, in the light of the latest advice from the Environment
Agency.
Equality Appraisal
3.86
District centres are well distributed throughout the city. They are well served
by public transport and near where people live. This will benefit people with
low access to private transport, low incomes, and those who rely on public
transport to get to shops and community facilities. Designating
Buchanan/Chaucer, Darnall and Spital Hill as district centres will be of
particular benefit because the areas in which they are situated have a high
concentration of people with a low level of car ownership and low incomes and
who are therefore more reliant on public transport
3.87
Environmental improvements to centres will be benefit people with physical
disabilities or infirmities in terms of safety and accessibility.
3.88
The areas in which Firth Park, Darnall and Manor Top are located have a high
concentration of children and young people. Environmental improvements to
the centres will be of benefit for children and their carers as it is likely to
improve their safety.
Consultation Responses
3.89
Consultees mostly supported the aim of enhancing district centres but some
objected that the list of centres should include other centres – in the Lower
Don Valley, Attercliffe, and Queens Road. These options are rejected at
paragraph 3.80.
3.90
There were concerns over the scale and type of development within district
centres. Controlling development to ensure that it is appropriate in scale will
be an issue for the City Policies.
3.91
SS2 allows for a variety of uses in district centres but controlling these to
ensure that district centres retain their shopping function will be an issue for
the City Policies.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
3.92
The policy’s identification of the role of district centres in the retail hierarchy is
consistent with PPS6. The district centres listed in SS2 are capable of
providing for people’s everyday shopping needs and are well distributed in the
City and are accessible by public transport. SS2 lists centres that can be
expanded to cater for the need for further food retail floorspace that was
identified in the Sheffield Retail Study. The policy gives general support to the
role of all centres in providing for everyday shopping and is consistent with the
findings of the Sheffield Retail Study. Specific policies for nine named district
centres appear in Part 3 of the Core Strategy – see SLD6 (Darnall), SUD4
(Hillsborough), SNE4 (Firth Park, Spital Hill and Chaucer), Manor Top (SSE1),
Crystal Peaks (SMW1), Chapeltown (SCH1) and Stocksbridge (SST1).
-60-
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
3.93
Delivery will be achieved by securing funding for environmental
improvements, identifying development sites, conducting and commissioning
studies of how improvements to centres can be put into effect, supplementary
planning documents. More specific provision for developing the District
Centres in Housing Market Renewal Areas and peripheral settlements is set
out in the policies in Part 3 of the Core Strategy cited above. Development
and improvement will rely mainly on private sector investment supported by
Housing Market Renewal funding, for preparing plans and briefs, and
appropriate developer contributions.
3.94
The target for Policy SS2 is:
 16,000 square metres of new retail floorspace in District Centres
3.95
The indicators for this policy are:
 Amount of completed retail development
 Percentage of completed retail development in town centres [Core Retail
Area of City Centre and District Centres]
 Amount of completed retail development in District Centres
 Percentage of completed retail development in District Centres
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
3.96
The policy is flexible enough to cope with differing economic growth
outcomes. Should the need for food retail floorspace forecast in the Sheffield
Retail Study prove to be an under estimate or over estimate, the centres listed
for expansion in SS2 would still be those most appropriate for additional
development. The policy allows for centres to be supported through a variety
of means – Conservation, Expansion, Increasing variety and a Market-based
approach, depending on circumstances. The policy is sufficiently general for
each district centre to receive the different interventions and degrees of
intervention it requires. The Area-based policies for each district centre are
more specific.
3.97
The option of designating a higher level of district centre was rejected
because it would have restricted flexibility, requiring retail development in the
smaller district centres to be limited. The chosen policy allows more flexibility,
in that it allows opportunity to be taken of larger development sites in the
smaller district centres.
Conclusion
3.98
The policy’s support for district centres is consistent with the national policy
requirement to identify a hierarchy and network of centres. It is highly
sustainable and supports equality objectives and it has received support from
-61-
consultees. The district centres listed are those that will best perform the role
of providing for people’s everyday shopping needs.
-62-
4.
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES
Introduction
4.1
The spatial policies for shopping are based on a three-tier hierarchy of centres
of different sizes serving a range of catchment populations. Neighbourhood
centres are at the lowest level in the hierarchy. They are in residential areas
and have a more basic range of facilities for, e.g., top-up shopping, community
facilities. Neighbourhood Centres are a key to achieving the objectives for
successful neighbourhoods. Their role is to provide a basic range of shops
and services within walking distance, and provide for basic top-up needs and
for people without their own transport. These centres can give a sense of
identity to local areas such as former villages. Demand for goods and
services is declining in many Neighbourhood Centres because of the
increased mobility of people living nearby and the lack of investment but they
still merit support because of the benefits they bring. There are sometimes
particular needs and opportunities for investment in Neighbourhood Centres in
the Housing Market Renewal Areas.
Policy SS3
New development for local shops and community facilities to serve the
everyday needs of the community will be encouraged in Neighbourhood
Centres. The facilities of the most viable Neighbourhood Centres in
Housing Market Renewal areas will be improved and strengthened and
their environments improved.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National policy
4.2
Neighbourhood centres have a role consistent with the descriptions of local
centres at Table 1 Annex A of PPS6 so are ‘town centres’ for the purpose of
PPS6 guidance95. Annex A describes the role: ‘Local centres include a range
of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local
centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a
newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a
hot-food takeaway and launderette…’ Neighbourhood centres
4.3
As stated at paragraph 2.7, PPS6 requires development of ‘main town centre
uses’ to be appropriately related to the size of the centre and catchment that it
seeks to serve: ‘the aim should be to locate the appropriate type and scale of
development in the right type of centre, to ensure that it fits into that centre
and that it complements its role and function.’ SS3 conforms to this by
encouraging local shops and facilities to serve the everyday needs of the
community rather than larger developments. The City Policies, as a
development control document, will contain criteria for deciding what scale of
development is appropriate to the role and function of each centre.
95
PPS6 paragraph 1.3.
-63-
Regional policy
4.4
Echoing the PPS6 requirement that development should be ‘in scale’, Policy
YH8 says that only limited development should take place in Local Service
Centres with a focus on meeting local needs for affordable housing and
economic diversification.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
4.5
One of the City Strategy’s aims is to promote attractive successful
neighbourhoods. District and neighbourhood centres have an important role
to play in this and this is also recognised in the spatial strategy for Housing
Market Renewal.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test
6)
Core Strategy Objectives
4.6
SS3 aims to support the vitality and viability of neighbourhood centres by
encouraging a variety of town centre uses there. Their location in one place
will maximise the opportunity for linked trips. Most residential areas will have
neighbourhood centres within walking distance. The policy therefore supports
the following objectives of the Core Strategy;
 S4.1 Vital and successful neighbourhoods sustained, restored or created
 S4.3 Provision at district and neighbourhood level of local community,
health, education, training, shopping, open space, leisure and other
services and facilities
 S5.4 Workplaces located where they are accessible to all by a range of
transport options, including from areas of high unemployment
 S9.1 Development located to limit the distances people and goods need to
travel, with mixing of land uses and increased opportunities for single
journeys to serve several purposes
 S9.2 High-density development focussed on the most accessible locations.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
4.7
The district centres have no significant impact outside the city boundary and
there are, therefore, no inconsistencies with adjoining local authorities’ plans.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
How neighbourhood centres should be developed
4.8
The options for planning centres, whose strengths and weaknesses are
described between paragraphs 3.33 and 3.45, are equally applicable to
-64-
neighbourhood centres. The options were Conservation, Expansion, Increase
variety, and Market-based approach.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
4.9
The two elements of SS4 to be justified are:
a
The role of neighbourhood centres in providing local shops and
facilities to serve everyday needs
b
Improving viable neighbourhood centres in Housing Market
Renewal areas
Role of neighbourhood centres
4.10
Neighbourhood centres are a key to achieving the objectives for successful
neighbourhoods. Their role is to provide a basic range of shops and services
within walking distance of people’s homes. They will provide for top-up
shopping needs and for people without their own transport. Non-local passing
trade may also support some neighbourhood centres.
4.11
These centres may also give a sense of identity to local areas such as former
villages. Demand for goods and services is declining in many neighbourhood
centres because of the increased mobility of people living nearby and the lack
of investment but they still merit support because of the benefits they bring.
4.12
The need for small neighbourhood centres to serve residential areas has been
demonstrated in several studies. A survey of prospective homebuyers by the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment showed that
homebuyers rank highly being near a wide range of shops96 but the character
of local facilities was also considered important. A small neighbourhood centre
with a variety of small shops was considered as desirable, while respondents
regarded unfavourably being near to a larger centre with supermarkets, takeaways and businesses because it was feared it would attract too much traffic.
4.13
A study of retail regeneration schemes commissioned by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation97 noted that:
“local shopping centres - with their community facilities, libraries,
surgeries, and pubs - are at the social and physical heart of
neighbourhoods. This is especially true in regeneration areas, which
tend to have a strong sense of community but where many residents
are among the almost one-third of British households without a car.”
‘What home buyers want: Attitudes and decision making among consumers’, A Report by the
Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE) March 2005
97 ‘Retailing, Sustainability and Neighbourhood Regeneration’, produced for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation by Heriot-Watt University, Oct 2001
96
-65-
4.14
Policy SS3 acknowledges that these small centres need not be just shopping
centres. They can act as community hubs where a wide range of activities and
local facilities can be accommodated. Nevertheless, developments with
inappropriately large catchment areas should be encouraged in larger centres
that are more accessible by public transport. For these reasons, the scale of
development in neighbourhood centres should be controlled. A policy has
been drafted in the City Policies document to this effect.
4.15
Centres that conform to the role of neighbourhood centre described above will
be identified on the Proposals Map. Their distribution will ensure that most
residential areas of the City will have at least one within easy walking
distance. Where residential areas have no neighbourhood centres, new ones
will be defined. The draft Proposals Map currently identifies over 100
neighbourhood centres so they are too numerous to show on the Key
Diagram.
Neighbourhood centres in Housing Market Renewal areas
4.16
The second part of SS3 promotes environmental improvements to the more
successful neighbourhood centres in Housing Market Renewal Areas. This
will help provide a focus for the community. This option is consistent with
South Yorkshire’s Housing Market Renewal strategy, which emphasises the
importance of supporting local service centres (synonymous with district and
neighbourhood centres) and of intensifying housing uses closer to local
centres. Centres in Housing Market Renewal Areas are selected in this policy
because resources are more likely to become available for their improvement
than for centres in other areas.
Sustainability Appraisal
4.17
Supporting neighbourhood centres supports sustainability aims. Development
here will minimise travel and maximise accessibility to shops. Neighbourhood
centres are generally well served by public transport and near where people
live. They are well distributed throughout the city. As a general rule they have
been distributed so that as many residents as possible in the built up area of
the city have a neighbourhood centre within 400 metres’ easy walking
distance.
4.18
These centres will allow trips to the shops to be combined with trips to other
community facilities. The policy encourages new shops and community
facilities to locate in these centres rather than in isolated locations elsewhere.
Equality Appraisal
4.19
Neighbourhood centres are easy to get to on foot and can allow for linked trips
between shops and community facilities. This will minimise the need to walk.
and benefit people who are less able to afford public transport fares and those
with physical infirmities.
-66-
4.20
Environmental improvements to neighbourhood centres will enhance safety of
people requiring personal support services, people with physical disabilities, or
infirmities, dependent children and their carers and young people.
Consultation Responses
4.21
Most consultees (5 out of 7) supported the preferred options that supported
neighbourhood centres (PS3 and PS7). They observed that the policy should
encourage community facilities as well as shops in neighbourhood centres.
SS3 was redrafted accordingly.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
4.22
No specific target is proposed for Policy SS3.
4.23
Indicators for this policy are:
 Amount of completed retail development in Neighbourhood Centres
 Percentage of retail units that are vacant in Neighbourhood Centres
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
4.24
There is no risk associated with this policy. Whilst there are uncertainties
about how much improvement or strengthening of their role will be achieved
the policy is worded to be flexible and to allow new opportunities to be taken
as they arise.
Conclusion
4.25
The policy’s identification of the role of neighbourhood centres in providing
local shops and facilities to serve everyday needs is consistent with PPS6.
The neighbourhood centres identified on the draft Proposals Map are well
distributed and most residential areas in the City are within walking distance of
one. Resources are likely to be available for Improving neighbourhood
centres in Housing Market Renewal areas. The option for improving
neighbourhood centres received support from consultees.
-67-
5.
LOCATIONS FOR LARGE LEISURE AND CULTURAL
DEVELOPMENTS
Introduction
5.1
This option sets out the policy principles for locating leisure and cultural
developments with a wide catchment. The spatial strategy indicates that
leisure and cultural facilities with a citywide or regional catchment should be
concentrated in the City Centre, and the need for theatres, galleries and other
large developments associated with the arts to be in the City Centre rather
than elsewhere is of particular importance, see paragraph 5.24. Nevertheless,
some types of leisure facility may be inappropriate or too large for a central
location but still require a location that is easily accessible by public transport.
Policy SS4
Development of leisure and cultural facilities that serve the city and
wider region will be located in, or at the edge of, the City Centre where
possible. Major leisure facilities will be located in the Lower Don Valley
if no sites are suitable or available in the City Centre or at its edge.
Leisure facilities could also be located at Parkwood Springs if they are
needed to support the development of sport and recreation facilities
there. Leisure development serving smaller catchments, such as the
north or south of Sheffield, will be located in the Upper Don Valley and
Queens Road if no sites are available or suitable in existing centres.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National policy
5.2
98
PPS6 encourages development of leisure, entertainment and cultural facilities
in town centres because they are ‘main town centre uses’ which should be in
central locations98. Nevertheless, out-of-centre development may be
acceptable provided that the tests of PPS6, relating to need, scale, sequential
approach and impact are satisfied. Policy SS4 is consistent with this
approach. Except for Parkwood Springs, it directs such development to
locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport, as required by
PPS6 paragraph 2.49. The Lower Don Valley is accessible by a choice of
means of transport from all areas of the City while the Upper Don Valley and
Queens Road are accessible from many areas of north and south Sheffield,
respectively. Development at Parkwood Springs would be for less intensive
leisure activities than at other locations and related to sport and recreation so
should be assessed against PPG17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and
Recreation’ rather than PPS6. Paragraph 5.28 shows that development at
Parkwood Springs would indeed comply with PPG17.
PPS6 paragraph 1.8
-69-
Regional Policy
5.3
Core Policy YH1 ‘Growth’ says that growth and change will be managed to
improve people’s accessibility to cultural and leisure facilities. SS4 will help
achieve this.
5.4
Policy YH5 says that Regional Centres (Leeds and Sheffield) will be the prime
focus for cultural and leisure activities in the region. SS4 supports this
because it encourages ‘leisure and cultural facilities that serve the city and
wider region.. in, or at the edge of, the City Centre where possible’.
5.5
Policy E1 Creating a Successful and Competitive Regional Economy requires
plans to support ‘the potential of knowledge-intensive industries’, including the
cultural sector. SS4 does this by supporting such development in the City
Centre.
5.6
Policy E2 requires city and town centres to be ‘the main focus for .. casino,
leisure, recreation, entertainment, cultural .. and other uses which generate a
high level of people movements’. These uses should not be located outside
these centres if they would undermine the delivery of the Plan’s Core
Approach (YH1 – YH8).
Other Sheffield Policies
5.7
The policy supports the Sheffield Cultural Strategy99, which intends culture to
be ‘at the heart of the city’s rejuvenation’ and intends to ‘strengthen the
reputation of Sheffield as a vibrant cultural centre for residents, visitors and
tourists’. SS2’s support for locating cultural facilities that serve a wide area in
the City Centre will contribute to these aims.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
5.8
Policy SS4 promotes the development of cultural facilities within the City
Centre. This is consistent with the City Strategy, which states that ‘a vibrant
cultural and sporting offer’ will contribute to the City’s economy.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test
6)
Core Strategy Objectives
5.9
The policy reflects the Core Strategy’s objective for Economic Transformation:
 S1.6 Cultural and leisure facilities and tourism expanded and improved .
5.10
99
Its promotion of leisure and culture facilities in the City Centre where possible
reflects the objective for Serving the City Region (Challenge 2):
Sheffield Cultural Strategy produced by the Sheffield First Partnership, June 2005
-70-
 S2.1 The City Centre and complementary areas regenerated as the core
location for major expansion of business, shopping, leisure and culture
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
5.11
Policy SS4 is consistent with the Preferred Core Strategies of adjoining
authorities Barnsley and Rotherham. There will be scope for closer working
between Sheffield and Barnsley and Rotherham authorities at a later stage.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
5.12
Opportunities to large leisure developments may arise during the plan period.
Government guidance is that the City Centre should normally be the preferred
location for such development but some types of development may be too
large or inappropriate for the City Centre. The Emerging Options Report
considered these two options for location of large leisure developments.
5.13
Option S3a: The Lower Don Valley (e.g. Don Valley Stadium or Meadowhall)
5.14
The strengths of Option S3a are:
 Could attract other space-consuming leisure facilities
 Would draw visitors from the wider region
5.15
The main weaknesses of this option are:
 Could detract from similar development in the City Centre·
 Leisure development that increased Meadowhall’s attraction as a day out
leisure experience could harm the prospect of such development in the
City Centre.
 Could contribute to unacceptable levels of traffic at congested Meadowhall
and Tinsley motorway junctions.
5.16
Option S3b: All major leisure development to be located in, or at the edge of,
the City Centre if possible
5.17
The strength of Option S3b is:
 Could provide and encourage other leisure attractions for the City Centre
and enhance the City Centre as a leisure destination.
5.18
The weaknesses are:
 Likelihood of large sites being available is remote.
5.19
SS4 is similar to Preferred Option PS4 except that SS4 includes Parkwood
Springs as an acceptable location for leisure development. (see paragraph
5.28 below).
-71-
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
Introduction
5.20
5.21
The submitted policy uses definitions of leisure and cultural facilities based on
the major town centre uses listed in PPS6. Definitions of these uses for the
purposes of this policy are:
a
Leisure uses: Entertainment facilities, and the more intensive
sport and recreation uses (such as cinemas, restaurants, bars
and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres,
bowling alleys, and bingo halls)
b
Cultural uses: These include museums, libraries, theatre,
cinema, concert halls, galleries, and other facilities for the visual
and performing arts and crafts and music
These definitions exclude those types of leisure facility relating to sports
activities that are less intensive users of space, such as those activities dealt
with in PPG17 and in the policies relating to Open Space and Sports Facilities.
Need for leisure uses
5.22
PPS6 (para 1.6) requires local planning authorities to assess the need for all
main town centre uses, including leisure. Quantitative need for leisure
development is difficult to establish. Spending on leisure is increasing
generally, but leisure activities vary in the amount of space they require and
the type of location they need. Nevertheless trends can be identified which
suggest the type of development for which there may be an increased market
demand over the plan period. These include going to the cinema, health and
fitness clubs. No specific gaps in the market for particular forms of leisure,
such as cinema, bingo, health and fitness centres have been identified in the
City.
5.23
The preferred options for the City Policies document contain general principles
for locating large leisure developments that support the PPS6 tests of need,
scale, sequential approach, impact and accessibility. These would apply
irrespective of demand.
City centre as a prime location
5.24
It is particularly important to locate cultural facilities in the City Centre. The
City is well provided with theatres and concert halls including the City Hall, the
Crucible, Studio and Lyceum theatres. The City Hall has been refurbished and
refurbishment of the Crucible is currently taking place. It is important to sustain
these cultural facilities in the City Centre and support investment that is taking
place in and around them. Major leisure and cultural facilities can support the
vitality of the City Centre, maintain its reputation and attract a lot of visitors
and tourists.
-72-
5.25
A lost opportunity to develop major cultural facilities in the City Centre would
be of particular concern because the City Centre, particularly around Tudor
Square, needs to build on its cultural reputation. The significance of this is set
out in policy SCC4 Cultural Facilities in the City Centre. Concentrating future
cultural facilities in the City Centre will support its existing cultural facilities,
and there is unlikely to be a need to locate major cultural and leisure facilities
outside the City Centre. Consequently SS4 does not make any exception to
the promotion of cultural facilities in the City Centre.
5.26
For both cultural and other leisure uses, linked trips to other main town centre
uses such as restaurants are important. Leisure uses can extend the hours of
activity in the City Centre beyond the usual shop opening times. This activity
can benefit other businesses, reduce perception of criminal activity in deserted
areas, and benefit the evening economy. Studies show the extent to which
people link trips to various ‘key town centre uses’. In Norwich 100, for example,
it was calculated that in 1993 cinema goers spent £2.5m of other expenditure
linked to their cinema visit (e.g. drinking and visiting other leisure
destinations). People attending out-of-centre events would be unlikely to link
their trip with other entertainment or restaurants in the City Centre, and this
would be to the detriment of the City Centre’s evening economy.
5.27
However, some types of large-scale commercial leisure development that
serve a large catchment may be inappropriate or too large for the City Centre
but still require a location that is easily accessible by public transport. In this
case, alternative edge-of-centre sites should be sought. Whilst the preference
is for town centre, or edge-of-centre locations, alternative areas for large-scale
developments are proposed in each of the three main valleys. The Lower Don
Valley is more accessible to the wider region than the other non-central
locations. Development here could attract other space-consuming leisure
facilities and could draw visitors from a wide region. For leisure developments
with smaller catchments, that served the north or the south of the city, the
Upper Don Valley or Queens Road, respectively, would be appropriate
locations because they too are accessible by a choice of means of transport
from the areas they would serve. They also create opportunities for linked trips
to supporting services in the same area.
5.28
Policy SNE5 promotes Parkwood Springs as a City Park but it is an out-ofcentre location where leisure development would not normally be promoted.
Nevertheless it is a suitable location for sport and recreation facilities such as
the existing ski slope and some sporting facilities may need cross subsidy to
survive commercially. If this is the case then more intensive leisure
development of the sort described in PPS6 paragraph 1.8 may be acceptable,
provided it remains an ancillary use. However Parkwood Springs is not a
highly accessible location. PPG17 says that In these circumstances proposals
that attract a large number of visits with significant elements of entertainment,
100
Report to Norwich City Council Planning Committee re multiplex developments in Norwich, 12th
September 1996, paragraph 8 reported in Papers of conference: Cinemas in the Community, 24th
February 1998.
-73-
retail or leisure uses, functioning for many hours of the day, would be
unacceptable101.
Sustainability Appraisal
5.29
The City Centre is the location in the City that is most accessible by a choice
of means of transport. Development here would be consistent with
sustainability aims associated with reducing the need to travel and increasing
people’s access to facilities. Development in the city centre is also more likely
to support its revitalisation as an economic driver for the sub-region and
therefore be consistent with sustainability aims relating to achieving a strong
and sustainable economy.
5.30
Nevertheless, the Upper and Lower Don Valley, including Meadowhall and, to
a lesser extent, Queens Road, are accessible by public transport.
Development at Meadowhall would be sustainable only if it did not detract
from the likelihood of development in or at the edge of the city centre and if
there were no capacity problems at Junction 34 of the M1. With the same
provisos, development at Meadowhall could contribute to the sustainability
aims that relate to achieving a strong and sustainable economy.
Flood Risk
5.31
Four locations are identified in the policy – the City Centre, Lower and Upper
Don Valley, Parkwood Springs and Queens Road. Some of the City Centre
areas in the valleys are subject to high flood probability (1 in 100 or more in
any year). But this does not invalidate the sustainability of the location taken
as a whole. Parts of the Lower Don Valley are subject to high probability of
flooding, Meadowhall being then main area that is vulnerable and the
considerations outlined in relation to policy SS1 apply here (see paragraph
2.132). The Boulevard of Sport area (see policy SLD4) is in a low probability
area. Parts of the Upper Don Valley and Queens Road area close to their
respective rivers are in high probability zones but the probability at Parkwood
Springs is low.
5.32
Leisure and cultural developments are classed as ‘less vulnerable’, according
to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in PPS25. Development of
leisure and cultural uses in those parts of the named areas in high probability
zones is therefore not precluded by PPS25 and the locational advantages of
the broad locations outweigh the possible impacts in specific areas within
them. However, developments will need to incorporate flood mitigation and
warning measures, informed by the Exceptions Test.
Equality Appraisal
5.33
101
The preferred option would locate facilities in areas that are readily accessible
by public transport. This would benefit people with low incomes and those
reliant on public transport.
PPG17 paragraph 21
-74-
Consultation Responses
5.34
There was overall agreement that the Lower Don Valley were accessible
locations but views were mixed on whether the Lower Don Valley was
appropriate for large-scale leisure development (see Preferred Option PS4).
Some consultees said that the Core Strategy should make it clear that all outof-centre retail and leisure development should satisfy the tests of need,
scale, sequential test, impact and accessibility required by Government
guidance. In response to the latter point the submitted policy specifies that
major leisure facilities may be acceptable out-of-centre if ‘no sites are suitable
or available in the City Centre or at its edge’. It was considered unnecessary
for the policies to replicate the PPS6 tests, as some objectors wanted.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
5.35
The target for policy SS4 is
 95% of major new leisure floorspace to be:
o in, or at the edge of, the City Centre, and, provided the conditions
on development are fulfilled,
o the Lower Don Valley
o the Upper Don Valley and Queens Road
5.36
The indicators for this policy are:
 Amount of completed leisure development
 Percentage of completed leisure development in town centres [Core Retail
Area of City Centre and District Centres]
 Percentage of completed leisure development in the named locations
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
5.37
The risk of the City as a whole not securing leisure development is minimised
because SS4 promotes accessible locations where development would
conform to policy requirements. It is flexible enough to allow small-scale
leisure development the district and neighbourhood centres.
Conclusion
5.38
It is particularly important to locate cultural uses in the City Centre where they
can give support to existing facilities. However there may not be sites
available in or near the City Centre for development of large-scale leisure
uses. In these circumstances the best location for them is in other areas of
high accessibility. The policy’s locational priorities for leisure and culture
development are consistent with national policy and with the aim of supporting
-75-
the City Centre. The Policy requires locations to be identified that satisfy the
tests of need, scale, sequential approach, impact and accessibility.
-76-
APPENDICES
-77-
Appendix 1. Plan of the New Retail Quarter
-79-
Appendix 2. Sheffield City Centre Comparison Goods Catchment
Source: A City Wide Quantitative Study of Comparison Goods Retailing (2002), CWHB
-81-
Appendix 3. Sheffield District Centres – Units and Sales Area
Sheffield District Centres - Number of Units
Centre
District Centres
Banner Cross
Broomhill
Chapeltown
Crookes
Crystal Peaks
Darnall
Ecclesall Road
Firth Park
Gleadless Townend
Heeley
Hillsborough
London Road
Manor Top
Spital Hill
Stocksbridge
Woodhouse
Woodseats
All District Centres
Year
surveyed
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
2007
2006
2005
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2005
2007
Retail (A1)
Conv
Comp
Other
A1
A2
8
9
7
13
5
17
14
15
5
5
21
11
4
13
4
7
15
12
31
21
23
35
27
62
26
10
20
51
40
5
17
15
11
43
15
17
13
13
9
15
23
12
8
6
32
18
7
7
7
8
20
14
11
13
12
8
12
11
11
8
2
22
9
4
3
12
5
22
172
450
230
Produced by Sheffield City Council
179
Vacant All Class Other
A3/5 Class A
A Uses
9
22
13
18
5
12
27
10
7
14
22
49
7
13
7
11
22
268
1
9
4
4
1
16
8
8
1
12
22
23
4
7
7
10
8
145
59
99
71
83
63
99
145
82
39
59
170
150
31
60
52
52
130
1,444
Total
6
3
10
4
2
8
7
6
7
5
14
10
1
9
6
5
2
65
102
81
87
65
107
152
88
46
64
184
160
32
69
58
57
132
105
1,549
07/09/2007
-82-
Sheffield District Centres - Sales Area (A1) or Public Floorspace (sq m)
Centre
District Centres
Banner Cross
Broomhill
Chapeltown
Crookes
Crystal Peaks *
Darnall
Ecclesall Road
Firth Park
Gleadless Townend
Heeley
Hillsborough
London Road
Manor Top
Spital Hill
Stocksbridge
Woodhouse
Woodseats
All District Centres
* assumes a net/gross ratio of
Year
surveyed
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
2007
2006
2005
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2005
2007
Retail (A1)
Conv
Comp
Other
A1
A2
1,760
1,128
3,753
1,142
4,616
1,656
2,276
1,767
424
182
6,691
4,545
2,302
929
1,035
1,771
3,991
548
2,020
798
1,058
12,099
1,897
3,560
1,356
393
17,277
12,354
4,800
386
733
1,264
633
2,967
697
644
295
529
1,140
639
1,128
383
317
181
1,106
646
341
242
268
414
646
524
503
204
857
811
906
619
311
290
126
382
545
225
666
685
189
713
39,688
64,393
9,616
Vacant All Class Other
A3/5 Class A
A Uses
Total
196
866
246
627
875
289
2,221
178
179
547
2,024
2,541
606
732
257
265
1,109
9
453
51
148
468
401
334
295
21
312
1,009
600
358
213
249
368
862
3,734 187
5,614
84
5,347 115
4,361 123
20,009
5,788 306
10,138 195
4,290
83
1,624 274
18,625 1,447
23,566 1,152
13,677 768
4,218
69
3,515 205
3,758 158
3,640 100
10,288
175
3,921
5,698
5,462
4,484
20,009
6,094
10,333
4,373
1,898
20,072
24,718
14,445
4,287
3,720
3,916
3,740
10,463
8,556 13,758
6,151
142,162 5,493
147,655
67.5%
Produced by Sheffield City Council
07/09/2007
-83-
G
-84rid
ge
ill
lH
To
p
oo
dh
ou
se
W
oo
ds
ea
ts
sb
oc
k
W
St
Sp
ita
ug
h
y
oa
d
R
M
an
or
Lo
nd
on
bo
ro
ills
H
rk
ne
nd
Pa
oa
d
ee
le
H
To
w
rth
R
l
ea
ks
s
ar
na
l
D
lP
al
l
Fi
es
le
ad
le
ss
cl
Ec
ta
ry
s
C
ll
n
w
ro
ok
e
C
C
ha
pe
lto
hi
s
ro
s
C
Br
oo
m
Ba
nn
er
District Centres - numbers of units
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-85-
D
H
ee
le
y
bo
ro
ug
Lo
h
nd
on
R
oa
d
M
an
or
To
p
Sp
ita
lH
ill
St
oc
ks
br
id
ge
W
oo
dh
ou
se
W
oo
ds
ea
ts
ills
Pa
rk
oa
d
w
ne
nd
To
Fi
rth
R
ar
na
ll
*
s
ro
ok
e
w
n
Pe
ak
s
C
es
al
l
s
H
le
ad
le
s
G
oo
m
hi
ll
ro
ss
ha
pe
lto
ry
st
al
Ec
cl
C
C
Br
Ba
nn
er
C
District Centres - Floorspace
sq m
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Appendix 4. Most Deprived Areas, Sheffield
Source: Rankings of Indices of Deprivation (2004) for Super Output Areas, Sheffield
-86-
Appendix 5. Sheffield City Centre Visitors Survey
-87-
Appendix 6. Increases in floorspace permitted at Meadowhall
Decision
Date
App_No
Description
Address
Aug 1997 97/03126/FUL Extension to form additional retail Park Lane
floorspace, storage and improved
customer toilets and facilities
June / 94/02988/OUT Extension to Store at ground, first Marks and
Sept
and
and second floor levels and
Spencer
1998 98/01065/REM associated ancillary works to
1 The Arcade
form additional Class A1 (Retail)
Floor Space
Sept 98/01066/FUL Erection of covered link at ground Meadowhall
1998
and first floor levels to form part Centre
of pedestrian walkway linking
Passenger Transport Interchange
and Shopping Centre
Nov 1998 98/01388/FUL Extension to Building
Rear of 30
High Street
Dec 1998 98/01609/FUL Extension to form Additional
Rear of 51
Storage Area at Upper Mall Roof and 52
Level
Park Lane
Oct 1999 99/00979/FUL Erection Entrance Lobby and
Savacentre
Trolley Storage to Car Park
13 Market
Elevation (Retrospective
Street
Application)
Feb 2000 99/01055/FUL Erection of Conservatory and
The Retreat,
Improvements to Open Space
The Oasis
May 99/01602/FUL Extension to Store
Next,
2000
9-15 and 3840 Park Lane
Jan 2005 04/02985/FUL Two storey extension to mall to Market Street
provide Customer Services,
Mall
Family Centre /Creche, Enclosed
Landscaped area, erection of
Covered Walkway in car park
Total
-89-
Floorspace
Increase
sq m
NonRetail
retail
786
2,323
1,400
346
155
176
124
410
1,742
323
3,142
4,643
Appendix 7. Destination of Main Food Spending in Sheffield
£m
%
Superstores
Morrisons, Halfway
Morrisons Hillsborough
Asda, Handsworth Road
Tesco, Abbeydale Road
Sainsbury's, Archer Road
Morrisons, Ecclesfield
Asda Chapeltown
Sainsburys Crystal Peaks
Safeway London Road
Morrisons Darnall
Sainsburys, Meadowhall
Safeways, Meadowhead
Safeway, Infirmary Road
Total Superstores
61.9
55.1
54.3
41.0
39.5
38.5
25.7
23.2
18.4
17.8
13.5
12.9
12.2
414.0
11%
10%
10%
8%
7%
7%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
77%
Other Shops
Local and other stores
Sainsburys, City Centre
Tesco Metro Ecclesall Road
Tesco Woodseats
Kwik-save Hillsborough
Marks & Spencer, City Centre
Tesco, Herries Road
Somerfield, Kilner Way
Somerfield Banner Cross
Somerfield Firth Park
Co-op Hillsborough
Somerfield Broomhill
Netto, Barnsley Road
Co-op Stocksbridge
Netto Manor Top
Co-op Woodhouse
Co-op Crookes
Somerfield Manor Top
Somerfield, City Centre
Netto/Iceland Woodseats
Lidl Stocksbridge
Iceland Crystal Peaks
Total Other Shops
35.1 7%
9.6 2%
9.4 2%
9.1 2%
5.7 1%
5.5 1%
5.2 1%
5.1 1%
5.1 1%
4.9 1%
4.6 1%
4.5 1%
4.3 1%
4.2 1%
2.8 1%
2.7 1%
2.2 0%
1.6 0%
1.5 0%
1.5 0%
1.1 0%
0.9 0%
126.5 23%
City of Sheffield Total
540.5 100%
Derived from Sheffield Retail Study Update 2005 (Appendix B Table 5)
-91-
Appendix 8. Delivery Schedules
Policy: SS1: Shopping and Leisure in the City Centre
Target: 98,500 square metres (gross area) of new retail (Class A) floorspace in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre. (The
New Retail Quarter )
Actions required
(how)
To deliver:
Agencies
(who)
Timing
(when)
Developing the NRQ




Sheffield City Council
Creative Sheffield
Hammersons plc
Sheffield City Council
2013

Sheffield City Council

Creative Sheffield
Further investment and consolidation of the
Core Retail Area and Shopping Streets, such
as The Moor.
Determining planning applications in line with
the policy.
Probability
(how likely)
High – Enabling work started and
outline planning permission
secured
Ongoing Medium – commitment to
development in many areas, e.g.
The Moor
Ongoing High – once adopted, planning
permissions should be granted in
accordance with the SDF policy.
To support:
Sheffield City Centre Masterplan
Monitoring Indicator(s):
To 2010
High
 Amount of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre
 Percentage of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre
 Amount of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre
 Percentage of completed retail development in the Core Retail Area of the City Centre
-92-
Policy: SS2 - District Centres
Target: 16,000 square metres of new retail floorspace in District Centres
Actions required
(how)
To deliver:
Agencies
(who)
Timing
(when)
Probability
(how likely)
Development of new Centre at Chaucer /
Buchanan

10
years
Development at Spital Hill district centre


See Delivery Schedule for SNE4
in North East Area Background
Report
High. Developers and retailers
are seeking new sites for
development. Tesco have an
See Delivery Schedule for
SNE4 in North East Area
Background Report
Developers
Sheffield City Council
5 years
outline planning application pending
for the Hartwell’s site
Development in other district centres
Securing funding for environmental
improvements, supplementary planning
documents.
Determining planning applications in line with


Developers
Sheffield City Council







Sheffield City Council
Transform South Yorkshire

Sheffield City Council
Developers/landowners
Local community organisations
Voluntary groups
Environmental organisations
SYPTE/transport operators
-93-
10
years
High. Developers and retailers
are seeking new sites for
development.
Ongoing High - in Housing Market
Renewal Areas through HMR
funding Medium – Improvements
can be carried out when
opportunities arise/funding
available e.g. section 106
money.
New developments as site
opportunities arise, subject to
normal planning considerations.
Ongoing High – once adopted, planning
Actions required
(how)
the policy.
Agencies
(who)
Timing
(when)
Probability
(how likely)
permissions should be granted in
accordance with the SDF policy.
To support:
Identifying development sites, preparing
plans and briefs
conducting and commissioning studies of
how improvements to centres can be put into
effect

Sheffield City Council


Sheffield City Council
Transform South Yorkshire
Monitoring Indicator(s):
 Amount of completed retail development
 Percentage of completed retail development in town centres [Core Retail Area of City Centre and District Centres]
 Amount of completed retail development in District Centres
 Percentage of completed retail development in District Centres
-94-
Policy: SS3 - Neighbourhood Centres
Target: No specific target
Actions required
(how)
To deliver:
Agencies
(who)
Timing
(when)







Sheffield City Council
Transform South Yorkshire
Determining planning applications in line with
the policy.

Sheffield City Council


Sheffield City Council
Ongoing High - in Housing Market
Renewal Areas through HMR
funding Medium – Improvements
can be carried out when
opportunities arise/funding
available e.g. section 106
money.
New developments as site
opportunities arise, subject to
normal planning considerations.
Ongoing High – once adopted, planning
permissions should be granted in
accordance with the SDF policy.
Ongoing High – once adopted, planning
permissions should be granted in
accordance with the SDF policy.

Sheffield City Council


Sheffield City Council
Transform South Yorkshire
Securing funding for environmental
improvements, supplementary planning
documents.
Determining planning applications in line
with the policy.
Developers/landowners
Local community organisations
Voluntary groups
Environmental organisations
SYPTE/transport operators
To support:
Identifying development sites, preparing
plans and briefs
conducting and commissioning studies of
how improvements to centres can be put into
effect
-95-
Probability
(how likely)
Monitoring Indicator(s):
 Amount of completed retail development in Neighbourhood Centres
 Percentage of retail units that are vacant in Neighbourhood Centres
Policy: SS4 - Locations for Large Leisure and Cultural Developments
Target: 95% of major new leisure floorspace to be in locations named in the policy
Actions required
(how)
Agencies
(who)
Timing
(when)
Probability
(how likely)
To deliver:

Supporting the Cultural Hub




Determining planning applications

Sheffield City Council
Theatres Trust
Central Government (Arts
Council)
Sheffield City Council
Ongoing Medium – commitment to cultural
development in the Culture
Strategy and crucible
redevelopment taking place
Ongoing High – statutory responsibility

Sheffield City Council
Varies
To support:
 Action Plans and Masterplans
Monitoring Indicator(s):
High
 Amount of completed leisure development
 Percentage of completed leisure development in town centres [Core Retail Area of City Centre and District Centres]
 Percentage of completed leisure development in the named locations
-96-