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

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

Sustainability Appraisal including Non-Technical Summary

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited – August 2019 2 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice Jane Stimpson Planning Policy Manager (Local Plans) The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright Organisation name owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Directorate of Regeneration and Environment Doncaster Solutions UK Limited 2018) save to the extent that copyright Metropolitan Borough Council has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Civic Office Wood under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright Waterdale in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior Doncaster written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose DN1 3BU indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may Main contributors constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may Robert Deanwood otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party Pete Davis who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any Sean Nicholson event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Russell Buckley Ryan Llewellyn Third party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Issued by disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of ...... this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for Robert Deanwood personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Approved by

Management systems

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

Wood Gables House Document revisions Kenilworth Road Leamington Spa No. Details Date Warwickshire CV32 6JX United Kingdom 1 Report to client September Tel +44 (0) 1926 439 000 2018

Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 2 Publication SA Report August 2019 h:\projects\38404 doncaster local plan sa\1 client\reports\publication sa august 2019\doncaster local plan publication version sa report august 2019 final .docx

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 iii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Non-Technical Summary

Introduction

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

The following sections of this NTS:

 Provide an overview of the draft Local Plan;

 Describe the approach to undertaking the SA of the draft Local Plan;

 Summarise the findings of the SA of the draft Local Plan; and

 Set out the next steps in the SA of the Local Plan. What is the draft Local Plan?

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

 The Local Plan Vision and Objectives;

 Policies to manage development and development proposals for specific areas;

 Sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology;

 Elements of the evidence base and designations; and

 Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 iv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

What is Sustainability Appraisal

National Planning Policy1 sets out that local plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development is that which seeks to strike a balance between economic, environmental and social factors to enable people to meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It is important that the Doncaster Local Plan contributes to a sustainable future for the plan area. To support this objective, the Council is required to carry out a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Local Plan2. SA is a means of ensuring that the likely social, economic and environmental effects of the Local Plan are identified, described and appraised and also incorporates a process set out under a European Directive3 and related UK regulations4 called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Where negative effects are identified, measures are proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate such effects. Where any positive effects are identified, measures are considered that could enhance such effects. SA is therefore an integral part of the preparation of the Local Plan.

There are five key stages in the SA process which are shown in Figure NTS.1. What has happened so far? Figure NTS.1 The SA Process The first stage (Stage A) of the SA process involved consultation on a SA Scoping Report. The Scoping Report5 set out the proposed approach to the appraisal of the Local Plan including a SA Framework and was subject to consultation that ran from July to August 2015. A revised Scoping Report was published in March 2016 and a further round of consultation took place between 7 March 2016 and 18 April 2016.

Stage B is an iterative process involving the appraisal and refinement of the Local Plan with the findings presented in interim SA Reports. To date, three SA Reports have been published, the first was the SA of Growth Options in July 2015. The second was the SA of Revised Growth Options in March 2016. The third was the SA of Draft Policies and Proposed Sites in June 2018. This report presents the SA of the Publication Draft Local Plan.

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

Following Examination in Public (EiP), and subject to the consideration of the sustainability effects of any modifications, the Council will adopt the final Local Plan. As soon as reasonably practicable after the

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 v © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

adoption of the Local Plan, the Council will issue a Post Adoption Statement containing the outcome of the SA process.

During the period of the Local Plan, the Council will monitor its implementation and any significant social, economic and environmental effects (Stage E).

Section 1.6 of the SA Report describes in further detail the requirement for SA of local plans and the SA process including its relationship with the preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan. How has the draft Local Plan been appraised?

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

Table 1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

1. Maintain and Local economy  Create jobs and new businesses increase Doncaster’s (maintain and  Support existing businesses growth/prosperity strengthen)  Provide employment opportunities for everyone  Increase wealth and diversify its  Attract investment and trade economic base  Close the ‘output gap’  Improve financial security  Provide a supply of available land for all business needs  Promote tourism  Support home working / e-commerce  Improve quality of life

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

2. Reinforce and Support  Maintain and protect the physical identity and setting of existing support community community settlements identity and pride identity  Conserve and protect existing services and facilities (especially in more remote areas)  Deliver affordable homes  Promote greater community cohesion  Don’t make everywhere the same

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

3. Improve accessibility to place Accessibility to  Ensure places can be accessed via public transport and services, both within and places  Encourage a modal shift outside of the borough  Minimise travel to work distance  Has footpath access where possible  Has cycle paths where possible  Have adequate parking facilities  Has road access where possible  Facilitate links between urban and rural areas

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 vi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

Accessibility to  Facilitate access to services and facilities such as health, services education, open spaces and shops etc  New development should be close to services  Facilitate the transport of freight by sustainable means  Minimise the need to travel

4. Ensure resources are available Energy resources  Reduce the reliance on, and the consumption of, finite fossil and efficiently used to sustain fuels development and reduce waste  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions  Reduce energy use and encourage the production and use of and consumption renewable energy Minerals and  Reduce primary mineral extraction construction  Increase the use of recycled and reclaimed aggregates  Incorporate sustainable design and construction practices Efficient use of  Encourage reuse/recycling and minimise waste waste

5. Provide affordable, good Affordability  Provide housing including affordable housing that is available to quality housing that is available everyone to address future needs to everyone, including  Promote and encourage good quality design and sustainable vulnerable and disadvantaged Quality homes groups

Mix and range of  Ensure an appropriate mix of housing, tenures and types homes

Availability  Increase the supply of housing  Address areas of market failure

6. Reduce social exclusion and Social exclusion  Minimise disadvantage or discrimination disadvantage  Ensure that as many people as possible have good access to shops and services

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

7. Make places that are safe, Attractive and  Deliver a high quality built environment attractive, culturally interesting distinctive places  Promote local distinctiveness and distinctive to live, work and  Provide more greenspaces and trees  Maintain and improve the character and setting of the travel in townscape and landscape Safety and  Promote buildings and developments which are ‘secure by security design’  Address anti-social behaviour  Maximise the security of homes and workplaces  Reduce crime  Reduce fear of crime  Minimise risk to health and safety 8. Renew and reuse existing Land and buildings  Encourage the re-use of brownfield land, vacant sites and buildings, land and existing buildings infrastructure  Avoid the unnecessary use of greenfield sites  Support renewal of old and/or poor areas of housing  Protect and enhance the amenity of the area  Secure the removal of unstable and contaminated land

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 vii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

9. Improve the health and well- Health  Address health inequalities being of the borough’s  Make it easier for people to pursue a healthy lifestyle population  Promote access to healthcare  Reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

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

10. Provide education and Education  Improve educational attainment training provision to build the  Provide more/sufficient school places to address future need skills and capacity of the population

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

11. Manage and adapt to Flood risk  Avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas climate  Manage flood risk on sites at risk of flooding change

Greenhouse gas  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions emissions  Improve/increase Doncaster’s resilience to climate change  Support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure  Secure energy efficiency improvements

Water supply and  Encourage sustainable drainage practices drainage  Manage and protect our water supply

12. Protect, increase and Biodiversity  Protect, maintain and improve sites of international, national enhance the natural (habitats and and local importance. environment, including the species)  Create new areas of biodiversity value  Offset / compensate for the loss of habitats and species as a landscape, its underlying result of development geology and wildlife habitat  Protect and restore priority species and habitats

Geodiversity  Protect, maintain and improve sites of geodiversity importance

Landscape  Maintain and enhancing landscape quality and character

13. Protect, conserve and Historic places  Protect, maintain and improve the character and appearance of enhance the historic and cultural conservation areas heritage  Maintain and protect historic buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and their settings  Protect, maintain and improve national and local historic parks and gardens  Protect, maintain and enhance archaeological assets

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 viii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

14. Protect and enhance soil, Land and soil  Avoid the sterilisation of minerals air and water quality  Restore, reclaim and remediate vacant and derelict land (e.g. (watercourses and ground contaminated sites)  Encourage local food production water)

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

Air  Reduce/minimise air pollution (e.g. increased traffic) and noise  Improve air quality especially at motorway junctions and busy A roads  Reduce the potential risk to ecosystems  (e.g. wetland and riparian habitats) and ecological receptors

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

Table 2 Scoring System used in the Preferred Options Compatibility Matrices

+ Compatible i.e. - Incompatible i.e. likely 0 Neutral i.e. likely to ? Unlikely to be Related or likely to assist to compromise involve both compatible Uncertain i.e. effects sustainable sustainable and incompatible effects cannot be judged at this development development stage

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

 Options for how much land should be provided in the borough for housing and employment;

 Draft Local Plan policies;

 Alternative sites for housing and employment;

 Areas of Search for minerals; and

 Potential minerals sites.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 ix © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Vision and Objectives The Local Plan Vision and Objectives provide the context for the other elements of the Local Plan. Collectively, they present the purpose of the Local Plan and its aims. The vision and objectives for the Local Plan have been revised and shortened in line with the revised and reviewed spatial vision of the Borough.

A compatibility appraisal was undertaken between the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives. The great majority of interactions between elements of the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives have either a positive relationship or have no direct or an uncertain relationship. This reflects the scope of the vision for the Borough which has economic, social and environmental dimensions and therefore aspirations which are likely to broadly result in the advancement of sustainable development. There are, however, potentially incompatible relationships between environmental protection and aspirations for economic growth associated with the ambition to:

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

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

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

Assessment and comparison of Doncaster’s growth options The SA Report to accompany the 2015 Local Plan Issues and Options document considered the following alternative approaches to delivering Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations:

 Option 1: The Core Strategy approach – This option maintained the current strategy contained within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario);

 Option 2: Doncaster Main Town focus – This was based on higher levels of growth in the main urban area of Doncaster and main towns (e.g. Armthorpe, Mexborough and Thorne) with reductions in surrounding areas;

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 x © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Following the consultation on the Issues and Options SA Report (2015), a new hybrid option was developed and appraised in the Growth Options SA Report (2016). In this option, housing would be more dispersed relative to Options 1 and 2 but more growth would be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than Option 3. The revised options are numbered as Options 1 to 4, however it should be noted that Option 4 is the hybrid option as opposed to the ‘New settlement or town’ option assessed at the Issues and Options stage. In consequence, the revised growth options considered in the Growth Options SA Report (2016) were:

 Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual);

 Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus;

 Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and

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

Overall, the SA considered that Option 1 (based on the current Core Strategy) has its merits from a regeneration point of view but steers too much growth to medium and high risk flood areas and too little growth towards market towns and villages (which already benefit from reasonably good service provision) and the more isolated communities in the north of the borough (where new opportunities are emerging).

Option 2 would help reinforce and support the role of Doncaster as a major commercial and shopping centre of regional significance, which is demonstrating increasing potential to attract high quality investment and employment and visitor opportunities, taking advantage of significant development and redevelopment opportunities and recent major improvements to infrastructure and service provision. Option 2 would also support the development of critical mass at a limited number of other towns in the Borough where population size, services and/or proposed jobs and infrastructure make them the most sustainable places in which to accommodate significant growth. There are a number of redevelopment opportunities on the edge of the town centre close to existing public transport links and the waterfront areas where major mixed use development is planned. Option 3 would give rise to more adverse impacts on the environment, some of which would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the Green Belt and the physical identity and settings of existing settlements. While the appraisal predicts that Option 4 will have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and countryside than Options 1 and 2, it seeks to provide an appropriate balance between a focus on the larger and more accessible urban areas (i.e. the main urban area and main towns) to supports regeneration and address deprivation, whilst supporting rural communities with levels of growth that address their needs and support local services. In addition, it will ensure that local housing needs (including affordable housing) are met across the Borough.

The preferred approach contained in Option 4 is largely based on a combination of Options 1 and 2, with the appraisal highlighting the benefits of concentrating growth within the main urban area, main towns and existing service centres which provide good access to infrastructure and services, such as public transport links, shops, leisure facilities and open spaces. Conversely, a more dispersed strategy (Option 3) has the potential to dilute benefits associated with achieving a larger critical mass and possibly not maximise inward investment opportunities in and around the main urban area. We have rejected this approach in favour of the hybrid option.

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

The appraisal, therefore, supports a focus on the main urban area (Doncaster) and the main towns (Dunscroft, Dunsville, Hatfield, Stainforth, Thorne and Moorends, Mexborough Conisbrough and Denaby,

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Appraisal of options for housing and employment growth Three options have been identified as part of the current iteration of the SA in relation to how much housing and employment land should be provided over the plan period:

 Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 407 ha of employment land;

 Option 2: 585 dpa and 103 ha of employment land; and

 Option 3: 753 dpa and 242 ha of employment land.

The key points identified by the appraisal are as follows:

 All options would make a significant positive contribution towards SA Objectives 1 relating to economic growth and prosperity.

 All options would make a significant positive contribution to SA Objective 5 in relation to housing as they all meet the requirements of the Objectively Assessed Housing Need and SA Objective 6 ‘social exclusion and disadvantage’.

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Option 1 is the Council’s preferred option. It will meet local need but also enable employment-led growth in accordance with the Sheffield City Regional Plan, whilst providing a degree of flexibility. Additional economic growth is central to re-balancing the local economy away from public sector. It is important that the local plans’ housing and economic strategies and aspirations are aligned and internally consistent with one- another so that there is a sufficient local workforce to fill the jobs being planned. This balance represents a ‘sound’ plan overall whereby the Borough’s economic growth aspirations are not constrained by a shortage in the local workforce who will require housing. Of the 3 options considered, Option 1 meets this objective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Provision of quality affordable housing, e.g. Policy 66 on developer contributions;

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

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

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

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

The potential for significant adverse effects centre on the generation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of new development, including increasing traffic flows. There are overall minor negative effects recorded against the appraisal objectives for biodiversity and design associated with the delivery of affordable housing, where compromises on location may have to be made. On a policy- specific level, there are potential negative effects associated with:

 Policy 13 (Strategic Transport Network) – effect on climate change (Objective 11) and air quality (Objective 14); and

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xiii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment and Minerals Proposals Overall the appraisal identified that for those housing sites in Doncaster, the majority of effects identified were either minor or negligible, with significant positives identified for affordability and for a number of sites with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The majority of the significant negatives identified were with regards to the potential for polluting surface water bodies, adversely affecting biodiversity and potential effects on historic assets. This pattern is repeated for the main towns and the service town/villages. In addition, for the main towns and the service town/villages, a number of sites were identified as unstable land with particular concentrations in Conisburgh-Denaby with six sites affected, as were nine sites in Mexborough.

With regards to the employment sites, the significant positive impacts identified were with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The potential for significant pollution to water bodies was identified as a significant negative for the majority of sites, with fourteen sites identified as having a significant adverse effect on biodiversity. Significant negative effects were also identified with respect to the presence of unstable land and the protection and conservation of historic assets.

The appraisal of Areas of Search for minerals identified a number of potential significant negative effects for a number of SA Objectives: SA Objective 8 ‘Land and buildings’, SA Objective 12 ‘Biodiversity’, SA Objective 13 ‘Heritage’ and SA Objective 14 ‘Environmental protection’. All other scores were either minor, negligible or uncertain.

The appraisal of potential mineral sites identified a number of potential significant effects in relation to SA Objective 12 ‘Biodiversity’ and SA Objective 14 ‘Environmental Protection’. All other scores were either minor, negligible or uncertain. Assessment of Effects

Overall, the appraisal has demonstrated that the majority of the SA Objectives will experience positive effects as a result of the implementation of the policies and proposals contained in the draft Local Plan. Whilst negative effects have also been identified against many of the SA Objectives, particularly associated with proposed site allocations, the draft Local Plan includes policies which seek to manage these effects such that significant adverse effects will be largely avoided.

The appraisal of alternative growth options both borough-wide and for housing and employment growth and site allocations has demonstrated that, overall, the proposals of the draft Local Plan perform similar to, or better than, the alternatives considered when assessed against the SA Objectives. Mitigation and Enhancement

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xiv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Next Steps

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

This Consultation: How to Give Us Your Views

We would welcome your views on any aspect of this SA Report. In particular, we would like to hear your views as to whether there are any significant effects, either positive or negative which have not been considered in the appraisal presented here and whether there are any reasonable alternatives to either the proposed policies or sites that haven’t been identified.

Please refer to the draft Local Plan Publication Version Document for details on how to respond to this consultation.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xv © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Contents

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

Review of Plans and Programmes 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Review of Plans and Programmes 15

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

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

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

Appraisal of the Local Plan Vision and Objectives 57 6.1 Local Plan Vision and Objectives 57

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xvi © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

6.2 Compatibility Matrices 59

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

Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment Sites and Minerals Proposals 85 8.1 Introduction 85 8.2 Housing Sites 85 8.3 Employment Sites 188 8.4 Mineral Proposals 205 8.5 Cumulative Effects of Site Allocations 213

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xvii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 xviii © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 1 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

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

1.1.2 The Council is currently undertaking a consultation under Regulation 19 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 20126 on the following consultation documents to inform the preparation of the Local Plan:

 The Local Plan Vision and Objectives;

 Policies to manage development and development proposals for specific areas;

 Sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology;

 Elements of the evidence base and designations;

 Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.2.1 Under Section 19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council is required to carry out a SA of the Local Plan to help guide the selection and development of policies and proposals in terms of their potential social, environmental and economic effects. In undertaking the requirement for SA, local planning authorities must also incorporate the requirements of European Union Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, referred to as the SEA Directive7, and its transposing regulations the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (statutory instrument 2004 No. 1633). 8

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 2 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

9 At paragraph 16, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that local plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development10 In this context, paragraph 32 of the NPPF reiterates the requirement for SA/SEA as it relates to local plan preparation:

“Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements.11 This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 3 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

1.3 The Local Plan – An Overview

Requirement to Prepare a Local Plan

1.3.1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 sets out the regulatory requirements for developing and adopting a Local Plan. Before adoption, this involves preparing and consulting on a Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18), producing a Publication Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19), submitting the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Regulation 22) and subjecting the Local Plan to public examination (Regulation 24).

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

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

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

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

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

1.3.3 The PPG clarifies that local plans:

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

Scope and Content of the Emerging Local Plan

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 4 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 5 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

By 2035, Doncaster will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 be a prosperous place to live, work and visit where growth will address health inequalities, ditditi

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

1.3.10 The plan policy areas designed to help meet the objectives are:

 Strategic approach;

 Doncaster Sheffield Airport;

 Meeting the need for new homes;

 Transport, access and infrastructure;

 Retail and town centres;

 Countryside;

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 6 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Green infrastructure;

 The historic environment;

 Design and the built environment;

 Health, well-being and our communities;

 Climate change, mineral resources and energy; and

 Implementation and monitoring.

1.3.11 The draft Local Plan proposes the following development for the Borough to 2035:

 Major new employment sites (total of 481 Hectares) to support ‘Doncaster Main Urban Area’ and 7 Main Towns; but also at locations attractive to the market associated with the Strategic Transport Network.

 Ensuring the maintenance of a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.

 At least 50% of new homes to go to the ‘Doncaster Main Urban Area’, about 40% to the ‘Main Towns’ and approx. 10% to the ‘Service Towns and Villages’.

 18,400 new homes over plan period (920 per year); sites allocated for 13,230 in the 15 years 2018-33 (822 per annum once supply in years 2015-18 is deducted from overall requirement).

 Doncaster Town Centre to be main focus for most retail, offices, leisure, cultural and tourist facilities.

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

 General extent of Green Belt will be maintained.

 Major multi-modal transport hub centred on “Rossington iPort” and business parks between the M18 motorway and Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

 Unity (major mixed-use urban extension between Hatfield and Stainforth).

 Supporting the sustainable growth of Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

Relationship to other documents

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 7 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

1.4 Stages in the SA Process

There are five key stages in the SA process and these are highlighted in Figure 1.1 below together with links to the development of the Local Plan. More detail is provided in Table 1.1.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 8 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

Stage A: Set the context and objectives, establish the baseline and decide on the scope 1. Identify other relevant policies, plans and programmes and sustainability objectives 2. Collect baseline information Evidence gathering and engagement 3. Identify sustainability issues and problems 4. Develop the sustainability appraisal framework 5. Consult the consultation bodies on the scope of the sustainability appraisal report

Stage B: Develop and refine alternatives and assess effects* 1. Test the Local Plan objectives against the sustainability framework 2. Develop the Local Plan options including reasonable alternatives Consult on the Doncaster Local Plan in line 3. Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan and alternatives with Regulation 18 of the Town & Country 4. Consider ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising Planning (Local Planning) (England) beneficial effects Regulations 2012 5. Propose measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the Local Plan

Stage C: Prepare the Sustainability Appraisal Report

Seek representations on the Publication Stage D: Seek representations on the Sustainability Appraisal Version of the Local Plan (Regulation 19) Report from consultation bodies and the public (including from consultation bodies and the public preferred options and appraisal of significant changes following consultation)

Submit Local Plan and supporting documents for Examination

Doncaster Local Plan adopted

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 9 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Work on the Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal to Date

1.5.1 SA is an iterative process and the SA for the Doncaster Local Plan has been updated at each stage of the plan preparation process. Future updates will include any updates required to the baseline information and plan policy context set out in the appendices of this report. The findings of the appraisal will be taken into account alongside consultation responses when finalising the plan.

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

Table 1.1 Stages of the appraisal process

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

Evidence Stage A Scoping Report Agree on scope and content gathering Draft July 2015 Highlight/identify issues and opportunities the plan should respond to Final Scoping Report Finalise sustainability appraisal framework March 2016

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 10 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Options Stages B Interim Sustainability Appraise strategic growth options. and C Appraisal Reports: Appraise detailed policy options that emerge from the preferred spatial growth option. SA of Growth Update the baseline information as required. Options July 2015 Develop the vision and objectives of the plan to address the relevant issues set out in the SA. SA of Revised Growth Appraise site options. Options March 2016 Amend the report to take on board comments received.

Draft Policies and Stages B SA of Doncaster Update the baseline information as required. Proposed Sites and C Local Plan – Informal Appraise vision and objectives. Consultation Consultation: Draft Appraise strategic growth options. Policies and Appraise options for housing and employment growth. Proposed Sites Appraisal of plan policies. (September 2018) Appraise site options. Amend the report to take on board comments received.

Publication Stage C Full Sustainability Update baseline review and list of plans and programmes as Appraisal Report required. (this report) Incorporate the results of previous appraisal work (e.g. options). Assess the significant effects of the preferred policies. Amend the report to take on board comments received. Submission/ Stage D Final Sustainability Appraise any significant changes that need to be made to Examination Appraisal Report the local plan (as a result of the representations) which are likely to give rise to significant effects. Submit the final SA Report alongside the local plan and representations from the publication stage Examination in Public of the Submission Local Plan and evidence base to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Any significant changes to the submission document (local plan) that are put forward during the examination will need to be tested against the SA framework. If this is the case, an addendum to the SA report will be published alongside the focused changes.

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

Initial Consultation (July 2015)

1.5.3 The appraisal of the Doncaster Local Plan began with the publication of, and consultation on, the following documents in July 2015:

 Doncaster Local Plan: Visions, Aims and Objectives;

 Doncaster Local Plan: Issues and Options;

 Doncaster Local Plan: Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report; and

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 11 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Doncaster Local Plan: Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s Growth Options.

1.5.4 The SA of Growth Options considered the following alternative approaches to delivering Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations:

 Option 1: The Core Strategy approach (business as usual) – This option maintained the current strategy contained within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario);

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised Growth Consultation (March 2016)

1.5.8 In March 2016 the Council undertook a re-appraisal of spatial options in the context of a revised requirement for housing and job provision over the plan period (920 homes p.a. totalling 15,640 over the plan period). The following documents were produced and consulted upon:

 Homes and Settlements; and

 Sustainability Appraisal of Doncaster’s Growth Options.

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

 Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual);

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 12 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus;

 Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and

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

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

Local Plan Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation

1.5.11 The Council undertook a consultation on draft policies and sites for the Local Plan which ran from 13th September to 26th October 2018. This included:

 The Local Plan Vision and Objectives;

 Policies to manage development and Proposals for specific areas; and

 New sites for housing, employment and minerals and the selection methodology.

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

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

1.6 Habitats Regulations Assessment

1.6.1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) requires that competent authorities assess the potential impacts of land use plans on the Natura 2000 network of European protected sites13 to determine whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of the plan’s implementation (either alone or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects); and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on that site’s integrity. The process by which the impacts of a plan or programme are assessed against the conservation objectives of a European site is known as ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA).14

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 13 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

1.7 Structure of this Report

1.7.1 For a number of reasons, including the number of sites that have been appraised the SA is a large document. It has therefore been split into three volumes (the main report and NTS are in volume I and the appendices are presented in Volumes II (Appendix A to J) and III (Appendix K to R). This SA Report is structured as follows:

 Non-Technical Summary; Provides a summary of the SA Report including the findings of the appraisal;

 Section 1: Introduction - Includes a summary of the Local Plan, an overview of SA, report contents and an outline of how to respond to the consultation (Appendix A provides the results of earlier consultation associated with previous iterations of the SA and Appendix B provides a quality assurance checklist);

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 14 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

1.8 Next Steps

1.8.1 The consultation documentation, including the SA will be subject to a period of public consultation. Once consultation responses have been received these will be reviewed and the Council will consider these as part of the preparation of the Local Plan.

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

This Consultation: How to Give Us Your Views

Please refer to the Local Plan Publication Version Document for details on how to respond to this consultation.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 15 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Review of Plans and Programmes

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 One of the first steps in undertaking SA is to identify and review other relevant plans and programmes that could influence the Local Plan. The requirement to undertake a plan and programme review and identify the environmental and wider sustainability objectives relevant to the plan being assessed is set out in the SEA Directive. An ‘Environmental Report’ required under the SEA Directive should include:

“An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and relationship with other relevant plans and programmes” to determine “the environmental protection objectives, established at international (European) community or national level, which are relevant to the plan or programme…and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex 1 (a), (e)).

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

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

2.2 Review of Plans and Programmes

2.2.1 Nearly 80 international, national, regional/sub-regional and local level plans and programmes have been reviewed in preparing this Scoping Report. These are listed in Table 2.1, with the results of the review provided in Appendix C.

Table 2.1 Plans and Programmes Reviewed for the SA of the Borough Local Plan

Plan / programme International Johannesburg Declaration of Sustainable Development (1992) Kyoto Protocol Agreement (1997) Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Paris Agreement (2016) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 16 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Plan / programme Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC Renewable Energy Directive 2009/EC Flood Directive 2007/60/EC Noise Directive 2002/49/EC Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC European Landscape Convention (Florence Convention) EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 – Towards Implementation European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage EU 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (SEA Directive) National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance (as amended) (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2014) National Planning Policy for Waste (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2014) Waste Management Plan for England (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, December 2013) ‘Securing the Future’: Sustainable Development Strategy (HM Government, 2005) Climate Change Act 2008 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (Committee on Climate Change, 2017) Clean Growth Strategy (Department of Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2017) Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in UK (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2017) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Water Act 2014 A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (HM Government, 2018) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2015)

Biodiversity 2020 - a strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2012) “Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt” (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2008) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs 2011) Water for Life (HM Government, 2011) Planning for our electric future: a white paper for secure, affordable and low carbon electricity (Department for Energy & Climate Change, 2012) ‘Safeguarding our Soils’ A Strategy for England (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2009) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Living with Environmental Change, 2010) Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England (Department of Health, 2010) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Transport white paper – Cutting carbon, creating growth: making sustainable local transport happen (Department of Transport, 2011) Aviation Policy Framework (Department of Transport, March 2014) Equality Framework for Local Government (Local Government Association) National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2011) Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (Environment Agency, 2013) Rights of Way Circular 01/09 (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2015) Strategy 2015 – 2020: World Class Education and Care (Department for Education, 2016) DFE (2016) Strategy 2015 – 2020: World Class Education and Care A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (Her Majesty’s Government, 2018)

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 17 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 18 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

2.2.2 The review of plans and programmes presented in Appendix C has identified a number of objectives and policy messages relevant to the Local Plan and scope of the SA.

2.2.3 Key issues from the review of plans and programmes informed the identification of key issues that are summarised in Section 3.3 of this Report.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 19 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Baseline Analysis

3.1 Introduction

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

3.2 Baseline Conditions and their Evolution

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

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

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

3.3 Key Sustainability Issues

3.3.1 The key sustainability issues arising from the review of baseline conditions are summarised below with more information provided in Appendix D. They are also set out in Table 3.1.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 20 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 3.1 Key Sustainability Issues

Economic

 Doncaster needs to diversify and strengthen its economic base especially towards high- skilled and innovative sectors, such as advanced manufacturing, rail engineering, energy and aviation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social

 Doncaster has high levels of deprivation with a number of neighbourhoods among some of the most deprived in England.

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 21 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental

 In common with many other parts of the country, Doncaster needs to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy and play a more active role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Doncaster has a higher per capita level of emissions than the national average, mainly because of high levels of car use.

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 22 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 23 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Approach to the Sustainability Appraisal

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section describes the approach to the SA. In particular, it sets out the SA Framework and how this has been used to appraise the key components of the Draft Local Plan. It also documents the difficulties encountered during the appraisal process including key uncertainties and assumptions.

4.2 SA Framework

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

4.2.2 The SA Objectives reflect the key issues identified in Table 3.1 and include a range of topics, including the need to improve the economic base whilst contributing to measures to tackle climate change and mitigate any unavoidable effects identified. A specific objective has been included within the framework to assess the impact of policies and proposals on the health and well-being in line with best practice. Rural issues are also well-covered in the sustainability framework, especially in relation to the following objectives or sub-objectives:

 Re-use and physical renewal of land and buildings (e.g. disused farms);

 Protecting high quality agricultural land;

 Improving accessibility;

 Maintaining and enhancing landscape quality and character; and

 Avoiding the sterilisation of minerals.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 24 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 4.1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

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

3. Improve accessibility to place Accessibility to  Ensure places can be accessed via public transport and services, both within and places  Encourage a modal shift outside of the Borough  Minimise travel to work distance  Has footpath access where possible  Has cycle paths where possible  Have adequate parking facilities  Has road access where possible  Facilitate links between urban and rural areas

Efficient use of  Encourage reuse/recycling and minimise waste waste

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 25 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

Quality  Promote and encourage good quality design and sustainable homes

Mix and range of  Ensure an appropriate mix of housing, tenures and types homes

Availability  Increase the supply of housing  Address areas of market failure

6. Reduce social exclusion and Social exclusion  Minimise disadvantage or discrimination disadvantage  Ensure that as many people as possible have good access to shops and services

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

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

9. Improve the health and well- Health  Address health inequalities being of the Borough’s  Make it easier for people to pursue a healthy lifestyle population  Promote access to healthcare  Reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 26 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Objective Sub-objective How the objective will be achieved

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

11. Manage and adapt to Flood risk  Avoid inappropriate development in flood risk areas climate  Manage flood risk on sites at risk of flooding change

Water supply and  Encourage sustainable drainage practices drainage  Manage and protect our water supply

Geodiversity  Protect, maintain and improve sites of geodiversity importance

Landscape  Maintain and enhancing landscape quality and character

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 27 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

SEA Directive Topic SA Objective(s)

Biodiversity 3, 7, 12

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

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

Fauna 12

Flora 12

Soil 14

Water 11, 14

Air 14

Climatic Factors 3, 4, 11

Material Assets* 3, 4, 8, 11

Cultural Heritage including Architectural and Archaeological 7, 13 Heritage

Landscape 7, 8, 12

4.3 Methodology

Based on the contents of the consultation documents detailed in Section 1.3, the SA Framework has been used to appraise the following key components of the documents:

 Spatial Options;

 Options for the amount of housing and employment land to be made available over the plan period;

 Vision and Objectives;

 Policies;

 Housing Sites;

 Employment Sites;

 Mineral Safeguarded Areas; and

 Mineral Sites.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 28 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

SA of Spatial Options

4.3.2 As noted in the introduction, earlier work on the SA considered a range of high level spatial options, which built on those considered in the Issues and Options SA Report (2015). These high level options were assessed against the SA Objectives and the results are discussed in Section 5 of this report. Four options have been considered:

 Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual);

 Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus;

 Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and

 Option 4: Hybrid Option: urban concentration and dispersal – a distribution based on similar levels of growth within the main urban area and main towns as under Option 1 with greater amounts of housing apportioned to service towns and villages. Housing would be more dispersed relative to options 1 and 2 but more growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than option 3.

Options for the amount of Housing and Employment Land

4.3.3 Three options have been identified in relation to how much housing and employment land should be provided over the plan period:

 Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land;

 Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land; and

 Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

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

 Locally derived job densities (m2/worker) – these differ from the standard densities and have been used in response to local research;

 A frictional or ‘churn’ requirement – an addition to the requirement to allow for movement and re-location of existing business;

 Other uses on a site – an addition to endorse flexibility and the objectives set out in the NPPF; and

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 29 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.3 Example Appraisal Matrix for Options

Objective Sub- Option Option Option Commentary objective 1 2 3

1. Maintain and a) Local Likely Significant Effects increase economy Doncaster’s (maintain Commentary here growth/prosperity and Short/Medium/Long Term effects and diversify its strengthen) Any temporal differences are noted here. economic base b) Diversify ++ + ++ the Mitigation economic Any suggested mitigation is noted here. base Assumptions & Uncertainties Any assumptions and uncertainties are noted here.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 30 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 4.4 Scoring System

Score Description Symbol

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

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

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

Significant The proposed option/policy detracts significantly from the achievement of the objective. Negative Effect --

There is no clear relationship between the proposed option/policy and the achievement of No Relationship the objective or the relationship is negligible. ~

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

Vision and Objectives

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 31 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 4.5 Example Compatibility Matrix – Vision and Objectives

Local Plan Objective

SA Objective Objective 1 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4...etc. Objective

1. Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth/prosperity and diversify its economic 0 0 + ? base 2. Reinforce and support community identity and pride + - + + 1. Etc... + 0 + ?

Key

+ Compatible - Incompatible 0 Neutral i.e. ? Unlikely to be i.e. likely to i.e. likely to likely to Related or assist compromise involve both Uncertain i.e. sustainable sustainable compatible effects development development and cannot be incompatible judged at this effects stage

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

Appraising Local Plan Policies

4.3.13 As part of the development of Doncaster’s draft Local Plan, draft policies have been provided for consultation and have been appraised for their likely sustainability effects.

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 32 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 4.6 Example Appraisal Matrix for Policies

Objective Sub- Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Commentary objective no. no. no. no. no. no. 1. Maintain and a) Local ++ 0 + ~ - ? Likely Significant Effects increase economy Doncaster’s (maintain Summary here growth/prosperity and Short/Medium/Long and diversify its strengthen) Term effects economic base b) Diversify Any temporal differences the are noted here. economic base Cumulative effects Summary here Mitigation Any suggestions recorded here Assumptions & Uncertainties Any assumptions and uncertainties are noted here.

4.4 Housing and Employment Sites

4.4.1 The Council’s Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) that is published as part of the consultation documentation explains the overall context for the identification of potential housing and employment sites and the overall site selection process, which includes SA.

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

Table 4.7 SA Symbols for Site Options

Significant positive effects – The proposal will have a significant positive effect on the SA Objective when compared to the ++ current and future baseline conditions. Positive effects – The proposal will have a positive effect on the SA Objective when compared to the current and future + baseline conditions. Minor adverse effects may result but the overall effect will be positive. 0 Neutral – Proposal is unlikely to create any significant effects (positive or negative) at present or in the future. ? Unknown/ uncertain – There is insufficient information about the implications of the proposal to make a robust assessment. Negative effects – The proposal will have a negative effect on the SA Objective being assessed when compared to the current - and future baseline conditions. Minor positive effects may result but the overall effect will be negative. Significant negative effects – the proposal will have major negative effects on the SA Objective compared to the current and - - future baseline conditions.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 33 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

4.4.3 An interactive sustainability appraisal map containing all of the relevant layers of information (where applicable) has also been compiled by the Council and is available to view on the Council’s website at:

http://dmbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0b5af4eeb60a42f9b001c658cbd8 c837

4.5 Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Areas of Search and Minerals Sites

4.5.1 Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) - are areas of known mineral resources that are considered to be of sufficient economic or conservation value (such as building stone) to warrant protection beyond the plan period.

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

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

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

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

Secondary, Cumulative and Synergistic Effects

4.5.6 The SEA Directive and SEA Regulations require that the secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects of the Local Plan are assessed. In particular, it is important to consider the combined sustainability effects of the policies and proposals of the Local Plan both alone and in-combination with other plans and programmes.

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 34 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 4.8 Layout of Table for Presenting Cumulative Effects

SA Objective

ffects across Chapter X Chapter Y Chapter Z Chapter Etc. E Areas Policy Commentary

1. Maintain Commentary and increase here Doncaster’s growth and ++ 0 ++ ? + prosperity and diversify its economic base

4.6 When the SA was Undertaken and by Whom

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

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

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

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

Technical difficulties and assumptions (policies and sites)

4.6.5 The SEA Directive requires the identification of any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of knowledge) encountered.

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

Uncertainties and Assumptions

4.6.7 There are a number of uncertainties and assumptions relating to the appraisal of the draft Local Plan policies, these are as follows:

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 35 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Uncertainties

4.6.8 The precise locations, sites, composition, timing and extent of actual development occurring cannot be determined and this has on occasion affected the ability of the appraisal team to determine likely effects and/or when the effects could occur. This has been detailed in the individual policy appraisals.

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

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

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

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

Assumptions

4.6.13 The quantum and phasing of development will be as set out in the draft Local Plan (any variation from which will affect the appraisal of effects in short, medium and long term). In some instances, such as the likely delivery of network improvements, where phasing has not been indicated, the appraisal team has indicated an assumed timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 36 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 37 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Appraisal of the Development Options

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section summarises earlier work on the appraisal of growth options (Section 5.2) and options for the amount of housing and employment land that should be provided (Section 5.3).

5.2 Assessment and comparison of Doncaster’s growth options

2015 Issues and Options

5.2.1 As identified in Section 1.6, the Issues and Options SA Report (2015) considered the following alternative approaches to delivering Doncaster’s growth needs and aspirations:

 Option 1: The Core Strategy approach – This option maintained the current strategy contained within the Core Strategy (the business as usual scenario);

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

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

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

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

2016 Growth Options

5.2.3 Following the consultation on the Issues and Options SA Report (2015), a new hybrid option was developed and presented in the Growth Options SA Report (2016). In this option housing would be more dispersed relative to Options 1 and 2 but more growth will be directed towards the main urban area and main towns than Option 3.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 38 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Option 1: Core Strategy approach (business as usual);

 Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns focus;

 Option 3: Greater dispersal strategy; and

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

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

Option 1: Core Strategy Approach

5.2.6 The current Core Strategy (on which Option 1 is based) seeks to focus employment opportunities within the M18 motorway corridor around the main urban area and main towns, whereas Options 2, 3 and 4 would provide more growth opportunities along the A1 (M) corridor within the north of the Borough (specifically Adwick and Carcroft Common) which would support the local economy and widen access to jobs and skills.

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

Option 2: Doncaster and Main Towns Focus

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

Option 3: Greater Dispersal Strategy

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 39 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Option 4: The Hybrid Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 40 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refining the Hybrid Option

5.2.21 In this context, the hybrid approach seeks to ensure that sufficient opportunities come forward across the Borough to secure affordable housing, open space and other types of infrastructure in line with local and national priorities. Housing growth would be spread across a relatively large number of settlements in both rural and urban areas (including more market-friendly locations) to meet local needs and secure the delivery of affordable homes. Market attractive locations should

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 41 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Improvements to public transport access to the airport and other development sites, such as park and ride, bus priority schemes and interchanges;

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 42 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Traffic management measures;

 Surface access; and

 Ongoing work on flood management.

Reasons for rejecting alternatives and choosing the preferred option

5.2.27 Option 1 (based on the current Core Strategy) has its merits from a regeneration point of view but steers too much growth to medium and high risk flood areas and too little growth towards market towns and villages which already benefit from reasonably good service provision and the more isolated communities in the north of the Borough where new opportunities are emerging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 43 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

SA Objective Option 1 – Core Strategy Approach Option 2 – Doncaster and Main Towns Option 3 – Greater Dispersal Hybrid Option – Urban Concentration (Business as Usual) Focus Strategy and Dispersal

1. Maintain and Overall score: ++/? Overall score: ++/? Overall score: ++/-/? Overall score: ++/? increase This option will have significant positive Major development will be concentrated This option will generally have Significant positive effects will emerge Doncaster’s effects on this objective but still some within the most sustainable areas of the significant positive effects on this from the option but still some growth and uncertainty exists about the future state of Borough and the key linkages to the objective but still some uncertainty uncertainty about the future state of the prosperity and the local economy during the plan period strategic road network with the inclusion exists about the future state of the economy during the plan period due to diversify its due to fluctuations in market conditions of the A1 corridor alongside Adwick and local economy during the plan period fluctuations in market conditions and economic base and reductions in public funding. Woodlands. This will promote positive due to fluctuations in market reductions in public funding. This option economic benefits within the Borough. conditions and reductions in public will ensure the retention and creation of However, a degree of uncertainty will funding. However, an unfettered, a range of employment sites across the remain about the future state of the market driven approach will not Borough which will, in turn, support economy during the plan period due to necessarily support prosperity and business growth and maximise local fluctuations in market conditions and balanced growth because it will not communities. reductions in public funding. This option deliver sufficient new homes in urban will ensure the retention and creation of areas which are needed to support a range of strategic employment sites existing communities and businesses. across the Borough which will in turn support business growth and promote community cohesion.

2. Reinforce and Overall score: ++/- Overall score: ++/-- Overall score: ++/- Overall score: ++/- support This option has the potential to have This option has the potential to have This option would lead to significant The hybrid approach should support and community significant positive impacts on the identity significant positive impact on the expansion of the rural fringe and enhance community identity and the identity and and profile of settlements and individual identity of settlements and individual reinforce the existing dispersed integrity of existing settlements through pride communities and the pride of place, with communities, which could instil a sense settlement pattern. The scope to the provision of new and improved its focus on regenerating deprived of pride in the places where people live expand existing settlements is more services (e.g. physical and social communities, but there remains a risk that and work. However, the expansion of limited in rural areas. In addition, infrastructure) and the regeneration and growth will reduce the sense of physical settlements through new development dispersed growth is more likely to renewal of existing town and district separation between them and in turn could have an adverse impact on place undermine the setting and character of centres (e.g. new cultural attractions) create a dense mass of development which setting where dense development would existing settlements where they are and brownfield or infill opportunities undermines their character and setting. dilute the existing form-this can be vulnerable to coalescence. On the within established built-up-areas. New Targeting growth and investment in mitigated through the appropriate other hand, rural communities could urban extensions will provide range of existing communities and town centres will design and layout. benefit from the provision of opportunities such as mixed tenures, help build community cohesion and additional services and homes to a accessible open spaces and good improve civic pride. greater extent than the other options. transport links which will contribute to the creation of mixed and balanced communities. However, there remains a risk that new development could harm

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 44 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

3. Improve Overall score: ++ Overall score: ++/- Overall score: 0 Overall score: ++/- accessibility to This option would contribute positively to The Focus on new development close to The overall effects of this option are The hybrid approach would contribute place and the achievement of this objective, along employment, services and public considered to be neutral. This option positively to the achievement of this services, both with many of its sub-objectives. connection to public transport will help would likely see a greater reliance on objective, along with many of its sub- within and reduce the need to travel and reliance the need to travel as it is the most objectives. Focusing new development outside of the on motorised transport. However, the dispersed of the options and would close to employment, services and public Borough expansion of housing and industry will see development directed to a number transport nodes will help reduce the inevitably create more carbon pollution. of smaller settlements where service need to travel and reliance on motorised provision is likely to be poorer and transport. On the other hand, it could lead to greater reliance on travel by potentially promote more car dependant private modes. Availability and patterns of travel compared to options 1 capacity of existing infrastructure to and 2, although the modest scale of absorb growth is likely to be less proposed growth in the service towns readily available compared to the and villages and the potential other options. However, these opportunities arising from meeting settlements have been identified as housing needs in these communities will having a certain level of service reduce the overall scale of this impact. provision and it is noted that the scale of growth to these smaller settlements is modest and reduces the overall scale of the impact.

4. Ensure Overall score: +/- Overall score: ++/- Overall score: +/- Overall score: +/-/? resources are This option would encourage the greater An increase on the utilisation of energy This option would encourage the This option would encourage the greater available and utilisation of energy and mineral resources and mineral resources and a broader mix greater utilisation of energy and utilisation of energy and mineral efficiently and a broader mix of uses that are more of uses that are more resource efficient mineral resources and a broader mix resources and a broader mix of uses that used to resource efficient than other settlement than other settlement patterns will result of uses that are more resource efficient are more resource efficient than other sustain patterns (e.g. increased density and use of in less reliance on motorised modes of than other settlement patterns (e.g. settlement patterns (e.g. increased development brownfield land). This in turn will result in transport, lower energy consumption increased density and use of density and use of brownfield land). This and reduce less reliance on motorised modes of and better access to services in towns brownfield land). This in turn will in turn will result in less reliance on waste and transport, lower energy consumption and and villages. The increase in housing result in less reliance on motorised motorised modes of transport, lower consumption better access to services in towns and density concentration may present modes of transport, lower energy energy consumption and better access villages. More dense concentrations can opportunities to secure the expansion consumption and better access to to services in towns and villages. More also present opportunities to secure the and provision of services such as water, services in towns and villages. dense concentrations can also present adequate and efficient provision of electricity and e-communications However, more dispersed patterns of opportunities to secure the adequate network. growth will reduce the opportunities and efficient provision of services such

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 45 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

services such as water, electricity and to secure the adequate and efficient as water, electricity and telecommunications. provision of services such as water, telecommunications. However, the scale electricity and telecommunications. and magnitude of the effects will depend on the location and design of new development.

5. Provide Overall score: ++/? Overall score: +/- Overall score: ++ Overall score: ++/? affordable, This option will significantly increase the This option will provide a similar choice This option would significantly This option offers the potential to good quality supply of housing (including affordable of housing locations to the Core Strategy increase the supply of housing across provide a wider choice of housing sites housing that is housing) across the Borough in a broad (option 1) but more growth would be a larger number of settlements across than the current plan including locations available to number of locations, with a particular focus directed to the 7 main towns, with the Borough, including a wider choice which will be more attractive to the everyone, on the main urban area and outlying significant reductions to Askern and of housing locations in both urban and market and so better ensure housing is including former mining towns where there are Rossington. However, the impacts on the rural areas which are more attractive to delivered. However, the impacts on the vulnerable and significant investment opportunities. quality, mix and range of homes are the market. Market attractive locations quality, mix and range of homes are disadvantaged However, the impacts on the quality, mix largely unknown at this stage and will be should provide a better return from largely unknown at this stage and will be groups and range of homes are largely unknown determined at the planning application development in terms of infrastructure, determined at the planning application at this stage and will be determined at the stage. affordable housing, and community stage. planning application stage. benefits. It will also ensure that housing can be delivered locally to meet future needs. Focussing growth in such locations should ensure the delivery of sufficient land to meet identified needs. However, the impacts on the quality, mix and range of homes are largely unknown at this stage and will be determined at the planning application stage.

6. Reduce social Overall score: ++ Overall score: ++ Overall score: ++/- Overall score: ++ exclusion and The Core Strategy seeks to provide an This option advocates a regeneration The effects will be similar to the other This option maintains a strong disadvantage appropriate balance between a strong strategy (brownfield sites, housing options, with both positive and regeneration focus (brownfield sites, regeneration focus (brownfield sites, renewal, town centre revitalisation etc), negative scores. New development housing renewal, town centre housing renewal, town centre revitalisation especially within deprived areas, but this could reinforce the sense of place, revitalisation etc), especially within etc) and supporting the role of existing needs to be realistically balanced with especially in rural areas. However, the deprived areas, but balances this with rural communities. It also allows a market conditions and viability effects will be less positive in more market realism and viability relatively large number of relatively considerations which will fluctuate over central locations, such as town centres. considerations. sustainable settlements (of varying sizes) the plan period. to continue growing. This approach will give rise to significant positive benefits in the medium to long term, especially in

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 46 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

7. Make places Overall score: +/? Overall score: +/? Overall score: +/? Overall score: ++/-/? that are safe, At this stage, there is a large degree of New development should have a Effects will mainly be positive, but Some uncertainty remains but this attractive, uncertainty regarding the potential impact positive impact on these objectives some negative effects may arise option has the potential to have indirect culturally of this option upon the appearance, subject to good design. However, the depending on the location and design positive effects on this objective. This will interesting character and distinctiveness of appearance, character and of new development where it largely depend on the quality and and distinctive Doncaster’s settlements. The extent and distinctiveness of Doncaster’s encroaches into sensitive areas of location of new development and the to live, work magnitude of the effects will depend on settlements is very much dependent on open countryside. robustness of planning policies. Some and travel in the quality and location of new the location of new development and negative impacts on landscape and development and the robustness of the robustness of planning policies and townscape may occur but there is scope planning policies (taking into account the design principles. to reduce or offset this impact. recommendations of the Green Belt review).

8. Renew and Overall score: ++/ - Overall score: ++/ - Overall score: ++/ - Overall score: +/ - reuse existing This option will encourage the re-use of The re-use of brownfield and redundant This option proposes the widest choice This option will encourage the re-use of buildings, land brownfield and redundant sites and sites and promote housing renewal and of housing and employment locations brownfield and redundant sites and and promote housing renewal and growth growth within deprived areas in across the Borough (including town promote housing renewal and growth infrastructure within deprived areas in preference to preference to unsustainable greenfield centre brownfield sites, infill sites within deprived areas in preference to unsustainable greenfield sites but the sites. Less pressure will be placed on within existing villages and large-scale unsustainable greenfield sites. Less countryside (including the amenity of the infrastructure than the urban urban extensions) across a wide range pressure will be placed on infrastructure Green Belt) will still be subject to concentrated approach. However, the of settlements. However, it would than the urban concentrated approach significant development pressure. Meeting countryside will be subject to undermine the ability of development (option 2). However, the countryside the housing requirement will necessitate development pressure. to support the provision of key (including the amenity of the Green Belt) the release of greenfield land within the infrastructure because housing will be subject to greater development statutory Green Belt or open countryside provision will be dispersed across a pressure because growth will be spread to address local needs. greater number of settlements. more widely than either option 1 and 2.

9. Improve the Overall score: +/-/? Overall score: ? Overall score: +/-/? Overall score: +/? health and Predicting health and well-being outcomes Improving health and well-being is a key In many cases, new development will Improving health and well-being is a key well-being of is difficult at this strategic level but the priority of the Borough Strategy and give rise to positive effects on health priority of the Borough Strategy and the Borough’s overall strategy is likely to give rise to remains one of the key challenges facing and well-being such as the provision remains one of the key challenges facing population more positive than negative impacts such policy makers in Doncaster and the of open space, recreation and play policy makers in Doncaster and the as the provision of open space, recreation Sheffield City Region. Option 2 will opportunities, improvements to cycle Sheffield city region. Under the hybrid and play opportunities, improvements to contribute to the health and well-being and pedestrian routes and remediation option, growth will be spread more

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 47 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

cycle and pedestrian routes and of the Borough by the concentration of of contaminated land. Many of these evenly across the Borough which will remediation of contaminated land. Many new homes and jobs within areas which effects will depend on the precise help support services and secure the of these effects will depend on the precise already benefit from good access to location and nature of development. provision of recreation and open space location and nature of development. In services, open spaces and recreational However, dispersed growth may place within areas of identified need. This in addition, growth will also be concentrated opportunities but the effects are more pressure on existing health and turn may reduce health inequalities and within areas which already benefit from uncertain at this premature stage to give support services especially in the encourage healthier lifestyles. New good access to services, open spaces and a clear scoring. smaller settlements. homes and jobs will also be recreational opportunities. concentrated within areas which already benefit from good access to services, open spaces and recreational opportunities.

10. Provide Overall score: +/? Overall score: +/? Overall score: +/? Overall score: +/? education and Improving education and training Option 2 will help to contribute towards Improving education and training In Doncaster there are plans to provide training outcomes depends on a wide variety of the achievement of the objective, but the outcomes depends on a wide variety new schools and secure a significant provision to interventions, including new investment effects largely remain uncertain at this of interventions, including new expansion of existing facilities, build the skills programmes (e.g. new or expanded stage. Housing growth will be directed investment programmes (e.g. new or particularly in higher education. New and capacity schools), apprenticeships and on the job towards the main urban area and main expanded schools), development will be expected to make a of the training. Housing growth will be directed towns (with no outward expansion of apprenticeships and on the job contribution towards the provision of population towards the main urban area and main other villages) where further education training. Securing sufficient primary new school places as a result of the towns where further education and and secondary school facilities are school education places remains a influx of new residents in the form of secondary school facilities are located or located. critical concern in the light of the new classrooms or new schools. planned. This will allow more residents to Borough-wide shortfall. Housing Housing growth will be directed towards access opportunities closer to where they growth will be directed towards the the main urban area and main towns live or work. Developers will be expected main urban area and main towns where further education and secondary to make a contribution towards the where further education and school facilities are located or planned. provision of new school places within areas secondary school facilities are located This will allow more residents to access of identified need. The provision of new or or planned. This will allow more opportunities closer to where they live or improved education and training facilities residents to access opportunities work. As a result, this option will have should have indirect positive benefits on closer to where they live or work. indirect positive effects on education future attainment levels. Developers will be expected to make a and training provision. contribution towards the provision of new school places within areas of identified need. The provision of new or improved education and training facilities should have indirect positive benefits on future attainment levels.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 48 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Manage and adapt This option could potentially have positive There are positive and negative Whilst there will be increased levels of This appraisal predicts a range of to climate change and negative cumulative impacts on this cumulative impacts on this objective. greenhouse gas emissions from potential impacts (both indirect and objective. However, the effects remain These effects remain highly uncertain growth and associated environmental direct) but the effects remain highly highly uncertain because climate change is because climate change is difficult to issues, such a strategy would allow a uncertain because climate change is difficult to quantify and predict at a local quantify and predict at a local level. The greater emphasis on flood zone 1 difficult to quantify and predict at a local level. The extent and magnitude of impact extent and magnitude of impact will (lower probability of flooding) sites. It level. The extent and magnitude of will depend on the form, design and depend on the form, design and location offers more opportunities to divert impact will depend on the form, design location of new development. The Core of new development. Appropriate development away from medium to and location of new development. Strategy seeks to direct new development mitigation measures will be required to high risk flood areas and effectively Where it is not possible to avoid flood towards areas of least flood risk. However, offset the risk of flooding arising from manage flood risk within existing risk, appropriate mitigation measures in some cases, it could hamper economic housing and employment uses around communities and new developments. will need to be put in place to ensure development opportunities in areas where Thorne and Moorends and Hatfield, The long term effects of growth, that development does not increase the issues of flood risk cannot be mitigated. Stainforth, Dunscroft and Dunsville. however, remain highly uncertain risk of flooding elsewhere. However, Significant negative effects are predicted because climate change is difficult to some of these measures are costly to on both flood risk (due to the extent of quantify and predict at a local level. implement and could affect the viability flooding) and greenhouse gas emissions The extent and magnitude of impact of future development. (from increased energy demand and will depend on the form, design and Doncaster has challenging targets to travel). However, measures can be put in location of new development. In some deliver a significant reduction in carbon place to minimise these effects. cases, dispersed growth could hamper dioxide and re-use and recycle its economic development opportunities natural and man-made resources in a in areas where issues of flood risk way that reduces its reliance on fossil cannot be mitigated. fuels, diverts waste from landfill and improves the energy efficiency of buildings and spaces (e.g. through the use of renewable energy and design measures).

12 Protect, Overall score: +/-/? Overall score:+/-/? Overall score: -/? Overall score: +/-/? increase and This option will require the release of This option will require the release of This option will require the release of This option will require the release of enhance the greenfield sites within the countryside (and greenfield sites within the countryside greenfield sites within the countryside greenfield sites within the countryside natural the Green Belt) to meet the objectively (and the greenbelt) to meet the (and the Green Belt) to meet the (and the Green Belt) to meet the environment, assessed housing need over the plan objectively assessed housing need over objectively assessed housing need objectively assessed housing need over including the period. Effects are also considered as the plan period, which will be over the plan period. The effects are the plan period. Effects are also landscape, its uncertain though as it will depend on the detrimental to the open character and considered as being negative as the considered as uncertain though as it will underlying actual choice of allocation e.g. even urban amenity of the countryside around the more dispersed settlement strategy depend on the actual choice of geology and previously developed sites can have urban fringe. Whilst the Local Plan may result in the need for more urban allocation e.g. even urban previously wildlife negative effects on biodiversity without policies will protect the natural extensions to settlements as developed sites can have negative habitat appropriate mitigation or compensation. environment, it is uncertain at this time opportunities to accommodate growth effects on biodiversity without how the allocated sites will affect on urban/brownfield sites are likely to appropriate mitigation or compensation. be fewer at smaller villages. However,

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 49 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

13 Protect, Overall score: +/? Overall score: 0/? Overall score: -/? Overall score: -/? conserve and Overall, this option will have a positive Whilst there is some uncertainty The effects are largely uncertain at this There remains some uncertainty enhance the impact on the setting and character of regarding the likely degree of impact on stage but further expansion of historic regarding the likely degree of impact on historic and historic market towns (Bawtry and Tickhill). historic assets and the environment market towns (Bawtry and Tickhill) historic assets and the environment cultural However, the scale and magnitude of arising from the proposed distribution of could undermine their character and arising from the proposed distribution of heritage impact will largely depend on the location growth, the scale of impact will largely setting. However, the scale and growth. The scale of impact will largely of housing, retail and employment sites. depend on the location of housing, retail magnitude of impact will largely depend on the location of housing, retail and employment sites. depend on the location of housing, and employment sites. However, there retail and employment sites. remains a possibility that new development could harm the historic setting and character of existing markets towns such as Bawtry and Tickhill. New development on the edge of these settlements would need to be sensitively designed to avoid harm to the historic character and setting of these towns.

14 Protect and Overall score: --/+/? Overall score: --/+ Overall score: --/+/? Overall score: --/+ enhance soil, This option would focus growth in and Option 2 would involve the loss of Overall, this option would have a Focusing growth in and around town air and water around town centres, the main urban area sensitive habitats and good quality negative indirect impact on soil, water centres, the main urban area and quality and existing settlements, which would limit agricultural land but the impact would and air quality within the Borough. existing settlements will limit the loss of (watercourses the loss of significant good quality be less pronounced than the other More high quality agricultural land significant good quality agricultural land. and ground agricultural land. However, major urban options because more growth will be (e.g. arable farmland) would be taken However, major urban extensions would water) extensions would encroach into the open directed towards existing urban areas. out of productive use and fewer encroach into the open countryside at countryside at the urban fringe and thus Housing and employment would be less opportunities would be available to the urban fringe and therefore reduce reduce opportunities for food and energy dispersed relative to options 1, 3 and 4. produce renewable energy and food. opportunities for renewable energy and production. Growth would be focused along some Growth would be focused along some food production. Growth would be Growth would be focused along some parts of the motorway network and the parts of the motorway network and focused along some parts of the parts of the motorway network and the town centre where air quality is the town centre where air quality is motorway network and the town centre

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 50 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 51 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

5.3 Appraisal of Options for Housing and Employment Growth

5.3.1 As noted in Section 4 of this report, three options have been identified in relation to how much housing and employment land should be provided over the plan period:

 Option 1: 920 dwellings per annum (dpa) and 481ha of employment land;

 Option 2: 585 dpa and 103ha of employment land; and

 Option 3: 753 dpa and 242ha of employment land.

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

5.3.3 The key points are:

 All options would make a significant positive contribution towards SA Objectives 1 relating to economic growth and prosperity;

 All options would make a significant positive contribution to SA Objective 5 in relation to housing and 6 ‘social exclusion and disadvantage’;

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 52 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 5.2 Options for housing and employment land provision – Summary of SA Results

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

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

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

3. Improve All options would be expected to improve access to services and facilities by locating new homes and employment opportunities in areas accessibility to with high accessibility. The effect has been assessed as a minor positive as none of the options introduce new services and facilities. places and services, both + + + within and outside of the Borough 4. Ensure All options would be expected to increase resource use in the Borough, e.g. associated with the construction and occupation of new resources are housing and employment. The increased level of house building under Options 1 and 3 is expected to require a higher level of resource available and ++/-- +/- ++/-- use. Improvements in efficiency in construction and waste management is likely to offset this. In addition, once in use modern housing is efficiently used to typically more efficient in terms of heat, energy and water use. More widely the extent of the effect depends upon other factors such as sustain wider regulation, in particular the Building Regulations, and economic incentives.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 53 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

development and reduce waste and consumption 5. Provide All of the options would make a significant contribution to this objective. Option 2 meets needs arising within the Borough. Options 1 and affordable, good 3 would be deliver housing to meet wider needs and contribute to housing-led economic growth. The higher housing growth target is quality housing considered to be better aligned with the broader growth and development ambitions of the broader Sheffield City Region, taking that is available advantage of planned improvements to transport infrastructure19 and ambitious growth plans20 to everyone, ++ ++ ++ including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups 6. Reduce social All options will help to provide a focus for positive action through the planning system as part of the promotion of growth which should exclusion and be to the benefit of all residents. It is considered that in planning for higher levels of economic development, the scale of development ++ ++ ++ disadvantage associated with Option 1 and 3 means that it could help address social exclusion and disadvantage in areas outside of the Borough (as there is an element of housing-led economic growth). This will depend on how well targeted the new homes and jobs are. 7. Make places New homes and employment spaces would be expected to apply design principles to ensure a safe and secure environment, such as that are safe, Secured by Design. attractive, culturally + + + interesting and distinctive to live, work and travel in 8. Renew and All options would be expected to utilise a mix of both greenfield and brownfield land, with the potential to re-use existing buildings also reuse existing ? ? ? inherent to all options. It is anticipated that the higher level of housing and employment growth in Options 1 and 3 would require buildings, land additional greenfield land. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is uncertain at this stage. and infrastructure 9. Improve the The linkages between access to good quality environments, housing, employment and health are recognised in the National Planning health and well- Policy Framework. All options could help to encourage health improvements (mental and physical) across the Borough (and further afield being of the + + + under Option 1) through promoting economic development and increasing the provision of suitable housing. An increased population Borough’s would increase the pressure on local health services, such as GPs and Hospital’s, however as the growth in population is anticipated it is assumed that additional heath infrastructure will be provided to meet the needs of growing communities.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 54 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

population 10. Provide All options would be expected to promote skills and training as a result of economic development leading to new skills training and education and apprenticeship opportunities. The larger amount of employment floorspace in Options 1 and 3 would be expected to create more training provision opportunities and is considered a significant positive in this respect. to build the skills ++ + ++ and capacity of An increased population would increase the pressure for school places on existing schools, however as the growth in population is predictable it is considered that additional schools will be provided to meet the needs of growing communities or existing schools the population expanded where feasible and appropriate.

11. Manage and The Borough has extensive areas of land at risk from flooding from various sources, including the rivers Don and Dearne in the west and adapt to climate rivers Torne and Trent in the south, and the watercourses that feed to them, plus tidal flooding within the low lying Humberhead Levels. change Large parts of the Borough are therefore identified as being in medium and high flood risk based on the Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning. There are also areas of the Borough where surface water and groundwater flooding pose significant challenges. A significant negative effect in relation to flood risk from the options is considered unlikely due to the framework of national policies, including the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, which emphasise the need to avoid inappropriate development in high flood risk areas and the need to mitigate the contribution that new development would otherwise make to increased flood risk. An increased population would place increasing demand on local water supplies, with the greater demand resulting from Options 1 and 3.

-/? -/? -/? A notable difference between the three options is the ratio of employment land to homes, with Option 2 creating more than twice as many new dwellings per hectare of employment space than Option 1. The net result of this difference on climate change mitigation is uncertain as it depends on the impact on commuting patterns. For example, where there is a high level of in-commuting, a lower housing to employment floorspace ratio as per Option 1 may be preferable in reducing daily vehicle movements into the area. At present the economy is reasonably self-contained with 3.4% of residents commuting to Sheffield and 0.5% travelling from Sheffield to Doncaster. Also important is how improvements to public transport combined with the location of new employment opportunities effect the mode of transport that residents use to travel to work. Across the Sheffield City Region census data indicates that around 70% of residents travelled to work by car. There are uncertainties in relation to the capacity of water treatment facilities in the area and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions associated with motorised journeys to work.

12. Protect, Given the scale of development considered by all options, it is likely that some sites of importance for nature conservation could be increase and adversely affected in the absence of mitigation. It is also anticipated that the development brought forward would incorporate measures to enhance the enhance biodiversity. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is uncertain at this stage. natural environment, ? ? ? including the landscape, its underlying geology and wildlife habitats

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 55 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

13. Protect, Given the scale of development considered by all options, it is likely that some historic assets might be adversely affected in the absence of conserve and mitigation. It is also anticipated that the development brought forward would incorporate measures to mitigate any potential effects, for enhance the ? ? ? example through the use of appropriate screening. As the location of all sites to be developed is not known, the scale of the effect is historic and uncertain at this stage cultural heritage 14. Protect and Given the scale of development proposed by all options It is anticipated that development would both remediate existing contaminated enhance soil, air land and lead to the loss of land classified as Grade 1 – 3a agricultural land. As such both options are considered to have both a significant and water quality ++/-- ++/-- ++/-- positive and significant negative effect against this objective. (watercourses and ground water)

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 56 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Reasons for Selecting the Preferred Options and Rejecting the Alternatives

21 5.3.4 Planning Practice Guidance is clear that, whilst Local Planning Authorities should only plan for lower levels of housing than published in the standard methodology in ‘exceptional circumstances’, there may be circumstances which justify identifying a requirement above the standardised need figure: “The standard method for calculating local housing need provides a minimum number of homes to be planned for. Authorities should use the standard method as the starting point when preparing the housing requirement in their plan, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”.

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 57 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Appraisal of the Local Plan Vision and Objectives

6.1 Local Plan Vision and Objectives

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

Local Plan Vision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Ensure the sustainability of villages and rural economy through appropriate development;

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 58 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Local Plan Objectives

6.1.3 The following Local Plan Objectives has been developed which draw on the Vision for the Borough and will help to guide the implementation of the Local Plan:

Supporting the conditions for attracting high quality jobs and growth: 1. Encourage and support a competitive diverse and stable economy focusing on our town and district centres, Doncaster Sheffield Airport growth corridor and strategic transport network.

2. Create and improve access to high quality employment, learning and training opportunities for everyone in Doncaster.

Support Regeneration and community pride: 3. Stimulate regeneration to tackle deprivation especially in the most disadvantaged areas and ensure an inclusive approach for those at risk of poverty, discrimination and social exclusion.

4. Encourage the re-use of sites and buildings, especially well located and underused brownfield land (e.g. redundant/unused land and empty properties) to help revitalise areas of low demand and stimulate growth.

Quality of place: 5. Ensure our towns, suburbs, villages and countryside benefit from high quality appropriate development that reinforces distinctive and vibrant places.

6. Protect, maintain and enhance the character and appearance of our conservation areas, historic buildings, historic parks and gardens, and scheduled monuments.

7. Protect and enhance our green and blue infrastructure especially our areas of green space for sport, recreation, play and nature.

Transport and Accessibility: 8. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure to improve accessibility to jobs and services and aim to reduce the need to travel by car by ensuring all journeys are undertaken by the most sustainable mode of transport.

Homes and communities: 9. Ensure housing provision meets the housing need and aspirations by increasing the provision of new homes for all to meet current and future needs and create mixed and balanced communities.

10. Focus new homes primarily within the main urban area of Doncaster and the Borough’s main towns, particularly in areas with access to services.

11. Link the growth in homes and jobs to provide new and improved necessary infrastructure to create healthier and more vibrant well-connected neighbourhoods and communities.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 59 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Health and well-being: 12. Promote healthy lifestyles and well-being of people of all ages and backgrounds and reduce inequalities and obesity levels across the Borough.

13. Provide new or improved health, sport and recreation facilities and green infrastructure to create quality communities and address deficits in provision.

14. Minimise pollution and improve air quality.

Countryside and natural environment: 15. Diversify and support the rural economy whilst protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the countryside and the natural environment, including areas of landscape and biodiversity value.

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

Climate change (flood risk) and energy: 17. Reduce dependency on fossil fuels to reduce locally produced greenhouse gas emissions and minimise the impacts of climate change and in line with the Sheffield City Region and encourage the transition to a low carbon Borough.

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

Natural Resources: 19. Encourage more efficient use of natural resources including water and secure and maintain a steady and constant supply of mineral resources to facilitate development.

20. Protect and enhance the quality of our water and soil resources (including high grade agricultural land).

6.2 Compatibility Matrices

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

Summary of Compatibility – Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives

6.2.2 Table 6.1 summarises the compatibility between the Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives. A detailed appraisal is presented in Appendix G. The great majority of interactions between elements of the Local Plan vision and the SA Objectives have either a positive relationship or have no direct

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 60 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

or an uncertain relationship. This reflects the scope of the vision for the Borough which has economic, social and environmental dimensions and therefore aspirations which are likely to broadly result in the advancement of sustainable development. There are, however, potentially incompatible relationships between environmental protection and aspirations for economic growth associated with the ambition to:

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 61 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 6.1 Compatibility between the Local Plan Vision and SA Objectives

Local Plan Vision (abridged)

SA Objectives An important economic hub with more economy balanced Investmentbusiness, in newbusiness attracted encouraged carbona low economy and to andaccess markets labour inclusive more A qualityjob opportunities UniversityA City andresidents with relevant education and skills Realising the potential of our key industry sectors and harness the potential of the airport, includinglinking to regionalgrowth corridors Meet community needsand aspirations for homes and services and infrastructure and development New together delivered requirements services more and safer healthier, attractive, more A work and visit live, to place active Appropriate developmentto ensure sustainable villagesand rural economy Protection and enhancement ofthe natural and historic environment Flourishing wildlife aspart a ofwell-connected infrastructure green prosperousA placeto live, work and visit where and inequalities health addresses growth deprivation Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth and prosperity and diversify its economic + + + + + ? ? ? + ? ? + base Reinforce and support community identity + + + + + + + + + + + + and pride Improve accessibility to places and services, ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? ? + both within and outside of the Borough Ensure resources are available and efficiently used to sustain development and reduce ? + ? ? ? + + + ? + + + waste and consumption Provide affordable, good quality housing that is available to everyone, including vulnerable ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? + and disadvantaged groups Reduce social exclusion and disadvantage + ? + ? ? + + + + ? ? + Make places that are safe, attractive, culturally interesting and distinctive to live, work and ? ? ? + ? + ? + ? + + ? travel in Renew and reuse existing buildings, land and + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? + infrastructure Improve the health and well-being of the + ? + ? ? + + + + + + + Borough’s population Provide education and training provision to + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? + build the skills and capacity of the population Manage and adapt to climate change ? + ? ? - ? ? ? + + + ?

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 62 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Local Plan Vision (abridged)

SA Objectives An important economichub withmore economy balanced Investment in business, new business attracted encouraged carbonlow economy a and to access and markets labour inclusive more A qualityjob opportunities A University City and residents with relevant education and skills Realising the potential of our key industry sectors and harness the potential of the airport, corridors growth regional to linking including Meet community needs andaspirations for homesand services New development and infrastructure and services requirementsdelivered together more and safer healthier, attractive, more A active place live,to visit and work Appropriate development to ensure sustainable villages and ruraleconomy Protection and enhancement of the natural and historicenvironment Flourishingwildlife as part ofa well-connected infrastructure green A prosperous place tolive, workand visitwhere and inequalities health addresses growth deprivation Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its ? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ? underlying geology and wildlife habitat Protect, conserve and enhance the historic ? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ? and cultural heritage Protect and enhance soil, air and water quality ? ? ? ? - ? ? + ? + + ? (watercourses and ground water)

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 63 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 6.2 Compatibility between Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives

Local Plan Objectives (abridged)

SA Objectives Meet housing needs and aspirations, creating mixed and balanced communities Focus developmenton urban areas withaccess to services Link homes and jobswith the provision of infrastructure Promotehealthy lifestylesand well-being Provide new and improved recreation facilities and Green Infrastructure Minimise pollution and improve air quality Diversifyand supportthe rural economywhilst protecting countryside character Protect andenhance biodiversity andgeodiversity whilst enhancing access Reduce dependencyon fossil fuels andencourage transition toa low-carbonBorough change climate of effects the Adapt to resources natural of use efficient more Encourage Protect andenhance the quality of water and soil resources Improve accessibilityto jobsand services, and promotingsustainabletransport Protect, maintain and enhance green andblue infrastructure Protect, maintain and enhance the historic historic the enhance and maintain Protect, environment Ensure high qualitydevelopment that reinforces distinctand vibrant places Encourage re-use of sites and buildings Stimulate regeneration to tackle deprivation deprivation tackle to regeneration Stimulate Create and improve accessto high quality employment andtraining opportunities Encourage acompetitive, diverse and stable economy

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

1. Maintain and increase Doncaster’s growth and + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + ? ? ? prosperity and diversify its economic base 2. Reinforce and support ? ? + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? community identity and pride 3. Improve accessibility to place and services, both within and ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? + + ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? outside of the Borough 4. Ensure resources are available and efficiently used to sustain ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + ? + + development and reduce waste and consumption 5. Provide affordable, good quality housing that is available to everyone, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? including vulnerable and disadvantaged groups 6. Reduce social exclusion and + + + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? disadvantage

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 64 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Local Plan Objectives (abridged)

jobs and services, and

enhance the historic

SA Objectives Encourage acompetitive, diverse and stable economy Create and improve accessto high quality employment and training opportunities deprivation tackle to regeneration Stimulate Encourage re-use of sites and buildings Ensure high qualitydevelopment that reinforces distinct and vibrant places and maintain Protect, environment blue and green enhance and maintain Protect, infrastructure Improve accessibility to transport sustainable promoting Meet housing needs and aspirations, creating mixed communities balanced and Focus developmenton urban areas withaccessto services Link homes and jobswith the provision of infrastructure Promotehealthy lifestylesand well-being Provide new and improvedrecreation facilities and Infrastructure Green Minimise pollution and improve air quality whilst economy rural the supportand Diversify protecting countryside character Protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity whilst enhancing access Reduce dependency on fossil fuels and encourage transition toa low-carbon Borough change of climate effects the Adapt to Encourage more efficient use of natural resources Protect and enhance the quality of waterand soil resources

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

7. Make places that are safe, attractive, culturally ? ? + + + + + ? + + + + + + + + + + ? ? interesting and distinctive to live, work and travel in 8. Renew and reuse existing buildings, land and ? ? ? + ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? infrastructure 9. Improve the health and well- being of the Borough’s ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? population 10. Provide education and training provision to build the ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? skills and capacity of the population 11. Manage and adapt to climate ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + + change 12. Protect, increase and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape, its ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + ? ? + + underlying geology and wildlife habitat 13. Protect, conserve and enhance the historic and ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cultural heritage

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 65 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Local Plan Objectives (abridged)

jobs and services, and

enhance the historic

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 66 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Commentary on the compatibility of the Local Plan Objectives and SA Objectives.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 67 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan Policies

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The appraisal of the proposed policies has been undertaken against each of the SA Objectives with an evaluation provided for the short (up until 2020), medium (up until 2030) and long term (beyond 2030). The following information was recorded in order to present the findings of the SA:

 The sustainability objectives and criteria;

 A commentary on significant impacts including any assumptions or uncertainties;

 A score indicating the nature of the impact; and

 Recommendations as to how the policies may be improved against the SA objectives including any mitigation or enhancements which could be considered in the next steps of policy formation.

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

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

Chapter 4. Strategic Approach

7.1.4 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development;

 Policy 2: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy;

 Policy 3: Level and Distribution of Growth;

 Policy 4: Employment Allocations;

 Policy 5: Employment Policy Areas; and

 Policy 6: Housing Allocations.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 68 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Chapter 5. Doncaster Sheffield Airport

7.1.6 The policy in this section of the Local Plan is:

 Policy 7: Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Business Park.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6. Meeting the Need for New Homes

7.1.11 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

 Policy 8: Delivering the Necessary Range of Housing;

 Policy 9: Removal of Occupancy Conditions;

 Policy 10: Houses in Multiple Occupation;

 Policy 11: Residential Policy Areas; and

 Policy 12: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 69 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Chapter 7. Transport, Access and Infrastructure

7.1.13 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

 Policy 13: Strategic Transport Network;

 Policy 14: Promoting Sustainable Transport in New Developments;

 Policy 15: Doncaster Town Centre Parking;

 Policy 16: Lorry Parking;

 Policy 17 Cycling in Doncaster;

 Policy 18: Walking in Doncaster;

 Policy 19: Development Affecting Public Rights of Way;

 Policy 20: Access, Design and Layout of Public Rights of Way;

 Policy 21: Public Rights of Way Crossing Roads, Railways, Canals and Rivers; and

 Policy 22: Telecommunications and Utilities Infrastructure.

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

Chapter 8. Retail, Town Centres and Leisure

7.1.15 The policies in this chapter of the Local Plan are:

 Policy 23: Locating Town Centre Uses;

 Policy 24: Development Within Town, District and Local Centres; and

 Policy 25: Food and Drink Uses.

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

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

Chapter 9. Countryside

7.1.18 There is one policy in this Chapter, Policy 26 ‘Development in the Countryside.’ The policy is likely to yield positive sustainability effects, reflecting the positive approach to the provision of housing and economic development in the countryside, with consequent benefits for the local economy,

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 70 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Chapter 10. Green Infrastructure

7.1.19 The policies in this chapter are:

 Policy 27: Green Infrastructure;

 Policy 28: Protecting Open Space Policy Areas and Non Designated Open Space;

 Policy 29: Open Space Provision in New Developments;

 Policy 30: Ecological Networks;

 Policy 31: Valuing Biodiversity and Geodiversity;

 Policy 32: Local Wildlife and Geological Sites;

 Policy 33: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows; and

 Policy 34: Landscape.

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

Chapter 11. The Historic Environment

7.1.21 The policies in this chapter are:

 Policy 35: Valuing our Historic Environment;

 Policy 36: Understanding and Recording the Historic Environment;

 Policy 37: Listed Buildings;

 Policy 38: Conservation Areas;

 Policy 39: Historic Parks and Gardens;

 Policy 40: Development Affecting Archaeology; and

 Policy 41: Buildings or Structures of Local Historic Interest.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 71 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Chapter 12. Design and the Built Environment

7.1.23 The policies in this chapter are:

 Policy 42: Character and Local Distinctiveness;

 Policy 43: Good Urban Design;

 Policy 44: Views, Gateways and Taller Buildings;

 Policy 45: Residential Design;

 Policy 46: Housing Design Standards;

 Policy 47: Design of Non-Residential, Commercial and Employment Developments;

 Policy 48: Safe and Secure Places;

 Policy 49: Landscaping of New Developments; and

 Policy 50: Advertisements and Signage.

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

Chapter 13. Health, Well-being and Our Communities

7.1.25 The policies in this chapter are:

 Policy 51: Health;

 Policy 52: Protection of Education, Community and Leisure Facilities;

 Policy 53: New Education Facilities;

 Policy 54: Provision of New Indoor Recreation and Leisure Facilities;

 Policy 55: Pollution; and

 Policy 56: Contamination and Unstable Land.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 72 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

Chapter 14. Climate Change, Minerals, Resources and Energy

7.1.27 The policies in chapter section are:

 Policy 57: Drainage;

 Policy 58: Flood Risk Management;

 Policy 59: Low Carbon and Renewable Energy;

 Policy 60: Wind Energy Developments;

 Policy 61: Protecting and Enhancing Doncaster’s Soil and Water Resources;

 Policy 62 Providing for and Safeguarding Mineral Resources;

 Policy 63: Minerals Development Proposals, Borrow Pits and Incidental Extraction;

 Policy 64: Reclamation of Mineral Sites (Restoration and Aftercare); and

 Policy 65: Providing for Energy Minerals (on-shore Gas and Oil (Hydrocarbons)).

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

Chapter 15. Implementation and Monitoring

7.1.29 The policies in this chapter are:

 Policy 66: Developer Contributions; and

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 73 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

 Policy 67: Development Viability.

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

Chapter 16. Spatial Proposals

7.1.31 The policies in this Chapter are:

 Policy 68: Doncaster Town Centre;

 Policy 69: Key Doncaster Town Centre and main urban area mixed use sites;

 Policy 70: Unity Regeneration Project;

 Policy 71: Mexborough Town Centre; and

 Policy 72: Thorne Town Centre.

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

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

7.2 Commentary on the Appraisal of Policies

7.2.1 The appraisal of policies has identified that the majority are likely to have positive sustainability effects, with some potentially neutral or uncertain, particularly over the medium and longer term where it is more difficult to predict their likely effects. Significant positive effects identified include:

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 74 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 75 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Policies

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

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

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 76 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

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

SA Objective

ffects across 4. Strategic 4. Strategic Approach 5. Doncaster Airport Sheffield 6. Meeting the Need for New Homes 7.Transport Access and Infrastructure 8. Retail and Town Centres 9. Countryside Green and Blue 10. Infrastructure 11. Historic Environment 12. Design& Built Environment 13. Health&Well- being 14. Climate Minerals Change, and Energy 15.Implementation Monitoring & 16. Spatial Proposals E Areas Policy Commentary

1. Maintain Potential for significant positive cumulative and and increase synergistic effects across policy areas which seek to Doncaster’s foster and enable economic growth across a range of growth and sectors and improve accessibility to employment for ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ + + 0 ++ ++ prosperity residents. Policies to protect environmental and cultural and diversify interests are in place, but compromises could be its economic necessary in certain localities. base

2. Reinforce The provision of homes, opportunities for inward and support investment and the protection and enhancement of the community environmental and cultural qualities of the borough will identity and contribute to maintaining and enhancing community pride identity and pride. However, precise interrelationships and effects are difficult to measure, particularly over the short and medium and term as well as certain groups ++ +/? ++ ++ +/? 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 ++ across the borough being unintentionally by-passed by the benefits of growth elsewhere. Policies relating to the promotion of the health and well-being of communities (Chapter 13) will be particularly important, notably the provision of educational and community facilities (Policies 51 – 54) and efforts to reduce pollution (Policy 55). Close monitoring of their implementation will be required.

3. Improve The policies, overall, are likely to help secure improved accessibility access to places and services, reflecting the promotion to place and of investment in transport infrastructure associated with services, both + +/? ++ + + 0 ++ 0 ++ +/? 0 0 + ++ new development and wider strategic growth across the within and sub-region and locally through the promotion of outside of the sustainable modes of transport (Chapter 7). Residents, borough workers and visitors should benefit from these

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 77 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

SA Objective

ffects across 4. Strategic Approach 5. Doncaster Airport Sheffield 6. Meeting the Need for New Homes 7.Transport Access and Infrastructure 8. Retail and Town Centres 9. Countryside Green and Blue 10. Infrastructure 11. Historic Environment 12. Design& Built Environment 13. Health&Well- being 14. Climate Minerals Change, and Energy 15.Implementation Monitoring & 16. Spatial Proposals E PolicyAreas Commentary

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

4. Ensure The efficient use of resources characterises the Local resources are Plan, notably in respect of ensuring an ongoing supply available and of minerals (Polices 89 – 92) as well as their efficient use efficiently in construction and operation through good design used to practice (Chapter 12). The cumulative effect of these + + ++ +/? + 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/? sustain policies, particularly in respect of reducing waste, is development uncertain, however. and reduce waste and consumption

5. Provide Individual chapters of the Local Plan make a significant affordable, positive contribution towards the provision of housing, good quality including affordable housing. The provision of housing that affordable homes in the right places is a common is available to challenge. The policies are likely to help meet this everyone, aspiration as part of the housing growth across the ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 + - 0 + 0 0 0 + including borough (a proportion of which will be affordable – vulnerable (Policy 8)) and increasing prosperity to help make sites and more viable. Equally, securing affordable provision in disadvantage places where it will make a difference is challenging and d groups could well require compromises which affect the interests of natural and cultural heritage resources.

6. Reduce Potential for significant positive cumulative and social synergistic effects across policy areas as policies seek to exclusion and ++/? ++ ++ + + 0 ++ 0 ++ + 0 0 + ++ address a range of factors that contribute to social disadvantage exclusion and disadvantage, including access to housing, employment, mobility and poor health.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 78 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

SA Objective

7. Make The proposed policies seek to promote the creation of places that a healthy and attractive borough through attention to are safe, the quality of centres (Chapters 4 and 16), design across attractive, the borough (Chapter 12) and the enhancement of culturally environmental quality through protection and + ++ ++ +/? + 0 ++ ++ ++ + + 0 + ++ interesting enhancement of green infrastructure resources (Chapter and 10). Cumulatively, the effects should be positive, distinctive to although the extent and quality of change is less live, work predictable. and travel in

8. Renew and Policies within the Plan allow for the re-use of land and reuse existing buildings as part of key regeneration schemes (notably buildings, Policy 70 Unity) but also more generally through land and development activity. Previously developed land is not infrastructure prioritised through a sequential approach (as this would not accord with national planning policy), although the ++ + 0 ++ + 0 ++ ++ + 0 0 0 + ++ issue is identified as a criterion in Policy 2. In addition, as part of the policy analysis, a number of uncertainties were raised in respect of heritage and design, for example, where these interests could become compromised through the redevelopment process. On balance, however, the effects are likely to be significantly positive.

9. Improve A number of chapters in the Local Plan will help address the health the wider determinants of health, including housing, and well- employment, Green Infrastructure, road safety, food + +/? ++ ++/? + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ + 0 + ++ being of the and quality of the natural and built environment. A borough’s significant positive cumulative effect is identified. population

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 79 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

SA Objective

10. Provide The Local Plan makes an appropriate contribution to education this objective, e.g. by seeking to secure opportunities and training for training, local recruitment and provision of provision to education facilities. A minor positive cumulative effect is build the + ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + identified. skills and capacity of the population

11. Manage The growth envisaged in the Local Plan will give rise to and adapt to additional greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate the construction and occupation of new buildings and change motorised travel. Potential for minor positive cumulative effect is identified as policies across a range of topics seek to address this objective. The draft Local Plan contains a specific chapter on climate change (Chapter 14) the policies within which will help to create + +/- + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 +/? 0 0 + the conditions for a positive response to the challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation, such as flood risk management. The effects across the plan as a whole should be positive, although there are potential inconsistencies in respect of road transport development for example, and precisely how the promotion of economic growth can contribute to this objective.

12.Protect, The policies provide for the protection and increase and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape resources enhance the through specific policies (Chapter 10). However, natural compromise could be required and the full interests of +/? + +/? +/? 0 0 ++ 0 + ++ + 0 0 + environment, some resources not met. Monitoring over the medium including the and short term would be needed to determine whether landscape, its such effects are occurring and their significance. underlying

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 80 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

SA Objective

geology and wildlife habitat

13.Protect, The policies provide for the protection and conserve and enhancement of cultural heritage resources through enhance the both specific policies (Chapter 11) and the historic and consideration of conservation matters within cultural +/? + 0 +/? +/? 0 + ++ + 0 + 0 +? + development proposals. However, compromise could heritage be required and the full interests of some resources not met. Monitoring over the medium and short term would be needed to determine whether such effects are occurring and their significance.

14.Protect Protection of these resources is covered in Chapter 13 and enhance and the implementation of policies should ensure the soil, air and systematic protection of natural resources although the water quality precise extent and beneficiaries are not necessarily (watercourses +/? + 0 +/? 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 0 +/? predictable as development enabled by other policies and ground could impact on this objective. New development will water) bring additional pressures on these resources and certain receptors, for example through further traffic growth associated with infrastructure investments.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 81 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

7.4 Recommendations

7.4.1 A number of built in mitigation measures relating to uncertain or negative effects have been identified and are already incorporated in the Local Plan, which will help to ensure that the implementation of the policies is more sustainable. These include:

 Ensuring that housing development is directed away from flood risk areas;

 Ensuring that affordable housing provision accompanies new development as part of encouraging the creation of balanced communities;

 Early identification of potential compromises which may be required in respect of balancing affordable housing with heritage protection and good design, through the preparation of design guides, for example;

 Identifying vulnerable communities in terms of service provision to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as part of new provision;

 Ensuring that the interests of biodiversity and cultural heritage are fully taken into account as part of development proposals, in turn part of a systematic approach to their protection and enhancement borough-wide; and

 Close monitoring of the potential effects of new infrastructure development on air quality, particularly for areas and receptors which may already be under stress.

7.4.2 There are number of areas where policies could be clarified or amended to help improve their sustainability performance. These are set out in Table 7.2. This includes earlier recommendations made by the SA on previous working drafts of the Local Plan. Table 7.2 details where these earlier recommendations have been actioned and where they are outstanding in the third column. This reflects the iterative nature of the SA, demonstrates the influence that the SA has had on the development of the Local Plan to date and provides an audit trail of any recommendations outstanding. The remaining actions will be considered by the Council, along with consultation responses to the draft Local Plan, to inform the next iteration of the Local Plan.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 82 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 7.2 Recommendations

Policy Suggested amendment(s) Council’s Comments

1. Presumption in  Cross-reference key chapters which support the delivery of the policy – employment, housing infrastructure and  Cross referencing not considered necessary. favour of sustainable service delivery and environmental protection development

3.Level and  Add detail on how this growth relates to the distribution and type of existing provision  The explanatory text now provides this information Distribution of  Cross-reference skills and training  The policy now references skills and training Growth  Consider a policy or criterion relating to community development/integration and funding streams through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

2.Spatial Strategy and  Add in explanation of the implications for travel patterns and potential emissions patterns of this growth  The explanatory text states that the distribution of Settlement Hierarchy  Add in explanation of relative degree of self-containment employment is not only about market attractiveness  Cross-reference infrastructure provision but also that there is strong accessibility and connectivity between jobs and housing which will help reduce potential emissions.  The term relative degree of self-containment is no longer included in the policy wording.  It is considered sufficient reference is made to infrastructure provision.

7. Doncaster Sheffield  Additional text could be provided to promote resource efficiency and synergies with other policies.  The policy and supporting text addresses these Airport  Make reference to the re-use of previously developed land which could otherwise help reinforce wider objective. comments, in particular through the need for a  Contain further details clarifying the steps that will be taken to ensure that emissions are minimised as a result of Planning Airport Masterplan and further the development of the airport. archaeological investigations. A green infrastructure  Identify sites of importance for nature conservation or protected species in the vicinity of the airport that made be strategy masterplan is now required by the policy as adversely affected by development and identify suitable mitigation. well as part of the overall approach to  Identify historic assets in the vicinity of the airport that made be adversely affected by development and identify environmental management. The Airport’s Growth suitable mitigation. Masterplan is also bringing forward onsite renewable energy proposals (solar farm)

11. Residential policy  Criterion B) could be amended to enable non-residential uses in residential policy areas where they would help  It is considered that the policy allows for non- areas address existing deficiencies in terms of accessibility to jobs and services. residential uses subject to conditions which could include proposals that address deficiencies in terms of accessibility to jobs and services.

17. Cycling in  Add in reference to new development  Both recommendations accepted and the policy has Doncaster  Reference proposals to identify and remedy areas of deficiency, particularly in respect of access to services been amended.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 83 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Policy Suggested amendment(s) Council’s Comments

68. Doncaster Town  Reference accessibility by cycle network from adjoining residential areas  The policy identifies the need for improved Centre connectivity with adjoining areas.

71. Thorne Town  Reference accessibility by cycle as per Mexborough TC policy  The policy includes reference to accessibility by cycle Centre at criterion I.

49. Landscaping of  Require new landscaping to consider its wider links to Green Infrastructure and the use of SuDS  The policy now includes these considerations at new developments criterion A.

51. Health  This is a strategic policy that considers the wider determinants of health, this policy could highlight the need for  Policy 66: Developer contributions is considered as major developments to consider the need for community development and integration with existing having sufficient provisions to allow for community communities. This requirement could be highlighted elsewhere if this is not considered the best place to raise it. facilities to be provided either on site through direct provision and/or commuted sums towards such facilities off site/improvements to existing facilities.

78. New education  Reference accessibility by means other than the car (as per policy 79 on new community facilities)  The policy now includes these considerations at facilities criterion 7.

91. Reclamation of  Make specific reference to positive after-uses such as informal recreation, biodiversity etc and how the sites could  The policy now includes these considerations in the mineral sites fit into the GI network first paragraph.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 84 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 85 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Appraisal of Options for Housing, Employment Sites and Minerals Proposals

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This section summarises the results of the Council’s work in relation to the appraisal of options for:

 Housing sites;

 Employment sites;

 Areas of Search for minerals; and

 Mineral sites.

8.1.2 The approach to the appraisal of each of these is discussed in Section 4 of this Report.

8.1.3 The Council has undertaken extensive work on these topics and additional background on the SA and how it has fitted within the overall site selection process is provided in the following documents:

 Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019); and

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

8.1.4 These documents demonstrate that the SA has been integral to the selection of sites and this is reflected in the fact that detailed results for the SA are discussed within these documents. Given the number of sites considered this has created challenges in terms of avoiding duplication between the SA Report and the other reports.

8.2 Housing Sites

8.2.1 The Council has undertaken the Sustainability Appraisal of identified options for housing sites. The appraisal matrix for sites is presented at Appendix I and the draft matrices for individual sites are presented in this report as follows:

 Appendix L: Doncaster Main Urban Area;

 Appendix M: Main Towns; and

 Appendix N: Service Towns and Villages.

Doncaster Main Urban Area

8.2.2 Tables 8.1 to 8.6 provide a summary of the performance of the housing sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area against the SA objectives.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 86 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

8.2.3 There are significant positive effects identified for 37 sites (033; 072; 079; 111; 115; 116; 122; 161; 164; 166; 212; 213; 214; 217; 234; 237; 241; 255; 257; 350; 397; 407; 430; 431; 432; 436; 438; 439; 440; 494; 495; 836; 838; 953; 984; 1036; and, 1046) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution. 7 sites (111; 257; 438; 439; 440; 838; and, 984) also have significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as they are brownfield previously developed sites. 12 sites (111; 237; 257; 261; 262; 397; 438; 474; 886; 984; 1055; and, 1077) also have significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.4 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to 11 sites (077; 213; 214; 217; 237; 262; 397; 431; 836; 984; and 1036) on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai).

 Site 077 is entirely located on a Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.15 - Kirk Sandall Gorse (Candidate Site) so significant habitat compensation would be necessary if the site was supported through to allocation.

 Site 213 is located to the south-west of a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.15abc - Church Rei and Hexthorpe Flats) but is a very large site with scope for landscaping and buffering as mitigation.

 Site 214 is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.10 - Common Lane) but the size of the site provides opportunity for mitigation through buffering and landscaping.

 Site 217 contains Local Wildlife Site (reference 3.9ab) known as Long Plantation and Spring Rein where again buffering and a sensitive approach to layout could provide suitable mitigation, especially so given the size of the site.

 Site 237 is adjoins an area of Ancient Woodland (Farcliff Wood) as well as a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.68 - Warmsworth Cliff and Quarry) along the northern perimeter of the site where landscaping and buffering would be required.

 Site 262 adjoins a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.76 - Lakeside) which would require buffering and it is noted that the site has previously had planning permission for residential which provides confidence that an appropriate scheme could be realised on this site.

 The western half of site 397 is entirely located on a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.19 - Balby Little Moor) where significant compensation for habitat losses would be required and could be delivered via biodiversity off setting.

 Site 431 has a small part of the northern area of the site which overlays with a Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.20 - Long Plantation, Edenthorpe) where development layout would need to be off set from this boundary and buffering/landscaping provided.

 Site 836 overlays a number of Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.24 - St Catherine's Railway Embankments, Delves and Cuttings, reference 2.25 - Carr Lodge Plantation, and reference 2.26 - Littlewood's Plantation). However, this is a very large site which has previously had Outline planning permission (now lapsed) and earlier phases of the development have been delivered which included appropriate biodiversity mitigation. Further to this, the site has an adopted Supplementary Planning Document (Carr Lodge Design Code SPD) to guide further applications on this part of the site in due course which includes biodiversity.

 Site 984 is a very large mixed use planning permission which overlays 2 designated Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.30 and 2.31 - Wheatley Park and Old Don Oxbows) which has been addressed as part of the determination of the application.

 Site 1036 is a very large urban extension site which includes Local Wildlife Sites (Cusworth Hall Local Wildlife Site ref 3.10 and Castle Hill Wood Local Wildlife Site ref 6.43) which would need to be buffered with a sensitive approach to site layout.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 87 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

8.2.5 Sites 072; 215; 217; 400; 473; and, 1036 have significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) due to the Heritage Impact Assessment finding that development of the site will have a significant negative impact which may not be possible to resolve, even with mitigation:

 The south-west half of site 072 is occupied by a Scheduled Monument (Roman pottery kilns). There are no listed buildings within the site or within 250m of the site. A part of the South Bessacarr Conservation area is within 250m of the site but is mostly separated by a housing development and trees. That part of the site adjacent to Warning Tongue Lane lies opposite the north east extremity of the conservation area.

 Site 215 consists of 3 agricultural fields bounded by limestone walls within the Warmsworth Conservation Area. The conservation area is based on the historic core of Warmsworth which was a linear village following Low Road West subsequently divided by Warmsworth Hall. The character of the Warmsworth conservation area derives mainly from the rural and agricultural limestone buildings with clay pantile/stone tile roofs and limestone walling set around Warmsworth Hall and its grounds and confined between Warmsworth High Road and Low Road East/West. The site includes the historic buildings and barns of West Farm one of which is grade 2 listed. Adjacent and overlooking the site is the grade 2 listed Warmsworth House. There are 5 other listed buildings within the conservation area including the grade 2* listed Warmsworth Hall with its separately listed grade 2 east and west gates.

 Site 217 lies within a Park and Garden of Local Historic Interest. It is an agricultural field that lies opposite the Grade II listed gatehouse which marks the historic main access to Grade I Cusworth Hall. The grounds of Cusworth Hall are also nationally designated as a Grade II listed Park and Garden of Special Interest and also lie within Cusworth Conservation Area.

 Sites 400 and 473 are essentially the same site with 2 slightly different boundaries submitted as representations. There are no listed buildings within the sites or within 250m of the sites. However, the sites are within the boundary of Rose Hill Cemetery which is designated a park and garden of local historic interest. This includes the cemetery itself and the open space (this site) and wooded areas to the south west as well as the trees on the site boundaries. Immediately to the south west and across from Cantley Lane is the Bessacarr Conservation area which is a C20th suburb with a green and open character.

 Site 1036 would completely overwhelm the parkland character that currently exists and would be considered substantial harm. The high historic value of the land would not support development on the whole site – although partial on the less significant areas might be able to be accommodated.

8.2.6 There are significant negative effects for sites 072; 215; 350; 407; 906; 1036 and, 1071 on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) and there may be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of these sites as they contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Site 072 also have negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bi) due to the presence of a groundwater source protection zone 1 on the south-west edge of the site. 26 sites (072; 116; 121; 161; 164; 212; 213; 214; 241; 255; 257; 261; 262; 284; 310; 350; 407; 430; 438; 439; 495; 836; 838; 984; 1036; and, 1046) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 88 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.1 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 033 – 213

Site Ref 033 072 077 079 111 115 116 121 122 148 161 164 166 212 213 Loversall Land, Weston Bentley Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Tongue Lane (1) Land East of Warning Tongue Lane (2) Land East of Warning Warmsworth Lords Head Lane, Mill Lane, Warmsworth Road, Warmsworth Land adj. 163 Sheffield Tongue Lane, Cantley Acres Ranch, Warning Kirk Sandall Gorse Sprotbrough Land at Melton Road, Balby Land at Stevens Road, Alverley Lane, Balby Barnby Dun Armthorpe Lane, Scawthorpe Amersall Road, Sprotbrough Challenger Drive, Road, Balby

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ + ‐ + + + + ‐ + + 0 0 0 + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + ‐ 0 + + ‐ 0 + + + + ‐ 0 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + ‐ + 0 + + 0 ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + 0 + + + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + 0 0 0 + ‐ 11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 ‐ + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + 0 + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + 0 + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ 0 0 + + + 0 + + + ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ? + ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? 0 + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? 0 + ‐ ? + ‐ + ? ? ? ‐ ‐ 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 89 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.2 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 214 – 350

Site Ref 214 215 217 234 237 241 253 255 257 261 262 263 284 310 350 Warmsworth Common Lane, Warmsworth High Road, Back Lane, Cusworth Scawthorpe Broad Axe, Warmsworth (2) Sheffield Road, Warmsworth Quarry, Edenthorpe Mere Lane, Land to the East of Road Sales Site, Carr House Former Bloodstock Thorne Road Business Park, Former Hungerhill Doncaster Marshgate, Boulevard Way / Lakeside Plot 5A, off Carolina Boulevard Plot 6, Lakeside Sepulchre Gate West 3 Sites in St Park Allotments, Hyde Formerly Carr House Doncaster Rear of Bentley Road, Rose Hill, Cantley

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + ‐ 0 + 0 + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + 0 + + + 0 + + ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐ 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + ‐ 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 ‐ + + ‐ + + + 0 + + + 0 0 + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery ‐ ‐ + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 ‐ + + 0 0 5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + + 0 + + ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + + + 0 + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity 0 + 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + 0 + + + + + + 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + + + + + + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ? + ? + + + + 0 + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ‐ 0 + ? + 0 + + + + 0 + 0 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 90 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.3 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 369 - 438

Site Ref 369 380 389 395 397 399 400 407 411 416 430 431 432 436 438 Alexander Street, Bentley Cantley Goodison Boulevard (1), Scawsby Layden Drive (Small Site), Plots, Balby Weston Road / Newbolt Orchard Street, Balby Pickering Road, Bentley Cantley Lane, Cantley Rose Hill Cemetery Land, The Avenue, Cantley Site, Clay Lane Wilberforce Road, Garage Cantley Goodison Boulevard (2), Lane Land off Warning Tongue Edenthorpe Land off Thorne Road, Middle School, Leger Way Former Wheatley Hills Land at Scawsby Lane Chappell Drive Waterfront (East),

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + + 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ + 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ + + + 0 ‐ + + + + + + + + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 5A(i) Affordability 0 + 0 0 ++ + + ++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + 0 + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + 0 + 0 0 + + + + + + + + 0 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + ‐ + + + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐ + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 + + + + ? + ? + + ? ? ? ‐ + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + + + + ? + ? ? + ‐ + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + + + 0 ? + ? ? + ‐ + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 91 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.4 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 439 – 902

Site Ref 439 440 473 474 494 495 833 835 836 838 862 886 897 902 Chappell Drive Waterfront (West), Waterdale Civic And Cultural Quarter, Cantley Cantley Lane, Rose Hill, Sunnyside, Edenthorpe Sunnyside Depot, Green Lane, Scawthorpe Site) Rostholme, Bentley (Full Sandy Lane, Doncaster Warmsworth Warmsworth Reservoir, Way, Balby Land South Of Woodfield Road/Eden Grove Kirk Street/Ramsden 131A Balby Road, Balby 125A, 127, 127A, 129 AND Oswin Avenue, Balby Princegate, Doncaster Princegate House, Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster Snooker Club, 21 ‐ 27 St

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station + + ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + + + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + + + + 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + 0 + 0 ‐ ‐ + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ + 0 ++ ++ + + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + + + 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 + + ++ 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + 0 + + + 0 ‐ + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + ‐ ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ + + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + + 0 + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 + 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + ‐ ? + ‐ ‐ + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + ? ‐ ? + ‐ ? + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + ? ‐ ? + ‐ ? + + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 92 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.5 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 906 – 1049

Site Ref 906 916 923 959 972 979 980 983 984 986 990 1036 1041 1042 1046 1049 Doncaster South Parade, Denison House, 15 Havelock Road, Balby Belmont Works, 3 Doncaster Young Street, Electricity Sub Station, Street, Doncaster 13 ‐ 17 Cleveland Bentley Gowdall Green, Land To North Of Scawthorpe Sycamores, Scawthorpe Hall, The Units 1 To 3, Leger Way, Intake Doncaster Racecourse, Wheatley 4 Kings Road, Wheatle Wheatley Hall Road, Tractors International, Former McCormick Wheatley 170 Beckett Road, Ivor Grove, Balby Melton Road, Newton Doncaster Edward Road, Balby Archives, King Balby Former Nexus Centre, Ashworth Barracks, Bank, Balby Site A ‐ Land at Cross Cusworth Lane The Cusworth Centre, y

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + ‐ ‐ + + 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + + + + + 0 + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + 0 + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + + ‐ + + 5A(i) Affordability 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 + ++ + + ++ + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + 0 + + + ++ + 0 0 + + 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 + + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + + + 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + 0 + ‐ + + 0 0 + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + + ‐ 0 + + + + ‐ + + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ + ‐ 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + ‐‐ + 0 0 + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + + + + + + + + ? + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 93 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.6 Summary SA Findings – Doncaster Main Urban Area Sites 1052 – 1094

Site Ref 1052 1053 1055 1059 1070 1071 1074 1075 1077 1081 1084 1085 1086 1092 1093 1094 Balby Rosemead House, Stanley House and Avenue, Scawsby Don View, Thellusson Truman Street, Bentley Cook Street and Bentley Pickering Road, Cherry Grange, Wheatley 24 Avenue Road, 1 Scot Lane, Doncaster Doncaster Princes Street, St Peters House, Drive, Scawsby Land At End of Layden Bentley Court, Rowan Garth, Units 1 To 2 Queens Warde Avenue, Balby Cedar Adult Centre, Doncaster 4 Silver Street, Prudential Chambers, Doncaster 7 ‐ 9 Scot Lane, Intake Westminster Crescent, Westminster Club, Site Of Former Waterdale, Doncaster Consort House, Yard, Doncaster Building, Old Guildhall Old Guildhall Yard Doncaster 1 Thorne Road,

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + + + 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + 0 + + 0 + + + + + + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 + + + + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 ‐ 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + 0 ‐ + + + + 0 0 + + + + + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + 8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 + 0 0 + + + + 0 0 + + + ‐ + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology + + + 0 + ‐‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 94 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Main Towns

Main Town: Adwick-le-Street Woodlands

8.2.7 Table 8.7 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Adwick-le-Street.

8.2.8 Significant positive effects were identified for 4 sites (459; 512; and, 513) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution. Site 944 also has significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) and removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.9 Site 459 is identified as having potential significant negative effects on biodiversity due to the site being adjacent to Adwick-le-Street Sewage Works (459). This could be mitigated through appropriate site layout and buffering given the size of the site and location of the local wildlife site which is generally adjacent to the site boundary rather than within it.

8.2.10 Sites 458 and 459 have significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) due to the proximity of the sites in relation to the Adwick-le-Street Conservation Area and the Grade II* listed Church of St. Laurence. A Grade II listed mill lies immediately to the north of site 459 also. Even with mitigation, it may not be possible for a scheme to be developed that could be supported without there being an unacceptable major negative impact on these heritage assets.

8.2.11 There are significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for sites 458; 512 and 513 where there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the sites. All 3 sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the sites and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good.

8.2.12 3 sites (458; 459; and, 512) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 95 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 7.7 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Adwick-le-Street

Site Ref 202 368 371 415 458 459 460 512 513 961 991 1051 1080 Balk Lane, Woodlands Reservoir Site, Ridge Former Yorkshire Water Le Street Bosworth Road, Adwick Land Adjoining 71/73 Depot, Adwick Fern Bank/Adwick Woodlands Quarry Lane, Road, Edwin Road, Junction Of Chadwick Rig, Woodlands Lane, West of Roman North of Long Lands Lane, Adwick‐le‐Street Adwick Depot, Mill Adwick‐le‐Street Ashwood House, Road, Woodlands Woodland View, Edwin Adwick Land off Church Lane, Lane, Adwick Land off Doncaster Drive, Adwick Land off Lutterworth North East, Adwick Redhouse Lane (b), South, Adwick Redhouse Lane (c),

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ + + ‐ + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 + ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 + + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + 0 + + + 0 + + + 0 + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 5A(i) Affordability 0 0 + + + ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 + 0 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + 8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 + + ‐ 0 + ‐ + + + 0 + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + + + + 0 + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + ‐ + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ + + + ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + + 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 + + ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 + 0 + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + + + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 96 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Main Town: Conisbrough-Denaby

8.2.13 Table 8.8 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Conibrough-Denaby.

8.2.14 There are significant positive effects identified for 9 sites (040; 142; 251; 256; 383; 825; 1000; 1035; and, 1058) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.15 Site 256 has a significant positive effect through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as the site is a very large previously developed brownfield site.

8.2.16 5 sites (087; 220; 221; 256; and, 435) are identified as having significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) as 50%+ of their site areas are found to contain contaminated land which would be remediated and brought back into effective use through development of the sites.

8.2.17 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) at sites 221; 251; 256; 383; 1035; and 1088. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.18 Sites 221; 383; and, 1088 are all identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 221 has a very small area of the site which overlays Ashfield Brick Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest so would require appropriate buffering and sensitive layout/landscaping/design of the site which may be more challenging given the site is quite small. Site 383 entirely overlays part of a much wider Local Wildlife Site Conisbrough North Cliff (reference 5.8). If the site was to be taken forward as an allocation, there would need to be significant mitigation and compensation for any habitat losses. In addition the existing woodland would need to be retained and buffered from built development by at least 10m. The design of the site would also need to include a significant wide grassland/habitat corridor through the development connecting the habitat in the north to the wider countryside. Site 1088 includes a number of Local Wildlife Sites (e.g. Conisbrough Parks Hedgerows) although this site is a very large urban extension and these assets are only a very small area of the site so could be avoided through sensitive site layout and buffering.

8.2.19 Sites 1062 and 1088 would have a major archaeological objection and therefore identified as having significant negative effects on Objective 13Bi.

8.2.20 3 sites (087; 256; and, 1088) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this Objective (14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 97 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Table 8.8 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Conisbrough-Denaby

Site Ref 040 087 142 220 221 251 256 304 383 435 825 826 1000 1035 1062 1063 1082 1088 Conisbrough Field off Clifton Hill, Crookhill Road, Stringers Nurseries, Land to the North of Denaby Main Land off Hill Top Road, Conisbrough Church, Chapel Lane, Conisbrough Methodist Chestnut Grove, Land At The Talisman, Education Centre, Old Conisbrough Social Conisbrough Land South West of Conisbrough Old Road, Hilltop, Land at Sheffield Road / Conisbrough Sheffield Road, Kearsley Brook, Road, Conisbrough Land South of Sheffield Conisbrough (Site A) Road / Clifton Hill, Garage off Sheffield Conisbrough (Site B) Road / Clifton Hill, Garage off Sheffield Main Hill Top Road, Denaby Denaby opposite Earth Centre, Land South of Canal, Conisbrough Land off Windgate Hill, U5‐003 Hill Top Road, Denaby, Road, Conisbrough Former Depot, Sheffield Lane, Conisbrough Fields off Drake Head

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + 0 + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 + + + + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + ‐ + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + 0 + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 + + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + + + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + 0 + + 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 + ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 + 0 + + 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ + 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 + ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 + + + ‐ 11A(i) Main River Flooding + 0 + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 + 0 + ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ + + ‐‐ 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ + ? + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ? + + ? + + ? + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ + ? + + ? + + ? + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? + + + ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 98 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

Main Town: Hatfield-Stainforth (including Dunsville & Dunscroft)

8.2.21 Tables 8.9 to 8.11 summarise the results of the SA of housing sites for Hatfield-Stainforth.

8.2.22 There are significant positive effects identified for 12 sites (037; 086; 118; 171; 192; 229; 231; 332; 418; 970; 1038; and, 1060) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.23 2 sites (170 and 352) have a significant positive effect through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) due to contaminated land being found covering at least 50%+ of their site areas and where development will bring back into effective use contaminated land.

8.2.24 Site 794 and 957 both have significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as both are large previously developed brownfield sites.

8.2.25 Two sites (170 and 352) have a significant positive effect through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii) due to contaminated land being found covering at least 50%+ of their site areas and where development will bring back into effective use contaminated land.

8.2.26 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for 5 sites (086; 231; 418; 457; and, 1060). Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.27 Sites 231; 418; and, 1060 are identified as having potential significant negative effects on biodiversity. Site 231 has a candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.46abc - The Haggs) adjacent to the western boundary where extensive buffering and a sensitive approach to layout/landscaping/design would be required. Site 418/1060 contains 3 Local Wildlife Sites (reference 9.13a & 9.13b - Thorne Ashfield's/Poltontoft; &, reference 9.32 - Hopyard Hay Meadow). However, this is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed for development. Appropriate mitigation and any compensation for biodiversity has been agreed as part of the Development Management process.

8.2.28 6 sites (105; 120; 171; 191; 198; and, 778) have potential significant negative effects on built heritage (objective 13Ai) as follows. There would be major negative effects on these built heritage assets were the sites to be developed and this may not be able to be mitigated:

 Site 105 abuts the Hatfield High Street Conservation Area to the north. There are 3 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. These are No.54 fronting the High Street and its separately listed stable block on Back Lane, and the Old Chapel also fronting the High Street. Some 260m to the west is the grade 1 listed Manor House;

 Site 120 are within the Hatfield – Manor Road Conservation Area. There are 8 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. Either side of the sites are the grade 2 listed Bow House and The Leylands. Ash Hill Lodge is 120m north west of the site. Across from the site are 2 grade 2 listed barns which are part of a farm complex (Hatfield House Farm). Thackray House and its separately listed barn are 50m north of the site. 31 Manor Road is 85m north east of the site. Hatfield’s public house is a historic (key unlisted) building at the junction of Manor Road and Ash Hill Road. Broadacres adjacent to the western site is a large property in substantial grounds and has architectural merit;

 Site 171 – abuts the Hatfield High Street Conservation Area immediately to the south. There are 9 listed buildings within 250m of the site the most significant of which is the grade 1 listed Church of St Lawrence with its prominent tower at the centre of the village and 100m west of the

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2 99 © Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited

site. Its boundary gates to the south are also grade 2 listed. The grade 2 listed Travis School now the parish council rooms lies 100m west of the site. The grade 2 listed 11/13 Station Road is 160m west of the site but is physically and visually separated from it by the listed church and the trees within its grounds. The remaining 5 listed buildings are at some distance from the site or face the High Street. Their settings are localised and would not be affected by the allocation;

 Site 191 - The Hatfield –High Street Conservation Area abuts the site immediately to the north where it is adjacent to Back Lane. There are 2 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. These are No.54 fronting the High Street and its separately listed stable block on Back Lane. Some 370m to the west is the grade 1 listed Manor House;

 Site 198 - The Hatfield –High Street conservation area lies immediately to the south. There are grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site which are no58 High Street and the separately listed barn to the rear. The grade 1 listed Church of St Lawrence, with its prominent tower at the centre of the village, is roughly 460m west of the site; and,

 Site 778 - The site lies off the main A18 road immediately to the south of the Hatfield – Manor Road Conservation Area. There are 4 grade 2 listed buildings within 250m of the site. 90m north is the grade 2 listed Bow House and Ash Hill Lodge is 220m north of the site. 220m north east of the site are 2 grade 2 listed barns which are part of a farm complex (Hatfield House Farm). Hatfield’s public house is a historic (key unlisted) building at the junction of Manor Road and Ash Hill Road. Broadacres immediately north of the site is a large property in substantial grounds and has architectural merit. Across the main road from the site is a terrace of 6 almshouses which though against the character of the Conservation Area have been included for historic interest. These, and the rooftop of Broadacres with the surrounding trees signal the approach to the Conservation Area from the south.

8.2.29 There are significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for sites 418; 931; 970; 1034; 1038; and, 1060. These sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. However, site 418/1060 is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed development. Likewise, site 970 is now a planning permission that has been through the Development Management process.

8.2.30 Site 970 and 1038 both have potential significant negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bii) due to a groundwater source protection zone 1 area on part of the site. 6 sites (011; 097; 118; 229; 418; and, 1060) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies -14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

Table 8.9 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 008 - 309

Site Ref 008 011 037 086 097 105 118 120 170 171 187 191 192 198 229 231 309 Lane, Hatfield Land adj. 17 Lings Lane, Hatfield Road and adj. Back West of New Mill Field Dunscroft Land off Broadway, Road, Hatfield Land off North Ings Pickup Land, Dunsville Parks Farm, Dunscroft Drive, Dunsville Land off Westminster Dunsville Wynthorpe Farm, Mary's Drive, Dunsville Land rear of 55 St Dunscroft Ingram Road, Land to West of Road, Dunscroft Land adj. to Parks Stainforth Land at Kirton Lane, Lane, Hatfield South of Backfield Dunsville St Marys Road, Manor Road, Hatfield Road, Hatfield Land at Doncaster High Street, Hatfield Land to North Side of

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + ‐ 0 + 0 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ 0 0 + ‐ + 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + ‐ 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + ‐ 0 + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 + ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 ‐ 0 + + + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 5A(i) Affordability + + ++ ++ + + ++ + + ++ + + ++ + ++ ++ + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ ‐ + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 0 + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + 0 + + + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + + + ‐ + + + + + + + ‐ + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? ? 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + ? ? + ? + ? + + + ? ‐ ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + ? ? + ? + ? + + + ? ‐ ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.10 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 332- 931

Site Ref 332 346 348 352 376 378 381 388 406 408 418 457 778 784 890 901 931 York Road, Dunscroft St Edwins Close and The Crescent, Dunscroft The DN7 Initiative Stainforth Land off Waggons Way, Road, Hatfield Broadacres, Doncaster Land adjacent Cuckoo Lane, Hatfield Dunscroft Road South End, Station Land Rear Of 67 ‐ 79 East Lane, Stainforth East Lane House, 60 High Street, Dunsville Land at Warren Farm, Hatfield Land off Manor Road, Lane, Stainforth Robinsons, Oldfield Stainforth Oldfield Lane, Abbey Road, Dunscroft House of Play, 91 H9‐004 Broadway, Dunscroft, Stainforth Doncaster Road, Dunscroft Harpenden Drive, Kirton Lane, Stainforth

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 + + + ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 0 + + + 0 + ‐ + + + + 0 + + 0 + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 0 + + 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + + 0 + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + 0 + 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ + + 0 + + + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + + + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 + + 0 + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? + + 0 + + + 0 ? + 0 + + + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + + + + ? + + + ? ? + ? + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + + + + ? + + + ? ? + ? + + + +

Site Ref 332 346 348 352 376 378 381 388 406 408 418 457 778 784 890 901 931 The DN7 Initiative Stainforth Land off Waggons Way, Road, Hatfield Broadacres, Doncaster Land adjacent Cuckoo Lane, Hatfield Dunscroft Road South End, Station Land Rear Of 67 ‐ 79 East Lane, Stainforth East Lane House, 60 High Street, Dunsville Land at Warren Farm, Hatfield Land off Manor Road, Lane, Stainforth Robinsons, Oldfield Stainforth Oldfield Lane, Abbey Road, Dunscroft House of Play, 91 H9‐004 Broadway, Dunscroft, Stainforth Doncaster Road, Dunscroft Harpenden Drive, Kirton Lane, Stainforth York Road, Dunscroft St Edwins Close and The Crescent, Dunscroft

Site Name 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.11 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Hatfield-Stainforth Sites 946- 1122

Site Ref 946 970 992 1008 1034 1038 1054 1058 1060 1068 1072 1122 Street, Hatfield Spar Stores, 7 High site) Road, Dunscroft (smaller Land to West of Ingram Dunscroft Land Off Station Road, Road, Hatfield Land Off Doncaster Mill Croft, Stainforth (Adjacent 5 Mill Croft), Millcroft House Stainforth Farm, Ramskir Lane, 8 Acre Field, Townend High Street, Dunsville Land at Warren Farm, Hatfield Woodhouse Lane, Harpenden, Dunscroft Drive, Dunsville Land Off Westminster And Dunsville, Stainforth, Dunscroft Land Between Hatfield, Broadway, Dunscroft Warrenne Youth Centre, Land At Former The

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + 0 + + + + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + + + + + ‐ + + + 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 + 0 + + ‐ + + + 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + + ‐ ‐ 0 + + ‐ + 0 + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + + + + + + + + + + 0 5A(i) Affordability 0 ++ 0 + + ++ + + ++ 0 0 + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + + + 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + + + 0 ‐ 0 0 + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ? + ? ? ? + 0 ? + + 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + ? + ? + ? ? + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + ? + ? + ? ? + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Town: Mexborough

8.2.31 Table 8.12 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Mexborough.

8.2.32 There are significant positive effects identified for 3 sites (139; 154; and, 414) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.33 Site 414 has a significant positive effect in respect to market failure (Objective 5Di) due to the site being a large former housing market renewal site which was cleared of housing previously with a long-term commitment to replace.

8.2.34 Site 414 also has a significant positive effect through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) being a large previously developed brownfield site.

8.2.35 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for 9 sites (068; 154; 155; 379; 412; 414; 834; 922; and, 1048) due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.36 3 sites (068; 154; and, 687) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies objective 14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

Table 8.12 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Mexborough

Site Ref 068 139 154 155 379 412 414 687 834 850 894 922 960 1048 Highwoods Road, Land At Alagu Close ,Off Mexborough Cemetery Road, Former Nurses Home, Road, Mexborough Garage Site, Maple Road, Mexborough The Highwoods, Elm Mexborough Schofield Street, Mexborough Pastures Road, Former Coal Depot, Road, Mexborough Land North of Wath of Pastures Road Land to the North West Mexborough Industrial Estate, 'Site A', Leach Lane Mexborough Garden Street, Mexborough Willow Drive, Avenue, Mexborough Windhill, Whinhill Estate, Leach Lane, Leach Lane Industrial The Embankment, Pitt Street, Mexborough Mexborough

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ + + 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 + 0 + + 0 + + + + + 0 0 + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ ‐ + + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 + + ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + + + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + + + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + ++ ++ + + + ++ + + 0 0 0 0 + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 + + + + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + 0 + + + + + + 0 + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 ‐ 0 0 + + 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + 0 + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Town: Rossington

8.2.37 Table 8.13 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Rossington.

8.2.38 There are significant positive effects identified for 9 sites (123; 247; 302; 306; 307; 662; 879; 1032; and, 1039) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.39 Sites 247 and 662 have significant positive effects in respect to the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai), as both are large previously developed brownfield sites (former colliery), and through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.40 Sites 879 and 1032 are brownfield sites so also identified as having significant positive effects against this objective.

8.2.41 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv) for site 662. Sites in Development High Risk Areas would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed.

8.2.42 5 sites (247; 307; 662; 879, and 1032) are identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity. Site 307 includes Local Wildlife Sites (reference 2.50a - Gelster Lane Holt; reference 2.54 - Gravel Hill Plantation, Lake and Gypsy Plantation; reference 2.55abc - Parkland Plantations (Candidate site); reference 2.56ab - Nine and Sixteen Acre Plantation; reference 2.58ab - Rossington Hall Brickponds and Plantations; and, reference 2.59 - Rossington Hall Grounds). However, it should be noted that this is a very large site and the proposal includes some housing as part of a wider European Tour Golf Destination development including new courses and ancillary development which means significant parts of the site, including Local Wildlife Site designations, will not be where development is expected to take place. Sites 247 and 662 are adjacent to (to the west of) Ancient Woodland – and the Local Wildlife Site known as Holmes Carr Great Wood & Little Wood (reference 2.53ab). Site 662 is a planning permission and under construction and appropriate mitigation has been agreed through the Development Management process. Site 247 would need to consider buffering and sensitive layout and it is noted that the site would form an extension to the permissioned site 662. Site 879/1032 are adjacent to a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.52c - West End Pasture) so will require buffering and sensitive approach to layout. Site 1032 also adjoins a further Local Wildlife Site (Park Wood East reference 2.52b) to the east.

8.2.43 There are significant negative effects for 2 sites (123 and 307) in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Bi) as both of the sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Both sites would need to consider a sensitive approach to layout. Further to this, and as discussed above, site 307 is a large site with a significant element of the proposal not including built development.

8.2.44 Site 307 also has a groundwater source protection zone 1 on the north-east part of the site so potential for significant negative effects on groundwater source pollution (Objective 14Bi), but again this proposal entails large parts of the site that will not be developed e.g. golf course.

8.2.45 7 sites (123; 247; 307; 662; 879; 1032; and, 1040) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies - 14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.

Table 8.13 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Rossington

Site Ref 123 247 302 305 306 307 429 662 879 1032 1039 1040 1056 Rossington (Housing) Lane Industrial Estate, Land at Bankwood Rossington Bankwood Lane, Site A ‐ East of Rossington Stripe Road, Lane, Rossington Off Sheep Bridge Rossington Gattison/Tornedale, Rossington Sheep Bridge Lane, Torne Valley Farm, Lane, New Rossington Colliery, off West End Former Rossington Rossington (1) Land off Stripe Road, Rossington (2) Land off Stripe Road, Rossington Land off Grange Lane, Line Rail Great North Road and Rossington, Between Land South East of Lane, Rossington School Field, Gattison Former Torndale Rossington West End Lane, New Rossington Colliery, Site Of Former

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ 0 + + + 0 + 0 + + + ‐ + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + ‐ 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ 0 0 0 + + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery ‐ + 0 0 + ‐ + + + + 0 ‐ + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 + 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + 0 + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + 0 + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding 0 + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding 0 + + + + + 0 + + + + 0 0 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology ‐‐ + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? + ? ? 0 ? + + + + ? ? + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? + ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? 0 0 ‐ 0 + ? ? ? 0 ? + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Town: Thorne-Moorends

8.2.46 Tables 8.13 to 8.15 summarise the results of the SA of housing sites for Thorne-Moorends.

8.2.47 There are significant positive effects identified for 18 sites (002; 003; 004; 005; 060; 071; 081; 150; 160; 244; 245; 248; 276; 313; 426; 505; 998; and, 999) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.48 3 sites (248; 889; and, 1121) have significant positive effects in respect to the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.49 Significant negative effects have been identified in relation to biodiversity for 5 sites (009; 245; 248; 313; and, 1069). Site 009 lies entirely on a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) so significant compensation would be required for loss of habitat were this site to be supported as an allocation. Site 245 has 2 Local Wildlife sites running along the western and eastern edges (reference 9.17 - Oak Moor and Chadwick Dike Area; and, reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) which could be mitigated through landscaping and buffering. Site 248 is entirely part of a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.17) known as Oak Moor and Chadwick Dike Area so would require significant habitat compensation if supported for development. Site 313 is a very similar site area to 245 already discussed, but includes some additional land to the south-west of the site so the same buffering as per site 245 would be necessary. Site 973 also adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 9.19 - Thorne Railway Delves) so would require buffering and the site is quite small, but planning permission has been granted so this will have been considered as part of the Development Management stage.

8.2.50 There are significant negative effects for 2 sites (245 and 313) in respect to built heritage due to the site being farmland to the north of Micklethwaite Farm. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site but Micklethwaite Farmhouse is Grade II listed and is in close proximity to the site. The farmhouse looks a little uncared for and has suffered some inappropriate repairs/alterations. Development of the site could have a major negative effect on this built heritage asset.

8.2.51 There are also significant negative effects on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) for site 313 as it contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. The site would need to consider a sensitive approach to layout to mitigate this constraint.

8.2.52 22 sites (002; 003; 004; 034; 060; 071; 081; 083; 150; 244; 245; 248; 276; 311; 313; 343; 505; 508; 949; 958; 998; and, 999) are located within 10m of a surface water body so potential for significant negative effects against this objective (pollution to surface water bodies -14Bii) unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

Table 8.13 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 002 to 248

Site Ref 002 003 004 005 009 034 060 071 081 083 089 130 133 150 244 245 248 Church Balk, Thorne Coulman Bungalow, Common, Thorne Burger Road, Burger Road, Thorne Land off St. Nicholas Stud Farm, Moorends Land Adj. Bloomhill Thorne / Broadbent Gate Road, Land off Coulman Road Farm, Moorends Land at Micklethwaite's 1) Colliery, Moorends (Site Land at Former Thorne Moorends Bloomhill Road, North Common Land adj. Playing Fields, Thorne Land off Ivy Road, Common, Thorne Marshland Road, North Lands End, Thorne Kirton Lane, Thorne Opposite Golf Course, Road, Thorne Land East of Wyke Gate Thorne Off St Michaels Drive, Street, Thorne Land off Alexandra Bloomhill Road, Bloomhill Farm, Land to rear of

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + 0 + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 0 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ + 0 0 + ++ ++ ++ ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + 0 + + + + 0 + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + + ‐ 0 + + 0 0 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 + 0 + ? + 0 0 0 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? + ‐ + ? ? ‐ ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? + ‐ + ? ? ‐ ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.14 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 276 to 889 Site Ref 276 311 313 331 343 396 426 427 469 501 503 505 508 510 795 889 Moorends Bloomhill Road, Close, Thorne Land rear of Bryson Moorends Micklethwaites Farm, Land North East of Road, Thorne Land off Coulman Thorne North Eastern Road, Alexander Street / Thorne North Eastern Road, Road, Moorends Land at Marshland Kingsmede, Road / rear of Land at Marshland Road, Moorends Land at Bloomhill Moorends Marshlands Road, Adjacent 46 Moorends Marshland Road, East View Farm, adjacent Land, Thorne South End Marina and Moorends Road / The Avenue, Land off Marshlands South End Road, South Station, off Adjacent Thorne of South End, Thorne Land on the East Side Edward Road, Thorne Industrial Park, King Land North East Of

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + 0 0 + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + 0 0 + + + + + + + ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ + 5A(i) Affordability ++ + ++ + + + ++ + + + + ++ + + 0 + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + ++ 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + + + 0 + 0 0 + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 + + 0 0 + + ‐ + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + + + ‐ + ‐ + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 0 0 + 0 ? 0 + 0 + 0 ? 0 + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8.15 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Thorne-Moorends Sites 949 to 1121

Site Ref 949 951 952 958 998 999 1069 1121 Hatfield Road, Thorne Rising Sun Public House, Land Off Site Of Former Thorne Side Of Alexandra Street, Land On The North East Drive, Thorne Open Land At Corona Thorne Land Off White Lane, Thorne Land at Moorends Road, Moorends Land at Broadbent Gate, Thorne North Eastern Road, Land To The Rear Of 98 Road, Moorends Nurseries, Marshlands North Common

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station 0 0 + + + ‐ + ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + 0 + 0 ‐ + 0 + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + ‐ + + 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + 0 + + ‐ + + + 5A(i) Affordability 0 + 0 + ++ ++ 0 + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ++ 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + ‐ ‐ + + 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + 0 + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + 0 + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + ‐ + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + ‐ + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + + + 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + 0 + + 0 0 ? 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + + ? ? + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land + ? + + ? ? + ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Towns/Villages

8.2.53 The SA results for each of the service towns and villages are summarised below.

Askern

8.2.54 Table 8.16 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Askern.

8.2.55 There are significant positive effects identified for 4 sites (090; 226; 475; and, 569) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing requirement.

8.2.56 Site 569 also has significant positive effects through the re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) as the site is previously developed and brownfield therefore.

8.2.57 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites 041; 090; 195; 303; 475; and, 569 as they are all located within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.58 One of the sites (226) has significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity (Objective 12Ai) because the site adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 7.8 - Campsall Country Park) to the west of the proposed site where buffering would be required.

8.2.59 Site 955 has significant negative effects in relation to built heritage (Objective 13Ai) as development would result in the loss of an undesignated heritage asset - former school building although the site has been granted planning permission.

Table 8.16 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Askern

Site Ref 036 041 090 195 226 303 374 475 569 925 955 956 1066

Land off Highfield Road, Askern Industrial Estate Askern Miners Welfare, Road Youth Club, Selby Sewage Works, Askern Askern Saw Mills, High Land to North of Moss Land South of Oakwell 1 Spa Terrace, Askern Land South of Church Premier House, Selby Former Askern Selby Manor Way, Askern Road, South East of Drive and Coniston Field Road, Askern Paddock to rear of Land Off Highfield Street, Askern Avenue Road, Road, Askern Road, Askern Road, Askern Holme Croft Instoneville Askern Road

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + ‐ 0 + 0 0 + + + + + 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + 0 + + + 0 + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + + ++ + ++ + + ++ ++ + + + + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐ ‐ 0 + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + ‐ 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 + 0 0 ? 0 + 0 + 0 + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + + + 0 0 + + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? + ? + + + + 0 0 + + + + 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Auckley-Hayfield Green

8.2.60 Table 8.17 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Auckley-Hayfield Green.

8.2.61 There are significant positive effects identified for 8 sites (174; 223; 299; 446; 464; 940; 1010; and, 1013) for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to the size of the sites triggering a large affordable housing requirement. Sites 422 and 446 also have significant positive effects through the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.62 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites 007; 299; 464; 940; and, 1010 as they are all located within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.63 Two of the sites (464 and 940) have significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 464 overlays a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.48acef - Torne Valley) to the south-east of the site where buffering would be necessary. Site 940 includes Ancient Woodland (part of Finningley Big Wood) as well as a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.31b - Hurst Wood) where development would need to be sensitive in terms of layout with landscaping and buffering as well as potential habitat loss compensation.

8.2.64 Site 940 also has significant negative effects in respect to Objective 13Bi archaeology as the site contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. As such there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the site.

Table 8.17 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Auckley-Hayfield Green

Site Ref 007 049 174 201 223 299 330 422 446 464 832 940 1010 1013 Poor's Land, Hurst Lane, Land off Bell Butts Lane, Blaxton Quarry Phase 2, Mosham Road, Auckley RHADS Site 2A, Land at Hayfield Lane, Auckley Willow Farm, Branton Auckley 1, East of The Land off Main Street, Main Street, Auckley Poplars Farrm, Hurst Orchard Farm, Hurst Land off Gate House Bell Butts, Bell Butts Land adjacent to 21 Common, Common Site 1, Land East of Hollows, Auckley Lane, Doncaster Land at Auckley Land at Auckley Lane, Auckley Lane, Auckley Lane, Auckley Auckley Auckley Auckley Lane

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 + + ‐ ‐ ‐ + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 ‐ + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + + + + + + 0 + 0 + + + 0 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + ‐ 0 ‐ + + + + + ‐ 0 + 5A(i) Affordability + + ++ + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + ‐ + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 0 0 + 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + + ‐ + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ + 0 + + + + + + ‐ + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + 0 + + 0 + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + ‐ + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? 0 + 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Barnburgh-Harlington

8.2.65 Table 8.18 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Barnburgh-Harlington.

8.2.66 There are no significant positive effects identified for any of the sites.

8.2.67 Site 143 has significant negative effects in respect to built heritage (Objective 13ai) which would have a major significant impact on built heritage which may not be possible to mitigate. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site itself, but the site lies immediately to the south of Barnburgh Conservation Area. 100m to the north lies the Grade I listed Church of St. Peters. There are also six Grade II listed buildings within the 250 buffer zone. Residential uses on this site will harm the setting of the conservation area and in particular views towards the Church of St Peter.

8.2.68 Sites 1003 & 1004 also both have significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13ai) which may not be possible to mitigate. This is due to residential uses which will harm the setting of the conservation area and the setting of the undesignated local historic interest building of the pinfold.

8.2.69 There are also significant negative effects for site 143 on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) due to evidence for earthwork archaeological remains on this site, further consideration of the impact on these would be required to establish whether there was capacity for housing on this site. Extensive ridge and furrow earthworks are recorded within the site, which are considered to be of Local archaeological significance and Major historic landscape significance.

8.2.70 There are significant negative effects identified for surface water pollution (Objective 14Bii) for sites 777 and 1004 as the sites are within 10m of a surface water body where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

Table 8.18 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Barnburgh-Harlington

Site Ref 095 143 777 1003 1004 Land North of Primary School, Church Lane, Paddock adjacent to 'Plot 3', Harlington Field adjacent to Hickleton Road, Hickleton Road, Manor Farm, Manor Farm, Hollowgate, Barnburgh Barnburgh Barnburgh

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 0 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + + + + + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites ‐ 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 13B(i) Archaeology + ‐‐ 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Barnby Dun

8.2.71 Table 8.19 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Barnby Dun.

8.2.72 Four of the sites (108; 125; 147; and, 1007) are identified as having significant positive effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.73 There are significant negative effects identified for 3 sites (108; 233; and, 329) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

Table 8.19 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Barnby Dun

Site Ref 108 125 147 228 233 329 347 918 1007 Park Hill, Armthorpe Land at Barnby Dun White House Farm, Street, Barnby Dun East of Cuneigarth, Centre, Top Road, Land to the South Lane, Barnby Dun Land to North of Farmstead, High Stainforth Lane, Bramwith Lane, Bramwith Lane, Barnby Dun Car Off The Grove, Hatfield Lane, Margatroyds, Barnby Dun Barnby Dun Barnby Dun Barnby Dun Barnby Dun Dun Barnby Well Green

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 ‐ + + + + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 ‐ 0 + + 0 + + 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + ‐ + + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ + 0 + + 0 ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + ‐ + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity 0 + + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + ‐ ‐ + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? ? + ? ? + 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ? ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Bawtry

8.2.74 Table 8.20 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Bawtry.

8.2.75 Six of the sites (146; 873; 874; 996; 1017; and, 1087) are identified as having significant positive effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution. Site 873 would have also significant positive effects from the removal of contaminated land (Objective 8Aii).

8.2.76 There are significant negative effects identified for sites 141 and 786 as both are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.77 Sites 966 is also identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity as the site overlays a designated Local Wildlife Site (Bawtry Hall Park and Lake – ref 4.26a) although it is noted that the site is relating to the conversion of the existing buildings on site so the actual effects on the local wildlife site would be minimal. Sites 995 and 996 are also identified as having significant negative effects on Biodiversity due to them being Local Wildlife Sites (Menagerie Wood Local Wildlife Site ref 4.26b and Bawtry Hall Park & Lake Local Wildlife Site ref 4.26a respectively).

8.2.78 Site 966 is also identified as having significant negative effects on archaeology because the potential for the survival of archaeological remains within undisturbed areas is considered to be moderate. The hall is grade II* listed, and some of the buildings around it may be part of its original outbuilding range. Further archaeological investigations will be required if the site is brought forward for development. This will include an assessment of the impact of the development on the grade II* listed hall and its outbuildings.

8.2.79 Site 996 is identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage. The site would not affect the significance of the heritage assets in the main part of the conservation area around the Market Place but would be harmful to the setting of Bawtry Hall and its associated locally designated parkland to the south as well as this part of the Bawtry conservation area by infilling the open space to the south of the hall. The loss of trees would also be harmful to the conservation area. This would amount to substantial harm to heritage significance.

Table 8.20 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Bawtry

Site Ref 141 146 172 280 499 780 786 873 874 950 966 995 996 1006 1017 1045 1087 Land off North Avenue, Land off North Avenue, South of Cockhill Close, Common Farm, Bawtry Common Farm, Bawtry Land at Martin Grange Land off Narrow Lane, Site A, Land at Martin Narrow Lane, Bawtry Station Road, Bawtry Tall Trees, 17 Thorne Site B (Safeguarded), Tickhill Road, Bawtry Land West of Bawtry Land at Thorne Road Land off Towngate, Bawtry Hall, South Menagerie Wood, and Bawtry Road, Westwood Road, Station Hotel, 93 Parade, Bawtry Land at Martin Farm, Bawtry Road, Bawtry Hall, Bawtry Austerfield Bawtry Bawtry Bawtry Bawtry Bawtry Bawtry Bawtry

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + + 0 + + + + 0 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + + + + + 0 0 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 0 + + ‐ 0 0 + 0 ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + ++ + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + 0 + + + + + ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 + 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? + + ? 0 + ? + ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Site Name 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Carcroft-Skellow

8.2.80 Table 8.21 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Carcroft-Skellow.

8.2.81 Six of the sites (145; 165; 185; 186; 273, and 1089) are identified as having significant positive effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.82 There are significant negative effects identified for sites 185; 273; 398; and, 1089 as all four are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc on site for example.

8.2.83 Site 042 is also identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to mitigate because the site is a pasture to the south of Skellow. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site but it lies immediately to the south of Skellow- Buttercross Conservation Area. The Scheduled Monuments of Cromwell’s Batteries (remains of a motte and bailey castle) and the Butter Cross (plinth of possible medieval market cross) lie 100m to the north. There are also four Grade II listed buildings within the 250 buffer zone, two of which are within 100m of the site and are both converted barns.

Table 8.21 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Carcroft Skellow

Site Ref 042 145 165 185 186 273 367 398 401 1005 1076 1089 Land off Crabgate Lane, Land to rear of Skellow Owston Road, Carcroft 1‐29 Buttermere Close Askern Road, Carcroft Repton Road, Skellow Land North of the A1, Land at Mill Lane and Street, Owston Lane, Garages, Buttermere Suite Express House, Land to East of New Land to the West of 39A Skellow Road, Crabgate, Skellow Sandyfields View, Land at Skellow Close, Carcroft Carcroft Carcroft Carcroft Skellow Skellow Hall

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + + + + + + 0 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + + + + + 0 + + 0 + 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre + 0 ‐ + ‐ + + + + + + + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + + 0 ‐ 0 + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + 0 + 0 + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + + + 0 + + + 0 0 + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding ‐ ‐ + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + 0 + ‐ + ‐ + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + ‐ + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + + + + ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ + ‐ + ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ‐ ? ? + ‐ + ? + ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ‐ ‐ ? ? + ‐ + ? + ‐ 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Edlington

8.2.84 Table 8.22 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Edlington.

8.2.85 Five of the sites (051; 052; 054, 057; and, 646) are identified as having significant positive effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size likely triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.86 There are significant negative effects identified for five sites (051; 052; 057; 384; and, 646) as all are within10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.87 Site 054 and 646 are both identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 054 is within Natural England’s Impact Risk Zone Consultation Area (Edlington Wood SSSI) as the site is relatively close to this designated site. Site 646 also adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.9 - Edlington / Dearne Valley Railway Embankment) to the north of the site, although it is noted that this is a very large site and planning permission has been granted which will have addressed any mitigation necessary through the Development Management process.

8.2.88 Site 057 is also identified as having potential significant negative effects due to being located in proximity to an area of unstable land (Objective 8Aiv), however this relates to a very small area that just adjoins the site to the western boundary so is not considered as something that would be a significant constraint were the site to be developed.

Table 8.22 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Edlington

Site Ref 051 052 054 057 328 375 384 646 893 1064 Cinema, Edlington Lane, Yorkshire Main Colliery Land off Tait Avenue, Edlington Lane, New , Broomhouse Lane, Land Of The Former Plot 1, Land at Old Plot 2, Land at Old Plot 4, Land at Old Plot 7, Land at Old Land Off Howbeck Barnburgh House, Edlington, U2‐016 Drive, Edlington Howbeck Drive, Site At Former Edlington Edlington Edlington Edlington Edlington Edlington Edlington Balby

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + + + + + 0 + + 0 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + + + + + 0 ‐ + 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + + + + ‐ + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ ++ + 0 + ++ + 0 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + + 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + + ‐ + + + + + + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + + 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + 0 + + + 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ? ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ? ‐ + ‐ ? + ‐ 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Finningley

8.2.89 Table 8.23 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Finningley.

8.2.90 Six of the sites (189; 274; 349; 448; 1025; and, 1026) are identified as having significant positive effects in relation to affordable housing (Objective 5Ai) due to their size which will likely trigger a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.91 One site (1025) would have significant positive effects through reusing previously developed land due to it being a large brownfield site (Objective 8Ai).

8.2.92 There are significant negative effects identified for three sites (189; 448; and, 1026) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.93 Sites 152, 189, and 1026 are both identified as having significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 152 is located adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.44 - Finningley Gravel Pit) so appropriate buffering and landscaping to this edge will be required. Site 189/1026 are also located adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.41 - Crow Wood, Great Wood and Spen Close Plantation) so again buffering would be necessary to the southern edge of the site.

Table 8.23 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Finningley

Site Ref 136 152 189 274 315 317 349 448 1025 1026 The White House, 81 Land West of Station Quarry, Blaxton (Site Land East of Station Higgins Agriculture Land to the East of Land to the East of Land to the East of Site 1 (Brownfield) Site 2 (Greenfield) Land off Bank End Gatesbridge Park, Old Bawtry Road Old Bawtry Road Road, Finningley Road, Finningley Ltd, Old Bawtry Land at Bawtry Road, Blaxton Road, Blaxton Bawtry Road, Wroot Road, Land East of Finningley Finningley Finningley 1)

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 + 0 + + + ‐ 0 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(ii) Access to Primary School + + 0 + 0 0 + + ‐ 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + + + + + + + 5A(i) Affordability + + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + + 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + ‐ + ‐ + + ‐ + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + ‐ + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + ‐ + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + ‐ + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Sprotbrough

8.2.94 Table 8.24 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Sprotborough.

8.2.95 Three of the sites (252; 788; and, 872) are identified as having significant positive effects for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.96 There are significant negative effects identified for site 788 on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai) due to the sites proximity to a Local Wildlife Site (reference 6.43 - Castle Hill Wood) to the north of the site where appropriate buffering and landscaping would be required.

Table 8.24 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Sprotborough

Site Ref 252 788 872 929 Land North of Cadeby Land at Melton Road, Land at Sprotbrough Road, Sprotbrough Sprotbrough Sprotbrough Spring Lane,

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) + + 0 0 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network + + 0 + 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 0 3B(ii) Access to Primary School 0 0 + + 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery + + + + 5A(i) Affordability ++ ++ ++ + 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space + 0 + + 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 ‐ 0 0 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 0 0 0 0 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0

Service Town/Village: Tickhill

8.2.97 Table 8.25 summarises the results of the SA of housing sites for Tickhill.

8.2.98 Five of the sites (356; 452; 824; 876; and, 1030) are identified as having significant positive effects for affordability (Objective 5Ai) due to their size triggering a large affordable housing contribution.

8.2.99 There are significant negative effects identified for 8 sites (109; 356; 824; 875; 880; 1021; 1028; and, 1030) as all are within 10m of a surface water body (Objective 14Bii) where there could be potential for pollution unless good practice construction techniques are employed to mitigate this, such as collection of site wastewater and appropriate choice for storage of construction materials/chemicals etc. on site for example.

8.2.100 Site 356 is also identified as having a significant negative effect on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to mitigate as the site lies south of the Lindrick character area of Tickhill Conservation Area and abuts it in the vicinity of Water Lane. There are no listed buildings within the site but 60m north is the grade 2* listed Lindrick House and the site abuts its former curtilage. Tickhill Castle Scheduled Monument is 250m north east of the site and there is a cluster of 5 grade 2 listed structures at the foot of the monument including Castle Farm cottage and barn. The grade 2 listed Brook House and its separately listed garden wall is 220m north and there is a grade 2 listed footbridge 250m north of the allocation site. Site 1021 also has significant negative effects in relation to built heritage. Development would provide new uses for redundant agricultural buildings. However, the inclusion of the open land to the south for modern development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings and of the scheduled monument as well as the wider conservation area as it would alter and intensify and urbanise the character of the approach to the castle. With modern access requirements and given the size of the site it will most likely be opened up from the current low key character to an engineered, hard landscaped area dominated by parking.

8.2.101 Site 1021 also has significant negative effects in respect to archaeology (Objective 13Aii) and further archaeological investigations are likely to be required. This would include an assessment of the impact of development on the listed buildings within the site. The listed buildings are considered to be of Regional archaeological significance. The historic landscape character of the farm complex could be considered to be of Local to Regional significance. The significance of any buried remains within the site is currently unknown.

Table 8.25 Summary of SA of Housing Sites: Tickhill

Site Ref 109 281 356 357 452 824 875 876 877 880 930 1019 1021 1024 1028 1030 Wilsic Lane, Tickhill of Doncaster Road, Site A, Land to East of Doncaster Road, of Doncaster Road, Site B, Land to East Site C, Land to East Sunderland Street, Sunderland Street, Stud Farm, Tickhill Land off Worksop Lindrick Lane and Paper Mill Fields, Land off Lindrick Apy Hill, Tickhill Worksop Road, Land at Tickhill Land off Wong Land between Dadsley Road, Lumley Drive, Road, Tickhill Land West of Lane, Tickhill Lane, Tickhill Land behind Land off Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill Tickhill

Site Name 1A(i) Loss of existing employment use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A(i) Distance to Train Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 3B(ii) Access to Primary School ‐ 0 0 + + 0 + + + ‐ 0 0 0 + ‐ 0 3B(iii) Access to Secondary School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3B(iv)Access to GP Surgery 0 0 + + + + 0 + + 0 0 + + + 0 + 5A(i) Affordability + 0 ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + + + + 0 + ++ 5D(i) Market Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8A(iv) Unstable Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8B(i) Highways Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11A(i) Main River Flooding + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + + + + 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12A(i) Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 12B(i) Landscape Capacity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 0 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13B(i) Archaeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ? ? ? ‐ ? ? ? ? ? 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ‐ ‐ ? ‐ ? ? ? ? ? 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Housing Sites

8.2.102 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) explains the rationale for taking sites further forward for consideration against other factors relating to the selection of sites for inclusion in the Local Plan, these factors relate to:

 Flood risk – sequential and exceptions test (where required);

 Green Belt; and

 Viability Testing & Technical Assessment of Any Site Access or Highways Development Control Issues.

8.2.103 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) sets out overall conclusions and decisions on site allocations. Summaries for each settlement have also been prepared by the Council and the reasons for selecting and rejecting housing sites for inclusion in the Local Plan are summarised in Table 8.26.

Table 7.26 Council Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Housing Sites

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Doncaster Main Urban Area 033 Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road, 112 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 4.39 hectares and located to the south-west of Warmsworth and is Warmsworth currently in agricultural use (arable) and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 112 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate to the south. A quarry is located to the north of the site and open countryside/agricultural uses to the west. The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by residential built form along the A630 and Ash Dale Road to the east, and Warmsworth Halt to the south. The existing boundary is considered to be somewhat intended by the extent of residential gardens. If the site was to be removed from the Green Belt, the resultant boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by weakly defined field boundary, denoted only by the change in agricultural crop and no other recognisable or likely to be permanent features. The resultant Green Belt boundaries would therefore be mixed in strength. Although the site and existing boundary has a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the site is largely contiguous with the large built up area of Doncaster (which is a regeneration priority area) and has a relatively modest role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as there would still be a largely essential gap between Conisbrough and Warmsworth. The site would have a very limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. The site is considered as having a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal in terms of urban extension sites to the Doncaster Main Urban Area with mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in relation to landfill are identified due to the presence of a landfill site, but it is noted that this is not within the site boundary and actually located to the south of the site so is not considered as being a significant constraint. Negative effects on best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) could be clarified through an on-site survey and a soil management plan. There are negative effects on minerals resource due to the presence of limestone underneath the site and biodiversity due to the site being within a Natural England consultation zone. Negative effects on landscape could be mitigated through a landscape assessment and on site landscaping scheme. 072 Acres Ranch, Warning Tongue 200 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would Lane, Cantley lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 077 Kirk Sandall Gorse 36 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 079 Land at Melton Road, 126 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Sprotbrough Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 111 Land at Stevens Road, Balby 69 Proposed Housing Site - The site covers an area of 2.47 hectares and is accessed from Stevens Road which also serves a small number of residential properties and a day nursery forming part of the Balby Central First School complex. It is situated at the northern end of Stevens Road. The site consists of a former industrial estate with vacant and cleared buildings and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 196 dwellings based on a previously approved planning application. It is bounded to the south by two-story terraced and semi-detached houses in Stevens Road and Bellis Avenue, to the west by an allotment site currently in use, to the north by railway sidings alongside the Doncaster-Sheffield railway, and to the east by an area of vacant land, now heavily vegetated and forming part of the Balby Little Moor Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Planning permission has been approved subject to signing of the S106 Agreement for 196 dwellings. The site performs very well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly significant positive/positive or neutral effects. It is now understood that the approved scheme is no longer likely to be implemented and a fresh application is anticipated for a lower density scheme of around 69 dwellings 115 Alverley Lane, Balby 150 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 6.74 hectares and triangular in shape located to the south of Balby. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 150 dwellings. There are existing residential uses along the northern and eastern sides with open countryside and agricultural land to the south. The site is currently designated as Green Belt, but has been identified as having a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work via the Green Belt Review Phase 3 making it the weakest of the Green Belt site extensions to the Main Urban Area (alongside reference 237) relative to the other Green Belt site options at the settlement. The existing boundary is considered to be an irregular and inconsistent existing built form boundary. Were the site to be allocated then the newly defined boundary would be a densely vegetated dismantled railway corridor to the south of the site and is considered to be strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent. The resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a rounding of the existing built form and concluded as being a strong defensible boundary. In terms of Green Belt purposes, in summary the site is highly contained within the existing built form of Doncaster and is considered to have a moderately strong role in assisting in urban regeneration. Given the strength of the proposed boundary, there are no views toward settlements in the south and therefore the Green Belt within the site takes no discernible role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Similar to the wider general area, the site has a relatively weak role in preserving the setting of the historic core of the Main Urban Area of Doncaster. The Green Belt in this location has a low-moderate role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site also performs strongest through the Sustainability Appraisal of all the extension sites (including those currently designated as Countryside except for proposed

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes allocation 432) and with the exception of site reference 237. Negative effects in relation to access to a train station, the primary school, and GP surgery could be addressed through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan and it is noted the site performs strongly (positive effect) from being on the core bus network. Negative effects on best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) could be clarified through an on-site survey and a soil management plan. There are negative effects in respect to sterilisation of minerals resource (limestone) although it is noted that this only relates to a relatively small section of the site to the west which could be avoided through layout of the development, for example landscaping or open space provision. Negative effects in respect to biodiversity are in relation to the local wildlife site (ref 2.24 St Catherine’s Railway Embankments, Delves & Cuttings) to the south of the site and can be mitigated through a habitat buffer to protect the site and enhance the ecological corridor. This mitigation will also help ensure there is an appropriate buffer between the new housing and the existing dense tree coverage to the south of the site and hence both protect the trees themselves and minimise possible over shadowing on the new houses. 116 Armthorpe Lane, Barnby Dun 646 Rejected Housing Site – the site promoter has addressed previous issues in respect to flood risk and sequential test through submitting a masterplan that avoids any built development in the part of the site that is at risk of flooding. There are however very large overhead pylons that cross the site north to south. The masterplan avoids development beneath them with buffering/open space/landscaping. These constraints significantly reduce the potential capacity of the site from the estimated average of 646 dwellings. The Council still has concerns in respect to accessibility issues with taking access from Brecks Lane. No footways presently and Brecks plantation will constrain provision in the form of offsite highway works. Therefore does not necessarily conform with NPPF 108/110. Unable to determine whether visibility requirements for new accesses would meet requirements in accordance with 85th percentile wet weather speeds. 121 Amersall Road, Scawthorpe 14 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 122 Challenger Drive, Sprotbrough 120 Rejected Housing Site - Access problems. No direct access to public highway available. 148 Loversall Land, Weston Road, 92 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.29 hectares in size and currently grass/scrubland with a small Balby area of hard standing for car parking to the north west corner of the site and greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 92 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and south and healthcare uses to the west. A school is located immediately to the north of the site (Balby Carr). The site is currently designated as a Community Facility via the Unitary Development Plan and forms part the curtilage of the St Catherine’s Hospital. The site is being promoted for housing by the NHS Foundation Trust so is surplus to requirement. The site appears to be greenfield and scrubland, although believed to have contained former hospital buildings several decades ago so may well, on

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes further investigation, be a previously developed brownfield site. There are existing residential uses to the east and south and a school to the north. The site performs well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly positive or neutral effects and mitigation of any negative effects have been identified (e.g. biodiversity). 161 Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley 254 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 164/ Land East of Warning Tongue 275 Proposed Housing Site - The sites total 15.9 hectares and are located to the east of Cantley and is 430 Lane (1)/ Land off Warning currently in agricultural use and greenfield therefore. The sites are capable of accommodating 275 Tongue Lane dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west as well as a school and its playing fields. The M18 motorway runs adjacent to the eastern boundary and there are agricultural uses to the north. The sites are currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The Sustainability Appraisal finds there are mainly positive and neutral effects. There are significant negative effects on pollution to surface water bodies due to the site adjoining a surface water feature along its eastern/south-eastern boundary. This can be mitigated through the use of best practice construction techniques. Effects on best and most versatile agricultural land and minerals resource are uncertain given the desktop information does not identify whether Grade 3a or 3b, and whether the sand and/or gravel underlying part of the site is soft sand or sharp sand/gravel? This could be clarified through an on-site survey and were this to show the site is best or most versatile agricultural land, a soil management plan could help mitigate this negative effect. Consideration of pre-extraction of any sharp sand/gravel could also help mitigate the negative effects were this proven to be present on site, noting that this only effects part of the site, and subject to economic viability and environmental acceptability. The sites are roughly triangular in shape. There are existing residential uses and a school to the west. The other 2 sides are bound by the B1396 to the north and M18 Motorway to the east/south-east, with a dense tree buffer in-between, which provides a strong defensible boundary and the sites are not therefore considered as being open countryside. The sites are not currently publically accessible land and they would trigger on site open space provision which would result in a net increase in accessible open space for the new housing and existing community compared to the current situation. The allocation for housing will provide a significant contribution towards the settlement’s housing requirement with marginal impact through loss of some countryside but this is considered minimal and outweighed by the need for the Main Urban Area to meet its housing requirement with avoidance of flood risk and Green Belt, where possible, in line with national policy. 166 Land East of Warning Tongue 480 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 21.85 hectares and located to the south-east of Cantley. The site is Lane (2) currently in agricultural use and is greenfield and capable of accommodating 480 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west with woodland to the north and agricultural uses to the east and

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes south. Access to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park runs west to east through the southern part of the site. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The Sustainability Appraisal finds the site has a large number of negative effects compared to all the other urban extension site options for the Main Urban Area on land designated as Countryside Policy Area (notwithstanding ref 241 which now has planning permission and the same number of negative effects). This site also straddles the entrance to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park which is a key asset for the borough due to its success as a major new tourist attraction for the region and wider. Unlike sites 164/430 discussed above, which have strong boundaries created by the M18/B13696, this site would extend the settlement into open countryside and significantly alter the currently rural setting and entrance to this important growing asset for the borough. 212 Lords Head Lane, Warmsworth 422 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium/high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 213 Mill Lane, Warmsworth 1,004 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 214 Common Lane, Warmsworth 544 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 24.2 hectares capable of accommodating 544 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. The A1(M) motorway runs immediately to the east of the site with residential uses beyond. There are some residential uses to the south-east and north-west. There is a water treatment works to the west as well as further agricultural uses. Although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified. 215 High Road, Warmsworth 50 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1.57 hectares in size and currently used for agriculture (pasture) with the farm buildings located to the south-east of the site. The site is greenfield and capable of accommodating 50 dwellings. There are existing residential uses surrounding the site. The site is part of a farm holding and includes a section to the east which includes a number of agricultural barn buildings and farmhouse. The larger remainder of the site to the west includes the farm’s curtilage and is made up of a number of agricultural fields. These are currently part designated in the UDP as Open Space Policy Area and part Residential Policy Area. The eastern part of the site, where the buildings are located, is also Residential Policy Area. The fields are identified via the Green Space Audit as being a site of local community value although they are not publicly accessible so the UDP Open Space Policy Area designation cannot be justified. The whole of the site is being promoted for housing allocation by the landowner and the western part of the site (agricultural fields) is being promoted as a greenspace of local community value (Site Reference: 162) by Warmsworth Parish Council. The Sustainability

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Appraisal has identified significant negative effects on both built heritage and archaeology were the site to be developed. The site consists of 3 agricultural fields bounded by limestone walls within the Warmsworth Conservation Area. The conservation area is based on the historic core of Warmsworth which was a linear village following Low Road West subsequently divided by Warmsworth Hall. The character of the Warmsworth conservation area derives mainly from the rural and agricultural limestone buildings with clay pantile/stone tile roofs and limestone walling set around Warmsworth Hall and its grounds and confined between Warmsworth High Road and Low Road East/West. The site includes the historic buildings and barns of West Farm one of which is Grade 2 listed. Adjacent and overlooking the site is the Grade 2 listed Warmsworth House. There are 5 other listed buildings within the conservation area including the Grade 2* listed Warmsworth Hall with its separately listed Grade 2 east and west gates. The major negative impacts on these built heritage assets may not be possible to mitigate. There would also be a major archaeological objection were the site to be developed as the site contains known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. In conclusion, it is proposed to reject the site as there is potential for a major negative impact on built heritage which may not be possible to mitigate as well as likely to be a major archaeological objection. There is significant local support for the western part of the site to be designated as a Site of Local Green Space Value (see separate assessment of this). The eastern built part of the site is being proposed to remain in Residential Policy Area which would allow for some small scale redevelopment subject to heritage concerns being addressed, as well as any wider Development Management issues. Any development therefore would be windfall and additional supply. 217 Back Lane, Cusworth 845 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt site which has been assessed through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review and found to have a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 234 Broad Axe, Scawthorpe 480 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site located to the north-west of Scawthorpe and extending to 21.12 hectares in size. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 480 dwellings. There are existing residential uses and a primary school (Rosedale) to the south and south-west with a school and playing fields to the east (Don Valley Academy). There are further residential uses to the north-east and agricultural uses to the north/north- west. The site was proposed as a housing allocation through the 2018 consultation. There were a number of objections to the site including from DMBC Ward Members including loss of Green Belt. Since the consultation, 2 very large planning applications have been approved at the settlement (see above site refs 241 & 255) which alone amount to 1,142 new homes and were not assumed as forming part of the housing land supply at that time. This means there is less reliance on urban extension sites in order to meet the settlement’s housing requirement. Sufficient sites allocated to meet almost the

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes top of the growth range already so no exceptional circumstances identified to go on and allocate any further Green Belt sites at the Main Urban Area. Although it is acknowledged that the site performs similar through both the Green Belt Review and Sustainability Appraisal as per the proposed Green Belt site 033, Broadaxe has received a number of objections following the 2018 consultation including from DMBC Ward Members. Site 033 attracted very little in the way of objection with the exception of the Parish Council who did object. 237 Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield 942 Rejected Housing Site - The Green Belt Review Phase 3 identifies the site as having a moderately Road, Warmsworth (2) strong case for inclusion in further site selection work making it one of the ‘weakest’ of the Green Belt extension site options relative to the other Green Belt sites at the settlement. Further to this, the site is the strongest performing, through the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, of all the urban extension sites (including the Countryside sites) at the Main Urban Area (with the exception of reference 391/432 below) with the fewest negative effects. However, this is a minerals site with extant permission for extraction until 2042 and is an important site for industrial limestone. There are concerns regarding how the site could be reclaimed for housing given the scale of extraction that has already taken place so there are significant deliverability constraints to this site and insufficient information at present as to how this could be overcome. It may be more appropriate therefore for the site to be restored to low level agricultural use 241 Land to the East of Mere Lane, 600 Proposed Housing Site - Land to the East of Mere Lane, Edenthorpe – Large urban extension site to the Edenthorpe east of Edenthorpe extending to 46.3 hectares and capable of accommodating 1,147 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. There are existing residential dwellings to the west with open countryside and further agricultural uses to the north, east and south. Long Plantation (woodland) is located immediately to the northern and eastern site boundaries. The majorty of the site has been subject to an Outline planning application (reference: 15/01278/OUTM) for a scheme of 650 dwellings, so much smaller than the site submitted through the call for sites and assessed via HELAA, that was refused by Planning Committee and has been Appealed (reference: APP/F4410/W/17/3169288) by the landowner via a Public Inquiry that started in March 2017 with the second Hearing sessions closing in January 2018. The decision rested with the Secretary of State who allowed the Appeal in February 2019. In conclusion, allocate part of site reference 241 (as per planning application boundary) as Secretary of State has allowed an Appeal (decision issued February 2019) following a large Public Inquiry after planning permission was refused by DMBC Planning Committee. Site capacity reduced to 600 dwellings which reflects the revised scheme that was worked up during the Inquiry process and therefore now permissioned (post April 2018 base date). The remainder of site 241 is to remain in the Countryside. 253 Former Bloodstock Sales Site, 46 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.74 hectares in size and consists of the former Belle Vue Stables Carr House Road and Sales Ring. The former buildings have been demolished and the site cleared and is therefore

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 46 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west, south and east on the opposite side of Carr House Road (A18). Commercial uses (hotel) are found to the north of the site and the Doncaster Racecourse to the north-east across the A18/A638 roundabout. The site has recently been sold (by DMBC) for housing with known developer interest and planning application anticipated shortlypending at the time of drafting (18/02614/4FULM) for 66 units. The site forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 (46 deliverable units). The Planning Inspector, as part of a recent Public Inquiry (May 2017), concluded the site had a realistic prospect of being delivered. The site performs well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly positive or neutral effects. 255 Former Hungerhill Business Park, 542 Proposed Housing Site – The site is a very large urban greenfield site extending to 28.98 hectares in Thorne Road the middle of Edenthorpe and capable of accommodating 717 dwellings. The site is currently allocated for employment uses in the UDP but there has been no real interest from the market to bring forward such uses on the site. The site is currently scrubland. There are existing residential uses to the north and north-east, as well as south-east and west. There is a school to the east and commercial uses to the north of the site. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal and negative effects can be mitigated, including flood risk. The larger western part of the site (20.9 ha) now has planning permission (post April 2018 base date - 18/02592/3OUTM) for 542 new homes and a planning application pending (19/01465/3FULM) for the remainder of the site for educational uses. In conclusion, allocate the western part of the site for housing (542 units) in line with the extant permission and the remainder of the site is to be designated for educational uses. 257 Marshgate, Doncaster 114 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 261 Plot 5A, off Carolina Way / 53 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 2 hectares in size and is part of the former Doncaster Airport site Lakeside Boulevard and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 53 dwellings. The Lakeside Lake is located to the north and east of the site beyond which is an existing housing development under construction. The High Speed Rail College has recently been constructed and now open to the west which sits alongside some existing commercial uses. There is open countryside to the south including Potteric Carr nature reserve. The site is an unused Unitary Development Plan allocation owned by DMBC. Not previously brought forward for housing due to significant activity on other plots around the Lakeside area, although many of these are now complete/nearing completion so this site forms a logical next and final phase of the areas housing development. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 262 Plot 6, Lakeside Boulevard 87 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.12 hectares and occupies a 'peninsula' projecting into the lake on its eastern side. The site forms part of the former Doncaster Airport site and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 87 dwellings. On the opposite side of Lakeside Boulevard, facing the site, are existing apartments in mainly 3 storey buildings. There are further residential uses recently built/under construction to the north-east and south-east. The site is connected to the lake islands by bridges which enable public access. As per site reference 261 above, except this site has previously had planning permission approved for a high density apartment scheme which lapsed as was never implemented. 263 3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate West 10 Rejected Housing Site - Three small sites within St Sepulchre Gate West located immediately south of the Doncaster Town Centre and south-east of the Railway Station. The sites total 0.32 hectares and currently include primarily vacant land and buildings (former Royal Mail Sorting Office) and capable of accommodating 10 dwellings. The sites are brownfield and are surrounding by existing commercial, retail, residential and leisure uses. The Flying Scotsman Health Centre is located to the north and east of the sites. This representation actually consists of 3 separate very small infill sites which is the only reason that the site threshold of 5+ units is met. The largest of the 3 sites (former Royal Mail Sorting Office) is now included as part of the redevelopment proposals for the rail station gateway and is being proposed to be used for car parking so is no longer available for housing as per the original representation. 284 Formerly Carr House Allotments, 79 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.8 hectares in size and is currently scrubland and greenfield Hyde Park therefore capable of accommodating 79 dwellings. There are allotments to the north of the site and further scrubland to the east and south with commercial uses to the west and south-west. The site is identified through the Green Space Audit as being allotments. This representation has been put forward for housing by a community group (Carr House Allotment Social Enterprise) but they have stated through the call for sites process that the site is owned by a public authority and it is not believed that the site is being promoted therefore by the actual landowner so landowner intentions are not clear and therefore doubts around availability and deliverability of the site for an alternative use. It is noted however that there may be a need for rationalisation of the existing allotment provision in this area. 310 Rear of Bentley Road, Doncaster 35 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 350/ Rose Hill, Cantley/ The Avenue, 166 The site is 6.7 hectares and currently grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of 407 Cantley accommodating 166 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east, south-east and south- west. Doncaster Racecourse is located to the north and north-west and open countryside/woodland to the north-east. This representation is an existing greenfield UDP Housing Allocation and has been put

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes forward by both DMBC Assets and Local Investment Planning Teams through the call for sites. The site was previously unavailable for development, but is now being actively promoted and being brought forward for housing by DMBC. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program. 369 Alexander Street, Bentley 7 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 380 Goodison Boulevard (1), Cantley 64 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.29 hectares and is currently open space grassland located off Goodison Boulevard. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 64 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east, south and west with community facilities and retail uses to the north alongside dense woodland to the north-east. The site is designated as Open Space Policy Area via the Unitary Development Plan and identified through the Green Space Audit as Calendar Court informal open space (reference 29). Cantley is the only community profile which has sufficient open space provision in all the different categories of green space based on the findings from the Green Space Audit. This Open Space is being proposed to be retained so the representation seeking housing is not supported. Policies in the Local Plan could allow for the development of open space but would be subject to conditions, including that there had been proper consultation with the local community on the value of the green space to the area. 391/ Former Wheatley Hills Middle 134 The site is 5.41 hectares in size and consists of a former school site and playing fields. There are some 432 School, Leger Way areas of hard standing/former car parking but the majority of the site is greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 134 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west and industrial estate to the north. A golf course is located to the east and south. The whole of the site is identified in the UDP as an Education Facility. In addition, the Greenfield playing fields part to the east of the site is also designated as Countryside Policy Area. The site was included as part of a comprehensive Assets Review by DMBC summer-autumn 2017 and is being released through a managed 4 year disposal program. The Sustainability Appraisal findings are that there are mainly significant positive/positive and neutral effects and that this extension site is the strongest performing of all the Green Belt and Countryside extension sites at the Main Urban Area with the fewest negative effects. There are 3 potential negative effects: firstly distance to a train station; and, secondly, access to a primary school. However, the site is located within a short walk distance of a bus stop on the core network. The third negative effect is in relation to biodiversity, as the site borders a designated local wildlife site, but this could be mitigated through landscaping to buffer the local wildlife site (Wheatley Golf Course reference 2.62). Although around half of the site will result in the loss of countryside, this is not considered to be open countryside given the golf course lies immediately adjacent to the east and south of the site. Beyond the golf course, part of Shaw Lane Industrial Estate is located to the east, the Main Town of Armthorpe

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes to the south-east, and the golf club (car park/club house etc)/public house/school/rugby club/household waste recycling centre etc to the south. The site is not currently publically accessible land and the site would trigger on site open space provision which would result in a net increase in accessible open space for the new housing and existing community compared to the current situation. The required buffering to the local wildlife site adjacent to the southern/eastern boundaries will create an attractive settlement edge for this part of the Main Urban Area in comparison with the current Shaw Lane Industrial Estate which comprises of small-medium sized industrial box like units. At the time of drafting a planning application (19/01170/FULM) for 143 dwellings on the site is pending. Conclusion - allocate site references 391/432 as the community facility is surplus to requirement and its allocation for housing will provide a significant contribution towards the settlement’s housing requirement with minimal impact through loss of some countryside but this is considered minimal and outweighed by the need for the Main Urban Area to meet its housing requirement with avoidance of flood risk and Green Belt, where possible, in line with national policy. 395 Weston Road / Newbolt Plots, 10 Rejected Housing Site - These six small sites total 0.35 hectares and are open spaces/grassed areas in Balby between existing residential areas and are greenfield. The sites could accommodate 10 dwellings. The surrounding land uses are all primarily residential and open space. This representation actually consists of 6 separate very small infill sites which is the only reason that the site threshold of 5+ units is met. Otherwise each site would fall well below the 5+ unit minimum threshold for an allocation in the Local Plan. Proposed to continue to show these sites as Residential Policy Area which would still allow small scale infill/redevelopment proposals to come forward. 397 Orchard Street, Balby 110 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 3.93 hectares and currently includes a central area of existing residential development (Gresley Road) with two undeveloped parcels of land on either side which are tree covered. The western one is open space also. The sites that are undeveloped are greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 110 dwellings. The railway line runs adjacent to the north of the site with a former industrial Estate with permission for residential redevelopment to the west (see site reference 111 above). There are existing residential uses to the south of the site and commercial uses to the east. A school (Balby Central Primary) and its playing fields are located to the south-west. The site is a UDP Housing Allocation owned by DMBC. The central part of the site was developed for housing many years ago leaving 2 undeveloped parts to the east and west of the housing; both are covered in scrubland/trees and the site is considered as being a dense urban regenerating woodland. The western part of the site is also a Local Wildlife Site (Reference: 2.19 - Balby Little Moor - Candidate Local Wildlife Site) and as such the Sustainability Appraisal has identified significant negative effects for the site. Access to the eastern site via Firth Street is a problem due to the presence of a Yorkshire Water pumping station where it is believed they have an easement into the site. Although access could be achieved via Gresley Road, there may be a possible ransom strip issue to be resolved. For these

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes reasons it is not proposed to allocate the site as there are concerns around deliverability. However, as an existing Housing Allocation, the site will need to be shown on the Policies Map someway other than a development allocation and it is considered the most appropriate approach would be to designate as Residential Policy Area whereby some development may be supported if the constraints can be overcome. 399 Pickering Road, Bentley 36 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 400 Rose Hill Cemetery Land, Cantley 31 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1.2 hectares located to the north of Cantley Lane and is currently Lane, Cantley grassland open space and greenfield. There is a small section of hard standing in the north-west corner of the site currently used for car parking for the cemetery. The site is capable of accommodating 28 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the south and a cemetery to the north. Dense woodland is found to the east and further grassed open space to the west, before further residential dwellings. The site is currently designated as Open Space Policy Area via the UDP and identified through the Green Space Audit as Ascot Road Amenity Housing open space (reference 1). Cantley is the only community profile which has sufficient open space provision in all the different categories of green space based on the findings from the Green Space Audit. This Open Space is being proposed to be retained so the representation seeking housing is not supported. Policies in the Local Plan could allow for the development of open space but would be subject to conditions, including that there had been proper consultation with the local community on the value of the green space to the area. 411 Wilberforce Road, Garage Site, 40 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Clay Lane inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 416 Goodison Boulevard (2), Cantley 28 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 1 hectare in size and currently grassed informal open space in between existing residential areas. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 28 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north, east and west with community facilities and open space to the south of the site on the opposite side of Goodison Boulevard. Since this site was put forward for housing through the call for sites, a planning application has been granted in February 2017 (reference: 16/02268/FULM) for a 75 bed care home on the majority of the site. Although the facility will provide and serve an important housing offer for the borough, the bedrooms are en-suites and the rest of the accommodation is shared and ancillary such as communal lounges/dining rooms etc, so the dwellings are not self-contained in line with the Planning definition of self-containment and the site will not therefore contribute towards the allocated supply to meet the OAN even if it was to be supported as an allocation.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 431 Land off Thorne Road, 319 Rejected Housing Site - Access problems. Site too large to serve from Cedric Road due to capacity Edenthorpe constraints and no direct access to any other existing public highway. 436 Land at Scawsby Lane 969 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 39.1 hectares to the west of Scawsby. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 969 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and commercial uses to the south as well as a school (Ridgewood). There is agricultural land to the north and west as well as some isolated dwellings to the north-west of the site boundary. The Sustainability Appraisal has identified significant negative effects in respect to archaeology due to the presence of the deserted medieval village earthworks at the southern side of the site which indicates that there are major archaeological issues associated with this site. The setting of the Scheduled Monument and Grade II listed Tudor Cottage and Scawsby Hall should also be taken into account. Further consideration needs to be made regarding the capacity of the site for housing development. The medieval earthworks within the southern side of the site are considered to be of regional archaeological significance, whilst the Scheduled Monument along the northern boundary of the site is of national significance. Buried remains associated with Iron Age to Roman dispersed settlement and agriculture could be of local to regional significance depending on their nature, extent and condition. However, it is noted that this is a very large site where there would be scope for sensitive site layout and design of a scheme that could avoid areas of archaeological significance whilst still delivering an extension with significant capacity. In conclusion, although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified. 438 Waterfront (East), Chappell Drive 363 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 439 Waterfront (West), Chappell 143 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Drive inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 474 Sunnyside Depot, Sunnyside, 10 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Edenthorpe inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 494 Green Lane, Scawthorpe 479 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 19.4 hectares in size located to the north-west of Scawthorpe. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 479 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and north-west with open countryside to the north. Further agricultural uses are located to the south/south-west/south- east. Although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Phase 3 as another site at the settlement which is being proposed for allocation, the site does not perform as well through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified. 495 Rostholme, Bentley (Full Site) 447 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 833 Sandy Lane, Doncaster 39 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.3 hectares in size and currently houses a water treatment works with areas of concrete hard standing and a section of scrubland to the west of the site; the site is primarily brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 39 dwellings. There is a primary school immediately to the south of the site and an Aircraft Museum to the east. Further scrubland is found to the west and immediate north before existing residential uses. The site contains a pumping station facility in the ownership of Yorkshire Water but is surplus to requirements and being promoted for housing through the call for sites. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP, where the principle of residential development is already established subject to the Development Management process, and there are existing residential uses to the north, schools to the south and a museum to the east. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects and its development for housing would bring back into effective use land that has been previously developed as well as providing a medium sized site (39 units) which will help improve the choice and range/type of allocation for the borough and attract a wider range/type of developer including small and medium sized housebuilders. 835 Warmsworth Reservoir, 23 Proposed Housing Site - The site is a covered reservoir 0.6 hectares in size and brownfield. The site is Warmsworth capable of accommodating 18 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and allotments to the north and west with further residential uses beyond. Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate is located to the south and south-west. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP and is surplus to Yorkshire Water’s requirements and is now being promoted through the Local Plan for allocation for housing. However since then, but post the base date for permissions information 1st April 2018, the landowner has submitted an Outline planning application for 23 dwellings which has been granted subject to S106 (reference: 17/00537/OUTM – S106 was signed in January 2019). Conclusion - allocate site reference 835, but for 23 dwellings to reflect post-base date permission capacity rather than the HELAA estimated capacity of 18 units. Will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy. 836 Land South of Woodfield Way 1,131 Proposed Housing Site - Large urban extension site extending to 49.8 hectares and currently agricultural land/grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 1,131 dwellings based on the balance of units for this part of the site from a recently lapsed Outline planning permission. There are existing houses being constructed to the west of the site as well as further

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes housing that was delivered as part of previous phases of this development. Open countryside and agricultural uses are found to the south beyond which lies the M18 motorway. There are retail uses to the north and south/south-west and a new primary school to the north-west. A range of commercial uses are also located to the north and the A6182 (White Rose Way) runs adjacent to the east, beyond which is the Potteric Carr nature reserve. A recently constructed link road (Woodfield Way) runs through the middle of the site. This is an existing UDP Mixed Use Allocation (including housing), although smaller to the original allocated site as the wider parts of the allocation has been developing out for many years now. This part of the site previously had Outline planning permission for 1,600 dwellings (with the adjacent land recently developed to the west) although, due to a condition attached to the Outline permission, lapsed in 2015 as the detailed Reserved Matters did not cover all of this land. The Woodfield link road which connects Balby/Woodfield with White Rose Way was delivered through the earlier phase of this development. A fresh application (18/02284/FULM) for 461 dwellings is pending on part of the site that has lapsed at the time of drafting. Re-allocating the site could provide up to 1,131 dwellings towards the Main Urban Area’s requirement on a greenfield urban extension site which is proving popular to the market but does not involve the loss of Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area given its previous UDP allocation, although not all of this capacity would be delivered in the plan period following standard build-out rates so appropriate discounting has been made on this site. Significant negative effects in respect to biodiversity and surface water pollution have been addressed through schemes of mitigation included in the earlier phases of development and in line with previously agreed mitigation as part of the Outline permission. Further to this, there is a site specific Carr Lodge Design Code Supplementary Planning Document adopted to ensure future application(s) are in accordance with the previous site masterplan which also addresses such issues. Conclusion - allocate site reference 836, greenfield extension site that will provide a significant contribution to the Main Urban Area’s housing requirement without the loss of Green Belt or Countryside. Allocate the whole of the site capacity (1,131 units), but discount delivery within the plan period (840 units next 15 years and 140 units years 16 & 17) to standard lead-in times/build out rates. Any delivery on top of the average 70 dwellings per annum would be additional supply therefore, and it is noted that these build out rates have been far exceeded on the site in the past e.g. 112 completions in 2015/16; and, 102 completions in 2016/17. The discounting of capacity would also provide additional flexibility should fresh application(s) come forward for a smaller scheme to that previously granted. 1036 Melton Road, Newton 2397 Rejected Housing Site - This is a very large site extending to 96.86 hectares in size and would be capable of accommodating 2,397 dwellings. The site is primarily made up of agricultural land and is greenfield therefore. Cusworth Hall and gardens is located to the north with residential uses to the east and south-east. The A1(M) runs to the wester of the site beyond which is countryside. The findings of

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concluded that there was a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection process. 1041 Balby Archives, King Edward 15 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.47 hectares in size and consists of the now vacant and surplus Road, Balby archives buildings and is brownfield therefore capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. The site is surrounded by residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal process with mostly positive and neutral effects. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1041 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site now surplus to its current uses and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy. 1042 Ashworth Barracks/Former 42 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.64 hectares in size and consists of the former Nightingale School Nightingale School Site, Balby site and is brownfield and capable of accommodating 42 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal process with mostly positive and neutral effects. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1042 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site. 1046 Land at Cross Bank, Balby 137 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 4.89 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 137 dwellings. The site is mostly greenfield but there is a brownfield area of hardstanding to the northern part. There are existing residential uses to the north-west and south-west and employment to the north. A sewage treatment works is located to the south which requires buffering. The site has recently been marketed and part of the site has previously had permission for residential uses (although requires access via the wider site). Conclusion - allocate site reference 1046 as a well located urban site that performs strongly through Sustainability Appraisal and actively being marketed for residential uses. Capacity reflects need for buffering of sewage works to the south of the site. 1049 The Cusworth Centre, Cusworth 26 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.86 hectares in size and consists of the former Cusworth Centre Lane buildings and is brownfield therefore and capable of accommodating 26 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses with a school adjacent to the north/north-east of the site. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1049 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site now surplus to its current uses and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy. 1052 Stanley House & Rosemead 26 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.89 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 26 dwellings. House, Balby The site previously consisted of former sheltered housing units which have been demolished and is brownfield therefore. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1052 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site that has been cleared and ready for redevelopment and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy. 1053 Don View, Thellusson Avenue, 16 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares in size and capable of providing 16 dwellings. The site Scawsby previously contained sheltered housing which has been demolished and is brownfield therefore. The site is surrounded by residential development to the north-west/north/east and south-east with open countryside to the west. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1053 as this is a well located, sustainable, urban brownfield site that has been cleared and ready for redevelopment and will contribute towards the need to allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement on smaller sites (up to 1 hectare in size) that will be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers in line with national policy. 1055 Cook Street and Truman Street, 10 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Bentley inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. Main Town: Adwick-le-Street-Woodlands 202 North of Long Lands Lane, West 8 Rejected Housing Site – A triangular site of 0.27ha, with a potential capacity of 8 units. The land is of Roman Ridge, Woodlands brownfield and currently has a joinery workshop located on it. To the east lies land in the ownership of Yorkshire Water, followed by residential properties. Woodland and grassland lies to the south, with allotments to the west of the site. Additionally, a footpath runs alongside the east of the site. The site is a small corner part of a much wider Employment Site designation which adjoins undeveloped scrubland and allotments (also part of the Employment Site). The site is not Green Belt and is not constrained by flood risk either and has successfully passed the flood risk sequential test. The site would be capable of accommodating 8 dwellings and would help provide a good mix of site allocation size through bringing forward a small site which would help introduce a wider range of developers, including smaller builders, into the area. The Sustainability Appraisal has identified potential minor negative effects in respect to built heritage as along the eastern edge of the site lies a Scheduled Monument (Roman Ridge). This extends slightly further to the east and continues past the site in a northwards direction. Although there are no listed buildings or conservation areas within the site itself, Woodlands Conservation Area lies immediately southeast. Further to this, the site has previous planning history with applications for residential uses refused. This included objections from South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and Historic England, due to the sites proximity adjacent to the Roman Ridge Scheduled Monument. There were also access concerns due to visibility with Long Lands Lane. Although it is accepted that the site is no longer required to be retained/re-designated for employment uses, there are still concerns around the impact on the Roman Ridge Scheduled Monument as well as the access to the site. On balance, it is considered that there is still sufficient doubt around how the minor negative effects could be mitigated, which may require a smaller scheme which provides scope for sensitive layout respecting the Roman Ridge. On this basis, it is not

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes considered that there is sufficient evidence at this moment to be confident that, if the site were to be allocated, a scheme of 8 units could be deliverable/developable during the plan period. Instead, it is considered more appropriate to designate the site as Residential Policy Area which would allow for a scheme to come forward as a windfall development if the potential minor negative effects can be mitigated to the satisfaction of both DMBC and statutory consultees/stakeholders. 368 Adwick Depot, Mill Lane, 12 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high Adwick-le-Street flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 371 Ashwood House, Adwick-le- 29 A 0.98ha site which could accommodate around 29 units. The land is brownfield and has a sheltered Street housing development situated on it. To the north and west lie residential units, with a park also situated north west of the site. To the south and east is agricultural land. The site includes part which is now covered by planning permission for redevelopment and has been implemented (see site reference 892). The site area not covered by this permission includes medium rise existing sheltered housing which has recently had investment and improvements to the stock undertaken and the site is not considered available for redevelopment for the foreseeable future. Conclusion - reject site reference 371, the eastern part of this representation has been developed now, and the remainder of the site includes existing sheltered housing stock which has recently seen investment, and is not currently considered as available for redevelopment. 458 Land off Church Lane, Adwick 89 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 459 Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick 316 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 460 Land off Lutterworth Drive, 45 Proposed Housing Site - A flat site measuring 1.68ha, with a potential capacity of 45 units. This is Adwick-le-Street greenfield land in the middle of a residential area with residential dwellings on all sides, as well as a care home to the south. The site is currently designated as an Open Space Proposal but is in private ownership and has never come forward for such intended uses. It is not considered that the Open Space Proposal can be delivered so this designation can no longer be retained therefore, and the site is being promoted by the landowner for housing. The site performs strongly through the Sustainability Appraisal with all minor positive or neutral effects with the exception of a minor negative effect in respect to secondary school capacity. The site would trigger the Local Plan policy for open space contributions. Therefore, allocating the site for housing could actually provide some, albeit smaller than originally intended, public open space which would be accessible for not just the new housing but also the wider existing area in line with the original intentions for the site. 512 Redhouse Lane (b), North East, 300 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high Adwick flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 513 Redhouse Lane (c) South, 624 Rejected Housing Site - A large flat urban extension site extending to 27.69ha with a potential capacity Adwick-le-Street Industrial of 624 units. The site is greenfield, and arable farmland, located to the north of Adwick. The site is Estate, Adwick-le-Street- bordered to the south and west by residential dwellings, and to the north by Red House Lane, which Woodlands has farmland and a small cemetery beyond it. The Sustainability Appraisal identifies significant negative effects for the site in respect to archaeology concluded that there would be a major archaeological objection to the allocation of the site. The site contains known archaeological remains of national or regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Further negative effects are identified in respect to capacity of the secondary school, landscape capacity for housing, the presence of limestone underneath the site as well as best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Mitigation, such as site survey/soil management plan, landscaping and contributions towards school capacity would help offset these concerns. However, the site is currently designated as Green Belt. Although the Green Belt Review (Phase 3) concluded the site has a ‘moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work’ it is not considered that an exceptional circumstances case exists to release any Green Belt sites at this settlement when other non-Green Belt deliverable and developable sites have been identified to comfortably meet the local need requirement, with a significant contribution towards the economic growth target as well. An allocation at the lower-mid end of the range for this settlement seems appropriate given it is the smallest of the 7 Main Towns based on both population and number of households. 1051 Fern Bank/Adwick Depot, 38 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of medium - high Adwick flood risk (flood risk zones 2/3) and the site fails the flood risk sequential test. Main Town: Conisbrough-Denaby 040 Land at Sheffield Road/Old 200 Proposed Housing Site - A flat triangular site, measuring 8.9ha, with a potential capacity of 200 units Road, Hill Top, Conisbrough located to the south-west of Conisbrough. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the north with open countryside and agriculture uses to the east, south and west of the site, although there are some isolated dwellings, a hotel, and agricultural buildings to the south-west of the site.

From the findings of the Green Belt Review, site references 040 and 826 perform equally in terms of Green Belt strength of boundary and purposes so both are concluded as having a ‘moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work’ so nothing separates them in this respect. In terms of boundary, if the proposed Green Belt site reference 040 was removed from the Green Belt, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be defined in the south of the site by the A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by Old Road, which is also the extent of the DMBC boundary. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be strong as this road is a recognisable, durable and likely to be permanent boundary

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes feature. Were site reference 826 be allocated then the proposed Green Belt boundary would be created by the strongly defined Clifton Hill in the south west and former dismantled railway line, which is now supported by low-lying vegetation, an embankment feature and residential built form to the south. The new boundaries are therefore considered to be mixed, but predominantly strong. Should the site be released, the resultant Green Belt boundary would be strongly defined by the dismantled railway supported by the existing extent of residential built form in the north. The resultant Green Belt boundary would be linear, recognisable and likely to be permanent.

Site reference 040 performs moderately against local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purpose. Although the site and the existing Green Belt boundary does have a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the site is not connected to a large built up area, would have a limited impact on the historic core of Conisbrough and would have a moderate role in directing development towards Brownfield and Derelict land. Whilst release of the site would still maintain the wide, strategic, but largely essential gap between Conisbrough and the Urban Area of Rotherham and less essential gap between the smaller outlying settlements of Hooton Pagnall and Hooton Roberts, release of this land would result in coalescence with the ‘washed over’ Hamlet of Hill Top. Green Belt land at this location has a moderately strong sensitivity to encroachment. Site reference 826 also performs moderately against local Interpretation of the Green Belt Purposes. The site has a mixed role when assessed against the local Interpretation of the Green Belt purposes. Whilst the site does not have a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and a weak role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging, the Green Belt at this location does have a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration. Whilst the site is considered to be separated from the Historic Core by post-WWII development, there are views to the Historic Core which are only limited by medium-scale detractors. The Green Belt at this location is considered to have a moderate-strong role in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

However, the findings from the Sustainability Appraisal does find that, although the 2 sites are identified as having the same effects for 28 of the 33 objectives/criteria, site 040 performs stronger on all of the 5 criteria where the effects are different. Site 040 has positive effects for access to a bus stop on the core network; is closer located for access to a primary school; has significant positive effects for providing a large affordable housing requirement given the size of the site; is not located on an area with known landfill on the site; and, does not impact on biodiversity. However, due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal site reference 040 is preferred over site reference 826. 087 Kearsley Brook, Sheffield Road, 43 Rejected Housing Site –the site would result in inappropriate development in an area susceptible to Conisbrough flooding from surface water and the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 142 Land South of Sheffield Road, 110 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase Conisbrough 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection work. 220 Garage off Sheffield Road/ 19 Rejected Housing Site –the site would result in inappropriate development in an area susceptible to Clifton Hill, Conisbrough flooding from surface water and the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 221 Garage off Sheffield Road/ 19 Rejected Housing Site - Access issues accessing the site from A630 or Clifton Hill (B6094). Proximity to Clifton Hill, Conisbrough signals. Site topography issues – Site access gradient would possibly be outside design standards. Plus the formation of a new access on to a major arterial route operating under congested conditions. A full Design Manual for Roads & Bridges compliant design and full technical assessment required. A development of 19 units may be too small to support the necessary highways requirements. 251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main 327 Rejected Housing Site - Site already partly developed for electricity sub-station. May have sterilised access to Eland road (not adopted). Access problems as would not support an access being taken from Hill Top Road. It would be difficult to meet design requirements of Design Manual for Roads & Bridges due to geometric layout of Hill Top itself. The speed limit of 40m at this locale would require a visibility splay of 4.5m x 120m from drivers eye height ranging from between 1.05m to 2m at the set back distance to an object height of between 0.26m and 1.05m at the nearside kerb line and having assessed the available frontage in both the horizontal and vertical plan, the Highways Authority is of the opinion that these technical requirements could not be met and therefore a safe access unachievable. 256 Land South of Canal, Opposite 289 Rejected Housing Site – the site would result in inappropriate development in an area of high flood Earth Centre, Denaby risk (flood risk zone 3) and fails the flood risk sequential test. 304 Land off Windgate Hill, 28 Rejected Housing Site - There are major accessibility issues with development off Windgate Hill. Issues Conisbrough due to topography - levels across the site. Very narrow road. Would require major improvements to Windgate Hill. Poor accessibility - no footways. 383 Hill Top Road, Denaby 125 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 6.1ha site which could potentially accommodate 151 units. This is greenfield land, currently comprised of a mix of scrubland and an open field, which also includes a skate park towards the south west of the site. Part of the western side of the site is along the borough boundary with Rotherham, with housing to the north, a mix of housing and open space to the east, and woodland to the south, both of which form part of The Craggs Nature Conservation Area. As an existing UDP Housing Allocation the site provides an opportunity for a significant level of housing for the settlement on land that is not Green Belt and not at residual risk of flooding. The site performs reasonably well in respect to SA demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects, although there are significant negative effects identified for unstable land and biodiversity, the latter due to the site being located entirely on part of a much larger Local Wildlife Site (North Cliff - reference 5.8). There would need to be significant mitigation and compensation for any habitat loss and the woodland along the

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes eastern edge of the site would need to be retained and buffered from development by at least 10m. The design of the site would need to include a significant wide grassland/habitat corridor through the development connecting the habitat in the north to the wider countryside. This will need to be included as part of the developer requirements for this site. The existing skate park on the south of the site would also need appropriate buffers from any new housing and this will need to feed into the site specific developer requirements as a condition of supporting this site as an allocation also. The site is 6.1 hectares in size so the HELAA methodology/stage 2 has already discounted 25% of the site area through the gross versus net developable area and applied a fairly low density of 33 dph for the remainder of the site area hence the anticipated total site capacity of 151 dwellings. Given this, it is considered that these constraints would justify a slightly further reduction in yield for the site of 125 units, and it is noted that the site promoter was proposing around 200+ dwellings through the call for sites stage which illustrates the extent of the discounting being applied. Should a subsequent scheme be able to identify a proposal that addresses the mitigation required and provide additional dwellings above the indicative 125 units then this will be additional supply. 435 Former Depot, Sheffield Road, 15 Rejected Housing Site - The site measures 0.6ha and could potentially house 15 dwellings. This is Conisbrough brownfield land, formerly utilised as a depot. To the west is open countryside and agricultural land, with raised green space to the north west, disused buildings to the north east, and green field land to the south east. The site is small and currently allocated as part of a wider employment policy area which has also been put forward for consideration as housing (ref 087) but failed the flood risk sequential test due to surface water flooding. The site is being proposed to be retained as an Employment Policy Area. Housing may present wider amenity issues for current/future employment uses on the site unless the whole wider site was to be redeveloped for housing which is not supported due to the surface water flood risk. 825 Fields off Drake Head Lane, 133 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase Conisbrough 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection work. 826 Field off Clifton Hill, 80 Rejected Housing Site - The site is located to the south of the settlement and is 2.95 hectares in size Conisbrough and currently in agricultural use. The site is greenfield and capable of accommodating 80 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north-west/north-north-east with open countryside and agricultural uses to the east and west. There are a number of agricultural buildings to the south.

See response to site reference 040 above for why this site is not being proposed for housing. 1000 Land to the North of Stringers 126 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase Nurseries, Crookhill Road, 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a moderately weak case for inclusion in further site selection Conisbrough work.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 1035 Land off Hill Top Road, Denaby 285 Rejected Housing Site - The site is an updated representation to a previously submitted site (reference Main 251) which was identified as having issues in respect to access. The boundary change facilitates a better location for a site access to serve the site. Information submitted appears to demonstrate that two accesses serving the residential development meet visibility requirements for a 40mph speed limit. The supporting document also states that if allocated an extension to the 30mph limit could be supported by the Authority, which would further increase the flexibility of the site access positions. However, Traffic Regulation Orders are part of Highways Legislation rather than Planning and therefore changes to limits are outside of the Planning process and cannot be considered as part of this. Given the above, the representation would need to demonstrate that visibility splays in accordance with 85th percentile wet weather speeds could be achieved to ensure robust analysis of the site. However, regardless of whether this can be achieved, the site is not being supported as an allocation as sufficient sites have been identified to meet the Town’s local need housing requirement, with a contribution towards the economic growth target as well. This already requires a Green Belt allocation for Conisbrough-Denaby (reference 040) and another more preferable Green Belt allocation (reference 826) has already been rejected which would still be preferable to this option. 1088 Land South West of 13,389 Rejected Housing Site – the site is currently designated as Green Belt and the findings from the Phase Conisbrough 3 Green Belt Review concludes there is a weak case for inclusion in further site selection work. Main Town: Hatfield-Stainforth (inc Dunsville & Dunscroft) 008 Wynthorpe Farm, Dunsville 20 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.7 hectares and currently in agricultural use and is therefore greenfield. The site is located to the north of the A18 and west of the settlement of Dunsville. The site is capable of accommodating 20 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and further agricultural uses to the north and west, including a barn/agricultural buildings. There are mature trees to the south of the site on the opposite side of the A18 as well as further residential uses. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 011 Land rear of 55 St Mary's Drive, 15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.57 hectares and consists of garden land/a paddock and is Dunsville therefore greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are residential uses to the east and south of the site and agricultural uses to the north and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 037 Land to West of Ingram Road, 431 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 19.2 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft. The site is Dunscroft currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 431 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses, including a farm, to the north, south and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a very large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 086 Land adj. to Parks Road, 158 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Dunscroft (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 097 Land at Kirton Lane, Stainforth 19 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 105 South of Backfield Lane, Hatfield 44 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation. 118 St Marys Road, Dunsville 105 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 4.11 hectares and is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield. The site could accommodate 105 dwellings. The site is surrounded by open countryside and agricultural uses to the south-west, west, north and east. There are some residential uses to the south- east of the site. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 120 Manor Road, Hatfield 42 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 170 Land at Doncaster Road, Hatfield 60 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 2 hectares in size and is a triangular piece of land located between Doncaster Road and Hatfield Lane to the south of Hatfield. The land is currently in agricultural use enclosed by hedging and is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 60 dwellings. There are existing residential dwellings fronting on to Lings Lane along the eastern site boundary, as well as along the north-western boundary with Doncaster Road. The land is agricultural to the south and south-west. The site is currently Countryside Policy Area, but the granting of planning permission on site reference 970 to the south/south-west of this site has essentially created an island of non- defensible Countryside so for this reason the site is proposed to be allocated.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 171 Land to North Side of High 183 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects Street, Hatfield in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation. 187 Land adjacent 17 Lings Lane, 15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares and currently forms an extension to the domestic Hatfield curtilage of No 17 Lings Lane, as well as including the dwelling itself. The site is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west of the site and agricultural uses to the north, east and west, including a number of agricultural buildings to the immediate south. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 191 West of New Mill Field Road and 50 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects adj. Back Lane, Hatfield in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation. 192 Land off Broadway, Dunscroft 119 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 4.7 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft and north-east of Dunsville. The site is currently scrubland with a number of semi-mature trees and is greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 119 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and south, with agricultural land/open countryside to the west and north. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 198 Land off North Ings Road, 15 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of flood risk Hatfield (surface water flooding) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 229 Pickup Land, Dunsville 747 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 33.2 hectares and is located to the north of Dunsville. The site is currently in agricultural use (arable) and is greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 747 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the south of the site, although there is a strip of agricultural land before the properties. Open countryside/further agricultural uses are found to the north, east and west. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a very large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 231 Parks Farm, Dunscroft 1,344 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 332 Land off Manor Road, Hatfield 159 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 346 Robinsons, Oldfield Lane, 41 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Stainforth (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 348 Oldfield Lane, Stainforth 78 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 352 House of Play, 91 Abbey Road, 10 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Dunscroft (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 376 Broadway, Dunscroft, H9-004 40 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 378 Doncaster Road, Stainforth 20 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 381 Harpenden Drive, Dunscroft 50 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 388 Kirton Lane, Stainforth 22 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 406 St Edwins Close and York Road, 5 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Dunsroft (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 408 The Crescent, Dunscroft 10 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 457 Land off Waggons Way, 14 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Stainforth (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 778 Land adjacent Broadacres, 14 Rejected Housing Site - The Sustainability Appraisal identified the site as having major negative effects Doncaster Road, Hatfield in respect to built heritage assets that may not be possible to overcome even with mitigation. Due to the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, and the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment that supports these findings, the site is not supported as an allocation. 784 Cuckoo Lane, Hatfield 36 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.21 hectares and currently occupied by a commercial building with hard standing car park area with a large area of scrubland on the eastern section of the site. The majority of the site is greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 36 dwellings. There are residential uses to the west and educational facilities to the north and south with open agricultural land to the east. The site is already designated as Residential Policy Area and the landowner has

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes indicated through the call for sites that the site is no longer required for existing commercial use. The site performs well through the Sustainability Appraisal with mostly positive and neutral effects. Allocating the site will provide additional supply for the settlement and help boost housing in line with national policy on a former brownfield site. 931 Land at Warren Farm, High 57 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield and 1.92 hectares in size and capable of accommodating Street, Dunsville 57 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use with a single residential dwelling on the north-west corner of the site. There are residential uses to the north, east and west with the existing farm and its curtilage and further agricultural uses to the south and beyond. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. 1008 8 Acre Field, Townend Farm, 96 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Ramskir Lane, Stainforth (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 1034 Land at Warren Farm, High 22 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield and 0.75 hectares in size and capable of accommodating Street, Dunsville 22 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use with a single residential dwelling on the north-west corner of the site. There are residential uses to the north, east and west with a farm and its curtilage and further agricultural uses to the south and beyond. This Representation is a smaller part of Site Reference 931. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1034. 1038 Woodhouse Lane, Hatfield 621 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 25.1 hectares in size and is bound by Lings Lane to the east, Woodhouse Lane to the south and Doncaster Road to the south-west. Agricultural land lies to the north of the site but this has planning permission for residential development (see site reference 970). The site is capable of providing 621 dwellings. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a large urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1038. 1054 Harpenden, Dunscroft 57 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 1122 Land to West of Ingram Road, 71 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 2.5 hectares and located to the west of Dunscroft. The site is Dunscroft currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 71 dwellings.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses, including a farm, to the north, south and west. This Representation is a smaller part of Site Reference 037. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and would form a modest urban extension to the settlement. The existing Countryside boundary is considered defensible and it is not considered justified to allocate this site for housing when other permissions/urban sites/less defensible countryside sites have been identified at the town that far outnumber the scale of the settlement’s housing requirement. Conclusion - reject site reference 1122. Main Town – Mexborough 068 Former Coal Depot, Pastures 82 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Road, Mexborough (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test. 139 Land North of Wath Road, 418 Rejected Housing Site - Large urban extension site circa 18.6 hectares in size to the west of the Mexborough settlement. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and could accommodate 418 dwellings. To the north is open countryside and Lousy Busk Lane (a track); to the east is Mexborough Highwoods Primary School and Mexborough School, as well residential uses. To the south-east of the site there is Mexborough West junction, a recreation ground, and a public footpath which connects the existing neighbourhood to the A6023, Wath Road. To the west there is a railway line and beyond that there is Adwick Business Park.

The 2018 consultation proposed this site as an urban extension given the relatively low level of housing supply identified which is largely attributed to the safeguarding of the proposed HS2 route to the east of the town (which directly impacts on the Green Belt site reference 154 – Land to the North West of Pastures Road, Mexborough). This is now a safeguarded route under direction of the Secretary of State for Transport as of November 2016. The advice in the safeguarding guidance for Council’s preparing a Local Plan is that the area safeguarded by the Safeguarding Directions should be taken into account. Where a Safeguarded Direction is taken into account in a Local Plan, it should be represented on the policies map (in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended). Adding information about the extent of the safeguarded area on the Policies Map is helpful for those considering development in the area, however it is important to note that the requirements of the Safeguarding Directions apply, in the circumstances described above, regardless of whether the safeguarded area is identified on the Policies Map or not. Local Plans should state that the Safeguarding Directions have been made by the Secretary of State for Transport. They are not proposals of the LPA and the routes in question will not be determined through the development plan process. They will be considered in Parliament under hybrid Bill procedures, which will provide appropriate opportunities for petitions to be made to Parliament by those directly affected by the scheme. There were a number of objections to the

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes proposed Green Belt site including from DMBC Ward Members. It was also brought to the Council’s attention by the local community that the site area included an important southern part that would help facilitate access into the site that is not believed to be in the ownership of the site promoter. The Council owns this land although the call for sites stated the whole site was in single ownership by the site promoter and has recently had investment in terms of greenspace and equipment (Manvers Road Park). The site is one of the most important areas of Green Belt in the borough given the merging of Mexborough (DMBC) with Wath Upon Dearne (RMBC). The site is no longer supported therefore as an allocation and has already been filtered out at Stage 5 of the process. The shortfall in units for Mexborugh will be made good through allocations elsewhere at the Main Urban Area and other Main Towns in line with previous Local Plan consultation commitments and Policies 2/3 of the emerging Local Plan. 154 Land to the North West of 489 Rejected Housing Site – Large urban extension site extending to 21.8 hectares to the north-east of the Pastures Road, Mexborough settlement. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore and capable of accommodating 489 dwellings. To the west and south of the site are existing residential uses. There is open countryside/agricultural land to the north and north-east. A new housing development is currently under construction to the south-east of the site (Pastures Road). A small part of the site adjacent to Clayfield Avenue is a current UDP Housing Allocation which has not yet been developed, to the east of this is a larger area of the site which is currently designated as Open Space Policy Area, so these parts are not in the Green Belt. The remainder of the site to the north and north-west is the part that is designated Green Belt. Although this site has a stronger Green Belt case for further site selection, relative to Green Belt site reference 139 (plus a large part of this site is non-Green Belt anyway given its current Housing/Open Space allocation in the UDP), the site lies directly on the route of HS2 and this is now a safeguarded route under direction of the Secretary of State for Transport as of November 2016. The advice in the safeguarding guidance for Council’s preparing a Local Plan is that the area safeguarded by the Safeguarding Directions should be taken into account. Where a Safeguarded Direction is taken into account in a Local Plan, it should be represented on the policies map (in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended). Adding information about the extent of the safeguarded area on the Proposals Map is helpful for those considering development in the area, however it is important to note that the requirements of the Safeguarding Directions apply, in the circumstances described above, regardless of whether the safeguarded area is identified on the Proposals Map or not. Local Plans should state that the Safeguarding Directions have been made by the Secretary of State for Transport. They are not proposals of the LPA and the routes in question will not be determined through the development plan process. They will be considered in Parliament under hybrid Bill procedures, which will provide appropriate opportunities for petitions to be made to Parliament by

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes those directly affected by the scheme. Prior to the HS2 Safeguarding Direction, this site would be a logical expansion for Mexborough given part of the site is non-Green Belt and the remainder that is has a stronger case for release compared to site reference 139 based on the findings from the Phase 3 Green Belt Review. The site also makes sense in urban form given the Pastures Road development under construction to the east (site reference 731). However, site reference 139 does perform stronger through sustainability appraisal compared to this site. 155 Site A, Leach Lane Industrial 16 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.6 hectares in size and previously contained an industrial estate Estate, Mexborough although all buildings have since been demolished and the site is cleared. The site is brownfield and capable of accommodating 16 dwellings. To the north of the site is the A6023 (Greens Way) with Mexborough's town centre beyond. Station Road adjoins the site to the west which leads directly to Mexborough Train Station. Beyond Station Road there are various industrial/commercial buildings. The South Yorkshire Navigation Canal runs adjacent to the south of the site and further cleared former industrial land is located to the east of the site. The site is currently designated as Employment Policy Area in the UDP but there are no active uses on the site and previous buildings relating to historical employment use have been demolished. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects. Significant negative effects in relation to unstable land are found due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. The site would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed. The site’s proximity to the canal leads to potential for pollution to this surface water body but this can be mitigated through best practice construction techniques. 379 Garden Street, Mexborough 15 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 0.5 hectares and is located just north of Mexborough's town centre and currently in use as a surface car park consisting largely of hard standing and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 15 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west and north of the site and commercial/retail uses to the south and east of the site. The site is an existing UDP Housing Allocation that has not yet been developed. Although the site is identified in the Green Space Audit as amenity housing public open space, the majority of the site is currently in use for car parking. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. There were a number of objections received following the 2018 consultation with concerns that losing the car parking would have a damaging effect on an already struggling High Street/Town Centre; a number of these objections were from local businesses and DMBS Ward Members. Conclusion - reject site reference 379, although the site was previously proposed as an allocation the results of the 2018

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes consultation show that this would be a significant loss and impact negatively on Mexborough’s Town Centre. 412 Willow Drive, Mexborough 25 Proposed Housing Site - The site is an open space which is circa 0.7 hectares in size and greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 25 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north and west of the site and allotments/further open space/sports pitches to the east and south. The site is currently allocated for Housing in the UDP but has not yet been developed. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area. The site would need to undertake a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed (now subsumed within larger site reference 1048). 414 Windhill, Whinhill Avenue, 112 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.3 hectares and consists of former housing stock that has been Mexborough demolished and cleared. The site is brownfield therefore and capable of accommodating 112 dwellings. There are existing residential uses on all four sides of the site. The site performs strongly through sustainability appraisal with significant positive effects on affordability, market failure, and, re- use of land and buildings. Other effects are mainly positive or neutral. Significant negative effects on unstable land due to the site being located in a development high risk area due to the legacy of coal mining in the area would need to be addressed through undertaking a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to identify site specific coal mining risks and an appropriate mitigation strategy to show that the site can be made safe and stable for the development that is proposed. 834 Pitt Street, Mexborough 82 Rejected Housing Site – The site is 2.9 hectares and consists of open space and sports pitches and is greenfield therefore. The site could accommodate 82 dwellings. There are residential uses to the north, east and west of the site with further open space to the south. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects, with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land and negative effects for the loss of an existing open space. Although the site would be a sustainable housing site, the site is currently public open space which is being proposed to be retained through the Local Plan 1048 Schofield Street, Mexborough 74 Proposed Housing Site - The site is greenfield having previously been used for allotments but is in a run down and poor state condition. The site extends to 2.45 hectares and is capable of accommodating 74 dwellings. The site is surrounded by existing residential uses. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage with entirely positive or neutral effects, with the exception of significant negative effects on unstable land and negative effects for the loss of an existing open space. Conclusion - allocate site reference 1048 Main Town - Rossington

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 247 Former Rossington Colliery, off 230 Proposed Housing Site – The site extends to 9.26 hectares and consists of part of the former colliery West End Lane, New Rossington site and spoil tip and is brownfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 230 dwellings. To the north of the site is the wider former colliery site which is now under construction for housing. The new IPort strategic distribution facility is under construction to the west of the site and further colliery restoration to the south. There is dense woodland (Holmes Carr) to the east of the site beyond which are further residential uses. The site would form an additional phase to the colliery site currently being developed for 1,200 new dwellings. However, it is now understood that (due to build out density) the original 1,200 capacity of the site to the north is not now going to be achieved so this additional area is allocated to make good the shortfall in units. 302 Land off Stripe Road, Rossington 180 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable (1) sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement. 305 Land off Stripe Road, Rossington 40 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable (2) sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement. 306 Land off Grange Lane, 286 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable Rossington sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement. 307 Rossington Hall Golf 5,800 (but Rejected Housing Site – The site extends to 234.3 hectares and consists of a large expanse of land to Developments see detail the east of the settlement. The site is currently primarily agricultural land and woodland, but also in write up includes Rossington Hall Hotel and Northern Racing College. The site is largely greenfield therefore as to why and capable of accommodating 5,800 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west of the this is so site and primarily agricultural uses and woodland to the north, east and south. The East Coast Main high) Line runs adjacent to the west of the site and A638 along the eastern edge. However, the high capacity is based on entirely being developed for residential uses, whereas the site is currently the subject of a planning application (reference: 16/00207/FULM) for the creation of a European Tour Destination 18 hole championship golf course, 9 hole academy golf course, with clubhouse and associated infrastructure/ancillary development. The proposal also includes 500 aspirational fairway homes, which has subsequently been reduced to 400 homes as part of the application process which is seen as necessary enabling development. The potential for the proposal to act as a significant incentive, directly and indirectly, to securing inward investment into the borough, and to diversify the housing offer within the borough via the provision of higher-end executive or aspirational housing, is recognised. The new housing is being proposed on the grounds that it is necessary to finance the delivery of the golf facility. However, given the settlement’s housing requirement has already been exceeded, and this proposal for housing is tied strongly to the delivery of a European Tour Destination

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes (and the housing is isolated and in the countryside which national policy, and current local planning policy seeks to avoid) the site is not supported as a housing allocation through the emerging Local Plan. 382/ Former Torndale School Fields & 92 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 3.5 hectares and is located fairly centrally to the settlement and 429/10 Gattison House, Gattison Lane, consists of the former playing fields/open space adjacent to Torndale Infant School and the Gattision 56 Rossington House care home buildings to the east and is therefore a part brownfield and part greenfield site. The site is capable of accommodating 92 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north, west and south and a school to the north-east. Although the settlement’s housing requirement has already been met, the site is an urban site and surplus to current requirements and is being promoted for housing. The site performs strongly through the sustainability appraisal stage demonstrating mainly positive or neutral effects. Allocating the site provides some further flexibility for the settlement to ensure it meets its housing target given the reliance on the single very large colliery redevelopment for Rossington’s provision.

879 Land at Bankwood Lane 254 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Industrial Estate, Rossington (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

1032 Site A - East of Bankwood Lane, 438 Rejected Housing Site – the site is being allocated for employment uses via the local plan. Rossington 1039 Stripe Road, Rossington 478 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances argument could be made therefore to utilise Green Belt at the settlement. 1040 Off Sheep Bridge Lane, 27 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Rossington (Flood Risk Zone 3) so the site fails the flood risk sequential test.

Main Town: Thorne-Moorends

002 Bloomhill Road, Moorends 225 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 003 Land adj. Playing Fields, North 232 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Common (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 004 Land off Ivy Road, Thorne 134 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 005 Marshland Road, North 163 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Common, Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 009 Lands End, Thorne 29 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 034 Opposite Golf Course, Kirton 32 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Lane, Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 060 Land East of Wyke Gate Road, 129 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 071 Off St Michaels Drive, Thorne 361 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 081 Land off Alexandra Street, 113 Proposed Housing Site – A site currently allocated for housing in the UDP (Site Reference 081 Thorne (southern part) and 343 – Land off Alexandra Street, Thorne) at the time of drafting has a pending planning application for 207 dwellings and has received a positive Planning Policy response including satisfaction that the sequential test has been passed. The site also has a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment as part of the planning file. The site is also therefore being supported as an allocation. Conclusion – allocate site references 081/343, but reject the northern part of site reference 081, to help provide the settlement with an allocation towards both the local need and economic growth requirement but also taking into account the flood risk constraints at the settlement. 083 Land to rear of Bloomhill Farm, 91 (see Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Bloomhill Road, Moorends also site ref (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 150 below) 089 Coulman Bungalow, Church Balk, 7 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 130 Burger Road, Burger Common, 12 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 133 (N Land off St Nicholas Road, 24 Proposed Housing Site - A 0.8ha site, with a potential capacity of 24 units. The site is vacant greenfield Plan Thorne land, with adjacent residential development. The site borders a conservation area. The site has been Ref assessed as part of the site selection process by the Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as H1.2) an allocation for housing for 24 dwellings. For this reason, the site is supported as an allocation through the Local Plan also. 150 Land Adj. Bloomhill Stud Farm, 2 (capacity Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends reduced (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. from 156 units due to the significant overlap of

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes this site with ref 083 above to avoid double counting) 160 Thorne South Urban Extension, 2,846 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Bradholme Farm, Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. The site is no longer being promoted for a mixed use scheme (including an element of housing) so doubts around availability of the site for housing now also. 244 Land off Coulman Road / 48 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Broadbent Gate Road, Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 245 Land at Micklethwaite's Farm, 362 (see Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends also site ref (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 313 below) 248 Land at Former Thorne Colliery, 503 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends (Site 1) (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 276 Bloomhill Road, Moorends 0 (capacity Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk reduced (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. from 142 units due to the significant overlap of this site with ref 083 and 150 above to avoid double counting) 311 Land rear of Bryson Close, 98 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 313 Land North East of 26 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Micklethwaites Farm, Moorends (capacity (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes reduced from 425 units due to significant overlap of this site with ref 245 above to avoid double counting) 331 Land off Coulman Road, Thorne 26 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 343 Alexander Street / North Eastern 74 Proposed Housing Site – A site currently allocated for housing in the UDP (Site Reference 081 Road, Thorne (southern part) and 343 – Land off Alexandra Street, Thorne) at the time of drafting has a pending planning application for 207 dwellings and has received a positive Planning Policy response including satisfaction that the sequential test has been passed. The site also has a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment as part of the planning file. The site is also therefore being supported as an allocation. Conclusion – allocate site references 081/343, but reject the northern part of site reference 081, to help provide the settlement with an allocation towards both the local need and economic growth requirement but also taking into account the flood risk constraints at the settlement. 396 (N North Eastern Road, Thorne 53 Proposed Housing Site - A 2.5 ha rectangular site, which could potentially accommodate 63 units. This Plan greenfield open space is bordered by housing to the south and east, a railway beyond a small green Ref strip to the west, and fields to the north, which have also been submitted for consideration. Due to H1.1) part of the northern area of the site (37%) being in high flood risk the site failed the first sift of the sequential test. However, it is possible for development to come forward on the rest of the site without any built development in the part that is Flood Risk Zone 3, although water compatible open space and landscaping would be appropriate on this part subject to wider Planning considerations. In order to avoid any conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan as far as practicably possible, it is proposed to allocate the whole site, but make a reduction to the assumed site capacity to allow for a scheme just covering the low flood risk part of the site (circa 53 dwellings based on average density/net developable area). This would be 22 units short of the site assessment for the Neighbourhood Plan which proposed 75 dwellings. The developer requirements that accompany the preferred allocations will make clear that there is to be no built development in the small northern part of the allocation that

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes is flood risk zone 3, although any water compatible uses such as open space and landscaping may be suitable. Given there is no ‘more vulnerable’ development being supported in flood risk zone 3 as part of the condition attached to this allocation, it is not considered that the requirements of the exception test are needed. 426 Land at Marshland Road, 106 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 427 Land at Marshland Road / rear 16 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk of Kingsmede, Moorends (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 469 Land at Bloomhill Road, 68 (see Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends sites refs (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. Planning application for residential 083, 150, & development refused in June 2018. 276 also) 501 Adjacent 46 Marshlands Road, 16 Proposed Housing Site – Post 1st April base date, this site has been allowed on Appeal by a Planning Moorends Inspector so is also now permissioned and capable of providing 23 dwellings. 503 East View Farm, Marshland 63 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Road, Moorends (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 505 South End Marina and adjacent 130 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Land, Thorne (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 508 Land off Marshlands Road / The 22 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Avenue, Moorends (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 510 (N Adjacent to Thorne South 25 Proposed Housing Site - 1.54ha long rectangular site with a potential capacity of 25 units. The site is Plan Station, South End Road, Thorne greenfield with hard standing stretching across the length of the site. To the north and west are Ref residential units, with a railway line to the south, and greenfield land with hard standing continuing to H1.6) the east. The site has been assessed as part of the site selection process by the Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as an allocation for housing for 45 dwellings. For this reason the site is supported as an allocation through the Local Plan also. However, due to the Neighbourhood Plan looking to also deliver part of the site for station car parking as part of Policy T3: Increased Parking at Thorne South Station, the capacity has been reduced to an indicative 25 dwellings for the site to ensure a balance can be struck between the two land uses as current capacity estimates through the Neighbourhood Plan seem to be assuming the whole of the site will be delivered for housing. Although a higher density scheme may support a higher number of units and still allow an area of the site to be set aside for additional car parking, it is noted the priority in the Neighbourhood Plan is to increase the housing mix towards larger 3+ bed properties (Policy H3: Housing Mix). Conclusion – allocate site reference 510, but assume a reduced capacity of 25 dwellings.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 795 (N Land on the East Side of South 13 Proposed Housing Site - The site has been assessed as part of the site selection process for the Plan End, Thorne Neighbourhood Plan and has been supported as an allocation. The site has recently had planning Ref permission but this has now lapsed so a fresh application will be required. Capacity of 13 units reflects H1.5) the scheme as per the lapsed permission and therefore the latest evidence on potential yield. Conclusion - allocate site reference 795. 998 Land at Moorends Road, Thorne 505 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. 999 Land at Broadbent Gate, 254 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area of high flood risk Moorends (Flood Risk Zone 3) so fails the flood risk sequential test. Service Town-Village: Askern 036 Paddock to rear of Holme Croft 26 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement 041 Askern Industrial Estate, Askern 84 Proposed Housing Site - A site measuring 2.9 hectares, able to potentially accommodate 84 units or continue as an employment site. This is brownfield land, with existing employment related buildings on the west of the site, and the remnants of former buildings to the east. The site is surrounded to the east, south and west by residential dwellings, with agricultural land to the north. The site is brownfield and currently designated as a Priority Employment Policy Area in the UDP and is partly in employment use with the western part having some active uses on the site, but the eastern half, and overall majority of the site (circa 55%), is vacant and contains cleared buildings and scrubland/hard-standing. The site was assessed for employment through the HELAA but this assessment concluded the site should be considered as a ‘reserve site’ in terms of employment. The site performs well in terms of the sustainability appraisal demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in respect to loss of existing employment land in active use have been identified. Access to both primary and secondary schools is identified as being a negative effect so a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required. The secondary school is also at capacity so developer contributions towards increasing secondary education provision in the area may also be required. Significant negative effects in relation to pollution to surface water bodies could be mitigated through best practice construction techniques. There were objections to the loss of the site entirely for housing from local Councillors and the Town Council. It was noted that there are important business start-up units on the western part of the site which have had recent investment. There were also concerns around the Town having very little local employment land left. Although the settlement’s plan period requirement of 165 dwellings has been well exceeded, on balance, it is considered most appropriate to allocate the eastern derelict and vacant half of the site for housing, but to protect the active/operational western part of the site with an Employment Policy Area. This will help bring forward the redevelopment of a brownfield site already surrounded on all sides by mainly residential uses and provide an additional supply to boost

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes housing delivery even further in line with national policy, whilst providing some policy protection to the land in existing and active employment use. Conclusion - allocate eastern ‘half’ of site reference 041 for housing and designate the western ‘half’ as Employment Policy Area instead of supporting the whole site for housing. Revised housing yield expected as being 44 new homes rather than the 84 units previously supported by the 2018 consultation. 090 Land to North of Moss Road, 276 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable South East of Sewage Works, sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement Askern 195 Askern Miners Welfare, Manor 49 Proposed Housing Site – A site measuring 2.67 hectares in size and capacble of accommodating 49 Way, Askern dwellings. The site is designated as Green Belt and consists of a Welfare Club and associated sporting facilities, many of which are in a run-down state of disrepair. A planning application has now been granted (post 1st April 2018 base date) and has not been called-in by the Secretary of State. Conclusion - allocate site reference 195 as planning permission now granted for 49 dwellings. However, it is not proposed to remove the site from the Green Belt at this time being as the permission has not been implemented. 226 Land South of Church Field 100 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable Road, Askern sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement 303 Land off Highfield Road, Askern 27 Rejected Housing Site – A large part of the site is covered by planning permission reference 925, (Southern part of the site) although the southern part is within Flood Risk Zone 2 so this part of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium flood risk area – the southern part of the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 374 Avenue Road, Instoneville 34 Proposed Housing Site - The site is currently designated as part of the wider colliery mixed use regeneration area in the UDP. The site however is not included in the wider colliery permission boundary as per site reference 796, although this is the next phase and the layout of the wider site makes provision for future access to this site also. The site is included as part of the Council’s 5-Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022. An Inspector, as part of a recent Section 78 Public Inquiry concluded there was a reasonable prospect of the site being delivered within this timescale. The site performs well in terms of the sustainability appraisal demonstrating mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in relation to distance to a train station and secondary school capacity are true for all sites in Askern due to there not being a train station and they all feed to the same secondary school which is estimated to be at capacity. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan may be necessary as well as a developer contribution towards school places. Although the settlement’s plan period target has been well exceeded, this site is adjacent to the Green Belt and there are no exceptional circumstances identified to wash it over with Green Belt. It is not considered that any other appropriate designations or allocations exist for how else to show the site on the Proposals

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Map so, on balance, it is considered justified and most appropriate to allocate for housing and this will be additional supply. 475 Land South of Oakwell Drive and 106 Rejected Housing Site – Green Belt extension to a settlement where sufficient deliverable/developable Coniston Road sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement Service Town-Village: Auckley-Hayfield Green 007 Land adjacent 21 Main Street, 25 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of Auckley flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 049 Bell Butts, Bell Butts Lane, 36 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission Auckley site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 174 Land off Main Street, Auckley 80 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at medium risk of flooding (FRZ2) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 201 Poors Land, Hurst Lane, Auckley 48 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 223 RHADS Site 2A, Land at Hayfield 140 Proposed Housing Site - 6 hectare site which could potentially accommodate 136 units. This is Lane, Auckley greenfield land having previously been part of the RAF Finningley Airfield, and lies on a former RAF sports ground, which contains disused tennis courts. Site has a railway line to the north, and housing on all other sides. Immediately to the south east is a business park. The site performs strongly though the Sustainability Appraisal with mainly positive and neutral effects. Negative effects in respect to access to a train station and local centre can be mitigated through a Travel Assessment and Transport Plan and it is noted the site has positive effects for access to core bus network and existing cycling network. Negative effects in respect to school capacity (both primary and secondary) could be mitigated through a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the local area. There is a signed Section 106 Agreement in place that requires the front part of the site to be delivered as Public Open Space which was agreed as part of planning permission relating to the original Airport development. The top-north-western part of the site is also understood to be required (car parking use) as part of a potential station at the Airport which is still being proposed in addition to the East Coast Mainline Station further to the south of this site. Since the base date (April 2018) planning permission has now been granted Conclusion - allocate site reference 223, but capacity amended to 140 units in line with the planning permission. This is an urban site that performs well through the

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Sustainability Appraisal and provides well above the additional supply of housing required for the settlement in line with Policy 2 and therefore in line with national policy will also help significantly boost supply. 299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane 276 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 330 Land off Bell Butts Lane, Auckley 28 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 422 Auckley 1, East of The Hollows, 30 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission Auckley site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 446 Blaxton Quarry Phase 2, 357 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission Mosham Road, Auckley site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 464 Willow Farm, Branton 122 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 832 Land at Auckley 63 Rejected Housing Site - Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 940 Site 1, Land East of Poplars Farm, 1200 Proposed Housing Site - The Local Plan (Policy 7: Doncaster Sheffield Airport) identifies the importance Hurst Lane, Auckley of Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) to Doncaster’s economy, as well as the wider region (e.g. Sheffield City Region (SCR) Strategic Economic Plan & Integrated Infrastructure Plan). There are ambitious growth aspirations for both passenger numbers and cargo/freight handling which have been subject to consultation by the Airport operators through a draft Airport Masterplan (2018-2037) in spring 2018.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes The SCR Infrastructure Plan, via the associated Investment Fund (SCRIF), has helped to fund critical infrastructure, such as the Great Yorkshire Way. It further identifies the DSA Corridor as one of the top two strategic priority growth areas in the City Region, being developed as an engineering and aero- industry centre, alongside and including housing growth. In addition to road improvements, the need to further improve rail connections to the Airport is recognised as part of the Government’s ‘Northern Powerhouse’ initiative. The Council is supportive of growth of the Airport and a successful airport brings economic benefits for the borough and the city region. It opens both up to enhanced business and employment opportunities, and increases opportunities for international investment, as well as easy access to international markets for local businesses. A successful airport makes the borough a more attractive place for both people and business to locate, and also provides convenient tourism opportunities for the boroughs residents, as well as catering for inbound visitors. Should the goals of the masterplan be realised, there can be little doubt that the airport will be transformed by 2037.

The Council is supporting an additional allocation of up to a maximum of 1,200 houses on land at the airport (Site Reference 940: Site 1, Land East Of Poplars Farm, Hurst Lane). The release of housing on this site will be strictly related to the clearly demonstrated delivery of jobs at the airport. This is with the exception of an initial tranche of land within this area which is being proposed to provide 280 new homes upfront, but the future jobs delivery mechanism requires that jobs are provided in time in lieu of these initial 280 houses, and before any further housing tranches are released. Further detail and justification is set out in Local Plan Policy 7 and supporting settlement background paper. It should be noted that the allocation of 280 dwellings (or any of the further 920 houses [280 + 920 = 1,200] on this allocation) are not contributing towards the settlement strategy or borough’s housing requirement. Any delivery of housing on the site will be additional and boost the overall supply of housing within the borough. As such, any housing delivery from the site is not included in the summary table/trajectory below. The Sustainability Appraisal identifies potential significant negative effects in relation to biodiversity, surface water pollution and archaeology for the site which will need to be mitigated. However, it is noted that this is a very large site with areas of ancient woodland (Finningley Big Wood) and local wildlife sites (Hurst Wood) which will not necessarily be developed and the development will need to provide appropriate off setting and buffering to such areas, or provide appropriate compensation. Further investigations are likely to be required due to the presence of known archaeology remains of national or regional significance where there has been little disturbance and likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Again, the size of the site provides scope and some flexibility for a sensitive layout of development to account of any archaeological constraints.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 007 Land adjacent 21 Main Street, 25 Rejected Housing Site – the site would lead to inappropriate development in an area at high risk of Auckley flooding (FRZ3) – site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 1010 Land off Gate House Lane, 162 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 6.6 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 162 dwellings. Doncaster The site is scrubland and greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the west of the site. Doncaster Sheffield Airport is located to the east and south and a railway line runs along the northern edge beyond which is a quarry. Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. 1013 Land at Auckley Common, 155 Rejected Housing Site - The site extends to 6.3 hectares in size and is capable of accommodating 155 Common Lane, Auckley dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. There are allotments to the west of the site beyond which are existing residential uses and further residential development to the north-east. There are agricultural uses to the north and south of the site with a farm to the north- eastern edge. Given sufficient deliverable permissions (including a post-base date permission site) have already been identified that are already over the settlement’s identified local need requirement of 125 dwellings (+130 dwellings) it is not considered that any additional allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are necessary, nor can they be justified in respect to the settlement strategy and Policy 2 which has already been met. Service Town-Village: Barnburgh-Harlington 095 Hollowgate, Barnburgh 19 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield, currently pastureland, and sandwiched between housing to the north and south. To the west is woodland, with a field to the east. This is a small site which is located entirely on top of a landfill site where there may be issues around the history of the site and its ground conditions/gas emissions therefore possible deliverability issues with developing the site for housing. Given this, it is not proposed to support the site for allocation, however the site is being proposed to be washed over with Residential Policy Area which would still allow small scale housing development to come forward if appropriate mitigation can be identified and subject to wider Development Management considerations. 143 Land North of Primary School, 51 Rejected Housing Site - The site is greenfield, currently utilised for agriculture, and slopes gently Church Lane, Barnburgh upwards to the north. To the north and west are residential dwellings, with fields to the east, and Barnburgh Primary School to the south. There is a less sensitive Green Belt site option available elsewhere at the settlement (reference 777) sufficient to deliver the Village’s housing requirement and significant negative effects through developing this site for housing in respect to built heritage and archaeology which may not be possible to resolve even with mitigation.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 777 Plot 3, Harlington 66 Proposed Housing Site – The Green Belt Review finds a slight preference for site reference 777 over 143 in Green Belt purposes terms. In addition to this, site reference 777 performs stronger on Sustainability Appraisal compared to site reference 143.

1003 Paddock adjacent to Manor 19 Rejected Housing Site – The Green Belt Review identified the site has a moderately weak case for Farm, Hickleton Road, progressing further through the site selection methodology Barnburgh

1004 Field adjacent to Manor Farm, 55 Rejected Housing Site – The Green Belt Review identified the site has a moderately weak case for Hickleton Road, Barnburgh progressing further through the site selection methodology Service Town-Village: Barnby-Dun 108 White House Farm, Bramwith 176 Rejected Housing Site – Although around 34% of the site’s area is not within a high flood risk zone Lane, Barnby Dun (Flood Risk Zone 3) the part of the site that is low flood risk may not be sufficient to provide the settlement’s remaining housing target and makes less sense in urban form compared to site 147. 125 Park Hill, Armthorpe Lane, 116 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Barnby Dun inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 147 Land to the North of Hatfield 98 Proposed Housing Site – Around 42% of the site’s area is not within an area of high flood risk (Flood Lane, Barnby Dun Risk Zone 3) so the site is being proposed to be allocated, but with a reduced site capacity of 98 units (total site could accommodate 266 new homes) which would mean no more vulnerable residential development will be directed to an area of high flood risk and no requirement for the flood risk exception tests therefore. Although water compatible uses such as public open space and landscaping are appropriate in the part of the site that is flood risk zone 3 (subject to wider Planning considerations) so this is estimated as being a fairly cautious capacity. 228 Land at Barnby Dun 32 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 233 Well Green Farmstead, High 9 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Street, Barnby Dun inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 329 Off the Grove, Barnby Dun 26 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 347 Margatroyds, Stainforth Lane, 79 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Barnby Dun inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 1007 Land to the South East of 132 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Cuneigarth, Bramwith Lane, inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test Barnby Dun therefore. Service Town-Village: Bawtry 141 Westwood Road, Bawtry 20 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 0.7 hectare triangular shaped greenfield site in agricultural use located to the south-west of Bawtry, bound by the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough boundary along the southern and western perimeters. The site has potential to accommodate 20 dwellings. The site adjoins existing residential development to the eastern boundary with open agricultural land beyond the southern and western site boundaries. The site is currently designated as Green Belt. However, the Phase 3 Green Belt Review has identified that there is a “strong case” for the site to be considered further through the site selection process; this was one of only 2 sites that were assessed by the Phase 3 Review where this conclusion was reached. Were the site to be removed from the Green Belt then the boundary would be strongly defined in the west and north east and moderately strongly defined in the south. Its removal would represent a strong resultant Green Belt boundary which rounds off the built form of Bawtry. Given the scale and distinctly separate nature of the site from the wider general area, the site is considered to contain land which is low sensitivity to encroachment, however which contains no built form. The site has a weak role is preserving the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, makes no discernible contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging and has a limited role in preserving the setting of the historic core of Bawtry. It is not considered to have a role in supporting urban regeneration either. The Green Belt Topic Paper has demonstrated exceptional circumstances exist to remove the site from the Green Belt in line with the relevant case law and national policy. A previous Outline planning application in 2016 was withdrawn on the site due to the current Green Belt designation which would be removed through allocation of the site through the local plan process. There are insufficient site options remaining at the settlement to meet the local need requirement without the allocation of this site and it is not considered that its current Green Belt designation can be defended. The findings from the sustainability appraisal show that the site mainly has positive and neutral effects. Negative effects for access to a train station, primary and secondary school could be mitigated through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Likewise, capacity constraints at both the primary and secondary school may require a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the area. Significant negative effects on pollution to a surface water body could be mitigated through best practice construction techniques.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 146 Tickhill Road, Bawtry 302 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work 172 Land off Narrow Lane, Bawtry 92 Rejected Housing Site - Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative solution. 280 Tall Trees, Rear of 17 Thorne 8 Rejected Housing Site - Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative solution. Road, Bawtry 499/10 Great North Road, Bawtry 16 Proposed Housing Site - the site is a small greenfield urban site around 0.5 hectares in size and 45 capable of accommodating 16 dwellings. The site is already allocated for housing in the UDP. The findings from the sustainability appraisal show that site mainly has positive and neutral effects. Negative effects for access to a train station and secondary school could be mitigated through a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Likewise, capacity constraints at both the primary and secondary school may require a developer contribution towards increasing capacity in the area, although this is a relatively small site at just 16 new homes so the effects will be minimalised. The landowner is promoting the site through the Local Plan process and the site is therefore supported as its re-allocation will provide a significant proportion (16 units) of the settlement’s remaining local needs housing target through the use of a well located sustainable urban site. 780 Land at Thorne Road, Bawtry 72 Rejected Housing Site – A large part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2, and a small part Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a medium-high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 786 South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry 8 Rejected Housing Site - Site fronts to Cockhill Close which is not an adopted public highway therefore could not support development. 873 Site A, Land at Martin Common 214 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Farm, Bawtry concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 874 Site B, (Safeguarded), Land at 367 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt and was put forward for Martin Common Farm, Bawtry consideration as Safeguarding land in conjunction with a housing allocation of site ref 873 which has not been supported given the findings above. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 995 Menagerie Wood, Bawtry 60 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 996 Land West of Bawtry Hall, Bawtry 130 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 1006 Land off Towngate, Bawtry 8 Rejected Housing Site - This is a small urban site which is landlocked with no apparent means of access to the site at present. The site promoter has confirmed that the site is only accessible subject to resolution of an ongoing boundary dispute so doubts around availability at the present time. 1017 Land at Martin Grange Farm, 523 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Bawtry concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 1087 Narrow Lane, Bawtry and Bawtry 102 Rejected Housing Site - See site Refs 172 & 280 above – the site promoters have merged these sites Road, Austerfield and are now proposing access to be taken from Thorne Road following demolition of a dwelling (No 17 Thorne Road – see site ref 280) to gain access to the field at the rear (site ref 172) to address the constraints identified with Narrow Lane. An adoptable access at this location would not be acceptable as it falls within the visibility splay of the adjacent junction (Highfield Road). New direct accesses shall only be sited where they do not encroach on visibility requirements of adjoining direct accesses or junctions in regular use. This determines the minimum spacings of new accesses. Service Town-Village: Carcroft-Skellow 042 Land to the rear of Skellow Hall 78 Rejected Housing Site – the majority of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 145 Land at Skellow 160 Rejected Housing Site – a significant part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 165 Land North of A1, Skellow 300 Proposed Housing Site - This is a 15.1ha site to the north west of Skellow, with a potential capacity of 340 dwellings. The site is greenfield, and currently utilised as agricultural land. It is bordered to the west by the A1(M), and residential dwellings to the south and east. To the north are fields, with a house situated immediately to the north west corner of the site. The site is Green Belt and the Phase 3 Green Belt Review concluded that there is a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work. The Proposed Green Belt boundary would be defined by the A1(M) in the west and Green Lane in the North. The Proposed Green Belt boundary features are therefore considered to be strong and the Resultant Green Belt boundary would result in a natural rounding off of Skellow. The Proposed Green Belt site would perform in a largely similar manner to the wider General Area. The Proposed Site is not considered to be checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built up area, nor preserving the setting and special character of a historic town, and the site is considered to have only a moderate role in assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt at this location is considered to maintain a less essential gap between Skellow and Burghwallis, and the site is considered to have a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site has attracted a large number of objections from the local community following the Draft Policies & Proposed Sites consultation in 2018. It is recognised that the total site capacity of 340 dwellings was all proposed and significantly larger than the Town’s housing need requirement of 250 new homes. Objections have included loss of Green Belt, increase in highways and congestion to the area, lack of infrastructure to accommodate 340 new homes. Conclusion - still allocate site references 165/186 as the site provides the only option for the settlement to meet its local

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes housing need requirement without the use of land that is at high risk of flooding from main rivers (FRZ3). Further to this, most of the FRZ3 sites are also Green Belt and have been found to have less of a case for progressing through the site selection methodology compared to site 165/186. The concerns from the consultation have been taken into account and to help mitigate these issues the capacity is being reduced by 40 new homes to 300. Developer requirements require significant onsite green landscaping to the A1(M) on the west of the site to help with acoustic buffering and complement the existing tree corridor adjacent to the A1(M). New housing will also be setback from the existing properties on Crabgate Lane to the western edge of the site. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required and development will require bus provision. Contributions towards education and new onsite public open space will also be necessary.

185 Land at Mill Lane and Crabgate, 334 Rejected Housing Site – part of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 2/3 so allocation of the site would Skellow lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 186 Land of Crabgate Lane, Skellow See site Proposed Housing Site – see response as per site reference 165 above reference 165 above 273 Askern Road, Carcroft 226 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. In addition, the site is Green Belt and has been identified through the Phase 3 Green Belt Review as having a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 367 1-29 Buttermere Close Garages, 7 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Buttermere Close, Carcroft inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 398 Owston Road, Carcroft 39 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 401 Sandyfields View, Carcroft 7 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. 1005 Land to the West of Repton 6 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Road, Skellow inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 1089 Land to East of New Street, 155 Rejected Housing Site – all of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 so allocation of the site would lead to Owston Lane, Carcroft inappropriate development in a high flood risk area – the site fails the flood risk sequential test therefore. The Green Belt Review also identifies the site has a moderately weak case for progressing through the site selection process. Service Town-Village: Edlington 051 Plot 1, Land at Old Edlington 189 Rejected Housing Sites – Green Belt extensions to a settlement where sufficient 052 Plot 2, Land at Old Edlington 122 deliverable/developable sites already identified that exceed plan period requirement. It is not 054 Plot 4, Land at Old Edlington 251 considered that an exceptional circumstances case could be made to release Green Belt sites at the 057 Plot 7, Land at Old Edlington 137 settlement given this position. 328 Land off Tait Avenue, Edlington 59 375 Barnburgh House, Edlington 7 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 0.24 hectares in size and is primarily made up of a vacant building Lane, Edlington (Barnburgh House) and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 7 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the north and west and commercial uses to the south and east of the site. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP. The site is owned by DMBC and has been the subject of representations by the Council’s Local Investment Planning Team as alluded to by the Neighbourhood Plan. The site previously consisted of a former sheltered housing development which has now been demolished leaving a vacant and cleared site ready to be redeveloped. The site forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 and is planned to be brought forward as a new affordable housing scheme.

The sustainability appraisal concludes mainly positive and neutral effects for the site with the negative effect being distance to a train station, but it is noted the site is located positively for access to the core bus network.

Although the requirement has already been far exceeded at Edlington, it is considered that allocating this site for housing is, on balance and weighed up against all other reasonable options, justified and will provide additional housing on a good range of site size/types that may be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers noting that the other allocations at the settlement are generally large sites. The site is sustainable and provides the opportunity to further boost the supply of housing in line with national planning policy in one of the most sustainable settlements in the borough based on the

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Settlement Audit (although its population relegates Edlington back down as a Service Town/Village rather than Main Town).

Given the Council has a key role in the future disposal/development of the site as landowner, this is likely to significantly improve the scope for future development on the site to be in accordance with Policy HE1 thus helping to deliver a key policy of the Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan which has recently been successful at its Referendum. 384 Howbeck Drive, Edlington 45 Proposed Housing Site – The site is located to the west of Edlington and is 1.34 hectares in size and capable of accommodating 36 dwellings. The site is currently scrubland and is greenfield therefore. There are existing residential uses to the east and open countryside and agricultural uses to the north, west and south of the site. The site is currently allocated for Housing in the UDP. The site is owned by DMBC and has been the subject of representations by the Council’s Local Investment Planning Team as alluded to by the Neighbourhood Plan.

The sustainability appraisal largely identifies positive and neutral effects for the site. Significant negative effects associated with the sites proximity to a surface water body could be mitigated via best practice construction techniques. Negative effects on landscape character and the site performs neutrally for access to the core bus network so a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan may be required.

The site adjoins an existing housing area, mainly consisting of older people’s bungalows to the east, and the Green Belt adjoins the site to the west. There are no land use proposals for the site other than for housing. Were the site not to be re-allocated for housing, then the only other reasonable options would be to either: wash over and designate as Green Belt; or, wash over and designate as Residential Policy Area. The former would require demonstration of exceptional circumstances and it is not considered that any exist based on the Green Belt Review conclusion that Doncaster’s Green Belt is largely serving its intended purposes. As a medium sized greenfield site (1.3 hectares), it is not considered that a Residential Policy Area designation which, as its name suggests, largely identifies areas of existing residential land uses, could be justified in this instance for a greenfield site of this size on the edge of the urban area, so neither of these options are considered as being justified.

The Neighbourhood Plan is clear that it has ‘no views on whether or not this site should be allocated’ although there is obviously a strong view (Policy HE1) on the type of housing that should be provided on the site were it to be allocated through the Local Plan. Although the requirement has already been far exceeded at Edlington, it is considered that allocating this site for housing is, on balance and

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes weighed up against all other reasonable options, justified and will provide additional housing on a good range of site size/types that may be of interest to smaller and medium sized developers noting that the other allocations at the settlement are generally large sites. The site is sustainable and provides the opportunity to further boost the supply of housing in line with national planning policy in one of the most sustainable settlements in the borough based on the Settlement Audit (although its population relegates Edlington back down as a Service Town/Village rather than Main Town). Given the Council has a key role in the future disposal/development of the site as landowner, this is likely to significantly improve the scope for future development on the site to be in accordance with Policy HE1 thus helping to deliver a key policy of the Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan which has recently been successful at its Referendum. Service Town-Village: Finningley 136 Spring Lane, Finningley 97 Rejected Housing Sites - All of these sites are currently designated as Countryside Policy Area and 152 Land at Finningley 70 would form an extension to the settlement. They have the potential to accommodate a significant 189 Land at Melton Road, Finningley 827 number of units in total with the smallest site capable of providing 31 units, and the largest capable of 274 Land North of Cadeby Road, 191 827 dwellings. The exception to this being Site Reference 317 which is part Residential Policy Area Finningley (western part) and part Countryside Policy Area (eastern part). Given sufficient deliverable permissions 315 Land West of Station Road, 31 have already been identified that almost meet the settlement’s identified local need requirement it is Blaxton not considered that any allocations on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area are 317 Land East of Station Road, 51 necessary, nor can they be justified. The part of site reference 317 which is within the Residential Policy Blaxton Area will remain as such and this could therefore see some housing come forward on this part of the 349 Land East of Gatesbridge Park, 133 site as a windfall subject to the Development Management process. There is a small supply of 3 units Finningley on permissioned sites 1-4 units (as at April 2018) and the remaining shortfall (2 dwellings) is expected 448 Land to the East of Bawtry Road, 581 to be met by windfalls over the course of the plan period on sites within development limits. Finningley 1025 Site 1 (Brownfield) Land to the 321 East of Old Bawtry Road 1026 Site 2 (Greenfield) Land to the 568 East of Old Bawtry Road Service Town-Village: Sprotbrough 252 Spring Lane, Sprotbrough 185 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work 788 Land at Sprotbrough 259 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 872 Land at Melton Road, 177 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Sprotbrough concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 929 Land North of Cadeby Road, 80 Proposed Housing Site – the site has been found to be the least sensitive in Green Belt terms and Sprotbrough would provide the vast majority of the settlement’s remaining housing requirement on a site that is found to perform well through Sustainability Appraisal and mitigation identified for any negative effects. Service Town-Village: Tickhill 109 Land off Sunderland Street, 54 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Tickhill concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. See Site Ref 1028 below however. 281 Land off Worksop Road, Tickhill 10 Rejected Housing Site - Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Bridges. Splay in accordance with 85%ile Wet Weather Speed and a new footway required along the site frontage. 356 Land off Lindrick Lane, Tickhill 153 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 357 Land off Wong Lane, Tickhill 93 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 452 Land West of Dadsley Road, 116 Rejected Housing Site - Significant hedgerow removal required to provide access. Furthermore, Tickhill significant widening and improvements to Dadsley Road including footways and new street lighting, as well as improvements to the junction with Doncaster Road. Similar issues apply if access proposed via Wilsic Road or Peastack Lane. 824 Land Behind Lumley Drive, 205 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Tickhill concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 875 Site A, Land to East of Doncaster 65 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Road, Tickhill concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 876 Site B, Land to East of Doncaster 102 Rejected Housing Site - The site is 3.7 hectares in size and greenfield currently in agricultural use and Road, Tickhill capable of accommodating 102 dwellings. There are residential uses to the west of the site and a primary school with playing fields to the south of the site. Agricultural uses and a farm are located to the north and east. There is no direct access to the public highway network and it is not considered that the existing farm access can be utilised due to visibility problems. Although the site could possibly be brought forward in conjunction with Site 875, which adjoins the site to the north-west, this site was one of the ones filtered out due to Green Belt conclusions so on this basis site reference 876 cannot be supported either. Conclusion - reject site reference 876, access is dependent on adjacent Green Belt site (reference 875) which was filtered out at stage 5 of the process. 877 Site C, Land to East of Doncaster 87 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review Road, Tickhill concludes that the site has a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes 880 Land at Tickhill 88 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. See Site Ref 1028 below however. 930 Land between Lindrick Lane and 39 Rejected Housing Site - Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in Worksop Road, Tickhill accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Bridges - Highly unlikely to be able to meet standards. Access only achievable to Lindrick Lane (rural- very narrow) - Carriageway improvements footways and street lighting required. 1019 Apy Hill, Tickhill 79 Rejected Housing Site – Access Issues - Apy Hill Lane is a single track lane subject to national speed limit without footway provision or street lighting. Furthermore the junction that currently serves the industrial development is extremely substandard. In terms of geometry and visibility and therefore this site is not acceptable. Does not conform to NPPF 108 / 110 1021 Stud Farm, Tickhill 26 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work. 1024 Wilsic Lane, Tickhill 12 Rejected Housing Site – Access Issues - Adopted highway runs along the southern boundary connecting Wilsic Road to Dadsley Road and as such, there would be insufficient separation distance between this and a new access to serve the development. Significant improvements would be required to road on southern boundary to facilitate an access into the parcel of land including widening, footway provision and street lighting as well as offsite improvements. Significant cost implications possibly making development unviable. Does not conform to NPPF 108 / 110 1028 Sunderland Street, Tickhill 74 Proposed Housing Site - The site is 1.5 hectares in size and greenfield currently overgrown and scrubland in appearance. The site is capable of accommodating 74 new homes. There are existing residential uses to the west and north and the A1(M) runs along the eastern edge with open countryside to the south. This site previously consisted of 2 separate and larger site representations (References 109 & 880) which were both unsupportable due to the findings of the Green Belt Review (moderately weak and weak cases for progressing further). The landowners have since ‘merged’ these sites and reduced the extent significantly which has been re-appraised through the Green Belt Review and found to have a ‘moderate’ case for progressing through the further site selection process. The Green Belt Topic Paper sets out that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to amend the Green Belt at Tickhill in line with the relevant legal and national policy tests. The landowners’ agent has also provided technical highways assessment and access to Sunderland Street is possible, but ultimately may require the relocation of the existing garages to accommodate suitable access on to the site. It has also been confirmed that the landowner also owns one of the existing dwellings which is proposed to be demolished to assist with accessing the site at the rear of Sunderland Farm Close. The sustainability appraisal stage identified some possible negative effects for the site, including accessibility to public transport and distance to both primary and secondary schools so a Transport

Site Site Name/ Address: Potential Proposed to be supported or rejected through the emerging Local Plan? Ref: Number of new homes Assessment and Travel Plan will be necessary. Conclusion - allocate site 1028. This is the only site that has come through the site selection methodology to help contribute towards the Town’s housing requirement for the plan period and help deliver the Local Plan’s spatial strategy in line with Policy 2. Exceptional circumstances to take the site out of the Green Belt have been demonstrated and the negative effects in terms of the findings from the sustainability appraisal can be mitigated, as well as solutions identified to overcome possible access constraint with the garages on the frontage of the site and demolition of an existing dwelling in the same ownership as the site itself. 1030 Paper Mill Fields, Tickhill 207 Rejected Housing Site – This site is currently designated as Green Belt. The Phase 3 Green Belt Review (see site ref 824) concludes that the site has a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work.

8.3 Employment Sites

8.3.1 The Council has undertaken the Sustainability Appraisal of identified options for employment sites and the results of the appraisal are presented in Table 8.27.

8.3.2 There are significant positive effects seen for re-use of land and buildings (Objective 8Ai) for 9 sites due to them being large brownfield sites (site references: 093, 438, 440, 569, 748, 878, 984, 1032 and 1096) where redevelopment will bring back into use previously developed land. 4 of these sites (site references: 093, 438, 984 and 1096) would also have a significant positive effect on bringing back into effective use known contaminated land due to 50%+ of the site area being identified as suffering from contamination due to previous land uses on the site (Objective 8Aii). Sites 091, 254, 265, 428, 526, 1109 also have a positive effect on bringing contaminated land back into use.

8.3.3 There are significant negative effects for 4 of the sites (155, 251/1035 and 418) in relation to unstable land (Objective 8Aiv). Site 251/1035 has several large areas of unstable land identified and has not been the subject of any planning applications/history previously so this will require similar mitigation as per the above. Site 418 is a very large site and the areas of unstable land are very small and it should be noted that this site is also now a planning permission for a very large mixed use development (DN7 Project/Unity) which includes large areas of land not being developed within the site boundary and any issues with unstable land will have been addressed as part of the Development Management stage.

8.3.4 34 of the 65 sites (site references: 001, 013, 091, 093, 101, 149, 160, 183, 227, 308, 418, 421, 428, 438, 441, 461, 462, 529, 818, 932, 933, 934, 937/1031, 938, 984, 1016, 1023, 1031, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1107 and 1110) are located in flood risk zone 3 so negative effects against main river flooding (SA objective 11Ai).

8.3.5 A large number of the employment site options (50 out of 65) have potential for significant negative effects on surface water pollution (Objective 11Aii) due to the site proximity to a surface water body. Mitigation could be required therefore to reduce the potential for pollution through the use of best practice construction techniques in relation to storage age of chemicals on site and treatment of wastewater. These sites are: 001, 013, 091, 092, 093, 101, 149, 155, 159, 160, 183, 227, 258, 260, 299, 418, 421, 425, 428, 438, 441, 461, 462, 526, 569, 818, 878, 932, 933, 934, 937/1031, 938, 939, 941, 984, 1014, 1016, 1020, 1023, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1103 and 1113

8.3.6 14 sites have potential for significant negative effects on biodiversity (Objective 12Ai). Site 159 overlays a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 4.53 - Wadworth Carr Railway Sidings) which will need to be mitigated although it is noted that this is a very large site with potential for sensitive layout of development and buffering to avoid this designation. Site 227 overlays a Local Wildlife Site (site reference - 8.28 - New Close Wood) to the north-east corner of the site which would need to be buffered from development and a sensitive approach to layout of the development taken. Site 251 adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (Site Reference - 5.4 - Denaby Wood) which is largely to the north-west of the site and could be buffered from development. Site 418 contains 3 Local Wildlife Sites (reference 9.13a & 9.13b - Thorne Ashfield's/Poltontoft; &, reference 9.32 - Hopyard Hay Meadow). However, this is a very large mixed use development (Unity/DN7 Project) which has Outline planning permission approved (S106 signed May 2017) and there are large parts of the site which are not being proposed development. Appropriate mitigation and any compensation for biodiversity has been agreed as part of the Development Management process. The north-eastern boundary of site 461 overlays a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (Reference 3.3 - Size Ings) where any development will need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping in this part of the site. A Candidate Local Wildlife Site (Reference 2.52c – West End Pasture) lies adjacent to the north of site 878 and would need to be mitigated through buffering

and a sensitive approach to the layout of the development. Site 937/1031 includes a small Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 8.30 - Holme Wood) which would need to be mitigated were the site supported for development, such as sensitive approach to layout and buffering/landscaping to this designation. Site 941 overlays a Local Wildlife Sites (reference 4.31d - Hammond's Elders) although it is noted this is a very large sites so significant scope for avoidance through sensitive site layout and buffering/landscaping. Site 984 is a very large mixed use planning permission which overlays 2 designated Local Wildlife Sites (references 2.30 and 2.31 - Wheatley Park and Old Don Oxbows) which has been addressed as part of the determination of the application. Site 1016 is within a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (reference 2.52c) and appropriate mitigation and compensation would need to be agreed. This also applies to site 1032. The eastern boundary of site 1020 is adjacent to Finningley Gravel Pit Wildlife Site (ref 4.44) where any development would need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping within the development. Site 1097 is adjacent to Bentley Railway Embankments and Ponds Local Wildlife Site so development would need to be sensitive to layout and consider the need for buffering and landscaping within the development.

8.3.7 36 sites were identified as being potential strategic distribution sites (site references: 001, 013, 091, 092, 101, 149, 159, 160, 225, 227, 251, 258, 299, 418, 421, 425, 441, 461, 462; 517, 748, 932, 933, 934, 937, 938, 939, 941, 1014, 1020, 1023, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1099 and 1100) and therefore were assessed for their effects on landscape character and capacity (Objective 12Bi). Of those 36 sites, 3 were found as having neutral or positive impacts (sites 092, 258, 418). The other 33 were found to have potential negative effects on landscape character and capacity therefore an on-site landscaping scheme will be required to mitigate these effects. A further 18 sites (not identified as being suitable for strategic distribution uses) are urban and therefore perform positively against the criteria as well.

8.3.8 2 sites (references 159 and 308) have been identified as having significant negative effects on built heritage (Objective 13Ai) which may not be possible to overcome, even with mitigation. Site 159 is a large site situated in between the villages of Loversall, Wadworth, and the site of the former Rossington Colliery. There are no above ground heritage assets within the site. Loversall conservation area and its listed buildings include the grade 2* listed church, grade 2 listed Loversall Hall and the grade 2 listed dovecote in its former walled garden. Within the churchyard lies an early 14th century Tomb Chest which is also Grade 2*. These are all within 250m of the site at its northern extremity. The Wadworth conservation areas lies on elevated ground outside the 250m buffer though a small part of the conservation area at Carr Lane comes within this. The grade 1 listed Church of St. John the Baptist at Wadworth is 750m south of the site but is in an elevated position and its square tower is prominent in the landscape when approaching the village from the north. The grade 1 listed Wadworth Hall is 680m south west of the site on elevated ground above the site and its immediate garden and parkland setting is a park and garden of local historic interest.150m south of the site is the grade 2 listed Wellingley Farm and the separately grade 2 listed barn. Site 308, if supported as an allocation, would have a significant adverse impact on 2 pairs of grade 2 listed cottages (Nos. 1-4 Clay Lane). The cottages are separately listed as pairs. The site lies is immediately adjacent to and opposite Nos. 1-2 Clay Lane. There are no other above ground heritage assets within 250m of the site. Site 308 would potentially have a significant adverse impact on 2 pairs of Grade II listed cottages (Nos. 1-4 Clay Lane). The site lies opposite Nos. 1-2 Clay Lane. There are no other above ground heritage assets within 250m of the site.

8.3.9 Significant negative effects on archaeology (Objective 13Bi) have been found for 7 sites; references: 159, 308; 418; 517, 937/1031 and 941. These sites contain known archaeological remains of National or Regional significance where there has been little or no previous development or disturbance on the site and the likely survival of heritage assets is considered to be moderate or good. Site 418 is a planning permission for a very large mixed use development (DN7

Project/Unity) which includes large parts of the site that are not being developed and will have been considered as part of the Development Management process.

Table 7.27 Summary of the SA Results for Potential Employment Sites o Train Station

Site

Ref Site Name 3A(i) Distance t 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 8A(iv) Unstable Land 8B(i) Highways Capacity 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 11A(i) Main River Flooding 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area 12A(i) Biodiversity 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 13B(i) Archaeology 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land 14b Agricultural Land (with additional work)_Score 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 14C(i) Air Quality 001 Junction 6 M18, Thorne North 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 013 West Moor Park ‐ 0 + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 Land adj. to Fishlake Commercial Motors, Selby 091 Road, Thorne 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ ‐ + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 092 Balby Carr Bank, Balby ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 + + + + ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Marshgate, West of North 093 Bridge Road + + + + ‐ ++ ++ 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Land North of A614 / M18 101 Junction, Thorne + ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Nutwell South, Nutwell Lane, 149 Armthorpe ‐ ‐ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? ‐‐ ‐‐ 0 'Site A', Leach Lane Industrial 155 Estate, Mexborough + + + + + + 0 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + 0 + + 0 + + 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 159 Land around Wadworth ‐ ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 + ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ? ? ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 Thorne South Urban Extension, Bradholme Farm, 160 Thorne + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 (Surplus Land) Kirk Sandall Waste Water Treatment 183 Works ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 RHADS Site 3, Junction of Hayfield Lane and Gate House 225 Lane ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? + + 0 0 0 West Moor Park, Holme 227 Wood Lane, Armthorpe ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ? ? 0 0 0 254 Herten Triangle, Glwice Way ‐ + + ‐ + + ++ 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 Plot 1 Lakeside, Potteric Carr 258 Road ‐ 0 + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 0 + ‐ + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 Plot 4B Lakeside, Carolina 260 Way ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + + ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate 263 West + + + + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 0 Tear Drop Site, Wilmington 265 Drive / Stadium Way ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane ‐ ‐ + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Land East and West of Clay 308 Lane West, Long Sandall ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 + ‐‐ ‐‐ + + + 0 ‐ 0 418 The DN7 Initiative + + + + + 0 0 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ 0 + ‐‐ ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Tudworth Hall Farm, 421 Tudworth Road, Hatfield 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 Land at Loversall Farm, 425 Loversall ‐ ‐ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0

o Train Station

Site

Ref Site Name 3A(i) Distance t 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 8A(iv) Unstable Land 8B(i) Highways Capacity 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 11A(i) Main River Flooding 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area 12A(i) Biodiversity 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 13B(i) Archaeology 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land 14b Agricultural Land (with additional work)_Score 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 14C(i) Air Quality Land at Wharf Road and 428 Whittington Street 0 + 0 + ‐ + ++ 0 0 + + 0 ‐ ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Former Wheatley Hills Middle 432 School, Leger Way ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ ? 0 0 ? + + 0 0 0 Waterfront (East), Chappell 438 Drive + + + + ‐ ++ ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ ‐ Civic And Cultural Quarter, 440 Waterdale + + + + + ++ 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ Land at Carcroft Common, 441 Carcroft 0 + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ 0 + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Redhouse Lane (a), North 461 West, Adwick ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Safeguarded Cargo Area, 517 Robin Hood Airport ‐ 0 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 0 0 South Quay, off Lakeside 526 Boulevard ‐ ‐ + ‐ + + ++ ‐ 0 + + 0 + + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 BLP Expansion, Kirk Sandall 529 Industrial Estate + + + + + 0 0 0 0 + + + ‐ + + + 0 + 0 0 + ? ? 0 0 0 Askern Saw Mills, High Street, 569 Askern ‐ + 0 + + ++ 0 ‐ 0 0 + ‐ 0 + ‐ + ‐ ? 0 + + 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 Doncaster Sheffield Airport 748 Ltd, First Avenue, Auckley ‐ + 0 ‐ + ++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 + + + 0 ‐ 0 Land off Hatfield Lane, 818 Armthorpe ‐ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + + ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? 0 0 ? ? 0 ‐ ‐‐ 0 Land at Bankwood Lane Industrial Estate, Rossington 878 (Employment) ‐ + 0 + + ++ + ‐ 0 0 + + + + + + ‐‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Site 1, Land at West Moor 932 Farm, Armthorpe ‐ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 Site 2, Land at West Moor 933 Farm, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 Site 3, Land at West Moor 934 Farm, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ 0 West Moor Park East, Holme 937 Wood Lane, Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0 938 Site 1, Junction 4, M18 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 939 Site 2, Junction 4, M18 ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Site 2, Land East of Poplars 941 Farrm, Hurst Lane, Auckley ‐ + 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0 Former McCormick Tractors International, Wheatley Hall 984 Road, Wheatley ‐ + + 0 + ++ ++ ‐ 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ 0 + + ‐‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Land at Holme Wood, 1014 Armthorpe ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 1016 Land to East of Attero ‐ 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + + ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0

o Train Station

Site

Ref Site Name 3A(i) Distance t 3A(ii) Distance to Bus Stop (SYPTE Core Network) 3A(iii) Access to Cycle Network 3B(i) Access to Existing Centre 7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety 8A(i) Encourage the Re‐use of Land and Buildings 8A(ii) Contaminated Land 8A(iii) Landfill Sites 8A(iv) Unstable Land 8B(i) Highways Capacity 8B(ii) Fibre Broadband Coverage 9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 11A(i) Main River Flooding 11A(ii) Surface Water Flooding 11A(iii) Areas Benefitting from Flood Defences 11A(iv) EA Flood Warning or Alert Area 12A(i) Biodiversity 12B(i) Landscape Capacity 13A(i) Heritage Impacts 13B(i) Archaeology 14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation 14A(ii) Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land 14b Agricultural Land (with additional work)_Score 14B(i) Groundwater Source Protection 14B(ii) Pollution to Surface Water Bodies 14C(i) Air Quality 1020 Bank End Quarry ‐ + + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + 0 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 + ? ? ? ‐ ‐‐ 0 Sewage Works, Lands End 1023 Road, Thorne + ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ‐ + + + ‐ ‐ 0 + 0 ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 1031 West Moor Park, East ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 0 ‐‐ ? ? 0 0 ‐‐ 0 Site A ‐ East of Bankwood 1032 Lane, Rossington ‐ + 0 + + ++ + ‐ 0 + + + + + + + ‐‐ ‐ 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Site B ‐ Northern end of 1033 Bankwood Lane, Rossington ‐ 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Land off Hill Top Road, 1035 Denaby Main ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 ‐‐ + + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 0 ‐ ? ? 0 0 0 1096 Land At Marshgate, Doncaster + + + + ‐ ++ ++ 0 0 ‐ + 0 ‐ + ‐ + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Steel Supplies Limited, Arksey 1097 Lane, Bentley 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 + + + ‐ + ‐ + ‐‐ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 Land Off Little Lane, Clay 1098 Lane, Doncaster ‐ + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + ‐ + 0 0 + + + 0 ‐‐ 0 Land South Of Holme Wood 1099 Lane, Armthorpe ‐ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + ‐ ‐ + ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Blaxton Quarry, Mosham 1100 Road, Auckley ‐ + + ‐ + 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + + + + ‐ ‐ 0 + ? ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 1102 Land at Balby Carr Bank, Balby ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ + + 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 + + ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 Plot B3c, Water Vole Way, 1103 Balby ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 0 + + ‐ + + + + ‐ ? 0 + + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0 CH Power Tools Ltd, Hutton Business Park, Hangthwaite 1107 Road, Carcroft + + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ 0 ‐ + 0 ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 0 0 Former Pyramid Printing Works, Bear Gardens, Great 1109 North Road, Adwick Le Street ‐ 0 + 0 + + ++ 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 ? 0 + ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 Marshgate Depot, Friars Gate, 1110 Doncaster + + + + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 ‐ + + + 0 + ‐ 0 + + + 0 0 ‐ 1113 Carr Hill, Balby Carr ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 0 0 0 0 ‐ + 0 + 0 + + ‐ ? 0 0 + ? ? 0 ‐‐ 0

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Employment Sites

8.3.10 The Housing & Employment Site Selection Methodology & Results Report – Publication Version (June 2019) sets out overall conclusions and decisions on site allocations. Summaries for each settlement have also been prepared by the Council and the reasons for selecting and rejecting employment sites for inclusion in the Local Plan are summarised in Table 8.28 below.

Table 7.28 Council Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Employment Sites

Planning Permissions

Site Site Name Gross Permission Type and Status Ref Site Area (ha)

418 Unity (DN7) 428.37 Outline planning permission for industrial & warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use scheme 522 Tornado, Redhouse Interchange 6.91 Development complete – 2 x warehouse units 528 Brooklands Road Carcroft 0.76 Development complete – 1 x warehouse unit Common 569 Askern Saw Mills 15.14 Outline planning permission for office/industrial/warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use scheme 730 Bullrush Grove, Balby 2.04 Development complete – 13 x industrial units 733 Capitol Park, Omega Boulevard, 8.94 Full Planning Permission and started. Units as part of a the wider of Capitol Park re-development Thorne (multiple uses) 734 Junction off Hayfield Lane/Third 1.27 Development complete – 22 x 2 storey office units Avenue, Auckley 735 Quest Park, Silk Road, Wheatley 1.41 Development complete - 5 x industrial units (this also includes site ref 520) 736 Land and buildings on the north 6.55 Full planning permission for 2 x warehouse units. side of Land Ends Road, Thorne 743 Broomhouse Lane Industrial 0.74 Full planning permission for 13 x industrial units. Estate, Wood View, Edlington 745 West Moor Park Extension Unit C 16.35 1 x warehouse distribution unit – completed in 2016 746 Former Tyco Factory, Wheatley 0.71 Development complete including 3 x industrial units as part of a wider hybrid development scheme Hall Road 747 iPort, Rossington 403.89 Strategic inter-model logistics park incorporating rail freight terminal. Approx. 50% complete 748 Doncaster Sheffield Airport, First 14.25 Outline planning permission for Business Park (B1/B2/B8) Avenue, Auckley 770 Zone B3, Carr Hill, Balby Carr 4.69 Development complete for a range of units (B2/B8 uses) 818 Land off Hatfield Lane, Armthorpe 12.74 Outline permission for 2 x industrial units (reserved matters pending)

Site Site Name Gross Permission Type and Status Ref Site Area (ha)

984 Former McCormick Tractors 40.93 Outline planning permission for office/industrial/warehouse units as part of a wider mixed-use International, Wheatley Hall Road, scheme. Wheatley 1096 Land at Marshgate, Doncaster 5.63 Outline planning permission for mixed use (former ref 093) 1098 (Surplus land) Kirk Sandall Waste 2.54 Outline planning permission for 6 Industrial Units (former ref 183) Treatment Works 1099 West Moor Park Extension, Holme 33.45 Outline planning permission for storage & distribution units. (former ref 227) Wood Lane, Armthorpe 1100 Blaxton Quarry, Mosham Road, 5.22 Outline planning permission for mixed use commercial and industrial development Auckley 1101 Parkside Industrial Estate, 5.23 Full planning permission for industrial units Wheatley Hall Road, Wheatley 1110 Marshgate Depot, Friars Gate, 2.89 Full planning permission for office and warehouse use Doncaster TOTAL (ha)

Additional Allocations

Site Site Name Gross Reason for allocation Ref Site Area (ha)

001 Junction 6 M18, Thorne North 73.63 As with all the potential sites in the M18 Corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It also scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It provides an excellent job creation opportunity in the north of the borough and it will complement the successful existing industrial estates to the north of Thorne. There is an outline planning application pending for employment uses. The site has support through the Informal Consultation on the Local Plan which took place in September – October 2018 (see Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation Summary for further

Site Site Name Gross Reason for allocation Ref Site Area (ha)

information). The Doncaster Employment Land Review suggests that if allocated 50% of the site could be developed in the plan period (36.8ha). Due to the extension of the plan period this would now equate to 70% of the site could be developed in the plan period. The majority of development could be for B8 and some for B2 (85/25% split). 092 Balby Carr Bank, Balby 11.25 This site is within an existing well used successful employment site within the Main Urban Area and therefore helps to provide additional land in that location. It has good links locally and is close to a large population. 258 Plot 1 Lakeside, Potteric Carr Road 8.48 This site is within an existing employment area within the Main Urban Area and therefore helps to provide land next to a well-used employment area which has good links locally and is close to a large population. 441 Land at Carcroft Common, 49.28 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It Carcroft scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is a reserve employment site within the Unitary Development Plan and is therefore not within the Green Belt. There is a requirement the development to incorporate flood mitigation measures. There is a wider aspiration for the construction of a Trans-Pennine link from Manchester to Hull which this site will benefit from. The construction of the A1M to A19 link road will also form part of that new link. The site is within an area of high deprivation and job opportunities on this site would be greatly beneficial to the north of the borough. It will also help to re-address the balance of private sector investment which has been spent in the south of the borough. Due to the current infrastructure constraints it is considered that approximately 25% of the site (12 ha) would come forward before the end of the plan period. The majority of development will be for B8 and some for B2 (70/30% split). 517 Safeguarded Cargo Area, 44.05 This site is not suitable for general employment use as it is air related, indeed it is shown as Doncaster Sheffield Airport Maintenance Repair and Overhaul in the Airport masterplan. There are archaeology issues which will need to be addressed. It is proposed to allocate this site but as it is air related it does not contribute to the employment land supply. 878 Site A, East of Bankwood Lane, 17.68 This site is within an existing well used successful employment site within Rossington and therefore /1032 Rossington (former site ref 878) helps to provide additional land in that location. It has good links both locally to a wider area via Great Yorkshire Way. It is close to a large population. 941* Site 2, Land East Of Poplars Farm, 68.54 This site is currently within the Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Hurst Lane, Auckley Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site benefits from being in Flood

Site Site Name Gross Reason for allocation Ref Site Area (ha)

Zone 1. The inclusion of this site reflects the importance of Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the support for it within the Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Plan (which lists the airport as one of the seven spatial priorities for the region) The airport is viewed as a catalyst for business development, inward investment and job creation. The site is supported by improved access through the Great Yorkshire Way. There is clear developer intention to develop this site. It is considered that the whole site (68 ha) would come forward before the end of the plan period. The majority of development will be for B8 (60/40% split). The SA scores show that there are archaeology issues which will need to be addressed. *this site is isolated based on the HELAA methodology however Doncaster Sheffield Airport is a local priority and a regional spatial priority within the Sheffield City Region

Rejected Allocations

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) 013 West Moor Park North 86.00 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is recognised that this site could build upon the success of the existing West Moor Park to the south. Locating sites close together benefits employers through improved public transport links and road connectivity such as the proposed widening of West Moor Link. The Employment Land Review suggests that the majority of development would be for B8 and some for B2 (85/25% split). The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 091* Land adj to Fishlake Commercial 0.61 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Motors, Selby Road, Thorne Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site is to the west of allocation

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) reference 001 and then Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site (091) could be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. 101 Land North of A614/M18 6.87 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Junction, Thorne Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. The site is to the west of allocation reference 001 and then Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site (091) could be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. 149 Nutwell South, Nutwell Lane, 66.06 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Armthorpe Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is also within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan boundary and shown as being a Green Wedge. Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider all potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, and this site was not chosen for allocation. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 160 Thorne South Urban Extension, 115.33 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it Bradholme is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Green’ in HELAA – attractive to the market. There is a requirement for flood mitigation and the creation of wildlife habitats and the developer can address this through the masterplan/design statement. The Informal Consultation on the Local Plan in September – October 2018 produced a number of consultation responses in opposition to this site - see Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation Summary for further information. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough.

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) 225 RHADS Site 3, junction of Hayfield 3.34 Doncaster Sheffield Airport is a regional and local priority and there are a number of sites in the Lane and Gate House Lane vicinity which are existing and/or have planning permission. A large site (ref 941) has been allocated to the south west of the airport. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. Sites other than this one has been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 251/ Hill Top Road, Denaby Main 11.53 There are limited employment sites in the west of the borough and this site is adjacent to the 1035 successful Denaby Lane Industrial Estate. However this site is within the Green Belt and Stage 3 of the Green Belt Review undertaken by ARUP states that the site has boundaries of mixed strength and is Moderately Performing against Green Belt purposes. Exceptional circumstances are required to justify the loss of Green Belt land and it is considered that there is a lack of exceptional circumstances for the allocation of this site at this time due to the availability of other sites across the borough which are not within the Green Belt. The Colliers Employment Land Review states that the site is not particularly attractive for industrial development and that viability is an issue. 254 Herten Triangle, Glwice Way 1.83 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete for A3 and A4 use. 265 Tear Drop Site, Wilmington 0.5 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete as an extension to an existing Drive/Stadium Way hotel. 299 Orchard Farm, Hurst Lane 11.45 Site no longer available for employment use – development complete as an agricultural equipment showroom and training area 421* Tudworth Hall Farm, Tudworth 23.44 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it Road, Hatfield is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. Highway improvements are required and the site is isolated from the existing built form of Thorne therefore it would be difficult to secure public transport provision. It is considered that there are better located sites in the area which are more suitable for employment use. 425* Land at Loversall Farm, Loversall 13.64 Classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. Site is within the Green Belt and there are no exceptional circumstances at this time for inclusion in the Local Plan especially since there are other far more deliverable sites across the borough which do not impact upon the Green Belt. There are also access issues – there is no obvious way of accessing the site as an access on to the M18 would not be feasible or viable.

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) 432 Former Wheatley Hills Middle 5.40 Site is a housing allocation for approximately 134 units. School, Leger Way 462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft 57.62 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within the Green Belt. The Green Belt Review Phase 3 states that there is a moderate case for including the site within further site selection work as it has a mixed boundary and is a moderately performing Green Belt site. There are no exceptional circumstances at this time for inclusion in the Local Plan particularly since there are other sites in the borough which are not within the Green Belt. There is also a wider aspiration for the construction of a Trans-Pennine link from Manchester to Hull. The route of which is yet to be confirmed - it is therefore unknown at this stage if there will be a need for the route to utilise some of this site. 932* Site 1, Land at West Moor Farm, 71.32 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it Armthorpe is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. This site could only be developed if site ref 013 and site ref 933 to the south east were allocated and developed in order for access issues to be addressed. 933* Site 2, Land at West Moor Farm, 54.48 As with all the potential sites within the M18 corridor, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it Armthorpe is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. This site could only be developed if Site 013 to the south was allocated and developed in order for access issues to be addressed. 934* Site 3, Land at West Moor Farm, 13.7 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. Armthorpe It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. Core Strategy Policy CS3: Countryside also applies as it continues to protect the countryside to the east of the borough through Countryside Protection Policy Area. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is to the east on the M18 and there more

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. There are also access issues and it is an irregular shape which would require site 937/1031 and site 938 to be developed first. 937/ West Moor Park East, Holme 62 / 78.73 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. 1031* Wood Lane, Armthorpe It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. The majority of the site is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. The site is to the east of the M18 and more isolated than other options that are available across the borough. There are other options directly adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development such as long term public transport access. There are also concerns over vehicular access from Junction 4. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for this plan period. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 938* Site 1 Junction 4, M18 3.51 As with all the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Zone 3. It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. It is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider all potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. It is to the east on the M18 and there more deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. It would need to be combined with Site 937/1031 and site ref 939 in order to secure additional benefits. 939* Site 2 Junction 4, M18 3.43It scores similarly to the other sites through the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. It is also within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. It is to the east on the M18 and there more deliverable sites which are adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing public transport access. It would need to be combined with site ref 937\1031 and site ref 938 in order to secure additional benefits. 1014* Land at Holme Wood, Armthorpe 6.31 The site scores similarly to other sites through Sustainability Appraisal process. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP Proposals Map. The majority of the site is within the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan as Countryside Policy Protection Area (as included in the Core Strategy in Policy CS3). Armthorpe Parish Council were given the opportunity to consider potential employment sites during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and as a result of that process there is already a substantial amount of employment land within the Parish boundary. The site is to the east on the M18 and more isolated than other options that are available across the borough. There are other options directly adjacent to the main urban area and main towns which offer better opportunities for securing sustainable development particularly in securing long term public transport access. Sites other than this one have been chosen for allocation in order to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 1016 Land East of Attero 5.3 Located adjacent to a well-used employment site. The site is currently within the Green Belt. The Green Belt Review Phase 3 states that there is a strong case for inclusion within further Site Selection work: Strong Boundary and Weakly Performing – Moderately Performing against Green Belt purposes. However, it is considered that there are no exceptional circumstances for the site’s inclusion in the Local Plan as there is existing land on Bankwood Lane which has yet to be developed. 1020 Bank End Quarry 51.9 The site is currently within the Countryside Policy Area is designated by the UDP and is mainly within Flood Zone 2. It is classified as ‘Reserve’ in HELAA – attractive to the market after other sites have been developed. It is not classified as isolated in HELAA, however it has limited access to the strategic highway network and is not close to a major population. It is considered that there are more sustainable sites in the area and has not been allocated due to the amount of employment land available and allocated at the airport and therefore there is a need to provide a balanced distribution of employment land across the Borough. 1023* Sewage Works, Lands End Road, 2.23 As with many of the potential sites, this site fails the flood risk sequential test as it is within Flood Thorne Zone 3. It is currently within Countryside Policy Area as designated by the UDP. Site 001 is an

Site Site Name Gross Reason for site being rejected Ref Site Area (ha) allocation which is to the north of this site. When Site 001 is developed out or substantially developed out, this site be a possible extension to it. The allocation of this site would exceed the supply of employment land for the plan period. *in line with the HELAA methodology, these sites are isolated but also available and marketable and deliverable. Some are also reserve sites.

8.4 Mineral Proposals

8.4.1 The Council has considered options for Areas of Search for minerals, which are broad areas of defined known resources.

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

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

Areas of Search

8.4.4 Council completed appraisal matrices for the Areas of Search considered are set out in Appendix Q of this report. The results of the work are summarised in Table 8.28.

Table 7.28 Summary of SA Results for Potential Areas of Search

Site Ref Name Mineral Type Land08d Unstable 12a Biodiversity Landscape Impacts 13a Heritage Land Agricultural 14b Groundwater 14c Protection Source to 14d Pollution Bodies Water Surface 14e Air Quality Road Network Waterways Area No. 3 South of Rossington off 0 - 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + - 3 B6463 Sand and Gravel 5 Area No. 5 West of Bawtry Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - 6 Area No. 6 North of Spital Hill Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + - Area No. 44 Land between Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and 0 -- 0 - ? - -- 0 + - 44 Armthorpe Lane Sand and Gravel Area No. 46 east of the A638 (Great 0 -- 0 - ? - -- 0 + - 46 North Road) Sand and Gravel

Area No. 47 Land between the M18 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - 47 and Gatewood Lane Sand and Gravel

Area No. 47.1 Land between the M18 0 - 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - 47.1 and Gatewood Lane Sand and Gravel

Area No. 50 Land to the East of the -- -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + - 50 M18 (near Armthorpe junction 4) Sand and Gravel Area No. 51 Land the West of the 0 -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + - 51 A614 Sand and Gravel 52 Area No. 52 Hatfield Woodhouse Sand and Gravel -- -- 0 ------0 + -

Area No. 54 Land between Gatewood 0 -- 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + - 54 Lane and the A614 (Brick Hill Carr) Sand and Gravel 55 Area No. 55 Brierholme Carr Sand and Gravel 0 -- 0 - ? -- -- 0 + -

Area No. 58 Land to the east of the 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - 58 A614 and north of the B1396 Sand and Gravel

Site Ref Name Mineral Type Waterways Waterways 08d Unstable Land 08d Unstable Biodiversity 12a Landscape Impacts 13a Heritage Land Agricultural 14b Groundwater 14c Protection Source to Pollution 14d Water Bodies Surface Quality Air 14e Road Network Area No. 64 Land between Barnby 0 -- 0 - ? 0 -- 0 + - 64 Dun and Dunsville Sand and Gravel Area No. 65 Land to the south of ------0 + - 65 Dunsville Sand and Gravel 66 Area No. 66 The Lings Dunsville Sand and Gravel 0 - 0 - ? -- 0 0 + - Area No. 68 Warmsworth- Magnesian 0 -- 0 - - 0 -- - + + 68 Conisbrough Limestone Magnesian 0 -- - - - 0 -- 0 + - 85 Area No. 85 Skelbrooke Limestone Area No. 88 – Stainton and South of Magnesian -- -- 0 - - 0 -- 0 + - 88 the M18 Limestone

8.4.5 The appraisal of areas of search did not identify any significant positive effects. Significant negative effects were identified for:

. Objective 8d – Unstable Land: Site references 50, 52, 65, and 88.

. Objective 12a – Biodiversity: Site references 5, 6, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 64, 65, 68, 85, and 88.

. Objective 13a – Heritage: Site reference 65.

. Objective 14c – Groundwater Source Protection Zone: Site references 50, 51, 52, 55, 65, and 66.

. Objective 14d – Pollution to surface water bodies: Site references 3, 5, 6, 44, 46, 47, 47.1, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 64, 65, 68, 85, and 88.

8.4.6 All other scores were either minor, negligible of uncertain.

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Areas of Search

8.4.7 Reasons for selecting and rejecting Areas of Search are summarised in Table 8.29 below. More information is provided in the Council’s Report ‘Stage Two: Assessing, Evaluating and Proposing Minerals Areas of Search.’

Table 7.29 Summary of Areas of Search for inclusion in the Local Plan

ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons

Mineral extracted at borehole location. Limited borehole data 3 90.78 Sand and Gravel N and poor quality. Routing on a B class road may impact on the amenity of Rossington. The two boreholes within the area of search show a significant 5 283.66 Sand and Gravel Y mineral resource. However, the routing on ‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads through either Tickhill or Bawtry may be an issue. The four boreholes within the area of search show a significant 6 337.02 Sand and Gravel N mineral resource, but proximity to local biodiversity assets makes it an unreasonable option as an area of search. The boreholes within the area of search show a potentially 44 100.92 Sand and Gravel N good mineral resource. However, there is currently a pending appeal decision for housing. Mineral already extracted at borehole location. Limited 46 197.22 Sand and Gravel N borehole data and the granting of permission for a 25 year solar panel power park. The boreholes within the area of search show a significant mineral resource. Extraction has taken place within the surrounding area. The southern area has been developed as a 47 323.01 Sand and Gravel Y leisure facility with fishing and holiday lodges. A large ‘off road’ / motocross facility is also located off Holme Wood Lane. It is proposed therefore to re-draw the boundary and allocate only northern part as an area of search. The numerous boreholes within the area of search show a 50 457.77 Sand and Gravel Y potentially good mineral resource. Prior extraction has taken place within the nearby area. The numerous boreholes within the area of search show a potentially good mineral resource. However, historic 51 462.18 Sand and Gravel N permissions show extraction may have already taken place in this area.

Minerals Sites

8.4.8 Appraisal matrices for the mineral sites considered are set out in Appendix R of this report. The results of the work are summarised in the Table 8.30.

Table 8.30 Summary of the SA Results for Minerals Sites

Site Source of

Ref Site Name Site 08dLand Unstable Score Score 12a Biodiversity Minerals Landscape 13a Impact Heritage Score Land Agricultural 14b Score Groundwater 14c Protection Source Score 14d to Pollution Water Bodies Surface Score Quality Air 14e Score Score Road Network Waterways Score Johnsons Field, off 023 Holmewood Call for Sites 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 - - Lane, Armthorpe Finningley 035 Quarry Call for Sites 0 -- 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - Extension Paddock at 044 South View, Call for Sites 0 - 0 0 ? 0 -- 0 + - Austerfield

Land at Old Mill Field, off 066 Call for Sites 0 - 0 - ? 0 0 0 + - Epworth Road East, Hatfield

Hazel Lane 080 Quarry, Call for Sites 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 + - Hampole

Holme Hall 102 Quarry, Call for Sites -- -- 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + - Stainton Lane

Site Source of Score Score Score Biodiversity 12a Minerals Landscape 13aImpact Heritage Score Land Agricultural 14b Score Groundwater 14c Protection Source Score 14dPollution to Surface Water Bodies Score Quality 14eAir Score Road Score Network Waterways Score Ref Site Name Site 08d Unstable Land

Warmsworth Quarry 235 Extension, Call for Sites 0 -- 0 - - 0 0 0 + + Sheffield Road, Warmsworth

Land East of 238 Kirk Lane Call for Sites 0 - - 0 - 0 -- 0 + +

Austerfield Quarry, Land 420 Call for Sites North of 0 - 0 0 + -- 0 0 + - Highfield Lane Land at Thorne Additional 780 Road 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + - call for sites

Land at Grange Additional 1011 Farm, call for sites 0 - 0 0 - 0 -- 0 + - Finningley 2017

8.4.9 The appraisal of areas of search did not identify any significant positive effects. Significant negative effects were identified for:

. Objective 8d – Unstable Land: Site reference 102.

. Objective 12a – Biodiversity: Site references 23, 35, 102 and 235.

. Objective 14c – Groundwater Source Protection Zone: Site reference 420.

. Objective 14d – Pollution to surface water bodies: Site references 323, 35, 44, 102, 238 and 1011.

Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Minerals Sites

8.4.10 Reasons for selecting and rejecting potential minerals sites are summarised in Table 8.31.

Table 8.31 Reasons for Selecting and Rejecting Potential Minerals Sites ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons It is proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal 023 13.2 Sand and Gravel Y for minerals development as it contains 500,000 tonnes of sand and gravel to contribute toward the landbank of permissions. The representation contains sharp sand and gravel which will contribute toward the landbank of permissions. The proposal 035 25 Sand and Gravel Y has been granted permission for extraction 14/00672/MINA – for a 4 year life span). This representation for minerals development was granted 420 5 Sand Y permission as a site extension in 2015. Permission granted until 22/12/2029. It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as an allocation due to the current landbank of permissions being 080 11.3 Limestone dolomite N around 25 years. This will be reconsidered as part of the 5 year review of the local plan.

It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as an Magnesium allocation due to the current landbank of permissions being 102 38 N around 25 years. This will be reconsidered as part of the 5 year Limestone review of the local plan.

*It is proposed to allocate an area immediately adjacent the Magnesium existing quarry as an ‘area of search’ for industrial mineral, and 235 27.6 Limestone Y* the further westerly half of the field as safeguarded beyond the plan period specifically for industrial mineral. (Industrial)

It is not proposed to allocate this representation within the Local Plan – see summary above. The representation could 238 11.2 Clay N be determined directly through an application to the Planning Authority. Pre-application talks would be recommended. It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to accessibility issues, 044 1.05 Sand and Gravel N and no information on mineral type estimated output, reserve, proposed operations. It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to potential impacts relating to local amenity and accessibility. No site specific 066 2.13 Sand and Gravel N information has been provided for mineral type, estimated output, reserve, proposed operations and timescales. Restoration proposal to housing is also inappropriate in the countryside.

ID Area (Ha) Mineral Type Y/N Summary Reasons It is not proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal for minerals development due to no information on 780 2.56 Sand and Gravel N mineral type estimated output, reserve, proposed operation.

It is proposed to bring forward this representation as a proposal Sharp Sand and for minerals development as it has potential to provide 1.55Mt 1011 40 Y Gravel of sand and gravel to contribute toward the landbank of permissions.

8.5 Cumulative Effects of Site Allocations

8.5.1 The SEA Directive and SEA Regulations require that the secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects of the Local Plan are assessed. In particular, it is important to consider the combined sustainability effects of the policies and proposals of the Local Plan both alone and in-combination with other plans and programmes.

8.5.2 Potential cumulative effects associated with sites relate to:

 Housing - As previously identified, there are significant negative effects in respect to unstable land (objective 8Aiv), biodiversity (objective 12a), archaeology (objective 13b), and pollution to surface water bodies (objective 14d) for a number of the allocations in the plan. These are considered as being generally site-specific issues that require mitigation on a site by site basis rather than being a cumulative effect resulting from the allocation of a number of sites. There are negative effects however in respect to both primary and secondary school provision for a number of sites (objectives 8 Biii & 8Biv) so there is potential for negative cumulative effects in respect to these criteria.

 Employment – akin to the findings in respect to housing sites, most of the significant negative effects in relation to employment allocations are considered as being generally site-specific mitigation issues rather than having potential for significant negative cumulative effects. There is potential for cumulative negative effects in respect to highways capacity (Objective 8Bi). There are also potential cumulative negative effects in relation to flood risk (objective 11Ai) which will require appropriate mitigation informed by site specific flood risk assessments, including managing any residual risks.

8.5.3 Without mitigation the cumulative effects of development of the housing and employment sites could exacerbate these problems, notwithstanding efforts of policies in the plan requiring appropriate mitigation and/or developer contributions and potential to secure Section 106 contributions on a site by site basis to offset any negative impacts, including towards education provision and highways/public transport schemes. The developer requirements for the sites included in the local plan (Appendix 1) also identify site specific mitigation which is additional and complimentary to standard policy requirements.

Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps

9.1 Conclusions

Proposed Spatial Development Strategy and Policies

9.1.1 The spatial development strategy is predicted to have a range of positive effects overall which are likely to promote sustainable development across the borough. The provision of around 18,400 new homes and sufficient employment land to generate around 20,000 new jobs, with supporting infrastructure will help to create the basis for advancing balanced growth across the borough.

9.1.2 Principal positive effects associated with the implementation of the strategy and its attendant policies include:

o The concentration of development in and adjacent to existing developed areas of various scales, thereby helping to make best use of access to jobs and services, minimise travel and promote self-containment;

o Maintenance of the general extent of the Green Belt and use of the sequential approach in respect of flood risk;

o Re-use of previously developed land where possible, including strategic regeneration sites which will provide for significant proportions of the overall development requirement;

o The promotion of principles of sustainable development across the borough through such measures as: the protection and enhancement of natural and cultural resources, encouraging non-car modes of travel and the creation of a Green Infrastructure network which serves as a focus for a healthy and active community;

o Investment in strategic and community infrastructure which will help to ensure that the borough as a whole and specific communities benefit from the provision of adequate, accessible services;

o Policies that specifically promote sustainable centres which meet the needs of local communities and the borough as a whole; and

o Policies that are sufficiently flexible to allow for the development of appropriate dwellings in the countryside.

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

9.1.4 The preferred option will see housing and employment growth over and above that required to meet local needs, with additional effects associated with the loss of additional greenfield land, consumption of resources and greenhouse gas emissions. There will therefore be additional effects within the Plan area. The Local Plan seeks to mitigate such effects where it can, e.g. by promoting transport choice and optimising the use of previously developed land and buildings. The preferred option could have significant positive effects at the city region scale associated with additional employment growth, re-balancing of the economy and a contribution to wider housing needs.

9.1.5 Suggestions for amendment of the policies to improve their sustainability performance are made in this SA Report, although these are relatively minor in character.

Proposed Development Sites

9.1.6 The Council has undertaken extensive work on the appraisal of potential housing and employment sites and areas of search and proposed sites for minerals. The work includes identification of potential significant effects through Sustainability Appraisal and identification of preferred housing and employment sites, together with any proposed mitigation which is now being consulted on.

9.1.7 Overall the appraisal identified that for those housing sites in Doncaster, the majority of effects identified were either minor or negligible, with significant positives identified for affordability and for a number of sites with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The majority of the significant negatives identified were with regards to the potential for polluting surface water bodies, adversely affecting biodiversity and potential effects on historic assets. This pattern is repeated for the main towns and the service town/villages. In addition, for the main towns and the service town/villages, a number of sites were identified as unstable land with particular concentrations in Conisburgh-Denaby with six sites affected, as were nine sites in Mexborough.

9.1.8 With regards to the employment sites, the significant positive impacts identified were with respect to the reuse of land and buildings and the remediation of contaminated land. The potential for significant pollution to water bodies was identified as a significant negative for the majority of sites, with fourteen sites identified as having a significant adverse effect on biodiversity. Significant negative effects were also identified with respect to the presence of unstable land and the protection and conservation of historic assets.

9.1.9 With regards to the minerals sites, no significant positive effects were identified, with the majority of effects identified as either negligible or minor. Sites 023 and 035 were both identified as having a significant negative effect on Objective 12a (Biodiversity) and Objective 14d (surface water pollution). Both sites have the potential to adversely affect sites of importance for nature conservation. Sites 235, 420 and 1011 were identified as having significant negative effects respectively on: Objective 12a (Biodiversity), 14c (Groundwater) and 14d (Surface Water).

9.2 Next Steps

9.2.1 Following consultation on the material that is currently being consulted on the Council will prepare the Submission Draft Local Plan. The Submission Draft Local Plan will be submitted for Examination.

9.3 Monitoring

9.3.1 It is a requirement of SA to establish how the significant sustainability effects of implementing the draft Local Plan will be monitored. However, as ODPM Guidance (ODPM, 2005) notes, it is not necessary to monitor everything, or monitor an effect indefinitely. Instead, monitoring needs to be focused on significant sustainability effects.

9.3.2 Monitoring the adopted Local Plan for sustainability effects can help to answer questions such as:

 Were the SA’s predictions of sustainability effects accurate?

 Is the Local Plan contributing to the achievement of desired SA objectives?

 Are mitigation measures performing as well as expected?

 Are there any adverse effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is remedial action desirable?

9.3.3 Monitoring should be focussed on:

 Significant sustainability effects that may give rise to irreversible damage, with a view to identifying trends before such damage is caused;

 Significant effects where there was uncertainty in the SA and where monitoring would enable preventative or mitigation measures to be undertaken; and

 Where there is the potential for effects to occur on sensitive environmental receptors (for example the Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA).

9.3.4 In recent years Doncaster Borough Council has not produced an annual monitoring report. However, it is understood that the Council will resume production of an annual monitoring report following adoption of the Local Plan. The annual monitoring report will contain both borough-wide and local figures which could be used to monitor the effects against a number of SA Objectives (including a number of those above). The indicators set out in Appendix E provide proposals for a framework that could be used to monitor and measure the significance of the effects arising from the implementation of the Doncaster Local Plan during the plan period.

9.4 Quality Assurance

9.4.1 The Government’s Guidance on SEA contains a quality assurance checklist to help ensure that the requirements of the SEA Directive are met. Those relevant to this stage have been highlighted in the Quality Assurance Checklist at Appendix B.

August 2019 Doc Ref. 38404R003i2