The old Sharrow Junior School is to be demolished and a new (so called) community hub built on the site. I don’t have specific timescales, sorry. My information suggests that the new building will house a number of public services including a new library, police, doctors surgery, the citizens advice bureau and more. The centralised organisation sounds like a good thing to me, but I wonder why the old building has to go? Has there been any public consultation on this idea? I haven’t seen any.

Is there a picture of the building online? Perhaps it is one of these? Or maybe not, who knows?

Sheffield’s board schools, like those built in other parts of the country, had separate access and playgrounds for girls, boys and infants. Most of Innocent’s schools share identical forms of planning, based around the German hall plan in which each department had classrooms grouped around a central schoolroom. This allowed efficient circulation and, in recognition of the shortage of trained schoolteachers, allowed the headmaster to supervise pupil-teachers through the glazed partitions. Infants were on the ground floor, older children above in the multi-storey schools. Lighting was evenly diffused through large windows with as little shadow as possible. Innovations included covered play sheds for wet weather which were placed on the ground floor to avoid steps, leaving “abundant space for marching”.

While all were in what the architects called “ English Domestic Gothic”, constructed in rock faced stone and similar in plan, great care was taken to vary the elevations which varied from single to three storeys, the majority being of two. Innocent stated that he “attempted to obtain effect by the picturesque grouping of parts rather than by a redundance of ornament or enrichments and to give all these buildings such distinctive external features as should express the purposes and the means of their erection”. Elevations were broken up by the end bays being brought forward and the central bays given large gables, internal arrangements were sometimes expressed externally e.g. the rounded staircase turrets at Netherthorpe and boldly modelled buttresses e.g. at Pye Bank provided a strong vertical emphasis. Bellcotes, disguised as flèches, gave Innocent much scope for inventiveness. The schools were widely publicised, perspectives and plans appearing in the architectural press.

The lavishness of their provision and the quality of construction was not always appreciated. When invited to open Park School in 1875, the Liberal MP David Chadwick remarked “How in the name of fortune the School Board have persuaded the ratepayers of Sheffield to tolerate their extravagance in spending £100,000 in the building of 14 or 15 schools as substantial as so many castles!”.

Innocent, who had a thriving general architectural practice, continued to design board schools for many years. His later schools were Fulwood (1878 ), Langsett Road (1879), Woodside, Rutland Road (1880), Burgoyne Road (1881), Duchess Road (1883), Huntsmans Gardens (1884), Sharrow Lane (1887), Abbeydale (1890), Gleadless Road, Heeley (1892) and Hunters Bar, Sharrow Vale Road (1893). Other local architects also carried out work for the School Board including Holmes & Watson, Hemsoll & Paterson and W. J. Hale (click here to see schools by Hale) and also, through his personal friendship with J. F. Moss, Secretary to the Board, E. R. Robson, the best-known school architect in the country, responsible for many of the London board schools and author of “School Architecture” (1874).

Hi Alistair, I can't find an online picture, but believe it is the Sharrow Lane school you highlighted in your text. Handsome old building will be a sad loss to the area. Hopefully it's planned replacement might also be something good to look at

There's no way any replacement would be so well built as the Sheffield Board Schools were.

Is it this one?

http://www.sharrow.sheffield.sch.uk/pictures/tour1.htm

If it is it looks a nice building and should have converted well without being knocked down.

it is that one henny penny, thanks - I agree there are many options with conversions that should be considered before demolition

Is it this one?

http://www.sharrow.sheffield.sch.uk/pictures/tour1.htm

If it is it looks a nice building and should have converted well without being knocked down.

Yes hennypenny, that picture's the view the boys had as you went into the boys' yard from South View Road. the gils' yand infants' yard was a bit bigger, and a bit steeper.

I spent some of my happiest schooling-times at that school, in the 1970s, under the care of the headmaster, "Pop" Allen. Far better than the schools I went to, before and since! lol

I ealise that moving on menas that the building will be lost, as it was (from what I understand) uneconomical to bring it up to the standards required for accessibility, etc. (same as with Hhighfield library) but I feel really :cry: and :mad: at the thought of such a huge chunk of my formative years going...

I realise that moving on means that the building will be lost, as it was (from what I understand) uneconomical to bring it up to the standards required for accessibility, etc. (same as with Highfield library) but I feel really :cry: and :mad: at the thought of such a huge chunk of my formative years going...

Yer what, they want to knock Highfield Library down too?? It gets worse.

If they can make the Town Hall accessible for wheelchairs etc, then they can make both those buildings accessible too.

Is the school of enough architectural merit to get listed?

I'm not sure the library will be demolished, alastair, as it's a beautiful building. I love the inscription above the door. I think it's listed...?

My personal thoughts are that I don't want to see the school go, either, but, progress is progress I suppose.

I understand the school building is decrepit, and leaky now :( and is beyond economical repair? )

Personally I think it's a prime example of the school-board-school architecture. I'm terribly sad that it's going.

Agreed, I like the inscription above the library door. It's a classic of late Victorian ideals -

"THAT THERE
SHOULD ONE MAN DIE
IGNORANT WHO HAD CAPACITY
FOR KNOWLEDGE, THIS I CALL A
TRAGEDY, WHERE IT TO HAPPEN MORE
THAN TWENTY TIMES IN THE MINUTE,
AS BY SOME COMPUTATIONS IT DOES"

It features on this website.

http://public-art.shu.ac.uk/sheffield/coo150im.html

I suspect the library is listed. I've always liked that area at the bottom of London road with the two churches, the library and the terraces behind.

As for the school, if people want to save it then try and get it listed.

There was quite a lot of consultation about this through Sharrow Community Forum. The whole regeneration in the area is like a domino effect. One building empties to the next one, gets rebuilt/restored, then the next building gets done, and so on. Highfield Library will not be demolished but end up as a private building, I believe, and a new library built as part of the new community hub (but not The Hub). Mount Pleasant will also move its adult education business to the new multi-purpose centre, but I can't remember what will happen to the building.

Sorry I can't remember many details now. Most of it didn't affect me at all so I wasn't paying attention.

Some gubbins here. (http://www.sharrowcf.org.uk/sharproj.html) :)

There was quite a lot of consultation about this through Sharrow Community Forum. The whole regeneration in the area is like a domino effect. One building empties to the next one, gets rebuilt/restored, then the next building gets done, and so on. Highfield Library will not be demolished but end up as a private building, I believe, and a new library built as part of the new community hub (but not The Hub). Mount Pleasant will also move its adult education business to the new multi-purpose centre, but I can't remember what will happen to the building.

Sorry I can't remember many details now. Most of it didn't affect me at all so I wasn't paying attention.

Some gubbins here. (http://www.sharrowcf.org.uk/sharproj.html) :)

Thanks for the link and information. I see the plan is only a proposal.

I also looked at the constitution of Sharrow Community Forum, what a joke!

In their articles the promise to look after -

3.8 3. the preservation of buildings or sites of historic or architectural importance

3.1 the protection or conservation of the environment

The building is structually sound, and already houses numerous classrooms, hall, library and offices. This could be easily converted into a community hub.

However, it would create more work and jobs to knock it down and build it again. There is no doubt already funding for this, and a building contractor lined up to do the job.

Thanks for the link and information. I see the plan is only a proposal.

I also looked at the constitution of Sharrow Community Forum, what a joke!

In their articles the promise to look after -

3.8 3. the preservation of buildings or sites of historic or architectural importance

3.1 the protection or conservation of the environment

The document says it's a proposal, but the scheme is in fact in full progress. When I went to the meeting and saw the details, the discussion points, the variables, etc, it was clear that any removal of one part of the plan would impact on the rest - each part is dependent on the rest. It is a shame some of it is being demolished and the listed public buildings are beings sold off, but I think they reached a compromise which squeezed the most potential out of the scheme, in terms of the extent and quality of the final community resources. They don't have a bottomless pot of money for refurbing and adapting the present school building, and it would have seriously curtailed the amount left to invest in the actual services provided, which Sharrow badly needs. They themselves weren't overjoyed at it, but in the grand scheme something had to give.

I have been a hermit this year so am not up to speed with what's going on, I have to add.

I have just remembered that Colin the head chap who headed the meeting I went to, is a forummer. I'll see if I can find him. :)

Edit: Just found this thread. (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94003) I'll pm 'sharrowforum' and ask them to tell us what the news is.

Thanks for the link :)

I see the user Sharrowforum said this, so maybe the school buildings will be retained and adapted?

There are no drawings or plans for the Sharrow Junior site yet.

Although the intention was for a new build, to enable it to be "fit for purpose", the project is currently reviewing wether this is still the best way forward. The original project plan was created over 2 years ago so many things have changed since then.

The decision on build or re-furb will be based on what services and facilities we are trying to provide from the site. The likeliest combination at present is library, CAB, adult ed classrooms, youth facilities, cafe but there is still time for other things to be added. Once these have been finalised then the building required to house them can be finalised.

And if it is new build, then we will be trying our hardest to get something that lasts, that adds character to the area, and is basically better than what is there now. Not sure if that is achievable, but got to give it a go.

The building is structually sound, and already houses numerous classrooms, hall, library and offices. This could be easily converted into a community hub.

However, it would create more work and jobs to knock it down and build it again. There is no doubt already funding for this, and a building contractor lined up to do the job.

There's nothing like informed opinion...

...and this is nothing like informed opinion. :rolleyes:

There's nothing like informed opinion...

...and this is nothing like informed opinion. :rolleyes:

There is nothing major wrong with the building and your comments are uncalled for.
They should sort out the traffic in that area it is an absolute nightmare. South View Road and Vincent Road should be made one way so the work like a roundabout

There is nothing major wrong with the building and your comments are uncalled for.
They should sort out the traffic in that area it is an absolute nightmare. South View Road and Vincent Road should be made one way so the work like a roundabout

Uncalled for? Calling ignorant comments ignorant? And I don't mean ignorant in the insult sense, but genuinely ignorant of what the entire project means. They are having to rearrange and rehouse entire services, and accommodate the occupants and resources from several other large buildings while making those services even better and more accessible. A junior school library isn't going to be a satisfactory home for the entire contents of Highfield Library as well is it? They have said they are going to retain what they can if possible, but I think people are misunderstanding the extent of the changes involved on the site, and how interdependent all the details are. There's *nothing wrong with the building*, until you factor in what they are trying to do with the site. Which, it's worth stressing, will ultimately be a major improvement for the people of Sharrow, from all walks of life and all ages. Did you read the statement Alistair posted? They would prefer to save the building too, but don't want the end-product to be compromised too much either. Have you yourself gone to Sharrow Community Forum and tried discussing the fact that 'there's nothing wrong with the building' and seeing what they say? Or are you just saving your expertise for this thread?

As regards your chastisement of my posting decorum, Go4it chose to ignore everything I had posted, which was from the perspective of someone who knows a degree of what's involved, as well as ignoring the content of the links, and that's hardly good manners is it? I have at least taken the trouble to attend meetings, I've met organisers of the scheme, and other people I known whose work means know a great deal about the issues involved, I've seen similar comments to those on this thread discussed and the complexities and snags and dilemmas disected, so I think on balance my comment was called for.



PS this isn't about traffic, you should start another thread if you think it's worth discussing.

The external structure of these old buildings is far superior to anything being built by the council today. New buildings have a design life of 40 years and that's how long they'll last.
It's the internal layout in the old buildings that's the big problem for today's users.
Changing the inside is quite possible but can be as expensive as new build.
The deciding factor is VAT. New build is zero rated but alterations are taxed at 17.5%.
This can easily add £200,000 to the job.
Hence we are losing a lot of fine old historic buildings.
Has anyone contacted the Hallamshire Historic Buildings Society about this?

I'm not being ignorant. I know A LOT about that building and have spent many hours / days / weeks in it.

I believe the plan is to knock down half of the school but keep the other half. Inside the new building will be highfield library, mount pleasent college (run by Sheffield College) and sharrow citizens advice. There are other groups considering moving in there too. The architect has started to work on the plans, its the same lady who designed sharrow school. And the library will be sold off, but whoever buys it could possibly knock it down, as apparently only the inscription above the door is listed, not the whole building. I don't know how true that is though. It is supposed to be ready to move into by sept 2010. I work for one of the organisations moving into the new building, and we were only told for definate that this would be going ahead at a meeting on monday, but have known about it for a few years now. Highfield library would need a lot of money spent on it to make it conform to fire and safety reg's, and I guess that the council decided that it would be better to move into a new building rather then spend money on the current building. ALL of the money from the sale of the library will be put into this project though. As for the part of the school that is being retained, I've no idea what will be put in there!

A file showing all the listed buildings in Sheffield is available from the council, here

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/urban-design--conservation/conservation/listed-buildings

"Highfield library and adjoining librarians house" are Grade 2, implying more than just the inscription is listed

but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to knock it down, it'll just be a lot harder to! I think it will be turned into flats because it's quite a big building and by altering the floor levels you can fit at least 4 floors in there, the ceiling in children's library is actually false so theres basically another floor above it. It'll be 'luxury flats' or maybe student flats.

but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to knock it down, it'll just be a lot harder to! I think it will be turned into flats because it's quite a big building and by altering the floor levels you can fit at least 4 floors in there, the ceiling in children's library is actually false so theres basically another floor above it. It'll be 'luxury flats' or maybe student flats.

Yes, flats!

To reflect the cultural heritage of the area it could be called Methadone Mews.

haha, yep, I've also noticed that someone is advertising some newly refurbished flats next to roundabout opposite the library, they want 450 a month for em, which doesn't sound too bad until you factor in the drug dealer behind them and the trouble that often occours outside roundabout. I personally think that putting the library up sharrow lane will discourage people from using it as it is a bit out of the way compared to where it is now. Also, they promised that the new library will have the same floor space, but in actual fact the whole space is less then the ground floor of the current building, which basically means that the children's library will end up being shoved in a corner, which we are not happy about. The space that the Children's library has is unique, and smaller space means that the children's activities put on for the local kids will not be able to happen.

Yes, flats!

To reflect the cultural heritage of the area it could be called Methadone Mews.

It really has turned into smack alley around there, more great planning, move them all from the city centre where they can be monitored by CCTV, where a lot of the sevices these people need to use are and dump them in one of the poorest parts of the city.
Still I suppose it makes the city centre look a bit better for the 7 tourists who accidently find themselves in the craphole that is Sheffield.

This is a really interesting thread to read, because those of us involved in this project have been through the same debate for the last 2 years.

So, to be clear, the plan as it stands is to knock down the part of the Junior school nearest to Sharrow Lane and replace it with a 3 or 4 storey building that will hold a library, adult education, cafe, CAB, Grange Crescent day service, youth services, and various community groups. The architect who designed the new Sharrow School is currently drawing up initial diagrams, after months of agreeing what space etc the tenants need.

So, once they initial drawings are ready we will be asking for feedback on them, whilst hoping to submit a planning application in February, with a completion date sometime in 2010.

The back end of the Junior school, ie that bit not next to Sharrow Lane, is going to be used in the interim by various organisations, partly to ensure it doesnt get vandalised too badly. But the theory says that once the new building is complete this bit will be sold off, since the income from its sale is required to make the finances stack up. Who it is sold to, and for what, is still open to debate.

The current library building will be sold as part of this project, not demolished. Again there is no decision on who to sell it to yet, since it cant be sold until the new library is finished, although it has always been clear that locally people would prefer some form of public use, even if that is restaurant, to private housing. But I suspect it will go to whoever wants to buy it the most.

And so, back to the current Junior school buildings. It is true that they look nice, but the teachers who used it last year will testify that it wasnt a great place to work - drafty, leaking roof, rooms the wrong size/shape. It would be possible to convert, but not within reasonable economic boundaries. This is because the new facilities require 2107 m2, which would fit in the front building, so if we wanted a Sharrow Lane frontage we would have to use both buildings, which would reduce the potential income.

But more importantly we want to create buildings that serve their purpose better than the current ones. To squeeze services into the odl buildings would not do this. It would rely on a compromise, which is not the point of this project. The aim is to provide better facilities to integrate services. There is no point inmoving the library from its current location just to wedge it into another old building. We want to move it to purpose built, accessible to all, premises, with the CAB and adult education provision on site, so that people in Sharrow can get top quality services in top quality surroundings.

The project team is well aware that the old buildings look nice, and we dont build buildings to last in the same way as a society any more. But staying as we are seems a poor option as these buildings increasingly break down. So, after much talking, we are taking the chance to deliver somethnig great for Sharrow.

It would be interesting to be able to compare proposals from contractors who made bids for the rebuild, perhaps there was a proposal for a renovation of the existing buildings? Or was it only an assumption that refurb would be more expensive?

Renovation of old buildings represents the most efficient (even if not in terms of cost, at the moment) use of the space, how much landfill is there in a late 19th century school?

Modern building techniques allow for considerable reshaping of internal space and 'bolt on' external spaces, whilst maintaining the original layout and features of external walls. Was this kind of solution really not an option?

Many people will be sad to see the loss of this historic school building, I hope that it's replacement is not in the 'tin shed' style favoured by so called architects at the moment, though the cynic in me suggests it might be.

Rest assured we went through a lengthy process, with various "experts" involved, to determine the cost effectiveness of refurbishing versus new building.

But it wasnt only about money. As I said, the point of this project is to integrate service provision in buildings fit for purpose, and refurbishing would not do this.

This project has involved persuading Sheffield City Council to take a risk in order to create better facilities, since the new building will have to be built first before old ones can be sold, so we have had to make the case quite strongly that this is the best way forward. The easy option would definately be refurb, but Sharrow shouldnt settle for the easy option.

I should also point out that this project has had a Board setting its direction which included council officers, community reps, and key local organisations, so this outcome has not been pushed through by any one body. We have also been consulting on this for 2 years, so although we realise many people have still not heard about it we have been listening to community views.

Is it not possible to rebuild some of the architectural features into a new building, or at lease reuse them somewhere else in Sheffield, or will the part to be demolished just be trashed and smashed by machinery with no attempt to save anything? Granted the general stonework of the walls could be sold off for buildings, it would be sad to see fine worked masonry which would be expensive to reduplicate these days, just go to waste, as it has in so many other buildings.

It is indeed possible to save bits of the building, and re-use some bits in the new building. The architect involved is keen on this sort of thing, and indeed the new school have a reception desk made from the ceiling beams from the school it replaced. Feel free to let us know any ideas for this.

It is indeed possible to save bits of the building, and re-use some bits in the new building. The architect involved is keen on this sort of thing, and indeed the new school have a reception desk made from the ceiling beams from the school it replaced.

When he was an old men my grandfather gave my father his hammer, my father used it often and with pride, but over the years the handle broke and was replaced. My father gave the hammer to me and I’ve used it for years but the head got worn and I replaced it. I wonder, is it still Grandfather’s Hammer I’ll be passing on when I’m an old man?

If new buildings are designed with a 40 year lifespan. Then in 40 years we’ll have replaced grandfather’s hammer, sorry Sharrow, with unloved, leaky, breezeblock and aluminium eyesores (which unlike the current buildings will have a ZERO refurbishment option). And there will be reception desks in these new buildings made from parts of the old buildings, to rub our noses in it.

When he was an old men my grandfather gave my father his hammer, my father used it often and with pride, but over the years the handle broke and was replaced. My father gave the hammer to me and I’ve used it for years but the head got worn and I replaced it. I wonder, is it still Grandfather’s Hammer I’ll be passing on when I’m an old man?

If new buildings are designed with a 40 year lifespan. Then in 40 years we’ll have replaced grandfather’s hammer, sorry Sharrow, with unloved, leaky, breezeblock and aluminium eyesores (which unlike the current buildings will have a ZERO refurbishment option). And there will be reception desks in these new buildings made from parts of the old buildings, to rub our noses in it.

The Rathbon family have for generations handing down the Rathbon Rake, a plastic gardening implement that dates back to the Middle Ages. Over the years we've had to replace ever single part of it, but it's still a much-valued family heirloom.

The Rathbon family have for generations handing down the Rathbon Rake, a plastic gardening implement that dates back to the Middle Ages. Over the years we've had to replace ever single part of it, but it's still a much-valued family heirloom.

Basil, thanks for your story of a rake’s progress. Our family have kept a small terrier called Queenie since Regency days, yes she’s getting on and has had to be put down a few times, but it provides a sense of continuity doesn’t it?

Furthermore I propose that as each old building in Sharrow comes down we take the sturdy stone and timber and like London Bridge reconstruct them in a neighbouring district, say Nether Edge. Then in 40 years time lets see which district has attracted the most thirty-something professionals and their lovably precocious children.

The Rathbon family have for generations handing down the Rathbon Rake, a plastic gardening implement that dates back to the Middle Ages. Over the years we've had to replace ever single part of it, but it's still a much-valued family heirloom.

a little like trigger's broom, in "Only Fools And Horses"? It's had five new stales, and four new heads, but it's his faithful, original broom?

But a Trigger's broom is still a broom, it isnt trying to be a sink. So can a school building be expected to become a library and youth facility and CAB and community rooms and adult education facility and be totally accessible to everyone? It is a hard ask.

I guess I should state clearly that most of those involved in this project have had a lot of sympathy with the notion of re-using buildings, it was the original starting point, but it has become clear that if we follow that path then the project is killed stone dead because it is not affordable and so we lose the chance to get better facilities in Sharrow and to integrate the services that people use.

But we dont understand why our society is in a position of accepting short-term buildings either, and we will try our hardest to push the quality of this building to the limit. Have a look round the new Sharrow School and let us know what you think of that.

But a Trigger's broom is still a broom, it isnt trying to be a sink. So can a school building be expected to become a library and youth facility and CAB and community rooms and adult education facility and be totally accessible to everyone? It is a hard ask.

I guess I should state clearly that most of those involved in this project have had a lot of sympathy with the notion of re-using buildings, it was the original starting point, but it has become clear that if we follow that path then the project is killed stone dead because it is not affordable and so we lose the chance to get better facilities in Sharrow and to integrate the services that people use.

But we dont understand why our society is in a position of accepting short-term buildings either, and we will try our hardest to push the quality of this building to the limit. Have a look round the new Sharrow School and let us know what you think of that.

OK, I haven't seen the new Sharrow School so will take a look.

Why is there a need to integrate the services? That's the bit I don't get.

Alastair, I think I have made an assumption that everyone agrees with the integration is best argument, when I should have explained it first. So here goes.

The theory is in 2 parts: firstly, many of the people using services in Sharrow use multiple services, but we have them dotted around, so we make the "customer" do the work to try and find the services. This is particularly unfair when we have so many people who are new to the area. So integrating the services, physically or not, would help those people find the right services for them.

Secondly, each of the services could learn from other similar services, share resources, and develop holstic view of "customers" if they knew more about how the other services worked.

Now integration of services (in the second sense above) doesnt necessarily have to involve physically sitting in the same building, and we have already made some move towards this by having staff from different services visiting each other and sharing info about what they do. Indeed even integration in the first sense above could be achieved by better signage, to some extent.

I will give a classic example of someone who comes to our Jobnet service, looking for support in finding work, but it is obvious that they need to brush up their literacy skills first (which would involve a course at Mount Pleasant). In addition they need to resolve a dispute with their landlord, which involves a trip to the CAB, and they will need some advice on how working will affect their benefits. This person does not want to explain all this to 4 different agencies, often they dont want to explain it all to anyone, so once they have confided in someone the agencies need to co-ordinate their support.

On a more mundane level, many people who use the CAB, or employment advice, or Mount Pleasant's adult education, will need to do some research that involves the use of library services.

Alastair, I think I have made an assumption that everyone agrees with the integration is best argument, when I should have explained it first. So here goes.

The theory is in 2 parts: firstly, many of the people using services in Sharrow use multiple services, but we have them dotted around, so we make the "customer" do the work to try and find the services. This is particularly unfair when we have so many people who are new to the area. So integrating the services, physically or not, would help those people find the right services for them.

Secondly, each of the services could learn from other similar services, share resources, and develop holstic view of "customers" if they knew more about how the other services worked.


I don't see that the idea that Sharrow has lots of incomers justifies integrating the services on one site. I suppose you mean the area has lots of immigrants. Don't you think that someone who had the gumption to find their way to Sharrow from some far flung country should be credited with enough common sense to find their way to the CAB or the library if they need to?


I would argue that library services should not be seen as part of social services. Libraries are there for anyone with enough intelligence to realise what a great institution they are.

Not all of the people new to Sharrow are immigrants, but many are used to a different system and different languages. And it is not about gumption, it is about not making life harder than it has to be. But, you have argued against our proposition, but not told me why you would prefer to stick with buildings which do not help their services. Why are the buildings more important than the people that use them?

Both my children went to Sharrow Nursery and I still use Sharrow Medical centre even though I live outside the area now.

I took a walk round the area yesterday and saw the new school which looks far better than what it replaced, although the style is more in keeping with the modern Tesco school of architecture than the local area. I'm not sure the wooden slats and chrome are going to look nice in 10 years time either. Presumably a more permanent perimeter will be built when money is available.

Highfield Library, what a great building, what a great library! Why change a winning formula?

Mount Pleasant - it's not right that the council has to look after that listed building and I agree with the plan to sell it off for private use.

The old Sharrow Junior school - It's a fine stone building and should be preserved. Imagine the cost of building something with that level of craftsmanship now? I can see how the smaller buildings on the main road could be demolished, but I'm hoping the plan includes preserving and adapting the main building.

Buildings and people - good old buildings are worth keeping because they give people a sense of history and permanence. They are often pleasing to the eye too.

Highfield Library, what a great building, what a great library! Why change a winning formula?

Mount Pleasant - it's not right that the council has to look after that listed building and I agree with the plan to sell it off for private use.



I think Highfield library is being abandoned because of the lack of disabled access - although it's no worse than the Central Library and there seem to be no plans to close that.

If the council actually own Mount Pleasant why shouldn't they have an obligation to maintain it ? Personally I don't think it has much architectural merit - it probably looked very grand in it's original surroundings but sticks out like a sore thumb these days.

They fitted disabled access in the Town Hall without any problem.

There's a big ramp up to the main entrance of Highfield Library so there's already disabled access to the ground floor at least.

As for Mt Pleasant what I meant and failed to express was it is a bit of a liability for the council at present. I think it's future is best safeguarded in private hands.

There's a big ramp up to the main entrance of Highfield Library so there's already disabled access to the ground floor at least.

As for Mt Pleasant what I meant and failed to express was it is a bit of a liability for the council at present. I think it's future is best safeguarded in private hands.

Didn't know about the ramp up to the library - I just remember the steps.

Certainly the council should sell Mount Pleasant if they can find a buyer, they too often allow listed buildings in their care to fall into a state of serious disrepair and ultimately demolition.

I remember it from the the late 40s as a dark, Dickensian building, but like just about everything in Sheffield then, - it was sooty black :)

Hard to imagine that the grounds and gardens of Mount Pleasant when it was first built contained all the land later bounded by Abbeydale road, Herschell road and Vincent road.

BTW is Brightfield House still standing ? I believe that was built about the same time as Mount Pleasant.

(snipped) Hard to imagine that the grounds and gardens of Mount Pleasant when it was first built contained all the land later bounded by Abbeydale road, Herschell road and Vincent road.

BTW is Brightfield House still standing ? I believe that was built about the same time as Mount Pleasant.

I didn't realise that all that land belonged to the house! Crikey! I presumed that the land layout was as it was in the seventies, where the walls bounded sitwell road and sharrow lane.

You can still see, on the Mount Pleasant House boundary wall, the stone gateposts of a gateway, facing onto Sharrow Lane, nearer the old bank that's now Rossi's Restaurant, It's bricked up with a different brickwork. I assumed the drive was an in-and-out thing. I didn't think there was more to the land (despite my knowlege that the area bounded by abbeydale road and Herschell rd/ vincent road wasn't built on for a hundred years or so after he building of MPH, MPH being built in about 1750/1756, and the old housing in which I grew up as a kid was built in the mid 1860s. (The house oppposite us had a plaque on the wall dating it to 1866)

Which one is Brightfield House?

Is that the old georgian-looking "doctors" house, on the opposite side of Sharrow lane, which became the Charnwood hotel which is now swish apartments?

they COULD make highfield library fit with disablilty and fire regs, but it would cost them too much money- it needs a lift, a fire exit from the first floor, and a new roof as the current one leaks. A few years ago we were told it would cost over 40 grand just for the lift.