7.0 Stage 5: Flood Risk Sequential & Exceptions Test (if required) & Green Belt

What does the National Planning Policy Framework say about Flood Risk for Local Plans?

Para. 99 – states that Local Plans should take account of climate change over the long term, including flood risk, and plan so that development avoids increased vulnerability to impacts arising from climate change, but where development is brought forward in vulnerable areas ensure the risks are managed.

Para. 100 - Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Local Plans should be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources, taking account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management bodies, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards. Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by:

● applying the Sequential Test; ● if necessary, applying the Exception Test;

Para. 101 - The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. A sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding.

Para. 102 - If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:

● it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and ● a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated.

What does the National Planning Practice Guidance say about Flood Risk for Local Plans?

The guidance includes the following flow diagram for application of the sequential test for Local Plans.

90

A local planning authority should demonstrate through evidence that it has considered a range of options in the site allocation process, using the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to apply the Sequential Test and the Exception Test where necessary. This can be undertaken directly or, ideally, as part of the sustainability appraisal. Where other sustainability criteria outweigh flood risk issues, the decision making process should be transparent with reasoned justifications for any decision to allocate land in areas at high flood risk in the sustainability appraisal report. The Sequential Test can also be demonstrated in a free-standing document, or as part of strategic housing land or employment land availability assessments.

The guidance provides the following flow diagram for application of the Exceptions Test for Local Plans.

91

Evidence of wider sustainability benefits to the community should be provided, for instance, through the sustainability appraisal. If a potential site allocation fails to score positively against the aims and objectives of the sustainability appraisal, or is not otherwise capable of demonstrating sustainability benefits, the local planning authority should consider whether the use of planning conditions and/or planning obligations could make it do so. Where this is not possible the Exception Test has not been satisfied and the allocation should not be made.

In considering an allocation in a Local Plan a level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should inform consideration of the second part of the Exception Test.

7.1 Background

7.1.1 The borough of Doncaster includes the two catchment areas of the river Don (western parts of the borough) and the river Trent (eastern parts of the borough). The river Don’s two main tributaries are the river Rother to the south and the Dearne to the north. A further two main rivers, Ea Beck and the river Went, join the Don downstream of Doncaster. The Bentley flood corridor is an area of low-lying land on the left bank of the river Don between the river Don and Bentley. The river Trent and its catchments cover parts of the north-east, south, and south-east corner of Doncaster.

7.1.2 According to the Environment Agency’s flood risk map for Planning, nearly 34% of the borough is at high risk of flooding (flood risk zone 3) with a further 9% at medium risk (flood risk zone 2) as identified on the map below. This equates to over 24,400 hectares. Areas at risk include the Main Urban Area of Doncaster (parts of Doncaster Town Centre, Bentley, Wheatley Hall Road and Kirk Sandall), Thorne-Moorends, Hatfield-Stainforth, Carcroft, Askern, and a number of other smaller villages.

92

7.1.3 However, this ‘risk’ does not take into account the presence of flood defences, as there is always a possibility that defences could fail, but some of these areas are defended by existing flood defence infrastructure.

7.1.4 Surface water flooding occurs where high levels of rainfall exceed drainage capacity in an area and these events can lead to serious flooding of property as demonstrated by the flood event in summer 2007. The topography of the borough, especially in and around a number of built-up areas, make them potentially prone to flooding caused by direct rainfall due to the amount of impermeable surfaces and the lack of sufficient sewer capacity. Areas where surface water may generate particularly high risk can be found at Intake, Bentley, Toll Bar, and Adwick-le-Street.

7.2 How will potential development sites be assessed at this stage?

Flood Risk Sequential Test

7.2.1 Sites have been ranked (low to high) in order of flood risk on a settlement-by- settlement basis using the findings from the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (2015) and Sustainability Appraisal. This is known as the sequential test as required by national planning policy set out above. Priority to allocation should be given to sites at lowest risk of flooding first and foremost, unless it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability, to avoid flood risk in which case consideration can be given to sites at medium risk of flooding and so forth.

7.2.2 The starting point for the sequential test is the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 (published November 2015). However, at around the same time that this was published there was an update to the Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning (November 2015) which had a significant change for the Thorne-Moorends area of Doncaster, meaning the flood risk data in respect to some of these sites has changed. As documented at stage 1 of this methodology, the Council has also continued to receive further sites for consideration through the Local Plan process, and such sites were not originally fed into the Level 1 Assessment. The Council has therefore replicated the data from the SFRA using GIS for any such sites in order to have a consistent and up-to-date source on which to base the sequential test. This was carried out as part of the previous Sustainability Appraisal process stage 4.

7.2.3 For housing sites, the sequential test has been assessed on a settlement-by- settlement basis in line with the Local Plan’s settlement hierarchy and growth requirements. Planning permissions on sites 5+ as at the 1st April 2017 have been excluded from the test as national planning policy states that planning permissions are deliverable unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Irrespective therefore of the flood risk constraints of planning permissions, they are considered as being deliverable and viable sites and therefore their capacity taken as the starting point for contributing towards a settlement’s Local Plan housing requirement. As discussed in the previous section, permissions that were not under construction as at 1st April 2017 have all been assessed in line with the Sustainability Appraisal Framework, which includes flood risk. Permissions have been through the Development Management process (including a sequential test in line with the Council’s adopted Development & Flood Risk SPD and Core Strategy Policy CS4) in consultation with the Environment Agency and other water risk management bodies (Lead Local Flood Authority; IDB’s; Water Authorities). They will have agreed appropriate flood risk mitigation in line with the residual risks and site specific flood risk assessment etc (see Exceptions Test below).

93

7.2.4 The remaining site options (without permission as at 1st April 2017) have then been ranked in flood risk order (low to high) using the same criteria as per objectives 11a (main river flooding) and 11b (surface water flooding) as set out in the Sustainability Appraisals stage 4. Sites in FRZ1 and not constrained from surface water flooding are all deemed to have passed the first sift of the sequential test (shown as white sites in the tables). Sites that scored a neutral (FRZ2) single negative (FRZ3a) or double negative (FRZ3b) for main river flooding (criteria 11a) or a single negative (medium/high risk) for surface water flooding (criteria 11b) have been identified as failing the first sift of the sequential test (shown as blue sites in the table). These sites fall out of the process at this stage therefore, although should the subsequent stages of the site selection methodology not identify sufficient sustainable and deliverable/developable sites to meet a settlement’s housing target requirements, then there may be a wider sustainability justification for revisiting this pool of sites and give further consideration to them.

7.2.5 55 remaining employment site options (those without planning permission) follow the same ‘first sift’ of the sequential test as described in 7.2.4 above. 28 of the 55 sites pass the first sift. Appendix A4 shows the flood risk details of the 55 sites.

Exception Tests

7.2.6 Any ‘more vulnerable’ development that is identified as being necessary in medium-high flood risk zones (or at significant risk from surface water flooding) following successful pass of the sequential test will need to also ensure that both parts of the exception tests have been met. The first test requires demonstration that there are wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the residual flood risks to the site. The second test is to demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime (100 years); not increase flooding elsewhere; and, where possible improve the risk of flooding. A site specific flood risk assessment is also required to help demonstrate this and in order to allocate a site at plan-making stage as stated by NPPF.

7.2.7 National policy requires a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 to be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the Exception Tests at plan-making stage, if the Sequential Test has demonstrated that it is not possible to avoid flood risk. The Environment Agency is updating several hydraulic river models in and around the Doncaster area as many of the existing models are considered out of date. These updates will be used to update the EA's Flood Map for Planning and also the functional flood plain.

7.2.8 Due to the timing of the EA modelling, as well as the timetable for preparing the Local Plan, the Council could not wait for the updates to the flood zones to take place and there is insufficient detailed data available to assess residual risk to key settlements and potential development sites until the EA modelling is completed. One of the main outcomes of a full Level 2 study should be to provide evidence that is needed for an assessment of feasibility (and contribute to viability assessment) of selected development sites as well as ensuring that the sites will be safe for their lifetime. As such, there is insufficient evidence available to produce an adoptable NPPF complaint Level 2 study for the time being. The Council acknowledges that, in order to assess the likelihood of potential sites passing the Exception Test, and therefore be compliant with NPPF, we must produce a Level 2 SFRA once the EA model updates are completed. The Council is committed to this at the earliest opportunity; however it will not be possible to have this part of the evidence base available prior to Publication and Submission/Examination of this Local Plan.

94

Put simply, what does this mean?

National planning policy seeks to ensure that development avoids flood risk areas. However, it also recognises that this may not always be possible. In order to demonstrate whether flood risk areas/sites are required through the Local Plan, national policy needs sites to be ranked in order of flood risk (lowest risk to highest risk) from all sources of flooding (main rivers and surface water flooding being the main two challenges for the borough). This process is called a ‘sequential test’. Sites at lowest risk of flooding should be supported before sites at medium risk of flooding and so forth. However, this may not always be possible, for example some towns and villages are almost entirely at risk of flooding. This is partly because the maps used for planning purposes that show the risks of river flooding do not take account of the impact of flood defences as there is always a chance these could fail.

Where it can be demonstrated that flood risk sites are necessary, then some forms of development are more vulnerable from residual flooding than others e.g. somebody’s home is more vulnerable than a shop. National policy puts in place the necessary ‘checks and balances’ so it must be demonstrated that any such development in high flood risk areas provides for wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweighs the residual flood risk, and that it will be safe and flood risk will not be increased elsewhere. This is known as the ‘exceptions test’.

7.3 What are the findings from this stage of the methodology?

Flood Risk Sequential Test – Housing Sites

7.3.1 Appendix A4 sets out the flood risk sequential test as described in the previous section of this chapter. By way of a very brief summary, Table 7.1 provides the overall findings/main conclusions for sites broken down by settlement. 137 sites equating to 31,080 units have passed the first sift of the sequential test with 96 sites (18,812 units) failing the first sift. Most settlements in the growth hierarchy have a significant supply compared to the housing requirements set out at Stage 3. However, all of the sites at the Service Village of Barnby Dun have failed the sequential test first sift, and the majority of sites at the Main Town of Thorne-Moorends have also with just 2 sites equating to 48 units passing the test. There are no sites that fail the first sift of the sequential test at the 4 Service Towns/Villages of: Barnburgh-Harlington; Edlington, Sprotbrough; and, Tickhill.

95

Table 7.1: Flood Risk Sequential Test Summary Findings (exclusive of Planning Permissions)

Settlement Number of Sites Number of Sites Number of Sites (Capacity) at (Capacity) Failed (Capacity) Passed Outset of First Sift of First Sift of Sequential Test Sequential Test Sequential Test Doncaster Urban Area 54 (13,493 units) 16 (3,483 units) 38 (10,010 units) Adwick-le-Street- 9 (1,440 units) 4 (717 units) 5 (723 units) Woodlands Conisbrough-Denaby 12 (1,446 units) 3 (351 units) 9 (1,095 units) Hatfield-Stainforth (Inc 32 (7,116 units) 17 (5,124 units) 15 (1,992 units) Dunsville & Dunscroft) Mexborough 8 (1,239 units) 1 (82 units) 7 (1,157 units) Rossington 8 (6,976 units) 2 (384 units) 6 (6,592 units) Thorne-Moorends 32 (6,044 units) 30 (5,996 units) 2 (48 units) Askern 8 (727 units) 3 (208 units) 5 (519 units) Auckley-Hayfield 12 (3,783 units) 3 (227 units) 9 (3,555 units) Green Barnburgh-Harlington 3 (136 units) 0 (0 units) 3 (136 units) Barnby Dun 7 (704 units) 7 (704 units) 0 (0 units) Bawtry 9 (1,099 units) 1 (72 units) 8 (1,027 units) Carcroft-Skellow 9 (1,191 units) 7 (851 units) 2 (340 units) Edlington 7 (801 units) 0 (0 units) 7 (801 units) Finningley 8 (1,981 units) 2 (612 units) 6 (1,369 units) Sprotbrough 4 (702 units) 0 (0 units) 4 (702 units) Tickhill 11 (1,013 units) 0 (0 units) 11 (1,013 units)

TOTAL 233 (49,892 units) 96 (18,812 units) 137 (31,080 units)

Flood Risk Exception Tests – Housing Sites

7.3.2 The Exceptions Test in respect to the Local Plan FRZ3 housing sites can only justify site allocations that have already been through the Development Management process where the requirements of the Exceptions Test have already been demonstrated as part of the planning application determination, including a site specific flood risk assessment and mitigation that has been agreed as being appropriate by the Council in conjunction with the Lead Local Flood Authority and EA. Consideration of emergency planning and evacuation procedures should a flood event occur also plays an important role in satisfying part 2 of the test.

7.3.3 This stage of the site selection process has identified a number of sites for housing with planning permission that have 15% or greater of their site boundary as falling within high flood risk zone 3. Because all of these sites have planning permission approved, flood risk mitigation will have been addressed as part of the planning application and Development Management stage. The flood risk assessment will provide the detail of the proposed mitigation to manage the residual risks to both people and property, and ensure the development will be safe for its lifetime, and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Appropriate emergency planning arrangements will also have been considered.

7.3.4 In line with the requirements of national planning policy, a site specific flood risk assessment must be submitted for more vulnerable residential development in FRZ3 at plan-making stage in order for the exception tests to be fully met. Appendix A4 provides a summary of these for the housing planning permission sites as eluded to above, as well as how access can be gained to the full documents.

96

Flood Risk Sequential Test – Employment Sites

7.3.5 Appendix A4 sets out the flood risk sequential test as described in the previous section of this chapter. By way of a very brief summary, Table 7.2 provides the overall findings/main conclusions for the 55 remaining employment site options (those without planning permission).

Table 7.2: Flood Risk Sequential Test Summary Findings (exclusive of Planning Permissions) Number of Sites Hectares Sites and capacity at outset of Sequential Test 55 1,010 Failed First sift of Sequential Test 27 382 Passed First sift of Sequential Test 27 628

97

Green Belt

What does the National Planning Policy Framework say about Green Belt and Local Plans?

Para. 79 – 80 - The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Green Belt serves five purposes: ● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; ● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; ● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and ● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Para. 83 – Council’s with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

Para. 84 - When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries the Council should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

Para. 85 - When defining boundaries, the Council should: ● ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; ● not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; ● where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period; ● make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development; ● satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and ● define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

What does the National Planning Practice Guidance say about Green Belt and Local Plans?

Adding further clarity to the guidance contained within the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance offers clarification on the issue of Objectively Assessed Housing Need and Green Belt. It states: “The National Planning Policy Framework should be read as a whole: need alone is not the only factor to be considered when drawing up a Local Plan. The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should, through their

98

Local Plans, meet objectively assessed needs unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Such policies include those relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park or the Broads; designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion. The Framework makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan”.

Therefore housing and economic needs do not generally override constraints on the use of Green Belt land as it does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

7.4 Background

7.4.1 The Government attaches great importance to Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence. The main purpose of the South Yorkshire Green Belt is to prevent the large metropolitan areas of Doncaster, Rotherham, Barnsley and Wakefield from merging together and to support the regeneration of these places. For this reason, the Green Belt designation covers the western part of the Borough, but does not extend to cover the countryside in the eastern half of the borough. However, this is currently protected by the local designation Countryside Policy Area. The map below shows the extent of the Green Belt boundary. Green Belt covers nearly 23,250 hectares of land which equates to 41% of the borough’s total area.

99

7.5 How will potential development sites be assessed at this stage?

7.5.1 National policy in respect to the Green Belt will be applied which allows land to be taken out of Green Belt as part of the preparation or review of a Local Plan, but only in exceptional circumstances. A Review of Doncaster's Green Belt has been carried out by independent consultants Arup on behalf of the Council. The Review is a key piece of work that informs the preparation of the Local Plan and a full copy can be found via the following web-link http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/green-belt-review. The Review does not itself make any decisions. It is one of many pieces of evidence that informs the Local Plan. Land can only be taken out of the Green Belt or added to it through the Local Plan process.

Exceptional Circumstances

7.5.2 In considering the possibility of releasing sites from the Green Belt, recent case law3 has re-iterated the importance of understanding and defining ‘exceptional circumstances’. There is no definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within national planning policy, and there is very limited case history relating to decisions about the meaning. However, there are some recent relevant examples which could support local interpretation of this concept and these are discussed further in the Phase 3 Green Belt Review Report with the relevant extracts as per the below.

7.5.3 In the Solihull Local Plan case, a developer’s sites were being proposed to be placed into the Green Belt and the developer challenged this on 3 grounds: (i) that it was not supported by an objectively assessed figure for housing need; (ii) the Council had failed in its duty to cooperate; and, (iii) the Council adopted a plan without regard to the proper test for revising Green Belt boundaries.

7.5.4 The claim succeeded at the High Court. Solihull appealed against the decision, but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Inspector and Solihull had failed to identify a figure for the objective assessment of housing need as a separate and prior exercise, and that was an error of law. In addition, the Judge dismissed the Inspector’s reasons for returning the developer’s sites to the Green Belt, saying that: ‘The fact that a particular site within a council’s area happens not to be suitable for housing development cannot be said without more to constitute an exceptional circumstance, justifying an alteration of the Green Belt by the allocation to it of the site in question’.

7.5.5 In the Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council case, the Parish Council applied to the High Court to quash parts of the Aligned Code Strategies of the three authorities, arguing that: (i) it had failed to consider whether housing numbers should be reduced to prevent the release of Green Belt land; and, (ii) it had failed to apply national policy in considering its release.

7.5.6 However, the Claim was rejected. In Paragraph 42 of the decision, referring to the earlier Solihull decision, the Judge stated:

‘In the case where the issue is the converse, i.e. subtraction, the fact that Green Belt reasons may continue to exist cannot preclude the existence of countervailing exceptional circumstance – otherwise, it would be close to impossible to revise the

3 Solihull Metropolitan District Council’s Local Plan & Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council & Gedling Borough Council 100 boundary. These circumstances, if found to exist, must be logically capable of trumping the purposes of the Green Belt; but whether they should not in any given case must depend on the correct identification of the circumstances said to be exceptional, and the strength of the Green Belt purposes’.

7.5.7 While supporting the earlier Solihull case, the judgement also confirms that ‘exceptional circumstances’ may override the purposes set out in the NPPF, depending on the strength of these purposes. In determining what is exceptional, an authority should ‘identify and then grapple with the following matters’:  The ‘acuteness/intensity of the housing need’;  The ‘constraints on the supply/availability of land…suitable for development’;  The ‘difficulties in achieving sustainability without impinging on the green belt’;  The ‘nature and extent of the harm to this green belt’; and  How far the impacts on green belt purposes could be reduced.

7.5.8 In his decision, the Judge believed the Inspector had taken a ‘sensible and appropriate’ approach to adjudging the weight of exceptional circumstances versus the strength of the Green Belt purposes by weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of different alternative options for meeting housing need, including those which would not have involved Green Belt adjustments.

7.5.9 There is no definition of matters which constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’, as set out within Paragraph 83. Recent case law provides some context to the possible interpretation within Doncaster. However, there may be additional local factors which may be applicable to Doncaster, and therefore Arup advise that the potential local interpretation of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is defined and reflected on as the Local Plan progresses. This reflection process will be particularly necessary should the ‘tests’ within the Housing White Paper be taken through Parliament.

Put simply, what does this mean?

National planning policy provides strong protection to the Green Belt and there are relatively few examples of development that is supported as being appropriate in the Green Belt (e.g. agriculture uses). Indeed, national policy presumes most forms of development are, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be supported. However, the Local Plan is a process which can take land out of the Green Belt as long as it can be demonstrated that there are what are called ‘exceptional circumstances’ for doing so. For example, if we were unable to meet our development needs for a town or village without using Green Belt land as no other land is available, or not suitable and the use of Green Belt has been justified in the context of other Planning considerations and judgements.

7.6 What are the findings from this stage of the methodology?

7.6.1 The Review is a comprehensive one and comprises three pieces of work. Stage 1 undertook a review of the Countryside Policy Area which is the land in the east of the borough that is non-Green Belt. The report looked at the general extent of Doncaster's Green Belt and the performance of the policies that protect the Countryside outside the Green Belt. It found that:

 The Countryside in the east of the borough does not meet the national policy requirements for Green Belt or align with the original designation for

101

the South Yorkshire Green Belt; there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify an eastward extension of Doncaster's Green Belt;

 The Countryside protection policies that have been used for countryside outside the Green Belt have not permitted inappropriate development or performed inadequately. The Countryside in the east of the borough can be properly protected using other policies.

7.6.2 Stage 2 then undertook a Doncaster Green Belt Review of the land in the west of the Borough. The main Report looked at Doncaster's Green Belt and how well it performs against the 5 Green Belt purposes. It found that the vast majority of the 64 individually assessed Green Belt parcels contribute strongly to one or, in most cases, more than one of the 5 Green Belt purposes.

7.6.3 As part of preparing the brief and scope of the Stage 3 Review, consideration needed to be given to the number of sites that were to be looked at in greater detail. As such, not all of the Green Belt sites that have made it through the methodology so far were put forward to the detailed phase 3 review. This was because they would form an extension to a settlement where a settlement’s4 housing requirement has already been met through deliverable planning permissions. It is not considered that an exceptional circumstances case could be made to release Green Belt sites at these settlements given this position. In the interests of proportionate evidence base therefore, these sites do not proceed any further through the site selection process. Table 7.3 sets out a summary of these 13 sites.

Table 7.3: Green Belt Extensions to Settlements where Sufficient Deliverable Planning Permissions Already Exceed the Requirement Settlement Settlement Site Site Name Green Belt Site Conclusion Hierarchy Name Ref Designation Capacity (Hectares & %) (Units) Main Town Rossington 302 Land off Stripe Road, 7.9 Ha (96%) 180 Rossington (1) Main Town Rossington 305 Land off Stripe Road, 1.1 Ha (92%) 40 Rossington (2) Main Town Rossington 306 Land off Grange Lane, 11.5 Ha (99%) 286 Rossington Service Town/ Askern 036 Paddock to rear of 0.8 Ha (96%) 26 Village Holme Croft Service Town/ Askern 090 Land to North of Moss 12.2Ha (99%) 276 Village Road, South East of Sewage Works, Askern Service Town/ Askern 195 Askern Miners Welfare, 2.7Ha (100%) 75 Reject Site Option – Green Belt Village Manor Way, Askern extension to a settlement where Service Town/ Askern 226 Land South of Church 4.9 Ha (99%) 100 sufficient deliverable/developable Village Field Road, Askern sites already identified that Service Town/ Askern 475 Land South of Oakwell 4.2 Ha (100%) 106 exceed plan period requirement Village Drive and Coniston Road Service Town/ Edlington 051 Plot 1, Land at Old 7.6 Ha (100%) 189 Village Edlington Service Town/ Edlington 052 Plot 2, Land at Old 4.3 Ha (100%) 122 Village Edlington Service Town/ Edlington 054 Plot 4, Land at Old 12.5 Ha (100%) 251 Village Edlington Service Town/ Edlington 057 Plot 7, Land at Old 5.5 Ha (100%) 137 Village Edlington Service Town/ Edlington 328 Land off Tait Avenue, 2.3 Ha (100%) 59 Village Edlington

7.6.4 Stage 3 of the Review then undertook a sites re-appraisal which looked at the implications of removing land from the Green Belt to accommodate housing or other Local Plan development allocations and advises on revised boundaries. It found that:

4 These settlements are: Askern; Edlington; and, Rossington 102

 Out of the 57 potential sites that were assessed in areas where it was deemed possible that a Green Belt site would be required: o 1 site has a strong case for furthering through the site selection process; o 9 sites have a moderately strong case for furthering through the site selection process; o 19 sites have a moderate case for furthering through the site selection process; o 19 sites have a moderately weak case for furthering through the site selection process; o 9 sites have a weak case for furthering through the site selection process.

7.6.5 The tables below break down and summarise the findings for each site assessed by Arup in the Stage 3 work. The findings are broken down into three sections:  strength of boundary, i.e. how durable are the boundary features of the proposed site – the stronger the better for the purposes of this assessment;  assessment of Green Belt purposes, i.e. how well does the site fulfil the local interpretation of the five Green Belt purposes as set out in the NPPF – conversely the weaker the better for the purposes of this assessment; and;  a summary which considers the overall strength of case for inclusion within the further site selection work, based on the balance of both the aforementioned criteria. The stronger the case, the better the potential argument for the site to be released from the Green Belt.

7.6.6 Arup are clear that this work does not set out whether sites should be released from the Green Belt, and that this decision rests on a number of factors that the Council must determine.

7.6.7 The following 29 Green Belt sites where the Phase 3 Review concluded there was either a “strong”; “moderately strong”; or “moderate” case for inclusion in further site selection work all progress through the site selection methodology for consideration further alongside other potential site allocations and based on the findings from wider site selection evidence base, such as Sustainability Appraisal. Should any Green Belt allocations be identified as being the most sustainable option for growth at a settlement, then there will need to be exceptional circumstances clearly identified to justify the release of the site from the Green Belt. If such a case cannot be made, then these sites will not be justified; this includes consideration of non-Green Belt alternatives where they exist at a settlement. Table 7.4: Sites with a Strong Case for inclusion in further site selection work No. Name Area Boundary Purposes Case Strength 141 Westwood Rd, Bawtry Bawtry Strong Weak Strong

Table 7.5: Sites with a Moderately Strong Case for inclusion in further site selection work No. Name Area Boundary Purposes Case Strength 513 Redhouse Lane ( c) South, Adwick le Street Strong Moderate Moderately strong Adwick 777 ‘Plot 3’ Harlington Barnburgh & Mixed Weak Moderately Strong Harlington 165 Land North of A1, Skellow Carcroft & Skellow Strong Moderate Moderately Strong 40 Land at Sheffield Road/Old Conisbrough & Strong Moderate Moderately Strong Road, Hilltop, Conisbrough Denaby 103

826 Field off Clifton Hill, Conisbrough & Strong Moderate Moderately Strong Conisbrough Denaby 115 Alverley Lane, Balby MUA Strong Moderate Moderately strong 237 Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield MUA Strong Moderate Moderately strong Road, Warmsworth (2) 452 Land West of Dadsley Road, Tickhill Mixed Weak Moderately strong Tickhill 930 Land Between Lindrick Lane Tickhill Strong Moderate Moderately strong and Worksop Road, Tickhill

Table 7.6: Sites with a Moderate Case for inclusion in further site selection work No. Name Area Boundary Purposes Case Strength 462 Land off Adwick Lane, Carcroft Adwick le Street Mixed Moderate Moderate 143 Land North of Primary School, Barnburgh & Mixed Moderate Moderate Church Lane, Barnburgh Harlington 786 South of Cockhill Close, Bawtry Strong Strong Moderate Bawtry 42 Land to the rear of Skellow Carcroft & Skellow Mixed Moderate Moderate Hall 186 Land of Crabgate Lane, Carcroft & Skellow Mixed Moderate Moderate Skellow 221 Garage off Sheffield Road / Conisbrough & Mixed Moderate Moderate Clifton Hill, Conisbrough (Site Denaby B) 251 Hill Top Road, Denaby Main Conisbrough & Mixed Moderate Moderate Denaby 33 Land adjacent. 163 Sheffield MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate Road, Warmsworth 122 Challenger Drive, Sprotbrough MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 161 Mill Farm, Mill Gate, Bentley MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 212 Lords Head Lane, MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate Warmsworth 214 Common Lane, Warmsworth MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 234 Broad Axe, Scawthorpe MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 246 Scawthorpe Reservoir, Green MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate Lane 436 Land at Scawsby Lane MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 494 Green Lane, Scawthorpe MUA Mixed Moderate Moderate 929 Land North of Cadeby Road, Sprotbrough Mixed Moderate Moderate Sprotbrough 281 Land off Worksop Road, Tickhill Weak Weak Moderate Tickhill 876 Site B, Land to East of Tickhill Weak Weak Moderate Doncaster Road, Tickhill

7.6.8 The 28 Green Belt sites that were concluded by this review as having a “moderately weak” or “weak” case for inclusion in further site selection work are not being taken further through the process, unless the subsequent stages of the wider site selection methodology fails to identify sufficient sustainable and deliverable/developable sites for a settlement’s requirement. In which case, the process is an iterative one and further consideration will be required as to whether there is an exceptional circumstances case to be made that outweighs the importance that these sites have in terms of Green Belt. Table 7.7: Sites with a Moderately Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work No. Name Area Boundary Purposes Case Strength 458 Land off Church Lane, Adwick Adwick le Street Mixed Strong Moderately weak 459 Land off Doncaster Lane, Adwick le Street Weak Moderate Moderately weak Adwick 461 Redhouse Lane (a) North Adwick le Street Mixed Strong Moderately weak West, Adwick 512 Redhouse Lane (b) North Adwick le Street Weak Moderate Moderately weak East, Adwick 146 Tickhill Road, Bawtry Bawtry Mixed Strong Moderately weak 273 Askern Road, Carcroft Carcroft & Skellow Weak Moderate Moderately weak 142 Land South of Sheffield Road Conisbrough & Weak Moderate Moderately weak Denaby 825 Fields off Drake Head Lane, Conisbrough & Weak Moderate Moderately weak Conisbrough Denaby 104

79 Land at Melton Road, MUA Weak Moderate Moderately weak Sprotbrough 217 Back Lane, Cusworth MUA Mixed Strong Moderately weak 213 Mill Lane, Warmsworth MUA Mixed Strong Moderately weak 154 Land to the North West of Mexborough Weak Moderate Moderately weak Pastures Road 252 Spring Lane, Sprotbrough Sprotbrough Weak Moderate Moderately weak 788 Land at Sprotbrough Sprotbrough Weak Moderate Moderately weak 872 Land at Melton Road, Sprotbrough Mixed Strong Moderately weak Sprotbrough 109 Land off Sunderland Street, Tickhill Mixed Strong Moderately weak Tickhill 357 Land off Wong Lane, Tickhill Tickhill Weak Moderate Moderately weak 875 Site A, Land to East of Tickhill Weak Moderate Moderately weak Doncaster Road, Tickhill 877 Site C, Land to East of Tickhill Weak Moderate Moderately weak Doncaster Road, Tickhill

Table 7.8: Sites with a Weak Case for inclusion in further site selection work No. Name Area Boundary Purposes Case Strength 873 Site A, Land at Martin Bawtry Weak Strong Weak Common Farm, Bawtry 874 Site B (Safeguarded) Land at Bawtry Weak Strong Weak Martin Road, Bawtry 145 Land at Skellow Carcroft & Skellow Weak Strong Weak 185 Land at Mill Lane and Carcroft & Skellow Weak Strong Weak Crabgate, Skellow 139 Land North of Wath Road Mexborough Weak Strong Weak 356 Land off Lindrick Lane, Tickhill Tickhill Weak Strong Weak 824 Land Behind Lumley Drive, Tickhill Weak Strong Weak Tickhill 880 Land at Tickhill Tickhill Weak Strong Weak 159 Land around Wadworth Wadworth Weak Strong Weak

Exceptional Circumstances – Housing

7.6.9 A supporting Green Belt Topic Paper will be published in due course to provide further detail and justification for exceptional circumstances for using land in the Green Belt, and ensure that the sites being proposed for allocation in this report will be able to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances exist in line with national planning policy and the relevant case law based on a borough-wide and individual settlement basis.

105

8.0 Stage 6: Viability Testing & Technical Assessment of Any Site Access or Highways Development Control Issues

What does the National Planning Policy Framework say about viability for Local Plans?

Paras 173-174 requires the Council to ensure that sites identified in Local Plans are deliverable through not being subject to a scale of policy requirements (affordable housing, infrastructure contributions, design standards etc) that their ability to be developed is put at risk. The Council will need to demonstrate through proportionate and reasonably available evidence that sites proposed will provide a competitive return to a willing landowner and developer after factoring in the normal costs of development throughout the economic cycle.

What does the National Planning Practice Guidance say about viability for Local Plans?

The appropriate method for assessing viability of sites and testing Local Plan policies is through a ‘viability assessment’ and this will need to be an iterative process. It is not necessary to test every proposed site allocation; site typologies and samples of sites may be used at plan-making stage instead based on the types of development expected to be delivered in the plan, with more detailed assessment for challenging market areas, or key strategic sites which are critical to the success of the Local Plan. The cumulative impact of all costs to a development must be factored into the assessment. Plans should not be based on the margins of viability, but allow for a buffer to reflect changes to market conditions over the plan period. Further guidance is provided on how viability assessments should take account of development value, costs, land values and developer profit.

What does the Planning Advisory Service ‘Good Plan Making Guide; Plan Making Principles for Practitioners (September 2014) say about deliverability/ developability and viability and Local Plans?

Principle 10: Ensure the Local plan is deliverable, viable and supported by necessary infrastructure

Para. 10.1 - Local plans need to be deliverable over the plan period. You need to show in an implementation/delivery plan how the plan will be delivered. A key part of deliverability is identifying land. This has often been one of the hardest and most controversial aspects of plan-making, as the decisions involved can be difficult and unpopular. Your authority will often also have a role in helping to deliver another authority’s plan, and vice versa.

Para. 10.2 - Aspirational policies can be acceptable, but they still need to be deliverable over time. Plans shouldn’t have policies that are so aspirational that the plan will not be delivered. One aspect of this is around identification of sites – for example identifying land for employment without any likelihood of development for employment purposes.

Para. 10.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has placed much stronger emphasis on viability in plan-making. It is clear that all policy requirements need to be considered together in assessing whether the plan can be delivered. This gives rise to the need for “whole-plan” viability testing. Two main points to remember are that this is

106 about the cumulative cost of policies, and that full account has to be taken of relevant market and economic signals.

Para. 10.4 - 10.4 Under the NPPF, you will need to test the whole plan and all its policies together to show its impact on viability; however, separate viability testing of strategic sites is also recommended if they are key to the delivery of the plan.

Para. 10.6 - 10.6 There are several ways of testing viability but it needn’t be over- complicated. In assessing viability, Inspectors will bear in mind the advice set out in the Viability Testing local plans document of June 2012 by the Local Housing Delivery Group. For the first 5 years of a plan period policies should be based on current market costs and values.

What does the Local Housing Delivery Group (June 2012) Viability Testing Local Plans: Advice for Planning Practitioners say about viability and Local Plans?

The best practice guidance supports a collaborative approach to Local Plan viability assessment as set out in the following flow diagram (pg. 19)

The following diagram is a simplified overview of the elements that the assessment will need to consider in order to come to a view as to whether the Local Plan is viable or not? (pg. 25)

107

What does the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (August 2012) Financial Viability in Planning say about viability and Local Plans?

The guidance note provides all those involved in financial viability in planning and related matters with a definitive and objective methodology framework and set of principles that can be applied mainly to development management. The principles are however applicable to the plan making and CIL (area wide) viability testing.

The guidance note separates the two key components of development: land delivery and viable development. This is in accordance with the NPPF. Fundability is also an intrinsic element of both.

The residual appraisal methodology for financial viability testing is highlighted where either the level of return or residual Site Value can be an input and the consequential output (either a residual land value or return respectively) can be compared to a benchmark to assess the impact of planning obligations or policy implications on viability.

The guidance note does not recommend any particular financial model (bespoke or otherwise) or provide indications as to inputs or outputs commonly used. It is up to the practitioner in each case to adopt and justify as appropriate.

Site Value, either as an input into a scheme specific appraisal or as a benchmark, is defined in the guidance note as follows: Site Value should equate to the market value1 subject to the following assumption: that the value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.

When undertaking Local Plan or CIL (area-wide) viability testing, a second assumption needs to be applied to the Site Value definition: The Site Value (as defined above) may need to be further adjusted to reflect the emerging policy/CIL charging level. The level of the adjustment assumes that site delivery would not be prejudiced. Where an adjustment is made, the practitioner should set out their professional opinion underlying the assumptions adopted. These include, as a minimum, comments on the state of the market and delivery targets as at the date of assessment.

The guidance note encourages practitioners to be reasonable, transparent and fair in objectively undertaking or reviewing financial viability assessments. Where possible, practitioners should seek to resolve differences of opinion.

8.1 Background

8.1.1 Since the downturn in the market post 2008, and the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012, the planning system has had to be responsive to issues around development viability, both through planning applications that are being determined, and through policy and plan-making. The need for viability testing of both proposed sites, and policies in the Local Plan is clear and the two are inextricably linked as a Local Plan with extensive policy requirements and planning obligation asks will have a direct impact on the ability of the proposed site allocations to be viable and deliverable, as well as windfall development sites not identified in the plan.

8.1.2 The HELAA Stakeholder Group had the opportunity to consider the viability of sites as part of the assessment. This also provided the opportunity for the group to

108 consider whether appropriate physical site access could be gained to a site, and any other associated highway requirements, all of which could impact on a schemes viability due to the sometimes prohibited costs associated with the solution and mitigation of such measures proportionate to the scale of the development.

8.2 How will potential development sites be assessed at this stage?

Whole Plan Viability Testing

8.2.1 The Council commissioned the Valuation Office Agency District Valuer Services (DVS) to undertake the independent Whole Plan Viability Testing for the Local Plan. The study was undertaken during 2016. The assessment has been prepared in line with NPPF/NPPG and the Local Housing Delivery Group and RICS best practice guidance referred to above. Where the two sources of best practice provide contradictory advice, this has been discussed in the report further, for example how to deal with threshold land value.

8.2.2 At plan making stage, an area-wide viability testing model is deemed appropriate as much of the detail around specific sites will be unknown. As such, the viability testing has used a number of assumptions (e.g. average sales values, build costs, professional fees etc.) based on reasonably available evidence which is supported by the guidance above. In addition to this, a wide range of hypothetical housing site typologies have been assessed across the borough which reflect a wide range of site size and site types in different value areas of the borough for different land uses (e.g. greenfield, brownfield, cleared sites, occupied sites, urban, or urban extension sites – more detail on these is set out below). The modelling has tested sites up to a maximum of 400 dwellings which reflects the types of site being proposed for allocation. Although the Local Plan contains some site allocations that are significantly larger than this threshold, they are generally planning permissions and most have had site specific viability assessments prepared and independently assessed as part of the Development Management process with consequential negotiations undertaken around contributions in the interests of viability. The work has also considered a range of commercial schemes; again more detail is set out below.

8.2.3 As part of the process, in line with the guidance, we have actively engaged with stakeholders to help ensure the assumptions adopted within the appraisal are realistic. In this case, we arranged a Stakeholder Workshop to allow an open forum discussion on viability matters. This was attended by a variety of key stakeholders including land owners, agents, planning consultants, house builders, various representatives from different Council departments, as well as external public sector bodies. Following this workshop, a questionnaire was circulated to all identified stakeholders (including those unable to attend the workshop) seeking further details on their views on viability matters. The workshop and returned questionnaires formed part of the evidence base of the conclusions reached.

8.2.4 In accordance with the guidance, we have adopted the residual approach to site testing, which involves identifying the sales revenue for the completed scheme, and from this deducting the relevant costs of delivering the project (including the site value and developer’s profit). As part of our review, we have adopted ‘sensitivity analyses. This involves running a number of appraisal scenarios, varying key appraisal inputs to determine the impact these changes could have on the overall viability. This iteration process allows a more robust assessment of viability and is recommended within the guidance.

109

8.2.5 At the stakeholder workshop, and from the completed questionnaires received, there was a general agreement that scenario testing/sensitivity analysis should consider fluctuations in sales values and build costs. There was also a general view that testing should be focused on likely fluctuations in inputs and not test changes which were unlikely to occur.

Residential Schemes Scenarios/Sensitivities

8.2.6 Having considered the above we have adopted the following approach to scenario testing/ sensitivity analysis for residential development:

 Test 1 - Adopts all draft Council policies, except for council policy on affordable housing (i.e. 25% affordable housing). Instead, the level of affordable housing provision is adjusted up to a point where the scheme is considered to be viable (if possible, otherwise a nil provision is adopted). For ‘basic’ build costs, the BCIS lower quartile is adopted at £798 per sq. m.  Test 2 - As Test 1, except the ‘basic’ build costs has been adjusted to the BCIS median figure of £900 per sq. m.  Test 3 - As Test 1, except Council policy relating to flood risk mitigation (i.e. a cost in the appraisals of £4,000 per dwelling) is removed.  Test 4 - As Test 1, except the sales revenue is increased by 5%.  Test 5 - As Test 1, except the affordable dwellings (if any are demonstrated) are provided through the Starter Homes tenure basis only.  Test 6 - As Test 1, except all draft Council planning policies (including affordable housing) are removed.

Commercial Schemes Scenarios/Sensitivities

8.2.7 Having considered the above we have adopted the following approach to scenario testing/ sensitivity analysis for commercial development:

 Test 1 - Adopts all applicable draft Council policies;  Test 2 - Excludes all draft Council policies;  Test 3 - Excludes flood risk mitigation costs only

Parameters for Viability of Development

8.2.8 As part of the testing process it is important to set at what ‘point’ a scheme is deemed to be viable or unviable. However, based on the Distract Valuer’s experience, viability is not necessarily ‘black and white’ and often reference is made to schemes being ‘marginally viable’ (i.e. the return generated from the scheme may be sufficient to attract some developers, but not necessarily all). There is no specific guidance on how this should be considered within Whole Plan testing, however the PPG is clear that Council policies should not be set at ‘extremes’ of viability. In this regard, and based on our experience, we have set the following parameters for determining whether a scheme is viable or not:

 Viable - A scheme is deemed to be viable if the appraisal generates a surplus which is equivalent to 2.50% (or higher) of the sales revenue. Schemes which meet this criteria are marked in green.

110

 Marginally viable - A scheme is deemed to be marginally viable if the output from the appraisal falls within – (minus) 2.49% up to + 2.49% of the sales revenue. Scheme which meet this criteria are marked in orange.

 Unviable - A scheme is deemed to be unviable if the appraisal generates a deficit which is equivalent to – (minus) 2.50% (or lower) of the sales revenue. Schemes which meet this criteria are marked in red.

Technical Assessment of Site Access and Highways

8.2.9 As set out above, site access was a consideration of the early stages of this site selection process, for example through the HELAA. However, to be confident that sites will be able to be accessed via a safe and satisfactory highways solution, including any associated works to nearby junctions etc, and ultimately be confident that any proposed allocations are deliverable/developable in the plan period, it was considered appropriate to undertake further technical assessment of the sites. As such, Doncaster Council’s Transport Planners in the Highways Development Control Team have undertaken a technical assessment of the sites. Sites were reviewed using a Red-Amber-Green approach and a number of sites have been identified as being Red sites where there are serious concerns around whether an appropriate solution could be identified which also reflects the scale of the development and whether mitigation would be viable.

Put simply, what does this mean?

National planning policy requires that we produce evidence that the Local Plan policies which require a cost to a developer (such as providing affordable housing, green spaces, contributions towards increasing school capacity, improving roads and public transport etc) are not at a scale that they will put the development at risk of coming forward because it will not be viable. In other words, we need to calculate how much financial headroom is in a development to be able to pay for these sorts of requirements before they make the development unviable. This process requires an understanding of what the total sales values are likely to be from any type of development which then need to have all the costs of the development subtracted from it (building materials, labour, professional fees, contingencies etc). A reasonable cost for the landowner to part with the site also needs to be factored in, as does a reasonable profit to incentivise a developer to develop a site.

In some challenging market areas, where sales values are lower, or where sites have expensive issues to resolve (flood risk, contamination etc) then it may not be possible to achieve all of our original policy asks and there will need to be a redrafting/ flexible application of policy, and/or reconsideration of sites being proposed as we must be confident that sites will come forward to meet our development needs and ensure the Local Plan can be delivered. This stage has also undertaken a more detailed review and identified some of the sites where there are considered to be technical issues associated with creating a safe and satisfactory access into the site which may not be possible to overcome.

8.3 What are the findings from this stage of the methodology?

Whole Plan Viability Testing

111

8.3.1 The full Viability Testing Report can be found via the following web-link and should be read in full, although this section highlights some of the key findings from the study: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan

Residential Viability Findings

8.3.2 Test 1 adopted a ‘basic’ build cost in line with the BCIS lower quartile, equivalent to £798 per sq. m. The level of affordable housing was adjusted, initially to a point where viability could be demonstrated (i.e. the surplus exceeded 2.5% of the sales revenue). Where this was not possible the affordable housing level was adjusted to zero. The results have been split into separate tables for urban extension sites and urban settlement sites, as follows.

Test 1 – Urban Extension Viability Results

No Afford Surplus / No Site Value band % of GDV Viable units (%) deficit

1 Town & village High 50 24.00% £1,322,296 12.65% Viable 2 Town & village High 100 24.00% £2,471,563 11.82% Viable 3 Doncaster main urban Low 50 0.00% -£176,472 -2.53% Unviable 4 Doncaster main urban Low 100 0.00% -£332,462 -2.39% Marginal 5 Doncaster main urban Medium 50 12.00% £234,294 2.88% Viable 6 Doncaster main urban Medium 100 12.00% £424,557 2.61% Viable 7 Doncaster main urban Medium 400 8.50% £1,865,374 2.87% Viable 8 Main town Medium 50 14.00% £236,738 2.91% Viable 9 Main town Medium 100 12.00% £424,557 2.61% Viable 10 Main town Medium 400 10.00% £1,784,332 2.74% Viable 11 Main town Low / med 50 0.00% £197,786 2.62% Viable 12 Main town Low / med 100 0.00% £329,602 2.18% Marginal 13 Main town Low / med 400 0.00% £1,034,489 1.71% Marginal 14 Main town Low 50 0.00% -£176,472 -2.53% Unviable 15 Main town Low 100 0.00% -£332,462 -2.39% Marginal 16 Main town Low 400 0.00% -£1,218,617 -2.19% Marginal 17 Main town Low 50 0.00% -£176,472 -2.53% Unviable 18 Main town Low 100 0.00% -£332,462 -2.39% Marginal 19 Main town Low 50 0.00% -£176,472 -2.53% Unviable 20 Main town Low 100 0.00% -£332,462 -2.39% Marginal 21 Main town Low 400 0.00% -£1,218,617 -2.19% Marginal 22 Town, Urban, Village Medium 50 24.00% £265,293 3.26% Viable 23 Town, Urban, Village Medium 100 12.00% £424,557 2.61% Viable 24 Town, Urban, Village Medium 400 9.75% £1,631,876 2.51% Viable 25 Service town Medium 50 12.00% £234,294 2.88% Viable 26 Service town Medium 100 12.00% £424,557 2.61% Viable 27 Service town Low 50 0.00% -£176,472 -2.53% Unviable 28 Service town Low 100 0.00% -£332,462 -2.39% Marginal

112

Test 1 – Urban Settlement Viability Results

No Afford Surplus / No Site Value band % of GDV Viable units (%) deficit

1 Green infill High 1 0.00% £57,145 27.34% Viable 2 Green infill Medium 1 0.00% £21,683 13.34% Viable 3 Green infill Low 1 0.00% £5,031 3.61% Viable 4 5 units cleared High 5 0.00% £291,185 27.86% Viable 5 5 units cleared Medium 5 0.00% £104,582 12.87% Viable 6 5 units cleared Low 5 0.00% £11,280 1.62% Marginal 7 5 units occupied High 5 0.00% £250,250 23.94% Viable 8 5 units occupied Medium 5 0.00% £63,647 7.83% Viable 9 5 units occupied Low 5 0.00% -£29,725 -4.27% Unviable 10 14 units cleared High 14 28.58% £449,857 15.37% Viable 11 14 units cleared Medium 14 14.28% £93,935 4.13% Viable 12 14 units cleared Low 14 0.00% -£59,591 -3.05% Unviable 13 14 units occupied High 14 28.58% £335,540 11.47% Viable 14 14 units occupied Medium 14 0.00% £70,076 3.08% Viable 15 14 units occupied Low 14 0.00% -£174,433 -8.94% Unviable 16 50 units cleared High 50 24.00% £1,460,789 13.98% Viable 17 50 units cleared Medium 50 14.00% £214,711 2.64% Viable 18 50 units cleared Low 50 0.00% -£306,987 -4.41% Unviable 19 50 units occupied High 50 24.00% £1,015,190 9.71% Viable 20 50 units occupied Medium 50 0.00% £82,049 1.01% Marginal 21 50 units occupied Low 50 0.00% -£757,883 -10.88% Unviable 22 100 units cleared High 100 25.00% £2,806,113 13.42% Viable 23 100 units cleared Medium 100 12.00% £470,676 2.90% Viable 24 100 units cleared Low 100 0.00% -£571,781 -4.10% Unviable 25 100 units occupied High 100 25.00% £1,727,587 8.26% Viable 26 100 units occupied Medium 100 0.00% £127,105 0.78% Marginal 27 100 units occupied Low 100 0.00% -£1,500,747 -10.77% Unviable

8.3.4 The other 5 residential sensitivity tests can be found in the full report. However, in brief, the modelling concludes that schemes in low value areas, regardless of size and scenario test, were shown to be unable to support any level of affordable housing. Schemes in high value areas, regardless of size and scenario test, were shown to comfortably support an affordable housing provision of 25% (whether this includes starter homes or not). Schemes within medium value areas showed a fluctuation in the level of affordable housing provision that could be viably supported, depending on the size of the scheme, nature of the land and the specific scenario test (ranging from 0% – 25%). However, taking into account the various tests, the report suggests circa 10% – 15% as being a fair representation as to the average level of affordable housing scheme in medium value areas could support. Taking into account the above, the District Valuer concluded that a policy ‘starting’ point of 25% appears out of kilter for most schemes likely to be brought forward across Doncaster (which will be located in low and medium value areas). For schemes within low to medium value areas the District Valuer suggests 15% as being a more appropriate aspiration (with 25% retained for higher value locations).

113

8.3.5 Following the conclusions from the study, the Council has redrafted the Local Plan’s affordable housing contribution policy to reflect the advice from the report and the iterative nature of plan-making that seeks to balance contributions with viability as required by national policy. In addition, the plan includes a policy on viability which is an additional safety net and supports negotiations around contributions towards policy asks where genuine viability issues ensue on a case-by-case basis as part of the Development Management stage.

8.3.6 Although Test 1 suggests that, even with a zero affordable housing contribution ask, some schemes in low value areas are unviable, it is important to take a closer look at these areas and address whether there are any more specific implications for the site selection process that these findings may present. A simple interpretation from the study could be that there are doubts around viability, and therefore deliverability of any sites in these locations? The following provides further consideration and discussion as to why area wide viability testing findings in themselves need to be treated as just the starting point.

 Area wide testing is a broad brush approach and takes the law of averages for assumptions that feed into the modelling. It can only ever be a starting point therefore and site specific appraisals will always be better placed to fully represent the actual development costs/values etc for a particular site;  The area wide approach, especially when using hypothetical sites, assumes an almost worse case development cost for sites which may well not be necessary/required e.g. not all brownfield sites will require allowances for flood risk mitigation and contaminated land remediation etc.  Site representations have been put forward by landowners, developers and their agents which indicates a level of commercial investment and commitment to see sites developed;  The ‘call for sites’ questionnaire asked for assumptions around developer contributions and any abnormal development costs associated with brining the site(s) forward, and ultimately whether the representee thought that their site(s) is viable. Virtually all responded that their sites were viable subject to confirmation of developer contributions through the emerging local plan. This supports the findings from Table 3 & 4 above that sites are viable as long as contributions are flexed in some circumstances, and that the sites that are still deemed unviable, even with zero affordable housing, may need to consider other policy asks such as education and public open space to bring the site back to a level of viability;  Once the local plan is published, the council’s up-to-date position on assumed developer contributions will be set out and should start to inform negotiations with landowners and developers as planning gain theory is based on planning policy, to a large extent, driving land values rather than the other way around, and thus these costs should be reflected in the price ultimately agreed for the land;  As set out above, the local plan includes a policy that supports reduced/deferred contributions where viability is genuinely at issue through the planning application stage;  The council frequently seeks to secure funding from various sources to help frontload infrastructure and reduce the burden of costs from the development industry and unlock development sites/areas, such as: Homes England Accelerated Housing Delivery Fund and Housing Infrastructure Fund; or, Sheffield City Region Housing Fund etc etc;  The council, as a significant landowner in the borough, can use its assets to deliver housing on land where wider objectives may be being sought which may not just be about maximising the return on our land, such as providing 100% 114

affordable housing schemes, illustrating that not all landowners have the same motivations for bringing sites forward;  More specifically to the areas (Bentley; Adwick-le-Street/Woodlands; Thorne- Moorends; Rossington; and, Edlington) identified as having viability issues in Tables 3 & 4, all of these areas have had significant housing delivered in recent years, and indeed developments currently on site which supports schemes are viable. Further to this, stage 2 (HELAA supply from deliverable permissions) and stage 3 (Local Plan housing requirement by growth settlement) suggests that there are far more deliverable permissions (many that are under construction) already identified at most of these settlements (Thorne-Moorends; Edlington; and, Rossington) compared to the plan period requirement. Hence there would be no need to rely on any further sites coming forward which would negate the concerns around viability of allocations here, notwithstanding the points made above anyway that this need not be the case.

Commercial Viability Findings

8.3.7 For non-residential sites, the report concludes that supermarkets, strategic warehouses, hotels and town centre shop schemes are all viable, even with the application of the Council’s draft Local Plan policies. However, the report concludes that industrial and office schemes are currently unviable, even if the Council’s draft Local Plan policies are removed. This is due to macro-economic factors affecting these market sectors. The only scheme type that sees a significant benefit in reducing the Council’s draft Local Plan policies is non-strategic warehousing, which improves from being marginally viable to viable when the policies are reduced (or removed). Although the viability testing demonstrates that industrial and offices are currently unviable sites for these uses still need to be allocated in the Local Plan. For offices,

8.3.8 Test 1 assumed that all the draft Council policies were met for all the types of employment site modelled. The summary findings are set out below. 7 of the 13 commercial site types tested return a viable result. This includes all iterations of supermarket development, a hotel scheme, a strategic warehouse scheme and a town centre shop. To the most part these are considered to be comfortably viable, and would still produce viable results even if some costs were to increase marginally. 5 of the remaining schemes produced an unviable result. It is stressed that the losses generated by these schemes were significant (and include industrial and office development). The only marginally viable scheme was non-strategic warehousing.

115

Test 1 Council policy appraisal results

Green Land Flood Surplus / Type Transport infra remed risk deficit % of GDV Viable Hotel £0 £1,000 £3,500 £14,000 £454,327 6.76% Viable Strategic Warehouse £600,000 £60,000 £210,000 £840,000 £4,471,192 10.66% Viable Supermarket - green £180,000 £18,000 £0 £252,000 £4,342,576 32.47% Viable Supermarket - brown £180,000 £18,000 £63,000 £252,000 £4,440,741 33.21% Viable Supermarket - green £0 £5,000 £0 £70,000 £691,480 19.81% Viable Supermarket - brown £0 £5,000 £17,500 £70,000 £718,747 20.60% Viable Industrial £150,000 £15,000 £52,500 £210,000 -£1,961,875 -37.20% Unviable Industrial £75,000 £7,500 £26,250 £105,000 -£980,937 -37.20% Unviable Industrial £35,000 £3,500 £12,250 £49,000 -£462,277 -41.64% Unviable Large office £0 £1,000 £3,500 £14,000 -£539,273 -102.40% Unviable Small office £0 £1,000 £3,500 £14,000 -£178,625 -71.45% Unviable Non-strategic warehouse £300,000 £30,000 £105,000 £420,000 £61,376 0.41% Marginal Town centre shop £0 £170 £595 £2,380 £21,206 6.46% Viable

8.3.9 Test 2 then modeled each commercial scenario site type on the assumption that all draft Council policies are excluded within the assessment. The non-strategic warehouse scheme changes from being previously unviable (when the Council policies were applied), to be being viable (when the Council policies were removed). For this particular development type the level of Council policies is therefore a key determinant of viability. The 5 commercial site types that were unviable when the Council policies were applied (industrial and office) remain unviable when the Council policies are removed. In this respect, the level of Council policy is not a determining factor in viability, because the schemes remain unviable regardless of the level of Council policies. The lack of viability is therefore down to market factors (primarily that the cost of building industrial and office schemes significantly outweighs the ‘end values’ achievable). The remaining site types remain comfortably viable.

Test 2 No Council policy appraisal results

Surplus / Type deficit GDV % of GDV Viable Hotel £472,118 £6,723,748 7.02% Viable

Strategic Warehouse £6,076,452 £41,936,479 14.49% Viable

Supermarket - green £4,764,676 £13,373,546 35.63% Viable

Supermarket - brown £4,920,349 £13,373,546 36.79% Viable

Supermarket - green £763,650 £3,489,875 21.88% Viable Supermarket - brown £806,893 £3,489,875 23.12% Viable Industrial -£1,531,391 £5,273,658 -29.04% Unviable Industrial -£765,696 £2,636,829 -29.04% Unviable Industrial -£361,504 £1,110,244 -32.56% Unviable Large office -£520,259 £526,620 -98.79% Unviable Small office -£159,630 £250,000 -63.85% Unviable Non-strategic warehouse £854,639 £14,801,110 5.77% Viable Town centre shop £24,249 £328,312 7.39% Viable

116

8.3.10 Although the viability testing demonstrates that industrial and offices are currently unviable, these uses will still be addressed in the Local Plan. Both office and manufacturing uses have secured planning permission in the past and have gone on to be delivered. The Urban Centre Masterplan also looks to actively promote business and enterprise within the town centre and beyond including offices. Doncaster has a number of manufacturing businesses and continues to grow in this sector including rail engineering. A number of representations received during the Call for Sites process reflect the need for further sites to be provided for this use class. Business Doncaster also actively promote and assist office and manufacturing uses.

Technical Assessment of Site Access and Highways

8.3.11 Table 8.1 below identifies the sites concluded as being ‘red sites’ where the Councils’ Highways Development Control Team have significant concerns around whether a viable and safe/satisfactory solution could be achieved. Of course at plan- making stage, the level of information around the specific proposals and details of sites is often somewhat sparse so this requires a number of professional assumptions to be made, such as where an access(es) may be taken; layout; proposed capacity; etc etc. Sites concluded as being ‘red sites’ therefore fall out of the process at this stage and receive no further consideration through the final chapter of this methodology. It is recognised however that site specific representations submitted at later stages of the local plan process may provide appropriate information and solutions to overcome these constraints.

Table 8.1: Highways Development Control Technical Assessment of Proposed Housing Sites

Settlement Settlement Hierarchy Name Site Ref Site Name Highways Development Control Conclusion

Doncaster Main Doncaster Challenger Drive, Access problems. No direct access to public highway Urban Area Urban Area 122 Sprotbrough available.

Access problems. Site too large to serve from Cedric Road due Doncaster Main Doncaster Land off Thorne to capacity constraints and no direct access to any other Urban Area Urban Area 431 Road, Edenthorpe existing public highway. Access issues accessing the site from A630 or Clifton Hill (B6094). Proximity to signals. Site topography issues – Site access gradient would possibly be outside design standards. Plus the formation of a new access on to a major arterial route Garage off Sheffield operating under congested conditions. A full Design Manual for Conisbrough- Road / Clifton Hill, Roads & Bridges compliant design and full technical Main Town Denaby 221 Conisbrough assessment required. 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 setback 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 Conisbrough- Hill Top Road, the opinion that these technical requirements could not be met Main Town Denaby 251 Denaby Main and therefore a safe access unachievable. There are major accessibility issues with development off Windgate Hill. Issues due to topography - levels across the Conisbrough- Land off Windgate site. Very narrow road. Would require major improvements to Main Town Denaby 304 Hill, Conisbrough Windgate Hill. Poor accessibility - no footways. Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative solution. Initial stretch joining A614 unlikely to be widened, and Service Land off Narrow it would be hard to bring Narrow Lane up to relevant Town/Village Bawtry 172 Lane, Bawtry requirements. Also thought to be different owners.

117

Tall Trees, Rear of Service 17 Thorne Road, Unlikely to achieve access from Narrow Lane - No alternative Town/Village Bawtry 280 Bawtry solution – see 172 above..

Service South of Cockhill Site fronts to Cockhill Close which is not adopted public Town/Village Bawtry 786 Close, Bawtry highway therefore could not support development. Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Service Land off Worksop Bridges. Splay in accordance with 85%ile Wet Weather Speed Town/Village Tickhill 281 Road, Tickhill and a new footway required along the site frontage. Significant hedgerow removal required to provide access. Furthermore, significant widening and improvements to Dadsley Road including footways and new street lighting, as Land West of well as improvements to the junction with Doncaster Road. Service Dadsley Road, Similar issues apply if access proposed via Wilsic Road or Town/Village Tickhill 452 Tickhill Peastack Lane. Access Issues - Visibility problems to A60 due to design requirements in accordance with Design Manual for Roads & Land between Bridges - Highly unlikely to be able to meet standards. Access Lindrick Lane and only achievable to Lindrick Lane (rural- very narrow) - Service Worksop Road, Carriageway improvements footways and street lighting Town/Village Tickhill 930 Tickhill required.

118

9.0 Stage 7: Overall Conclusions and Decisions on Site Allocations

9.1 Background

9.1.1 This methodology so far has followed a 6 stage process to provide a summary of the main relevant evidence base and its conclusions. Each stage has set out why sites have either fallen out of the process, or progressed to this final section of the methodology so that decisions are clear, transparent and justified via the evidence. This final section draws on all of the previous stages to make clear the reasons and justification for the decisions on sites that have been taken. The final section then identifies any current statutory development plan allocations from the Unitary Development Plan that are not yet developed and not being proposed to be re-allocated and how the Local Plan intends to treat them through its Proposals Map in the interests of transparency and completeness.

9.2 Extant Planning Permissions & Completions During First 2 Years of the Plan period

9.1.2 Given the Local Plan plan period started on 1st April 2015, and this is the base date for the housing need for the whole plan period 2015-2032, then there is a need to consider what has been delivered already during the first 2 years of the plan period, and then calculate a residual housing requirement for each of the growth settlements identified for the remainder of the plan. The council’s published annual monitoring reports on housing completions (Residential Land Availability Assessments 2016 & 2017) provides this information and are available to view here: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/monitoring-and-implementation

9.1.3 The summary tables below therefore set out total net completions from sites during the first 2 years of the plan at each of the settlements in the hierarchy, but not including completions at the Defined Villages or elsewhere in the borough which is additional supply. Some, especially smaller sites or the tail end of larger sites, may have completely built out and finished during this period. Other sites may have been delivering before the plan period base date, and will continue to do so for a number of years. The important point here is that none of this capacity has been accounted for in any housing delivery data pre 1st April 2015 so they should all rightly contribute towards the plan period housing requirement.

119

9.3 Housing Site Conclusions

Doncaster Main Urban Area

9.1.4 The Doncaster Main Urban Area has a local need requirement of 3,748 dwellings and an economic growth allocation range of 3,394 to 3,960 dwellings which gives the settlement a housing allocation range of 7,145 to 7,710 dwellings. Deliverable and developable planning permissions and completions provides for 4,522 units in the first 15 years of the plan period which well exceeds the local need target for the settlement by 774 units and provides a small contribution towards the economic growth range, but a potential further 2,623 – 3,188 dwellings are in need of allocating at the settlement depending on which end of the economic growth range is met. In line with the Council’s latest 5-Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply Statement (2017-2022) there has been some discounting to the permissions at the Main Urban Area to reflect the most up-to-date evidence for sites rather than simply relying on the monitoring as at 1st April 2017. Specifically:

 Site Reference: 791 – Bentley House, Jossey Lane, Scawthorpe – Outline planning permission for 80 units has now lapsed post April 2017 as no Reserved Matters was received in time. To reflect the 5- Year Supply position, it is still proposed to allocate the site for housing, but 0 units identified as being deliverable 0-5 years, but developable years 6-10 to allow for fresh application(s) and lead in times/start on site etc.

 Site Reference: 838 – Bombardier, Kirk Street/Ramsden Road/Eden Grove, Hexthorpe – Full Major permission has been implemented but stalled before any completions and that developer is no longer implementing the scheme so doubts around deliverability of this permission and likely to now be a fresh application. Planning Inspector as part of a recent Public Inquiry (May 2017) concluded reasonable prospect the site could start to deliver by 2019/20 so deliverable supply discounted accordingly and in line with 5YHLS rather than standard build out rates applied for a permission under construction.

 Site Reference: 841 – Waterdale, Doncaster – Mixed Use planning permission which included an indicative residential element of up to 450 dwellings. A Reserved Matters application has been granted for 99 dwellings (The Gables) and is under construction. A further 1 hectare residential site (former Scarborough House) has been cleared of previous offices and temporally grassed over in preparation for its redevelopment and is currently being marketed. However, wider residential components of the Outline permission are now unclear so, due to the need to demonstrate deliverability, this site has been significantly discounted (as per the 5YHLS 2017-2022) to just reflect the 2 residential sites as discussed with the remainder of the capacity moved to beyond the plan period. Any further residential uses will be additional supply therefore.

9.1.5 There are 29 non-permissioned (as at 1st April 2017) site options that have made it through the site selection methodology to this final stage. Each is now discussed in turn before a summary table of the preferred allocations sets out the total proposed allocation and development trajectory for the settlement.

9.1.6 There are 18 sites (once duplicate sites have been consolidated into a single site) at the Main Urban Area which would not involve the loss of countryside or Green Belt and these are discussed first and foremost.

 Site Reference: 111 – Stevens Road, Balby – 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. 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 forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 (105 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 very well in Sustainability Appraisal exhibiting mainly significant positive/positive or neutral effects. Conclusion = allocate site reference 111.

 Site Reference: 148 – Loversall Land, Weston Road, Balby – The site is 3.29 hectares in size and currently grass/scrubland with a small area of hard standing for car parking to the north west corner of the site and greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 92 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and south and healthcare uses to the west. A school is located immediately to the north of the site (Balby Carr).The site is currently designated as a Community Facility via the UDP 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 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) through stage 4 of this process. Conclusion = allocate site reference 148.

 Site Reference: 215 - High Road, Warmsworth – 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

120

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 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 215, 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) and this is being supported through the emerging Local Plan. 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.

 Site Reference: 253 - Former Bloodstock Sales Site, Carr House Road – The site is 1.74 hectares in size and consists of the former Belle Vue Stables and Sales Ring. The former buildings have been demolished and the site cleared and is therefore 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 shortly. 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. Conclusion = allocate site reference 253.

 Site Reference: 261 - Plot 5A, off Carolina Way / Lakeside Boulevard – The site is 2 hectares in size and is part of the former Doncaster Airport site and is therefore brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 53 dwellings. The Lakeside Lake is located to the north and east of the site beyond which is an existing housing development under construction. The High Speed Rail College has recently been constructed and now open to the west which sits alongside some existing commercial uses. There is open countryside to the south including Potteric Carr nature reserve . The site is an unused UDP 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. The site forms part of the current 5-Year housing land supply covering the period 2017-2022 with 53 units being found as to be deliverable. Conclusion = allocate site reference 261.

 Site Reference: 262 - Plot 6, Lakeside Boulevard – 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 story 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. 70 unit’s deliverable in the 5- Year housing land supply with a further 17 units’ developable years 6-10. Conclusion = allocate site reference 262.

 Site Reference: 263 - 3 Sites in St Sepulchre Gate West – 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 263 – too small and no longer available for housing.

 Site Reference: 284 - Formerly Carr House Allotments, Hyde Park – The site is 2.8 hectares in size and is currently scrubland and greenfield therefore capable of accommodating 79 dwellings. There are allotments to the north of the site and further scrubland to the east and south with commercial uses to the west and south-west. The site is identified through the Green Space Audit as being allotments. This representation has been put forward for housing by a community group (Carr House Allotment Social Enterprise) but they have stated through the call for sites process that the site is owned by a public authority and it is not believed that the site is being promoted therefore by the actual landowner so landowner intentions are not clear and therefore doubts around availability and deliverability of the site for an alternative use. It is noted however that there may be a need for rationalisation of the existing allotment provision in this area. Conclusion = reject site reference 284 – site not being promoted for housing by the landowner so doubts around availability/land owner intentions.

121

 Site Reference: 350/407 - Rose Hill/The Avenue, Cantley – The site is 6.7 hectares and currently grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 166 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east, south-east and south-west. Doncaster Racecourse is located to the north and north-west and open countryside/woodland to the north-east. This representation is an existing greenfield UDP Housing Allocation and has been put 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. The site forms part of the current 5-Year housing land supply covering the period 2017-2022 with 70 units being found as deliverable in years 0-5. Conclusion = allocate site reference 350/407.

 Site Reference: 380 - Goodison Boulevard (1), Cantley – 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 UDP 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 380 – loss of existing public open space being proposed to be retained as such.

 Site Reference: 389 - Leyden Drive (Small Site), Scawsby – The site is 0.4 hectares in size and is currently scrubland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 12 dwellings. There are existing dwellings to the east and south with open countryside and agricultural land to the north and west. The Roman Ridge (Scheduled Monument) runs parallel with the site boundary to the north. The site is designated Residential Policy Area via the UDP and is owned by DMBC. A proposal has been approved via Executive Decision Record in October 2013 for 9 bungalows delivered by the Council’s Housing Association partner Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust. The site forms part of the Council’s 5-Year Housing Land Supply covering the period 2017-2022 (9 deliverable units). The Planning Inspector, as part of a recent Public Inquiry (May 2017), concluded the site had a realistic prospect of being delivered. Allocating the site provides a small site which will increase the mix and type of sites to support different types and sizes of developer, in this case a Housing Trust, in line with emerging national policy. Conclusion = allocate site reference 389 but for a slightly reduced capacity of 9 units rather than the HELAA capacity of 12 units to reflect the emerging proposed scheme and most up-to-date evidence.

 Site Reference: 395 - Weston Road / Newbolt Plots, Balby - These six small sites total 0.35 hectares and are open spaces/grassed areas in between existing residential areas and are greenfield. The sites could accommodate 10 dwellings. The surrounding land uses are all primarily residential and open space. This representation actually consists of 6 separate very small infill sites which is the only reason that the site threshold of 5+ units is met. Otherwise each site would fall well below the 5+ unit minimum threshold for an allocation in the Local Plan. Proposed to continue to show these sites as Residential Policy Area which would still allow small scale infill/redevelopment proposals to come forward. Conclusion = reject site reference 395 – too small to allocate for housing, retaining current Residential Policy Area designation is considered as being most appropriate and would allow small scale infill development to come forward via, and subject to, the Development Management process.

 Site Reference: 397 - Orchard Street, Balby – 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 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 397, access and local wildlife site/trees/regenerating woodland concerns and deliverability therefore cannot be guaranteed, but designate as Residential Policy Area which may allow for some development still to come forward if appropriate mitigation can be identified/constraints overcome.

 Site Reference: 400 - Rose Hill Cemetery Land, Cantley Lane, Cantley – The site is 1.2 hectares located to the north of Cantley Lane and is currently grassland open space and greenfield. There is a small section of hard standing in the north-west corner of the site currently used for car parking for the cemetery. The site is capable of accommodating 28 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the south and a cemetery to the north. Dense woodland is found to the east and further grassed open space to the west, before further residential dwellings. The site is currently designated as Open Space Policy Area via the UDP and identified through the Green Space Audit as Ascot Road Amenity Housing open space (reference 1). Cantley is the only community profile which has sufficient open space provision in all the different categories of green space based on the findings from the Green Space Audit. This Open Space is being proposed to be retained so the representation seeking housing is not supported. Policies in the Local Plan could allow for the development of open space but would be subject to conditions, including that there had been proper consultation with the local community on the value of the green space to the area. Conclusion = reject site reference 400 – loss of existing public open space being proposed to be retained as such

122

 Site Reference: 416 - Goodison Boulevard (2), Cantley – 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 416 as now being developed for a 75-bed care home, however it is proposed to re-designate as Residential Policy Area on the Policies Map rather than retain its current Open Space Policy Area as this is more appropriate now.

 Site Reference: 833 - Sandy Lane, Doncaster – 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 35 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. Conclusion = allocate site reference 833.

 Site Reference: 835 - Warmsworth Reservoir, Warmsworth – The site is a covered reservoir 0.6 hectares in size and brownfield. The site is capable of accommodating 18 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and allotments to the north and west with further residential uses beyond. Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate is located to the south and south-west. The site is currently designated as Residential Policy Area via the UDP and is surplus to Yorkshire Water’s requirements and is now being promoted through the Local Plan for allocation for housing. However since then, but post the base date for permissions information 1st April 2017, the landowner has submitted an Outline planning application for 23 dwellings which has been granted subject to S106 (reference: 17/00537/OUTM ). It is proposed to allocate the site therefore to reflect the emerging planning proposals as per the Outline application which is approved subject to S106 being signed. 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.

 Site Reference: 836 - Land South of Woodfield Way – Large urban extension site extending to 49.8 hectares and currently agricultural land/grassland and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 1,233 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 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 recently had Outline planning permission for 1,600 dwellings (with the adjacent land currently being 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. Fresh application(s) are expected Spring 2018 for the part of the site that has lapsed and, based on the capacity from the lapsed scheme, could provide up to 1,233 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 schemes of mitigation already addressed through 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 Document5 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 (1,233 units), but discount delivery within the plan period (855 units first 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.

9.1.7 The allocation supply from the non-permissioned sites just discussed equates to 1,566 units in the first 15 years of the plan period which, when added to the supply from completions/deliverable planning permissions, provides a cumulative total supply for the Main Urban Area of 6,005 units (1,566 + 4,522 = 6,088) in the first 15 years of the plan period. This is against its overall housing requirement range of 7,145 – 7,710 units which means a further 1,057 – 1,622 units need to be identified if the Main Urban Area is to meet its total local need and economic-led housing growth requirement. There are 12 sites (once duplicate sites have been consolidated into a single site) which are urban extension sites, primarily on land currently designated as Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area, which could help provide the shortfall

5 Carr Lodge Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted October 2016) available via: http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/planning/carr-lodge-design-code-spd

123 in sites/numbers. Each of these are now discussed further, firstly Countryside Policy Area sites followed by potential Green Belt extension sites. The summary of each site’s Sustainability Appraisal findings are also set out in Table 9.1 below and only showing where there has been differentiation between the effects for each site.

Table 9.1: Sustainability Appraisal Findings for Doncaster Main Urban Area 12 Urban Extension Sites (Exclusive of Effects where all Sites Performed the Same)

Site Ref 033 115 164 166 214 234 237 241 430 432 436 494

Former Wheatley

Land off WarningLand off

Quarry, Sheffield

Warning Tongue Warning Tongue

Warmsworth (2)

Land at Scawsby

Land to theLand to East

Sheffield Road, Lane, Common

Alverley Lane,

of Mereof Lane,

Land adj.163 LegerSchool,

Warmsworth Warmsworth Warmsworth

Tongue Lane

Land East of Land of East Land of East

Green Lane,

Scawthorpe Scawthorpe

Edenthorpe

Hills Middle

Broad Broad

Lane (1) Lane (2)

Road, Road,

Balby

Lane

Way

Axe,

Site Name

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

7B(i) Minimise Risk to Health and Safety + + + - + + + + + + + +

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

8B(i) Highways Capacity + + - - 0 0 + - - + 0 0

8B(ii)Fibre Broadband Coverage + 0 - - + + + - - + + +

8B(iii) Primary School Capacity + - - - + - + - - 0 - -

8B(iv) Secondary School Capacity + + 0 + + + + + 0 + + +

9A(i) Access to Public Open Space 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0

12A(i) Biodiversity ------

12B(i) Landscape Capacity - + 0 0 - - - 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

14A(i) Minerals Sterilisation - - ? ? - - - ? ? ? - -

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 0 -- -- 0 -- 0

14C(i) Air Quality 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

124

9.1.8 There are 4 sites that would extend the Doncaster Main Urban Area on land currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The following 2 sites (references 164 and 430) are 2 different representations (site ref 430 is a smaller part of site ref 164) so are discussed together fist.

 Site Reference: 164 - Land East of Warning Tongue Lane (1) & Site Reference: 430 - Land off Warning Tongue Lane – The site is 11.06 hectares located to the east of Cantley and is currently in agricultural use and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 248 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 site is 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 site is 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 site is not therefore considered as being open countryside. 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. Conclusion = allocate site references 164/430 as its 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.

 Site Reference: 166 - Land East of Warning Tongue Lane (2) – The site is 21.85 hectares and located to the south-east of Cantley. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield and capable of accommodating 480 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the west with woodland to the north and agricultural uses to the east and 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 the most negative effects (alongside site reference 241) compared to all the other urban extension site options for the Main Urban Area, including the Green Belt sites. 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 166.

 Site Reference: 241 - Land to the East of Mere Lane, Edenthorpe – Large urban extension site to the east of Edenthorpe extending to 46.3 hectares and capable of accommodating 1,147 dwellings. The site is currently in agricultural use and is greenfield therefore. There are existing residential dwellings to the west with open countryside and further agricultural uses to the north, east and south. Long Plantation (woodland) is located immediately to the northern and eastern site boundaries. The site is currently designated as Countryside Policy Area. The Sustainability Appraisal finds the site has the most negative effects (alongside site reference 166) compared to all the other urban extension site options for the Main Urban Area, including the Green Belt sites. 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 HELAA estimated capacity, 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 will rest with the Secretary of State following receipt of the Planning Inspector’s report later this year. Conclusion = reject site reference 241, recent Outline planning application has been refused on this site for residential development and currently subject to the outcome of an Appeal (Public Inquiry) which is pending a decision from the Secretary of State.

 Site Reference: 391/432 – Former Wheatley Hills Middle School, Leger Way, Wheatley – The site is 5.41 hectares in size and consists of a former school site and playing fields. There are some areas of hard standing/former car parking but the majority of the site is greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 134 dwellings or as an extension to the neighbouring industrial estate. 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. 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 to the south-east, and the golf club (car park/club house etc)/public house/school/rugby club/household waste recycling center 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. 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.

125

9.1.9 There are 7 sites that would extend the Doncaster Main Urban Area on land currently designated as Green Belt. The Green Belt Review Phase 3 (Stage 5 of this process) identified that 2 of these sites have a moderately strong case for inclusion in further site selection work making them the ‘weakest’ of the Green Belt extension site options relative to the other Green Belt sites at the settlement. These 2 sites are references 115 and 237. Site reference 237 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 432 discussed above) with the fewest negative effects. However, this is a minerals site with extant permission for extraction until well beyond the plan period 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. Site reference 115 is the next strongest performing site through the Sustainability Appraisal

 Site Reference: 237 - Warmsworth Quarry, Sheffield Road, Warmsworth (2) - The site is currently a quarry located to the south-west of Warmsworth and extends to 38.1 hectares and is greenfield. The site is capable of accommodating 942 dwellings. The River Don runs to the north of the site. There are existing residential uses to the east and south with open countryside and agricultural uses to the north and west. Conclusion = reject site reference 237, major deliverability concerns for the site given current use/reclamation that would be required.

 Site Reference: 115 – Alverley Lane, Balby – 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 makes no discernable 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 allocation 432) again 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. Conclusion = allocate site reference 115.

9.1.10 The remaining 5 sites all are found to have a moderate case for inclusion in further site selection work by the Phase 3 Green Belt Review.

 Site Reference: 033 – Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road, Warmsworth – The site is 4.39 hectares and located to the south-west of Warmsworth and is currently in agricultural use (arable) and greenfield therefore. The site is capable of accommodating 112 dwellings. There are existing residential uses to the east and Warmsworth Halt Industrial Estate to the south. A quarry is located to the north of the site and open countryside/agricultural uses to the west. The existing Green Belt boundary is defined by residential built form along the A630 and Ash Dale Road to the east, and Warmsworth Halt to the south. The existing boundary is considered to be somewhat intended by the extent of residential gardens. If the site was to be removed from the Green Belt, the resultant boundary would be defined to the north by the strongly defined, recognisable and likely to be permanent A630/Sheffield Road and to the west by weakly defined field boundary, denoted only by the change in agricultural crop and no other recognisable or likely to be permanent features. The resultant Green Belt boundaries would therefore be mixed in strength. Although the site and existing boundary has a strong role in preventing ribbon development, the site is largely contiguous with the large built up area of Doncaster (which is a regeneration priority area) and has a relatively modest role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging as there would still be a largely essential gap between Conisbrough and Warmsworth. The site would have a very limited impact on the historic core of Warmsworth, which forms part of the Historic Town of Doncaster. The site is considered as having a moderate-strong role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site is the next strongest performing site through the Sustainability Appraisal after site reference 115 already discussed above 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. Conclusion = allocate site reference 033, further urban extension sites are required in order for the Main Urban Area to meet its growth range and this site is the next best performing through the Sustainability Appraisal.

126

 Site Reference: 234 - Broad Axe, Scawthorpe - 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. Conclusion = allocate site reference 234, further urban extension sites are required in order for the Main Urban Area to meet its growth range and this site is the next best performing through the Sustainability Appraisal.

 Site Reference: 214 - Common Lane, Warmsworth – 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 214, although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as other sites at the settlement which are being proposed for allocation, there are sites that perform slightly better through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

 Site Reference: 436 - Land at Scawsby Lane – 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. Conclusion = reject site reference 436, although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as other sites at the settlement which are being proposed for allocation, there are sites that perform slightly better through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

 Site Reference: 494 - Green Lane, Scawthorpe - 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. The site adjoins Broad Axe Field which is being proposed to be allocated as per site reference 234 above. Site 494 makes very little sense in urban form in isolation from the Broad Axe field site. Conclusion = reject site reference 494, although the site has been identified as performing the same through the Green Belt Review Phase 3 as other sites at the settlement which are being proposed for allocation, there are sites that perform slightly better through the Sustainability Appraisal and sufficient allocations now identified.

127

Settlement Hierarchy: Doncaster Main Urban Area Settlement Name: Doncaster Urban Area Population/ Existing Number of Households (2014): 123,648/ 56,814 First 15 Years’ Housing Requirement (2015-2030): 7,145 – 7,710 Dwellings First 15-Years’ Allocation Total Identified: 7,239 Plan Period Housing Supply Total (2015-2032): 7,616

Table 9.2: Doncaster Main Urban Area – Housing Site Supply/Allocation Summary & Trajectory

Net Units Net Net Net Units Net Deliverable Net Net Units Planning/ Site Total Site Remaining at Net Developable Net Developable Net Units First 15 Completions Completions Remaining as Units in next 5 Developable Beyond Plan Site Ref Site Name Status Capacity Start of Plan st Units Units Years Total Year 1 Year 2 at 1 April Years Units Period (as at 01/04/2017) (Net) Period (2022/27) (2027/30) (2015/30) (2015/16) (2016/17) 2017 (2017/22) (2030/32) (2032+) (01/04/2015) Local Plan 2015 – 2032 Plan Period Years 1 2 3-7 8-12 13-15 16-17 17+

Planning Permissions (5+ Units)

The Maltings Timber Limited, Permission - 544 80 70 6 6 58 58 0 0 70 0 0 Doncaster Road, Kirk Sandall Started Permission - Not 555 Land Off Grove Road, Kirk Sandall 96 96 0 0 96 96 0 0 96 0 0 Started Place Of Worship, Canterbury Permission - 657 12 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 Road, Wheatley Complete Permission - 666 54 Earlston Drive, Bentley 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Started 123, 123a, 125, 129a and 131 Permission - 686 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Balby Road, Balby Started LW Yates Steel Fabrication, The Permission - 696 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Forge, Cooke Street, Bentley Complete Permission - 712 12 Avenue Road, Wheatley 13 8 0 2 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 Started Park Hotel, 232 Carr House Road, Permission - 724 10 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Belle Vue Complete Bentley House, Jossey Lane, Permission - 791 80 80 0 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 0 Scawthorpe Outline Land to the Rear of Eden Grove Permission - Not 792 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 Road, Edenthorpe Started Land at Former Belle Vue Football Permission - 797 151 151 0 16 135 135 0 0 151 0 0 Ground, Bawtry Road Started Land South East of Lakeside Permission - 798 Boulevard (Winscar Road), 51 51 19 31 1 1 0 0 51 0 0 Started Lakeside Former Roman Ridge Hotel, Permission - 801 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Westdale Road, Scawsby Complete Land to the North of Athelstane Permission - 802 65 53 53 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 Crescent, Edenthorpe Complete Permission - 804 18 South Parade, Doncaster 9 9 1 6 2 2 0 0 9 0 0 Started Permission - 811 Land Off Layden Drive, Scawsby 57 57 0 57 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 Complete Garage Site, Shelley Avenue, Permission - 812 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Balby Complete Permission - 813 87 St Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Complete Permission - 820 Former Bentley Colliery, Bentley 137 92 49 38 5 5 0 0 92 0 0 Started Land South West Of Carr House Permission - 821 123 42 26 16 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 Road, Hyde Park Complete Kirk Street/Ramsden Road/Eden Permission - 838 930 930 0 0 930 105 350 210 665 140 125 Grove, Hexthorpe Started Permission - 840 Serenity, Lakeside 303 128 40 51 37 37 0 0 128 0 0 Started Permission - 841 Waterdale, Doncaster 450 422 26 0 396 76 0 0 102 0 320 Started Permission - 842 Carr Lodge, Woodfield 323 269 112 102 55 55 0 0 269 0 0 Started Permission - 0 843 Manor Farm, Bessacarr 1,106 1,106 50 49 1,007 350 350 210 1,009 97 Started Permission - 849 15 Avenue Road, Wheatley 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Complete Newton Business Centre, 200 859 7 7 1 4 2 2 0 0 7 0 0 Sprotbrough Road, Sprotbrough Permission – 128

Started

125A, 127, 127A, 129 AND 131A Permission - Not 862 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 Balby Road, Balby Started Land At The Former Ashmount Permission - 865 16 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 Club, 50 High Road, Balby Complete Permission - 869 Victoria Court, Bentley -17 -17 -34 17 0 0 0 0 -17 0 0 Complete Hill Crest, Barnsley Road, Permission - 885 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Scawsby Started Permission - Not 886 Oswin Avenue, Balby 22 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 22 0 0 Started Former Reservoir, Green Lane, Permission - Not 888 14 14 0 0 14 14 0 0 14 0 0 Scawthorpe Started The Drum, Watch House Lane, Permission - 891 9 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Bentley Complete Former Youth Club, Kirkby Permission - 895 14 14 1 13 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 Avenue, Bentley Complete Princegate House, Princegate, Permission - Not 897 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 Doncaster Started Snooker Club, 21 - 27 St Permission - Not 902 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster Started Permission - 904 65 Bawtry Road, Bessacarr 5 5 0 3 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 Started Denison House, 15 South Parade, Permission - Not 906 11 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 0 0 Doncaster Started Belmont Works, 3 Havelock Road, Permission - 916 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 Balby Outline DMBC, Nether Hall, Nether Hall Permission - 921 14 14 0 0 14 14 0 0 14 0 0 Road, Doncaster Started Electricity Sub Station, Young Permission - Not 923 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 Street, Doncaster Started Permission - 926 Doncaster Industry Park 203 203 0 24 179 175 4 0 203 0 0 Started The Maltings, Doncaster Road, Permission - Not 943 12 12 0 0 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 Kirk Sandall Started Plots 13 And 14 Lakeside Permission - Not 953 147 147 0 0 147 147 0 0 147 0 0 Boulevard, Lakeside, Doncaster Started 13 - 17 Cleveland Street, Permission - Not 959 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 Doncaster Started Permission - Not 964 Fulwood Drive, Balby 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 Started Danum House, St Sepulchre Gate, Permission - Not 967 78 78 0 0 78 78 0 0 78 0 0 Doncaster Started Land To North Of Gowdall Green, Permission - Not 972 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 Bentley Started Diamond Carwash, Carr House Permission - Not 974 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 Road, Hyde Park, Doncaster Started Ground Floor, Princegate House, Permission - 975 14 14 0 4 10 10 0 0 14 0 0 Princegate, Doncaster Started Stag Inn, 15 Dockin Hill Road, Permission - Not 976 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Doncaster Started Units 1 To 3, Scawthorpe Hall, Permission - Not 979 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 The Sycamores, Scawthorpe Started Doncaster Racecourse, Leger Permission - Not 980 80 80 0 0 80 80 0 0 80 0 0 Way, Intake Started 4-29 Bristol Grove, 4-18 (evens) Exeter Road, 6-12 (evens) Permission - Not 981 Parkway South, 4-18 And 24-30 30 30 0 0 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 Started (evens) Winchester Avenue, Wheatley Permission - Not 983 4 Kings Road, Wheatley 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 Started Former McCormick Tractors Permission - 984 International, Wheatley Hall Road, 600 600 0 0 600 280 320 0 600 0 0 Outline Wheatley Permission - Not 986 170 Beckett Road, Wheatley 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 0 0 Started Permission - Not 990 Ivor Grove, Balby 50 50 0 0 50 50 0 0 50 0 0 Started Crystals, 20 Market Place, 993 Permission - Not Doncaster 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 Started

Planning Permissions (5+ Units) Total 5,474 5,063 385 486 4,192 1,986 1,104 420 4,379 237 445

129

Completions From Small Sites (1-4 Units) for First 2 Years Only

See RLA’s 2015/16 & 2016/17 for Details of Sites n/a n/a 74 69 0 0 0 0 143 0 0

Total (Planning Permissions 5+ Units + Completions From Small 5,474 5,063 459 555 4,192 1,986 1,104 420 4,522 237 445 Sites for First 2 Years Only) Further Allocations Towards Settlement’s Plan Period Requirement

Land adj. 163 Sheffield Road, 033 Not Permissioned 112 112 0 0 112 0 112 0 112 0 0 Warmsworth Land at Stevens Road, Balby 111 Not Permissioned 196 196 0 0 196 105 91 0 196 0 0

Alverley Lane, Balby 115 Not Permissioned 150 150 0 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 0

Loversall Land, Weston Road, 148 Not Permissioned 92 92 0 0 92 70 22 0 92 0 0 Balby Land East of Warning Tongue 164/430 Not Permissioned 275 275 0 0 275 70 175 30 275 0 0 Lane (1) Broad Axe, Scawthorpe 234 Not Permissioned 480 480 0 0 480 0 350 130 480 0 0

Former Bloodstock Sales Site, 253 Not Permissioned 46 46 0 0 46 46 0 0 46 0 0 Carr House Road Plot 5A, off Carolina Way / 261 Not Permissioned 53 53 0 0 53 53 0 0 53 0 0 Lakeside Boulevard Plot 6, Lakeside 262 Not Permissioned 87 87 0 0 87 70 17 0 87 0 0

Rose Hill/The Avenue, Cantley 350/407 Not Permissioned 166 166 0 0 166 70 96 0 166 0 0

Layden Drive (Small Site), 389 Not Permissioned 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 Scawsby Former Wheatley Hills Middle 391/432 Not Permissioned 134 134 0 0 134 70 64 0 134 0 0 School, Leger Way, Wheatley Sandy Lane, Doncaster 833 Not Permissioned 39 39 0 0 39 39 0 0 39 0 0

Warmsworth Reservoir, 835 Not Permissioned 23 23 0 0 23 23 0 0 23 0 0 Warmsworth Land South of Woodfield Way, 836 Not Permissioned 1,233 1,233 0 0 1,233 295 350 210 855 140 238 Woodfield Further Allocations Total 3,095 3,095 0 0 3,095 920 1,427 370 2,717 140 238

8,569 8075 8,158 459 459555 459 7204 555 555 4592919 7204 7,2875552448 2919459 80757204 790 24482,906 555 45929197156 7907204 2,5315552448357 459 71562919 7204790683 555 357 2448 790 459 29197156 7204 683790 555 2448 357 7,2392919 4597156 7204 790683 2448 555357 2919 3771567459 7907204683 2448 357 555 683 7156 2919 459 790 6837204 357 2448 555 7156 2919 459683 790 7204 357 2448 555 7156 2919 683 790 7204 357 2448 71562919 683 790 3572448 7156 683790 357 7156 683 357 683 Settlement Housing Supply/Allocation Totals

130

Map 1: Doncaster Town Centre, Hexthorpe & Balby (north)

131

Map 2: Bentley

132

Map 3: Wheatley Hills & Intake

133

Map 4: Wheatley, Intake, Edenthorpe (west)

134

Map 5: Kirk Sandall & Edenthorpe

135

Map 6: Bessacarr & Cantley

136

Map 7: Lakeside & Woodfield

137

Map 8: Balby (south) & Warmsworth

138

Map 9: Richmond Hill, Balby (north) & Hexthorpe

139

Map 10: Scawsby & Scawthorpe

140