sustainability appraisal of the doncaster local plan 2015 ...... · and was subject to consultation...

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Sustainability Appraisal of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015 - 2035: Publication Version

Sustainability Appraisal including Non-Technical Summary

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited – August 2019

2 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2

Report for Jane Stimpson Planning Policy Manager (Local Plans) Organisation name Directorate of Regeneration and Environment Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Civic Office Waterdale Doncaster DN1 3BU

Main contributors Robert Deanwood Pete Davis Sean Nicholson Russell Buckley Ryan Llewellyn

Issued by

................................................................................. Robert Deanwood

Approved by ................................................................................. Pete Davis

Wood Gables House Kenilworth Road Leamington Spa Warwickshire CV32 6JX United Kingdom Tel +44 (0) 1926 439 000 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 h:\projects\38404 doncaster local plan sa\1 client\reports\publication sa august 2019\doncaster local plan publication version sa report august 2019 final .docx

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited 2018) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Management systems This document has been produced by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited in full compliance with the management systems, which have been certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 by LRQA.

Document revisions No. Details Date

1 Report to client September 2018

2 Publication SA Report August 2019

iii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Non-Technical Summary

Introduction This Non-Technical Summary (NTS) provides an overview of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Doncaster Local Plan: Draft Policies and Proposed Sites (the draft Local Plan). The SA is being carried out on behalf of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions UK Ltd (Wood) to help integrate sustainable development into the emerging Local Plan. The following sections of this NTS:

Provide an overview of the draft Local Plan; Describe the approach to undertaking the SA of the draft Local Plan; Summarise the findings of the SA of the draft Local Plan; and Set out the next steps in the SA of the Local Plan.

What is the draft Local Plan? The Local Plan will set out the vision, objectives, planning policies and site allocations that will guide development in the borough to 2035. The Council is now consulting on the following aspects of the Local Plan:

The Local Plan Vision and Objectives; Policies to manage development and development proposals for specific areas; Sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology; Elements of the evidence base and designations; and Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

Further information about the draft Local Plan Publication Version Document is set out in Section 1.3 of the SA Report and is available via the Council’s website.

iv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


What is Sustainability Appraisal National Planning Policy1 sets out that local plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development is that which seeks to strike a balance between economic, environmental and social factors to enable people to meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is important that the Doncaster Local Plan contributes to a sustainable future for the plan area. To support this objective, the Council is required to carry out a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Local Plan2. SA is a means of ensuring that the likely social, economic and environmental effects of the Local Plan are identified, described and appraised and also incorporates a process set out under a European Directive3 and related UK regulations4 called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Where negative effects are identified, measures are proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate such effects. Where any positive effects are identified, measures are considered that could enhance such effects. SA is therefore an integral part of the preparation of the Local Plan. There are five key stages in the SA process which are shown in Figure NTS.1.

What has happened so far? The first stage (Stage A) of the SA process involved consultation on a SA Scoping Report. The Scoping Report5 set out the proposed approach to the appraisal of the Local Plan including a SA Framework and was subject to consultation that ran from July to August 2015. A revised Scoping Report was published in March 2016 and a further round of consultation took place between 7 March 2016 and 18 April 2016. Stage B is an iterative process involving the appraisal and refinement of the Local Plan with the findings presented in interim SA Reports. To date, three SA Reports have been published, the first was the SA of Growth Options in July 2015. The second was the SA of Revised Growth Options in March 2016. The third was the SA of Draft Policies and Proposed Sites in June 2018. This report presents the SA of the Publication Draft Local Plan. At Stage C, a final SA Report will be prepared to accompany the Submission Local Plan prior to consideration by an independent planning inspector (Stage D). Following Examination in Public (EiP), and subject to the consideration of the sustainability effects of any modifications, the Council will adopt the final Local Plan. As soon as reasonably practicable after the

1 Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf 2 The requirement for SA of local plans is set out under section 19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3 Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 4 Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (statutory instrument 2004 No. 1633). 5 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (2015) Doncaster Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal: Scoping Report.

Figure NTS.1 The SA Process

v © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


adoption of the Local Plan, the Council will issue a Post Adoption Statement containing the outcome of the SA process. During the period of the Local Plan, the Council will monitor its implementation and any significant social, economic and environmental effects (Stage E). Section 1.6 of the SA Report describes in further detail the requirement for SA of local plans and the SA process including its relationship with the preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan.

How has the draft Local Plan been appraised? To support the appraisal of the Local Plan, a SA Framework has been developed. This contains a series of sustainability objectives and guide questions that reflect both the current sustainability issues which may affect (or be affected by) the Local Plan and the objectives contained within other plans and programmes reviewed for their relevance to the SA and Local Plan. The SA objectives are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

1. Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth/prosperity and diversify its economic base

Local economy (maintain and strengthen)

Create jobs and new businesses Support existing businesses Provide employment opportunities for everyone Increase wealth Attract investment and trade Close the ‘output gap’ Improve financial security Provide a supply of available land for all business needs Promote tourism Support home working / e-commerce Improve quality of life

Diversify the economic base

Provide a skilled workforce. Broaden sectoral mix Less reliance on current high volume sectors More workers in ‘higher value’ sectors Promote rural diversification

2. Reinforce and support community identity and pride

Support community identity

Maintain and protect the physical identity and setting of existingsettlements

Conserve and protect existing services and facilities (especially in more remote areas)

Deliver affordable homes Promote greater community cohesion Don’t make everywhere the same

Pride Get people involved in local issues. Foster positive perceptions of the area Make people proud of their own community and Doncaster

3. Improve accessibility to place and services, both within and outside of the borough

Accessibility to places

Ensure places can be accessed via public transport Encourage a modal shift Minimise travel to work distance Has footpath access where possible Has cycle paths where possible Have adequate parking facilities Has road access where possible Facilitate links between urban and rural areas

vi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

Accessibility to services

Facilitate access to services and facilities such as health, education, open spaces and shops etc

New development should be close to services Facilitate the transport of freight by sustainable means Minimise the need to travel

4. Ensure resources are available and efficiently used to sustain development and reduce waste and consumption

Energy resources Reduce the reliance on, and the consumption of, finite fossil fuels

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Reduce energy use and encourage the production and use of

renewable energy Minerals and construction

Reduce primary mineral extraction Increase the use of recycled and reclaimed aggregates Incorporate sustainable design and construction practices

Efficient use of waste

Encourage reuse/recycling and minimise waste

5. Provide affordable, good quality housing that is available to everyone, including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups

Affordability Provide housing including affordable housing that is available to everyone to address future needs

Quality Promote and encourage good quality design and sustainable homes

Mix and range of homes

Ensure an appropriate mix of housing, tenures and types

Availability Increase the supply of housing Address areas of market failure

6. Reduce social exclusion and disadvantage

Social exclusion Minimise disadvantage or discrimination Ensure that as many people as possible have good access to

shops and services

Social disadvantage

Reduce concentrations of socio- economic disadvantage Reduce the gap between affluent and deprived areas

7. Make places that are safe, attractive, culturally interesting and distinctive to live, work and travel in

Attractive and distinctive places

Deliver a high quality built environment Promote local distinctiveness Provide more greenspaces and trees Maintain and improve the character and setting of the

townscape and landscape Safety and security

Promote buildings and developments which are ‘secure by design’

Address anti-social behaviour Maximise the security of homes and workplaces Reduce crime Reduce fear of crime Minimise risk to health and safety

8. Renew and reuse existing buildings, land and infrastructure

Land and buildings Encourage the re-use of brownfield land, vacant sites and existing buildings

Avoid the unnecessary use of greenfield sites Support renewal of old and/or poor areas of housing Protect and enhance the amenity of the area Secure the removal of unstable and contaminated land

Infrastructure Capacity of existing infrastructure to support new development Quality of existing infrastructure provision

vii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited



9. Improve the health and well- being of the borough’s population

Health Address health inequalities Make it easier for people to pursue a healthy lifestyle Promote access to healthcare Reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

Well being Increase personal satisfaction Improve quality of life Enhance people’s ability to access opportunities Encourage community participation

10. Provide education and training provision to build the skills and capacity of the population

Education Improve educational attainment Provide more/sufficient school places to address future need

Skills and training Improve qualifications and skills in young people Provide opportunities for adults to learn new skills

11. Manage and adapt to climate change

Flood risk Avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas Manage flood risk on sites at risk of flooding

Greenhouse gas emissions

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Improve/increase Doncaster’s resilience to climate change Support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and

associated infrastructure Secure energy efficiency improvements

Water supply and drainage

Encourage sustainable drainage practices Manage and protect our water supply

12. Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its underlying geology and wildlife habitat

Biodiversity (habitats and species)

Protect, maintain and improve sites of international, national and local importance.

Create new areas of biodiversity value Offset / compensate for the loss of habitats and species as a

result of development Protect and restore priority species and habitats

Geodiversity Protect, maintain and improve sites of geodiversity importance

Landscape Maintain and enhancing landscape quality and character

13. Protect, conserve and enhance the historic and cultural heritage

Historic places Protect, maintain and improve the character and appearance of conservation areas

Maintain and protect historic buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and their settings

Protect, maintain and improve national and local historic parks and gardens

Protect, maintain and enhance archaeological assets

Cultural heritage Promote and increase tourism Sensitive management of historic townscape Protect undesignated archaeological assets from damage or loss

viii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited



14. Protect and enhance soil, air and water quality (watercourses and ground water)

Land and soil Avoid the sterilisation of minerals Restore, reclaim and remediate vacant and derelict land (e.g.

contaminated sites) Encourage local food production

Water Increase the quality and quantity of the water environment Reduce direct and indirect pollution on the water environment Reduce the potential risk to ecosystems (e.g. wetland and riparian habitats) and ecological receptors

Air Reduce/minimise air pollution (e.g. increased traffic) and noise Improve air quality especially at motorway junctions and busy A

roads Reduce the potential risk to ecosystems (e.g. wetland and riparian habitats) and ecological receptors

The Local Plan Vision and Objectives have been assessed for their compatibility with the SA objectives above. The vision and objectives for the Local Plan have been revised and shortened in line with the revised and reviewed spatial vision of the borough and the original issues identified in the baseline review. The Vision and 20 supporting objectives have been appraised using compatibility matrices to identify the likely significant effects on the SA Objectives. A qualitative scoring system has been adopted which is set out in Table 2.

Table 2 Scoring System used in the Preferred Options Compatibility Matrices

+ Compatible i.e. likely to assist sustainable development

- Incompatible i.e. likely to compromise sustainable development

0 Neutral i.e. likely to involve both compatible and incompatible effects

? Unlikely to be Related or Uncertain i.e. effects cannot be judged at this stage

The following have been appraised against the SA Objectives as part of this latest iteration of the SA:

Options for how much land should be provided in the borough for housing and employment; Draft Local Plan policies; Alternative sites for housing and employment; Areas of Search for minerals; and Potential minerals sites.

Section 4 of the SA Report provides further information concerning the approach to the appraisal of the draft Local Plan.

ix © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


What are the findings of the appraisal of the draft Local Plan?

Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Vision and Objectives The Local Plan Vision and Objectives provide the context for the other elements of the Local Plan. Collectively, they present the purpose of the Local Plan and its aims. The vision and objectives for the Local Plan have been revised and shortened in line with the revised and reviewed spatial vision of the Borough. A compatibility appraisal was undertaken between the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives. The great majority of interactions between elements of the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives have either a positive relationship or have no direct or an uncertain relationship. This reflects the scope of the vision for the Borough which has economic, social and environmental dimensions and therefore aspirations which are likely to broadly result in the advancement of sustainable development. There are, however, potentially incompatible relationships between environmental protection and aspirations for economic growth associated with the ambition to: realise the potential of our key industry sectors to create more higher-skilled, better paid jobs in

engineering & technology, digital & creative, future mobility (via rail, road and air), advanced materials (for manufacturing and construction); and supporting services; and

harness the potential of the airport, including linking to regional growth corridors and securing support for a rail link between the airport and the East Coast Main Line.

A compatibility appraisal was undertaken between the Local Plan objectives and the SA Objectives which identified that the majority of the relationships are either compatible or there is no clear relationship, reflecting the economic, social and environmental focus of the plan objectives and their intention to promote sustainable change within the borough. No instances of clear incompatibilities between the SA Objectives and Local Plan objectives have been identified, although delivery of the Plan will need to take into account matters such as the relationship between where development is located and the provision of sustainable travel opportunities, and the protection of natural and cultural heritage resources in light of the need to provide housing and employment. How these potential conflicts are managed will depend upon the implementation of policies and proposed site allocations.

Assessment and comparison of Doncaster’s growth options The SA Report to accompany the 2015 Local Plan Issues and Options document considered the following alternative approaches to delivering Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations: Option 1: The Core Strategy approach – This option maintained the current strategy contained

within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario); Option 2: Doncaster Main Town focus – This was based on higher levels of growth in the main urban

area of Doncaster and main towns (e.g. Armthorpe, Mexborough and Thorne) with reductions in surrounding areas;

Option 3: Greater dispersal – This option distributed growth across a wider range of settlements such as smaller market towns and free-standing villages;

Option 4: New settlement or town – a much expanded or standalone settlement would provide the main focus of new housing outside of the main urban area;

Option 5: Low growth and environmental protection – This option was based on lower levels of growth than the current strategy and would avoid areas of Green Belt, flood risk and protected sites of historic or nature conservation interest; and

x © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Option 6: Total dispersal – This option was based on a complete dispersal of development and growth across all towns and villages.

Following the consultation on the Issues and Options SA Report (2015), a new hybrid option was developed and appraised in the Growth Options SA Report (2016). In this option, housing would be more dispersed relative to Options 1 and 2 but more growth would be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than Option 3. The revised options are numbered as Options 1 to 4, however it should be noted that Option 4 is the hybrid option as opposed to the ‘New settlement or town’ option assessed at the Issues and Options stage. In consequence, the revised growth options considered in the Growth Options SA Report (2016) were: Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual); Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus; Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and Option 4: Hybrid option: urban concentration and dispersal. This is the preferred approach. Overall, the SA considered that Option 1 (based on the current Core Strategy) has its merits from a regeneration point of view but steers too much growth to medium and high risk flood areas and too little growth towards market towns and villages (which already benefit from reasonably good service provision) and the more isolated communities in the north of the borough (where new opportunities are emerging). Option 2 would help reinforce and support the role of Doncaster as a major commercial and shopping centre of regional significance, which is demonstrating increasing potential to attract high quality investment and employment and visitor opportunities, taking advantage of significant development and redevelopment opportunities and recent major improvements to infrastructure and service provision. Option 2 would also support the development of critical mass at a limited number of other towns in the Borough where population size, services and/or proposed jobs and infrastructure make them the most sustainable places in which to accommodate significant growth. There are a number of redevelopment opportunities on the edge of the town centre close to existing public transport links and the waterfront areas where major mixed use development is planned. Option 3 would give rise to more adverse impacts on the environment, some of which would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the Green Belt and the physical identity and settings of existing settlements. While the appraisal predicts that Option 4 will have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and countryside than Options 1 and 2, it seeks to provide an appropriate balance between a focus on the larger and more accessible urban areas (i.e. the main urban area and main towns) to supports regeneration and address deprivation, whilst supporting rural communities with levels of growth that address their needs and support local services. In addition, it will ensure that local housing needs (including affordable housing) are met across the Borough. The preferred approach contained in Option 4 is largely based on a combination of Options 1 and 2, with the appraisal highlighting the benefits of concentrating growth within the main urban area, main towns and existing service centres which provide good access to infrastructure and services, such as public transport links, shops, leisure facilities and open spaces. Conversely, a more dispersed strategy (Option 3) has the potential to dilute benefits associated with achieving a larger critical mass and possibly not maximise inward investment opportunities in and around the main urban area. We have rejected this approach in favour of the hybrid option. On balance, Options 2 and 4 score best against the sustainability criteria. If the economy improves and grows significantly in the medium to long term, there will be more opportunities to increase the density and intensity of development in the main urban area and at key transport nodes, especially within the town centre. If this happens, a stronger case could be made in favour of the urban concentration approach, which can be considered through a future review of the Doncaster Local Plan. The appraisal, therefore, supports a focus on the main urban area (Doncaster) and the main towns (Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield, Stainforth, Thorne and Moorends, Mexborough Conisbrough and Denaby,

xi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Armthorpe and Rossington). The preferred hybrid strategy (Option 4) proposes slightly more than 90% of the Borough’s housing growth in these locations, which have the most capacity to accommodate development. In addition, it proposes modest housing growth (up to 10%) in ten other service towns and villages (e.g. Bawtry and Tickhill) so as to extend the approach of meeting housing needs locally within different parts of the Borough.

Appraisal of options for housing and employment growth Three options have been identified as part of the current iteration of the SA in relation to how much housing and employment land should be provided over the plan period: Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 407 ha of employment land; Option 2: 585 dpa and 103 ha of employment land; and Option 3: 753 dpa and 242 ha of employment land. The key points identified by the appraisal are as follows: All options would make a significant positive contribution towards SA Objectives 1 relating to

economic growth and prosperity. All options would make a significant positive contribution to SA Objective 5 in relation to housing as

they all meet the requirements of the Objectively Assessed Housing Need and SA Objective 6 ‘social exclusion and disadvantage’.

All options would meet local needs, but Option 1 goes further by contributing to the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan and the broader aspirations of the northern powerhouse area, through employment-led housing growth and a higher target for employment land that provides for flexibility over the plan period.

All options will help to deliver community identity and pride by helping to ensure that housing and employment needs within existing settlements are met, thereby contributing to sustainable communities. It is anticipated that Option 1 would be of greater benefit as a result of the higher level of housing and employment floorspace to be delivered, helping to promote the local economy and support local communities. Whilst all three options are considered to be a significant positive, there is a degree of uncertainty given the complexity and timing of implementation of economic development proposals. Some of the strongest effects could be associated with urban and town centre renewal. The higher levels of growth suggested under Options 1 and 3 might suggest the need for initiatives around community development/integration, especially in relation to larger schemes to ensure that community pride and identity are optimised.

All options would be expected to increase resource use through housing, with the increased level of house building under Option 1 expected to require a higher level of resource use. Improvements in efficiency in construction and waste management will go some way to offset this. In addition, once in use, modern housing is typically more efficient in terms of heat, energy and water use. More widely the extent of the effect depends upon other factors such as wider regulation, in particular the Building Regulations, and economic incentives. Mixed effects are also identified in relation to SA Objectives 11 ‘climate change,’ 12 ‘natural environment’ and 13 ‘cultural heritage.

Given the scale of development proposed by all options it is anticipated that development would both remediate existing contaminated land and lead to the loss of land classified as Grade 1 – 3a agricultural land (the best and most versatile agricultural land). As such all options are considered to have both a significant positive and significant negative effect against SA Objective 8 ‘buildings and land use’.

xii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Option 1 is the Council’s preferred option. It will meet local need but also enable employment-led growth in accordance with the Sheffield City Regional Plan, whilst providing a degree of flexibility. Additional economic growth is central to re-balancing the local economy away from public sector. It is important that the local plans’ housing and economic strategies and aspirations are aligned and internally consistent with one-another so that there is a sufficient local workforce to fill the jobs being planned. This balance represents a ‘sound’ plan overall whereby the Borough’s economic growth aspirations are not constrained by a shortage in the local workforce who will require housing. Of the 3 options considered, Option 1 meets this objective. The Council rejected Options 2 and 3 because, whilst they would meet identified needs they do not meet the Council’s aspirations for economic and social progress in the plan period. Option 2 would not enable the Council to achieve the objective of rebalancing and growing the local economy, whilst contributing to Sheffield City Region’s aspirations for economic growth. Option 3 would enable a contribution to be made to wider needs but would not provide the same scale of contribution as Option 1, nor would it provide for flexibility in relation to the provision of employment land.

Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Policies The appraisal of policies has identified that the majority are likely to have positive sustainability effects, with some potentially neutral or uncertain, particularly over the medium and longer term where it is more difficult to predict their likely effects. Significant positive effects identified include: Providing appropriate employment opportunities to meet the needs of the Borough, in particular the

requirement for the use of local labour agreements (for development proposing 20 or more direct jobs) as set out in Policy 4;

Regeneration of the town centre and centres across the Borough to meet the needs of local communities as set out in Policies 2 and Chapter 16;

Promoting the conservation and enhancement of the Borough’s natural and historic environment through Policies in Chapters 10 and 11;

Protecting and enhancing air, soil and water quality, e.g. Policy 55 ‘Pollution’ and Policy 61 relating to soil and water resources;

Provision of quality affordable housing, e.g. Policy 66 on developer contributions; The use of high quality design and sustainable construction techniques, e.g. Policy 46 Housing Design

Standards and Policy 47 relating to non-residential developments; Seeking high environmental standards of new development in respect of carbon emission reductions,

efficient use of natural resources, as well as the minimising and recycling of waste, e.g. Policy 43: Good Urban Design and Policy 45 ‘Residential Design’;

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the appropriate location and design of new development, e.g. Policy 14 ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport Within New Developments;’ and

Ensuring that adequate infrastructure accompanies new development, e.g. Policy 22 Telecommunications and ‘Utilities Infrastructure.’

The potential for significant adverse effects centre on the generation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of new development, including increasing traffic flows. There are overall minor negative effects recorded against the appraisal objectives for biodiversity and design associated with the delivery of affordable housing, where compromises on location may have to be made. On a policy-specific level, there are potential negative effects associated with: Policy 13 (Strategic Transport Network) – effect on climate change (Objective 11) and air quality

(Objective 14); and

xiii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Policy 35 (Valuing our Historic Environment) – potential effect on the ability to provide affordable housing (Objective 5).

Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment and Minerals Proposals Overall the appraisal identified that for those housing sites in Doncaster, the majority of effects identified were either minor or negligible, with significant positives identified for affordability and for a number of sites with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The majority of the significant negatives identified were with regards to the potential for polluting surface water bodies, adversely affecting biodiversity and potential effects on historic assets. This pattern is repeated for the main towns and the service town/villages. In addition, for the main towns and the service town/villages, a number of sites were identified as unstable land with particular concentrations in Conisburgh-Denaby with six sites affected, as were nine sites in Mexborough. With regards to the employment sites, the significant positive impacts identified were with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The potential for significant pollution to water bodies was identified as a significant negative for the majority of sites, with fourteen sites identified as having a significant adverse effect on biodiversity. Significant negative effects were also identified with respect to the presence of unstable land and the protection and conservation of historic assets. The appraisal of Areas of Search for minerals identified a number of potential significant negative effects for a number of SA Objectives: SA Objective 8 ‘Land and buildings’, SA Objective 12 ‘Biodiversity’, SA Objective 13 ‘Heritage’ and SA Objective 14 ‘Environmental protection’. All other scores were either minor, negligible or uncertain. The appraisal of potential mineral sites identified a number of potential significant effects in relation to SA Objective 12 ‘Biodiversity’ and SA Objective 14 ‘Environmental Protection’. All other scores were either minor, negligible or uncertain.

Assessment of Effects Overall, the appraisal has demonstrated that the majority of the SA Objectives will experience positive effects as a result of the implementation of the policies and proposals contained in the draft Local Plan. Whilst negative effects have also been identified against many of the SA Objectives, particularly associated with proposed site allocations, the draft Local Plan includes policies which seek to manage these effects such that significant adverse effects will be largely avoided. The appraisal of alternative growth options both borough-wide and for housing and employment growth and site allocations has demonstrated that, overall, the proposals of the draft Local Plan perform similar to, or better than, the alternatives considered when assessed against the SA Objectives.

Mitigation and Enhancement The appraisal contained in the SA Report has identified a range of further measures to help address potential negative effects and enhance positive effects associated with the implementation of the draft Local Plan. These measures are highlighted within the detailed appraisal matrices to the SA Report and will be considered by the Council in preparing the final Local Plan. Appendix A sets out the consultation comments received on the SA Scoping Report (2015), the SA of Growth Options (2015), the SA of Doncaster’s Growth Report (2016), the SA of Draft Policies and Proposed Sites in June 2018 and outlines how the Council has responded to the comments.

xiv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Next Steps Following analysis of the consultation responses received to the material that is currently being consulted on, and the completion of further evidence base studies, the Council will prepare the Submission Draft Local Plan. The Submission Draft Local Plan will be submitted for Examination.

This Consultation: How to Give Us Your Views We would welcome your views on any aspect of this SA Report. In particular, we would like to hear your views as to whether there are any significant effects, either positive or negative which have not been considered in the appraisal presented here and whether there are any reasonable alternatives to either the proposed policies or sites that haven’t been identified. Please refer to the draft Local Plan Publication Version Document for details on how to respond to this consultation.

xv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Purpose of this Report 1 1.3 The Local Plan – An Overview 3 1.4 Stages in the SA Process 7 1.5 Work on the Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal to Date 9 1.6 Habitats Regulations Assessment 12 1.7 Structure of this Report 13 1.8 Next Steps 14

Review of Plans and Programmes 15

2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Review of Plans and Programmes 15

Baseline Analysis 19

3.1 Introduction 19 3.2 Baseline Conditions and their Evolution 19 3.3 Key Sustainability Issues 19

Approach to the Sustainability Appraisal 23

4.1 Introduction 23 4.2 SA Framework 23 4.3 Methodology 27 4.4 Housing and Employment Sites 32 4.5 Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search and Minerals Sites 33 4.6 When the SA was Undertaken and by Whom 34

Appraisal of the Development Options 37

5.1 Introduction 37 5.2 Assessment and comparison of Doncaster’s growth options 37 5.3 Appraisal of Options for Housing and Employment Growth 51

Appraisal of the Local Plan Vision and Objectives 57

6.1 Local Plan Vision and Objectives 57

xvi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


6.2 Compatibility Matrices 59

Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Policies 67

7.1 Introduction 67 7.2 Commentary on the Appraisal of Policies 73 7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Policies 75 7.4 Recommendations 81

Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment Sites and Minerals Proposals 85

8.1 Introduction 85 8.2 Housing Sites 85 8.3 Employment Sites 188 8.4 Mineral Proposals 205 8.5 Cumulative Effects of Site Allocations 213

Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps 215

9.1 Conclusions 215 9.2 Next Steps 216 9.3 Monitoring 216 9.4 Quality Assurance 217

Table 1.1 Stages of the appraisal process 9 Table 2.1 Plans and Programmes Reviewed for the SA of the Borough Local Plan 15 Table 3.1 Key Sustainability Issues 20 Table 4.1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework 24 Table 4.2 Coverage of the SEA Directive Topics by the SA Objectives 27 Table 4.3 Example Appraisal Matrix for Options 29 Table 4.4 Scoring System 30 Table 4.5 Example Compatibility Matrix – Vision and Objectives 31 Table 4.6 Example Appraisal Matrix for Policies 32 Table 4.7 SA Symbols for Site Options 32 Table 4.8 Layout of Table for Presenting Cumulative Effects 34 Table 5.1 Summary of the Appraisal of Development Options (March 2016 Consultation) 43 Table 5.2 Options for housing and employment land provision – Summary of SA Results 52 Table 6.1 Compatibility between the Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives 61 Table 6.2 Compatibility between Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives 63 Table 7.1 Potential for Cumulative Effects by Chapter and Across Policies as a Whole 76 Table 7.2 Recommendations 82

Figure 1.1 Relationship between the Sustainability Appraisal Process and the Preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan 8

Appendix A Consultation Responses on the SA Work to Date Appendix B Quality Assurance Checklist

xvii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited


Appendix C Review of Plans and Programmes Appendix D Baseline Environmental Information Appendix E Sustainability Appraisal Framework Appendix F Comparison between the 2015 Vision, Aims and Objectives and the 2018 Vision and Objectives Appendix G Comparison of Local Plan and SA Objectives Appendix H Detailed Appraisal of the Strategic Growth Options Appendix I Appraisal of Options for Housing and Employment Growth Appendix J Appraisal of Policies Appendix K SA Framework for Housing and Employment Sites Appendix L SA Matrices for Housing Sites - Doncaster Main Urban Area Appendix M SA Matrices for Housing Sites – Main Towns Appendix N SA Matrices for Housing Sites – Service Towns and Villages Appendix O SA Matrices for Employment Sites Appendix P SA Framework for Minerals Appendix Q SA Matrices for Minerals Areas of Search Appendix R SA Matrices for Minerals Sites Appendix S Revisions to SA Baseline Scores June 2019

xviii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited




1. Introduction

1.1 Overview 1.1.1 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) is currently preparing a new Local Plan for

Doncaster (the draft Local Plan). The Local Plan will set out the vision, objectives, planning policies and site allocations that will guide development in the borough to 2035. The development of the Local Plan began in 2015 when an initial consultation was held on the Local Plan Issues and Options. Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited (Wood) has been commissioned by the Council to assist with the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Local Plan. The SA will appraise the environmental, social and economic performance of the Local Plan and any reasonable alternatives. In doing so, it will help to inform the selection of Plan options concerning (in particular) the quantum, distribution and location of future development in the borough and identify measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate any potential negative effects that may arise from the Plan’s implementation as well as opportunities to improve the contribution of the Local Plan towards sustainability.

1.1.2 The Council is currently undertaking a consultation under Regulation 19 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 20126 on the following consultation documents to inform the preparation of the Local Plan: The Local Plan Vision and Objectives; Policies to manage development and development proposals for specific areas; Sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology; Elements of the evidence base and designations; Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

1.2 Purpose of this Report 1.2.1 Under Section 19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council is required to

carry out a SA of the Local Plan to help guide the selection and development of policies and proposals in terms of their potential social, environmental and economic effects. In undertaking the requirement for SA, local planning authorities must also incorporate the requirements of European Union Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, referred to as the SEA Directive7, and its transposing regulations the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (statutory instrument 2004 No. 1633). 8

1.2.2 The SEA Directive and transposing regulations seek to provide a high level of protection of the environment by integrating environmental considerations into the process of preparing certain plans and programmes. The aim of the SEA Directive is

6 HM Government (2012) The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/regulation/18/made 7 European Commission (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042&from=EN 8 HM Government (2004) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1633/contents/made



“To contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuing that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.”

At paragraph 16, the National Planning Policy Framework9 (NPPF) sets out that local plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development10 In this context, paragraph 32 of the NPPF reiterates the requirement for SA/SEA as it relates to local plan preparation: “Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements.11 This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).”

1.2.4 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) web-based resource. The PPG for Sustainability Appraisal states (Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 11-018-20140306)12:

1.2.5 “The sustainability appraisal needs to consider and compare all reasonable alternatives as the plan evolves, including the preferred approach, and assess these against the baseline environmental, economic and social characteristics of the area and the likely situation if the plan were not to be adopted. In doing so it is important to:

outline the reasons the alternatives were selected, and identify, describe and evaluate their likely significant effects on environmental, economic and social factors [our emphasis] using the evidence base (employing the same level of detail for each alternative option). Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects on the environment are set out in schedule 1 to the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004;

as part of this, identify any likely significant adverse effects and measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, as fully as possible, offset them;

provide conclusions on the reasons the rejected options are not being taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives [our emphasis].

Any assumptions used in assessing the significance of the effects of the plan will need to be documented.”

1.2.6 In this regard, SA helps to ensure that a local plan is “justified”, a key test of soundness that concerns the extent to which the plan provides an appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives and available and proportionate evidence.

9 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019), National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779764/NPPF_Feb_2019_web.pdf 10 This is a legal requirement of local planning authorities exercising their plan-making functions (section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004). 11 The reference to relevant legal requirements in the NPPF relates to Strategic Environmental Assessment 12 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2015) Strategic Environmental Assessment and sustainability appraisal. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment-and-sustainability-appraisal



1.3 The Local Plan – An Overview

Requirement to Prepare a Local Plan 1.3.1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 sets out the

regulatory requirements for developing and adopting a Local Plan. Before adoption, this involves preparing and consulting on a Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18), producing a Publication Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19), submitting the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Regulation 22) and subjecting the Local Plan to public examination (Regulation 24).

1.3.2 The NPPF sets out at paragraph 17 that a development plan must include strategic policies to address each local planning authority’s priorities for the development and use of land in its area. Paragraph 20 of the NPPF states that the “strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for:

housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development;

infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure); and

conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

1.3.3 The PPG clarifies that local plans: “set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well designed places.” (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 61-001-20190315).

Scope and Content of the Emerging Local Plan 1.3.4 The Doncaster Local Plan will guide and shape the future planning and growth of the borough over

the period to 2035. The Local Plan will set out policies and proposals to meet Doncaster’s needs for housing, employment and other development: how much is required, where it should go and when it should happen. Together with the Government’s NPPF, the Plan aims to deliver positive sustainable economic, social and environmental development. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations, such as the NPPF, indicate otherwise. Doncaster’s Development Plan will include this Local Plan, the adopted Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Joint Waste Plan and any made Neighbourhood Plans prepared by local communities. It will replace the Core Strategy and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

1.3.5 The Local Plan will place Doncaster in its sub-regional context and will set out the borough’s assets and opportunities and some of its key challenges. It will contain the vision for the borough and the aims and objectives of the Plan. The Local Plan will detail a strategic approach to achieving these and will contain policies addressing ten key topics that will guide change in the borough.

1.3.6 The Doncaster Local Plan will be a single overarching document. Specifically, it will set out:



A vision of what the borough could look like in the future and a set of aims and objectives to achieve this;

A set of policies which will guide the broad location, type and mix of new development and will be the starting point for decisions on future planning applications. The Local Plan will identify ‘strategic policies’ that Neighbourhood Development Plans will need to be in broad compliance with;

A list of proposed development sites which cover different areas of land and different places across the borough to meet identified needs; and

A proposals map for the borough that will show the location of the proposed sites and define the boundaries of towns and villages, town and district centres, Green Belt and other countryside, green spaces, conservation areas, wildlife sites, areas for mineral extraction, and so on.

1.3.7 The Doncaster Local Plan is intended to reflect the views of the public and stakeholders (including developers, landowners and other interested parties) on how they wish to see the borough grow and develop over time and how they want to protect and enhance the environment.



1.3.8 The proposed Vision for the Local Plan is set out below.

1.3.9 The objectives developed to help realise the vision centre on: job and growth, regeneration and community pride, quality of place, transport and accessibility, homes and communities, health and well-being, countryside and natural environment, climate change (including flood risk), energy and natural resources.

1.3.10 The plan policy areas designed to help meet the objectives are: Strategic approach; Doncaster Sheffield Airport; Meeting the need for new homes; Transport, access and infrastructure; Retail and town centres; Countryside;

By 2035, Doncaster will:

be a more important economic hub with a stronger, more balanced and productive economy;

in line with Doncaster’s Inclusive Growth Strategy, have shaped economic success by investing in our future, have encouraged existing businesses to expand, attracting new businesses to the area and encouraged a low carbon economy to combat climate change;

have developed more inclusive labour markets by providing integrated support for residents to access quality job opportunities;

become a University City and ensured residents have the education and skills businesses need;

realise the potential of our key industry sectors to create more higher-skilled, better paid jobs in engineering & technology, digital & creative, future mobility (via rail, road and air), advanced materials (for manufacturing and construction); and supporting services;

harness the potential of the airport, including linking to regional growth corridors and securing support for a rail link between the airport and the East Coast Main Line;

meet our communities housing needs and aspirations focusing growth in the main urban area, main towns, service towns and larger villages providing a diverse range of homes, services and improved links in between;

ensure that new development and infrastructure requirements such as, roads, broadband, open space, health facilities and schools are improved and/ or delivered together;

enhance the vitality of our existing town centres and the wider Borough making a more attractive, healthier, safer and more active place to live, visit and work;

ensure the sustainability of villages and rural economy through appropriate development;

protect and enhance our natural and historic environment including our tourist attractions, with new developments taking account of their local surroundings and character;

be a place where nature flourishes and wildlife can move easily across the Borough, through a network of well-connected green infrastructure;

be a prosperous place to live, work and visit where growth will address health inequalities, d it d i ti



Green infrastructure; The historic environment; Design and the built environment; Health, well-being and our communities; Climate change, mineral resources and energy; and Implementation and monitoring.

1.3.11 The draft Local Plan proposes the following development for the Borough to 2035: Major new employment sites (total of 481 Hectares) to support ‘Doncaster Main Urban Area’

and 7 Main Towns; but also at locations attractive to the market associated with the Strategic Transport Network.

Ensuring the maintenance of a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. At least 50% of new homes to go to the ‘Doncaster Main Urban Area’, about 40% to the ‘Main

Towns’ and approx. 10% to the ‘Service Towns and Villages’. 18,400 new homes over plan period (920 per year); sites allocated for 13,230 in the 15 years

2018-33 (822 per annum once supply in years 2015-18 is deducted from overall requirement). Doncaster Town Centre to be main focus for most retail, offices, leisure, cultural and tourist

facilities. Flood sequential approach directing development not meeting local needs away from flood

zones. General extent of Green Belt will be maintained. Major multi-modal transport hub centred on “Rossington iPort” and business parks between

the M18 motorway and Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Unity (major mixed-use urban extension between Hatfield and Stainforth). Supporting the sustainable growth of Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

Relationship to other documents 1.3.12 Some communities within the borough as represented by their parish and town councils are

preparing neighbourhood plans to influence the future of their areas. A neighbourhood plan sets out policies within specific parts of the borough where local communities want to decide how they shape and influence the way that area will grow and develop in the future. Once adopted, each neighbourhood plan will sit alongside the Doncaster Local Plan.

1.3.13 Further detail on certain the policies and proposals set out in the Doncaster Local Plan will be provided in supplementary planning documents. These documents cannot include new polices, instead their role is to provide more detailed guidance about certain policies in the Local Plan. Legally, they do not form part of the Local Plan itself and they are not subject to independent examination, but they are material considerations in determining planning applications.

1.3.14 While neighbourhood plans and supplementary planning documents are not required to undergo a sustainability appraisal, as set out in section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act, they must comply with the European regulations relating to Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) and



Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). This report sets out the context in which any such future appraisals will be prepared.

1.3.15 Further details about the preparation process (including key stages) are set out in the Doncaster Local Development Scheme. The Statement of Community Involvement explains how people and organisations can get involved in preparing these documents. These may be of interest to those wishing to comment on the sustainability appraisal of the Doncaster Local Plan (see http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/local-plan).

1.4 Stages in the SA Process There are five key stages in the SA process and these are highlighted in Figure 1.1 below together

with links to the development of the Local Plan. More detail is provided in Table 1.1.



Figure 1.1 Relationship between the Sustainability Appraisal Process and the Preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan *Note: Stage B is an iterative process involving the ongoing appraisal and refinement of the Local Plan. In this context the Local Plan has been subject to SA. The various iterations of the SA consulted on to date are set out in Table 1.1.

The first stage (Stage A) led to the production of a SA Scoping Report. Informed by a review of other relevant polices, plans and programmes as well as baseline information and the identification of key sustainability issues affecting the borough, the Scoping Report set out the proposed framework for the appraisal of the Local Plan (the SA Framework).

A draft of the Scoping Report was subject to consultation that ran during July to August 2015. Responses from the statutory SEA consultation bodies (Natural England, the Environment Agency

Stage A: Set the context and objectives, establish the baseline and decide on the scope

1. Identify other relevant policies, plans and programmes and sustainability objectives

2. Collect baseline information 3. Identify sustainability issues and problems 4. Develop the sustainability appraisal framework 5. Consult the consultation bodies on the scope of the

sustainability appraisal report

Stage B: Develop and refine alternatives and assess effects* 1. Test the Local Plan objectives against the sustainability

framework 2. Develop the Local Plan options including reasonable

alternatives 3. Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan and alternatives 4. Consider ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising

beneficial effects 5. Propose measures to monitor the significant effects of

implementing the Local Plan

Stage C: Prepare the Sustainability Appraisal Report

Stage D: Seek representations on the Sustainability Appraisal Report from consultation bodies and the public (including preferred options and appraisal of significant changes following consultation)

Stage E: Post-adoption reporting and monitoring 1. Prepare and publish post-adoption statement 2. Monitor significant effects of implementing the Local Plan 3. Respond to adverse effects

Evidence gathering and engagement

Consult on the Doncaster Local Plan in line with Regulation 18 of the Town & Country

Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

Seek representations on the Publication Version of the Local Plan (Regulation 19) from consultation bodies and the public

Submit Local Plan and supporting documents for Examination

Doncaster Local Plan adopted

Monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Plan



and Historic England – English Heritage at the time). Responses related to all aspects of the Scoping Report and resulted in amendments to the SA Framework. Appendix A contains a schedule of the consultation comments received to the Scoping Report, the response and the subsequent action taken. A revised Scoping report was published in March 2016 no additional comments were received on the revised Scoping Report.

Stage B is an iterative process involving the ongoing appraisal and refinement of the Local Plan. In this context the Local Plan has been subject to SA. The various iterations of the SA consulted on to-date are set out in Table 1.1.

This report has been prepared as a part of Stages B and C of the SA and considers the effects of the Publication Draft Local Plan. It is being published for consultation alongside the consultation documentation outlined in Section 1.1 and 1.3 of this Report.

1.4.6 At the conclusion of Stage C, a final SA Report will be prepared to accompany the Submission Local Plan (scheduled for Autumn 2019) prior to consideration by an independent planning inspector (Stage D).

Following Examination in Public (EiP), and subject to any significant changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan that may require appraisal as a result of the EiP, the Council will issue a Post Adoption Statement (PAS) as soon as reasonably practicable after the adoption of the Local Plan. The PAS will set out the results of the consultation and SA process and the extent to which the findings of the SA have been accommodated in the adopted Local Plan. During the period of the Local Plan, the Council will monitor its implementation and any significant social, economic and environmental effects (Stage E).

1.5 Work on the Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal to Date 1.5.1 SA is an iterative process and the SA for the Doncaster Local Plan has been updated at each stage

of the plan preparation process. Future updates will include any updates required to the baseline information and plan policy context set out in the appendices of this report. The findings of the appraisal will be taken into account alongside consultation responses when finalising the plan.

1.5.2 Table 1.1 outlines the key steps in the context of the local plan process. The Doncaster Local Plan will be subject to on-going consultation and the sustainability appraisal will be made available alongside each consultation version as it progresses through to adoption.

Table 1.1 Stages of the appraisal process Local Plan Stage SA Stage SA Report SA Report purpose and content

Evidence gathering

Stage A Scoping Report Draft July 2015 Final Scoping Report March 2016

Agree on scope and content Highlight/identify issues and opportunities the plan should respond to Finalise sustainability appraisal framework



Local Plan Stage SA Stage SA Report SA Report purpose and content

Options Stages B and C

Interim Sustainability Appraisal Reports: SA of Growth Options July 2015 SA of Revised Growth Options March 2016

Appraise strategic growth options. Appraise detailed policy options that emerge from the preferred spatial growth option. Update the baseline information as required. Develop the vision and objectives of the plan to address the relevant issues set out in the SA. Appraise site options. Amend the report to take on board comments received.

Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation

Stages B and C

SA of Doncaster Local Plan – Informal Consultation: Draft Policies and Proposed Sites (September 2018)

Update the baseline information as required. Appraise vision and objectives. Appraise strategic growth options. Appraise options for housing and employment growth. Appraisal of plan policies. Appraise site options. Amend the report to take on board comments received.

Publication Stage C Full Sustainability Appraisal Report (this report)

Update baseline review and list of plans and programmes as required. Incorporate the results of previous appraisal work (e.g. options). Assess the significant effects of the preferred policies. Amend the report to take on board comments received.

Submission/ Examination

Stage D Final Sustainability Appraisal Report

Appraise any significant changes that need to be made to the local plan (as a result of the representations) which are likely to give rise to significant effects. Submit the final SA Report alongside the local plan and representations from the publication stage Examination in Public of the Submission Local Plan and evidence base to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Any significant changes to the submission document (local plan) that are put forward during the examination will need to be tested against the SA framework. If this is the case, an addendum to the SA report will be published alongside the focused changes.

Adaption / post adoption

Stage E Post-Adoption Statement

A Post-Adoption Statement will be published alongside the adopted plan in line with the regulations explaining how the appraisal has influenced the preparation of the local plan.

Initial Consultation (July 2015) 1.5.3 The appraisal of the Doncaster Local Plan began with the publication of, and consultation on, the

following documents in July 2015: Doncaster Local Plan: Visions, Aims and Objectives; Doncaster Local Plan: Issues and Options; Doncaster Local Plan: Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report; and



Doncaster Local Plan: Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s Growth Options. 1.5.4 The SA of Growth Options considered the following alternative approaches to delivering

Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations: Option 1: The Core Strategy approach (business as usual) – This option maintained the

current strategy contained within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario); Option 2: Doncaster Main Town focus – This was based on higher levels of growth in the

main urban area of Doncaster and main towns (e.g. Armthorpe, Mexborough and Thorne) with reductions in surrounding areas;


Option 4: New settlement or town – A much expanded or standalone settlement would provide the main focus of new housing outside of the main urban area;



1.5.5 Options 4, 5 and 6 were rejected by the Council because of their potential to restrict long term economic growth and prosperity and undermine efforts to regenerate and renew former mining communities.

1.5.6 The 2015 SA Report concluded that Options 1 and 2 performed best against the criteria because growth would be directed towards the main urban area, main towns and existing service centres which provided good access to infrastructure and services, such as public transport links. A more dispersed option (Option 3) was considered to better help meet local housing needs and support local services, although it might also dilute benefits associated with achieving a larger critical mass and possibly not maximise inward investment opportunities in and around the main urban areas.

1.5.7 Overall, the urban concentration approach (Option 2) was considered to be most sustainable of the strategic options in terms of distributing growth and development across the borough.

Revised Growth Consultation (March 2016) 1.5.8 In March 2016 the Council undertook a re-appraisal of spatial options in the context of a revised

requirement for housing and job provision over the plan period (920 homes p.a. totalling 15,640 over the plan period). The following documents were produced and consulted upon: Homes and Settlements; and Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s Growth Options.

1.5.9 The SA of Doncaster’s Growth Options included consideration of three of the previous options and a new hybrid option. In this hybrid option, housing would be more dispersed relative to Options 1 and 2 but more growth would be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than Option 3. The revised options are numbered as Options 1 to 4, however it should be noted that Option 4 is the hybrid option as opposed to the ‘New settlement or town’ option assessed at the Issues and Options stage. In consequence, the revised growth options considered in the Growth Options SA Report (2016) were: Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual);



Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus;

Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and

Option 4: Hybrid option: urban concentration and dispersal. This is the preferred approach.

1.5.10 The Council indicated in the March 2016 report that the hybrid option was preferred because it sought to ensure that sufficient opportunities would come forward across the borough to secure affordable housing, open space and other types of infrastructure in line with local and national priorities. Housing growth would be spread across a relatively large number of settlements in both rural and urban areas (including more market-friendly locations) to meet local needs and secure the delivery of affordable homes. In addition, it was considered that market-attractive locations should provide a better return from development in terms of infrastructure, affordable housing, and community benefits.

Local Plan Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation 1.5.11 The Council undertook a consultation on draft policies and sites for the Local Plan which ran from

13th September to 26th October 2018. This included: The Local Plan Vision and Objectives; Policies to manage development and Proposals for specific areas; and New sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology.

1.5.12 An SA Report was published as part of the consultation which presented the appraisal of the proposed objectives, policies and sites. Following analysis of the responses, the Council has revised the proposals, for inclusion in the Local Plan Publication Version (which is the subject of this SA).

1.5.13 The 2018 Local Plan consultation document was prepared in line with the 2012 NPPF. This has now been revised to align with the revised 2019 NPPF.

1.6 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.6.1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) requires

that competent authorities assess the potential impacts of land use plans on the Natura 2000 network of European protected sites13 to determine whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of the plan’s implementation (either alone or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects); and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on that site’s integrity. The process by which the impacts of a plan or programme are assessed against the conservation objectives of a European site is known as ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA).14

13 Strictly, ‘European sites’ are any Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from the point at which the European Commission and the UK Government agree the site as a ‘Site of Community Importance’ (SCI); any classified Special Protection Area (SPA); any candidate SAC (cSAC); and (exceptionally) any other site or area that the Commission believes should be considered as an SAC but which has not been identified by the Government. However, the term is also commonly used when referring to potential SPAs (pSPAs), to which the provisions of Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (the ‘new wild birds directive’) are applied; and to possible SACs (pSACs) and listed Ramsar Sites, to which the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 are applied a matter of Government policy when considering development proposals that may affect them (NPPF para 176). ‘European site’ is therefore used in this report in its broadest sense, as an umbrella term for all of the above designated sites 14 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ has been historically used as an umbrella term to describe the process of assessment as a whole. The whole process is now more usually termed ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA), and ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is used to indicate a specific stage within the HRA.



1.6.2 In accordance with the Habitats Regulations, what is commonly referred to as a HRA screening exercise will be undertaken to identify the likely impacts of the Local Plan upon European sites, either alone or ‘in combination’ with other projects or plans, and to consider whether these impacts are likely to be significant. Where there are likely significant impacts, more detailed Appropriate Assessment will be required.

1.6.3 The HRA report containing the findings of the assessment of the 2018 Draft Local Plan were consulted upon with Natural England, as the statutory nature conservation body. A revised HRA Report has been published alongside the SA report for the Regulation 19 consultation. The HRA has helped inform the appraisal process, particularly in respect of the potential effects of proposals on biodiversity.

1.6.4 The HRA has considered the potential impact on European Sites from the location of proposed housing, employment, mixed use and minerals sites that are proposed for Doncaster up to the year 2035. The European sites considered are: Thorne Moors, Hatfield Moors, Lower Derwent Valley, River Derwent and Humber Estuary. The HRA process has screened each of the housing, employment and minerals sites within the Local Plan document to determine if there is a likely significant effect on any of these European Sites. The Assessment has considered the potential impact on such sites due to an increased demand for water, greater levels of waste water being created as a result of development, increased numbers of visitors, pet predation, loss of foraging habitats, air pollution, growth of the airport, and, hydrological impacts of mineral extraction. In summary there were no site allocations that were identified as having significant negative effects that could not be mitigated through policies contained in the Local Plan.

1.7 Structure of this Report 1.7.1 For a number of reasons, including the number of sites that have been appraised the SA is a large

document. It has therefore been split into three volumes (the main report and NTS are in volume I and the appendices are presented in Volumes II (Appendix A to J) and III (Appendix K to R). This SA Report is structured as follows: Non-Technical Summary; Provides a summary of the SA Report including the findings of the

appraisal; Section 1: Introduction - Includes a summary of the Local Plan, an overview of SA, report

contents and an outline of how to respond to the consultation (Appendix A provides the results of earlier consultation associated with previous iterations of the SA and Appendix B provides a quality assurance checklist);

Section 2: Review of Plans and Programmes - Provides an overview of the review of those plans and programmes relevant to the Local Plan and SA (Appendix C provides a detailed review of Policies, Plans and Programmes);

Section 3: Baseline Analysis - Presents the baseline analysis of the borough’s social, economic and environmental characteristics and identifies the key sustainability issues that have informed the SA Framework and appraisal (Appendix D – provides more detail in relation to the baseline);

Section 4: SA Approach - Outlines the approach to the SA of the emerging Local Plan including the SA Framework, the Framework is provided at Appendix E);

Section 5: Appraisal of Development Options – presents a summary of the findings of the appraisal of spatial options and options for the scale of housing and employment growth that should be planned for (matrices are provided at Appendix H and I);



Section 6: Appraisal of the Local Plan Vision and Objectives - sets out the appraisal of the proposed Vision and Objectives for the Local Plan against the SA Objectives and examines the vision and objectives for any internal conflicts (matrices with more detailed analysis are provided at Appendix F and G);

Section 7: Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Policies – Presents a summary of the findings of the appraisal of the policies included in the consultation documents (matrices are provided in Appendix J);

Section 8: Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment and Minerals Proposals – Presents a summary of the findings of the appraisal of options included in the consultation documents (detailed matrices, including the detailed SA Framework used for proposals are provided in Appendix K to R in Volume 3); and

Section 9: Conclusions, Monitoring and Next Steps – Presents the conclusions of the SA of the emerging Local Plan, discusses the requirement for monitoring and details of the next steps in the appraisal process.

This SA Report has been prepared to reflect the reporting requirements of the SEA Directive and associated Regulations and Appendix B contains a completed quality assurance checklist. This summarises the requirements of the SEA Directive and outlines how the work undertaken to date relates to the requirements.

1.8 Next Steps 1.8.1 The consultation documentation, including the SA will be subject to a period of public consultation.

Once consultation responses have been received these will be reviewed and the Council will consider these as part of the preparation of the Local Plan.

1.8.2 We would welcome your views on the SA Report accompanying the Local Plan consultation documents. All comments received by the closing date will be considered and the SA will be amended as appropriate.

This Consultation: How to Give Us Your Views We would welcome your views on any aspect of this SA Report. In particular, we would like to hear your views as to whether there are any significant effects, either positive or negative which have not been considered in the appraisal presented here and whether there are any reasonable alternatives to either the proposed policies or sites that haven’t been identified. Please refer to the Local Plan Publication Version Document for details on how to respond to this consultation.



Review of Plans and Programmes

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 One of the first steps in undertaking SA is to identify and review other relevant plans and

programmes that could influence the Local Plan. The requirement to undertake a plan and programme review and identify the environmental and wider sustainability objectives relevant to the plan being assessed is set out in the SEA Directive. An ‘Environmental Report’ required under the SEA Directive should include: “An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and relationship with other relevant plans and programmes” to determine “the environmental protection objectives, established at international (European) community or national level, which are relevant to the plan or programme…and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex 1 (a), (e)).

2.1.2 Plans and programmes relevant to the Local Plan may be those at an international/European, UK, national, regional, sub-regional or local level, as relevant to the scope of the document. The review of relevant plans and programmes aims to identify the relationships between the Local Plan and these other documents i.e. how the Local Plan could be affected by the other plans’ and programmes’ aims, objectives and/or targets, or how it could contribute to the achievement of their sustainability objectives. The review also ensures that the relevant environmental protection and sustainability objectives are integrated into the SA. Additionally, reviewing plans and programmes can provide appropriate information on the baseline for the plan area and help identify the key sustainability issues.

2.1.3 The SA Scoping Report included a review of plans and programmes, consistent with the requirements of the SEA Directive, and which was used to inform the development of the SA Framework. This review has been updated as part of the preparation of this SA Report in order to reflect any additional, relevant plans and programmes published since consultation on the Scoping Report took place.

2.2 Review of Plans and Programmes 2.2.1 Nearly 80 international, national, regional/sub-regional and local level plans and programmes have

been reviewed in preparing this Scoping Report. These are listed in Table 2.1, with the results of the review provided in Appendix C.

Table 2.1 Plans and Programmes Reviewed for the SA of the Borough Local Plan Plan / programme International Johannesburg Declaration of Sustainable Development (1992) Kyoto Protocol Agreement (1997) Framework Convention on Climate Change The Paris Agreement (2016) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

European Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora) ‘Habitats Directive’ European Council Directive 79/409/EEC (The Conservation of Wild Birds) ‘Birds Directive’ The Seventh Environmental Action Programme of the European Community 2-13-2020 European Council Directive 2008/98/EC Waste Framework Directive



Plan / programme Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC Renewable Energy Directive 2009/EC Flood Directive 2007/60/EC Noise Directive 2002/49/EC Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC European Landscape Convention (Florence Convention) EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 – Towards Implementation European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage EU 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (SEA Directive) National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance (as amended) (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2014)National Planning Policy for Waste (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2014) Waste Management Plan for England (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, December 2013) ‘Securing the Future’: Sustainable Development Strategy (HM Government, 2005) Climate Change Act 2008 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (Committee on Climate Change, 2017) Clean Growth Strategy (Department of Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2017) Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in UK (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2017) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Water Act 2014 A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (HM Government, 2018) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2015) Biodiversity 2020 - a strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2012) “Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt” (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2008) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs 2011) Water for Life (HM Government, 2011) Planning for our electric future: a white paper for secure, affordable and low carbon electricity (Department for Energy & Climate Change, 2012) ‘Safeguarding our Soils’ A Strategy for England (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2009) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Living with Environmental Change, 2010)Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England (Department of Health, 2010) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Transport white paper – Cutting carbon, creating growth: making sustainable local transport happen (Department of Transport, 2011) Aviation Policy Framework (Department of Transport, March 2014) Equality Framework for Local Government (Local Government Association) National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2011)Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (Environment Agency, 2013) Rights of Way Circular 01/09 (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2015) Strategy 2015 – 2020: World Class Education and Care (Department for Education, 2016) DFE (2016) Strategy 2015 – 2020: World Class Education and Care A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (Her Majesty’s Government, 2018)



Plan / programme Regional and sub-regional Northern Powerhouse Strategy (HM Government, 2016)Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Joint Waste Plan (adopted in 2012) South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure Strategy and Delivery Programme (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, 2012 and 2013) Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan (Sheffield City Region Local Economic Partnership, March 2016) Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan (Sheffield City Region Local Economic Partnership, March 2014)Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan – A Focused 10 Year Plan for Private Sector Growth (2015-2025) Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy (2018 – 2040) Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy (March 2019) Sheffield City Region Digital Action Plan – Strategic Framework and Action Plan (Sheffield City Region, January 2018) Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan (Arup, 2018) Idle and Torne Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (Environment Agency, 2009) Don and Rother Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (Environment Agency, 2009) North and North East Lincolnshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (North East and North Lincolnshire Councils, November 2011) Humber River Basin Management Plan (Environment Agency, Updated 2015) River Trent & River Don Catchment Flood Management Plans (Environment Agency, 2010) Local Doncaster Borough Strategy Refresh Doncaster’s Economic Growth Plan (2013-18) Doncaster Inclusive Growth Strategy 2018-21 Doncaster Growing Together (Team Doncaster 2017)Doncaster College Corporate Strategy Refresh (2015-2018) Doncaster Colleges Group Strategic Plan 2018-21 The Organisation of Learning Provision in Doncaster (DMBC 2017)Dearne Valley Eco Vision (URBED, 2009) Doncaster Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2017 – 2027 (Doncaster MBC, 2017) Doncaster Cycle Strategy (Doncaster MBC, December 2013) Get Doncaster Walking Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2018) Doncaster Town Centre Parking Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2018) Doncaster Renaissance Town Charter (Yorkshire Forward, 2002) Doncaster Renaissance Masterplan (Urban Initiatives, 2003)Doncaster Urban Centre Masterplan Doncaster Retail, Leisure and Town Centres Study (GVA 2015) Doncaster Air Quality Action Plan (Doncaster MBC, 2013)Doncaster Environment Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2013) Doncaster Green Infrastructure Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2014) Doncaster Housing Strategy (2015-25) Doncaster Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 2017 Doncaster Sheffield Airport Masterplan 2018 – 2037: Draft Consultation Report Masterplan (March 2018) Doncaster Biodiversity Action Plan (Doncaster MBC, January 2007) Doncaster Health and Wellbeing Strategy (NHS and Doncaster MBC, 2012) Doncaster’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (Doncaster Data Observatory, 2014) Doncaster Physical Activity and Sport Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2014) Doncaster Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Needs Assessment (Doncaster MBC, 2018) Doncaster Infrastructure Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2018) Doncaster Economic Forecasts and Housing Need Assessment (Peter Brett Associates, 2018) Health Improvement Framework (Doncaster MBC, 2013) Doncaster Heritage Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2015) Doncaster Playing Pitch Strategy (Doncaster MBC 2018)



Plan / programme Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Doncaster MBC, 2014)

2.2.2 The review of plans and programmes presented in Appendix C has identified a number of

objectives and policy messages relevant to the Local Plan and scope of the SA. 2.2.3 Key issues from the review of plans and programmes informed the identification of key issues that

are summarised in Section 3.3 of this Report.



Baseline Analysis

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 An essential part of the SA process is the identification of the current baseline conditions and their

likely evolution. It is only with a knowledge of existing conditions, and a consideration of their likely evolution, can the effects of the Local Plan be identified and appraised and its subsequent success or otherwise be monitored. The SEA Directive also requires that the evolution of the baseline conditions of the Plan area (that would take place without the plan or programme) is identified, described and taken into account. This is also useful in determining the key issues for each topic that should be taken forward in the SA, through the SA Objectives and guide questions.

3.2 Baseline Conditions and their Evolution 3.2.1 Appendix D provides a snap-shot of the baseline situation and will be used to inform the

preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan and relevant neighbourhood plans. It describes how the borough has evolved over time and how it compares to other geographical areas such as adjoining authorities and the city region as a whole. In addition, it explains how the current situation is likely to change in the absence of the local plan (the “business-as-usual” scenario) and highlights gaps in the data where information is not currently available. The tables in Appendix D also highlight trends as well as comparative data on a local, sub-regional, regional and national level, where available. The baseline information in Appendix D has been updated with new information for this report. It should be noted that the appraisal of sites has been based on up to date relevant environmental information, e.g. in relation to flood risk and environmental designations.

3.2.2 To inform the analysis, data has been drawn from a variety of sources, including: The Office of National Statistics; Nomis, Environment Agency; Historic England; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra); the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan.

3.2.3 The baseline review is based around a series of themes which cover all of the topic areas identified in Annex I of the SEA Directive such as air, water, climate, economy, health and communities. Some of the themes are based on the chapter headings from the NPPF. The data has been derived from multiple sources which are referenced as footnotes in this report and will be updated as new information becomes available. As such, it provides the basis against which the effects of the Doncaster Local Plan can be identified, described, assessed and monitored.

3.3 Key Sustainability Issues 3.3.1 The key sustainability issues arising from the review of baseline conditions are summarised below

with more information provided in Appendix D. They are also set out in Table 3.1.



Table 3.1 Key Sustainability Issues

Economic Doncaster needs to diversify and strengthen its economic base especially towards high-

skilled and innovative sectors, such as advanced manufacturing, rail engineering, energy and aviation.

Large parts of the countryside around Doncaster and its outlying towns (including the Green Belt and high grade agricultural land) are vulnerable to speculative development and land use intensification. The strategic gaps of open land between the main urban area and open countryside are quite narrow in places but they play an important role in helping to protect the character and physical identity of individual settlements.

Economic growth is increasingly linked to market opportunities. However, a balance needs to be stuck between regeneration and renewal (e.g. deprived coalfield areas) and private sector opportunities in affluent or high land value areas.

Economic links between Doncaster and the rest of the city region and to the coastal ports (e.g. Hull and Humber) need to be improved and strengthened.

Doncaster’s town centres need to evolve and change in a planned way to meet the broader needs of communities they serve over the next 15-20 years in the face of increasing competition from out-of-centre and internet shopping. Significant investment is required to unlock development sites and opportunities within or on the edge of the town centre.

Sustainable transport services and infrastructure are needed to improve access to jobs and services from deprived or isolated communities, especially in rural areas and former mining towns.

Owing to its geography and proximity to natural resources, Doncaster has considerable renewable energy potential from wind and solar and other sources of energy, including carbon capture and waste. In addition, some parts of the borough such as town centres and major growth areas benefit from high anchor loads and heat densities which offer the opportunity to create decentralised heat and power networks.

Doncaster’s mineral resources (sharp sand gravel, industrial limestone and silica sand) need to be safeguarded to avoid sterilisation and ensure a steady and adequate supply of minerals in line with demand (balanced against wider sustainability considerations).

Social Doncaster has high levels of deprivation with a number of neighbourhoods among some of

the most deprived in England.

Doncaster has a poor skills profile and there is a pressing need to improve the quality of teaching and training as well as exam results. Significant investment in schools/post-16 education facilities is also required.

Life expectancy in Doncaster is improving but still lags behind the national average with big differences between rich and poor areas.



Doncaster has relatively high levels of obesity and ill health and sport and recreation activity is below the national average. Further action needs to be taken to promote healthier lifestyles and more sustainable living opportunities.

Fuel poverty is not a new problem but rising living costs and colder winters are placing enormous pressure on low income families and older people, especially those with poor quality housing and health related issues.

Crime is falling in Doncaster but fears about crime and anti-social behaviour remain high especially in town centres. The design and layout of new development will require careful consideration to reduce the fear of crime, improve community safety and prevent crime from happening in the first place.

Some communities and groups in Doncaster (e.g. gypsy and travellers, black and ethnic minorities and young adults) experience high levels of social exclusion and isolation and there is a digital divide between affluent and deprived areas, in terms of the proportion of people that have never accessed the internet.

Doncaster, like the rest of the UK, is not building enough homes to meet its needs. Unlocking housing land will help deliver a step change in supply (e.g. physical renewal and new build) and deliver more affordable homes, especially in rural areas and areas of market failure.

New housing will create a demand for more school places and additional services, especially within future growth areas. Some areas have a shortfall of primary school provision.

Access to training and education opportunities (e.g. graduate and post-graduate qualifications) needs to be improved and widened.

Environmental In common with many other parts of the country, Doncaster needs to make a swift transition

to a low carbon economy and play a more active role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Doncaster has a higher per capita level of emissions than the national average, mainly because of high levels of car use.

Development opportunities need to be prioritised within existing urban areas (primarily on brownfield or disused land) to avoid the loss of Green Belt and open countryside and facilitate the regeneration and physical renewal of existing communities. Empty or redundant agricultural buildings also need to be brought back into use.

Concerted action is needed to manage and improve air quality especially around key junctions and major development sites.

Significant opportunities exist to increase the climate resilience and energy efficiency of buildings and spaces, especially within areas of market failure which lack adequate insulation.

Doncaster has a shortfall of accessible open space such as outdoor recreational space in most areas. Green infrastructure needs to be integrated into urban areas to reduce the ‘heat island’ effect and address unmet needs and deficiencies.

Travel choice (including connectivity and affordability) needs to be improved within the Borough and to wider Sheffield city region and beyond, as a means of encouraging a modal shift from the car and reducing congestion/journey times.



Low density suburban areas and market towns are increasingly under pressure from infill development and further intensification.

Measures need to be put in place to increase the capacity of the floodplain and flows to accommodate more water during flood events and protect surrounding areas.

Doncaster’s former mining communities still suffer from environmental problems (e.g. contamination) due to the legacy of former industrial activity and poor quality housing.

Design quality has improved in recent years but more needs to be done to raise standards particularly in less affluent areas (where land value is lower) and larger floor-plate developments. There is also an identified need to improve the quality of Doncaster’s public realm and shopping and commercial areas.

Regeneration and place-making aspirations will need to be balanced against the risk of flooding and air pollution.

Doncaster's ground water resources are under intense pressure from over abstraction (e.g. Sherwood Sandstone aquifer) and pollution, particularly within the vicinity of Thorne and Hatfield Moors.

Doncaster’s surface waterbodies (in terms of both quantity and quality) are under pressure.

Careful siting of new development is required to avoid adverse impacts on amenity and landscape and protect the distinct identity and character of individual settlements especially at the urban fringe.

Doncaster has a high proportion of listed buildings at risk due to decay and neglect and their long-term future need to be safeguarded for present and future generations.



Approach to the Sustainability Appraisal

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This section describes the approach to the SA. In particular, it sets out the SA Framework and how

this has been used to appraise the key components of the Draft Local Plan. It also documents the difficulties encountered during the appraisal process including key uncertainties and assumptions.

4.2 SA Framework Establishing appropriate SA Objectives and guide questions is central to appraising the

sustainability effects of the Local Plan. Broadly, the SA Objectives define the long term aspirations for the Borough with regard to social, economic and environmental considerations and it is against these objectives that the performance of Local Plan proposals will be appraised.

4.2.2 The SA Objectives reflect the key issues identified in Table 3.1 and include a range of topics, including the need to improve the economic base whilst contributing to measures to tackle climate change and mitigate any unavoidable effects identified. A specific objective has been included within the framework to assess the impact of policies and proposals on the health and well-being in line with best practice. Rural issues are also well-covered in the sustainability framework, especially in relation to the following objectives or sub-objectives: Re-use and physical renewal of land and buildings (e.g. disused farms); Protecting high quality agricultural land; Improving accessibility; Maintaining and enhancing landscape quality and character; and Avoiding the sterilisation of minerals.

4.2.3 Table 4.1 presents the SA Framework including SA Objectives and associated guide questions used in the appraisal of the draft Local Plan. The SA Objectives and guide questions reflect the key messages arising from the review of plans and programmes (Section 2) and the key sustainability issues identified through the analysis of the socio-economic and environmental baseline conditions (Section 3). The SEA Directive topic(s) to which each of the SA Objectives relates is included in the third column. A draft SA Framework was included in the Scoping Report (2015) which was subject to scoping consultation with comments received resulting to amendments, with the final version presented in Table 4.1 below. The full matrix is provided in Appendix E which also includes a set of indicators, commentary on the baseline and key sources.



Table 4.1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved


Local economy (maintain and strengthen)

Create jobs and new businesses Support existing businesses Provide employment opportunities for everyone Increase wealth Attract investment and trade Close the ‘output gap’ Improve financial security Provide a supply of available land for all business needs Promote tourism Support home working / e-commerce Improve quality of life

Diversify the economic base

Provide a skilled workforce. Broaden sectoral mix Less reliance on current high volume sectors More workers in ‘higher value’ sectors Promote rural diversification


Support community identity

Maintain and protect the physical identity and setting of existingsettlements

Conserve and protect existing services and facilities (especially in more remote areas)

Deliver affordable homes Promote greater community cohesion Don’t make everywhere the same

Pride Get people involved in local issues. Foster positive perceptions of the area Make people proud of their own community and Doncaster

3. Improve accessibility to place and services, both within and outside of the Borough

Accessibility to places

Ensure places can be accessed via public transport Encourage a modal shift Minimise travel to work distance Has footpath access where possible Has cycle paths where possible Have adequate parking facilities Has road access where possible Facilitate links between urban and rural areas

Accessibility to services

Facilitate access to services and facilities such as health, education, open spaces and shops etc

New development should be close to services Facilitate the transport of freight by sustainable means Minimise the need to travel


Energy resources Reduce the reliance on, and the consumption of, finite fossil fuels

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Reduce energy use and encourage the production and use of

renewable energy Minerals and construction

Reduce primary mineral extraction Increase the use of recycled and reclaimed aggregates Incorporate sustainable design and construction practices

Efficient use of waste

Encourage reuse/recycling and minimise waste





Affordability Provide housing including affordable housing that is available to everyone to address future needs

Quality Promote and encourage good quality design and sustainable homes

Mix and range of homes

Ensure an appropriate mix of housing, tenures and types

Availability Increase the supply of housing Address areas of market failure


Social exclusion Minimise disadvantage or discrimination Ensure that as many people as possible have good access to

shops and services

Social disadvantage

Reduce concentrations of socio- economic disadvantage Reduce the gap between affluent and deprived areas


Attractive and distinctive places

Deliver a high quality built environment Promote local distinctiveness Provide more greenspaces and trees Maintain and improve the character and setting of the

townscape and landscape Safety and security

Promote buildings and developments which are ‘secure by design’

Address anti-social behaviour Maximise the security of homes and workplaces Reduce crime Reduce fear of crime Minimise risk to health and safety


Land and buildings Encourage the re-use of brownfield land, vacant sites and existing buildings

Avoid the unnecessary use of greenfield sites Support renewal of old and/or poor areas of housing Protect and enhance the amenity of the area Secure the removal of unstable and contaminated land

Infrastructure Capacity of existing infrastructure to support new development Quality of existing infrastructure provision

9. Improve the health and well- being of the Borough’s population

Health Address health inequalities Make it easier for people to pursue a healthy lifestyle Promote access to healthcare Reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

Well being Increase personal satisfaction Improve quality of life Enhance people’s ability to access opportunities Encourage community participation


Education Improve educational attainment Provide more/sufficient school places to address future need




Skills and training Improve qualifications and skills in young people Provide opportunities for adults to learn new skills


Flood risk Avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas Manage flood risk on sites at risk of flooding

Greenhouse gas emissions

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Improve/increase Doncaster’s resilience to climate change Support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and

associated infrastructure Secure energy efficiency improvements

Water supply and drainage

Encourage sustainable drainage practices Manage and protect our water supply


Biodiversity (habitats and species)

Protect, maintain and improve sites of international, national and local importance.

Create new areas of biodiversity value Offset / compensate for the loss of habitats and species as a

result of development Protect and restore priority species and habitats

Geodiversity Protect, maintain and improve sites of geodiversity importance

Landscape Maintain and enhancing landscape quality and character


Historic places Protect, maintain and improve the character and appearance of conservation areas

Maintain and protect historic buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and their settings

Protect, maintain and improve national and local historic parks and gardens

Protect, maintain and enhance archaeological assets

Cultural heritage Promote and increase tourism Sensitive management of historic townscape Protect undesignated archaeological assets from damage or loss


Land and soil Avoid the sterilisation of minerals Restore, reclaim and remediate vacant and derelict land (e.g.

contaminated sites) Encourage local food production

Water Increase the quality and quantity of the water environment Reduce direct and indirect pollution on the water environment Reduce the potential risk to ecosystems (e.g. wetland and riparian habitats) and ecological receptors

Air Reduce/minimise air pollution (e.g. increased traffic) and noise Improve air quality especially at motorway junctions and busy A

roads Reduce the potential risk to ecosystems (e.g. wetland and riparian habitats) and ecological receptors



Table 4.2 shows the extent to which the SA Objectives encompass the range of issues identified in the SEA Directive.

Table 4.2 Coverage of the SEA Directive Topics by the SA Objectives

SEA Directive Topic SA Objective(s)

Biodiversity 3, 7, 12

Population 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11

Human Health 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11

Fauna 12

Flora 12

Soil 14

Water 11, 14

Air 14

Climatic Factors 3, 4, 11

Material Assets* 3, 4, 8, 11

Cultural Heritage including Architectural and Archaeological Heritage

7, 13

Landscape 7, 8, 12

4.3 Methodology Based on the contents of the consultation documents detailed in Section 1.3, the SA Framework

has been used to appraise the following key components of the documents: Spatial Options; Options for the amount of housing and employment land to be made available over the plan

period; Vision and Objectives; Policies; Housing Sites; Employment Sites; Mineral Safeguarded Areas; and Mineral Sites.



SA of Spatial Options 4.3.2 As noted in the introduction, earlier work on the SA considered a range of high level spatial

options, which built on those considered in the Issues and Options SA Report (2015). These high level options were assessed against the SA Objectives and the results are discussed in Section 5 of this report. Four options have been considered: Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual); Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus; Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and Option 4: Hybrid Option: urban concentration and dispersal – a distribution based on similar

levels of growth within the main urban area and main towns as under Option 1 with greater amounts of housing apportioned to service towns and villages. Housing would be more dispersed relative to options 1 and 2 but more growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than option 3.

Options for the amount of Housing and Employment Land 4.3.3 Three options have been identified in relation to how much housing and employment land should

be provided over the plan period: Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land; Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land; and Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

4.3.4 Option 1 reflects local housing and employment needs and the Borough’s response to the aspiration for economic – led housing growth aspirations of the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan and the broader aspirations of the northern powerhouse area. Note that under the revised methodology there is a requirement for 912 dpa but the Council is using a figure of 920 dpa which it previously consulted on and the difference between the two figures is considered to be negligible for planning purposes. The requirement for 481ha of employment land is based on Sheffield City Region’s aspirations for 1% economic growth in the Borough with an allowance for other factors identified by the Borough: Locally derived job densities (m2/worker) – these differ from the standard densities and have

been used in response to local research; A frictional or ‘churn’ requirement – an addition to the requirement to allow for movement and

re-location of existing business; Other uses on a site – an addition to endorse flexibility and the objectives set out in the NPPF;

and A choice factor – an addition to give investors a choice of sites.

4.3.5 Option 2 uses the Government’s Standard Housing Methodology as a starting point, national projections identify a housing need in the Borough for 585 dpa (baseline growth) over the plan period. Assuming ‘business as usual’ in terms of employment land provision gives rise to a need for 103ha of employment land.

4.3.6 The Government’s consultation on the Standard Housing Methodology noted at Paragraph 46 that Plan makers may put forward proposals that lead to a local housing need above that given by the proposed approach used for the draft Local Plan. This could be as a result of a strategic



infrastructure project, or through increased employment (and hence housing) ambition as a result of a Local Economic Partnership investment strategy, a bespoke housing deal with Government or through delivering the modern Industrial Strategy. It is the Government’s intention to make sure that proper support is given to those ambitious authorities who want to deliver more homes. The Government will also look to use the Housing Infrastructure Fund to support local planning authorities to step up their plans for growth, releasing more land for housing and getting homes built at pace and scale. This means that an option that envisages higher growth than the Government approach is a reasonable alternative. The Standard Housing Methodology was finalised in September 2017.15

4.3.7 Option 3 reflects the mid-point in terms of housing numbers (between Options 1 and 2) and the employment land is the minimum required to meet the Sheffield City Region’s aspirations of 1% per annum economic growth in the Borough (242ha), with no allowance for the factors set out in Option 1 that provide flexibility.

4.3.8 The appraisal has been undertaken for the three options with a score awarded for each option against each SA Objective with the matrix including a commentary on the effect of options. See Table 4.3 for the layout of the matrix used. Commentary has been provided including any mitigation or enhancements measures to enhance the performance of the policies (for example, amendments to policy wording).

4.3.9 The options have been appraised against the SA Objectives with the symbols in Table 4.4 used to record the results.

4.3.10 The results are presented in Section 5 of this SA Report.

Table 4.3 Example Appraisal Matrix for Options

Objective Sub-objective

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Commentary


a) Local economy (maintain and strengthen) b) Diversify the economic base

++ + ++

Likely Significant Effects Commentary here Short/Medium/Long Term effects Any temporal differences are noted here. Mitigation Any suggested mitigation is noted here. Assumptions & Uncertainties Any assumptions and uncertainties are noted here.

15 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-housing-need



Table 4.4 Scoring System

Score Description Symbol

Significant Positive Effect The proposed option/policy contributes significantly to the achievement of the objective. ++

Minor Positive Effect The proposed option/policy contributes to the achievement of the objective but not significantly. +

Neutral The proposed option/policy does not have any effect on the achievement of the objective 0 Minor Negative Effect

The proposed option/policy detracts from the achievement of the objective but not significantly. -

Significant Negative Effect The proposed option/policy detracts significantly from the achievement of the objective. -- No Relationship There is no clear relationship between the proposed option/policy and the achievement of

the objective or the relationship is negligible. ~ Uncertain

The proposed option/policy has an uncertain relationship to the objective or the relationship is dependent on the way in which the aspect is managed. In addition, insufficient information may be available to enable an appraisal to be made.

?

Vision and Objectives It is important that the Vision and Objectives of the Local Plan are broadly compatible with the SA

Objectives. The Vision and Objectives contained in the consultation documents (see Section 1.3 of this SA) have therefore each been appraised for their compatibility with the objectives that comprise the SA Framework to help establish whether the proposed general approach to the Local Plan is in accordance with the principles of sustainability. A compatibility matrix has been used to record the appraisal, similar to that shown in Table 4.5 below and is presented in Section 5 of this report.



Table 4.5 Example Compatibility Matrix – Vision and Objectives

SA Objective

Local Plan Objective

Objec

tive 1

Objec

tive 2

Objec

tive 3

Objec

tive 4

...etc

.


0 0 + ?

2. Reinforce and support community identity and pride + - + + 1. Etc... + 0 + ?

Key





4.3.12 The Vision and Objectives have been amended as the Local Plan has evolved and Appendix F of this report includes a schedule summarising the changes and the reasoning for that.

Appraising Local Plan Policies 4.3.13 As part of the development of Doncaster’s draft Local Plan, draft policies have been provided for

consultation and have been appraised for their likely sustainability effects. 4.3.14 The plan policies (including strategic and detailed development management policies) have been

appraised using the SA Framework. The appraisal has been undertaken by plan chapter with a score awarded for each constituent policy against each SA Objective with the matrix including a commentary on the cumulative effects of all policies contained in each chapter. Commentary has been provided including any mitigation or enhancements measures to enhance the performance of the policies (for example, amendments to policy wording).

4.3.15 The findings of the appraisal are presented in a matrix as shown in Table 4.6 and use the scoring mechanism presented in Table 4.3.



Table 4.6 Example Appraisal Matrix for Policies

Objective Sub-objective

Policy no.

Policy no.

Policy no.

Policy no.

Policy no.

Policy no.

Commentary


a) Local economy (maintain and strengthen) b) Diversify the economic base

++ 0 + ~ - ? Likely Significant Effects Summary here Short/Medium/Long Term effects Any temporal differences are noted here. Cumulative effects Summary here Mitigation Any suggestions recorded here Assumptions & Uncertainties Any assumptions and uncertainties are noted here.

4.4 Housing and Employment Sites 4.4.1 The Council’s Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication

Version (June 2019) that is published as part of the consultation documentation explains the overall context for the identification of potential housing and employment sites and the overall site selection process, which includes SA.

4.4.2 Appendix K of this SA Report presents the SA Framework that has been used to appraise sites. In order to assess the likely significant effects of potential development sites on the 14 SA Objectives a number of site selection criteria have been identified. The majority of factors are GIS based with associated thresholds of significance, as detailed in Appendix K. Symbols have been used to record the results (as set out in Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 SA Symbols for Site Options

++ Significant positive effects – The proposal will have a significant positive effect on the SA Objective when compared to the current and future baseline conditions.

+ Positive effects – The proposal will have a positive effect on the SA Objective when compared to the current and future baseline conditions. Minor adverse effects may result but the overall effect will be positive.

0 Neutral – Proposal is unlikely to create any significant effects (positive or negative) at present or in the future. ? Unknown/ uncertain – There is insufficient information about the implications of the proposal to make a robust assessment. - Negative effects – The proposal will have a negative effect on the SA Objective being assessed when compared to the current

and future baseline conditions. Minor positive effects may result but the overall effect will be negative. - - Significant negative effects – the proposal will have major negative effects on the SA Objective compared to the current and

future baseline conditions.



4.4.3 An interactive sustainability appraisal map containing all of the relevant layers of information (where applicable) has also been compiled by the Council and is available to view on the Council’s website at: http://dmbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0b5af4eeb60a42f9b001c658cbd8c837

4.5 Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search and Minerals Sites 4.5.1 Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) - are areas of known mineral resources that are considered to

be of sufficient economic or conservation value (such as building stone) to warrant protection beyond the plan period.

4.5.2 Areas of Search are identified by the Council and are broad areas of defined known resources. Areas of Search will be extensive geographic areas defined to a lesser degree of precision than sites. Given, the expansive nature of the areas, the extent and viability of the resource is identified at a less robust level. Once identified in the Local Plan, the Areas of Search are intended to direct potential developers to more ‘sustainable’ areas where suitable sites may be located and where support in principle, subject to identification of a suitable site, is likely to be forthcoming by the planning authority.

4.5.3 Mineral sites are specific sites with a clearly defined boundary and evidence of a viable mineral resource.

4.5.4 The Council has prepared a report as part of the consultation documentation called: Local Plan: Mineral Requirements (including Safeguarding, Areas of Search and Site Selection Methodology summaries). This explains the overall context for the identification of potential Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search, sites and the overall selection process, which includes SA.

4.5.5 The SA matrix is similar to that used for housing and employment sites but has been adapted to reflect the potential effects that are associated with mineral related developments, so for example SA Objective 7 ‘Social exclusion and disadvantage’ has not been used to appraise sites on the basis that it will not influence the location of mineral related development. The matrix is provided at Appendix P. Symbols have been used to record the results (as set out in Table 4.7).

Secondary, Cumulative and Synergistic Effects 4.5.6 The SEA Directive and SEA Regulations require that the secondary, cumulative and synergistic

effects of the Local Plan are assessed. In particular, it is important to consider the combined sustainability effects of the policies and proposals of the Local Plan both alone and in-combination with other plans and programmes.

4.5.7 Initial consideration has been given to the potential for cumulative effects from policies within chapters and also across the Local Plan as a whole, as policies from two or more chapters could combine.

4.5.8 Effects have been recorded by chapter and for the Local Plan as a whole using the symbols set out in Table 4.7. Table 4.8 shows how the information is provided. Potential cumulative effects associated with sites have not been appraised at this stage given the preliminary nature of the consultation.



Table 4.8 Layout of Table for Presenting Cumulative Effects

SA Objective

Chap

ter X

Chap

ter Y

Chap

ter Z

Etc.

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary

1. Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth and prosperity and diversify its economic base

++ 0 ++ ? +

Commentary here

4.6 When the SA was Undertaken and by Whom The Council prepared the draft Scoping Report in 2015 and produced the revised Scoping Report in

2016. The Council undertook the appraisal of spatial options in 2015 and the appraisal of revised options in 2016, a summary of the 2016 work is provided in Section 5 of this report.

The Council has conducted the SA of all sites and prepared the interactive SA map, with Wood providing independent guidance, review, verification and critique of the site appraisal work to ensure the process has been robust, transparent, and compliant with all relevant regulations, guidance and best practice.

The initial compatibility assessment of the draft Local Plan Vision and Objectives and the SA of policies has been undertaken by Wood in Summer 2018, informed by earlier unpublished work in 2016-17. This has then been updated by further work in Winter 2018.

This SA Report has been prepared by Wood in Winter 2019 and Spring/Summer 2019 with input from the Council. The SA Report includes material prepared by the Council.

Technical difficulties and assumptions (policies and sites) 4.6.5 The SEA Directive requires the identification of any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack

of knowledge) encountered. 4.6.6 A particular difficulty associated with this SA is that the Council has fully integrated the SA into the

evaluation of sites. Whilst this is to be applauded, it does mean that there is some inevitable repetition between this SA Report and the other documents that the Council is consulting on relating to the evaluation and selection of sites. Repetition would not necessarily be an issue, but the large number of housing sites considered by the Council means that there is a significant amount of material that is duplicated within this SA Report and the Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) in particular. It is included in the SA Report to ensure that the SEA requirements with respect to reasonable alternatives is addressed.

Uncertainties and Assumptions 4.6.7 There are a number of uncertainties and assumptions relating to the appraisal of the draft Local

Plan policies, these are as follows:



Uncertainties 4.6.8 The precise locations, sites, composition, timing and extent of actual development occurring cannot

be determined and this has on occasion affected the ability of the appraisal team to determine likely effects and/or when the effects could occur. This has been detailed in the individual policy appraisals.

4.6.9 It is uncertain whether or not the transport infrastructure and accessibility improvements that will be brought about by the Local Plan will reach all of those in need.

4.6.10 The extent to which the local plan can deliver safer communities is in part dependent on a number of socio-economic factors outwith the Local Plan and planning process.

4.6.11 The extent to which job creation is locally significant will depend on the type of jobs created (in the context of the local labour market) and the recruitment policies of prospective employers.

4.6.12 The exact scale of waste arisings associated with the Local Plan will be dependent on a number of factors including: the design of new development; waste collection and disposal regimes; and individual behaviour with regard to recycling and reuse.

Assumptions 4.6.13 The quantum and phasing of development will be as set out in the draft Local Plan (any variation

from which will affect the appraisal of effects in short, medium and long term). In some instances, such as the likely delivery of network improvements, where phasing has not been indicated, the appraisal team has indicated an assumed timeframe.

4.6.14 The assumed levels of housing and economic development are consistent with current needs, and that present challenges in achieving sustained economic recovery have not affected assessment of need (i.e. understated housing need or population growth from inward migration to the Borough). It is assumed that the percentage of affordable housing will be delivered (we do note that there are recent changes in government policy that allow for greater discussion with developers on viability which may lower the overall % figure on any single development).

4.6.15 It is assumed that current energy mix will continue (and associated carbon emissions will be largely similarly to current), although it is noted that against carbon trajectories provided by BEIS this may lead to an overestimate of carbon emissions.

4.6.16 It is assumed that, where appropriate, development proposals would be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and that suitable flood alleviation measures would be incorporated into the design of new development where necessary to minimise flood risk.

4.6.17 It is assumed that, as part of policy implementation, there will be mitigation of adverse effects through various mechanisms such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Considerate Constructors Scheme. Policy-specific mitigation is considered as part of the detailed appraisal of policies.

4.6.18 There remain a substantial number of uncertainties associated with the policy implications of Brexit in the medium to longer term (one potentially being the ongoing applicability of regulations with cross references to European Directives, such as the SEA regulations). It is assumed that all relevant legislation and regulations will remain in place reflecting the Government’s stated commitments16.

16 For example HM Government (2018) A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan and HM Government guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/upholding-environmental-standards-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/upholding-environmental-standards-if-theres-no-brexit-deal [both accessed August 2019]



Appraisal of the Development Options

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This section summarises earlier work on the appraisal of growth options (Section 5.2) and options

for the amount of housing and employment land that should be provided (Section 5.3).

5.2 Assessment and comparison of Doncaster’s growth options

2015 Issues and Options 5.2.1 As identified in Section 1.6, the Issues and Options SA Report (2015) considered the following

alternative approaches to delivering Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations: Option 1: The Core Strategy approach – This option maintained the current strategy

contained within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario); Option 2: Doncaster Main Town focus – This was based on higher levels of growth in the

main urban area of Doncaster and main towns (e.g. Armthorpe, Mexborough and Thorne) with reductions in surrounding areas;


Option 4: New settlement or town – a much expanded or standalone settlement would provide the main focus of new housing outside of the main urban area;



5.2.2 Options 4, 5 and 6 were rejected by the Council because of their potential to restrict long term economic growth and prosperity and undermine efforts to regenerate and renew former mining communities contrary to the aims and objectives of the Doncaster Local Plan and generally run counter to the principles of sustainable development. As such, they are not considered reasonable alternatives for the purposes of the SA and are not discussed further here.

2016 Growth Options 5.2.3 Following the consultation on the Issues and Options SA Report (2015), a new hybrid option was

developed and presented in the Growth Options SA Report (2016). In this option housing would be more dispersed relative to Options 1 and 2 but more growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than Option 3.

5.2.4 This section provides an overview of the assessment of reasonable alternatives growth options that were considered in 2016. They are numbered as Options 1 to 4; however it should be noted that Option 4 is now the hybrid option as opposed to the ‘New settlement or town’ option assessed at the Issues and Options stage. Table 5.1 summarises the appraisal of the options. Detailed matrices are provided in Appendix H:



Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual); Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus; Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and Option 4: Hybrid option: urban concentration and dispersal. This is the preferred approach.

5.2.5 Presented below is a summary of the appraisals of Options 1-3 followed by a discussion of how the Council utilised the most advantageous aspect of each of these options in refining Option 4, the hybrid option.

Option 1: Core Strategy Approach 5.2.6 The current Core Strategy (on which Option 1 is based) seeks to focus employment opportunities

within the M18 motorway corridor around the main urban area and main towns, whereas Options 2, 3 and 4 would provide more growth opportunities along the A1 (M) corridor within the north of the Borough (specifically Adwick and Carcroft Common) which would support the local economy and widen access to jobs and skills.

5.2.7 Concentrating new homes and jobs towards the most accessible locations in the Borough will result in significant positive effects, particularly in relation to improved accessibility and reduced car use. The main urban area of Doncaster lies in the heart of the Borough and offers a range of employment, shopping, public administration, leisure, health care and further and higher education facilities, commensurate with its status as one of the largest towns in England. Doncaster’s town centres are relatively healthy and vibrant but need a greater variety of uses, activities homes and offices to attract more visitors and investors. In particular, the town centres face direct competition from out-of-centre locations (e.g. retail parks and superstores) and the growth of e-commerce. Currently, there is very limited housing and office provision within Doncaster town centre.

Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns Focus 5.2.8 The urban centric approach (Option 2) would help reinforce and support the role of Doncaster as a

major commercial and shopping centre of regional significance, which is demonstrating increasing potential to attract high quality investment and employment and visitor opportunities, taking advantage of significant development and redevelopment opportunities and recent major improvements to infrastructure and service provision. Option 2 would also support the development of critical mass at a limited number of other towns in the Borough where population size, services and/or proposed jobs and infrastructure make them the most sustainable places in which to accommodate significant growth. There are a number of redevelopment opportunities on the edge of the town centre close to existing public transport links and the waterfront areas where major mixed use development is planned.

Option 3: Greater Dispersal Strategy 5.2.9 Option 3 provides a dispersed strategy with opportunities for economic investment associated with

major infrastructure corridors (e.g. A1M-A19 link, M18/ M180 motorway junctions, FARRRS, Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Hatfield/Stainforth link and rail freight routes) that are already proving attractive to the market; however, it will not deliver sufficient new homes in urban areas which are needed to support existing communities and businesses. The dispersed growth is more likely to undermine the setting and character of existing settlements where they are vulnerable to coalescence, but rural communities could benefit from the provision of additional services and homes to a greater extent than the other options. This option is also considered to have the greatest potential to divert development away from Flood Zones 2 and 3. This option would also



be expected to require the most extensive use of greenfield land and in turn, poses the greatest risk of the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Option 4: The Hybrid Option 5.2.10 The hybrid option is essentially based on the principles of concentrating development within

existing urban areas (preferably on vacant or underused sites with good transport links), whilst addressing local priorities and needs within smaller settlements. It will maximise the regeneration of poorer urban areas, brownfield sites and existing service centres although could generate indirect regeneration benefits associated with greater delivery on higher value sites. This will ensure the benefits of growth, including jobs and housing, can be spread more widely across the Borough.

5.2.11 While it disperses growth more widely than other options to serve towns and villages within the wider rural hinterland, the extent of growth in these locations is relatively small in scale (limited to that which is necessary to meet local needs) and focusses on settlements that have an existing service function. Less housing growth will be accommodated within the main urban area relative to Option 2 (and towards the bottom of the range under Option 1) but more than in Option 3. However, this approach has the potential to undermine the development of critical mass at Doncaster and reduce the quality and diversity of investment in the Borough as a whole.

5.2.12 Significant new urban extensions are likely to be required on the edge of the main urban area and main towns under the hybrid and all other options to meet identified needs over the course of the plan period. In the case of Rossington and Stainforth/Hatfield, approved schemes will more than address identified requirements. In addition, more modest new urban extensions are needed for Carcroft/Skellow, Tickhill, Bawtry, Sprotbrough, Barnby Dun, Barnburgh/Harlington and Finningley. Approved schemes also more than address the identified requirements in Askern, Edlington and Auckley/Hayfield Green.

5.2.13 A more dispersed strategy (Option 3) would have a greater impact on the character and openness of the Green Belt and the open countryside (including the best and most versatile agricultural land) relative to the other options. The hybrid option would also result in significant loss of agricultural land and Green Belt (more so than Options 1 and 2). However, this is tempered by the fact that growth will be relatively modest within the service towns and villages and will be focussed primarily on meeting local needs.

5.2.14 The precise impact of greenfield development will depend on its location. Large-scale extensions to the main urban area and main towns and market towns would potentially give rise to significant landscape impacts. However, the extent of development would need to be planned in such a way as to limit the impact on the openness of the strategic gaps between urban areas and outlying towns such as Armthorpe and Barnby Dun.

5.2.15 New development will also place significant pressure on the delivery of infrastructure and services within the Borough in the face of new and emerging technologies, rising costs, changing lifestyles and significant gaps in provision. Like many other areas, Doncaster requires significant investment in new infrastructure to meet its future growth needs and keep pace with current demands. Doncaster faces a significant shortfall of affordable homes. There are also shortages in most types of open space in the vast majority of settlements. Population and housing growth is also placing significant pressure on both primary and secondary school places. In Doncaster, the housing requirement cannot be accommodated wholly within existing urban areas and some growth will need to be accommodated within flood risk zones and Green Belt/countryside locations to address local needs and support the regeneration of existing towns and communities. In view of these trends, appropriate trade-offs will need to be made between affordable housing and the other infrastructure requirements to secure the delivery of new housing, based on local priorities,



especially within areas of low market demand. Getting this balance right is critical in ensuring viable development.

5.2.16 Despite being a metropolitan borough, Doncaster has a large rural hinterland with a relatively dispersed pattern of settlements beyond the main urban area, where many communities grew up around pitheads (which have since closed). Consequently, people living in these areas are often reliant on motorised transport or have to travel longer distances to access jobs and services, notably within the main urban area and existing town centres. Because of this, Doncaster has a relatively high carbon footprint compared to other metropolitan areas. Reinforcing this dispersed pattern is likely to exacerbate existing problems such as traffic congestion, long-distance commuting, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution levels and flood risk. Consequently, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal (Option 3) to the smaller settlements would lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services.

5.2.17 All of the options will place significant pressure on water, soil and land resources. Such resources are finite and there is an important need to preserve and protect them (e.g. aquifers and high quality prime agricultural land) from inappropriate development.

5.2.18 Air quality has improved significantly in recent years, but it is still deteriorating along main routes leading into the town centre and along motorway junctions due to nitrogen dioxide from congestion and rising traffic levels. In most cases, new development has the potential to have a negative impact on air quality objectives, especially within the air quality management areas. Appropriate measures such as tree planting, traffic management controls, fuel-efficient technologies, emission-controls and dust abatement techniques will need to be put in place to offset or mitigate the impact on air quality arising from new development.

5.2.19 Doncaster’s biodiversity and geodiversity assets are under threat from a wide range of pressures such as agricultural intensification, flooding, air pollution, water abstraction, habitat fragmentation and development. These threats have the potential to result in the loss or degradation of habitats or geological features (e.g. Thorne and Hatfield Moors). There are a large number of local wildlife and geological sites across the Borough, a number of which are within or near to existing urban areas. In most cases, large-scale development will (to varying degrees) affect the integrity of habitats and species. Like many of the other objectives, the extent and scale of harm will depend on the location of new development and the extent of new greenery and compensatory measures within new development. Long term effects are difficult to predict at this level, but dispersed growth may have greater negative impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity objectives from fragmentation and habitat loss. Conversely, Option 2 would minimise the extent of development within countryside and areas of habitat.

5.2.20 Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 will help reduce social exclusion, poverty and disadvantage because growth will be directed to areas that require regeneration and investment and have good access to jobs and services. On the other hand, a more dispersed pattern of growth (based on previous trends in permissions and completions) could dilute benefits associated with achieving a larger critical mass of development and not maximise opportunities for high quality inward investment. It could also lead to higher levels of car use and longer journey lengths.

Refining the Hybrid Option 5.2.21 In this context, the hybrid approach seeks to ensure that sufficient opportunities come forward

across the Borough to secure affordable housing, open space and other types of infrastructure in line with local and national priorities. Housing growth would be spread across a relatively large number of settlements in both rural and urban areas (including more market-friendly locations) to meet local needs and secure the delivery of affordable homes. Market attractive locations should



provide a better return from development in terms of infrastructure, affordable housing, and community benefits. The current market favours a larger spread of settlements and locations for both housing and economic investment than those set out in the Core Strategy (as per the hybrid approach).

5.2.22 Large-scale urban extensions to the main towns and smaller market towns should present opportunities to improve the quality of service provision in the immediate area (e.g. new community facilities and shops) and address deficiencies in provision (e.g. greenspace) and improve links to the wider green infrastructure network. Dispersed, smaller scale development will also place additional pressure on existing facilities and services especially within the main urban areas (schools, health centres and recreation space etc). Those settlements where such facilities are operating at or close to capacity may be adversely affected.

5.2.23 Some of the key development and redevelopment opportunities within the Borough (e.g. Thorne and Doncaster town centre) lie within flood risk zones (albeit benefiting from existing flood defences). The council have undertaken a Sequential Test in order to ensure that priority is given to those sites in the lowest flood risk areas. The Sequential Test built upon the data provided in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (November 2015) and the methodology and results are presented in the Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) published as a part of this consultation. In Thorne and Moorends, new housing and employment opportunities will need to be accommodated within medium to high risk flood zones; both areas are almost entirely located within medium to high flood risk areas and so development within them is unavoidable. The current adopted Core Strategy proposes significant growth within Thorne and Moorends. However, the extent of mitigation necessary to make most sites safe from flood risk could render them unviable and undevelopable in the plan period. Although Option 4 proposes more growth within Thorne and Moorends than the other options, a much lower figure is anticipated due to the application of the sequential flood risk which requires the plan to avoid development (i.e. housing arising from economic growth) within high to medium risk flood zones where other suitable suites are available and minimising the potential risks arising from flooding in line with national policy requirements. In addition, Option 4 focusses more growth around the cluster of villages and towns in the south west of the Borough (e.g. Finningley, Auckley and Hayfield Green and Tickhill) where there are no known flood risk constraints.

5.2.24 A greater spread of development would help sustain rural services and support the regeneration of former mining communities, especially in the north of the Borough. It would also provide more choice to developers in a more market responsive environment. Greater opportunities exist to improve the quality of housing and deliver affordable housing targets (most parts of the Borough have a requirement) on sites where viability will be less of a constraint. The Borough would also benefit from more executive homes to meet the needs of an increasingly skilled workforce, with Tickhill and Bawtry offering favourable locations. In addition, more growth would be directed away from medium to high risk flood areas.

5.2.25 Whilst offering greater choice and flexibility in the land supply, the hybrid option risks placing housing in less sustainable locations and in locations which reduce this option’s ability to support regeneration within the main urban area or help sustain existing services in existing urban areas.

5.2.26 The planned expansion of employment floorspace at the airport and other travel-intensive developments at key locations along the strategic highway network (e.g. the Airport and the Unity project) could generate adverse environmental effects as a result of the contribution they could make to increasing traffic movements and associated greenhouse gas emissions, especially where journeys are car rather than public transport based. Suggested mitigation measures that could be introduced through the Local Plan include: Improvements to public transport access to the airport and other development sites, such as

park and ride, bus priority schemes and interchanges;



Traffic management measures; Surface access; and Ongoing work on flood management.

Reasons for rejecting alternatives and choosing the preferred option 5.2.27 Option 1 (based on the current Core Strategy) has its merits from a regeneration point of view but

steers too much growth to medium and high risk flood areas and too little growth towards market towns and villages which already benefit from reasonably good service provision and the more isolated communities in the north of the Borough where new opportunities are emerging.

5.2.28 Option 3 has also been rejected on the basis that it would give rise to more adverse impacts on the environment, some of which would cause significant harm the character and appearance of the Green Belt and the physical identity and settings of existing settlements.

5.2.29 While the appraisal predicts that Option 4 will have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and countryside than Options 1 and 2, it seeks to provide an appropriate balance between a focus on the larger and more accessible urban areas (i.e. the main urban area and main towns) to supports regeneration and address deprivation, whilst supporting rural communities with levels of growth that address their needs and support local services. In addition, it will ensure that local housing needs (including affordable housing) are met across the Borough.

5.2.30 On balance, Options 2 and 4 score best against the sustainability criteria. If the economy improves and grows significantly in the medium to long term, there will be more opportunities to increase the density and intensity of development in the main urban area and at key transport nodes, especially within the town centre. If this happens, a stronger case could be made in favour of the urban concentration approach, which can be considered through a future review of the Doncaster Local Plan.

5.2.31 The preferred approach is largely based on a combination of Options 1 and 2, with the appraisal highlighting the benefits of concentrating growth within the main urban area, main towns and existing service centres which provide good access to infrastructure and services, such as public transport links, shops, leisure facilities and open spaces. Conversely, a more dispersed strategy (Option 3) has the potential to dilute benefits associated with achieving a larger critical mass and possibly not maximise inward investment opportunities in and around the main urban area. We have rejected this approach in favour of the hybrid option.

5.2.32 The appraisal, therefore, supports a focus on the main urban area (Doncaster) and the main towns (Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield, Stainforth, Thorne and Moorends, Mexborough Conisbrough and Denaby, Armthorpe and Rossington). The preferred hybrid strategy (Option 4) proposes slightly more than 90% of the Borough’s housing growth in these locations, which have the most capacity to accommodate development. In addition, it proposes modest housing growth (up to 10%) in ten other service towns and villages (e.g. Bawtry and Tickhill) so as to extend the approach of meeting housing needs locally within different parts of the Borough. Overall, the scale of housing growth outside of the main urban area and main towns is around 10% of the total Borough-wide allocation, which is potentially less than under Option 1, around the same as Option 2 (but more dispersed than Option 2) and significantly less than under Option 3.

5.2.33 Stakeholders and consultees who responded to the issues and options consultation in 2015 were strongly supportive of Options 1 and 2. In addition, there is widespread support in favour of locating housing close to existing or planned services (e.g. schools, open spaces, leisure facilities and shops) to meet local need. There was general support for the hybrid option in response to the 2016 SA.



Table 5.1 Summary of the Appraisal of Development Options (March 2016 Consultation)

SA Objective Option 1 – Core Strategy Approach (Business as Usual)

Option 2 – Doncaster and Main Towns Focus

Option 3 – Greater Dispersal Strategy

Hybrid Option – Urban Concentration and Dispersal


Overall score: ++/? This option will have significant positive effects on this objective but still some uncertainty exists about the future state of the local economy during the plan period due to fluctuations in market conditions and reductions in public funding.

Overall score: ++/? Major development will be concentrated within the most sustainable areas of the Borough and the key linkages to the strategic road network with the inclusion of the A1 corridor alongside Adwick and Woodlands. This will promote positive economic benefits within the Borough. However, a degree of uncertainty will remain about the future state of the economy during the plan period due to fluctuations in market conditions and reductions in public funding. This option will ensure the retention and creation of a range of strategic employment sites across the Borough which will in turn support business growth and promote community cohesion.

Overall score: ++/-/? This option will generally have significant positive effects on this objective but still some uncertainty exists about the future state of the local economy during the plan period due to fluctuations in market conditions and reductions in public funding. However, an unfettered, market driven approach will not necessarily support prosperity and balanced growth because it will not deliver sufficient new homes in urban areas which are needed to support existing communities and businesses.

Overall score: ++/? Significant positive effects will emerge from the option but still some uncertainty about the future state of the economy during the plan period due to fluctuations in market conditions and reductions in public funding. This option will ensure the retention and creation of a range of employment sites across the Borough which will, in turn, support business growth and maximise local communities.


Overall score: ++/- This option has the potential to have significant positive impacts on the identity and profile of settlements and individual communities and the pride of place, with its focus on regenerating deprived communities, but there remains a risk that growth will reduce the sense of physical separation between them and in turn create a dense mass of development which undermines their character and setting. Targeting growth and investment in existing communities and town centres will help build community cohesion and improve civic pride.

Overall score: ++/-- This option has the potential to have significant positive impact on the identity of settlements and individual communities, which could instil a sense of pride in the places where people live and work. However, the expansion of settlements through new development could have an adverse impact on place setting where dense development would dilute the existing form-this can be mitigated through the appropriate design and layout.

Overall score: ++/- This option would lead to significant expansion of the rural fringe and reinforce the existing dispersed settlement pattern. The scope to expand existing settlements is more limited in rural areas. In addition, dispersed growth is more likely to undermine the setting and character of existing settlements where they are vulnerable to coalescence. On the other hand, rural communities could benefit from the provision of additional services and homes to a greater extent than the other options.

Overall score: ++/- The hybrid approach should support and enhance community identity and the integrity of existing settlements through the provision of new and improved services (e.g. physical and social infrastructure) and the regeneration and renewal of existing town and district centres (e.g. new cultural attractions) and brownfield or infill opportunities within established built-up-areas. New urban extensions will provide range of opportunities such as mixed tenures, accessible open spaces and good transport links which will contribute to the creation of mixed and balanced communities. However, there remains a risk that new development could harm







the physical setting and character of settlements where it would significantly encroach into the open countryside.


Overall score: ++ This option would contribute positively to the achievement of this objective, along with many of its sub-objectives.

Overall score: ++/- The Focus on new development close to employment, services and public connection to public transport will help reduce the need to travel and reliance on motorised transport. However, the expansion of housing and industry will inevitably create more carbon pollution.

Overall score: 0 The overall effects of this option are considered to be neutral. This option would likely see a greater reliance on the need to travel as it is the most dispersed of the options and would see development directed to a number of smaller settlements where service provision is likely to be poorer and lead to greater reliance on travel by private modes. Availability and capacity of existing infrastructure to absorb growth is likely to be less readily available compared to the other options. However, these settlements have been identified as having a certain level of service provision and it is noted that the scale of growth to these smaller settlements is modest and reduces the overall scale of the impact.

Overall score: ++/- The hybrid approach would contribute positively to the achievement of this objective, along with many of its sub-objectives. Focusing new development close to employment, services and public transport nodes will help reduce the need to travel and reliance on motorised transport. On the other hand, it could potentially promote more car dependant patterns of travel compared to options 1 and 2, although the modest scale of proposed growth in the service towns and villages and the potential opportunities arising from meeting housing needs in these communities will reduce the overall scale of this impact.


Overall score: +/- This option would encourage the greater utilisation of energy and mineral resources and a broader mix of uses that are more resource efficient than other settlement patterns (e.g. increased density and use of brownfield land). This in turn will result in less reliance on motorised modes of transport, lower energy consumption and better access to services in towns and villages. More dense concentrations can also present opportunities to secure the adequate and efficient provision of

Overall score: ++/- An increase on the utilisation of energy and mineral resources and a broader mix of uses that are more resource efficient than other settlement patterns will result in less reliance on motorised modes of transport, lower energy consumption and better access to services in towns and villages. The increase in housing density concentration may present opportunities to secure the expansion and provision of services such as water, electricity and e-communications network.

Overall score: +/- This option would encourage the greater utilisation of energy and mineral resources and a broader mix of uses that are more resource efficient than other settlement patterns (e.g. increased density and use of brownfield land). This in turn will result in less reliance on motorised modes of transport, lower energy consumption and better access to services in towns and villages. However, more dispersed patterns of growth will reduce the opportunities

Overall score: +/-/? This option would encourage the greater utilisation of energy and mineral resources and a broader mix of uses that are more resource efficient than other settlement patterns (e.g. increased density and use of brownfield land). This in turn will result in less reliance on motorised modes of transport, lower energy consumption and better access to services in towns and villages. More dense concentrations can also present opportunities to secure the adequate and efficient provision of services such







services such as water, electricity and telecommunications.

to secure the adequate and efficient provision of services such as water, electricity and telecommunications.

as water, electricity and telecommunications. However, the scale and magnitude of the effects will depend on the location and design of new development.


Overall score: ++/? This option will significantly increase the supply of housing (including affordable housing) across the Borough in a broad number of locations, with a particular focus on the main urban area and outlying former mining towns where there are significant investment opportunities. However, the impacts on the quality, mix and range of homes are largely unknown at this stage and will be determined at the planning application stage.

Overall score: +/- This option will provide a similar choice of housing locations to the Core Strategy (option 1) but more growth would be directed to the 7 main towns, with significant reductions to Askern and Rossington. However, the impacts on the quality, mix and range of homes are largely unknown at this stage and will be determined at the planning application stage.

Overall score: ++ This option would significantly increase the supply of housing across a larger number of settlements across the Borough, including a wider choice of housing locations in both urban and rural areas which are more attractive to the market. Market attractive locations should provide a better return from development in terms of infrastructure, affordable housing, and community benefits. It will also ensure that housing can be delivered locally to meet future needs. Focussing growth in such locations should ensure the delivery of sufficient land to meet identified needs. However, the impacts on the quality, mix and range of homes are largely unknown at this stage and will be determined at the planning application stage.

Overall score: ++/? This option offers the potential to provide a wider choice of housing sites than the current plan including locations which will be more attractive to the market and so better ensure housing is delivered. However, the impacts on the quality, mix and range of homes are largely unknown at this stage and will be determined at the planning application stage.


Overall score: ++ The Core Strategy seeks to provide an appropriate balance between a strong regeneration focus (brownfield sites, housing renewal, town centre revitalisation etc) and supporting the role of existing rural communities. It also allows a relatively large number of relatively sustainable settlements (of varying sizes) to continue growing. This approach will give rise to significant positive benefits in the medium to long term, especially in

Overall score: ++ This option advocates a regeneration strategy (brownfield sites, housing renewal, town centre revitalisation etc), especially within deprived areas, but this needs to be realistically balanced with market conditions and viability considerations which will fluctuate over the plan period.

Overall score: ++/- The effects will be similar to the other options, with both positive and negative scores. New development could reinforce the sense of place, especially in rural areas. However, the effects will be less positive in more central locations, such as town centres.

Overall score: ++ This option maintains a strong regeneration focus (brownfield sites, housing renewal, town centre revitalisation etc), especially within deprived areas, but balances this with market realism and viability considerations.







terms of bringing underused sites back into use, revitalising areas of low demand, creating new investment opportunities and widening access to job opportunities in deprived areas.


Overall score: +/? At this stage, there is a large degree of uncertainty regarding the potential impact of this option upon the appearance, character and distinctiveness of Doncaster’s settlements. The extent and magnitude of the effects will depend on the quality and location of new development and the robustness of planning policies (taking into account the recommendations of the Green Belt review).

Overall score: +/? New development should have a positive impact on these objectives subject to good design. However, the appearance, character and distinctiveness of Doncaster’s settlements is very much dependent on the location of new development and the robustness of planning policies and design principles.

Overall score: +/? Effects will mainly be positive, but some negative effects may arise depending on the location and design of new development where it encroaches into sensitive areas of open countryside.

Overall score: ++/-/? Some uncertainty remains but this option has the potential to have indirect positive effects on this objective. This will largely depend on the quality and location of new development and the robustness of planning policies. Some negative impacts on landscape and townscape may occur but there is scope to reduce or offset this impact.


Overall score: ++/ - This option will encourage the re-use of brownfield and redundant sites and promote housing renewal and growth within deprived areas in preference to unsustainable greenfield sites but the countryside (including the amenity of the Green Belt) will still be subject to significant development pressure. Meeting the housing requirement will necessitate the release of greenfield land within the statutory Green Belt or open countryside to address local needs.

Overall score: ++/ - The re-use of brownfield and redundant sites and promote housing renewal and growth within deprived areas in preference to unsustainable greenfield sites. Less pressure will be placed on infrastructure than the urban concentrated approach. However, the countryside will be subject to development pressure.

Overall score: ++/ - This option proposes the widest choice of housing and employment locations across the Borough (including town centre brownfield sites, infill sites within existing villages and large-scale urban extensions) across a wide range of settlements. However, it would undermine the ability of development to support the provision of key infrastructure because housing provision will be dispersed across a greater number of settlements.

Overall score: +/ - This option will encourage the re-use of brownfield and redundant sites and promote housing renewal and growth within deprived areas in preference to unsustainable greenfield sites. Less pressure will be placed on infrastructure than the urban concentrated approach (option 2). However, the countryside (including the amenity of the Green Belt) will be subject to greater development pressure because growth will be spread more widely than either option 1 and 2.

9. Improve the health and well-being of the Borough’s population

Overall score: +/-/? Predicting health and well-being outcomes is difficult at this strategic level but the overall strategy is likely to give rise to more positive than negative impacts such as the provision of open space, recreation and play opportunities, improvements to

Overall score: ? Improving health and well-being is a key priority of the Borough Strategy and remains one of the key challenges facing policy makers in Doncaster and the Sheffield City Region. Option 2 will contribute to the health and well-being

Overall score: +/-/? In many cases, new development will give rise to positive effects on health and well-being such as the provision of open space, recreation and play opportunities, improvements to cycle and pedestrian routes and remediation

Overall score: +/? Improving health and well-being is a key priority of the Borough Strategy and remains one of the key challenges facing policy makers in Doncaster and the Sheffield city region. Under the hybrid option, growth will be spread more







cycle and pedestrian routes and remediation of contaminated land. Many of these effects will depend on the precise location and nature of development. In addition, growth will also be concentrated within areas which already benefit from good access to services, open spaces and recreational opportunities.

of the Borough by the concentration of new homes and jobs within areas which already benefit from good access to services, open spaces and recreational opportunities but the effects are uncertain at this premature stage to give a clear scoring.

of contaminated land. Many of these effects will depend on the precise location and nature of development. However, dispersed growth may place more pressure on existing health and support services especially in the smaller settlements.

evenly across the Borough which will help support services and secure the provision of recreation and open space within areas of identified need. This in turn may reduce health inequalities and encourage healthier lifestyles. New homes and jobs will also be concentrated within areas which already benefit from good access to services, open spaces and recreational opportunities.


Overall score: +/? Improving education and training outcomes depends on a wide variety of interventions, including new investment programmes (e.g. new or expanded schools), apprenticeships and on the job training. Housing growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns where further education and secondary school facilities are located or planned. This will allow more residents to access opportunities closer to where they live or work. Developers will be expected to make a contribution towards the provision of new school places within areas of identified need. The provision of new or improved education and training facilities should have indirect positive benefits on future attainment levels.

Overall score: +/? Option 2 will help to contribute towards the achievement of the objective, but the effects largely remain uncertain at this stage. Housing growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns (with no outward expansion of other villages) where further education and secondary school facilities are located.

Overall score: +/? Improving education and training outcomes depends on a wide variety of interventions, including new investment programmes (e.g. new or expanded schools), apprenticeships and on the job training. Securing sufficient primary school education places remains a critical concern in the light of the Borough-wide shortfall. Housing growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns where further education and secondary school facilities are located or planned. This will allow more residents to access opportunities closer to where they live or work. Developers will be expected to make a contribution towards the provision of new school places within areas of identified need. The provision of new or improved education and training facilities should have indirect positive benefits on future attainment levels.

Overall score: +/? In Doncaster there are plans to provide new schools and secure a significant expansion of existing facilities, particularly in higher education. New development will be expected to make a contribution towards the provision of new school places as a result of the influx of new residents in the form of new classrooms or new schools. Housing growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns where further education and secondary school facilities are located or planned. This will allow more residents to access opportunities closer to where they live or work. As a result, this option will have indirect positive effects on education and training provision.

11. Overall score:--/+ Overall score:+/-- Overall score:++/-- Overall score:+/--







Manage and adapt to climate change

This option could potentially have positive and negative cumulative impacts on this objective. However, the effects remain highly uncertain because climate change is difficult to quantify and predict at a local level. The extent and magnitude of impact will depend on the form, design and location of new development. The Core Strategy seeks to direct new development towards areas of least flood risk. However, in some cases, it could hamper economic development opportunities in areas where issues of flood risk cannot be mitigated. Significant negative effects are predicted on both flood risk (due to the extent of flooding) and greenhouse gas emissions (from increased energy demand and travel). However, measures can be put in place to minimise these effects.

There are positive and negative cumulative impacts on this objective. These effects remain highly uncertain because climate change is difficult to quantify and predict at a local level. The extent and magnitude of impact will depend on the form, design and location of new development. Appropriate mitigation measures will be required to offset the risk of flooding arising from housing and employment uses around Thorne and Moorends and Hatfield, Stainforth, Dunscroft and Dunsville.

Whilst there will be increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions from growth and associated environmental issues, such a strategy would allow a greater emphasis on flood zone 1 (lower probability of flooding) sites. It offers more opportunities to divert development away from medium to high risk flood areas and effectively manage flood risk within existing communities and new developments. The long term effects of growth, however, remain highly uncertain because climate change is difficult to quantify and predict at a local level. The extent and magnitude of impact will depend on the form, design and location of new development. In some cases, dispersed growth could hamper economic development opportunities in areas where issues of flood risk cannot be mitigated.

This appraisal predicts a range of potential impacts (both indirect and direct) but the effects remain highly uncertain because climate change is difficult to quantify and predict at a local level. The extent and magnitude of impact will depend on the form, design and location of new development. Where it is not possible to avoid flood risk, appropriate mitigation measures will need to be put in place to ensure that development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. However, some of these measures are costly to implement and could affect the viability of future development. Doncaster has challenging targets to deliver a significant reduction in carbon dioxide and re-use and recycle its natural and man-made resources in a way that reduces its reliance on fossil fuels, diverts waste from landfill and improves the energy efficiency of buildings and spaces (e.g. through the use of renewable energy and design measures).

12 Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its underlying geology and wildlife habitat

Overall score: +/-/? This option will require the release of greenfield sites within the countryside (and the Green Belt) to meet the objectively assessed housing need over the plan period. Effects are also considered as uncertain though as it will depend on the actual choice of allocation e.g. even urban previously developed sites can have negative effects on biodiversity without appropriate mitigation or compensation.

Overall score:+/-/? This option will require the release of greenfield sites within the countryside (and the greenbelt) to meet the objectively assessed housing need over the plan period, which will be detrimental to the open character and amenity of the countryside around the urban fringe. Whilst the Local Plan policies will protect the natural environment, it is uncertain at this time how the allocated sites will affect

Overall score: -/? This option will require the release of greenfield sites within the countryside (and the Green Belt) to meet the objectively assessed housing need over the plan period. The effects are considered as being negative as the more dispersed settlement strategy may result in the need for more urban extensions to settlements as opportunities to accommodate growth on urban/brownfield sites are likely to be fewer at smaller villages. However,

Overall score: +/-/? This option will require the release of greenfield sites within the countryside (and the Green Belt) to meet the objectively assessed housing need over the plan period. Effects are also considered as uncertain though as it will depend on the actual choice of allocation e.g. even urban previously developed sites can have negative effects on biodiversity without appropriate mitigation or compensation.







different parts of Doncaster’s countryside.

the scale of growth to these settlements is considered as being modest which will reduce the scale of the impact. Effects are also considered as uncertain though as it will depend on the actual choice of allocation e.g. even urban previously developed sites can have negative effects on biodiversity without appropriate mitigation or compensation.

13 Protect, conserve and enhance the historic and cultural heritage

Overall score: +/? Overall, this option will have a positive impact on the setting and character of historic market towns (Bawtry and Tickhill). However, the scale and magnitude of impact will largely depend on the location of housing, retail and employment sites.

Overall score: 0/? Whilst there is some uncertainty regarding the likely degree of impact on historic assets and the environment arising from the proposed distribution of growth, the scale of impact will largely depend on the location of housing, retail and employment sites.

Overall score: -/? The effects are largely uncertain at this stage but further expansion of historic market towns (Bawtry and Tickhill) could undermine their character and setting. However, the scale and magnitude of impact will largely depend on the location of housing, retail and employment sites.

Overall score: -/? There remains some uncertainty regarding the likely degree of impact on historic assets and the environment arising from the proposed distribution of growth. The scale of impact will largely depend on the location of housing, retail and employment sites. However, there remains a possibility that new development could harm the historic setting and character of existing markets towns such as Bawtry and Tickhill. New development on the edge of these settlements would need to be sensitively designed to avoid harm to the historic character and setting of these towns.

14 Protect and enhance soil, air and water quality (watercourses and ground water)

Overall score: --/+/? This option would focus growth in and around town centres, the main urban area and existing settlements, which would limit the loss of significant good quality agricultural land. However, major urban extensions would encroach into the open countryside at the urban fringe and thus reduce opportunities for food and energy production. Growth would be focused along some parts of the motorway network and the

Overall score: --/+ Option 2 would involve the loss of sensitive habitats and good quality agricultural land but the impact would be less pronounced than the other options because more growth will be directed towards existing urban areas. Housing and employment would be less dispersed relative to options 1, 3 and 4. Growth would be focused along some parts of the motorway network and the town centre where air quality is

Overall score: --/+/? Overall, this option would have a negative indirect impact on soil, water and air quality within the Borough. More high quality agricultural land (e.g. arable farmland) would be taken out of productive use and fewer opportunities would be available to produce renewable energy and food. Growth would be focused along some parts of the motorway network and the town centre where air quality is

Overall score: --/+ Focusing growth in and around town centres, the main urban area and existing settlements will limit the loss of significant good quality agricultural land. However, major urban extensions would encroach into the open countryside at the urban fringe and therefore reduce opportunities for renewable energy and food production. Growth would be focused along some parts of the motorway network and the town centre







town centre where air quality is deteriorating. Appropriate mitigation measures would be required to offset the impact of new development on air quality in these locations.

deteriorating. Appropriate mitigation measures would be required to offset the impact of new development on air quality in these locations.

deteriorating. Appropriate mitigation measures would be required to offset the impact of new development on air quality in these locations.

where air quality is deteriorating. Appropriate mitigation measures would be required to offset the impact of new development on air quality in these locations.



5.3 Appraisal of Options for Housing and Employment Growth 5.3.1 As noted in Section 4 of this report, three options have been identified in relation to how much

housing and employment land should be provided over the plan period: Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land; Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land; and Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

5.3.2 The appraisal of the options is set out below in Table 5.2 with a detailed matrix provided at Appendix I.

5.3.3 The key points are: All options would make a significant positive contribution towards SA Objectives 1 relating to

economic growth and prosperity; All options would make a significant positive contribution to SA Objective 5 in relation to

housing and 6 ‘social exclusion and disadvantage’; All options would meet local needs, but Option 1 goes further by contributing to the Sheffield

City Region Strategic Economic Plan and the broader aspirations of the northern powerhouse area, through employment-led housing growth and a higher target for employment land that provides for flexibility over the plan period;

All options will help to deliver community identity and pride by helping to ensure that housing and employment needs within existing settlements are met, thereby contributing to sustainable communities. It is anticipated that Option 1 would be of greater benefit as a result of the higher level of housing and employment floorspace to be delivered, helping to promote the local economy and support local communities. Whilst all three options are considered to be a significant positive, there is a degree of uncertainty given the complexity and timing of implementation of economic development proposals. Some of the strongest effects could be associated with urban and town centre renewal. The higher levels of growth suggested under Options 1 and 3 might suggest the need for initiatives around community development/integration, especially in relation to larger schemes to ensure that community pride and identity are optimised;

All options would be expected to increase resource use through housing, with the increased level of house building under Option 1 expected to require a higher level of resource use. Improvements in efficiency in construction and waste management will go some way to offset this. In addition, once in use modern housing is typically more efficient in terms of heat, energy and water use. More widely the extent of the effect depends upon other factors such as wider regulation, in particular the Building Regulations, and economic incentives. Mixed effects are also identified in relation to SA Objectives 11 ‘climate change,’ 12 ‘natural environment’ and 13 ‘cultural heritage; and

Given the scale of development proposed by all options it is anticipated that development would both remediate existing contaminated land and lead to the loss of land classified as Grade 1 – 3a agricultural land (the best and most versatile agricultural land). As such all options are considered to have both a significant positive and significant negative effect against this objective.



Table 5.2 Options for housing and employment land provision – Summary of SA Results Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

Objective Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Commentary


++ ++ ++

All options would be expected to have a significant positive effect on economic growth in Doncaster, with each option proposing to allocate over 100ha of employment land. Options 1 and 3 would provide employment land to meet the growth aspirations of the Sheffield City Region for the Borough (1% economic growth per annum), with Option 1 providing a degree of flexibility over the plan period. Option 1 includes an element of employment-led housing growth and is considered to be in accordance with the growth aspirations of the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan17 and the broader aspirations of the northern powerhouse area. It seeks to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan18. Option 2 provides for 103ha of employment land. This lower growth rate may be easier to achieve; however, it does not accord with the Council’s desire to re-balance the local economy away from the public sector and achieve higher rates of economic growth. Nor would it contribute to the broader ambitions of the Sheffield City Region.

2. Reinforce and support community identity and pride ++ ++ ++

All options will help to deliver community identity and pride by helping to ensure that housing and employment needs within existing settlements are met, thereby contributing to sustainable communities. It is anticipated that Option 1 would be of greater benefit as a result of the higher level of housing and employment floorspace to be delivered, helping to promote the local economy and support local communities. Whilst all three options are considered to be a significant positive, there is a degree of uncertainty given the complexity and timing of implementation of economic development proposals. Some of the strongest effects could be associated with urban and town centre renewal. The higher levels of growth suggested under Options 1 and 3 might suggest the need for initiatives around community development/integration, especially in relation to larger schemes to ensure that community pride and identity are optimised.

3. Improve accessibility to places and services, both within and outside of the Borough

+ + +

All options would be expected to improve access to services and facilities by locating new homes and employment opportunities in areas with high accessibility. The effect has been assessed as a minor positive as none of the options introduce new services and facilities.

4. Ensure resources are available and efficiently used to sustain

++/-- +/- ++/--

All options would be expected to increase resource use in the Borough, e.g. associated with the construction and occupation of new housing and employment. The increased level of house building under Options 1 and 3 is expected to require a higher level of resource use. Improvements in efficiency in construction and waste management is likely to offset this. In addition, once in use modern housing is typically more efficient in terms of heat, energy and water use. More widely the extent of the effect depends upon other factors such as wider regulation, in particular the Building Regulations, and economic incentives.

17 Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (2014) Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan. Available at: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SCR-Growth-Plan-March-2014-1.pdf 18 Sheffield City Region (2016) Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan. Available at: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Integrated-Infrastructure-Plan_Executive-Summary.pdf



Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

Objective Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Commentary

development and reduce waste and consumption 5. Provide affordable, good quality housing that is available to everyone, including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups

++ ++ ++

All of the options would make a significant contribution to this objective. Option 2 meets needs arising within the Borough. Options 1 and 3 would be deliver housing to meet wider needs and contribute to housing-led economic growth. The higher housing growth target is considered to be better aligned with the broader growth and development ambitions of the broader Sheffield City Region, taking advantage of planned improvements to transport infrastructure19 and ambitious growth plans20

6. Reduce social exclusion and disadvantage ++ ++ ++

All options will help to provide a focus for positive action through the planning system as part of the promotion of growth which should be to the benefit of all residents. It is considered that in planning for higher levels of economic development, the scale of development associated with Option 1 and 3 means that it could help address social exclusion and disadvantage in areas outside of the Borough (as there is an element of housing-led economic growth). This will depend on how well targeted the new homes and jobs are.


+ + +

New homes and employment spaces would be expected to apply design principles to ensure a safe and secure environment, such as Secured by Design.


? ? ? All options would be expected to utilise a mix of both greenfield and brownfield land, with the potential to re-use existing buildings also inherent to all options. It is anticipated that the higher level of housing and employment growth in Options 1 and 3 would require additional greenfield land. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is uncertain at this stage.

9. Improve the health and well-being of the Borough’s

+ + +

The linkages between access to good quality environments, housing, employment and health are recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework. All options could help to encourage health improvements (mental and physical) across the Borough (and further afield under Option 1) through promoting economic development and increasing the provision of suitable housing. An increased population would increase the pressure on local health services, such as GPs and Hospital’s, however as the growth in population is anticipated it is assumed that additional heath infrastructure will be provided to meet the needs of growing communities.

19 Sheffield City Region (2016) Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan. Available at: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Integrated-Infrastructure-Plan_Executive-Summary.pdf 20 Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (2014) Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan. Available at: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SCR-Growth-Plan-March-2014-1.pdf




Objective Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Commentary

population 10. Provide education and training provision to build the skills and capacity of the population

++ + ++

All options would be expected to promote skills and training as a result of economic development leading to new skills training and apprenticeship opportunities. The larger amount of employment floorspace in Options 1 and 3 would be expected to create more opportunities and is considered a significant positive in this respect. An increased population would increase the pressure for school places on existing schools, however as the growth in population is predictable it is considered that additional schools will be provided to meet the needs of growing communities or existing schools expanded where feasible and appropriate.


-/? -/? -/?

The Borough has extensive areas of land at risk from flooding from various sources, including the rivers Don and Dearne in the west and rivers Torne and Trent in the south, and the watercourses that feed to them, plus tidal flooding within the low lying Humberhead Levels. Large parts of the Borough are therefore identified as being in medium and high flood risk based on the Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning. There are also areas of the Borough where surface water and groundwater flooding pose significant challenges. A significant negative effect in relation to flood risk from the options is considered unlikely due to the framework of national policies, including the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, which emphasise the need to avoid inappropriate development in high flood risk areas and the need to mitigate the contribution that new development would otherwise make to increased flood risk. An increased population would place increasing demand on local water supplies, with the greater demand resulting from Options 1 and 3. A notable difference between the three options is the ratio of employment land to homes, with Option 2 creating more than twice as many new dwellings per hectare of employment space than Option 1. The net result of this difference on climate change mitigation is uncertain as it depends on the impact on commuting patterns. For example, where there is a high level of in-commuting, a lower housing to employment floorspace ratio as per Option 1 may be preferable in reducing daily vehicle movements into the area. At present the economy is reasonably self-contained with 3.4% of residents commuting to Sheffield and 0.5% travelling from Sheffield to Doncaster. Also important is how improvements to public transport combined with the location of new employment opportunities effect the mode of transport that residents use to travel to work. Across the Sheffield City Region census data indicates that around 70% of residents travelled to work by car. There are uncertainties in relation to the capacity of water treatment facilities in the area and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions associated with motorised journeys to work.

12. Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its underlying geology and wildlife habitats

? ? ?

Given the scale of development considered by all options, it is likely that some sites of importance for nature conservation could be adversely affected in the absence of mitigation. It is also anticipated that the development brought forward would incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is uncertain at this stage.




Objective Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Commentary


? ? ?

Given the scale of development considered by all options, it is likely that some historic assets might be adversely affected in the absence of mitigation. It is also anticipated that the development brought forward would incorporate measures to mitigate any potential effects, for example through the use of appropriate screening. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is uncertain at this stage


++/-- ++/-- ++/--

Given the scale of development proposed by all options It is anticipated that development would both remediate existing contaminated land and lead to the loss of land classified as Grade 1 – 3a agricultural land. As such both options are considered to have both a significant positive and significant negative effect against this objective.



Reasons for Selecting the Preferred Options and Rejecting the Alternatives 5.3.4 Planning Practice Guidance21 is clear that, whilst Local Planning Authorities should only plan for

lower levels of housing than published in the standard methodology in ‘exceptional circumstances’, there may be circumstances which justify identifying a requirement above the standardised need figure: “The standard method for calculating local housing need provides a minimum number of homes to be planned for. Authorities should use the standard method as the starting point when preparing the housing requirement in their plan, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”.

5.3.5 The Council, in line with the Sheffield City Region, has aspirations for economic growth. The Sheffield City Region SEP Refresh, whilst not setting new housing targets for the city region (thus reverting to the previously published 7,000 dpa), does set a target for jobs growth of 1% per annum. The city region does not connect jobs and housing targets – the former being based on a general aspiration to improve life chances of local people, and the latter on demographic modelling. However, in order to provide an overall housing target, the ‘Economic Forecasts and Housing Needs Assessment’ (2018) does reconsider the Doncaster housing target, based on the updated Sheffield City Region job target. It has been calculated that if the housing target follows the standard methodology method (as per the NPPF) and is based on the aspirations of the emerging Sheffield City Region jobs target (1% uplift), then the housing target for Doncaster is 912 dpa. This is very similar to the local plan’s objectively assessed housing need target of 920 dpa, as identified through the earlier Housing Needs Assessment (2015), which has been subject to consultation previously. Given this, the local plan is proposing to retain the 920 dpa target and hence Option 1 is the Council’s preferred option. It will meet local need but also enable employment-led growth in accordance with the Sheffield City Regional Plan, whilst providing a degree of flexibility. Additional economic growth is central to re-balancing the local economy away from public sector. It is important that the Local Plans’ housing and economic strategies and aspirations are aligned and internally consistent with one-another so that there is a sufficient local workforce to fill the jobs being planned. This balance represents a ‘sound’ plan overall whereby the Borough’s economic growth aspirations are not constrained by a shortage in the local workforce who will require housing. Of the 3 options considered, Option 1 meets this objective.

5.3.6 The Council rejected Options 2 and 3 because, whilst they would meet identified needs they do not meet the Council’s aspirations for economic and social progress in the plan period. Option 2 would not enable the Council to achieve the objective of rebalancing and growing the local economy, whilst contributing to Sheffield City Region’s aspirations for economic growth. Option 3 would enable a contribution to be made to wider needs but would not provide the same scale of contribution as Option 1, nor would it provide for flexibility in relation to the provision of employment land.

21 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-supply-and-delivery



Appraisal of the Local Plan Vision and Objectives

6.1 Local Plan Vision and Objectives 6.1.1 The Local Plan objectives provide the context for the policy options. They outline the purpose of

the Local Plan and its aims and it is important that the objectives of the Local Plan accord with the sustainability objectives developed to test the Plan. The vision and objectives for the Local Plan have been revised and shortened in line with the revised and reviewed spatial vision of the Borough and the original issues identified in the baseline review. A comparison between the revised Local Plan vision and objectives and those of previous iterations of the Local Plan are set out in Appendix F. The revised Vision and Objectives are as follows:

Local Plan Vision 6.1.2 The Local Plan vision is that by 2035, Doncaster will:

Be a more important economic hub with a stronger, more balanced and productive economy; In line with Doncaster’s Inclusive Growth Strategy, have shaped economic success by investing

in our future, have encouraged existing businesses to expand, attracting new businesses to the area and encouraged a low carbon economy to combat climate change;

Have developed more inclusive labour markets by providing integrated support for residents to access quality job opportunities;

Become a University City and ensured residents have the education and skills businesses need; Realise the potential of our key industry sectors to create more higher-skilled, better paid jobs

in engineering & technology, digital & creative, future mobility (via rail, road and air), advanced materials (for manufacturing and construction); and supporting services;

Harness the potential of the airport, including linking to regional growth corridors and securing support for a rail link between the airport and the East Coast Main Line;

Meet our communities housing needs and aspirations focusing growth in the main urban area, main towns, service towns and larger villages providing a diverse range of homes, services and improved links in between;

Ensure that new development and infrastructure requirements such as, roads, broadband, open space, health facilities and schools are improved and/ or delivered together;

Enhance the vitality of our existing town centres and the wider Borough making a more attractive, healthier, safer and more active place to live, visit and work;

Ensure the sustainability of villages and rural economy through appropriate development; Protect and enhance our natural and historic environment including our tourist attractions, with

new developments taking account of their local surroundings and character; Be a place where nature flourishes and wildlife can move easily across the Borough, through a

network of well-connected green infrastructure;



Be a prosperous place to live, work and visit where growth will address health inequalities, and community deprivation.

Local Plan Objectives 6.1.3 The following Local Plan Objectives has been developed which draw on the Vision for the Borough

and will help to guide the implementation of the Local Plan:

Supporting the conditions for attracting high quality jobs and growth: 1. Encourage and support a competitive diverse and stable economy focusing on our town and district

centres, Doncaster Sheffield Airport growth corridor and strategic transport network. 2. Create and improve access to high quality employment, learning and training opportunities for

everyone in Doncaster.

Support Regeneration and community pride: 3. Stimulate regeneration to tackle deprivation especially in the most disadvantaged areas and ensure

an inclusive approach for those at risk of poverty, discrimination and social exclusion. 4. Encourage the re-use of sites and buildings, especially well located and underused brownfield land

(e.g. redundant/unused land and empty properties) to help revitalise areas of low demand and stimulate growth.

Quality of place: 5. Ensure our towns, suburbs, villages and countryside benefit from high quality appropriate

development that reinforces distinctive and vibrant places. 6. Protect, maintain and enhance the character and appearance of our conservation areas, historic

buildings, historic parks and gardens, and scheduled monuments. 7. Protect and enhance our green and blue infrastructure especially our areas of green space for sport,

recreation, play and nature.

Transport and Accessibility: 8. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure to improve accessibility to jobs and services and aim to

reduce the need to travel by car by ensuring all journeys are undertaken by the most sustainable mode of transport.

Homes and communities: 9. Ensure housing provision meets the housing need and aspirations by increasing the provision of new

homes for all to meet current and future needs and create mixed and balanced communities. 10. Focus new homes primarily within the main urban area of Doncaster and the Borough’s main towns,

particularly in areas with access to services. 11. Link the growth in homes and jobs to provide new and improved necessary infrastructure to create

healthier and more vibrant well-connected neighbourhoods and communities.



Health and well-being: 12. Promote healthy lifestyles and well-being of people of all ages and backgrounds and reduce

inequalities and obesity levels across the Borough. 13. Provide new or improved health, sport and recreation facilities and green infrastructure to create

quality communities and address deficits in provision. 14. Minimise pollution and improve air quality.

Countryside and natural environment: 15. Diversify and support the rural economy whilst protecting and enhancing the character and

appearance of the countryside and the natural environment, including areas of landscape and biodiversity value.

16. Protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity and provide opportunities for people to access and appreciate wildlife and nature.

Climate change (flood risk) and energy: 17. Reduce dependency on fossil fuels to reduce locally produced greenhouse gas emissions and

minimise the impacts of climate change and in line with the Sheffield City Region and encourage the transition to a low carbon Borough.

18. Ensure that Doncaster adapts to the effects of climate change through careful planning and design of developments, avoiding inappropriate development in flood risk areas and managing the risk of flooding from all sources.

Natural Resources: 19. Encourage more efficient use of natural resources including water and secure and maintain a steady

and constant supply of mineral resources to facilitate development. 20. Protect and enhance the quality of our water and soil resources (including high grade agricultural

land).

6.2 Compatibility Matrices 6.2.1 Compatibility matrices have been completed to appraise the compatibility of the Vision and Plan

Objectives contained within the draft Local Plan against the SA Objectives. Table 6.1 appraises the Vision for Doncaster while Table 6.2 appraises the compatibility of the Plan objectives with the SA Objectives. The following scoring system has been used to score the compatibility of the Plan Vision, Plan Objectives and the SA Objectives.





Summary of Compatibility – Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives 6.2.2 Table 6.1 summarises the compatibility between the Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives. A

detailed appraisal is presented in Appendix G. The great majority of interactions between elements of the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives have either a positive relationship or have no direct



or an uncertain relationship. This reflects the scope of the vision for the Borough which has economic, social and environmental dimensions and therefore aspirations which are likely to broadly result in the advancement of sustainable development. There are, however, potentially incompatible relationships between environmental protection and aspirations for economic growth associated with the ambition to: realise the potential of our key industry sectors to create more higher-skilled, better paid jobs

in engineering & technology, digital & creative, future mobility (via rail, road and air), advanced materials (for manufacturing and construction); and supporting services; and

harness the potential of the airport, including linking to regional growth corridors and securing support for a rail link between the airport and the East Coast Main Line.

6.2.3 Table 6.2 summarises the compatibility between the Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives, more detailed commentary and analysis is provided in Table 6.3.



Table 6.1 Compatibility between the Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives Local Plan Vision (abridged) SA Objectives

An im

porta

nt ec

onom

ic hu

b wi

th m

ore

balan

ced

econ

omy

Inves

tmen

t in b

usine

ss, ne

w bu

sines

s attr

acte

d an

d a l

ow ca

rbon

econ

omy e

ncou

rage

d

A m

ore i

nclus

ive la

bour

mar

kets

and

acce

ss to

qu

ality

job o

ppor

tunit

ies

A Un

iversi

ty Ci

ty an

d re

siden

ts wi

th re

levan

t ed

ucati

on an

d sk

ills

Reali

sing

the p

oten

tial o

f our

key i

ndus

try

secto

rs an

d ha

rnes

s the

pot

entia

l of t

he ai

rpor

t, inc

luding

linkin

g to

regio

nal g

rowt

h cor

ridor

s

Mee

t com

mun

ity ne

eds a

nd as

pirat

ions f

or

hom

es an

d se

rvice

s

New

deve

lopm

ent a

nd in

frastr

uctu

re an

d se

rvice

s req

uirem

ents

deliv

ered

toge

ther

A m

ore a

ttrac

tive,

healt

hier, s

afer a

nd m

ore

activ

e plac

e to

live,

visit

and

work

Appr

opria

te d

evelo

pmen

t to

ensu

re su

staina

ble

villag

es an

d ru

ral e

cono

my

Prot

ectio

n and

enha

ncem

ent o

f the

natu

ral a

nd

histo

ric en

viron

men

t

Flour

ishing

wild

life as

par

t of a

well

-con

necte

d gr

een i

nfra

struc

ture

A pr

ospe

rous

plac

e to

live,

work

and

visit

wher

e gr

owth

addr

esse

s hea

lth in

equa

lities

and

depr

ivatio

n

Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth and prosperity and diversify its economic base

+ + + + + ? ? ? + ? ? +

Reinforce and support community identity and pride + + + + + + + + + + + + Improve accessibility to places and services, both within and outside of the Borough ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? ? + Ensure resources are available and efficiently used to sustain development and reduce waste and consumption

? + ? ? ? + + + ? + + +

Provide affordable, good quality housing that is available to everyone, including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups

? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? +

Reduce social exclusion and disadvantage + ? + ? ? + + + + ? ? + Make places that are safe, attractive, culturally interesting and distinctive to live, work and travel in

? ? ? + ? + ? + ? + + ?

Renew and reuse existing buildings, land and infrastructure + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? + Improve the health and well-being of the Borough’s population + ? + ? ? + + + + + + + Provide education and training provision to build the skills and capacity of the population + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? + Manage and adapt to climate change ? + ? ? - ? ? ? + + + ?



Local Plan Vision (abridged) SA Objectives

An im

porta

nt ec

onom

ic hu

b wi

th m

ore

balan

ced

econ

omy

Inves

tmen

t in b

usine

ss, ne

w bu

sines

s attr

acte

d an

d a l

ow ca

rbon

econ

omy e

ncou

rage

d

A m

ore i

nclus

ive la

bour

mar

kets

and

acce

ss to

qu

ality

job o

ppor

tunit

ies

A Un

iversi

ty Ci

ty an

d re

siden

ts wi

th re

levan

t ed

ucati

on an

d sk

ills

Reali

sing

the p

oten

tial o

f our

key i

ndus

try

secto

rs an

d ha

rnes

s the

pot

entia

l of t

he ai

rpor

t, inc

luding

linkin

g to

regio

nal g

rowt

h cor

ridor

s

Mee

t com

mun

ity ne

eds a

nd as

pirati

ons f

or

hom

es an

d se

rvice

s

New

deve

lopm

ent a

nd in

frastr

uctu

re an

d se

rvice

s req

uirem

ents

deliv

ered

toge

ther

A m

ore a

ttrac

tive,

healt

hier,

safer

and

mor

e ac

tive p

lace t

o liv

e, vis

it an

d wo

rk

Appr

opria

te d

evelo

pmen

t to

ensu

re su

staina

ble

villag

es an

d ru

ral e

cono

my

Prot

ectio

n and

enha

ncem

ent o

f the

natu

ral a

nd

histo

ric en

viron

men

t

Flour

ishing

wild

life as

par

t of a

well

-con

necte

d gr

een i

nfra

struc

ture

A pr

ospe

rous

plac

e to

live,

work

and

visit

wher

e gr

owth

addr

esse

s hea

lth in

equa

lities

and

depr

ivatio

n

Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its underlying geology and wildlife habitat

? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ?

Protect, conserve and enhance the historic and cultural heritage ? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ? Protect and enhance soil, air and water quality (watercourses and ground water) ? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ?



Table 6.2 Compatibility between Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives Local Plan Objectives (abridged) SA Objectives

1. En

cour

age a

com

petit

ive, d

iverse

and

stable

ec

onom

y

2. Cr

eate

and

impr

ove a

cces

s to

high q

uality

em

ploym

ent a

nd tr

aining

opp

ortu

nities

3. St

imula

te re

gene

ratio

n to

tackle

dep

rivat

ion

4. En

cour

age r

e-us

e of s

ites a

nd b

uildin

gs

5. En

sure

high

qua

lity d

evelo

pmen

t tha

t rein

force

s dis

tinct

and

vibra

nt p

laces

6. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e the

histo

ric

envir

onm

ent

7. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e gre

en an

d blu

e inf

rastr

uctu

re

8. Im

prov

e acc

essib

ility t

o job

s and

servi

ces,

and

prom

oting

susta

inable

tran

spor

t

9. M

eet h

ousin

g ne

eds a

nd as

pirati

ons,

creat

ing m

ixed

and

balan

ced

com

mun

ities

10.

Focu

s dev

elopm

ent o

n urb

an ar

eas w

ith ac

cess

to

servi

ces

11.

Link h

omes

and

jobs w

ith th

e pro

vision

of

infra

struc

ture

12.

Prom

ote h

ealth

y life

styles

and

well-

being

13.

Prov

ide ne

w an

d im

prov

ed re

creati

on fa

cilitie

s and

Gr

een I

nfra

struc

ture

14.

Mini

mise

poll

ution

and

impr

ove a

ir qu

ality

15.

Dive

rsify

and

supp

ort t

he ru

ral e

cono

my w

hilst

prot

ectin

g co

untry

side c

hara

cter

16.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e biod

iversi

ty an

d ge

odive

rsity

whils

t enh

ancin

g ac

cess

17.

Redu

ce d

epen

denc

y on f

ossil

fuels

and

enco

urag

e tra

nsitio

n to

a low

-car

bon B

orou

gh

18.

Adap

t to

the e

ffects

of c

limate

chan

ge

19.

Enco

urag

e mor

e effi

cient

use o

f natu

ral r

esou

rces

20.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e the

qua

lity o

f wat

er an

d so

il re

sour

ces


+ + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + ? ? ?

2. Reinforce and support community identity and pride ? ? + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? + + ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + ? + +


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6. Reduce social exclusion and disadvantage + + + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



Local Plan Objectives (abridged) SA Objectives

1. En

cour

age a

com

petit

ive, d

iverse

and

stable

ec

onom

y

2. Cr

eate

and

impr

ove a

cces

s to

high q

uality

em

ploym

ent a

nd tr

aining

opp

ortu

nities

3. St

imula

te re

gene

ratio

n to

tackle

dep

rivat

ion

4. En

cour

age r

e-us

e of s

ites a

nd b

uildin

gs

5. En

sure

high

qua

lity d

evelo

pmen

t tha

t rein

force

s dis

tinct

and

vibra

nt p

laces

6. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e the

histo

ric

envir

onm

ent

7. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e gre

en an

d blu

e inf

rastr

uctu

re

8. Im

prov

e acc

essib

ility t

o job

s and

servi

ces,

and

prom

oting

susta

inable

tran

spor

t

9. M

eet h

ousin

g ne

eds a

nd as

pirati

ons,

creati

ng m

ixed

and

balan

ced

com

mun

ities

10.

Focu

s dev

elopm

ent o

n urb

an ar

eas w

ith ac

cess

to

servi

ces

11.

Link h

omes

and

jobs w

ith th

e pro

vision

of

infra

struc

ture

12.

Prom

ote h

ealth

y life

styles

and

well-

being

13.

Prov

ide ne

w an

d im

prov

ed re

creati

on fa

cilitie

s and

Gr

een I

nfra

struc

ture

14.

Mini

mise

poll

ution

and

impr

ove a

ir qu

ality

15.

Dive

rsify

and

supp

ort t

he ru

ral e

cono

my w

hilst

prot

ectin

g co

untry

side c

hara

cter

16.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e biod

iversi

ty an

d ge

odive

rsity

whils

t enh

ancin

g ac

cess

17.

Redu

ce d

epen

denc

y on f

ossil

fuels

and

enco

urag

e tra

nsitio

n to

a low

-car

bon B

orou

gh

18.

Adap

t to

the e

ffects

of c

limat

e cha

nge

19.

Enco

urag

e mor

e effi

cient

use o

f natu

ral r

esou

rces

20.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e the

qua

lity o

f wat

er an

d so

il re

sour

ces


? ? + + + + + ? + + + + + + + + + + ? ?


? ? ? + ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

9. Improve the health and well-being of the Borough’s population

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? + + + ? ? ? ? ? ?


? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

11. Manage and adapt to climate change ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + +


? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? + +


? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



Local Plan Objectives (abridged) SA Objectives

1. En

cour

age a

com

petit

ive, d

iverse

and

stable

ec

onom

y

2. Cr

eate

and

impr

ove a

cces

s to

high q

uality

em

ploym

ent a

nd tr

aining

opp

ortu

nities

3. St

imula

te re

gene

ratio

n to

tackle

dep

rivat

ion

4. En

cour

age r

e-us

e of s

ites a

nd b

uildin

gs

5. En

sure

high

qua

lity d

evelo

pmen

t tha

t rein

force

s dis

tinct

and

vibra

nt p

laces

6. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e the

histo

ric

envir

onm

ent

7. Pr

otec

t, main

tain a

nd en

hanc

e gre

en an

d blu

e inf

rastr

uctu

re

8. Im

prov

e acc

essib

ility t

o job

s and

servi

ces,

and

prom

oting

susta

inable

tran

spor

t

9. M

eet h

ousin

g ne

eds a

nd as

pirati

ons,

creati

ng m

ixed

and

balan

ced

com

mun

ities

10.

Focu

s dev

elopm

ent o

n urb

an ar

eas w

ith ac

cess

to

servi

ces

11.

Link h

omes

and

jobs w

ith th

e pro

vision

of

infra

struc

ture

12.

Prom

ote h

ealth

y life

styles

and

well-

being

13.

Prov

ide ne

w an

d im

prov

ed re

creati

on fa

cilitie

s and

Gr

een I

nfra

struc

ture

14.

Mini

mise

poll

ution

and

impr

ove a

ir qu

ality

15.

Dive

rsify

and

supp

ort t

he ru

ral e

cono

my w

hilst

prot

ectin

g co

untry

side c

hara

cter

16.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e biod

iversi

ty an

d ge

odive

rsity

whils

t enh

ancin

g ac

cess

17.

Redu

ce d

epen

denc

y on f

ossil

fuels

and

enco

urag

e tra

nsitio

n to

a low

-car

bon B

orou

gh

18.

Adap

t to

the e

ffects

of c

limat

e cha

nge

19.

Enco

urag

e mor

e effi

cient

use o

f natu

ral r

esou

rces

20.

Prot

ect a

nd en

hanc

e the

qua

lity o

f wat

er an

d so

il re

sour

ces


? ? ? + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + +



Commentary on the compatibility of the Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives. 6.2.4 The majority of the relationships are either compatible (see Appendix G for details) or there is no

clear relationship, reflecting the economic, social and environmental focus of the plan objectives and their intention to promote sustainable change within the Borough. No instances of clear incompatibilities between the SA Objectives and Local Plan Objectives have been identified, although delivery of the Plan will need to take into account matters such as the relationship between where development is located and the provision of sustainable travel opportunities, and the protection of natural and cultural heritage resources in light of the need to provide housing and employment. How these potential conflicts are managed will depend upon the implementation of policies and proposed site allocations. The proposed Local Plan policies are appraised in Chapter 7 and proposed Site Allocations in Chapter 8.



Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Policies

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The appraisal of the proposed policies has been undertaken against each of the SA Objectives with

an evaluation provided for the short (up until 2020), medium (up until 2030) and long term (beyond 2030). The following information was recorded in order to present the findings of the SA: The sustainability objectives and criteria; A commentary on significant impacts including any assumptions or uncertainties; A score indicating the nature of the impact; and Recommendations as to how the policies may be improved against the SA objectives including

any mitigation or enhancements which could be considered in the next steps of policy formation.

7.1.2 The qualitative scoring system used to assess the effect of the policy areas is described in Section 4.3 of this Report:

7.1.3 A summary of the results of the appraisal of the draft Local Plan policies is presented below. The appraisal matrices for each chapter are presented in Appendix J of this report.

Chapter 4. Strategic Approach 7.1.4 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development; Policy 2: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy; Policy 3: Level and Distribution of Growth; Policy 4: Employment Allocations; Policy 5: Employment Policy Areas; and Policy 6: Housing Allocations.

7.1.5 Overall the policies take a proactive approach in encouraging the development of new housing and employment in sustainable locations. These policies would also encourage a range of housing that will help meet local needs, as well economic - led housing growth. Significant positive effects are anticipated in relation to the following SA Objectives: Objective 1 ‘’Economic growth’, Objective 2 ‘Community,’ Objective 3 ‘Accessibility,’ Objective 5 ‘Housing,’ Objective 6 ‘Social exclusion,’ Objective 8 ‘Land and buildings and’ Objective 10 ‘Education.’ Many of these benefits are cumulative and complementary to one another, with no identified disbenefits. The policies are likely to contribute to the creation of a wide range of new housing, some of which will be affordable, and will reduce the barriers to home ownership for many people. The policies are likely to help Doncaster realise the economic potential of its built environment through the re-use of brownfield land for housing and employment. The policies seek to direct development in accordance with the proposed settlement hierarchy, with the scale of development reflecting local housing needs and potential for economic led-growth, where appropriate. The policies also seek to help secure jobs for local people through recruitment and training initiatives associated with larger employment schemes (20 or more direct jobs).



Chapter 5. Doncaster Sheffield Airport 7.1.6 The policy in this section of the Local Plan is:

Policy 7: Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Business Park. 7.1.7 Overall, the policy is likely to result in a broad range of positive effects reflecting that growth and

development at the airport has significant benefits not just for the airport and immediate surrounding area but the wider Borough. In particular, there are significant benefits for local housing provision and significant increase in employment floorspace. This would in turn be expected to result in significant levels of job creation and associated training opportunities. The proposed housing development incorporates the provision of retail, food and drink, hotel and other commercial and community uses to serve the needs of existing and future residents. This would in turn be expected to lead to a reduction in social disadvantage and more inclusive communities. There is also provision in the policy for improved public transport links to the airport that should have positive environmental and health impacts in relation to climate change and vehicle emissions and be a positive step with regards to accessibility and inclusion.

7.1.8 One negative impact has been identified in respect of climate change reflecting that development and growth of the airport will inevitably not be carbon or resource-use neutral. This would be mitigated in accordance with the broader sustainable design and construction requirements of the local plan. The policy also promotes sustainable transport through requiring access to be in accordance with the Airport’s Surface Access Strategy.

7.1.9 There is some uncertainty over exactly when some of the positive effects may be realised as the majority of the housing will be phased with growth and job creation at the airport and surrounding business uses.

7.1.10 Development and growth of the airport should have a range of significant positive effects, both locally and for the Borough as a whole, with potential secondary benefits in terms of a stronger sense of place, higher quality development generally and a more skilled workforce retained in the Borough.

Chapter 6. Meeting the Need for New Homes 7.1.11 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

Policy 8: Delivering the Necessary Range of Housing; Policy 9: Removal of Occupancy Conditions; Policy 10: Houses in Multiple Occupation; Policy 11: Residential Policy Areas; and Policy 12: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

7.1.12 Significant positive effects are anticipated in relation to SA Objective 1 ‘economic growth,’ as the provision of a mix of dwellings will help economic-led housing growth but also help meet local housing need. A significant positive effect is also anticipated in relation to SA Objective 2 ‘community’ as policies will help maintain the quality of existing residential areas, particularly those associated with proposals for homes in multiple occupation and residential policy areas. The policies will also contribute to the provision of accessible services as they will help to create the critical mass that will support and sustain services. A significant positive effect is therefore identified in relation to SA Objective 3 which covers this topic. Significant positive effects are also anticipated in relation to SA Objective 4 on resource use, 5 on housing, 6 on social exclusion and 7 on places and 9 in relation to health.



Chapter 7. Transport, Access and Infrastructure 7.1.13 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

Policy 13: Strategic Transport Network; Policy 14: Promoting Sustainable Transport in New Developments; Policy 15: Doncaster Town Centre Parking; Policy 16: Lorry Parking; Policy 17 Cycling in Doncaster; Policy 18: Walking in Doncaster; Policy 19: Development Affecting Public Rights of Way; Policy 20: Access, Design and Layout of Public Rights of Way; Policy 21: Public Rights of Way Crossing Roads, Railways, Canals and Rivers; and Policy 22: Telecommunications and Utilities Infrastructure.

7.1.14 Investment in transport and communications infrastructure and the policies which support it are likely to yield mixed effects, reflecting negative effects on natural resources such as air quality but positive effects in terms of advancing economic and social opportunity. Creation of a transport network which promotes cycling and walking will be positive in effect, but likely to be realised only over the long term and not necessarily to the benefit of the whole Borough. There is a degree of uncertainty surrounding the likely effects of policies relating to investment in the road network and town centre parking where these impacts could be locally significant. Effects are variously likely to be realised over the short, medium and longer term, with the full impacts only discernible over the longer term. There are various uncertainties in respect of the speed and scale of change.

Chapter 8. Retail, Town Centres and Leisure 7.1.15 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

Policy 23: Locating Town Centre Uses; Policy 24: Development Within Town, District and Local Centres; and Policy 25: Food and Drink Uses.

7.1.16 Policy 2 sets out the hierarchy of centres in the Borough and the level and distribution of growth within them.

7.1.17 The policies in Chapter 8 are positive in their intentions and likely outcomes, reflecting the desire and need to maintain balanced retail provision across the Borough such that the longer-term viability of the various centres can be secured. Positive sustainability effects are likely across economic, social and environmental objectives, although given the dynamism of the retail environment, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the precise effect of the policies and their ability to address wider economic and social trends.

Chapter 9. Countryside 7.1.18 There is one policy in this Chapter, Policy 26 ‘Development in the Countryside.’ The policy is likely

to yield positive sustainability effects, reflecting the positive approach to the provision of housing and economic development in the countryside, with consequent benefits for the local economy,



those who require housing in the countryside associated with an enterprise and ensuring the social cohesion of rural communities. The policy is necessarily drafted with stringent criteria which ensure that development where it does occur is appropriate to the receiving environment, which makes the effects less strong than they otherwise might be. Equally, those criteria help to ensure the absence of negative effects.

Chapter 10. Green Infrastructure 7.1.19 The policies in this chapter are:

Policy 27: Green Infrastructure; Policy 28: Protecting Open Space Policy Areas and Non Designated Open Space; Policy 29: Open Space Provision in New Developments; Policy 30: Ecological Networks; Policy 31: Valuing Biodiversity and Geodiversity; Policy 32: Local Wildlife and Geological Sites; Policy 33: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows; and Policy 34: Landscape.

7.1.20 Overall the policies take a proactive approach to safeguarding green infrastructure whilst promoting opportunities to enhance and create it. This is likely to lead to multiple benefits, many of which are cumulative and complementary to one another, with no identified disbenefits. Environmentally, the policies would help to facilitate the creation of a more extensive and robust natural resource to provide the context for existing and new development, with the environmental benefits which accrue from such an approach. Socially, green infrastructure can support regeneration in environmentally deprived areas, helping to boost the image of places, encourage community involvement in biodiversity management and improve quality of life generally. In particular, the protection of playing pitches is vital in recognition of the unique role of sport and active recreation in contributing to community, health, leisure and education aspirations. Economically, the policies are likely to help Doncaster realise the economic value of its natural environment through for example investing in natural tourism, which would improve the area’s environmental quality, create jobs, attract tourists and increase visitor spending.

Chapter 11. The Historic Environment 7.1.21 The policies in this chapter are:

Policy 35: Valuing our Historic Environment; Policy 36: Understanding and Recording the Historic Environment; Policy 37: Listed Buildings; Policy 38: Conservation Areas; Policy 39: Historic Parks and Gardens; Policy 40: Development Affecting Archaeology; and Policy 41: Buildings or Structures of Local Historic Interest.



7.1.22 The likely effects of these policies are overwhelmingly positive, reflecting their positive tone and the contribution to a wide range of environmental, social and economic objectives through the protection and enhancement of heritage assets of all kinds. Whilst Policy 37 does allow for the demolition of Listed Buildings, there is strict criteria in the policy which must be met for any demolition to be approved and so it is considered that overall this policy would be likely to have a positive effect. However, these events are likely to be unusual and outweighed by the protection and renewal of buildings such that the character and quality of Doncaster’s built environment is enhanced.

Chapter 12. Design and the Built Environment 7.1.23 The policies in this chapter are:

Policy 42: Character and Local Distinctiveness; Policy 43: Good Urban Design; Policy 44: Views, Gateways and Taller Buildings; Policy 45: Residential Design; Policy 46: Housing Design Standards; Policy 47: Design of Non-Residential, Commercial and Employment Developments; Policy 48: Safe and Secure Places; Policy 49: Landscaping of New Developments; and Policy 50: Advertisements and Signage.

7.1.24 Overall the policies take a proactive approach to ensure that new development is locally responsive to the distinctive qualities of a place, helping to preserve the setting of landscape and townscape features. The approach to design is locally responsive to the distinct characteristics of an area to maximise the social, economic and environmental benefits and ensure their long term sustainability. The promotion of good quality and sustainable design is likely to facilitate economic growth and help to meet the Council’s social and environmental aspirations through, for example, helping to attract new and niche businesses and retaining and expanding existing businesses. A stronger sense of local identity can help to promote social cohesion. Significant positive effects are identified in relation to a range of SA Objectives, including 3 ‘Accessibility’, 7 ‘relating to attractive places’ and 9 ‘Health’.

Chapter 13. Health, Well-being and Our Communities 7.1.25 The policies in this chapter are:

Policy 51: Health; Policy 52: Protection of Education, Community and Leisure Facilities; Policy 53: New Education Facilities; Policy 54: Provision of New Indoor Recreation and Leisure Facilities; Policy 55: Pollution; and Policy 56: Contamination and Unstable Land.



7.1.26 These policies are likely to result in positive or significantly positive effects across most SA Objectives, reflecting their intention to provide for and enhance access to facilities which enhance community well-being. Policies also seek to tackle air pollution and contaminated and unstable land. This is particularly important for the more deprived communities where the health and education baselines are typically more challenging. The overall benefit to Doncaster will be positive. However, there is a degree of uncertainty in respect of how and over what timescales, change might be affected and in particular the role of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in helping to provide the baseline to help measure and implement the change. Equally, there is uncertainty over how these policies might influence existing issues in respect of shortfalls in the provision of facilities and the incidence of pollution within the Borough.

Chapter 14. Climate Change, Minerals, Resources and Energy 7.1.27 The policies in chapter section are:

Policy 57: Drainage; Policy 58: Flood Risk Management; Policy 59: Low Carbon and Renewable Energy; Policy 60: Wind Energy Developments; Policy 61: Protecting and Enhancing Doncaster’s Soil and Water Resources; Policy 62 Providing for and Safeguarding Mineral Resources; Policy 63: Minerals Development Proposals, Borrow Pits and Incidental Extraction; Policy 64: Reclamation of Mineral Sites (Restoration and Aftercare); and Policy 65: Providing for Energy Minerals (on-shore Gas and Oil (Hydrocarbons)).

7.1.28 Overall, the policies will have positive effects in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation, although it is noted that Policy 65 could lead to the development of onshore oil and gas which would lead to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions although there are some uncertainties over the extent to which any suitable licensed exploration and production activities would occur. For minerals and energy resource development, the likely overall effects of these policies are positive, reflecting their balanced approach to realising aspirations for change but ensuring that there are appropriate checks and balances in place as part of their implementation through appropriate siting, an agreed scheme of works and in the case of extraction, appropriate restoration measures. The outcome should be development which contributes to the economic, environmental and social health of the Borough through supporting wealth and job creation and ensuring that environmental impacts are minimised. Implementation of these policies will be important over the lifetime of the plan and beyond, as they establish approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation and use of natural resources which are likely to take decades to realise. The timing and extent of natural flooding events and the longer-term impacts of climate change are significant uncertainties which it is difficult for these policies to predict and therefore influence the outcome of development decisions. Ongoing monitoring and review will assist with this task and policy may have to be amended in the next round of plan-making.

Chapter 15. Implementation and Monitoring 7.1.29 The policies in this chapter are:

Policy 66: Developer Contributions; and



Policy 67: Development Viability. 7.1.30 These policies will have a significant positive effect overall, reflecting national policy which requires

that development make a fair financial (or equivalent) contribution to the enhancement of the community in which it is located. As such the requirements are clear and can be factored into development proposals, adding certainty and transparency to the development process. The potential for significant positive effects is identified in relation to a range of SA Objectives, including 1 ‘Economic Growth and Prosperity,’ 2 ‘Community identity and pride’, 3 ‘Accessibility,’ 9 ‘Health’ and 10 ‘Education.’ This is on the basis that developer contributions will help secure improvements to existing facilities and secure new ones where necessary.

Chapter 16. Spatial Proposals 7.1.31 The policies in this Chapter are:

Policy 68: Doncaster Town Centre; Policy 69: Key Doncaster Town Centre and main urban area mixed use sites; Policy 70: Unity Regeneration Project; Policy 71: Mexborough Town Centre; and Policy 72: Thorne Town Centre.

7.1.32 These policies are positive in their intentions and likely outcomes, reflecting the desire and need to maintain balanced retail provision across the Borough such that the longer term viability of the various centres can be secured. Positive sustainability effects are likely across economic, social and environmental measures, although given the dynamism of the retail environment, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the precise effect of the policies that relate to town centres and sites within them and their ability to address wider economic and social trends. The policies set the development framework for key sites across the Borough, including the Unity Regeneration Project. The appraisal of the policies identified the potential for significant positive effects associated with the delivery of key infrastructure, employment and other benefits. By their nature, these benefits are specific to the site that the policy relates to, so for example Policy 70 includes improvements to the Hatfield and Stainforth Railway Station facilities, park and ride and a new pedestrian footbridge. It also includes a new link road from Junction 5 of the M18, making a significant positive contribution to SA Objective 3 ‘Accessibility.’

7.1.33 Policies seek to improve the public realm, which will also contribute towards this objective. On the same basis a number of site specific issues have been identified and are reflected in the Local Plan, for example the supporting text to Policy 70 includes a requirement for development of the former colliery area to assess the impact on the setting of the former headstocks, which are Grade II listed buildings. Views from the south of the former colliery site are also of heritage significance. Uncertain effects are identified in terms of the effects of this policy. The site has been separately assessed as a proposed allocation (Site 418) and the detailed site appraisal provides more information.

7.2 Commentary on the Appraisal of Policies 7.2.1 The appraisal of policies has identified that the majority are likely to have positive sustainability

effects, with some potentially neutral or uncertain, particularly over the medium and longer term where it is more difficult to predict their likely effects. Significant positive effects identified include:



Providing appropriate employment opportunities to meet the needs of the Borough, in particular the requirement for the use of local labour agreements (for development proposing 20 or more direct jobs) as set out in Policy 4;

Regeneration of the town centre and centres across the Borough to meet the needs of local communities as set out in Policies 2 and Chapter 16;

Promoting the conservation and enhancement of the Borough’s natural and historic environment through Policies in Chapters 10 and 11;

Protecting and enhancing air, soil and water quality, e.g. Policy 55 ‘Pollution’ and Policy 61 relating to soil and water resources;

Provision of quality affordable housing, e.g. Policy 8 relating to the range of housing to be provided and Policy 66 on developer contributions;

The use of high quality design and sustainable construction techniques, e.g. Policy 46 ‘Housing Design Standards’ and Policy 47 relating to non-residential developments;

Seeking high environmental standards of new development in respect of carbon emission reductions, efficient use of natural resources, as well as the minimising and recycling of waste, e.g. Policy 43: Good Urban Design and Policy 45 ‘Residential Design’;

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the appropriate location and design of new development, e.g. Policy 14 ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport Within New Developments;’ and

Ensuring that adequate infrastructure accompanies new development, e.g. Policy 22 ‘Telecommunications and Utilities Infrastructure.’

7.2.2 The appraisal of policies identified the potential for significant adverse effects centre on the generation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of new development, including increasing traffic flows.

7.2.3 Many of the effects reflect the quantum and location of development. For example, Policies 3 and 4 make provision for 18,400 new homes and 481ha of employment land and transport infrastructure over the lifetime of the Plan and this will lead to an increase in land take with potentially localised effects on biodiversity, carbon emissions, resource use (particularly construction materials, aggregates, land and water) and waste created. There a number of policies throughout the topic chapters, including Green Infrastructure (Chapter 10), Historic Environment (Chapter 11) and Design and the Built Environment (Chapter 12) that provide appropriate mitigation (to reduce the effects that would otherwise occur if development progressed on an unplanned and ad hoc basis).

7.2.4 Growth in economic activity, residential population and visitors is likely to increase the amount of traffic throughout the Borough despite policies and measures aimed at minimising these effects, as well as promoting more sustainable transport options, particularly for residents. Consequently, detrimental impacts on air quality as well as increased carbon emissions are expected. The precise extent of some of the negative effects is uncertain however, reflecting both the type and extent of change and the effect of partner policies which will help to mitigate some of the effects as part of their implementation.

7.2.5 No policies were identified as solely having significant negative effects and thereby causing concern as to the overall implementation of the plan.



7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Policies 7.3.1 The potential cumulative and synergistic effects of policies against each objective by chapter are

shown in Table 7.1 below. The table also identifies the potential cumulative effects of all policies for each SA Objective. The latter is partly derived from the results of the appraisal of individual policies and chapters but is also based on professional judgement about the contribution that the policies as a whole could make to the achievement of each objective. The potential for cumulative effects of all policies is considered in the final two columns of the table with the last column including a short commentary on overall performance.

7.3.2 The cumulative effect of the draft polices (as well as the interaction with other plans and programmes) is difficult to meaningfully or accurately assess. However, our best judgment indicates that most of the SA Objectives will experience significantly positive effects as a result of policies of the draft Local Plan. These include the following SA Objectives: 1 ‘Growth and Prosperity, 2 ‘Community Pride’, 3 ‘Improve accessibility’ and 6 ‘Reduce social exclusion’. Furthermore, minor positive effects are anticipated in relation to other SA Objectives, including 8 on the ‘Renewal and re-use of existing material assets’, 10 ‘Education,’ 11 ‘Climate change’ and 12 ‘Natural environment.’



Table 7.1 Potential for Cumulative Effects by Chapter and Across Policies as a Whole

SA Objective 4.

Stra

tegi

c Ap

proa

ch

5. Do

ncas

ter

Shef

field

Airp

ort

6. M

eetin

g th

e Ne

ed fo

r New

Ho

mes

7.T

rans

port

Acce

ss an

d In

frastr

uctu

re

8. Re

tail a

nd T

own

Cent

res

9. Co

untry

side

10. B

lue a

nd G

reen

In

frastr

uctu

re

11. H

istor

ic En

viron

men

t

12. D

esig

n &

Built

En

viron

men

t13

. Hea

lth &

Well

-be

ing

14. C

limat

e Ch

ange

, Min

erals

an

d En

ergy

15.Im

plem

enta

tion

& M

onito

ring

16. S

patia

l Pr

opos

als

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary


++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ + + 0 ++ ++

Potential for significant positive cumulative and synergistic effects across policy areas which seek to foster and enable economic growth across a range of sectors and improve accessibility to employment for residents. Policies to protect environmental and cultural interests are in place, but compromises could be necessary in certain localities.


++ +/? ++ ++ +/? 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 ++

The provision of homes, opportunities for inward investment and the protection and enhancement of the environmental and cultural qualities of the borough will contribute to maintaining and enhancing community identity and pride. However, precise interrelationships and effects are difficult to measure, particularly over the short and medium and term as well as certain groups across the borough being unintentionally by-passed by the benefits of growth elsewhere. Policies relating to the promotion of the health and well-being of communities (Chapter 13) will be particularly important, notably the provision of educational and community facilities (Policies 51 – 54) and efforts to reduce pollution (Policy 55). Close monitoring of their implementation will be required.

3. Improve accessibility to place and services, both within and outside of the borough

+ +/? ++ + + 0 ++ 0 ++ +/? 0 0 + ++

The policies, overall, are likely to help secure improved access to places and services, reflecting the promotion of investment in transport infrastructure associated with new development and wider strategic growth across the sub-region and locally through the promotion of sustainable modes of transport (Chapter 7). Residents, workers and visitors should benefit from these



SA Objective

4. St

rate

gic

Appr

oach

5. Do

ncas

ter

Shef

field

Airp

ort

6. M

eetin

g th

e Ne

ed fo

r New

Ho

mes

7.T

rans

port

Acce

ss an

d In

frastr

uctu

re

8. Re

tail a

nd T

own

Cent

res

9. Co

untry

side

10. B

lue a

nd G

reen

In

frastr

uctu

re

11. H

istor

ic En

viron

men

t

12. D

esig

n &

Built

En

viron

men

t13

. Hea

lth &

Well

-be

ing

14. C

limat

e Ch

ange

, Min

erals

an

d En

ergy

15.Im

plem

enta

tion

& M

onito

ring

16. S

patia

l Pr

opos

als

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary

measures, although the precise focus of investment and those who will benefit is uncertain, spatially and by group.


+ + ++ +/? + 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/?

The efficient use of resources characterises the Local Plan, notably in respect of ensuring an ongoing supply of minerals (Polices 89 – 92) as well as their efficient use in construction and operation through good design practice (Chapter 12). The cumulative effect of these policies, particularly in respect of reducing waste, is uncertain, however.


++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 + - 0 + 0 0 0 +

Individual chapters of the Local Plan make a significant positive contribution towards the provision of housing, including affordable housing. The provision of affordable homes in the right places is a common challenge. The policies are likely to help meet this aspiration as part of the housing growth across the borough (a proportion of which will be affordable – (Policy 8)) and increasing prosperity to help make sites more viable. Equally, securing affordable provision in places where it will make a difference is challenging and could well require compromises which affect the interests of natural and cultural heritage resources.


++/? ++ ++ + + 0 ++ 0 ++ + 0 0 + ++

Potential for significant positive cumulative and synergistic effects across policy areas as policies seek to address a range of factors that contribute to social exclusion and disadvantage, including access to housing, employment, mobility and poor health.



SA Objective

4. St

rate

gic

Appr

oach

5. Do

ncas

ter

Shef

field

Airp

ort

6. M

eetin

g th

e Ne

ed fo

r New

Ho

mes

7.T

rans

port

Acce

ss an

d In

frastr

uctu

re

8. Re

tail a

nd T

own

Cent

res

9. Co

untry

side

10. B

lue a

nd G

reen

In

frastr

uctu

re

11. H

istor

ic En

viron

men

t

12. D

esig

n &

Built

En

viron

men

t13

. Hea

lth &

Well

-be

ing

14. C

limat

e Ch

ange

, Min

erals

an

d En

ergy

15.Im

plem

enta

tion

& M

onito

ring

16. S

patia

l Pr

opos

als

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary


+ ++ ++ +/? + 0 ++ ++ ++ + + 0 + ++

The proposed policies seek to promote the creation of a healthy and attractive borough through attention to the quality of centres (Chapters 4 and 16), design across the borough (Chapter 12) and the enhancement of environmental quality through protection and enhancement of green infrastructure resources (Chapter 10). Cumulatively, the effects should be positive, although the extent and quality of change is less predictable.


++ + 0 ++ + 0 ++ ++ + 0 0 0 + ++

Policies within the Plan allow for the re-use of land and buildings as part of key regeneration schemes (notably Policy 70 Unity) but also more generally through development activity. Previously developed land is not prioritised through a sequential approach (as this would not accord with national planning policy), although the issue is identified as a criterion in Policy 2. In addition, as part of the policy analysis, a number of uncertainties were raised in respect of heritage and design, for example, where these interests could become compromised through the redevelopment process. On balance, however, the effects are likely to be significantly positive.

9. Improve the health and well-being of the borough’s population

+ +/? ++ ++/? + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ + 0 + ++

A number of chapters in the Local Plan will help address the wider determinants of health, including housing, employment, Green Infrastructure, road safety, food and quality of the natural and built environment. A significant positive cumulative effect is identified.



SA Objective

4. St

rate

gic

Appr

oach

5. Do

ncas

ter

Shef

field

Airp

ort

6. M

eetin

g th

e Ne

ed fo

r New

Ho

mes

7.T

rans

port

Acce

ss an

d In

frastr

uctu

re

8. Re

tail a

nd T

own

Cent

res

9. Co

untry

side

10. B

lue a

nd G

reen

In

frastr

uctu

re

11. H

istor

ic En

viron

men

t

12. D

esig

n &

Built

En

viron

men

t13

. Hea

lth &

Well

-be

ing

14. C

limat

e Ch

ange

, Min

erals

an

d En

ergy

15.Im

plem

enta

tion

& M

onito

ring

16. S

patia

l Pr

opos

als

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary


+ ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +

The Local Plan makes an appropriate contribution to this objective, e.g. by seeking to secure opportunities for training, local recruitment and provision of education facilities. A minor positive cumulative effect is identified.


+ +/- + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 +/? 0 0 +

The growth envisaged in the Local Plan will give rise to additional greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and occupation of new buildings and motorised travel. Potential for minor positive cumulative effect is identified as policies across a range of topics seek to address this objective. The draft Local Plan contains a specific chapter on climate change (Chapter 14) the policies within which will help to create the conditions for a positive response to the challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation, such as flood risk management. The effects across the plan as a whole should be positive, although there are potential inconsistencies in respect of road transport development for example, and precisely how the promotion of economic growth can contribute to this objective.

12.Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its underlying

+/? + +/? +/? 0 0 ++ 0 + ++ + 0 0 +

The policies provide for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape resources through specific policies (Chapter 10). However, compromise could be required and the full interests of some resources not met. Monitoring over the medium and short term would be needed to determine whether such effects are occurring and their significance.



SA Objective

4. St

rate

gic

Appr

oach

5. Do

ncas

ter

Shef

field

Airp

ort

6. M

eetin

g th

e Ne

ed fo

r New

Ho

mes

7.T

rans

port

Acce

ss an

d In

frastr

uctu

re

8. Re

tail a

nd T

own

Cent

res

9. Co

untry

side

10. B

lue a

nd G

reen

In

frastr

uctu

re

11. H

istor

ic En

viron

men

t

12. D

esig

n &

Built

En

viron

men

t13

. Hea

lth &

Well

-be

ing

14. C

limat

e Ch

ange

, Min

erals

an

d En

ergy

15.Im

plem

enta

tion

& M

onito

ring

16. S

patia

l Pr

opos

als

Effe

cts a

cros

s Po

licy A

reas

Commentary

geology and wildlife habitat

13.Protect, conserve and enhance the historic and cultural heritage

+/? + 0 +/? +/? 0 + ++ + 0 + 0 +? +

The policies provide for the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage resources through both specific policies (Chapter 11) and the consideration of conservation matters within development proposals. However, compromise could be required and the full interests of some resources not met. Monitoring over the medium and short term would be needed to determine whether such effects are occurring and their significance.

14.Protect and enhance soil, air and water quality (watercourses and ground water)

+/? + 0 +/? 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 0 +/?

Protection of these resources is covered in Chapter 13 and the implementation of policies should ensure the systematic protection of natural resources although the precise extent and beneficiaries are not necessarily predictable as development enabled by other policies could impact on this objective. New development will bring additional pressures on these resources and certain receptors, for example through further traffic growth associated with infrastructure investments.



7.4 Recommendations 7.4.1 A number of built in mitigation measures relating to uncertain or negative effects have been

identified and are already incorporated in the Local Plan, which will help to ensure that the implementation of the policies is more sustainable. These include: Ensuring that housing development is directed away from flood risk areas; Ensuring that affordable housing provision accompanies new development as part of

encouraging the creation of balanced communities; Early identification of potential compromises which may be required in respect of balancing

affordable housing with heritage protection and good design, through the preparation of design guides, for example;

Identifying vulnerable communities in terms of service provision to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as part of new provision;

Ensuring that the interests of biodiversity and cultural heritage are fully taken into account as part of development proposals, in turn part of a systematic approach to their protection and enhancement borough-wide; and

Close monitoring of the potential effects of new infrastructure development on air quality, particularly for areas and receptors which may already be under stress.

7.4.2 There are number of areas where policies could be clarified or amended to help improve their sustainability performance. These are set out in Table 7.2. This includes earlier recommendations made by the SA on previous working drafts of the Local Plan. Table 7.2 details where these earlier recommendations have been actioned and where they are outstanding in the third column. This reflects the iterative nature of the SA, demonstrates the influence that the SA has had on the development of the Local Plan to date and provides an audit trail of any recommendations outstanding. The remaining actions will be considered by the Council, along with consultation responses to the draft Local Plan, to inform the next iteration of the Local Plan.



Table 7.2 Recommendations

Policy Suggested amendment(s) Council’s Comments

1. Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Cross-reference key chapters which support the delivery of the policy – employment, housing infrastructure and service delivery and environmental protection

Cross referencing not considered necessary.

3.Level and Distribution of Growth

Add detail on how this growth relates to the distribution and type of existing provision Cross-reference skills and training Consider a policy or criterion relating to community development/integration and funding streams through the

Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

The explanatory text now provides this information The policy now references skills and training

2.Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

Add in explanation of the implications for travel patterns and potential emissions patterns of this growth Add in explanation of relative degree of self-containment Cross-reference infrastructure provision

The explanatory text states that the distribution of employment is not only about market attractiveness but also that there is strong accessibility and connectivity between jobs and housing which will help reduce potential emissions.

The term relative degree of self-containment is no longer included in the policy wording.

It is considered sufficient reference is made to infrastructure provision.

7. Doncaster Sheffield Airport

Additional text could be provided to promote resource efficiency and synergies with other policies. Make reference to the re-use of previously developed land which could otherwise help reinforce wider objective. Contain further details clarifying the steps that will be taken to ensure that emissions are minimised as a result of

the development of the airport. Identify sites of importance for nature conservation or protected species in the vicinity of the airport that made be

adversely affected by development and identify suitable mitigation. Identify historic assets in the vicinity of the airport that made be adversely affected by development and identify

suitable mitigation.

The policy and supporting text addresses these comments, in particular through the need for a Planning Airport Masterplan and further archaeological investigations. A green infrastructure strategy masterplan is now required by the policy as well as part of the overall approach to environmental management. The Airport’s Growth Masterplan is also bringing forward onsite renewable energy proposals (solar farm)

11. Residential policy areas

Criterion B) could be amended to enable non-residential uses in residential policy areas where they would help address existing deficiencies in terms of accessibility to jobs and services.

It is considered that the policy allows for non-residential uses subject to conditions which could include proposals that address deficiencies in terms of accessibility to jobs and services.

17. Cycling in Doncaster

Add in reference to new development Reference proposals to identify and remedy areas of deficiency, particularly in respect of access to services

Both recommendations accepted and the policy has been amended.



Policy Suggested amendment(s) Council’s Comments

68. Doncaster Town Centre

Reference accessibility by cycle network from adjoining residential areas The policy identifies the need for improved connectivity with adjoining areas.

71. Thorne Town Centre

Reference accessibility by cycle as per Mexborough TC policy The policy includes reference to accessibility by cycle at criterion I.

49. Landscaping of new developments

Require new landscaping to consider its wider links to Green Infrastructure and the use of SuDS The policy now includes these considerations at criterion A.

51. Health This is a strategic policy that considers the wider determinants of health, this policy could highlight the need for major developments to consider the need for community development and integration with existing communities. This requirement could be highlighted elsewhere if this is not considered the best place to raise it.

Policy 66: Developer contributions is considered as having sufficient provisions to allow for community facilities to be provided either on site through direct provision and/or commuted sums towards such facilities off site/improvements to existing facilities.

78. New education facilities

Reference accessibility by means other than the car (as per policy 79 on new community facilities) The policy now includes these considerations at criterion 7.

91. Reclamation of mineral sites

Make specific reference to positive after-uses such as informal recreation, biodiversity etc and how the sites could fit into the GI network

The policy now includes these considerations in the first paragraph.



Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment Sites and Minerals Proposals

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This section summarises the results of the Council’s work in relation to the appraisal of options for:

Housing sites; Employment sites; Areas of Search for minerals; and Mineral sites.

8.1.2 The approach to the appraisal of each of these is discussed in Section 4 of this Report. 8.1.3 The Council has undertaken extensive work on these topics and additional background on the SA

and how it has fitted within the overall site selection process is provided in the following documents: Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version

(June 2019); and

The Council has prepared a report as part of the consultation documentation called: Local Plan: Mineral Requirements (including Safeguarding, Areas of Search and Site Selection Methodology summaries). This explains the overall context for the identification of potential Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search, sites and the overall selection process, which includes SA.

8.1.4 These documents demonstrate that the SA has been integral to the selection of sites and this is reflected in the fact that detailed results for the SA are discussed within these documents. Given the number of sites considered this has created challenges in terms of avoiding duplication between the SA Report and the other reports.

8.2 Housing Sites 8.2.1 The Council has undertaken the Sustainability Appraisal of identified options for housing sites. The

appraisal matrix for sites is presented at Appendix I and the draft matrices for individual sites are presented in this report as follows: Appendix L: Doncaster Main Urban Area; Appendix M: Main Towns; and Appendix N: Service Towns and Villages.

Doncaster Main Urban Area 8.2.2 Tables 8.1 to 8.6 provide a summary of the performance of the housing sites at the Doncaster

Main Urban Area against the SA objectives.



8.2.3 There are significant positive effects identified for 37 sites (033; 072; 079; 111; 115; 116; 122; 161; 164; 166; 212; 213; 214; 217; 234; 237; 241; 255; 257; 350; 397; 407; 430; 431; 432; 436; 438; 439; 440; 494; 495; 836; 838; 953; 984; 1036; and, 1046) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution. 7 sites (111; 257; 438; 439; 440; 838; and, 984) also have significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as they are brownfield previously developed sites. 12 sites (111; 237; 257; 261; 262; 397; 438; 474; 886; 984; 1055; and, 1077) also have significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.4 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to 11 sites (077; 213; 214; 217; 237; 262; 397; 431; 836; 984; and 1036) on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 077 is entirely located on a Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.15 - Kirk Sandall Gorse

(Candidate Site) so significant habitat compensation would be necessary if the site was supported through to allocation.

Site 213 is located to the south-west of a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.15abc - Church Rei and Hexthorpe Flats) but is a very large site with scope for landscaping and buffering as mitigation.

Site 214 is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.10 - Common Lane) but the size of the site provides opportunity for mitigation through buffering and landscaping.

Site 217 contains Local Wildlife Site (reference 3.9ab) known as Long Plantation and Spring Rein where again buffering and a sensitive approach to layout could provide suitable mitigation, especially so given the size of the site.

Site 237 is adjoins an area of Ancient Woodland (Farcliff Wood) as well as a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.68 - Warmsworth Cliff and Quarry) along the northern perimeter of the site where landscaping and buffering would be required.

Site 262 adjoins a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.76 - Lakeside) which would require buffering and it is noted that the site has previously had planning permission for residential which provides confidence that an appropriate scheme could be realised on this site.

The western half of site 397 is entirely located on a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.19 - Balby Little Moor) where significant compensation for habitat losses would be required and could be delivered via biodiversity off setting.

Site 431 has a small part of the northern area of the site which overlays with a Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.20 - Long Plantation, Edenthorpe) where development layout would need to be off set from this boundary and buffering/landscaping provided.

Site 836 overlays a number of Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.24 - St Catherine's Railway Embankments, Delves and Cuttings, reference 2.25 - Carr Lodge Plantation, and reference 2.26 - Littlewood's Plantation). However, this is a very large site which has previously had Outline planning permission (now lapsed) and earlier phases of the development have been delivered which included appropriate biodiversity mitigation. Further to this, the site has an adopted Supplementary Planning Document (Carr Lodge Design Code SPD) to guide further applications on this part of the site in due course which includes biodiversity.

Site 984 is a very large mixed use planning permission which overlays 2 designated Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.30 and 2.31 - Wheatley Park and Old Don Oxbows) which has been addressed as part of the determination of the application.

Site 1036 is a very large urban extension site which includes Local Wildlife Sites (Cusworth Hall Local Wildlife Site ref 3.10 and Castle Hill Wood Local Wildlife Site ref 6.43) which would need to be buffered with a sensitive approach to site layout.



8.2.5 Sites 072; 215; 217; 400; 473; and, 1036 have significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) due to the Heritage Impact Assessment finding that development of the site will have a significant negative impact which may not be possible to resolve, even with mitigation: The south-west half of site 072 is occupied by a Scheduled Monument (Roman pottery kilns).

There are no listed buildings within the site or within 250m of the site. A part of the South Bessacarr Conservation area is within 250m of the site but is mostly separated by a housing development and trees. That part of the site adjacent to Warning Tongue Lane lies opposite the north east extremity of the conservation area.

Site 215 consists of 3 agricultural fields bounded by limestone walls within the Warmsworth Conservation Area. The conservation area is based on the historic core of Warmsworth which was a linear village following Low Road West subsequently divided by Warmsworth Hall. The character of the Warmsworth conservation area derives mainly from the rural and agricultural limestone buildings with clay pantile/stone tile roofs and limestone walling set around Warmsworth Hall and its grounds and confined between Warmsworth High Road and Low Road East/West. The site includes the historic buildings and barns of West Farm one of which is grade 2 listed. Adjacent and overlooking the site is the grade 2 listed Warmsworth House. There are 5 other listed buildings within the conservation area including the grade 2* listed Warmsworth Hall with its separately listed grade 2 east and west gates.

Site 217 lies within a Park and Garden of Local Historic Interest. It is an agricultural field that lies opposite the Grade II listed gatehouse which marks the historic main access to Grade I Cusworth Hall. The grounds of Cusworth Hall are also nationally designated as a Grade II listed Park and Garden of Special Interest and also lie within Cusworth Conservation Area.

Sites 400 and 473 are essentially the same site with 2 slightly different boundaries submitted as representations. There are no listed buildings within the sites or within 250m of the sites. However, the sites are within the boundary of Rose Hill Cemetery which is designated a park and garden of local historic interest. This includes the cemetery itself and the open space (this site) and wooded areas to the south west as well as the trees on the site boundaries. Immediately to the south west and across from Cantley Lane is the Bessacarr Conservation area which is a C20th suburb with a green and open character.

Site 1036 would completely overwhelm the parkland character that currently exists and would be considered substantial harm. The high historic value of the land would not support development on the whole site – although partial on the less significant areas might be able to be accommodated.

8.2.6 There are significant negative effects for sites 072; 215; 350; 407; 906; 1036 and, 1071 on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) and there may be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of these sites as they contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Site 072 also have negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bi) due to the presence of a groundwater source protection zone 1 on the south-west edge of the site. 26 sites (072; 116; 121; 161; 164; 212; 213; 214; 241; 255; 257; 261; 262; 284; 310; 350; 407; 430; 438; 439; 495; 836; 838; 984; 1036; and, 1046) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.



Table 8.1 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 033 – 213

Site Ref 033 072 077 079 111 115 116 121 122 148 161 164 166 212 213

Site Name

Land ad

j. 163 Sh

effield

Road

, Warm

sworth

Acres R

anch, W

arning

Tongu

e Lan

e, Can

tley

Kirk San

dall G

orse

Land at M

elton Road

,

Sprotbrough

Land at Steve

ns R

oad

,

Balb

y

Alverley Lan

e, Balb

y

Arm

thorpe Lan

e,

Barn

by D

un

Amersall R

oad

,

Scawthorpe

Challen

ger Drive,

Sprotbrough

Loversall Lan

d, W

eston

Road

, Balb

y

Mill Farm

, Mill G

ate,

Ben

tley

Land East o

f Warn

ing

Tongu

e Lan

e (1)

Land East o

f Warn

ing

Tongu

e Lan

e (2)

Lords H

ead Lan

e,

Warm

sworth

Mill Lan

e, Warm

sworth

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + + + + + + + + + + 0 + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ + ‐ + + + + ‐ + + 0 0 0 +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + ‐ 0 + + ‐ 0 + + + + ‐ 0 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + ‐ + 0 + + 0 ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + 0 + + + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + 0 0 0 + ‐

11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 ‐ + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + 0 +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + 0 +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ 0 0 + + + 0 + + + ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ? + ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? 0 + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? 0 + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0




Site Ref 214 215 217 234 237 241 253 255 257 261 262 263 284 310 350

Site Name

Common Lan

e,

Warm

sworth

High

Road

,

Warm

sworth

Back Lan

e, Cusw

orth

Broad

Axe,

Scawthorpe

Warm

sworth

Quarry,

Sheffield

Road

,

Warm

sworth

(2)

Land to

the East o

f

Mere

Lane,

Eden

thorpe

Form

er Bloodsto

ck

Sales Site, Carr H

ouse

Road

Form

er Hungerh

ill

Busin

ess Park,

Thorne R

oad

Marsh

gate,

Doncaster

Plot 5

A, o

ff Caro

lina

Way / Lakesid

e

Boulevard

Plot 6

, Lakeside

Boulevard

3 Sites in

St

Sepulch

re Gate W

est

Form

erly Carr H

ouse

Allo

tmen

ts, Hyd

e

Park

Rear o

f Ben

tley Road

,

Doncaster

Rose H

ill, Can

tley

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + ‐ 0 + 0 + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + 0 + + + 0 + + ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + ‐

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 ‐ + + ‐ + + + 0 + + + 0 0 +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery ‐ ‐ + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 ‐ + + 0 0

5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + + 0 + + ++


7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + + + 0 + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0


8B(i) Highways Capacity 0 + 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + 0 + + + + + + 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + + + + + + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ? + ? + + + + 0 + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ‐ 0 + ? + 0 + + + + 0 + 0

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table 8.3 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 369 - 438

Site Ref 369 380 389 395 397 399 400 407 411 416 430 431 432 436 438

Site Name

Alexan

der Street, B

entley

Goodiso

n Boulevard

(1),

Can

tley

Layden

Drive (Sm

all Site),

Scawsby

Westo

n Road

/ New

bolt

Plots, B

alby

Orch

ard Street, B

alby

Pickerin

g Road

, Ben

tley

Rose H

ill Cemetery Lan

d,

Can

tley Lane, C

antley

The A

venue, C

antley

Wilb

erforce R

oad

, Garage

Site, Clay Lan

e

Goodiso

n Boulevard

(2),

Can

tley

Land off W

arning To

ngu

e

Lane

Land off Th

orne R

oad

,

Eden

thorpe

Form

er Wheatley H

ills

Middle Sch

ool, Leger W

ay

Land at Scaw

sby Lan

e

Waterfro

nt (East),

Chap

pell D

rive

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ +

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + + 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ + 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ + + + 0 ‐ + + + + + + + + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 +

5A(i) Affordability 0 + 0 0 ++ + + ++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐


8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + 0 +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + ‐

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + 0 + 0 0 + + + + + + + + 0

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + ‐ + + + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐ +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 + + + + ? + ? + + ? ? ? ‐ +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + + + + ? + ? ? + ‐ +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + + + 0 ? + ? ? + ‐ +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐




Site Ref 439 440 473 474 494 495 833 835 836 838 862 886 897 902

Site Name

Waterfro

nt (W

est),

Chap

pell D

rive

Civic A

nd Cultu

ral Quarter,

Waterd

ale

Can

tley Lane, R

ose H

ill,

Can

tley

Sunnysid

e Depot,

Sunnysid

e, Eden

thorpe

Green

Lane, Scaw

thorpe

Rosth

olm

e, Ben

tley (Full

Site)

Sandy Lan

e, Doncaster

Warm

sworth

Reservo

ir,

Warm

sworth

Land So

uth Of W

oodfield

Way, B

alby

Kirk Street/R

amsden

Road

/Eden Grove

125A, 1

27, 1

27A, 1

29 AND

131A Balb

y Road

, Balb

y

Osw

in Aven

ue, B

alby

Prin

cegate House,

Prin

cegate, Doncaster

Snooker C

lub, 2

1 ‐ 2

7 St

Sepulch

re Gate, D

oncaster

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station + + ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + +

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + + + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + + + + 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + 0 + 0 ‐ ‐ + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ + 0 ++ ++ + + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + + +

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 + + ++ 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + 0 + + + 0 ‐ + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ + + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + + 0 + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 +

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + ‐ ? + ‐ ‐ + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + ? ‐ ? + ‐ ? + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + ? ‐ ? + ‐ ? + + + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0




Site Ref 906 916 923 959 972 979 980 983 984 986 990 1036 1041 1042 1046 1049

Site Name

Den

ison House, 1

5

South Parad

e,

Doncaster

Belm

ont W

orks, 3

Havelo

ck Road

, Balb

y

Electricity Sub Statio

n,

Young Stree

t,

Doncaster

13 ‐ 1

7 Clevelan

d

Street, Doncaster

Land To

North

Of

Gowdall G

reen,

Ben

tley

Units 1

To 3,

Scawthorpe Hall, Th

e

Sycamores,

Scawthorpe

Doncaster R

acecourse,

Leger Way, In

take

4 Kings R

oad

,

Wheatley

Form

er McCorm

ick

Tractors In

ternatio

nal,

Wheatley H

all Road

,

Wheatley

170 Beckett R

oad

,

Wheatley

Ivor G

rove, B

alby

Melto

n Road

, New

ton

Balb

y Arch

ives, K

ing

Edward

Road

,

Doncaster

Ashworth

Barracks,

Form

er Nexus C

entre,

Balb

y

Site A ‐ Lan

d at C

ross

Ban

k, Balb

y

The C

usw

orth

Cen

tre,

Cusw

orth

Lane

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + ‐ ‐ + + 0 + + 0 + 0 + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + + + + + 0 +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + 0 + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + + ‐ + +

5A(i) Affordability 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 + ++ + + ++ +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + 0 + + + ++ + 0 0 + + 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + + + 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + 0 + ‐ + + 0 0 +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + + ‐ 0 + + + + ‐ + + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ + ‐ 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + ‐‐ + 0 0 +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + + + + + + + + ? + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0




Site Ref 1052 1053 1055 1059 1070 1071 1074 1075 1077 1081 1084 1085 1086 1092 1093 1094

Site Name

Stanley H

ouse an

d

Rosem

ead House,

Balb

y

Don View

, Thellu

sson

Aven

ue, Scaw

sby

Cook Street an

d

Truman

Street, Ben

tley

Cherry G

range,

Pickerin

g Road

,

Ben

tley

24 Aven

ue Road

,

Wheatley

1 Sco

t Lane, D

oncaster

St Peters H

ouse,

Prin

ces Street,

Doncaster

Land At En

d of Layd

en

Drive, Scaw

sby

Units 1

To 2 Queen

s

Court, R

owan

Garth

,

Ben

tley

Ced

ar Adult C

entre,

Ward

e Aven

ue, B

alby

Pruden

tial Cham

bers,

4 Silver Stree

t,

Doncaster

7 ‐ 9

Scot Lan

e,

Doncaster

Site Of Fo

rmer

Westm

inster C

lub,

Westm

inster C

rescent,

Intake

Consort H

ouse,

Waterd

ale, Doncaster

Old Guild

hall Yard

Build

ing, O

ld Guild

hall

Yard, D

oncaster

1 Th

orne Road

,

Doncaster

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + + +

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + 0 + + 0 + + + + + + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 + + + + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 ‐ 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + 0 ‐ + + + + 0 0 + + + + + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0



8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + +

8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 + 0 0 + + + + 0 0 + + + ‐ + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + 0 +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + +


12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology + + + 0 + ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + +


14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0



Main Towns

Main Town: Adwick-le-Street Woodlands 8.2.7 Table 8.7 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Adwick-le-Street. 8.2.8 Significant positive effects were identified for 4 sites (459; 512; and, 513) for affordability (Objective

5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution. Site 944 also has significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) and removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.9 Site 459 is identified as having potential significant negative effects on biodiversity due to the site being adjacent to Adwick-le-Street Sewage Works (459). This could be mitigated through appropriate site layout and buffering given the size of the site and location of the local wildlife site which is generally adjacent to the site boundary rather than within it.

8.2.10 Sites 458 and 459 have significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) due to the proximity of the sites in relation to the Adwick-le-Street Conservation Area and the Grade II* listed Church of St. Laurence. A Grade II listed mill lies immediately to the north of site 459 also. Even with mitigation, it may not be possible for a scheme to be developed that could be supported without there being an unacceptable major negative impact on these heritage assets.

8.2.11 There are significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for sites 458; 512 and 513 where there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the sites. All 3 sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the sites and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good.

8.2.12 3 sites (458; 459; and, 512) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 7.7 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Adwick-le-Street

Site Ref 202 368 371 415 458 459 460 512 513 961 991 1051 1080

Site Name

North

of Lo

ng Lan

ds

Lane, W

est of R

oman

Rig, W

oodlan

ds

Adwick D

epot, M

ill

Lane, A

dwick‐le‐Stre

et

Ashwood House,

Adwick‐le‐Street

Woodlan

d View

, Edwin

Road

, Woodlan

ds

Land off C

hurch

Lane,

Adwick

Land off D

oncaster

Lane, A

dwick

Land off Lu

tterworth

Drive, A

dwick

Red

house Lan

e (b),

North

East, Adwick

Red

house Lan

e (c),

South, A

dwick

Form

er Yorksh

ire Water

Reservo

ir Site, R

idge

Balk Lan

e, Woodlan

ds

Land Adjoining 7

1/73

Bosw

orth

Road

, Adwick

Le Street

Fern Ban

k/Adwick

Dep

ot, A

dwick

Junctio

n Of C

had

wick

Road

, Edwin Road

,

Quarry Lan

e,

Woodlan

ds

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ + + ‐ + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 + ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 + + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + 0 + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + 0 + + + 0 + + + 0 + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 +

5A(i) Affordability 0 0 + + + ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 + 0

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + +

8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + 0 + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 + + ‐ 0 + ‐ + + + 0 +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + + + + 0 +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + ‐ +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ + + + ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + +

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 + + ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 + 0 +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Main Town: Conisbrough-Denaby 8.2.13 Table 8.8 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Conibrough-Denaby. 8.2.14 There are significant positive effects identified for 9 sites (040; 142; 251; 256; 383; 825; 1000; 1035;

and, 1058) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.15 Site 256 has a significant positive effect through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as the site is a very large previously developed brownfield site.

8.2.16 5 sites (087; 220; 221; 256; and, 435) are identified as having significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) as 50%+ of their site areas are found to contain contaminated land which would be remediated and brought back into effective use through development of the sites.

8.2.17 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) at sites 221; 251; 256; 383; 1035; and 1088. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.18 Sites 221; 383; and, 1088 are all identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 221 has a very small area of the site which overlays Ashfield Brick Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest so would require appropriate buffering and sensitive layout/landscaping/design of the site which may be more challenging given the site is quite small. Site 383 entirely overlays part of a much wider Local Wildlife Site Conisbrough North Cliff (reference 5.8). If the site was to be taken forward as an allocation, there would need to be significant mitigation and compensation for any habitat losses. In addition the existing woodland would need to be retained and buffered from built development by at least 10m. The design of the site would also need to include a significant wide grassland/habitat corridor through the development connecting the habitat in the north to the wider countryside. Site 1088 includes a number of Local Wildlife Sites (e.g. Conisbrough Parks Hedgerows) although this site is a very large urban extension and these assets are only a very small area of the site so could be avoided through sensitive site layout and buffering.

8.2.19 Sites 1062 and 1088 would have a major archaeological objection and therefore identified as having significant negative effects on Objective 13Bi.

8.2.20 3 sites (087; 256; and, 1088) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.8 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Conisbrough-Denaby

Site Ref 040 087 142 220 221 251 256 304 383 435 825 826 1000 1035 1062 1063 1082 1088

Site Name

Land at Sh

effield Road

/

Old Road

, Hillto

p,

Conisb

rough

Kearsley B

rook,

Sheffield

Road

,

Conisb

rough

Land So

uth of Sh

effield

Road

, Conisb

rough

Garage o

ff Sheffield

Road

/ Clifto

n Hill,

Conisb

rough

(Site A)

Garage o

ff Sheffield

Road

/ Clifto

n Hill,

Conisb

rough

(Site B)

Hill To

p Road

, Den

aby

Main

Land So

uth of C

anal,

opposite Earth

Cen

tre,

Den

aby

Land off W

indgate H

ill,

Conisb

rough

Hill To

p Road

, Den

aby,

U5‐003

Form

er Dep

ot, Sh

effield

Road

, Conisb

rough

Fields o

ff Drake H

ead

Lane, C

onisb

rough

Field off C

lifton Hill,

Conisb

rough

Land to

the North

of

Stringers N

urseries,

Crookh

ill Road

,

Land off H

ill Top Road

,

Den

aby M

ain

Conisb

rough

Meth

odist

Church

, Chap

el Lane,

Conisb

rough

Land At Th

e Talisman

,

Chestn

ut G

rove,

Conisb

rough

Social

Educatio

n Centre, O

ld

Land So

uth W

est of

Conisb

rough

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + 0 + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 + + + + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + ‐ + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + 0 + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 + +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + + + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + 0 + + 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 + ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 + 0 + + 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ + 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 + ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 + + + ‐

11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 + 0 + ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ + + ‐‐

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ + ? + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ? + + ? + + ? + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ? + + ? + + ? + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0



Main Town: Hatfield-Stainforth (including Dunsville & Dunscroft) 8.2.21 Tables 8.9 to 8.11 summarise the results of the SA of housing sites for Hatfield-Stainforth. 8.2.22 There are significant positive effects identified for 12 sites (037; 086; 118; 171; 192; 229; 231; 332;

418; 970; 1038; and, 1060) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.23 2 sites (170 and 352) have a significant positive effect through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) due to contaminated land being found covering at least 50%+ of their site areas and where development will bring back into effective use contaminated land.

8.2.24 Site 794 and 957 both have significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as both are large previously developed brownfield sites.

8.2.25 Two sites (170 and 352) have a significant positive effect through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) due to contaminated land being found covering at least 50%+ of their site areas and where development will bring back into effective use contaminated land.

8.2.26 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for 5 sites (086; 231; 418; 457; and, 1060). Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.27 Sites 231; 418; and, 1060 are identified as having potential significant negative effects on biodiversity. Site 231 has a candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.46abc - The Haggs) adjacent to the western boundary where extensive buffering and a sensitive approach to layout/landscaping/design would be required. Site 418/1060 contains 3 Local Wildlife Sites (reference 9.13a & 9.13b - Thorne Ashfield's/Poltontoft; &, reference 9.32 - Hopyard Hay Meadow). However, this is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed for development. Appropriate mitigation and any compensation for biodiversity has been agreed as part of the Development Management process.

8.2.28 6 sites (105; 120; 171; 191; 198; and, 778) have potential significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) as follows. There would be major negative effects on these built heritage assets were the sites to be developed and this may not be able to be mitigated:

Site 105 abuts the Hatfield High Street Conservation Area to the north. There are 3 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. These are No.54 fronting the High Street and its separately listed stable block on Back Lane, and the Old Chapel also fronting the High Street. Some 260m to the west is the grade 1 listed Manor House;

Site 120 are within the Hatfield – Manor Road Conservation Area. There are 8 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. Either side of the sites are the grade 2 listed Bow House and The Leylands. Ash Hill Lodge is 120m north west of the site. Across from the site are 2 grade 2 listed barns which are part of a farm complex (Hatfield House Farm). Thackray House and its separately listed barn are 50m north of the site. 31 Manor Road is 85m north east of the site. Hatfield’s public house is a historic (key unlisted) building at the junction of Manor Road and Ash Hill Road. Broadacres adjacent to the western site is a large property in substantial grounds and has architectural merit;

Site 171 – abuts the Hatfield High Street Conservation Area immediately to the south. There are 9 listed buildings within 250m of the site the most significant of which is the grade 1 listed Church of St Lawrence with its prominent tower at the centre of the village and 100m west of the



site. Its boundary gates to the south are also grade 2 listed. The grade 2 listed Travis School now the parish council rooms lies 100m west of the site. The grade 2 listed 11/13 Station Road is 160m west of the site but is physically and visually separated from it by the listed church and the trees within its grounds. The remaining 5 listed buildings are at some distance from the site or face the High Street. Their settings are localised and would not be affected by the allocation;

Site 191 - The Hatfield –High Street Conservation Area abuts the site immediately to the north where it is adjacent to Back Lane. There are 2 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. These are No.54 fronting the High Street and its separately listed stable block on Back Lane. Some 370m to the west is the grade 1 listed Manor House;

Site 198 - The Hatfield –High Street conservation area lies immediately to the south. There are grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site which are no58 High Street and the separately listed barn to the rear. The grade 1 listed Church of St Lawrence, with its prominent tower at the centre of the village, is roughly 460m west of the site; and,

Site 778 - The site lies off the main A18 road immediately to the south of the Hatfield – Manor Road Conservation Area. There are 4 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. 90m north is the grade 2 listed Bow House and Ash Hill Lodge is 220m north of the site. 220m north east of the site are 2 grade 2 listed barns which are part of a farm complex (Hatfield House Farm). Hatfield’s public house is a historic (key unlisted) building at the junction of Manor Road and Ash Hill Road. Broadacres immediately north of the site is a large property in substantial grounds and has architectural merit. Across the main road from the site is a terrace of 6 almshouses which though against the character of the Conservation Area have been included for historic interest. These, and the rooftop of Broadacres with the surrounding trees signal the approach to the Conservation Area from the south.

8.2.29 There are significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for sites 418; 931; 970; 1034; 1038; and, 1060. These sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. However, site 418/1060 is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed development. Likewise, site 970 is now a planning permission that has been through the Development Management process.

8.2.30 Site 970 and 1038 both have potential significant negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bii) due to a groundwater source protection zone 1 area on part of the site. 6 sites (011; 097; 118; 229; 418; and, 1060) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies -14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.9 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 008 - 309

Site Ref 008 011 037 086 097 105 118 120 170 171 187 191 192 198 229 231 309

Site Name

Wyn

thorpe Farm

,

Dunsville

Land rear o

f 55 St

Mary's D

rive, Dunsville

Land to

West o

f

Ingram

Road

,

Dunscro

ft

Land ad

j. to Parks

Road

, Dunscro

ft

Land at K

irton Lan

e,

Stainforth

South of B

ackfield

Lane, H

atfield

St Marys R

oad

,

Dunsville

Man

or R

oad

, Hatfield

Land at D

oncaster

Road

, Hatfield

Land to

North

Side o

f

High

Street, H

atfield

Land ad

j. 17 Lin

gs

Lane, H

atfield

West o

f New M

ill Field

Road

and ad

j. Back

Lane, H

atfield

Land off B

road

way,

Dunscro

ft

Land off N

orth

Ings

Road

, Hatfield

Picku

p Lan

d, D

unsville

Parks Farm

, Dunscro

ft

Land off W

estminster

Drive, D

unsville

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + ‐ 0 + 0 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ 0 0 + ‐ + 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + ‐

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 ‐ 0 ‐

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 + ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 ‐ 0 + + + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +

5A(i) Affordability + + ++ ++ + + ++ + + ++ + + ++ + ++ ++ +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 0 +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + 0 + + + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? ? 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + ? ? + ? + ? + + + ? ‐ ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + ? ? + ? + ? + + + ? ‐ ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table 8.10 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 332- 931

Site Ref 332 346 348 352 376 378 381 388 406 408 418 457 778 784 890 901 931

Site Name

Land off M

anor R

oad

,

Hatfield

Robinsons, O

ldfield

Lane, Stain

forth

Oldfield

Lane,

Stainforth

House o

f Play, 9

1

Abbey R

oad

, Dunscro

ft

Broad

way, D

unscro

ft,

H9‐004

Doncaster R

oad

,

Stainforth

Harp

enden Drive,

Dunscro

ft

Kirto

n Lan

e, Stainforth

St Edwins C

lose an

d

York R

oad

, Dunscro

ft

The C

rescent, D

unscro

ft

The D

N7 In

itiative

Land off W

aggons W

ay,

Stainforth

Land ad

jacent

Broad

acres, Doncaster

Road

, Hatfield

Cucko

o Lan

e, Hatfield

Land Rear O

f 67 ‐ 7

9

South En

d, Statio

n

Road

Dunscro

ft

East Lane House, 6

0

East Lane, Stain

forth

Land at W

arren Farm

,

High

Street, D

unsville


3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + + + ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 0 + + + 0 + ‐ + + + + 0 + + 0 +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 0 + + 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + 0 + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + 0 + 0 + + 0 ‐ 0

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ + + 0 + + + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 + + 0 + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? + + 0 + + + 0 ? + 0 + + + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + + + + ? + + + ? ? + ? + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + + + + ? + + + ? ? + ? + + + +



Site Ref 332 346 348 352 376 378 381 388 406 408 418 457 778 784 890 901 931

Site Name

Land off M

anor R

oad

,

Hatfield

Robinsons, O

ldfield

Lane, Stain

forth

Oldfield

Lane,

Stainforth

House o

f Play, 9

1

Abbey R

oad

, Dunscro

ft

Broad

way, D

unscro

ft,

H9‐004

Doncaster R

oad

,

Stainforth

Harp

enden Drive,

Dunscro

ft

Kirto

n Lan

e, Stainforth

St Edwins C

lose an

d

York R

oad

, Dunscro

ft

The C

rescent, D

unscro

ft

The D

N7 In

itiative

Land off W

aggons W

ay,

Stainforth

Land ad

jacent

Broad

acres, Doncaster

Road

, Hatfield

Cucko

o Lan

e, Hatfield

Land Rear O

f 67 ‐ 7

9

South En

d, Statio

n

Road

Dunscro

ft

East Lane House, 6

0

East Lane, Stain

forth

Land at W

arren Farm

,

High

Street, D

unsville

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table 8.11 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 946- 1122

Site Ref 946 970 992 1008 1034 1038 1054 1058 1060 1068 1072 1122

Site Name

Land Off Statio

n Road

,

Dunscro

ft

Land Off D

oncaster

Road

, Hatfield

Millcro

ft House

(Adjacen

t 5 M

ill Croft),

Mill C

roft, Stain

forth

8 Acre

Field, To

wnen

d

Farm, R

amskir Lan

e,

Stainforth

Land at W

arren Farm

,

High

Street, D

unsville

Woodhouse Lan

e,

Hatfield

Harp

enden, D

unscro

ft

Land Off W

estminster

Drive, D

unsville

Land Betw

een Hatfie

ld,

Stainforth

, Dunscro

ft

And Dunsville

,

Land At Fo

rmer Th

e

Warren

ne Yo

uth Cen

tre,

Broad

way, D

unscro

ft

Spar Sto

res, 7 High

Street, Hatfie

ld

Land to

West o

f Ingram

Road

, Dunscro

ft (smaller

site)

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + 0 + + + + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + + + ‐ + + + 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 + 0 + + ‐ + + + 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + ‐ ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + + + + + + + + + + 0

5A(i) Affordability 0 ++ 0 + + ++ + + ++ 0 0 +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + ‐

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + + + 0 ‐ 0 0 + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ? + ? ? ? + 0 ? + + 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + ? + ? + ? ? + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + ? + ? + ? ? + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Main Town: Mexborough 8.2.31 Table 8.12 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Mexborough. 8.2.32 There are significant positive effects identified for 3 sites (139; 154; and, 414) for affordability

(Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution. 8.2.33 Site 414 has a significant positive effect in respect to market failure (Objective 5Di) due to the site

being a large former housing market renewal site which was cleared of housing previously with a long-term commitment to replace.

8.2.34 Site 414 also has a significant positive effect through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) being a large previously developed brownfield site.

8.2.35 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for 9 sites (068; 154; 155; 379; 412; 414; 834; 922; and, 1048) due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.36 3 sites (068; 154; and, 687) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies objective 14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.12 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Mexborough

Site Ref 068 139 154 155 379 412 414 687 834 850 894 922 960 1048

Site Name

Form

er Coal D

epot,

Pastu

res Road

,

Mexb

orough

Land North

of W

ath

Road

, Mexb

orough

Land to

the North

West

of P

astures R

oad

'Site A', Leach

Lane

Industrial Estate,

Mexb

orough

Gard

en Stre

et,

Mexb

orough

Willo

w Drive,

Mexb

orough

Windhill, W

hinhill

Aven

ue, M

exborough

The Em

ban

kmen

t,

Leach Lan

e Industrial

Estate, Leach Lan

e,

Pitt Street, M

exborough

Land At A

lagu Close ,O

ff

High

woods R

oad

,

Mexb

orough

Form

er Nurses H

ome,

Cem

etery Road

,

Mexb

orough

Garage Site, M

aple

Road

, Mexb

orough

The H

ighwoods, Elm

Road

, Mexb

orough

Schofield

Street,

Mexb

orough

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ + + 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 + 0 + + 0 + + + + + 0 0 +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ ‐ + + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + + ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + + +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + + +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + 0 + + + + + + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + ++ ++ + + + ++ + + 0 0 0 0 +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 + + + + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + 0 + + + + + + 0 + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 ‐ 0 0 + + 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + + + + + 0 + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + 0 + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Main Town: Rossington 8.2.37 Table 8.13 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Rossington. 8.2.38 There are significant positive effects identified for 9 sites (123; 247; 302; 306; 307; 662; 879; 1032;

and, 1039) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.39 Sites 247 and 662 have significant positive effects in respect to the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai), as both are large previously developed brownfield sites (former colliery), and through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.40 Sites 879 and 1032 are brownfield sites so also identified as having significant positive effects against this objective.

8.2.41 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for site 662. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.42 5 sites (247; 307; 662; 879, and 1032) are identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity. Site 307 includes Local Wildlife Sites (reference 2.50a - Gelster Lane Holt; reference 2.54 - Gravel Hill Plantation, Lake and Gypsy Plantation; reference 2.55abc - Parkland Plantations (Candidate site); reference 2.56ab - Nine and Sixteen Acre Plantation; reference 2.58ab - Rossington Hall Brickponds and Plantations; and, reference 2.59 - Rossington Hall Grounds). However, it should be noted that this is a very large site and the proposal includes some housing as part of a wider European Tour Golf Destination development including new courses and ancillary development which means significant parts of the site, including Local Wildlife Site designations, will not be where development is expected to take place. Sites 247 and 662 are adjacent to (to the west of) Ancient Woodland – and the Local Wildlife Site known as Holmes Carr Great Wood & Little Wood (reference 2.53ab). Site 662 is a planning permission and under construction and appropriate mitigation has been agreed through the Development Management process. Site 247 would need to consider buffering and sensitive layout and it is noted that the site would form an extension to the permissioned site 662. Site 879/1032 are adjacent to a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.52c - West End Pasture) so will require buffering and sensitive approach to layout. Site 1032 also adjoins a further Local Wildlife Site (Park Wood East reference 2.52b) to the east.

8.2.43 There are significant negative effects for 2 sites (123 and 307) in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) as both of the sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Both sites would need to consider a sensitive approach to layout. Further to this, and as discussed above, site 307 is a large site with a significant element of the proposal not including built development.

8.2.44 Site 307 also has a groundwater source protection zone 1 on the north-east part of the site so potential for significant negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bi), but again this proposal entails large parts of the site that will not be developed e.g. golf course.

8.2.45 7 sites (123; 247; 307; 662; 879; 1032; and, 1040) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies -14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.



Table 8.13 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Rossington

Site Ref 123 247 302 305 306 307 429 662 879 1032 1039 1040 1056

Site Name

Torne V

alley Farm,

Sheep

Brid

ge Lan

e,

Rossin

gton

Form

er Rossin

gton

Colliery, o

ff West En

d

Lane, N

ew Rossin

gton

Land off Strip

e Road

,

Rossin

gton (1

)

Land off Strip

e Road

,

Rossin

gton (2

)

Land off G

range Lan

e,

Rossin

gton

Land So

uth East o

f

Rossin

gton, B

etween

Great N

orth

Road

and

RailLin

e

Form

er Torndale

School Fie

ld, G

attison

Lane, R

ossin

gton

Site Of Fo

rmer

Rossin

gton Colliery,

West En

d Lan

e, New

Rossin

gton

Land at B

ankw

ood

Lane In

dustrial Estate,

Rossin

gton (H

ousin

g)

Site A ‐ East o

f

Ban

kwood Lan

e,

Rossin

gton

Stripe R

oad

,

Rossin

gton

Off Sh

eep

Brid

ge

Lane, R

ossin

gton

Gattiso

n/To

rned

ale,

Rossin

gton

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + + + + + + + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ 0 + + + 0 + 0 + + + ‐ +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + ‐ 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ 0 0 0 + +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery ‐ + 0 0 + ‐ + + + + 0 ‐ +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + +


7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 + 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + 0 + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + +


9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + 0 + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding 0 + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding 0 + + + + + 0 + + + + 0 0

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology ‐‐ + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? + ? ? 0 ? + + + + ? ? +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? + ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? 0 0 ‐ 0 + ? ? ? 0 ? +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Main Town: Thorne-Moorends 8.2.46 Tables 8.13 to 8.15 summarise the results of the SA of housing sites for Thorne-Moorends. 8.2.47 There are significant positive effects identified for 18 sites (002; 003; 004; 005; 060; 071; 081; 150;

160; 244; 245; 248; 276; 313; 426; 505; 998; and, 999) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.48 3 sites (248; 889; and, 1121) have significant positive effects in respect to the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.49 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to biodiversity for 5 sites (009; 245; 248; 313; and, 1069). Site 009 lies entirely on a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) so significant compensation would be required for loss of habitat were this site to be supported as an allocation. Site 245 has 2 Local Wildlife sites running along the western and eastern edges (reference 9.17 - Oak Moor and Chadwick Dike Area; and, reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) which could be mitigated through landscaping and buffering. Site 248 is entirely part of a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.17) known as Oak Moor and Chadwick Dike Area so would require significant habitat compensation if supported for development. Site 313 is a very similar site area to 245 already discussed, but includes some additional land to the south-west of the site so the same buffering as per site 245 would be necessary. Site 973 also adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) so would require buffering and the site is quite small, but planning permission has been granted so this will have been considered as part of the Development Management stage.

8.2.50 There are significant negative effects for 2 sites (245 and 313) in respect to built heritage due to the site being farmland to the north of Micklethwaite Farm. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site but Micklethwaite Farmhouse is Grade II listed and is in close proximity to the site. The farmhouse looks a little uncared for and has suffered some inappropriate repairs/alterations. Development of the site could have a major negative effect on this built heritage asset.

8.2.51 There are also significant negative effects on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for site 313 as it contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. The site would need to consider a sensitive approach to layout to mitigate this constraint.

8.2.52 22 sites (002; 003; 004; 034; 060; 071; 081; 083; 150; 244; 245; 248; 276; 311; 313; 343; 505; 508; 949; 958; 998; and, 999) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies -14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.13 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 002 to 248

Site Ref 002 003 004 005 009 034 060 071 081 083 089 130 133 150 244 245 248

Site Name

Bloomhill R

oad

,

Mooren

ds

Land ad

j. Playin

g Fields,

North

Common

Land off Ivy R

oad

,

Thorne

Marsh

land Road

, North

Common, Th

orne

Lands En

d, Th

orne

Opposite G

olf C

ourse,

Kirto

n Lan

e, Thorne

Land East o

f Wyke G

ate

Road

, Thorne

Off St M

ichae

ls Drive,

Thorne

Land off A

lexan

dra

Street, Thorne

Land to

rear of

Bloomhill Farm

,

Bloomhill R

oad

,

Coulm

an Bungalo

w,

Church

Balk, Th

orne

Burger R

oad

, Burger

Common, Th

orne

Land off St. N

icholas

Road

, Thorne

Land Adj. B

loomhill

Stud Farm

, Mooren

ds

Land off C

oulm

an Road

/ Broad

ben

t Gate R

oad

,

Thorne

Land at M

icklethwaite

's

Farm, M

ooren

ds

Land at Fo

rmer Th

orne

Colliery, M

ooren

ds (Site

1)


3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + + 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + 0 + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 0

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ + 0 0 + ++ ++ ++ ++



8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + 0 + + + + 0 + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + + ‐ 0 + + 0 0 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 + 0 + ? + 0 0 0 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? + ‐ + ? ? ‐ ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? + ‐ + ? ? ‐ ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table 8.14 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 276 to 889 Site Ref 276 311 313 331 343 396 426 427 469 501 503 505 508 510 795 889

Site Name

Bloomhill R

oad

,

Mooren

ds

Land rear o

f Bryso

n

Close, Th

orne

Land North

East of

Mickleth

waites Farm

,

Mooren

ds

Land off C

oulm

an

Road

, Thorne

Alexan

der Street /

North

Eastern Road

,

Thorne

North

Eastern Road

,

Thorne

Land at M

arshlan

d

Road

, Mooren

ds

Land at M

arshlan

d

Road

/ rear of

Kingsm

ede,

Land at B

loomhill

Road

, Mooren

ds

Adjacen

t 46

Marsh

lands R

oad

,

Mooren

ds

East View

Farm,

Marsh

land Road

,

Mooren

ds

South En

d M

arina an

d

adjacen

t Land, Th

orne

Land off M

arshlan

ds

Road

/ The A

venue,

Mooren

ds

Adjacen

t Thorne

South Statio

n, o

ff

South En

d Road

,

Land on th

e East Sid

e

of So

uth En

d, Th

orne

Land North

East Of

Industrial P

ark, King

Edward

Road

, Thorne

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + 0 0 + + + + + 0 + 0 0 +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 + + + + + + + ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ +

5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ + + + ++ + + + + ++ + + 0 +



8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + ++



8B(i) Highways Capacity + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 0 + + + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + + + 0 + 0 0 +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 + + 0 0 + + ‐ + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 0 0 + 0 ? 0 + 0 + 0 ? 0 + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ?


14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table 8.15 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 949 to 1121

Site Ref 949 951 952 958 998 999 1069 1121

Site Name

Land Off Site O

f Form

er

Risin

g Sun Public H

ouse,

Hatfield

Road

, Thorne

Land On Th

e North

East

Side O

f Alexan

dra Street,

Thorne

Open

Land At C

orona

Drive, Th

orne

Land Off W

hite Lan

e,

Thorne

Land at M

ooren

ds R

oad

,

Thorne

Land at B

road

ben

t Gate,

Mooren

ds

Land To

The Rear O

f 98

North

Eastern Road

,

Thorne

North

Common

Nurseries, M

arshlan

ds

Road

, Mooren

ds

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 0 + + + ‐ + ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + 0 ‐ + 0 +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 + + 0 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + ‐ + + 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + 0 + 0 + 0 0 +

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 + + ‐ + + +

5A(i) Affordability 0 + 0 + ++ ++ 0 +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ++

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + ‐ ‐ + +

8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + 0 + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + ‐ +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + ‐ +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + 0 + + 0 0 ? 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + + ? ? + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + + ? ? + ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Towns/Villages 8.2.53 The SA results for each of the service towns and villages are summarised below.

Askern 8.2.54 Table 8.16 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Askern. 8.2.55 There are significant positive effects identified for 4 sites (090; 226; 475; and, 569) for affordability

(Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing requirement. 8.2.56 Site 569 also has significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai)

as the site is previously developed and brownfield therefore. 8.2.57 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites

041; 090; 195; 303; 475; and, 569 as they are all located within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.58 One of the sites (226) has significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity (Objective 12Ai) because the site adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 7.8 - Campsall Country Park) to the west of the proposed site where buffering would be required.

8.2.59 Site 955 has significant negative effects in relation to built heritage (Objective 13Ai) as development would result in the loss of an undesignated heritage asset - former school building although the site has been granted planning permission.



Table 8.16 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Askern

Site Ref 036 041 090 195 226 303 374 475 569 925 955 956 1066

Site Name

Pad

dock to

rear of

Holm

e Croft

Askern

Industrial Estate

Land to

North

of M

oss

Road

, South East o

f

Sewage W

orks, A

skern

Askern

Miners W

elfare,

Man

or W

ay, Askern

Land So

uth of C

hurch

Field Road

, Askern

Land off H

ighfield

Road

,

Askern

Aven

ue R

oad

,

Insto

neville

Land So

uth of O

akwell

Drive an

d Conisto

n

Road

Askern

Saw M

ills, High

Street, Askern

Land Off H

ighfield

Road

, Askern

Form

er Askern

Selby

Road

Youth Club, Selb

y

Road

, Askern

Prem

ier House, Selb

y

Road

, Askern

1 Sp

a Terrace, Askern

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + + + +

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 + + + 0 + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + + ++ + ++ + + ++ ++ + + + +


7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


9A(i) Access to Public Open Space ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐ ‐ 0 + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + ‐

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 + 0 0 ? 0 + 0 + 0 + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + + + 0 0 + + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + + + 0 0 + + + +

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Auckley-Hayfield Green 8.2.60 Table 8.17 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Auckley-Hayfield Green. 8.2.61 There are significant positive effects identified for 8 sites (174; 223; 299; 446; 464; 940; 1010; and,

1013) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing requirement. Sites 422 and 446 also have significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.62 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites 007; 299; 464; 940; and, 1010 as they are all located within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.63 Two of the sites (464 and 940) have significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 464 overlays a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.48acef - Torne Valley) to the south-east of the site where buffering would be necessary. Site 940 includes Ancient Woodland (part of Finningley Big Wood) as well as a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.31b - Hurst Wood) where development would need to be sensitive in terms of layout with landscaping and buffering as well as potential habitat loss compensation.

8.2.64 Site 940 also has significant negative effects in respect to Objective 13Bi archaeology as the site contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. As such there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the site.



Table 8.17 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Auckley-Hayfield Green

Site Ref 007 049 174 201 223 299 330 422 446 464 832 940 1010 1013

Site Name

Land ad

jacent to

21

Main

Street, A

uckley

Bell B

utts, B

ell Butts

Lane, A

uckley

Land off M

ain Street,

Auckley

Poor's Lan

d, H

urst Lan

e,

Auckley

RHADS Site

2A, Lan

d at

Hayfield

Lane, A

uckley

Orch

ard Farm

, Hurst

Lane

Land off B

ell Butts Lan

e,

Auckley

Auckley 1

, East of Th

e

Hollo

ws, A

uckley

Blaxto

n Quarry P

hase 2

,

Mosham

Road

, Auckley

Willo

w Farm

, Bran

ton

Land at A

uckley

Site 1, Lan

d East o

f

Poplars Farrm

, Hurst

Lane, A

uckley

Land off G

ate House

Lane, D

oncaster

Land at A

uckley

Common, C

ommon

Lane, A

uckley

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 + ‐ ‐ + + ‐

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 ‐ +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + 0

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + ‐ 0 ‐ + + + + + ‐ 0 +

5A(i) Affordability + + ++ + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 + 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + 0 + + + + + + ‐ + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 0 +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + ‐ + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? 0 + 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Barnburgh-Harlington 8.2.65 Table 8.18 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Barnburgh-Harlington. 8.2.66 There are no significant positive effects identified for any of the sites. 8.2.67 Site 143 has significant negative effects in respect to built heritage (Objective 13ai) which would

have a major significant impact on built heritage which may not be possible to mitigate. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site itself, but the site lies immediately to the south of Barnburgh Conservation Area. 100m to the north lies the Grade I listed Church of St. Peters. There are also six Grade II listed buildings within the 250 buffer zone. Residential uses on this site will harm the setting of the conservation area and in particular views towards the Church of St Peter.

8.2.68 Sites 1003 & 1004 also both have significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13ai) which may not be possible to mitigate. This is due to residential uses which will harm the setting of the conservation area and the setting of the undesignated local historic interest building of the pinfold.

8.2.69 There are also significant negative effects for site 143 on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) due to evidence for earthwork archaeological remains on this site, further consideration of the impact on these would be required to establish whether there was capacity for housing on this site. Extensive ridge and furrow earthworks are recorded within the site, which are considered to be of Local archaeological significance and Major historic landscape significance.

8.2.70 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites 777 and 1004 as the sites are within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.18 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Barnburgh-Harlington

Site Ref 095 143 777 1003 1004

Site Name

Hollo

wgate,

Barn

burgh

Land North

of P

rimary

School, C

hurch

Lane,

Barn

burgh

'Plot 3

', Harlin

gton

Pad

dock ad

jacent to

Man

or Farm

,

Hickleto

n Road

,

Field ad

jacent to

Man

or Farm

,

Hickleto

n Road

,

Barn

burgh

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 0 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + + + + +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐

13B(i) Archaeology + ‐‐ 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Barnby Dun 8.2.71 Table 8.19 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Barnby Dun. 8.2.72 Four of the sites (108; 125; 147; and, 1007) are identified as having significant positive effects in

relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.73 There are significant negative effects identified for 3 sites (108; 233; and, 329) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.



Table 8.19 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Barnby Dun

Site Ref 108 125 147 228 233 329 347 918 1007

Site Name

White H

ouse Farm

,

Bram

with

Lane,

Barn

by D

un

Park H

ill, Arm

thorpe

Lane, B

arnby D

un

Land to

North

of

Hatfield

Lane,

Barn

by D

un

Land at B

arnby D

un

Well G

reen

Farmstead

, High

Street, Barn

by D

un

Off Th

e Grove,

Barn

by D

un

Margatro

yds,

Stainforth

Lane,

Barn

by D

un

Barn

by D

un Car

Cen

tre, Top Road

,

Barn

by D

un

Land to

the So

uth

East of C

uneigarth

,

Bram

with

Lane,

Barn

byDun

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ + + + + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 ‐ 0 + + 0 + + 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + ‐ + + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ + 0 + + 0 ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + ‐ + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity 0 + + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ ‐ + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? ? + ? ? + 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Bawtry 8.2.74 Table 8.20 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Bawtry. 8.2.75 Six of the sites (146; 873; 874; 996; 1017; and, 1087) are identified as having significant positive

effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution. Site 873 would have also significant positive effects from the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.76 There are significant negative effects identified for sites 141 and 786 as both are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.77 Sites 966 is also identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity as the site overlays a designated Local Wildlife Site (Bawtry Hall Park and Lake – ref 4.26a) although it is noted that the site is relating to the conversion of the existing buildings on site so the actual effects on the local wildlife site would be minimal. Sites 995 and 996 are also identified as having significant negative effects on Biodiversity due to them being Local Wildlife Sites (Menagerie Wood Local Wildlife Site ref 4.26b and Bawtry Hall Park & Lake Local Wildlife Site ref 4.26a respectively).

8.2.78 Site 966 is also identified as having significant negative effects on archaeology because the potential for the survival of archaeological remains within undisturbed areas is considered to be moderate. The hall is grade II* listed, and some of the buildings around it may be part of its original outbuilding range. Further archaeological investigations will be required if the site is brought forward for development. This will include an assessment of the impact of the development on the grade II* listed hall and its outbuildings.

8.2.79 Site 996 is identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage. The site would not affect the significance of the heritage assets in the main part of the conservation area around the Market Place but would be harmful to the setting of Bawtry Hall and its associated locally designated parkland to the south as well as this part of the Bawtry conservation area by infilling the open space to the south of the hall. The loss of trees would also be harmful to the conservation area. This would amount to substantial harm to heritage significance.



Table 8.20 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Bawtry

Site Ref 141 146 172 280 499 780 786 873 874 950 966 995 996 1006 1017 1045 1087

Site Name

Westw

ood Road

,

Baw

try

Tickhill R

oad

, Baw

try

Land off N

arrow Lan

e,

Baw

try

Tall Trees, 17 Th

orne

Road

, Baw

try

Land off N

orth

Aven

ue,

Baw

try

Land at Th

orne R

oad

South of C

ockh

ill Close,

Baw

try

Site A, Lan

d at M

artin

Common Farm

, Baw

try

Site B (Safegu

arded

),

Land at M

artin

Common Farm

, Baw

try

Station Hotel, 9

3

Station Road

, Baw

try

Baw

try Hall, So

uth

Parad

e, Baw

try

Men

agerie Wood,

Baw

try

Land W

est of B

awtry

Hall, B

awtry

Land off To

wngate,

Baw

try

Land at M

artin Gran

ge

Farm, B

awtry

Land off N

orth

Aven

ue,

Baw

try

Narro

w Lan

e, Baw

try

and Baw

try Road

,

Austerfield


3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + + 0 + + + + 0

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + + + + + 0 0 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 0 + + ‐ 0 0 + 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + ++ + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 ++



8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + 0 + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? + + ? 0 + ? + ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



Site Ref 141 146 172 280 499 780 786 873 874 950 966 995 996 1006 1017 1045 1087

Site Name

Westw

ood Road

,

Baw

try

Tickhill R

oad

, Baw

try

Land off N

arrow Lan

e,

Baw

try

Tall Trees, 17 Th

orne

Road

, Baw

try

Land off N

orth

Aven

ue,

Baw

try

Land at Th

orne R

oad

South of C

ockh

ill Close,

Baw

try

Site A, Lan

d at M

artin

Common Farm

, Baw

try

Site B (Safegu

arded

),

Land at M

artin

Common Farm

, Baw

try

Station Hotel, 9

3

Station Road

, Baw

try

Baw

try Hall, So

uth

Parad

e, Baw

try

Men

agerie Wood,

Baw

try

Land W

est of B

awtry

Hall, B

awtry

Land off To

wngate,

Baw

try

Land at M

artin Gran

ge

Farm, B

awtry

Land off N

orth

Aven

ue,

Baw

try

Narro

w Lan

e, Baw

try

and Baw

try Road

,

Austerfield

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Carcroft-Skellow 8.2.80 Table 8.21 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Carcroft-Skellow. 8.2.81 Six of the sites (145; 165; 185; 186; 273, and 1089) are identified as having significant positive

effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.82 There are significant negative effects identified for sites 185; 273; 398; and, 1089 as all four are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.

8.2.83 Site 042 is also identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to mitigate because the site is a pasture to the south of Skellow. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site but it lies immediately to the south of Skellow-Buttercross Conservation Area. The Scheduled Monuments of Cromwell’s Batteries (remains of a motte and bailey castle) and the Butter Cross (plinth of possible medieval market cross) lie 100m to the north. There are also four Grade II listed buildings within the 250 buffer zone, two of which are within 100m of the site and are both converted barns.



Table 8.21 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Carcroft Skellow

Site Ref 042 145 165 185 186 273 367 398 401 1005 1076 1089

Site Name

Land to

rear of Skello

w

Hall

Land at Skello

w

Land North

of th

e A1,

Skellow

Land at M

ill Lane an

d

Crab

gate, Skello

w

Land off C

rabgate Lan

e,

Skellow

Askern

Road

, Carcro

ft

1‐29 Butterm

ere Close

Garages, B

utterm

ere

Close, C

arcroft

Owsto

n Road

, Carcro

ft

Sandyfield

s View

,

Carcro

ft

Land to

the W

est of

Rep

ton Road

, Skellow

Suite

Express H

ouse,

39A Skello

w Road

,

Carcro

ft

Land to

East of N

ew

Street, Owsto

n Lan

e,

Carcro

ft

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + 0

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + 0 + + 0 + 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + + 0 ‐ 0 +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + 0 + + + 0 0 + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + 0 + ‐ + ‐ + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ + ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ‐ ? ? + ‐ + ? + ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ‐ ? ? + ‐ + ? + ‐

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Edlington 8.2.84 Table 8.22 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Edlington. 8.2.85 Five of the sites (051; 052; 054, 057; and, 646) are identified as having significant positive effects in

relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.86 There are significant negative effects identified for five sites (051; 052; 057; 384; and, 646) as all are within10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.87 Site 054 and 646 are both identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 054 is within Natural England’s Impact Risk Zone Consultation Area (Edlington Wood SSSI) as the site is relatively close to this designated site. Site 646 also adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.9 - Edlington / Dearne Valley Railway Embankment) to the north of the site, although it is noted that this is a very large site and planning permission has been granted which will have addressed any mitigation necessary through the Development Management process.

8.2.88 Site 057 is also identified as having potential significant negative effects due to being located in proximity to an area of unstable land (Objective 8Aiv), however this relates to a very small area that just adjoins the site to the western boundary so is not considered as something that would be a significant constraint were the site to be developed.



Table 8.22 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Edlington

Site Ref 051 052 054 057 328 375 384 646 893 1064

Site Name

Plot 1

, Land at O

ld

Edlin

gton

Plot 2

, Land at O

ld

Edlin

gton

Plot 4

, Land at O

ld

Edlin

gton

Plot 7

, Land at O

ld

Edlin

gton

Land off Tait A

venue,

Edlin

gton

Barn

burgh

House,

Edlin

gton Lan

e, New

Edlin

gton

Howbeck D

rive,

Edlin

gton, U

2‐016

Site At Fo

rmer

Yorksh

ire Main

Colliery

, Broomhouse Lan

e,

Balb

y

Land Of Th

e Form

er

Cinem

a, Edlin

gton Lan

e,

Edlin

gton

Land Off H

owbeck

Drive, Ed

lingto

n

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + 0 + + 0

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + + + + + 0 ‐ + 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + + + + ‐ + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ ++ + 0 + ++ + 0

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + +

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + ‐ + + + + + + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + +

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + +

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + 0 + + +

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ? ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ? ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Finningley 8.2.89 Table 8.23 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Finningley. 8.2.90 Six of the sites (189; 274; 349; 448; 1025; and, 1026) are identified as having significant positive

effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size which will likely trigger a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.91 One site (1025) would have significant positive effects through reusing previously developed land due to it being a large brownfield site (Objective 8Ai).

8.2.92 There are significant negative effects identified for three sites (189; 448; and, 1026) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.93 Sites 152, 189, and 1026 are both identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 152 is located adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.44 - Finningley Gravel Pit) so appropriate buffering and landscaping to this edge will be required. Site 189/1026 are also located adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.41 - Crow Wood, Great Wood and Spen Close Plantation) so again buffering would be necessary to the southern edge of the site.



Table 8.23 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Finningley

Site Ref 136 152 189 274 315 317 349 448 1025 1026

Site Name

Land at B

awtry

Road

, Finningley

Land off B

ank En

d

Quarry, B

laxton (Site

1)

Higgin

s Agricu

lture

Ltd, O

ld Baw

try

Road

, Finningley

The W

hite

House, 8

1

Wroot R

oad

,

Finningley

Land W

est of Statio

n

Road

, Blaxto

n

Land East o

f Station

Road

, Blaxto

n

Land East o

f

Gatesb

ridge P

ark,

Finningley

Land to

the East o

f

Baw

try Road

,

Finningley

Site 1 (B

rownfield

)

Land to

the East o

f

Old Baw

try Road

Site 2 (G

reenfield

)

Land to

the East o

f

Old Baw

try Road

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 + 0 + + + ‐ 0

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 + 0 0 + + ‐ 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + + + + + + +

5A(i) Affordability + + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + +

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + ‐ + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + ‐ + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + ‐ + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Sprotbrough 8.2.94 Table 8.24 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Sprotborough. 8.2.95 Three of the sites (252; 788; and, 872) are identified as having significant positive effects for

affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution. 8.2.96 There are significant negative effects identified for site 788 on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai) due to

the sites proximity to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 6.43 - Castle Hill Wood) to the north of the site where appropriate buffering and landscaping would be required.



Table 8.24 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Sprotborough

Site Ref 252 788 872 929

Site Name

Sprin

g Lane,

Sprotbrough

Land at Sp

rotbrough

Land at M

elton Road

,

Sprotbrough

Land North

of C

adeb

y

Road

, Sprotbrough

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 0

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 +

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 0

3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + +

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ 0 ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + +

5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ +

5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + +

8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0

8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0

8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + +

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + +

11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + +

12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐ 0 0

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0

14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0



Service Town/Village: Tickhill 8.2.97 Table 8.25 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Tickhill. 8.2.98 Five of the sites (356; 452; 824; 876; and, 1030) are identified as having significant positive effects

for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution. 8.2.99 There are significant negative effects identified for 8 sites (109; 356; 824; 875; 880; 1021; 1028; and,

1030) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.100 Site 356 is also identified as having a significant negative effect on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to mitigate as the site lies south of the Lindrick character area of Tickhill Conservation Area and abuts it in the vicinity of Water Lane. There are no listed buildings within the site but 60m north is the grade 2* listed Lindrick House and the site abuts its former curtilage. Tickhill Castle Scheduled Monument is 250m north east of the site and there is a cluster of 5 grade 2 listed structures at the foot of the monument including Castle Farm cottage and barn. The grade 2 listed Brook House and its separately listed garden wall is 220m north and there is a grade 2 listed footbridge 250m north of the allocation site. Site 1021 also has significant negative effects in relation to built heritage. Development would provide new uses for redundant agricultural buildings. However, the inclusion of the open land to the south for modern development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings and of the scheduled monument as well as the wider conservation area as it would alter and intensify and urbanise the character of the approach to the castle. With modern access requirements and given the size of the site it will most likely be opened up from the current low key character to an engineered, hard landscaped area dominated by parking.

8.2.101 Site 1021 also has significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Aii) and further archaeological investigations are likely to be required. This would include an assessment of the impact of development on the listed buildings within the site. The listed buildings are considered to be of Regional archaeological significance. The historic landscape character of the farm complex could be considered to be of Local to Regional significance. The significance of any buried remains within the site is currently unknown.



Table 8.25 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Tickhill

Site Ref 109 281 356 357 452 824 875 876 877 880 930 1019 1021 1024 1028 1030

Site Name

Land off

Sunderlan

d Street,

Tickhill

Land off W

orkso

p

Road

, Tickhill

Land off Lin

drick

Lane, Tickh

ill

Land off W

ong

Lane, Tickh

ill

Land W

est of

Dad

sley Road

,

Tickhill

Land beh

ind

Lumley D

rive,

Tickhill

Site A, Lan

d to

East

of D

oncaster R

oad

,

Tickhill

Site B, Lan

d to

East

of D

oncaster R

oad

,

Tickhill

Site C, Lan

d to

East

of D

oncaster R

oad

,

Tickhill

Land at Tickh

ill

Land betw

een

Lindrick Lan

e an

d

Workso

p Road

,

Tickhill

Apy H

ill, Tickhill

Stud Farm

, Tickhill

Wilsic Lan

e, Tickhill

Sunderlan

d Street,

Tickhill

Pap

er Mill Fie

lds,

Tickhill

1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0

3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +

3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 + + 0 + + + ‐ 0 0 0 + ‐ 0

3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 0 + + + + 0 + + 0 0 + + + 0 +

5A(i) Affordability + 0 ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + + + + 0 + ++



8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + +

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0

12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ? ? ? ‐ ? ? ? ? ?

14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ? ? ? ? ?


14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Housing Sites 8.2.102 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version

(June 2019) explains the rationale for taking sites further forward for consideration against other factors relating to the selection of sites for inclusion in the Local Plan, these factors relate to: Flood risk – sequential and exceptions test (where required); Green Belt; and Viability Testing & Technical Assessment of Any Site Access or Highways Development Control

Issues. 8.2.103 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version

(June 2019) sets out overall conclusions and decisions on site allocations. Summaries for each settlement have also been prepared by the Council and the reasons for selecting and rejecting housing sites for inclusion in the Local Plan are summarised in Table 8.26.



Table 7.26 Council Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Housing Sites Site Ref:

Site Name/ Address: Potential Number of new homes

Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan?

Doncaster Main Urban Area 033 Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road,

Warmsworth 112 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 4.39 hectares and located to the south-west of Warmsworth and is

currently in agricultural use (arable) and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 112 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate to the south. A quarry is located to the north of the site and open countryside/agricultural uses to the west. The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by residential built form along the A630 and Ash Dale Road to the east, and Warmsworth Halt to the south. The existing boundary is considered to be somewhat intended by the extent of residential gardens. If the site was to be removed from the Green Belt, the resultant boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by weakly defined field boundary, denoted only by the change in agricultural crop and no other recognisable or likely to be permanent features. The resultant Green Belt boundaries would therefore be mixed in strength. Although the site and existing boundary has a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the site is largely contiguous with the large built up area of Doncaster (which is a regeneration priority area) and has a relatively modest role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as there would still be a largely essential gap between Conisbrough and Warmsworth. The site would have a very limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. The site is considered as having a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal in terms of urban extension sites to the Doncaster Main Urban Area with mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in relation to landfill are identified due to the presence of a landfill site, but it is noted that this is not within the site boundary and actually located to the south of the site so is not considered as being a significant constraint. Negative effects on best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) could be clarified through an on-site survey and a soil management plan. There are negative effects on minerals resource due to the presence of limestone underneath the site and biodiversity due to the site being within a Natural England consultation zone. Negative effects on landscape could be mitigated through a landscape assessment and on site landscaping scheme.

072 Acres Ranch, Warning Tongue Lane, Cantley

200 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

077 Kirk Sandall Gorse 36 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.



Site Ref:



079 Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough

126 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

111 Land at Stevens Road, Balby 69 Proposed Housing Site - The site covers an area of 2.47 hectares and is accessed from Stevens Road which also serves a small number of residential properties and a day nursery forming part of the Balby Central First School complex. It is situated at the northern end of Stevens Road. The site consists of a former industrial estate with vacant and cleared buildings and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 196 dwellings based on a previously approved planning application. It is bounded to the south by two-story terraced and semi-detached houses in Stevens Road and Bellis Avenue, to the west by an allotment site currently in use, to the north by railway sidings alongside the Doncaster-Sheffield railway, and to the east by an area of vacant land, now heavily vegetated and forming part of the Balby Little Moor Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Planning permission has been approved subject to signing of the S106 Agreement for 196 dwellings. The site performs very well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly significant positive/positive or neutral effects. It is now understood that the approved scheme is no longer likely to be implemented and a fresh application is anticipated for a lower density scheme of around 69 dwellings

115 Alverley Lane, Balby 150 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 6.74 hectares and triangular in shape located to the south of Balby. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 150 dwellings. There are existing residential uses along the northern and eastern sides with open countryside and agricultural land to the south. The site is currently designated as Green Belt, but has been identified as having a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work via the Green Belt Review Phase 3 making it the weakest of the Green Belt site extensions to the Main Urban Area (alongside reference 237) relative to the other Green Belt site options at the settlement. The existing boundary is considered to be an irregular and inconsistent existing built form boundary. Were the site to be allocated then the newly defined boundary would be a densely vegetated dismantled railway corridor to the south of the site and is considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent. The resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a rounding of the existing built form and concluded as being a strong defensible boundary. In terms of Green Belt purposes, in summary the site is highly contained within the existing built form of Doncaster and is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the strength of the proposed boundary, there are no views toward settlements in the south and therefore the Green Belt within the site takes no discernible role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Similar to the wider general area, the site has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting of the historic core of the Main Urban Area of Doncaster. The Green Belt in this location has a low-moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site also performs strongest through the Sustainability Appraisal of all the extension sites (including those currently designated as Countryside except for proposed



Site Ref:



allocation 432) and with the exception of site reference 237. Negative effects in relation to access to a train station, the primary school, and GP surgery could be addressed through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan and it is noted the site performs strongly (positive effect) from being on the core bus network. Negative effects on best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) could be clarified through an on-site survey and a soil management plan. There are negative effects in respect to sterilisation of minerals resource (limestone) although it is noted that this only relates to a relatively small section of the site to the west which could be avoided through layout of the development, for example landscaping or open space provision. Negative effects in respect to biodiversity are in relation to the local wildlife site (ref 2.24 St Catherine’s Railway Embankments, Delves & Cuttings) to the south of the site and can be mitigated through a habitat buffer to protect the site and enhance the ecological corridor. This mitigation will also help ensure there is an appropriate buffer between the new housing and the existing dense tree coverage to the south of the site and hence both protect the trees themselves and minimise possible over shadowing on the new houses.

116 Armthorpe Lane, Barnby Dun 646 Rejected Housing Site – the site promoter has addressed previous issues in respect to flood risk and sequential test through submitting a masterplan that avoids any built development in the part of the site that is at risk of flooding. There are however very large overhead pylons that cross the site north to south. The masterplan avoids development beneath them with buffering/open space/landscaping. These constraints significantly reduce the potential capacity of the site from the estimated average of 646 dwellings. The Council still has concerns in respect to accessibility issues with taking access from Brecks Lane. No footways presently and Brecks plantation will constrain provision in the form of offsite highway works. Therefore does not necessarily conform with NPPF 108/110. Unable to determine whether visibility requirements for new accesses would meet requirements in accordance with 85th percentile wet weather speeds.

121 Amersall Road, Scawthorpe 14 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

122 Challenger Drive, Sprotbrough 120 Rejected Housing Site - Access problems. No direct access to public highway available. 148 Loversall Land, Weston Road,

Balby 92 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.29 hectares in size and currently grass/scrubland with a small

area of hard standing for car parking to the north west corner of the site and greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 92 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and south and healthcare uses to the west. A school is located immediately to the north of the site (Balby Carr). The site is currently designated as a Community Facility via the Unitary Development Plan and forms part the curtilage of the St Catherine’s Hospital. The site is being promoted for housing by the NHS Foundation Trust so is surplus to requirement. The site appears to be greenfield and scrubland, although believed to have contained former hospital buildings several decades ago so may well, on



Site Ref:



further investigation, be a previously developed brownfield site. There are existing residential uses to the east and south and a school to the north. The site performs well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly positive or neutral effects and mitigation of any negative effects have been identified (e.g. biodiversity).

161 Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley 254 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

164/ 430

Land East of Warning Tongue Lane (1)/ Land off Warning Tongue Lane

275 Proposed Housing Site - The sites total 15.9 hectares and are located to the east of Cantley and is currently in agricultural use and greenfield therefore. The sites are capable of accommodating 275 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west as well as a school and its playing fields. The M18 motorway runs adjacent to the eastern boundary and there are agricultural uses to the north. The sites are currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The Sustainability Appraisal finds there are mainly positive and neutral effects. There are significant negative effects on pollution to surface water bodies due to the site adjoining a surface water feature along its eastern/south-eastern boundary. This can be mitigated through the use of best practice construction techniques. Effects on best and most versatile agricultural land and minerals resource are uncertain given the desktop information does not identify whether Grade 3a or 3b, and whether the sand and/or gravel underlying part of the site is soft sand or sharp sand/gravel? This could be clarified through an on-site survey and were this to show the site is best or most versatile agricultural land, a soil management plan could help mitigate this negative effect. Consideration of pre-extraction of any sharp sand/gravel could also help mitigate the negative effects were this proven to be present on site, noting that this only effects part of the site, and subject to economic viability and environmental acceptability. The sites are roughly triangular in shape. There are existing residential uses and a school to the west. The other 2 sides are bound by the B1396 to the north and M18 Motorway to the east/south-east, with a dense tree buffer in-between, which provides a strong defensible boundary and the sites are not therefore considered as being open countryside. The sites are not currently publically accessible land and they would trigger on site open space provision which would result in a net increase in accessible open space for the new housing and existing community compared to the current situation. The allocation for housing will provide a significant contribution towards the settlement’s housing requirement with marginal impact through loss of some countryside but this is considered minimal and outweighed by the need for the Main Urban Area to meet its housing requirement with avoidance of flood risk and Green Belt, where possible, in line with national policy.

166 Land East of Warning Tongue Lane (2)

480 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 21.85 hectares and located to the south-east of Cantley. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield and capable of accommodating 480 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west with woodland to the north and agricultural uses to the east and



Site Ref:



south. Access to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park runs west to east through the southern part of the site. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The Sustainability Appraisal finds the site has a large number of negative effects compared to all the other urban extension site options for the Main Urban Area on land designated as Countryside Policy Area (notwithstanding ref 241 which now has planning permission and the same number of negative effects). This site also straddles the entrance to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park which is a key asset for the borough due to its success as a major new tourist attraction for the region and wider. Unlike sites 164/430 discussed above, which have strong boundaries created by the M18/B13696, this site would extend the settlement into open countryside and significantly alter the currently rural setting and entrance to this important growing asset for the borough.

212 Lords Head Lane, Warmsworth 422 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

213 Mill Lane, Warmsworth 1,004 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

214 Common Lane, Warmsworth 544 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 24.2 hectares capable of accommodating 544 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. The A1(M) motorway runs immediately to the east of the site with residential uses beyond. There are some residential uses to the south-east and north-west. There is a water treatment works to the west as well as further agricultural uses. Although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

215 High Road, Warmsworth 50 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1.57 hectares in size and currently used for agriculture (pasture) with the farm buildings located to the south-east of the site. The site is greenfield and capable of accommodating 50 dwellings. There are existing residential uses surrounding the site. The site is part of a farm holding and includes a section to the east which includes a number of agricultural barn buildings and farmhouse. The larger remainder of the site to the west includes the farm’s curtilage and is made up of a number of agricultural fields. These are currently part designated in the UDP as Open Space Policy Area and part Residential Policy Area. The eastern part of the site, where the buildings are located, is also Residential Policy Area. The fields are identified via the Green Space Audit as being a site of local community value although they are not publicly accessible so the UDP Open Space Policy Area designation cannot be justified. The whole of the site is being promoted for housing allocation by the landowner and the western part of the site (agricultural fields) is being promoted as a greenspace of local community value (Site Reference: 162) by Warmsworth Parish Council. The Sustainability



Site Ref:



Appraisal has identified significant negative effects on both built heritage and archaeology were the site to be developed. The site consists of 3 agricultural fields bounded by limestone walls within the Warmsworth Conservation Area. The conservation area is based on the historic core of Warmsworth which was a linear village following Low Road West subsequently divided by Warmsworth Hall. The character of the Warmsworth conservation area derives mainly from the rural and agricultural limestone buildings with clay pantile/stone tile roofs and limestone walling set around Warmsworth Hall and its grounds and confined between Warmsworth High Road and Low Road East/West. The site includes the historic buildings and barns of West Farm one of which is Grade 2 listed. Adjacent and overlooking the site is the Grade 2 listed Warmsworth House. There are 5 other listed buildings within the conservation area including the Grade 2* listed Warmsworth Hall with its separately listed Grade 2 east and west gates. The major negative impacts on these built heritage assets may not be possible to mitigate. There would also be a major archaeological objection were the site to be developed as the site contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. In conclusion, it is proposed to reject the site as there is potential for a major negative impact on built heritage which may not be possible to mitigate as well as likely to be a major archaeological objection. There is significant local support for the western part of the site to be designated as a Site of Local Green Space Value (see separate assessment of this). The eastern built part of the site is being proposed to remain in Residential Policy Area which would allow for some small scale redevelopment subject to heritage concerns being addressed, as well as any wider Development Management issues. Any development therefore would be windfall and additional supply.

217 Back Lane, Cusworth 845 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

234 Broad Axe, Scawthorpe 480 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site located to the north-west of Scawthorpe and extending to 21.12 hectares in size. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 480 dwellings. There are existing residential uses and a primary school (Rosedale) to the south and south-west with a school and playing fields to the east (Don Valley Academy). There are further residential uses to the north-east and agricultural uses to the north/north-west. The site was proposed as a housing allocation through the 2018 consultation. There were a number of objections to the site including from DMBC Ward Members including loss of Green Belt. Since the consultation, 2 very large planning applications have been approved at the settlement (see above site refs 241 & 255) which alone amount to 1,142 new homes and were not assumed as forming part of the housing land supply at that time. This means there is less reliance on urban extension sites in order to meet the settlement’s housing requirement. Sufficient sites allocated to meet almost the



Site Ref:



top of the growth range already so no exceptional circumstances identified to go on and allocate any further Green Belt sites at the Main Urban Area. Although it is acknowledged that the site performs similar through both the Green Belt Review and Sustainability Appraisal as per the proposed Green Belt site 033, Broadaxe has received a number of objections following the 2018 consultation including from DMBC Ward Members. Site 033 attracted very little in the way of objection with the exception of the Parish Council who did object.

237 Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield Road, Warmsworth (2)

942 Rejected Housing Site - The Green Belt Review Phase 3 identifies the site as having a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work making it one of the ‘weakest’ of the Green Belt extension site options relative to the other Green Belt sites at the settlement. Further to this, the site is the strongest performing, through the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, of all the urban extension sites (including the Countryside sites) at the Main Urban Area (with the exception of reference 391/432 below) with the fewest negative effects. However, this is a minerals site with extant permission for extraction until 2042 and is an important site for industrial limestone. There are concerns regarding how the site could be reclaimed for housing given the scale of extraction that has already taken place so there are significant deliverability constraints to this site and insufficient information at present as to how this could be overcome. It may be more appropriate therefore for the site to be restored to low level agricultural use

241 Land to the East of Mere Lane, Edenthorpe

600 Proposed Housing Site - Land to the East of Mere Lane, Edenthorpe – Large urban extension site to the east of Edenthorpe extending to 46.3 hectares and capable of accommodating 1,147 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. There are existing residential dwellings to the west with open countryside and further agricultural uses to the north, east and south. Long Plantation (woodland) is located immediately to the northern and eastern site boundaries. The majorty of the site has been subject to an Outline planning application (reference: 15/01278/OUTM) for a scheme of 650 dwellings, so much smaller than the site submitted through the call for sites and assessed via HELAA, that was refused by Planning Committee and has been Appealed (reference: APP/F4410/W/17/3169288) by the landowner via a Public Inquiry that started in March 2017 with the second Hearing sessions closing in January 2018. The decision rested with the Secretary of State who allowed the Appeal in February 2019. In conclusion, allocate part of site reference 241 (as per planning application boundary) as Secretary of State has allowed an Appeal (decision issued February 2019) following a large Public Inquiry after planning permission was refused by DMBC Planning Committee. Site capacity reduced to 600 dwellings which reflects the revised scheme that was worked up during the Inquiry process and therefore now permissioned (post April 2018 base date). The remainder of site 241 is to remain in the Countryside.

253 Former Bloodstock Sales Site, Carr House Road

46 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.74 hectares in size and consists of the former Belle Vue Stables and Sales Ring. The former buildings have been demolished and the site cleared and is therefore



Site Ref:



brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 46 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west, south and east on the opposite side of Carr House Road (A18). Commercial uses (hotel) are found to the north of the site and the Doncaster Racecourse to the north-east across the A18/A638 roundabout. The site has recently been sold (by DMBC) for housing with known developer interest and planning application anticipated shortlypending at the time of drafting (18/02614/4FULM) for 66 units. The site forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 (46 deliverable units). The Planning Inspector, as part of a recent Public Inquiry (May 2017), concluded the site had a realistic prospect of being delivered. The site performs well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly positive or neutral effects.

255 Former Hungerhill Business Park, Thorne Road

542 Proposed Housing Site – The site is a very large urban greenfield site extending to 28.98 hectares in the middle of Edenthorpe and capable of accommodating 717 dwellings. The site is currently allocated for employment uses in the UDP but there has been no real interest from the market to bring forward such uses on the site. The site is currently scrubland. There are existing residential uses to the north and north-east, as well as south-east and west. There is a school to the east and commercial uses to the north of the site. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal and negative effects can be mitigated, including flood risk. The larger western part of the site (20.9 ha) now has planning permission (post April 2018 base date - 18/02592/3OUTM) for 542 new homes and a planning application pending (19/01465/3FULM) for the remainder of the site for educational uses. In conclusion, allocate the western part of the site for housing (542 units) in line with the extant permission and the remainder of the site is to be designated for educational uses.

257 Marshgate, Doncaster 114 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

261 Plot 5A, off Carolina Way / Lakeside Boulevard

53 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 2 hectares in size and is part of the former Doncaster Airport site and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 53 dwellings. The Lakeside Lake is located to the north and east of the site beyond which is an existing housing development under construction. The High Speed Rail College has recently been constructed and now open to the west which sits alongside some existing commercial uses. There is open countryside to the south including Potteric Carr nature reserve. The site is an unused Unitary Development Plan allocation owned by DMBC. Not previously brought forward for housing due to significant activity on other plots around the Lakeside area, although many of these are now complete/nearing completion so this site forms a logical next and final phase of the areas housing development. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program.



Site Ref:



262 Plot 6, Lakeside Boulevard 87 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.12 hectares and occupies a 'peninsula' projecting into the lake on its eastern side. The site forms part of the former Doncaster Airport site and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 87 dwellings. On the opposite side of Lakeside Boulevard, facing the site, are existing apartments in mainly 3 storey buildings. There are further residential uses recently built/under construction to the north-east and south-east. The site is connected to the lake islands by bridges which enable public access. As per site reference 261 above, except this site has previously had planning permission approved for a high density apartment scheme which lapsed as was never implemented.

263 3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate West 10 Rejected Housing Site - Three small sites within St Sepulchre Gate West located immediately south of the Doncaster Town Centre and south-east of the Railway Station. The sites total 0.32 hectares and currently include primarily vacant land and buildings (former Royal Mail Sorting Office) and capable of accommodating 10 dwellings. The sites are brownfield and are surrounding by existing commercial, retail, residential and leisure uses. The Flying Scotsman Health Centre is located to the north and east of the sites. This representation actually consists of 3 separate very small infill sites which is the only reason that the site threshold of 5+ units is met. The largest of the 3 sites (former Royal Mail Sorting Office) is now included as part of the redevelopment proposals for the rail station gateway and is being proposed to be used for car parking so is no longer available for housing as per the original representation.

284 Formerly Carr House Allotments, Hyde Park

79 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.8 hectares in size and is currently scrubland and greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 79 dwellings. There are allotments to the north of the site and further scrubland to the east and south with commercial uses to the west and south-west. The site is identified through the Green Space Audit as being allotments. This representation has been put forward for housing by a community group (Carr House Allotment Social Enterprise) but they have stated through the call for sites process that the site is owned by a public authority and it is not believed that the site is being promoted therefore by the actual landowner so landowner intentions are not clear and therefore doubts around availability and deliverability of the site for an alternative use. It is noted however that there may be a need for rationalisation of the existing allotment provision in this area.

310 Rear of Bentley Road, Doncaster 35 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

350/ 407

Rose Hill, Cantley/ The Avenue, Cantley

166 The site is 6.7 hectares and currently grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 166 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east, south-east and south-west. Doncaster Racecourse is located to the north and north-west and open countryside/woodland to the north-east. This representation is an existing greenfield UDP Housing Allocation and has been put



Site Ref:



forward by both DMBC Assets and Local Investment Planning Teams through the call for sites. The site was previously unavailable for development, but is now being actively promoted and being brought forward for housing by DMBC. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program.

369 Alexander Street, Bentley 7 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

380 Goodison Boulevard (1), Cantley 64 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.29 hectares and is currently open space grassland located off Goodison Boulevard. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 64 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east, south and west with community facilities and retail uses to the north alongside dense woodland to the north-east. The site is designated as Open Space Policy Area via the Unitary Development Plan and identified through the Green Space Audit as Calendar Court informal open space (reference 29). Cantley is the only community profile which has sufficient open space provision in all the different categories of green space based on the findings from the Green Space Audit. This Open Space is being proposed to be retained so the representation seeking housing is not supported. Policies in the Local Plan could allow for the development of open space but would be subject to conditions, including that there had been proper consultation with the local community on the value of the green space to the area.

391/ 432

Former Wheatley Hills Middle School, Leger Way

134 The site is 5.41 hectares in size and consists of a former school site and playing fields. There are some areas of hard standing/former car parking but the majority of the site is greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 134 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west and industrial estate to the north. A golf course is located to the east and south. The whole of the site is identified in the UDP as an Education Facility. In addition, the Greenfield playing fields part to the east of the site is also designated as Countryside Policy Area. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program. The Sustainability Appraisal findings are that there are mainly significant positive/positive and neutral effects and that this extension site is the strongest performing of all the Green Belt and Countryside extension sites at the Main Urban Area with the fewest negative effects. There are 3 potential negative effects: firstly distance to a train station; and, secondly, access to a primary school. However, the site is located within a short walk distance of a bus stop on the core network. The third negative effect is in relation to biodiversity, as the site borders a designated local wildlife site, but this could be mitigated through landscaping to buffer the local wildlife site (Wheatley Golf Course reference 2.62). Although around half of the site will result in the loss of countryside, this is not considered to be open countryside given the golf course lies immediately adjacent to the east and south of the site. Beyond the golf course, part of Shaw Lane Industrial Estate is located to the east, the Main Town of Armthorpe



Site Ref:



to the south-east, and the golf club (car park/club house etc)/public house/school/rugby club/household waste recycling centre etc to the south. The site is not currently publically accessible land and the site would trigger on site open space provision which would result in a net increase in accessible open space for the new housing and existing community compared to the current situation. The required buffering to the local wildlife site adjacent to the southern/eastern boundaries will create an attractive settlement edge for this part of the Main Urban Area in comparison with the current Shaw Lane Industrial Estate which comprises of small-medium sized industrial box like units. At the time of drafting a planning application (19/01170/FULM) for 143 dwellings on the site is pending. Conclusion - allocate site references 391/432 as the community facility is surplus to requirement and its allocation for housing will provide a significant contribution towards the settlement’s housing requirement with minimal impact through loss of some countryside but this is considered minimal and outweighed by the need for the Main Urban Area to meet its housing requirement with avoidance of flood risk and Green Belt, where possible, in line with national policy.

395 Weston Road / Newbolt Plots, Balby

10 Rejected Housing Site - These six small sites total 0.35 hectares and are open spaces/grassed areas in between existing residential areas and are greenfield. The sites could accommodate 10 dwellings. The surrounding land uses are all primarily residential and open space. This representation actually consists of 6 separate very small infill sites which is the only reason that the site threshold of 5+ units is met. Otherwise each site would fall well below the 5+ unit minimum threshold for an allocation in the Local Plan. Proposed to continue to show these sites as Residential Policy Area which would still allow small scale infill/redevelopment proposals to come forward.

397 Orchard Street, Balby 110 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 3.93 hectares and currently includes a central area of existing residential development (Gresley Road) with two undeveloped parcels of land on either side which are tree covered. The western one is open space also. The sites that are undeveloped are greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 110 dwellings. The railway line runs adjacent to the north of the site with a former industrial Estate with permission for residential redevelopment to the west (see site reference 111 above). There are existing residential uses to the south of the site and commercial uses to the east. A school (Balby Central Primary) and its playing fields are located to the south-west. The site is a UDP Housing Allocation owned by DMBC. The central part of the site was developed for housing many years ago leaving 2 undeveloped parts to the east and west of the housing; both are covered in scrubland/trees and the site is considered as being a dense urban regenerating woodland. The western part of the site is also a Local Wildlife Site (Reference: 2.19 - Balby Little Moor - Candidate Local Wildlife Site) and as such the Sustainability Appraisal has identified significant negative effects for the site. Access to the eastern site via Firth Street is a problem due to the presence of a Yorkshire Water pumping station where it is believed they have an easement into the site. Although access could be achieved via Gresley Road, there may be a possible ransom strip issue to be resolved. For these



Site Ref:



reasons it is not proposed to allocate the site as there are concerns around deliverability. However, as an existing Housing Allocation, the site will need to be shown on the Policies Map someway other than a development allocation and it is considered the most appropriate approach would be to designate as Residential Policy Area whereby some development may be supported if the constraints can be overcome.

399 Pickering Road, Bentley 36 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

400 Rose Hill Cemetery Land, Cantley Lane, Cantley

31 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1.2 hectares located to the north of Cantley Lane and is currently grassland open space and greenfield. There is a small section of hard standing in the north-west corner of the site currently used for car parking for the cemetery. The site is capable of accommodating 28 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the south and a cemetery to the north. Dense woodland is found to the east and further grassed open space to the west, before further residential dwellings. The site is currently designated as Open Space Policy Area via the UDP and identified through the Green Space Audit as Ascot Road Amenity Housing open space (reference 1). Cantley is the only community profile which has sufficient open space provision in all the different categories of green space based on the findings from the Green Space Audit. This Open Space is being proposed to be retained so the representation seeking housing is not supported. Policies in the Local Plan could allow for the development of open space but would be subject to conditions, including that there had been proper consultation with the local community on the value of the green space to the area.

411 Wilberforce Road, Garage Site, Clay Lane

40 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

416 Goodison Boulevard (2), Cantley 28 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1 hectare in size and currently grassed informal open space in between existing residential areas. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 28 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north, east and west with community facilities and open space to the south of the site on the opposite side of Goodison Boulevard. Since this site was put forward for housing through the call for sites, a planning application has been granted in February 2017 (reference: 16/02268/FULM) for a 75 bed care home on the majority of the site. Although the facility will provide and serve an important housing offer for the borough, the bedrooms are en-suites and the rest of the accommodation is shared and ancillary such as communal lounges/dining rooms etc, so the dwellings are not self-contained in line with the Planning definition of self-containment and the site will not therefore contribute towards the allocated supply to meet the OAN even if it was to be supported as an allocation.



Site Ref:



431 Land off Thorne Road, Edenthorpe

319 Rejected Housing Site - Access problems. Site too large to serve from Cedric Road due to capacity constraints and no direct access to any other existing public highway.

436 Land at Scawsby Lane 969 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 39.1 hectares to the west of Scawsby. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 969 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and commercial uses to the south as well as a school (Ridgewood). There is agricultural land to the north and west as well as some isolated dwellings to the north-west of the site boundary. The Sustainability Appraisal has identified significant negative effects in respect to archaeology due to the presence of the deserted medieval village earthworks at the southern side of the site which indicates that there are major archaeological issues associated with this site. The setting of the Scheduled Monument and Grade II listed Tudor Cottage and Scawsby Hall should also be taken into account. Further consideration needs to be made regarding the capacity of the site for housing development. The medieval earthworks within the southern side of the site are considered to be of regional archaeological significance, whilst the Scheduled Monument along the northern boundary of the site is of national significance. Buried remains associated with Iron Age to Roman dispersed settlement and agriculture could be of local to regional significance depending on their nature, extent and condition. However, it is noted that this is a very large site where there would be scope for sensitive site layout and design of a scheme that could avoid areas of archaeological significance whilst still delivering an extension with significant capacity. In conclusion, although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

438 Waterfront (East), Chappell Drive 363 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

439 Waterfront (West), Chappell Drive


474 Sunnyside Depot, Sunnyside, Edenthorpe


494 Green Lane, Scawthorpe 479 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 19.4 hectares in size located to the north-west of Scawthorpe. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 479 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and north-west with open countryside to the north. Further agricultural uses are located to the south/south-west/south-east. Although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review



Site Ref:



Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

495 Rostholme, Bentley (Full Site) 447 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

833 Sandy Lane, Doncaster 39 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.3 hectares in size and currently houses a water treatment works with areas of concrete hard standing and a section of scrubland to the west of the site; the site is primarily brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 39 dwellings. There is a primary school immediately to the south of the site and an Aircraft Museum to the east. Further scrubland is found to the west and immediate north before existing residential uses. The site contains a pumping station facility in the ownership of Yorkshire Water but is surplus to requirements and being promoted for housing through the call for sites. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP, where the principle of residential development is already established subject to the Development Management process, and there are existing residential uses to the north, schools to the south and a museum to the east. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects and its development for housing would bring back into effective use land that has been previously developed as well as providing a medium sized site (39 units) which will help improve the choice and range/type of allocation for the borough and attract a wider range/type of developer including small and medium sized housebuilders.

835 Warmsworth Reservoir, Warmsworth

23 Proposed Housing Site - The site is a covered reservoir 0.6 hectares in size and brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 18 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and allotments to the north and west with further residential uses beyond. Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate is located to the south and south-west. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP and is surplus to Yorkshire Water’s requirements and is now being promoted through the Local Plan for allocation for housing. However since then, but post the base date for permissions information 1st April 2018, the landowner has submitted an Outline planning application for 23 dwellings which has been granted subject to S106 (reference: 17/00537/OUTM – S106 was signed in January 2019). Conclusion - allocate site reference 835, but for 23 dwellings to reflect post-base date permission capacity rather than the HELAA estimated capacity of 18 units. Will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy.

836 Land South of Woodfield Way 1,131 Proposed Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 49.8 hectares and currently agricultural land/grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 1,131 dwellings based on the balance of units for this part of the site from a recently lapsed Outline planning permission. There are existing houses being constructed to the west of the site as well as further



Site Ref:



housing that was delivered as part of previous phases of this development. Open countryside and agricultural uses are found to the south beyond which lies the M18 motorway. There are retail uses to the north and south/south-west and a new primary school to the north-west. A range of commercial uses are also located to the north and the A6182 (White Rose Way) runs adjacent to the east, beyond which is the Potteric Carr nature reserve. A recently constructed link road (Woodfield Way) runs through the middle of the site. This is an existing UDP Mixed Use Allocation (including housing), although smaller to the original allocated site as the wider parts of the allocation has been developing out for many years now. This part of the site previously had Outline planning permission for 1,600 dwellings (with the adjacent land recently developed to the west) although, due to a condition attached to the Outline permission, lapsed in 2015 as the detailed Reserved Matters did not cover all of this land. The Woodfield link road which connects Balby/Woodfield with White Rose Way was delivered through the earlier phase of this development. A fresh application (18/02284/FULM) for 461 dwellings is pending on part of the site that has lapsed at the time of drafting. Re-allocating the site could provide up to 1,131 dwellings towards the Main Urban Area’s requirement on a greenfield urban extension site which is proving popular to the market but does not involve the loss of Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area given its previous UDP allocation, although not all of this capacity would be delivered in the plan period following standard build-out rates so appropriate discounting has been made on this site. Significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity and surface water pollution have been addressed through schemes of mitigation included in the earlier phases of development and in line with previously agreed mitigation as part of the Outline permission. Further to this, there is a site specific Carr Lodge Design Code Supplementary Planning Document adopted to ensure future application(s) are in accordance with the previous site masterplan which also addresses such issues. Conclusion - allocate site reference 836, greenfield extension site that will provide a significant contribution to the Main Urban Area’s housing requirement without the loss of Green Belt or Countryside. Allocate the whole of the site capacity (1,131 units), but discount delivery within the plan period (840 units next 15 years and 140 units years 16 & 17) to standard lead-in times/build out rates. Any delivery on top of the average 70 dwellings per annum would be additional supply therefore, and it is noted that these build out rates have been far exceeded on the site in the past e.g. 112 completions in 2015/16; and, 102 completions in 2016/17. The discounting of capacity would also provide additional flexibility should fresh application(s) come forward for a smaller scheme to that previously granted.

1036 Melton Road, Newton 2397 Rejected Housing Site - This is a very large site extending to 96.86 hectares in size and would be capable of accommodating 2,397 dwellings. The site is primarily made up of agricultural land and is greenfield therefore. Cusworth Hall and gardens is located to the north with residential uses to the east and south-east. The A1(M) runs to the wester of the site beyond which is countryside. The findings of



Site Ref:



the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concluded that there was a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection process.

1041 Balby Archives, King Edward Road, Balby

15 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.47 hectares in size and consists of the now vacant and surplus archives buildings and is brownfield therefore capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. The site is surrounded by residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal process with mostly positive and neutral effects. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1041 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site now surplus to its current uses and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy.

1042 Ashworth Barracks/Former Nightingale School Site, Balby

42 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.64 hectares in size and consists of the former Nightingale School site and is brownfield and capable of accommodating 42 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal process with mostly positive and neutral effects. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1042 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site.

1046 Land at Cross Bank, Balby 137 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 4.89 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 137 dwellings. The site is mostly greenfield but there is a brownfield area of hardstanding to the northern part. There are existing residential uses to the north-west and south-west and employment to the north. A sewage treatment works is located to the south which requires buffering. The site has recently been marketed and part of the site has previously had permission for residential uses (although requires access via the wider site). Conclusion - allocate site reference 1046 as a well located urban site that performs strongly through Sustainability Appraisal and actively being marketed for residential uses. Capacity reflects need for buffering of sewage works to the south of the site.

1049 The Cusworth Centre, Cusworth Lane

26 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.86 hectares in size and consists of the former Cusworth Centre buildings and is brownfield therefore and capable of accommodating 26 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses with a school adjacent to the north/north-east of the site. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1049 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site now surplus to its current uses and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy.

1052 Stanley House & Rosemead House, Balby

26 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.89 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 26 dwellings. The site previously consisted of former sheltered housing units which have been demolished and is brownfield therefore. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1052 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site that has been cleared and ready for redevelopment and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing



Site Ref:



requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy.

1053 Don View, Thellusson Avenue, Scawsby

16 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares in size and capable of providing 16 dwellings. The site previously contained sheltered housing which has been demolished and is brownfield therefore. The site is surrounded by residential development to the north-west/north/east and south-east with open countryside to the west. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1053 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site that has been cleared and ready for redevelopment and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy.

1055 Cook Street and Truman Street, Bentley


Main Town: Adwick-le-Street-Woodlands202 North of Long Lands Lane, West

of Roman Ridge, Woodlands 8 Rejected Housing Site – A triangular site of 0.27ha, with a potential capacity of 8 units. The land is

brownfield and currently has a joinery workshop located on it. To the east lies land in the ownership of Yorkshire Water, followed by residential properties. Woodland and grassland lies to the south, with allotments to the west of the site. Additionally, a footpath runs alongside the east of the site. The site is a small corner part of a much wider Employment Site designation which adjoins undeveloped scrubland and allotments (also part of the Employment Site). The site is not Green Belt and is not constrained by flood risk either and has successfully passed the flood risk sequential test. The site would be capable of accommodating 8 dwellings and would help provide a good mix of site allocation size through bringing forward a small site which would help introduce a wider range of developers, including smaller builders, into the area. The Sustainability Appraisal has identified potential minor negative effects in respect to built heritage as along the eastern edge of the site lies a Scheduled Monument (Roman Ridge). This extends slightly further to the east and continues past the site in a northwards direction. Although there are no listed buildings or conservation areas within the site itself, Woodlands Conservation Area lies immediately southeast. Further to this, the site has previous planning history with applications for residential uses refused. This included objections from South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and Historic England, due to the sites proximity adjacent to the Roman Ridge Scheduled Monument. There were also access concerns due to visibility with Long Lands Lane. Although it is accepted that the site is no longer required to be retained/re-designated for employment uses, there are still concerns around the impact on the Roman Ridge Scheduled Monument as well as the access to the site. On balance, it is considered that there is still sufficient doubt around how the minor negative effects could be mitigated, which may require a smaller scheme which provides scope for sensitive layout respecting the Roman Ridge. On this basis, it is not



Site Ref:



considered that there is sufficient evidence at this moment to be confident that, if the site were to be allocated, a scheme of 8 units could be deliverable/developable during the plan period. Instead, it is considered more appropriate to designate the site as Residential Policy Area which would allow for a scheme to come forward as a windfall development if the potential minor negative effects can be mitigated to the satisfaction of both DMBC and statutory consultees/stakeholders.

368 Adwick Depot, Mill Lane, Adwick-le-Street

12 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

371 Ashwood House, Adwick-le-Street

29 A 0.98ha site which could accommodate around 29 units. The land is brownfield and has a sheltered housing development situated on it. To the north and west lie residential units, with a park also situated north west of the site. To the south and east is agricultural land. The site includes part which is now covered by planning permission for redevelopment and has been implemented (see site reference 892). The site area not covered by this permission includes medium rise existing sheltered housing which has recently had investment and improvements to the stock undertaken and the site is not considered available for redevelopment for the foreseeable future. Conclusion - reject site reference 371, the eastern part of this representation has been developed now, and the remainder of the site includes existing sheltered housing stock which has recently seen investment, and is not currently considered as available for redevelopment.

458 Land off Church Lane, Adwick 89 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

459 Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick 316 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

460 Land off Lutterworth Drive, Adwick-le-Street

45 Proposed Housing Site - A flat site measuring 1.68ha, with a potential capacity of 45 units. This is greenfield land in the middle of a residential area with residential dwellings on all sides, as well as a care home to the south. The site is currently designated as an Open Space Proposal but is in private ownership and has never come forward for such intended uses. It is not considered that the Open Space Proposal can be delivered so this designation can no longer be retained therefore, and the site is being promoted by the landowner for housing. The site performs strongly through the Sustainability Appraisal with all minor positive or neutral effects with the exception of a minor negative effect in respect to secondary school capacity. The site would trigger the Local Plan policy for open space contributions. Therefore, allocating the site for housing could actually provide some, albeit smaller than originally intended, public open space which would be accessible for not just the new housing but also the wider existing area in line with the original intentions for the site.

512 Redhouse Lane (b), North East, Adwick




Site Ref:



513 Redhouse Lane (c) South, Adwick-le-Street Industrial Estate, Adwick-le-Street-Woodlands

624 Rejected Housing Site - A large flat urban extension site extending to 27.69ha with a potential capacity of 624 units. The site is greenfield, and arable farmland, located to the north of Adwick. The site is bordered to the south and west by residential dwellings, and to the north by Red House Lane, which has farmland and a small cemetery beyond it. The Sustainability Appraisal identifies significant negative effects for the site in respect to archaeology concluded that there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the site. The site contains known archaeological remains of national or regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Further negative effects are identified in respect to capacity of the secondary school, landscape capacity for housing, the presence of limestone underneath the site as well as best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Mitigation, such as site survey/soil management plan, landscaping and contributions towards school capacity would help offset these concerns. However, the site is currently designated as Green Belt. Although the Green Belt Review (Phase 3) concluded the site has a ‘moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work’ it is not considered that an exceptional circumstances case exists to release any Green Belt sites at this settlement when other non-Green Belt deliverable and developable sites have been identified to comfortably meet the local need requirement, with a significant contribution towards the economic growth target as well. An allocation at the lower-mid end of the range for this settlement seems appropriate given it is the smallest of the 7 Main Towns based on both population and number of households.

1051 Fern Bank/Adwick Depot, Adwick


Main Town: Conisbrough-Denaby 040 Land at Sheffield Road/Old

Road, Hill Top, Conisbrough 200 Proposed Housing Site - A flat triangular site, measuring 8.9ha, with a potential capacity of 200 units

located to the south-west of Conisbrough. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the north with open countryside and agriculture uses to the east, south and west of the site, although there are some isolated dwellings, a hotel, and agricultural buildings to the south-west of the site. From the findings of the Green Belt Review, site references 040 and 826 perform equally in terms of Green Belt strength of boundary and purposes so both are concluded as having a ‘moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work’ so nothing separates them in this respect. In terms of boundary, if the proposed Green Belt site reference 040 was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined in the south of the site by the A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by Old Road, which is also the extent of the DMBC boundary. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be strong as this road is a recognisable, durable and likely to be permanent boundary



Site Ref:



feature. Were site reference 826 be allocated then the proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by the strongly defined Clifton Hill in the south west and former dismantled railway line, which is now supported by low-lying vegetation, an embankment feature and residential built form to the south. The new boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed, but predominantly strong. Should the site be released, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined by the dismantled railway supported by the existing extent of residential built form in the north. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent. Site reference 040 performs moderately against local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose. Although the site and the existing Green Belt boundary does have a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the site is not connected to a large built up area, would have a limited impact on the historic core of Conisbrough and would have a moderate role in directing development towards Brownfield and Derelict land. Whilst release of the site would still maintain the wide, strategic, but largely essential gap between Conisbrough and the Urban Area of Rotherham and less essential gap between the smaller outlying settlements of Hooton Pagnall and Hooton Roberts, release of this land would result in coalescence with the ‘washed over’ Hamlet of Hill Top. Green Belt land at this location has a moderately strong sensitivity to encroachment. Site reference 826 also performs moderately against local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The site has a mixed role when assessed against the local Interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. Whilst the site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Whilst the site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, there are views to the Historic Core which are only limited by medium-scale detractors. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However, the findings from the Sustainability Appraisal does find that, although the 2 sites are identified as having the same effects for 28 of the 33 objectives/criteria, site 040 performs stronger on all of the 5 criteria where the effects are different. Site 040 has positive effects for access to a bus stop on the core network; is closer located for access to a primary school; has significant positive effects for providing a large affordable housing requirement given the size of the site; is not located on an area with known landfill on the site; and, does not impact on biodiversity. However, due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal site reference 040 is preferred over site reference 826.

087 Kearsley Brook, Sheffield Road, Conisbrough

43 Rejected Housing Site –the site would result in inappropriate development in an area susceptible to flooding from surface water and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.



Site Ref:



142 Land South of Sheffield Road, Conisbrough

110 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection work.

220 Garage off Sheffield Road/ Clifton Hill, Conisbrough

19 Rejected Housing Site –the site would result in inappropriate development in an area susceptible to flooding from surface water and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

221 Garage off Sheffield Road/ Clifton Hill, Conisbrough

19 Rejected Housing Site - Access issues accessing the site from A630 or Clifton Hill (B6094). Proximity to signals. Site topography issues – Site access gradient would possibly be outside design standards. Plus the formation of a new access on to a major arterial route operating under congested conditions. A full Design Manual for Roads & Bridges compliant design and full technical assessment required. A development of 19 units may be too small to support the necessary highways requirements.

251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main 327 Rejected Housing Site - Site already partly developed for electricity sub-station. May have sterilised access to Eland road (not adopted). Access problems as would not support an access being taken from Hill Top Road. It would be difficult to meet design requirements of Design Manual for Roads & Bridges due to geometric layout of Hill Top itself. The speed limit of 40m at this locale would require a visibility splay of 4.5m x 120m from drivers eye height ranging from between 1.05m to 2m at the set back distance to an object height of between 0.26m and 1.05m at the nearside kerb line and having assessed the available frontage in both the horizontal and vertical plan, the Highways Authority is of the opinion that these technical requirements could not be met and therefore a safe access unachievable.

256 Land South of Canal, Opposite Earth Centre, Denaby

289 Rejected Housing Site – the site would result in inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (flood risk zone 3) and fails the flood risk sequential test.

304 Land off Windgate Hill, Conisbrough

28 Rejected Housing Site - There are major accessibility issues with development off Windgate Hill. Issues due to topography - levels across the site. Very narrow road. Would require major improvements to Windgate Hill. Poor accessibility - no footways.

383 Hill Top Road, Denaby 125 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 6.1ha site which could potentially accommodate 151 units. This is greenfield land, currently comprised of a mix of scrubland and an open field, which also includes a skate park towards the south west of the site. Part of the western side of the site is along the borough boundary with Rotherham, with housing to the north, a mix of housing and open space to the east, and woodland to the south, both of which form part of The Craggs Nature Conservation Area. As an existing UDP Housing Allocation the site provides an opportunity for a significant level of housing for the settlement on land that is not Green Belt and not at residual risk of flooding. The site performs reasonably well in respect to SA demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects, although there are significant negative effects identified for unstable land and biodiversity, the latter due to the site being located entirely on part of a much larger Local Wildlife Site (North Cliff - reference 5.8). There would need to be significant mitigation and compensation for any habitat loss and the woodland along the



Site Ref:



eastern edge of the site would need to be retained and buffered from development by at least 10m. The design of the site would need to include a significant wide grassland/habitat corridor through the development connecting the habitat in the north to the wider countryside. This will need to be included as part of the developer requirements for this site. The existing skate park on the south of the site would also need appropriate buffers from any new housing and this will need to feed into the site specific developer requirements as a condition of supporting this site as an allocation also. The site is 6.1 hectares in size so the HELAA methodology/stage 2 has already discounted 25% of the site area through the gross versus net developable area and applied a fairly low density of 33 dph for the remainder of the site area hence the anticipated total site capacity of 151 dwellings. Given this, it is considered that these constraints would justify a slightly further reduction in yield for the site of 125 units, and it is noted that the site promoter was proposing around 200+ dwellings through the call for sites stage which illustrates the extent of the discounting being applied. Should a subsequent scheme be able to identify a proposal that addresses the mitigation required and provide additional dwellings above the indicative 125 units then this will be additional supply.

435 Former Depot, Sheffield Road, Conisbrough

15 Rejected Housing Site - The site measures 0.6ha and could potentially house 15 dwellings. This is brownfield land, formerly utilised as a depot. To the west is open countryside and agricultural land, with raised green space to the north west, disused buildings to the north east, and green field land to the south east. The site is small and currently allocated as part of a wider employment policy area which has also been put forward for consideration as housing (ref 087) but failed the flood risk sequential test due to surface water flooding. The site is being proposed to be retained as an Employment Policy Area. Housing may present wider amenity issues for current/future employment uses on the site unless the whole wider site was to be redeveloped for housing which is not supported due to the surface water flood risk.

825 Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough


826 Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough

80 Rejected Housing Site - The site is located to the south of the settlement and is 2.95 hectares in size and currently in agricultural use. The site is greenfield and capable of accommodating 80 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north-west/north-north-east with open countryside and agricultural uses to the east and west. There are a number of agricultural buildings to the south. See response to site reference 040 above for why this site is not being proposed for housing.

1000 Land to the North of Stringers Nurseries, Crookhill Road, Conisbrough




Site Ref:



1035 Land off Hill Top Road, Denaby Main

285 Rejected Housing Site - The site is an updated representation to a previously submitted site (reference 251) which was identified as having issues in respect to access. The boundary change facilitates a better location for a site access to serve the site. Information submitted appears to demonstrate that two accesses serving the residential development meet visibility requirements for a 40mph speed limit. The supporting document also states that if allocated an extension to the 30mph limit could be supported by the Authority, which would further increase the flexibility of the site access positions. However, Traffic Regulation Orders are part of Highways Legislation rather than Planning and therefore changes to limits are outside of the Planning process and cannot be considered as part of this. Given the above, the representation would need to demonstrate that visibility splays in accordance with 85th percentile wet weather speeds could be achieved to ensure robust analysis of the site. However, regardless of whether this can be achieved, the site is not being supported as an allocation as sufficient sites have been identified to meet the Town’s local need housing requirement, with a contribution towards the economic growth target as well. This already requires a Green Belt allocation for Conisbrough-Denaby (reference 040) and another more preferable Green Belt allocation (reference 826) has already been rejected which would still be preferable to this option.

1088 Land South West of Conisbrough

13,389 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a weak case for inclusion in further site selection work.

Main Town: Hatfield-Stainforth (inc Dunsville & Dunscroft) 008 Wynthorpe Farm, Dunsville 20 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.7 hectares and currently in agricultural use and is therefore

greenfield. The site is located to the north of the A18 and west of the settlement of Dunsville. The site is capable of accommodating 20 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and further agricultural uses to the north and west, including a barn/agricultural buildings. There are mature trees to the south of the site on the opposite side of the A18 as well as further residential uses. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

011 Land rear of 55 St Mary's Drive, Dunsville

15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.57 hectares and consists of garden land/a paddock and is therefore greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are residential uses to the east and south of the site and agricultural uses to the north and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.



Site Ref:



037 Land to West of Ingram Road, Dunscroft

431 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 19.2 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 431 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses, including a farm, to the north, south and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a very large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

086 Land adj. to Parks Road, Dunscroft

158 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

097 Land at Kirton Lane, Stainforth 19 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

105 South of Backfield Lane, Hatfield 44 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation.

118 St Marys Road, Dunsville 105 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 4.11 hectares and is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield. The site could accommodate 105 dwellings. The site is surrounded by open countryside and agricultural uses to the south-west, west, north and east. There are some residential uses to the south-east of the site. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

120 Manor Road, Hatfield 42 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

170 Land at Doncaster Road, Hatfield 60 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 2 hectares in size and is a triangular piece of land located between Doncaster Road and Hatfield Lane to the south of Hatfield. The land is currently in agricultural use enclosed by hedging and is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 60 dwellings. There are existing residential dwellings fronting on to Lings Lane along the eastern site boundary, as well as along the north-western boundary with Doncaster Road. The land is agricultural to the south and south-west. The site is currently Countryside Policy Area, but the granting of planning permission on site reference 970 to the south/south-west of this site has essentially created an island of non-defensible Countryside so for this reason the site is proposed to be allocated.



Site Ref:



171 Land to North Side of High Street, Hatfield

183 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation.

187 Land adjacent 17 Lings Lane, Hatfield

15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares and currently forms an extension to the domestic curtilage of No 17 Lings Lane, as well as including the dwelling itself. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west of the site and agricultural uses to the north, east and west, including a number of agricultural buildings to the immediate south. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

191 West of New Mill Field Road and adj. Back Lane, Hatfield


192 Land off Broadway, Dunscroft 119 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 4.7 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft and north-east of Dunsville. The site is currently scrubland with a number of semi-mature trees and is greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 119 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and south, with agricultural land/open countryside to the west and north. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

198 Land off North Ings Road, Hatfield

15 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of flood risk (surface water flooding) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

229 Pickup Land, Dunsville 747 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 33.2 hectares and is located to the north of Dunsville. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 747 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the south of the site, although there is a strip of agricultural land before the properties. Open countryside/further agricultural uses are found to the north, east and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a very large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban



Site Ref:



sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

231 Parks Farm, Dunscroft 1,344 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

332 Land off Manor Road, Hatfield 159 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

346 Robinsons, Oldfield Lane, Stainforth


348 Oldfield Lane, Stainforth 78 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

352 House of Play, 91 Abbey Road, Dunscroft


376 Broadway, Dunscroft, H9-004 40 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

378 Doncaster Road, Stainforth 20 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

381 Harpenden Drive, Dunscroft 50 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

388 Kirton Lane, Stainforth 22 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

406 St Edwins Close and York Road, Dunsroft


408 The Crescent, Dunscroft 10 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

457 Land off Waggons Way, Stainforth


778 Land adjacent Broadacres, Doncaster Road, Hatfield


784 Cuckoo Lane, Hatfield 36 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.21 hectares and currently occupied by a commercial building with hard standing car park area with a large area of scrubland on the eastern section of the site. The majority of the site is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 36 dwellings. There are residential uses to the west and educational facilities to the north and south with open agricultural land to the east. The site is already designated as Residential Policy Area and the landowner has



Site Ref:



indicated through the call for sites that the site is no longer required for existing commercial use. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal with mostly positive and neutral effects. Allocating the site will provide additional supply for the settlement and help boost housing in line with national policy on a former brownfield site.

931 Land at Warren Farm, High Street, Dunsville

57 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield and 1.92 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 57 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use with a single residential dwelling on the north-west corner of the site. There are residential uses to the north, east and west with the existing farm and its curtilage and further agricultural uses to the south and beyond. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

1008 8 Acre Field, Townend Farm, Ramskir Lane, Stainforth


1034 Land at Warren Farm, High Street, Dunsville

22 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield and 0.75 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 22 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use with a single residential dwelling on the north-west corner of the site. There are residential uses to the north, east and west with a farm and its curtilage and further agricultural uses to the south and beyond. This Representation is a smaller part of Site Reference 931. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1034.

1038 Woodhouse Lane, Hatfield 621 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 25.1 hectares in size and is bound by Lings Lane to the east, Woodhouse Lane to the south and Doncaster Road to the south-west. Agricultural land lies to the north of the site but this has planning permission for residential development (see site reference 970). The site is capable of providing 621 dwellings. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1038.

1054 Harpenden, Dunscroft 57 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

1122 Land to West of Ingram Road, Dunscroft

71 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.5 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 71 dwellings.



Site Ref:



There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses, including a farm, to the north, south and west. This Representation is a smaller part of Site Reference 037. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1122.

Main Town – Mexborough 068 Former Coal Depot, Pastures

Road, Mexborough 82 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk

(Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 139 Land North of Wath Road,

Mexborough 418 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site circa 18.6 hectares in size to the west of the

settlement. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and could accommodate 418 dwellings. To the north is open countryside and Lousy Busk Lane (a track); to the east is Mexborough Highwoods Primary School and Mexborough School, as well residential uses. To the south-east of the site there is Mexborough West junction, a recreation ground, and a public footpath which connects the existing neighbourhood to the A6023, Wath Road. To the west there is a railway line and beyond that there is Adwick Business Park. The 2018 consultation proposed this site as an urban extension given the relatively low level of housing supply identified which is largely attributed to the safeguarding of the proposed HS2 route to the east of the town (which directly impacts on the Green Belt site reference 154 – Land to the North West of Pastures Road, Mexborough). This is now a safeguarded route under direction of the Secretary of State for Transport as of November 2016. The advice in the safeguarding guidance for Council’s preparing a Local Plan is that the area safeguarded by the Safeguarding Directions should be taken into account. Where a Safeguarded Direction is taken into account in a Local Plan, it should be represented on the policies map (in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended). Adding information about the extent of the safeguarded area on the Policies Map is helpful for those considering development in the area, however it is important to note that the requirements of the Safeguarding Directions apply, in the circumstances described above, regardless of whether the safeguarded area is identified on the Policies Map or not. Local Plans should state that the Safeguarding Directions have been made by the Secretary of State for Transport. They are not proposals of the LPA and the routes in question will not be determined through the development plan process. They will be considered in Parliament under hybrid Bill procedures, which will provide appropriate opportunities for petitions to be made to Parliament by those directly affected by the scheme. There were a number of objections to the



Site Ref:



proposed Green Belt site including from DMBC Ward Members. It was also brought to the Council’s attention by the local community that the site area included an important southern part that would help facilitate access into the site that is not believed to be in the ownership of the site promoter. The Council owns this land although the call for sites stated the whole site was in single ownership by the site promoter and has recently had investment in terms of greenspace and equipment (Manvers Road Park). The site is one of the most important areas of Green Belt in the borough given the merging of Mexborough (DMBC) with Wath Upon Dearne (RMBC). The site is no longer supported therefore as an allocation and has already been filtered out at Stage 5 of the process. The shortfall in units for Mexborugh will be made good through allocations elsewhere at the Main Urban Area and other Main Towns in line with previous Local Plan consultation commitments and Policies 2/3 of the emerging Local Plan.

154 Land to the North West of Pastures Road, Mexborough

489 Rejected Housing Site – Large urban extension site extending to 21.8 hectares to the north-east of the settlement. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 489 dwellings. To the west and south of the site are existing residential uses. There is open countryside/agricultural land to the north and north-east. A new housing development is currently under construction to the south-east of the site (Pastures Road). A small part of the site adjacent to Clayfield Avenue is a current UDP Housing Allocation which has not yet been developed, to the east of this is a larger area of the site which is currently designated as Open Space Policy Area, so these parts are not in the Green Belt. The remainder of the site to the north and north-west is the part that is designated Green Belt. Although this site has a stronger Green Belt case for further site selection, relative to Green Belt site reference 139 (plus a large part of this site is non-Green Belt anyway given its current Housing/Open Space allocation in the UDP), the site lies directly on the route of HS2 and this is now a safeguarded route under direction of the Secretary of State for Transport as of November 2016. The advice in the safeguarding guidance for Council’s preparing a Local Plan is that the area safeguarded by the Safeguarding Directions should be taken into account. Where a Safeguarded Direction is taken into account in a Local Plan, it should be represented on the policies map (in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended). Adding information about the extent of the safeguarded area on the Proposals Map is helpful for those considering development in the area, however it is important to note that the requirements of the Safeguarding Directions apply, in the circumstances described above, regardless of whether the safeguarded area is identified on the Proposals Map or not. Local Plans should state that the Safeguarding Directions have been made by the Secretary of State for Transport. They are not proposals of the LPA and the routes in question will not be determined through the development plan process. They will be considered in Parliament under hybrid Bill procedures, which will provide appropriate opportunities for petitions to be made to Parliament by



Site Ref:



those directly affected by the scheme. Prior to the HS2 Safeguarding Direction, this site would be a logical expansion for Mexborough given part of the site is non-Green Belt and the remainder that is has a stronger case for release compared to site reference 139 based on the findings from the Phase 3 Green Belt Review. The site also makes sense in urban form given the Pastures Road development under construction to the east (site reference 731). However, site reference 139 does perform stronger through sustainability appraisal compared to this site.

155 Site A, Leach Lane Industrial Estate, Mexborough

16 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.6 hectares in size and previously contained an industrial estate although all buildings have since been demolished and the site is cleared. The site is brownfield and capable of accommodating 16 dwellings. To the north of the site is the A6023 (Greens Way) with Mexborough's town centre beyond. Station Road adjoins the site to the west which leads directly to Mexborough Train Station. Beyond Station Road there are various industrial/commercial buildings. The South Yorkshire Navigation Canal runs adjacent to the south of the site and further cleared former industrial land is located to the east of the site. The site is currently designated as Employment Policy Area in the UDP but there are no active uses on the site and previous buildings relating to historical employment use have been demolished. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects. Significant negative effects in relation to unstable land are found due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. The site would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed. The site’s proximity to the canal leads to potential for pollution to this surface water body but this can be mitigated through best practice construction techniques.

379 Garden Street, Mexborough 15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares and is located just north of Mexborough's town centre and currently in use as a surface car park consisting largely of hard standing and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west and north of the site and commercial/retail uses to the south and east of the site. The site is an existing UDP Housing Allocation that has not yet been developed. Although the site is identified in the Green Space Audit as amenity housing public open space, the majority of the site is currently in use for car parking. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. There were a number of objections received following the 2018 consultation with concerns that losing the car parking would have a damaging effect on an already struggling High Street/Town Centre; a number of these objections were from local businesses and DMBS Ward Members. Conclusion - reject site reference 379, although the site was previously proposed as an allocation the results of the 2018



Site Ref:



consultation show that this would be a significant loss and impact negatively on Mexborough’s Town Centre.

412 Willow Drive, Mexborough 25 Proposed Housing Site - The site is an open space which is circa 0.7 hectares in size and greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 25 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north and west of the site and allotments/further open space/sports pitches to the east and south. The site is currently allocated for Housing in the UDP but has not yet been developed. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. The site would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed (now subsumed within larger site reference 1048).

414 Windhill, Whinhill Avenue, Mexborough

112 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.3 hectares and consists of former housing stock that has been demolished and cleared. The site is brownfield therefore and capable of accommodating 112 dwellings. There are existing residential uses on all four sides of the site. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal with significant positive effects on affordability, market failure, and, re-use of land and buildings. Other effects are mainly positive or neutral. Significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area would need to be addressed through undertaking a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

834 Pitt Street, Mexborough 82 Rejected Housing Site – The site is 2.9 hectares and consists of open space and sports pitches and is greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 82 dwellings. There are residential uses to the north, east and west of the site with further open space to the south. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects, with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land and negative effects for the loss of an existing open space. Although the site would be a sustainable housing site, the site is currently public open space which is being proposed to be retained through the Local Plan

1048 Schofield Street, Mexborough 74 Proposed Housing Site - The site is greenfield having previously been used for allotments but is in a run down and poor state condition. The site extends to 2.45 hectares and is capable of accommodating 74 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects, with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land and negative effects for the loss of an existing open space. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1048

Main Town - Rossington



Site Ref:



247 Former Rossington Colliery, off West End Lane, New Rossington

230 Proposed Housing Site – The site extends to 9.26 hectares and consists of part of the former colliery site and spoil tip and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 230 dwellings. To the north of the site is the wider former colliery site which is now under construction for housing. The new IPort strategic distribution facility is under construction to the west of the site and further colliery restoration to the south. There is dense woodland (Holmes Carr) to the east of the site beyond which are further residential uses. The site would form an additional phase to the colliery site currently being developed for 1,200 new dwellings. However, it is now understood that (due to build out density) the original 1,200 capacity of the site to the north is not now going to be achieved so this additional area is allocated to make good the shortfall in units.

302 Land off Stripe Road, Rossington (1)

180 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement.

305 Land off Stripe Road, Rossington (2)


306 Land off Grange Lane, Rossington


307 Rossington Hall Golf Developments

5,800 (but see detail in write up as to why this is so high)

Rejected Housing Site – The site extends to 234.3 hectares and consists of a large expanse of land to the east of the settlement. The site is currently primarily agricultural land and woodland, but also includes Rossington Hall Hotel and Northern Racing College. The site is largely greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 5,800 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west of the site and primarily agricultural uses and woodland to the north, east and south. The East Coast Main Line runs adjacent to the west of the site and A638 along the eastern edge. However, the high capacity is based on entirely being developed for residential uses, whereas the site is currently the subject of a planning application (reference: 16/00207/FULM) for the creation of a European Tour Destination 18 hole championship golf course, 9 hole academy golf course, with clubhouse and associated infrastructure/ancillary development. The proposal also includes 500 aspirational fairway homes, which has subsequently been reduced to 400 homes as part of the application process which is seen as necessary enabling development. The potential for the proposal to act as a significant incentive, directly and indirectly, to securing inward investment into the borough, and to diversify the housing offer within the borough via the provision of higher-end executive or aspirational housing, is recognised. The new housing is being proposed on the grounds that it is necessary to finance the delivery of the golf facility. However, given the settlement’s housing requirement has already been exceeded, and this proposal for housing is tied strongly to the delivery of a European Tour Destination



Site Ref:



(and the housing is isolated and in the countryside which national policy, and current local planning policy seeks to avoid) the site is not supported as a housing allocation through the emerging Local Plan.

382/ 429/1056

Former Torndale School Fields & Gattison House, Gattison Lane, Rossington

92 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.5 hectares and is located fairly centrally to the settlement and consists of the former playing fields/open space adjacent to Torndale Infant School and the Gattision House care home buildings to the east and is therefore a part brownfield and part greenfield site. The site is capable of accommodating 92 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north, west and south and a school to the north-east. Although the settlement’s housing requirement has already been met, the site is an urban site and surplus to current requirements and is being promoted for housing. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage demonstrating mainly positive or neutral effects. Allocating the site provides some further flexibility for the settlement to ensure it meets its housing target given the reliance on the single very large colliery redevelopment for Rossington’s provision.

879 Land at Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate, Rossington

254 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

1032 Site A - East of Bankwood Lane, Rossington

438 Rejected Housing Site – the site is being allocated for employment uses via the local plan.

1039 Stripe Road, Rossington 478 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement.

1040 Off Sheep Bridge Lane, Rossington

27 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

Main Town: Thorne-Moorends

002 Bloomhill Road, Moorends 225 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

003 Land adj. Playing Fields, North Common


004 Land off Ivy Road, Thorne 134 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

005 Marshland Road, North Common, Thorne




Site Ref:



009 Lands End, Thorne 29 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

034 Opposite Golf Course, Kirton Lane, Thorne


060 Land East of Wyke Gate Road, Thorne


071 Off St Michaels Drive, Thorne 361 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

081 Land off Alexandra Street, Thorne

113 Proposed Housing Site – A site currently allocated for housing in the UDP (Site Reference 081 (southern part) and 343 – Land off Alexandra Street, Thorne) at the time of drafting has a pending planning application for 207 dwellings and has received a positive Planning Policy response including satisfaction that the sequential test has been passed. The site also has a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment as part of the planning file. The site is also therefore being supported as an allocation. Conclusion – allocate site references 081/343, but reject the northern part of site reference 081, to help provide the settlement with an allocation towards both the local need and economic growth requirement but also taking into account the flood risk constraints at the settlement.

083 Land to rear of Bloomhill Farm, Bloomhill Road, Moorends

91 (see also site ref 150 below)

Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

089 Coulman Bungalow, Church Balk, Thorne


130 Burger Road, Burger Common, Thorne


133 (N Plan Ref H1.2)

Land off St Nicholas Road, Thorne

24 Proposed Housing Site - A 0.8ha site, with a potential capacity of 24 units. The site is vacant greenfield land, with adjacent residential development. The site borders a conservation area. The site has been assessed as part of the site selection process by the Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as an allocation for housing for 24 dwellings. For this reason, the site is supported as an allocation through the Local Plan also.

150 Land Adj. Bloomhill Stud Farm, Moorends

2 (capacity reduced from 156 units due to the significant overlap of




Site Ref:



this site with ref 083 above to avoid double counting)

160 Thorne South Urban Extension, Bradholme Farm, Thorne

2,846 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. The site is no longer being promoted for a mixed use scheme (including an element of housing) so doubts around availability of the site for housing now also.

244 Land off Coulman Road / Broadbent Gate Road, Thorne


245 Land at Micklethwaite's Farm, Moorends

362 (see also site ref 313 below)


248 Land at Former Thorne Colliery, Moorends (Site 1)


276 Bloomhill Road, Moorends 0 (capacity reduced from 142 units due to the significant overlap of this site with ref 083 and 150 above to avoid double counting)


311 Land rear of Bryson Close, Thorne


313 Land North East of Micklethwaites Farm, Moorends

26 (capacity




Site Ref:



reduced from 425 units due to significant overlap of this site with ref 245 above to avoid double counting)

331 Land off Coulman Road, Thorne 26 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

343 Alexander Street / North Eastern Road, Thorne

74 Proposed Housing Site – A site currently allocated for housing in the UDP (Site Reference 081 (southern part) and 343 – Land off Alexandra Street, Thorne) at the time of drafting has a pending planning application for 207 dwellings and has received a positive Planning Policy response including satisfaction that the sequential test has been passed. The site also has a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment as part of the planning file. The site is also therefore being supported as an allocation. Conclusion – allocate site references 081/343, but reject the northern part of site reference 081, to help provide the settlement with an allocation towards both the local need and economic growth requirement but also taking into account the flood risk constraints at the settlement.


North Eastern Road, Thorne 53 Proposed Housing Site - A 2.5 ha rectangular site, which could potentially accommodate 63 units. This greenfield open space is bordered by housing to the south and east, a railway beyond a small green strip to the west, and fields to the north, which have also been submitted for consideration. Due to part of the northern area of the site (37%) being in high flood risk the site failed the first sift of the sequential test. However, it is possible for development to come forward on the rest of the site without any built development in the part that is Flood Risk Zone 3, although water compatible open space and landscaping would be appropriate on this part subject to wider Planning considerations. In order to avoid any conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan as far as practicably possible, it is proposed to allocate the whole site, but make a reduction to the assumed site capacity to allow for a scheme just covering the low flood risk part of the site (circa 53 dwellings based on average density/net developable area). This would be 22 units short of the site assessment for the Neighbourhood Plan which proposed 75 dwellings. The developer requirements that accompany the preferred allocations will make clear that there is to be no built development in the small northern part of the allocation that



Site Ref:



is flood risk zone 3, although any water compatible uses such as open space and landscaping may be suitable. Given there is no ‘more vulnerable’ development being supported in flood risk zone 3 as part of the condition attached to this allocation, it is not considered that the requirements of the exception test are needed.

426 Land at Marshland Road, Moorends


427 Land at Marshland Road / rear of Kingsmede, Moorends


469 Land at Bloomhill Road, Moorends

68 (see sites refs 083, 150, & 276 also)

Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. Planning application for residential development refused in June 2018.

501 Adjacent 46 Marshlands Road, Moorends

16 Proposed Housing Site – Post 1st April base date, this site has been allowed on Appeal by a Planning Inspector so is also now permissioned and capable of providing 23 dwellings.

503 East View Farm, Marshland Road, Moorends


505 South End Marina and adjacent Land, Thorne


508 Land off Marshlands Road / The Avenue, Moorends



Adjacent to Thorne South Station, South End Road, Thorne

25 Proposed Housing Site - 1.54ha long rectangular site with a potential capacity of 25 units. The site is greenfield with hard standing stretching across the length of the site. To the north and west are residential units, with a railway line to the south, and greenfield land with hard standing continuing to the east. The site has been assessed as part of the site selection process by the Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as an allocation for housing for 45 dwellings. For this reason the site is supported as an allocation through the Local Plan also. However, due to the Neighbourhood Plan looking to also deliver part of the site for station car parking as part of Policy T3: Increased Parking at Thorne South Station, the capacity has been reduced to an indicative 25 dwellings for the site to ensure a balance can be struck between the two land uses as current capacity estimates through the Neighbourhood Plan seem to be assuming the whole of the site will be delivered for housing. Although a higher density scheme may support a higher number of units and still allow an area of the site to be set aside for additional car parking, it is noted the priority in the Neighbourhood Plan is to increase the housing mix towards larger 3+ bed properties (Policy H3: Housing Mix). Conclusion – allocate site reference 510, but assume a reduced capacity of 25 dwellings.



Site Ref:




Land on the East Side of South End, Thorne

13 Proposed Housing Site - The site has been assessed as part of the site selection process for the Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as an allocation. The site has recently had planning permission but this has now lapsed so a fresh application will be required. Capacity of 13 units reflects the scheme as per the lapsed permission and therefore the latest evidence on potential yield. Conclusion - allocate site reference 795.

998 Land at Moorends Road, Thorne 505 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

999 Land at Broadbent Gate, Moorends


Service Town-Village: Askern 036 Paddock to rear of Holme Croft 26 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable

sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement 041 Askern Industrial Estate, Askern 84 Proposed Housing Site - A site measuring 2.9 hectares, able to potentially accommodate 84 units or

continue as an employment site. This is brownfield land, with existing employment related buildings on the west of the site, and the remnants of former buildings to the east. The site is surrounded to the east, south and west by residential dwellings, with agricultural land to the north. The site is brownfield and currently designated as a Priority Employment Policy Area in the UDP and is partly in employment use with the western part having some active uses on the site, but the eastern half, and overall majority of the site (circa 55%), is vacant and contains cleared buildings and scrubland/hard-standing. The site was assessed for employment through the HELAA but this assessment concluded the site should be considered as a ‘reserve site’ in terms of employment. The site performs well in terms of the sustainability appraisal demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in respect to loss of existing employment land in active use have been identified. Access to both primary and secondary schools is identified as being a negative effect so a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required. The secondary school is also at capacity so developer contributions towards increasing secondary education provision in the area may also be required. Significant negative effects in relation to pollution to surface water bodies could be mitigated through best practice construction techniques. There were objections to the loss of the site entirely for housing from local Councillors and the Town Council. It was noted that there are important business start-up units on the western part of the site which have had recent investment. There were also concerns around the Town having very little local employment land left. Although the settlement’s plan period requirement of 165 dwellings has been well exceeded, on balance, it is considered most appropriate to allocate the eastern derelict and vacant half of the site for housing, but to protect the active/operational western part of the site with an Employment Policy Area. This will help bring forward the redevelopment of a brownfield site already surrounded on all sides by mainly residential uses and provide an additional supply to boost



Site Ref:



housing delivery even further in line with national policy, whilst providing some policy protection to the land in existing and active employment use. Conclusion - allocate eastern ‘half’ of site reference 041 for housing and designate the western ‘half’ as Employment Policy Area instead of supporting the whole site for housing. Revised housing yield expected as being 44 new homes rather than the 84 units previously supported by the 2018 consultation.

090 Land to North of Moss Road, South East of Sewage Works, Askern

276 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement

195 Askern Miners Welfare, Manor Way, Askern

49 Proposed Housing Site – A site measuring 2.67 hectares in size and capacble of accommodating 49 dwellings. The site is designated as Green Belt and consists of a Welfare Club and associated sporting facilities, many of which are in a run-down state of disrepair. A planning application has now been granted (post 1st April 2018 base date) and has not been called-in by the Secretary of State. Conclusion - allocate site reference 195 as planning permission now granted for 49 dwellings. However, it is not proposed to remove the site from the Green Belt at this time being as the permission has not been implemented.

226 Land South of Church Field Road, Askern


303 Land off Highfield Road, Askern (Southern part of the site)

27 Rejected Housing Site – A large part of the site is covered by planning permission reference 925, although the southern part is within Flood Risk Zone 2 so this part of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium flood risk area – the southern part of the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

374 Avenue Road, Instoneville 34 Proposed Housing Site - The site is currently designated as part of the wider colliery mixed use regeneration area in the UDP. The site however is not included in the wider colliery permission boundary as per site reference 796, although this is the next phase and the layout of the wider site makes provision for future access to this site also. The site is included as part of the Council’s 5-Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022. An Inspector, as part of a recent Section 78 Public Inquiry concluded there was a reasonable prospect of the site being delivered within this timescale. The site performs well in terms of the sustainability appraisal demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in relation to distance to a train station and secondary school capacity are true for all sites in Askern due to there not being a train station and they all feed to the same secondary school which is estimated to be at capacity. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan may be necessary as well as a developer contribution towards school places. Although the settlement’s plan period target has been well exceeded, this site is adjacent to the Green Belt and there are no exceptional circumstances identified to wash it over with Green Belt. It is not considered that any other appropriate designations or allocations exist for how else to show the site on the Proposals



Site Ref:



Map so, on balance, it is considered justified and most appropriate to allocate for housing and this will be additional supply.

475 Land South of Oakwell Drive and Coniston Road


Service Town-Village: Auckley-Hayfield Green 007 Land adjacent 21 Main Street,

Auckley 25 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of

flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 049 Bell Butts, Bell Butts Lane,

Auckley 36 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission

site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

174 Land off Main Street, Auckley 80 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at medium risk of flooding (FRZ2) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

201 Poors Land, Hurst Lane, Auckley 48 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

223 RHADS Site 2A, Land at Hayfield Lane, Auckley

140 Proposed Housing Site - 6 hectare site which could potentially accommodate 136 units. This is greenfield land having previously been part of the RAF Finningley Airfield, and lies on a former RAF sports ground, which contains disused tennis courts. Site has a railway line to the north, and housing on all other sides. Immediately to the south east is a business park. The site performs strongly though the Sustainability Appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in respect to access to a train station and local centre can be mitigated through a Travel Assessment and Transport Plan and it is noted the site has positive effects for access to core bus network and existing cycling network. Negative effects in respect to school capacity (both primary and secondary) could be mitigated through a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the local area. There is a signed Section 106 Agreement in place that requires the front part of the site to be delivered as Public Open Space which was agreed as part of planning permission relating to the original Airport development. The top-north-western part of the site is also understood to be required (car parking use) as part of a potential station at the Airport which is still being proposed in addition to the East Coast Mainline Station further to the south of this site. Since the base date (April 2018) planning permission has now been granted Conclusion - allocate site reference 223, but capacity amended to 140 units in line with the planning permission. This is an urban site that performs well through the



Site Ref:



Sustainability Appraisal and provides well above the additional supply of housing required for the settlement in line with Policy 2 and therefore in line with national policy will also help significantly boost supply.

299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane 276 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

330 Land off Bell Butts Lane, Auckley 28 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

422 Auckley 1, East of The Hollows, Auckley

30 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

446 Blaxton Quarry Phase 2, Mosham Road, Auckley

357 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

464 Willow Farm, Branton 122 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

832 Land at Auckley 63 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

940 Site 1, Land East of Poplars Farm, Hurst Lane, Auckley

1200 Proposed Housing Site - The Local Plan (Policy 7: Doncaster Sheffield Airport) identifies the importance of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) to Doncaster’s economy, as well as the wider region (e.g. Sheffield City Region (SCR) Strategic Economic Plan & Integrated Infrastructure Plan). There are ambitious growth aspirations for both passenger numbers and cargo/freight handling which have been subject to consultation by the Airport operators through a draft Airport Masterplan (2018-2037) in spring 2018.



Site Ref:



The SCR Infrastructure Plan, via the associated Investment Fund (SCRIF), has helped to fund critical infrastructure, such as the Great Yorkshire Way. It further identifies the DSA Corridor as one of the top two strategic priority growth areas in the City Region, being developed as an engineering and aero-industry centre, alongside and including housing growth. In addition to road improvements, the need to further improve rail connections to the Airport is recognised as part of the Government’s ‘Northern Powerhouse’ initiative. The Council is supportive of growth of the Airport and a successful airport brings economic benefits for the borough and the city region. It opens both up to enhanced business and employment opportunities, and increases opportunities for international investment, as well as easy access to international markets for local businesses. A successful airport makes the borough a more attractive place for both people and business to locate, and also provides convenient tourism opportunities for the boroughs residents, as well as catering for inbound visitors. Should the goals of the masterplan be realised, there can be little doubt that the airport will be transformed by 2037. The Council is supporting an additional allocation of up to a maximum of 1,200 houses on land at the airport (Site Reference 940: Site 1, Land East Of Poplars Farm, Hurst Lane). The release of housing on this site will be strictly related to the clearly demonstrated delivery of jobs at the airport. This is with the exception of an initial tranche of land within this area which is being proposed to provide 280 new homes upfront, but the future jobs delivery mechanism requires that jobs are provided in time in lieu of these initial 280 houses, and before any further housing tranches are released. Further detail and justification is set out in Local Plan Policy 7 and supporting settlement background paper. It should be noted that the allocation of 280 dwellings (or any of the further 920 houses [280 + 920 = 1,200] on this allocation) are not contributing towards the settlement strategy or borough’s housing requirement. Any delivery of housing on the site will be additional and boost the overall supply of housing within the borough. As such, any housing delivery from the site is not included in the summary table/trajectory below. The Sustainability Appraisal identifies potential significant negative effects in relation to biodiversity, surface water pollution and archaeology for the site which will need to be mitigated. However, it is noted that this is a very large site with areas of ancient woodland (Finningley Big Wood) and local wildlife sites (Hurst Wood) which will not necessarily be developed and the development will need to provide appropriate off setting and buffering to such areas, or provide appropriate compensation. Further investigations are likely to be required due to the presence of known archaeology remains of national or regional significance where there has been little disturbance and likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Again, the size of the site provides scope and some flexibility for a sensitive layout of development to account of any archaeological constraints.



Site Ref:



007 Land adjacent 21 Main Street, Auckley

25 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

1010 Land off Gate House Lane, Doncaster

162 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 6.6 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 162 dwellings. The site is scrubland and greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the west of the site. Doncaster Sheffield Airport is located to the east and south and a railway line runs along the northern edge beyond which is a quarry. Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

1013 Land at Auckley Common, Common Lane, Auckley

155 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 6.3 hectares in size and is capable of accommodating 155 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. There are allotments to the west of the site beyond which are existing residential uses and further residential development to the north-east. There are agricultural uses to the north and south of the site with a farm to the north-eastern edge. Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met.

Service Town-Village: Barnburgh-Harlington 095 Hollowgate, Barnburgh 19 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield, currently pastureland, and sandwiched between housing

to the north and south. To the west is woodland, with a field to the east. This is a small site which is located entirely on top of a landfill site where there may be issues around the history of the site and its ground conditions/gas emissions therefore possible deliverability issues with developing the site for housing. Given this, it is not proposed to support the site for allocation, however the site is being proposed to be washed over with Residential Policy Area which would still allow small scale housing development to come forward if appropriate mitigation can be identified and subject to wider Development Management considerations.

143 Land North of Primary School, Church Lane, Barnburgh

51 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield, currently utilised for agriculture, and slopes gently upwards to the north. To the north and west are residential dwellings, with fields to the east, and Barnburgh Primary School to the south. There is a less sensitive Green Belt site option available elsewhere at the settlement (reference 777) sufficient to deliver the Village’s housing requirement and significant negative effects through developing this site for housing in respect to built heritage and archaeology which may not be possible to resolve even with mitigation.



Site Ref:



777 Plot 3, Harlington 66 Proposed Housing Site – The Green Belt Review finds a slight preference for site reference 777 over 143 in Green Belt purposes terms. In addition to this, site reference 777 performs stronger on Sustainability Appraisal compared to site reference 143.

1003 Paddock adjacent to Manor Farm, Hickleton Road, Barnburgh

19 Rejected Housing Site – The Green Belt Review identified the site has a moderately weak case for progressing further through the site selection methodology

1004 Field adjacent to Manor Farm, Hickleton Road, Barnburgh

55 Rejected Housing Site – The Green Belt Review identified the site has a moderately weak case for progressing further through the site selection methodology

Service Town-Village: Barnby-Dun 108 White House Farm, Bramwith

Lane, Barnby Dun 176 Rejected Housing Site – Although around 34% of the site’s area is not within a high flood risk zone

(Flood Risk Zone 3) the part of the site that is low flood risk may not be sufficient to provide the settlement’s remaining housing target and makes less sense in urban form compared to site 147.

125 Park Hill, Armthorpe Lane, Barnby Dun


147 Land to the North of Hatfield Lane, Barnby Dun

98 Proposed Housing Site – Around 42% of the site’s area is not within an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site is being proposed to be allocated, but with a reduced site capacity of 98 units (total site could accommodate 266 new homes) which would mean no more vulnerable residential development will be directed to an area of high flood risk and no requirement for the flood risk exception tests therefore. Although water compatible uses such as public open space and landscaping are appropriate in the part of the site that is flood risk zone 3 (subject to wider Planning considerations) so this is estimated as being a fairly cautious capacity.

228 Land at Barnby Dun 32 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

233 Well Green Farmstead, High Street, Barnby Dun


329 Off the Grove, Barnby Dun 26 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.



Site Ref:



347 Margatroyds, Stainforth Lane, Barnby Dun


1007 Land to the South East of Cuneigarth, Bramwith Lane, Barnby Dun


Service Town-Village: Bawtry 141 Westwood Road, Bawtry 20 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 0.7 hectare triangular shaped greenfield site in agricultural use

located to the south-west of Bawtry, bound by the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough boundary along the southern and western perimeters. The site has potential to accommodate 20 dwellings. The site adjoins existing residential development to the eastern boundary with open agricultural land beyond the southern and western site boundaries. The site is currently designated as Green Belt. However, the Phase 3 Green Belt Review has identified that there is a “strong case” for the site to be considered further through the site selection process; this was one of only 2 sites that were assessed by the Phase 3 Review where this conclusion was reached. Were the site to be removed from the Green Belt then the boundary would be strongly defined in the west and north east and moderately strongly defined in the south. Its removal would represent a strong resultant Green Belt boundary which rounds off the built form of Bawtry. Given the scale and distinctly separate nature of the site from the wider general area, the site is considered to contain land which is low sensitivity to encroachment, however which contains no built form. The site has a weak role is preserving the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, makes no discernible contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging and has a limited role in preserving the setting of the historic core of Bawtry. It is not considered to have a role in supporting urban regeneration either. The Green Belt Topic Paper has demonstrated exceptional circumstances exist to remove the site from the Green Belt in line with the relevant case law and national policy. A previous Outline planning application in 2016 was withdrawn on the site due to the current Green Belt designation which would be removed through allocation of the site through the local plan process. There are insufficient site options remaining at the settlement to meet the local need requirement without the allocation of this site and it is not considered that its current Green Belt designation can be defended. The findings from the sustainability appraisal show that the site mainly has positive and neutral effects. Negative effects for access to a train station, primary and secondary school could be mitigated through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Likewise, capacity constraints at both the primary and secondary school may require a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the area. Significant negative effects on pollution to a surface water body could be mitigated through best practice construction techniques.



Site Ref:



146 Tickhill Road, Bawtry 302 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work

172 Land off Narrow Lane, Bawtry 92 Rejected Housing Site - Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative solution.280 Tall Trees, Rear of 17 Thorne

Road, Bawtry 8 Rejected Housing Site - Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative solution.

499/1045

Great North Road, Bawtry 16 Proposed Housing Site - the site is a small greenfield urban site around 0.5 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 16 dwellings. The site is already allocated for housing in the UDP. The findings from the sustainability appraisal show that site mainly has positive and neutral effects. Negative effects for access to a train station and secondary school could be mitigated through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Likewise, capacity constraints at both the primary and secondary school may require a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the area, although this is a relatively small site at just 16 new homes so the effects will be minimalised. The landowner is promoting the site through the Local Plan process and the site is therefore supported as its re-allocation will provide a significant proportion (16 units) of the settlement’s remaining local needs housing target through the use of a well located sustainable urban site.

780 Land at Thorne Road, Bawtry 72 Rejected Housing Site – A large part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2, and a small part Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium-high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

786 South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry 8 Rejected Housing Site - Site fronts to Cockhill Close which is not an adopted public highway therefore could not support development.

873 Site A, Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry

214 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

874 Site B, (Safeguarded), Land at Martin Common Farm, Bawtry

367 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt and was put forward for consideration as Safeguarding land in conjunction with a housing allocation of site ref 873 which has not been supported given the findings above. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

995 Menagerie Wood, Bawtry 60 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

996 Land West of Bawtry Hall, Bawtry 130 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

1006 Land off Towngate, Bawtry 8 Rejected Housing Site - This is a small urban site which is landlocked with no apparent means of access to the site at present. The site promoter has confirmed that the site is only accessible subject to resolution of an ongoing boundary dispute so doubts around availability at the present time.

1017 Land at Martin Grange Farm, Bawtry




Site Ref:



1087 Narrow Lane, Bawtry and Bawtry Road, Austerfield

102 Rejected Housing Site - See site Refs 172 & 280 above – the site promoters have merged these sites and are now proposing access to be taken from Thorne Road following demolition of a dwelling (No 17 Thorne Road – see site ref 280) to gain access to the field at the rear (site ref 172) to address the constraints identified with Narrow Lane. An adoptable access at this location would not be acceptable as it falls within the visibility splay of the adjacent junction (Highfield Road). New direct accesses shall only be sited where they do not encroach on visibility requirements of adjoining direct accesses or junctions in regular use. This determines the minimum spacings of new accesses.

Service Town-Village: Carcroft-Skellow042 Land to the rear of Skellow Hall 78 Rejected Housing Site – the majority of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site

would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

145 Land at Skellow 160 Rejected Housing Site – a significant part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

165 Land North of A1, Skellow 300 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 15.1ha site to the north west of Skellow, with a potential capacity of 340 dwellings. The site is greenfield, and currently utilised as agricultural land. It is bordered to the west by the A1(M), and residential dwellings to the south and east. To the north are fields, with a house situated immediately to the north west corner of the site. The site is Green Belt and the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concluded that there is a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the North. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strong and the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a natural rounding off of Skellow. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis, and the site is considered to have a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site has attracted a large number of objections from the local community following the Draft Policies & Proposed Sites consultation in 2018. It is recognised that the total site capacity of 340 dwellings was all proposed and significantly larger than the Town’s housing need requirement of 250 new homes. Objections have included loss of Green Belt, increase in highways and congestion to the area, lack of infrastructure to accommodate 340 new homes. Conclusion - still allocate site references 165/186 as the site provides the only option for the settlement to meet its local



Site Ref:



housing need requirement without the use of land that is at high risk of flooding from main rivers (FRZ3). Further to this, most of the FRZ3 sites are also Green Belt and have been found to have less of a case for progressing through the site selection methodology compared to site 165/186. The concerns from the consultation have been taken into account and to help mitigate these issues the capacity is being reduced by 40 new homes to 300. Developer requirements require significant onsite green landscaping to the A1(M) on the west of the site to help with acoustic buffering and complement the existing tree corridor adjacent to the A1(M). New housing will also be setback from the existing properties on Crabgate Lane to the western edge of the site. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required and development will require bus provision. Contributions towards education and new onsite public open space will also be necessary.

185 Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, Skellow

334 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

186 Land of Crabgate Lane, Skellow See site reference

165 above

Proposed Housing Site – see response as per site reference 165 above

273 Askern Road, Carcroft 226 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

367

1-29 Buttermere Close Garages, Buttermere Close, Carcroft


398 Owston Road, Carcroft 39 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

401 Sandyfields View, Carcroft 7 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

1005 Land to the West of Repton Road, Skellow




Site Ref:



1089 Land to East of New Street, Owston Lane, Carcroft

155 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. The Green Belt Review also identifies the site has a moderately weak case for progressing through the site selection process.

Service Town-Village: Edlington 051 Plot 1, Land at Old Edlington 189 Rejected Housing Sites – Green Belt extensions to a settlement where sufficient

deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances case could be made to release Green Belt sites at the settlement given this position.

052 Plot 2, Land at Old Edlington 122 054 Plot 4, Land at Old Edlington 251 057 Plot 7, Land at Old Edlington 137 328 Land off Tait Avenue, Edlington 59 375 Barnburgh House, Edlington

Lane, Edlington 7 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.24 hectares in size and is primarily made up of a vacant building

(Barnburgh House) and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 7 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north and west and commercial uses to the south and east of the site. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP. The site is owned by DMBC and has been the subject of representations by the Council’s Local Investment Planning Team as alluded to by the Neighbourhood Plan. The site previously consisted of a former sheltered housing development which has now been demolished leaving a vacant and cleared site ready to be redeveloped. The site forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 and is planned to be brought forward as a new affordable housing scheme. The sustainability appraisal concludes mainly positive and neutral effects for the site with the negative effect being distance to a train station, but it is noted the site is located positively for access to the core bus network. The Neighbourhood Plan is clear that it has ‘no views on whether or not this site should be allocated’ although there is obviously a strong view (Policy HE1) on the type of housing that should be provided on the site were it to be allocated through the Local Plan. Although the requirement has already been far exceeded at Edlington, it is considered that allocating this site for housing is, on balance and weighed up against all other reasonable options, justified and will provide additional housing on a good range of site size/types that may be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers noting that the other allocations at the settlement are generally large sites. The site is sustainable and provides the opportunity to further boost the supply of housing in line with national planning policy in one of the most sustainable settlements in the borough based on the



Site Ref:



Settlement Audit (although its population relegates Edlington back down as a Service Town/Village rather than Main Town). Given the Council has a key role in the future disposal/development of the site as landowner, this is likely to significantly improve the scope for future development on the site to be in accordance with Policy HE1 thus helping to deliver a key policy of the Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan which has recently been successful at its Referendum.

384

Howbeck Drive, Edlington 45 Proposed Housing Site – The site is located to the west of Edlington and is 1.34 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 36 dwellings. The site is currently scrubland and is greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses to the north, west and south of the site. The site is currently allocated for Housing in the UDP. The site is owned by DMBC and has been the subject of representations by the Council’s Local Investment Planning Team as alluded to by the Neighbourhood Plan. The sustainability appraisal largely identifies positive and neutral effects for the site. Significant negative effects associated with the sites proximity to a surface water body could be mitigated via best practice construction techniques. Negative effects on landscape character and the site performs neutrally for access to the core bus network so a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan may be required. The site adjoins an existing housing area, mainly consisting of older people’s bungalows to the east, and the Green Belt adjoins the site to the west. There are no land use proposals for the site other than for housing. Were the site not to be re-allocated for housing, then the only other reasonable options would be to either: wash over and designate as Green Belt; or, wash over and designate as Residential Policy Area. The former would require demonstration of exceptional circumstances and it is not considered that any exist based on the Green Belt Review conclusion that Doncaster’s Green Belt is largely serving its intended purposes. As a medium sized greenfield site (1.3 hectares), it is not considered that a Residential Policy Area designation which, as its name suggests, largely identifies areas of existing residential land uses, could be justified in this instance for a greenfield site of this size on the edge of the urban area, so neither of these options are considered as being justified. The Neighbourhood Plan is clear that it has ‘no views on whether or not this site should be allocated’ although there is obviously a strong view (Policy HE1) on the type of housing that should be provided on the site were it to be allocated through the Local Plan. Although the requirement has already been far exceeded at Edlington, it is considered that allocating this site for housing is, on balance and



Site Ref:



weighed up against all other reasonable options, justified and will provide additional housing on a good range of site size/types that may be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers noting that the other allocations at the settlement are generally large sites. The site is sustainable and provides the opportunity to further boost the supply of housing in line with national planning policy in one of the most sustainable settlements in the borough based on the Settlement Audit (although its population relegates Edlington back down as a Service Town/Village rather than Main Town). Given the Council has a key role in the future disposal/development of the site as landowner, this is likely to significantly improve the scope for future development on the site to be in accordance with Policy HE1 thus helping to deliver a key policy of the Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan which has recently been successful at its Referendum.

Service Town-Village: Finningley 136 Spring Lane, Finningley 97 Rejected Housing Sites - All of these sites are currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and

would form an extension to the settlement. They have the potential to accommodate a significant number of units in total with the smallest site capable of providing 31 units, and the largest capable of 827 dwellings. The exception to this being Site Reference 317 which is part Residential Policy Area (western part) and part Countryside Policy Area (eastern part). Given sufficient deliverable permissions have already been identified that almost meet the settlement’s identified local need requirement it is not considered that any allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified. The part of site reference 317 which is within the Residential Policy Area will remain as such and this could therefore see some housing come forward on this part of the site as a windfall subject to the Development Management process. There is a small supply of 3 units on permissioned sites 1-4 units (as at April 2018) and the remaining shortfall (2 dwellings) is expected to be met by windfalls over the course of the plan period on sites within development limits.

152 Land at Finningley 70189 Land at Melton Road, Finningley 827 274 Land North of Cadeby Road,

Finningley 191

315 Land West of Station Road, Blaxton

31

317 Land East of Station Road, Blaxton

51

349 Land East of Gatesbridge Park, Finningley

133

448 Land to the East of Bawtry Road, Finningley

581

1025 Site 1 (Brownfield) Land to the East of Old Bawtry Road

321

1026 Site 2 (Greenfield) Land to the East of Old Bawtry Road

568

Service Town-Village: Sprotbrough 252 Spring Lane, Sprotbrough 185 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review

concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work 788 Land at Sprotbrough 259 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review

concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 872 Land at Melton Road,

Sprotbrough 177 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review

concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.



Site Ref:



929 Land North of Cadeby Road, Sprotbrough

80 Proposed Housing Site – the site has been found to be the least sensitive in Green Belt terms and would provide the vast majority of the settlement’s remaining housing requirement on a site that is found to perform well through Sustainability Appraisal and mitigation identified for any negative effects.

Service Town-Village: Tickhill 109 Land off Sunderland Street,

Tickhill 54 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review

concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. See Site Ref 1028 below however.

281 Land off Worksop Road, Tickhill 10 Rejected Housing Site - Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Bridges. Splay in accordance with 85%ile Wet Weather Speed and a new footway required along the site frontage.

356 Land off Lindrick Lane, Tickhill 153 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

357 Land off Wong Lane, Tickhill 93 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

452 Land West of Dadsley Road, Tickhill

116 Rejected Housing Site - Significant hedgerow removal required to provide access. Furthermore, significant widening and improvements to Dadsley Road including footways and new street lighting, as well as improvements to the junction with Doncaster Road. Similar issues apply if access proposed via Wilsic Road or Peastack Lane.

824 Land Behind Lumley Drive, Tickhill


875 Site A, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

65 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

876 Site B, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

102 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 3.7 hectares in size and greenfield currently in agricultural use and capable of accommodating 102 dwellings. There are residential uses to the west of the site and a primary school with playing fields to the south of the site. Agricultural uses and a farm are located to the north and east. There is no direct access to the public highway network and it is not considered that the existing farm access can be utilised due to visibility problems. Although the site could possibly be brought forward in conjunction with Site 875, which adjoins the site to the north-west, this site was one of the ones filtered out due to Green Belt conclusions so on this basis site reference 876 cannot be supported either. Conclusion - reject site reference 876, access is dependent on adjacent Green Belt site (reference 875) which was filtered out at stage 5 of the process.

877 Site C, Land to East of Doncaster Road, Tickhill

87 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.



Site Ref:



880 Land at Tickhill 88 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. See Site Ref 1028 below however.

930 Land between Lindrick Lane and Worksop Road, Tickhill

39 Rejected Housing Site - Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Bridges - Highly unlikely to be able to meet standards. Access only achievable to Lindrick Lane (rural- very narrow) - Carriageway improvements footways and street lighting required.

1019 Apy Hill, Tickhill

79 Rejected Housing Site – Access Issues - Apy Hill Lane is a single track lane subject to national speed limit without footway provision or street lighting. Furthermore the junction that currently serves the industrial development is extremely substandard. In terms of geometry and visibility and therefore this site is not acceptable. Does not conform to NPPF 108 / 110

1021 Stud Farm, Tickhill 26 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

1024 Wilsic Lane, Tickhill 12 Rejected Housing Site – Access Issues - Adopted highway runs along the southern boundary connecting Wilsic Road to Dadsley Road and as such, there would be insufficient separation distance between this and a new access to serve the development. Significant improvements would be required to road on southern boundary to facilitate an access into the parcel of land including widening, footway provision and street lighting as well as offsite improvements. Significant cost implications possibly making development unviable. Does not conform to NPPF 108 / 110

1028 Sunderland Street, Tickhill 74 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.5 hectares in size and greenfield currently overgrown and scrubland in appearance. The site is capable of accommodating 74 new homes. There are existing residential uses to the west and north and the A1(M) runs along the eastern edge with open countryside to the south. This site previously consisted of 2 separate and larger site representations (References 109 & 880) which were both unsupportable due to the findings of the Green Belt Review (moderately weak and weak cases for progressing further). The landowners have since ‘merged’ these sites and reduced the extent significantly which has been re-appraised through the Green Belt Review and found to have a ‘moderate’ case for progressing through the further site selection process. The Green Belt Topic Paper sets out that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to amend the Green Belt at Tickhill in line with the relevant legal and national policy tests. The landowners’ agent has also provided technical highways assessment and access to Sunderland Street is possible, but ultimately may require the relocation of the existing garages to accommodate suitable access on to the site. It has also been confirmed that the landowner also owns one of the existing dwellings which is proposed to be demolished to assist with accessing the site at the rear of Sunderland Farm Close. The sustainability appraisal stage identified some possible negative effects for the site, including accessibility to public transport and distance to both primary and secondary schools so a Transport



Site Ref:



Assessment and Travel Plan will be necessary. Conclusion - allocate site 1028. This is the only site that has come through the site selection methodology to help contribute towards the Town’s housing requirement for the plan period and help deliver the Local Plan’s spatial strategy in line with Policy 2. Exceptional circumstances to take the site out of the Green Belt have been demonstrated and the negative effects in terms of the findings from the sustainability appraisal can be mitigated, as well as solutions identified to overcome possible access constraint with the garages on the frontage of the site and demolition of an existing dwelling in the same ownership as the site itself.

1030 Paper Mill Fields, Tickhill 207 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review (see site ref 824) concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.



8.3 Employment Sites 8.3.1 The Council has undertaken the Sustainability Appraisal of identified options for employment sites

and the results of the appraisal are presented in Table 8.27. 8.3.2 There are significant positive effects seen for re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) for 9 sites

due to them being large brownfield sites (site references: 093, 438, 440, 569, 748, 878, 984, 1032 and 1096) where redevelopment will bring back into use previously developed land. 4 of these sites (site references: 093, 438, 984 and 1096) would also have a significant positive effect on bringing back into effective use known contaminated land due to 50%+ of the site area being identified as suffering from contamination due to previous land uses on the site (Objective 8Aii). Sites 091, 254, 265, 428, 526, 1109 also have a positive effect on bringing contaminated land back into use.

8.3.3 There are significant negative effects for 4 of the sites (155, 251/1035 and 418) in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv). Site 251/1035 has several large areas of unstable land identified and has not been the subject of any planning applications/history previously so this will require similar mitigation as per the above. Site 418 is a very large site and the areas of unstable land are very small and it should be noted that this site is also now a planning permission for a very large mixed use development (DN7 Project/Unity) which includes large areas of land not being developed within the site boundary and any issues with unstable land will have been addressed as part of the Development Management stage.

8.3.4 34 of the 65 sites (site references: 001, 013, 091, 093, 101, 149, 160, 183, 227, 308, 418, 421, 428, 438, 441, 461, 462, 529, 818, 932, 933, 934, 937/1031, 938, 984, 1016, 1023, 1031, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1107 and 1110) are located in flood risk zone 3 so negative effects against main river flooding (SA objective 11Ai).

8.3.5 A large number of the employment site options (50 out of 65) have potential for significant negative effects on surface water pollution (Objective 11Aii) due to the site proximity to a surface water body. Mitigation could be required therefore to reduce the potential for pollution through the use of best practice construction techniques in relation to storage age of chemicals on site and treatment of wastewater. These sites are: 001, 013, 091, 092, 093, 101, 149, 155, 159, 160, 183, 227, 258, 260, 299, 418, 421, 425, 428, 438, 441, 461, 462, 526, 569, 818, 878, 932, 933, 934, 937/1031, 938, 939, 941, 984, 1014, 1016, 1020, 1023, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1103 and 1113

8.3.6 14 sites have potential for significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 159 overlays a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.53 - Wadworth Carr Railway Sidings) which will need to be mitigated although it is noted that this is a very large site with potential for sensitive layout of development and buffering to avoid this designation. Site 227 overlays a Local Wildlife Site (site reference - 8.28 - New Close Wood) to the north-east corner of the site which would need to be buffered from development and a sensitive approach to layout of the development taken. Site 251 adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (Site Reference - 5.4 - Denaby Wood) which is largely to the north-west of the site and could be buffered from development. Site 418 contains 3 Local Wildlife Sites (reference 9.13a & 9.13b - Thorne Ashfield's/Poltontoft; &, reference 9.32 - Hopyard Hay Meadow). However, this is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed development. Appropriate mitigation and any compensation for biodiversity has been agreed as part of the Development Management process. The north-eastern boundary of site 461 overlays a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (Reference 3.3 - Size Ings) where any development will need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping in this part of the site. A Candidate Local Wildlife Site (Reference 2.52c – West End Pasture) lies adjacent to the north of site 878 and would need to be mitigated through buffering



and a sensitive approach to the layout of the development. Site 937/1031 includes a small Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.30 - Holme Wood) which would need to be mitigated were the site supported for development, such as sensitive approach to layout and buffering/landscaping to this designation. Site 941 overlays a Local Wildlife Sites (reference 4.31d - Hammond's Elders) although it is noted this is a very large sites so significant scope for avoidance through sensitive site layout and buffering/landscaping. Site 984 is a very large mixed use planning permission which overlays 2 designated Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.30 and 2.31 - Wheatley Park and Old Don Oxbows) which has been addressed as part of the determination of the application. Site 1016 is within a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.52c) and appropriate mitigation and compensation would need to be agreed. This also applies to site 1032. The eastern boundary of site 1020 is adjacent to Finningley Gravel Pit Wildlife Site (ref 4.44) where any development would need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping within the development. Site 1097 is adjacent to Bentley Railway Embankments and Ponds Local Wildlife Site so development would need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping within the development.

8.3.7 36 sites were identified as being potential strategic distribution sites (site references: 001, 013, 091, 092, 101, 149, 159, 160, 225, 227, 251, 258, 299, 418, 421, 425, 441, 461, 462; 517, 748, 932, 933, 934, 937, 938, 939, 941, 1014, 1020, 1023, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1099 and 1100) and therefore were assessed for their effects on landscape character and capacity (Objective 12Bi). Of those 36 sites, 3 were found as having neutral or positive impacts (sites 092, 258, 418). The other 33 were found to have potential negative effects on landscape character and capacity therefore an on-site landscaping scheme will be required to mitigate these effects. A further 18 sites (not identified as being suitable for strategic distribution uses) are urban and therefore perform positively against the criteria as well.

8.3.8 2 sites (references 159 and 308) have been identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to overcome, even with mitigation. Site 159 is a large site situated in between the villages of Loversall, Wadworth, and the site of the former Rossington Colliery. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site. Loversall conservation area and its listed buildings include the grade 2* listed church, grade 2 listed Loversall Hall and the grade 2 listed dovecote in its former walled garden. Within the churchyard lies an early 14th century Tomb Chest which is also Grade 2*. These are all within 250m of the site at its northern extremity. The Wadworth conservation areas lies on elevated ground outside the 250m buffer though a small part of the conservation area at Carr Lane comes within this. The grade 1 listed Church of St. John the Baptist at Wadworth is 750m south of the site but is in an elevated position and its square tower is prominent in the landscape when approaching the village from the north. The grade 1 listed Wadworth Hall is 680m south west of the site on elevated ground above the site and its immediate garden and parkland setting is a park and garden of local historic interest.150m south of the site is the grade 2 listed Wellingley Farm and the separately grade 2 listed barn. Site 308, if supported as an allocation, would have a significant adverse impact on 2 pairs of grade 2 listed cottages (Nos. 1-4 Clay Lane). The cottages are separately listed as pairs. The site lies is immediately adjacent to and opposite Nos. 1-2 Clay Lane. There are no other above ground heritage assets within 250m of the site. Site 308 would potentially have a significant adverse impact on 2 pairs of Grade II listed cottages (Nos. 1-4 Clay Lane). The site lies opposite Nos. 1-2 Clay Lane. There are no other above ground heritage assets within 250m of the site.

8.3.9 Significant negative effects on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) have been found for 7 sites; references: 159, 308; 418; 517, 937/1031 and 941. These sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Site 418 is a planning permission for a very large mixed use development (DN7



Project/Unity) which includes large parts of the site that are not being developed and will have been considered as part of the Development Management process.



Table 7.27 Summary of the SA Results for Potential Employment Sites

Site Ref Site Name 3

A(i) Distance to Train Station

3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop

(SYP

TE Core Network)

3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network

3B(i) Access to Existing Cen

tre

7B(i) Minim

ise Risk to Health

and Safety

8A(i) En

courage the Re‐use of

Land and Build

ings

8A(ii) Contaminated Lan

d

8A(iii) Lan

dfill Sites

8A(iv) Unstab

le Lan

d

8B(i) Highways Cap

acity

8B(ii) Fibre Broad

ban

d

Coverage

9A(i) Access to Public Open

Space

11A(i) Main River Flooding

11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding

11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from

Flood Defen

ces

11A(iv) EA Flood W

arning or

Alert Area

12A(i) Biodiversity

12B(i) Landscap

e Cap

acity

13A(i) Heritage Im

pacts

13B(i) Archae

ology

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation

14A(ii) Best an

d M

ost Versatile

Agricultural Lan

d

14b Agricultural Lan

d (with

additional work)_Score

14B(i) Groundwater Source

Protection

14B(ii) Pollu

tion to Surface

Water Bodies

14C(i) Air Quality

001 Junction 6 M18, Thorne North 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

013 West Moor Park ‐ 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

091

Land adj. to Fishlake Commercial Motors, Selby Road, Thorne 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

092 Balby Carr Bank, Balby ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

093 Marshgate, West of North Bridge Road + + + + ‐ ++ ++ 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

101 Land North of A614 / M18 Junction, Thorne + ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

149 Nutwell South, Nutwell Lane, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? ‐‐ ‐‐ 0

155 'Site A', Leach Lane Industrial Estate, Mexborough + + + + + + 0 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

159 Land around Wadworth ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ? ? ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

160

Thorne South Urban Extension, Bradholme Farm, Thorne + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

183

(Surplus Land) Kirk Sandall Waste Water Treatment Works ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

225

RHADS Site 3, Junction of Hayfield Lane and Gate House Lane ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? + + 0 0 0

227 West Moor Park, Holme Wood Lane, Armthorpe ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ? ? 0 0 0

254 Herten Triangle, Glwice Way ‐ + + ‐ + + ++ 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 0 0

258 Plot 1 Lakeside, Potteric Carr Road ‐ 0 + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 0 + ‐ + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

260 Plot 4B Lakeside, Carolina Way ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

263 3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate West + + + + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 0

265 Tear Drop Site, Wilmington Drive / Stadium Way ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0

299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane ‐ ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

308 Land East and West of Clay Lane West, Long Sandall ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 + ‐‐ ‐‐ + + + 0 ‐ 0

418 The DN7 Initiative + + + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 + ‐‐ ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

421 Tudworth Hall Farm, Tudworth Road, Hatfield 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

425 Land at Loversall Farm, Loversall ‐ ‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0






(SYP

TE Core Network)



tre

7B(i) Minim

ise Risk to Health

and Safety

8A(i) En


Land and Build

ings


d

8A(iii) Lan

dfill Sites

8A(iv) Unstab

le Lan

d

8B(i) Highways Cap

acity

8B(ii) Fibre Broad

ban

d

Coverage


Space




Flood Defen

ces

11A(iv) EA Flood W

arning or

Alert Area

12A(i) Biodiversity

12B(i) Landscap

e Cap

acity

13A(i) Heritage Im

pacts

13B(i) Archae

ology


14A(ii) Best an

d M

ost Versatile

Agricultural Lan

d


d (with



Protection

14B(ii) Pollu

tion to Surface

Water Bodies

14C(i) Air Quality

428 Land at Wharf Road and Whittington Street 0 + 0 + ‐ + ++ 0 0 + + 0 ‐ ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

432 Former Wheatley Hills Middle School, Leger Way ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ? 0 0 ? + + 0 0 0

438 Waterfront (East), Chappell Drive + + + + ‐ ++ ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ ‐

440 Civic And Cultural Quarter, Waterdale + + + + + ++ 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 ‐

441 Land at Carcroft Common, Carcroft 0 + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

461 Redhouse Lane (a), North West, Adwick ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

517 Safeguarded Cargo Area, Robin Hood Airport ‐ 0 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 0 0

526 South Quay, off Lakeside Boulevard ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

529 BLP Expansion, Kirk Sandall Industrial Estate + + + + + 0 0 0 0 + + + ‐ + + + 0 + 0 0 + ? ? 0 0 0

569 Askern Saw Mills, High Street, Askern ‐ + 0 + + ++ 0 ‐ 0 0 + ‐ 0 + ‐ + ‐ ? 0 + + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

748 Doncaster Sheffield Airport Ltd, First Avenue, Auckley ‐ + 0 ‐ + ++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 + + + 0 ‐ 0

818 Land off Hatfield Lane, Armthorpe ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0

878

Land at Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate, Rossington (Employment) ‐ + 0 + + ++ + ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + ‐‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

932 Site 1, Land at West Moor Farm, Armthorpe ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

933 Site 2, Land at West Moor Farm, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

934 Site 3, Land at West Moor Farm, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

937 West Moor Park East, Holme Wood Lane, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0

938 Site 1, Junction 4, M18 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

939 Site 2, Junction 4, M18 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

941 Site 2, Land East of Poplars Farrm, Hurst Lane, Auckley ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0

984

Former McCormick Tractors International, Wheatley Hall Road, Wheatley ‐ + + 0 + ++ ++ ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 + + ‐‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

1014 Land at Holme Wood, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1016 Land to East of Attero ‐ 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + + ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0






(SYP

TE Core Network)



tre

7B(i) Minim

ise Risk to Health

and Safety

8A(i) En


Land and Build

ings


d

8A(iii) Lan

dfill Sites

8A(iv) Unstab

le Lan

d

8B(i) Highways Cap

acity

8B(ii) Fibre Broad

ban

d

Coverage


Space




Flood Defen

ces

11A(iv) EA Flood W

arning or

Alert Area

12A(i) Biodiversity

12B(i) Landscap

e Cap

acity

13A(i) Heritage Im

pacts

13B(i) Archae

ology


14A(ii) Best an

d M

ost Versatile

Agricultural Lan

d


d (with



Protection

14B(ii) Pollu

tion to Surface

Water Bodies

14C(i) Air Quality

1020 Bank End Quarry ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 + ? ? ? ‐ ‐‐ 0

1023 Sewage Works, Lands End Road, Thorne + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 + 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1031 West Moor Park, East ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0

1032 Site A ‐ East of Bankwood Lane, Rossington ‐ + 0 + + ++ + ‐ 0 + + + + + + + ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1033 Site B ‐ Northern end of Bankwood Lane, Rossington ‐ 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1035 Land off Hill Top Road, Denaby Main ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ? ? 0 0 0

1096 Land At Marshgate, Doncaster + + + + ‐ ++ ++ 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

1097 Steel Supplies Limited, Arksey Lane, Bentley 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

1098 Land Off Little Lane, Clay Lane, Doncaster ‐ + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0

1099 Land South Of Holme Wood Lane, Armthorpe ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1100 Blaxton Quarry, Mosham Road, Auckley ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 + ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1102 Land at Balby Carr Bank, Balby ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 + + ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1103 Plot B3c, Water Vole Way, Balby ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 + + ‐ + + + + ‐ ? 0 + + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

1107

CH Power Tools Ltd, Hutton Business Park, Hangthwaite Road, Carcroft + + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 0 0

1109

Former Pyramid Printing Works, Bear Gardens, Great North Road, Adwick Le Street ‐ 0 + 0 + + ++ 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 ? 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0

1110 Marshgate Depot, Friars Gate, Doncaster + + + + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 ‐

1113 Carr Hill, Balby Carr ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + 0 + + ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0



Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Employment Sites 8.3.10 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version

(June 2019) sets out overall conclusions and decisions on site allocations. Summaries for each settlement have also been prepared by the Council and the reasons for selecting and rejecting employment sites for inclusion in the Local Plan are summarised in Table 8.28 below.



Table 7.28 Council Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Employment Sites

Planning Permissions

Site Ref

Site Name Gross Site Area

(ha)

Permission Type and Status

418 Unity (DN7) 428.37 Outline planning permission for industrial & warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use scheme522 Tornado, Redhouse Interchange 6.91 Development complete – 2 x warehouse units 528 Brooklands Road Carcroft

Common 0.76 Development complete – 1 x warehouse unit

569 Askern Saw Mills 15.14 Outline planning permission for office/industrial/warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use scheme

730 Bullrush Grove, Balby 2.04 Development complete – 13 x industrial units 733 Capitol Park, Omega Boulevard,

Thorne 8.94 Full Planning Permission and started. Units as part of a the wider of Capitol Park re-development

(multiple uses) 734 Junction off Hayfield Lane/Third

Avenue, Auckley 1.27 Development complete – 22 x 2 storey office units

735 Quest Park, Silk Road, Wheatley 1.41 Development complete - 5 x industrial units (this also includes site ref 520) 736 Land and buildings on the north

side of Land Ends Road, Thorne 6.55 Full planning permission for 2 x warehouse units.

743 Broomhouse Lane Industrial Estate, Wood View, Edlington

0.74 Full planning permission for 13 x industrial units.

745 West Moor Park Extension Unit C 16.35 1 x warehouse distribution unit – completed in 2016 746 Former Tyco Factory, Wheatley

Hall Road 0.71 Development complete including 3 x industrial units as part of a wider hybrid development scheme

747 iPort, Rossington 403.89 Strategic inter-model logistics park incorporating rail freight terminal. Approx. 50% complete748 Doncaster Sheffield Airport, First

Avenue, Auckley 14.25 Outline planning permission for Business Park (B1/B2/B8)

770 Zone B3, Carr Hill, Balby Carr 4.69 Development complete for a range of units (B2/B8 uses) 818 Land off Hatfield Lane, Armthorpe 12.74 Outline permission for 2 x industrial units (reserved matters pending)



Site Ref


(ha)

Permission Type and Status

984 Former McCormick Tractors International, Wheatley Hall Road, Wheatley

40.93 Outline planning permission for office/industrial/warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use scheme.

1096 Land at Marshgate, Doncaster 5.63 Outline planning permission for mixed use (former ref 093)1098 (Surplus land) Kirk Sandall Waste

Treatment Works 2.54 Outline planning permission for 6 Industrial Units (former ref 183)

1099

West Moor Park Extension, Holme Wood Lane, Armthorpe

33.45 Outline planning permission for storage & distribution units. (former ref 227)

1100 Blaxton Quarry, Mosham Road, Auckley

5.22 Outline planning permission for mixed use commercial and industrial development

1101 Parkside Industrial Estate, Wheatley Hall Road, Wheatley

5.23 Full planning permission for industrial units

1110 Marshgate Depot, Friars Gate, Doncaster

2.89 Full planning permission for office and warehouse use

TOTAL (ha) Additional Allocations

Site Ref


(ha)

Reason for allocation

001 Junction 6 M18, Thorne North 73.63 As with all the potential sites in the M18 Corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It also scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It provides an excellent job creation opportunity in the north of the borough and it will complement the successful existing industrial estates to the north of Thorne. There is an outline planning application pending for employment uses. The site has support through the Informal Consultation on the Local Plan which took place in September – October 2018 (see Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation Summary for further



Site Ref


(ha)


information). The Doncaster Employment Land Review suggests that if allocated 50% of the site could be developed in the plan period (36.8ha). Due to the extension of the plan period this would now equate to 70% of the site could be developed in the plan period. The majority of development could be for B8 and some for B2 (85/25% split).

092 Balby Carr Bank, Balby 11.25 This site is within an existing well used successful employment site within the Main Urban Area and therefore helps to provide additional land in that location. It has good links locally and is close to a large population.

258 Plot 1 Lakeside, Potteric Carr Road 8.48 This site is within an existing employment area within the Main Urban Area and therefore helps to provide land next to a well-used employment area which has good links locally and is close to a large population.

441 Land at Carcroft Common, Carcroft

49.28 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is a reserve employment site within the Unitary Development Plan and is therefore not within the Green Belt. There is a requirement the development to incorporate flood mitigation measures. There is a wider aspiration for the construction of a Trans-Pennine link from Manchester to Hull which this site will benefit from. The construction of the A1M to A19 link road will also form part of that new link. The site is within an area of high deprivation and job opportunities on this site would be greatly beneficial to the north of the borough. It will also help to re-address the balance of private sector investment which has been spent in the south of the borough. Due to the current infrastructure constraints it is considered that approximately 25% of the site (12 ha) would come forward before the end of the plan period. The majority of development will be for B8 and some for B2 (70/30% split).

517 Safeguarded Cargo Area, Doncaster Sheffield Airport

44.05 This site is not suitable for general employment use as it is air related, indeed it is shown as Maintenance Repair and Overhaul in the Airport masterplan. There are archaeology issues which will need to be addressed. It is proposed to allocate this site but as it is air related it does not contribute to the employment land supply.

878 /1032

Site A, East of Bankwood Lane, Rossington (former site ref 878)

17.68 This site is within an existing well used successful employment site within Rossington and therefore helps to provide additional land in that location. It has good links both locally to a wider area via Great Yorkshire Way. It is close to a large population.

941* Site 2, Land East Of Poplars Farm, Hurst Lane, Auckley

68.54 This site is currently within the Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site benefits from being in Flood



Site Ref


(ha)


Zone 1. The inclusion of this site reflects the importance of Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the support for it within the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan (which lists the airport as one of the seven spatial priorities for the region) The airport is viewed as a catalyst for business development, inward investment and job creation. The site is supported by improved access through the Great Yorkshire Way. There is clear developer intention to develop this site. It is considered that the whole site (68 ha) would come forward before the end of the plan period. The majority of development will be for B8 (60/40% split). The SA scores show that there are archaeology issues which will need to be addressed.

*this site is isolated based on the HELAA methodology however Doncaster Sheffield Airport is a local priority and a regional spatial priority within the Sheffield City Region Rejected Allocations

Site Ref


(ha)

Reason for site being rejected

013 West Moor Park North 86.00 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is recognised that this site could build upon the success of the existing West Moor Park to the south. Locating sites close together benefits employers through improved public transport links and road connectivity such as the proposed widening of West Moor Link. The Employment Land Review suggests that the majority of development would be for B8 and some for B2 (85/25% split). The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

091* Land adj to Fishlake Commercial Motors, Selby Road, Thorne

0.61 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site is to the west of allocation



Site Ref


(ha)


reference 001 and then Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site (091) could be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period.

101 Land North of A614/M18 Junction, Thorne

6.87 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site is to the west of allocation reference 001 and then Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site (091) could be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period.

149 Nutwell South, Nutwell Lane, Armthorpe

66.06 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is also within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan boundary and shown as being a Green Wedge. Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider all potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, and this site was not chosen for allocation. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

160 Thorne South Urban Extension, Bradholme

115.33 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Green’ in HELAA – attractive to the market. There is a requirement for flood mitigation and the creation of wildlife habitats and the developer can address this through the masterplan/design statement. The Informal Consultation on the Local Plan in September – October 2018 produced a number of consultation responses in opposition to this site - see Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation Summary for further information. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.



Site Ref


(ha)


225 RHADS Site 3, junction of Hayfield Lane and Gate House Lane

3.34 Doncaster Sheffield Airport is a regional and local priority and there are a number of sites in the vicinity which are existing and/or have planning permission. A large site (ref 941) has been allocated to the south west of the airport. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. Sites other than this one has been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

251/ 1035

Hill Top Road, Denaby Main

11.53 There are limited employment sites in the west of the borough and this site is adjacent to the successful Denaby Lane Industrial Estate. However this site is within the Green Belt and Stage 3 of the Green Belt Review undertaken by ARUP states that the site has boundaries of mixed strength and is Moderately Performing against Green Belt purposes. Exceptional circumstances are required to justify the loss of Green Belt land and it is considered that there is a lack of exceptional circumstances for the allocation of this site at this time due to the availability of other sites across the borough which are not within the Green Belt. The Colliers Employment Land Review states that the site is not particularly attractive for industrial development and that viability is an issue.

254 Herten Triangle, Glwice Way 1.83 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete for A3 and A4 use.265 Tear Drop Site, Wilmington

Drive/Stadium Way 0.5 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete as an extension to an existing

hotel. 299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane 11.45 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete as an agricultural equipment

showroom and training area421* Tudworth Hall Farm, Tudworth

Road, Hatfield 23.44 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it

is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. Highway improvements are required and the site is isolated from the existing built form of Thorne therefore it would be difficult to secure public transport provision. It is considered that there are better located sites in the area which are more suitable for employment use.

425* Land at Loversall Farm, Loversall 13.64 Classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. Site is within the Green Belt and there are no exceptional circumstances at this time for inclusion in the Local Plan especially since there are other far more deliverable sites across the borough which do not impact upon the Green Belt. There are also access issues – there is no obvious way of accessing the site as an access on to the M18 would not be feasible or viable.



Site Ref


(ha)


432 Former Wheatley Hills Middle School, Leger Way

5.40 Site is a housing allocation for approximately 134 units.

462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft 57.62 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within the Green Belt. The Green Belt Review Phase 3 states that there is a moderate case for including the site within further site selection work as it has a mixed boundary and is a moderately performing Green Belt site. There are no exceptional circumstances at this time for inclusion in the Local Plan particularly since there are other sites in the borough which are not within the Green Belt. There is also a wider aspiration for the construction of a Trans-Pennine link from Manchester to Hull. The route of which is yet to be confirmed - it is therefore unknown at this stage if there will be a need for the route to utilise some of this site.

932* Site 1, Land at West Moor Farm, Armthorpe

71.32 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. This site could only be developed if site ref 013 and site ref 933 to the south east were allocated and developed in order for access issues to be addressed.


54.48 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. This site could only be developed if Site 013 to the south was allocated and developed in order for access issues to be addressed.


13.7 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is to the east on the M18 and there more



Site Ref


(ha)


deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. There are also access issues and it is an irregular shape which would require site 937/1031 and site 938 to be developed first.

937/ 1031*

West Moor Park East, Holme Wood Lane, Armthorpe

62 / 78.73 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. The majority of the site is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. The site is to the east of the M18 and more isolated than other options that are available across the borough. There are other options directly adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development such as long term public transport access. There are also concerns over vehicular access from Junction 4. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

938* Site 1 Junction 4, M18

3.51 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. It is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider all potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. It is to the east on the M18 and there more deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. It would need to be combined with Site 937/1031 and site ref 939 in order to secure additional benefits.

939* Site 2 Junction 4, M18 3.43 It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. It is also within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment



Site Ref


(ha)


sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. It is to the east on the M18 and there more deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. It would need to be combined with site ref 937\1031 and site ref 938 in order to secure additional benefits.

1014* Land at Holme Wood, Armthorpe 6.31 The site scores similarly to other sites through Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. The majority of the site is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. The site is to the east on the M18 and more isolated than other options that are available across the borough. There are other options directly adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing long term public transport access. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

1016 Land East of Attero 5.3 Located adjacent to a well-used employment site. The site is currently within the Green Belt. The Green Belt Review Phase 3 states that there is a strong case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary and Weakly Performing – Moderately Performing against Green Belt purposes. However, it is considered that there are no exceptional circumstances for the site’s inclusion in the Local Plan as there is existing land on Bankwood Lane which has yet to be developed.

1020 Bank End Quarry 51.9 The site is currently within the Countryside Policy Area is designated by the UDP and is mainly within Flood Zone 2. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is not classified as isolated in HELAA, however it has limited access to the strategic highway network and is not close to a major population. It is considered that there are more sustainable sites in the area and has not been allocated due to the amount of employment land available and allocated at the airport and therefore there is a need to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

1023* Sewage Works, Lands End Road, Thorne

2.23 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP. Site 001 is an



Site Ref


(ha)


allocation which is to the north of this site. When Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period.

*in line with the HELAA methodology, these sites are isolated but also available and marketable and deliverable. Some are also reserve sites.



8.4 Mineral Proposals 8.4.1 The Council has considered options for Areas of Search for minerals, which are broad areas of

defined known resources. 8.4.2 Mineral sites are specific sites with a clearly defined boundary and evidence of a viable mineral

resource. 8.4.3 The Council has prepared a report as part of the consultation documentation called: Local Plan:

Mineral Requirements (including Safeguarding, Areas of Search and Site Selection Methodology summaries). This explains the overall context for the identification of potential Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search, sites and the overall selection process, which includes SA. The results of the work relating to the SA are discussed below.

Areas of Search 8.4.4 Council completed appraisal matrices for the Areas of Search considered are set out in Appendix Q

of this report. The results of the work are summarised in Table 8.28.



Table 7.28 Summary of SA Results for Potential Areas of Search

Site Ref Name Mineral Type 08d

Unsta

ble La

nd

12a B

iodive

rsity

Land

scap

e

13a H

erita

ge Im

pacts

14b

Agric

ultur

al La

nd

14c G

roun

dwate

r So

urce

Prot

ectio

n

14d

Pollu

tion t

o Su

rface

Wate

r Bod

ies

14e A

ir Qu

ality

Road

Net

work

Wate

rway

s

3 Area No. 3 South of Rossington off B6463 Sand and Gravel 0 - 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + -

5 Area No. 5 West of Bawtry Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - 6 Area No. 6 North of Spital Hill Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + -

44

Area No. 44 Land between Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Armthorpe Lane Sand and Gravel

0 -- 0 - ? - -- 0 + -

46 Area No. 46 east of the A638 (Great North Road) Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? - -- 0 + -

47 Area No. 47 Land between the M18 and Gatewood Lane Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + -

47.1 Area No. 47.1 Land between the M18 and Gatewood Lane Sand and Gravel 0 - 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + -

50 Area No. 50 Land to the East of the M18 (near Armthorpe junction 4) Sand and Gravel -- -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + -

51 Area No. 51 Land the West of the A614 Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + -

52 Area No. 52 Hatfield Woodhouse Sand and Gravel -- -- 0 - - -- -- 0 + -

54 Area No. 54 Land between Gatewood Lane and the A614 (Brick Hill Carr) Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + -

55 Area No. 55 Brierholme Carr Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + -

58 Area No. 58 Land to the east of the A614 and north of the B1396 Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + -



Site Ref Name Mineral Type 08d

Unsta

ble La

nd

12a B

iodive

rsity

Land

scap

e

13a H

erita

ge Im

pacts

14b

Agric

ultur

al La

nd

14c G

roun

dwate

r So

urce

Prot

ectio

n

14d

Pollu

tion t

o Su

rface

Wate

r Bod

ies

14e A

ir Qu

ality

Road

Net

work

Wate

rway

s

64 Area No. 64 Land between Barnby Dun and Dunsville Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + -

65 Area No. 65 Land to the south of Dunsville Sand and Gravel -- -- - -- - -- -- 0 + -

66 Area No. 66 The Lings Dunsville Sand and Gravel 0 - 0 - ? -- 0 0 + -

68 Area No. 68 Warmsworth-Conisbrough

Magnesian Limestone 0 -- 0 - - 0 -- - + +

85 Area No. 85 Skelbrooke Magnesian Limestone 0 -- - - - 0 -- 0 + -

88 Area No. 88 – Stainton and South of the M18

Magnesian Limestone -- -- 0 - - 0 -- 0 + -



8.4.5 The appraisal of areas of search did not identify any significant positive effects. Significant negative effects were identified for:

Objective 8d – Unstable Land: Site references 50, 52, 65, and 88. Objective 12a – Biodiversity: Site references 5, 6, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 64,

65, 68, 85, and 88. Objective 13a – Heritage: Site reference 65. Objective 14c – Groundwater Source Protection Zone: Site references 50, 51, 52, 55,

65, and 66. Objective 14d – Pollution to surface water bodies: Site references 3, 5, 6, 44, 46, 47,

47.1, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 64, 65, 68, 85, and 88. 8.4.6 All other scores were either minor, negligible of uncertain.

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Areas of Search 8.4.7 Reasons for selecting and rejecting Areas of Search are summarised in Table 8.29 below. More

information is provided in the Council’s Report ‘Stage Two: Assessing, Evaluating and Proposing Minerals Areas of Search.’

Table 7.29 Summary of Areas of Search for inclusion in the Local Plan ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons

3 90.78 Sand and Gravel N Mineral extracted at borehole location. Limited borehole dataand poor quality. Routing on a B class road may impact on the amenity of Rossington.

5 283.66 Sand and Gravel Y The two boreholes within the area of search show a significantmineral resource. However, the routing on ‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads through either Tickhill or Bawtry may be an issue.

6 337.02 Sand and Gravel N The four boreholes within the area of search show a significantmineral resource, but proximity to local biodiversity assets makes it an unreasonable option as an area of search.

44 100.92 Sand and Gravel N The boreholes within the area of search show a potentiallygood mineral resource. However, there is currently a pending appeal decision for housing.

46 197.22 Sand and Gravel N Mineral already extracted at borehole location. Limited borehole data and the granting of permission for a 25 year solar panel power park.

47 323.01 Sand and Gravel Y

The boreholes within the area of search show a significantmineral resource. Extraction has taken place within the surrounding area. The southern area has been developed as a leisure facility with fishing and holiday lodges. A large ‘off road’ / motocross facility is also located off Holme Wood Lane. It is proposed therefore to re-draw the boundary and allocate only northern part as an area of search.

50 457.77 Sand and Gravel Y The numerous boreholes within the area of search show apotentially good mineral resource. Prior extraction has taken place within the nearby area.

51 462.18 Sand and Gravel N The numerous boreholes within the area of search show apotentially good mineral resource. However, historic permissions show extraction may have already taken place in this area.



Minerals Sites 8.4.8 Appraisal matrices for the mineral sites considered are set out in Appendix R of this report. The

results of the work are summarised in the Table 8.30.



Table 8.30 Summary of the SA Results for Minerals Sites

Site Ref Site Name

Source of Site 08

d Un

stable

Land

Sc

ore

12a B

iodive

rsity

Scor

e

Land

scap

e Mine

rals

13a H

erita

ge Im

pact

Scor

e

14b

Agric

ultur

al La

nd

Scor

e

14c G

roun

dwate

r So

urce

Prot

ectio

n Sc

ore

14d

Pollu

tion t

o Su

rface

Wate

r Bod

ies

Scor

e

14e A

ir Qu

ality

Scor

e

Road

Net

work

Scor

e

Wate

rway

s Sc

ore

023

Johnsons Field, off Holmewood Lane, Armthorpe

Call for Sites 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 - -

035 Finningley Quarry Extension

Call for Sites 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + -

044 Paddock at South View, Austerfield

Call for Sites 0 - 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + -

066 Land at Old Mill Field, off Epworth Road East, Hatfield

Call for Sites 0 - 0 - ? 0 0 0 + -

080 Hazel Lane Quarry, Hampole

Call for Sites 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 + -

102 Holme Hall Quarry, Stainton Lane

Call for Sites -- -- 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + -



Site Ref Site Name

Source of Site 08

d Un

stable

Land

Sc

ore

12a B

iodive

rsity

Scor

e

Land

scap

e Mine

rals

13a H

erita

ge Im

pact

Scor

e

14b

Agric

ultur

al La

nd

Scor

e

14c G

roun

dwate

r So

urce

Prot

ectio

n Sc

ore

14d

Pollu

tion t

o Su

rface

Wate

r Bod

ies

Scor

e

14e A

ir Qu

ality

Scor

e

Road

Net

work

Scor

e

Wate

rway

s Sc

ore

235

Warmsworth Quarry Extension, Sheffield Road, Warmsworth

Call for Sites 0 -- 0 - - 0 0 0 + +

238 Land East of Kirk Lane Call for Sites 0 - - 0 - 0 -- 0 + +

420 Austerfield Quarry, Land North of Highfield Lane

Call for Sites 0 - 0 0 + -- 0 0 + -

780 Land at Thorne Road

Additional call for sites 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + -

1011 Land at Grange Farm, Finningley

Additional call for sites 2017

0 - 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + -



8.4.9 The appraisal of areas of search did not identify any significant positive effects. Significant negative effects were identified for:

Objective 8d – Unstable Land: Site reference 102. Objective 12a – Biodiversity: Site references 23, 35, 102 and 235. Objective 14c – Groundwater Source Protection Zone: Site reference 420. Objective 14d – Pollution to surface water bodies: Site references 323, 35, 44, 102,

238 and 1011.

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Minerals Sites 8.4.10 Reasons for selecting and rejecting potential minerals sites are summarised in Table 8.31.

Table 8.31 Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Minerals Sites ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons

023 13.2 Sand and Gravel Y It is proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development as it contains 500,000 tonnes of sand and gravel to contribute toward the landbank of permissions.

035 25 Sand and Gravel Y The representation contains sharp sand and gravel which will contribute toward the landbank of permissions. The proposal has been granted permission for extraction 14/00672/MINA – for a 4 year life span).

420 5 Sand Y This representation for minerals development was granted permission as a site extension in 2015. Permission granted until 22/12/2029.

080 11.3 Limestone dolomite N It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as an allocation due to the current landbank of permissions being around 25 years. This will be reconsidered as part of the 5 year review of the local plan.

102 38 Magnesium Limestone N

It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as an allocation due to the current landbank of permissions being around 25 years. This will be reconsidered as part of the 5 year review of the local plan.

235 27.6 Magnesium Limestone (Industrial)

Y*

*It is proposed to allocate an area immediately adjacent the existing quarry as an ‘area of search’ for industrial mineral, and the further westerly half of the field as safeguarded beyond the plan period specifically for industrial mineral.

238 11.2 Clay N

It is not proposed to allocate this representation within the Local Plan – see summary above. The representation could be determined directly through an application to the Planning Authority. Pre-application talks would be recommended.

044 1.05 Sand and Gravel N It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to accessibility issues, and no information on mineral type estimated output, reserve, proposed operations.

066 2.13 Sand and Gravel N

It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to potential impacts relating to local amenity and accessibility. No site specific information has been provided for mineral type, estimated output, reserve, proposed operations and timescales. Restoration proposal to housing is also inappropriate in the countryside.



ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons

780 2.56 Sand and Gravel N It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to no information on mineral type estimated output, reserve, proposed operation.

1011 40 Sharp Sand and Gravel Y

It is proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development as it has potential to provide 1.55Mt of sand and gravel to contribute toward the landbank of permissions.

8.5 Cumulative Effects of Site Allocations 8.5.1 The SEA Directive and SEA Regulations require that the secondary, cumulative and synergistic

effects of the Local Plan are assessed. In particular, it is important to consider the combined sustainability effects of the policies and proposals of the Local Plan both alone and in-combination with other plans and programmes.

8.5.2 Potential cumulative effects associated with sites relate to: Housing - As previously identified, there are significant negative effects in respect to unstable

land (objective 8Aiv), biodiversity (objective 12a), archaeology (objective 13b), and pollution to surface water bodies (objective 14d) for a number of the allocations in the plan. These are considered as being generally site-specific issues that require mitigation on a site by site basis rather than being a cumulative effect resulting from the allocation of a number of sites. There are negative effects however in respect to both primary and secondary school provision for a number of sites (objectives 8 Biii & 8Biv) so there is potential for negative cumulative effects in respect to these criteria.

Employment – akin to the findings in respect to housing sites, most of the significant negative

effects in relation to employment allocations are considered as being generally site-specific mitigation issues rather than having potential for significant negative cumulative effects. There is potential for cumulative negative effects in respect to highways capacity (Objective 8Bi). There are also potential cumulative negative effects in relation to flood risk (objective 11Ai) which will require appropriate mitigation informed by site specific flood risk assessments, including managing any residual risks.

8.5.3 Without mitigation the cumulative effects of development of the housing and employment sites

could exacerbate these problems, notwithstanding efforts of policies in the plan requiring appropriate mitigation and/or developer contributions and potential to secure Section 106 contributions on a site by site basis to offset any negative impacts, including towards education provision and highways/public transport schemes. The developer requirements for the sites included in the local plan (Appendix 1) also identify site specific mitigation which is additional and complimentary to standard policy requirements.



Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps

9.1 Conclusions

Proposed Spatial Development Strategy and Policies 9.1.1 The spatial development strategy is predicted to have a range of positive effects overall which are

likely to promote sustainable development across the borough. The provision of around 18,400 new homes and sufficient employment land to generate around 20,000 new jobs, with supporting infrastructure will help to create the basis for advancing balanced growth across the borough.

9.1.2 Principal positive effects associated with the implementation of the strategy and its attendant policies include:

o The concentration of development in and adjacent to existing developed areas of various scales, thereby helping to make best use of access to jobs and services, minimise travel and promote self-containment;

o Maintenance of the general extent of the Green Belt and use of the sequential approach in respect of flood risk;

o Re-use of previously developed land where possible, including strategic regeneration sites which will provide for significant proportions of the overall development requirement;

o The promotion of principles of sustainable development across the borough through such measures as: the protection and enhancement of natural and cultural resources, encouraging non-car modes of travel and the creation of a Green Infrastructure network which serves as a focus for a healthy and active community;

o Investment in strategic and community infrastructure which will help to ensure that the borough as a whole and specific communities benefit from the provision of adequate, accessible services;

o Policies that specifically promote sustainable centres which meet the needs of local communities and the borough as a whole; and

o Policies that are sufficiently flexible to allow for the development of appropriate dwellings in the countryside.

9.1.3 The potential for significant adverse effects centre on the generation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of new development, including increasing traffic flows.

9.1.4 The preferred option will see housing and employment growth over and above that required to meet local needs, with additional effects associated with the loss of additional greenfield land, consumption of resources and greenhouse gas emissions. There will therefore be additional effects within the Plan area. The Local Plan seeks to mitigate such effects where it can, e.g. by promoting transport choice and optimising the use of previously developed land and buildings. The preferred option could have significant positive effects at the city region scale associated with additional employment growth, re-balancing of the economy and a contribution to wider housing needs.



9.1.5 Suggestions for amendment of the policies to improve their sustainability performance are made in this SA Report, although these are relatively minor in character.

Proposed Development Sites 9.1.6 The Council has undertaken extensive work on the appraisal of potential housing and employment

sites and areas of search and proposed sites for minerals. The work includes identification of potential significant effects through Sustainability Appraisal and identification of preferred housing and employment sites, together with any proposed mitigation which is now being consulted on.

9.1.7 Overall the appraisal identified that for those housing sites in Doncaster, the majority of effects identified were either minor or negligible, with significant positives identified for affordability and for a number of sites with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The majority of the significant negatives identified were with regards to the potential for polluting surface water bodies, adversely affecting biodiversity and potential effects on historic assets. This pattern is repeated for the main towns and the service town/villages. In addition, for the main towns and the service town/villages, a number of sites were identified as unstable land with particular concentrations in Conisburgh-Denaby with six sites affected, as were nine sites in Mexborough.

9.1.8 With regards to the employment sites, the significant positive impacts identified were with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The potential for significant pollution to water bodies was identified as a significant negative for the majority of sites, with fourteen sites identified as having a significant adverse effect on biodiversity. Significant negative effects were also identified with respect to the presence of unstable land and the protection and conservation of historic assets.

9.1.9 With regards to the minerals sites, no significant positive effects were identified, with the majority of effects identified as either negligible or minor. Sites 023 and 035 were both identified as having a significant negative effect on Objective 12a (Biodiversity) and Objective 14d (surface water pollution). Both sites have the potential to adversely affect sites of importance for nature conservation. Sites 235, 420 and 1011 were identified as having significant negative effects respectively on: Objective 12a (Biodiversity), 14c (Groundwater) and 14d (Surface Water).

9.2 Next Steps 9.2.1 Following consultation on the material that is currently being consulted on the Council will prepare

the Submission Draft Local Plan. The Submission Draft Local Plan will be submitted for Examination.

9.3 Monitoring 9.3.1 It is a requirement of SA to establish how the significant sustainability effects of implementing the

draft Local Plan will be monitored. However, as ODPM Guidance (ODPM, 2005) notes, it is not necessary to monitor everything, or monitor an effect indefinitely. Instead, monitoring needs to be focused on significant sustainability effects.

9.3.2 Monitoring the adopted Local Plan for sustainability effects can help to answer questions such as: Were the SA’s predictions of sustainability effects accurate? Is the Local Plan contributing to the achievement of desired SA objectives? Are mitigation measures performing as well as expected?



Are there any adverse effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is remedial action desirable?

9.3.3 Monitoring should be focussed on: Significant sustainability effects that may give rise to irreversible damage, with a view to

identifying trends before such damage is caused; Significant effects where there was uncertainty in the SA and where monitoring would enable

preventative or mitigation measures to be undertaken; and Where there is the potential for effects to occur on sensitive environmental receptors (for

example the Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA). 9.3.4 In recent years Doncaster Borough Council has not produced an annual monitoring report.

However, it is understood that the Council will resume production of an annual monitoring report following adoption of the Local Plan. The annual monitoring report will contain both borough-wide and local figures which could be used to monitor the effects against a number of SA Objectives (including a number of those above). The indicators set out in Appendix E provide proposals for a framework that could be used to monitor and measure the significance of the effects arising from the implementation of the Doncaster Local Plan during the plan period.

9.4 Quality Assurance 9.4.1 The Government’s Guidance on SEA contains a quality assurance checklist to help ensure that the

requirements of the SEA Directive are met. Those relevant to this stage have been highlighted in the Quality Assurance Checklist at Appendix B.

sustainability appraisal of the doncaster local plan 2015 ...... · and was subject to consultation...

Documents