Park Hill: Objections mount to Sheffield flats plan to turn green spaces into parking

A group of residents called SOS Park Hill has launched a campaign against the loss of green space for parking outlined in the plan by Urban Splash to develop 124 flats in the Duke Street block on the former council estate. A total of 144 objections have been lodged with Sheffield City Council.

SOS Park Hill is fighting two retain two green spaces that have been earmarked for car parking for the new phase of the Urban Splash plan. The firm is also redeveloping the former Coles Brothers/John Lewis store in Barkers Pool.

The company has responded, saying it is setting up meetings in the community and will survey all residents on their views.

Plans which were submitted to the council last month state there will be 28 one-bedroom flats, 74 two-bedroom flats, 21 with three bedrooms and one with four or more. The application also includes listed building consent, commercial uses of part of the block, landscaping and parking.

A covering letter with the application from planning consultants Made It Together says: “The landscape masterplan creates a series of new routes and spaces throughout the site, which knit into the existing fabric of Park Hill and seek to reduce the reliance of private vehicles through promoting walking and cycling.”

‘Highest standards’

A travel plan for the development also underlines the importance of cycling and public transport access.

Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust says in its objection: “Adequate green space and car parking should have been planned in from the beginning – and green space used by the community should not then be taken away from them.”

South Yorkshire Climate Alliance has added its objection, stating: “This is Phase 4 of the remarkable regeneration of the iconic Park Hill flats, a world-renowned complex. The very highest standards should therefore be expected.”

It adds: “However, it has not been established that the energy efficiency of the newly refurbished flats will meet “zero carbon” standards. Since it is far more practical to carry out energy efficiency measures before new residents move in, it would be absurd and a missed opportunity not to ensure that zero carbon standards are met from the outset.”

The organisation suggests reducing carbon emissions associated with travelby “radically reducing” the proposed 84 parking spaces. It says that a city centre development should aim to attract residents wishing to walk, cycle or use public transport and parking provision should be minimal.

The letter adds: “An additional argument for reducing the parking provision is the fact that two substantial car parking areas are shown taking the place of existing green amenity space of particular value to residents in Phase 1 of the redevelopment.

Heat island

“The mental and physical health-giving properties of these green spaces should not be underestimated. They also mitigate the tendency of a ‘heat island’ to build up. Parked cars would intensify it.

“Where green space is at a minimum, it should be safeguarded. (This proposal contrasts with Pounds Park where parked cars have been replaced by a much valued park in the Heart of the City).”

David Bamford from SOS Park Hill said: “They are destroying a significant part of the green space. Most of us choose to live here because it’s open parkland.

“We are really opposed to losing our existing green space. There are good alternatives within phase four for car parking around the development itself. This doesn’t take away really well loved and really well used green space around here.”

Read this: Council action to combat fraud blue badge bids

Mr Bamford said that 55 per cent of people who live in Park Hill don’t have a car and use public transport. He urged the council to get the proposals changed and wants to see “a more sensible solution rather than something that’s destroying green space”.

The group has posted on social media, suggesting ending pay and display for commuters and making the phase one parking available to residents and businesses only. It also suggests re-restablishing parking on Rhodes Street and cutting the number of spaces per flat from 67% to come into line with phases two and three, which it says were 31% and 36%.

‘Viable solution’

A spokesperson for Urban Splash said: “Urban Splash and Places for People have transformed Park Hill, creating new homes, workspaces and more green space than ever before. The result is a community of residents and businesses who care about the place where they live, work and play.

“Like many other mid-century Brutalist buildings, Park Hill has undergone sensitive and sustainable redevelopment. Concerted efforts by the delivery partners and planners have enabled a viable solution evolving the building into somewhere that benefits people, place and planet.

Read this: Council complaints soar by thousands – but that’s good

“Now, as our community grows, we are exploring parking provision, taking many views into consideration as we try to meet the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. We are planning meetings with people in the community and offering all residents an invitation to respond to a survey.

“Park Hill has significant amounts of purposeful green space for a city centre development, and the proposed 124 new homes in the next phase will include a garden area, increasing the green space further.

“That said, we understand resident concerns. This is an engaged community; we know how much residents care and that is why we are spending this time listening.

“Doing so, will help us find a solution that both addresses demand for parking while preserving as much green space as possible, ensuring we deliver the right balance for Park Hill.”

The council website says that the deadline for determining the application is September 19.