regulation 19 statement of representations · policy lg1 city regions 3 representations – 3...

1

Regulation 19 Statement of Representations – Barnsley Local Plan Publication 2016

1. Introduction This statement considers the representations received following the consultation on Barnsley’s Local Plan Draft 2014 and Addittional Consultation 2015. It sets out how many representations were received and summarises the main issues raised by the representations and how they were taken into account. Local Plan Consultation Draft 2014 The Local Plan Consultation Draft was available for consultation for 6 weeks from 10th November to the 21st December 2014. We extended this period to allow additional comments for 3 weeks from 22nd December 2014 to 11th December 2015. In addition as the consultation portal prematurely closed due to an error in how the date and time of the event were set, the consultation portal was reopened until Friday 16th January 2015 to allow those people using the consultation system to complete their comments online. We wrote to around 5300 people and organisations either by letter or email. This included specific and general consultees, Duty to Cooperate consultees and everyone on our consultation database. Appendices 1 to 5 provide a summary of the consultation undertaken.

A total of 3782 representations were received from 1900 people. The detailed representations are stored and collated on a database system. All of these representations are being taken into account when preparing the next stage of the plan.

Barnsley Local Plan Additional Consultation 2015 The Local Plan Additional Consultation was available for consultation for 6 weeks from 30th October to 11th December 2015.

2

We extended this period to allow comments on site AC42 from 11th to 23rd December 2015. We wrote to around 5300 people and organisations either by letter or email. This included specific and general consultees, Duty to Cooperate consultees and everyone on our consultation database. In addition, notices were posted at each of the sites we consulted on. Appendices 1-4 provide a summary of the consultation undertaken. A total of 1415 representations were received from 643 people. The detailed representations are stored and collated on a database system. All of these representations are being taken into account when preparing the next stage of the plan.

2. Representations This section of the statement outlines the main issues raised during the consultations. It should be noted that this is not a definitive list of all the individual representations received but rather a broad summary of the main issues raised. The issues are summarised from representations therefore do not represent the views of planning officers or the Council. The statement does not set out the Council’s response to the representations. The numbers of representations quoted are current indicative figures. We are unable to guarantee that the figures are exact for a number of reasons such as where representations have been entered via the website they have often been made against the wrong consultation point and therefore may not have been included in a count against a specific policy. Other issues may be where we have received duplicates, or where we have no contact details or comments are illegible. Where we have received petitions, representations are logged against each of the individual valid entries. A valid entry is one which includes a legible name, full address (including house name or number) and signature.

Local Plan Consultation Draft 2014

Section, policy, question or site

Summary of the main issues raised How issues raised have been taken account of

Consultation Process 897 objections were received on the consultation process itself. The main emphasis of these objections is summarised as follows:

The consultation documents were complicated and

The Statement of Community Involvement was revised in 2015 in order to make clear how people would be consulted.

3



difficult to understand.

It was difficult for people without a computer to access or comment on the consultation documents.

Not all supporting documents where made available during the consultation period.

There was a lack of publicity about the consultation.

Residents were not informed about the consultation and/ or a specific proposal.

Public meetings should have been held.

The early closure of consultation portal denied people the opportunity to comment online.

The Local Plan covers a wide range of complex issues and is supported by technical evidence base. We try to write documents in plain English, however the terminology we need to use makes this difficult. We did our utmost to make as much information as possible available. We accept some additional information that may have provided assistance in the form of background papers were not released for all topics. Barnsley Central Library and branch libraries have computer equipment available for people to use. We publicised the Local Plan consultation widely. Appendix 1 sets out how we have consulted. Our approach is to hold drop in sessions rather than public meetings. In our experience these work better as they allow officers to explain issues more fully.

Vision and Objectives 10 representations – 5 objections, 2 conditional supports, 2 comments, 1 support

Considers proposals do not meet the needs of

The Vision and Objectives remain unchanged. The monitoring and indicators section sets out some indicators and targets

4



existing local communities

Vision is unrealistic – plan appears to have been engineered to facilitate removal of large tracts of land from the Green Belt.

Plan fails to take account of relevant topics and should clarify what the objectives really mean

Need to do more than just provide opportunities

Definition of ‘Urban Barnsley’ needs clarifying

Vision should be amended to allow for monitoring of success and to indicate the specific objectives needed to deliver it

Supports aims to widen choice of high quality homes and improve design to enhance Barnsley as a place that will improve quality of life but considers large developments will not achieve these aims

Broad support, subject to consistency with other policies, particularly in relation to employment land requirements and housing numbers

Comment confirming no objections to the Plan.

against the objectives.

Figure 1 No representations received

Figure 2 14 representations – 7 objections, 4 support, 3 comments

Concern at loss of local distinctiveness of Darton village from inclusion with Urban Barnsley settlement

The importance of the Trans-Pennine Trail for recreation and as a means of sustainable transport should be recognised and shown on the key diagram

Welcomes statement on retention of local

The key diagram remains unchanged. The ‘Northern Economic Corridor’ was not on the key diagram but on the Local Plan Policies Map in 2014. This has now been removed.

5



distinctiveness but considers that the importance of Elsecar needs to be acknowledged

Clarification sought on the function, role and aspirations of the Northern Economic Corridor. Objects to the proposed route and suggests alternative road alignments

Support for the general thrust of the Plan but considers a number of policies to be unsound in their current form

Concerns that perpetual growth will be unsustainable and will detrimentally affect health, living conditions and the environment

Support for Spatial Strategy as considered to be consistent with national policy

Support for identification of Royston as a Principal Town

Support the principles of the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy

Comment welcoming the retention of the Core Strategy Spatial Strategy but suggesting that existing transport links to Sheffield City Region could be highlighted further

Suggestion that the forthcoming Nature Improvement Area Planning Advice Note referred to in the chapter on Green Infrastructure is also referenced at para. 5.23 in Spatial Strategy chapter.

Comment expressing the opinion that proposals will go ahead regardless of objections

Policy SD1 Presumption in favour

6 representations – 2 support, 2 conditional support, 2 comments

Policy SD1 remains unchanged as it was a model policy suggested by the Planning

6



of Sustainable Development

General support for policy and wording

Supports the collaborative approach described in the policy

Support the policy but need to ensure all other plan policies are consistent with it

Considers the policy should include reference to transport

Comments that permissions given need to be monitored to ensure requirements are delivered.

Inspectorate.

Policy GD1 General Development

21 representations – 18 objections, 3 comments

Objection to use of Green belt for housing allocations

Suggestion that policy should make reference to the social and economic aspects inherent to sustainable development

Policy should ensure no loss of valued community services and facilities

Consider policy to be unsound as it is neither positively prepared, effective nor sufficiently justified. Proposes amended wording

Support in principle but requires further clarification and suggests alterations/additions to wording

Welcomes reference to planting and green walls and to supporting development that protects or enhances quality and efficient use of natural assets including water, but suggests reference to protecting and enhancing soils should also be included

Encouraged that the policy will minimise and

Some issues have been added to GD1.

7



mitigate the impact on the environment, natural resources, waste and pollution, but could go further in promoting enhancements measures. Also happy that proposed developments will be assessed for their impact on living conditions

Comments that permissions given need to be monitored to make ensure requirements are delivered, otherwise there is limited use in making the requirements.

Policy GD2 Temporary Buildings and Uses

2 representations – 1 support, 1 comment

Supports the wording of the policy as temporary buildings are beneficial to the on-going delivery of healthcare services

Comment seeking confirmation that the policy covers use for temporary car parks and requests a revision to the text

GD2 remains unaltered. Specific uses will be considered on their individual merits depending on location, access issues etc.

Policy LG1 City Regions

3 representations – 3 objections

Objects that proposed plan is to create commuter housing for the surrounding cities and fails to take account of transport infrastructure or local services.

Policy needs to encourage sustainable development close to public transport hubs and maximise links to them.

Unclear how co-operation has been translated into the plan. Recommendation that a background paper on duty to co-operate is produced prior to the next stage of consultation and LG1 is amended to include positive statements to aid a decision maker.

Minor amendment made to LG1, change to read ‘favourable economic position’. Our view is that the Plan does not propose to create commuter housing. The starting point for the Objectively Assessed Housing figure is household projections for Barnsley. A Duty to Co-operate Background Paper will be available with the Publication version of the Local Plan in order to set out how we have met the legal duty to date.

8



Other policies in the Local Plan deal with encouraging sustainable travel and development.

Policy LG2 The Location of Growth

21 representations – 11 objections, 5 support, 2 conditional support, 3 comments

Support for focus of growth of Urban Barnsley and Principal Towns but consider sustainable credentials of other settlements should not be overlooked where there may be opportunities for growth

Concern that lack of an archaeological scoping study of proposed allocation sites could cause conflict between the desire to protect the historic environment and the need to agree areas of growth

Considers that the Council continues to ignore the wishes of the local population

Concern that sites not allocated for executive housing in the rural west

Policy considered too restrictive for villages

Policy should be amended to provide more flexibility for development in a range of locations

Numerous concerns with the approach of the plan, particularly with regard to the reasons for and impact of releasing Green Belt land.

Considers that not supporting significant development in villages in the west of the borough will have a negative impact on local facilities and will restrict economic growth of the borough by not providing appropriate housing for business owners and senior employers and employees.

Policy LG2 remains unchanged. The rationale for the settlement hierarchy is set out in our supporting information, for example the Plan Wide Viablility Study.

9



Supportive of policy which focuses development in already developed areas, leaving greenbelt intact.

Support for the approach and aims of the policy.

Policy E1 Providing Strategic Employment Locations

12 Representations – 6 Objections, 4 Supports, 2 Comments Concerns include:

Employment land requirement is too ambitious.

Proposed job increase targets are unrealistic.

Questions the need to allocate more land when there are empty shops and factories.

Employment land requirement lacks ambition and aspiration.

Policy should make reference to strategic sites which have more certainty over delivery.

Employment land requirement needs to be consistent with and informed by Sheffield City Region Economic Plan and its evidence base.

Policy E1 remains unchanged. The reason for our approach is set out in our supporting information, for example Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Plan Wide Viablility Study.

Policy E2 The Distribution of New Employment Sites

7 representations – 4 objections, 2 comments, 1 support

Concerns include:

Policy needs to be less prescriptive.

The Council has failed to promote an appropriate portfolio of sites.

The policy reinforces a motorway based approach to employment location which is unsustainable

The proposed distribution of employment sites has changed slightly due to dealing with issues raised and more information gathered about specific sites. The policy reflects the actual sites proposed. The reason for our approach is set out in our supporting information, for example Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Plan

10



Welcomes employment allocation in the Rockingham area.

Wide Viablility Study.

Policy E3 Employment Site Policies

7 Representations – 5 Objections, 1 Support, 1 Comment

Concerns include:

Site Policy for UB1 required which makes reference to the need to safeguard heritage assets.

MU1 should be considered in its own right due to the mix of uses proposed.

An additional mechanism is required to assess the cumulative impact of development across the suite of sites.

Welcomes the inclusion of reference to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape assets in the site policies. Reference to the Nature Improvement Area SPD should also be made.

Site specific policies included in Publication version.

Table 1 Proposed allocations in Urban Barnsley

No representations

UB1 Birthwaite Business Park

No representations

UB3 Claycliffe Business Park

No representations

UB5 Zenith No representations

11



UB7 Capitol Park Extension

1 Representation – 1 Support The site is proposed as an employment land allocation.

UB8 Capitol Park No representations

UB9 Land east of Wakefield Road

2 Representations – 1 Objection, 1 Comment

Site should be proposed for mixed use.

Due to the proximity of overhead power lines, any development on this site will need to take into account restrictions on statutory safety clearances.

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version, reference AC3. We have added a reference to pylons to policy GD1 and cross referred to that policy in H3 Housing Site Policies

UB12 Bromcliffe Business Park

No representations

UB13 Oaks Business Park

No representations

UB15 Land south of Doncaster Road

No representations

UB16 Bleachcroft Way Industrial Estate

3 Representations – 2 Objections, 1 Support Concerns include:

Impact on the historic environment.

Site is unviable for employment use.

Welcome the reference to the protection of wet woodlands.

The site is proposed as an employment site in the Publication version.

Table 2 Mixed Use allocation in Barnsley

No representations

MU1 Land South of Barugh Green Road

837 Representations – 824 Objections (including a petition containing 563 valid entries), 9 Comments, 4 Supports

The site is proposed as a mixed use allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered

12



Concerns include:

Highways capacity, congestion and safety.

Inadequate public transport provision.

Local infrastructure will not be able to cope.

Increased pressure on Schools, health services and local amenities (shops) and the emergency services.

Loss of Green Belt, Countryside and Greenspace leading to the merging of villages and the loss of their identity.

Loss of agricultural land.

Brownfield sites should be developed first.

Site has potential for aspirational (executive) housing.

Proposed density (40 dph) is not compatible with existing housing.

Negative Biodiversity/ Ecological impact.

Ground stability questioned due to mining legacy.

Inadequate drainage and flood risk.

Negative impact on the landscape and character of the area.

Increased pollution (air, noise and light).

Negative impact on sensitive neighbouring uses (including Barnsley Hospice).

Questions the need for more houses and employment land.

Questions why it is the only mixed use site.

Non planning issues (impact on property values, loss of views).

Allocation/ development is a done deal (due to

as part of the site selection process. A site policy is provided which sets out specific issues that need to be addressed. It requires a masterplan and provision of a primary school on the site. Further information about this site and relevant transport modelling work is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Comments about the consultation process have been dealt with above.

13



developer discussions, submission of funding bids and development is a means of funding the link road).

Questions the integrity of the evidence base.

Policy will need to consider the drain/ culvert on site.

Assessment of coal reserves on site should be undertaken.

Proposal is contrary to the Governments Green Economy objectives.

Development will compromise the wellbeing of residents.

Heritage should not be sacrificed for developers profits.

Site is viable.

Any disruption will be minimal and once completed the plans will benefit the area.

Key concerns raised in the petition include:

Consultation process (access to consultation documents is too complicated for those without access to a computer)

Loss of Green Belt (consider Green Belt review is flawed)

Housing mix and density incompatible with existing

Insufficient use being made of brownfield sites

Lack of demand for industrial sites throughout the Borough

Impact on air quality and pollution

Loss of farmland and effect on associated livelihoods

Impact on wildlife

14



Flood risk and drainage

Table 3 Proposed allocations in Cudworth

No representations

C2 land off Ferrymoor Way

1 Representation – 1 Support

Welcome the reference to no built development in Flood Zone 2 and 3.

This site is proposed as an employment allocation. A site policy is provided which picks up the flood zone issue.

C3 Land west of Springvale Road

No representations

C4 Land east of Springvale Road

No representations

Table 4 Proposed allocations in Goldthorpe

No representations

D1 Land South of Dearne Valley Parkway

10 Representations – 10 Objections Concerns include:


Biodiversity and ecological impact, particularly on RSPB reserve.

The proposed allocation is incompatible with the Nature Improvement Area and the Dearne Valley Eco-vision

Ground stability concerns due to mining legacy.

Reference is needed to the area of Flood Zone 3 and watercourses within the site.

Development could increase flood risk.

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. The site area has been increased to 72.9ha. A site policy is provided to deal with issues such as biodiversity and flood risk. Further information about this site is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

15




Negative impact on people’s health and wellbeing.

Negative impact on Billingley Conservation area.

Loss of Green Belt.




Questions the need for more employment land.

More employment land should be allocated in this location.

D2 Fields End Business Park

1 Representation – 1 Objection

The policy should refer to the culvert/ drain running through the site.

This issue applied to a number of sites. Therefore we have added this point to policy GD1 and crossed referenced the site policies to it.

D3 Thurnscoe Business Park


The policy should refer to the culvert running through the site.

This issue applied to a number of sites. Therefore we have added this point to policy GD1 and crossed referenced the site policies to it.

D4 Lidget Lane Industrial Estate

No representations

Table 5, RSV1 Land South of Dearne Valley Parkway

11 Representations – 11 Objections Concerns include:


Biodiversity and ecological impact, particularly on RSPB reserve.

The proposed allocation is incompatible with the

The site is proposed as a reserve employment land allocation in the Publication version. The site area has been decreased to 98 ha. A site policy is provided to deal with issues such as biodiversity and flood risk. Further information about this site is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

16



Nature Improvement Area and the Dearne Valley Eco-vision.

Areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 within the site should not be built on.

Development could increase flood risk.


Negative impact on Billingley Conservation area.

Loss of Green Belt.





More detail is needed on what is being proposed and how it will come forward.

More employment land should be allocated in this location.

Table 6 Proposed allocations in Hoyland

3 Representations – 2 Objections, 1 Comment

Hoyland is receiving a disproportionate share of the new employment sites proposed for Barnsley.

Development should come forward in a phased approach in accordance with representor’s masterplan.

Dialogue is required with the Highways Agency to ensure planned highways improvements are sufficient to meet future demand on the network.

Discussions are held with Highways England under Duty to Co-operate.

HOY1 Land West of Sheffield Road

7 Representations – 6 Objections, 1 Support, 1 Conditional Support

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which seeks production of

17



Concerns include:

Highways infrastructure is not adequate.

Biodiversity and ecological impact.

Negative impact on the landscape.

Loss of Green Belt, Countryside and Green Space.



Potential to expand the proposed allocation.

Supports the sites removal from Green Belt, would also support sites allocation for housing.

a masterplan covering a number of sites, and deals with issues such as biodiversity. Further information about this site is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

HOY2 Rockingham 1 Representation – 1 Conditional Support

Support, potential for more land to be included in the allocation.

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which seeks production of a masterplan covering a number of sites.

HOY3 Shortwood Extension

3 Representations – 1 Objection,1 Support, 1 Conditional Support

Loss of Green Belt and Green space.

Questions the need for more buildings/ employment land.

Support the protection of Green Ways and public footpaths.

Support, subject to the amendment of other plan policies.

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which seeks production of a masterplan covering a number of sites.

HOY4 Shortwood Business Park

1 Representation – 1 Comment

The site is on a historic landfill. Developments will be expected to undertake contamination investigations prior to development and complete necessary

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which seeks production of a masterplan covering a number of sites. The site policy deals with this point.

18



remedial works.

HOY5 land South of Dearne Valley Parkway

319 Representations – 317 Objections (including a petition containing 166 valid entries), 1 Support, 1 Conditional Support Concerns include:

Highways congestion and safety.

Loss of Green Belt

Loss of Green space

Loss of Countryside


Urban sprawl leading to loss of settlements identity, character and community spirit.

Damage to the areas landscape character.


Increased air and noise pollution.

Neighbouring land uses (loss of privacy).

Questions need for more employment land.


The site floods following heavy rainfall.

Adverse impact on the setting of a listed building.

Questions the integrity of the Green Belt review.

Non planning matters (devaluation of property, loss of views).

Support the protection of Green Ways and public footpaths.

Support, subject to the amendment of other plan policies.

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which seeks production of a masterplan covering a number of sites that will deal with issues such as biodiversity. Further information about this site is in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

19



Petition objects to the proposed sites due to lack of awareness of the consultation and request to be consulted at next stage of process

HOY7 Ashroyds No representations

Table 7 Proposed allocations in Penistone


More employment land should be allocated in Penistone.

One site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version.

P2 Land North of Sheffield Road

5 Representations – 4 Objections, 1 Support

Road safety concerns.

Safeguards needed to protect the woodland and river behind the site.

Developer should be required to retain dry stone walls.

Questions need for more employment land.

Due to the proximity of overhead power lines, any development on this site will need to take into account restrictions on statutory safety clearances.

P2 is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is included which covers issues such as protection of woodland and overhead power lines.

Table 8 Proposed allocations in Wombwell

No representations

W1 Mitchells Industrial No representations

W2 Everill Gate Lane 1 Representation - 1 Objection

Site should be given housing allocation.

W2 is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. We consider the site better suited to employment than housing.

Table 9 Proposed allocations outside

No representations

20



Urban Barnsley and Principal Towns

N1 Wentworth Industrial Park, Tankersley

No representations

N2 Land West of Park Spring Road, Houghton

3 Representations – 1 Objection, 2 Supports

The western part of the site is located in Flood Zone 2. The policy should reflect this and apply the Flood Risk Sequential Test.

N2 is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. A small part of the site is in Flood Zone 2 which can be avoided by built development.

N5 Land east of Park Spring Road, Houghton

1 Representation – 1 Support N5 is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version.

Policy E4 Land reserved for Employment

4 Representations – 4 Objections

A criterion for proving need should be stipulated in the policy as well as the guidance.

Queries the need for both policy E4 and RSV1 as there is only one site in this category.

The land should be allocated as a key business park and merged with D1.

The reference to Green Belt policies has been removed from the policy. We felt a separate policy E4 and site policy for RSV1 was warranted. No criterion has been added on need.

Policy E5 Uses on employment land

8 Representations – 7 Objections, 1 Comment

The Policy should be revised to acknowledge that alternative uses will be supported where it can be demonstrated it is the most sustainable option for the site.

The Policy is too restrictive.

The Policy is unnecessary.

The policy remains largely unchanged apart from a few minor tweaks. We consider the policy to be necessary and to have flexibility. A reference to the Joint Waste Plan has been added to the supporting text.

21



Additional Policy text is required to support additional investment and development in existing businesses.

A link between this Policy and Joint Waste Plan Policies WCS1 and WCS4 is required.

Policy E6 Protecting Existing Employment Land


The first bullet point should be removed to prevent re-use of a site which in all other respects is appropriate.

Concerned that the policy could prejudice non B class proposals. Additional wording is required to allow development that would significantly contribute to the Boroughs economy.

Minor tweaks have been made to the policy. We consider there is flexibility to allow other uses if the criteria in the policy can be satisfied.

Policy E7 Promoting Tourism and encouraging Cultural provision

6 Representations – 3 Objections, 2 Conditional Supports, 1 Comment

Questions what Barnsley has to offer to make it a place to visit.

Reference should be made to specific tourism opportunities.

The following text should be added to the Policy ‘Ensuring that any development proposals in the vicinity of existing tourist or cultural facilities do not threaten the attractiveness of these assets’.

Acknowledgement should be made of the role cultural facilities play in health, social and cultural wellbeing of residents.

The policy remains unchanged. The issue of development affecting tourist and cultural attractions is covered both in the second bullet point and in the heritage policies.

Policy E8 Rural 3 Representations – 2 comments, 1 Objection Final bullet point has been amended to read

22



Economy

Policy should be worded to make it clear that the preference is to develop lower quality agricultural land before the best agricultural land.

The Policy needs to distinguish between ‘rural’ and ‘urban fringe’.

Encouraging investment in active travel will attract further investment.

“protect the best quality agricultural land, areas of lower quality agricultural land should be used for development in preference to the best and most versatile land”

Policy E9 Loss of Shops and Local Services in Villages

3 Representations – 2 Supports, 1 Conditional support

Preference would be for an overarching Policy which covers all valued community facilities.

Policy title and wording amended to include community facilities.

Policy H1 The Number of New Homes to be Built

35 representations – 25 objections, 5 support

Considers that the housing allocation should be reduced in line with the SCR report, enabling development in the most sensitive green belt areas to be reduced or eliminated. Housing allocations should be based on what is right for Barnsley, not Sheffield.

Expresses concern at lack of any policy to bring empty and derelict homes back into use and reduce loss of green belt land

Concerned about the numbers of proposed new homes being built and a lack of corresponding uplift to local infrastructure / services i.e. schools, health services and roads.

Suggests proposed housing target figures should be revised to ensure housing provision supports economic growth

The net additional homes figure has been increased to 20,900 to ensure we meet our full objectively assessed housing need. A sentence has been added to the supporting text to make clear that empty homes will form part of our housing land supply. Site specific policies and other policies in the Local Plan will deal with air quality and pollution control issues. Further information on our approach is in our supporting documents such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Plan Wide Viability Study.

23



Questions the need for so many new homes

Brownfield land should be utilised before taking land from the Green Belt

Considers that additional land should be identified as suitable for residential development,

Concerns regarding the effect on health/pollution from proposed development adjoining the M1

Refers to lack of provision in the policy for children and vulnerable adults.

Considers all sites should have infrastructure in place to encourage and enable active travel.

Supports the requirement to maintain a minimum 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites

Supports ambitious housing target but questions reliance on windfall development

Policy H2 The Distribution of New Homes


Objection. Considers sites should be phased to ensure greenfield sites are developed last

Objection to proposed allocations for Hoyland and considers should be reduced in line with Core Strategy figures

Housing target is insufficient to meet needs

Notes that some of the densities set out in the plan are higher than permissions granted and questions how the shortfall in housing targets will be dealt with

Objection seeking an increase in distribution of housing development in Penistone to a minimum of 10%

The proposed distribution of housing sites has changed slightly due to dealing with issues raised and more information gathered about specific sites. The policy reflects the actual sites proposed together with planning permissions already granted that are part of our supply.

We have done further work on sites to ensure yield figures are realistic in terms of excluding areas of sites that are to remain undeveloped and applying a realistic gross

24



Object that the distribution of housing requirement is too restrictive for villages

Considers higher proportion of sites need to be allocated to meet housing requirement and reference to windfalls should be deleted

Policy needs to be less prescriptive and more flexible in terms of housing land supply and locations

Greater flexibility should be built into the plan through the allocation of additional sites

The distribution should offer more flexibility for the market by allocating sites outside of the Principal Towns.

Local Plan is consistent with utility providers expected uptake areas.

Support proposed growth in Penistone, Hoyland and Urban Barnsley as a number of the residents are likely to commute to Sheffield for work

to net ratio.

The distribution reflects the settlement hierarchy. There are other policies in the Plan that provide flexibility to allow development outside Urban Barnsley and the Principal Towns where appropriate.

Further information on our approach is in our supporting documents such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Plan Wide Viability Study.

Table 11 Urban Barnsley

3 representations – 1 objection, 2 comments

Comments that some proposed sites present accessibility challenges in terms of public transport which must be addressed

Concerns regarding development of agricultural land.

Comments on flood risk management issues on various sites

Sites that are proposed as allocations have site policies where specific issues need to be addressed. Public transport accessibility and flood risk have been considered as part of the site selection process.

H5 Site South of Coniston Avenue, Darton


Increased traffic/road safety issues

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Access and highways issues have been considered as part of the housing site selection process.

25



Concerns regarding capacity of existing schools, health services

Noise/pollution

Issues with mains services in former mining area

Brownfield sites should be developed first

Access to site

H13 Site East of Burton Road, Monk Bretton


Concerns regarding highways/road safety issues

Lack of school places/health facilities

Impact on ecology

Flooding and drainage concerns

Loss of views/privacy

Disruption from construction

Loss of Green Belt/recreational land

Objects to 3 or 4 storey house or flats being built

Loss of property values

Support for site allocation

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H14 Site West of Wakefield Road, Mapplewell


Concerns regarding traffic, highway safety and car parking

Lack of school places/health facilities

Loss of footpaths and effect on health and wellbeing

Need for more facilities for children and young people

Ecological impact

Flooding and drainage issues

Pollution


26



Effect on local character

Use brownfield land before Green Belt

H15 Site East of Dearne Hall Road, Low Barugh

1 representation – conditional support

Landowner support for proposed allocation subject to increase in dwelling numbers to reflect extant planning permission

The site is not included as a housing allocation as planning permission was granted before 1st April 2014. The site is included in the planning permission figures.

H18 Site East of Smithy Wood Lane, Gilroyd


Considers site unsuited to aspirational housing due to access

Impact of development on setting of nearby Grade 1 listed park and gardens should be assessed

Loss of Green Belt

Houses in this area are already difficult to sell


Devaluation of existing properties

Fear of increase in crime and anti-social behaviour

Loss of views

Merging of settlements

Highway safety/traffic issues

Lack of existing infrastructure, e.g. shops, schools

Pollution

Loss of trees

Objects to piecemeal development approach and considers a cohesive plan is required

Landowner support for proposed allocation


H19 Site North of Keresforth Road,


The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the

27



Dodworth Not suited to aspirational housing due to proximity of motorway

Concerns over increase in noise/air pollution



Loss of trees


issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H20 Site South of Bloomhouse Lane, Darton


Increased traffic/road safety issues

Concerns regarding capacity of existing schools, health services

Noise/pollution

Issues with mains services in former mining area


Lack of local shops/community facilities

Flooding/drainage

Loss of green belt

Density too high for executive homes

Concerns area will become a dormitory for Leeds/Wakefield/Sheffield


H21 Site of Former North Gawber Colliery, Carr Green lane, Mapplewell

1 representation in support

Support for proposed allocation

The site is not included as a housing allocation as planning permission was granted before 1st April 2014. The site is included in the planning permission figures.

H24 Site North of Carlton Road, Monk Bretton

1 representation – 1 comment

Considers site unlikely to be delivered due to

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part

28



multiple development constraints of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H28 Site of Former Priory School, Lundwood, Barnsley

1 representation – 1 objection

Asks how the 'by pass' to accommodate access to the Littleworth Lane site will be factored in

Impact on green infrastructure and greenspace

Loss of trees

Queries increase in housing numbers in Local Plan from 2014 planning application


H29 Site at Garden House Farm, Harden House Close, Monk Bretton

No representations received

H31 Site to the West of Smithy Wood Lane, Gilroyd

9 representations received – 8 objections, 1 support

Considers site unsuited to aspirational housing due to access

Loss of Green Belt

Houses in this area are already difficult to sell



Fear of increase in crime and anti-social behaviour

Loss of views




Pollution


29



Loss of trees


Landowner support for proposed allocation

H33 Site to the East of St Helens Avenue, Monk Bretton

1 representation - 1 comment

Comments on highways and access constraints

Loss of green space


H42 Site West of Wakefield Road, New Lodge

3 representations – 1 objection, 1 conditional support, 1 comment

Concerns regarding impact on setting of nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument

Comment on impact on traffic congestion – specifically Wakefield Road

Strongly supports the allocation for residential development subject to changes proposed to relevant policies


H44 Site to the North of West Green Way, West Green


Support for proposed allocation from landowner of part of site

Support noted and will have been taken into account in deliverability score

H48 Site of Former Kingstone School, Broadway, Barnsley


Highways issues

Considers site unsuited to aspirational housing due

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need

30



to neighbouring land uses to be dealt with. The site has planning permission which was granted after 1st April 2014.

H49 Site South East of West Street, Worsbrough Dale

1 representation – comment

Concerns regarding capacity of highways network

Loss of green space

Access constraints

Impact on adjacent Green Belt

The site is not proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version.

H53 Site North of Wilthorpe Road, Barnsley


Comments on highways and access constraints to development

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with. The site has planning permission which was granted after 1st April 2014.

H54 Land off High Street, Dodworth



Lack of existing infrastructure, e.g.. shops, schools

Pollution

Loss of trees


Not suited to aspirational housing due to neighbouring uses and density


H57 Monk Bretton Reservoir and land to the East of Cross


31



Street, Monk Bretton

H59 Land at St Michaels Avenue, Carlton


Considers site acts as a buffer between residential and industrial uses and development would be detrimental to the amenities of current and future occupants


H60 Site between Rotherham Road & Former Priory School Site, Cundy Cross, Barnsley

1 representation – 1 objection

Asks how the 'by pass' to accommodate access to the Littleworth Lane site will be factored in

Impact on green infrastructure and greenspace

Loss of trees

Queries increase in housing numbers in Local Plan from 2014 planning application

The site is proposed as part of a housing allocation in the Publication version. This site has been merged with H28 and the H28 reference has been used. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H62 Land off Highstone Lane, Worsbrough Common


Loss of well used recreation space

Considers new build would be out of character with existing properties

Loss of views

Loss of allotments


H65 Hospital Site off Mount Vernon Road, Worsbrough

112 representations – 111 objections (including a petition containing 64 valid entries), 1 support

Concerns regarding highway safety and increase in traffic

Concerns regarding pressure on schools, health facilities, shops, community facilities


32



Loss of Green Belt and greenspace

Loss of views

Loss of hospital – The buildings importance in history should be recognised

Lack of efficient public transport

Impact on wildlife/ecology

Access to site

Capacity of existing sewerage infrastructure

Noise/air pollution

Questions need for number of new homes proposed

Considers proposals inappropriate to the scale, role, function and character of the area

Support for the proposal as it is a brownfield site and may alleviate parking problems associated with current use

Petition objects to proposed housing sites on the basis that the process of consultation was improper and concerns regarding loss of Green Belt

H66 Hospital Site off Broadway, Barnsley


H72 Land North of Kingwell Road, Worsbrough

128 representations - 127 objections (including a petition containing 64 valid entries), 1 support.

Concerns regarding traffic, highway safety and parking – especially in relation to local school

Lack of infrastructure/facilities (public transport, schools, health facilities, shops, leisure facilities)


33



Loss of well used recreation space/public right of way

Who will houses be for (private, social, commuters)?

Location of site access

Ecological impact

Flooding/drainage – site has natural springs

Loss of historic ‘pinfold’

Loss of views/privacy/impact on quality of life

Increase in pollution

Decrease in property values

Loss of Green Belt – community value

Need for quantum of housing – regenerate existing empty properties first/use brownfield sites first

Effect on local economy

Landowner support for site allocation

Object to proposed housing sites on the basis that the process of consultation was improper and concerns regarding loss of Green Belt

H73 Land between Mount Vernon Road & Upper Sheffield Road, Worsbrough

125 representations - 123 objections (including a petition containing 64 valid entries), 2 supports.

Concerns regarding traffic, highway safety and parking – especially in relation to local school

Lack of infrastructure/facilities (public transport, schools, health facilities, shops, leisure facilities, emergency services)

Loss of well used recreation space/public right of


34



way – health benefits

Will houses be private or social?

3 storey houses would be out of character with the area

Location of site access

Ecological impact

Capacity of existing drainage

Concerns regarding stability of land – fault line runs through site

Impact on Listed Building

Loss of views/privacy/impact on quality of life

Increase in pollution


Loss of agricultural land

Scale of development and impact on the community – urban sprawl

Objects to loss of Green Belt - use brownfield sites first


Supports proposed removal of land from Green Belt and allocation for Housing

Object to proposed housing sites on the basis that the process of consultation was improper and concerns regarding loss of Green Belt

H83 Land to the east of Woolley Colliery Road, Darton


Concerns that increased traffic will adversely affect

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part

35



existing highways and highway safety

Objects to removal of land from Green Belt

Concerns regarding increased risk of flooding

Increase in noise and pollution

Supports removal of land from Green Belt and allocation for Housing


of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with

Table 12 Mixed Use land in Urban Barnsley

Summarised under Table 2 above. See above

MU1 Land South of Barugh Green Road,

Summarised under Table 2, MU1 above See above

Table 13 Cudworth 2 representations – 1 comment, 1 objection/comment



Issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process.

H10 Site to the West of Brierley Road, Grimethorpe, Barnsley


H22 Site North of Blacker Lane, Shafton


H32 Site adjacent to Carrs Lane/Summerdale Road, Cudworth

5 representations received - 3 objections, 1 support, 1 conditional support

Concerns regarding traffic, parking and road safety

Concerns regarding flooding and drainage

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with

36



Impact on living conditions of existing residents

Loss of agricultural land – arable land should be retained for food production

Concerns over impact on public services – schools, health, local authority

Effect on property values

Support for allocation subject to removal of first bullet point in site policy H32

Support for site, with strong developer interest

H39 Site at Weetshaw lane, Cudworth


H74 Land North of Sidcop Road, Cudworth


Objects to proposed site density – a more appropriate and realistic figure would be 20-30 dph

Concerns at impact on public services – schools, health, local authority

Increase in traffic and pollution




Landowner support for allocation

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A masterplan is required that covers sites H74, H75 and H87. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H75 land South of Sidcop Road, Cudworth

2 representations – 1 objection, 1 support


Concerns over impact on public services – schools, health, local authority

Increase in traffic and pollution


37







H76 Land West of Three Nooks Lane, Cudworth

2 representations in support

Landowners support for allocation


H86 Land off Pontefract Road, Cudworth, Barnsley

1 representation – conditional support

Strong support for allocation subject to proposed changes to relevant policies

H87 Land North of Oak Tree Avenue, Cudworth

No representations received The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with

Table 14 Dearne Towns

2 representations received – 1 comment, 1 objection/comment



These issues have been considered as part of the housing site selection process.

H1 Former Reema Estate and adjoining land, off School


38



Street, Thurnscoe, Rotherham

H12 Bolton House Farm, Barnsley Road, Goldthorpe


H17 Site South of Barnburgh Lane, Goldthorpe


H23 Land West of Holly Grove, Goldthorpe


H30 Land North of East Street, Goldthorpe


H38 Site South of Lindley Crescent, Thurnscoe

1 representation received in objection


The site is not a proposed housing allocation in the Publication version.

H50 Site to the North of Dearne ALC, Goldthorpe


H51 Land North of Barnburgh Lane, Goldthorpe, S63 9NT


H52 Site South of Beever Street, Goldthorpe



Support noted and will have been taken into account in deliverability score.

H55 Site at Brunswick Street, Thurnscoe


H67 Site to the East 1 representation in support The site is proposed as a housing allocation

39



of Broadwater Estate, Bolton on Dearne

Full support for the allocation

in the Publication version. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with

H84 Site South of Bridge Lane, Thurnscoe


Supports the allocation and considers the site to be capable of subdivision in order to allow schemes to come forward individually

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with

Table 15 Hoyland 121 Representations – 119 Objections, 1 Support, 1 Comment

Objects to the development of Green Belt, as it would have a negative impact the landscape and people’s health.

The increase in housing in Hoyland should balance against the large increase in employment land.

Generally supports housing allocations in this area, however some of the sites have limited connectivity.

The housing and employment sections of the Plan set out which sites are proposed as allocations. Site policies have been provided where specific issues need to be addressed.

H2 Land West of Fitzwilliam Street, Elsecar, S74 8EQ

No representations

H4 Land South of Hay Green Lane, Birdwell (HOY14)

4 Representations – 2 Objections, 1 Support, 1 Conditional Support

A more realistic density for the site would be 20 - 25 dwellings per ha due to access and neighbouring use constraints.

The site appears to be in allotment use. The loss of these allotments would have a negative impact on


40



the community.

Concerns regarding highways congestion and safety.

Potential impact on heritage assets and need for mitigation.

H6 Greenside Lane, Hoyland, Barnsley

No representations

H7 Land off Clough Fields Road, Hoyland, Barnsley

No representations

H8 Land off Meadowfield Drive, Hoyland, Barnsley

No representations

H9 Land off Welland Crescent, Elsecar, Barnsley


A more appropriate and realistic density for the site would be between 20 and 30 dwellings per ha.


H16 Land North of Hoyland Road, Hoyland Common

321 Representations - 317 Objections (including a petition containing 166 valid entries), 2 Comments, 1 Support, 1 Conditional Support Concerns include:

Highways congestion and safety.

Concerns about the disruption caused by this proposal, particularly in an area where residents are already concerned about the impact of HS2.

Query regarding the impact on and provision of public utilities.


41



Pressure on schools, health services, community facilities, local amenities and emergency services.


Concern regarding a fault line which runs through the site.

The site floods and is used for drainage for adjacent development.

Negative impact on the landscape.

Health impacts caused by increased levels of pollution.

Loss of Green Belt, Countryside and agricultural land.

Questions the integrity of the Green Belt review.

Questions the need for more housing.


Loss of community and identity.

Increase in crime levels.

Loss of privacy.

Non planning issues (impact on property values, loss of views).

Impact on quality of life during, and after, construction

Loss of recreation space/footpaths

Support the allocation, subject to relevant policy amendments.

Petition objects to the proposed sites due to lack of awareness of the consultation and request to be consulted at

42



next stage of process

H37 Land North of Railway Station, King Street, Hoyland

No representations

H45 Springwood Farm and surrounding land, Hoyland

20 Representations – 19 Objections, 1 Conditional Support Concerns include:


The disruption caused by this proposal, particularly in an area where residents are already concerned about the impact of HS2.


Loss of Green Belt, countryside, agricultural land, Green space and paths for recreational use.


Health impacts caused by increased levels of pollution.



Increase in crime rates.

Loss of privacy.

Disruption caused during construction.

Support, subject to the provision of higher density development.

Non-planning issues (loss of views, devaluation of property).

Loss of local identity


43



H46 Land west of Fitzwilliam Street, Hoyland/ Elsecar

4 Representations – 2 Objections, 1 Comment, 1 Support

Development will connect Hoyland and Elsecar. Elsecar is defined as a village, but does not seem to have the same safeguards as villages in the west of the borough.

Potential impact on Elsecar Conservation Area and adverse impact on tourism.


H77 Land West of Upper Hoyland Road

143 Representations – 142 Objections, 1 Support Concerns include:


Concerns about the disruption caused by this proposal, particularly in an area where residents are already concerned about the impact of HS2.

Query regarding the impact on and provision of public utilities.


Loss of Green Belt, countryside, Green space and paths for recreational use.


The site floods and is used for drainage for adjacent development.

Impact on the setting of a listed building.

Concerns regarding the effect of increased pollution on the health of the community.

Loss of community and identity.

Loss of privacy.



44




Increase in crime levels.

Non planning issues (loss of views).

Impact on quality of life during, and after, construction

H78 Land North of Armroyd Lane

2 Representations – 1 Objection, 1 Conditional Support

Loss of unique character and impact on tourism.

Support, subject to criticism of the housing site selection methodology.


H79 Land North of Wood Walk, Hoyland

1 Representation – 1 Support The site is not proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. It is proposed as Safeguarded Land which is land which may be considered to meet longer term needs after the plan period.

H85 Land North East of Hemingfield

76 Representations – 72 Objections, 3 Supports, 1 Comment Concerns include:


Pressure on existing and need for more schools and health services.

Increased pressure on Community facilities, local amenities and the emergency services.

Concern at loss of Green Belt, countryside, agricultural land and paths and bridleways.




The site is not proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. It is proposed as Safeguarded Land which is land which may be considered to meet longer term needs after the plan period.

45



Concern that village will lose its character and identity.

Negative impact on the landscape and visual amenity.

Disruption caused to existing residents through construction works.

Development of this land will increase flood risk.

Site is unsuitable due to noise and air pollution from the Dearne Valley Parkway.

Non Planning (loss of views from property).

Table 16 Penistone 13 Representations – 12 Objections, 1 Comment Concerns include:

The scale of development will cause Penistone to lose its identity as a rural market town.

Highway capacity, congestion and safety.

The impact on, and the ability of, infrastructure, health services and schools to cope.

Loss of Green Belt, which will damage the landscape and local wildlife.


The anticipated yields of the sites are unrealistic.

More affordable housing is needed.

A new town should be built.

The majority of sites are not LUTI compliant and will require comprehensive public transport solutions.

Some of issues raised have been considered through the housing site selection process.

H25 Land at Talbot Road, Penistone, S36


The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the

46



9ED Concerns regarding highways capacity, congestion and safety.

Concerns regarding the impact on infrastructure, health services, schools, community facilities and emergency services.

Impact on the adjacent conservation area, character of the town and landscape.

Impact on drainage.

Increased levels of pollution.

Site has limited appeal for aspirational housing.

The anticipated yield of the site is too high.

issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H26 Land West of Talbot Road, Penistone, S36 9ED


Concerns regarding highways capacity, congestion and safety.

Concerns regarding the impact on infrastructure, schools and community facilities and emergency services.

Impact on drainage.





H34 Land East of Saunderson Avenue, Penistone



Loss of Greenfield land will result in increased flood risk.


47



Concerned about the impact on infrastructure and schools.

The proposal represents over development.



H47 Land South East of Schole Hill Lane, Penistone, S36 9AW



Concerned about the impact on schools, health services and the landscape.

Negative impact on tourism.




The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. It has planning permission which was granted after 1st April 2014.

H69 Land at Sheffield Road, Penistone



Concerned about the impact on infrastructure and schools.

Part of the site is subject to flooding.


Site remediation costs make the site unviable.


H80 Land North & East of Joan Royd Lane, Cubley

21 Representations – 19 Objections, 2 Supports

Concerns regarding highways capacity, congestion, safety and parking.


48



Public transport links are poor.

Pressure on schools, health services, community facilities and emergency services.

Drainage and flood risk concerns due to increased surface water run off.

Loss of Green Belt, Green Space, countryside and agricultural land.

Damage to the character of the market town and the landscape.




Pollution from increase in traffic will have negative quality of life and health impacts.

Question the need for more housing, more employment land is needed.


H81 Land South of Well House Lane, Penistone

27 Representations – 26 Objections, 1 Conditional Support


Site has poor public transport links.

Concerned about the impact on utilities infrastructure, schools and health services.

Loss of Green Belt and agricultural land.

Concerns that urban sprawl will damage the character of the area.

Biodiversity, ecological and landscape impact,


49



particularly in the Scout Dike area.

Loss of jobs

Residential restrictions are in place on part of the site due to HSE statutory licencing constraints.

Question the need for more housing.


More affordable housing is needed.

Drainage issues could increase flood risk in the wider area.



H82 Land South of Halifax Road, Penistone

30 Representations – 27 Objections, 2 Supports, 1 Conditional support


Site has poor public transport links.

Concerned about the impact on utilities infrastructure, schools, and health services.

Loss of Green Belt, Green Space and agricultural land.

Concerns that urban sprawl will damage the character of the area.

Biodiversity, ecological and landscape impact, particularly in the Scout Dike area.

Loss of jobs


Questions need for more housing.


50





Residential restrictions are in place on part of the site due to HSE statutory licencing constraints.

Support, however anticipated yield of the site is too high.

Table 17 Royston 2 Representations – 1 Objection, 1 Comment

The relevant infrastructure should be put in place before new houses are built.

Some sites have accessibility challenges from a LUTI perspective.

Accessibility has been taken into account as part of the housing site selection process. Infrastructure to support the delivery of the Plan has been considered in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

H11 Land off Lee Lane, Royston



Concerned about the impact on schools and health services.

Loss of Green Belt, Greenfield land and public rights of way.


Concerns regarding ground stability due to recent subsidence and flooding events.

Question the need for more housing.

Objects to the requirement for a masterplan for the site.


51



H35 Land North West of Windmill Terrace, Royston

No representations

H43 Land at end of Monkton Way

No representations

H58 Land at Lineside Lane, Royston

No representations

Table 18 Wombwell 1 Representation – 1 Comment

Residential growth generally supported but some sites require public transport improvements.

Public transport accessibility is considered as part of the site selection process.

H3 Land to the South of Doncaster Road, Darfield



Pressure on infrastructure, schools and health services.

Development may be restricted by the underground pipeline which runs through the site.

Development would increase flood risk due to surface water run off.

Concerns that site many be contaminated as it is on a former landfill site.


Questions the need for more housing and the impact it would have on the village.

Existing bungalows would be overshadowed by the new development.


52




Smaller scale development would be more appropriate.

H27 Site of Former Wombwell High School, Wombwell



Concerns regarding the loss of recreational Green Space.

Access should be from the Dearne Valley Parkway.

The site is proposed as a mixed use site in the Publication version for housing and a primary school. A site policy is provided which sets out the issues that need to be addressed.

H36 Land North of Barnsley Road, Wombwell

No representations

H40 Site of the Former Foulstone School Playing Fields, Darfield



Pressure on infrastructure, schools and health services.

Loss of recreational Green Space.

Questions the need for more housing and the impact it would have on the village.

More affordable housing is required.

Threat of anti-social behaviour.


H41 Site of the Former Foulstone School, Darfield



The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site

53



Pressure on schools and health services.

Questions the need for another supermarket.

policy is provided to set out issues that need to be dealt with.

H56 Land to the rear of Kings Oak Primary School, Wombwell

No representations

H63 Land off Newsome Avenue, Barnsley

No representations

H64 Former Kings Road School Site, Wombwell

No representations

H70 Land East of Lundhill Road, Wombwell


Concerns regarding highways capacity and congestion.

The site should be shown as safeguarded land.


Policy H3 Housing Site Policies

17 representations – 12 objections 1 support

Questions why some sites do not have site policies and why site policies are not more restrictive to exercise greater control over development.

Numerous objections seeking amendments to various site specific policies

Considers policy unsound and suggests amendments to wording

Objects to the policy on the basis it is almost entirely about numerical housing targets

Considers all site specific policies should provide cycle links alongside pedestrian links, particularly

In the Publication version we have taken the approach to put each site in a site policy orange box, rather than in a list. Where the orange boxes do not contain any further details other than reference number, address and indicative yield, this means there were no specific issues to be raised other than those that will be dealt with through other policies of the Local Plan, for example GD1.

54



those that link to local schools, retail developments.

Objection. The site specific policies for sites in proximity to local wildlife sites should be amended to ensure that development avoids impacts, or includes appropriate and effective mitigation measures where necessary.

Welcome inclusion of protection and suggestions of enhancements to biodiversity, landscape and access assets in site policies

Comments that the plan should make specific reference to the use of LUTI in assessing sites

Concern at the potential impact on the highway network in Wakefield from developments in the vicinity of Woolley Grange

Policy H4 Uses on Allocated Housing Sites


Considers policy needs revising to provide greater flexibility and suggests revised wording


Policy H4 remains unchanged as it is considered appropriate to protect housing land supply to ensure we are able to meet our Objectively Assessed Housing Need by ensuring other uses on housing allocations are restricted to small scale ancillary uses or those that provide a service or facility to serve local residents

Policy H5 Residential development on Small Non-allocated Sites


Considers that policies H5 and H6 could be combined to form a single policy

Suggest dependency on windfall sites should be reduced by identifying additional sustainable sites


Policies H5 and H6 remain as separate policies. The reference to settlement boundaries has been removed from the policy and supporting text.

55



Policy H6 Residential development on Large Non-allocated Sites


Considers that policies H5 and H6 could be combined and particularly objects to the requirement that sites over 0.4ha will be expected to be on brownfield land

Considers the policy should not preclude development of Greenfield sites within development boundaries.

Recommends that policy H6 be deleted and larger sites be treated against the same policy considerations as policy H5 to provide greater flexibility within the plan and provide a more viable source of windfall sites over the plan period.

Considers policy needs revising to provide greater flexibility and suggests revised wording


Support for principles of policy

Welcomes policy subject to developers being asked to prove how the residential area is accessible and supports active travel

Policies H5 and H6 remain as separate policies. The policy has been amended to reflect comments. Proposed wording reads priority will be given to sites located on previously developed land and within Urban Barnsley and the Principal Towns. Text relating to greenfield sites which are not allocated will not be released until all allocations have been delivered or those left are not deliverable has been deleted.

Table 19 Essential Facilities

1 representation

Objects to inclusion of doctors’ practices in this table and suggests tables 19 & 20 could be combined.

Table remains unchanged and tables remain separate. It is considered helpful to separate essential and other facilities.

Table 20 Other Services/Facilities

No representations

Figure 3 1 representation – 1 comment

Support noted.

56



Welcomes the clarity of the diagram which will facilitate transport planning

Policy H7 Housing Mix and Efficient Use of Land


The expected density of 40 dph is too high and seeks clarification for the justification

Would like to see more flexibility in the density approach

Policy could enable densities that are far too low to address existing problems

Concerns expressed that OAHN numbers are too low and should be raised.

Concerns that some developments won’t achieve the expected density due to site constraints affecting the ability to achieve the housing requirement

Supports the objective to provide an appropriate mix of housing in particular larger, executive type, housing to support aspirations of the economic policies.

Comment recommending an aspirational housing policy be included in Local Plan

Policy remains unchanged. We consider about 40 to be reasonable and it is borne out by monitoring data. We consider the policy to contain sufficient flexibility to enable a site to be developed at an appropriate density.

Policy H8 Affordable Housing


Objects to the threshold of 15 or more dwellings as inappropriate for rural areas where it will severely limit the opportunities for affordable housing

Notes there is no percentage requirement for Cudworth and suggests this should be 10%.

Policy remains unchanged. Cudworth is an omission and will be rectified. Viability work was updated in 2015 and will be made available with Publication version. Further information on our approach is in the Plan Wide Viability Study.

57



Objection seeking further clarification and justification of specific percentage requirements.

Considers viability work supporting draft policy is out of date. Further viability work should be undertaken prior to the next stage of consultation

Objects to policy as is considered to include a deeply flawed get out clause which will make it difficult to secure affordable housing

Welcomes the statement "The developer must show that arrangements have been put in place to keep the new homes affordable." within the policy.

Support for policy and 10% contribution in Royston although seeks to ensure this is subject to viability testing

Policy H9 Housing Regeneration Areas

1 representation – objection

Request to include Cudworth in list of areas of low housing demand

Policy remains unchanged.

Policy H10 Protection of Existing larger Dwellings

No representations

Policy GT1 Sites for Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

4 representations – 1 objection, 1 support, 2 conditional support

Policy considered unsound as evidence base is out of date

Considers insufficient sites identified to meet existing need

Why can’t land be released from Green Belt as it has been for housing?

Policy remains unchanged. An updated needs assessment has been carried out which identifies a five year requirement of 15 pitches between 2014/15 and 2018/19. A further annualised requirement of 1.83 pitches can be applied to account for household formation. Two sites are proposed to deliver a total of

58



Reference to flood risk in the policy should be in line with NPPF/PPG

Welcomes inclusion of the 3 site allocations

2 representations proposing additional sites for consideration

up to 18 pitches. One of the sites is in Green Belt.

Site TRAV013A 466 representations – 459 objections, 7 comments

Impact on local business/ jobs/economy

Concerns regarding highway/road safety due to proximity to main road

Lack of existing local services to support proposed development i.e. school places/health services

Lack of existing local amenities to support proposed development i.e. shops, chemist, library

Visual impact on existing residents and future occupiers of the site

Lack of privacy for existing and new residents

Impact on site from noise/air pollution due to proximity to industrial estate

Cost of developing the site due to land contours

Effect of development on wildlife and biodiversity – is an ecology survey required?

Loss of green space/Green Belt

Flood risk – site prone to flooding

Loss of footpaths/community recreation land


Concerns regarding anti-social behaviour

Effect on the environment

Effect on local character

Part of the site is proposed as a Gypsy and Traveller site in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been covered through the site selection process.

59



Lack of public transport

Other sites in the Borough are more suitable


Considers scoring methodology is flawed

Other non-planning issues (safety, security, lifestyle concerns)

Site TRAV080 1 representation supporting continued use of site for family occupation

Site not proposed as an allocation in Publication version

Site TRAV082A 1 representation commenting on presence of watercourse on site

Site not proposed as an allocation in Publication version

Policy T1 Accessibility Priorities

14 Representations – 8 objections,1support/comment, 1 conditional support, 4 comments

Concern that the emerging Transport Strategy priorities are not shown in the Local Plan

Request that the emerging Transport Strategy considers active ways to restrict the use of country roads as short cuts.

Concern raised regarding a number of highways issues and constraints across the Borough

Expresses concern at lack of reference to needs of horse riders and considers that alternatives to busy roads must be provided for all vulnerable road users, including horse riders

Car parking provision will be necessary in certain rural locations and the Plan and forthcoming Transport Strategy should allow for this.

Policy fails to concentrate on Barnsley's strengths

The Barnsley Transport Strategy was adopted in 2015. Further work is ongoing to develop an implementation plan which would detail projects and schemes. The policy seeks to improve access, particularly between prinicipal towns

60



i.e. good motorway links and its location between two large cities. Economic growth should not be stifled by restricting car travel.

Comments on inadequacy of public transport between Penistone and Barnsley

General support for the transport policies, but has serious concerns associated with the proposed locations of new development and the way in which transport impacts of new developments are assessed. Suggests amendments

Notes the consistency of the policy with Sheffield’s Core Strategy policy CSP56 Priority Routes for Bus and Rapid Transport. Suggests that it may also be appropriate to highlight potential future improvements to connectivity in the Penistone-Stocksbridge-Sheffield axis.

Supports the councils focus on good transport connectivity. Neighbouring authority would be willing to collaborate to promote better transport services to connect with the proposed HS2 station proposed at Meadowhall.

Proposes alternative potential new entry/exit to M1.

Asks if consultation will take place with local residents, cycling and walking groups to help identify priority corridors and the infrastructure improvements required to make this safe for both cyclists and pedestrians

Figure 4 No representations


Policy T2 4 representations – 2 objections, 1 support The policy remains unchanged. The

61



Safeguarding of Former Railway Lines

Suggests that consideration could be given to interim arrangements for former railway lines to be developed into walking and cycle ways

Asks if consultation will take place with local residents, equality groups, cycling and walking groups to help identify priority corridors and the infrastructure improvements required to make this safe for both cyclists and pedestrians.

General support for the transport policies, but has serious concerns associated with the proposed locations of new development and the way in which transport impacts of new developments are assessed. Suggests amendments.

Continues to support the policy as, although HS2 is referenced in the document, it is still too early to know whether the final route will impact on the potential for reinstatement of the former railway lines in the plan period

Local Plan should take account of Neighbourhood Plan proposals to enhance and improve access to the Trans Pennine Trail. The route should also be protected as a National route to facilitate sustainable transport

transport implications of proposed development are considered in the site selection process or planning application process. Protection and enhancement of the Trans Pennine Trail would be supported under Green Infrastructure policies and policy GS2 on Green Ways and Public Rights of Way.


Policy T3 New Development and Sustainable Travel


Asks how travel plans are monitored and whether we can provide more proactive advice to developers about how to incorporate active travel into design

The policy remains unchanged. The policy signposts to Good Practice guidance on Travel Plans. The current requirements for car parking are

62



Comments on the importance of developer contributions element of the plan, both for new and existing infrastructure

Welcomes approach to Travel Plans and suggests new policy on other measures to increase sustainable travel and low carbon vehicle infrastructure

Seeks clarification on requirements for car parking

Has concerns that development may significantly impact on level crossing safety and service provision and considers that these potential impacts should be addressed through the Local Plan,

Seeks reference in policy to require developer contributions to secure appropriate improvements to rail infrastructure.


set out in the Supplementary Planning Document Parking adopted in 2012.

Policy T4 New Development and Highway Improvement



General support for policy but considers need for design to facilitate access to public transport facilities should be clarified

The policy remains unchanged. The transport implications of proposed development are considered in the site selection process or planning application process.

63



Comment on highway design with a view to encouraging liveable space

Policy T5 Reducing the Impact of Road Travel



Asks questions regarding promotion of the use of Eco Stars; promotion of cycle awareness training for freight; provision of more on road cycle training for adults targeting businesses

Various amendments and alterations suggested to policy wording

The policy remains unchanged. The transport implications of proposed development are considered in the site selection process or planning application process. Proejcts and initiatives such as Eco Stars and active travel are promoted by other services of the Council and partners.

Policy D1 Design 11 representations – 4 objections, 4 support, 3 comments, 1 conditional support

Considers policy should be reviewed to place emphasis on seeking quality development

Objects to policy as consider it places onerous requirements on developers

Considers Police 'Secure By Design' initiative should be included within the local plan, as with other authorities

Policy should be amended to indicate that the Council will encourage the use of Building for Life 12 as a method for assessing design quality.

Support for the inclusion of Building for Life 12

Support for the policy and suggests amendments to

The policy remains unchanged. The south Yorkshire Residential Design Guide is used as best practice.

64



the opening paragraph to strengthen it

Comment seeking more emphasis on local circumstances and consideration of adoption of South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide

Welcomes emphasis on GI, habitats, woodlands, natural features and sustainable environment.

Asks whether community-led design can be incorporated into the planning process i.e. through masterplanning.

Policy HE1 The Historic Environment

5 representations – 2 objections,1 support, 2 conditional support

Comments on omissions from the policies map and discrepancies between the key and the map

Objects to lack of support in the document for private owner occupiers of historic and listed buildings who wish to improve their properties

Support for policy but would like the council to take proactive steps to protect and conserve all heritage assets.

Considers the council should take proactive steps to protect and conserve all heritage assets. Local lists of 'at risk' grade 2 listed buildings should be compiled and included in the Local Plan.

Supports the policy but would like a further building to be added to the list

The policy has been redrafted to take account of comments. We would not seek to include a list of at risk listed buildings in the Local Plan as this is information would become out of date.

Policy HE2 Conservation Areas – planning application procedure


Considers policy unsound and suggests revision required to consider consequences arising from the

The policy has been amended to take account of comments.

65



interpretation of 'setting'

General support for policy

Policy HE3 Listed Buildings – planning application procedure


Concerns regarding the interpretation of 'setting' and considers policy needs revising


The policy has been amended to take account of comments.

Policy HE4 Listed Buildings – demolition


Supports the policy and considers the conditions for demolition should also apply to buildings on a local list.

The policy has been amended. It has also been re-numbered HE5

Policy HE5 Archaeology – planning application procedure

2 representations in support of the policy

Supports the policy

The policy has been amended and merged with policy HE6. The combined policy has been given the reference HE6.

Policy HE6 Archaeology and Development

1 representation supporting the policy

Supports the policy

The policy has been amended and merged with policy HE6. The combined policy has been given the reference HE6.

Policy HE7 Development Proposals Affecting a Historic Park or Garden

1 representation supporting the policy

Supports the policy

The policy has been amended and is now referenced HE4 Developments affecting Historic Areas or Landscapes

Policy TC1 Town Centres

7 representations – 3 objections, 2 support, 1 conditional support, 1 comment

Concerned that Darton is only designated as a 'local centre' which is considered to be at odds with Darton's inclusion in the highest priority for new

The policy remains unchanged.

66



housing build.

Support the inclusion of Kings Head Public House site within the defined Mapplewell local centre boundary

Questions how the aim to improve car parking in Penistone town centre will be achieved given the lack of available land in the town centre and the nature of proposed development sites in Penistone as a whole

Would like to see Barnsley West included in the list of District Centres

Supports Council's aspirations to promote economic regeneration and recommends minor policy amendments to recognise the Peel Centre's favourable location and ability to act as a key attractor for shopping visits to the town.

Concerns expressed at lack of reference to protecting community services in town centres, such as pubs

General support for overall approach of the policy

Policy TC2 Primary and Secondary Shopping Frontages


Policy TC3 Thresholds for Impact Assessments

1 representation – objection

Considers the threshold for impact assessments outside the Primary Shopping Area of Barnsley Town Centre should be reduced to 1,000 square metres


Policy TC4 Retail 1 representation – objection The policy remains unchanged.

67



Parks

Considers that wording of the policy is not flexible enough and, as such, exceeds NPPF guidance. Proposes alternative wording.

Alternative site proposed for consideration

Policy TC5 Small Local Shops

2 representations – 1 objection, 1 conditional support

Can we be more proactive in capturing what local need comprises and do Area Councils have a role in facilitating this?

Supports wording of policy provided it can be used to support the enhancement and increase in retail provision at the hospital


Table 21 8 representations – 4 comments,3 objections, 1 support

Suggests there are gaps in the current proposals for the Town Centre

Support for the Vision for Barnsley Town Centre and the intention to use the strengths of the town centre to deliver it

Welcome retail and leisure focus in the Town Centre but closure of Jumble Lane crossing should incorporate sustainable transport movements into the Town Centre.

Suitable parking for shoppers and visitors is desperately lacking, particularly disabled parking, leading to a decline in shopping. Suggests the use of free small 'rover' buses to improve access to shops and facilities and help reduce congestion.

Asks why is there no specific policy on homes and

Comments of support noted.

68



residential aspects of Barnsley Town Centre

Should there be a separate policy for Movement and Transport?

Table 22 No representations




Policy BTC1 The daytime and evening economies


General support for the policy and its principles


Policy BTC2 Late Night Uses


supportive of the restriction of late night opening to a defined area based on that outlined in BTC2


Table 26 1 representation in support of the policy Support noted


Policy BTC3 Public Spaces


Support for principles of policy but considers more could be done to improve the setting of Mandela Gardens


Policy BTC4 Improving Public Spaces


Seeks clarification as to whether policy only applies to sites within the Town Centre boundary

Suggests amended wording

Support the principle of BTC4 and the identification of thresholds above which developers should include proposal to create or improve public spaces

The policy remains unchanged. Under section 106 rules development would have to be reasonably well related to the site contributions are sought for. Therefore this policy will apply to developments in the Town Centre.

Policy BTC5 2 representations – 2 support The policy remains unchanged.

69



Landmark Buildings

Supports the policy and suggests other buildings for inclusion as landmark buildings

Suggests there is a need to consider more distant views into and also out of the town centre reaching up to the skyline.

Policy BTC6 Building Heights


Support for policy but notes the need to avoid wind tunnels and overshadowed areas as well as aesthetic and design considerations


Policy BTC7 Gateways


Supports the identification of Gateways to Barnsley Town Centre and requirement for development close to Gateways to be attractive


Policy BTC8 Temporary Uses and Phased Development


Supports policy as temporary activities are preferable to empty units



Policy BTC9 Cycling 2 representations in support

Supports the policy but questions if there is an overall cycle route plan and whether developers obligated to make contributions for providing a more cycle oriented environment? Also asks how breaks in the cycle routes can be avoided

Supports the policy as it provides the potential for

The policy remains unchanged. The Transport Strategy was adopted in 2015. Further work is ongoing to develop an implementation plan which will include details of projects and schemes.

70



active travel

Policy BTC10 The Green Sprint


Supports the policy as it provides the potential for active travel

Supports the policy but seeks clarification on whether the whole of the Green Sprint is for pedestrians and cyclists as the map is not clear

The policy remains unchanged. Further detail will evolve as the detail of the Town Centre redevelopment progresses.


Policy BTC11 Car Parks


Supports the policy but points out the need for long stay car parking if visitors and shoppers are to be encouraged

The policy remains unchaged. It includes provision of long stay car parks.

Table 30 1 representation -

Objects that there do not appear to be policies to govern the visual appearance of shop frontages and signage

The policy remains unchanged. The design of shop frontages is covered by a Supplementary Planning document that currently hangs off the Core Strategy design policy. Shopfront Design remains on the list of proposed SPD’s in appendix 3 of the Local Plan. Once the Plan is adopted SPD’s will be refreshed and this would hang off policy D1 Design.


Policy BTC12 The Markets Area District

3 representations - 1 objection, 2 support

Questions proposals for a cinema when there are no shops to attract people to the town centre

Welcomes inclusion of the statement ‘Pedestrian priority will be upgraded to make a safe environment


71



for pedestrians and cyclists’

Policy BTC13 Development Site 1 – Better Barnsley including former TEC building and CEAG site

1 representation in support The policy remains unchanged.



Policy BTC14 The Yards District


Considers Doncaster Road has potential to be an area in its own right with the opportunity for small scale specialist shops




Policy BTC15 Southern Fringe


Support for policy and considers there is a need for the preservation and enhancement of the remaining and adjoining architectural and historic character of the area

The policy remains unchanged

Policy BTC16 Development Site 2 – Heelis Street/New Street/Gala Bingo/ Burleigh Court Site

3 representations – 2 objections, 1 support,

Considers the proposed uses are too prescriptive and need to be widened. Considers that the ability to offer a wider variety of uses will enable promotion of their vacant site which will, in turn, benefit the viability of the town centre by encouraging linked trips.

The policy remains unchanged. Some of the supporting text has been updated.

72



Considers that the policy should incorporate improvements to pedestrian and cycling access throughout the area and to the proposed retail outlets.

Supports policy principles. The apartments at City Reach will be an asset once completed.



Policy BTC17 Southgate District


Supports the principles of the policy and considers it is vital to conserve the architectural heritage of the three former Co-op buildings including Wellington House, the former Hedonism, the former Salvation Army Building and Theatre Royal.




BTC18 Westgate/Churchfields


Support for the principles of the policy and priority for office development but questions how the Lamproom Theatre can be expanded without losing its character


Considers that the policy should include improvements to Westgate to allow cyclist access in both directions


Figure12 No representations


BTC19 Market Hill 2 representations in support The policy remains unchanged. The historic

73



Supports policy but considers that the boundaries and overlaps with adjoining areas are unclear and attention to neighbouring conservation areas is essential

environment policies



BTC20 The Lanes 1 representation in support




BTC21 Courthouse Campus


Supports the policy as the area is not currently used efficiently

The policy remains unchanged apart from a correction to a policy reference.

BTC22 Development Site 3 – Courthouse Campus


Suggested change to policy wording to include reference to Listed Buildings.

Minor amendments have been made. Listed Buildings are protected by the historic environment policies.



BTC23 Eastern gateway


Supports the enhancement of the Transport Interchange hub


BTC24 Development Site 4 – Land between the Transport


Supports the principles of the policy and the uses

A minor change has been made to this policy.

74



Interchange and Harborough Hill Road

proposed. Also supports the opportunity for ‘tall buildings’ if carefully considered




Figure17 2 representations – 1 objection, 1 support/comment

Trans-Pennine Trail should be included in this plan

Supports the inclusion of Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites and non-designated geological features within Green Infrastructure

The diagram is included in the Publication version.

Policy GI1 Green Infrastructure

11 representations – 4 comments,3 support, 3 objections, 1 conditional support

Welcomes the approach outlined in Policy and would also welcome the publication of the Barnsley Green Infrastructure Strategy.

Supports the policy and suggests Historic Landscape Corridor could be extended into Rotherham to include Grade II* Wentworth Woodhouse Estate

Concerns that policy does not include provision for horse riders as vulnerable road users who would be affected by increased traffic arising from new developments and requests that multi-user routes are provided where possible.

Suggests changes to Policy and supporting text

Pleased to see the importance of green

The policy wording has been amended to include reference to blue and green spaces.

75



infrastructure is acknowledged and that river networks are included in the list of important assets. Links to SuDS policy CC4 should be mentioned here.

Comment suggesting a stronger commitment in this policy for tree planting and woodland creation

Comments on reference to PPS9 which no longer exists.

Welcomes the policy and positive strategic approach but suggests more detailed mapping

Policy GI2 Canals – Safeguarded Routes

4 representations – 3 objections, 1 comment

Concern that needs of horse riders as vulnerable road users have been ignored and that canals have potential to provide routes for all categories of user, including horse riders, who need greater provision to avoid increasingly busy roads.

Considers that the Trans Pennine Trail should be included in this policy.

Objects to the policies not safeguarding disused parts of the former canal, to allow future restoration.

The policy has been amended to include a reference to horse riding networks.

Policy GS1 Green Space

26 representations – 14 objections, 9 supports (including a petition containing 7 valid entries), 3 comments

Objects to development of Green Belt

Suggested amendment to allocate additional land within the Green Space designation

Seeks allocation of additional land in Penistone for allotments

Policy does not provide sufficient protection for

Where necessary, the policy has been amended to take account of comments.

76



Green Space, nor adequate provision to secure new green space through development

Numerous objections seeking removal of individual sites from green space allocation and re-allocation for other uses

Questions how policy will be monitored and appropriate compensation determined

Support for minor amendment at Grimethorpe to remove land from Green Belt and re-allocate as green space

Petition supports continued allocation of land at Boggard Lane, Penistone for allotment use

Policy GS2 Green Ways and Public Rights of Way


Requests provision of multi-user routes where appropriate to provide safe routes for all vulnerable road users.

Objects to policy, on the basis that it does not provide sufficient protection for green ways, nor adequate provision to provide for new green spaces through development

Support for Policy and approach that Green Ways should, where necessary, be diverted in order to ensure developments can progress

Comment questioning whether we have the appropriate resources to monitor and police the plan requirements

Welcomes the policy and encourages consideration

The policy remains unchanged. We consider it does provide protection for green ways. Policy GS1 is the appropriate policy to secure new green spaces.

77



of access to natural features and existing long distance trails within new developments where appropriate.

Policy BIO1 Biodiversity and Geodiversity

10 representations – 4 objections, 3 conditional support, 2 comments, 1 support/comment

Considers habitat and biodiversity requirements for sites should be assessed by an ecologist

Supports the policy and welcomes strong emphasis on enhancement but considers that Old Moor should be included as a key ecological asset and suggests additional wording to supporting text.

Supports the inclusion of the Dearne Valley Nature Improvement Area into the Local Plan and supports the intention to adopt a NIA Planning Advice Note.

Consider the policy should include the principle at para.118 of the NPPF in order to protect irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, for which development impacts are difficult, if not impossible, to mitigate and compensate for.

Supports the policy but suggests a change to the wording to include 'protection of ancient and veteran trees'.

Supports the policy and the approach identified in the Sustainability Appraisal, but makes recommendations on how the wording can be changed to strengthen the position of Biodiversity and Geodiversity in the Local Plan.

Welcomes the expectation for developments to conserve and enhance the biodiversity and

Where necessary, the policy has been amended to take account of comments

78



geological features of the borough and welcomes the preparation of SPD on Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Welcomes the policy. Suggests some stronger wording for final bullet point and considers para 18.24 listing key ecological assets should include reference to NIA.

Comments on Habitats Regulations Assessment including some concern over how and at what stage potential impacts on protected sites are proposed to be dealt with and the provision of further information is recommended.

Concern at failure to address potential risks associated with recreational pressures at identified hot spots.


Policy LC1 landscape Character

3 representations – 1 objection, 1 support, 1 comment

Makes particular reference to development which may affect the setting of fringe landscapes of the Peak District National Park and offers suggestions on possible forms of wording.

Supports the policy

Welcomes the policy but strongly recommends the inclusion of specific reference to Peak District National Park.

Text has been added which reads ‘Development which may adversely affect the purpose of the Peak District National Park or be harmful to its valued characteristics will not be allowed’.

Policy GB1 Protection of Green Belt

113 representations – 100 objections, 7 comments, 2 support, 4 conditional support

83 objections seeking removal of various sites from


79



the Green Belt and re-allocation for other purposes

Objections to use of Green Belt land when brownfield/other land is available

Objection to proposed Green Belt changes north of Penistone

Green Belt review appears to conflict with aim of increasing biodiversity in the area

Current housing stock should be improved before taking Green Belt land

Considers the Green Belt review is flawed

Supports policy subject to a robust review of the Green Belt, to enable sustainable sites not required to protect openness of the Green Belt to be allocated for housing/employment uses

Support for various Green Belt amendments

Notes that the Green Belt Review is in line with the SCR common approach and therefore contributes to Duty to Cooperate

Extensive representation on deliverability of sites in Penistone

Policy GB2 Replacement, extension and alteration of existing buildings in the Green Belt


Objects to policy as it is too restrictive and not compliant with the NPPF

Policy should be rewritten to take para.89 of NPPF into account

The policy has been changed slightly. We consider the policy to be NPPF compliant

Policy GB3 Changes of use in the Green Belt


Objects to policy as it is too restrictive and not

The policy remains unchanged. We consider the policy to be NPPF compliant.

80



compliant with the NPPF

Policy GB4 Permanent Agricultural and Forestry Workers Dwellings

No representations

Policy GB5 Temporary Agricultural and Forestry Workers Dwellings

No representations

Table 43 Safeguarded Sites

7 representations - 6 objections, 1 objection/comment

Concern expressed regarding quantum of safeguarded sites identified and considers additional safeguarded land should be allocated to ensure a robust Plan

Supports the principle of safeguarded land but does not consider that sufficient sites have been identified in Royston

Welcomes the protection of sites in the west of the Borough for the foreseeable future but has concerns that, if developed, these parcels are comparatively large in relation to the settlements they border.


Comments on deliverability and availability of certain sites and suggests more land needs to be identified.

Comments noted regarding quantum. We have aimed to allocate enough land to provide capacity for a five year supply of housing development.

SAF1 North of Burton Road, West Green (a)

No representations

SAF2 South of Shaw No representations

81



Lane, Carlton

SAF4 North of Burton Road, West Green (b)

No representations

SAF 5 North of Staincross Common

1 representation in objection

Proposes land should be allocated for Housing

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version.

SAF 6 West of Barugh


Proposes land should be allocated for Housing


SAF7 East of Sheffield Road, Hoyland Common


Objects to safeguarded allocation and proposes site for Housing


SAF8 South of Hough Lane, Wombwell

No representations

SAF9 East of Sandybridge Lane, Shafton

No representations

SAF10 Land behind Queens Drive, Shafton


Objects to safeguarded designation and considers should be re-allocated for housing

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt.

SAF12 North of Midland Road, Royston

2 representations – 1 objection, 1 comment

Considers site to be previously developed land and should, therefore, be allocated for housing

Considers land should be allocated for housing due to proximity to local services


82



SAF13 South of Church Hill Road, Royston

No representations

SAF14 South of Lowfield Road, Bolton

2 representations in objection

Concerns regarding proximity to Scheduled Ancient Monument

Objects to continued allocation as safeguarded and seeks allocation for housing

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version, reference AC26.

SAF 15 South of Coniston Drive, Bolton

1 representation commenting that the site should be brought forward for housing immediately


SAF16 West of Castle Lane, Penistone

No representations

SAF17 East of Castle Lane, Penistone

1 representation in support of the allocation The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version.

SAF18 North and South of Roughbirchworth Lane, Oxspring


Objects to proposed allocation as safeguarded land

Supports allocation but suggests any proposals should await publication of Oxspring Neighbourhood Plan


SAF20 Off High Street, Great Houghton

No representations

SAF21 South of New Smithy Drive, Thurlstone

4 representations in objection Concerns regarding the implications of future development of the site. Key issues include:

Access, congestion and highway safety

Considers that SHLAA site 255 should be


83



disconnected from the wider SAF21 as it does not meet requirements to be classified as safeguarded land

Concerns regarding proximity to Conservation Area

SAF22 Site north of Halifax Road, Thurgoland

3 representations – 1 objection, 1 support, 1 conditional support

Objects to proposed allocation for safeguarded land -would prefer to retain existing housing allocation

Supports proposed allocation but considers site should be brought forward before 2033

Supports proposed allocation


SAF23 South of Springwood, off Cote Lane, Thurgoland


Concerns regarding impact on nearby Listed park/gardens and Scheduled Ancient Monument

Objects to safeguarded allocation – would prefer site to be allocated for housing

Support for the allocation


SAF24 South of Halifax Road, Thurgoland

2 representations in support of the proposed allocation The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt.

SAF25 East of Beech Avenue, Silkstone Common

1 representation in support of the proposed allocation The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to

84



put them back into Green Belt.

SAF26 West of Church Heights, Hoylandswaine


Concerns regarding impact on setting of adjoining Grade II listed Church

Objects to safeguarded designation and considers site should be promoted to housing allocation due to pending decision on a planning application

Support for the allocation

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt. The setting of listed buildings will be taken into account in any future development of the site in accordance with the historic environment policies.

SAF27 North of Darton Road, Cawthorne

20 representations – 18 objections, 2 supports Numerous concerns regarding the implications of future development of the site. Key issues include:

Village lacks basic infrastructure e.g. schools, shops, health facilities, public transport, drainage, community facilities, to support more housing, people and traffic

Concerns regarding traffic and highway safety

Land should be re-designated as Green Belt

Site has history of flooding

Biodiversity issues

Impact on historic park/gardens and Conservation Area

Support for safeguarded allocation


SAF28 South of Wellthorne Lane, Ingbirchworth

No representations

85



SAF30 Land South of Wellthorne Lane, Ingbirchworth

1 representation commenting that planning permission has already been granted for this site.

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We acknowledge the point about the site already having planning permission therefore it is logical that it is shown as a housing allocation. However if the planning permission remains unimplemented we have taken the approach that it would be preferable as safeguarded land in the villages that we consider to be less sustainable than Urban Barnsley and Principal Towns. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt.

SAF31 Land off Mortimer Road, Cubley


Concerns regarding impact on setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. Any future development considered on the site will take into account the setting of listed buildings in accordance with historic envirnonment policies of the Plan.

SAF32 North of Upper Field Lane, High Hoyland


Concerns regarding impact on setting of adjacent Conservation Area

Part owner of site has no intention of selling the land and site is therefore undeliverable and request withdrawal as a potential development site.

Concerns regarding the implications of future development of the site due to impact on the Green


86



Belt, impact on village character, access and highway safety issues, and lack of existing infrastructure, services and public utilities.

Support for safeguarded allocation

SAF33 Land off New Road and Lidgett Lane, Pilley

2 representations - 1 objection, 1 support/comment

Land should not be safeguarded as planning permission already granted and should, therefore be allocated for Housing

Supports the allocation but notes planning permission is already granted and questions the point of the consultation

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We acknowledge the point about the site already having planning permission therefore it is logical that it is shown as a housing allocation. However if the planning permission remains unimplemented we have taken the approach that it would be preferable as safeguarded land in the villages that we consider to be less sustainable than Urban Barnsley and Principal Towns. We have rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt.

SAF34 Land off Lidgett Lane and Pilley Green, Pilley

2 representations - 1 objection, 1 support/comment

Land should not be safeguarded as planning permission already granted and should, therefore be allocated for Housing

Supports the allocation but notes planning permission is already granted and questions the point of the consultation

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. We acknowledge the point about the site already having planning permission therefore it is logical that it is shown as a housing allocation. However if the planning permission remains unimplemented we have taken the approach that it would be preferable as safeguarded land in the villages that we consider to be less sustainable than Urban Barnsley and Principal Towns. We have

87



rolled forward the safeguarded land notation in all villages as we do not feel we could demonstrate exceptional circumstances to put them back into Green Belt.

SAF35 Land off Cemetery Road, Grimethorpe

No representations

SAF36 Land South of Broadwater Estate, Bolton on Dearne


Proposes change to housing allocation

The site is proposed to be put back into Green Belt in the Publication version due to site constraints.

SAF37 Land at Springvale, Penistone

No representations

SAF38 Land off Moors Avenue, Penistone

No representations

Policy GB6 Safeguarded Land

11 representations – 9 objections, 1 support, 1 conditional support

Objects to policy of removing land from Green Belt to create Safeguarded land as considers it substantially weakens the protection from inappropriate or premature development. Suggests policy be deleted.

Suggests in the absence of a clear housing target a higher number of Safeguarded sites needs to be allocated

Considers wording of paragraph 19.22 should be included within the policy

Objects to the wording of the policy and considers that greater flexibility should be included to bring safeguarded sites forward when circumstances

Allocation of safeguarded land is in accordance with NPPF paragraph 85. Policy remains unchanged. Amendments have been made to supporting text to clarify circumstances in which safeguarded land may be developed prior to Local Plan review.

88



require.

Recommends that the Council identifies further allocations of safeguarded land to ensure compliance with NPPF, paragraph 85

Considers policy to be sound in principle subject to further justification in its underlying approach

Policy CC1 Climate Change

8 representations – 4 objections, 2 support, 2 comments

Considers policy should set more specific targets for achievement and encourage more sustainable energy saving construction, particularly in new homes

Consider policy should be merged with Policy CC2 and parts of Policy RE1

Policy should make reference to viability

Consider policy contrary to NPPF paras. 17 and 111 and wording should be amended

2 representations welcoming the policy

Suggestion that the policy should include reference to the importance that trees and woods can make in mitigating climate change

Comments that a large part of climate change mitigation is how well development sites are integrated with public transport

CC1 and CC2 merged and now called Climate Change and Sustainable Construction.

Policy CC2 Sustainable Construction

9 representations – 6 objections, 2 comments, 1 conditional support

Considers policy should set more specific targets for achievement and encourage more sustainable energy saving construction, particularly in new homes

Policy has been deleted from the Publication version and some of the issues it covered have been subsumed into policy CC1.

89



Consider policy should be merged with Policy CC1 and parts of Policy RE1

Policy should make reference to viability

Policy is unjustified and too onerous

Objects to policy and asks that it be strengthened to require all new homes to be zero-carbon

Paragraph 20.6Â is contrary to the Governments stated intentions for a Building Regulations only approach to energy.

Would like to see the promotion of water efficiency (measures and technologies) in building design, in order to reduce the demand for water consumption.

Comment seeking clarity as to whether development will be assessed against code for sustainable homes or through building regulations process.

Comment seeking clarification of application of BREEAM to non-residential development

Policy CC3 Flood Risk 3 representations – 3 objections

Objects to expectation to reduce surface water run-off by 30% on all brownfield sites and queries justification for this figure.

Seeks review of functional flood plain notation

Suggested amendments to wording of policy and supporting text

The policy remains largely unchanged. Text has been added regarding not allowing development in the Functional Floodplain (Flood Zone 3b) unless it can be demonstrated that there would not be a harmful effect on the ability of this land to store floodwater.

Policy CC4 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)


Considers policy wording is too restrictive

Suggested amendments to policy wording and

The policy has been redrafted and now reads ‘All major development will be expected to use Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage surface water drainage, unless it can be demonstrated that

90



supporting text

Welcomes the policy but would also welcome reference to the protection of hydrologically sensitive habitats.

Seeks reference to 'detailed planning applications' in policy wording.

all types of SuDS are inappropriate. The Council will also promote the use of SuDS on minor development. To enable the Council to determine the suitability of a proposed SuDS scheme: Outline Planning applications must be supported by a conceptual drainage plan and SuDS design statement.Detailed Planning applications must be supported by a detailed drainage plan and SuDS design statement, which should contain information on how the SuDS will operate, be managed and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Policy RE1 Low Carbon and Renewable Energy

10 representations –4 objections, 3 support, 2 conditional support, 1 comment

Supports the consideration that water resources are energy sources.

Support for policy wording as it positively allows development that produces renewable energy provided no harmful effect on bulleted list

Support in principle but suggests amended wording

Welcomes the policy

Support the policy but suggest reconsideration of wording as 'harm' to listed buildings as been held in recent Court decisions to rule out many wind turbine developments.

The Plan does not provide sufficient detail as to the appropriate siting of wind turbines. The Scottish Planning Policy approach should be considered.

The policy remains largely unchanged aside from some minor changes. Some supporting text has been added about the potential for water at or near the surface of flooded redundant mineworkings may form a sustainable local means to power ground source heat pumps.

91



Considers policy unsound as it is not effective. Suggests amendments to combine CC1, CC2 and parts of RE1 into a new policy.

First paragraph of policy should be deleted as it duplicates policy CC2

Broadly support the policy and are pleased that the sensitivity of the South Pennine fringe landscapes have been recognised. Suggest some amendments to address the cumulative impact of wind turbines. Welcome the commitment to identify areas appropriate for wind energy and would like to see this approach extended to other forms of location specific renewable energy. Once more is known about landscape capacity, targets for renewable energy should be identified.

Policy MIN1 Minerals 10 representations, 6 objections, 3 comments and 1 support Key concerns include

References to clean coal technology should be clarified further

Over emphasis on environmental concerns and use of the Energy White Paper as Evidence Base.

The policy should allow for the consideration of new sites as well as extensions to existing sites.

Fracking should not be supported over and above any other kind of extraction without appropriate consideration of the relevant plan, contrary to NPPF

Insufficient consideration of demand for brick and fire clays

Object to representation of shallow coal extraction


92



simply as a result of other development, rather than as an extraction form in its own right

Considers that the local plan should include specific policies for the extraction of minerals of national and local importance.

Document fails to acknowledge that demand for coal will still exceed UK supply.

Noted that encouraging removal of shallow coal along routes of old and new rail links could assist with funding.

Suggest policy should allow for reopening of former quarries where stone is required for repair or restoration of heritage assets.

Should consider reclamation of historical sites

Unconventional natural gas exploitation should be given more detailed consideration

Insufficient reference to the protection of ancient woodland at existing sites.

Concerns over consistency with National Planning Policy with particular reference to onshore oil and gas, conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons, the extraction of coal by surface mining

Omission of minerals safeguarding area for surface coal reserves and insufficient reference to existing and potential aggregates

Further clarity on reclamation requested Broad support for the policy

Policy MIN2 Existing permitted Reserves

1 representation, 1 objection

The policy and supporting text remains unchanged.

93



and Areas of Search Considers that further clarity required on safeguarding of shallow coal, Fireclay and Brick Clay

Policy MIN3 Non Mineral Development and Safeguarding Minerals


Objects to proposed use of thresholds – would prefer an approach that looks at exemption criteria alone. Section on viability needs clarification

Objects to developing Mineral sites south of Brierley. Considers plan is unclear on whether the future extraction of minerals is safeguarded by the policies in the plan.

Amendments suggested to Para 23.29.

Welcomes the policy

The policy remains unchanged. We consider a size threshold appropriate. Exemptions are set out in the supporting text.

Policy MIN4 Mineral Extraction

2 representations – 1 objection; 1 support

Considers the policy to be overly negative and biased towards the environmental aspects of sustainability and inconsistent with the NPPF. Suggests policy should be re-written

General support for the policy

The policy remains unchanged. We consider it to be in accordance with the NPPF.

Policy CL1 Contaminated Land and Unstable Land

3 representations – 1 support, 1 support/comment,1 objection

Support for this policy and the proposal to prepare a Supplementary Planning Document to provide more information about how this policy will be applied.

Comment that PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control referred to at para 24.1 has now been superseded by the NPPF.

The PPS reference is an error and will be rectified.

Policy POLL1 1 representation – support/comment Comments noted.

94



Pollution Control and Protection

Welcomes the inclusion of groundwater in this policy but comments on the importance of ensuring that secondary aquifers are protected from pollution associated with new development

Policy AQ1 Development in Air Quality Management Areas


Policy UT1 Hazardous Substances


Policy UT2 Utilities Safeguarding

1 representation of support

Supports the inclusion of water resources and land drainage systems in the policy

Support noted.

Policy I1 Infrastructure and Planning Obligations


Concern at the impact of new housing developments on schools and distance children may have to travel given predicted shortage of school places in Penistone

Considers policy should specify ‘Superfast Broadband’ to ensure consistency with para. 26.3

Consider reference to broadband is unnecessary as it is automatically available through telephone lines

Concerns at lack of reference to requirement for health facilities. Suggests more consultation with Clinical Commissioning Group is required.

Local plan should have a specific telecommunications policy

Comment on lack of evidence base demonstrating

The policy remains unchanged. The Publication version will be supported by an updated draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

95



infrastructure requirements on Strategic Road Network (SRN) as a result of the Local Plan. Queries funding of large schemes and raises concerns at effect of future development proposals on capacity and speed stress on sections of the SRN

Flood defences should be mentioned as a key infrastructure requirements linked to economic growth

Policy I2 Educational Facilities and Community Uses


Considers the policy needs strengthening to ensure protection of existing facilities as well as encouraging new facilities. Additional wording suggested.

Notes reference to support for community facilities but suggests additional wording to clarify what is meant by this. Expresses concern at number of pub closures in the Borough and considers that any further losses will have an adverse impact on community life. Proposes adoption of a specific policy/SPD to protect pubs and clubs as important community facilities which also support local economy and offers suggested wording.

Welcomes policy regarding provision of community facilities but seeks amendments to include reference to healthcare facilities.

Comment considering policy to be sound in principle.

The policy remains unchanged. The policy is intended to protect existing community facilities. No specific reference to healthcare facilities added but they are

Figure 18 7 representations – 4 objections; 3 comments The housing trajectory has been updated in

96



Housing trajectory considered to be unrealistic

Proposed approach is not robust and will not be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

Concern at widely fluctuating rates over the Plan period

Comment on contradictions between proposed housing trajectory and monitoring information

Considers that trajectory is unsound as it is unjustified and not positively prepared. Suggests revision

the Publication version.

Supplementary Planning Documents

3 representations -3 comments

Comment suggesting that an SPD should be produced specifically to cover pubs and licensed clubs

2 requests to be consulted on any draft of the refreshed SPD on advertisements

An SPD on pubs and clubs has not been added to the list in the Publication version, however the list is not exhaustive.

Evidence Base 22 representations – 14 objections, 8 comments

Comments on scoring system for HSSM and Employment Land Review

Comments on 2014 Green Belt Review and 2007 Settlement Assessment

Considers Green Belt Review scores have been manipulated to achieve desired outcomes

Comments that the 2011 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment should be

Comments on evidence base noted. Where issues have been raised on HSSM scoring on individual sites these scores have been checked and any necessary amendments made.

97



available for public scrutiny if it is to be relied upon as part of evidence base

Comments received on Strategic Housing Market Assessment in terms of density assumptions and deliveries

Suggests additional wording to be inserted after paragraph 4.14 or 4.16 to reference the Barnsley NHS Foundation Trusts emerging Clinical Service Strategy

Concerns raised regarding referencing and relationship with plans and strategies relating to Health and Wellbeing

Considers the amount of employment land required over the plan period has been significantly under-estimated.

Suggests an aspirational housing report is commissioned.

Additional documents relating to flood risk management should be considered as part of the Local Plan preparation and listed in the Evidence Base

General critique of the Evidence Base

Viability Assessments 3 representations – 2 objections, 1 comment

Considers the specified approach will not be appropriate in all circumstances and this should be acknowledged within the appendix

Policy wording should be amended and offers suggested amendment

Comment supporting recognition of the importance

The viability assessment text remains unchanged. We consider it has flexibility built into it.

98



of viability but recommends caution in applying the approach to every site.

Alternative Site Proposals

137 representations were received proposing alternative sites for consideration for a variety of uses including: -

Allotments

Development

Employment

Family & retirement housing

Green Space

Gypsy and Traveller site

Mixed use

New motorway junction

New road

Public transport interchange/park & ride facility

Retail park

Urban Fabric

Where alternative sites were suggested they have been run through the site selection process. If they are not proposed as allocations in the Publication version, where proposed for housing they will appear on the rejected site list with reasons for their rejection or will be shown in the initial exclusions list. Where proposed for employment they will be on the rejected sites list. Where other allocations were proposed such as Urban Fabric these changes can be seen on the Policies Map.

Local Plan Additional Consultation 2015

Section, site or policy


Local Plan Additional Consultation 2015

137 Representations Alongside comments on the individual sites which are considered in the remaining sections of the table, we also received general comments on the 2015 Additional Consultation document, comments concerning the former 2014 Local Plan Consultation, and suggestions for alternative sites that should be taken forward. Where comments on the 2014 document concern issues that were

Where alternative sites were suggested they have been run through the site selection process. If they are not proposed as allocations in the Publication version, where proposed for housing they will appear on the rejected site list with reasons for their rejection or will be shown in the initial exclusions list. Where proposed for employment they will be on the rejected sites

99



raised in response to the previous consultation they are not repeated again here, any new issues raised are noted.

15 new sites (that have not previously been considered through the Local Plan process) proposed for development.

Representations considering that the following sites shown as 2015 Additional Consultation rejected sites, should be taken forward for development:

o AC50 (part) Land south of Intake Crescent, Dodworth

o AC58 Land at junction of Warren Lane and Windhill Lane, Urban Barnsley

o AC65 Land north of Lowfield Road, Bolton on Dearne

o AC72 Site south of Armroyd Lane, Elsecar o AC76 Land east of Bell Ground, Hoyland o AC77 West of Sheffield Road, Birdwell o AC80 Monckton Cokeworks

Comments that rejected site AC47 Dodworth Road, Barnsley should also be rejected due to serious drainage issues

Comments that rejected site AC49 is not in a resultant parcel, but is subject to a current planning application for five detached dwellings

Comments that rejected site AC57 Spark Lane, Darton is not in a resultant parcel and is mainly in Flood Zone 3.

Comments that rejected site AC81 Church Street, Royston is not in a resultant parcel and part is in Flood Zone 3.

list. The Statement of Community Involvement was revised in 2015 in order to make clear how people would be consulted. The Local Plan covers a wide range of complex issues and is supported by technical evidence base. We try to write documents in plain English, however the terminology we need to use makes this difficult. We did our utmost to make as much information as possible available. We accept some additional information that may have provided assistance in the form of background papers were not released for all topics. Barnsley Central Library and branch libraries have computer equipment available for people to use. We publicised the Local Plan consultation widely. Appendix 1 sets out how we have consulted. Our approach is to hold drop in sessions rather than public meetings. In our experience these work better as they allow officers to explain

100



Queries the future plans for Monckton Cokeworks as industrial activity has ceased.

Criticisms of the consultation process

The additional sites have fundamentally changed the scope of the original document and as such the consultation of the “Draft Local Plan 2014” should be re-opened

Considers that the Council has failed to properly consider merits of sites raised in 2014 consultation

Believes it is not possible to consult on sites without specific policies being provided

General objection to the level of additional development in Penistone and concerns about capacity of highways infrastructure and local services to support this

Concerns about the lack of primary school places in Penistone

Queries the need for more primary schools in Royston

Concerns about the lack of new housing sites in the western villages

Concerns about lack of indicative dwelling numbers

Welcomes reference to undertaking ecological assessments prior to sites being taken forward but some concerns over development sites in close proximity to Local Wildlife Sites and other significant habitats.

AC42 should be described as land between Pit Lane and Cowley Green/ Pashley Croft

Objects to the scale of development proposed in Hoyland and concerns it will lead to an increase in air pollution

issues more fully. Comments from both stages of consultation, including those made in 2015 on the 2014 consultation draft have all been taken into account. The Appropriate Assessment has been renamed Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Publication version. Following concerns raised over the original site description for site AC42 site notices were amended to read Land south of Pit Lane and West of Windmill Road, Wombwell. This has been reflected in the Publication version document. .

101



The Appropriate Assessment should be renamed Habitats Regulations Assessment

Proposed allocations within the Dearne Valley Green Heart Nature Improvement Area should support the NIAs vision and objectives

Keen to ensure that coal resources are not unnecessarily sterilised by new development and welcomes the inclusion of criteria relating to ground conditions and coal mining legacy within site selection methodology.

Comments regarding identification of major accident hazard consultation zones and compatible land uses in local plans with specific reference to proposed site AC12.

Concern that a sustainable plan for Penistone should include employment land, a shopping allocation, leisure facilities, a transport plan and affordable housing.

Objection to additional proposed housing sites, considers that the focus should be the provision of local jobs for local people rather than the provision of additional homes likely to be purchased by people commuting to Leeds and Sheffield for work.

Queries whether the housing requirement calculations take into account empty homes

Comments that further work is required to determine the impact on the strategic road network and that Highways England will continue to work with the Council.

New issues concerning the 2014 Local Plan Consultation document included:

102



Amendment sought to Policy T1 to ensure that appropriate consultation and assessment takes place where any proposed development will impact on railway infrastructure.

With reference to concerns over air pollution, further evidence prepared in association with the 'East End Quality of Life Initiative' to monitor pollution levels in the Hoyland Common area.

Affordable housing policy should ensure that affordable homes are allocated to local people

A more flexible approach to the development strategy in relation to rural settlements is needed to allow sustainable growth of villages

The Council must find a way to incentivise development of brownfield sites

Questions how overall targets fit within City Region context

Queries whether the Local Plan and Green Belt review are flexible enough to respond to wider cross boundary growth ambitions at SCR level

Considers that the use of the term ‘safeguarded land’ is misleading

Concerns at apparent release of Green Belt around the proposed HS2 route.

Concerns over the proposed HS2 route.

Considers that Hoyland and Hoyland Common area is unfairly burdened with housing and employment allocations.

With reference to H46 Land west of Fitzwilliam Street, Elsecar concerns about loss of area of important mining,

Many of the site specific issues raised will have been considered as part of the sites selection process. Where specific issues need to be addressed site policies have been provided. We consider that the jobs and homes figures in the Local Plan are compatible with the figures set out in the Strategic Economic Plans of both the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. The Green Belt review has been prepared in accordance with the Sheffield City Region agreed Common Approach. We consider the review is a robust basis going forward when dealing with any cross boundary issues that may arise.

103



rail and iron making importance which could contribute the Elsecar Heritage Centre and its setting.

With reference to site H78 concerns include loss of farmland and green space and intensification of existing parking issues

With reference to sites H2 and H46 Land West of Fitzwilliam Street, and H78 Land North of Armroyd Lane, all in Elsecar, concerns regarding:

o the quantum of development o disruptions from development o lack of infrastructure such as schools, medical

facilities, roads and other public services

Considers safeguarded site SAF7 east of Sheffield Road, Hoyland Common should remain in the Green Belt.

With reference to site H8, Land off Meadowfield Drive, Hoyland, concerns over impact on ancient woodland and local wildlife site.

With reference to employment site HOY1 Land west of Sheffield Road, concerns regarding:

o consider that the rural aspect should be maintained to encourage the visitor economy

o impact on air pollution o impact on climate change o creation of urban sprawl o flood risk, surface water and drainage concerns o lack of local infrastructure o disruption to local residents o lack of sustainable employment for new

residents

104



o Impact on Hoyland Lowe Stand

With reference to site housing H4 Land south of Hay Green Lane, Birdwell, concerns regarding:

o loss of agricultural green belt o impact on ecology o increase in noise and air pollution o effect on climate change o urban sprawl o lack of existing infrastructure o impact on facilities such as health services and

schools o Loss of allotments and grazing land o Site access concerns

With reference to site mixed use site MU1, concerns regarding increase in flooding in Redbrook if deep mine drain is disturbed

Support for housing development on housing site H41, the former Foulstone School, Darfield.

With reference to employment site P2, Land North of Sheffield Road. Considers that

o B1 uses should be prioritised due to restricted access for large vehicles and proximity to existing residential uses.

o The Local plan should be more consistent with the Oxspring Neighbourhood Plan proposals with respect to renewable energy and the design of the site to protect important characteristics.

With reference to site H80, Land north and east of Joan Royd Lane, Cubley:

o concerns about microclimate in area, icy

105



conditions of roads and the suitability of Woodend Avenue to accept construction traffic due to the risk of collapse

o concern about the capacity of utilities with particular reference to power supply

Site AC1: Former Woolley Colliery

5 representations – 2 support, 1 objection, 2 comments

Support for housing development as it would encourage regeneration of a previously developed site and proposes amendments to site scoring

Considers proposal unsustainable

Concerns regarding increase in traffic and impact on local highway network

Considers development would incur abnormal costs which should be reflected in expectations for affordable housing and CIL

The site is within 400m of the Core Public Transport Network

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be addressed.

Site AC2: Land to the South of Darton Lane, Mapplewell


Loss of Green Belt

Concerns regarding highway safety

Effect on infrastructure, e.g. schools, healthcare, local services

Impact on ecology

Comments on lack of information demonstrating site suitability and deliverability

Impact on local highway network in adjoining Authority


106



Queries potential housing yield due to site constraints

Site within 400m of Core Public Transport Network

Site is suitable for housing.

Site AC3: Former William Freeman Site, Wakefield Road, Mapplewell

5 representations – 2 support, 2 comments, 1 objection

Support for proposed Housing allocation

Landowner support for housing due to lack of interest for employment use


Comments that site is on an historic landfill

Questions whether continued use of land for employment been rigorously examined


Site AC4: Proposed extension to H33, Carlton Road, Athersley

3 representations – 2 comments, 1 objection


Questions reasons for allocating such a small site

Queries evidence that site no longer in use/required for recreation

This site has been added to proposed housing allocation H33.

Site AC5: Land between Stocks Lane/West Road, Pogmoor

9 representations – 5 support, 2 comments, 2 objections

Support for housing as it would improve visual appearance

Support for site but proposes amendments to site scoring

Supports re-use of brownfield site for housing as it would reduce the need to release green belt sites

The site is not proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. It has been shown as Urban Fabric.

107



elsewhere in the Borough

Considers the site suitable for mixed use and/or housing

Site is partly within 400m of Core Public Transport Network

Comments that site is close to a number of waste regulated sites

Questions quality and deliverability of site

Lack of evidence demonstrating site sustainability and deliverability of site for housing

Site AC6: Former Longcar PDC, Racecommon Road, Barnsley

3 representations – 2 comments, 1 support


Notes that planning application is under consideration and the site demolition has commenced

Developer support for the allocation

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. It has planning permission for 32 dwellings which was granted after 1st April 2014.

Site AC7: Former Springfield House, Springfield Street, Barnsley


Site unviable due to demolition costs

Lack of evidence to demonstrate sustainability and deliverability of site for housing

Site is within 400m of Core Public Transport Network

Comments on proximity of site to Sough Dike

The site is not proposed for housing in the Publication version.

Site AC8: land at Tower Street, Barnsley


Site cannot be accessed

Ecological impact

The site is not proposed for housing in the Publication version.

108



Development constraints

Traffic congestion

Highway safety

Access for emergency vehicles

Lack of evidence to demonstrate sustainability and deliverability of site for housing

More assessment required regarding impact on historic park and garden


Site is deliverable and available

Site AC9: Land off Upper Sheffield Road, Barnsley


Loss of Green Belt – brownfield sites should be used

Objects to inclusion of this site as a means of access to H73

Queries evidence that site no longer in/required for recreational use

Concerns regarding geology of site and proximity to telecommunications installation

Loss of playing field

Impact on Grade II/II* Listed Buildings

Questions deliverability and housing yield of site



Site AC10: Land at West Street, Worsbrough

4 representations - 2 objections, 1 comments, 1 support

Unsuitable for housing due to potential conflict with neighbouring employment uses

The site is proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is

109



Questions evidence that site no longer viable for employment


Site suitable for housing due to brownfield status and is available and deliverable

provided to set out issues that need to be addressed.

Site AC11: Mixed Use proposal – Land between Fish Dam Lane & Carlton Road, Carlton

218 representations – 213 objections (including a petition containing 197 valid entries), 5 comments

Loss of Green Belt and greenfield land

Impact on green space

Changing green belt boundary contravenes Government guidelines

Increased impact on existing local infrastructure and amenities

Concern at the potential scale of development and uncertainty as to the area of land that would be left as greenfield/green space

Proximity to industrial estate and potential increase in noise and air pollution

Steeply sloping site subject to flooding

3 streams, 2 main sewer pipes and a coal seam run through the site

Loss of public footpath

Impact on ecology

Site also still under consideration for a traveller site

Lack of amenities

Urban sprawl

Geological fault on site

The site is proposed as a mixed use allocation for housing and extension of Carlton Junior and Infant school in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be addressed.

110



Impact on Carlton Village

Questions the involvement of builders in the process – conflict of interest?

Lack of supporting infrastructure

Impact on Carlton Beck and effect on biodiversity

Questions sustainability and deliverability of site

Loss of playing field

Impact on local jobs and businesses

Detrimental effect on local residents

Further assessment of impact on Conservation Area required

Considers site appropriate for mixed use but expected yield needs to take account of landscaping issues

No objection to principle of mixed use provided development does not compromise existing commercial operations.


Comments on presence of ordinary watercourse on site.

Site AC12: Mixed Use proposal between Shaw Lane & West Green Link Road, Carlton

221 representations – 216 objections (including a petition containing 197 valid entries), 4 comments, 2 supports

Loss of Green Belt and greenfield land

Impact on green space

Increased impact on existing local infrastructure and amenities

Lack of confidence in BMBC as to the scale of the development

Loss of public footpaths/recreational space

The site is proposed as a mixed use allocation in the Publication version for housing and green space with Wharncliffe Woodmoor being retained. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be addressed. A masterplan is required covering this site and proposed site H44.

111



Loss of farmland

Impact on ecology and biodiversity

Parts of site prone to flooding

Development previously refused for Carlton Colliery site due to contamination

Site unsuitable for housing due to neighbouring commercial uses

Ground stability

Urban sprawl

Inadequate drainage infrastructure

Questions the involvement of builders in the process – conflict of interest?

Impact on Carlton Village

Lack of amenities and medical facilities

Impact on traffic and schools

Railway line to east of site should be safeguarded

Impact on Calder Beck and effect on biodiversity

Air pollution

Concerns over deliverability and developer interest

Impact on local jobs and businesses

Detrimental effect on local residents

Impact on major accident hazard consultation zones

Impact on Strategic Road Network

No objection to principle of mixed use provided development does not compromise existing commercial operations


Comments on presence of watercourse/culverts on site

Proximity to waste regulated sites

112



Land owners support for individual portions of the site

Potential for encroachment on major hazard accident consultation zone.

Site AC13: Mixed Use site, Former Oakwell Brewery, Pontefract Road, Barnsley


Considers site unsuitable for housing due to adjacent employment uses

Questions sustainability and deliverability of site for housing

Main river culvert runs through site


Supports development of site as previously developed land

The site is not proposed as mixed use in the Publication Version. It is proposed as Urban Fabric.

Site AC14: Land at Bleachcroft Way, Stairfoot


Concerns regarding impact on nearby Listed Buildings

Considers unsuitable for housing due to adjacent commercial uses. More suited to commercial or retail


Comments on presence of watercourse on site


Site is capable of delivering sustainable development

This site has not been proposed as a mixed use site in the Publication version. Part of the site has been proposed as an employment land allocation reference UB16 and the remainder as Urban Fabric.

Site AC15: Land at Oaks Lane/Doncaster Road, Kendray

4 Representations – 3 comments, 1 objection

The site is suitable for housing

The site should be considered for housing/mixed use

The site is not proposed as a primary school site in the Publication version.

113



Objects due to loss of playing fields

The site is within 400m of the Core Public Transport network

Site AC16: Land off Broadway, Barnsley

10 representations – 5 objections, 4 support, 1 comment

Objects to loss of green space

Objects to proposal and questions what will happen to existing residential properties


Concerns regarding merging of settlements

Objects to loss of playing field

Supports the use for housing as it would reduce the need to release green belt land elsewhere in the borough

Support for mixed use for housing and urban green space

Site should be taken forward for housing

Site within 400m of Core Public Transport network

The site is proposed as a mixed use allocation for housing and green space in the Publication version. Some of the issues raised have been considered as part of the housing site selection process. A site policy is provided to set out issues that need to be addressed.

Site AC17: Land off Laithes Lane, Athersley

4 Representations – 3 objections, 1 comment

Loss of well used green space/ playing fields

Loss of safe route to Carlton Community College

Increased traffic, effect on wildlife and loss of views

The site is within 400m of the Core Public Transport network

The site is proposed to remain as green space in the Publication version.

Site AC18: 3 representations – 2 objections, 1 comment The site is proposed as Urban Fabric in the

114



Claycliffe Business Park, Barugh Green

Site should be allocated for commercial/employment use as it is within an industrial estate


Publication version.

Site AC19: Land South of Darton Lane, Barnsley


Objects to loss of playing fields

Site should remain as Green Belt

Considers site should be allocated for housing or mixed use



Site AC20: Land South of Doncaster Road, Stairfoot


Objects to proposed green space allocation – land should remain as employment or urban fabric

Questions ecological value of site

Comments that site is on an historic landfill


The site is proposed as green space in the Publication version due to high ecological value.

Site AC21: Former Woolley Colliery


Objects due to increase in traffic and impact on local highway network

Objects t loss of playing fields

Considers site should be allocated for industrial use


This site is proposed as green space in the Publication version.

115



Comments on lack of details regarding the site

Site AC22: Land at High Street, Shafton

1 representation – 1 comment


The site is proposed as an allocation in the Publication version. It has planning permission for 38 dwellings which was granted after 1st April, 2014.

Site AC 23: Land at Cadwell Close, Cudworth


Number of objections to allocation due to lack of suitable access

Site is not deliverable due to small size

Questions deliverability of site

Queries allocation for housing when previously rejected as Traveller site

Site lies outside 400m of Core Public Transport Network


Site AC24: Former Willowgarth School, Grimethorpe

6 Representations – 3 objections, 2 comments, 1 support

Site is unsuitable for a primary school as few children live within walking distance

The site is suitable for housing

An assessment into potential impact on heritage assets should be undertaken

Supports the removal of the land from the Green Belt, the site should be extended

Objects due to loss of playing fields

Part of the site is within 400m of the Core Public transport Network

The site is not proposed as a primary school in the Publication version.

116



Site AC25: Clayton Lane Playing Fields, Thurnscoe


Increased traffic congestion

Impact on highway safety

Loss of green space

Loss of well used playing field/sports facilities

Loss of privacy/overlooking

Drainage/flooding concerns

Impact on wildlife

Devaluation of property

Safety and security issues

Japanese knotweed issue

Questions demand for housing in this area

Questions site deliverability

Lack of existing amenities to support development



Site AC26: Land South of Lowfield Road, Bolton Upon Dearne


Objects due to area already being overdeveloped

Existing highway infrastructure inadequate

Overstretched public utilities

Land currently acts as a soakaway

Impact of development on local RSPB reserve


Access concerns

Urban sprawl

Traffic congestion

Pollution of river Dearne


117



Questions demand for new houses in this locality – existing empty properties

Lack of public transport

Lack of highway maintenance

Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monument

Proximity to waste water treatment works

Site partly within 400m of Core Public Transport Network

Proximity to flood zones 2 and 3

Site AC27: Land South of Dearne Valley Parkway, Goldthorpe

14 Representations – 9 objections, 3 comments, 2 supports

Highways capacity and safety concerns

Biodiversity impact, particularly on RSPB reserve

Increased pollution, AQMA issues

Increased flood risk, part of site is in flood Zone 3

Loss of Green Belt


Impact on Billingley Conservation Area

Sites lies outside Core Public Transport Network

Notes that could provide additional employment opportunities for Rotherham residents

The site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version. The site is part of D1 and the area has been increased to 72.9ha. A site policy is provided which deals with issues such as biodiversity and flood risk.

Site AC28: land South of Broadwater Estate, Bolton Upon Dearne

7 representations – 3 comments, 2 support, 2 objections

Site partially within Core Public Transport Network

Comments site in flood zone 2/3

Supports proposal given site’s development constraints

Supports recognition of sites importance for natural

The site is proposed to be put back into Green Belt in the Publication version due to site constraints.

118



habitat

Objects to site for housing allocation

Notes the acknowledgement that this site can be re-designated as Green Belt

Objects to the proposed allocation and considers the Plan unsound

Site AC 29: Land off Shortwood Roundabout, Hoyland


Concerns regarding lack of parking

Traffic congestion

Lack of/impact on infrastructure – e.g. local public services, school places, highways, health

Air pollution

Loss of Green Belt/green space

Impact on wildlife

Climate change

Flood risk

Urban sprawl

Disruption to existing community

Lack of sustainable employment for new residents


Impact on Grade II listed building

Loss of local character

Lack of demand

Housing targets flawed

Use brownfield sites before green belt



119



Supports site allocation

Site AC30: Land at Tankersley Lane, Hoyland Common


Access concerns

Highways/traffic concerns

Air/noise pollution

Lack of public services

Drainage issues

Concerns regarding capacity of existing infrastructure, e.g. doctors, schools, police

Lack of sustainable transport

Questions need for new dwellings

Loss of local identity due to scale of proposals

Loss of Green Belt

Loss of green space/woodlands

Impact on wildlife/ecology

Impact on community

No guarantee that jobs/houses will go to local community

Flood risk


Impact on Grade II listed building

Climate change

Urban sprawl

Lack of parking


Housing targets flawed

Use empty/dormant sites before green belt


120



Support for site allocation


Visual impact


Disturbance from development

Site AC 31: Land at Broad Carr Road, Hoyland


Concerns regarding future of existing residential property within the site

Queries whether woodland will be felled

Land should remain as Green Belt

Impact on ecology

Insufficient details of proposals

Development should utilise existing empty properties/neglected land

Development should cater for local people and not encourage migration

Merging of settlements/loss of community identity

Loss of outdoor recreation area

Loss of footpaths

Loss of grazing land

Concerns regarding capacity of existing infrastructure, e.g. healthcare, highways, public services school places

Lack of parking

Concerns regarding stability of land – historic mine works

Criticises Green Belt Review

Highway safety and traffic implications

Other brownfield sites more appropriate


121



Impact on adjacent Ancient Woodland

Urban sprawl

Noise and air pollution

Disturbance from development

Concern over quantum of development


Site is suitable for development


No objection in principle subject to closure of PROW crossing railway line adjacent the site

Site AC32: Rockingham Sports Club Field, Hoyland Common

54 Representations – 52 objections, 2 supports

Loss of sports/community facilities which have recently been improved (with national lottery money)

Site has not been properly researched

Land ownership disputed. Representor states they hold a 25 year lease on the land

Loss of Green Belt and green space

Highways congestion and safety concerns

Increased pollution and noise levels

Impact on wildlife

Climate change

Increased flood risk

Disruption to residents

Urban sprawl

Negative impact on heritage assets

Questions the need for more employment land in the Hoyland area

This site is proposed as an employment land allocation in the Publication version as part of HOY1. Text has been included in the site policy to specify that replacement sports ground and facilities must be constructed and available for use before development on the existing sports ground commences.

122



Ground stability issues


Visual impact


Site AC33: Land North of Rockingham, Birdwell


Loss of Green space

Loss of Green Belt

Noise and air pollution

Biodiversity impact

Risk to wildlife

Climate change

Urban sprawl

Increased flood risk

Traffic congestion, safety and access concerns

Pressure on infrastructure

Disruption to residents

Impact of large employment buildings on nearby houses.


Negative impact on heritage assets

Brownfield sites should be prioritised


Concern over proposed route HS2

Concern over quantum of development

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. This is land that may b considered to meet development needs in the longer term maybe outside the plan period.

123



Visual impact


Notes that could provide additional employment for Rotherham residents

Site AC34: Land to the East of Penistone Grammar School, Penistone


Flood risk (Part of site in Flood Zone 2 and 3) drainage and water pollution concerns

Negative impact on the present population

Site previously rejected due to access constraints

Loss of Green Belt, Greenfield land and Countryside

Brownfield sites should be prioritised/ exhausted before Green Belt is considered

Existing infrastructure at capacity (schools, health services, highways)

Unsuitable access

Increased pressure on Penistone Grammar

Land would be better suited to expansion of Grammar school

Road capacity, congestion and safety concerns

Ecological impact, loss of wildlife

Loss of towns identity/ character

Impact on tourism

Increased pollution

Impact on property prices

An assessment of the sites impact of historic assets is required.

Awkward shape of the site limits potential for


124



development

Further evidence is required to demonstrate the sustainability and deliverability of the site.

Allocation will increase the demand for allotments. Developers should be required to provide allotments.

Loss of playing fields

National coal board land owned by BMBC should be prioritised

Boundary should be extended to reflect SHLAA sites 599 and 687

Site AC35: Land at Castle Lane, Penistone

83 Representations – 81 objections, 1 comment, 1 support

Questions expected site yield

Access constraints, notes the site was previously rejected due to poor access and asks what has changed?

Highways capacity and safety concerns

Loss of Penistone’s rural character and community spirit

Loss of access to and views of the countryside

Loss of amenity and recreation opportunities, leading to detrimental health impacts.

Ecological impact

Increased pressure on existing infrastructure (schools, health services, and parking)

Brownfield land should be exhausted before Green Belt is considered.

Loss of Green Belt, Green space, green field and


125



agricultural land

Increased demand for allotments


Impact from construction

Damage to watercourses, drainage and flood risk concerns

Proximity to powerlines

No evidence that site is deliverable

Delivery of housing on site is achievable subject to technical issues being addressed.

If development goes ahead adjacent play park should be refurbished

Preference for affordable housing

Site AC36: Land to East of Penistone Grammar School, Penistone

40 representations – 19 support, 17 objections, 4 comments

Supports designation as green space

Supports designation provided land will be protected from future development

Supports designation subject to provision of allotment land within the site

Supports but questions green space designation when land is already in Green Belt

Considers brownfield sites should be exhausted before taking Green Belt

Loss of Green belt

Increased traffic congestion

Pressure on schools and health services

Impact on wildlife

This site is not proposed as a housing allocation in the Publication version.

126



Traffic/parking concerns

Site should be retained for future expansion of Penistone Grammar School

Concerns regarding flooding – site in flood zone 3a

Lack of local infrastructure


Comments that Scout Dike runs through the site

Site has moderate Water Framework Directive ecological status

Site AC37: Former Royston High School, Royston

7 Representations – 5 objections, 2 comments

There is already sufficient primary school provision in Royston

Development will increase traffic and worsen the parking situation

Site should be used for open space, light industry and additional parking

Proposes an alternative site for a primary school to serve the Lee Lane extension

Loss of playing fields

Site is within 400m of the Core Public Transport Network

The site is on an historic landfill

This site is not proposed as a primary school allocation in the Publication version.

Site AC38: Land at Lee Lane, Royston


There is already sufficient primary school provision in

Site not proposed for a primary school in the Publication version. Proposed as part of a housing allocation. An alternative site off Lee

127



Royston

Development will increase traffic, road safety and worsen the parking situation

Subject to the satisfactory resolution of drainage issues the site is considered to be a good site for a primary school

Proposes an alternative site for a primary school as not to hinder proposed development along Lee Lane

The site should remain a housing allocation

Concerns regarding site access

Site is partly within 400m of the Core Public Transport Network

Lane was suggested for a primary school which has been proposed in the Publication version.

Site AC39: Pitt Street, Wombwell


Loss of views


More suitable sites available

Access issues

Increased pressure on highway network

Highway safety

Flood risk/loss of natural flood defences

Drainage concerns

Impact on ecology/wildlife

Loss of light to existing properties

Considers brownfield sites should be prioritised

Urban sprawl/merging of settlements/loss of identity

Alternative derelict sites should be identified

Loss of Green Belt


128



Overlooking concerns

Concerns regarding anti-social behaviour

Support subject to yield reflecting access constraints

Supports inclusion of site and considers additional land should also be released for housing


Site AC40: Former Wombwell High School, Wombwell


Questions how much of the land will be for a school and how much for development

Access to the site is poor, a new access road would need to be built

Objects to the loss of wooded area, playing field and effect on wildlife

Supports proposal as it would reduce overcrowding at nearby schools

Considers the site should be a housing allocation

Site is partly within 400m of the Core Public Transport Network

The site is proposed as a mixed use site in the Publication version for housing and a primary school. A site policy is provided to set out issued that need to be addressed.

Site AC41: Pitt Street, Wombwell


Loss of Green Belt

Urban sprawl/merging of settlements

Objects to safeguarded allocation as considers site suitable for development in the short term

Objects to allocation as affords no protection from future development which may result in significant biodiversity

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. This is land that may be considered for development needs in the longer term but not necessarily in the plan period.

129



losses

Objects to proposal as considers the site more suitable for housing


Comments on the importance of habitat and important national species

Part of site in flood zone 2 along watercourse

Site AC42: land South of Pit Lane & West of Windmill Road, Wombwell (Land between Summer Lane & Hough Lane, Wombwell)

48 representations – 45 objections, 2 support, 1 comments

Loss of Green belt

Importance of boundary hedgerow for birds/wildlife

Impact on ecology/biodiversity

Loss of natural drainage area – increase in flooding?

Loss of well used recreation area

Lack of local services and amenities, e.g. schools, healthcare,

Concerns regarding access


Noise, traffic and air pollution

Traffic/highway safety/highway infrastructure concerns

Should use land that is already vacant

Thinks land was earmarked for extension to cemetery – is this still going to happen?

Concerns regarding public utilities network

Questions validity of Green Belt Review

Loss of character

Impact on residential amenity - loss of views/privacy

The site is proposed as Safeguarded Land in the Publication version. This is land that may be considered for development needs in the longer term but not necessarily in the plan period.

130



Lack of capacity of train services at busy times

Support for allocation – considers site is suitable for development


Site AC43: South of Hough Lane, Wombwell (rear of old Wombwell Foundry)

3 representations – 1 support, 1 objection, 1 comment

Supports proposal as it will protect habitat from development

Site should be allocated for housing due to its quality and likely deliverability



Site AC44: paper Mill, Oughtibridge, Sheffield

11 Representations – 4 supports, 4 comments, 3 objections

Potential contamination due to previous use

Lack of infrastructure (schools and health services)

Access concerns and increased pressure on highways infrastructure

Lack of public transport links

Requirement for a Transport Assessment

Effect on protected trees and wildlife

Flood risk concerns, site is within Flood Zone 2.

Damage to watercourse (which is currently ecologically poor)

Lack of consultation publicity


Supports proposed allocation

Site proposed as a housing allocation in Publication version. Whilst part of the site is jus within the borough boundary the impact of development will lie in Sheffield and any subsequent planning application would be determined by Sheffield. Therefore we propose this site will contribute towards Sheffield’s housing need figure.

131



Site AC45: Wentworth Industrial Park, Tankersley

7 representations – 5 support, 1 objection, 1comment

Supports proposal

Welcomes recognition of high ecological and recreational value

Questions the site’s ecological value


Site AC46: Burntwood Cottages, Brierley

4 representations – 3 support, 1 comment

Support for extension to Traveller site

Site not within 400m of Core Public Transport Network

The site is proposed as a Gypsy and Traveller site allocation in the Publication version.

Policy CC AC1: Water Resource Management

9 Representations – 8 supports, 1 comment

The Council should require development proposals to be accompanied by a survey of watercourses on or underneath the proposed development site


Policy RE AC1: Wind Turbine Areas of Search

31 Representations – 22 objections, 6 Supports, 3 comments

The policy does not satisfy the Ministerial Statement (June 2015)

Wind turbines should only be permitted on suitable sites which are allocated in the Local Plan and where they have community support

Further work is required to identify more specific sites

There are already too many wind turbines in the west of the borough

Policy remains unchanged. Wording added to supporting text about valued landscapes in the west and peak District National Park.

132



The policy will increase the threat to the Green Belt

The policy does not give sufficient heed to the impact of wind turbines on the landscape, ecology and sustainability

Landscape character assessment should be considered alongside the policy

The policy is not consistent with the Peak District National Park’s policies.

The Peak District National park should be consulted on planning applications that affect its setting

Wind turbines require careful siting to minimise impact on local bird and bat populations and ensure natural habitats are not damaged or lost during installation

Any detailed development principles for Wind Turbines should be set out in a Local Plan policy

133

Appendix 1: Summary of consultation undertaken

Key methods of consultation 2014

Contacted all those residents, business and organisations on our consultation database who have shown an interest in previous stages of the plan and have asked to be kept informed. We also contacted community groups across the borough.

Article in the Council’s ‘Open Door’ magazine, delivered to all households at the beginning of September (see appendix 4)

Press releases on 14th October, 28th October, 5th November, 2nd December, 7th January, 12th January. These press releases were also sent out via the council’s e-newsletter Open Mail (sent to over 1900 people), Facebook and Twitter (see appendix 4)

Press coverage (examples attached in appendix 4) Press notice in Barnsley Chronicle, 7th November 2014 (see appendix

2) Posters in local areas to publicise drop in sessions we held in various

locations around the borough (see list of venues in appendix 3) Advert in ‘Your Town’ publication - a publication produced by and on

behalf of Barnsley Town Centre Services Team and distributed widely across the Borough in the week commencing 18th November (see appendix 5)

We put a link direct from the homepage of the Council’s website to the Local Plan consultation pages to make it easier for people to navigate the website.

We held discussions with adjoining authorities and key stakeholders such as infrastructure providers on key issues including cross boundary issues

Fliers explaining the Local Plan and how to use our online consultation system were available in local areas and at our drop in sessions

Exhibition material available to view in Barnsley Town Centre in ‘Better Barnsley’ shop unit

Made paper copies available in Barnsley Civic Connects Centre and Central and all branch libraries where possible

Key methods of consultation 2015

Contacted all those residents, business and organisations on our consultation database that have shown an interest in previous stages of the plan and have asked to be kept informed. We also contacted community groups across the borough.

Details of the consultation shared with Barnsley’s Equality Forums Press releases on 13th October, 27th October, and 30th November

2015. These press releases were also sent out via Facebook and Twitter (see appendix 4)

Article in the ‘Love Where You Live’ e-newsletters issued 7th November, 21st November and 4th December 2015.

Press coverage (examples attached in appendix 4)

134

Press notice in Barnsley Chronicle, 30th October 2015 (see appendix 2) Posters in local areas to publicise drop in sessions we held in various

locations around the borough (see list of venues in appendix 3) We posted notices at every site included in the consultation document

to publicise the consultation. We put a link to the Local Plan consultation pages from the Planning

and Buildings button on the homepage of the Council’s website to make it easier for people to navigate the website

We held discussions with adjoining authorities and key stakeholders such as infrastructure providers on key issues including cross boundary issues

Fliers explaining the Local Plan Additional Consultation and how to use our online consultation system were available in local areas and at our drop in sessions

Exhibition material available to view in Barnsley Town Centre in ‘Better Barnsley’ shop unit

Made paper copies available in Barnsley Civic Connects Centre and Central and all branch libraries where possible

135

Press Advert in the Chronicle 7th November 2014

Appendix 2:

BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILSPECIAL NOTICE:

HOW YOU CAN BE INVOLVED IN THE BARNSLEY LOCAL PLAN

Barnsley Local Plan Consultation We are producing a Local Plan for Barnsley which will replace the Core Strategy and the Unitary Development Plan. Wewould like to invite you to comment on the draft document which will guide development in Barnsley up to the year2033. The consultation period for this document begins on Monday 10 November and runs until 21 December 2014.

Once adopted, this document, together with the Joint Waste Plan adopted in March 2012 prepared with Doncasterand Rotherham, will be our statutory development plan for Barnsley. It considers the future use of all land within theborough including Barnsley Town Centre, and includes text previously set out in a stand alone document called theTown Centre Area Action Plan. It establishes policies and proposals up to the year 2033. It will be used whenconsidering planning applications and to coordinate investment decisions that affect the towns, villages andcountryside of Barnsley.

How can I see the Local Plan?• On our online consultation system at consult.barnsley.gov.uk/portal • On our website at www.barnsley.gov.uk/localplanconsultation• At Barnsley Central Library and branch libraries across the borough, either online or as a paper copy (during normal

opening hours) • At the Barnsley Civic Connects service centre (Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm)

How can I comment?Using our online consultation at consult.barnsley.gov.uk/portal

If you have not previously received an email from us containing a username and password for the onlineconsultation system, you will need to register (supply your name, address and email address) the first time you usethe system. As this is a Council wide system, please make sure that you select planning as an interest when youregister.If you have registered with us before but have forgotten your username password you can reset these atconsult.barnsley.gov.uk/portal You will need to click on the Login/Register button and select either the ‘forgotten password’ and/or the ‘forgottenusername’ link.

Or by sending us a completed comments form. You can send us your completed comments form and/or deliverabilityproforma in one of the following ways:

• By email to: [email protected] • By post to: Planning Policy, Development, BMBC, PO Box 604, Barnsley, S70 9FE

You can also comment on the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the document in the same way. This isavailable on our website and at the Barnsley Civic Connects service centre.

We must receive all responses by midnight on Sunday 21 December 2014 to enable us to give them properconsideration.

Please note that any comments you make will be made publically available and attributed to your name.Please use one method of reply only to avoid duplication of representations.

We will be visiting different locations around the borough where you will be able to drop in to see information about thedocuments and talk to us:

*We have tried to organise sessions in all principal towns. We intended that the town centre sessions would beaccessible for people living within urban Barnsley. Urban Barnsley covers a lot of settlements and it would be difficultfor us to visit all of them. Drop in sessions are being made available rather than public meetings as they will alloweveryone to have their say.

The comments received as a result of these consultations will be carefully considered and taken into account.We intend to make available a summary of all the comments received as soonas is possible.

If you require any further information please contact Planning Policy on 01226 772606.

Where* Venue When (2014) Time

Barnsley

Cudworth

Goldthorpe

Hoyland

Penistone

Royston

Wombwell

Better Barnsley Unit, formerHMV shop, Cheapside,Barnsley Town Centre

Cudworth Library, CudworthCentre of Excellence,Roberts Street

Goldthorpe Library,Barnsley Road

The Hoyland Centre,High Croft

Penistone Market Hall

Penistone Town Hall,Shrewsbury Road

Carlton Community College

Royston Methodist Church,Midland Road

Wombwell Library,Station Road

Saturday 29 November

Wednesday 3 December

Monday 24 November

Monday 1 December

Thursday 27 NovemberTuesday 2 December

Thursday 27 NovemberMonday 1 December


Thursday 4 December

Tuesday 25 November

Saturday 6 December

Tuesday 25 November

Thursday 4 December

10am to 12 noon

1pm to 3pm

5pm to 7pm

12 noon to 2pm

5pm to 7pm10am to 12 noon

11.45am to 1.45pm5pm to 7pm

10am to 12 noon

2pm to 4pm

5pm to 7pm

11am to 1pm

12 noon to 2pm

5pm to 7pm

136

Press Advert in the Chronicle 30th October 2015

BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

SPECIAL NOTICE

HOW YOU CAN BE INVOLVED IN THEBARNSLEY LOCAL PLAN ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION

Local Plan Additional Consultation The Local Plan Additional Consultation document follows on from the Draft Local PlanConsultation 2014. The Consultation runs from Friday 30 October to Friday 11 December 2015.We are now carrying out additional consultation because

• We want to get your views on new sites that have been proposed. We will thenconsider all sites, both the new ones and those we consulted on last time, and decidewhich will go forward into the Publication version

• We are putting forward some new policies and issues

The new sites and issues may have been raised through comments on the consultation draft orare new policy requirements arising from Central Government changes.We must receive all responses by 5pm on Friday 11 December 2015 to enable us to givethem proper consideration.

Please note that any comments you make will be made publicly available and attributed to yourname. Please use one method of reply only to avoid duplication of representations. How can I see and comment on the Additional Consultation Document?

More information is available on our website at www.barnsley.gov.uk/local-plan-additional-consultation

You can read the document and make comments using our online system athttp://consult.barnsley.gov.uk/portal/development/planning/lpac/lpac2015

If you are unable to do this you can send us your completed comments form in one of thefollowing ways:

• by email to: [email protected] • by post to: Planning Policy Team, Economic Regeneration, BMBC, PO Box 634,

Barnsley S70 9GG

You can also comment on the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum which accompanies thedocument in the same ways. This is available on our website and at the Civic Hall, Eldon Street.

Any additional information you may have relating to deliverability of the proposed housing andemployment site options should be submitted using the proforma we have produced.The Additional Consultation document can also be viewed online or as paper copies at the CivicHall, Eldon Street, Barnsley Central Library and branch libraries across the Borough. Papercopies can be purchased by telephoning 01226 772606.

Comments forms and proformas can be downloaded from our website or are available from thesame locations.

We will be visiting different locations around the borough where you will be able to drop in to seeinformation about the documents and talk to us:

The comments received as a result of these consultations will be carefully considered and takeninto account. We intend to make available a summary of all the comments received as soon as ispossible.If you require any further information please contact Planning Policy on 01226 772606.

Barnsley

Cudworth

Goldthorpe

Hoyland

Penistone

Royston

Wombwell

10.30am to 12.30pm1pm to 3pm onboth days

4pm to 6pm

5pm to 7pm

10am to 12noon

10am to 12noon5pm to 7pm

5pm to 7pm10am to 12noon2pm to 4pm

10am to 12noon

2pm to 4pm

5pm to 7pm

5pm to 7pm

10am to 12noon

Better Barnsley Unit,Cheapside, Barnsley TownCentre

Mapplewell Village Hall,Darton Lane

Cudworth Library,Cudworth Centre ofExcellence, Roberts Street

Goldthorpe Library,Barnsley Road

The Hoyland Centre,High Croft

Penistone Town Hall,Shrewsbury Road

Penistone Market Hall

Royston MethodistChurch, Midland RoadCarlton CommunityCollege

Wombwell Library, StationRoad

Friday 13 November and


Tuesday 10 November

Monday 9 November

Wednesday 18 November

Tuesday 17 NovemberThursday 19 NovemberMonday 16 NovemberTuesday 17 NovemberThursday 12 November


Wednesday 11 November

Friday 20 November

Thursday 12 NovemberFriday 20 November

Where When (2015)Venue Time

137

Appendix 3: Consultation events

Town Centre and Principal Town Events 2014

Barnsley Better Barnsley Unit, former HMV shop, Cheapside, Barnsley Town Centre

Saturday 29th November

10am to12noon 1pm to 3pm Wednesday 3rd

December

Cudworth Cudworth Library, Cudworth Centre of Excellence, Roberts Street

Monday 24th November

5pm – 7pm

Monday 1st December 12noon to 2pm

Goldthorpe

Goldthorpe Library, Barnsley Road Thursday 27th November

5pm to 7pm

Tuesday 2nd December 10am to 12noon

Hoyland The Hoyland Centre, High Croft Thursday 27th November

11.45am to 1.45pm

Monday 1st December 5pm to 7pm

Penistone Penistone Market Hall Saturday 22nd November

10am to 12noon

Penistone Town Hall, Shrewsbury Road

Thursday 4th December

2pm to 4pm

Royston Carlton Community College Tuesday 25th November

5pm to 7pm

Royston Methodist Church, Midland Road

Saturday 6th December

11am to 1pm

Wombwell Wombwell Library, Station Road Tuesday 25th November

12noon to 2pm

Thursday 4th December

5pm to 7pm

Additional Events

St. Thomas’ Church Hall/Community Centre, Church Street, Gawber – Friday 21st

November 2014 4pm to 7pm Drop in session

138

Town Centre and Principal Town Events 2015

Where Venue When (2015) Time

Barnsley

Better Barnsley Unit, Cheapside, Barnsley Town Centre

Friday 13th November and Saturday 21st November

10:30am to 12:30pm 1pm to 3pm on both days

Mapplewell Village Hall, Darton Lane

Tuesday 10th November

4pm to 6pm

Cudworth

Cudworth Library, Cudworth Centre of Excellence, Roberts Street

Monday 9th November 5pm to 7pm

Wednesday 18th November

10am to 12noon

Goldthorpe Goldthorpe Library, Barnsley Road


10am to 12noon

Thursday 19th November

5pm to 7pm

Hoyland The Hoyland Centre, High Croft

Monday 16th November

5pm to 7pm


10am to 12noon

Penistone

Penistone Town Hall, Shrewsbury Road


2pm to 4pm

Penistone Market Hall Saturday 14th November

10am to 12noon

Royston

Royston Methodist Church, Midland Road

Wednesday 11th November

2pm to 4pm

Carlton Community College

Friday 20th November 5pm to 7pm

Wombwell Wombwell Library, Station Road


5pm to 7pm

Friday 20th November 10am to 12noon

139

Appendix 4: Press releases and examples of media coverage 2014 including advert in ‘Your Town’ publication

Local plan round-up of proactive communications and coverage

Media releases:

14 October - Views sought on Barnsley’s draft Local Plan

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/views-sought-barnsleys-draft-local-plan/

5 November - Have your say on future plans for Barnsley

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/say-future-plans-barnsley/

2 December - More time for people to have say on future plans for Barnsley

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/time-people-say-future-plans-barnsley/

7 January - Last chance to give views on future plans for Barnsley

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/last-chance-give-views-future-plans-barnsley/

12 January - Consultation site for Barnsley’s draft Local Plan extended until 16 January

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/consultation-site-barnsleys-draft-local-pan-extended-

16-january/

Open Door September 201

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/views-sought-barnsleys-draft-local-plan/

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/say-future-plans-barnsley/

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/time-people-say-future-plans-barnsley/

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/last-chance-give-views-future-plans-barnsley/

http://new.barnsley.gov.uk/news/consultation-site-barnsleys-draft-local-pan-extended-

Open Mail example

Social media posts

Help plan for a Better Barnsley

Barnsley Council is looking for views on a draft plan which sets out proposals for housing, employment and infrastructure across the borough, to be delivered up to 2033. This will help the council in its ambition to build a Better Barnsley.

Once adopted, the Local Plan will become the legal development plan for Barnsley, and all decisions on planning applications will be made in accordance with it. The plan will give certainty to developers and landowners.

The council wants to make sure it allocates the most deliverable sites in order to contribute to the creation of a strong and competitive local economy, ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and the right

time to support growth and innovation.

For Barnsley to play its full role in

providing growth in the borough the

council needs to be

pro-development, looking at land and how the borough can bring things forward. The plan contains policies to secure appropriate high quality development and to protect and enhance what is special about Barnsley and its environment.

The Local Plan consultation, which runs until Sunday, 21 December, will allow residents to let the council know their views on what is being proposed.

The proposals for the borough are available to view online at www.barnsley.gov.uk/localplanconsultation and will also be in the Barnsley Civic Connects Service Centre and libraries across the borough.

Details of ways in which people can respond are also on the website.

Views - whether in support of Barnsley’s plans to grow, or concerns about particular developments - are welcome and encouraged so don’t miss the opportunity to have a say.

YOUR TOWN MAGAZINE 19

140

Press releases and examples of media coverage 2015

Local Plan additional consultation coverage

Media releases:

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-to-take-place-on-

barnsley-s-local-plan/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-on-barnsley-s-local-

plan-starts-this-friday/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/have-your-say-additional-consultation-on-

barnsleys-local-plan-ends-11-december/

Tweet from @BarnsleyCouncil account 30 Nov 2015

Facebook Post from Barnsley Council page 30 Nov 2015

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-to-take-place-on-barnsley-s-local-plan/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-to-take-place-on-barnsley-s-local-plan/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-on-barnsley-s-local-plan-starts-this-friday/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/additional-consultation-on-barnsley-s-local-plan-starts-this-friday/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/have-your-say-additional-consultation-on-barnsleys-local-plan-ends-11-december/

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/have-your-say-additional-consultation-on-barnsleys-local-plan-ends-11-december/

141

Facebook post from Barnsley Council page 14 Oct 2015