Sheffield - city of rivers

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 [email protected]

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”.



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


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



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



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


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



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


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


Old Tower Wheel, Sheffield

above: Nursery Street, Sheffield | below: Endcliffe Park, Sheffield

12


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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.



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


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 ’ 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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


“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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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.


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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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)



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


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



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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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


Don Valley Park - strategic directions

102


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



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


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



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


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


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


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



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


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



– 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



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


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


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 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


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



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


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.



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


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)



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


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)



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


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:



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

Documents

Sheffield - city of rivers