Rotherham | Local Development Framework

Draft Core Strategy and Sites and Policies Issues and Options Consultation July 2011

Core Strategy Draft: July 2011

Feedback Report January 2012

www.rotherham.gov.uk

Rotherham Local Development Framework Feedback Report January 2012 Addendum

Sites and Policies Issues and Options Development Plan Document: July 2011

Executive Summary This Report is an addendum to the January 2012 Feedback Report which seeks to provide a more detailed overview of the planning issues put forward in writing during the consultation period 4 July – 16 September 2011 in response to the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document.

These issues have been used to guide the drafting of policies for the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document and assisted in establishing a methodology for the selection and identification of sites for future development.

1 Contents NB These sections relate to the chapter & appendices’ headings from the Sites & Policies Issues and Options Consultation 2011 available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies

Chapter 3: How have we identified site allocation options? – P5

Chapter 4: Designations – P8

Chapter 5: Directions: Working Towards Development Policies – P21

Appendices 1-13 Site Options: ‐ Appendix 1: ROTHERHAM URBAN AREA - P28 ‐ Appendix 2: DINNINGTON, ANSTON, LAUGHTON COMMON – P37 ‐ Appendix 3: WICKERSLEY, BRAMLEY & RAVENFIELD COMMON – P44 ‐ Appendix 4: WATH-UPON-DEARNE, BRAMPTON, WEST MELTON – P50 ‐ Appendix 5 : KIVETON PARK & WALES – P53 ‐ Appendix 6: MALTBY & HELLABY – P59 ‐ Appendix 7: ASTON, AUGHTON & SWALLOWNEST – P64 ‐ Appendix 8: SWINTON & KILNHURST – P68 ‐ Appendix 9: CATCLIFFE, ORGREAVE, TREETON & WAVERLEY – P71 ‐ Appendix 10: THURCROFT – P74 ‐ Appendix 11: NON-GREEN BELT VILLAGES – THORPE HESLEY, TODWICK, HARTHILL, WOODSETTS & LAUGHTON-EN-LE MORTHEN – P77 ‐ Appendix 12: GREEN BELT VILLAGES – P81 ‐ Appendix 13: AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED SITES - P82

Appendix 14: METHODOLOGY: IDENTIFICATION OF SITE ALLOCATIONS - P83

2 Between 4 July and 16 September 2011, the Council consulted on its Sites and Policies Development Plan Document: Issues and Options. In response to this, in January 2012, a Feedback Report was produced which extracted the most pertinent issues that consultees raised. Due to the number of comments received it was not possible to respond to individual consultees through our on- line consultation portal, however this addendum serves to compliment, enhance and update the January 2012 Feedback Report through providing a more detailed overview of comments made. Taken collectively these documents form the Final Feedback Report for the Sites & Policies Issues and Options document. http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/6243/draft_core_strategy_and_sites_and_policies_2011_feedback_report_january_20 12

It is important to note that the Council has difficult choices to make and seeks to identify the most appropriate sites for future development. These sites are the ones that in our view are the most sustainable sites, that will meet the needs of local communities, are not remote from existing communities and will have the lowest impact on the wider environment. These decisions are often a balance between competing criteria, and the views of the community and stakeholders are one of the factors taken into consideration in identifying the best sites for future development.

In preparing the latest version of the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document, the Council has had regard to the comments received to individual sites. These comments have assisted the Council in selecting its sites for future development and in preparing appropriate policies to help alleviate some of the key concerns raised in the representations.

Further consultation will be undertaken on sites before they are finally ‘allocated’ (identified) for future development. These sites will in due course be presented to an independently appointed planning inspector for his consideration. It is important to note that there will be a need for the Council to allocate sites that are currently within the Green Belt to meet our future development needs.

We are not seeking comments from members of the public or other key stakeholders on this Feedback Report addendum. It is for information only and will help people to understand the breadth and complexity of the comments made.

3 Issues and responses to representations The following tables which are structured on the basis of the chapter & appendix breakdown of the Sites and Policies: Issues & Options document (2011) provide a detailed overview of the issues identified within the representations, with the breadth of these issues forming the foundation for the methodology used to assist in the selection and identification of sites for future development as well as guiding the drafting of policies for the draft Sites and Policies document May 2013.

4 Chapter 3: How have we identified site allocation options?

CHAPTER 3

Issue 1: Do you have any comments on the methodology (or way in which) we have identified the Site Allocation Options?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ Ward Hadaway (on behalf of the Colliery operators Hargreaves) Support the need for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed to meet housing and employment requirements. A local resident stated that in the context of the Government’s requirements, the Council had done a good job. Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ The Environment Agency have concerns that the text in Chapter 3 does not reference the use of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Rotherham in determining preferred sites. It is emphasised that preferred sites will be required to demonstrate that they have passed the Sequential Test and where necessary the Exception Test before they can be allocated in the LDF. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Fowler Sandford) consider that changes are necessary to the increase the overall level of housing with reference to the provisions of the (then) draft NPPF. A particular assertion is that is that over reliance should not be placed on large single housing allocations as these on their own will not provide a range of choice either for the population nor in terms of developers as they represent a restricted market for housing land. Allied to this, duty to cooperate is highlighted both in terms of the levels of future emigration from Sheffield and an approach that allows consideration of the housing needs in one authority to be meet within another. The changes in the approach to the overall level of housing are analysed with an approach which uses population rather that existing households as a starting point to consider the future pattern of distribution. ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance - SDBF) argue that there would be more benefits to delivery of a wider geographical spread of smaller, sustainable sites rather than the delivery of one or two large strategic sites. It is contested that by developing a variety of sites

5 throughout the Borough, the Council will provide a greater housing choice to a variety of different communities, both urban and rural. It will also serve to provide a range of house prices, types and tenures. Furthermore, the Council needs to ensure that rural settlements are provided with opportunities for sustainable, long term growth, supporting rural services and facilities as well as the larger urban settlements. In recognition of this SDBF support the development of various identified sites. Observations ‐ The Highways Agency state that they are satisfied with the methodology used in the identification of preferred sites and recognition given that comments submitted in earlier consultations had been taken into account. ‐ SYPTE are unsure as to how employment sites have been appraised as there is no reference to the use of the Employment Land Review in the evidence base. SYPTE see access to employment as key element of the Sheffield City Region (SCR) Transport Strategy. They consider that ensuring that employment sites are accessible by all modes of transport will help promote economic growth and allow for a well connected workforce where access to the private car is not a barrier to employment opportunities. ‐ CPRE SY believe the Green Belt review should have occurred before the assessment of sites, not as part of the assessments themselves. It is argued this should have examined where the Green Belt is required strategically to deliver its objectives and purposes and then factored this into the site assessment as a key piece of evidence. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes, CISWO and Taylor Wimpey Ltd) as detailed within their objection above highlight that they consider changes are necessary to the increase the overall level of housing with reference to the provisions of the (then) draft NPPF. ‐ English Heritage do not have any particular issues with the methodology used to identify potential site allocations, nevertheless, they consider that before deciding upon which sites to proceed with there will be a need, at some time, to undertake a more detailed assessment of what impact their development might have on the significance of heritage assets either on the site itself or in its vicinity. Furthermore, Many of the areas which have been put forward as potential allocations lie within, or would impact upon the setting of, one of the many Conservation Areas within Rotherham. English Heritage strongly recommend that the Council prioritise the production of Conservation Area

6 Assessments for all the settlements where sites are being proposed as Allocations. This it is felt will assist the Council in determining the most appropriate form of development for each particular site as well as helping to provide the necessary evidence the Council will need to justify the allocation of these areas. A suggestion is also provided that in the final version of the Sites & Policies document, it would be helpful to set out the potential constraints/considerations which might limit the extent or form of development. ‐ A local resident had concerns at the decision to pair or group settlements in order to award them both hierarchal status and development targets. Maltby & Hellaby being a particular case in point. The approach to establishing housing and employment targets was challenged as was the use as of agricultural land to accommodate settlement’s growth. ‐ The Coal Authority suggest that in terms of site allocations it would be prudent to include a criterion which assessed coal mining data. It is considered that this would be a due diligence check to ensure that potential development sites do not contain any mine entries or other coal related hazards which would require remediation or stabilisation prior to development. However, it is emphasised that former mining activities and related hazards are certainly not a strict constraint on development. The Coal Authority would therefore not wish to suggest that any potential sites should be excluded from allocation on the grounds of former mining legacy issues. In addition an assessment should be made of the likely impact on mineral resources, including coal. This will help to ensure that any potential sterilisation effects (along with whether prior extraction of the resource would be appropriate) are properly considered.

Details of all the representations received for Chapter 3 are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c240#section-c240

7 Chapter 4: Designations

CHAPTER 4

General Chapter 3 comments: ‐ The Environment Agency provide observations on Green Infrastructure corridors and policy development including a suggested setback distance for developments adjacent to watercourses and the integration of GI issues within design & access statements. ‐ Natural England welcomes and supports Chris Smith Natural England - Natural England welcomes and supports Local Wildlife Sites as a Designation within the Sites and Policies document. Similarly, with Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS), and particularly, Green Infrastructure corridors. Natural England also point out that any new significant development, changes or revision to sites, or lower tier plan added or amended as a result of this consultation or in the future should be subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust note that the proposed preferred and other allocations sites have taken into consideration the overlaps of designated Local Wildlife Sites and potential allocation sites, with most LWS site areas now removed from consideration as allocation sites. The preferred allocations sites and other allocation sites have not taken into consideration the RIGS and associated buffer zones, or other areas with significant and potentially substantive wildlife and geological interests and green space that forms part of the Green Infrastructure and Ecological Networks. Consideration needs to be given to noting buffer zones adjacent to designated SSSIs, Local Wildlife Sites and Local Geological Sites including RIGS, and excluding these areas from the preferred allocation and other allocation areas.

Issues 2, 3, 4 - Local Wildlife Sites: 2. Can you provide further information on Local Wildlife Sites? Local knowledge and expertise can contribute towards knowledge of these local issues. 3. Do you support the designation of Local Wildlife Sites in Rotherham? 4. What would you like to see in detailed local planning policy for biodiversity in the Sites & Policies document? Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support Issue 3:

8 ‐ Words of support were provided by Sheffield Wildlife Trust, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) and two local residents, one of whom also caveated their comments with concern that (from their experience) ‘protected species’ survey work undertaken to support planning applications does not automatically go into the RMBC wildlife database and given this the policy document needs to ensure that this happens.

Issue 4: ‐ Sheffield Wildlife Trust support the position of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and agree that RMBC needs to put more resource into this area. We will continue supporting the Ecology Development Officer but more resources would make a big difference.

Support with Issue 3: Conditions ‐ CPRE strongly support the identification of Local Wildlife Sites and they feel such sites should form a key element of green infrastructure and ecological networks. They should be planned on a landscape scale. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) would like to see a detailed local planning policy for biodiversity in the Sites and Policies Document. They would also like to see a strong relationship between Policy and Biodiversity Action Plans both at the UK (UK BAP) level and local wildlife group level. Policy should also include reference to BAP Priority lists in order to reduce biodiversity loss.

Object Issue 2: ‐ JVH (on behalf of a named individual) object to LWS63 on the basis that there is no clear analysis easily available within the document to allow the user of the document to understand what the basis is for the LWS selections. ‐ A local resident notes that development of LDF0761 could be detrimental to wildlife with various species having been spotted

Issue 3: ‐ JVH (on behalf of various clients) object to LWS designations LWS63 and LWS5 as per the reasons

9 identified under Issue 2. ‐ Indigo Planning (on behalf of SafetyKleen Ltd) object to designation LWS26 as they have commissioned ecology surveys which conclude that the quality of the wildlife in this location is not of any particular significance. They feel that the designation of the site could well unnecessarily stifle development and economic growth and prevent a suitable employment site from coming forward. Therefore, it is argued given the evidence relating to the known ecological value of the site, the designation should be restricted to the pond and its immediate surroundings, which comprises approximately 2 hectares. ‐ Signet Planning (on behalf of Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estates) consider that the reliance on existing boundary features (field boundaries, roads etc) does not produce a map accurate to the location of specific ecological values. Designation boundaries should be drawn as tight as possible around the specific ecological feature to avoid the unintended sterilisation of wider areas of land.

Observations Issue 2: ‐ CPRE note that whilst they cannot provide detailed evidence on particular local wildlife sites, they have been informed by many residents of the importance of the wetland habitats at the Rother Valley Country Park for bird life. CPRE SY believe the wetland areas within the Countrypark, especially those to the north (not the lakes used for sport and recreation), and their surroundings should be identified and protected as a Local Wildlife Site. ‐ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust provide a list of sites that within one of their ‘Living Landscapes’. These are areas which have been identified by the Trust as important for wildlife and with the potential to be enhanced for biodiversity. In these areas the Trust would like to ensure that where development does take place that it includes features for wildlife and where possible provide links to the surrounding habitats. ‐ Two local residents offer to provide further information regarding the valley to Roche Abbey and earlier modes of the management of sites in Maltby.

Issue 3: ‐ The Environment Agency state that they encourage the designation new sites of biodiversity value

10 (particularly those featuring wetland habitats and species) and policies that encourage, maintain and build linkages between them, also forming multi-functional Green Infrastructure networks. River valleys and canal corridors can form an important element of the 'ecological framework' within emerging Green Infrastructure Frameworks, and contain both sites and linkages.

Issue 4: ‐ The Minerals Product Association suggest a policy for biodiversity and geodiversity (to cover Issue 7 as well) in the context of mineral workings ‐ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust state that Local Wildlife Sites should be protected from development. If development sites are close to a Local Wildlife Site then the developer should include features to improve the biodiversity value of the area and where possible provide links between habitats to ensure Local Wildlife Sites do not become isolated. ‐ A local resident states they would wish to see more evidence of the borough’s awareness of the importance of identifying and of managing our bio-diverse areas. More RMBC staff need to be employed to undertake survey work, to co-ordinate survey work undertaken by volunteers and to guide the management and interpretation of the borough’s wildlife sites. They also think that the Borough’s biodiversity provides, as yet unrealised, opportunities to promote local economic development through tourism. ‐ A local resident suggests that a specific opportunity for encouragement of biodiversity exists on roadside verges throughout the former Parish of Laughton (which was substantially larger than the current parish). More widely across the Borough, farmers should be encouraged to retain or re-plant hedges with a wide variety of species, as well as planting trees in hedges to restore the beauty of the countryside that has been severely damaged by the removal of field trees. This would add to biodiversity and make the rural scene in Rotherham more attractive for tourists. Issues 5, 6, 7 - Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS): 5. Can you provide further information on RIGS? Local knowledge and expertise can contribute towards knowledge of these local issues. 6. Do you support the designation of RIGS in Rotherham? 7. What would you like to see in detailed local planning policy for geo-conservation in the Sites & Policies document?

11 Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support Issue 6: ‐ Two local residents provided words of support. Support with ‐ No comments received. Conditions Object Issue 6: ‐ JVH (on behalf of various clients) object to the designation of RIGS site R23 on the basis that the document does not make it clear why it is viewed as a regionally important geological site. It is argued that if the sites are to be registered as important geological sites then they should be clearly shown on any proposals maps and the rationale for their designation must be clearly understood in the document. ‐ Observations Issue 5: ‐ A local resident suggests that as many of them (RIGS) are in Maltby, they would be happy to share their historical knowledge

Issue 7: ‐ A local resident considered that examination of the interactive mapping of LWS, RIGS, Conservation Areas and proposed CAs on a single layer of the Roam-related interactive map reveals obvious overlap or close relationship between these three types of designation particularly on the Magnesian Limestone. It was felt that this type of linkage needs to be recognised in the appropriate policy document, and due weight needs to be accorded to the fundamental importance to the planning process of an understanding of local geology. Concern was also expressed at the perceived lack of geological understanding demonstrated in the Landscape Character Assessment.

Issues 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 - Conservation Areas: 8. Do you support the designation of additional Conservation Areas in Rotherham? 9. Of the 11 identified, do you consider they merit Conservation Area status.

12 10. If so, do you agree with the proposed boundaries? 11. Can you provide further information on any of the proposed Conservation Areas? Local knowledge and expertise can contribute towards knowledge of these local issues. 12. Are there other settlements/areas that you consider to be worthy of Conservation Area status? 13. More generally, what would you like to see included in detailed local planning policy for the historic built environment in the Sites and Policies document?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support Issue 8: ‐ CPRE and a local resident provided words of support ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) support the designation of additional Conservation Areas in Rotherham and would also support a revision to the Wentworth Conservation Area to include Wentworth Woodhouse its designated park and gardens and designed historic landscape setting in order to protect and enhance the setting of these key historic structures and landscape for future generations. ‐ Letwell Parish Council supports the designation of conservation area status wholeheartedly and without reservation. The parish council have received many positive comments about the step, with it suggested that those living here are anxious to see the fabric of the village protected for years to come.

Issue 9: ‐ CPRE provided words of support

Support with Issue 8: Conditions ‐ Signet Planning (on behalf of Fitzwilliam Estates) note that Hooton Roberts is proposed as a Conservation Area, which is supported by the Estate provided that its present designation as Green Belt is removed and it is given the status of a ‘Non-Green Belt Village’. It is argued that Hooton Roberts is an established settlement and there is scope for an appropriate scale of development

13 which is consistent with the characteristics of the settlement.

Issue 10: ‐ CPRE caveat their general support by suggesting that Thrybergh’s Conservation area includes a triangular area of land with modern bungalows, which do not contribute to the traditional appearance of the area. ‐ A local resident makes detailed comment on an area that they are most familiar (Maltby and Stone) and they consider that the boundaries are broadly sensible. However, they do express views regarding the significance of other buildings and the detail of the Conservation Area appraisal particularly in relation to the churchyard trees.

Issue 13: ‐ South Yorkshire Archaeology Service consider it important that any policy for the historic built environment includes consideration of the archaeological potential of standing buildings (as well as the potential for buried archaeological evidence) and ensures that an appropriate process of assessment/appraisal is carried out before a planning decision is reached and that recording of any buildings affected is then carried out - should consent be granted - with appropriate analysis, interpretation and publication of the results. ‐ English Heritage support the inclusion of a Policy for the historic environment of the Borough to amplify strategic Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy. They would like to see included within the Policy a framework which sets out how those elements of the historic environment which contribute to the distinct identity of the Borough will be conserved, with suggested details provided of what they would wish this to include.

Object ‐ No comments received Observations Issue 8: ‐ A local resident supports conservation areas within or close to an urban environment, such as the one in Maltby. However they am unsure about the value or need for conservation areas in the green belt villages, although they felt it is good that they have been indentified. Existing conservation areas

14 are good on architectural issues and historic buildings, but less sound on landscape. Planning policy should be developed to maintain hedges and field trees and it is considered Rotherham’s green belt policies are strong enough to protect and conserve green belt villages without conservation area status.

Issue 9: ‐ Two local residents suggests that the sites identified are appropriate for designation

Issue 11: ‐ Offers of support were provided from two local residents in relation to conservation areas in Maltby and Brookhouse plus Slade Hooton & Carr if they were given similar status.

Issue 12: ‐ Carr, Slade Hooton, Hellaby Hall & its vicinity and Maltby Model Village were suggested by two local residents.

Issue 13: ‐ The Minerals Products Association suggest a policy for the historic environment in the context of mineral workings (with wording provided). ‐ CPRE consider that policies on the historic built environment should also ensure that properties outside Conservation Areas and not listed, but contribute historically to the character of the area, are also protected. Protection of historic features should not be watered down by policies which mitigate adverse impacts. Developments that significantly effect historic features should not be permitted. Policies should also protect open spaces (i.e. their setting) which surround historic features, or are historic features themselves. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) consider that the Sites and Polices Document could usefully seek to define a zone of landscape and visual influence around the historic park (of the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate) to ensure that inappropriate development is not allowed. ‐ A local resident suggests that there should be fewer trees close to buildings and fewer trees

15 restricting views of both individual buildings and village streets. ‐ A local resident promoted the merits of planned artisan housing and model villages which they feel tend to be undervalued. Issues 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 – Green Infrastructure Corridors: 14. Expanding corridors: Has any green infrastructure site or asset been missed from any of the corridors? Can the asset be logically linked to the corridor either directly (i.e. it is next to it) or over land where a physical link exists (e.g. footpath). 15. Reducing corridors: Is there an absence of a green infrastructure asset or physical link (e.g. footpath) within any corridor which means it should be reduced in size? 16. Recognising that in many cases development may need to take place within parts of the identified corridors, what are the most appropriate ways for delivery, protection and enhancement of Green Infrastructure? 17. What do you see as the potential benefits and priorities of green infrastructure provision? Ideas include managing flood risk, promoting active travel (cycle routes), promoting amount of / access to quality nature / green space, promoting local food production (e.g. allotments), protection of wildlife habitats where there is conflict with priorities for growth. 18. Do you have any other suggestions? What would you like to see included in detailed local planning policy for Green Infrastructure in the Sites and Policies Document?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support Issue 16: ‐ Sheffield Wildlife Trust support the position of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.

Issue 17: ‐ Sheffield Wildlife Trust consider that there are many benefits of Green Infrastructure and many documents detailing what these are including national documents (such as those by Natural England) and the South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object Issue 14:

16 ‐ Signet Planning (on behalf of Fitzwilliam Estates) suggest that the identification of specific boundaries of green infrastructure corridors would be undesirable as this may help prevent and conflict with the requirement to deliver growth, that they appeared to be more of a landscape designation, and that there were inconsistencies in the corridors. It requested collaboration with the landowner of the area before finalising the corridor boundaries. ‐ The Canal & River consider that the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Canal should be identified as Green Infrastructure. They state that although the River Don is recognised there is a risk that the canal including towing path and infrastructure will be overlooked and the benefits of the canal as green infrastructure will not be realised.

Issue 15: ‐ One local resident objected to the issue of reducing green infrastructure corridors; and said they had not identified any absence of a green infrastructure asset or physical link in their locality. Observations Issue 14: ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) support the designation of the Wentworth Green Corridor and would wish to be consulted about its detailed extent and boundaries. They also provide an offer of utilising their evidence base. ‐ Sheffield Wildlife Trust consider that the GI corridors are not really corridors at the moment and should be refined as part of the South Yorkshire GI strategy and local biodiversity opportunity mapping. They also point out that some important biodiversity corridors are currently missed out e.g. the magnesium limestone ridge. ‐ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust suggest that some areas which were identified through our Living Landscapes mapping as being important for wildlife and with the potential to be enhanced for biodiversity have not been included within the green infrastructure map. They feel that these areas are important for providing connectivity between sites and should therefore be included. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust suggested that an absence of asset information made commenting on the extent of corridors problematic, with an indication given of how the green infrastructure designations could be presented in the next round of consultation. The failure to reflect the magnesium limestone ridge was noted.

17 ‐ A local resident offered numerous comments regarding the extent and locational context of the Maltby and Anston & Sandbeck green infrastructure corridors.

Issue 16: ‐ CPRE suggest that much of the Green Infrastructure Network is within the Green Belt where strict policies prevent development that is inappropriate or reduces openness and visual amenity. In areas of the network were development is permitted, policies should require master planning, they should specifically ensure that the development is integrated with green infrastructure through improvements to rights of way and green infrastructure improvements within the schemes themselves. Regarding protection of existing green infrastructure, CPRE should be protected unless the development brings significant improvements to the Network, however, developments that have a significant adverse impact upon valued ecology should be refused. Enhancement should be achieved through S106 or CIL. Long term management plans for the development should also improve neighbouring sites within the network. ‐ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust say that developers should include green infrastructure features within developments and link them to those in the surrounding area. Developer contributions may be needed to maintain green infrastructure in the long term. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust suggest that the delivery, protection and enhancement of Green Infrastructure, as well as the environmental evidence base to support GI should be administered by an panel or partnership, including representatives of all Green Infrastructure designations, as well as planning representatives. ‐ A local resident considers that GI is an ill-defined and intellectually muddy concept and suggests that it is the corridors within the GI corridors which have or could aspire to wildlife and/or geological designations as well as watercourses, motorway and railway banks and urban green spaces which can and need to be protected and enhanced.

Issue 17: ‐ Yorkshire Water Services Ltd say that one potential benefit of green infrastructure is surface water management as these areas provide natural storage area which attenuates the flows prior to disposal

18 to watercourse or sewer. Green roofs are one way of providing attenuation within built up areas. ‐ CPRE note that in addition to the benefits listed, green infrastructure also enables sustainable travel routes for cycling and walking. Rights of Way through networks linking residential areas and local services provide safe and pleasant routes for users. Green infrastructure also reduces the effects of urban heat islands and provides cooler environments during hot weather. They are important wildlife corridors and prevent the isolation of species within separate wildlife sites. CPRE considers that the existence of green infrastructure increases the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, which brings more investment to the borough. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust suggest that whilst wildlife habitats are noted, GI includes most geological features, and these should also be regarded as a priority, and enhanced or created where appropriate. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) advocate the promotion of sustainability and the protection of the setting and visual inter-relationships of key heritage assets such as that comprising the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate as one of the potential benefits of designating the Wentworth Green Corridor. They also highlight the potential benefits of promoting accessibility to the countryside particularly in relation to public rights of way in the Wentworth area. ‐ A local resident agree with the ideas, but does not believe it is entirely helpful that they are rooted in GI

Issue 18: ‐ CPRE state that green infrastructure policies should be integrated with landscape, historic and environmental policies. Furthermore, they consider the policy must be enforced by development management, who will ensure the creation of and improvements to green infrastructure is embedded within new development as an integral element and that new development should look at its contribution to the wider network and not just the site itself. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust say that green infrastructure and ecological networks depend on a sound environmental evidence base and at present there are no systems to coordinate environmental records (ecology, geology, archaeology, etc). They consider that an integrated GIS system tied into green infrastructure and existing and desired ecological networks would be highly beneficial.

19 ‐ A local resident considers that further academic and practical skills to the survey work and habitat creation/enhancement were needed. Allied to this, the rationale and geographical location of green infrastructure corridors needs to be understandable to elected representatives (including Parish Councillors) and to the general public. They are also of the view that it is easier to visualise and appreciate the rationale of the Regional and Sub Regional corridors than the District and Local categories. Given this,cross boundary issues need to be taken into account regarding adjacent corridors and flooding; that Rotherham-gathered rain contributed to Nottinghamshire flooding, during the 2007 event, they consider presents a strong case for greater inter-regional co-operation in the designation of green infrastructure corridors.

Details of all the representations received for Chapter 4 are available at: Local Wildlife Sites: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=5101995628158 Regionally Important Geological Sites: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=644154046811#section-644154046811 Conservation Areas: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=510199560486#section-510199560486 Green Infrastructure Corridors: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=644154114656#section-644154114656

20 Chapter 5: Directions: Working Towards Development Policies

CHAPTER 5

General Chapter 5 comments: ‐ Mobile Operators Association consider it important that a telecommunications policy is included in the LDF. Wording for such a policy and indicative supporting text is provided that they argue will give all stakeholders a clear indication of the issues which such development will be assessed against. ‐ SYPTE consider that access to public transport and required mitigation/intervention policies will help ensure that all developments are promoting sustainable transport and therefore helping achieve sustainable growth. ‐ Environment Agency provide observations on draft wording of policies related to Flood Risk and Drainage, Water Quality and Consumption, Fisheries, Groundwater and Contaminated Land. ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Goodman UK) note that the Draft National Planning Policy Framework states that implementation of policy should not be saved for supplementary guidance and should be incorporated in Council’s Local Plans. As such, Goodman believe that implementation policies such as Development Management should be incorporated the Core Strategy and not contained within other DPD`s.

Issue 19 We are interested in your views on what policies should be provided to help decide individual planning applications or for guiding the implementation of individual site allocations (by for example setting conditions on development)

Issue 20 - Spatial Strategy 20. Can you think of other detailed policies that may be required to help implement the Spatial Strategy of the Core Strategy?

Issue 21 - Sustainable Communities 21. Can you think of other detailed policies that may be required in support of the creation of sustainable communities?

Issue 22 - Climate Change & Managing Natural Resources 22. Can you think of other detailed policies that may be required to help address climate change and manage natural resources?

21

Issue 23 - Infrastructure 23. Can you think of other detailed policies that may be required to ensure the proper provision of infrastructure for development proposed in the Core Strategy and the Sites & Policies document?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support Issue 19: ‐ South Yorkshire Archaeology Service state that it is important that an appropriate policy is included to follow on from the guidance given in Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, to ensure the impact of new development is fully considered - both in terms of direct impact on buried and standing archaeological remains and in terms of the effect on setting of significant standing remains, including buildings - and that provision is made for recording of any affected remains, should development be permitted, with appropriate interpretation and publication of the results.

Issue 20: ‐ South Yorkshire Archaeology Service believe it is important that, as well as a policy relating to archaeological evidence, there is a policy to protect the wider historic environment. Suggest that the policy on sustainable design includes consideration of historic environment character, as established by the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation project carried out by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ No comments received Observations Issue 19: ‐ Highways Agency suggest that specific policies are included under the four key themes as outlined in the document. ‐ Yorkshire Water Services Ltd suggests a number of policies for inclusion related to co-ordination of

22 new development and infrastructure, development undertaken by water providers, Waste Water Treatment Works and Amenity, Foul and Surface Water Drainage, and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems. ‐ SYPTE state that the use of the LUTI evidence base in determining policies will ensure that contributions towards public transport schemes and services are achievable through section 106 and CIL, as well as ensuring that barriers to public transport are removed and promoted (information, accessibility, ticketing incentives, reduced car parking, personalised travel planning). ‐ Minerals Products Association suggest the following topic areas may be relevant to mineral working, Traffic & highways, Public Rights of Way, Sustainable Transport of Minerals, Landscape Character & Design Restoration & Aftercare, Protection of Amenity, Sustainable Use of Soils, Water Resources & Pollution, Ancillary Development. ‐ CPRE query whether the policies could set out requirements on consultation with neighbours and other stakeholders? Particularly pre-application consultation on major developments. Masterplanning as part of this pre-application consultation must occur on the major sites and urban extensions. A simple policy stipulating the Council will apply conditions upon development to ensure the finished scheme complies with the LDF and doesn’t have an adverse impacts upon the local community and environment may be appropriate, but may not add to Government policy. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) consider that Potential impacts (direct and indirect) on key heritage assets including impacts on setting, historic designed views and visual interrelationships between structures associated with the Wentworth Woodhouse estate together with appropriate mitigation considerations (landscape proposals), local landscape character and historical and cultural context should be key considerations in terms of determining planning application and identifying potential allocations and setting specific individual site planning conditions ‐ The Coal Authority considers that the Rotherham LDF needs to contain an appropriate policy to ensure that the locally distinctive issue of coal mining legacy and resulting potential for unstable land is fully considered, and if necessary remediated, as part of development proposals. ‐ A local resident thinks it would be useful to be able to call upon a regularly updated document or series of documents which have given serious consideration to the robustness (or more likely the lack of robustness) of the local infrastructure particularly in outlying settlements. They also add that

23 planning conditions are all very well but that it is their enforcement which is the key issue.

Issue 20: ‐ Highways Agency consider that the spatial strategy will primarily be secured through the relevant Core Strategy policies and at this stage they would not suggest any specific policy or policy areas which are not already addressed within them. ‐ SYPTE highlight that the spatial strategy will need to consider: Provision of Infrastructure – details on what infrastructure will be sought through developer contribution and how this will integrate with the CIL and section 106 protocols. Access to Public Transport Services – a policy stating the details of thresholds of development size and development type of when public transport (to an agreed standard) needs to be provided. Transport – A policy that determines when appropriate mitigation is required to reduce trip generation and impact of the scheme. ‐ CPRE contend that in addition to the Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park, detailed master planning should also occur for Bassingthorpe Farm and Dinnington. ‐ Signet Planning (on behalf of Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estates) argue that the Local Authority should be wary of making too many specific development management policies. The emerging national policy framework is such that the approach to development management decisions should be positive (ie looking for solutions rather than problems so that proposals can be approved where ever it is practical to do so). Furthermore, they believe that the emphasis on any development management policies should be to enable applications to be considered on their own merits within a sufficient flexible framework so as not to prohibit the delivery of development opportunities. ‐ Ward Hadaway (on behalf of the colliery operators) There should be a policy specifically concerned with major developed sites in the Green Belt. Maltby Colliery is a site which should be considered in the policy. Policy options should include; 1) deletions from the Green Belt; 2) developing a policy context to facilitate the Colliery's redevelopment and continued contribution towards the development needs of the Borough ‐ A local resident reaffirms their wish to see an infrastructure assessment policy

Issue 21:

24 ‐ Highways Agency Policy suggest that the following list of specific development control policies be set: Thresholds at which transport statements, transport assessments and / or travel plans may be required. Maximum walking distance requirements for major housing and employment developments to ensure sustainable access- Maximum car parking standards for all main types of development, and a requirement for car parking management in developments above a certain threshold. ‐ SYPTE comment that In order to assess each site and reduce the need to travel, each housing site must have a number of services/community facilities available within a prescribed walking distance or public transport travel time. Developments located in ‘green’ LUTI sites should be given higher densities and needs to include the findings of the Transform South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide regarding the best practice for improving connectivity to public transport. In order to create sustainable travel behaviour, a site classified as LUTI green should be encouraged through policy mechanisms to have a lower number of car parking spaces. ‐ DLP (on behalf of South Yorkshire Fire Service) wish to have an on-going dialogue with the council both regarding the future identification of a site for a fire station and how the CIL process may be utilised to provide this facility and other likely equipment or infrastructure requirements related to the need to provide an increased level of service due to the increase in the number of buildings within the area. Furthermore, it is recommended that a policy is developed detailing the nature of infrastructure that maybe required to accommodate the level of development being proposed and that this policy is utilised as the basis of a CIL charging schedule. ‐ CPRE considers that policies addressing climate change should include requirements on sustainable design and that a phasing policy be created to prevent the unnecessary loss of greenfield land and promote more sustainable development on brownfield land within urban areas. ‐ Ward Hadaway (on behalf of the colliery operators) reaffirm their view that there is a need for a detailed policy in relation to Maltby Colliery and that a failure to include such a detailed policy would amongst other things adversely impact on the sustainability of the Maltby as a community particularly having regard to employment land supply issues. ‐ A local resident provided detailed information with regard to including policies that prevents the demolition of public houses. ‐ A local resident suggested that they found it difficult to respond as nobody had been able to provide

25 them with a convincing definition of what a ‘sustainable community’ is.

Issue 22: ‐ Highways Agency consider that a specific detailed policy should be included setting out how the issue of air quality management will be addressed. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Fowler Sandford and echoed for various named parties) argue that whilst it is recognised that climate change is an important issue and there should be policies in place that contribute towards minimising this and of safeguarding natural resources, this should not be at the expense of frustrating development, particularly given the economic growth emphasis of the NPPF. Furthermore, they are of the view that policies that seek to address climate change should offer a range of solutions depending on the type, size and location of development and should not be overly prescriptive. ‐ The Coal Authority are of the opinion that the LPA should afford appropriate consideration as to the inclusion of policy on mineral extraction that supplements Draft Core Strategy Policy CS25 and adds local distinctiveness to National Planning Policy in MPS1 and MPG3. The LPA could consider, in particular, including within the Sites & Policies DPD a policy that seeks to secure the highest possible standard of restoration and aftercare of mineral sites once extraction has ceased, in order to minimise the possible future legacy. ‐ A local resident comments that addressing climate change will require a complete shift in lifestyle.

Issue 23: ‐ Highways Agency support the inclusion of detailed policies related to developer contributions towards infrastructure, setting of maximum parking standards (see Issue 21) and the setting of conditions for individual site allocations. They would also welcome the opportunity to contribute to the identification policies for the delivery of appropriate area- and site-specific infrastructure ‐ SYPTE suggest that the infrastructure policies need to relate the introduction of a district wide charging schedule (CIL). It must also state priority areas of funding with a clear link as to how it will help achieve the delivery of the core strategy and delivery the planned growth in line with the spatial strategy. This could include references to specific allocations that would require large infrastructure

26 requirements, known major schemes (such as BRT North and South) and localised gains such as improvements to walking and cycling routes, bus shelter enhancements and parking standards.

Details of all the representations received for Chapter 5 are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c123

27 Appendices 1-13 Site Options

Appendix 1: ROTHERHAM URBAN AREA

General Appendix 1 comments: ‐ The proposed growth in the Rotherham Urban is principally supported by SYPTE as the area includes some of the most connected areas in Rotherham by public transport to other areas of the district and county. They also consider that growth in this area will support the current transport infrastructure, however, the extra trip generation that is likely to be caused will need to be mitigated. SYPTE also suggest that public transport needs to be considered and a masterplan of the all the sites in the Bassingthorpe Farm area need to be assessed together to ensure that public transport is integrated into the whole site as well as the existing surrounding community. Due to the significance of the site(s), SYPTE would like to be involved in all the discussions relating to this development. Mitigation will need to be developer funded and site design must accommodate public transport penetration - a spine through the all the sites would be a logical measure to ensure permeability of the Bassingthorpe farm area. ‐ Tesco Stores Ltd support the extension of the town centre boundary to include the sites LDF571 (Civic Offices) and LDF572 (Crinoline House) which they consider should be developed for retail uses. ‐ Satnam Planning Services Ltd disagrees with the continued mixed use allocation (MU21) on land at Westgate, with a suggested expansion of the town centre retail core into Westgate rather than northwards (onto the former Civic Area). Accordingly, they call for the Spatial Diagram for Rotherham Town Centre to be re-drawn. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) state that Ideal Dimensions Ltd has prepared a number of reports that examine the potential visual impact that potential development sites in the vicinity of Bassingthorpe Farm, Thorpe Hesley and elsewhere around the Wentworth Estate, identified by the Council, would have on the Wentworth Woodhouse Estates. It is argued that the allocation of these sites for future development is not sustainable because built development in these locations would further degrade this immensely important and valuable historic environment to the detriment of future generations of Rotherham residents. ‐ Yorkshire Water Services Ltd refer to comments submitted previously on 500+ sites, with a request to the Council to provide GIS information of any new sites. ‐ Highways Agency state that generally they would not comment on the specific boundaries of any site, except where their operational land is included within the boundary of the proposed allocation. There are a number of sites, or clusters of sites,

28 where they would have concerns over the level of impact on the strategic road network should they be developed without appropriate mitigation. It is noted that they previously provided the Council of where such issues may occur, and they expect that this information will be taken into account when the Council is establishing its development sites.

Issues 24 & 26: 24. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Rotherham Urban Area? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

26. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ JVH (on behalf of Ernest V Waddington) support the proposals for LDF233 as they are of the view that this site adjoins the built up area of Bawtry/ South Eastern Rotherham and is the most logical extension of the urban area in this locality. DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) express similar sentiments regarding LDF233. ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance) state that for LDF77 SDBF are part owners of this site and are willing to working closely with adjacent landowners to bring this site forward for development. They also argue that the site is in a sustainable location and provides an opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment of a currently unused allotment site. ‐ Tesco Stores Ltd support the extension of the town centre boundary to include the sites LDF571 (Civic Offices) and LDF572 (Crinoline House) which they consider should be developed for retail uses. They also believe that In relation to Tesco's existing site at Forge Island, that as well as the Council’s stated ambitions for an entertainment, leisure and cultural quarter, the site would also be

29 suitable for small unit retail development – in accordance with the conclusions for LDF0573 which state that it should be allocated for retail use. ‐ Rotherham Archaeological Society agree that LDF163 should be retained in the green belt as it includes Glossop Lodge a Grade II listed building. They argue that it is also an important area for local wildlife and its removal from the Green Belt would virtually sever a major link to an important Green Belt area that extends nearly into the heart of Rotherham. ‐ Positive messages were received from local residents in relation to proposed retention of the existing greenspace within LDF163, and the suggestion to make use of unused/ previously developed land at LDF78, 186, 199, 200. A local resident (of 80 years) considers that Greasborough has got to move with the times and progress and refers to the historic growth of the settlement. Support with ‐ British Waterways support that LDF52 (Eastwood) is recognised as a dredging site. This site has Conditions been allocated in the Submission draft of the Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Joint Waste Plan for dredging and it is a vital operational site for British Waterways to maintain the navigation of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Canal. Although the site is proposed to be allocated as Urban Green Space, the primary use of the site is for operational purposes, namely the tipping of dredged materials from the canal. This activity must be fully acknowledged within the definition of Urban Green Space. ‐ Various local residents agreed with the Council’s position in relation to LDF185, 189, 200 and were encouraged that development may take place. The type of residents and price of properties were however highlighted as areas of concern. ‐ For LDF70, it was the surrounding road network that was considered to require improvement to accommodate the extra traffic that development of this site would generate. ‐ One local resident suggested that development of LDF157 would not impact on wildlife dramatically but if this were extended into LDF159 objection would be made as it is more valuable from a biodiversity perspective. ‐ Conversely, for LDF168 and 184 consultees were pleased that no development was planned. Object ‐ CPRE suggest that LDF162 should be removed from the Bassingthorpe Farm urban extension as it protrudes into the countryside beyond Greasbrough’s urban edge. It is also partially within a flood plain and if totally developed would significantly reduce the green corridor. The 107 homes identified

30 for LDF162 should be accommodated within other sites within Rotherham’s Urban Area. If retained this site should be released last so it is only developed if required (taking into account the other developments in Rotherham Urban Area and contribution of windfalls). CPRE state that LDF233 is in an elevated location and is visible from a considerable distance to the southeast. Its development would have a adverse impact upon the landscape. It is also suggested that development of the site at Bassingthorpe Farm should improve the quality of and access to/within the remaining area of Green Corridor, as it is an important part of Green Network (linking the town centre with the wider countryside). New development within these sites must integrate open spaces and wildlife areas within them to the remaining wider corridor, it must also have sensitive boundary treatments to increase assimilation as much as possible. Design and layout must also have regard to the topography of the land, which slopes to the west and is visible from a number of vantage points (including longer distances). The new development must assimilate into the landscape as much as possible. ‐ British Waterways suggest that in relation to LDF30 The site is adjacent to the canal and the proposed allocation of Urban Green Space fails to recognise the value of the site for General Industrial/Employment uses. The site can be used in conjunction with the canal to move goods sustainably in and out of Rotherham, therefore reducing reliance on road transportation and promoting water bourne freight. ‐ English Heritage object that LDF139 adjoins the boundary of a section of the Roman Ridge which is designated Scheduled Monument. Scheduled Monuments are regarded as being of the highest significance where substantial harm or loss should be regarded as exceptional. English Heritage have concerns about the impact which the development of this site would be likely to have on the significance of this important heritage asset. Consequently, it is considered that this site should not be allocated for development. Similarly for LDF162, English Heritage are of the view that development of this site would, potentially, bring residential development to within 20 metres of Glossop Lodge. This Grade II Listed Building on Cinder Bridge Road was built for the Wentworth Estate and lies some 0.7km from the eastern entrance to Wentworth Woodhouse. This building was designed to form part of the southern approaches to the Park. In order to safeguard the landscape setting and approaches to Wentworth Woodhouse, it is considered that this site should not be allocated for development.

31 ‐ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust suggest that in relation to LDF9, LDF97 and LDF98 they include part of a Local Wildlife Site which should be protected from development. If development were to take place appropriate mitigation and enhancement would need to be put in place. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) object to the sites that comprise the Bassingthorpe Farm Broad location as they consider that the Borough Council has not yet categorically established the very special circumstances needed to release Green Belt land in this part of the Borough and nor has it demonstrated why any future housing and employment needs cannot be met by alternative Green Belt releases in other sustainable locations that would not have the same adverse impact on the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate, its listed structures, designated park and gardens, designed historic landscape and the visual interrelationships and views between all these key heritage features. It is suggested that the allocation of these sites is not sustainable because built development in these locations would further degrade this immensely important and valuable historic environment to the detriment of future generations of Rotherham residents. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) consider that LDF56, 664, 691, 692 are appropriate for development - three of which are located to the north of Kilnhurst Road, and one lies to the south east of Kilnhurst Road. The submission it is argued describe how the sites represent a sustainable extension to the settlement of Rawmarsh and how they can be reasonably defined as available, suitable and achievable for development. A gas investigation is also undertaken to try and establish the degree of constraint that this issue makes and how it can potentially be mitigated. ‐ JVH (on behalf of parties) consider that LDF110 should be developed for residential as they argue it is in close proximity & walking distance to the facilities on the A631 and would be a logical extension to Brecks Lane & a rounding off of the urban area. For both LDF114 and LDF129, similar arguments are employed with additional justification provided for LDF114 stating that the site is already committed for housing in the UDP. ‐ JVH (on behalf of Ernest V Waddington) object to the omission of land to the South of Bawtry Road for consideration as part of the Local Plan process as they had previously submitted the site through the SHLAA. In relation to LDF237 they contend that this site adjoins the built up area of Bawtry/ South Eastern Rotherham and forms a natural extension of LDF233. It is also stated that the site has no known physical constraints.

32 ‐ JVH (on behalf of Universal Recycling) suggest that LDF117 has the potential for a Mixed Use including the potential to relocate the companies existing operations from LDF399 at Wharf Road Kilnhurst. It is considered this land at Wharf Road is suitable for residential development and the allocation of LDF117 for a mixed use/ employment site notation could help facilitate such a relocation. ‐ Walker Morris (on behalf of Yorkshire Merchant Securities) consider that LDF78 and LDF591 are suitable for development, noting previous submissions including a Masterplan and discussions that had taken place with officers of the Council. This sought to examine issues including the relationship of any proposed new development to the existing built form. In conclusion it is argued that issues of access and other potential constraints could be addressed and that the sites should form an urban extension to Rotherham Urban Area.

‐ Local concerns of significant note (including those from Rotherham Archaeological Society) primarily relate to the proposals for Bassingthorpe Farm. The issues raised included: Strongly object to building on food producing land; Concerns raised regarding loss of farmland and future food shortages; the Council should minimise gas emissions, building on the Green Belt is contrary to this objective; the Green Belt provides a natural mechanism to absorb and mitigate damage caused by carbon emissions; There are numerous brownfield sites that would meet the borough’s housing demand; there are better alternative sites in other areas – these were put forward for consideration; Objections raised regarding the loss of vital areas for play and exercise which will impact on childhood obesity and child and adult health; the Bassingthorpe Farm development will have little effect on the town’s regeneration as Retail World at Parkgate has a better offer of shops and free parking; Rotherham is one of the few towns to have open countryside views from its centre; Rotherham’s population is stable, if the intention is to accept migrants from the Sheffield area, the proposal is flawed as these people will not shop in the town centre they will still support better shopping elsewhere; the proposals will create urban sprawl; concern regarding the stability of the land due to former mining activity in this area; concerns raised regarding congestion problems at the small roundabout outside Greasbrough Town Hall; development of Bassingthorpe farm will lead to gridlock in this area; The proposals will exacerbate current problems with parking in Greasbrough; concerned regarding development in close proximity to the chemical works at Victrex and any potential toxic discharges; Impact on infrastructure such as schools & doctors; loss of wildlife; the

33 scale of residential and employment development proposed; health issues of proximity to overhead powerlines; potential for flooding; impact on the existing settlement form. A petition was signed by approximately 1000 people opposing the development in the green belt. ‐ LDF233 & 237 also provoked a lot of opposition. Recurring themes were the impact on the road network and the suitability, owing to drainage problems, of the land itself for development. For LDF237 this included issues of what is considered the damaging consequences on some of the best panoramic/landscape views in the area, contains well used public and other footpaths and is well used by walkers and other local pursuits. ‐ Similar perceived constraints were identified for LDF761 with concerns at the road network around Upper Haugh, flood risk & drainage particularly owing to the recent development of The Wickets, wildlife value of the area and the capacity of the infrastructure (schools, doctors etc) to accommodate future residents. ‐ LDF13 highlighted issues such as Lisle Road not being adopted, the potential number of homes proposed, overlooking of existing properties and that the site was utilised by an operational business. For LDF170, concerns at the impact upon wildlife and, in particular, the bat population were raised. ‐ The response to LDF27 (which included a petition) is also of note because of the site boundary including numerous backgardens that existing residents were not wishing to make available for development. Observations ‐ English Heritage note issues in relation to identified sites and their considered impact upon Boston Park (LDF55, LDF59), Wentworth Woodhouse Registered Park & Garden (LDF92, 95, 163, 170, 178, 685, 769) and Clifton Park (LDF116, 564). Potential impacts upon individual listed buildings are also highlighted including for LDF101, 112, 153, 154, 159, 160, 161, 565, 571, 574, 575, 577, 594, 764, 765. Comments for scheduled monuments were made in relation to LDF90, 174, 175, 589. ‐ Environment Agency identify those preferred sites that are located within high risk flooding areas. Specifically these being LDF31, 97, 98, 99, 104, 602. ‐ The Coal Authority identify that the Bassingthorpe Farm broad location for growth contains both surface coal resources that are capable of extraction using surface mining methods and the legacy of past coal mining activity, which could pose risks to new development in this area. The Coal Authority would therefore expect these issues to be identified, either within policy or supporting text, in order

34 that developers are made aware of the presence of coal and mining legacy, and encouraged to consider prior extraction of the mineral resource and ensure that an assessment in made of the risks of unstable land. ‐ DLP (on behalf of South Yorkshire Fire Service) wish to have an on-going dialogue with the council both regarding the future identification of a site for a fire station and how the CIL process may be utilised to provide this facility and other likely equipment or infrastructure requirements related to the need to provide an increased level of service due to the increase in the number of buildings within the area. Furthermore, it is recommended that a policy is developed detailing the nature of infrastructure that maybe required to accommodate the level of development being proposed and that this policy is utilised as the basis of a CIL charging schedule. ‐ Fitzwilliam Estates support various sites to form the key urban extension at Bassingthorpe Farm. These being LDF157, 1589, 160, 161, 162, 765, 769. For LDF112, 766, 767 whilst these sites were proposed to remain as Green Belt, it is considered that recognition in the DPD should be given to incorporating and assessing its development potential within the context of the masterplan approach. Therefore, it is argued that identifying the site as Green Belt would inhibit and be detrimental to the evolving decision making process. LDF163 and 768 are promoted as safeguarded land for protected area of search for future development around Rawmarsh. A new site on land between Cinder Bridge Road, Scooby Lane and The Whins (B6089) was also proposed. For Rawmarsh/Parkgate, Fitzwilliam Estates whilst in agreement with the Council’s position on LDF45 and LDF761, they consider that LDF49 and LDF59 should be developed for housing. An area of land around to the south of Greasborough Lane, north east of Cinderbridge road, incorporating LDF163 and land south of LDF59 is promoted as safeguarded land. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) reinforce their views of the merits of LDF233 for development. ‐ Sheffield Geology Trust consider that the western boundary for LDF156 needs to coincide with the UDP H8 boundary, to provide the Ecological Network link parallel to Fenton Road between Bradgate Brickworks SSSI, LWS, RIGS area and LWS67. ‐ A local resident states that for LDF 0013 they have no objection to the principle of developing the land belonging to Ben Bennett's on Lisle Road subject to a full consultation process. This should include addressing major access improvements to this un-adopted road which currently is unmade

35 has no lighting and no pathways from Brunswick Road. ‐ A local resident suggests that broadly they agree with some sites but not others but they do state that they consider only previously developed sites should be used.

Issue 27: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ CPRE suggest that in order to ensure the most sustainable sites are developed first, sites at Bassingthorpe Farm which are nearer Rotherham Town centre should be brought forward first. A detailed masterplan will ensure that each site complements each other, it will also ensure that the phasing of each site doesn’t result in separate unconnected developments. They also contend that given LDF233’s sensitive/prominent location within the Green Belt, if it is allocated for housing, its release should be delayed until other brownfield sites/less sensitive Green Belt sites have been developed first. ‐ Tesco Stores Ltd consider that LDF571 and LDF572 should be identified for development to achieve the overarching objective of strengthening the retail base of the town centre. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment. ‐ A local resident considers that brown field sites not in the green belt should be developed fully before any green belt is taken for development. They had been informed that Waverley would not be completed before development was started in green belt areas. They felt this was completely at odds with the council's statement that brown field would be used first.

Details of all the representations received for Rotherham Urban Area are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c122#section-c122

36

Appendix 2: DINNINGTON, ANSTON, LAUGHTON COMMON

General Appendix 2 comments: ‐ SYPTE observe that the proposed growth in the area needs to be matched with an increase in public transport provision. This is particularly important given the large supply of employment growth in the area as local people (and Rotherham wide) will need to be able to access the development for employment opportunity. The existing bus links to Dinnngton have ‘fallen’ off the core network recently. This provides even more emphasis on the need to increase bus provision in the area and link with the new development. The growth of Dinnington East will deliver a large proportion of the core strategy housing target so public transport integration is vitally important to ensure that sustainable growth can be achieved and public transport is a viable transport option. In terms of ensuring that public transport is integrated into the East Dinnington sites, SYPTE would recommend that link roads between all the sites are incorporated into site design. This will ensure that future development can be seamlessly linked together. SYPTE would like to be involved in the discussions of large strategic housing sites. ‐ A comment from a local resident highlighted their objections at the prospects of development of LDF211, 215, 216, 218, 219 and 497 for new housing development. They consider that these proposals will lead to a loss of good quality agricultural land, the loss of a valuable visual amenity and permanent damage to the existing ecology. Further site specific comments included the protection of woodland (LDF218), impact upon the adjacent SSSI (LDF215). The capacity of the road & utilities infrastructure and school places was also challenged. The phasing of development with particular areas such as Waverley considered appropriate for development in advance of any green belt release.

Issues 28 & 30: 28. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Dinnington, Anston & Laughton Common? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

30. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings

37 ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ Jones Homes agree with the majority of the sites selected in East Dinnington in particular sites LDF0216, LDF0218 and LDF0219 ‐ Walker Morris (on behalf of Yorkshire Merchant Securities) support development on LDF211 and reaffirm their position that the site is deliverable within the plan period with supplementary reports provided advocating the merits of the site. A jointly produced masterplan with LDF215 details how both sites can be developed as one comprehensive site. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Ltd) support development of LDF219 as they consider that the site is located in a sustainable location adjacent to the main urban area of Dinnington, with detailed argument given that he site is well related to the surrounding residential environment with good access to a range of shops, facilities and services and a good public transport service can be easily accessed from the site. A local resident also emphasises the site’s suitability for development. ‐ Various local residents suggest that the development of LDF222, LDF238, LDF239, LDF240 would bring benefits. ‐ Several local residents also welcomed the Council’s position on LDF248 and LDF256 as it sought to preserve existing areas of urban greenspace. ‐ Development is advocated by several parties for LDF257 for uses including community facilities and that this would reduce the pressures on the east of the settlement. ‐ One respondent suggested that LDF498 as it would be less invasive on the existing households. ‐ A local resident notes that If there has to be more sites for housing, then the chosen sites (211, 215, 217, 216, 218,497) should be the absolute maximum limit and that there should be no further encroachment into green belt towards Woodsetts. Support with ‐ Various comments from local residents included that for LDF216 they would like to retain the existing Conditions wooded areas and not develop the whole of the site as it is extensive. Generally they would prefer more, smaller developments rather than a few large ones as this has less impact on existing surroundings. Similarly for LDF218 there was a wish to retain this area (including the Butterfly Farm)

38 as a tourist attraction, with perhaps only small portions of this land built on. ‐ A local resident states that they are not opposed to growth but in relation to LDF216, LDF218 and LDF219 with concerns at the road network and infrastructure. They are also of the view that There seems to be no building proposed in South Anston with the possible exception of LDF251 and that this would seem to have the effect of favouring and increasing house prices in South Anston while devaluing homes in North Anston, entrenching differences between the two communities. It is also emphasised that the Council acknowledges impacts on existing residents and that these be understood and mitigated. ‐ A local resident agreed with the proposed uses for LDF211, LDF215, LDF216, 218, 219 and 497 but serious reservations broadly aligned to the general caveats identified below. ‐ More general caveats to support included the capacity of local infrastructure to cope with the levels of growth proposed, the loss of agricultural land and the lack of certainty as to the type of homes to be developed. Object ‐ Walker Morris (on behalf of Yorkshire Merchant Securities) highlight that the LDF208 should be promoted for development with further work carried out to support its potential and the means by which any identified constraints can be addressed. ‐ DLP (on behalf of CISWO) consider that LDF221 is suitable for residential development as they argue that it is located in a sustainable location adjacent to the main urban area of Dinnington and that the site is well related to the surrounding residential environment with good access to a range of shops, facilities and services and a good public transport service can be easily accessed from the site. ‐ Indigo Planning (on behalf of Safety Kleen) state that LDF229 should be identified as a business site as its primary use is for employment, especially given the owners’ intentions and discussions with the Council to develop the site. Safety Kleen would support an acknowledgment that the site is capable of providing an element of Urban Green Space relating to the pond and its immediate surrounds. ‐ Jones Homes argue that further consideration should be given to the availability of LDF498 to provide for residential development should the Preferred option sites be built up ahead of schedule. By designating this land as 'safeguarded' and removing it from the Plan period. They argue that the site has a number of key benefits such as its proximity to the school, Dinnington Centre, and public

39 transport provision.

‐ Local concerns of significant note include the proposed removal from the green belt of LDF497 with suggestions that gas may be found and that a previous application for its extraction was refused as safety guarantees could not be provided. Further points of concern were that development on the scale proposed would damage the local wildlife sites and impact upon the areas of High Landscape Value that border the sites, the general flora and fauna would be destroyed, the Butterfly House would disappear and the recreational value of its bridle ways and the footpaths would be lost. Recognition of the site’s existing value as agricultural land was continually emphasised as a reason not to promote development. The site’s remoteness and it not being well served by public transport were also highlighted. Equally there was varying opinions at the relative merits of LDF612 with some favouring it as it is closer to the motorway and having fewer constraints but others worried about it linking the settlement with Todwick. ‐ LDF218 also provoked a lot of argument as it was felt that the impact of development on the Tropical Butterfly House would be dramatic with a request from the Commercial Operations Manager that a buffer zone around the site be created to protect both the amenity of the business and future neighbouring residents. The loss of trees was also highlighted in comments. Similar sentiments were echoed regarding the development of LDF216. ‐ LDF211 being bounded by Anston Stones Wood was an area of concern with the view that development would harm the rare orchids and special limestone features ‐ For LDF215 specific issues identified were that access to the proposed site would mean opening up the roads in a cul de sac and/or upgrading the end of Rackford Road which is a country lane. ‐ The degree of objection generally to building on green belt was illustrated by the near 2000 people who signed the petition. ‐ Those with an interest in LDF211 were dismayed at the prospect of development taking place in what they consider to be a valuable recreation space. ‐ A local resident considers that the homes identified as being needed in the Dinnington / North Anston area can be accommodated using brownfield sites and small/medium sized greenfield/greenbelt sites spread over the whole area of Dinnington / North Anston. Accordingly, they believe there is no need

40 to lose the large greenbelt area to the East of Dinnington at LDF216, 218 and 497. ‐ Recurring issues throughout many of the comments are the capacity of the road network, impact on the existing community, wildlife and trees, infrastructure capacity (roads, doctors, schools etc), loss of agricultural land, poor public transport links, landscape value, the extent of growth and consultees advocating the use of sites within the existing settlement boundary. ‐ It is interesting to note that many consultees were of the view that LDF257 should be developed for employment and community uses with merits identified including it being a natural extension to the North Anston Trading Estate, its proximity to the motorway and Common Lane & Todwick Road providing a natural boundary. ‐ A number of objections were received in relation to sites that were identified as being non-preferred (i.e. these comments largely reaffirmed the Council’s position). These include LDF210 with the wish to retain the site’s green belt allocation and for LDF248 it’s urban green space allocation. Observations ‐ CPRE favour the development of LDF216 as it is screened by topography and woodland. It alone can deliver 992 homes. If LDF219 and LDF220 are also allocated (they would be surrounded by the development of LDF216), this would significantly reduce the amount of land within LDF216 required to deliver the settlement target. Development of LDF219 should retain the established field boundaries. ‐ CPRE continue that given their exposed location and visibility from a considerable distance to the east, LDF497 and LDF218 must not be allocated for housing (or any other development). Their development would have significant adverse impacts upon the landscape and setting of Dinnington. Development of LDF218 would also adversely effect the setting of the Butterfly House. They also support the identification of LDF251 as a non-preferred site. Located adjacent to the A57, its development would have an adverse impact on the setting of South Anston. ‐ CPRE support the identification of site 612 (west of Dinnington) as a non preferred site within the sites map (we opposed its selection previously as an urban extension). They believe that an expansion west of the settlement in this location would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape and contribute to the merging of Todwick and Dinnington. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) reaffirm their support for the development of LDF219 ‐ Anston Parish Council state concerns at the capacity of the A57 to accommodate extra traffic and

41 that the proposals for Dinnington East are a massive expansion into the green belt and will decimate several wooded areas. The clarity of the consultation map in terms of identifying the extent of development was also questioned. ‐ Kevin Barron MP points out that LDF221 (the Dinnington Miners' Welfare recreation ground) is currently subject to ongoing discussions between CISWO and local residents about its future. ‐ Various comments from local residents include that LDF232 if implemented should represent the completion of residential development of Laughton Common, with a proposal that LDF221 be reinstated as a sports and recreation ground with modern facilities. Another consultee provides criteria against which the assessment of sites should be made including use of agricultural land, proximity to services & facilities and areas of high landscape value. Consequently, sites are identified that within and outside these criteria, with particular concern levelled at LDF497as it is felt it has many merits for retention in the green belt and conversely, constraints that prejudice against it being appropriate for development. ‐ A local resident considers that there would be little impact in developing LDF220 for housing, but they felt it important to retain the recreation facilities of LDF219 and concerns at the loss of valuable agricultural land were expressed in relation to LDF216, LDF218 and LDF497. ‐ More general local concerns included the capacity of local infrastructure to cope with the levels of growth proposed.

Issue 31: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ CPRE observe that as with Bassingthorpe Farm, the development of Dinnington East should be phased and developed according to a Masterplan. Given their less intrusive location and screening, CPRE consider that LDF220 and LDF219 should be developed before LDF216. ‐ DLP (on behalf of CISWO & Taylor Wimpey) object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled

42 people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment. ‐ Savills (on behalf of the Valad Property Group) consider that in respect of the housing sites that have been selected as ‘preferred’ for the Dinnington Anston and Laughton Common area that these are inconsistent with the Core Strategy policies. Specifically, policy CS5 which proposes the development of brownfield sites before urban extension sites are considered. Specifically the Land at Ryton Road (LDF209) as a previously developed site which is potentially available for development within 0-5 years could be identified to meet housing requirements to avoid the need for such significant urban extension sites in this area. ‐ Various comments from local residents are provided which suggest the use of smaller sites (capacity of less than 100 dwellings) first, with brownfield use a priority and green belt development as a last resort, avoid the merging of the settlement with Todwick and Woodsetts and one respondent considered that development should be directed to Kiveton as it has two existing railway stations.

Details of all the representations received for Dinnington, Anston, Laughton Common are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c243#section-c243

43

Appendix 3: WICKERSLEY, BRAMLEY & RAVENFIELD COMMON General Appendix 3 comments: ‐ SYPTE suggest that the distribution of sites in this area need to be focused along the main road (A631). The current preference shows that many of the large sites (774 for example) are preferred, yet they are placed away from the core public transport network. SYPTE recognise that not all future growth can be accommodated in green areas, however, this area has a number of non preferred ‘green’ LUTI sites. SYPTE request clarification as to what conflicting issues are preventing the site from being allocated. ‐ Various comments from local residents are provided which state their objection to development primarily on sites LDF774 (Land east of Moor Lane South), LDF371 (Land off St Alban’s Way), LDF360 (Pony Paddock off Second Lane) and LDF649 (Land off Nethermoor Drive/Second Lane).Collectively these highlight issues including traffic, impact on the village, infrastructure capacity (roads, doctors, schools etc), drainage & flooding.

Issues 32 & 34: 32. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Wickersley, Bramley & Ravenfield Common? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

34. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ DLP (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) support the development for housing of LDF0360 (Pony Paddock off Second Lane) and LDF0649 (Land off Nethermoor Drive/Second Lane). DLP argue that these

44 sites would provide a logical extension to the existing settlement and in so doing could meet some of the demand generated within these communities. Furthermore, it is felt careful development will create an improved Green Belt boundary and that the development of these sites would also allow for a scheme that would meet aims set out through the NPPF and local guidance. ‐ Regarding LDF0371 (land off St Alban’s Way) The Emerson Group (on behalf of Jones Homes) and Smiths Gore both have the view that the site is in a highly sustainable location close to Wickersley centre, as well as public transport provisions. It is also noted that the Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance are part owners of the site and are working closely with adjacent landowners to bring the site forward for development. ‐ JVH (on behalf of a named individual) support the development of LDF0774 (Land East of Moor Lane) and contend that this site is the most logical extension of the urban area in this locality and that from their perspective the site has no known physical constraints. ‐ Similarly for LDF0737 (Land off Fairways) & LDF0359 (Land off Melciss Road) JVH argue that the site is in a sustainable location within the urban area, within easy walking distance of facilities along the A631. Support with ‐ A local resident suggests that the development off Moor Lane South (LDF774) is proposed to be of Conditions such a scale (appx 400 homes) that there must be corresponding significant improvements to services and infrastructure created to mitigate its impacts. This must also take place at the same time as development rather than a later point. ‐ A number of comments were received from a couple with regard to various sites that were identified by the Council as being non-preferred. Within each of these it was affirmed that the sites in question should retain their existing green belt allocation. Object ‐ Walker Morris (on behalf of Denman House Holdings) contest that the constraints to development identified by the Council in relation to LDF0367 are surmountable and that resolution of the identified access difficulties can be achieved. It is also argued that the impacts of development upon the remaining green belt would be minimal. ‐ Similar views are expressed by Walker Morris in relation to LDF0694 with the suggestion that in addition to housing, a proposal to develop part of the site for a new community facility is highlighted. ‐ Hallam Land Management consider that LDF0452 represents a sustainable location for an urban

45 extension and is suitable for housing taking account of the relative merits of other sites (identified as preferred) within the locality. The submission also includes an indication of the potential development which could be accommodated on the site. ‐ Iain Bath Planning feel that LDF0774 represents a significant intrusion to the south of the settlement into the greenbelt and there are much more logical and appropriate to allocate. In particular, LDF0667 which it is suggested would represent a logical linear extension of the settlement to the east, along the main highway route into the settlement and well related both in scale and form to the existing settlement pattern in this location. ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of the Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance) advocate that LDF0677 & LDF0371 should be allocated for residential from its existing green belt with the recommendation that a green belt review take place that removes land that does not fulfil the Green Belt purposes from the designation. ‐ JVH (on behalf of a named individual) object to the omission of land off Spring Garden Quarry, with a formal request that this be considered subsequently for residential use. Similarly they object to the omission of unreferenced sites east of M18 and west of Cumwell Lane, and site east of M18 and south of Sandy Lane and request that these be considered as employment sites. ‐ JVH (on behalf of a named individual) also object to the designation of Local Wildlife Site 63: Listerdale Wood as they feel there is no clear analysis easily available to understand what the basis is for its selection. ‐ JVH (on behalf of a named individual) object to the omission of sites LDF696 and 697 as preferred housing sites as it is argued these sites are well related to the urban area and form logical extensions to the Bramley area, with good connections to the A631 and employment opportunities at Hellaby. ‐ Bloor Homes and Wynthorpe Properties note comments related to LDF375 (Wrexham House) and LDF458 (Land adjacent Wrexham House) stating that the site is generally enclosed by existing development and consequently would not extend into the open countryside. It is also suggested that concerns regarding the sites access difficulties owing to the need for third party land can be resolved. Furthermore, the site’s location to services and bus routes are highlighted. ‐ CPRE argue that Site 774 is a prominent location and its development would be visually intrusive and have a wider landscape impact. If greenfield sites are required to meet the needs of Wickersley,

46 Bramley and Ravenfield, CPRE SY would favour the partial development of site 452 within its south west corner or along the lower end of Moor Lane as this area is screened from medium and long distance views by topography. Furthermore, the development of 168 homes on Site 649 would encroach upon the peace garden on Second Lane, this was created for quiet reflection and located there because of its tranquillity. The loss of countryside must be compensated by ensuring this development is of a high design quality, sustainable, respects the landscape in which it located and integrates with the neighbouring countryside through Green Infrastructure, buffer zones and soft landscaping. It should also improve neighbouring Green Infrastructure within the countryside and access to it.

‐ Local concerns of significant note include the potential removal from the green belt of LDF0371 (Land off St Alban’s way) which provoked a large number of objections (including the formation of the Sorby Way Action Group), with a petition also being signed which stated …’the development of this site will impact on the openness of the Green Belt, an area of High Landscape Value and the Local Wildlife Site, in addition to causing highways safety and capacity issues given the existing state of local roads. The local area cannot accommodate this level of growth and it will impact on the residential amenity and living conditions of residents in the area and cause further localised drainage and flood issues. If Green Belt land is required for future development then it should be in a more appropriate and sustainable location, such as closer to employment opportunities and where there are defensible boundaries (such as the M18) to prevent further urban sprawl. Locations which are not within or close to Areas of High Landscape Value should also be preferred, such as those to the north and east of Ravenfield and south of Bramley’. Options and considerations for development on LDF371 were submitted by one local resident which considered the scaling back of development, alternative site options and reiterated the potential difficulties that they felt may occur as a consequence of development taking place. ‐ LDF774 (Land east of Moor Lane South) also lead to a large number of comments being submitted. Issues raised by consultees were wide ranging but included the loss of agricultural land, the impact on Ravenfield as a village, infrastructure capacity (roads, doctors, schools etc), landscape (views), road networks, potential for overlooking and consideration of the amount of development, such as Woodlaithes, that has taken place in the recent past.

47 ‐ For LDF360 (Pony Paddock off Second Lane) issues of traffic on Morthen Road, the site’s footpaths and the impact of development upon Wickersley Woods with its associated biodiversity being particularly highlighted. Similar points were echoed for the neighbouring site LDF649. ‐ A number of objections were received to the existing housing development site LDF359 (Land off Melciss Road) with a recurring theme of concerns that the road network may not be able to accommodate the extra traffic that development of this site would generate. ‐ LDF0509 (Land off Sledgate Lane) which is also an existing housing development site had a single objection with issues noted including the site’s function as part of a green corridor along the A631. ‐ Similarly for LDF0737 (Land off Fairways) a single objection was concerned at the loss of this loss of open space. ‐ Access into LDF391 (Land off Allott Close) was a point of contention raised many times. ‐ A number of objections were received in relation to sites that were identified as being non-preferred (i.e. these comments largely reaffirmed the Council’s position). These included LDF356, 357, 358, 361, 367 and 681 with the emphasis being on the retention of these sites within the green belt. Observations ‐ English Heritage note that in relation to LDF0689 this site includes Bramley Grange Farmhouse which is a Grade II listed building.

Issue 35: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ DLP (on behalf of Hallam Land Management) consider that LDF452 is achievable as a housing site and housing could be delivered within 5-10 years. Arguments employed to justify their position are that the site is currently undeveloped and as such there are no obvious environmental constraints and physical limitations which would require onerous pre-development works. The site has single developer control and the entire site boundary is being actively promoted for development. There are no legal issues which would prevent the devlivery of housing at this site. ‐ Taylor Wimpey Ltd object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people,

48 service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment.

Details of all the representations received for Wickersley, Bramley & Ravenfield Common are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c244#section-c244

49

Appendix 4: WATH-UPON-DEARNE, BRAMPTON, WEST MELTON

General Appendix 4 comments: ‐ SYPTE make observations that the area is well connected by public transport with links to a number of local centres through bus and rail connections. SYPTE support growth in this area. However, many of the current public transport services (bus) are operated on ERDF funding and developer contribution. These are therefore at risk of being terminated if sufficient capacity is not reached. SYPTE would welcome prioritised growth in this area to increase the commercial sustainability of the Dearne Valley service as they play an important cross boundary role. Private funding from these developments may need to drawn up to secure these services.

Issues 36 & 38: 36. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Wath-upon-Dearne, Brampton & West Melton? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

38. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ LDF279 falls with the ownership of National Grid Property Holdings, who are in favour of development in this locality due to what they consider the accessible and sustainable location of the site within Wath-Upon-Dearne. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes) agree that housing on LDF279 would be a sustainable re-use

50 of land which is deliverable within the plan period, and is supported by the continuing market for housing in this location. Support with ‐ A general comment received indicating that Wentworth North is well served by GP surgeries. Conditions Object ‐ Comment was made objecting to the preference of LDF263 for residential development due to the sites current value as recreational green space and a habitat for wildlife. Members of Brampton Bierlow Parish Council also note that site LDF263 is valued as a natural divide between Brampton Bierlow and West Melton. ‐ A number of objections to residential development at LDF324 were received with concerns of the sites proximity to Brampton Ellis C of E school, suggesting that development could compromise child safety. It was also noted that the site is owned by the Fitzwilliam Estates/Ellis Trust for the purpose of educating children, something which would not be achieved by housing development. Comments also shared concerns about loss of green space, insufficient access to the site via existing roads, and the exacerbation of flooding by the construction of homes. ‐ Comment was received objecting to the preference of LDF336 for residential development at the expense of playing fields, and also reflected a perceived lack of demand for housing in the area. ‐ Although not a preferred site, there were comments made objecting to development on LDF265, as it would cause Brampton Ellis CofE Shool to lose playing field space. Concern was also expressed about the location of LDF265 within the easement area of a water supply pipeline. Observations ‐ Transition Asset Management at the National Grid comment on and provide reference to guidance regarding high voltage overhead electricity cables at sites 263, 265 and 270. Development proposals should consider this and understand that it is National Grid policy to retain overhead lines in situ. ‐ English Heritage make observations regarding the following Grade II listed buildings: a dovecote and cowhouse at site 275, Highfield Farm at site 292, the School House near site 324, 131-133 Melton High Street and barn at site 325, Newhill Grange Farmhouse near site 337. Site 354 includes Grade I listed Church of All Saints and other listed and historic buildings. Development proposals on these sites should therefore ensure that the elements which contribute to the significance of the assets within them are not harmed.

51 Issue 39: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes) object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment.

Details of all the representations received for Wath-upon-Dearne, Brampton & West Melton are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c245#section-c245

52

Appendix 5 : KIVETON PARK & WALES

General Appendix 5 comments: ‐ SYPTE offer support to development as the area benefits from access to two railway stations that provide good linkages to Rotherham, Sheffield and Worksop. Growth in this area is supported as the railway access provides good local access and commuter friendly travel (due to quick journey times) to a number of destinations. Sites around the station should be preferred options. ‐ Various comments from local residents are provided which state their objection to development primarily on sites LDF470 (Former Colliery North), LDF472 (Kiveton Lane), LDF476 (South of Lambrell Avenue), LDF479 (Manor Road), LDF481 (West of Manor Road A) and LDF482 (West of Manor Road B).Collectively these highlight issues including traffic, impact on the village, infrastructure capacity (roads, doctors, schools etc), wildlife, loss of greenbelt and the need for new homes. General concern at the prospect of any development was also commonly raised.

Issues 40 & 42: 40. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Kiveton Park & Wales? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

42. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Langtree Group) support the development of LDF600 which is in their

53 ownership as they suggest that it is adjacent to existing employment uses and located on the edge of the settlement within easy reach of a full range of shops and services. They further argue that the site is considered to be appropriate location for employment which would help to deliver key benefits in terms of regeneration and environmental enhancement and hence it would help meet the employment requirement and needs for the area. ‐ A local resident suggested that they would support the preferred site allocations, as they consider they are in areas that will not place extra pressure on existing infrastructures. ‐ A local resident thinks that adding houses in this area will be beneficial to the whole of Kiveton, boosting local businesses and enterprise. ‐ A local resident considers that in relation to sites LDF462, 463, 464, 465, 599, 600 that at least one of these sites should be considered for a park and ride site for parking for railway station users, in order to reduce congestion/parking on local roads. Also - consider discussions with railway companies about possibility of recreating a new railway station/halt at Waleswood. ‐ A local resident notes that sites LDF475, 476, 470 have transport infrastructure in place. ‐ A local resident highlights that sites LDF469, 475, 476 have recently had development and therefore have improved access. These comments are caveated with concerns at the existing strained infrastructure, particularly doctors & schools. A preference is stated for the development of LDF475, with it suggested that development of LDF476 should only take place as a last resort. It is considered that LDF469 should be developed. Two local residents offer similar perspectives for the development of LDF469 stating that it has good access. Two other local residents offer support for LDF475 but with numerous reservations similar to those above again highlighted. ‐ A local resident supports the development of LDF470 but they consider that access must be taken via Hard Lane and the site should exclude the pit head baths area. ‐ A local resident supports the development of LDF472 as a mixed use site with a suggestion that an extended area of land beyond the existing site boundaries would be available. ‐ The merits of development of LDF547 were highlighted by two local residents. ‐ A local resident makes a general comment that brown field sites should be developed first, with green belt protected as far as possible and used only as a last resort. They believe it it is a good plan in that it protects as much green belt as possible and feel this is very important for the environment and

54 protecting wildlife. Support with ‐ British Waterways are pleased that no site allocations are planned on the route of the Chesterfield Conditions Canal which would have prevented future restoration. They also recommend early consultation on any future development adjacent to the existing and restored routes of the Chesterfield Canal. Object ‐ CPRE have significant concerns regarding the size of development proposed in Kiveton Park and Wales on the basis that rail services would have to be improved to justify on sustainability grounds the development of 300 homes in these settlements. They are also of the view that a reduction in residential development during the plan period would remove the need to allocate those sites in Kiveton which should be protected on ecological, landscape and visual amenity grounds. Most notably LDF470 and LDF472. ‐ Harthill with Woodall and Thorpe Salvin Parish Councils consider that development on LDF461 (Unsco Steels) would be desirable owing to its current conditions and usage. The Councils are concerned that proposals for light industrial will perpetuate the current problems and exacerbate them. The preferred medium / long term solution of both Councils is that the planning designation of the site is changed to Mixed Housing / Employment to allow for residential and commercial development. Both Parish Councils strongly contend that the current infrastructure problems caused by the industrial nature of the site - particularly relating to heavy vehicular access, traffic volume and parking problems - already far outweigh infrastructure concerns caused by a small residential development.

‐ Local concerns of significant note include the development of LDF470 (Former Colliery North). This site received an extensive negative response in light of the existing road network, particularly around Hard Lane being unsuitable to accommodate extra traffic. Further detailed concerns included its existing recreational value with the area having being restored by the Land Restoration Trust and it providing a wild edge to Kiveton Woodlands Country Park as well as an abundance of wild flowers and diverse selection of trees. It is also felt that development in this locality would lead to an intrusion into the countryside and encroach beyond the green belt’s defensible boundary. A point of interest is that some people considered that development would be appropriate on this site as it would make best use of the old colliery.

55 ‐ For LDF472 (Kiveton Lane), specific areas of concern were that its development would lead to the merging of the settlement with Todwick as well as the loss of public footpaths (which are valuable recreationally) and agricultural land. The existence of hedgerows, wildlife (including wintering birds) and the site’s landscape value it is felt further amplifies the case for its retention within the green belt. The road network around Kiveton Lane was also highlighted as problematic although some considered that the site would have quicker access to the motorway without affecting Wales Road through the village. ‐ LDF475 (Chapel Way) & LDF476 (South of Lambrell Avenue) also raised a number of objections along similar lines in addition to drainage concerns whilst in some cases it was recognised that permission had been granted for 268 new homes on LDF475 and that this will be able to contribute accordingly to the settlement’s housing requirement. The existing housing allocation on LDF476 was also recognised by some parties. ‐ A more limited response was provided for LDF547 with it stated that a bat population is found and it is requested that an appropriate survey to be carried out. ‐ For LDF600 (E39 Waleswood West/Vector31) some consultees considered that it was best to concentrate all industrial development in one area and equally that it might be appropriate for residential to be located here as the transport links are already in place. ‐ Recurring comments throughout the objections were concerns related to traffic, impact on the village fabric, infrastructure capacity (roads, doctors, schools etc), public transport links, wildlife, loss of greenbelt and the need for new homes given the perception of numbers of homes for sale/vacant. General concern at the prospect of any development was also commonly raised. ‐ A number of objections were received in relation to sites that were identified as being non-preferred (i.e. these comments largely reaffirmed the Council’s position). These included LDF481 (West of Manor Road A), LDF482 (West of Manor Road B) and LDF479 (Manor Road)with particular concern at traffic impacts along Manor Road as well as the site being within the green belt. LDF480 (Stockwell Lane) it is argued should not be developed to maintain the distinction between Wales and Kiveton Park. LDF478 (Wales Road/Chestnut Avenue allotments) raised issues that the back gardens of existing properties were located within the site’s boundary and that the allotments were in active use. Observations ‐ English Heritage note that in relation to LDF0669 there is a group of Grade II Listed Buildings some

56 130 metres or so to the north of this site around Kiveton Hall.. Similar points are raised in relation to LDF472 as there is a group of Grade II listed buildings to the east of this site around Kiveton Hall. For LDF470, they highlight that the Bath-House and Colliery Offices at Kiveton Park Colliery are Grade II Listed Buildings. ‐ Sheffield Area Geology Trust raises concern over the southerly extent of the LDF470 into the area south of the dyke and that there is a need to retain the ecological network west of Local Wildlife Site 4. ‐ Robin Ashley Architects argue that LDF557 should be allocated for housing as they reason that this allocation would ensure continued use and up keep of land in a location central to the settlement and would be capable of providing new housing in a variety of sizes formats and tenures, which could provide a valuable start for individuals or couples seeking to stay or move into the area. They also feel this use would be compatible with the existing uses to the immediate west, north and east, and also with those which are proposed to the immediate south and south-east generally. ‐ A local resident notes that in relation to LDF479 and 481 that as Manor Road has been extensively developed over recent years the capacity of surrounding roads to cope with increased volumes of traffic is a major factor. ‐ A local resident considers that the more affluent areas of the Borough are not accommodating their share of development, and that the impact of development on the rural aspect of the village would be significant. ‐ A local resident opposes development of LDF700 & 704 as they feel this would be overdevelopment in the green belt. Nor do they consider that LDF554 would be appropriate for development as it is reasoned that this contains the only child’s playground in the settlement. In contrast they promote the development of LDF470 for housing development as they believe it could improve the former colliery site and the extension of Vector Industrial Estate via the development of LDF600 could boost the local economy. ‐ A local resident has a general concern at any development taking place highlighting particularly that development on LDF473 & 721 as the roads schools and doctors would not be able to cope, but equally suggests that LDF469 & 467 should be built upon. ‐ A local resident provides a detailed analysis of various sites in the area and their relative merits.

57 Overall they believe the increase of residential is perhaps necessary in the long term for the growth of the village but at present they are of the view that the settlement form needs to remain that of a village which will also alleviate the pressures of encroachment upon Todwick, Harthill and Woodall. The main concerns are the road infrastructure’s ability to accommodate the extra traffic, schools to cope with the influx of new children and the extra pressure’s on the medical facilities. A more specific concern is the suggested travellers site on Redhill and the impact this may have on the area. In summary, they feel the area near the old pit baths on the former colliery site (LDF470) would improve the village a whole bringing housing, wildlife and leisure benefits. Similarly for the former Unsco steel site (LDF461), they would wish to see the entire area improved with new homes and businesses incorporating a new business centre with competitive rates.

Issue 43: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ A local resident suggested that they would support LDF470 being developed as a priority with merits of the site identified including its access Hard Lane and it being within the existing village boundary. ‐ A local resident considers that whilst they object to all the proposed developments on the basis that they feel they aren’t in the interests of the community. Nonetheless, in their view the least damaging option will be to develop housing at LDF476 and LDF469 which have already been allocated and would prevent expansion of the village, with its accompanying negative economic, social and environmental consequences. ‐ A local resident emphasised their objection to the proposed development of LDF472 on the basis of impacts on infrastructure, wildlife and the existing community.

Details of all the representations received for Kiveton Park & Wales are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c246#section-c246

58

Appendix 6: MALTBY & HELLABY

General Appendix 6 comments: ‐ SYPTE offer support (with conditions) to the proposals as Maltby is well connected to the core bus network and much of the growth is on sites that are close to the existing network. However, it is identified that there are two large sites to the east and north of Maltby that are currently not connected to the bus services. ‐ Ward Hadaway (on behalf of the Colliery operators Hargreaves) support consideration being given to the utilisation of the Colliery as a major developed site in the Green Belt with possible scope for industrial and business uses. They consider however that there needs to be specific policy commitment for so in the Core Strategy and other Development Plan Documents whether through deletions from the Green Belt or through a specific policy facilitating its redevelopment. These arguments are particularly significant it is argued in the context of 500 compensatory jobs being needed when the mine comes to the end of its life. Support is also provided for the development of LDF0271 and the suggestion that the Colliery tip could be established as an informal recreation area following its restoration. ‐ A local resident objected to the development of LDF0271 and had concerns at the difficulties of submitting comments online.

Issues 44 & 46: 44. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Aston, Aughton & Swallownest? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

46. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview:

59 Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ The reallocation of The Muddies (LDF0276) to urban greenspace was received positively. ‐ Development at the land off Braithwell Road LDF0294) was felt by several consultees (in Maltby Town Council) to be welcomed, with a wish for the commencement of this work to occur as soon as was feasible. ‐ The site of the Council depot and Lantern Engineering (LDF0289), it was felt could also present an opportunity for alternative development/uses. Support with ‐ Jones Homes agree with the inclusion of LDF0271 (Land to the south of Stainton Lane) as a Conditions Preferred Options site. However they feel that the site’s boundary should be extended to encompass the land up to the Doncaster boundary. Inclusion of this extra land will, it is argued, provide the opportunity to deliver all of Malby’s needs on one site and reduce the opportunity for piecemeal development on the southern boundary of the town. Object ‐ The Councillors representing the settlements of Maltby and Hellaby acknowledge the need to provide sufficient housing to meet the requirements of Maltby over the 15 years of the plan period and, in that respect take no issue with the overall dwelling target and designation of the town as a principal settlement. However, concerns were expressed about the scale of the proposed allocation on land to the south of Stainton Lane (LDF0271). It was felt that this would represent a major Green Belt release on a prominent site which is remote from the main facilities offered within the town and from public transport. These thoughts were echoed by many who submitted representations, with objections to LDF0271 accounting for around 50% of the overall number of comments received and a petition to this effect signed by nearly 1400 people. ‐ CPRE in particular contend that the development of site 271 would result in a prominent development beyond Maltby’s existing urban boundary. CPRE encourage RMBC to discuss with DMBC opportunities to develop land on Maltby’s northern edge to meet need. As development in and around Maltby is restricted by the colliery to the east, Areas of High Landscape Value to the south and employment areas to the west, further opportunities on its northern edge should also be explored. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Aldergrove Ltd) also object to LDF271 in the context of promoting an area of land to the north of Maltby (off Braithwell Road) which falls outside Rotherham’s administrative boundaries. They contend that their site represents the most sustainable area of land available to

60 meet the identified growth requirements of the Settlement. ‐ Attention was also drawn to the number of objections lodged from local residents to LDF0410 with the wish that following recent significant investment that the area of greenspace be retained. ‐ Advocacy documents which present the case for reallocation of areas of land currently in the greenbelt include those for LDF0709 which argues that the that the Green Belt boundary at the northern end of Hellaby Industrial Estate is drawn in an arbitrary and irrational fashion at present. This site’s reallocation to industrial & business could also serve to satisfy a significant proportion of the settlement’s employment land requirement. ‐ David L Walker (on behalf of Ibstock Brick Limited) challenge the Council’s stance on LDF0411 (Claypits off Fordoles Head Lane) as they suggest that the site’s location offers the opportunity to employment generating land uses to occur. It is suggested that the boundary of the green belt is reduced to accommodate and allow potential redevelopment and it is considered that redevelopment of the available areas would not conflict with surrounding landuse, or features of the landscape. ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Goodman UK) also offer the Wincanton Site (LDF757) for prospective reallocation to residential as it is contended that the redevelopment of the site would assist with improving the visual appearance of a key gateway feature to the main route into Maltby as well as bringing about significant regeneration benefits. This position is argued on the basis on the site being marketed for a period of years to different employment type uses and size categories with no success. Furthermore, its locational context is detailed with it stated that the site is surrounded on three sides by residential development and therefore a redevelopment for such a uses would be appropriate. The merits of this site against others within the settlement (jncluding LDF 296 & LDF306) grouping are also detailed. ‐ NLP (on behalf of Commercial Estates Group challenge the position of Aven Industrial Estate (LDF0353) with a request made that the Council recognise the status of this substantial site (10.5ha) within the Development Plan and provide a suitably supportive and flexible local planning policy framework to enable it to fulfil its potential within the local economy. It is also requested that this Estate should be released from the Green Belt as part of any wider release including the adjacent Maltby Colliery, with the occupation levels and existing obstacles to development of the Estate highlighted. In the event that this site was not released from the Green Belt, it is suggested that it be

61 allocated as a ‘Major Developed Site in the Green Belt’. With regard to the use of the site, it is requested that the Estate be allocated for industrial, business and other economic uses, including recycling and renewable energy. It was felt that this allocation would provide flexibility in the range of uses that could be delivered. Many of these thoughts were echoed by Sandbeck Estates in relation to LDF0353. ‐ Sandbeck Estates suggest that for LDF723 (Land off Outgang Lane) they are of the opinion the site’s boundary should be extended to include some land to the north west of the site which is under the same ownership so that the site is better contained with more scope to access the site. Observations ‐ Maltby Town Council expressed concerns at the prospect of development on LDF0271. ‐ English Heritage comment that LDF0271 is within 300m of a group of Grade II Listed Buildings at Lambcote Grange Farm in Doncaster. Accordingly, if allocated, development proposals for this area would need to ensure that the elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets are not harmed. Similarly, for LDF0409 it is noted that 27 Blyth Road is a Grade II Listed Building. ‐ LDF0296 was promoted as being suitable for development (by consultees including Sandbeck Estates) despite its existing recreational use. ‐ Sheffield Wildlife Trust highlight nature conservation and geological interests in LDF0296 and LDF0312. ‐ The ability of the utility infrastructure to cope with the increased populations as a consequence of LDF0271 being developed raised questions as did it’s potential impact upon Braithwell. ‐ Other parties also made reference to the value of the assets found in LDF0276 and LDF0296 with the view that these sites should not be developed. Development on LDF0408 (Maltby Leisure & Service Centre) has also been questioned given the perception that this was to be established as car parking to alleviate pressure on Braithwell and Manor roads.

Issue 47: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ A local resident observes that LDF0294 as previously-developed land, located in a residential area and conveniently situated for access to local facilities, services and public transport is they consider Maltby’s only appropriate and reasonably large site for housing development.

62 ‐ DLP (on behalf of Aldergrove Ltd) object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment.

Issue 48: Do you think Sites LDF416, 700 and 722 should be considered further as housing allocations to meet the shortfall of preferred housing sites in Maltby and Hellaby? If not, can you suggest better alternatives?

‐ The Maltby and Hellaby Councillors oppose this suggestion on the basis of Site 416 forming part of the strategic gap between Maltby and Hellaby, this being one of the main functions of the Green Belt. Sites 700 and 722 comprise attractive rising land, the development of which would be very obtrusive and remove the rural setting of this part of the settlement as well as further eroding the gap between Maltby and Hellaby. There are also considered to be serious access constraints and flood risk concerns in this locality. ‐ This view is reaffirmed by Ian Baseley Associates who state that such a proposal, which would extend the Maltby/Hellaby settlement outside of the strongly defined boundary of the main road in this vicinity should be resisted. CRPE raise more detail on this issue by affirming that development of these sites would breach the boundary formed by Maltby Dike, encroach upon Hooton Levitt and the Area of High Landscape Value. Development of site 700 would also destroy an area with known ecological value. Sandbeck Estates repeat the case for the merits of their own land interest being preferable to the taking forward of these sites.

Details of all the representations received for Maltby & Hellaby are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c250#section-c250

63

Appendix 7: ASTON, AUGHTON & SWALLOWNEST General Appendix 7 comments: ‐ AFA Planning Ltd object to the automatic exclusion of site 0446. It is not disputed that the site if developed in isolation would be an unusual form of development, but instead it is suggest that site 0446 should be included in consideration of an urban extension to Aughton along West Lane. To augment their arguments, an assessment of the relative merits of this area of land is also included.

Issues 49 & 51: 49. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Aston, Aughton & Swallownest? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

51. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Langtree Group PLC) supports the development of LDF448 for housing due to what they consider its sustainable location close to facilities and services, highlighting that development would assist with delivery of the areas housing requirement and associated regeneration benefits. Denman House Holdings also have an interest in the land at LDF448 and support the allocation as a preferred option for housing, commenting that development can be delivered within the plan period. ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Langtree Group PLC) state that with regard to LDF758 (which is in the ownership of Langtree Group PLC) they support the proposed employment use which they suggest

64 could contribute to a sustainable urban extension to Aston. Similarly for LDF449, it is argued that the site is a gateway location and given its wider context could form part of an urban extension to accommodate housing, employment and open space. Other positive aspects raised include that the wider site is within a highly sustainable location situated with walking distance of a range of services and facilities, employment opportunities and close to Rother Valley Country Park and other green spaces. The development of these sites have significant benefits, including reinforcing the areas urban renaissance and ability to provide significant employment and job opportunities. The allocation of this land (in addition to adjacent parcels) would, it is suggested, essentially constitute infill development around the existing urban area of Aston bounded by residential and employment development and the A57. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes) support the Council’s stated position regarding LDF759 as a necessary contribution to the housing requirement of the area. Furthermore, they argue that the sustainable location of the site and the reasonable market conditions of the area would make development achievable within the plan period. Support is also received from Spawforths (on behalf of Langtree Group PLC) who consider that housing on LDF759 (which is in their ownership) would provide appropriate infill development around Aston. Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of The Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance) advocate that development should be proposed for LDF413. They also indicate that SDBF are working very closely with a developer and a detailed planning application for residential development of the site will be submitted. In contrast a local resident suggested that LDF413 should be returned to the green belt due to its environmental value. ‐ JVH (on behalf of Ackroyd and Abbott Ltd) object that LDF417 has not been identified for housing, as they consider the site could provide a suitable development opportunity in a sustainable location, and contribute to the housing requirement. ‐ Jenkins Veitch Nolan Architecture Ltd do not consider that LDF453 should be utilised for employment purposes, suggesting instead that residential use would be more appropriate as it is more in keeping with an adjacent residential allocation.

65 ‐ David L Walker Chartered Surveyors to the designation of LDF583 as an automatic exclusion on grounds of remoteness from the existing community. The objector comments considered that the existing road network provides the site with adequate links to Aston, Todwick, the M1 and A57 for it to be preferred for employment use. ‐ Local concerns of significant note include proposals for LDF418, with particular concerns about access to the site through the existing Redmile Estate via Pigeon Bridge Way causing intolerable traffic issues for current residents. Comments also shared concerns about the additional strain that a development would have on local amenities and services, as well as the loss of green space currently provided by the site. ‐ There were many comments objecting to development on LDF448 with particular concerns about flooding. Comments note that existing homes nearby have suffered from flooding, with the culvert under the A57 proving insufficient in these instances, and development on site 448 would only create new vulnerable homes and exacerbate the problem for existing ones by increasing runoff. Many comments share the view that LDF448 provides valuable green space and therefore development would be detrimental to the environment and local quality of life. ‐ A single response was received objecting to LDF759 as a preferred use for housing with concerns that development would make access to the A57 more hazardous by increasing the number of vehicles. Observations ‐ English Heritage notes that LDF453 adjoins the curtilage of a Grade II listed farmhouse building and as such development proposals should ensure that the elements which contribute to the significance of the asset are not harmed.

Issue 47: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons?

‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes) object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including

66 affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment.

Details of all the representations received for Aston, Aughton & Swallownest are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c251#section-c251

67

Appendix 8: SWINTON & KILNHURST

General Appendix 8 comments: ‐ A local resident wishes their views to be noted of their comments in relation to LDF407 (Wentworth Road) & LDF775 (also Wentworth Road), with their primary concern in relation to the potential for development of LDF775, known locally as Piccadilly Recreation Ground. In particular, the legal covenants that the land would be used for sporting and recreation purposes. The other constraints to development such as biodiversity were also highlighted. It was felt that ambiguity surrounded the Council’s intentions for LDF407 as interpretation of its designation ’Site for Other Uses (e.g. retail & community) + sites to be retained as green space or green belt' did not provide enough clarity as to its likely future allocation. The ability of Croda to deliver the anticipated level of new homes was questioned, with concerns at the publicity for the consultation event and the difficulties of making comments online also highlighted.

Issues 53 & 55: 53. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Swinton & Kinhurst? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

55. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ General support for the CRODA site (LDF297) to be allocated for development because the consensus is that this would serve to clean up what is currently a hazardous site.

68 Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance) contend that a quality development of LDF383, which would not adversely affect St Margaret’s Church is achievable and that the site enjoys a sustainable location. ‐ JVH (on behalf of Ernest V Waddington) consider that LDF379 and LDF407 which are currently in the green belt should be developed for residential owing to their proximity to existing services & facilities, few constraints and deliverability. ‐ A number of objections were received in relation to sites that were identified as being non-preferred (i.e. these comments largely reaffirmed the Council’s position). These included LDF775 (Piccadilly Recreation Ground), with comments concurring that the site is currently a well used and highly valued local recreation space which should be retained. Many of the comments also referred to the fact that the land was bequeathed to the people of Swinton by the Harrop family specifically for the recreational use of the community, and a housing development would contradict this purpose. Similarly, some comments shared concern that development would take away open green space, leaving only adjacent woodland for recreational purposes, which is less safe for children. The biodiversity of the site was brought to attention, with concern for the impacts that development would have on the trees, wildlife and habitats on the site. A few comments highlighted that the poor drainage and steep terrain on parts of the site would make it unsuitable for building on. Therefore, the overwhelming consensus regarding site 775 is that it should not be developed on as its loss would be strongly felt, and that it should be kept and invested in as a recreational facility. ‐ Similar sentiments were expressed for LDF403 with a wish to preserve the urban greenspace. Observations ‐ English Heritage notes that LDF383 adjoins the churchyard of St Margaret’s Church and the remains of the Chapel of St Mary Magdalene, which are both Grade II listed and as such, their heritage assets must be protected. Similarly, LDF407 abuts a section of Roman Ridge which is designated as a Scheduled Monument, and as such the monument and its setting must be safeguarded. ‐ Councillor Doyle noted that sites LDF404, 378 and 402 are currently under development which will contribute to, but not satisfy the settlement’s target of 450 homes. Reflecting the local population’s concern, it was suggested that LDF775 should be preserved as urban greenspace. It was also felt

69 that LDF407 should be retained in the green belt. Conversely, development of LDF397 was felt to be positive.

Issue 56: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ Ernest V Waddington Ltd states his support by suggesting that the Croda site is a hazard and development would clean up the site.

Issue 57: Do you think Sites LDF407, 775, 397 and 379 should be considered further as housing allocations to meet the shortfall of preferred housing sites in Swinton and Kilnhurst? If not, can you suggest better alternatives? ‐ Ken Burley (on behalf of Redirack Ltd) objects by stating that the owners of the Redirack site wish to record their strong agreement for further consideration of both LDF397 and LDF398 as housing allocations, to meet the shortfall of housing sites in Swinton and Kilnhurst. Included within this representation is significant detail of the historic discussions and positions reached in relation to these sites.

Details of all the representations received for Swinton & Kilnhurst are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c252#section-c252

70

Appendix 9: CATCLIFFE, ORGREAVE, TREETON & WAVERLEY

General Appendix 9 comments: ‐ SYPTE offer support (with conditions) by stating that Waverley remains a very important location for public transport services due to the large planned development in the area. Although the existing planning conditions ensure that public transport solutions will be delivered through the section 106 agreement, SYPTE still require trip generation impacts to be assessed on the whole network and the impacts of the Local Enterprise Zone to be considered in the growth proposal. Growth is fully supported by SYPTE as this will aid the business case for Bus Rapid Transit South (one of our planned major schemes.

Issues 58 & 60: 58. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Catcliffe, Orgreave, Treeton & Waverley? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

60. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ CPRE support the identification of Waverley as a major development site, and efforts to deliver housing should be concentrated at Waverley before other sites in the wider area (most notably LDF489 and LDF491 in Treeton). CPRE also consider that these sites should be released once Waverley is completed and if required to meet the housing need. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Fowler Sandford) provide documents to justify the suitability of LDF489 for housing with them arguing that The site is located in a sustainable location adjacent to the settlement of

71 Treeton. The site is well related to the surrounding residential environment with good access to a range of shops, facilities and services and a good public transport service can be easily accessed from the site. Similar thoughts are echoed by Jones Homes in relation to LDF489. ‐ Development at LDF535 also received support from a local resident due to the potential to improve the appearance of the area. Support with ‐ Harworth Estates supports the allocation of the Waverley New Community site for housing however, Conditions they request that the allocation should not include the Waverley AMP and HIghfield Commercial sites as depicted in the Spatial Diagram because these are employment sites. Harworth Estates also requests that the green belt boundary be amended because it currently includes part of the housing allocation with planning permission and therefore will not remain as green belt permanently. Object ‐ Indigo Planning on behalf of Junction 33 Development Ltd are in favour of extending the mixed-use allocation of LDF132 to include commercial use in order to make more efficient use of the land and better achieve regeneration objectives. ‐ Indigo Planning also suggest that LDF500 is both suitable and available for housing development and should be reallocated accordingly. ‐ Jones Homes object to the inclusion of site 491 as preferred in the Core Strategy because they have already commenced construction on the site and it is therefore unavailable. Jones Homes also object to the use of LDF507 for retail purposes, suggesting that a preference for housing use would be more successful at delivering development, drawn from their own experiences of Treeton. ‐ Sheffield Business Park object to the retention of site 502 as greenbelt, noting the conflict of this objective with the Spatial Diagram showing consideration of the site as an expansion of the business park. These comments were accompanied by the suggestion that site 502 should be reallocated due to its suitability and deliverability as employment land which is a strategic fit with surrounding business uses. ‐ Spawforths (on behalf of Langtree Group) objects to the Council’s stated position regarding LDF501 on the basis of what they consider the sites current lack of value as a green space. Observations ‐ Transition Asset Management at the National Grid comment on and provide reference to guidance regarding: high voltage overhead electricity cables at LDF132, 495, 500 and 745 and high voltage underground electricity cables at LDF505, 524, 535 and 760. Development proposals should

72 consider this and understand that it is National Grid policy to retain overhead lines in situ. ‐ Regarding the Waverley broad location for growth, the Coal Authority comments that development may sterilise surface coal resources which are capable of extraction, and that the history of mining activity in the area would need proper assessment before any development commences.

Issue 61: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ Fowler Sandford object to this by stating that they we would not prefer to see some sites being developed before others, as there is a need to make sure that there is a selection of sites and variety of housing, that are brought forward for development and it must not be the case that just one type of housing is preferred over another. Further to this it is contended, there is now a requirement which is prescribed through the NPPF that suggests Councils not only look to supply enough land to meet their targets but also to endeavour they address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, older people, disabled people, service families and people wishing to build their own homes). It is argued that if the Council just select certain types of development / or developments in a particular area, it would result in limiting the choice for the local people and as a consequence would restrict the area’s potential for future growth and investment. ‐ Turley Associates (on behalf of Sheffield Business Park) suggest that the issue of development phasing warrants careful consideration, particularly within the context of the Core Strategy objective of achieving economic transformation. In this regard the early delivery of sites for economic development in order to stimulate both economic recovery and to secure investment is, it is argued, central to achieving this objective. Therefore Turley’s contend that the release of sites for economic development should not be based upon site status. Rather, it should be centred upon consideration of market attractiveness, level of constraint and delivery against stated planning objectives.

Details of all the representations received for Catcliffe, Orgreave, Treeton & Waverley are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c253#section-c253

73

Appendix 10: THURCROFT General Appendix 10 comments: ‐ No comments received

Issues 62 & 64: 62. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Thurcroft? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets? 64. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site?

Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ CPRE support the site’s selected for Thurcroft and the retention of LDF439 and 773 in the Green Belt. ‐ Identification of LDF432 for employment uses was received positively due to it serving as a potential opportunity to increase employment for local people. Support with ‐ Several comments from local residents support the preferred use of brown field site 437 for housing Conditions because this will reduce the pressure to develop on green field land elsewhere. These comments shared the view that development at the site should be accompanied by improvements to existing infrastructure and amenities to accommodate the increase in traffic and population associated with the development. ‐ Advocating development on sites within the existing settlement including LDF434 & LDF435 was applauded, with it felt desirable to retain as much green belt land as possible, particularly that which

74 is utilised for agricultural purposes. The extent of development proposed for Thurcroft generally ‐ A local resident stated that development on LDF432 is supported as long as flood mitigation is properly considered to protect adjacent properties. ‐ Supportive comments were also received from a local resident for the development of LDF436 and LDF442, on the proviso that this would not be for industrial use. Object ‐ Antony Aspbury Associates represent clients with development interests in LDF433 with the relative merits of their site measured against other locations within the settlement, with their conclusion that LDF433 measures up positively and therefore should be considered for future development. ‐ Local concerns of significant note include the potential for the development of LDF437 for housing. There is a strong feeling that the site does not have the capacity to for a large housing estate, and that development would put additional strain on busy roads and over-subscribed schools. Concerns were expressed about the impact of development on wildlife and habitats such as hedgerows. ‐ The use of LDF441 as a proposed gypsy/traveller site received abundant, strong objection (including the submission of a petition). Many comments expressed fears that such a use would cause social unrest, increased crime, and strain on local schools and negative impacts on house prices. There were also several comments noting the presence of bats and great crested newts on the site, with many supporting development of a country park or recreational space instead. ‐ Development on LDF442, 435 and 436 received objection from local residents because they are currently valued as spaces for recreation. ‐ A number of objections were received in relation to sites that were identified as being non-preferred (i.e. these comments largely reaffirmed the Council’s position). These included LDF433 with the emphasis being on the potential for loss of agricultural land & it being vulnerable to mining subsidence and LDF733 with the impact upon Brampton-en-le-Morthen considered significant. Observations ‐ English Heritage comment on a number of Grade II listed buildings at Sawn Moor Farm to the north of LDF437 and therefore, they are of the view that any development proposals must ensure that the elements which contribute to the significance of the buildings are not harmed.

Issue 65: Would you prefer to see some sites being developed before others? If so, which, and for what reasons? ‐ No comments received

75 Details of all the representations received for Thurcroft are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c256#section-c256

76

Appendix 11: NON-GREEN BELT VILLAGES – THORPE HESLEY, TODWICK, HARTHILL, WOODSETTS & LAUGHTON-EN- LE MORTHEN General Appendix 11 comments: ‐ No comments received

Issues 66 & 68: 66. Do you agree with our selection of preferred site allocations in Thorpe Hesley, Todwick, Harthill, Woodsetts & Laughton-en-le Morthen? If you don’t agree, which other sites should be selected instead to meet Core Strategy targets?

68. Do you have any comments on individual sites? ‐ Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the site? ‐ Do you agree with the identified proposed use(s) on the site? ‐ Are there any special local issues or problems that could affect future development of the site that should be identified ‐ Are there any restrictions that should be put on future development of the site, for example, in terms of use or buildings ‐ Are there any conditions that should be met before development on the site? Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ A local resident seeks to offer a counter-balance to the opposition raised in relation to the development of land at Thorpe Hesley. They suggest that the areas of land for which housing is proposed are surrounded by existing properties which would limit the visual impact. The benefits to the area of housing being built to accommodate families, with a mixture of affordable housing, were also identified. It is considered than an accompanying introduction of a spine road would improve the road infrastructure and decrease the amount of traffic particularly in and around the crossroads on Brook Hill. ‐ Various local residents offer their support for development of LDF513 (Land at Eldertree Lodge, Thorpe Hesley) as they consider that as it is surrounded by houses and has existing buildings this will minimise the impact of development. ‐ LDF515 is also promoted as a comment received indicates that negotiations and discussions with

77 landowners, with confirmation given that the site would be made available to the market for residential purposes and/or a mixed use development. Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ CPRE consider that for UDP site H6 If the land is not required to deliver Rotherham’s housing target it should be included within the Green Belt (subject to a thorough Green Belt review). From their perspective LDF513 must not be released until LDF776 is fully developed. ‐ Bloor Homes & Wynthorpe Properties have an interest in LDF515 (Land at Upper Wortley Road) and they believe that this site has significant advantages over the site at Brook Hill (LDF776). In formulating this view a comparative assessment of the Brook Hill and the Upper Wortley Road sites was provided which included consideration of which of the sites best fulfilled the purposes of the Green Belt as well as the other considerations set out in the Draft Core Strategy. ‐ England & Lyle (on behalf of a named family) seek the inclusion of LDF517, LDF542 and LDF776 into the green belt (as part of a comprehensive review of green belt boundaries). General opposition to the identified development sites is stated. Reference is also made to a number of reports prepared on behalf of the Newbold family that examine the potential visual impact that potential development sites in the vicinity of Thorpe Hesley and elsewhere around the Wentworth estates, identified by the Council, would have on the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate.

‐ Local concerns of significant note (exclusively directed to Thorpe Hesley) include the opposition to development of LDF776 owing to its recreational value and that it is well used by all sections of the community. The old pit site being proposed as a replacement open space was considered a poor substitute owing to its remoteness and potential safety issues. A recurring theme was that smaller, less publically used or unused sites which would have less environmental significance could be used to satisfy the housing requirement. LDF513 was often identified as one such site The underlying geology of the area also raised concerns owing to Thorpe Hesley’s coal mining legacy which was felt could restrict the levels of development. The relative sustainability was also challenged as many arguing that the existing services and facilities did not warrant or justify the scale of growth that was envisaged. The longstanding position re: LDF542 and it being allocated as green belt was

78 highlighted, with a definitive resolution sought by many parties. The petition signed by many consultees objecting to various sites in Thorpe Hesley is also acknowledged.

‐ Comments for the other non-green belt villages were limited but they did include from Smiths Gore (on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance) who query the Council’s stance re: LDF530 located in Harthill as it has been granted a renewal of permission for the demolition of the Rectory and the development of 5 new dwellings with associated garages (Ref: RB2011/0310 & RB2011/0289). ‐ Also, within Todwick the position re: LDF545 (Land adjacent to Manor House) was challenged by Ian Hewitt Associates as they consider that the site is an ideal candidate for development as they argue it has a degree of readiness in terms of access & services and would be a less conspicuous encroachment than alternatives. Similar sentiments are expressed in relation to LDF546 (Land to East of Storth Lane) by Land and Development Practice with a query as to why the area of land they had previously submitted for consideration was not distinctly identified as it was substantially smaller than the area of land included in LDF546, with the landowner not aware of any other representations being submitted. Observations ‐ English Heritage note that in relation to LDF517 and LDF776, account needs to be taken of the extent to which any housing might impact upon key views from the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Wentworth Woodhouse. Similarly for LDF 518 and 542 they suggest that the edge of these sites lies only 500m or so metres from the boundary of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Wentworth Woodhouse with again it emphasised that account needs to be taken of how housing might impact upon key views from the Registered landscape. ‐ Fitzwilliam Estates feel that when considering the most appropriate way forward for sites within Thorpe Hesley, it is not considered appropriate to reallocate all of LDF542 to Green Belt. They also object to a blanket countryside policies designation. Instead, they are of the view that selected safeguarded areas within LDF 542 should be identified to maintain flexibility for growth beyond the plan period (with recommended areas for Safeguarded Land identified). Support is provided for the development of LDF776 and they contend that LDF517 should also be advocated for development. ‐ Scholes and Thorpe Hesley Action Group (STAG) consider that too much land is identified to meet

79 the settlements housing target. Concern is expressed at the proposals for LDF776 as this is regarded as one of the most useable and popular open spaces in the village. The scale of LDF515 was questioned but a smaller scale which is a carefully located to minimise its impact may be acceptable. In contrast, support is provided for the development of LDF513. They are also of the view that LDF512 and LDF517 may yield some potential subject to mitigation of issues such as wildlife and hedgerows which may necessitate a rationalisation of the expected yield. ‐ Various comments from local residents include that they are not against development providing it is organic, done in a sustainable way and in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the residents. The effect on infrastructure of the new development raised concern, in particular the capacity of sewers, with problems identified elsewhere in the Borough highlighted. The comparative lack of facilities within Thorpe Hesley and its appropriateness to accommodate the scale of new development proposed. Consultation issues and a wish for greater notification, publicity and meetings.

Details of all the representations received for non-green belt villages are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c255#section-c255

80

Appendix 12: GREEN BELT VILLAGES Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ CPRE SY support the decision not to identify any sites within Green Belt villages Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ It is considered by Fitzwilliam Estates that Hooton Roberts should not be identified as a village within Green Belt and, as part of the review process, it should become a Non-Green Belt Village. The settlement is considered suitable for limited expansion with appropriate development of a design and vernacular appearance which would not be to the detriment of its overall character. It is also felt that the proposed introduction of the Conservation Area designation to the settlement will provide a sufficient level of control to ensure that the character and appearance of the settlement is protected. As part of the policy review to Hooton Roberts, the Estate considers there is an area suitable for limited expansion. Observations ‐ No comments received

Details of all the representations received for green belt villages are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c257#section-c257

81

Appendix 13: AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED SITES Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ No comments received Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ No comments received Observations ‐ No comments received

Details of all the representations received for automatically excluded sites are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c130#section-c130

82 Appendix 14: Methodology: Identification of Site Allocations

Appendix 14: METHODOLOGY: IDENTIFICATION OF SITE ALLOCATIONS Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ No comments received Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ Advocacy documents for LDF0709 argues that the that the Green Belt boundary at the northern end of Hellaby Industrial Estate is drawn in an arbitrary and irrational fashion at present. It Is also felt that this site’s reallocation to industrial & business could serve to satisfy a significant proportion of the settlement’s employment land requirement. Observations ‐ SYPTE fully support the inclusion of the LUTI methodology within the site assessment methodology. This it is argued ensures that the South Yorkshire wide, automated approach to public transport appraisal is taken into consideration during the site allocation process. SYPTE have been involved in the site assessment process to prioritise sites according to their accessibility by public transport. We would therefore consider those sites classed as ‘green’ or ‘amber’ through the formalised LUTI work to be prioritised for allocation. Those identified in the ‘red’ band are those that would require mitigation, generally in terms of new bus services, in order for them to become sustainable in transport and access terms.

Details of all the representations received regarding the identification of site allocations are available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies?pointId=c259#section-c259

83

“If you or someone you know needs help to understand or read this document, please contact us.”

( 01709 823869 : [email protected] Minicom 01709 823536