Post on 11-Mar-2016
description
transcript
sheffield waterways strategy groupsheffield city council
final reportapril 2008
yellow book
sheffieldcity of r ivers
s h e f f i e l dc i t y o f r i v e r s
a p r i l 2 0 0 8
yellow bookwmud
yellow book3 hill street
edinburgh eh2 3jp
t 0131 225 5757 f 0131 225 5750mail@yellowbookltd.com
sheffield waterways strategy group sheffield city council
contents
21042008-id-01//wim
s h e f f i e l d c i t y o f r i v e r s
executive summary i
section A introduction 1
section B the rivers and the city 7
section C sheffield's rivers today 25
section D developing the strategy - ideas and influences 61
section E city of rivers - goals, priorities, vision 85
section F making it happen 107
section G conclusion 113
section H annexes 117
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1
i n t r o d u c t i o n | s e c t i o n A
The brief1.
This study was commissioned the Sheffield Waterways
Strategy Group (SWSG). SWSG was set up in 2003 to
promote the coordinated regeneration of Sheffield’s
waterways. Group members include Sheffield City Council,
the Environment Agency, British Waterways, Sheffield
Groundwork, Sheffield Wildlife Trust, Yorkshire Water and
a number of local environmental and amenity groups. The
study has been undertaken at the request of Sheffield
First for Environment.
The strategy group has set out a 15-year vision for
Sheffield’s waterways:
the waterway corridors will be attractive, safe and
healthy places to live, work and visit
rich in wildlife and a superb leisure and recreational
resource
a vibrant and exciting mix of community, leisure,
office and residential development
a model of sustainability – social, economic and
environmental
capitalising on industrial heritage to become a
destination in Sheffield
part of a regional network of waterway corridors
i n t r o d u c t i o nA
the study area
2
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
During the course of the study we have refined and
developed this vision, but it has proved to be a useful and
robust statement of aspirations.
The brief called for the development of an overarching
strategy for Sheffield’s waterways which would:
establish a vision for waterways regeneration in the
city
provide the justification for investment in terms of
economic, social and environmental benefits
provide a framework for coordinating activity
Early in the work programme the consultants met with
the strategy group to discuss their aspirations and
expectations for the study. The group concluded that,
above all, they wanted the strategy to make a difference:
to get things done that would not otherwise have
happened, to do them better and faster, and in a more
integrated way. The group stated that the strategy should:
show how investing in the waterways would improve
the quality of life of the people of Sheffield
appeal to and influence the city’s politicians and
senior decision makers
change the perceptions and behaviour of developers
and investors
above: the River Don below: the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal
raise public awareness of Sheffield’s rivers and
encourage people to use them.
With those objectives in mind, the group took the view
that a good strategy would be:
an accessible and inspirational advocacy document
focused on a small number of achievable outcomes
clear about delivery: what needs to be done, who is
going to do it, by when?
connected to a wider policy agenda on regeneration,
social inclusion, sustainability and biodiversity.
Sheffield’s waterways inspire passionate interest among
the “true believers” – the individuals and organisations
represented on the Strategy Group. But the consultant
team has stressed the importance of reaching a much
wider audience, and of influencing decision makers who
may not be aware of the potential of the city’s waterways.
So our approach has been to focus on connecting
Sheffield’s rivers to the wider city agenda.
For example, the waterways strategy should help to make
Sheffield the first green city in the UK, and the most
sustainable. Similarly, by enhancing the quality of life
in Sheffield, the revived waterways network will make
the city more attractive and competitive and, to quote
Creative Sheffield, “a desirable place to live and to visit”.
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3
i n t r o d u c t i o n | s e c t i o n A
An introduction to Sheffield’s waterways2.
“…the Don which enters the area flowing in a south-
easterly direction and at the old centre of the city
changes its course at right angles to the north-east:
the Sheaf which joins the Don at this point and which
though comparatively insignificant has given its name
to the town: the Rivelin and the Porter which flow in
nearly parallel directions, the former to join the Don
at Hillsborough and the latter to connect with the final
subterranean course of the Sheaf. Whether the Loxley
be a tributary of the Rivelin or vice versa is something of
a geographical nicety comparable to the rival claims of
the Mississippi and the Missouri: but if the Loxley is the
principal, then its last mile within the Sheffield boundary
adds another stream.
“Beside these five principal rivers the grasp of whose
courses is fundamental to a right understanding of the
plan of the city, there are certain smaller brooks which are
responsible for local features of additional interest… 1
Abercrombie’s concise description of Sheffield’s rivers
(1924) goes a long way to defining the geographical 1 Abercrombie, op cit
scope of this study. As specified in the brief, we have
focused primarily on the river Don and its principal
tributaries - the Sheaf, Porter, Loxley and Rivelin – as well
as the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal, which was opened in
1819 and is an important – though sometimes overlooked
– element of the townscape of the Lower Don Valley.
However, we have also taken account of other
watercourses:
• the river Rother is a major tributary of the Don: as
its name suggests, this is “Rotherham’s river” but
stretches of the river form the eastern boundary of
the city of Sheffield2
• there are numerous brooks and streams throughout
the city, for example: in the east, Shire Brook and
Short Brook decant into the Rother; Blackburn Brook
runs from Chapeltown to the Don at Meadowhall,
through a largely industrialised zone under the M1;
Hartley Brook Dike, Sheffield Lane Dike and the
evocatively named Tongue Gutter weave through the
housing estates in the north of the city; the Porter
and Sheaf are fed by extensive networks of streams,
some of great beauty; the Little Don enters the Don
near Stocksbridge.
Sheffield is a city of rivers, and the waterways are
– as Abercrombie says – “fundamental to a right
understanding of the plan of the city”. In the following
sections we will trace the profound impact of the
waterways on the history of the city: from medieval times
the fast-flowing rivers in the west provided ideal sites for
small-scale metal-working industries, and access to water
2 The Rother will be examined by the Rotherham Waterways Strategy, which is being commissioned jointly by Rotherham MBC and the Environment Agency; the strategy will be completed in spring 2008.
City of Sheffield from Abercrombie’s Plan
4
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
continued to be a key determinant of industrial location
right through to the 20th century. It is no exaggeration to
say that the rivers made Sheffield.
In the post-industrial age, the intimate connection
between the waterways and the working life of Sheffield
has been broken. In its place Sheffield has slowly been
forging a new relationship with its rivers. As early as the
late-19th century there was a growing appreciation of the
landscape and recreational value of the wooded western
river valleys; in the late 20th century Sheffield began to
recognise the architectural and cultural significance of
its industrial heritage. Sheffield is ready to reconnect to
its rivers; they in turn have the potential to help realise
the vision of a successful, distinctive city of European
significance.
The rivers shaped the development of Sheffield as a
great industrial city, and defined its topography. The
extraordinary landscape setting of the city has had
a profound effect on the distinctive character and
personality of Sheffield, and its unique sense of place.
Especially in the west, the river valleys form green
corridors which break up the suburban sprawl. They
give residents access to high quality open space and
woodlands, and provide pedestrian and cycling links
between the city and the national park. All this means
that “there is a richness and variety of space and of high
quality landscape for the population to use and enjoy”.
Sheffielders value this unique landscape very highly.
The steep-sided valleys and fast-flowing rivers in the
west are defining features of Sheffield, as is the historic
wooded landscape of the upper Don, now reclaimed
from industry. These are magical places which “bring the
countryside into the city”, but elsewhere the relationship
between city and rivers is more problematic. For at least
200 years, the Don from Middlewood to Tinsley, and the
lower reaches of the Sheaf and Porter have been sites of
industry, used and abused, but not much valued. The small
rivers are hidden gems, but (unlike, say, Nottingham’s
Trent or Newcastle’s Tyne) Sheffield’s Don has never been
a source of renown or civic pride.
Up until the 1980s this was hardly surprising. The Don was
first an open sewer and then a drain for industrial effluent.
It was dirty, smelly and – to all intents and purposes –
dead. However, in the past 30 years there has been a
growing appreciation of both the value of the riverside’s
industrial heritage and its potential as a site for recovery
and regeneration.
the River Don near Hillsborough
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5
i n t r o d u c t i o n | s e c t i o n A
Early evidence of changing attitudes included the
opening of the industrial museum at Kelham Island, and
the designation of a conservation area in recognition
of that area’s special architectural and townscape
value; the Five Weirs Walk provides access to previously
inaccessible stretches of the lower Don. Improvements in
water quality have also spurred an interest in the renewed
ecological value of the river. In the 1970s and 1980s,
the rehabilitation of the industrial Don was something of
a pioneering enterprise, but the idea has begun to take
hold that this long-neglected river could become a special
place in its own right in the next 10-20 years.
Part E maps out the proposed vision and strategy for
reinventing Sheffield as the city of rivers
Part F focuses on making it happen, including a
headline action plan, a strategic appraisal of impacts
and guidance on delivery
Part G draws together our conclusions and
recommendations.
the Loxley Valley
Structure of the report3.
This report is in seven parts, including the introduction:
Part B describes the historical and cultural context
for the study
Part C sets out a detailed analysis of aspects of the
waterways system and an assessment of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Part D describes the development of the strategy,
the ideas and influences that have shaped it, and the
overarching goals
6
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
4. Rivers and industry: an historical survey
The metal trades were already established in the Sheffield
region in the middle ages, attracted by the availability of
iron ore, charcoal (later coal), sandstone for grindstones,
and “the steeply falling rivers, which were harnessed for
grinding, rolling and forging”.1 Pre-industrial Sheffield
was a small township but the surrounding countryside
was filling up with domestic scale industrial enterprises.
By 1660, “at least 49 sites on the Rivers Don, Sheaf,
Porter, Loxley and Rivelin, with a few others on the
Blackburn Brook and the Moss Beck, had been dammed
for the grinding of cutlery, the milling of corn, the forging
of lead, and other industrial purposes. Two out of every
three of these wheels were geared to the grinding of
cutlery and edge tools”.2 From the very beginning, the
geography of industry in Sheffield was shaped by its
watercourses.
Many of these early industrial sites were in rural and
semi-rural locations by the fast-flowing tributaries
of the Don: “water power was crucial in Sheffield’s
development. No other place in Britain had such a
concentration of sites”. Between 1660 and 1740 the
1 Nicola Wray, Bob Hawkins and Colum Giles, One Great Workshop: the buildings of the Sheffield metal trades (English Heritage & Sheffield City Council 2001)
2 This historical overview is based primarily on David Hey, A History of Sheffield (Revised edition, Lancaster 2005)
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t yB
Old Horse Dyke Culvert on the River Porter
8
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
number of grinding works of various kinds powered by
Sheffield’s rivers almost doubled, from 49 to 90. Cutlery
was the key industry, accounting for two-thirds of these
enterprises.
In the first half of the 18th century the population of
Sheffield grew steadily, and the town began to develop as
a centre of industry – becoming “one of the foulest towns
in England”, according to Walpole, who nevertheless (like
so many others since) noted Sheffield’s “most charming
situation”. By 1736, the population of the parish had
increased to 14,531; by 1801 it had trebled to 45,755.
Fairbank’s map of 1771 shows the beginnings of an
industrial town, with mills and forges ranged around
the rivers among a landscape of orchards and fields. A
channel (goit) was formed which ran parallel to the south
bank of the Don, creating a series of islands – Kelham,
Millsands, The Isle – which became important sites of
industry, as did Ponds Forge by the Sheaf3.
Urbanisation was progressing rapidly, especially by the
Don and the lower reaches of the Sheaf. Fairbank’s 1797
map shows the modern city taking shape: the Alsop Fields
scheme laid out a grid of streets near the confluence
of the Porter and the Sheaf which was soon filled with
3 The eponymous ponds are of medieval origin, but the area became intensively industrialised in the 18th century.
Fairbank’s map of Sheffield - 1771workshops. Sketches from the same decade show
industrial development - still largely of domestic scale -
by the River Don at Hillsborough and Neepsend, and on
the Sheaf at Heeley.
By now the pace of change was accelerating, with
industrial development concentrated in the Don Valley
and around the lower reaches of the Sheaf and the
Porter. The advent of modern industrial production, and
especially the growth of the steel industry, was reflected
in developments including “a new type of steam-powered
integrated works producing steel, tools and cutlery on
one site”.4 The Sheaf Works was established next to the
Sheffield & Tinsley Canal in 1826; the Globe Works, close
to the Don at Shalesmoor, at about the same time. The
introduction of steam power meant that a new generation
of factories no longer required immediate access to
the water, although the river valleys – already dirty and
polluted – continued to be key locations for industry.
The increase in the scale of industrial production in
Sheffield coincided with, and was assisted by, the
opening of the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal in 1819. The
canal connected Sheffield to the sea for the first time, via
the Don, Trent and Humber. This was the realisation of an
ambition dating back to the 1690s, but the proposal had
4 Ruth Harman and John Minnis, Pevsner Architectural Guides: Sheffield, New Haven and London 2004
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
long been resisted by mill owners and, especially, the
Dukes of Norfolk. The Don was made navigable as far as
Tinsley (which became “the port of Sheffield”) by 1751;
but until the Duke agreed to support a Canal Bill in 1815
all goods had to be hauled the last three miles between
the city and the Don Navigation by road.5
The canal was never a great commercial success. It
opened in inauspicious economic circumstances and was
soon superseded by the railways, but its opening marked
the moment when the focus of industrial development
shifted to the east end of the city – and especially the
low-lying flood plain of the Lower Don Valley.
In the middle decades of the 19th century industry
migrated down river, from the area around Lady’s Bridge
and the canal basin, to Attercliffe, Brightside and beyond.
This was the domain of the great steelworks founded by
Charles Cammell, Thomas Firth & Sons, John Brown and
others: huge factories and sheds that dwarfed the earlier
sites of crucible steel production, tool making and cutlery.
The heroic names of these factories - Cyclops, Atlas, Pluto,
Aetna and the rest – reflected the scale of operations and
they are still potent cultural icons. Small workshops were
still the norm in the cutlery industry which remained in its
traditional locations, but larger firms built grand 4-5
5 Simon Ogden, The Sheffield and Tinsley Canal, Sheffield 1997
storey factories such as Cornish Place Works (1851-54)
and Green Lane Works (1860).
William Ibbitt’s sunlit South-East View of the Town
of Sheffield, painted in 1854, provides a detailed, if
somewhat sanitised, visual description of the town at this
critical moment. At about the same time, Samuel Sidney’s
Rides on Railways described Sheffield as “very ugly
and gloomy; it is scarcely possible to say that there is a
single good street, or an imposing or interesting public
building, - shops, warehouses and factories, and mean
houses run zig-zagging up and down the slopes of the
tongues of land, or peninsulas, that extend into the rivers
or rather streamlets, of the Porter, the Rivling [sic], the
Loxley, the Sheaf and the Don”. A succession of visitors
and commentators pursued these themes over the years,
contrasting the dirt and noise of the growing town with its
attractive and unspoilt natural setting.
The population of the new borough of Sheffield had
grown to 135,310 by 1851; by 1901 Sheffield was a city
with more than 400,000 people living within its expanded
boundaries. Steel was now Sheffield’s most important
product, meeting the voracious demands of the railways
and, later, the armaments industry. From the 1860s the
introduction of the Bessemer converter revolutionised
the industry. The first steelworks in the Lower Don Valley
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal circa 1890s
10
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
above: Loxley Valley | below: Stepping Stones over the Rivelin
Niagara Weir, Sheffield Postcards recording the growth of Sheffield
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
Old Tower Wheel, Sheffield
above: Nursery Street, Sheffield | below: Endcliffe Park, Sheffield
12
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
were built in Brightside and many of the employees lived
in the Wicker; Hey notes that Attercliffe was still a village
in the late 1860s but it changed beyond recognition in
the years that followed. The late 19th century was a time of
technological advance which saw Sheffield become “the
leading international centre for special steels”.
The steel city fascinated and appalled contemporary
observers. JS Fletcher’s 1899 account, quoted by Hey, is
typical:
“Under smoke and rain, Sheffield is suggestive of nothing
so much as of the popular conception of the infernal
regions…The aspect of the northern fringe of Sheffield
on such a day is terrifying, the black heaps of refuse, the
rows of cheerless-looking houses, the thousand and one
signs of grinding industrial life, the inky waters of river
and canal, the general darkness and dirt of the whole
scene serves but to create feelings of repugnance and
even horror”.
Industrial expansion continued into the early 20th
century. Utilitarian steel-framed sheds sprang up in the
east end of the city, creating the characteristic “canyon”
townscape, fragments of which survive in Brightside.
These years represent the high-water mark of Sheffield’s
industrial might: by the early 1920s, the city was
experiencing a severe recession and unemployment in
the steel industry remained high throughout the inter-war
years. The cutlery industry was also feeling the effects of
foreign competition, and many firms were slow to adapt.
Despite these warning signs, manufacturing industry
continued to dominate the economy (and define the
image) of the city up to and beyond the second world war.
After the war, the long decline of the cutlery and tool-
making industries continued. But in the steel industry,
“Sheffield’s traditional advantages of technical
knowledge, a vast pool of human skill, and a unique
clustering of metal-working and engineering industries
continued to give the city a competitive edge”. Investment
poured into the industry in the 1950s and 60s, creating
an illusory climate of confidence. 68,000 people were
working in large steel works in the city in 1964, with many
more employed in small enterprises. In 1960 Sheffield
accounted for almost two-thirds of all UK alloy steel
production; the city also produced about one-eighth of UK
output of ingots and castings.
The partial re-nationalisation of steel in 1967, followed
by a collapse in world demand, had a severe impact.
Lady’s Bridge Hillfoot Bridge
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 3
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
Employment in the South Yorkshire steel industry fell
from 60,000 in 1971 to 43,000 in 1979. The 1980s
were even worse, with employment down to 16,000 by
1987 and below 10,000 in the mid 1990s. The impact
was particularly severe in the Lower Don Valley, where
employment fell from 40,000 in 1975 to 13,000 in 1988.
Elsewhere, cutlery and other traditional metal trades were
decimated by foreign competition.
In the steel industry the impact was more severe on jobs
and communities than on output. Advanced technology
and resulting increases in productivity mean that
Sheffield is still a major producer of special steels.
Remarkably, “more steel is now made in Sheffield than
during the Second World War”. But the character and
occupational profile of the city have changed profoundly,
and the experience of the 1970s and 80s had a profound
impact on confidence and morale.
The physical impact of the rapid decline of the traditional
Sheffield steel industry was greatest in the Lower Don
Valley, where slum clearances and factory closures had
depopulated the area and left large tracts of derelict
and contaminated land. In response to this crisis (which
was also being played out in many other industrial
cities) the government set up the Sheffield Development
Corporation to drive economic and physical regeneration
in the Don Valley.
River Don at Neepsend
14
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
The Development Corporation (1988-1997) was the
catalyst for the development of sports and leisure
facilities including the Don Valley Stadium, the English
Institute for Sport, iceSheffield, and the Hallam FM Arena,
as well as commercial development, mostly warehouses
and offices. Whatever the economic benefits of these
developments (and of the Meadowhall Shopping Centre
which opened in 1990) the late 20th century regeneration
of the Lower Don Valley signally failed to create a sense of
place: the raw drama of Brightside in its industrial heyday
has been replaced by a drab, car-dominated prairie
landscape.
This survey has shown that Sheffield’s industrial
history has always been intimately associated with its
river valleys; over a 200-year period the geography of
industry tracked across the city, from west to east. The
metal trades began in the steep sided valleys of the
western tributaries and the upper Don; as the factory
system matured, industry migrated to sites close to the
town itself (Kelham, Neepsend, the Wicker, Heeley and
the lower Sheaf); from the mid 19th century gargantuan
steelworks sprang up in the Lower Don Valley, from
Brightside to Tinsley.
As successive phases of industrial development swept
across the city, they left behind a post-industrial legacy.
Contemporary photographs and postcards show that, by
the late 19th century, the early sites of industry in the west
were already being treated as picturesque survivals, and
the lesser rivers were being incorporated into the city’s
magnificent Victorian parks. Abercrombie’s 1924 Civic
Survey and Development Plan highlighted the riverside
parkway as a distinctive form of “open space which
the natural conformation of Sheffield would be likely to
induce”:
“The Porter Book Parkway, consisting as it does of a string
of contiguous open spaces, is the finest example to be
found in this country of a radial park strip, an elongated
open space, leading from a built-up part of the city direct
into the country”.
Abercrombie’s 1924 Riverside Parkway system
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 5
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
Abercrombie contrasts traditional ornamental parks where the visitor, “as a squirrel in
its cage…walks round and round”, with the Porter Brook, where “he is led onwards until
the open country is reached. Doubtless the squirrel enjoys its kinetic exercise, but there
would seem to be more potential pleasure in progressive locomotion”.
By the late 20th century, the historic and townscape value of Sheffield’s early factories
was being recognised: Kelham Island was designated a conservation area and
Millsands had become a focus for urban regeneration. Even in the Lower Don, where
the historic fabric is fragmented and overlaid by development of indifferent quality, the
value of the river as a recreational and ecological asset has been rediscovered through
the creation of the Five Weirs Walk.
below and bottom left: illustrations from Abercrombie’s 1924 Riverside Parkway system
16
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
5. How the rivers have evolved
Chris Firth’s millennium history of the Don catchment
describes the floodplain of the Sheffield Don in the 11th
century:
“…the river open[ed] out into a complex of open water
and marshes which had been formed as a result of the
converging flows of the river Don with that of tributaries
such as the Loxley and Sheaf. This fluvial plain helped to
dissipate the energy of the floods which bore down the
steep valleys following heavy rain high in the catchment.
“The vegetation of this area probably consisted of reed
beds, interspersed with willow carrs, enclosing shallow
pools. These pools provided breeding and nursery areas
to a range of coarse fish species which would have
found rich feeding in the relatively warm, productive
environment. The fish, in turn, would have supported a
range of piscivorous birds such as herons, kingfishers and
ospreys as well as mammalian predators such as otters”.
Above the fluvial plain, the Don had “the characteristics
of a typical Pennine spate stream”, with woodlands – like
those still to be seen at Wharncliffe – running down to the
water’s edge.6
6 Christopher Firth, Domesday to the Dawn of the New Millennium: 900 years of the Don fishery (Environment Agency, 1997). Identified mills: Don 35, Loxley 27, Rivelin 21, Porter 20, Sheaf 34.
Firth describes how, in the centuries that followed, human
activity has had a profound impact on the river Don.
Three forms of human intervention have had a particular
impact on Sheffield’s rivers: the impoundment of water
to harness the power of the rivers for milling and later
the metal trades; land drainage and reclamation; and,
especially from the 19th century, chemical pollution.
The history of water power on Sheffield’s rivers has been
documented comprehensively by David Crossley, whose
survey identifies a total of 137 mill sites on the Sheffield
Don and its tributaries.7 Firth describes how, starting in
the medieval period:
“…[i]n order to harness the power of the river’s flow, the
millers built impoundments (weirs) across the channel
to create the ‘head’ which they required, and directed
the water they needed through a race or goit to the water
wheel”.
The late 17th century was the beginning of the “key
period in the development of water-powered industry
in the Sheffield area”. By the end of the 18th century
“all available sites on the rivers had been developed”
and a survey of 1794 shows “Sheffield’s water-mills at
their zenith”. No new wheel sites were developed after
7 David Crossley (ed), Water Power on the Sheffield Rivers (Sheffield 1989).
Killicrankies Bridge, Middlewood
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 7
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
this date, although modernisation and improvements
continued.8 Increasingly, rising land values made some
of the historic sites attractive for new factories and other
development.
Some of the weirs were substantial structures; Palmer’s
1722 survey states that Attercliffe Forge Dam was 5 yards
high. In dry weather the entire flow of the river might be
diverted into ponds or through goits, “leaving the river
bed dry between the intake and the outfall”. Coarse fish
populations were trapped in isolated sections of the
river; to begin with, the weirs were relatively small and
salmon could continue to make their way upstream, but
as obstructions to the river grew in size and number the
consequences were disastrous. By the mid 18th century
there was no longer a self-sustaining salmon population
in the upper Don and its tributaries, although there were
“remnant populations” of brown trout and grayling.
An expanse of wetland by the confluence of the Sheaf
and the Don was probably the site of the earliest attempt
at land drainage in the Don catchment. The 12th century
Sheffield Castle was built on land reclaimed from
the marsh. Much later, in the 19th century, the Don at
Attercliffe was diverted and canalised in order to create
8 However, Crossley records that after the 1864 flood damaged or destroyed most of the wheels in the Loxley valley, most (though not all) were re-built and returned to production.
an expansion site for the Hecla steelworks. Numerous
such projects created the present canalised river
contained within high retaining walls.
As Firth notes:
“As well as the loss of habitat associated with the
draining of shallow pools etc, constraining the river’s flow
within banks would have destroyed the naturally energy
dissipating effects of this flood plain. The inevitable result
would have been a far less stable environment for fish,
with regular damage to both habitat and populations as
the energy of floods carried on down river”.
Apart from the localised effects of mining, water quality
in the Don catchment had remained relatively good
until the beginning of the 19th century. But, thereafter,
sewage and industrial pollution took their toll. The
rapidly growing industrial town had no effective means of
treating or disposing of human waste: the streets became
open drains which flushed into the town’s gullies,
streams and rivers. The Don became a sewer, “black
and foul smelling”. Nominal powers to control pollution
were ignored because Sheffield simply did not have the
infrastructure to apply them. It was not until 1886 that
a “very basic” treatment facility opened at Blackburn
Meadows.
William Ibbitt’s South-East View of the Town of Sheffield, painted in 1854
18
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Industry also continued to discharge waste into the rivers.
This practice continued well into the 20th century:
“…The steel industry created thermal pollution problems
which raised the ambient temperature of the river
reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations, discharged
acids from pickling processes and coated the river surface
with oil from quenching and lubricating.
“Coal mining and its associated industries produced
gross solids which coated the bed of the river and
streams, discharged highly toxic heavy metals, arsenic,
cyanides and phenols and contaminated adjacent land
with tar liquors.
“In combination with this miasma of destruction was the
organic pollution created by the human population of
South Yorkshire. Inadequately treated sewage raised BOD
and lowered dissolved oxygen levels. It created ammonia
concentrations well in excess of that which could sustain
fish life and produced the phosphates which encouraged
algal development and destroyed natural in-stream flora.
“Foam, created by the use of non-biodegradable
detergents, became perhaps the most visibly obvious
indicator of the river’s condition in the 1950s and 60s.
Huge banks of grey brown bubbles created by the re-
agitation of detergents were formed as the water tumbled
over weirs. Often these banks covered the river’s surface
to a depth of several feet, and in windy conditions clouds
of foam were lifted from the water and carried through the
air for hundreds of yards.
“The combination of all these and many other forms of
pollution from a range of industrial activity served to
create for the River Don the well deserved but unenviable
title of one of Europe’s filthiest rivers. A title which it
retained well into the 1980s”.9
The rehabilitation of the Don catchment can be traced
back to the 1960s, when local angling groups began to
reintroduce coarse fish into disused dams on the upper
Don. In the 1980s a combination of factory closures, more
stringent environmental legislation and the development
of the Don Valley trunk sewer resulted in a marked
improvement in water quality. The recovery of the river
was reflected in growing populations of minnows, roach,
perch and gudgeon. By 1990 “a self sustaining coarse
fish population was becoming well established” in the
Don throughout Sheffield.
It was a measure of the dramatic improvement in the
condition of the Don when, in 1992, the river achieved
9 Christopher Firth, op cit
weirs, bridges and pollution
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 9
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
its River Quality Objective (RQO). Better water quality
and growing fish populations have encouraged the return
of species such as kingfishers, herons and otters. The
Don has become “a popular coarse fishery in its lower
and middle reaches… [with] excellent trout and grayling
fishing in the upper reaches”; salmon have returned to
the river between Sheffield and Doncaster10.
This transformation has been reflected in the condition of
the tributary rivers, some of which have been the subject
of recent studies. The Environment Agency reports that
the river Sheaf “has made a remarkable recovery in recent
years, with brown trout, native crayfish and bullhead
having re-colonised much of its length”11. A report on
the same river by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and Heeley
Development Trust describes “a dynamic and diverse
biosystem” with “a surprising wealth” of fish, flora and
mammals12.
The recovery of rivers which were biologically dead only a
few decades ago has been a remarkable success story. Its
significance for the present study is that it has opened up
opportunities – for development, recreation and nature
conservation – which would not have been available if
the Don had continued to be an open sewer. Our brief 10 Environment Agency, A River Don Fish Pass Proposal (undated)11 Environment Agency, River Sheaf Restoration Project (undated)12 Sheffield Wildlife Trust & Heeley Development Trust, River Sheaf Corridor Study
(September 2001)
is predicated on the need to re-connect the citizens of
Sheffield to their rivers: that would not have been an
attractive prospect a generation ago.
Much of the improvement described here has been a
windfall benefit of the decline of Sheffield’s traditional
industries, which has removed major sources of pollution.
The change has been complemented and accelerated by
investment in drainage and sewerage infrastructure as
well as by a tighter regulatory regime. However, there is
still a lot to be done, and the urban Don and the lower
reaches of its tributaries still bear the marks of their
industrial past in the form of “[w]eirs, walled banks,
culverting and canalisation”.
Sheffield is a modern city and there can be no going
back to the rivers in their natural state of a millennium
ago; the aspiration now must be to introduce a more
environmentally sympathetic river management regime
which strikes a better balance between the demands of
development and biodiversity. 13
13 Sheffield Wildlife Trust & Heeley Development Trust, op cit
the rivers today - above: the Porter valley | below: Shirebrook Valley
20
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
6. Sheffield: spirit of place
Famous observers of modern Sheffield include two
eminent but contrasting 20th century writers.
George Orwell, in The Road to Wigan Pier, said that
Sheffield “could justly claim to be called the ugliest town
in the Old World”, and noted tartly that “its inhabitants,
who want it to be pre-eminent in everything, very likely
do make that claim for it”.14 Orwell was describing the
Don Valley where “[if] at rare moments you stop smelling
sulphur it is because you have begun smelling gas”.
In 1961 John Betjeman described the very different world
of Broomhill, “the prettiest suburb in England” where
“in winding tree-shaded roads” he found the “handsome
mansions of the Victorian industrialists who made their
pile from steel and cutlery in the crowded mills below”.
The view from these privileged heights was celebrated
in Betjeman’s famous poem, “An Edwardian Sunday,
Broomhill, Sheffield”:
…Strange Hallamshire, County
Of dearth and bounty,
Of brown tumbling water
And furnace and mill.
14 George Orwell, op cit
Your own Ebenezer15
Looks down from his height
On back street and alley
And chemical valley
Laid out in the light;
On ugly and pretty
Where industry thrives
In this hill-shadowed city
Of razors and knives16.
This duality – the favoured western suburbs, with
their fresh air, open space and views, and the polluted
environment of the east end – runs through every account
of Sheffield in the modern era. Abercrombie’s Survey
mapped a “smoke zone” extending from the city centre
to the boundary with Rotherham: he reported that in
an average year Attercliffe had 25% less sunshine than
Weston Park. The geography of privilege and exclusion
is an enduring feature of Sheffield life and one of the
defining themes of this report.
Writing in 1961, Ian Nairn called Sheffield “this exciting,
exasperating city”; when he returned in 1967 he
found that “Sheffield has at long last found itself as
a personality…If this is tomorrow’s Britain, it will be
15 The Rotherham-born poet, Ebenezer Elliott (1781-1849), the Corn Law Rhymer16 John Betjeman, op cit
Old Abyssinia Bridge
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 2 1
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
all right”.17 Not all the projects praised by Nairn have
stood the test of time, but overall his judgement has
been vindicated. Like other observers Nairn found that
Sheffield – though one of England’s biggest cities – had
little to show in the way of fine architecture or civic
display: “the old buildings are something of a joke”.
According to Orwell, Sheffield “has a population of half
a million and it contains fewer decent buildings than the
average East Anglian village of five hundred”.
It has to be acknowledged that for a city of its size
Sheffield has very few buildings of real quality. The
reasons for this are rooted in its history; Sheffield
was always an industrial city, not a centre of trade
or commerce like Manchester and Leeds. In 1924
Abercrombie noted that “it is in no sense the
metropolis of a region… [its] simple aim is to be a
successful manufacturing community and everything
must tend directly to that end”. Sheffield was one of
the powerhouses of the industrial revolution but the
architectural legacy –civic, commercial and ecclesiastical
buildings – was generally undistinguished.
Arguably, the Park Hill flats (1955-61) were the first
buildings of international significance that the city had
produced, though they remain highly controversial.
17 Ian Nairn, Britain’s Changing Towns, BBC, London, 1967
A number of modern buildings – among them the
University Arts Tower18, the Winter Garden and Millennium
Galleries19 and Persistence Works20 - have raised the
standard, but the quality of Sheffield’s architecture
undeniably modest.
If this is the case, how can we account for Sheffield’s
powerful and enduring appeal and the deep affection it
commands among its citizens? Partly, of course, it is a
matter of the landscape: Sheffield’s natural setting is
18 Gollins, Melville & Ward, 1961-6519 Both by Pringle Richards Sharratt, 1995-200220 Fielden Clegg Bradley, 1998-2001
unmatched. Everywhere there are striking views: into the
city, out of the city and across the city. The steep sided
valleys of the upper Don, the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and
Loxley bring fingers of woodland and open space deep
into the city, and connect it to the Peak District. The
contrast between the sublime, even “terrifying”, aspect of
the industrial east end and the city’s “golden frame” has
been noted by visitors for 200 years.
Paradoxically, the lack of architectural splendour which
has embarrassed Sheffield in the past now looks like
a source of distinctiveness – something that makes
Sheffield special. This is captured in the 2004 Pevsner
Architectural Guide by Ruth Harman and John Minnis21.
Harman and Minnis catalogue and celebrate the city’s
industrial heritage, its fine public parks and arcadian
suburbs; its unsigned vernacular buildings and dedicated
local architects; as well as the flawed but heroic
municipal projects of the 1950s and 1960s.
Sheffield is as prone to sentimentality and self-
congratulation as the next city, but the feeling persists
that – in the age of the clone town – it is not like
everywhere else. Describing Sheffield as a city of villages
is in danger of becoming a cliché, but Sheffielders know
that there is an element of truth in it: the small towns
21 Ruth Harman and John Minnis, Pevsner Architectural Guides: Sheffield, Yale Univer-sity Press, 2004.
Park Hill flats by Gollins, Melville and Ward 1955-61
22
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
and villages subsumed into the city in past 150 years
still retain something of their individual personality.
The city has many special places, some cherished by the
citizens of Sheffield, some still little known. They include
the affluent western suburbs; the hilltop campus of the
University of Sheffield; a set of superb historic parks,
gardens and open spaces; the rich industrial townscape
of Neepsend and Kelham Island; characterful local
centres like Crookes and Hillsborough; the iconic cooling
towers forming a memorable and somehow appropriate
gateway to Sheffield at Tinsley.
Sheffield’s townscape and topography are distinctive,
but so are its history and culture. The defining narratives
of Sheffield’s past relate to the metal trades: cutlery and
the little mesters, tool making and the heroic grandeur
of steel manufacture. It is easy to be sentimental about
what were hard and often dangerous industries, and
distance lends black-and-white images of the smog-
bound city a spurious air of romance. Even Orwell
admitted that, at night, “Sheffield assumes a kind of
sinister magnificence”. The reality was tough and often
unpleasant, but there is no doubt that the business
of making and manipulating metal defined the city’s
self-image – and established a Sheffield brand which
until relatively recently enjoyed genuine international
recognition.
In the modern era Sheffield has acquired new
associations: the 1980s experiment with municipal
socialism and subsidised, low-cost public transport; sport
- especially boxing and snooker (the latter is synonymous
with the city); challenging theatre and music. Jarvis
Cocker, a contemporary renaissance man, is now probably
Sheffield’s most famous son, and Richard Hawley22 and
the Arctic Monkeys continue the tradition of literate, very
English songs rooted in the urban (and often specifically
Sheffield) experience.
22 Hawley’s passion for his home city is legendary: his last three album titles are Low Edges, Coles Corner and Lady’s Bridge.
Sheffield is a city with a strong personality and a
distinctive identity. These are seen – rightly – as positive
assets, but there are negative features as well. Especially
in the north and east, some neighbourhoods are plagued
by persistent poverty and exclusion, often compounded
by drab – or even hostile – urban environments. Although
investment has flowed into the centre of the city there
are still large tracts of derelict and underused land, and
the quality of some recent development – notably in
the Lower Don Valley and central riverside – has been
depressingly poor. It is a generalisation, but still broadly
accurate to say that opportunity, amenity and quality of
life remain polarised between the privileged west and the
excluded east of the city.
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 2 3
t h e r i v e r s a n d t h e c i t y | s e c t i o n B
The city’s almost exclusively industrial tradition has
presented huge challenges in the past 30-40 years. It has
proved much easier for regional capitals like Manchester
or Leeds to make the transition from a manufacturing to
a service economy than industrial towns like Sheffield.
The change has come but only after a lot of pain, and
public sector intervention is still required to tackle market
failure; the city strategy recognises that Sheffield needs
to be weaned off subsidies. Knowledge-based sectors
like financial, professional and business services are still
under-represented. The net result is that (to paraphrase
Creative Sheffield) UK and international demand for
Sheffield is still relatively weak.
Sheffield’s urban renaissance is still a partial and
incomplete work in progress, but a striking feature of
this study has been the evidence of a growing sense of
confidence and optimism in the city which is reflected
in the hugely successful regeneration projects that have
transformed the heart of the city in the past decade. The
successful implementation of the City Centre Masterplan
2000 was recognised when Sheffield City Council was
named Local Authority of the Year 2007 in the first
Regeneration & Renewal Awards.
Not so long ago, the walk from the Midland Station to
the city centre to was a dispiriting experience. Now
pedestrians on the Gold Route from the Sheaf Valley
to the University of Sheffield move through a series of
attractive, lively, safe and well-maintained public and
semi-public spaces. The private sector has responded
positively, and new investment is rippling through the
city. Elsewhere, the restoration of the Botanical Gardens
has been a triumph, and the Weston Park Museum has
been completely reinvented.
These projects have transformed the quality of public life
in Sheffield. Collectively, they can be seen as the city’s
gift to itself. One of the defining features of these great
public works is the use of water: Sheffield’s experience
has confounded the conventional wisdom that water in
public spaces inevitably means trouble. Instead, water
features have helped to create public spaces that are
already well-loved and a magnet for people; an excellent
management regime helps, but these projects have shown
that busy places are largely self-policing. They confirm
the symbolic significance of water in the life of the city,
but Sheaf Square, the new public space in front of the
Midland station, offers an immediate link to Sheffield’s
waterways: while an ornamental cascade drops down
the slope towards the station, the Sheaf flows through a
tunnel below.
the Gold Route: Howard Street
24
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Sheffield is a special place, and much of the value of
these 21st century public works lies in the way in which
they add to the distinctive character and quality of the
city. They are new, but they add up to something that is
unmistakably Sheffield – they bear the city’s signature.
It is vitally important that the regeneration of the city’s
waterways responds to Sheffield’s spirit of place. The
early signs have not been altogether promising: much
of the recent development in the central riverside area
has been disappointing: these were run-down places in
need of renewal, but most of the new schemes are bland,
anodyne and anonymous. The re-use of historic buildings
in the Kelham Island conservation area has set a much
happier precedent: now we need new architecture of
appropriate quality and scale.
Later in this report we set out a vision and strategy for the
future of Sheffield’s waterways, and we also map out the
guiding principles of our recommended approach. At the
heart of these principles is the challenge of maintaining,
developing and celebrating the Sheffield signature: the
qualities of place and culture that make Sheffield so
special.
Kelham Island Conservation Area
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 2 5
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
7. Spatial analysis
Sheffield is a complex and multi-layered place. To reach
a better understanding of the relationship between the
city and its rivers, we have undertaken a spatial analysis
which has embraced a variety of elements and a wide
range of data sources, including:
topography , watercourses and physical fabric
landscape and townscape, visual qualities, views
and landmarks
the geography of communities
places , local centres and ‘towns’ and ‘villages’
within the city
land use : distribution and relationships
greenspace , parks, designed landscapes and playing
fields
habitats and wildlife , SSSIs and SINCs, Local Nature
Reserves and Natural England designated areas
culture and history , industrial archaeology and time
landscapes
networks and connections.
This analysis is presented in the form of the datascapes
in the following pages (Figures 7-1 to 7-7). The headline
findings can be summarised as follows:
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a yC
Fig 7-1 rivers and landform
26
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
there is a strong and enduring relationship between
rivers, landform and industry which has determined
the shape of the city and the distribution of land
uses
while industry needed water to provide power
and take away effluent, the commercial, retail,
administrative and cultural life of the city centre
occupied higher ground above the river valleys
there are a number of suburban riverside towns -
Hillsborough, Heeley and Attercliffe – located by
rivers but not well connected to them
other local centres are generally disconnected from
the rivers and most are not within easy walking
distance
Fig 7-2 rivers, landform and built up areas
west Sheffield - high quality residential environment
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 2 7
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
the topography of the city is defined by rivers and
valleys which create dramatic rural and urban
scenery, with landmarks and viewpoints, stunning
panoramas and long views
in the west, the intermediate zones between rural,
suburban and urban areas are primarily residential
areas with high quality environments
the transitional zones between central Sheffield
and the old industrial areas – the time landscapes
of the city – are characterised by derelict land and
buildings but they offer opportunities for change
the rivers provide a connected network of rich
wildlife corridors which can be improved, expanded
and connected to traditional parks and open spaces
Fig 7-3 rivers, landform, built up areas, business and industry
rich wildlife corridors
28
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
wildlife sites are concentrated in the arcadian sections
of the Upper Don, Loxley, Rivelin, Sheaf and Porter as
well as in the east of the Lower Don; there is a strong
relationship between these sites and the rivers
most of the river corridors have footpath systems
either built or proposed. These form the spine of a city-
wide network of paths and circular walks
a number of formal parks are located in river corridors,
notably at Endcliffe, Millhouses and Rivelin Glen.
Functionally and experientially, Sheffield has a variable
relationship with its rivers:
Fig 7-4 rivers, riverside towns, local and neighbourhood centres
open space near Hillsborough
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 2 9
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
in some areas – for example, the woodlands and
riverside parks on the upper and middle reaches
of the Don tributaries – they are cherished places
which enrich the quality of life and are valued assets
for local communities and users from other parts of
the city
by contrast, the lower reaches of the same rivers are
largely hidden places; the rivers are often confined
to culverts and artificial channels as they weave
through residential, industrial and commercial
areas on the fringes of the city centre; local centres
like Hillsborough, Heeley and Attercliffe grew up
as riverside industrial towns but the waterways no
Fig 7-5 rivers and parks
Rivelin Glen Park
30
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
longer register except as an obscure and enigmatic
presence
this sense of disengagement also applies to the
city centre: the Don (and the canal basin) are
nearby without being part of it: the poet Chris Jones
describes the way that the river “elbows the city
centre”; current plans aim to regenerate the riverside
and tackle the problem of severance but designated
quarters such as Kelham and the Riverside are still
edge of centre locations with weak connections to
the vibrant heart of the city; the next 5-10 years will
be determine whether real links can be forged
large tracts of the city do not have access to
attractive rivers: Sheffield’s natural assets are not
distributed equitably and many people living in the
north and east of the city have to be content with
a network of small waterways, some of doubtful
appeal; however, projects such as the restoration
of Shire Brook and Hartley Brook Dike have shown
the potential to reclaim the streams as valued
community assets
the long-term depopulation of the Lower Don Valley
means that this section of the Don and the canal
are effectively waterways without communities;
however, there are signs that people are beginning
to reclaim the waterways: the Five Weirs Walk aims
to encourage citizens to rediscover the history
Fig 7-6 rivers, natural and built heritage
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3 1
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
and wildlife of the Don; the canal is popular with
anglers and there is a boating community at Tinsley
Locks; the nature reserve at Blackburn Meadows
is a valuable new resource, especially for school
children.
Our analysis confirms the views of many of our
consultees. The western rivers are much-loved and highly
valued, but the urban rivers and canal are still under-
used and disregarded despite some seeds of recovery. A
key issue here is amenity: perceptions of the Lower Don
Valley and the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal are coloured by
endemic problems of litter, vandalism and dereliction.
Whatever their intrinsic value they do not appear to be
safe or pleasant places to be, unlike the fine parks and
idyllic woodlands in the west.
This “east-west divide” may be an over-simplification, but
it has been a recurring theme in Sheffield since the start
of the industrial era. It has also been a defining issue
for the present study: the recovery and beautification of
Sheffield’s forgotten urban waterways can play a key part
in regenerating under-performing areas and in creating a
more equitable and inclusive society.
Fig 7-7 rivers, linkage and centres
32
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
8 River typology
The scale and scope of the study defeats any attempt at
neat categorisation, but we have identified a typology of
eight river types/character zones (see Figure 8-1):
Rural : the headwaters of the Don and its tributaries
are found in the outstanding hill and moorland
landscapes west and north of the city, including
the National Park. Woodlands are a feature of the
river valleys as they descend towards the city;
significant areas of woodland – often of high nature
conservation value – are found within 3-4 miles of
the city centre, sometimes linking rural areas to the
arcadian suburbs.
Arcadian suburbs : the areas west and south-west of the city centre have always been favoured places to live, with an outstanding natural setting and (in the industrial era) cleaner air; the classic arcadian suburb of Endcliffe extended into the Porter valley, where Endcliffe Park was created in the late 1880s.1 These low density residential areas are characterised by trees, informal open space and parks, providing a variety of habitats and a high quality environment. Sheffield’s linear parks are defining features of the
arcadian suburbs.
1 Harman and Minnis, op cit
Fig 8.1 river and waterway character zones
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3 3
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
Riverside towns : the development of substantial
secondary centres in large cities was a feature of
urbanisation during the industrial era; in Sheffield,
a group of “riverside towns” emerged – Heeley,
Attercliffe and Hillsborough – which were important
service centres for the people who lived and worked
in the new industrial areas on the edge of the city. In
the early part of the industrial era workers’ housing
tended to be co-located with industry in areas like
the lower Sheaf and Porter valleys; later these mixed
neighbourhoods gave way to a greater separation of
homes and factories and, in the 20th century, to the
planned depopulation – through slum clearance – of
areas including the Lower Don Valley.
Historic sites of industry : despite generations
of structural economic change, some riverside
areas, especially by the Don, are still unmistakably
industrial in character and appearance. Kelham,
Neepsend and Nursery Street developed as
important industrial areas in the early 19th century:
their built form was high density and fine-grained
and – despite significant shifts in the economic
base – they are still industrial locations, albeit of
an increasingly mixed character. Sections of the
Sheffield & Tinsley Canal have a similar character.
Strong townscapes and good utilitarian architecture,
Fig 8.2 river and waterway types
34
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
with trees and scrub usually limited to gap sites and
riverbanks.
Transitional zones : in various sites on the fringes of
the city centre – and especially in the east end – the
decline of industry has been more rapid, resulting
in the fragmentation of the traditional industrial
landscape, and extensive areas of derelict land and
buildings. These areas have seen the emergence
of a spontaneous landscape of scrub woodland,
sometimes creating important new habitats (as
at Salmon Pastures). Transitional zones may also
contain industrial monuments of archaeological and
townscape value which, like the wildlife habitats,
may be at risk from new development
Late 20 th century regeneration areas: in the 1980s
and 1990s the distinctive but degraded townscape
of the Lower Don Valley was transformed by a series
of flagship projects including major sports and
leisure facilities; new offices and apartments in the
Exchange district are typical examples of early 21st
century urban regeneration – but sadly not of best
practice.
Urban waterfront : the essentially industrial character
of Sheffield’s waterways means that the city has
never had a true urban waterfront where the river is
an integral and high profile part of the urban fabric.
Development around the Central Riverside is still
a work in progress, but the aim is to reclaim the
river Don for the city and to make it a focal point for
business, leisure and cultural activities as well as
valued place to live.
Community rivers : while rivers and streams in the
favoured western suburbs have long been cherished
assets, those in the less privileged north and east of
the city have often been neglected. In recent years
a number of these have watercourses have been
reclaimed as valued community assets; notable
examples include Shire Brook, which has been restored
as the heart of a new nature reserve, and Hartley Brook
Dike and the other streams that create a green corridor
through residential areas in the north of the city.
Underpinning this analysis is another key feature: the
distinctive and sometimes enigmatic character of
Sheffield’s waterways and their relationship to the life
of the city. We have been struck by the elusive, even
secretive nature of the waterways network. Sheffield’s
rivers are often difficult to find, hidden behind walls or
properties and hard to reach. Once discovered they reveal
secluded, atmospheric places with a strong presence,
Hillsborough riverside town
Kelham Island - historic site of industry
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3 5
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
rich in wildlife and industrial remains, sometimes with a
hint of the mysterious or even sinister.
In urban areas the rivers are often inaccessible: they
flow through stone and concrete channels, usually well
below street level, so that they can only be viewed from
above, often over walls. The lower reaches of the Porter
and the Sheaf run through deep culverts and underground
tunnels. By contrast, the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal is,
for the most part, a more attractive waterway with visual
consistency, wildlife interest, good access and an active
waterspace. Its key features include:
a one-sided hard towpath with a complementary soft
wildlife reserve on the opposite bank
traditional canal architecture: bridges, locks,
winding holes and basins
the British Waterways black and white colour scheme
active use of the water for boating, houseboats and
angling
buildings and vegetation defining the visual limits of
the canal corridor
authenticity of the canal landscape.
All of this presents a major challenge for planners and
policy makers. Sheffield’s waterways are rightly seen as
key sites for regeneration, and the Don Valley corridor has
a vital role to play, both in connecting the life of the city to
the river and providing strategic sites for commercial and
residential development. The question is: how is this to
be achieved without compromising the special character
of the city and erasing its cultural memory?
The whole length of the urban Don – from Middlewood
to Tinsley – needs to change in the next 15-20 years in
order to restore a sense of purpose and pride, recreate
community and revive the economy. But it is important
to remember that there is much here of value – historic,
cultural, architectural and ecological – and it will be
vital to ensure that the new riverside retains, protects
and celebrates some of the essential qualities of the
old. Some of these concepts have been explored by the
Materialising Sheffield project led by the University of
Sheffield’s Humanities Research Institute which aims:
“…to explore Sheffield’s identity in relation to its material
culture and physical presence…by looking at the ways in
which histories and identities are variously remembered
and forgotten, and the extent to which they can be
retrieved through exploration of material remains…and at
how the city’s material culture might be re-presented and
re-shaped in the future”.
The project has produced an e-book which includes a
authentic and active - the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal
Victoria Quays
36
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
chapter by Cathy Dee on Found Landscape, Sheffield
Rivers, a photo essay on Sheffield’s “intimate, hidden
river landscapes”.2
Celebrating the culture of the city and valuing the
terrain vague3 of post-industrial transitional areas
have been keynotes of the regeneration of the Emscher
Park in Germany’s Ruhrgebeit, which is arguably the
most appropriate and inspirational model in Europe for
the regeneration of Sheffield’s waterways. As well as
achieving high quality, environmentally sensitive new
development, this former heartland of coal and steel has
found new uses for industrial buildings, consolidated
others as heritage sites and landscape features, and
treated its spontaneous landscapes as valuable urban
woodlands and wildlife havens.
The benefits of this approach include:
incorporating industrial and natural heritage
can add to the intrinsic and market value of new
developments without compromising contemporary
design
it confers quality and authenticity which could not
otherwise be achieved at an affordable price
2 www.hrionline.ac.uk/matshef/index.html3 Jean-Francois Cheverier, Terrain vague or territorial intimacy, video lecture at the
Berlage Institute, 1999.
it protects the community’s collective memory
it establishes a strong sense of place: the city’s
signature
in contrast to the bland uniformity of conventional
regeneration practice, it produces an urban
environment rich in layers of history and ideas.
Sheffield Forgemasters
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3 7
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
9. Urban waterways: assets and liabilities
This study addresses the relationship between Sheffield
and its waterways, the spaces and places around the
rivers, and the opportunities for regeneration and
investment that they represent. But at the core of the
study are the waterways themselves, their quality,
condition and appeal.
These issues are often overlooked. It has become a
received wisdom in contemporary regeneration practice
that riverside locations are by definition attractive, but
this is simply not the case. Some urban waterfronts in
the UK (for example, Newcastle and Bristol) have become
prime business and residential locations, achieving
premium land values and rents. But waterfronts may
also present (real and perceived) constraints as well as
opportunities; these constraints may relate to:
aesthetics : is the waterspace clean and attractive?
risks : is the area prone to flooding?
viability : do waterfront sites represent additional
risks and uncertainty, and will they require
additional infrastructure or design costs?
flood damage at Club Mill Bridge
38
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
10. Aesthetics and amenity
Aesthetic appeal is a key factor influencing investment
decisions on riverside and canalside sites in Sheffield.
The Don and the canal have long suffered from a negative
image. For the most part, these urban waterways are not
conventionally attractive: they flow between high walls
– often in a state of disrepair – which make the water
hard to see or to approach; the river banks are strewn
with litter and detritus; some sections are used by rough
drinkers and drug addicts; many riverside properties are
derelict and neglected and many turn their backs on the
water. There is much of interest and value to discover,
but first impressions of the lower Don in particular can
be daunting, and it can seem an unwelcoming and even
threatening environment.
A new social enterprise, the River Don Stewardship
Company, was launched in 2007 to improve the amenity
of the Don riverside4. RDSC will operate in a pilot area
between Kelham and Tinsley in the first instance. A team
of river stewards will carry out a programme of clean-ups,
respond to fly-tipping and vandalism incidents, patrol
the riverbank, carry out basic maintenance and remove
invasive vegetation. This service will be funded in part by
4 The company is supported by Groundwork Sheffield, Sheffield Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency, Five Weirs Walk Trust, Upper Don Walk Trust and Sheffield City Council
local businesses paying an annual service charge.
The creation of the Five Weirs Walk and increasing leisure
use of the canal have helped to raise awareness of the
distinctive character and rich heritage of the Lower
Don Valley. Despite wholesale demolitions, there are
still memorable industrial landscapes, with factory
walls rising sheer from the water and the eponymous
weirs (Walk Mill, Burton, Sanderson’s, Brightside and
Hadfields) are dramatic features. However, the intimate
scale of development around the river at Kelham and
Neepsend is more immediately appealing than the Lower
Don, and this helps to explain why the regeneration
process has moved further and faster on the west side of
the city
The Sheffield Development Corporation projects of the
1980s and 1990s treated the river Don and the canal as
liabilities to be ignored rather than opportunities to be
seized. Bland, low-rise office pavilions stand back from
the riverside behind surface car parks; there are some
cosmetic gestures towards the river but no convincing
sense of engagement. Overall, the area’s distinctive,
if somewhat intimidating, sense of place has been
compromised and the new, post-industrial landscape is
pallid and anonymous.
flood debris in the lower Don valley
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 3 9
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
This is disappointing, but it has to be acknowledged that
the historic legacy, especially in the Lower Don Valley,
presents major challenges. While the early 19th century
factories at Kelham Island lend themselves readily to
adaptation, re-use and gentrification, the gargantuan
scale and primitive forms of the later steelworks present
intractable problems; the long decline of the workshops
and smaller factories around Attercliffe means that many
of these buildings are past saving.
It is typical of Sheffield’s geography of privilege and
exclusion that, while the urban Don has been one of the
most abused and misused of Britain’s urban rivers, its
upper reaches and (especially) its western tributaries
are among the best things in the city. For much of their
length the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and Loxley are attractive
and sometimes idyllic small rivers, flowing from the
surrounding hills, through woodlands and parks before
entering the city. By definition, these are protected
environments with very limited development capacity, but
– as they converge with the Don – the minor rivers enter
a transitional zone. The rivers decline from a more or less
“natural” condition to a highly artificial state, enclosed
between stone or concrete walls, and even (in the case
of the Sheaf and the Porter) descending into tunnels.
We will return later to plans to restore and expose parts
of these rivers: the Porter Brook (currently confined to a
miserable channel) could become an attractive feature
of the Cultural Industries Quarter, but an opportunity to
regenerate the urban Sheaf has already been wasted by a
dreary development at Broadfield.
11. Flood risk management
The disastrous events of June 2007 were a reminder that
Sheffield has a long history of flooding. The short, steep
descent from the moors means that a fast, high flow can
quickly become established: the Don and its tributaries
are flashy rivers, prone to sudden spates. A 1992 report
noted that the Sheaf had flooded 10 times in the previous
70 years; there have been several floods since then with
major events in 1958 (Sheaf and Don), 1973 and 1991,
when blocked debris screens caused the Sheaf and Porter
to overflow.
The Environment Agency reports that:
“Watercourses in Sheffield drain the southern Pennines
and tend to respond very quickly to rainfall…More than
5,700 properties within the floodplain are at risk from
a 0.1% AEP flood event (1:1000 years). To the north of
Sheffield communities in Stocksbridge, Wharncliffe and
Oughtibridge are at risk from the Little Don and the Don,
and Chapeltown and Ecclesfield on Blackburn Brook. In
and around the city of Sheffield major watercourses such
as the rivers Don, Rivelin, Loxley, Sheaf and Porter Brook
contribute to the flood risk.”5
Topography and climate mean that the city is prone to 5 Environment Agency, State of the Environment Report, op cit
management challenges: the lower Loxley
40
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
flooding, but the problem now is, at least in part, man-
made. A recent study of Britain’s urban rivers highlighted
the two principal causes of increased flood risks in inland
areas as:
failure of the urban drainage network to remove
rainfall fast enough, resulting in accumulations, and
flooding of adjacent rivers as a result of rainfall in
the catchment upstream.6
When these events coincide, severe flooding can occur:
“The urban landscape, with its roofs, asphalt roads and
paved and concrete surfaces, is designed to shed rainfall
into the nearest drain as quickly as possible. This water
is then piped directly to the nearest stream, causing a
very rapid increase in flow and corresponding rise in
water levels…Surface water drains typically have no
spare capacity when the flow exceeds the design amount.
Whereas a natural river may expand onto the flood plain, a
surface-water drain can only overflow onto the streets. The
problem…may be further exacerbated by debris and litter
that collect in the drains, impeding the flow.
“Because of the high density of roads in urban areas, the
storm drainage system involves frequent culverts. These
6 Geoff Petts, John Heathcote and Dave Martin (eds), Urban Rivers: Our Inher-itance and Future, IWA Publishing & the Environment Agency, 2002
culverts can become blocked, especially where they are
fitted with entrance and exit grids…Once obstructions…
begin to gather at the entrance to a culvert, flooding
upstream is inevitable.”
As a result of these factors, the modern urban
environment is characterised by extremes of water
flow. Nowhere is immune from these risks, and climate
change means that the frequency of flood events is
likely to increase. Sheffield is especially vulnerable to
flash floods compounded by surface water run-off and
blockages caused by debris.
A major flood risk assessment was carried out for the
City Council in 2006 by JE Jacobs, the first stage of the
Council’s response to Planning Policy Statement (PPS)
25: Development and Flood Risk.7 The report notes that
a number of areas, including parts of the city centre, are
subject to a “high probability” of flooding, with the Don,
Sheaf and Porter Brook corridors particularly affected.
Detailed analysis at small area level shows that the risk
of flooding extending into business and residential areas
(and affecting transport infrastructure) is particularly
acute in the following areas:
7 JE Jacobs, Sheffield City Council: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Decem-ber 2006
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 4 1
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
River Don: the entire length of the urban river, from
Wadsley Bridge to Meadowhall
River Sheaf : the lower reaches below Norton
Hammer, and especially Heeley, Lowfield, Highfield
and Pond’s Forge
Porter Brook : the lower reaches below Hunter’s Bar,
and especially the culverted sections in the city
centre before the Porter Brook enters the Sheaf
River Loxley : from Malin Bridge, through
Hillsborough, to the Don at Owlerton.
These risks were confirmed only a few months after the
publication of this report when, in June 2007, Sheffield
experienced a disastrous flood – the most serious for
more than a century - which resulted in loss of life as
well as extensive damage to infrastructure, homes and
businesses. This was followed by the long drawn-out
immersion of low-lying areas further down river.
Over many decades the conventional approach to urban
rivers has been to treat water in cities as a problem and
a threat, and to substitute highly engineered drainage,
sewerage and flood prevention measures for the natural
water cycle. This approach has conferred significant
benefits: water quality has improved dramatically and
health risks reduced. But the downside, as we have seen,
has been a reduction in the capacity of urban areas to
cope with severe weather leading to an increased risk of
flooding.
The recent floods have thrown these issues into sharp
relief, as well as confirming the need for a response at
the regional (catchment) level. The problems contributing
to flood risks are complex and systemic and it is beyond
the scope of this study to examine them in detail. But it is
clear that there is little point in devising local solutions:
channel improvements or flood barriers might offer
Sheffield more protection but at the price of compounding
problems further downstream. the River Don near Meadowhall
At this stage it is hard to gauge the long-term effects of
the 2007 floods on developer confidence in Sheffield.
This was the first significant flooding event since the
regeneration of the urban riverside got under way, and
one of the most serious ever experienced by the city. Key
regeneration sites between Kelham Island and Lady’s
Bridge were affected, as well as large parts of the Lower
Don Valley: the Meadowhall shopping centre was flooded
and forced to close for several days.
42
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Experience suggests that, if demand remains firm and
development sites are sufficiently attractive in other
respects, developers and occupiers will overcome
their risk-aversion relatively quickly. The problem for
Sheffield is that, with the exception of some relatively
well-established areas like Kelham Island, the principal
waterfront sites are still perceived to be unproven
development locations, low amenity areas isolated from
the city centre. Moving to these new locations already
required something of a leap of faith; the floods have
simply added to the perceived risks.
Sheffield has ambitious plans for its urban rivers, and
There is a risk that floods will discourage investment in
the Don riverside, at least in the short term. Developers
may conclude that the waterfront is a high-risk location
and that the risk-reward ratio is unacceptable, especially
in some of the more challenging sites. Potential
purchasers and occupiers may also be more cautious
about investing in riverside property so soon after this
salutary reminder of the destructive power of the Don.
Insurers may be unwilling to provide cover for waterfront
properties – or premiums may be unacceptably high.
This report aims to set out an exciting vision for the
future. We are confident that this vision can and will be
realised, but it would be naïve to pretend that the floods
have not added a degree of difficulty to the task, at least
in the short term. There is no realistic alternative to
continuing development in the Don Valley in particular,
although careful consideration needs to be given to form,
density and environmental design. As the Jacobs report
notes, “the river corridors are key topographic features
of strategic areas of the city”; prohibiting or severely
restricting future development in these would be “likely
to have a detrimental impact upon the economic and
social welfare of the existing community”.
Sheffield needs to reduce the risk of similarly destructive
flooding in the future. If, as a result of climate change,
flooding becomes a more regular event, the implications
for the economy of the city could be enormous, not least
because the Don Valley continues to be a prime location
for new business and industrial development. However,
the type of flood prevention strategy that the city chooses
to adopt will be vitally important. A crude, knee-jerk
defensive strategy designed to keep the water out at all
costs might be superficially attractive, but it would also
have serious negative consequences for the amenity and
environmental value of the rivers.
flood damage to river banks on the lower Don
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 4 3
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
Raising flood defences or carrying out channel
improvements to improve the flow could have serious
consequences further downstream. Such measures might
also diminish the ecological value of the river, and would
be likely to compound the historic sense of isolation
of the river from the city. The same defensive mentality
might also influence building design by “sacrificing”
basement and ground car parking to the flood waters to
protect homes and businesses. This would be a rational
response (indeed, it is already happening) but it needs to
be balanced against aspirations to promote active street-
level uses and lively riverside promenades.
In our view is vital that aspirations for a lively and
attractive urban waterfront – and for raising the
environmental quality of the Lower Don Valley – should
not be abandoned for the sake of discredited and
unsustainable flood prevention measures. Later in the
report we discuss the potential of a more innovative
and holistic approach to flood prevention which would
also yield amenity and environmental benefits, but
we recognise that aspirations must be tempered with
realism. Measures to “re-naturalise” the rivers or to create
washlands to store flood water will require space which
is at a premium in urban areas. A pragmatic approach will
be required, perhaps the “string of pearls”
strategy adopted in the US; we will return to this later.8
We will certainly need a new mind-set: plans for the future
regeneration of the East End have tended to treat the Don
in a superficial, cosmetic way; in future they should begin
with a strategy for river recovery and flood management.
12. Water quality
If flooding is a persistent problem, the improvement in
river water quality has been a notable success story,
which is reflected in the achievement of sustainable fish
populations throughout the waterways network. Better
water quality is the product of:
structural economic change : the decline of polluting
manufacturing industry
investment in infrastructure : sewage and water
treatment facilities, and
regulation : the control of discharges of effluent.
Improvements to the sewerage system and the water
treatment works at Blackburn Meadows have played an
important part. The installation of an effluent treatment
plant at Stocksbridge has stopped the discharge into the
Little Don of copper, zinc and lead from the steelworks.
8 Petts, Heathcote & Martin, op cit
fishing on the lower Don
44
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
The rivers are cleaner than they have been for 200 years,
and the benefits are unmistakable. New species –
including predators such as kingfishers, otters and herons
- have returned to the rivers, but there is still no room for
complacency. The Environment Agency’s River Factfile9
records that, in 2004, no part of the Don was classified as
having “very good” water quality: 40.6% was “good” and
59.4% “fairly good”. It is worth noting that water quality
in the Rother (which marks Sheffield’s eastern boundary
in some places) is still very mixed: 43.9% is only “fair”,
and 13.2% is “poor” or “bad”.
Water pollution events occur from time to time from
point sources such as sewage treatment works, sewage
overflows and factories and these continue to have
localised effects on fish stocks. But pollution is caused
by other sources including: surface run-off from roads
and pavements; garden fertilisers and pesticides;
contaminated groundwater; litter and illegal tipping.
9 Environment Agency, Get to Know Your Rivers: the Don, Rother and Dearne
catchment (undated)
13. Natural heritage and biodiversity
“The endurance of rivers, which is part of what makes
them such a potent symbol in our culture, is also precisely
the reason why they matter so much to ecologists and
scientists. In this country there is probably no river or
wetland which is ‘natural’ in the sense that it has never
been interfered with by man; but river systems have two
major characteristics which have enabled their wildlife
in all its original complexity to survive interference better
than most other systems. First, their continuous, linear
nature provides plants and animals with an opportunity
to move up and down them…Second, because a river’s
nature is one of ceaseless change, forever on the move,
the creatures which live in it have evolved strategies for
surviving sudden floods and disruptions and alterations
of the river’s course. Broken pieces of many water plants
have the ability to root again; others have the seeds which
float or seeds which resist digestion in the stomachs of
birds, and so can be transported upstream. River insects
develop wings in the last stage of their life cycle, and
dragonflies are known to be able to fly many miles…Fish
instinctively fight their way upstream against the current,
and many water birds and animals have the ability to
travel long distances…
“Over the millennia, creatures which live in the
specialised conditions of rivers have evolved by adapting
to these conditions. A babbling upland brook is physically
very different from a lazy lowland river, and there are
subtle gradations all the way between. These differences
are further modified by the local geology, which affects
the water chemistry, the local climate, and the particular
conditions created by the dominant local plants. Thus a
river’s wildlife is adapted to, and expresses, its particular
local character and that of its different reaches with an
almost infinite variety.”.10
Sheffield’s waterways make a vital contribution to
the biodiversity of the city. The urban rivers provide
valuable refuges for wildlife; they are often associated
with woods, parks and open spaces; and they form
green corridors that link open spaces throughout the
city. Together, the rivers and open spaces in Sheffield
form a green and blue network which provides habitats
for fish, animals and plants. The network is imperfect
and fragmented but it plays a vital role in enabling the
movement of species over larger areas and helps to
establish sustainable populations.
Sheffield’s rivers provide a total of about 150km of
running water, which falls into three broad habitat
zones:11
10 Jeremy Pursglove, Taming the Flood (Oxford, 1989)11 This section draws on the Rivers and Running Water Habitat Action Plan produced
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 4 5
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
the upland area in the north west is characterised
by peaty, brown coloured waters of high acidity;
peaty pools and fast flowing, stony streams are
characteristic of the area, although reservoirs have
controlled water flows since the 19th century
the Loxley, Rivelin, Porter and Sheaf cross the lower
coal measures which are less acidic and turbulent
and have more diverse flora and fauna
the rivers and streams in the north east and south
east (the urban Don, the Rother and its tributaries)
are often artificially modified, canalised or culverted,
with the inevitable consequences for wildlife.
This analysis confirms the rich ecology of the Don
tributaries in the west as well as the potential for
recovery in the less favoured east. We have already noted
the dramatic improvement in water quality in the past
20-30 years. In 1992, the Don achieved its River Quality
Objective (RQO), by which time “a self sustaining coarse
fish population was becoming well established” in the
Sheffield area12. Better water quality and growing fish
populations have encouraged the return of species such
as kingfishers, herons and otters. The Don has become “a
popular coarse fishery in its lower and middle reaches…
[with] excellent trout and grayling fishing in the upper
(as part of the Sheffield Local Biodiversity Action Plan) by the Sheffield Biodiversity Steering Group (report undated).
12 Firth, op cit
reaches”; salmon have returned to the river between
Sheffield and Doncaster13.
The tributary rivers have been the subject of a number of
recent studies. The Environment Agency reports that the
river Sheaf “has made a remarkable recovery in recent
years, with brown trout, native crayfish and bullhead
having re-colonised much of its length”14. A report on
the same river by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and Heeley
Development Trust describes “a dynamic and diverse
biosystem” with “a surprising wealth” of fish, flora and
mammals15. A number of valuable studies have also
been published by the Friends of the Porter Valley16. The
Friends’ website describes the diversity of wildlife in the
valley:
“The woodlands of the valley bottom are mainly oak and ash, with alder along the river banks and many fine old beech trees planted over 100 years ago. The wildflowers of the woodland areas are at their best in spring…Lesser celandine and wood anemone carpet the ground in March and April, followed by the white heads of ramsoms (wild garlic) and sheets of bluebells in May…
13 Environment Agency, A River Don Fish Pass Proposal (undated)14 Environment Agency, River Sheaf Restoration Project (undated)15 Sheffield Wildlife Trust & Heeley Development Trust, River Sheaf Corridor Study
(September 2001)16 Titles include, Ecological Survey of the Porter Valley (2001), Plants in the Porter Val-
ley and their Ecology (2003) and Butterfly Survey of the Porter Valley (2006)
46
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
“Wire Mill Dam is an important breeding site for toads, and frogs spawn in several of the dams. Mammals found in the valley include grey squirrels, foxes, badgers, stoats and voles… On a warm summer evening you should see one or more of 6 species of bat swooping over the water as they feed.
“But the most obvious wildlife are the birds. Mallard, coot…and the smaller moorhen are common on the dams. Early or late in the day you will often see a lone heron standing statue-still in a dam or the brook. Something like a blackbird, but with a white chest, flying fast and low along the brook, or seen bobbing underwater to catch insects will be a dipper…if you’re lucky you may catch the turquoise flash of a kingfisher.
“In the woodlands, the noisy colonies of rooks are unmistakable and in early spring you’ll hear great spotted woodpeckers….Jays and nuthatches are two other common
and colourful residents.”
The Environment Agency has noted the conservation value
of the Don catchment, highlighting in particular:17
water vole populations throughout the catchment
expanding otter populations on the Don
native white-clawed crayfish
bats attracted to insect-rich river habitats
17 Environment Agency, Get to Know your Rivers, op cit
great crested newts
kingfishers and grey wagtails
golden plover breeding in the headwaters
brook lamprey are found in the Rivelin
the Don is a stronghold for bullhead, an endangered
species.
The Sheffield Wildlife Trust reports that more than 140
bird species have been recorded at Blackburn Meadows
nature reserve, including migrant visitors such as
widgeon, teal, willow warbler and jack snipe. The site is
also rich in butterflies, dragonflies and aquatic insects.
Sheffield has seven designated Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) all of which are by or close to rivers. Most
of the sites are designated primarily for their geological
interest, but Totley Wood (or Ladies’ Spring Wood), on the
north slopes of the Sheaf valley, was cited as:
“a fine example of a Pennine birch-oak wood…dominated
by sessile oak…with occasional birch and rowan. Small
numbers of sycamore, beech, sweet chestnut, larch and
scots pine occur…There is a scattered understorey of holly
with occasional hazel and rhododendron. The ground
Shire Brook Local Nature Reserve
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 4 7
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
flora is typical of acidic woodland with wavy hair-grass
and bracken the most abundant plants. Other species
commonly found include common cow-wheat…, wood
sage…, wood-sorrel…and great wood-rush…, with bilberry
also occasionally found.
“The birch-oak wood grades into ash-wych on the alluvial
soils of the valley bottom. Hawthorn, hazel and elder are
frequent in the understorey with creeping soft-grass and
bluebell dominating the ground flora. Dog’s mercury,
yellow archangel and ramsoms become increasingly
abundant towards the stream bank where valley alder
woodland has developed.
“The well-marked zonations of soil and vegetation allied
with the wood’s close proximity to a large urban area
make Totley Wood a valuable educational site.”
Many of Sheffield’s Local Nature Reserves are on
riverside sites including some in the city’s less privileged
areas. The Shire Brook Local Nature Reserve (LNR) runs
from Gleadless to Beighton and extends to more than
100 hectares. It contains ancient meadows, ponds,
marshes and heathland, as well as newly planted trees
on reclaimed land. Nearby, in the Gleadless Valley, the
housing estates created in the 1950s and 1960s are
surrounded by “a rich mosaic of eight ancient woodlands
with extensive wildflower rich meadows, ancient
hedgerows, scrub and streams”, which together provide a
range of important national and local biodiversity action
plan (BAP) habitats.18
The Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy
Preferred Options confirms the value of the city’s
rivers and valleys as “one of the defining features of
the Sheffield landscape”; they form the basis of the
green network and provide wildlife habitats. So there
is broad recognition of the nature conservation value
18 Source: English Nature
Shire Brook Local Nature Reserve
48
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
of Sheffield’s waterways and the recovery of the Don
has provided graphic evidence of the rivers’ powers of
recovery: in less than a generation the urban rivers have
been transformed from “lifeless sewers” to key ecological
assets.
However, the river system in Sheffield “continues to be
impacted by discharges from industry, mining, sewage,
water abstraction and impoundment”. The Rivers and
Running Water Habitat Action Plan identifies eight key
threats to biodiversity:
water pollution from sources including industry,
sewage overflow in storm conditions, the
atmosphere, agriculture and water from old coal
mines
water impoundment and abstraction : reservoirs,
weirs, dams, ground and surface water abstraction
physical modification of the river system including
channels, culverts, dredging and filling, artificial
banks, riverside development
loss of habitats and diversity due to built
development and intensive agriculture
conflict between heritage conservation and wildlife
fisheries management can remove native vegetation
invasive plants and animals threaten the integrity of
river habitats and species19
recreational use can cause bank erosion, disturb
wildlife and plants.
This diagnosis highlights some of the potential tensions
between policy goals, and the possible unintended
consequences of regeneration. For example, river
management and flood prevention measures may result
in highly artificial waterscapes hostile to wildlife and
biodiversity20; similarly, it may be hard to balance
the need to extract value from waterfront property
development with the need to conserve urban refuges for
plants, birds and animals, and to create wildlife corridors.
Finding a sustainable balance between biodiversity,
economic regeneration and essential river management
will be a key goal of the waterways strategy.
19 The banks of the Don and the tributary rivers have been invaded by Japanese knot-weed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, all have which have become dominant in urban areas, driving out native species.
20 As we have seen, these measures may even increase the risks of flash flooding in some conditions.
14. Rivers, parks and open space
The river valleys are the prime determinant of what
Anne Beer calls Sheffield’s “green structure”21. This is
evident in the city’s western suburbs, where the valleys
of the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and Loxley delineate linear
parks, connecting the urban core to the Peak District.
The character of these valleys varies considerably: the
Porter and (to a lesser degree) the Sheaf are notable
for fine formal parks as they approach the city; further
upstream, they pass through open countryside and
woodland, generally accessible to walkers, cyclists and,
in parts, horse riders. The Rivelin and Loxley valleys are
less formal – rural rather than suburban – with residential
development mostly confined to higher ground rather
than the valley sides. The character of the upstream
sections of these two rivers is much influenced by
reservoirs and associated infrastructure.
Lesser streams such as Ewden Beck, Wyming Brook
and Limb Brook also contribute to the outstanding
rural landscapes close to the city’s western boundary,
creating secluded green spaces between the radial routes
provided by the four principal tributaries of the Don. The
Don enters the city from the north through a dramatic
valley, flanked by historic woodlands; this is another
21 Anne Beer, op cit
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 4 9
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
defining feature of Sheffield’s green structure and a vital
link in walking and cycling networks, including the Trans
Pennine Trail.
There has been little progress in establishing quality
green or open space by the urban rivers, which still
reflect the legacy of the industrial era. There is very little
good quality space by the Don between Middlewood and
Blackburn Meadows. The Five Weirs Walk has opened up
the Lower Don for walkers, but most of the open spaces
are either “found” spaces resulting from the flight of
industry22 or half-hearted – and poorly maintained -
attempts at landscaping dating from the Development
Corporation era23. Sheffield has three substantial local
centres by rivers (Heeley, Hillsborough and Attercliffe)
but none of them has any meaningful relationship, in the
form of parks or public spaces, with their waterways. In
characteristic Sheffield fashion, the rivers are generally
hidden from view by culverts and deep embankments.
This open space deficit is recognised in the various
regeneration strategies for the Upper and Low Don
Valleys. It is the consequence of the historic tradition
22 These spaces, which may be aesthetically challenging, are often of considerable ecological value
23 The stewardship scheme agreed by Groundwork Sheffield and Sheffield City Council aims to improve the amenity of the Lower Don Valley.
of building factories that backed directly onto the river,
which was used for dumping waste and effluent. This
built form produced some dramatic and characteristic
townscapes, with factories rising sheer from the
water, but it severely restricted – indeed, actively
discouraged - public access to the riverside. The Don is
not a navigable river, and there are no historic quays or
riverside promenades; its character is strictly utilitarian.
Improving access and creating attractive and comfortable
riverside open spaces, without compromising Sheffield’s
distinctive built form and urban character, will be an
important objective.
The open spaces by rivers and streams in the north and
east of the city present challenges, but their potential is
increasingly recognised and valued. A variety of projects
have encouraged local communities to adopt these often
forgotten and neglected places, and to rediscover their
value for leisure, recreation and learning. Shire Brook –
“the forgotten valley” has a visitor centre and the Birley
Spa Bath House has been restored as a community centre.
The Shire Brook LNR forms a green corridor, 4 kilometres
long. As yet it does not match the aesthetic appeal of
the western rivers. The landscape still has a raw and
provisional character in places, but it is maturing steadily
and old and new elements are beginning to integrate. In
the north, Hartley Brook Dike, Sheffield Lane Dike and
Tongue Gutter create another valuable green corridor
between the area’s large housing estates which forms
part of the route of the Sheffield Country Walk.
In these less favoured parts of the city – and in the urban
Don valley – the value and appeal of the waterways is
often undermined by litter, fly-tipping and vandalism.
Some sites are associated with drinking, drug abuse
and anti-social behaviour. When waterways and their
immediate surroundings look dirty and neglected,
they are also likely to be perceived as unattractive and
unsafe places to be. Sheffield is richly endowed with
green space, but the quality of open spaces next to
Sheffield’s waterways continues to be very mixed: sites
of extraordinarily high quality in the west contrast with
neglected and intimidating locations elsewhere.
In parallel with this study, work is under way on a green and open space strategy (GOSS) for Sheffield. In Sheffield, open spaces and waterways are inextricably linked, and it will clearly be important to ensure that the outcomes of the two pieces of work are integrated and
mutually consistent.
50
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
15. Pedestrian and cycling networks
Sheffield’s waterways have has also shaped the emerging
network of footpaths and cycle tracks. For pedestrians,
the key building blocks in this network are the 87km
Sheffield Country Walk, which circles the city through
countryside and urban fringes, and the Trans Pennine
Trail, which traverses the city from north-west to south-
east. The latter is a route for walkers and cyclists; it has
been designated as a section of European Long Distance
Footpath No. 8, and is also part of the National Cycle
Network. The Sheffield Country Walk traverses most of
the city’s river valleys and headwaters, while the Trans
Pennine follows watercourses for much of its course
across Sheffield, including the Rother, Shire Brook, the
Sheffield & Tinsley Canal, the lower Don, Blackburn Brook
and Hartley Brook.
The Five Weirs Walk is one of the most notable
regeneration success stories in Sheffield in the past 20
years. The Five Weirs Walk Trust was formed in 1987,
dedicated to opening up access to the Lower Don and
contributing to the regeneration of a forgotten river. The
walk, which is also a full cycle path, extends 7.5km from
Lady’s Bridge to Meadowhall, and links the city centre to
the Trans Pennine Trail and Rotherham. The canal towpath
provides a return route to Tinsley Locks, Attercliffe and
Five Weirs Walk
Victoria Quays. The Five Weirs Walk provides almost
uninterrupted riverside access, with the exception of a
short break at Brightside. The most striking feature of the
new works is the Cobweb Bridge (2002) where a walkway
is suspended from the 19th century Wicker arches.
Work is continuing to extend riverside access on a 9km
length of the Upper Don between Oughtibridge and Ball
Street Bridge. A feasibility study for the Upper Don Walk
has been prepared by Arup, which divides the route into 5
project areas: the study sets out guiding principles for the
walk24. These include:
24 Arup, Upper Don Riverside Access – Feasibility Study
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5 1
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
creating a walkway on one bank of the river, leaving
the opposite bank as an environmental habitat
minimising the use of new structures (bridges and
piled walkways) to reduce costs
establishing spurs to connect the Upper Don Walk to
surrounding neighbourhoods and parks
a shared route for cyclists and walkers where
possible
in areas where land and/or funding are not available,
short term alternative routes will be adopted.
The upper reaches of the route, between Oughtibridge and
Middlewood, are largely in place, but creating the walk
further downstream will be a complex task, especially
around Hillsborough Stadium and between Hillfoot
Bridge and Ball Street Bridge. Major developments, for
example, at Clay Wheels Lane will provide opportunities
to establish key sections of the walk.
The lesser rivers are generally accessible to walkers in
rural and suburban areas, with footpaths by – or close
to – the rivers in most places. The Porter Brook “parkway”
described by Abercrombie continues to be one of
Sheffield’s best loved open spaces, and the classic walk
from Porter Clough to Endcliffe Park is supplemented by
numerous countryside and woodland tracks. The Shire
Brook Valley provides a section of the Trans Pennine Trail,
creating an attractive walking and cycling route through
previously neglected and contaminated land. Together
with the Five Weirs Walk, the Shire Brook route has helped
to open up parts of the city which were previously no-go
areas for walkers and cyclists, helping to provide more
equitable access to open space and recreation in less
favoured parts of the city.25
Access to the Don tributaries continues to be problematic
as the rivers approach the Don. The lower Loxley runs
through still active industrial areas at Owlerton, while
the Porter is concealed and partially culverted before it
enters the underground section where it meets the Sheaf.
There are similar issues on the Sheaf, which has been the
subject of a scheme to create the River Sheaf Walk in the
transitional area between Norton Hammer (Archer Road)
and Granville Square.26
With the exception of the city centre and city centre
fringes, pedestrian access to Sheffield’s rivers and
waterways is generally very good. Connections with
strategic routes and the extensive network of local
footpaths mean that the city is richly endowed with
walking routes that link the urban core with local parks
and open spaces with the surrounding countryside.
25 The “maldistribution” of open space (especially in terms of quality) is described by Anne Beer in “The Green Structure of Sheffield”, op cit
26 River Sheaf Partnership, A Strategy for the Sheaf Valley Walk (undated).
Cycle routes associated with the waterways are more
fragmented. The Trans Pennine Trail, the Five Weirs Walk
and the canal towpath mean that the east and north of the
city, but the west is less well served.
52
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
16. Industrial heritage
A survey of Sheffield’s industrial heritage published by
English Heritage and the City Council in 2001 states that
the city’s historic industrial buildings and sites are of
“national and international significance”.27 Although
many important buildings have been lost “there remains
an extraordinary variety and spread of sites”.
As we have seen the metal industries began in the rural
and semi-rural river valleys: “The sheer volume of sites
is difficult to imagine nowadays, but the evidence of
buildings and water systems, such as leats, dams, weirs,
sluices and so on, comprises an intricate network of
remains, revealing the importance of the industry in the
countryside”. The most famous of these sites of rural
industry, the early integrated works at Abbeydale, is still
largely intact and is of international importance. There
may have been lead smelting here in the 16th century, and
there was a cutlery grinding wheel in the 17th century.
The present industrial hamlet dates from around 1715:
scythes, grass hooks, pear cutters and other agricultural
tools were manufactured here until 1933 when Tyzack
Sons and Turner moved production to the Little London
Works, in the lower Sheaf valley28. When the Little London
27 Wray, Hawkins and Giles, op cit28 Derek Bayliss (ed), A Guide to the Industrial History of South Yorkshire (Association
for Industrial Archaeology, 1995)
Works closed in 1988 production of some of these items
moved to the La Plata Works by the Loxley at Malin
Bridge, which is still in production. Other important
surviving sites including the rolling mill at Low Matlock
Wheel on the Loxley; Mousehole Forge, “an evocative
ruin” on the Rivelin; and Shepherd Wheel and Wilson’s
Snuff Mill, both on the Porter.
There are only fragmentary remains of the water powered
mills on the Don, but much more extensive survivals –
usually of the river engineering, sometimes of buildings
– in the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and Loxley valleys. The
great majority of the sites catalogued painstakingly
by Crossley had long since fallen into disuse; some
surviving buildings have found productive new uses,
others (and the associated infrastructure) have fallen
victim to neglect and vandalism. The demolition of
historic buildings at Wisewood Forge in the lower Loxley
valley was a cause celebre and the future of other sites is
contested.29
By the 1790s every available water wheel site on
Sheffield’s rivers had been developed; as new
technologies came on stream in the 19th century, many of
these sites – and the weirs, dams and goits that served
29 Sheffield City Council, Loxley Valley Design Statement (October, 2003)
them – were abandoned. The traditional weirs of the early
industrial era were progressively replaced by stronger
and higher structures of more sophisticated design. Most
of these survive to form striking landscape features,
especially in the Don, although there is inevitably some
tension between the archaeological and aesthetic value
of the weirs and their impact on fish movements.
The archaeological record of Sheffield’s remarkable
industrial history is hugely significant, but it is also
vulnerable. Some valuable excavations have been carried
out before the start of new developments; for example,
at the Riverside Exchange, next to the Don, excavation of
Old Park Silver Mill
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5 3
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
a wheel pit yielded more than 2,500 artefacts. Numerous
riverside sites have remains above ground, but many are
overgrown and deteriorating.
Sheffield’s waterways have a particularly rich heritage
of industrial buildings. The most notable concentration
is in and around the Kelham Island conservation area,
where the Kelham Island Museum (housed in the former
Tramway Generating Station, and seriously damaged
by the recent floods) tells the story of Sheffield’s
industrial history. Green Lane is the point of entry to
“the most coherent stretch of industrial landscape in
inner Sheffield”30, where the most important surviving
monuments include:
the remarkable arched gatehouse of Hoole’s Green
Lane Works (1860)
the handsomely lettered gable wall of the former
Brooklyn Works, next to Ball Street Bridge
the outstanding Cornish Works, built in phases
between c1820 and c1900, architecturally one of
Sheffield’s most distinguished industrial complexes,
successfully converted into flats in the 1990s
the atmospheric Cornish Lane, which leads down to
the river is still awaiting regeneration; it includes the
former Wharncliffe Works of c1861
30 For an excellent description of Kelham Island and Sheffield’s other major industrial buildings, see Harman & Minnis, op cit.
the 1825 Globe Works has a “remarkably noble”
stone façade concealing a typical courtyard
surrounded by workshops
next to the Rutland Street Bridge, the 1920 Insignia
Works rises sheer from the water
north of the river is a still largely intact pocket of
industry, centred on Mowbray Street where there a
number of surviving small workshops best viewed
from Kelham Island.
This is a remarkable urban quarter, although it has been
under siege from development pressures. The restoration
of the Cornish Works has set the benchmark for creative
and sensitive re-use of industrial heritage and some more
recent developments have responded to the challenge
by respecting the form, scale and character of the
conservation area. However, there are worrying signs that
the special character of this area is being eroded. Getting
it right in Kelham Island is vital because this is the place
where the built industrial heritage is most rich and
where – despite the recent flooding – there is continuing
development pressure. The quality of development in this
area needs to set the standard for other locations in the
city where market conditions are less favourable.
There are other important concentrations of industrial
buildings cluster around the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal and
Green Lane Works
54
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
in the Lower Don Valley, although the latter is somewhat
decayed and fragmented. The canal basin (Victoria
Quays) is notable for the two great warehouses and the
adjoining coal merchants’ houses; new developments
have been added with varying degrees of success. A short
distance along the canal are the offices of the former
Sheaf Works (1826). The canal is a satisfying piece of
industrial landscape, still lined with 19th century factories
and warehouses31. The characteristic “canyon” landscape
of the Lower Don Valley has changed utterly, although
elements of some of the huge 19th century factories
survive in Savile Street. The best preserved section is
in Brightside Lane, where the huge 28-bay offices of the
River Don Works (1906) still loom over the street.
Sheffield’s industrial heritage is intrinsically valuable as
a record of the city’s unique role as a centre for the metal
trades from medieval times through to the 21st century.
It is also a defining feature of the Sheffield cityscape
which, though eroded and fragmented in places, remains
distinctive, memorable and rich in cultural and historic
associations. The importance of this legacy is now much
more widely recognised, and many of the most important
buildings and townscapes are protected by listed building
and conservation area status.
Making the most of this legacy presents a challenge 31 Described in Ogden, The Sheffield and Tinsley Canal, op cit.
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal basin
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5 5
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
to conventional UK regeneration practice which is
characterised by a desire to tidy up neglected and
forgotten places, and to replace rich, layered and unruly
landscapes with a glossy, anodyne, placeless product.
In Germany’s Emscher Park, the remains of industry
are celebrated as key elements of the region’s cultural
heritage. This does not mean turning the city into a
museum: the aim is (as appropriate) to re-use, animate
and conserve the industrial landscape and to integrate it
into the life of a prosperous modern city. The European
Commission identified the Ruhr region as one of Europe’s
leading islands of innovation, notable for a dense
concentration of research, development and high-tech
industry. In the following pages we will consider the case
for a similar approach in Sheffield, treating the Don Valley
as a busy, populated and productive landscape park.
Globe Works
56
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
17. Urban regeneration and development
The Don riverside has been the site of significant
development and regeneration in the past 25 years.
The Lower Don Valley was the focus for the activities
of the Sheffield Development Corporation between
1988 and 1997, and the past decade has also seen
a number of new-build and refurbishment projects in
the Central Riverside area. The Sheffield Development
Framework earmarks the Don corridor for another wave of
development in the next 10-20 years.
A masterplan for the Lower Don Valley was commissioned
by the City Council and the British Land Company plc in
2004.32 It sets out a 20-year vision which will see the
valley:
“…transformed into an attractive, safe and healthy place
to live, work and visit. A vibrant and exciting new mix of
community, leisure, retail, office and business uses will
act as anchors for the area’s new residential communities.
In harmony with its residential population, the Lower
Don Valley will be a nationally recognised and highly
sought-after location for business. Capitalising on its
unique and authentic industrial heritage… [it] will be a
distinct, yet fully integrated destination within Sheffield…
32 Urban Strategies Inc, Lower Don Valley: Vision & Masterplan Study (November 2004)
[and] a model of sustainability in social, economic and
environmental terms.”
The masterplan describes “five big moves” to regenerate,
re-integrate and redevelop the Lower Don Valley:
maximising the area’s natural heritage value by
“rediscovering” the river and the canal and using
them as structuring components of the plan
new investment in residential communities with a
population of up to 13,000
focusing on public transport and reducing reliance
on the car
creating a movement network by introducing local
roads and pedestrian/ cycle paths
capitalising on existing assets such as the sports
and leisure facilities and Meadowhall.
Specific proposals relevant to this study include:
major investment in the public realm to create “a quality environment that is not only beautiful, but functional and thoroughly distinctive”the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal will be lined with new residential development, restaurants, cafes and community facilitiesAttercliffe will be transformed into a “charming” urban village, and Darnall will extend to the canal
industrial uses will be concentrated in the Central Zone around Forgemasters, with an attractive
riverside environment as a catalyst for investment.
Some of these environmental themes are explored in
more detail by Groundwork Sheffield in their proposals for
the River Don Park:
“…well maintained, wildlife rich waterways with high
quality, mixed developments on the waterside. The current
waterway corridor will be expanded to include natural
riverbanks, wetlands, meadows, public space and off-road
routes.
“New building developments will be landscaped with
natural habitats such as wetlands, woodlands, meadows
and ponds. Existing businesses will be supported to
contribute to and benefit from these new features.
“Water will play a key role in the Park. The flood risk will
be alleviated by an extended network of wetland habitats
whose changing profile will become an intriguing feature
of the landscape.
“The waterways will be complemented by other ‘greening’
elements to create a complete green infrastructure. Pocket
parks, green roofs, street trees and pedestrian/cycle
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5 7
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
routes will link businesses, people and wildlife to the
waterways, facilities and communities.
“New buildings will be built to the highest sustainable
construction principles, reducing life costs for users and
establishing Sheffield’s credentials as the UK’s green
capital. The industrial role of the valley, both in the past
and the future, will be celebrated by the retention and
interpretation of iconic industrial structures, public art
and the creation of new exciting buildings.”
The regeneration strategy for the Upper Don Valley,
submitted to the City Council in 2006, sets out a 15-20
year vision of:33
“…a place for successful businesses, particularly for
materials technologies and advanced manufacturing,
which will be an important feature of the local economy.
It will also be a place to live, learn, relax and spend
leisure time, all of which will take place in a significantly
improved environment where the traditional industrial
character will be reinforced by high quality development
and vibrant new places.
“Penistone Road will be a strong corridor, approach and
gateway to the city centre. The riversides will be
33 Taylor Young, Upper Don Valley Physical Regeneration Strategy, October 2006
rediscovered and will be enriched in themselves and add
value to development.
“Above all the Upper Don Valley will be a more attractive
place for people whether they are workers, residents,
visitors or investors. It will make the most of its unique
features and location to fulfil its potential as one of
Sheffield’s most diverse and distinctive regeneration
areas.”
Strategic objectives relevant to the waterways strategy
include:
recognising the value of rivers for regeneration,
offering scope to create new and improved places
and to realise the value of riverside sites
improving environmental quality by enhancing
riversides, public realm and streetscapes, and taking
remedial action to create safe, clean and people
friendly places
maximising the use of riversides for amenity and
recreation, recognising the special character of the
Don and Loxley
improving linkages including a continuous riverside
walk by the Don
conserve and enhance heritage townscape and
landmark buildings.
Specific proposals relating to the rivers include:
extending regeneration north from Kelham to create
a new mixed employment area in Neepsend, based
on a rejuvenated riverside including a new urban
square
enhancing the Loxley riverside around Owlerton
Stadium and Hillsborough College
pocket parks at Club Mill Road, Hillsborough Park
and Niagara Weir.
Kelham and Central Riverside were two of the urban
quarters identified in the City Centre Masterplan, and
regeneration of these areas is already well advanced,
although the quality of development to date has been
mixed. Cornish Works and some other industrial buildings
have been converted successfully into residential
accommodation, but the scale, form and detailing of a
number of new-build developments have fallen short of
the aspirations of the Urban Design Compendium. The
result has already been some dilution of the distinctive
character of the urban riverside, although the next wave
of investment in this key area promises to set a higher
standard. Key developments include new office buildings
at Riverside Exchange and 1 North Bank, a 65,000 sq ft
development by Priority Sites which makes the important
step north of the river into the Wicker area.
58
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
The completion of the Inner Relief Road has created
new opportunities for riverside regeneration on Nursery
Street. Public consultation is continuing on plans
which will create a landscaped riverside strip between
Spitalfields and Lady’s Bridge, including a new pocket
park.
The Don riverside has a crucial role to play in all aspects
of Sheffield’s development in the next 25 years:
the Central Riverside is a focal point for office and
mixed use development which, in concert with
proposals for West Bar and the Markets area, will
extend the city centre to the river and act as a
catalyst for regeneration, after many years of decline,
of key areas north of the river including the Wicker,
Nursery Street and Mowbray Street
the Lower Don Valley offers large areas of
developable land, suitable for commercial,
industrial, retail and leisure uses that cannot be
accommodated in the city centre; it also provides
an opportunity to repopulate communities that were
hollowed out in the latter part of the 20th century
the Upper Don Valley is earmarked for incremental
growth and change in the next 15-20 years; plans
here centre on accommodating a cluster of advanced
manufacturing businesses, and on recovering
neglected riverside sites and connecting them to
neighbouring communities.
Strategies developed in the last 5-10 years have helped
to define the distinctive roles, character and functions
of these three locations. Policies now in place set out
complementary visions and also address connections
between these zones, including waterfront access. This
is encouraging, but the challenge now is to ensure that
the quality of development delivered measures up to the
city’s aspirations – and to the standards now being set in
the city centre. Among other things this will mean:
treating the development of these key locations not
as a series of development opportunities, but as an
exercise in making civilised, enjoyable and lively
places
transforming the Lower Don valley into a high quality
parkland setting for business and residential
development, based on authentic (not cosmetic)
sustainability principles
throughout the river corridor, achieving high
quality architecture and urban design, which
reflects Sheffield’s unique character and responds
imaginatively to the riverside setting
Millfands
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 5 9
s h e f f i e l d ’ s r i v e r s t o d a y | s e c t i o n C
respecting and where possible re-using the Don
Valley’s unique industrial heritage and townscapes.
Success will depend crucially on the development and
implementation of a robust flood risk management
strategy, designed to reduce the incidence of extreme
flows and to maximise the capacity of the rivers to contain
heavy rainfall.
18. Overview: conditions and prospects
Sheffield’s waterways are places in transition. The rivers
and the canal are hugely valuable assets and they have
great potential, but there are still some liabilities and
significant threats that need to be addressed.
The strengths of Sheffield’s rivers and canal can be
summarised as follows:
they are integral to the city’s topography and green
structure, especially the arcadian western suburbs
they link the city and the countryside
they are places of strong character and distinctive
identity
they are a valuable community resource providing
access to quality open space and recreation
most are accessible to walkers and, in some cases,
cyclists and are connected to a wider network of
paths and tracks
they provide a variety of important habitats for
wildlife, fish and flora, and the rivers act as wildlife
corridors
they are associated with the city’s rich industrial
history and heritage.
Over the past 20-30 years there has been a marked
improvement in the quality of the waterways and their
contribution to the life of the community. In particular:
waterfront regeneration has got under way at the
Central Riverside and is spreading into adjoining
areas; regeneration strategies have been developed
for the Lower and Upper Don Valleys
the pioneering Five Weirs Walk has been completed
and a plan to complete the Upper Don Walk has been
adopted
the Shire Brook Valley, previously a neglected and
highly contaminated site, has been reinvented as a
local nature reserve
water quality has improved and fish and mammals
have returned to the rivers
a nature reserve has been created at Blackburn
Meadows, which is also the site of a new washland
scheme
there is a growing appreciation of the value of
Sheffield’s industrial buildings and townscapes.
There are, therefore, grounds for optimism, but – before
the potential of the waterways can be fully realised – a
number of weaknesses still need to be addressed. These
include:
the degradation of urban rivers due to culverting,
high retaining walls and artificial channels
the variable quality of riverside environments in
Sheffield, reflecting the city’s continuing east-west
divide
the lack of engagement between the river Don and
the city centre: Sheffield does not have a civic
waterfront and the suburban “riverside towns” are
not well connected to their rivers
the disappointing architectural and design quality
of some regeneration schemes and the weak legacy
(in terms of the riverside) of the Development
Corporation
continuing problems with litter, vandalism and anti-
social behaviour
the lack of good quality open space by the urban
rivers
gaps in the footpath/cycle track network.
60
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
In the following pages we set out a recommended vision
and strategy for Sheffield’s waterways designed to build
on the progress that has already been made, capitalise
on the strengths identified above, and tackle persistent
problems and liabilities. In framing that strategy we will
be aiming to realise some of the exciting opportunities
identified during the course of our research, consultations
and analysis. We have been inspired and enthused by
the remarkable progress that Sheffield has made in the
past 10-15 years, and the success of landmark projects
such as the Peace Gardens, the Millennium Galleries,
the Wintergarden, and many others. Sheffield has been
transformed, and one of the most exciting features of
these projects – and the recovery of special places like
the Botanical Gardens and Weston Park Museum – has
been the way in which they have strengthened Sheffield’s
special character and identity, linking the city’s past
and future with flair and imagination. In a recent article
in Urban Design, the City Council’s Executive Director for
Development, Environment & Leisure, John Mothersole,
said that, in planning for future development, “I want
Sheffield to be like Sheffield”. This is a great message
and it should inform the regeneration of Sheffield’s
waterways just as it has the rebirth of the city centre.
The aim must be to nurture and strengthen Sheffield’s
distinctive sense of place and to make the revived
waterways network one of the defining features of
the “Sheffield signature”. These should be guiding
principles of a strategy which will deliver a new wave of
economic, community and environmental benefits in the
next 10-20 years.
Our research and consultations have unearthed many
exciting opportunities. Sheffield’s waterways have a
vital part to play in addressing the twin themes of the
Sheffield Development Framework, transformation and
sustainability by:
becoming a critical part of a sustainable solution to
flood risk management
establishing a network of ecologically rich wildlife
corridors and nature reserves
providing the core framework for a city-wide green
and open space network
acting as a catalyst for investment, especially in the
urban Don Valley, and creating new places to live,
work and play
providing the city centre with a lively and stylish
urban waterfront
strengthening the identity and appeal of urban
quarters and suburban centres
showcasing Sheffield’s rich industrial heritage
creating new sites for culture and creativity
helping to establish the new Sheffield signature.
These are big prizes, but success is by no means
guaranteed. The waterways strategy will need to overcome
significant threats including:
the significant and, in all probability, growing risk
of flooding of the Don and tributaries may deter
investors and discourage people from living near the
rivers or running businesses in the area
this may lead to inappropriate and over-engineered
flood prevention measures which would dilute the
ecological and amenity value of the waterways
the lack of an overarching landscape strategy
may result in piecemeal development and lost
opportunities
allowing bland and anonymous development to
become the norm, thus undermining Sheffield’s
distinctive character and culture
the full benefits of capital investment will not
be realised unless there is a commitment to the
management and stewardship of the rivers and
riversides.
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 6 1
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
19. The local and regional policy context
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy sits within a wider context
of city-wide, environmental, planning, design and economic
development policies for the city. We have carried out a review
of some of the key policies, focusing on five themes:
the City Strategy, Sheffield’s Future, which sets out a
vision of a successful and distinctive city of European
significance
environmental strategies , including the Sheffield
Environment Strategy
the emerging Sheffield Development Framework, which
includes detailed policies for rivers and waterways
the City Council’s Urban Design Compendium which
addresses a number of riverside quarters
economic development strategies set out by Creative
Sheffield.
The results of the review are summarised in Annex 1, and six
key messages can be highlighted:
Sheffield is no longer content to be a provincial
backwater; it is growing in confidence and is now a city
with high aspirations, determined to become a major
player on the European stage; to achieve this it needs to
capture more private sector investment, and to attract
and retain talent.
developing the strategy: ideas and i n f l u e n c e s
D
city centre place-making improvements
62
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
environmental excellence is a key goal of the city strategy,
and rejuvenating the river corridors is a high priority
Sheffield’s waterways figure prominently in the
Environment Agency’s regional strategy, and specific
targets are contained in the Agency’s State of the
Environment report
the Sheffield Development Framework is based on the
twin pillars of transformation and sustainability: the
city’s green spaces and river corridors are highlighted
as distinctive and highly valued features, and detailed
objectives are set out in the City Policies – Preferred
Options document
design guidance for the city centre gives specific direction
for the riverside quarters
the economic development agency, Creative Sheffield,
recognises the value of distinctiveness – Sheffield’s
signature – in promoting place competitiveness,
especially in the knowledge economy.
Our conclusion is that the policy framework for waterways
regeneration is substantially in place. But our consultations show
that there is a concern that, especially when it comes to urban
design and the environmental agenda, there may continue to be
a gap between policy aspirations and the reality on the ground.
Developers may be reluctant to champion innovative, high
quality architecture and urban design, invest in the public realm
or contribute to better river management, especially in locations
which – in market terms – are unproven or deemed to be high
risk. Closing this gap will be a key challenge.
Nevertheless, policy makers acknowledge that the regeneration
of Sheffield’s rivers and canal has the potential to make a major
contribution to achieving the strategic goals for the city and the
city-region in the next 10-15 years. Sheffield wants to become
one of the top innovative producer cities in Europe. That means
competing in a sphere where success is a function of innovation,
skills and creativity. To thrive in this knowledge economy places
must be able to retain and attract talented people, who will by
definition have choices about where they live and work. These
people will, of course, be drawn by employment opportunities,
but they are also attracted to cosmopolitan places which
offer rich and diverse lifestyle choices.1 Sheffield now offers a
much better urban experience than it did a decade ago, and its
proximity to very high quality open space and outdoor activities
(climbing, walking, canoeing, cycling, hang-gliding and so on)
gives the city a special place among English cities.
The challenge for Sheffield is to create a distinctive offer that
combines the best of urban living with access to a superb
1 Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class – and how it is transforming leisure, community and everyday life (New York, 2002)
outdoor environment, to provide the best quality of life in any
UK city. The policy review shows that the city’s waterways have
a vital role to play in making this happen: they are the physical
links between the city and the countryside; they are the
foundation of Sheffield’s outstanding green network; and they
will be the catalysts for regeneration in less favoured parts of
the city.distinctive new building
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 6 3
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
20. The new urban agenda: a good life in a good city
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy needs to be connected to the
wider agenda for change and regeneration in the city. We need
to show that long-term investment in Sheffield’s waterways
will make a real contribution to achieving the vision of a
successful, distinctive city of European significance, and to
delivering on the five big ambitions set out in the City Strategy.
We believe that the vision set out in the following pages will
help to make Sheffield a more attractive, enjoyable, healthy
and competitive place.
A generation ago, place competitiveness was often reduced
to the mantra of “location, location, location”. Successful
cities were those that could offer a combination of low labour
costs and development sites with easy access to the motorway
network. From the 1980s onwards, Urban Development
Corporations (UDCs) in a number of industrial cities pursued
this formula, providing serviced sites and advance factories,
often in out-of-town locations. The UDCs achieved some
notable successes, and they played an important part in
helping to replace manufacturing jobs in Teesside, Tyne and
Wear, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and other regions. Cost-
based competition was a sensible strategy in an era when
attracting large mobile projects – manufacturing, distribution
and contact centres - was the key objective. Foreign direct
investment played a key role in the transition from an economy
dominated by traditional industries to one defined by modern
manufacturing and, increasingly, services.
In most UK cities that transition is more or less complete. Mass
unemployment has given way to record levels of employment,
although not all groups and places have benefited equally.
Especially in the English core cities, aspirations are rising and
the challenge now is to grow a knowledge intensive economy,
based on high-wage, high-skill jobs. That is the goal in
Sheffield where the aim is to become one of Europe’s leading
innovative producer cities, with an economy based on niche
markets and a dynamic enterprise culture.
In the knowledge economy, human capital – the skills,
creativity and enterprise of people – is the critical success
factor2. Cities and regions need to be able to retain talented
people, and to attract talent from Britain and the rest of the
world. Economic opportunity is the necessary precondition
for attracting and retaining talent; in the UK, London is a
magnet for talent simply because its huge labour market is an
irresistible draw for skilled and ambitious people. Sheffield
cannot match the scale of the London labour market, but it is
aiming to emulate the most successful medium-sized cities
in Europe and the US by nurturing niche strengths in metals,
healthcare, creative industries and sports science.
The shift to a knowledge-based economy has changed the rules
2 “…the key to regional growth lies not in reducing the costs of doing business, but in endowments of highly educated and productive people” Florida, op cit
of place competition. Having the right business locations is
a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. Now the
focus has been shifting from location to place. In his research
on the rising “creative class”, the US academic, Richard
Florida, argued that the most successful city regions were
characterised by concentrations of educated, talented people
(the creative class); innovation and high-tech industries; and
economic vitality. He went further, arguing that the places he
calls creative centres succeed “largely because creative people
want to live there. The companies follow the people – or, in
many cases, are started by them. Creative centres provide the
integrated eco-system or habitat where all forms of creativity
– artistic and cultural, technological and economic – can take
root and flourish” (our emphasis).
Various studies have sought to test the Florida thesis in the UK
context. There are important differences – cultural, geographic
and economic – and the dominant position of London skews
the picture: all other UK regions lag far behind the south east.
But the basic proposition appears to be robust. As British
society has become more prosperous, the aspirations and
expectations of citizens have grown. As a society we are better
off and have more life choices than ever before, including
choices about where we live and work. As a result, places are
competing to attract talent as well as investment and tourism.
None of this is new. The urban renaissance agenda was
64
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
conceived as a response to the long-term flight from industrial
towns and cities into suburbs and rural areas. But it quickly
developed into a more positive agenda in which previously
failing cities began to reposition themselves as drivers of
growth and hot-spots of the knowledge economy. In the last
5-10 years, talent retention and attraction have become explicit
objectives of many city strategies, and in some cases the
decline in the population of city centres has been stemmed or
even reversed.
What do we know about what creative people and knowledge-
workers want from a city? Florida suggests that they are not
interested in the familiar components of late 20th century
location theory – arenas, stadia, regional shopping and leisure
centres, and visitor attractions. For good or ill, such amenities
are ubiquitous: everywhere has them, and they are unlikely
to confer any decisive advantage. Instead, the US research
suggests that knowledge workers are looking for “high quality
amenities and experiences, an openness to diversity…, and
above all else the opportunity to validate their identities as
creative people”.
Research evidence from the UK confirms that, even from
the perspective of corporate decision makers, place
distinctiveness is increasingly important. A report by
The Communication Group, commissioned by the Welsh
Development Agency, showed that most decision makers find
it difficult to differentiate between locations purely on the
basis of traditional factor conditions, and two-thirds said that
it was becoming harder. More than 90% said that intangible
factors such as a city’s image and profile were becoming
more important, with 60% saying that soft factors such as
architecture and culture were exerting more influence on
location decisions.3
The WDA report quotes the destination consultants, Locum:
“There are over 1,000 locations in Europe alone, all promoting
exactly the same thing, looking identical and representing
themselves in similar ways – through pictures of people
playing golf, people in call centres. These places have become
commodities, indistinguishable from one another and offering
little or no added value”. Faced with this commodification
of place – and the fact that UK and European locations have
been levelling out in terms of factor conditions such as labour
costs, transport access and communications technology – the
indications are that cities need to focus more on intangibles to
secure advantage, and to establish an emotional connection
with investors.
A report by the property consultants, Jones Lang LaSalle,
reached a similar conclusion. In Rising Urban Stars, JLL
predict that “urban sustainability and quality of life will rise
up the agenda, and increasingly influence corporate location
3 The Power of Destinations: why it matters to be different, Report by The Communi-cation Group plc sponsored by the Welsh Development Agency, 2006.
decisions”.4 Mature cities, in particular, will seek to “improve
their urban landscapes and their cultural and entertainment
offer, recognising that they are key ingredients to retain and
attract footloose, well-educated knowledge workers, as well as
stimulating tourism”. Instead of competing on the basis of size
and wealth, cities will find that “culture, the living environment,
city ‘vibe’, branding, environment and social sustainability are
becoming more important to achieve success”.
The Communication Group conclude that differentiation is the
key to successful place marketing. To compete, places must:
create an image that has emotional resonance with
investors and influencers
exploit the power of intangible assets as well as financial
and economic factors
recognise the growing importance of lifestyle and soft
factors in attracting business
tell a unique and compelling story that can be passed on
by word of mouth.
Florida’s concludes that it may make more sense “to
emphasise policies and programs to attract human capital,
4 Jones Lang LaSalle, Rising Urban Stars – Uncovering Future Winners, 2003
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 6 5
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
as opposed to conventional approaches that focus on the
attraction of firms and the formation of industrial clusters”.
The key message for policy makers is that the needs and
expectations of individuals, corporations and investors who are
making place decisions are converging, and that the winning
places will be those that provide economic opportunity, are
technology rich, and offer an outstanding quality of life.
This new model of place competitiveness has informed
development and regeneration strategies for Sheffield in
the post-URC era. The city has always been proud of its
remarkable landscape setting, but there was a recognition that
for a large city Sheffield lacked urbanity and that the urban
environment was undistinguished. Remarkable progress has
been made in tackling this quality of life deficit through an
ambitious, long-term place-making programme. A number
of outstanding public spaces have been created, key streets
have been revitalised, standards of architecture and design
have been raised, the Botanical Gardens and the Museum
have been reborn. Devonshire Green and the CIQ are lively
new quarters close to the city centre; the heart of the city is
being repopulated; there has been massive investment in
higher education and cultural assets. There has also been
major investment in the urban environment, by the Don, at
Blackburn Meadows and in the Shire Brook Valley. The city’s
new development agency, Creative Sheffield, has endorsed
this approach, setting out the case for a distinctive signature
that will distinguish Sheffield from the competition. One
key element will be environmental distinctiveness, and the
strategy calls for investment in the features that make Sheffield
a desirable – and different – place to live and work.
A new paradigm of place competitiveness is emerging, based
on a more rounded view of what makes a successful city.
Cities are not just sets of economic assets: development sites,
infrastructure, businesses and amenities. Charles Landry, in his
new book The Art of City Making, describes the city as:
“…a multi-faceted entity. It is an economic structure – an
economy; it is a community of people – a society; it is a
designed environment – an artefact; and it is a natural
environment – an ecosystem. And it is all four of these…
governed by a set of rules – a polity. Its inner engine or
animating force, however, is its culture. Culture…gives the city
its distinctiveness – its flavour, tone and patina.”5
Landry aligns himself with the new consensus on economic
competitiveness, arguing that the decision makers are
becoming more sophisticated: “new ideas are coming into
play, such as an innovative business and cultural environment.
Is the city a cradle of creativity with high rates of innovation
within commerce, science and/or the arts? Does the city have
cutting-edge niche specialisms requiring specialised networks
5 Charles Landry, The Art of City Making (Earthscan, London, 2006)
of professionals?...is there cultural depth and richness…?” (our
emphasis).
Far more than a parcel of sites and “opportunities”, the city is
“a sensory, emotional, lived experience”, and the art of city
making should focus on that “beautifully mundane thing…
the ordinary day-to-day lived urban experience…Can I walk
from where I live or work to a public space where I can just
be rather than have to buy something? Desirable places fulfil
the need for just being…to experience the moment, a chance
for incidental encounter, a space open for coincidence rather
than having to do something specific or continuously having
to consider “what next?”. Sheffield knows all about this: for
the past 10 years it has been investing in places to be, like the
Peace Gardens and the Winter Garden, rediscovering a sense of
place and well-being. In Sheffield, more than any other English
city, the public realm has been reclaimed.
As we have seen, parts of Sheffield’s river system are already
desirable places which contribute to the overarching goal of
a good life in a good city. At their best, they are an important
part of what makes Sheffield Sheffield. However, in other
places the urban rivers and canal still reflect the legacy
of abuse and neglect in the industrial era. Water quality
has improved, wildlife is flourishing, and the community
is increasingly alive to the potential of the waterways. The
potential is unmistakable: Sheffield’s rivers bear the city’s
66
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
distinctive signature and they are rich in character, history,
culture, and ecological value, but too often they are not safe,
attractive or desirable places to be.
Our vision of Sheffield, the City of Rivers has been shaped by
the new paradigm:
we know that cities need to be competitive, not just
economically, but socially, environmentally and culturally
cities are competing to attract and retain talented people
and to secure mobile investment
cost-based competition has been superseded by a more
holistic and sophisticated proposition: investors used to
buy a location, now people buy the place
hundreds of places can meet investors’ core
requirements, but only a few can offer a truly distinctive
place proposition: it pays to be different
the modern place proposition encompasses quality of
life and environment – talented people thrive in a rich,
diverse, creative and distinctive urban milieu
successful cities generate an emotional connection
between citizens and the place: this is an authentic bond
which place marketing needs to communicate
the commodification of cities – and the anonymous
development that goes with it – has stripped places of
their personality and appeal, making it hard to tell them
apart
in the next decade, successful cities will compete by
celebrating their distinctiveness, welcoming the future
while drawing inspiration from their history and culture
in this competitive environment, Sheffield must focus on
being Sheffield; the rivers, which are defining features of
the city, have a huge part to play in telling the Sheffield
story in the next 20 years.Winter Garden
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 6 7
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
21. Landscapes, buildings and memory
As well as the new thinking about how places compete in the
knowledge age, this strategy has also been influenced by some
key trends in landscape design and architecture. For all the
undoubted successes of urban regeneration in Britain in the
past 20-25 years, there is a concern that many projects have
resulted in the unnecessary loss of valuable buildings and
townscapes that could and should have been re-used, and
that this practice has erased the “memory” of communities.
Too often, comprehensive regeneration starts by removing all
traces of the previous life, culture and industry of the place.
The restoration of important and historic buildings is, of course,
standard regeneration practice, even though it may only be a
façade that is retained. But architecturally less distinguished
buildings and townscapes are likely to be discarded, even
though they may have a great deal to say about the history
and culture of the place, and form part of the emotional bond
between citizens and the city.
There is growing recognition that this “scorched earth” school
of regeneration diminishes the appeal and authenticity of the
new places that are being created. It is impossible to recover
the texture, patina and spirit of the places that are swept away,
or the layers of memory that they evoke. A recent example is
the redevelopment of the Clyde waterfront in Glasgow which
has almost totally erased the fabric of the historic river port; the
resulting strip of apartments, offices and commercial leisure
developments is anonymous and generic, and the Clyde’s rich
history has been reduced to a handful of interpretation boards.
Of course, preserving historic landscapes in their entirety is
neither practicable nor desirable. The demands of a changing
economy and society mean that new buildings – and new
types of buildings – are essential, and each generation needs
to make its own mark on the city and create a new legacy.
The new approach is not about the wholesale preservation
of tracts of the city, but is predicated on the recognition that
places speak to us and should not be silenced. It calls for a
more sensitive and respectful relationship with the past, and
a greater emphasis on renewing and re-using old buildings
and structures rather than removing them. The past should be
treated as usable rather than disposable.6 The same sensibility
extends to the natural landscape: in Germany’s Emscher Park
(see Section 23 below) the woodlands and open spaces that
have sprung up spontaneously on abandoned industrial sites
have been incorporated into the region’s green space strategy.
The creative adaptation and re-use of old buildings has
been a defining feature of efforts, in many English cities, to
encourage the creative and cultural industries (CCIs). The
CCIs are recognised as important economic drivers for urban
regeneration. Typically, artists, creative enterprises and
6 David Littlefield and Saskia Lewis, Architectural Voices: Listening to Old Buildings, John Wiley & Sons 2007
above: Spike Island, Bristol (courtesy rbrwr on flickr) below: Red Empty, Zagreb
68
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
production companies want affordable workspace in the inner
city; they are attracted to places of character and tolerant of
rough edges. This is what Jane Jacobs meant when she said
that “new ideas need old buildings”. Sheffield’s Cultural
Industries Quarter emerged in just this type of location on the
city centre fringes, and the same process can be observed in
areas like Bristol’s Spike Island or Wood Street in Liverpool.
This phenomenon predates, but has been incorporated into
contemporary regeneration practice. In Sheffield, Manchester
and many other cities, local partnerships have tried to cultivate
CCIs, sometimes by designating cultural quarters. A new breed
of developers, like Urban Splash and Urban Catalyst, has
identified the appetite for the rich complexity, authenticity and
rough edges of urban life and work, in preference to the bland
conventions of mainstream developers.
The new philosophy is comfortable with the contradictions,
contingencies and untidiness of urban life. A new school of
practice is emerging which treats times and places of change as
catalysts for economic, social and ecological renewal. Instead
of a single utopian vision, the new approach embraces multiple
visions and frameworks where different meanings and cultures
can coincide. It is an adaptive approach which uses, reuses
and shifts existing infrastructure; participation by local people
is integral and non-negotiable; and local distinctiveness and
character are respected and celebrated.
Clare Cumberlidge and Lucy Musgrave have highlighted some
of the distinguishing features of the new approach:7
a recognition that renewal is a continuous process, with
no defined end-point: there must be space for new ideas
and adaptation
a commitment to maximise resources – human, financial
and material; many projects adapt or reuse existing
buildings and social infrastructure
open and effective collaboration between communities,
agencies, local authorities, the private sector and
professionals; professionals start to operate outside their
normal sphere of practice
an awareness of the symbolic value and significance of
places
the idea of the unfinished; places evolve over time as
a result of the interaction between spaces, uses and
residents; new developments need to leave space –
physical and social – that can be appropriated by the
community.
These ideas have been at the heart of the regeneration of the
Ruhr region, and it is important to note that they have proved
to be compatible with – and indeed supportive of – rapid
economic transformation, large scale regeneration projects,
and high quality modern architecture and design. But, arguably
7 Claire Cumberlidge and Lucy Musgrave, Design and Landscape for People: new approaches to renewal, London 2007
Northern Quarter, Manchester
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 6 9
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
more than in any English region, the regeneration of the Ruhr
also rests on the celebration of the history and culture of a
traditional industrial region and on the conservation and re-
use of historic monuments and artefacts. It is also transforming
a landscape blighted by dereliction and pollution into a
network of green spaces and restored rivers. Land which
has been off-limits for generations has been reclaimed by
communities: forestry, allotments, city farms and community
gardens are all contributing to a revival of urban agriculture.
This new approach to creating landscapes has a powerful
resonance for Sheffield. Local people have played a key role
in the regeneration of Sheffield’s waterways through a series
of successful community projects, some facilitated by the City
Council, some genuine bottom-up initiatives. There has been
a strong community input to projects at Blackburn Meadows,
Hartley Brook and Shire Brook Valley. Salmon Pastures is a
classic example of a derelict site which has become a valued
ecological asset. Volunteers have played a vital role in creating
the Five Weirs Walk, and other groups have championed
the cause of rivers, parks and footpaths, reclaiming places
that commercial development perspectives might have
disregarded. The city has a large angling community which has
brought life and activity to the rivers and canal.
We believe that this tradition of volunteering and active
citizenship needs to be given even greater encouragement in
the next 10-15 years. It should be a guiding principle of the
regeneration of the River Don, helping to make the Don Valley a
distinctive and memorable place: a site for new development
of all types, but also a place for people, rich in historical and
cultural associations, and ecological assets.
22. The dispersed city
The transformation of the Ruhr is relevant for another reason.
For the most part, the process has been concerned with the
regeneration not of city centres but of dispersed, relatively
low density environments. The Ruhrgebeit is characterised
by small and medium-sized towns, residential suburbs, large
industrial plants, retail and leisure malls and large tracts
of derelict land and peri-urban countryside, and this is the
territory where most of the region’s high profile projects have
been located.
Rafi Segal and Els Verbakel describe how, in the 20th century,
“the distinctions between city, suburb, countryside and
wilderness have become blurred”. As the process of dispersal
has unfolded, traditional urban boundaries have broken
down: activities that used to be concentrated in inner cities
have migrated to suburban and fringe locations where they
have taken new forms. With housing, employment, shopping
and entertainment, low density multifunctional environments
have emerged, independent of the city. 8 The dispersed
city challenges our concept of a good place; the new urban
landscapes are characterised by:
“ [a] lack of density and centrality, the absence of a coherent
urban fabric or distinguishable boundaries, and a ‘damaged’
8 Rafi Segal and Els Verbakel, Cities of Dispersal, Architectural Design, January/Feb-ruary 2008.
Salmon Pastures
70
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
relationship between the pedestrian and urban space…they are
seen to lack the conventional forms and uses of urban public
spaces…”
This certainly describes the partially regenerated Lower Don
Valley. The area offers an array of valuable economic and
community assets, and huge numbers of people are attracted
by the shopping, leisure and sports facilities. But, sadly, the
new places that have been created are by and large bland
and cheerless, and the visual and aural drama (as well as
blight) associated with the steel industry has been replaced by
something anonymous and colourless. But there is still a great
deal to play for. The new uses coexist with large tracts of vacant
and derelict whose future remains unresolved and which offer
an opportunity to create a memorable and distinctive place of
urbanity, vitality, sociability and even delight.
The Upper and Lower Don Valleys are key development
locations and in future they will accommodate business parks,
retail, leisure and residential development. The continuing
regeneration of the urban river will have a decisive and
pivotal role in the future of the city, and the principles of
distinctiveness, design quality, biodiversity and sustainability
are as important here as anywhere else. The legacy of the
past 20 years suggests that the development imperative has
triumphed over every other consideration, but Sheffield needs
something better. We cannot wish away what has happened
in the Lower Don and elsewhere in the post-industrial era,
but there is still a chance to do things differently and better.
Sheffield’s city centre is once again a desirable and sought-
after place: can this success be repeated in the Don Valley?
A key determinant of future success and failure will be the
treatment of wasteland. Throughout the urban river corridor
there are large tracts of derelict land, vacant buildings and
abandoned factories, as well as marginal land around roads,
railways and waterways. These sites are often unsightly
and targets for vandalism and fly-tipping, but that does not
mean they are of no value. Michael Southworth notes that
“…urban wastelands represent a major resource for future
development…[they] are often strategically located with
respect to the larger metropolis along established rail or
highway transportation corridors and near existing centers of
population. Frequently they occupy water edges that potentially
have high amenity value for future housing and recreation
development. They may occupy wetlands which, when restored,
will be of ecological value for the entire region”. 9
Southworth describes the economic, social, aesthetic, cultural
and ecological value of wasteland. The presence of a bank of
unused land can help a city to adapt to changing conditions
and opportunities, although too much vacant land can be a
9 This section draws on Michael Southworth, “Wastelands in the Evolving Metropo-lis”, University of California Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Working Paper 2001-01.
Kelham Island
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7 1
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
blight. Wasteland, as we have seen, if often ecologically rich,
and plants and animals can thrive undisturbed in spontaneous
habitats. Although they are often associated with criminal
or anti-social activity, run down locations are also places of
“discovery, experimentation, challenge and retreat”, and they
can be attractive (both as sources of inspiration and places to
work) to artists.
Jonathan Meades has described the influence of these
“edgelands where underfed horses freeze between
interchanges and reservoirs, sewage outfalls, trails of
rusty dereliction” on a school of writers and artists.10
These landscapes have been explored by Iain Sinclair’s
extraordinary books on London’s marginal places, Stephen
Gill’s photographs of Hackney, the work of the landscape
photographer John Davies and many others11. Tim Edensor
has celebrated industrial ruins in a recent book and on a
remarkable website. 12 13
For Meades, the atmospheric appeal of these places, is in
contrast to “the place which invites no response, which breeds
indifference”. Edensor describes industrial ruins as places of
10 Jonathan Meades, “Space? Place? Life?”, in Brian Evans and Frank McDonald (eds), Learning from Place I, Academy of Urbanism, 2007.
11 See, for example, Iain Sinclair, Lights Out for the Territory (1996) and London Orbital (2002); Stephen Gill, Hackney Wick (2005), Archaeology in Reverse (2007) and Hackney Flowers (2007); John Davies, The British Landscape (2006).
12 Tim Edensor, Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality (2005).13 British Industrial Ruins website: http://www.sci-eng.mmu.ac.uk/british_indus-
trial_ruins/
“pleasure and sensuality”, meaning and value:
“Hidden in ruins are forgotten forms of collectivity and
solidarity, lost skills, ways of behaving and feeling, traces of
arcane language, and neglected…forms of social enterprise”.
Edensor argues that the value of ruins and wastelands lies in
their “idiosyncrasies and contingencies”, and laments the fact
that these qualities are “an affront” to the commodification
and homogeneity of contemporary development practice.
His conclusion – and ours – is that we need to champion
a new urban design that allows “difference, oddness and
incongruous juxtapositions”. This does not mean maintaining
all derelict land or resisting new development. As Jonathan
Meades puts it, “man cannot live by oxidisation alone. It’s
not a question of either atmospheric scrappiness or gleaming
newbuild. It’s a question of both/and.”
For the Sheffield Development Corporation, it appears, it was
axiomatic that regeneration required the removal of almost
every trace of the history and memory of the steel city. The
implication was that this heritage was of no value and that it
should yield to a brave new world of stadia, shopping malls
and business pavilions. The assumption that new uses and
activities – which were, indeed, essential – could not coexist,
in time and space, with the history, culture and continuing
traditions of an historic city was typical of its time, but is
none the less dispiriting for that. It represents a failure of
imagination which is still sadly reflected in the apparently
doomed campaign to keep the iconic cooling towers at Tinsley.
In the following paragraphs we look at cities and regions that
have found a different and better way to tackle this challenge,
and which have succeeded in creating places which are
modern and competitive but which still engage creatively with
the past.
72
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
23. Sources of inspiration I: Emscher Landscape Park
During the course of this study one regional scale initiative has
been cited by many people as a source of inspiration for the
Sheffield strategy. The Emscher Landscape Park in Germany’s
Ruhr region is arguably the most celebrated example in Europe
of the recovery and regeneration of a regional scale post-
industrial landscape. A more detailed description is contained
in Annex 2.
By the early 1980s many of the mines, steelworks and
engineering works in the Ruhr had closed or were under threat.
The demise of these heavy industries left a legacy of derelict
sites and buildings, contaminated land and polluted rivers.
The Emscher River, which flows through the Ruhr, had become
an open sewer and a symbol of the challenges facing a region
searching for new economic roles and needing to create a
positive image. In 1989, the state government of North Rhine-
Westphalia launched the 10-year Emscher Park International
Building Exhibition (IBA). IBA Emscher Park was focused on
an urban corridor, running about 70 km east-west and 10 km
north-south, spanning the boundaries of 17 towns and cities.
The key goals of IBA Emscher Park included:
the creation of green corridors using watercourses and open
space to link all the communities in the landscape park
the ecological recovery of the Emscher and its tributaries
preservation and re-use of the industrial legacy
working in the park : ecological upgrading of derelict sites
to create a high quality setting for business
living in the park : rehabilitating workers’ housing and
extending residential areas
practising an holistic approach to economic, social and
cultural transformation.
The innovative approach of IBA Emscher Park has been much
studied and documented extensively. Its guiding principles –
which have had a major influence on this study - included:
making ecology an organising focus for economic, social
and environmental regeneration
incorporating the found landscape of derelict industrial
land into a regional network of open space and
recreational resources
treating redundant industrial buildings and landscapes
as valuable cultural artefacts which should be conserved
Landschaftspark Duisburg at night
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7 3
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
and reused wherever possible
naturalisation projects to restore the water cycle and
nurturing spontaneous landscapes.
The investment poured into the IBA project during the 1990s
had a profound impact on the image of the Ruhrgebeit, and the
region earned a reputation as a laboratory for innovation in
regeneration. Nevertheless, the sheer scale of the challenges
facing the region meant that there was still much to do when
IBA Emscher Park came to the end of its life in 1999. The state
and local authorities formed a partnership, Project Ruhr,
to carry forward the work of IBA. Through Project Ruhr, they
developed the Emscher Landscapepark 2010 Masterplan,
which was adopted in 2006. The basic principles of the plan
are consistent with those adopted by IBA in 1989. Completion
of the east-west green corridor remains the goal: the emphasis
now is on filling gaps, and on strengthening lateral connections
with towns and neighbourhood centres. The themes of living
and working in the park remain in place, as does the emphasis
on industrial heritage linked to art and culture. The plan also
advocates urban agriculture, identifying opportunities for
cultivation and forestry.
The Ruhrgebeit has been selected as the European Capital
of Culture 2010, and the published programme includes an
ambitious series of infrastructure projects which will build on
Hansa Coking Plant, Duisburg
74
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
the tradition of IBA by creating “new urban and regional spaces
and arenas of excellence from the remnants of the coal and
steel era”. Of particular interest here is the Back to the River
Centennial Project which will complete the process of returning
the Emscher river to a natural meadow landscape. This will
be complemented by the creation of a network of new green
and open spaces by the region’s rivers and canals, and art-
based interventions. The Land for Free project will make plots
of vacant land available to settlers from all over Europe who
want to contribute to setting up a utopian new city between the
Emscher and Rhine-Herne canal.
The IBA model – and the Emscher Landscapepark Masterplan
– were cited as examples of best practice in the recent National
Audit Office (NAO) report, How European Cities Achieve
Renaissance, which notes that the particular strengths of the
Emscher Park approach include:
a network of partners eager to deliver regeneration
strong central support for partners, and
a clear implementation plan. 14
Between 1991 and 2000, state and EU funding for IBA-backed
projects amounted to almost €1.5bn, matched by €1bn
private funding. In total, projects in the region are estimated
to have attracted €5bn investment in the same period. The
14 National Audit Office, How European cities achieve renaissance, Stationery Office, 2007
Emscher Landscape Park has transformed the quality of life
and environment in the Ruhr, played a key role in establishing
a positive new image for the region, and acted as a catalyst for
economic restructuring.
Six defining features of Emscher Landscape Park stand out, and
offer vital lessons for the Sheffield Waterways Strategy:
the concept of the landscape park is the big idea,
which gives direction and coherence to a wide-ranging
programme of projects large and small; every project
must play a part in delivering the park; but the masterplan
is not a strait-jacket: it establishes guiding principles
– spatial and philosophical – but it can also respond to
changing conditions
the partners’ approach is genuinely holistic: economic,
social, cultural and environmental objectives receive
equally priority and are integrated into project design and
resource allocation
ecological recovery and the naturalisation of rivers
are key themes running through the masterplan, and
private sector as well as public sector developments are
expected to contribute
the overall quality of architecture and design is
exceptionally high: this is true of business space, houses,
schools and neighbourhood parks as well as high profile
prestige projects
Emscher Park celebrates the history and culture of an
industrial region: the remains of industry are valued and
have found new uses as cultural venues, monuments and
parks
the regeneration process has been exemplary, with
extensive public participation at every stage: by
understanding what local communities most value as
well as what they want to change the partners have built a
broad consensus around the masterplan.
Zollverein Tip near Essen
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7 5
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
24. Sources of inspiration II: Oslo
If Emscher Park is the best example of the philosophy in action,
key features of the Ruhr model have been replicated elsewhere
in Europe. The Aker River runs through the Norwegian capital
Oslo before it decants into the fjord. The Aker has been
described as the birthplace of the industrial revolution in
Norway.15 As in Sheffield it was first important as a source
of water power, but in the 1840s large textile factories and
sawmills were established by the river, with workers’ housing
nearby. As these industries declined or moved to new locations
in the 20th century they were replaced by engineering and
chemical factories, but industrial production in the area
had largely ceased by the 1970s and in 1988 the Aker River
Environmental Park was established.
The river was polluted with industrial waste and sewage
and many of the great 19th century factories were empty and
derelict. The city council proposed to demolish both factories
and houses but these plans were hotly contested, in part by the
artists and students who had adopted the Grünerløkka area as
low-cost alternative to the city centre. As public appreciation
of the value of the river and industrial heritage grew, official
attitudes changed. The 1988 Park Plan aimed to clean up the
river, create a parkland setting, retain and re-use the best of the
archaeological heritage, celebrate the history and culture of the
15 Anne Marit Karlsen, “The industrial areas on the River Aker – de-industriali-sation and city planning”, paper for the TICCIH Congress 2006.
area, and establish design guidelines for new buildings.
Anne Marit Karlsen’s account of the evolution of the
Environmental Park project is candid about the tensions
and conflicts that have accompanied this process, but an
independent evaluation carried out in 1998-99 found that
the Park concept had generated a consensus between the
community, the public and private sectors.16 It has also raised
awareness of the natural, historical and cultural values of the
river basin. More interestingly, the evaluation found that the
Park had delivered unexpected benefits beyond its original,
mostly green, objectives:
16 The evaluation was carried out by Norwegian Institute of Urban and Re-gional Research.
“The Akerselva Environmental Park has not only improved
the quality of life in the area and the neighbouring urban
settlements, it has also successfully tapped into an urban
trend by creating a foundation for combining work and play.
It stimulated the location factors for new service industries.
According to the interactive model of innovation, proximity
brings down transaction costs…[and] makes it easier to have
face-to-face meetings. This is another requisite for trust
building and transfer of tacit knowledge. In a short time, and
without any deliberate public planning, the area has developed
several industrial clusters. It has turned into an industrial
milieu in the classical sense. There now seems to be a critical
mass of firms, which generates further growth and attracts
other firms.”
A recent report by Urhahn Urban Design for the London
Development Agency (discussed in more detail below) cites the
Aker River as an outstanding example of industry in the city:
“The riverside position offers a unique identity to new residents
and businesses alike. Today the river functions as a natural
attraction, biological refuge and centrepiece of river park. The
water is now home to fish again and clean enough for people to
swim in”.17
17 Urhahn Urban Design, Industry in the City, report for the London Development Agency and the Greater London Authority, August 2006.
Aker River, Oslo
76
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
25. Sources of inspiration III: Helsinki
Arabianrata is a former industrial district at the mouth of the
River Vantaanjoki in Helsinki, which took its name form the
Arabia porcelain factory which was founded there in 1870s.
The area was largely derelict when, in 1992, the City of Helsinki
designated an 85ha site as an urban development area, with
the vision of establishing a “living city” which would be the
leading design centre in the Baltic region. The plan aimed to
reflect the heritage and diversity of Arabianranta, “linking past
and present, the natural environment with the urban fabric and
science and technology with arts”, through a combination of
business, industry, education, research and new homes.18
The development of the area is well advanced, and by 2010
it will be a community with 10,000 residents, 8,000 jobs and
6,000 students. Implementation of the strategy has been led
by a public-private partnership, Art and Design City Helsinki
Oy. Guiding principles for the development include a socially-
inclusive mixture of housing types and tenure, including 40%
of homes in the social rented sector. All housing units must be
connected to a broadband network.
The development strategy is based on six key themes:
18 University of Lisbon Faculty of Architecture, Creative Urban Spaces: ‘In-novation Hub’ as an instrument of urban policy (2007); Mervi Ilmonen and Klaus Kunzmann, “Arbianranta”, Urban Design, 106 (2008)
Arabianranta, Helsinki
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7 7
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
Connectivity . There is excellent public transport including
new subway and bus services, and the road system
excludes cars from the waterfront and the immediate
surroundings of residential blocks. From the beginning,
every home was connected to a broadband network,
which led to the development of a pioneering digital
community, Helsinki Virtual Village.
Clustering . The University of Art and Design Helsinki had
already moved to the area in the 1980s, but a whole new
knowledge infrastructure has since been established
straddling the boundaries between arts, digital media,
science and technology. Two thirds of the companies that
have relocated to the area are in the creative industries.
Talent and diversity . Arabianranta is an inclusive
community that brings together students, artists,
researchers and workers. The housing stock has been
designed to encourage diversity with family houses and
homes for people with disabilities.
Built environment . The urban grid and design guidelines
are designed to reflect the character of the area, which
is “a transition zone between the inner city and the
suburban-type areas”. Many of the blocks have been
developed following architectural competitions. Every
developer is required to contribute 1-2% of construction
costs to public art projects.
Cultural environment . Arabianranta has a long history
and an industrial tradition. “The industrial profile of the
area, the historic memories of the place, the quality of the
natural environment and the art project all reinforce the
genius loci, creating a unique identity…[and] a unique
and inspiring cultural and living environment.”
Natural environment . The area’s natural environment is
central to the project. The ceramics industry has left a
legacy of contaminated land, and there has been a long-
term cleaning and remediation programme. Everything
is connected to green spaces and orientated towards the
water.
A recent article on Arabianranta was co-authored by Klaus
Kunzmann of the University of Dortmund. Kunzmann played a
key role in the development of the IBA Emscher Park concept,
and he and Mervi Ilmonen argue that the project “combines
local assets and spirit with thoughtful urban design, using
culture as a catalyst for regenerating a derelict industrial site
and creating a future-oriented urban district”. In this respect it
is in marked contrast to “grand projects elsewhere in Europe”
which are designed “to please tourists and urban consumers”
rather than create a living community. Arabianranta is “a
pertinent example of how the European city can be modernised
new building in Arabianranta, Helsinki
78
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
while maintaining its local character. It is possible to for the
European city to have a future in a globalised world dominated
by mega-cities, if it is envisioned by reading the past and
respecting strong local traditions…Arabianranta shows the way
forward”.
26. Sources of inspiration IV: new ideas and approaches
In addition to these inspiring built examples designers and
academics have been exploring the new urban design. OSA,
a research group at the University of Leuven in Belgium, have
been developing strategies for bringing coherence to the citta
diffusa, where “both centre and periphery [have] vanished
and…[been] replaced by an almost omnipresent ‘secondarity’.”
OSA do not seek to redefine the dispersed city entirely, but
aim instead to “insert…spatial qualities, necessary structures
and missing public spaces”. A landscape strategy for the
Bossuit-Kortrijk canal works within the infrastructure of canals,
roads and railway lines to establish “a network of quays,
gardens, fields and forests”. In Kortrijk, the Buda Island project
proposes to retrofit a landscape of oversized urban blocks and
stand-alone buildings with a network of secret gardens. Also in
Belgium, the Urban [IM]plants project aims to enliven the banal
urban landscape of Bonheiden by reintroducing elements of
the natural landscape back into town.19
In the United States, the URBAN VOIDS project has been set up
to generate “new thinking about the future of Philadelphia’s
vacant lands and to act as a catalyst for implementation.”
Philadelphia has 405 hectares of vacant land, as large as the
downtown area. Among the entries, Front Studio proposes the 19 Bruno de Meulder, “Old Dispersions and Scenes for the Production of Public
Space”, and Els Verbakel and Elie Derman, “Urban [IM}plants: Tactics for Recom-bining Landscape and Collective Space in Bonheiden, Belgium”, both in Rafi Segal and Els Verbakel, Cities of Dispersal, Architectural Design, January/February 2008.
transformation of the city fringe by converting vacant sites to
urban agriculture. Another proposal (Bio-Philadelphia) would
support the growth of biotechnology industries by creating
“working landscapes that support greenhouses, experimental
fields for energy, environment and economy, and dynamic
living surfaces”.
The regeneration of the urban Don Valley raises important
questions about the compatibility of industry with housing
and activities. Does the retention of industry in inner urban
areas preclude the development of successful and attractive
mixed use areas or residential communities? This is a key
Arabianranta, Helsinki (courtesy narnua on flickr)
Buda Island Project, Kortrijk
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 7 9
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
issue in London where the demand for housing land threatens
to drive industry out of the city into the Thames Gateway and
other fringe locations.
The Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority
commissioned Urhahn Urban Design to review the issue.20
While acknowledging that some activities need to be
segregated on the grounds of noise, nuisance or heavy traffic,
the report concludes that the “defensive designation of
protected employment areas and separation of activities” are
outdated tactics. In an important finding for Sheffield, where
industry persists in much of the urban Don Valley, Urhahn warn
against “generic planning prescriptions” and call for bespoke
solutions which may accommodate light industry, printing,
motor trades, wholesale and similar activities in successful and
lively urban quarters.
Based on an extensive collection of case studies from the
UK and Europe, Urhahn have drawn up a set of 17 guiding
principles of which the following are of particular relevance to
the Don Valley:
define a clear but flexible spatial framework
promote flexible building types that could be adapted for
future uses and users
invest in hybrid buildings that can contain a range of
functions
20 Urhahn Urban Design, Industry in the City, op cit
design buildings to minimise environmental disruption
create attractive and tranquil private space
encourage built parking structures
promote design excellence
create public space and meeting places
define the atmosphere(s) you are seeking to create, and
mix scales accordingly
make the most of existing assets such as rivers and
natural features
create critical mass to guarantee vibrancy and safety
separate access routes for different uses
optimise views from residential units.
27. Sources of inspiration V: rivers, canals and waterways
There is a long tradition of environmental schemes for rivers
and waterways in the UK, with the focus on improving amenity
and restoring public access. An outstanding success story is
the Water of Leith in Edinburgh, an attractive small river that
flows through the city’s suburbs before entering the Firth of
Forth at Leith. The concept of a footpath by the river was first
mooted in the 1940s, and the project was taken up by the then
District Council in the 1970s. The whole length of the river
within the city boundary now has an attractive, much-loved and
well-used walkway. In the post-industrial era, the Water of Leith
has become an important trout stream once again, and the
walkway now provides a walking route through the city, linked
to a city-wide network of paths; it is a recognised wildlife site,
and “an outdoor classroom for adults and children”. A visitor
centre acts as a base for an extensive programme of school
visits. Volunteer effort played a big part, as it has throughout
the country, through the work of groups like the Friends of the
Porter Valley.
Schemes of this type played a key role in raising awareness
of the value of urban rivers in the UK. They inspired many
others, such as Sheffield’s Five Weirs Walk and the Upper
Don Walk. However, a new generation of projects has focused
more on the condition of the rivers themselves by promoting
ecological recovery and biodiversity. River restoration is one of
Industry in the City - Urhahn Urban Design for GLA
80
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
the central themes of the Emscher Landscape Park, but there
is also a growing body of successful projects in the UK, with
the Environment Agency playing a lead role. A notable early
example was Project Kingfisher which restored a 7km stretch of
the River Cole in Birmingham.
In the late 1990s the River Skerne in Darlington was the
subject of a major restoration scheme. During the industrial
era the Skerne, like the Don, was canalised and straightened;
artificial banks were raised to prevent flooding, and these
were overgrown with Himalayan Balsam. Although it was
not possible to restore the original course of the river, a
meandering channel was created with quiet backwaters for
young fish and insects. The banks were re-profiled and the
surrounding land lowered to restore the flood plain, making
the water safer and more accessible. Sources of pollution
was identified and addressed, and outfalls were redesigned
so that they discharged under water. The restored river is the
centrepiece of an attractive area of parkland and public usage
has increased dramatically.
In London, river restoration is playing an increasingly
prominent role in the regeneration agenda. An Environment
Agency publication21 enumerates the benefits:
21 Environment Agency, Bringing Your Rivers Back to Life (2006)
environmental
improving the river corridor-improving flood storage capacity-addressing water quality-
social
attractive, accessible, quality natural places for -communities
improving well-being-balancing community access and the needs of -wildlife
footpaths and cycleways-opportunities for learning and education-
economic
generating sustainable development-attracting businesses-
A number of successful river restoration projects in urban and
suburban locations are presented as case studies, showcasing
a range of techniques.
The past 20-30 years have also seen numerous riverside
and canalside regeneration projects, elements of which have
informed the Sheffield strategy. Essentially, the development
industry has moved from a position in which urban waterfronts
were seen as marginal places or liabilities, to one in which
Project Kingfisher, River Cole, Birmingham (courtesy sjdean on flickr)
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 8 1
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
a waterfront location is perceived to add value to a site. In
looking at best practice exemplars we have focused our
attention on cases from industrial cities, or at least sites of
industry.
Bristol has one of the liveliest and most successful urban
waterfronts in the country. The historic river port had reached
the end of its commercial life in the 1970s and was threatened
with wholesale destruction to make way for massive road
schemes. After a long campaign led by community and
civic groups, the potential value of an urban waterfront was
recognised by the City Council. The regeneration of the docks
has been a long and tortuous process, with many setbacks
but, paradoxically, the failure to establish and deliver a
comprehensive master plan for the whole area seems to
have worked in its favour. The process of change has been
spasmodic and organic and while the quality of individual
developments has been variable, the strong and distinctive
sense of place has been preserved, along with a range of
activities including surviving pockets of industry. Sheds and
warehouses have found new uses as galleries, museums,
shops, artists’ studios and workplaces, and the waterfront is
the home of a cluster of animation businesses including the
Oscar-winning Aardman Studios who are now expanding their
premises. The Bristol process has been far from exemplary, but
the outcome has been a place with a personality, quirkiness
and authenticity that more polished regeneration projects
cannot match. Among the key lessons for Sheffield are the
value of allowing new users and uses to occupy old buildings;
the fact that old and new uses co-exist comfortably by the
waterfront in Bristol; and the benefits of a flexible approach.
Another critical factor, especially relevant for the Sheffield &
Tinsley Canal is that the waterspace itself is busy all the year
round with ferries, cruise boats, sailing dinghies and other
watersports.
Birmingham was a pioneer of waterways regeneration. The
city lies at the heart of the English canal network which was
established in the 18th century as the industrial revolution
got under way. The city’s extraordinary canal network fell into
decline in the 20th century and had become a forgotten secret,
known only to waterways enthusiasts. However, led by British
Waterways, the canals were rediscovered in the 1970s with the
regeneration of Gas Street Basin, a hugely influential scheme
Bristol waterfront Gas Street Basin, Birmingham (courtesy michael.jh on flickr)
82
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
which inspired similar projects in many other towns and cities,
not least at Victoria Quays in Sheffield. Birmingham’s central
place in the canal network guaranteed high levels of hire boat
traffic and encouraged the city to capitalise further on this
asset. New developments such as Aston Science Park and
the International Convention Centre took up brownfield sites
by canals, and in the 1990s work began on the Brindleyplace
development, one of the largest mixed use developments ever
in the UK, which brought prestige offices, bars and restaurants
to a waterfront location close to the city centre. Commercially,
Brindleyplace has been a huge success, although both the
design and the content (it is very much dominated by national
brands) now seem rather bland compared to Bristol’s earthier
mix. An interesting and important new project is now being
developed a little further from the city centre, around the
Icknield Port Loop. A joint venture between Isis, Advantage
West Midlands and Birmingham City Council, the proposed
urban village promises to be a useful model for Sheffield. A
new community is proposed, with offices, houses, shops and
leisure; there will be a strong landscape framework and the
development will be guided by the principles of biodiversity
and sustainability.
The recent history of waterways in Manchester is instructive.
The regeneration of Salford Quays in the 1980s and 90s was
hailed as landmark regeneration project: a new destination
in the city, with key attractions including the Imperial War
Museum North and the Lowry housed in “iconic” buildings.
But Salford Quays is a disappointment. Poorly connected to
the city centre – the tram route by-passes the waterfront – its
architecture is a grim mix of empty gestures and the banal. By
contrast, the hugely successful regeneration of the heart of the
city has made more imaginative use of the network of canals
winding through Manchester, although the “dark” River Irwell
(which has much in common with the Don) is still, to quote the
Environment Agency, a “forgotten river”. On the east side of the
city, in Ancoats, a major new project is nearing completion. The
New Islington Millennium Community is based on a masterplan
by the architect Will Alsop. A new waterway has been built to
re-establish the connection between the Rochdale and Ashton
Canals. This will the centrepiece of a new “water park”, Cotton
Fields will “promote a diverse wildlife, including a wetlands
area, and a range of nesting boxes to attract a wide variety of
birds. An eco island where adults and children can learn more
about the natural environment and ‘beach’ areas for water play
will also form part of the park.
New Islington Millennium Community
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 8 3
d e v e l o p i n g t h e s t r a t e g y | s e c t i o n D
28. Conclusion
In Part C we assessed the condition and prospects of
Sheffield’s waterways and identified the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the strategy needs
to address. In Part D we have explored the ideas and influences
that will shape the strategy:
a supportive regional, sub-regional and city-wide policy
context: the waterways strategy can make a major
contribution to this policy agenda, especially the vision of
“a successful, distinctive city of European significance at
the heart of a strong city region”
the emergence of a new paradigm of place
competitiveness: cities need to attract and retain
knowledge workers and creative talent; to do this they
need to move beyond the traditional orthodoxies of
location theory, focusing on what makes them distinctive
and establishing an emotional bond with citizens and
investors
the emergence of new approaches to landscape and
architecture that achieve change while celebrating the
history and culture of the city, and preserving its memory;
this is associated with fresh thinking about the dispersed
city and the role of areas, like the Lower Don Valley, that
occupy the dynamic but often disappointing territory
between the inner city and the suburbs
the inspirational example of the Emscher Landscape Park,
the outstanding example of regional scale regeneration
in Europe, which has successfully delivered economic,
environmental and community benefits, as well as
outstanding design quality
the Emscher Park is a project on a regional scale, but
similar principles have informed other major regeneration
projects in northern Europe, like the Aker River in Oslo
and Helsinki’s Arabianranta
the challenge of turning the dispersed landscapes of the
post-industrial city into lively, useful and engaging places
is high on the agenda of leading-edge thinkers and
practitioners in Europe and the US
the Mayor of London has commissioned important
research which offers practical guidance on creating lively
mixed use areas that retain industry in the city
in the UK there is a growing body of river restoration
practice which is re-naturalising urban rivers to create
attractive, wildlife-rich environments in the city
a generation of waterfront regeneration has transformed
English cities such as Bristol, Birmingham and
Manchester, and a new generation of projects aims to
create new communities in strong landscape settings.
84
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 8 5
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
Goal 1: To make Sheffield well known as a city of rivers,
and to establish the rivers an integral part of the
Sheffield signature
The rivers made Sheffield, but they have been neglected
and marginalised. The rivers and canal are places of huge
economic, ecological, community and cultural value, and
the revival of the waterways will place them at the heart of
the life of the community. New riverside neighbourhoods
will provide homes, workspace, cultural and educational
users and facilities for leisure and recreation, all in
memorable and productive landscape setting. The
reclaimed rivers will change the way Sheffielders see
their city and create a positive new image for prospective
residents, visitors and investors.
Goal 2: To re-naturalise the rivers and, as far as is
practicable, restore the natural water cycle
The events of 2007 showed Sheffield’s continuing
– and increasing – vulnerability to flash floods and
the effects of 250 years of urban development on the
natural water cycle. Weirs, culverts, river straightening
and canalisation, combined with impermeable surfaces
throughout the urban area have created the conditions for
extremes of water flow, so that all the urban rivers are at
29. The strategic framework
Our proposals for Sheffield’s waterways are contained
within a strategic framework. The framework comprises:
recommended strategic goals and spatial
priorities
….which inform our vision of Sheffield as a city of
rivers
in order to achieve the vision we recommend a
strategy based on three themes: urban waterways,
suburban and rural rivers and city-wide initiatives
which will be complemented by action with a
regional perspectives
for each of themes we have proposed a series of
priorities for action.
The key elements of the framework are summarised in
Figure 29-1, and described in more detail in the following
pages.
30. Strategic goals
Based on the analysis in the preceding sections of this
report we have identified seven strategic goals for the
Sheffield Waterways Strategy:
c i t y o f r i v e r s : g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s , v i s i o n
E
Figure 29-1: Strategic framework
86
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
high risk of flooding. Wherever possible, rivers should be
naturalised and flood plains restored: this will increase
their storage capacity, support fish populations, promote
biodiversity and create more attractive and accessible
watercourses.
Goal 3: To make Sheffield’s river valleys a model
for sustainable regeneration and the promotion of
biodiversity in a post-industrial city
Sheffield should emulate the inspirational model of the
Emscher Landscape Park by making sustainability and
biodiversity fundamental principles of the regeneration
process. Proposals for river restoration should be
complemented by sustainable urban drainage, green
roofs, permeable surfaces and similar features for all new
developments. Wildlife corridors and natural habitats
should be protected, extended and joined up as part of a
concerted greening programme.
Goal 4: To secure pedestrian access to all the city’s
principal waterways as part of a city-wide network of
green and open spaces
The regeneration of the urban rivers and waterways
provides an opportunity to add to the city’s stock of
green and open space. The Don Valley should be a
productive landscape with allotments, smallholdings,
orchards and woodlands forming an important part of the
new riverside. Sheffield’s river corridors provide radial
routes (Abercrombie’s parkways) linking the city to the
countryside, but there are still gaps to fill especially in
the Upper Don Valley and access for cyclists needs to be
improved. The goal must be to maximise access to the
waterways, strengthen connections to parks and green
space and links to round-Sheffield and cross-city routes.
But we do not advocate an “access all areas” approach;
hidden and private spaces have a purpose and may
provide valuable wildlife refuges.
Goal 5: To make the restored urban rivers a catalyst for
investment and regeneration
Riverside regeneration is already well under way in central
Sheffield, but other locations in the Don Valley are lagging
behind. The quality of development and of the public
realm has so far been disappointing and the perception
of an increased risk of flooding may also affect market
confidence.
For these reasons, it is important to address flood
risk and establish riverside and canalside sites as
desirable, high amenity locations that will attract quality
development. But this does not mean that development
by the river should be exclusively commercial or high-end
residential; the aim must be to create diverse riverside
communities.
Goal 6: To deliver high quality buildings, public realm
and landscape design
The quality of built development in the centre of
Sheffield has never been better, and the Gold Route
has established a new benchmark for the public realm.
With some notable exceptions, the design quality of
most riverside regeneration projects has not reached
this high standard, and the treatment of riverside
areas in the Design Compendium is fairly sketchy. This
must change if the potential of the rivers and canal are
to be fully realised. In line with the new approaches
discussed earlier, design guidelines should focus on
themes including adaptability, authenticity and local
distinctiveness. We should be creating attractive and
rewarding places and challenging the bland conventions
of the previous generation.
Goal 7: To celebrate Sheffield’s rich history, heritage and
culture
Sheffield’s rivers have played a pivotal and decisive
role in the history and development of the city, and it
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 8 7
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
is vitally important that this rich heritage should be
recognised and celebrated. Decisions on the retention
and re-use of buildings should be informed by their
historic and cultural value as well as architectural quality:
much of Sheffield’s history was enacted in workaday
buildings. There should be a concerted effort to protect
and conserve the threatened archaeological record. The
strategy should respect and celebrate the past but it must
also be forward-looking; the regenerated riverside should
include cultural assets and venues.
31. Spatial priorities
We have described Sheffield’s waterways in some detail,
identifying an array of character zones and river types,
ranging from rural to post-industrial. For the purposes
of the strategy and action plan we have distinguished
between the urban waterways and the network of rivers in
suburban and rural areas.
We have defined the urban waterways as follows:
the River Don between Middlewood and Blackburn
Meadows
the lower reaches of the Sheaf, Porter, Loxley and
Blackburn Brook
the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal.
The rivers in suburban and rural areas are:
the Don from the city’s northern boundary to
Middlewood
the upper reaches of the Don tributaries
the Rother and Shire Brook.
There are important differences between the two zones
which are reflected in our proposals. The Don flows past
the heart of the city and connects the key development
areas in the Upper Don Valley, Central Riverside and
the Lower Don Valley. The transformation of urban Don
Valley is one of the biggest challenges facing Sheffield
in the next 10-15 years, and it represents a powerful and
potentially risky combination of need and opportunity.
Much of the Don Valley is underused, under-valued and
marginalised. It remains a site for low value activities and
bad neighbour industries, and the quality of the riverside
environment is generally poor. The whole of this stretch
of the Don experienced devastating floods in 2007.
Where development has been achieved, the quality has
generally been undistinguished and sometimes worse.
Despite these difficulties the river corridor is earmarked
for massive investment: the pace of development close to
the city centre continues to be very rapid, and ambitious
new projects are proposed in both the Upper and Lower
Don Valleys.
For good or ill, development around the urban waterways
will change the face of Sheffield by 2020. At best, this
process will shift the city’s centre of gravity, restoring
the rivers to a central role in the life of the city and
creating a new sequence of special places to live, work,
play and relax. But this will require vision and direction:
regenerating the Don Valley must be seen as an holistic
exercise in place-making, concerned as much with the
condition of the rivers, the environment, culture and
communities as with property development. The best and
most innovative investors and developers will buy into
the creation of a new riverside community, but only if the
public sector bodies give a clear lead and are prepared
to resist the pressures for mundane and one-dimensional
commercial schemes.
The urban waterways can have a decisive influence on
Sheffield’s future competitiveness and quality of life
but there is a significant risk based on recent experience
in Sheffield and some other post-industrial cities that
results on the ground will fall short of their full potential.
This would be a lost opportunity of major proportions,
and Sheffield would have to live with the consequences
for the next 25-30 years. Getting the urban Don Valley
right is an absolute imperative and for this reason we
recommend that the urban waterways should be treated
as the top priority by the SWSG partners.
88
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
The small rivers in Sheffield’s suburban and rural areas
present a mixed picture. The rivers in the west and the
brooks that feed them are, for the most part, cherished,
high amenity places, popular with walkers and cyclists,
valuable natural habitats and a key part of Sheffield’s
green space network. Incremental improvements,
voluntary effort, stewardship and maintenance will be
order of the day in places that, manifestly, already work
and are enjoyed by many. The quality and amenity of the
rivers tapers off as they near the Don, and action to tackle
these problems will form part of the urban waterways
strategy. Action will also be required to enhance small
brooks and streams, especially in the north and east of
the city, many of which are neglected and overlooked.
These are potentially valuable community assets and
there will be opportunities to build on existing community
initiatives and establish new ones.
There will also be a number of city-wide initiatives, in
particular the development of a green and open space
network, based largely on the rivers, and a linked
project to provide pedestrian access to all the principal
waterways.
Fig 31.1 River zones
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 8 9
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
32. The vision: City of Rivers
In 2020, Sheffield is a City of Rivers, and its watercourses
– and the land corridors that surround them – are
defining features of a modern, confident, sustainable
and competitive city and a key element of the Sheffield
signature.
The urban Don forms the backbone of an urban landscape
park – the Don Valley Park – which extends from
Middlewood to Tinsley. The park, which is unique in the
UK, incorporates the urban Don, the Sheffield & Tinsley
Canal, and the lower reaches of the Sheaf, Porter and
Loxley. It builds on the concept of the River Don Park,
first advanced by Groundwork Sheffield in 2005, but now
extended to provide a framework for development around
all the urban waterways.
At the heart of the park are the restored and naturalised
rivers: wherever possible culverts and artificial channels
have been removed, and east of the city the Don now
meanders across a reinstated flood plain. Some weirs
have been removed: where they remain fish passes have
been installed. The restored rivers are attractive places of
high ecological value as well as prized community assets.
The Don corridor is a designated sustainable drainage
zone, and this – combined with the rivers’ increased
storage capacity – has significantly reduced the risk of
flooding. The whole of the park is managed as an urban
nature reserve.
A masterplan guides land use and development in the
park. The masterplan provides an organising framework
of roads and public transport; footpaths and cycle
tracks; open space, green space, woods, wilderness and
wildlife corridors, and maps out links to the city centre,
neighbourhoods and the wider green and open space
network. Within this unique landscape framework, the
Don Valley Park is a busy and diverse urban area, with a
range of character areas and functions:
Sheffield Waterfront – the riverside between
Corporation Street and the Wicker is fully integrated
into the city centre, with high quality mixed use
development, including hotels and speciality shops,
focused on a riverside promenade at Nursery Street;
the success of this area has also revived the fortunes
of Victoria Quays
Kelham Island, Mowbray Street and Bridgehouses
have emerged as urban villages with an edgy
bohemian character; niche metal trades, creative
industries, bars and restaurants have added
economic vitality and a sense of purpose
three local centres – Attercliffe, Hillsborough and
Heeley – have been reinvented as riverside towns,
lively centres for shopping, schools and community
facilities in the urban park.
The Don Valley Park is:
a place to live – a repopulated urban area, with
rejuvenated traditional neighbourhoods and new
homes of all types, and a community with shops,
parks, schools and healthcare
a place to work –high quality environments for
modern workspace and high-tech manufacturing in
the Lower and Upper Don Valleys, with specialist
manufacturing and creative production in the urban
villages
a place for leisure, recreation and relaxation
- the canal is popular for boating, cruising and
watersports; the rivers have thriving fisheries; the
Park is a popular place for walking and cycling;
development is set in a productive landscape of
gardens, allotments, smallholdings, orchards and
woodlands
a place for culture, creativity and learning
- valuable townscapes and buildings have been
preserved and re-used as performance/events
spaces, studios and workshops; the area’s land
90
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
art and cultural events are known internationally;
and the Don Valley Park is a valuable resource for
research, teaching and therapy.
The Don Valley Park is at the heart of the Sheffield’s green
and open space network. Footpaths and cycle tracks
follow the course of all the tributary rivers, linking the Don
Valley Park to open countryside, the Trans Pennine Trail
and the Sheffield Country Walk.
A non-profit company, Don Valley Limited (DVL), has been
set up to plan and implement the park, and to mobilise
and coordinate public sector assets and investment. DVL
has developed a master plan and design guidance for the
park, and is working in partnership with the private sector
to deliver commercial developments and public goods
throughout the park.
The stewardship scheme which was first piloted in 2007
has been extended to include all the open spaces in the
Don Valley Park, under the management of a community
company which is also responsible for the nature reserve,
education centre, community woodlands and gardens.
Beyond the boundaries of the urban park, the
conservation and upgrading of the upper reaches of
the tributary rivers and smaller streams is a top priority
for the Sheffield’s Green and Open Spaces Investment
Programme (GOSIP); a series of small river initiatives
provide funding, professional skills and officer support
for community and voluntary sector activists.
33. The strategy
The strategy is therefore organised around the three
spatial priorities: urban waterways, suburban and rural
rivers and city-wide initiatives. These are the key themes
of the strategy. Figure 33-1 shows how actions under each
of these themes will contribute to achieving the seven
strategic goals.
Figure 33-1: Linking the strategic goals and spatial priorities
Strategic goals
Urb
an
wat
erw
ays
Sub
urba
n &
ru
ral r
iver
s
City
-wid
e in
itia
tive
s
City of Rivers ● ● ●River naturalisation/restoration ● ●
Sustainability/biodiversity ● ● ●Pedestrian access ● ● ●Investment and regeneration ●
Design ● ●
History, heritage, culture ● ● ●Key: ● high impact ● medium impact
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9 1
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
34. Theme 1: Urban waterways
The regeneration of Sheffield’s urban waterways is the
top priority. The holistic nature of the vision, as well as
the experience of the Ruhr region and other inspirational
places described in this report, have persuaded us that
a bold, multi-faceted strategic vision is essential. The
regeneration of the urban Don cannot be achieved in a
piecemeal fashion: a variety of approaches and delivery
models will be need but there must be an organising
framework – philosophical, strategic and spatial – to
direct and coordinate action on the priorities described in
the following paragraphs. The Don Valley Park is both the
big idea and the vehicle for delivery.
Priority 1.1: Don Valley Park
The concept of the Don Valley Park is inspired by the
model of the Emscher Landscape Park Masterplan, and
it builds on the proposals for a River Don Park published
by Groundwork Sheffield. Our recommendations are more
ambitious in scope and they cover the entire length of the
urban Don, from Middlewood to Blackburn Meadows, the
canal and the lower reaches of the tributary rivers. Over
time there may be opportunities to extend the boundary
of the park to include contiguous areas such as Parkwood
Springs and Rotherham.
The park will thus be linear in form, but with spurs
reaching out along the minor rivers to Malin Bridge,
Hunter’s Bar and Heeley. In much of this river corridor
the urban fabric has become fragmented and condition
of the rivers themselves is generally poor. The Don Valley
Park masterplan will transform these neglected and
marginalised places, creating a high quality landscape
setting, re-establishing coherence and a sense of place,
and restoring connections to the city centre, local centres
and neighbourhoods.
The master plan will establish a landscape framework
for the Don Valley Park, starting with the restored rivers
and a green, productive framework of open space, parks,
gardens and woodlands. This framework will acknowledge
the essentially urban character and functions of the park
and the historically dense pattern of built development
in the Don valley, but it will establish a more sustainable
pattern of land use capable of adapting to climate change
and reducing flood risk. The green framework will create
a high quality setting for development, and the master
plan will manage the transition from the late 20th century
pattern of single use, mostly industrial zones to mixed
use sustainable communities.
To support the implementation of the master plan,
a policy framework will address key issues such as
above: Piazza Metallica, Duisburg Nord below: steel works, Duisburg Nord
92
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
sustainability and biodiversity (see below). A detailed
urban character appraisal will assess the architecture and
townscape of the park, taking account of historical and
cultural as well as architectural value. Design guidance
should be commissioned with a particular focus on
the re-use and adaptation of existing buildings, and
the integration of new development into the historic
landscape.
Priority 1.2: River restoration
Following the June 2007 floods, the Environment Agency
is reviewing the flood prevention regime in the Don
catchment, and is expected to bring forward proposals in
2008. It is not within the scope of this strategy to address
the technical challenges or to second-guess the Agency’s
expert advice. However, we believe that Sheffield must
argue the case for a sustainable solution that will address
the fundamental causes of city’s vulnerability to flooding
by helping to restore the natural water cycle.
This will require a radical approach, tempered by
pragmatism. Urban rivers which have been the subject of
human interventions for centuries cannot be returned to
a “natural” state, and any programme of river restoration
will have to work within the constraints imposed by
existing development and land use. Nevertheless, vacant
and derelict riverside land does present opportunities
to introduce measures which will improve the condition
of the rivers, reducing the risk of flooding, promoting
biodiversity, enabling access to the waterspace and
enhancing amenity. A concerted effort is also required to
tackle the problem of invasive plant species.
Sections of the Upper and, especially, the Lower Don
Valley should be restored by, for example, replacing the
straightened walled channel with meanders, and re-
profiling banks and lowering riverside land to recreate
a floodplain. Soft engineering techniques, using timber,
natural materials and geo-textiles, may be used to protect
and stabilise river banks. As advocated by Groundwork
Sheffield, ponds and wetlands should be a feature of
the new Don Valley landscape as they were before the
industrial era. Some development land, currently subject
to a high risk of flooding, may need to be sacrificed for
this strategy, but this will be offset by an improvement
in environmental quality and a corresponding uplift
in land values. Working within the constraints of an
intensively developed urban area it may not be possible
to restore long continuous stretches of the channel, so
an opportunistic approach may be required to develop a
Los Angeles State Historic Park tackles new scenarios for the Los Angeles River including new channels, eco-type bioswales, storm and gray water processing
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9 3
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
string of (naturalised) pearls along the urban river. Where
artificial channels need to be retained, new habitats
can be provided by creating mini-meanders, shoals and
margins for plants.
Pursued consistently over a 10-15 year period, this
approach has the potential to transform the image of the
urban Don, creating a beautiful green corridor at the heart
of the city. Work on the Don should be complemented
by action to rediscover the lower reaches of the Loxley,
Sheaf and Porter.
Plans to de-culvert Porter Brook between St Mary’s Gate
and the Cultural Industries Quarter could deliver some
early wins; in the medium term, river restoration will help
to reinvent Heeley and Hillsborough as riverside towns
(see below). The long term aspiration should be to have
the Sheaf flowing through Pond’s Forge again as part of a
future redevelopment of that area.
Priority 1.3: Sustainable development
Proposals for naturalising the urban rivers should be
complemented by concerted action to reduce the effects
of run-off which is a major contributor to flash floods in
the Sheffield area. We propose that the whole of the Don
Valley Park should be designated a sustainable drainage
zone (SDZ). All new developments in the zone would have
to incorporate sustainable drainage measures, and this
would be complemented by a 10-year programme to retro-
fit the whole of the park to the same standard.
Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) are a key
feature of projects in Emscher Landscape Park, where
measures to manage run-off such as open trenches,
swales and ponds are treated as attractive design
features in gardens, housing schemes and business
parks. The regime in the Don Valley SDZ will include a
requirement to:
reduce the volume of surface water run-off at source
by introducing permeable pavements, green roofs,
infiltration trenches and basins
slow the velocity of run-off by using filter drains and
swales
treat surface water using passive treatment systems
such as detention basins, retention ponds and
wetlands.
SUDS at Rieselfeld, Freiburg
94
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
We also propose that all new developments in the
park should be required to meet the highest possible
standards of energy efficiency. This will require detailed
technical appraisal, but the aim should be to work
towards energy self-sufficiency in the Don Valley Park.
Renewable energy will play a key role together with
energy efficient building design. There is already a
proposal to use water power to generate energy at a site
on Kelham Island, and sponsorship should be sought for
a trial to test the technology and examine the potential to
extend it to other sites.
Priority 1.4: Promoting biodiversity
We recommend that the whole of the Don Valley Park
should be designated an urban nature reserve. A
charitable trust should be set up to manage the reserve;
its tasks would be to:
promote biodiversity in the Don Valley Park and the
wider green network
raise awareness of the area’s natural heritage
provide education and training for children and
adults
facilitate community engagement and participation
ensure the management and stewardship of natural
habitats throughout the park.
The nature reserve would comprise a number of key
nature conservation sites, linked by riverine and
other wildlife corridors, extending out into the wider
greenspace network. The trust would establish a range
of high quality natural habitats, including wilderness
areas from which the public should be excluded. As a
general rule, public access should be restricted to one
bank of the river or canal, leaving the opposite bank
as an undisturbed quiet zone for plants and wildlife.
A River Life Centre should be created in a high quality
eco-building at Blackburn Meadows, providing a focal
point for research, education, community activities, bird
watchers and visitors.
Priority 1.5: Access and linkages
The city-wide green and open space network (currently
the subject of a review by Sheffield City Council) will
radiate out from the Don Valley Park. Within the park,
there will be riverside access for walkers and cyclists,
with cantilevered walkways where necessary to protect
the character and integrity of the townscape. Completing
the Upper Don Valley Walk will be a high priority. The
long-term aim will be to release the Sheaf and Porter from
tunnels and culverts: until this can be achieved marked
trails will trace the course of the underground rivers.
biodiversity , access and linkage, Suedgelaende, Berlin
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9 5
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
The landscape park will act as the hub of a city-wide green
and open space system (see also Priority 3.1). As part of
its role of repairing the damaged urban fabric, the DVP
will establish a dense network of local pedestrian and
cycle routes connecting the Don Valley to the city centre
and neighbouring residential areas, helping to return the
rivers to a central place in the life of the city. As well as
parks and green spaces, the network will include open
spaces with hard landscaping such as squares and pocket
parks.
Priority 1.6: Sheffield Waterfront
Although the central riverside is nominally part of the city
centre, it is in practice a separate and somewhat isolated
quarter, lacking in vitality especially outside business
hours. A goal of the City of Rivers strategy will be to draw
the life of the city to the river, and to create a lively and
stylish urban waterfront. A key step – practically and
symbolically – will be to establish a foothold on the north
side of the river at Nursery Street. Although Nursery Street
has been in the doldrums for many years - and invaded by
traffic – it is a site of great potential, with a south-facing
frontage onto the river and within easy reach of the heart
of the city. The quality of recent development on the south
bank, at Millsands, has been uninspired, but Nursery
Street – now relieved of through traffic – offers the only
chance to create a riverside promenade in the city centre
combined with modern development of sympathetic scale
and architectural excellence.
Already a growing business quarter, the aim must now
be to establish a more diverse mix of uses at Sheffield
Waterfront, including boutique hotels, arts venues,
restaurants, cafes and speciality retail. It should be the
new “place to be” for locals and visitors; together with
the neighbouring urban villages (see below) it will be an
attractive new destination in the city. The creation of a
city waterfront will help to establish links with Victoria
Quays and provide the impetus for regeneration in the
Wicker, Burngreave and Attercliffe.
Paley Pocket Park, New York
waterfront development, Malmo
96
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Priority 1.7: Urban villages
Sheffield Waterfront should be a smart and stylish city
quarter, but the urban villages clustered around it at
Kelham, Mowbray Street and Bridgehouses will offer
an edgier, bohemian experience. In these places, the
intimate urban scale and the long tradition of craft
manufacturing should be carefully nurtured.
Industrial buildings and streets should be retained –
for their historic and townscape value as well as their
architectural significance. The re-use of buildings for
residential developments should continue, although care
should be taken to ensure a mix of housing by tenure and
type so that these places become neighbourhoods and
not just buy-to-rent ghettoes.
As far as is practicable, small metal working and other
businesses should be encouraged to stay and to improve
their productivity and profitability. These businesses are
heirs to a great Sheffield tradition: for the most part, there
is no need to disperse them to out of town locations, and
much of the special character of the place will be lost if
they leave. Jane Jacobs famously wrote that “new ideas
need old buildings”. It is valuable for a city to have low-
cost business locations: where traditional industries have
departed, new enterprises – especially in the creative
and cultural industries – should be encouraged to take
their place. A similar process can be seen at Bristol’s
Spike Island, where former factories and warehouses
have been colonised by animators and film makers. In the
past 10-15 years a new community has grown up along
side the old, attracting investment in galleries, cafes and
restaurants.
Priority 1.8: Riverside towns
The DVP will aim to strengthen and grow existing
communities in the Don Valley. A key element of the
strategy should be to strengthen the role of traditional
centres, and to re-invent them as attractive riverside
towns. We have focused on three centres: Hillsborough
is still a busy shopping centre, although its relationship
to the Loxley river and to the Don is weak. Heeley and
Attercliffe are both sadly diminished: local shopping has
hollowed out, they are battered by traffic and Attercliffe
has become a red-light district.
We propose three key approaches:
first, in planning residential development, the three
centres should be treated as hubs, with strong
pedestrian, cycling and public transport links into
new housing areas
second, civic and community facilities, including
schools and healthcare facilities, should be
clustered in local centres wherever possible, to
encourage footfall and improve conditions for
traders, and
finally, urban design and public realm strategies
should strengthen the relationships between the
towns and the rivers; these strategies should
Spike Island, Bristol
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9 7
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
dovetail with river restoration/naturalisation
measures and plans to improve riverside/canalside
access.
Priority 1.9: Living in the park
The repopulation of the Don Valley will be another goal
of the DVP masterplan. In principle, the aim should be
to extend existing neighbourhoods and communities
wherever possible, but – in places where industry has
been completely dominant – new residential areas will
also be created. The private sector will play the lead
role in delivering residential development, but housing
associations will also make a major contribution,
especially in the revival of Attercliffe. The master plan
and design guidance will have a key role to play in setting
high design standards, with developments that engage
with the restored rivers and reflect the Sheffield signature
The creation of new and revived communities should help
to promote inclusion and social cohesion by creating
neighbourhoods with high quality services and amenities,
and an attractive choice of housing by type and tenure.
The aim must be to make the Upper and Lower Don
Valleys distinctive and desirable places to live, and not
allow them to become ghettoes of low-cost and social
housing. The aim should be to create strong, sustainable
communities, not just housing developments, ensuring
that the social and transport infrastructure are in place
to support a diverse and aspirational population. One
obvious approach – in the light of our recommendations
on river restoration, SUDS and nature conservation –
would be to work with specialist developers and the third
sector to provide eco-housing. Together with a strong
commitment to design excellence, this would provide
reasons for higher income households and knowledge
workers to choose the Don Valley as a place to live.
Priority 1.10: Working in the park
The concept of the Don Valley as an urban landscape
park does not in any way preclude economic activity.
building beside the river - top: Bristol, bottom: Henley
Greenwich
98
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
We recognise the vital role that the river corridor
plays in providing sites for industrial and commercial
development that cannot be accommodated in the city
centre. We have argued that traditional industries should
be encouraged to remain in the small factories and
workshops close to the city centre, rather than be tidied
away to industrial estates. Recent market studies suggest
that there will be strong demand for sites and premises
in Don Valley in the next 10-15 years. The Lower Don
Valley, in particular, has been identified as a key business
location by Creative Sheffield.
These aspirations should be encouraged: Sheffield
needs modern factories and workspace to achieve its
ambition to become one of Europe’s leading innovative
producer cities. However, the built legacy of the Sheffield
Development Corporation already looks sadly dated, and
the cities that Sheffield aspires to match – places like
Zurich, Stuttgart and Emscher Park – have all invested
in creating high quality environments for knowledge-
based businesses, often with a strong emphasis on
sustainability and green building technology.
The DVP master plan will provide a blueprint for re-
establishing coherent urban form and identity. The
restoration of the Don and its tributaries will help to
provide an outstanding landscape setting for modern
business space and help to raise land values, while policy
guidelines for the park will establish ground rules on
sustainable drainage, green roofs and energy efficiency,
as well as on building design. Instead of the anonymous
prairie landscape of the Upper Don Valley today, the
concept of working in the park, which has been so
successful in the Ruhr region, will provide Sheffield with
an unique selling point in the competition for knowledge
economy investment.
Priority 1.11: Leisure, recreation and healthy living
The Don Valley Park will provide a consistently high
quality environment in terms of urban development,
green space and open space. By repopulating the river
corridor and creating a rich mix of uses it will help to
generate renewed vitality and activity in some of the city’s
forgotten places. This is critical because places that are in
use – by residents, workers and visitors – create a sense
of comfort and security.
This is the start of a virtuous circle: attractive, busy
places are good sites for leisure activities of all kinds
industry at the Emscher Park
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 9 9
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
which, in turn, help to stretch the active hours into
evenings and weekends. We have recommended that
some sites should be reserved for wildlife and flora, but
generally the philosophy of the Don Valley Park should
be to maximise access to open space. River restoration
will create attractive new green spaces, and improve
access to the waterside for anglers; new residential
areas will include parks, play areas and sports facilities;
and Sheffield Waterfront, the riverside towns and new
business locations will provide more formal parks and
open spaces. The example of the Ruhr region shows the
benefits of creating a productive landscape, reserving
sites for allotments, community gardens, city farms,
woodlands and other uses.
The Sheffield & Tinsley Canal will have a particularly
important role to play because it is the city’s only
navigable waterway. City centre regeneration will
help unlock the potential of Victoria Quays, and new
developments in the canal corridor will increase the
volume of boat movements and promote rowing, canoeing
and other water-based activities. As an inland port,
Sheffield has always been at the end of a long cul-de-
sac, but this strategy should help to a make it a popular
destination.
The stewardship measures described below will play a
key part in realising the Park’s potential as a place for
sport, exercise and informal recreation. The DVP must be
clean, safe and well cared-for: simply a good place to be.
That does not mean that it needs to be a tidy, manicured
landscape, though there is a place for that. The park
should reflect the character and texture of its industrial
past, and celebrate the places – like Salmon Pastures –
where natural regeneration has produced something of
exceptional value and interest.
Priority 1.12: Culture, creativity and learning
One of the most important lessons from the Emscher
Landscape Park is that it is possible to create high
quality, contemporary places to live, work and play
without erasing the structures and landscapes which
embody the region’s history and culture. Too often in the
UK sites are cleared of any trace of their previous history,
which is then cynically “celebrated” in the form of public
art works or interpretation boards. In the process, parts of
the city’s collective memory are erased and its distinctive
identity is inevitably diminished.
We strongly recommend that the structures, townscapes
and artefacts that embody the social and economic
history of the Don Valley should be retained and re-
used wherever possible. They provide a record of where
Sheffield has come from and the kind of place it used to
be, and they can and should be inspirational places for
creativity and new ventures. A survey of these historic and
cultural assets will be an important stage in developing
the DVP masterplan. This will, of course, include the
best known industrial monuments, but it should also
encompass character areas such as Philadelphia,
Mowbray Street, Bridgehouses and Sussex Street.
cycling near the canal, Emscher
100
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Some sites and buildings lend themselves readily to
conversion into hotels, apartments and studios. New
structures can be erected inside the stabilised shells of
derelict buildings, and others may be retained simply
as monuments. There are great opportunities here to
encourage entrepreneurs and community groups to
suggest ideas for some of these key sites. These might,
for example, include creating atmospheric performance
spaces or venues, or a permanent outdoor display of land
art. The Westergasfabrieken site in Amsterdam, where
industrial monuments are combined with contemporary
landscape design, is an excellent model.
Underpinning these proposals is our conviction that the
Don Valley Park will be a priceless learning resource
for Sheffield and the wider region. The wide range
of activities within the park, and the emphasis on
sustainability, biodiversity and sustainable communities
will create any number of opportunities for schools,
people with learning difficulties, communities and
interest groups to learn and make a direct, hands-on
contribution to the creation of a new urban landscape.
Like Emscher Park, the park will be laboratory for
innovation in urban regeneration. It will draw on
European best practice to set a new standard for place
making in the UK. The city’s universities should be
encouraged to monitor and evaluate the project, and to
attract research students from Europe and the rest of the
world.
Desmarest, France Westergasfabrieken, Amsterdam Westergasfabrieken, Amsterdam
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 0 1
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
Don Valley Park - strategic directions
102
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
35. Theme 2: Suburban and rural rivers
Sheffield’s western rivers – the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and
Loxley – are among the city’s most special places. While
we have identified the creation of the Don Valley Park as
the most pressing priority, it will be important to maintain
and enhance the quality of the western rivers and to
provide practical support for the voluntary groups who
cherish them.
At the same time, the success of the Shire Brook LNR
shows that even the most neglected and disregarded
small rivers and streams can become valuable community
assets which improve the quality of life in less favoured
parts of the city. We therefore also recommend a
programme to encourage community groups to rescue a
river.
Priority 2.1: Small rivers initiative
The small rivers initiative (SRI) will target the principal
tributaries of the Don, and recently restored Shire Brook.
The western rivers – and the upland streams and becks
that feed them – are generally recognised as assets
and places of high amenity, while Shire Brook is still
a work in progress, but all have issues that need to be
addressed. These include: culverted and canalised
sections, obstructions including weirs and dams, at-risk
archaeological sites and gaps in riverside access, as well
as problems with litter and vandalism.
A number of active voluntary groups champion the
cause of the rivers, including the Friends of Porter Brook
and the Rivelin Valley Conservation Group. Several
of these organisations are already affiliated to the
Sheffield Waterways Strategy Group, and we recommend
that they should be invited to prepare 3-5 year river
action plans. working within an agreed framework to
identify and prioritise key tasks. SWSG should appoint
an independent assessor to review the plans and
recommend a priority programme which would be part-
funded by the partners, although local groups will still
need to raise matched funds or sponsorship from other
sources. The lower reaches of the Sheaf, Porter and Loxley
will form part of the Don Valley Park where they will be the
subject of river restorations schemes and other measures.
The SRI actions will therefore need to dovetail with these
proposals.
river restoration and habitat creation, IGA Park, Rostock
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 0 3
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
Priority 2.2: River rescue projects
Sheffield has a vast network of streams and becks, most
feeding into the Don, but some decanting into the Rother.
Many of these minor waterways are little known and not
much valued even by neighbouring communities. But the
experience in the Shire Brook valley, where the course of
a neglected and polluted stream has been transformed
into a local nature reserve has highlighted the potential
of these forgotten rivers to contribute to the well-being
of communities and enhance the quality of life. At Shire
Brook and Hartley Brook the recovery of the streams has
provided a focus for local residents, school children and
others to participate in community projects, promoting
neighbourhood pride, active citizenship and healthy
lifestyles.
We propose that a project should be set up which would
start by surveying the streams and assessing their
condition. The results of this exercise would be fed back
to communities who would be given the opportunity
to bid for funding and technical assistance to prepare
and deliver a river rescue plan in their area. The aim
should be to involve local people in all aspects of
the work: school children could take part in nature
conservation and tree planting schemes; older residents
could contribute to oral history projects; engineering
and construction work could provide training and
work experience opportunities for the unemployed or
community service for offenders.
36. Theme 3: City-wide initiatives
Priority 3.1: Green and open space network
Sheffield’s waterways will have a key role to play in the
development of a city-wide network of green and open
spaces. A green and open space strategy (GOSS) for the
city is currently under development, but it is clear that the
waterways and the river valleys will be key determinants
of the architecture of the network, providing a number of
the key radial routes that link the city to the countryside,
including the National Park. Sheffield is richly endowed
with high quality open space, but it is not distributed
equitably so there is still a deficit in some parts of the
city. Throughout the city there is need to ensure that
green and open spaces are linked up, creating green
corridors that will promote biodiversity and support
sustainable wildlife populations.
Associated with the green network is the development
of an extensive and connected network of footpaths and
cycleways. Riverside routes already define large parts of
the network. Paths by the Don, the canal and the lesser
rivers can be seen as the spokes of a radial network
that will be completed by circular routes and cross-city
strategic paths. From this perspective, establishing
pedestrian access to the Upper Don (Priority 1.5) is
learning about pond restoration
104
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
especially important because it will close a significant
gap in the network, and encourage cross-town walking
and cycling trips. There are still some gaps in riverside
access by the lesser rivers, especially for cyclists. The
Small Rivers Initiative (SRI) action plans will include
proposals for filling these gaps so that it is possible to
traverse the city on foot – and to link to strategic routes -
by following the watercourses.
Priority 3.2: City of Rivers Festival
The Sheffield Rivers & Canal Festival has become a fixture
in the civic calendar. A week-long programme of walks,
talks and activities culminates in On the Waterfront, a day
of events and entertainment at Victoria Quays. Organised
by Groundwork Sheffield the festival is a relatively low-
key affair although, weather permitting, the main event
attracts a respectable attendance. We recommend that
the festival should continue, but that it should be scaled
up as the implementation of the City of Rivers strategy
unfolds. The aim should be to establish the festival as
one of the highlights of the year in Sheffield, and to
attract visitors from the wider region.
The experience of places such as Cardiff Bay and Duisburg
in Germany shows that events and festivals can play an
important part in raising awareness of major regeneration
schemes, and encouraging people to visit, perhaps for
the first time, parts of the city that they have not been to
before or which they regarded as dangerous and hostile.
A chance to see the river restoration works or the
development of new communities will be a draw in its
own right, but the partners may be able to reach a wider
audience by presenting concerts (urban proms), site-
specific theatrical events or firework spectaculars.
community market garden
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 0 5
g o a l s , p r i o r i t i e s a n d v i s i o n | s e c t i o n E
37. Regional perspectives: The Don catchment
Securing commitment to the City of Rivers strategy and
accessing the resources to make it happen will be major
challenges. At least in the short term, the partners
should not overreach themselves by trying to extend the
strategy to the wider region. However it is important to
maintain a regional perspective, and to keep open lines
of communication with regional and sub-regional bodies
as well as neighbouring local authorities.
Flood alleviation and river naturalisation measures
can only sensibly be considered in the context of
the Don catchment area. We have set out guiding
principles for river restoration but the appraisal of
specific interventions must take account of their likely
consequences in neighbouring areas. All proposals
will need to be developed in collaboration with the
Environment Agency and other Councils in the catchment
area.
The Don Catchment Rivers Trust provides a forum
for networking and collaboration. We believe it is in
Sheffield’s interests to play a lead role in shaping and
influencing the flood management regime for the Don
catchment, and to ensure that the mistakes of the past
are not repeated.
38. Regional perspectives: The canal network
The Sheffield & Tinsley Canal is the city’s only navigable
waterway, but the terminus at Victoria Quay is at the
end of a long cul-de-sac in the canal network. The
regeneration of the canal as part of the Don Valley Park
will encourage more people to use the waterspace for
boat trips, rowing, canoeing and other activities, but the
volume of traffic on the canal and onward through the
Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation is always likely to
be modest. Two projects have been mooted which would
make Sheffield a more accessible boating destination:
the first would extend the Chesterfield Canal to join
the River Rother, with additional river engineering
works to make a navigable Killamarsh to Rotherham
the second would restore the Dearne & Dove Canal
from Swinton, creating a connection via the Barnsley
Canal to the Aire & Calder Navigation.
These appear to be attractive projects, but we do not
believe that the success of the City of Rivers strategy
depends on their implementation. These would be major
engineering projects; the cost of restoring the Dearne
& Dove and Barnsley Canals alone is estimated to be in
excess of £250m and it is not clear that the economic
or environmental returns would justify expenditure on
Tinsley: canal and cooling towers
106
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
that scale. For these reasons we consider that improving
Sheffield’s connections to the national waterways
network, though desirable in principle, should be treated
as a low priority.
39. Summary
The strategy themes and priorities for action are
summarised in Figure 39-1.
Figure 39-1: City of Rivers – themes and priorities
Theme 1:Urban Waterways: Don Valley ParkMaster plan and design guidanceRiver restorationSustainable developmentPromoting biodiversityAccess and linkagesSheffield WaterfrontUrban villagesRiverside townsLiving in the parkWorking in the parkLeisure, recreation & healthy livingCulture, creativity and learning
Theme 2:Suburban and rural riversSmall rivers initiativeRiver rescue project
Theme 3:City-wide initiativesGreen and open space networkCity of Rivers Festival
Regional prioritiesThe Don catchmentThe canal network
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 0 7
m a k i n g i t h a p p e n | s e c t i o n F
40. Delivering the strategy
The City of Rivers strategy is ambitious and challenging.
We believe that it is realistic and deliverable, but
delivering the strategy will require:
a strong commitment from the SWSG partners to
work together and champion the strategy
strong leadership by Sheffield City Council and the
executive agencies
an inclusive approach with parity of esteem and
status for voluntary and community groups
a dedicated executive team to develop and
implement an operating plan
a funding strategy to mobilise resources for major
capital projects.
a clear performance and accountability framework
a sustainable management and stewardship regime
Figure 40-1: Design for delivery
m a k i n g i t h a p p e nF
Figure 40-1 shows a recommended delivery model, key
elements of which are described in more detail in the
following sections:
ownership of the strategy rests with the Strategy
Group (SWSG): the group should adopt the strategy,
collectively and on behalf of the individual partners
to mark the transition from strategy to delivery mode
we recommend that the SWSG partners should sign
an agreement, committing them to work together to
deliver the City of Rivers vision
in the short term, the partners will need to appoint a
project manager, probably on secondment from one
of the partner bodies, and to secure development
funding; the project manager will develop an
operating plan, funding strategy and performance
framework, and commission further research and/or
feasibility studies as required
as the project moves into the implementation phase,
the project manager will coordinate the early stages
of the work programme and establish reporting
arrangements to the partnership
we believe that the scale and complexity of the
108
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Don Valley Park proposals will require a dedicated
delivery vehicle, provisionally named Don Valley Ltd;
DVL would probably be launched in 2010, its role is
discussed in more detail below
we also recommend that, subject to the experience
of the current arrangements, the scale and remit of
the River Don Stewardship Company’s operations
should be extended to cover the whole of the Don
Valley Park and the management of the nature
reserve.
41. Action Plan 2008-2013
We have drawn up a headline action plan for the period
2008-2013, identifying a number of key milestones.
Implementing the strategy described in this report will
take at least 10-15 years, but early action is possible on
a number of fronts, producing measurable impacts within
2-3 years.
Figure 41-1: Indicative action plan
Year Q Tasks/milestones
2008-09 1 Review draft strategy and consult
2 SWSG adopts City of Rivers strategy
3 City of Rivers Partnership (CRP) agreement signedProject manager appointedDevelopment budget to March 2010 agreedDevelopment of small rivers initiative (SRI) and river rescue project (RRP)Review of current and planned projects in DVP area: testing for fit with the City of Rivers strategyDevelopment plan for City of Rivers festival
4 Work programme and objectives for 09-10 agreedDevelopment of operating plan package (including funding strategy and performance framework)Strategy agreed to influence development proposals in the pre-master plan phaseRiver restoration feasibility study commissioned
2009-10 1 3-year operating plan package and budget approved by CRPStudy on delivery options commissionedSRI and RRP launchedNew City of Rivers Festival launched
2 Decision to form DVL and extend remit of RDSCRecruitment process for DVL director commences
3 Consultants appointed to prepare Don Valley Park master plan, including design guide and sustainable development protocolsDraft river restoration plan
4 Don Valley Ltd formed and appointment of director First phase SRI and RRP projects announced
2010-11 1 Draft master plan submitted/period of consultation
2 Master plan + DVL business plan approved by CRP
3 Public launch of DVL and master plan
4 Work starts on first phase of river restoration, landscape and public realm works
2011-12 Ongoing investment in landscape framework
2012-13 Ongoing investment in landscape framework
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 0 9
m a k i n g i t h a p p e n | s e c t i o n F
42. Funding strategy
Although we are not in a position to cost the proposals
at this stage it is clear that the overwhelming majority
of expenditure will be directed towards the creation of
the Don Valley Park. Essentially, we envisage that the
public sector will have to contribute the majority of the
resources required to develop the master plan and create
the landscape framework, although the private sector
will make a substantial contribution to the latter. The
private sector will deliver the overwhelming majority of
commercial and residential development, including social
housing, although public sector support may be needed
for some community, recreational and cultural facilities
(Figure 42-1):
Figure 42-1: Funding the Don Valley Park
Don Valley Park priorities Anticipated funding
1.1 Master plan Public sector funded
1.2 River restoration Public sector funded with developer contributions in some locations
1.3 Sustainable development Largely private sector funded, working within policy framework. Public sector contributions to major SUDS infrastructure; possible grant assistance with solar energy installations. Seek sponsorship from renewable energy producers for water power pilots.
1.4 Promoting biodiversity Public sector funding with substantial voluntary sector input. Opportunities for private sector contributions and project sponsorship.
1.5 Access and linkages Establishing pedestrian/cycling access will be a condition of planning consents for riverside developments. Public sector contributions where more complex solutions are required.
1.6 Sheffield Waterfront Private sector funded including major contribution to the costs of the promenade and public realm
1.7 Urban villages Private sector led, but some public sector intervention may be needed to tackle market failure.
1.8 Riverside towns Mix of private sector development with public sector investment in community facilities and public realm.
1.9 Living in the park Mostly private sector funded including provision of social housing, but some housing association development.
1.10 Working in the park Private sector funded
1.11 Leisure, recreation Public sector funding with substantial voluntary sector input. Opportunities for private sector contributions and project sponsorship.
1.12 Culture, creativity… Public sector funding with substantial voluntary sector input. Opportunities for private sector contributions and project sponsorship.
Developing the funding strategy will be a key task for
the project manager in 2008-09. The CRP will have a key
role to play in securing financial commitments from the
respective partners, as well as in identifying potential
sources of financial assistance and preparing funding
applications.
43. Performance management
The CRP will also need to develop a robust performance
management framework for the City of Rivers strategy.
SMART targets1 should be agreed relating to each of the
strategic goals set out in Section 26. A provisional set of
performance measures is shown in Figure 43-1.
1 SMART targets should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound.
110
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
establish a monitoring and reporting regime
set a date for an independent evaluation of the
strategy.
44. Don Valley Limited
We have argued that the scale and complexity of the Don
Valley Park will require a dedicated delivery vehicle.
The challenge of transforming the post-industrial
landscape, maintaining Sheffield’s distinctive character
and achieving sustainable development will demand a
holistic approach and a strong commitment to the guiding
principles of the strategy. This project will break new
ground in UK regeneration practice and it is unrealistic to
expect that a piecemeal approach will deliver the goals or
fulfil the aspirations of this report.
The legal form and status of the delivery vehicle can be
determined later, but we have assumed that it will be a
private company limited by guarantee, and that the City of
Rivers partners will nominate the board members. There
should be a strong core executive team with a skilled and
experienced director, but the company does not need a
large staff. The partners should be expected to provide
expertise and contributions in kind.
Figure 43-1: Possible performance measures
Strategic goals Performance measures could include…
Image/Sheffield signature Positive change in external perceptions of the city Positive change residents’ satisfaction
Natural water cycle Improved water qualityReduction in incidence of extreme water flowsReduction in flooding incidents
Sustainable regeneration Improvements in energy efficiencyArea of sustainable drainage measures
Pedestrian/cycle access Closing gaps in riverside footpaths and cycle tracks
Investment/regeneration Value of private sector investment in new developmentsJobs createdEmployment in knowledge-intensive industries
Architecture and design Developments conforming to the master plan + design guidanceDevelopments influenced by design reviewDevelopments winning awards
History, heritage, culture Reuse of historic buildingsConservation of archaeological sites.
Once this provisional list has been refined and agreed the
partners will need to:
establish the baseline position and trend
set challenging but realistic SMART performance
targets
Essentially, DVL will act as a mini urban regeneration
company working within the boundaries of the park.
Delivering development will be a vitally important part
of the company’s remit, which will in turn generate
contributions to environmental, community, educational
and cultural projects. But DVL will also have a particular
responsibility for creating and delivering the landscape
framework, and promoting biodiversity and sustainability.
Careful negotiations will be needed to ensure that DVL
can work harmoniously with other public sector agencies
including Creative Sheffield. The new company must not
be seen as a rival to existing organisations, and it should
only intervene to protect the integrity of the master plan
and the landscape park concept, and where it can clearly
add value. It will be judged by its ability to act as an
effective vehicle for transformational change in the Don
Valley.
45. River Don Stewardship Company
The SWSG partners have already recognised that
Sheffield’s waterways can only fulfil their potential
if capital investment – in the rivers, the landscape,
commercial development and community infrastructure
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1 1
m a k i n g i t h a p p e n | s e c t i o n F
– is matched by a significant improvement in the
management and stewardship of the public realm,
especially by the urban rivers.
To an extent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the
waterways are integrated back into the life of the city
and new residents and businesses move in, the urban
waterways and their immediate surroundings will become
busier, more attractive and safer. The urban rivers and
canal will be livelier and more attractive places because
more people will have a stake in them and an interest in
their success. But the process takes time; in the Lower
Don Valley, the Five Weirs Walk has encouraged walkers
and cyclists to return, but the riverside environment is
still poor in some places, with derelict land and buildings
and endemic problems with litter, graffiti and anti-social
behaviour. There are lags in the system and the Walk,
though a valuable asset has not yet been the catalyst for
more general regeneration.
The River Don Stewardship Company was set up to
address these problems and to introduce a visible
and proactive management regime in its operating
area. While it is too early to judge the success of the
present arrangements, and especially the willingness
of businesses to share the costs of the scheme, the
principle is sound. The partners should use the next
1-2 years to appraise the performance of the company
and its impact on the amenity of the Lower Don Valley,
and we recommend that, if it is proving successful
(and subject to appropriate tendering arrangements)
consideration should be given to extending RDSC’s
sphere of operations throughout the Don Valley Park.
Consideration should also be given to expanding the
company’s remit to include the management of the nature
reserve, allotments, community gardens and the wider
public realm.
112
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1 3
c o n c l u s i o n | s e c t i o n G
46. Challenge and opportunity
Sheffield is a city growing in confidence and stature. Its
achievements in transforming the heart of the city and
reclaiming neglected assets like the Botanical Gardens
and Weston Park Museum have earned the city numerous
awards and a reputation as place that has had the vision
to change, and the skills and durability to deliver
change.
The regeneration of the urban Don Valley is the city’s next
big challenge. If the same ambition and imagination
that has been applied to the creation of the Gold Route
is brought to bear on the urban riverside the results
could be even more dramatic. In this report we have
re-imagined the urban Don as huge landscape park
providing the framework and context for the development
of new communities, new business space, and centres
of research, culture and learning. The design of the Don
Valley Park will represent a complete break from the drab
conventions of most brownfield development in the UK:
it will be a distinctive and memorable place with a rich
history, a living culture and a vibrant natural environment.
In the industrial era, businesses looked to the rivers as
a power source and then as a drain; for a few decades
the canal was an important transport route but it was
c o n c l u s i o nG
soon superseded by rail. In the post-industrial era,
development has for the most part ignored the presence
of the rivers or treated it as a threat and a liability. This is
disappointing, but not entirely surprising: in contrast to
the arcadian landscapes on the west side of the city, the
urban rivers have degenerated into dirty and dispiriting
places, flowing through artificial channels and below high
walls. There are some special places and water quality
continues to improve, but the rivers themselves are
litter-strewn, forgotten and abused, more likely to create
feelings of unease than pleasure.
So our proposition is that the regeneration of the urban
Don Valley must start with the rivers. We have described
some of the dozens of successful river restoration
projects carried out by the Environment Agency in the past
20 years. In each case they have taken an unpromising
and unloved watercourse and turned into an asset that
is appreciated and used by the whole community. And
the aesthetic benefits are only the beginning: restored
rivers are less prone to flooding, and they contribute to
biodiversity and wildlife in the city. Restoring the Don will
taken vision and leadership: giving up land to recreate
the flood plain or restore meanders may fly in the face of
conventional wisdom but, though counter-intuitive, it is
essential if the Don is to be converted from a liability to
an asset. River restoration is the key to unlocking the full
potential of the Don Valley Park, to making the riverside
a popular and sought-after place to live, work, learn and
play.
This report has looked at projects in Helsinki and Oslo
that embody many of the principles on which the Don
Valley Park is based. Neither Arabianranta nor the Aker
Environmental Park was designed as “destination”
for consumers and tourists; both were envisaged as
communities with a mix of activities, and both have been
shaped by their natural environment, their history and
culture. Yet, by making places rather than delivering
development, both projects have become successful
and sought-after locations for creative and knowledge
businesses, and popular places for locals and tourists.
The pre-eminent example of this new approach to
regeneration is, of course, Germany’s Ruhrgebeit. Here,
many of the ideas and approaches recommended in this
report have already been applied, and on a regional
scale. Since IBA Emscher Park was launched in 1989,
this contaminated and degraded industrial area has
changed dramatically. The traditional industry base has
been modernised, and dozens of innovative projects have
regenerated urban waterfronts, created new communities,
and turned the Ruhr into a lively cultural centre. Among
the principles guiding this process over the past 20
114
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
years, two stand out: the unrelenting focus on ecological
recovery and sustainability, and the celebration of the
region’s industrial history and culture. It was a measure
of the success of the Emscher Park approach that, when
IBA came to the end of its fixed (10 year) term, the state
and local governments set up a new partnership to take
the strategy forward.
We make no apologies for focusing so strongly on the
urban rivers and the opportunities they present for
another phase of transformational change in Sheffield.
The Don Valley must be the priority: it is the area of
greatest need and of greatest opportunity and, by
adopting and implementing the Don Valley Park concept,
Sheffield can enhance the quality of life of its citizens,
especially people living in deprived communities, and
the city’s place competitiveness. The Don Valley Park is
the key to making it happen and we urge the partners to
adopt it.
The small rivers that enter the city from the west before
flowing into the Don are among the glories of Sheffield.
They were the original sites of industry in the city,
but over the past century and more they have been
incorporated into the green structure, flowing through
fields, woods and parks. They are hugely attractive and
popular places but there are still issues that demand
attention including the decay of archaeological sites,
woodland management, litter and vandalism. In every
case, the quality and amenity falls away as the rivers
enter the city, which is why we have included the lower
reaches of the tributaries in the Don Valley Park.
The approach we propose for suburban and rural rivers
is straightforward: a fund to support the development
and implementation of river action plans, which will be
prepared by communities and amenity groups. We also
want to see other under-valued small rivers brought back
to life, especially in less favoured parts of the city. The
recent rediscovery of the polluted Shire Brook is a notable
success story and we recommend that a fund should be
started to help communities bring forward other river
rescue schemes.
This study has run in parallel with work on a green and
open space strategy for the city. These two pieces of
work now need to be reunited: Sheffield’s river and canal
define radial and cross-town routes for walkers and
cyclists, and they play a defining role in the city’s green
structure. One of the objectives of the Don Valley Park
is to create an accessible, walkable environment close
to the heart of the city, but the benefits will only be fully
realised when the Park is accessible on foot or by bike
from every part of the city.
47. From strategy to action
Our recommendations centre on a bold and radical
step: transforming the Don Valley by creating a great
urban landscape park. Delivering the Don Valley Park
will be a challenge, but Sheffield should approach it
with confidence and optimism. The city is, after all, a
leader in regeneration, and its philosophy and approach
(summarised in the maxim, Let Sheffield Be Sheffield)
is entirely consistent with the proposals in this report.
Sheffield can also draw inspiration from other European
regions which have shown that, far from being a luxury,
putting the environment at the top of the agenda makes
good business sense.
A strategy, however persuasive, is no guarantee that
things are going to happen and good intentions can
easily be crowded out by the pressure of events. We have
recommended an approach which, although it will still
require a great deal of hard work and fortitude, will greatly
enhance the prospects of success.
The critical first step is for the partners to confirm their
commitment by forming themselves into a delivery
partnership. Especially in the first few years, the
partnership will need to champion the Don Valley Park,
and resist pressures to dilute the concept by allowing
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1 5
c o n c l u s i o n | s e c t i o n G
short-term gain to prevail over long-term vision. Until a
delivery vehicle is established, the partners will need to
steer the project forward, carrying out detailed planning
and research and implementing early action projects.
Critically, they will commission the production of the
DVP master plan and ensure that it is embedded in the
Sheffield Development Framework.
Thereafter, the focus will shift to delivery and a dedicated
executive team will be required to project manage and
procure river restoration and landscape works, and
to work with the private sector to deliver high quality
development.
116
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1 7
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
ANNEX 1: POLICY REVIEW
A1.1 Sheffield’s Future: the City Strategy
Sheffield’s City Strategy 2005-20101 sets out a vision of
a successful, distinctive city of European significance at
the heart of a strong city region. The vision is based on
three key principles:
prosperity: making the city competitive, attracting
investment and creating an environment for wealth
creation
inclusion: promoting access to opportunities and
services; and
sustainability: meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs.
The strategy identifies five big ambitions for the future of
Sheffield:
an economy that matches the best cities in Europe:
based on innovation, enterprise and private
investment; achieving a step-change in wealth
creation and inward investment
learning a part of everyone’s way of life: a culture
1 Sheffield First Partnership, Sheffield’s Future: Be Part of It, 2005
improved and protected inland and coastal waters
restored, protected land with healthy soils
a greener business world
wiser sustainable use of natural resources
limiting and adapting to climate change
reducing flood risk.
All of these have – in practice or potentially – a bearing
on Sheffield’s rivers and waterways, and the Agency’s
regional strategy highlights specific contributions to this
national agenda, including support for the Sheffield
waterways strategy, as well as:
urban regeneration : embedding green infrastructure
planning, sustainable construction, resource
efficiency and ecological footprinting
improving coarse fisheries habitats on the Don
recovering urban rivers to improve flood risk
management and biodiversity, and to realise their
social and economic value
green business clubs to help SMEs improve their
environmental performance
active promotion of government guidance on flood
risk and development
completing a catchment flood management plan for
the Don in 2007-08.2
2 Environment Agency, Creating a Better Place, north east local contribution 2006/11: Improving the environment in the north east region
a n n e x e sH
in which lifelong learning and skill development are
highly valued and properly resourced
every neighbourhood a successful neighbourhood:
Sheffield will still be a city of villages, but they must
all be strong communities where people want to live
excellence in public transport: to tackle congestion
and a decline in bus usage
Sheffield an exciting, magnetic city, known across
the world as great place to be, attracting investment
and opportunity.
Environmental excellence will be integral to the
city’s future success. The strategy cites the results of
consultations which showed that Sheffielders “value our
greenery and access to parks, woodlands and the Peak
District”. The city “is well placed to develop itself as a
centre of excellence on environmental sustainability”.
A1.2 Environmental strategies
The Environment Agency’s national strategy, Creating a
Better Place, sets out nine goals:
a better quality of life for people
an enhanced environment for wildlife
cleaner air for everyone
118
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Sheffield First has a vision of a clean, attractive city
that places environment at the heart of all its decisions,
reduces its dependence on non-renewable resources and
enhances its natural and built assets. The City Strategy
contains six environmental aims:
clean streets, neighbourhoods and open spaces
attractive and well-used parks and green spaces
reduced dependence on non-renewable resources
enhanced natural and built assets, including
regenerated water corridors
environment at the heart of decision making
strengthening green businesses.
The Sheffield Environment Strategy3 is under review. The
current strategy sets out a vision of:
“…a city whose built and natural environment are
distinctive and of high quality, where our environmental
assets are recognised for their direct contribution to
the city’s economic success and the well-being if its
citizens. A city in which citizens enjoy and respect those
environments and… [which] contributes positively to the
regional, national and global environment”.
3 Sheffield First for Environment, Sheffield Environment Strategy 2003-2006
The Environment Strategy also identifies a series of cross-
cutting themes which have informed our approach to the
waterways study:
raising the profile of Sheffield’s environmental
assets
improving knowledge, attitudes and behaviour
highlighting environmental inequalities
safeguarding Sheffield’s environmental assets:
Figure 1: Sheffield First for Environment: Strategic Plan – critical initiatives
Critical initiatives Headline indicators Measures of success
Coordinated regeneration of water corridors
A water corridor study for the canal, Lower Don and Sheaf Valleys
Improve combined sewer overflows
British Waterways or Tourist Board award
River stretches meeting river quality initiatives
Continued regeneration of parks and woodlands
Strengthen links with area panels and involve local conservation groups in funding applications
Implementation of management plans for key sites/woodlands
Successful bids
Proportion of green space/trees being managed
Implementing the biodiversity action plan
Improve linkages between green corridors and emphasise importance of wildlife habitats
Link with local people, groups, businesses and area panels to produce and implement management plans
Priority species and habitat indicators
Costed management plans agreed and implemented
Recognising and valuing Sheffield’s distinctive built and natural heritage
Coordinate green space information
Raise profile of Sheffield’s distinctiveness via SFfE awards
Develop sustainability appraisal toolkit
Environmental assets audit and feasibility study
Sheffield Green Business Park initiative
GIS-based resource and awards scheme
Number of awards
Use of sustainability appraisal in development decisions
Study commissioned
Completion of Darnall site
involving the community , and
integrating action on the environment with other
socio-economic priorities.
The partners’ strategic plan for 2003-06 highlighted
four “critical initiatives” – underpinned by targets/
milestones and measures of success - for enhancing and
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 1 9
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
The strategic plan places a strong emphasis on process
rather than outputs. The plan does not connect
convincingly with the overarching vision and goals of
Sheffield First, or show how a better environment will help
to make Sheffield a successful, distinctive European city.
The Environment Agency’s Local Authority State of the
Environment (SOE) report for Sheffield identifies five key
goals for the city:
realising the environmental value of the city’s rivers
to support economic growth
identifying and prioritising strategic flood defence
work
promoting the agency’s flood warning service
supporting air quality improvements
improving resource use by tackling illegal waste
dumping and reducing waste production.
The Environment Agency priorities and targets for
Sheffield are summarised in Figure 2.
A1.3 Sheffield Development Framework
The Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) is currently
being developed. A consultation paper, Preferred Options
for the Core Strategy was published in February 2006.
The SDF is based on a vision of transformation and
sustainability through which Sheffield will become a city
that:
is economically prosperous and attractive to
business
has sustainable neighbourhoods that are good
places to live
prizes, conserves and enhances its distinctive
heritage and natural environment…and promotes
sustainable, high quality buildings and spaces
enables people and goods to move about the city
enriches the city region of which it forms the core.
The SDF states that “Sheffield is increasingly renowned for its green environment”; the city “enjoys an unparalleled location next to the Peak Park with topography that sets it apart from any other city in the country”. Protecting and enhancing this natural
environment is thus a key objective.
The river corridors are identified as some of Sheffield’s
“most distinctive and valued features”. The paper
Figure 2: Environment Agency: priorities and targets for Sheffield
Priorities Targets
Reduce flood risk
Enable new development without putting properties at greater risk of floodingCreate new and improve existing defencesGive better and earlier warnings especially to the vulnerable
Improve and protect waters
Achieve 91% compliance with River Quality Objectives by 2011Ensure Yorkshire Water achieves £3.4 bn investment in infrastructure by 2010
Increase biodiversity
Conserve and increase numbers of water voles and ottersProtect native crayfish from extinctionIncrease coarse fish stocks to sustainable levels
Protect land and soils
Shift regulatory effort to illegal waste disposal sitesReduce illegal waste dumping incidentsReduce hazardous waste from Agency controlled processes by 15%
Cleaner air Ensure that industries controlled by the Agency do not contribute significantly to loss of air quality
Greener business world
Encourage more businesses to take responsibility for their environmental performanceEnsure that businesses controlled by the Agency do not have a significant adverse effect on the health of the people of Sheffield
120
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
proposes a strategic green network “of areas and
routes for wildlife, movement and recreation penetrating
the built up area and linking with the countryside”.
The network will be based on the principal rivers and
waterways: the Upper Don, the Loxley, the Rivelin, Porter
Brook, the Sheaf, the Rother, the Lower Don and the
canal. These will be complemented by other “strategic
links” associated with smaller streams in the city
including Shire Brook, Shirtcliffe Brook, Ochre Dike and
Blackburn Brook.
The green network “will serve a range of purposes
including movement of wildlife in the city, leisure and
recreation and walking and cycling. Woodland areas will
be safeguarded and new trees will be planted. Diversity
of wildlife will be encouraged across the city and areas of
special ecological or geological value will be protected.”
The spatial vision addresses the opportunities presented
by rivers and riversides in the city centre: the Don, Sheaf
and Porter. Preferred option PCC10 states that:
“Improvements will be made to the environment and
accessibility of all rivers and riversides [in the city centre],
opening up culverted rivers and providing walkways
where appropriate.
“…accessible waterways form an attractive part of the
urban environment and if rivers are incorporated into new
development this will make new and existing buildings
more appealing to residents, workers and visitors. This all
helps to achieve a vibrant and attractive City Centre…”
The rivers form an important part of the preferred options
for other specific locations, notably the Lower and Upper
Don Valley areas. In the Lower Don Valley the draft
core strategy endorses the principles of the masterplan
produced by Urban Strategies for the City Council and
British Land4. The lower Don will continue to be a key
gateway location for industry and logistics; key elements
of the masterplan include:
capitalising on the river and the canal to provide a
green setting for the whole area
looking to the area around Attercliffe and the canal
as sites for new residential communities.
The Upper Don Valley has been in physical and economic
decline over many years, but the vision for the future
set out in the core strategy “is of a place for successful
businesses including high technology companies and
advanced manufacturing”, though there will also be
new housing, and an extension of the leisure/education
cluster around Livesey Street. The role of Hillsborough
4 Urban Strategies Inc, Lower Don Valley: Vision and Masterplan Study (submitted to Sheffield City Council and the British Land Company plc, November 2004)
(one of Sheffield’s riverside towns) as an important
district centre will be consolidated.
Other riverside locations highlighted in the core strategy
include the Lower Porter Valley, which will continue to
be promoted as an office location, complemented by
housing; the Sheaf Valley (between Lowfield and Archer
Road) is under pressure for housing development, but its
“unique value” is as a location for enterprises serving the
south west of the city; the Blackburn Valley should be
promoted as a site for economic regeneration, subject to
roads capacity.
Other environmental objectives of the SDF include:
safeguarding and enhancing natural and landscape
features
enhancing and protecting biodiversity and wildlife
habitats
conserving features of ecological or scientific value
encouraging walking and cycling
a variety of renewable energy schemes
reducing flood risk by appropriate drainage, flood
prevention measures and avoiding building in areas
where risks are unacceptable.
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 2 1
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
Figure 4: Sheffield and Tinsley Canal
The canal will continue to be improved as a focus for regeneration,
as part of the green network and as a resource for recreation and
tourism. New development by the canal should contribute to its
recreational, tourism and environmental value by:
retaining or improving access to the towpatha.
linking development visually with the canalb.
promoting recreational use of the canalc.
protecting and enhancing its heritage value.d.
A1.4 Design Guidance
An Urban Design Compendium commissioned by the City
Council provides guidance on design principles for eleven
defined city centre quarters.5 The compendium contains
detailed guidance on riverside development at Kelham
Island, noting that, despite the area’s strong historic
links to the river, “there is little connection between the
existing built form and the watercourse. Although many
buildings are flush with the water’s edge they are not
orientated to engage with the riverside environment”.
5 Gillespies, Sheffield City Centre Urban Design Compendium (2004)
Other relevant planning objectives in the draft core
strategy include:
creating the conditions for a balanced, diverse and
sustainable high-growth economy
creating environments to attract high-technology
manufacturing and knowledge-based services
a major expansion of business, shopping, leisure
and culture in the city centre, complemented by the
Upper and Lower Don Valley
high quality design of buildings and spaces
culture, leisure and tourism
improving the quality of life in neighbourhoods with
poor environments
encouraging healthy lifestyles for all
enhanced character and distinctiveness of
neighbourhoods
improving the environment of areas seeking to
attract business investment
protecting and enhancing the landscape and
character of villages, countryside and the urban
fringe.
Another document in the SDF family, City Policies:
Preferred Options, sets out policies for the green
environment, including watercourses (PGE 8) and the
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal (PGE9).
Figure 3: Watercourses
All watercourses will be protected and enhanced for the benefit of
wildlife and, where appropriate, for public access and recreation.
Development beside a watercourse will be required to:
re-open culverted watercourses where opportunities arisea.
design alterations to the channels of watercourses in a way b.
that will:
increase their value for wildlife and conserve
archaeological features
contribute to sustainable drainage, and
not increase flood risk
where appropriate, provide fish passes and remove c.
redundant weirs unless they are of scenic, historic or
ecological value
set back new development to an appropriate distance d.
from the banks of rivers to create green links and allow for
maintenance
create continuous footpaths along the main rivers except e.
where this would conflict with conservation or safety.
Where watercourses have been artificially channelled, developers
must provide environmental and ecological improvements,
including flood water storage. In the city centre a more formal
design approach may be appropriate.
122
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
The compendium sets out a vision of Kelham as “a
vibrant, mixed use neighbourhood which represents
and celebrates its riverside location and the industrial
heritage”. The river will be “the heart of the Kelham
Island community, providing leisure, employment and
educational facilities.” Regeneration will require the
imaginative re-use of historic buildings as well as high
quality new developments, with “active ground floor
uses… [to] generate street life and reinforce a feeling of
community”.
The guidance also recommends the development of
parks and walkways to create a more permeable urban
form, improve access to the river and strengthen links
to neighbouring quarters. A new Kelham Island Park will
be the hub of this pedestrian network. Similar principles
underpin guidance for the Riverside quarter, although
the compendium acknowledges that the quality of this
area is more variable, and the townscape fragmented. The
vision is of new developments opening up onto the river:
“shops, cafes or bars…will add vibrancy to the riverside”;
the completion of the Inner Relief Road will take traffic
out of Nursery Street and could enable it to “become
the focus of an urban village”. At present this are feels
“remote”, but the new road will reduce the severance
caused by heavy traffic and strengthen links with Victoria
Quays.
The treatment of waterfront issues in the guidance for
Castlegate is more broad-brush, but the document notes
that this area has lost “any sense of connection with
the River Don…, and inhibited key linkages to…Victoria
Quays and the Riverside Quarters”. It also suggests that
deculverting the Sheaf should be a long-term aspiration.
A1.5 Creative Sheffield
One of the most important – and potentially exciting
– developments in Sheffield in recent years has been
the formation of a new development agency, Creative
Sheffield, which will have a strong focus on Sheffield’s
role as the core city in the South Yorkshire region. CS has
subsumed Sheffield First for Investment, Sheffield One
and other bodies.
In its prospectus the new body states that Sheffield is
known as an innovative producer city, “designing and
making products at the leading edge of specialised
markets”.6 The document draws on lessons from other
successful innovative producer cities – Stuttgart,
Pittsburgh and Tampere – to argue that Sheffield needs to
create a distinctive signature that will distinguish it from
the competition. The city’s reputation will be based on
three key criteria:
6 Creative Sheffield, Prospectus for a Distinctive European City in a Prosper-ous Region (2007)
economic success : creating sustainable, high quality
jobs
environmental distinctiveness : cultivating features
that make Sheffield a desirable place to live and visit
easy access and internal mobility .
A number of the key themes being pursued by Creative
Sheffield in its first year of operations are of particular
relevance to the waterways study:7
strategic marketing , to achieve “a decisive and
sustainable shift in the city’s image, reputation
and external perception” and to tackle challenges
revealed by market research – negative perceptions
of the city, which lag behind the improved reality;
and a sense that Sheffield is stuck in the past
developing the knowledge economy in Sheffield,
especially in niches such as advanced manufacturing
and metals, biomedical and healthcare, creative
industries and digital media, and sports science
and technology: the city needs to retain and attract
talented and skilled people
7 Creative Sheffield, Business Plan 2006-07: the start-up and transition phase (November 2005)
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 2 3
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
developing the physical infrastructure through
transformational projects.
A1.6 Conclusion
This review of the policy context for this study is by no
means comprehensive, but these key documents confirm
the importance of the Sheffield’s waterways, both for
their intrinsic landscape and ecological value and
their potential contribution to the competitiveness and
attractiveness of the city.
Six key messages should be highlighted:
Sheffield is no longer content to be a provincial i.
backwater; it is growing in confidence and is now a
city with high aspirations, determined to become a
major player on the European stage; to achieve this
it needs to capture more private sector investment,
and to attract and retain talent.
Environmental excellenceii. is a key goal of the city
strategy, and rejuvenating the river corridors is a
high priority.
Sheffield’s waterways iii. figure prominently in the
Environment Agency’s regional strategy, and specific
targets are set in the State of the Environment report.
The Sheffield Development Framework is based on iv.
the twin pillars of transformation and sustainability:
the city’s green spaces and river corridors are
highlighted as distinctive and highly valued features,
and detailed objectives are set out in the City
Policies – Preferred Options document.
Design guidance v. for the city centre gives specific
direction for Kelham Island and other riverside
quarters.
A new agency, Creative Sheffield, recognises the vi.
value of distinctiveness – Sheffield’s signature – in
promoting place competitiveness, especially in the
knowledge economy.
Our conclusion is that the policy framework (which also
embraces relevant issues not covered by this review) is
substantially in place. But our consultations show that
there is a concern that, especially when it comes to urban
design and the environmental agenda, there may continue
to be a gap between policy aspirations and the reality
on the ground. Developers may be reluctant to champion
innovative, high quality architecture and urban design,
invest in the public realm or contribute to better river
management, especially in locations which – in market
terms – are unproven or deemed to be high risk. Closing
this gap will be a key challenge which we address later in
this report.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the regeneration of Sheffield’s
rivers and canal has the potential to make a major
contribution to achieving challenging strategic goals for
the city and the city-region in the next 10-15 years. In the
21st century the rules of place competition have changed
fundamentally: over the past 25 years many post-industrial
cities have developed a formula for success based on
attracting low wage/low skill industries, incentivised by
government grants and European funding. That formula
– which underpinned the regeneration of the Lower Don
Valley in the 1980s – helped Sheffield and other cities to
work their way through a difficult transitional period, but it
is no longer a sustainable approach.
Sheffield now wants to become one of the top innovative
producer cities in Europe. That means competing in even
more challenging territory, where success is a function
of innovation, skills and creativity. To thrive in this
knowledge economy places must be able to retain and
attract talented people, who will by definition have choices
about where they live and work. These people will, of
124
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
course, be drawn by employment opportunities, but they
are also attracted to tolerant, cosmopolitan places which
offer rich and diverse lifestyle choices.8 Sheffield now
offers a much better urban experience than it did a decade
ago, and its proximity to very high quality open space and
outdoor activities (climbing, walking, canoeing, cycling,
hang-gliding and so on) gives the city a special place
among English cities.
The challenge for Sheffield is to create a distinctive offer that
combines the best of urban living with access to a superb outdoor
environment, to provide the best quality of life in any UK city. The
policy review shows that the city’s waterways have a vital role to
play in making this happen: they are the physical links between
the city and the countryside; they are the foundation of Sheffield’s
outstanding green network; and they will be the catalysts for
regeneration in less favoured parts of the city.
.
8 Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class – and how it is transforming leisure, community and everyday life (New York, 2002)
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 2 5
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
Annex 2: Emscher Landscape Park
A2.1 Introduction
There are valuable lessons to draw from these exemplars,
but the truly inspirational model for the regeneration
of waterways in a post-industrial landscape is the
Emscher Landscape Park in Germany.9 The genesis of
the landscape park dates back to the early 1980s, when
many of the mines, steelworks and engineering firms that
were the lifeblood of the Ruhr region were threatened with
closure. The demise of heavy industries left a daunting
legacy of derelict sites and buildings, contaminated land
and polluted rivers. The condition of the Emscher river,
which flows through the heart of this industrial zone,
appeared to symbolise the scale of the challenges facing
a region searching for new economic roles and needing
to create a positive image. The river had become an open
sewer carrying human and industrial waste.
In 1989, after an extended period of debate and
planning, the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia
launched the Emscher Park International Building and
9 For history and descriptions of Emscher Landscape Park, see: Gudrun Lethmate and Harald Spiering, “Emscher Landscape Park – new regional park in the Ruhr area”, conference paper 2003; Judith M LaBelle, “Emscher Park, Germany – expanding the definition of a ‘park’”, from Crossing Boundaries in Park Manage-ment: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands, George Wright Society, 2001; www.elp2010.de; www.eaue.de; and various reports and publications by IBA Emscher Park.
Construction Exhibition (IBA). The creation of a regional
scale landscape park provided the organising spatial
framework for the IBA development strategy. IBA Emscher
Park was focused on a narrow, highly urbanised corridor,
running about 70 km east-west and 5-10 km north-
south. This area spans the boundaries of 17 towns and
cities, from Bergkamen in the east to Duisburg in the
west. The landscape park was intended to establish a
green corridor, connecting all 17 cities, using existing
watercourses and green spaces.
A2.2 IBA goals and achievements
Other key goals of IBA Emscher Park included:
the ecological recovery of the Emscher and its
tributaries
preservation and re-use of the industrial legacy
working in the park : ecological upgrading of derelict
sites to create a high quality setting for business
living in the park : rehabilitating workers’ housing
and extending residential areas
practising an holistic approach to economic, social
and cultural transformation.
The innovative approach of IBA Emscher Park has been
much studied and documented extensively. A number of
features have influenced our approach to the Sheffield
Waterways Strategy, notably:
ecology as an organising focus for economic, social
and environmental regeneration
incorporating the found landscape of derelict
industrial land into a regional network of open space
and recreational resources
treating redundant industrial buildings and
landscapes as valuable cultural artefacts which
should be conserved and reused wherever possible
implementing the largest naturalisation project
in Europe, restoring the water cycle and nurturing
spontaneous landscapes.
The IBA project had a 10-year life. Between 1990 and
1999 about 120 projects of all kinds were implemented.
The first phase of a programme to restore the Emscher
and its tributaries was implemented, with the
renaturalisation of the 9.5 km long Deininghauser Bach
stream. Throughout the area, housing and industrial/
commercial developments were designed to restore the
natural cycle by retaining water in the area: the green
technology park at Holland Colliery and the residential
development at Welheim Garden City introduced
sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).
126
a p r i l 2 0 0 8 | y e l l o w b o o k
Perhaps the most celebrated IBA project was the creation
of the 200 ha Duisburg-Nord Country Park on the site of a
former Thyssen steelworks. The three huge blast furnaces
were preserved, and industrial structures now contain
gardens, climbing walls and sites for adventurous play.
Elsewhere, the Bauhaus-inspired pithead buildings at
the Zollverein Colliery in Essen have been adapted to
house an industrial museum, a school of architecture and
a design centre. The vast gasometer at Oberhausen has
become an exhibition and performance space.
The investment poured into the IBA project during
the 1990s had a profound impact on the image of the
Ruhrgebeit, and the region has earned a reputation as a
laboratory for innovation in regeneration. Nevertheless,
the sheer scale of the challenges facing the region meant
that there was still much to do when IBA Emscher Park
was wound up in 1999. In particular, the process of
ecological recovery and the creation of an integrated
landscape park were still very much works in progress.
A2.3 Project Ruhr
However, the local partners always understood that these
were long-term goals that might take 30 years to realise.
They therefore developed a succession plan, which led
to the creation of a new planning and delivery vehicle,
Project Ruhr, to carry forward the work of IBA Emscher
Park. The focus of Project Ruhr, which is a partnership
representing 23 local authorities, has been on agreeing
the Emscher Landscapepark 2010 Masterplan, which was
adopted in 2006. The territory covered by the landscape
park has grown – to 457 sq km – but the basic principles
are consistent with those adopted by IBA Emscher Park
in 1989. Completion of the east-west green corridor
remains the goal: the emphasis now is on filling gaps,
and on strengthening lateral connections with towns and
neighbourhood centres. The themes of living and working
in the park remain in place, as does the emphasis on
industrial heritage linked to art and culture. The plan also
advocates urban agriculture, identifying opportunities for
cultivation and forestry.
The IBA model – and the Emscher Landscapepark
Masterplan – were cited as examples of best practice
in the recent National Audit Office (NAO) report, How
European cities achieve renaissance.10 The report
notes that the particular strengths of the Emscher Park
approach include:
a network of partners eager to deliver
regeneration
10 National Audit Office, How European cities achieve renaissance, Stationery Office, 2007
strong central support for partners, and
a clear implementation plan.
Between 1991 and 2000, state and EU funding for IBA-
backed projects amounted to almost €1.5bn, matched by
€1bn private funding. In total, projects in the region are
estimated to have attracted €5bn investment in the same
period.
A great deal has been achieved, but there have also been
disappointments and frustrations. Reaching agreement
among the numerous local authorities on planning,
resources and ongoing care and maintenance has not
been easy, and progress on some of the big structural
initiatives has been slower than anticipated. Despite this,
the Emscher Landscape Park has transformed the quality
of life and environment in the Ruhr, and has played a
key role in establishing a positive new image for the
region. It has been a catalyst for economic transformation
and it should therefore be a source of inspiration and
encouragement for Sheffield.
A2.4 Lessons for Sheffield
Six defining features of Emscher Landscape Park stand
out, and offer vital lessons for the Sheffield Waterways
Strategy:
s h e f f i e l d - c i t y o f r i v e r s | 1 2 7
a n n e x e s | s e c t i o n H
first, the concept of the landscape park is the big
idea, which gives direction and coherence to a wide-
ranging programme of projects large and small; every
project must play a part in delivering the park; but
the masterplan is not a strait-jacket: it establishes
guiding principles – spatial and philosophical – but
it can also respond to changing conditions
second, the partners’ approach is genuinely holistic:
economic, social, cultural and environmental
objectives receive equally priority and are integrated
into project design and resource allocation
third, ecological recovery and the naturalisation
of rivers are key themes running through the
masterplan, and private sector as well as public
sector developments are expected to contribute
fourth, the overall quality of architecture and design
has been exceptionally high: this is true of business
space, houses, schools and neighbourhood parks as
well as high profile prestige projects
fifth, Emscher Park celebrates the history and culture
of an industrial region: the remains of industry are
valued and have found new uses as cultural venues,
monuments and parks
sixth, the regeneration process has been exemplary,
with extensive public participation at every stage: by
understanding what local communities most value as
well as what they want to change the partners have
built a broad consensus around the masterplan.
yellow bookWMUD
sheffield waterwaysstrategy group
yellow book3 hill street, edinburgh, eh2 3jpt: +44 (0)131 225 5757 f: +44 (0)131 225 5750www.yellowbookltd.com
yellow bookWMUD
sheffield waterwaysstrategy group
yellow book3 hill street, edinburgh, eh2 3jpt: +44 (0)131 225 5757 f: +44 (0)131 225 5750www.yellowbookltd.com