Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76 Stocksbridge Draft Development Brief Public Consultation Responses Corus and Sheffield City Council jointly undertook a 6-week period of public consultation on the Draft Development Brief for the Corus Works, Manchester Road, Stocksbridge. During this period, views were invited from a number of key community organisations and technical consultees. This schedule summarises the responses of those who made comments, sets out Corus views on the comments and also Sheffield City Council s views. The schedule also sets out the City Council and Corus final view on each particular issue, which will be used as a basis on which to present the final Brief to Sheffield City Council. Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position TECHNICAL CONSULTEES 1. Ruth Grainger (Sheffield West Primary Care Trust) Provision for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists to promote exercise and improve air quality. All of these issues are addressed by the Brief with this aim. Public Transport Issues are addressed on Page 28 under the Public Transport section. Internal Routes and Accesses Section also on Page 28 requires on site highway layouts to include clearly defined footpaths to be agreed with the City council. It also requires cycle ways to be segregated where possible, will be required. However, the brief needs to ensure that the developers are required to provide the necessary infrastructure to enable services to be provided safely particularly within sites A and C. Recommendation: the Draft briefs text be altered to ensure that the developer either contributes towards the provision of or provide bus stops and lay-bys where applicable in the interest of providing a sustainable and accessible scheme. Affordable Housing is welcomed. Affordable housing will be provided in line with negotiations on the policy range. Affordable housing will be provided in line with negotiations. Sheffield homes have indicated that there is a need for such housing and the minimum requirement is 20% provision. This is subject to negotiation, however, the Housing Needs Survey is near agreed and to be reflected in the Brief, which will set out the UDP position, the emerging Housing Needs Survey context and that less than 20% Affordable Housing would only be provided if supported by the Housing 1

77 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position completion and the figure is based on initial survey work. Reduction of the minimum requirement can only be accepted if it can be backed up by the Housing Needs Survey. Needs Survey. Employment uses are welcomed and discussion with local agencies should ensure local access to jobs. Corus agrees with this view and will continue to develop partnership working and assist in delivering sustainable employment opportunities for Stocksbridge. The Local Planning Authority also welcomes the requirement for employment generating uses in the Masterplan. The brief should also proactively push for developers to seek agreement to local access to employment opportunities including construction jobs The Brief will set out a commitment for Corus and future developers to consult with the local community and local agencies to ensure that employment opportunities are identified at an early stage, allowing the local community to respond to the needs of employers. Young people should be assisted by the Brief. Play areas will be provided for children. Teenagers can benefit from civic, retail and leisure uses in the central area. An Open space provision survey has been carried out using methodology described in Unitary Development Plan policies H16 and LR8. On sites A and C the developers are required to provide open space on 10% of the site. They are also required by Unitary Development Plan policy H16 to provide; 1. Well designed informal open space; 2. Appropriate children s play facilities which are visible from nearby houses but not so close that they would cause disturbance; and 3. Outdoor sport. Where onsite provision can not be provided for any of these three elements, then a financial contribution will be required under Table 1 appendix 4 of the open space provision supplementary Planning Guidance. Appendix 4 of this SPG is updated annually in line with inflation. On Sites D and G, the open space provision within the catchment area would be above the minimum guideline after Parts of the strategic landscaping & open space around Site A can be counted within the 10% where these contribute to public open space objectives. Informal open space and children play facilities are to be provided on Sites A and C. Sites D and G are likely to require off-site contributions, for all three open space elements under Table 2, appendix 4 of the SPG. Offsite locations for such expenditure could include the Site D lawn, although these improvements will need to retain and open and grass character of the lawn, although benches and other facilities are a possibility. The s.106 contribution would include 5 years establishment for these extra improvements, although the maintenance of the lawn as a whole will be the responsibility of the developer to arrange. Alternatively such monies would be spent on improving green spaces in and around 2

78 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position development had taken place. Therefore a financial contribution on the basis of Table 2, Appendix 4 of the SPG is required from the developers. As the lawn outside the mill building is the closest open space to the sites, this could be a possible location for the expenditure of the financial contribution. The lawn area must be retained by the development brief as it is protected from development by policy LR8. Recommendation: the text of the brief be amended to reflect the findings and conclusions of the Open Space provision Survey. Sites D-G, as decided through the normal Council procedure. There is a requirement for contributions to outdoor sport under Table 2, appendix 4 of the SPG based on the Council s calculations of existing provision. This applies to all the residential sites, unless part of the on-site provision for Sites A & C are laid out for outdoor sport. Policing will need to increase with the increased population. Corus agrees with this requirement. The LPA agrees that the level of policing may have to increase in the area. The level of policing is not however an issue for consideration in the Master Plan. However, the architectural liaison officer for South Yorkshire Police based has been consulted and a response is awaited. Recommendation: No further action required. Review comments when received and updated the brief accordingly. agreed. The Brief highlights the need for Designing Out Crime principles. There is a lack of space to house health staff in Stocksbridge. Corus acknowledges the potential need for additional office space and this could potentially be provided in Site D as part of the mixed-use approach. This will be discussed further as the Brief progresses to implementation. The Master plan provides office space and the opportunity for accommodating the West Primary Care Trust s needs can be realised through negotiation during implementation of the document. 2. Gerg Jambor (SCC Environmental Protection) Raises issues by dated 20 September 2004 about noise levels of remaining industrial activity and asks a A response to the was made by Corus on 11 October 2004 addressing the issues raised. No response from Awaiting a reply from environmental protection service. Air Quality comments received no objections. These are some outstanding noise issues to be resolved between SCC EPS and 3

79 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position number of questions. SCC Environmental Protection to date. Corus. In summary, Sites A and C have been satisfactorily addressed. Residential uses in Site D will need particularly careful consideration and should be located in North Mill only. Some further work required on Site G. SCC will have regard to UDP policy, the SPG on noise and PPG24 when considering planning applications. 3. Highways Agency Consider that the draft brief is thorough. HA s concerns related to traffic impacts on the M1 and the A616(T). The brief has acknowledged safety issues on the A616(T). Corus/SCC/ HA will need to work together to improve this. A more detailed appraisal from HA is awaited. Noise impact will be considered in detailed noise impact assessments at a later stage. Air quality will also be considered in detail later. The latest response from the Highways Agency requires further work to be carried out on the traffic Assessment prepared by Sanderson Associates. Recommendation action will be considered once final response received. Two written responses have been received from the Highways Agency. A meeting was held on 11 November to discuss the Brief and discussions are ongoing. Corus, SCC and the Highways Agency will seek to reach a position of identifying the impacts of the proposal and the extent of required mitigation within the Brief. The results of these discussions will be reported at forthcoming Council meetings and be reflected in the final Brief. 4. SCC Leisure Services Queried whether a possible relocation for Stocksbridge Leisure Centre could occur on Site E. This potential can be accommodated for in the land use principles of the final Masterplan. There is no conflict with existing UDP policy designations for the site in principle. The Masterplan may need to specify a location where Leisure uses could be accommodated in the as this may have implications for the Highways, Noise and Transport Assessments. Agreed. The final Brief will identify leisure as an appropriate use on Sites E and F. 5. SCC Rights of Way Officer A riverside footpath/ cycle track should be provided. Linkages will be reconsidered in the illustrative layout for Site A. There is no reason why this cannot be provided in principle. The provision of a public footpath adjacent to rivers or streams is encouraged by UDP policy GE17 and requiring its provision in the Masterplan will help to secure the provision of a more scenic route from site A into the 4

80 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position District Centre. There s also a possibility that the path could become a formal link to the Trans-Pennine Trail. Recommendation: incorporating the Riverside footpath into the illustrative sketch layouts for the scheme. i.e. figures 5, 12 and 13. Also inclusion of a bullet pointed sentence at the bottom of Page 36 stating a riverside foot path with footpath links to the residential area A link to the Trans Pennine Trail should be provided. Need to understand where the TPT is and how this could be linked. Needs further research. Barnsley has provided routes at Deepcar heading north through to Finkle street. They have also done some work on a route linking west through Sheephouse Wood from the western end of the Draft Brief Boundary that would eventually link up with the heritage trail (Bramall Lane Steel Valley Project) that is being promoted by the Steel Valley Project. Improvements to the Heritage trail should be of an acceptable standard i.e. a bridleway, in order to make it part of the TPT and the links to the proposed TPT from the development site need to be built as shared surface cycleway / footpath. Recommendation the Brief should encourage developers to provide links that are shared surface/user footpath/ cycleways and encourage contributions to the up grading of the Heritage trail to TPT standards i.e. a bridleway. Action: Further research is required to determine where the path would run and what links should be encouraged by the Masterplan/Brief, it is felt that the brief may already have suggested the likely links. The Brief will highlight the need to link into the TPT. 5

81 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Strategic footpaths should be provided/upgraded. Corus agrees and has tried to provide footpath linkages in most directions and pedestrian/ cycle penetration to most areas, where these can be provided within its ownership. Agreed. Recommendation: await Highways Agency and Sheffield City Council Highways comments on the issue of pedestrians crossing the bypass, before recommending a wording for the Draft Brief. Discussions are ongoing with the Highways Agency and SCC Highways, and will be reported at Council meetings and reflected in the final Brief. Consideration should be given for provision of a footbridge or shared cycletrack bridge over the by-pass. This would be particularly costly and is considered to be unreasonable given the alternatives available i.e. that the bypass can be crossed at Underbank Lane and Pea Royd Lane. Agreed. However, there are other crossing points (at grade) adjacent to the Masterplan area that may well be considered as part of any works to the A616 in relation to the development and pedestrian access. Recommendation: await Highways Agency and Sheffield City Council Highways comments on the issue of pedestrians crossing the bypass, before recommending a wording for the Draft Brief. Existing permissive paths should be dedicated as public. This could be done postredevelopment and can be put into the final brief to acknowledge the possibility. Agreed. Recommendation: The Masterplan should state in Section 5 that the developer will be expected to seek agreement with Sheffield City Council at the planning application stage as to which permissive paths are to be dedicated as public and this requirement should be written into a Section 106 agreement. This could potentially be provided via planning conditions. 6. Yorkshire Water The water supply will need to be determined by the developer, subject to certain design parameters. The will form part of detailed proposals and is unlikely to be problematic. Agree with Corus. Recommendation: no further action Agreed. The suggested foul drainage is not A revised foul drainage scheme has been developed and Yorkshire Water Response now received from SCC Drainage. Comments suggest that the The revised foul drainage scheme, which treats water on site, has been 6

82 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position acceptable. is to be re-consulted on this. problem is related to sites A and B. Action: Request a copy of the revised scheme so that Sheffield City Council Drainage can be re-consulted on this issue. discussed with Yorkshire Water, the EA and SCC Drainage, who have no objection in principle, subject to acceptable outfall rates and other design criteria. Surface water will outfall to a watercourse, which is a matter for SCC. SCC drainage yet to respond on this matter. The Flood Risk Assessment considers that the impact on the watercourse is minimal. In accordance with Sheffield City Council and EA policy, the council wish to limit surface water discharges from both Greenfield and Brownfield development sites in order to minimise impact down the river Don catchment and hopefully reduce current flooding threats. Recommendation: that the following requirements are inserted into section 5 page 31 under the Drainage heading. The surface water discharges from all development sites A-G are limited to a maximum of 5l/s/hectare and this will be a condition on any planning approval. Developers will have to give due consideration to the use of SUDS including rainwater harvesting, infiltration techniques and /or attenuation/storage. Use of infiltration techniques on sloping sites must not cause water issue problems at downhill locations. On the larger sites, consideration should be given to the construction of an open detention pond preferably within a smalldedicated wildlife/environmental area. Action: Awaiting the results of Corus negotiations with Yorkshire Water to add these requirements to the Masterplan. Consideration should also be given however to existing outfall rates from the Corus sites. The open detention pond is a possibility and could, subject to design and amenity considerations, represent part of the open space requirement if it would contribute to public open space objectives The developments are likely to be beyond the capacity of the existing waste water treatment works. More detail and a fully funded feasibility study are necessary. Corus is presently discussing this matter with Yorkshire Water and will seek to provide additional information on the required mitigation. Recommendation: await outcome of negotiations between Corus and Yorkshire Water and incorporate remediation requirements for the developers attention into the Draft Brief. If waste water is to be treated on site, there should be no need for capacity in the existing works at Deepcar or the proposed improved works at Deepcar. The on-site solution is a more sustainable option which avoids 7

83 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position unnecessary sewers and deals with the issue at its source. 7. South Yorkshire Archaeological Service Response dated 25 June 2004 identifies the importance of archaeological interests across the Works. SYAS asked for a full assessment to identify what work needs to be done to protect the historic environment during redevelopment. GVA Grimley responded by on 2 July 2004 having consulted RSK ENSR Environment Ltd, experts in archaeology and conservation. A desktop study was provided, which recommended further work be undertaken at the detailed planning application stage. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service have asked for a full survey to be carried out so that the works can be identified and incorporated into the Masterplan. However, it is considered that this issue can be dealt with at the planning application stage. Recommendation: the insertion of a statement into the Masterplan requiring a full archaeological assessment to be carried out and submitted as part of any planning application and that planning approvals will be conditioned that works needed to protect any archaeological interests on the site are carried out prior to the start of construction. It is suggested that Corus should carry out the survey in the interim as the full archaeological survey could rule out development on parts of the site. It would be better to know now what those areas are now than to find out at the planning application stage. It is agreed that Corus will give consideration to having detailed archaeological studies/investigations carried out before submitting planning applications. It is possible that there could be implications for detailed siting and layout, which should ideally be known before the planning application stage. 8. North Area Regeneration Partnership Welcomes the investment by Corus in Stocksbridge. Considers that the final Brief should include: Noted. Noted a plan to market the employment sites preferential treatment of local people for new jobs At this stage the marketing plan is to continue discussions with SFP/STEP/Yorkshire Forward and other agencies, and to bring the sites to the market after approval of the Brief. Agreed. The marketing of the sites is an issue for Corus. The decision to continue dialogue with Yorkshire Forward, SFP and STEP is welcomed. the possibility of a community training and managed workshop area in Site B This can be referred to as a potential use, although it would fall within use As a D1 use, community training is not contrary to the Unitary Development 8

84 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Class D1 which is not an identified use for Site B. Plan and therefore acceptable in principle for inclusion within the Brief on this site as a potential use. If by managed workshop, NARP mean workshops where ancillary support and administration is provided communally, i.e. communal photocopier, fax, reception, etc, whilst space is rented for the manufacturer of goods or services, this is considered to be B1 use and is potentially a preferred use in principle as Corus have agreed in principle to the inclusion of B1 Uses as acceptable uses in principle. The early release of Site D to enable the development of a community resource by SFP Corus will seek an outline planning permission for Site D to establish a framework for a mixed-use development. The timescale for the release of the site D is a matter for Corus to consider. Provision that any adjacent land developed should be at least 50% industry and commerce. Noted. Discussions are ongoing with Outokumpu. Noted. Maximising the employment opportunities created out of the release of employment land surplus to Corus operational requirements is an important consideration in determining the acceptability of alternative uses for the land and justifying a departure from the development plan. Corus and Outokumpu are both aware of this fact, which will be an important part of their negotiations. Maximum provision of affordable housing targeted at young people. SCC has a presumption in favour of 20% affordable housing based on the emerging housing needs survey. This will be the starting point for negotiations within the UDP range of 5-20%. Age restrictions will be a detailed matter for SCC to consider in negotiating S106 terms. Agreed 9

85 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position COMMUNITY GROUPS 9. North Area Panel Suggests that there should be a minimum of 20% affordable housing on any planning application. The need to provide 20% affordable housing is as yet unjustified. The brief will need to be informed by the Council s Housing Needs Survey, when published. However, a 20% requirement is presently beyond the requirements of the Council s adopted planning policy. Policy H4 does not specify a figure for the proportion of the site to be developed as affordable housing. The City does this by monitoring the need for affordable housing and identifying parts of the City where the need can be met. However, the Affordable Housing SPG does (under Guideline 4) identify a range of 5 20%. Clearly 20% is at the top of the range identified in the SPG and is therefore not beyond the requirements of policy. As stated above and in the practice section of the policy it is put into practice by monitoring need. The publishing of an updated Housing Need assessment is imminent and inform negotiations on appropriate planning applications and emerging SDF policy. Early indications are that the upper part of the range is required and the City Council will only agree to a reduction in the 20% requirement if this can be supported by the Housing Needs Survey. Action: await Housing Needs Survey area statistics to inform negotiations. Recommendation: Suggest that the development brief reflects the above position. Section 106 agreements should be used to improve open space provision. This is provided in the Brief at the Council s adopted standard. Planning obligations will be used to secure improvements to recreation space at housing sites and the brief must stipulate this. Housing for young people should be restricted to those only from This is not supported by existing policy but may be possible within the affordable housing elements The Affordable Housing assessment states that there is very little provision for younger single people or couples 10

86 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Stocksbridge. depending on the Housing Need Survey and whether SCC deem it necessary. It could then be part of the legal agreement. when compared to the numbers on the waiting list. The LPA will seek to secure an element of young single people and couples accommodation as part of any negotiations on provision of affordable housing with the developers and the Registered Social landlords, which will be incorporated into a planning obligation. Action: await outcome of negotiations on levels of provision before recommending or agreeing amendments to the Masterplan. Energy efficient housing should be encouraged. Modern housing is generally energy efficient. The Building Regulations require high standards of heat retention and modern use of utilities is comparably efficient compared to much existing housing stock. Ecohomes, solar heating, use of wind power and other methods are achievable on the site although the detail of this will be agreed between the Council and future developers. Agreed. Recommendation: A statement in the Policy Framework section 4 of the Masterplan of the relevance of policy GE29. Also a statement under the design headings in section 6 for each site spelling out requirement of measures to conserve energy in the design, orientation and layout of buildings are to be incorporated into any the proposed development scheme for the sites as per the provisions of Unitary Development Plan policy GE29 Energy Conservation. Retail growth should be encouraged in the town centre. The brief provides for new ancillary retailing on Site D and should assist in making Stocksbridge more attractive generally. Agreed. Recommendation: The brief seeks to ensure the vitality and viability of Stocksbridge District Centre is not harmed. No further action required. Footpath network needs to be developed to support increased public use. This is agreed and provided for in the brief, particularly linking Sites A and C into the existing network managed by the Steel Valley Project and into Stocksbridge centre. Agreed this is being considered in the brief, however, there is concern about the isolated nature of residential sites which has been addressed to some degree for site A but needs some further work on the remaining residential sites C, D and F. To provide comfort that these sites are 11

87 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position sustainable, the Masterplan should identify existing routes, proposed improved routes and proposed new routes. Recommendation: identify the main routes to be improved within Section 5 and highlight these on an overall plan showing how they would work with the indicative layouts and indicating shared use where feasible. Sufficient school provision required and distance of existing schools from new housing addressed. Corus agrees this point consultation with SCC education has established a possible need for a financial contribution. The detailed travel plan can consider the distance of new housing from schools. Agreed the Travel Plan should pick up the distance to local schools issue. However, Education, Planning and Premises have indicated that they wish to propose a holding fund in which the application would pay their pro-rata proportion of the overall contribution. If after a 15-year time period the developments had not generated enough children to spend the money on school class accommodation, then the money would be paid back to the developer. This would all be subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the planning Act. Once confirmation to how this would be implemented is agreed with Education a recommendation can be made on the issue, which Corus have agreed in principle. Action: agree method with Education Planning and Premises before making a recommendation on the Masterplan contents. It is agreed that a Travel Plan is likely to be required with the planning applications for each of the larger sites. The scope of these will need to be agreed with SCC at the appropriate time. Public transport provision should be improved and the development of a transport interchange on site D supported. Links to bus routes, new bus stops, space for a bus terminus, possible taxi rank, public car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes and cycle parking are all possibilities across the sites. Many of these will be provided in or in front of Site D thus creating an interchange for many means of transport. Future possibilities with Outokumpu and the Masterplan must state that planning applicant should provide evidence of a commitment by service providers i.e. the PTE and local taxi firms that these services will be provided. Master plan should give some indication that the providers of such services are supportive of the proposal. Recommendation: the Illustrative 12

88 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Don Valley Railway may result in a larger interchange opportunity in central Stocksbridge. drawings should show relevant annotation/ illustration of Public transport infrastructure. The text should be altered to state that improvements to public transport provision in the widest sense i.e. provision of infrastructure as well as provision of routes will be negotiated at the planning application stage. The Draft Brief could also give some guidance to developers on the range of public transport improvements. Improved infrastructure is required, both in terms of traffic and drainage/flood control. Corus agrees that traffic management is an appropriate tool, not necessarily only associated with these development proposals. The Brief proposes signalling the Hunshelf Road / Manchester Road junction, traffic management (calming/ resurfacing/footpaths) along Hunshelf Road to Site C, restrictions of traffic using Site B to ensure it uses the western bypass junction, the opening on the East Bank bypass access and the increased use of rail to reduce road traffic. Flooding and drainage issues have been looked at in the brief. Flood risks is minimal whilst foul drainage will need to traverse the site and link into the public main sewer at Site E to avoid capacity problems. Impact on the Waste Water Treatment Works needs to be addressed. Corus will only be asked to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to serve the Masterplan proposals. Sheffield City Council Drainage comments will confirm this. Infrastructure will be provided to mitigate the impacts of the development proposals. The Area Panel strongly supports the proposal that one of the mill buildings is used for community benefit. The brief aims to facilitate a mixed use approach, which could include suggested community uses by SFP, SYP, PCT. The types of uses suggested for the Mill building conform with Unitary Development Plan policy and there is therefore no objection in principle to the suggested Recommendation: No further action necessary Any proposals on adjacent land 13

89 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position (Outokumpu site) should be integrated with the development site and the existing town centre Corus agrees with this point, subject to the timing, a joint partnership approach and a comprehensive scheme. Agreed. Recommendation: Work should progress on approving this Development Brief. This will enable Corus to continue their rationalisation programme with Stocksbridge Works as an integral part of their organisation. If negotiations between the two companies are successful and partnership approach is adopted, the Approved Brief can be revisited to take account of the expanded site. 9. SCC Highways (Mark Simons) Further discussion will be necessary with the Highways Agency to agree accommodation and mitigation of development traffic. Agreed. Corus to continue discussions so that off-site highways works on or around the bypass can be negotiated through planning application. Agreed It has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the non-trunk road junctions operate well within capacity for the projected year of full occupation, to such a degree that they can be excluded from additional analysis through the gravity model suggested by the Highways Agency. The adoption of the steelworks eastern access is extremely attractive to SCC. Noted. Corus will feed this response back to the Highways Agency. Noted. Corus will discuss with SCC the appropriate timing of this in relation to phasing. Noted Noted The Highways Agency s comments and SCC Highways comments should be read in conjunction with the Transport Assessment. Agreed. The Brief Appendices will include all relevant highways correspondence to provide the reader with an accurate picture. Agreed The scale, form and general type of junctions proposed to serve the sites are generally acceptable. Some tweaking of the western roundabout access to Site A should be provided. Noted. The designs will need to be worked up in further detail but are agreed as generally acceptable. Agreed. This can be provided for within the planning application for Site A. Noted Agreed 14

90 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Bus penetration to Sites A and D is essential. Discussions should continue with the Passenger Transport Executive. Both Sites will provide the relevant infrastructure. Whether buses penetrate into these sites will be for ongoing discussion with the PTE. Bus penetration to site C should also be encouraged in the development brief whilst pedestrian links from site C to stops within Site A and adjacent to site D must also be prioritised within the brief. An alternative option for accessing Sites A and B at Gate 1 should be considered, without the roundabout. A draft layout has been drawn showing a potential alternative as suggested by SCC. This will be included as an option in the Brief. Agreed. Alternative layouts for the access can be negotiated at the planning application stage. Access and road layouts around Site D need further consideration. A boulevard could be provided to simplify the arrangements. This recommendation can be taken on board at the detailed design. Agreed. Traffic signalling could rectify visibility difficulties at the Manchester Road / Hunshelf Road junction. Stocksbridge Pride should be involved in working up a detailed scheme. Significant improvements are required to Hunshelf Road from Site D up towards Site C, to promote walking and cycling. Noted. Negotiations over the planning application for Site D will establish more detail in this regard. Agreed. This is a key element of the Brief. Agreed. The signalling of the access to Manchester Road/Hunshelf Road Junction can be negotiated at the planning application stage for the development of the first site in the development brief, which would be dependent upon it. This position should be reflected in the final brief. Agreed. If the Deepcar proposals do not progress, the Vaughton Hill junction should be improved as part of the Corus developments. The Deepcar scheme would have a significantly greater impact on this junction. Corus therefore considers that before a commitment is made to this requirement, further work is required to properly assess whether the impact from Corus development traffic justifies the improvement. This can be provided to SCC at the time of considering the Site A planning application. A view will then be taken on whether the improvement constitutes a reasonably related Recommendation. The Brief is to reflect the SCC Highways comment and to state that further work will be undertaken to assess the impact of Corus development traffic, the opening up of the East Bank access to the public and to justify the improvement at the planning application stage for Site A. 15

91 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position impact. Additionally, Corus is contributing to alleviating the Deepcar junction capacity problems by opening the East Bank access, which needs to be taken into consideration. A Framework Travel Plan will be required for the site as a whole. This could be provided as part of the first proposals (Site A) to establish an overall framework for Travel Plans. Recommendation the development Brief requires provision of travel plans for all sites where necessary as part of the application submission. Detailed Travel Plans will then need to be submitted upon occupation of each of the 7 sites, drawing on the Framework Travel Plan. Agreed. These will be requirements of planning conditions. Agreed. 10. Stocksbridge Community Forum Jobs and homes need to meet local needs through affordable housing and local employment. The Brief will promote partnership working to ensure the economic benefits are benefits for Stocksbridge. Affordable housing of up to 20% will be provided, as per the Council s policy. Agreed. As well as Housing development, the brief accommodates redevelopment for a range of employment generating uses, including light industry, warehousing, offices, small shops community facilities. Unitary Development Plan policy will also allow the brief to accommodate leisure development if desired. These jobs will be on the doorstep of local people and there are organisations in place to help local people acquire some of the skills that future employers would require. An element of affordable housing will be provided, subject to negotiation with the site developers. The brief can ensure that affordable homes go to local people who need them by ensuring that the provision is ring fenced to people off the Council waiting list. Recommendation: The Development Brief states that the affordable housing would be for people on the Council 16

92 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position waiting list and that priority would normally be given to those living in the relevant postcode areas. Highways issues, particularly the Hunshelf Rd / Manchester Road junction, the western access to the bypass, queuing at the Tankersley roundabout, the Deepcar junction and the Vaughton Hill bridge. Welcomes the rail link. Traffic for the Site B should be directed west. All of these points have been raised in the TA and SCC Highways and the Highways Agency are considering the restrictions, mitigation and improvements necessary to regulate development and improve problem situations. Agreed. Recommendation: Brief should include all mitigation and improvement measures that have been agreed between the Highways Agency, Sheffield City Council Highways and Corus Engineering Steels agreed and to be reflected in the Brief, subject to ongoing discussions. Schools, dentists and doctors need adequate capacity. A financial contribution is likely to be required for education facilities. Sheffield West Primary Care Trust has not identified any need for new medical facilities arising form the Brief, but has specified a possible requirement for office space. Dentist s facilities would not normally be procured through the planning system. Education Provision is a response that can be dealt with through the brief and a contribution will be sought by the City Council from developers of any of the sites within the brief using the agreed methodology specified within the brief. The Brief is flexible enough to allow provision of adequate accommodation to meet demand. Recommendation: No further action necessary. Drainage problems. Yorkshire Water has recommended a revised drainage strategy, which is being incorporated. Await the details of Yorkshire Forward s revised drainage strategy and consult SCC Drainage on this issue. This issue is now considered to be resolved. Disaled and elderly husing should be provided. All housing will need to be accessible to the disabled. Some of the affordable housing could be limited by age. SCC will need to decide if this is suitable. Agreed. Recommendation: No further Action agreed. Footpath linkages. Linkages will be improved from the development sites to the surrounding countryside footpath network and the town centre. Most of the routes are identified in the masterplan, although the detail of this will need to be agreed with SCC at the planning application stage. Agreed. See comments on Sheffield City Council Rights Of Way Officers comments. Recommendation: No further Action necessary. agreed. 17

93 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position A park should be provided. The provision of a park would not be viable, although play areas and open spaces are to be provided. Linkages to surrounding countryside will also be improved. The provision of adequate recreation space for new development is a planning requirement that is dealt with in the Draft Development Brief. However, this is normally provision of on site recreation space or as a financial contribution to the improvement of an existing recreation space within reasonable walking distance from the development. It would be unreasonable to insist on the provision of a park if it is not justified, but recreation space will be provided to meet the needs of new residents in the brief using the most appropriate method for the particular site in question on the site. Recommendation: Sites A and C are to have Open Space provided on site as a (10%) proportion of the site; and on all sites the developers will be asked to make a financial contribution towards appropriate children s play facilities, well designed informal recreation space and outdoor sport. Trees should be native species and trees already planted should not be cut down. Landscape buffers will be provided within the scheme these would be A Tree Survey will be required as part of the submissions on each planning application indicating which trees are to be retained or removed. This is to be supplemented be a landscaping scheme showing details and locations of any proposed supplementary planting. Recommendation: The requirement of a Tree Survey and a Landscaping Scheme as part of any planning application submission is written into Section 5 under the Headings of Visual Impact and Landscaping and Ecology. This should also be stated in Section 6 for each site under the heading of Planning See comments under Point 1 above. 18

94 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position Application Submissions for each site. 11. G Helliwell - Stocksbridge and District Christian Council A special meeting with the Christian Council would have been useful. Several public meetings were held. The Churches were consulted. If a special request had been made, this could have been considered. Agreed agreed. Was the increase in demand for Churches raised at the higher levels of Churches in Sheffield? No, although there is plenty of time before the new residential development is completed, and ongoing consultation with the Churches can establish future needs. Agreed agreed. Traffic concerns. SCC highways and the Highways Agency will address traffic concerns. Agreed agreed. Recreational space and landscaping. These will be provided in the detailed schemes as per SCC requirements. Indicative layouts for Sites A and C show open spaces and play areas, together with areas of strategic landscaping. Need to update annotation on the illustrative drawings to show play areas and revise text accordingly (see response to comments from Stocksbridge community Forum.) Landscaping between sites B and C should also be provided at a suitable time in relation to the occupation of Site C dwellings. Environmental impact. Full Environmental Impact Assessments may be necessary for some of the developments. These will propose mitigation as required to ensure impacts are kept to acceptable minimums. Agreed may be necessary or if required by the regulations agreed. Medical and social services. Consultation with the relevant bodies has established where the needs are. If improvements are required, for example to provide office space for health staff, these can be carried forward through implementation. Agreed agreed. Flat field provision for disabled housing New housing will need to be accessible to the disabled under the Disability Agreed. Special Needs Housing would be negotiated at the Planning 19

95 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position and mobility. Discrimination Act. Special needs housing within the affordable element could be specified by SCC. Application Stage. The Mobility Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance should be used as a bench mark. Community facilities. These could be accommodated within the mixed-use Site D. Ongoing discussions with SFP, STEP and others may result in such facilities being provided. Agreed agreed. Retail development should be promoted in the existing centre and the Corus central area. Site D includes ancillary retail. Corus supports any moves to strengthen the existing centre. Retail development in the Draft brief is limited by Unitary Development Plan policy to small shop units up to 280sq. m in floorspace. The Draft brief does not cover the Stocksbridge District Centre although it is quite close. However, highways improvements proposed to give improved access to sites within the brief proposed improved bus links into the Masterplan sites will complement other improvements that are proposed in the District Centre. The Draft brief protects the vitality and viability of Stocksbridge District Centre Agreed, although the UDP policy also allows small shops where ancillary to other acceptable uses in the area. This could be a possibility in Site D e.g. a small convenience store exceeding 280sqm but serving local needs of the site and Stocksbridge. 12. Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise Partnership Provided a full response addressing a number of issues: Sites A and C should accommodate a retirement village. Demand for housing is understood to be from all age sectors, not just the elderly. The scheme is likely to involve some housing suitable for the elderly, and some of the affordable housing may also be age restricted, if SCC considers this necessary. A retirement village would be the same use class as Agreed. A retirement village is within the same use class as general housing, and if a need is identified provision can be specified within the provision for affordable housing. Mobility housing standards will apply across the site, making units physically accessible to all age groups. The 20

96 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position general housing and is a possibility but need not be explicitly referred to in the Brief. specification of mobility standards, accessibility standards and affordability standards will ensure that the elderly are not excluded from the development. Social housing should be provided in Sites A and C. Affordable housing will be provided up to 20% in accordance with the City Council s policy requirement. The Housing Need Assessment for the site indicates that there is a need for 20% provision within the brief. The City Council disagrees with Corus that the Development Brief should require provision to be negotiated within the range of 5 20% at the time of the application, as per Unitary Development Plan policy. The Council argues that the provision should be at 20% based on the preliminary findings of the Housing Needs Survey. Work is continuing on the production of the area statistics from the Housing Needs Assessment, which will inform negotiations between Corus and the City Council on this issue. Residential/nursing care homes should be provided in Sites A and C for people with learning difficulties. Sheffield West PCT has not raised this as a requirement and it is inappropriate to commit firmly to such provision. However, the Brief would not preclude such a scheme. The use would be within the same class as general housing. Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Recommendation: No further action necessary. Site B could provide a construction skills training centre, rebuild facility for the maintenance and repair of community owned assets and managed workshops and warehousing. These uses would all be within the B2/B8 uses identified for the Brief. Corus will continue discussions with STEP to look at partnership working for implementation. Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Recommendation: No further action necessary. Site D could feature retail, tourism/heritage/leisure, a medical centre, provision for young people, community education and enterprise Most of these uses would accord with the mixed-use approach. Corus and STEP will continue discussions to consider opportunities for partnership Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Recommendation: No further action necessary. 21

97 Consultee and comments made Corus response Sheffield City Council response Agreed position centre, and a children s centre. working. Sites E and F could be used for STEP s Phase 3 managed office space. Such use would accord directly with the B1 use identified within the Brief. Corus and STEP will need to continue discussions and explore how this might be delivered. Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Recommendation: No further action necessary. 13. Stocksbridge Futures Partnership SFP has approximately 1 million remaining funds from the Stocksbridge Integrated Development Plan (Objective One, Measure 23, 4b). SFP has put forward an outline proposal to utilise these funds on Site D. The proposal comprises a number of potential ideas for the Site D buildings, involving a variety of uses. Corus considers that the suggested uses would be compatible with the mixed-use approach to Site D. The outline proposals provide a framework for SFP to utilise the remaining unallocated IDP funds on Site D. Further discussions and agreement between Corus and SFP will be necessary to take the outline proposal and initial ideas forward to a deliverable package. Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Recommendation: No further action necessary. 14. Stocksbridge Local History Society - C.R. & B.W. Mallinson Questions whether due consideration has been given to schools, transport and other amenities. Would like past work and products to be remembered perhaps through a museum. A financial contribution to school facilities may be required. Transport infrastructure and management has been assessed and feedback is awaited from SCC and the Highways Agency. A museum could fall within the mixeduse approach although funding would need to be secured. The proposals for Site D should create a focal point for the history of Stocksbridge and further archaeological work may find suitable structures/artefacts for display. Agreed. No implications for the content of the Draft development Brief. Corus could however consider being proactive, as there is a lot of Stocksbridge s heritage tied into the Stocksbridge Works site. Corus could promote its own museum utilising site history and even redundant machinery recovered form the rationalisation exercise. Recommendation: No further action necessary. 15. Don Valley Railway 22