Jump to content

Please Sign This Petition

Recommended Posts

A main thrust of the University's argument is that the development will turn yet another of their departments into a centre of international excellence, attracting students and academics to the city, raising the reputation of Sheffield, and attracting companies as with Boeing, all things like glittering beads to our Councillors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheffield University already has an extremely high academic reputation which is why they can demand similar high grades for entry qualifications as Oxford Cambridge and Durham. To the best of my knowledge University's reputations are built on academic excellence not what kind of flashy new buildings they have, otherwise Oxford, Cambridge, and St Andrews would have faded away years ago.

Of course you need good facilities to deal with expending student numbers as has every University in Britain, but not all Universities have gone for the bulldozer method to get them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But in fields like engineering, academic excellence requires excellence in facilities. It's not the look of the building that matters, but what happens inside them. Unfortunately Edwardian buildings don't lend themselves to 21st century engineering laboratories.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not defending the demolition of the building, nor the design of the proposed building. The new facilities don't have to be built there, there are other suitable sites. I'm sure there are other uses to which the building could be put. I'm simply commenting that the arguments put forward by the university are designed to appeal to Councillors, even if the planners disagree, and they're the ones who make the final decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Build it elsewhere, all financial advantages remain, still enables the department to be a tremendous resource ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Build it elsewhere, all financial advantages remain, still enables the department to be a tremendous resource ...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter from SCC Planning Dept to Sheffield University (published now on the Save Jessop site)

21st May 2012

Dear Chris

Proposed New Building for the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering

On Land at the Junction of Brook Hill and St Georges Terrace, Sheffield Known as Jessop East

This letter sets out our thoughts on the proposals for a new building for the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering, presented to us on 17th April 2012. First I would like to put our comments into context.

We have worked collaboratively with the University of Sheffield for many years to help them upgrade and enhance their campus. In this time they have produced many good quality new buildings and refurbishments that they and the City can be proud of. We want to continue this good working relationship. We also want to provide a good service and so try to identify key issues early in any pre-application process and seek ways to address them. This is how we have tried to work to date.

One of the key issues we flagged up in our pre-application discussions was the importance of the grade II listed Edwardian Wing of the former Jessop Hospital for Women to the City of Sheffield and we asked you to thoroughly explore the option of retention.

The proposals presented to us on 17th April, and to the Sheffield Sustainable Development and Design Panel on 19th April, were the culmination of a 10 week programme during which the Architects, RMJM, produced two options for the Jessop East site. While both options incorporate a substantial five storey building, plus basement accommodation, one option involves the demolition of the listed Edwardian Wing and the second is essentially a façade retention scheme which involves building up to the north and west facing elevations of the Edwardian Wing.

The proposed building forms the focal point of a significant investment in the Faculty of Engineering, an investment which seeks to meet the predicted growth of the Faculty as well as help the University to realise its ambition to be the best Engineering Faculty in the UK and among the best in the world. We are fully supportive of their goals and would welcome the benefits it could bring, including how it can support the advanced manufacturing ambitions of the city and city region. However, there is concern that, thus far, the design process has focused more on achieving the University’s optimum space requirements and less on assessing the characteristics and constraints of the site and the level of accommodation it can comfortably hold. Moreover, the space requirements have increased since our discussions began and, importantly, it has been made clear that even the current proposals do not meet the full requirements of the Faculty and that additional space will need to be identified in the medium term.

This brief led approach has led the University to favour the full demolition option, a proposal that makes optimal operational use of the site for the client, giving little weight to other considerations, including the loss of an important grade ll listed building and its impact on the setting of the retained, grade II listed Jessop Victorian building. It is the role of the planning authority to examine other factors which may influence the future development of the land and to make a balanced judgement.

The Existing Buildings

The Victorian and Edwardian Wings have a strong architectural character, very much an expression of their era and civic function. They are considered to be the most prominent work of notable regional architect, John Dodsley Webster, and the buildings take their name from the Sheffield steelmaker Thomas Jessop, who held many important civic posts including Master Cutler (1863) and Mayor (1863-64). The buildings are undoubtedly important to the people of Sheffield.

In addition to their historical, architectural and social interest, the existing hospital buildings have a positive townscape value. They sit comfortably within the area because they maintain the historic building line, are of an appropriate scale, are executed in materials that inform and are part of the local palette and, through generous fenestration and the positioning of entrances, have a good relationship with the street. The buildings hold the corner well and despite its poor condition the Edwardian Wing provides a strong edge to the adjacent public space. It is considered that their contribution to the townscape would be greatly undermined by the loss of the Edwardian Wing, leaving little more than an isolated fragment. On its own the Victorian block would appear weak and out of place against the backdrop of a new building.

The conversion of the Victorian block demonstrates how historic buildings can be successfully reused. The cellular nature of the room layout can easily accommodate the smaller spaces that the new building will require, such as those otherwise housed in ‘pods’. Indeed planning permission and listed building consent were granted in September 2009 for alterations and an extension to the Edwardian Wing to bring it into educational use (09/01836/FUL).


The site forms an integral part of the established townscape. This brings with it a range of embedded characteristics, including, scale, range of plot sizes, palette of materials, order of uses and relationship between internal and external activity, to which any new development should respond. Core Strategy Policy CS74 (Design Principles) explains the importance of this approach in delivering new buildings and spaces that respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods.

Since the demolition of the St Georges Wing, the site in question has formed a hole in the urban fabric. Its development provides the opportunity to:

• form a civic scale edge to the significant traffic route of Brook Hill;

• provide a strong frontage along Leavygreave Road, a busy pedestrian spinal route;

• reinstate one of the sides to the square containing St Georges Church;

• create a visual link with the original engineering buildings on the opposite side of the square;

• reinforce or establish a coherent sense of identity for this area of the campus and the Engineering Faculty in particular;

• help knit the retained hospital buildings together with more recent interventions;

• help to provide a degree of coherence to the area to counteract the disparate range of materials and styles that have prevailed in recent years;

• introduce greater activity to the public space to the west and

• express the character of the Engineering Faculty.

Many of these opportunities have yet to be realised. The material provided so far indicates an analysis that moves from a city-wide scale to immediate site, omitting a detailed analysis of the local context. This is despite work done some years earlier by the same team which advocated a different approach based upon the area’s inherent characteristics.

The background material repeatedly refers to the desire to create a landmark building. While delivering a building that provides visual interest and responds positively to key views is highly desirable, the need for a new landmark is questioned. St George’s church is a landmark structure set in space and therefore has primacy in townscape terms. Rather than compete for attention, the new building has an important part to play in enclosing the space around the church and providing definition to the adjacent circulation routes.

It is arguable that the range of architectural styles, forms and layouts in the area has created an incoherent townscape. The exceptions to this are the historic buildings and the road pattern. Rather than set out to add to the eclectic nature of the townscape, the new development has the potential to impart a sense of cohesion and create tangible links with the other faculty buildings, something that will be difficult if the ambition is yet another landmark.

Proposed Building

The building as currently proposed is disappointing. The drive to meet the requirements of a changing brief has not been tempered by concessions to the townscape. This is exemplified by the decision to rely entirely upon an external wrap to create visual interest and character. We understand that the scheme is in its early stages, but the result so far could be seen to be an ungainly big box with an overly-complex external envelope that has no relationship with its setting.

The mass, scale and elevational treatment are not suited to the site and combine to accentuate the bulk and alien nature of the proposal to the locale. It is unclear whether the sorts of volumes desired can be successfully accommodated on the site; but what is apparent is that the current disposition does not work. Greater consideration needs to be given to breaking up the mass, and articulating the scale and form of the building to respond to both to its surroundings and to the internal uses.

The proposed cleared site option will loom over the Victorian building, making it appear out of place and scale. It will be functionally separate, divided by a service yard and a ground floor plant room. The coherence provided by the Edwardian Wing would be lost. The elevation that would replace it is proposed as a sheer wall that will be out of scale with the adjoining public space, creating an even more unpleasant environment. However, retention of the Edwardian Wing would provide an appropriately articulated human-scale scale face that supports its neighbour and can potentially enliven the public space.

The decision to pull the building line back away from Leavygreave Road appears to have been driven by internal considerations. The external space created is unlikely to serve any real purpose, as there is little discernible reason to congregate, but it could undermine the integrity of the street. It is suggested that the main entrance and external expression of circulation would be better associated with the church and square, an extension of the proposed atrium.

Treatment of the Elevations

The proposed treatment of the elevations is the same on all sides, despite dramatic differences in the character of the environment. This prevents the establishment of a more positive relationship between building and setting and it weakens the ability of individual elevations to make a constructive contribution to the context, such as providing a strong edge to Brook Hill or a connection with the Mappin Building. The choice of such a strong façade dramatically reduces the opportunities for the internal activities to be read externally.

The building could potentially become a physical representation of the Engineering Faculty, an expression of the properties of structure and materials. This is surely an unrivalled opportunity to express the building’s structure rather than hide it behind an elaborate skin.

Relationship with External Spaces

The redevelopment of the site presents an opportunity to enliven surrounding spaces and improve circulation routes. The Edwardian Wing is human scale and contains generous levels of fenestration which are able to establish visual connections between internal and external activities. The ground floor has been substantially altered and so is capable of being adapted to create generous openings to support uses that interact with the adjoining external space or doors which connect to the atrium and support significant volumes of footfall. By contrast the cleared site option not only towers over the space to the west, but positions a plant room adjacent to it.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes it clear that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and that local planning authorities should conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. The grade II listed Edwardian Wing is an irreplaceable resource. The NPPF advises that substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building should be exceptional and that consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary in order to achieve substantial public benefits. In this instance, the University consider their investment in the city justifies the demolition of the Edwardian Wing and this might be the case if the proposed building realised the site’s many opportunities, as discussed above. However, the current proposal is considered to be unacceptable as it does not relate to its setting, it leaves the Victorian building stranded and fails to relate to the other historic buildings in the locality, and the wrap does not feel like an honest representation of the building and its end users. Given this conflict, and the inability of the scheme to comply with the alternative NPPF tests for demolition, it is felt that considerable changes are necessary.

We recommend that:

- a review of the campus masterplan is undertaken to explore the capacity for future expansion of the University, and in particular the Faculty of Engineering, to assess where this may be appropriately accommodated and how it can be realised through high quality buildings and spaces, acknowledging that the Faculty of Engineering will need further expansion space in the near future;

- the Edwardian Wing of Jessops Hospital for Women should be retained and should influence the footprint and massing of the new building;

- the set back from Leavygreave should be omitted in favour of making better use of existing external spaces;

- an alternative treatment to the wrap is developed, that relates to the building form and function and does not add additional bulk.

The recommendations and issues raised in this letter are unlikely to come as a surprise to you or your colleagues. They reflect the conversations and comments made in the three pre-application meetings we had between 13 October and 29 November 2011, although at that stage the discussions were focused on the many massing models produced and the detailed analysis of the University’s requirements being undertaken by the architects. It is unfortunate, however, that these concerns have not been taken on board during the development of the scheme.

May I also take this opportunity to let you know that the next meeting of the Sheffield Sustainable Development and Design Panel will be on Thursday 28th June 2012. Please let me know if you are still interested in presenting to the Panel on that date.

We would like to continue to work with you to develop the option that retains the listed building. We believe we can help you to achieve a strong scheme that provides a substantial element of the floorspace you need. We would also like to work closely with you to explore the alternative sites you will in any case need to meet the Faculty’s medium term growth requirements.

Yours sincerely

Principal Planning Officer

Development Management

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a comedian once said "And there's more" See latest Star article. Seems the council did not consult with the necessary bodies. Also the Ancient monuments saying that this kind of planning request has never been given consent before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unitedite Returns

I have today received an email update, which I quote in full, below:-

Update about 'Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State: Save Sheffield's Grade II Listed Edwardian Jessop Hospital building' on Change.org

Dear Friends,

Interesting and strange news - it transpires that Sheffield City Council did not follow government requirements in this case and only referred the application to one Amenity Society (Victorian Society) rather than all six as they were supposed to. So the planning committee meet again this Monday to reconsider the application. If you can come (it is a public meeting) that would really help!

The delay has been good for us, because whilst the council have been asking for those consultations from the amenity societies we have been making freedom of information requests to the council, with startling results.

We discovered that the council planning department, including the head of planning and indeed his superior, the head of development at Sheffield City Council, jointly worked on a letter to the University, staunchly opposing these plans, in particular the plan to demolish the Edwardian building and also the University's new design (an "ungainly big box" they called it!). This was after months of meetings and negotiations. The sudden change in stance shortly after that letter was received raises serious concerns. You can see the letter and related information on the website:


The situation now is that because the council messed up the amenity society consultations there will be another planning committee meeting to decide again on this, on Monday 25th Feb at 2pm, Sheffield Town Hall. This is a public meeting and we would really appreciate it if you could come and show your support. It is clear now that this was a heavily politically influenced decision. If you are able, please come and show those politicians something they can understand: large numbers of unhappy people! We'll be in the Town Hall foyer from 1.45pm, and head to the meeting room at 1.55pm. If you are there minute just ask at reception and they'll point you in the right direction.

Whilst there will be those willing this to be a replay of the last meeting, the committee will not have such an easy ride this time round given all that has since come to light. If just a small proportion of you can make it, that could make the difference.

For those that can't make it, we'll update you on how the meeting goes.


Nick, on behalf of the Save Jessop Hospital Campaign



This message is from Nicholas Roscoe who started the petition "Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State: Save Sheffield's Grade II Listed Edwardian Jessop Hospital building," which you signed on Change.org.

View the petition | View and reply to this message online

Unsubscribe from updates about this petition

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the update.

I have today received an email update, which I quote in full, below:-

Update about 'Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State: Save Sheffield's Grade II Listed Edwardian Jessop Hospital building' on Change.org
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the meeting. The item was listed on the agenda as the last item....so having another engagement I only heard the lap dancing saga and a few dormer window applications as well as the new saviour for the Moor...a cinema. However, I brought home the entire documentation...and, doubtless, approval will be given. But what a travesty of all that's good and honest about our planning legislation. Why bother consulting anyone when the decision has been made on economic grounds despite all the twaddle about it having to be granted on planning grounds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Approval for demolition was, as expected, granted. Sheffield now joins the ranks of only a very, very few planning authorities to approve the demolition of a grade 11 listed building. This and the fact that it is the only major City to have opened and closed an airport within a few years of its opening and its loss of an electrified railway , sadly,says much for the direction in which the City is going

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unitedite Returns

Sheffield now joins the ranks of only a very, very few planning authorities to approve the demolition of a grade 11 listed building. This and the fact that it is the only major City to have opened and closed an airport within a few years of its opening and its loss of an electrified railway , sadly,says much for the direction in which the City is going

But then again, this is the self-same city, that decided to build and then demolish, a new registry office and a new town hall, that also, decided it had to build no less than two, new, central swimming baths before it got it right and two, new, central fire stations before it got that right and whose most visible response to the need to regenerate the city centre itself, was to build a GREENHOUSE !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Greenhouse. It is frankly their best idea. The railway station is a mess though. Lovely water feature but there is no room to drop off passengers or pick them up. All looks and no substance.

The Victorians and Edwardians went for both. The Papplewick pumping station is amazing architecture and machinery. Jessop Hospital was ground breaking when they built it. It was part of the roots of the NHS because Jessop himself stated he didn't want poor women lacking care because they couldn't afford the usual fees. It had the first steam driven laundry.

Why do Sheffield Council want to destroy our heritage? What is wrong with being a Northern Industrial city who put their money into things like a women's hospital rather than some fancy Opera House? Isn't that something to be proud of?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council appears to be in a bit of a quandary. They recognise the value of the Jessop's building but fear that job opportunities will be lost if they don't fall over backwards to assist the University. Their decision flies in the face of a majority of opinion but the Council rests secure in the "knowledge" that , to quote Coun. Price :" the city is fighting for its economic life and lots of young people are looking to us for a future".

I shall say no more!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the Uni can't demolish it where does he think they'll build instead, Leeds? The clue's in the name, University of Sheffield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other puzzle is why so many present lecturers, students, as well as ex students who say it is quite possible to build a new engineering building to the right dimensions without knocking the Edwardian wing and yet the planning committee haven't taken advice on this. There are 3 solutions to this problem.

1. Build it elsewhere. The University has other land.

2. Make the Atrium smaller so it fits within the space.

3. Use the previous design they had planned incorporating the Edwardian wing within it.

None would result in the University being short of space or an Engineering block. Seems more that councillors don't know how to say No to the University, or even ask relevant questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know i said I would say no more but....I am told that the decision was less a planning or even an economic one but rather more a "political" one...with the decision being made "from on high"..Make of that what you will! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which on high you mean. The chancellor of Sheffield University is adviser to the Government but the voting in favour at the planning level was Labour. The government has stated that it wants to loosen planning laws as it feels that is hindering progress. So are Labour councillors voting for Conservative policy?

I think it is more the hold the University has on Sheffield Councils whatever the majority, and also the lack of consideration for our heritage by local councils in general. Manchester has had similar problems, even historic Oxford. It is more an attitude that heritage is standing in the way of progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the Sheffield City Plan...............

5. Competitive Universities, Competitive City

Sheffield’s two universities are irreplaceable assets, providing a broad

range of benefits every year as major employers, through their own

and students’ spending power, and their international, national and

local work with businesses and other research centres. Both Universities

have a number of outstanding departments and large post graduate

programmes, providing local business with access to high quality


The physical presence of the Universities, along with the vitality provided

by over 50,000 students (including the FE sector) is important in

defining the new Sheffield. Equally important is their role in developing

new niches and supporting inward investment. There is an opportunity

to work with the Universities over the medium term to increase their

economic contribution to the city, while at the same time strengthening

their position among their peers.

6. Sheffield’s Image: Ensuring Perceptions Reflect the New Sheffield

In spite of the successful investment of the past years and the city’s role

in hosting national and international events, the perception of the city

held by many people, including potential investors, is many years out

of date. There is a need to improve the image of the city, and Creative

Sheffield has a role to play in developing an agreed brand identity and

promoting the strengths of the city to visitors and investors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...