Sheffield councillors oppose changes to Castlegate regeneration scheme following objections at meeting

The transport, regeneration and climate policy committee was asked to prioritise refurbishment of the Mudfords Building and the Market Tavern on Exchange Street as part of the £15.76 million Castlegate scheme.

Plans for Castlegate include deculverting the River Sheaf, creating a new green space and ‘public realm’ (public areas), refurbishing buildings ready for redevelopment and preserving the remains of Sheffield Castle. The confluence of the Sheaf and Don where the castle stood are the city’s birthplace.

A representative of the Castlegate Partnership, which brings together organisations with an interest in the regeneration, said S1 Artspace has been offered both buildings. The organisation is meant to be delivering a major arts complex in Park Hill with £2.63m of £37m allocated to Sheffield by the government’s Levelling Up Fund.

Councillors heard from the leader of a community centre in the Mudfords Building that he had not been consulted and feared the centre would lose its home. Eritrean restaurant Frehiwet Habesha is also based there.

Anthony Wood, of the Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust, representing the Castlegate Partnership, questioned the change which he said was “outside the envelope (scheme boundaries) and not a permissible use of the money”.

He asked for confirmation that money currently being spent on the Market Tavern is not being drawn from the Levelling Up Fund and no money will be drawn from it until any change is approved by the Department for Levelling Up “as this risks causing issues with the entire fund”.

Mr Wood also asked what a proposal to “authorise officers to seek approval from the Department for Levelling Up Homes and Communities to relocate an element of the project to the Castle site” referred to.

He added: “Can the council please confirm that there will be no decrease in funds for the public realm, deculverting, including renaturalisation of fish passes, and archaeology, as a result of diverting resources to the Market Tavern and Mudfords Building?

“Can the council also confirm whether discussions have been held with Frehiwet Habesha Eritrean restaurant and Andalus Community Centre, who currently occupy Mudfords Building, and what the outcome of those discussions was?”

‘Large financial investment’

He asked whether the buildings have been offered to S1 Artspace and if so, why they were not offered to other community and arts projects based in the area. He said that S1 Artspace believe they have been offered the buildings.

Committee chair Coun Mazher Iqbal said that the Market Tavern work has been funded by the council’s revenue budget. He said that the excluded information was commercially sensitive, which “usually happens when we’re engaging with contracts. When that information is available, we’ll make it available”.

He said that three council officers had met Mudfords Building tenants to discuss the repairs required for the building, adding “it’s worth reiterating that no decisions have been made on the future of these buildings, just that options are being considered”.

He said there was no change to the budget for the works and “the buildings have not been offered to anyone. They are council buildings and the intention is for them to remain in council ownership”.

Taoufik Marah, of Andalus Community Centre, said the charity helps vulnerable and disadvantaged people. He asked why it had not been included in consultations, saying: “Since 2009 we have committed a large financial investment in the building. We have made it watertight and usable.”

He added: “Will you give us a commitment that we will not be forced out of our building? If not, are you aware of the impact on the particular section of the community that we serve?”

Coun Iqbal said that there are concerns on the condition of the building, adding: “Rest assured that nobody is being kicked out of any building. We don’t operate in that manner. If any of our buildings are not safe and there’s an issue around health and safety, it’s important those issues are addressed.”

Head of regeneration and property Tammy Whitaker at first said that the buildings had been included in the scheme envelope. She said that they were in a poor state and councillors were being asked to divert money from other development plots as a priority as their condition could put off investors.

‘Cart before the horse’

She said: “We are not diverting any money from the other works to that.”

Coun Andrew Sangar said: “I feel as a member of this committee that we have not been fully briefed. They have changed the details of where the money is going. I don’t feel sufficiently briefed to be able to agree at this point.”

Coun Iqbal said he thought the changes would have no detrimental impact.

Coun Dianne Hurst asked: “Why the decision to accelerate these two buildings? What that actually means and what the impact on would be on the rest of the development with existing resources?”

Coun Christine Gilligan Kubo asked if the Andalus centre would have to move out. Alan Seasman, service manager city regeneration and major projects, said it might if the work cannot be done with the centre running.

Pressed by Coun Maroof Raouf, he said: “They might have to move out and back.” Coun Raouf asked: “How long – six months, six years or 600 years?”

Coun Craig Gamble Pugh said: “I’m a bit confused by this and not entirely sure I’m buying what’s on offer.” He said Mr Marah clearly felt he had not been consulted, adding: “You are putting the cart before the horse, coming to this committee before the community organisations are happy with what the plan is.”

The debate continued behind closed doors because of the commercial sensitivity. Councillors decided to defer a decision on the buildings and the move of one element of the project to Castlegate.

Read this: Update on new health centre plans

Read this: Green energy moves to tackle climate change