Decision details

The evaluated ‘comprehensive’ approach to the scheme’s development and design using SCRIF and contributions from developers and SHU will transform the corridor running from Sidney Street to Fitzalan Square, improving accessibility and safety as well as the local environment in order to encourage new investment and jobs. It is therefore recommended that this approach is approved so that the scheme can be delivered in the necessary timescales. 

Option 1 : – Do nothing

This is taken to mean “leave things as they are”, except for the road resurfacing under the Streets Ahead contract.

Strengths: The Council/SCRIF do not have to incur expenditure and any additional improvements (over and above those undertaken by Amey) would be funded by SHU or other private/public body.

Weakness: SHU having already paid for improvements at Arundel Street and Charles Street (within their campus but on public highways) are unlikely to spend beyond what they see as absolutely necessary in the immediate curtilage of their estate. They are unlikely to be able to negotiate changes to bus and taxi routes e.g. in Fitzalan Square without support and involvement of SCC.

Others such as Esperanto Place developers, CIQ stakeholders (Workstation, Showroom or Site Gallery) or  HCA, (the owners of Sheaf Square and NMB sites) are unlikely to commit spend outside a partnership with SCC/SCR  and are again unlikely to be able to negotiate changes without the involvement of  SCC and so will adopt an incremental approach, focussing primarily on their site rather than adopt a more comprehensive, area wide approach (and will seek to pass the responsibility to a potential developer, whenever this materialises).

This option has therefore been rejected.        

Option 2:  Do Minimum based on Streets Ahead and Partners Contributions (No SCRIF)

This can be broken down as follows:

1.    Fitzalan Square and Flat Street – work with SHU and s106 funding only to just remove buses from the eastern section of the Square and relocate the taxi rank making good with secondary palette materials. No partnership with or alteration to Esperanto Place/Arundel Gate linkage other than removing taxis

Strengths: reduces costs and maintains the Square in its current format but allows greater priority to pedestrians

Weakness: No transformational change is likely and no stimulus to development beyond SHU plans. Unlikely to achieve the step change that is necessary so the current pedestrian profile (less family friendly, domination by street drinking, cash-converters and betting) is unlikely to change. The construction cost reduction is also marginal in that the bulk of the costs are on the sub base, which are the same irrespective of the finish, primary or secondary palette.

2.    Pond Street and Pond Hill – rely on Streets Ahead Repair Programme   only, with some tree planting but cycling continuing in existing carriageway  possibly delineated by a white line

Strengths: does not necessitate changing kerb line or significant alterations to how this road currently operates, other than improvement to pedestrian environment and comfort.

Weakness: Potential loss of an opportunity for a comprehensive approach to significantly change the look and operation of this road making the most of Streets Ahead but building on it in a cost-effective way.

3.    Paternoster Row – As for Pond St confine interventions to Streets Ahead repairs but with a segregated cycle lane demarcated by white lining

Strengths: as above

Weakness: a missed opportunity to make use of surplus road space and achieve the refreshing of Sheffield’s Cultural Industry Quarter’s main street  at a time that could be critical to the future of Site Gallery, Showroom etc. This would not address road safety issues from excessive vehicle speeds particularly at the Howard St crossing.

The above option would cost virtually nothing to the City Council (and SCRIF). The only cost falling on the Council would be towards the closure of a road in Fitzalan Square and contribution towards any enhanced work. The option has been rejected as work is likely to be undertaken in a piecemeal approach and is unlikely to address any highway safety / traffic management issues. 

Option 3: Site only approach

The direct economic benefits of this scheme come from the anticipated development of the sites. One option considered has therefore been to focus on the development work required to unlock these development sites but without the investment in the surrounding public realm. It would theoretically therefore be able to generate the bulk of the benefits, with less investment.

Whilst a detailed, quantitative analysis of each site has been carried out (in order to calculate the overall economic benefits) this analysis does not convey the critical importance of the feel of the area. Knowledge Gateway, as suggested by the name, is more than a collection of buildings. It is a critical arrival and transfer of place for people (increasingly students) and a key economic activity within the Sheaf Valley area of the city. Sites have not been developed out in part because of the physical infrastructure constraints this project will address but also because of the lack of investment in the area as a place and the generally poor physical environment. The public and private funding partners for this scheme have recognised that and the connecting infrastructure and public realm improvements are a critical element of their investment and continued support e.g. Sheffield Hallam University and Fitzalan Square.

It is not felt that addressing the constraints of the sites alone would make a sufficient change to the area that is necessary to see the sites developed out, and therefore the benefits realised.

Option 4 :  “Comprehensive” Approach with SCRIF

1.    Fitzalan Square and Flat Street – comprehensive upgrade to a consistent quality across the wider space and drawing on the widest partnership available whilst retaining/maintaining as much of existing design and materials as practical; re-configure Esperanto Place including removal of retail units adjacent to and along Arundel Gate to provide links/views from Norfolk St and Arundel Gate.

Strengths: should achieve necessary upgrade to encourage more people including families to use this route, in turn helping to change the profile of Fitzalan Square, and its connectivity to the Heart of the City via Arundel Gate to attract footfall and a wider range of businesses.

Weakness: will cost more, including SCRIF and use of Council capital receipt from Esperanto Place lease extensions to acquire the retail units. May be technically challenging.

2.     Pond St and Pond Hill – same as ‘Do Minimum’, above other than changes to kerbing on approach to Howard St crossing. This is because of the uncertainty surrounding future of the bus station and the minimal road widths, reducing our ability/options for increasing footpath widths and or tree planting etc.

3.     Paternoster Row/Brown Street – Combine SCRIF, s106, LTP and SHU contribution to achieve narrowing road width for vehicles, extending high quality pedestrian areas and event spaces outside key attractions, reducing bus and taxi speeds and introduce cycle facilities.

Strengths: Makes good use of the over-wide carriageway, exploits opportunities offered by existing users on the east side (for outdoor café or spill out space), reduces accident risk at Howard Street by reducing speeds and provides good quality cycling links.

Weakness: will cost more;