Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group Minutes 18th May 2004
SHEFFIELD CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP | |||||||
Meeting held 18th May, 2004 | |||||||
PRESENT: | Name Organisation | ||||||
Dr. R. Harper (Chair) | - | Ancient Monuments Society | |||||
Mr. T. T. M. Hale (Deputy | - | Sheffield Chamber of Commerce | |||||
Chair) | and Industry | ||||||
Mr. A. Kirton | - | South Yorkshire Industrial History | |||||
Society | |||||||
Dr. A. A. Wood | - | Institute of Civil and Structural | |||||
Engineers | |||||||
Mr. H. Greaves | - | Hallamshire Historic Buildings Society | |||||
Mr. R. J. Marshall | - | Royal Town Planning Institute | |||||
Mr. A. Hallam | - | Sheffield Society of Architects, RIBA | |||||
Mr. R. Hawkins | - | Council for the Protection of Rural | |||||
England | |||||||
………………….. | |||||||
1. | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE | ||||||
Apologies for absence were received from Miss. R. Harman (Victorian Society), Mrs H Woolley (Landscape Institute) and Councillors Sylvia Dunkley and John Robson (Sheffield City Council). | |||||||
2. | MINUTES | ||||||
The minutes of the meeting held on 24th April 2004 were approved as a correct record and, arising therefrom, the Group noted that:- | |||||||
(a) the Head of Development Services (i) was awaiting recommendations from the structural engineers regarding the stability of the Anglo Works, Trippet Lane and it was anticipated that a planning application for development of the Works would be received next month and (ii) would investigate the position regarding the proposed development of land off Rockingham Lane ; | |||||||
(b) the Maudsley’s Building, Cresswell Road, Darnall was not a listed building. It was partially roofed in artificial slate and overall was not in good condition. The Head of Development Services would investigate the possibility that a planning application had been submitted for its conversion to residential accommodation; | |||||||
(c) the Chair (Dr. Harper) had received a reply from the Countess of Scarbrough, thanking the Group for its condolences regarding the recent death of her husband the Earl of Scarbrough; | |||||||
(d) the present consultation period in connection with the Furnace Hill and Well Meadows Conservation Areas Designations would close on 21st May 2004 although there would be a further period of public consultation and the aim was to achieve designation of the conservation areas by 31st July 2004; | |||||||
(e) the developer was considering a substantial redesign of the scheme to develop the former John Watts Building, Lambert Street; | |||||||
(f) the architect was considering submitting a revised design of a new building in a different location, of the development at Sheaf Quay, and withdrawing the scheme of development which had been considered by the Group; | |||||||
(g) planning consent had been given for the developments at (i) Cornish Square, Penistone Road and Cornish Street and Green Lane and (ii) land adjoining the Coach House, Broomhall Road, | |||||||
(h) the scheme of development of 68A Brook House Hill had been withdrawn; | |||||||
(i) the Head of Development Services’ recommendation would be to refuse planning permission for the development of 41 Montgomery Road; and | |||||||
(j) the Town Hall had been nominated as a Heritage Open Day venue and in previous years the City Hall had also been nominated as a venue. The Head of Development Services would investigate and report to the Group on whether any additional Council owned venues had been nominated for the Heritage Open Days. | |||||||
4. | MONTHLY REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ||||||
The Head of Development Services submitted his monthly report and, arising therefrom, the Group noted that:- | |||||||
(a) further design work was being carried out in connection with the development of the Sylvester works; | |||||||
(b) a reduced scheme would be submitted in connection with the development of Westside House; | |||||||
(c) the applicant had requested the suspension of consideration of the planning application, for the scheme regarding the Crookes Valley Methodist Church, pending the forthcoming Municipal Elections; | |||||||
(d) the scheme for residential development at the former White Croft Works, Copper Street had been withdrawn and planning permission had been given for a scheme of office development of the property; | |||||||
(e) a revised scheme for the development of land between 12 and 18 Linden Avenue would be submitted; | |||||||
(f) he would recommend refusal of planning permission for the development of the former Tram Sheds, Albert Road; | |||||||
(g) planning permission had been granted for the development of 22 Victoria Road; and | |||||||
(h) the applicant had requested consent for the erection of a further sign at the Player’s House, Attercliffe Common. | |||||||
5. | INFORMATION ITEMS | ||||||
The Group received and noted copies of a report on the decision in the case of Georgeiou v. Enfield L.B.C. and a memorandum dated 22nd April, 2004 and a letter dated 10th May, 2004 from the Director of Legal and Administrative Services regarding the case. | |||||||
6. | BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST | ||||||
The Group considered the following applications for planning permission for development affecting buildings of special architectural or historic interest and made the observations stated:- | |||||||
(a) Demolition of hall/office extension to Spencer Building at Anns Grove Primary School, Anns Road (Listed Building Grade II) (List No. 04/01442/LBC). | |||||||
No objection to demolitions subject to making good and reinstating the building as originally built, where possible. The Group felt that the listed wall should be retained and preferably should be incorporated in the new layout and, if that was not possible, the wall should be rebuilt on the new boundary line of the old School; | |||||||
(b) Erection of school building, provision of car parking accommodation and recreational facilities and landscaping works (application under Regulation 3 – 1992) and land at Anns Grove Primary School, Spencer Road, Richards Road and Anns Road (affects setting of Listed Building) (List No. 04/01425/RG3) | |||||||
The Group had no objection in principle to the design of the new building but urged caution regarding the use of cedar boarding, which had suffered degradation, where it had been used in other buildings within the City; | |||||||
(c) demolition of existing buildings and erection of 1x5, 1x7 and 1x8 storey buildings, providing 365 single persons’ flats, ground floor offices and associated car parking at 106-110 Mary Street, the site of Shoreham House and the site of 192 Shoreham Street (List No. 04/01436/CAC and 04/01437/FUL) | |||||||
The Group felt that the proposal did not preserve or enhance the Cultural Industries Quarter Conservation Area. The present scheme would be over development of the site, with a discordant juxtaposition of blocks and a crude, insensitive design which would damage the appearance of the conservation area. The Group felt that remodelling of the existing buildings would be possible, as indicated by the remodelling of other buildings in the area such as the Columbia Works and the Group had no objection in principle to the remodelling of buildings within this part of the Conservation Area. | |||||||
(d) Demolition of buildings, erection of 1x6 storey building for use of part of ground floor for retail/commercial use (Classes A1, A2 and B1) and 73x1 bedroomed flats on lower ground, ground and upper floors on the site of workshops at Matilda Street and Eyre Lane (List No. 04/01514/CAC and 04/01515/FUL) | |||||||
The Group felt that there was no objection in principle to the proposed demolition or to the development of the site and no objection to the scale of the development subject to a higher standard of design, including a better palette of materials, which would enhance the Cultural Industries Quarter Conservation Area. | |||||||
(e) Erection of school building for children with special needs on the site of Talbot School, Norfolk Park Road (affects setting of listed building) (List No. 04/01221/RG3) | |||||||
The Group welcomed the development of this type of school in this position, but felt that the present scheme involved the loss of an opportunity to provide an attractive building. The proposed building would have the opposite effect to the Centre in the Park building, which contributed to the attractiveness of Norfolk Park. The scheme was of a poor, unimaginative design with inappropriate materials, which did not acknowledge the quality of the surrounding area and ignored the opportunity to address the Park and the potential that it offered to a school for pupils with special needs. The Group felt that the Park was a great asset to the City and the proposed scheme would be poor use of public funding. | |||||||
(f) demolition of buildings on Blonk Street, conversion of retained building and erection of building with provision of A1/A3 and B1 use on ground floor and 125 flats above with associated parking at Hancock and Lant Buildings, Lady’s Bridge and land adjoining Blonk Street (Listed Building grade II) (no List No. assigned) | |||||||
The Group felt that the proposed scheme was over development of the site. It had a monolithic design and it was too high. The landmark building in the area was the Hancock and Lant Building and Lady’s Bridge was one of the most historic zones within the City. The height and materials of the new development should relate to the Hancock and Lant Building and the appropriate material would be brick rather than render. The Group welcomed the proposed walkway through the arcade area but felt that the issue of the crucible stack and its adjoining workshop should be considered very carefully. The Group recommended the City Council to seek a revision of the listing description of the listed building. | |||||||
7. | MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS | ||||||
Members of the Group reported on developments affecting listed buildings and conservation areas and the Group noted that:- | |||||||
(a) there had been a change of ownership of the former Crown Court building, Castle Street; | |||||||
(b) Mr Greaves had written to the City Council and to English Heritage in connection with the newly installed windows at the Muxlow Building, former Nether Edge Hospital but, as yet, had not received a reply; | |||||||
(c) planning permission had been granted for the demolition and development of the Gatefield Club, Abbeydale Road; | |||||||
(d) the Head of Development Services would investigate (i) the removal of the Arch at the Jessops Riverside Works, Savile Street (ii) the installation of glossy black street lamps within the Broomhill/Broomhall areas and (iii) the position regarding the future of the empty shop premises adjoining the Pizza Volente, Glossop Road; | |||||||
(e) Architecture Week, which was promoted by the Royal Institute of British Architects would be held from 21st – 25th June 2004; | |||||||
(f) a planning application had recently been received regarding the development of land adjacent to the Baptist Church, Napier Street; and | |||||||
(g) Mr Greaves had been interviewed for an article in the Financial Mail, regarding the closure of the Yorkshire Bank’s Abbeydale Road branch and the proposed development of the former Abbeydale Cinema, Abbeydale Road. | |||||||
(NOTE: The above minutes are subject to approval by the Group at a future meeting). | |||||||

