Plan to demolish old Yorkshire Bank building on Sheffield road rejected

The building on Lound Side in Chapeltown was proposed to be demolished to make way for 25 new apartments but Sheffield City Council’s planning committee has decided against it – following the officers’ recommendation.

The vacant Yorkshire Bank building would have been replaced with a four-storey block with the new homes and two ground-floor commercial units.

The proposal received 21 objections during the consultation process.

People living close to the site raised concerns with the impact the new homes would have on traffic and parking; the design, the scale, obstruction of light, privacy and inadequate amenity space, among other things.

There was also a neutral letter and two letters of support submitted.

The supporters said the development would bring “much needed regeneration” to the area and they would welcome a new building to replace the vandalised, old building.

Sheffield Council’s planning officers recommended the proposal for refusal on the grounds that there are missing documents (and as such the officers assume that the development would be out of scale and characteristic of the street scene).

Also, the applicant has not gone into a “planning obligation” – or section 106 agreement – to decide whether an affordable housing contribution would be required.

At the meeting, Cllr Glynis Chapman raised an issue with access to the site – as there is a bus stop in front of the vacant building at the moment – and the size of the planned apartments.

Cllr Tony Downing added something must be done to bring the site back into use but the size and the scale of the proposal “is way beyond everything else in that area”.

Cllr Dianne Hurst said she agreed with the notion that the “right building would lift the area” but she did have concerns with the lack of information around the development so there is a worry councillors cannot be confident in making a decision on, among other things, amenities.

Members of the planning committee followed the officers’ recommendations and refused to grant permission.