Planning Case Study 134

A desk-based assessment revealed that a pair of steel cementation furnaces for the production of blister steel had been constructed on the West Bar frontage of the site by 1775, and were probably the furnaces of Samuel Shore, shown on a 1737 illustration of Sheffield. Shore’s furnaces were first recorded in 1717 and were probably the first built in the town.

This planning application was first proposed in 2006 and approved in May 2007. However, part 2 of the pre-commencement archaeological condition was not fulfilled until late 2017. The following is a summary of the events and milestones during that period:

• Archaeological investigations were undertaken in 2008 and revealed a well-preserved early crucible furnace. The foundation design for the development was subsequently revised to protect the furnace in situ;
• The developer then went out of business;
• Much later, a new developer took over the development, which was amended;
• The post-excavation assessment report of the archaeological investigation in 2008 was produced in 2015. This recommended that some further works should be undertaken (mainly metallurgical analysis) to be included in a final report;
• The new developer argued that there was no need to do this but the LPA confirmed that it was a requirement of the planning condition. This has two parts - the second part requires that "the development shall only take place in accordance with the approved WSI and the development shall not be brought into use until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that the requirements of the WSI have been fulfilled or alternative timescales agreed." The developer wanted to proceed with the development, but it was made clear that, if the archaeological work was not completed, enforcement might prevent use of the development;
• The eventual way forward to resolve the issue was for the developer to enter into an agreement with the archaeological contractor to complete the outstanding archaeological work, including paying in advance. The developer was thus able to use the property and the work was undertaken by the archaeological contractor.

Without the threat of enforcement, this successful outcome might not have happened. The early crucible furnace is now preserved under the development.