Application
No: 04/04058/FUL - Comments on the planning proposal by the
University of Sheffield : Student Village on Endcliffe and
Ranmoor sites - with reference to the impact on Woodvale
Road and part of Fulwood Road
We
appreciate that the University needs to provide good
quality, appropriate student accommodation if it is to
continue to attract the best students in the future. The
Endcliffe and Ranmoor sites have played an important role in
the provision of student accommodation over last 30 years
and it is well understood that they will continue to be an
important resource. Our main concern as local residents is
to ensure that the provision of new housing and associated
facilities on these sites is planned in such a way that it
does not lead to a rift with the surrounding community by
causing an unnecessary deterioration in the quality of life.
There are questions both about the appropriate density of
students in a suburban residential area of a city and about
the way in which any new built form interacts with the
environment of what is designated as a conservation area, as
well as how this interaction affects the quality of life of
the long-term residents.
We are
not going to comment in detail at this stage on the selected
style of the proposed buildings. It should be noted,
however, that we do consider it is questionable to have
selected this particular industrialised built form for a
conservation area - an historic residential area of the
city, which among other things was designated as a
Conservation Area to justify "- the planning authority in
very strict exercise of its powers to prevent inappropriate
development taking place." (Endcliffe Conservation Area
designated by the City of Sheffield, 8 September 1976.) We
consider both the site layout and built form to be
inappropriate for the special townscape of this part of
Sheffield and that they will very much detract from the
local landscape. The proposal to paint the buildings white
will only make the inappropriate style of the development
more obvious; the colour will mean that it will dominate the
local scene visually, especially in winter when the leaves
fall. (See the University website
http://www.shef.ac.uk/newresidences/development.html) on the
colour aspect.)
We
object strongly to the site layout as summarised on the
University website and as shown in the detailed planning
application documents now available at the Town Hall.
Despite the University design team having worked on this for
what appears to be almost a year, local residents first
heard about the development in September. The timescale
given at the public consultation stage did not allow a
proper process of public consultation for such an immense
scheme- such a process should have allowed adequate time for
the University to work with the local community to modify
the design solution to meet local people's reactions as well
as the University's needs.
Our main
objection is the density of students that the scheme will
introduce into this residential area. All the other
objections stem directly from this and the associated impact
of the chosen site-layout and design on the local
environment and people. A related important issue is the
lack of any watertight commitment on how the long-term
management of this site will operate once the student
numbers increase - the nature and quality of management of
the users as well as the environment required by such a
scheme will be necessarily expensive. The need to control
student behaviour at night has been a long-standing issue
for local residents; it is noticeable that since the Public
Consultation exercise, when this was raised, the University
has taken steps to limit late night noise from students on
the Endcliffe site. The noise that will be generated by the
Hub is a major issue causing particular concern. It is in
effect a 'pub with added party and eating facilities', with
a potential catchment of 5,000 students. Closing hours will
need to be strictly controlled by the University, working
with the Licencing Authority. If the proposals for a 'Hub'
are approved, it could well become the biggest pub outside
the City centre - and it is surely questionable whether such
a building would be allowed by the planning process in any
other residential area of the City.
Appendix
1 -Location of the Hub
The
following notes deal in greater detail with our various
points of objection:
- We
consider that the location of the hub within the
Endcliffe site is entirely inappropriate and will impact
very adversely on the quality of life of the existing
local residents because of the noise from the building,
particularly at night. If the Hub is going to be a
successful venture, both in economic and social terms, it
has to provide what students want. Understandably for
that age group this means a place to meet, eat and drink.
The plans for the Hub (Site T in the architects drawings)
show that the architects have done an excellent job of
understanding students- needs. The building, which
appears to be about 60m x 25m (200 feet by 80 feet) is 2
storeys with a high roof at one end, it is shown as
having dining facilities, retail facilities, kitchens and
small meeting rooms on the lower floor, as well as bars,
party rooms and smaller play rooms and other meeting
rooms upstairs. The bars give out onto a balcony
overlooking the greenspace, the so-called Paddock. Around
the building there are hard surfaces, part of which are
shown as outdoor eating/drinking areas. In addition,
adjacent and to the west of the building a major paved
area called the Square has been located, a place where
students can gather and enjoy life on long summer
evenings or use to cool off after partying on winter
nights. Such a building and its associated outdoor spaces
can only produce noise - even if as few as 1 in 10 of the
students use it at any one time, this means 500 young
people intent on making merry. While the decibel level
produced by such a building might be acceptable in a city
centre location where the ambient noise levels are anyway
high, in a relatively low-density residential area where
ambient noise levels are normally low, particularly at
night, the perception of the noise levels can only be
accentuated.
- We
are concerned, therefore, about the noise emanating from
the buildings themselves, which is likely to cause a very
high level of disturbance at night for those residents
living within 100m of the Hub and only a slightly lower
level to those living within 200m. But we are also
extremely concerned about the noise made by students
walking to and from Ranmoor to the Hub along the shortest
route, i.e. via Woodvale Road and the top end of
Endcliffe Vale Road, particularly late at night after
parties or drinking in the Hub bar. Even without any Hub
to act as an attraction, this is already an issue for
those living around the student accommodation in this
area, and clearly our fears are that with this new
development the noise levels will rise substantially. The
plans lodged with the planning application show no
attempt to provide the students with other footpath
routes to the Hub. Instead, the Ranmoor student-housing
layout is designed to encourage them to use Woodvale Road
via the shared access path within the Ranmoor site. This
path punches a wide hole in the old stone wall just
across from the top of Woodvale Road; it seems to have
been forgotten that these walls are part of the special
conservation character of this part of Sheffield. The
plans seem designed to make Woodvale Road the natural
route to and from the Hub for the Ranmoor-based
students
- We
question whether a Hub is needed at all when we
understand that the students will be provided with
self-catering facilities. The students presently use the
local centres of Broomhill, Sharrow Vale Road and
Ecclesall Road for shopping - to the great economic
benefit of the local shopkeepers and other businesses in
those areas. Have local businesses been informed of the
likely loss of trade if a Hub is built with plans for a
large dining room and bars plus some retail facilities?
These businesses are all suffering from the present
restricted parking in their vicinity and to reduce the
trade from students would be a severe economic blow - are
Councillors aware of this aspect?
- If
there has to be a Hub as a major social space on the
Endcliffe site, then we believe that this could easily
have been located at the eastern end of the site
(possibly on the existing car park). There the noise and
nuisance levels that it will inevitably generate would
impact on properties in University or school (Birkdale)
ownership, rather than on local residents. Despite
suggestions at the public consultation stage that the
University should consider moving the siting of the Hub,
we note that in the present planning application it
remains in its original position where it will create the
maximum adverse effect for the residents to the west of
the site (see Diagram 1). What was the point of the
public consultation if no notice at all has been taken of
the comments? (The dates shown on the drawings of most of
the planning application maps and plans support this
view.) From the level of detail of the drawings submitted
for Site T (the Hub) it is can be surmised that this
reluctance to consider any change might well be because
the plans are already so far advanced and therefore so
much has already been invested by the University in a
design on this location.
- Diagram
1 illustrates our views about the major failure in the
site layout with regard to the location of the Hub. It
indicates how it would have been possible to ameliorate
the noise problems associated with the Hub, at least to
some extent, if a different location had been chosen and
a footpath system were developed, which would divert
students away from Woodvale Road. From the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted with the planning
application few alternative solutions for the location of
the Hub seem to have been considered by the design team
and none of the ones included in the EIA would have
really solved the noise problem.
 Diagram
1 - showing a more appropriate location for the Hub (note
since drawing this map we have discovered that the houses
to the north east of Halifax Hall are being considered
for conversion to private housing - but we consider the
quality of life needs of existing residents should take
precedence over those of as yet unknow buyers -
especially as housing being renovated can be properly
insulated for noise by developers)
- We
understand that the University is intending to sell the
old Victorian houses to the northeast of Halifax Hall to
developers for refurbishment and subsequent resale as
residential housing. Is this why the University has been
unwilling to consider another location for the Hub on the
Endcliffe site? If so, then the existing residents in
private housing to the west of the site may well suffer
loss in the value of their homes due to increased noise
levels, whilst the new build houses to the northeast,
which could with ease be sound-proofed at the time they
are refurbished for private use, will be in a relatively
quiet location. In the University's alternatives for the
site design - shown in the Environmental Impact
Assessment - the Hub was shown 50m to the east of the
presently proposed site. Unfortunately, that would
have made no difference to local residents in terms of
noise levels.
- An
additional problem for the Woodvale Road and Fulwood Road
private residents is the shape of the long block of
flats. It is such that noise from the Hub will be bounced
back towards the housing in Woodvale Road, whereas it
could have been curved to deflect the noise eastwards. In
any case the Hub should have cladding which absorbs noise
and does not bounce it.
Note: The University of Birmingham Campus has a new Hub
on the student campus; have noise studies been undertaken
there to establish decibel levels, which we understand
are noticeable at all hours of the night?
- Hub
damages landscape
A further issue concerning the location of the Hub that
seems to have been neglected by the site design team, is
the number of trees to be felled and the destruction of
one of the few remaining historic landscape features if
it is built in the proposed location. In the EIA
submitted by the University there is a landscape
assessment of the site. This shows the relatively small
areas of the Endcliffe site where there are any remnants
of the historic landscapes associated with the 19th
century development of this part of Sheffield (the edges
of the site are largely where the major historic
landscape features have survived). Unfortunately, one of
the sites where historic features are shown in the EIA is
exactly where the Hub is proposed, and the tree belt and
the cluster of trees to the north of the wall which are
part of the historic features of this conservation site
are all to be demolished in the proposed plan. The stone
wall the plan shows is supposed to be incorporated into
the building. In order that this can happen it would have
to be totally re-built, at great expense - conservation?.
Why locate the Hub here when it could have been sited
elsewhere?
-
Appendix
2 - The flats
There
are several general issues of concern relating to the
building of the flats.
-
- Light
pollution
This will greatly increase with the new development,
because of the rise in the area of land covered by
buildings and the increased number of students. Unless
lighting is designed properly from the outset, so that it
is not in the form of high level floodlighting (or other
up-lighting) of the spaces between buildings, the site
will inevitably become bright at night. The density of
development and the need for safe movement into and
around the site by students will mean pressure for higher
light levels at night, so this must be thought about now
and be considered as part of any planning approval, as
well as properly provided for within the budget. This is
a special, dark area of the city and changing that will
change the character of the area.
- Traffic
- vehicles, cycles and pedestrians on the Endcliffe part
of the Campus
- Car
parking
While the planning statement shows that just
over 400 parking places will be provided on all the
sites under consideration, only a few of these are
associated with the major concentration of students,
on the Endcliffe site. There seem to be about 70
spaces in the proposed parking areas on the Endcliffe
site, with the possibility of more spaces adjacent to
the flats off the main access road; it is unclear on
the drawings, however, exactly how many the Endcliffe
site will provide in total. There is also no
information on how the University will control
students wishing to bring cars to Sheffield; will
those without a parking space want to park around the
Paddock as seems to be implied in the EIA for the
times when parents deliver students? In these
circumstances it would be essential that a residents
only parking scheme were introduced for Endcliffe Vale
Road and Woodvale Road. If the University is aiming to
reduce the number of parking spaces in relation to the
number of students on the Endcliffe site, this could
be considered a good thing, as it limits the number of
car movements. But the University needs to show how it
will control student parking in the
vicinity.
- Sight
lines
In the Environmental Impact assessment it seems to be
implied that Red Lane will be the main access to the
Endcliffe Site. In order that the sight lines are
adequate, this would mean knocking down the stone
walls (part of the conservation area) to widen the
road and the junction, The new road and path system
will anyway create far more damage to the existing
vegetation than is implied by the drawings. The sites
are on a slope, so to achieve the right profile it
will be necessary to dig into that slope when the
paths go along the contours. This action will disturb
the local water table and so cause stress to mature
and semi-mature and even young established trees,
leading eventually to their death and removal. Laying
out the internal roadways as well as the parking
places will inevitably damage the roots of those same
trees that the planning proposal claims it aims to
preserve.
There are also issues of poor sight lines at almost
all entrances to the Endcliffe site, which will become
critical as traffic increases and so lead to further
demolition of the historic estate walls.
- Sustainable
Campus
The University could have considered a ban on
cars from the site altogether, only allowing dropping
off and parking meter controlled spaces for visitors.
The University could promote this site as a
sustainable campus, a place with a safe cycle track
and footpath to the University (see possible footways
Diagram 1 above). It can already be promoted as a
place with good access to lots of greenspace and fresh
air. On one of the large-scale plans we have found a
small path with a 'dog leg' between the Endcliffe site
and Oakholme Road, but the geometry of this will not
work for a cycle route. From Oakholme Road a
pedestrian/cycle route could be made between Crewe and
Stephenson, leading out to the top of Westbourne Road,
then along Melbourne Avenue coming out on to the road
system at the Rutland Hotel traffic lights - it would
have the advantage of making a safe route for local
cyclists as well as students,. It would be perfectly
possible to design a cycle and pedestrian route, much
of it through University property but detailed for
this to happen detailed plans are needed at this
planning application stage to show how it could
function effectively, and to ensure it is actually
built and preferably before the redevelopment of the
site begins. Such a route would split the students
from the road traffic and associated air pollution and
would knock at least 5 minutes off the walk to the
University for local people as well as students. It
would then be up to the City to make a better roadside
cycle path for the last lap, and up to the University
to provide cycle parks by all buildings.
Where are the bicycle sheds that the planning
statement implies will be needed? Is the provision
proposed sufficient, when the City has a planning
policy of encouraging cycling and walking? There are
better solutions than the ones proposed in the present
planning application and they could be seen as a
planning gain for the local community.
- Noise
- From
student housing The number of units on the
Endcliffe site in particular will result in a
substantial increase in noise from students, from
music, parties, other gatherings, etc. We would like
to know how the University proposes to manage and run
these flats to control the noise levels, day and
night. It is surely essential that managers and
security people to be on site all night to control the
behaviour of 5,000 young people - has accommodation
been set aside for this?
- During
the construction period (over 4 years) there
will be considerable disruption from building noise
and traffic affecting the whole area. The demolition
period will of itself cause considerable problems to
the neighbourhood. For example, we have very roughly
calculated there will be at least 200 lorry loads
involved in the demolition of Sorby Hall alone. The
dust from the demolition phased over 4 years will be
an added problem. The EIA states that there will be no
parking for workmen on or near the site: they are to
arrive by public transport!! How is the University
going to ensure any developer will follow this and how
will it stop the Paddock roadside being used as a car
park, never mind the local roads?
Appendix
3 Tree Cover
- Damage
to the local landscape
This proposed development would cause damage to the local
landscape through the removal of tree cover. The proposed
eradication of trees during and after construction is a
cause for alarm and seems excessive for the layout. Their
plan for tree removal (see Diagram 2 of their Tree
Appraisal) can be seen in the EIA statement and on the
full plan of the Application lodged in the City Planning
Department. The diagram below indicates in rough sketch
form the quantity of trees which appear to be being
considered for removal in the part of the site around
Sorby and Earnshaw Halls alone.
Diagram 2
- Felling
of trees
The tree section of the EIA (Vol.2 Sect. 7) is very
imprecise and can be read in many ways - in one paragraph
the University emphasises they are only felling
60 mature trees and in the next there is a reference to
the need to consider felling 492 for arboricultural
reasons. The planning conditions will need to be very
precise to limit and control what is felled and when and
to ensure that any new planting goes in and has time to
settle down (10+ years) before any unnecessary felling of
existing trees in areas not being built over takes
place.
Note: Their EIA Volume 2, Section 7.13 states that of
the mature trees over 80 years old only "60 trees out of
a total stock of 244" require to be removed by the
construction process. (This is bad enough in itself,
although the document implies that 50 of these need to
removed for arboricultural reasons.)
In 7.14 of the EIA it is stated that there are "a total
of 492 trees on the sites that require or could require
removal in the near future for arboricultural reasons."
They write of public safety as the reason for
this.
It is perhaps worth reflecting that if their criteria for
judging tree health (see their Tree Assessment) and their
argument for removal were accepted, then almost every
tree of mature size in the Broomhill and Ranmoor
Districts of Sheffield should be felled instantly - that
is most of the trees in the Conservation Areas! It is
these trees, which they would remove for arboricultural
reasons -with their bits of naturally occurring decay in
them - that support the present local levels of
biodiversity identified in their Ecology assessment.
It is, of course, reasonable to remove trees that are in
danger of falling down where pruning is impossible, but
it is suggested that it is unreasonable to cut such a
swathe through our local tree cover - the smaller trees
on the site matter too. Even if many of the semi-mature
and younger trees are not splendid specimens (as the tree
assessment shows), they are still alive, have taken many
decades to grow and support biodiversity.
- Planting
of new trees
Proposing to plant over 200 new semi-mature trees as
shown by the Landscape Plan, Volume 2, Sect. 7 is
entirely inadequate. It will take many decades before the
new 'lollipop' semi-mature trees grow to a decent size,
unless the University is going to pay for very large (and
expensive) new trees. Such trees are associated with very
high maintenance costs, unless a very high death rate is
accepted. (Incidentally, the 'lollipop' semi-mature trees
are shown on the Landscape Plans at over twice the
breadth they will have when planted.) There is research
to show that semi-mature trees struggle to survive for a
long period after planting before they can begin to grow
again, that is if they survive that period of stress. The
expense of planting semi-mature trees is caused by the
need for very regular watering in early years, guying and
long-term care and frequently re-planting. Such trees are
expensive to plant and to look after. Who will do this -
the University has admitted that it has neglected the
site over recent decades and that is why so many trees
need work on them. Who will pay for this?
- Importance
of tree cover
The special feature of this suburb of Sheffield is its
tree cover of mature (some over 120 years old) and
semi-mature (up to 80 years old) trees. It is the trees
as much as the built form and street-side stone walls
that make the very special, nationally recognised, local
urban landscape of distinction. The trees are not just
visual features: they improve air quality locally by
trapping airborne dirt particles. There is research
evidence that older trees are better at improving air
quality than newly planted ones. The square metres of
filter lost to the city from the reduction of tree cover
proposed by the University would therefore be
considerable. Research by Bernatsky (1969) showed that an
80 year old beech tree could have a total of 1,600 square
metres of leaf surface on which dirt and other pollutants
could settle, greatly to the benefit of the immediate
environment.
In this area of the city the trees are important in terms
of the local biodiversity, since each individual tree
supports a wide range of other species the older it
becomes: mosses, lichens, insects, and it is this which
supports the mammals, bats and birds mentioned in the
EIA. A tree, which to an expert arboriculturist looks
decayed, is rich in its capacity to support biodiversity.
Any new trees cannot fulfil this function for many
decades and the loss of established tree cover will be
devastating to the bats and birdlife and the insects on
which they live. (Note: This local area supports owls and
their numbers are declining fast; this plan will most
likely eradicate them.) The large trees also have an
effect on the local micro climate (it takes 40 to 50
years for a tree to grow sufficiently to make an impact);
their presence makes this a more enjoyable area to be out
in winter (they reduce wind speed even when bare of
leaves) and create shade and cooler places in summer as
well as enhance the visual qualities of the area. It is
worth noting that large trees in belts can create shelter
for buildings, so reducing energy consumption but there
is no sign of this solution being applied in the proposed
Landscape Plan.
Note: Were the Ecologists who did the EIA section on
ecology aware of the number of trees to be felled as
there is no real assessment of the impact of this
proposal on the present biodiversity of the site? The
ecology section is weak on stressing urban biodiversity
issues (only mentioning it at the end of the statement)
dealing mainly with species identification rather than
the niches and landscape characteristics which support
the species.
Large trees can be a source of delight for everybody.
Individually their different forms and colours create
diversity and interest in an increasingly built-up
environment. There is also evidence from throughout the
world of a link between property prices and the level of
tree cover: the more trees and the bigger the trees, the
higher the price in relation to floor area of houses.
- Damage
to trees
Damage to trees during construction from soil compaction,
drainage and other services routes, and accidental damage
from the swinging of the cranes is inevitable in a scheme
such as this. Many of those mature trees shown for
retention are bound to have their branches or route
systems damaged during construction operations, so the
number of trees lost will be worse than the plans
currently show. Trees are not sculptures, they are living
objects and any disturbance, particularly to the local
water table and the soil surface immediately around them,
leads to stress and damage, if not death. The new
drainage plans forthe site appear bound to change the
water table substantially for many trees - do we really
want so many mature trees to die? Many trees in this area
of Sheffield have been damaged during construction
operations, as evidenced by the trees, which now need to
be felled in front of the student flats built overlooking
Endcliffe Vale Road in the 1990s. The trees were
preserved by the designers, but damaged during
construction and this has led to their very early
death.
In particular, the proposed housing on the Endcliffe
site, much of which is 5 storeys high, will cause
considerable new shading and wind turbulence. This will
consequently influence the long-term survival of existing
vegetation.
Appendix
4 - A sustainable plan?
Whether
this planning application proposes a sustainable solution to
bringing more students into this site needs to be
questioned.
Demolition
of existing buildings
Use of building materials and transporting them requires
energy - their use and reuse is, therefore, part of planning
for sustainability. While there may be insoluble problems in
relation to Sorby Hall which means that it has to be
demolished, whether this is so for all the other buildings
is questionable. A member of the Woodvale Road group was
told by a University representative that Ranmoor House still
has a life of at least 25 years, so is it sustainable to
propose to demolish it now, particularly as from what we can
see from the document, there would be little gain in bed
spaces in that area? As it happens, Ranmoor House is one of
the more aesthetically pleasing blocks of flats built by the
University in the expansion period of the 1960s and 1970s -
viewed from Fulwood Road through the mature and semi mature
trees, it is attractive.
Plants
and biodiversity
On environmental grounds, the proposal cannot be
regarded as sustainable in its impact on landscape and
plants, as it stands.
Energy
We are not in a position to judge how energy implications of
the design will be dealt with on the information available,
but it is to be hoped that active and passive solar heating
will be properly utilised, as well as the necessary high
levels of insulation, to ensure low-level energy
consumption. The curved of the roof would seem to make it
difficult to use the large south facing roof for solar
energy
In the
limited time available to look at the planning application,
it has not been possible to identify how the buildings are
to be heated. If a central heating unit is to be
incorporated into the Endcliffe site, then this could be
another noise and pollution source.
Waste
How waste is to be disposed of is also unclear at
present. A great deal will be generated by this number
of students and will involve constant traffic movement by
waste disposal and recycling vehicles.
Quality
of Life
Livability This is an issue for local
people in terms of the impact of the proposals on the
quality of life of the existing residential population.
Little account has been taken of this impact in the
submitted proposal - what is proposed is not sustainable in
its present form. In terms of its impact on student life it
may be to their benefit in certain respects, but then the
present site layout, with its generous greenspace, is even
better for students as a residential environment.
Water
management
On a site such as this, being built when all cities are
supposed to be putting an emphasis on environmental as well
as social and economic sustainability, it would be usual to
expect to see an on-site water collection and disposal
scheme in the plans, but where is this? It is noted that the
University intends to have a more complex drainage system,
but where is the landscape design that shows how surface
water could be gathered and cleansed before flowing into the
local drainage system or being used for watering the
greenspaces and their plants? Localised flash flooding is
inevitable when associated with such an increase in the
paved and built-over surface of the site, and this could be
dealt with on-site through water holding arrangements within
the soft landscape areas. Yet there is also no evidence of
this in the plans.
Designing
a Campus as a place to live in
This campus should be something very special, as it is such
a wonderful site to work with - the external areas matter as
much as the internal. Designing a campus is a real art - it
is about making places for young people and those they live
amongst, not just a matter of locating a set of buildings
and linking them with paths and roads. As yet we can see
little understanding of this in the plans for the buildings
or external areas, although it is good to see the Paddock is
being preserved. It is definitely not too early to be
thinking about the outside spaces at this stage of the
planning process and the details of the way they will be
designed should have been part of this planning application.
What is shown at present is nothing but decorative planting
in the external spaces, with no understanding of the art of
making places. The Landscape Plan as presented is entirely
inadequate and the plan should not be approved until it is
redone. It needs to show not just how the hard and soft
surfaces will be designed, but also an understanding of how
the external areas will be managed in the long as well as
short-term. How the users feel about these spaces will
determine the success and safety of the site; they are not
just something to be decorated afterwards.
Final
version - ARB - 18 November 2004
|