Doncaster Local Plan

Summary of Representations to Main Modifications Consultation 2021 and Council’s Response

www.doncaster.gov.uk

1 Doncaster Local Plan Summary of Representations to Main Modifications Consultation 2021 and Council’s Response (April 2021) Consultation took place for six weeks between Monday 8 February until the end of Sunday 21 March 2021. The scope of the consultation was consistent with that undertaken at Regulation 19 stage.

Consultation responses were received from the following individuals, site promoters and organisations:  Individuals: Lund, Oliver; Mason, Gillian; Owen, Christopher; Parkinson, Don, Parkinson, Kim and Wilton (Thorne) Ltd; Thomson, Julia; Tomlinson, Stephen.  Site promoters: Abernant Homes; Avant Homes, Bellway Homes; Blue Anchor Leisure; Firsure; Harworth Group; KCS Developments Limited; Metacre; Metroland; Miller Homes; Peel Land and Property Group Management; Persimmon Homes South Yorkshire; Polypipe Building Products; RWE Renewables UK Developments Ltd; Sandbeck Estate; Strata Homes; The Home Builders Federation; The Strategic Land Group; Troy Verdion; JVH Town Planning.  Organisations: Anglian Water; Canal and River Trust; CrossCountry Trains; Environment Agency; Highways England; Historic England; Homes England; Natural England; NHS Property Services; The Coal Authority; United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas; Wakefield Council; Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.

The Local Plan Inspector’s instructions in respect of this consultation (DONC INP22 MM consult) state the following: ‘the Council should forward the representations to the Programme Officer along with a report listing all of the representations; a summary of the main issues raised; and the Council’s brief response to those main issues.’

The summary and brief responses are provided in Tables A to E below. All the representations can be viewed in full on the Council’s Main Modifications page on the website at: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan.

Tables F1 to F3 shows representations objecting to Site 165/186 – Crabgate Lane, Skellow which do not directly relate to the Main Modifications Consultation.

1 TABLE A - Summary of main issues raised about the proposed main modifications Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number General comments Wakefield Council 0293 n/a No comments on the specific modifications and Response noted and welcomed support the continued progress towards adoption. Homes England 04465 n/a General support for Local Plan Response noted and welcomed CrossCountry 0121 Encouraged to see such a positive and detailed Response noted and welcomed Trains plan. Broadly support the ECML connection to the airport but this does bring challenges such as track layout and connections. Reference to increase in freight transport is supported. Demand trends and passenger travel habits will need to be monitored United Kingdom 05014 n/a Support the modifications and consider that Policy Response noted and welcomed Onshore Oil and 64 is sound and that the whole plan is sound. Gas NHS Property 05351 n/a Welcomes the Council’s guidance on the delivery Response noted and welcomed Services of health facilities to support development Firsure Ltd 05215 n/a The proposed Modifications will not deliver the Response noted. The representation provides level or nature of housing in the appropriate more detailed comments with respect to this as locations required to support the growth of part of the wider response to the Main Doncaster as a key driver for growth. It is essential Modifications which are summarised and there is an alignment between the objectives of the responded to below. Plan, the Strategy and approach to allocations. Avant Homes 05208 n/a The proposed Modifications will not deliver the Response noted. The representation provides level or nature of housing in the appropriate more detailed comments with respect to this as locations required to support the growth of part of the wider response to the Main Doncaster as a key driver for growth. It is essential Modifications which are summarised and there is an alignment between the objectives of the responded to below. Plan, the Strategy and approach to allocations. Strata Homes 02073 n/a The proposed Modifications will not deliver the Response noted. The representation provides level or nature of housing in the appropriate more detailed comments with respect to this as locations required to support the growth of part of the wider response to the Main Doncaster as a key driver for growth. It is essential Modifications which are summarised and there is an alignment between the objectives of the responded to below. Plan, the Strategy and approach to allocations. Harworth Group 05647 n/a The proposed Modifications will not deliver the Response noted. The representation provides level or nature of employment in the appropriate more detailed comments with respect to this as locations required to support the growth of part of the wider response to the Main Doncaster as a key driver for growth. It is essential

2 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number there is an alignment between the objectives of the Modifications which are summarised and Plan, the Strategy and approach to allocations. responded to below. Chapter 1: Introduction No comments Chapter 2: About Doncaster No comments Chapter 3: Our Vision for the Future No comments Chapter 4: Strategic Approach The Strategic Land 04210 MM03 Percentage figures are dependent on each other This matter was discussed in the hearing Group e.g. if delivery in the Main Urban Area was much sessions. Table 4, read in conjunction with Policy lower than expected it would have the effect of 2, sets out the exact number of new homes for making delivery in the other tiers much higher in the allocations in each of the settlements in the 3 percentage terms. That could result in confusion upper tiers of the settlement hierarchy. The and a lack of clarity for both decision Council maintains the modification is necessary to makers and the general public for how to deal with make the plan sound, and that the proposed planning applications. wording provides sufficient clarity.

As the housing requirement is now to be a fixed figure, the distribution of those homes should also be expressed in terms of a minimum number of dwellings in each tier of the hierarchy.

The text should be amended to read: At least 7,182 new home will to the ‘Main Urban Area,’ at least 6,343 to the ‘Main Towns’ and at least 2,382 to the ‘Service Towns and Villages. Miller Homes 05288 MM03 A retrospective lowering of 5% of new houses in This matter was discussed in the hearing the Main Urban Area (from 50% to 45%) sessions. The Main Urban Area remains the main undermines the spatial approach of promoting focus for growth. Whilst the percentages have sustainable development. been amended, it is important to note that no additional development has been proposed in the The MUA equates to roughly 50% of the Service Towns and Villages (and therefore there population in the borough. Taking growth away is no resultant increase in travel etc.), all sites from Doncaster and distributing it to lower order were already proposed allocations prior to the settlements increases the need to travel and is a modification which would deliver the amount of departure from the evidence base which supported housing specified by 2035. The percentages the draft plan. reflect that. It was also noted at the hearings that

3 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number the Grange Farm site is clearly located within the By lowering the growth in the MUA and increasing Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan area (and not an growth elsewhere the MUA cannot be described extension to the Main Urban Area). The site was as the main focus of growth. not supported by the Neighbourhood Plan which allocated alternative urban extension sites. The hearings stated that a large driver in the reduction in percentages is the fact that insufficient sites have been allocated to meet the original 50% figure. However there are additional sites available which could increase the number of sites in the MUA e.g. Grange Farm.

The percentage of growth in the MUA should be retained at 50%. KCS 05319 MM03 Support amendment to remove the identified There has been no reduction in the plan period, Developments range as well as the 5% uplift in designating 15% which remains from 2015 – 2035, however it is Limited of the borough’s housing distribution across the acknowledged that the first 3 years have been service villages. accounted for. Calculations no longer factor in oversupply in the first 3 years so the annual Concerns that a reduction in the plan period requirement has increased from the draft Plan’s leaves limited flexibility for housing delivery as residual 882dpa approach to 920 dpa minimum MM14 says ‘in the remainder of the plan period’ and in actual terms, whilst the requirement for which reduces the housing period by three years 2018 – 2035 is 15,640, the actual number of to cover 2018 – 2035. This equates to a reduction dwellings identified as per Table 9 is 19,492. of 2,760 units over the plan period (previously 18,400 reduced to 15,640). Object to the plan period being shortened by 3 years. A thorough Green Belt assessment has been carried out and the matter was discussed The Local Plan failed to complete a thorough throughout the examination. Allocations have Green Belt Assessment and therefore some been identified to more than meet the settlements (such as Skellow) have sites adjacent settlement’s plan period requirement and there is to the settlement boundary which are in Green Belt likely to be additional windfall supply on non- and are unable to provide the required windfall Green Belt sites over the plan period. Part of the allowance. Potential Development Site (ref: 398) at the settlement now already has planning permission too which was also highlighted at the Hearings as a source of additional supply to the allocations. Sandbeck Estate 03568, MM03 The strategic growth for Tickhill is not being MM03 doesn’t directly relate to the supply of 03569, addressed through the proposed housing housing allocated to Tickhill (MM14 would

4 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number 03570, allocations. This is not in accordance with NPPF perhaps be a better reference). The reasons for 03571, paragraph 11. Tickhill has a housing requirement the inability of the Plan to identify sufficient 04705 of 165 units. There are no planning permissions allocations at Tickhill to deliver 165 dwellings has and a lack of suitable sites. This 165 figure is been discussed and explained throughout the proposed to be addressed by allocating a single examination. The Plan is also clear on this, for site at Sunderland Street for 74 units. Object to the example paras 16.222 & 16.226. The shortfall Modification as it removes all test/reference from Tickhill has been made good through relating to the need. This deletion is unjustified and allocations at other sustainable settlements in line deletes the strategic context for the key policies of with the Site Selection Methodology. The Council the Plan. maintains that the Main Modification is necessary to make the plan sound. The housing need still exists and the site at Wong Lane, Tickhill should be allocated alongside the site on Sunderland Street. The baseline of 165 still exists even if the reference to it has been deleted.

Consideration needs to be given to ensure that housing need in Tickhill is met. Do not support Modification. Peel Land and 04288, MM03 Support reference to major employment sites The Council considers that Policy 6 sufficiently Property 04427, being in locations accessible from the Main Urban covers the Airport and the approach, and Management 04428, Area and Main Towns ‘ at locations attractive to furthermore the reasons why the Airport is 05201, the market with good access to ……. As well as to divorced from the wider Borough settlement 05202 Doncaster Sheffield Airport’. However DSA and its strategy were discussed during the hearings. growth and expansion as envisaged through Policy 6 is otherwise excluded from the spatial strategy or settlement hierarchy. The Local Plan will be more effective if the growth/expansion is referenced in Policy 1 and 2. This would ensure consistency with NPPF para 20 (overall strategy).

Table 2 does not reflect the proposed allocation for the new Plaza at DSA and should be updated to reference the new town centre proposals. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM03 It is unclear if the text relates to the actual These percentages were to guide allocations. South Yorkshire allocations or whether other proposals brought However, in assessing the need for allocations in forward, such as windfalls, will also need to adhere any settlement or tier, commitments were taken to the spatial strategy distribution. Whilst most into account and the balance actually allocated. windfalls should be directed towards the Main So the percentages don’t just refer to new

5 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Urban Area, Main Towns and Service Towns and allocations. Some of the commitments can Villages a strict adherence to this proportionate effectively be seen as historic windfall. split is not considered a necessary or a sound approach. Suggest a modification that will provide Policy is included in the Plan to assess clarity that this need not be strictly adhered to for applications from possible windfall sites but there future windfall sites: is no strict requirement to ensure consistency with “At least 45% of the allocated new homes will go the percentage distribution. to the Main Urban Area, approximately 40% to the Main Towns and about 15% to the Service Towns Monitoring of housing delivery will examine how and Villages.” allocations perform and take into account the contribution from windfalls – these will inform the need for any Local Plan review if the balance of housing (from all sources) throughout the settlement hierarchy does not perform as planned.

No change is considered necessary. Blue Anchor 05197 MM03 Amended Policy 2 includes text that confirms that This text remains the same as the draft Plan, Leisure ‘other development’ will only be accommodated in albeit the modification relocates it to the ‘upfront’ flood zones where sites are safe or can be made spatial strategy text box and out of policy to safe, in accordance with Policy 58 and national address wider concerns raised at the hearings. policy. Housing and mixed use allocations will be This issue was discussed in depth at the distributed in accordance with a sequential hearings. Flood risk was part of the wider site approach to flood risk. assessment and selection process. Additional assessment was undertaken and provided at the No similar reference is given to the need to locate hearings with support from the Environment other development in accordance with the Agency. The conclusion from that being the sequential approach. Policy 2 as amended is not allocation at Thorne North (Ref: 001) was as in accordance with national policy. sequentially preferable as the reasonable alternatives and justified as an allocation. The Local Plan does not accord with the sequential approach set out in national policy as it seeks to allocate Thorne North when there is land available within Flood Zone 1 at West Moor Park East.

Policy 2 is unsound as it seeks to apply the sequential approach for flood risk to site selection for housing and mixed use allocations, but it does

6 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number not carry out the same approach in respect of other development in particular employment.

Policy 2 should confirm that the sequential approach should be applied to other development. The employment allocations should be selected to reflect the national policy requirement of avoiding flood risk to people and property where possible. Avant Homes 05208 MM03 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the plan sound. The development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the SA 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being The proposed distribution should as a minimum be not significant and necessary to provide clarity consistent with the strategy set out in the and consistency in approach. The Council submission Plan. maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an appropriate strategy and there is no justification Green Lane, Scawthorpe should be allocated to or exceptional circumstances to release further support the delivery of an appropriate strategy. Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement. Strata Homes 02073 MM03 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the plan sound. The development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the SA 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being not significant and necessary to provide clarity and consistency in approach. The Council

7 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number The proposed distribution should as a minimum be maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an consistent with the strategy set out in the appropriate strategy and there is no justification submission Plan. or exceptional circumstances to release further Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Broad Axe, Scawthorpe should be allocated to Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for support the delivery of an appropriate strategy the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement. Thomson, Julia 03659 MM03 The allocation of Thorne North (ref 001) does not This matter was discussed at the hearings as part meet the criteria of “Such sites should also be of the examination. The SA process (including accessible via by a range of transport modes”. accessibility) is part of the overall site assessment and selection process, with decisions based on a The SA process gives the sites some minus range of criteria. As also noted at the hearings, scores for transport access. There is the SA is a pre-mitigation finding and does not poor/dangerous access to the site from Thorne take into account improvements that can be including having to navigate the busy M18/junction secured through the planning application process, 6 roundabout. There are no/limited footpaths and such as developer contributions. Comments air quality is poor. There are unresolved issues regarding the planning application are noted, with the planning application including access and however this is a separate process. air quality. Mason, Gillian 03661 MM03 The allocation of Thorne North (ref 001) does not This matter was discussed at the hearings as part meet the criteria of “Such sites should also be of the examination. The SA process (including accessible via by a range of transport modes”. accessibility) is part of the overall site assessment and selection process, with decisions based on a There are unresolved issues with the planning range of criteria. As also noted at the hearings, application including access and air quality. The the SA is a pre-mitigation finding and does not site is not well connected/safe for people travelling take into account improvements that can be on foot/cycle. The Council has a duty of care to secured through the planning application process, protect and keep uses safe, There has been a such as developer contributions. Comments number of accidents on the roads. The site is also regarding the planning application are noted, contradictory to flood risk advice given in the however this is a separate process. The matter of NPPF. flood risk and the sequential test was discussed at length at the hearings and additional information and assessment was provided with support from the Environment Agency. ‘Less vulnerable’ employment uses are appropriate in FZ3 so long as the sequential test has been demonstrated and the Council maintains that this has been satisfied.

8 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Lund, Oliver 05286 MM03 The approach to the SA process has significant This matter has been discussed throughout the issues: examination. The SA Addendum (February 2021  The SA process states it is brownfield but DMBC30) has re-assessed this omission site may become greenfield in the future – it is (Ref: 446 – East of Hurst Lane, Auckley) as not the place of the SA to speculate. Brownfield at the time of the re-appraisal. Green  It is surprising that the benefit of allocating Belt release is necessary to meet the spatial a previously developed site has not been strategy and has been considered throughout considered in the context of a Plan which iterations of the SA. The approach to the Airport claims exceptional circumstances exist to and the allocations there were also discussed release land from the Green Belt. throughout the examination and the policy  The NPPF requirement is to make as much thoroughly explains the approach. There is no use as possible of suitable brownfield sites need for additional allocations to support this. The and underutilised land before releasing Plan is clear that the supply in line with this policy Green Belt. The SA does not meet the does not contribute towards the allocated requirement of PPG para 18 which says requirement so sufficient sites have been "the sustainability appraisal needs to identified with flexibility to ensure the plan period consider and compare all reasonable requirement will be met. alternatives as the plan evolves, including the preferred approach"

The past and present failings in the SA have resulted in the site not being adequately assessed. Therefore the SA needs to be re-run so to re- appraise the release of Green Belt land in the Plan as a result of the availability of the site. The site should come forward as part of the airport related development permitted by Policy 6. The airport site has a number of constraints so it is likely to be a need for additional land for development. Harworth Group 05647 MM03 The Modification, in relation to the location of This issue was discussed during the hearings. employment sites, does not refer to regeneration New employment sites should be accessible to all need. The Local Plan objectives (1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and across the Borough. The allocations are not 12) refer to delivering regeneration and the specifically located in relation to deprivation. The reduction of inequality. With regards to site allocation process ensured that the most employment the explanatory text is silent on deliverable sites are allocated to meet the regeneration but does ensure that sites are identified need across the Borough. The Council accessible by a range of transport modes. maintains its position therefore that there is no need for further modifications to refer to deprivation or regeneration.

9 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Support the Modifications within the Spatial Strategy explanatory test and in Policy 1 but are concerned that the plan is internally consistent regarding the approach to regeneration. Regeneration needs should be explicitly referred to. Appropriate locations should then align with the approach.

The following wording is suggested: “Major new employment sites will be focused in locations accessible from the ‘Main Urban Area’ and ‘Main Towns’, that have high levels of deprivation and/or are in need of regeneration. Such sites should be at locations attractive to the market with good access to the strategic Transport Network as well as to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Such sites should also be accessible via a range of transport modes”. The Strategic Land 04210 MM04 The proposed wording should cover the The Council considers that NPPF (para 75) and Group engagement of the “tilted balance” in the event PPG (including the HDT Measurement Rule that the Housing Delivery Test is failed too. Book) provide sufficient detail for the consequences of failing to meet the HDT. The The wording should therefore be amended to read: Council’s Action Plan, were the HDT to fall below Where the presumption in favour of 95%, would provide a number of options as per sustainable development is engaged due either PPG as to how to address housing supply which to the Council being unable to demonstrate a could see this policy come into play sooner deliverable five year housing supply across the therefore than awaiting HDT to fall to 75% and Borough as a whole, or the Council failing the the presumption in favour sanction which the Government’s Housing Delivery Test.. revised wording refers to. Para 4.7 of the Plan’s supporting text already explains this too. However, if the Inspector considers the further modification is clearer and will make the policy more effective the Council is amenable to the wording as suggested by the representation. Miller Homes 05288 MM04 The revision to support non-allocated sites within The plan identifies sufficient allocations and the Development Limits should be extended to provides ample opportunities for development non-allocated sites in or adjacent to the within the development limits; there is no need to Development limits of the MUA to increase support further incursion into the countryside or flexibility. This would ensure a sufficient supply of Green Belt therefore.

10 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number housing across the plan period in sustainable locations.

Amend the wording to say: “Additional growth on non-allocated sites in locations in or adjacent to the Development Limits of the Doncaster Main Urban Area will also be considered favourably where development will not compromise the town’s nature and character” Bellway Homes 05348 MM04 Despite clear guidance on which aspects of the The proposed modification was deemed policy required justification, the council have necessary to make the plan sound and the deleted large parts of a policy including the Council maintains this position. Disagree that additional wording with criteria which should be without the policy there will be an insufficient met if development adjacent to development limits supply from windfall to meet the plan period is to be supported. This goes against the Council’s housing requirement. This was also discussed at remit. the hearings and the Plan assumes a relatively modest supply from such source and allocations The deletion of this policy has a detrimental impact have been identified to more than meet the on a number of settlements including Branton requirement too. which will see very little development over 15 years. These settlements will stagnate. Without the windfall policy, the levels of homes relied upon to meet the overall housing requirements will not be available. The policy should be retained and the amendments should simply be the removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances and clear community support. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM04 Support Response noted and welcomed South Yorkshire Blue Anchor 05197 MM04 This Modification creates an exception to The modification did not create the exception but Leisure Countryside Policy Area to permit residential has amended it, so this issue is ‘new’ and not development to meet essential housing needs. something that has previously been raised. As This similar pragmatic approach has not been discussed in the hearings, this policy has been extended towards employment development. A included to introduce flexibility because of the large part of the employment land supply has specific policy in the NPPF that refers to the already been taken up and the Plan does not absence of a five year supply of deliverable provide the flexibility to release additional land to housing sites. There is no specific similar national policy for employment sites.

11 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number ensure that employment needs are met for the plan period.

The Countryside Policy Area policy could be written to permit employment development in such areas where employment needs cannot be met from allocated sites or locations within the existing urban area of the Borough. This would ensure there is no disruption to employment land supply over the plan period. Environment 0014 MM06 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency Blue Anchor 05197 MM06 The Modification states national policy and This modification was identified as being Leisure guidance on flooding will be applied, including the necessary following discussion at the hearings. It flood risk sequential test and exception tests. relates to planning applications and was identified However the Spatial Strategy confirms that the as being necessary given large areas of the sequential approach will be applied to housing and Borough are at residual risk of flooding and to mixed use but does not use similar wording for also ensure that there is strategic policy for the employment land provision. purposes of Neighbourhood Plan preparation. The draft Plan defaulted to national policy and the The Local Plan does not accord with the Council previously reasoned that local plans sequential approach set out in national policy as it should not repeat national policy, but in hindsight allocates Thorne North (flood zone 3), when there agree this modification is necessary and still is a site within Zone 1 at West Moor Park East. justified as drafted. This issue was discussed in depth at the hearings. Flood risk was part of the wider site assessment and selection process. Additional assessment was undertaken and provided at the hearings with support from the Environment Agency. The conclusion from that being the allocation at Thorne North (Ref: 001) was as sequentially preferable as the reasonable alternatives and justified as an allocation. The Strategic Land 04210 MM11 The proposed new wording muddles the distinct This modification as drafted simply relates to the Group concepts of five-year housing land supply and the insertion of ‘Policy Area’ after Countryside in line Housing Delivery Test. Either or both of these with the modification to rename this designation could result in the application of the “tilted and the text remains otherwise as per the draft balance”. Plan. See response above to MM04 too. However, the Council does agree that the The text should be amended to read: wording here is muddled and is amenable to a

12 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Should the Council fail to demonstrate a five wider modification if the Inspector is minded to year supply of deliverable housing land, or fail agree, and as per the representation’s suggested the Government’s Housing Delivery Test… wording. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM11 Support Response noted and welcomed South Yorkshire Environment 0014 MM12 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency The Strategic Land 04210 MM14 Support the proposed change Response noted and welcomed Group Miller Homes 05288 MM14 It is noted that an ‘employment led’ approach to Both the housing and employment need development has been undertaken through the requirements were discussed throughout the Local Plan. If employment needs are ‘policy on’, examination and the Council maintains its then housing growth should be ‘policy on’ position that there is no miss-match between the otherwise the strategy for both fails. ambitious housing and economic growth strategies. Both the employment and housing policies should be ‘policy on’, meaning that the appropriate baseline housing need is c. 1,073 dpa. Highways England 03631 MM14 The number of dwellings per annum is still 920 Response noted and welcomed therefore no need to comment. KCS 05319 MM14 Support amendment to remove the identified There has been no reduction in the plan period, Developments range as well as the 5% uplift in designating 15% which remains from 2015 – 2035, however it is Limited of the borough’s housing distribution across the acknowledged that the first 3 years have been service villages. accounted for. Calculations no longer factor in oversupply in the first 3 years so the annual Concerns that a reduction in the plan period requirement has increased from the draft Plan’s leaves limited flexibility for housing delivery as residual 882dpa to 920 dpa minimum and in MM14 says ‘in the remainder of the plan period’ actual terms, whilst the requirement for 2018 – which reduces the housing period by three years 2035 is 15,640, the actual number of dwellings to cover 2018 – 2035. This equates to a reduction identified as per Table 9 is 19,492. of 2,760 units over the plan period (previously 18,400 reduced to 15,640). Object to the plan A thorough Green Belt assessment has been period being shortened by 3 years. carried out and the matter was discussed throughout the examination. Allocations have The Local Plan failed to complete a thorough been identified to more than meet the Green Belt Assessment and therefore some settlement’s plan period requirement and there is settlements (such as Skellow) have sites adjacent likely to be additional windfall supply on non- to the settlement boundary which are in Green Belt Green Belt sites over the plan period. Part of the Potential Development Site (ref: 398) at the

13 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number and are unable to provide the required windfall settlement now already has planning permission allowance. too which was also highlighted at the Hearings as a source of additional supply to the allocations. Sandbeck Estate 03568, MM14 The strategic growth for Tickhill is not being The reasons for the inability of the Plan to identify 03569, addressed through the proposed housing sufficient allocations at Tickhill to deliver 165 03570, allocations. This is not in accordance with NPPF dwellings has been discussed and explained 03571, paragraph 11. Tickhill has a housing requirement throughout the examination. The Plan is also 04705 of 165 units. There are no planning permission clear on this, for example paras 16.222 & 16.226. and a lack of suitable sites. This 165 figure is The shortfall from Tickhill has been made good proposed to be addressed by allocating a single through allocations at other sustainable site at Sunderland Street for 74 units. Object to the settlements in line with the Site Selection modification as it removes all test/reference Methodology. The Council maintains that the relating to the need. This deletion is unjustified and Main Modification is necessary to make the plan deletes the strategic context for the key policies of sound. the Plan.

The housing need still exists and the site at Wong Lane, Tickhill should be allocated alongside the site on Sunderland Street. The baseline of 165 still exists even if the reference to it has been deleted.

Consideration needs to be given to ensure that housing need in Tickhill is met. Do not support this Modification. Peel Land and 04288, MM14 Support Response noted and welcomed. Property Group 04427, Management 04428, 05201, 05202 Home Builders 0129 MM14 Support Response noted and welcomed Federation Persimmon Homes 05352 MM14 Support. However there is still an objection to the Response noted, however this was discussed at South Yorkshire figure of 920 dwellings per annum. the hearings and no Modification was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM14 Support. However there is still an objection to the Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 figure of 920 dwellings per annum. through the hearings process and no Modification was suggested. Avant Homes 05208 MM14 Support in that the requirement is no longer a Support for the range modification noted. The range. But object that it modifies the minimum question of plan period was discussed during the number of homes required to meet a modified examination, including the fact that there is a

14 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number period of 2018-2035. If the Plan is adopted in statutory duty to review the Plan at least every 5 2021/22, it would only cover a period of 14 years years now. The Council do not believe it is which is one year short of the guidance in the necessary to amend this so the plan runs until NPPF. 2036.

The Modification should be amended to refer to a minimum period of 2018 to 2036. Strata Homes 02073 MM14 Support in that the requirement is no longer a Support for the range modification noted. The range. But object that it modifies the minimum question of plan period was discussed during the number of homes required to meet a modified examination, including the fact that there is a period of 2018-2035. If the Plan is adopted in statutory duty to review the Plan at least every 5 2021/22, it would only cover a period of 14 years years now. The Council do not believe it is which is one year short of the guidance in the necessary to amend this so the Plan runs until NPPF. 2036.

The Modification should be amended to refer to a minimum period of 2018 to 2036. Harworth Group 05647 MM14 Support the reference to regeneration needs. Response noted and welcomed Harworth Group 05647 MM15 Earlier representations and Hearings Statements This matter was discussed at length at the set out that the current requirement for hearings. This issue was discussed during the employment land (esp regarding strategic examination. The employment land supply is warehousing) will not result in a sufficient supply of calculated for the period 2015 to 2035 based on deliverable sites in locations that are attractive to the forecast requirement. Sufficient land to meet the market. that requirement has been proposed for allocation including significant ‘additionally’. Policy 2 states The requirement should be higher, based on “at least 481ha…” current and historic take up of land; the impact of Covid 19 and the growth of e-commerce; the move The proposed site allocations, plus additional to on shoring and the drive for increased business capacity on those sites, and the ‘buffer’ sites resilience; and the need to meet the need for account for more than enough land to fulfil the employment and with regard to big box logistics. overall identified employment land requirement. There is a statutory requirement to review the The Plan is not sufficiently flexible to respond to Local Plan at least once every 5 years including rapid changes in economic circumstances and is employment land supply therefore not consistent with national policy. The Modification should state “a minimum of 271 hectares”

15 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Stephen 04557 MM17 Site 165/186 will increase traffic volumes onto A1 MM17 does not relate to this housing allocation or Tomlinson and have a negative impact and increase risk on its impact on the junction with the A1(M), rather it the A1 junction. makes clear that capacity issues may improve towards the end of the plan period with investment from Highways England. This point was raised and discussed during the hearings. Polypipe Building 05285, MM19 Support Response noted and welcomed Products 05311 The Strategic Land 04210 MM21 As per response to MM03, the housing This matter was discussed in the hearing Group requirement should be expressed as precise sessions. Table 4, read in conjunction with Policy figures rather than percentages to provide clarity 2, sets out the exact number of new homes for and certainty. the allocations in each of the settlements in the 3 upper tiers of the settlement hierarchy. Miller Homes 05288 MM21 A retrospective lowering of 5% of new houses in This matter was discussed in the hearing the Main Urban Area (from 50% to 45%) sessions. The Main Urban Area remains the main undermines the spatial approach of promoting focus for growth. Whilst the percentages have sustainable development. been amended, it is important to note that no additional development has been proposed in the The MUA equates to roughly 50% of the Service Towns and Villages (and therefore there population in the borough. Taking growth away is no resultant increase in travel etc.), all sites from Doncaster and distributing it to lower order were already proposed allocations prior to the settlements increases the need to travel and is a modification which would deliver the amount of departure from the evidence base which supported housing specified by 2035. The percentages the draft plan. reflect that.

By lowering the growth in the MUA and increasing growth elsewhere the MUA cannot be described as the main focus of growth.

The hearings stated that a large driver in the reduction in percentages is the fact that insufficient sites have been allocated to meet the original 50% figure. However there are additional sites available which could increase the number of sites in the MUA e.g. Grange Farm.

The percentage of growth in the MUA should be retained at 50%.

16 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number KCS 05319 MM21 Support amendment to remove the identified There has been no reduction in the plan period, Developments range as well as the 5% uplift in designating 15% which remains from 2015 – 2035, however it is Limited of the borough’s housing distribution across the acknowledged that the first 3 years have been service villages. accounted for. Calculations no longer factor in oversupply in the first 3 years so the annual Concerns that a reduction in the plan period requirement has grown increased from the draft leaves limited flexibility for housing delivery as Plan’s residual 882dpa to 920 dpa minimum and MM14 says ‘in the remainder of the plan period’ in actual terms, whilst the requirement for 2018 – which reduces the housing period by three years 2035 is 15,640, the actual number of dwellings to cover 2018 – 2035. This equates to a reduction identified as per Table 9 is 19,492. of 2,760 units over the plan period (previously 18,400 reduced to 15,640). Object to the plan A thorough Green Belt assessment has been period being shortened by 3 years. carried out and the matter was discussed throughout the examination. Allocations have The Local Plan failed to complete a thorough been identified to more than meet the Green Belt Assessment and therefore some settlement’s plan period requirement and there is settlements (such as Skellow) have sites adjacent likely to be additional windfall supply on non- to the settlement boundary which are in Green Belt Green Belt sites over the plan period. Part of the and are unable to provide the required windfall Potential Development Site (ref: 398) at the allowance. settlement now already has planning permission too which was also highlighted at the Hearings as a source of additional supply to the allocations. Sandbeck Estate 03568, MM21 The strategic growth for Tickhill is not being The reasons for the inability of the Plan to identify 03569, addressed through the proposed housing sufficient allocations at Tickhill to deliver 165 03570, allocations. This is not in accordance with NPPF dwellings has been discussed and explained 03571, para 11. Tickhill has a housing requirement of 165 throughout the examination. The Plan is also 04705 units. There are no planning permissions and a clear on this, for example paras 16.222 & 16.226. lack of suitable sites. This 165 figure is proposed The shortfall from Tickhill has been made good to be addressed by allocating a single site at through allocations at other sustainable Sunderland Street for 74 units. Object to the Main settlements in line with the Site Selection Modification as it removes all test/reference Methodology. The Council maintains that the relating to the need. This deletion is unjustified and Main Modification is necessary to make the plan deletes the strategic context for the key policies of sound. the Plan.

17 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number

Consideration needs to be given to ensure that housing need in Tickhill is met. Do not support this Modification. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM21 Refer to point made in MM03: It is unclear if the These percentages were to guide allocations. South Yorkshire text relates to the actual allocations or whether However, in assessing the need for allocations in other proposals brought forward, such as any settlement or tier, commitments were taken windfalls, will also need to adhere to the spatial into account and the balance actually allocated. strategy distribution. Whilst most windfalls should So the percentages don’t just refer to new be directed towards the Main Urban Area, Main allocations. Some of the commitments can Towns and Service Towns and Villages a strict effectively be seen as historic windfall. adherence to this proportionate split is not considered a necessary or a sound approach. Policy is included in the Plan to assess Suggest a modification that will provide clarity that applications from possible windfall sites but there this need not be strictly adhered to for future is no strict requirement to ensure consistency with windfall sites: the percentage distribution. “At least 45% of the allocated new homes will go to the Main Urban Area, approximately 40% to the Monitoring of housing delivery will examine how Main Towns and about 15% to the Service Towns allocations perform and take into account the and Villages.” contribution from windfalls – these will inform the need for any Local Plan review if the balance of housing (from all sources) throughout the settlement hierarchy does not perform as planned.

No change is considered necessary. Stephen 04557 MM21 The Carcroft-Skellow housing requirement is 250 MM21 does not directly relate to Carcroft- Tomlinson to meet a baseline requirement of 16 – it has the Skellow’s housing requirement nor the allocations largest housing retirement in the Service Towns at the settlement. This point has been raised and and Villages tier yet the population has remained answered throughout the examination. The static between 2011 and 2019. A proposed Council have explained the approach and how population growth of 1.2% is realistic meaning that the housing numbers were derived both prior to 84 houses would be sufficient. There is no proven and during the hearings. case of an additional 300 houses in the Green Belt. Site ref 398 has the capacity for 93 houses – it has no agricultural use and is adjacent to a school and facilities. Site 165/186 is adjacent to A1 which causes an unacceptable level of noise/pollution.

18 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Avant Homes 05208 MM21 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the plan sound. The development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the SA 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being The proposed distribution should as a minimum be not significant and necessary to provide clarity consistent with the strategy set out in the and consistency in approach. The Council submission plan. maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an appropriate strategy and there is no justification Green Lane, Scawthorpe should be allocated to or exceptional circumstances to release further support the delivery of an appropriate strategy. Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement. Strata Homes 02073 MM21 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the Plan sound. The development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the Sa 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being The proposed distribution should as a minimum be not significant and necessary to provide clarity consistent with the strategy set out in the and consistency in approach. The Council submission Plan. maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an appropriate strategy and there is no justification Broad Axe, Scawthorpe should be allocated to or exceptional circumstances to release further support the delivery of an appropriate strategy Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement.

19 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Miller Homes 05288 MM22 It is noted that an ‘employment led’ approach to Both the housing and employment need development has been undertaken through the requirements were discussed throughout the Local Plan. If employment needs are ‘policy on’, examination and the Council maintains its then housing growth should be ‘policy on’ position that there is no miss-match between the otherwise the strategy for both fails. ambitious housing and economic growth strategies. Both the employment and housing policies should be ‘policy on’, meaning that the appropriate baseline housing need is c. 1,073 dpa. Stephen 04557 MM22 The Carcroft-Skellow housing requirement is 250 MM22 does not directly relate to Carcroft- Tomlinson to meet a baseline requirement of 16 – it has the Skellow’s housing requirement nor the allocations largest housing retirement in the Service Towns at the settlement. This point has been raised and and Villages tier yet the population has remained answered throughout the examination. The static between 2011 and 2019. A proposed Council have explained the approach and how population growth of 1.2% is realistic meaning that the housing numbers were derived both prior to 84 houses would be sufficient. There is no proven and during the hearings. case of an additional 300 houses in the Green Belt. Site ref 398 has the capacity for 93 houses – it has no agricultural use and is adjacent to a school and facilities. Site 165/186 is adjacent to A1 which causes an unacceptable level of noise/pollution. Environment 0014 MM23 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Miller Homes 05288 MM23 A retrospective lowering of 5% of new houses in This matter was discussed in the hearing the Main Urban Area (from 50% to 45%) sessions. The Main Urban Area remains the main undermines the spatial approach of promoting focus for growth. Whilst the percentages have sustainable development. been amended, it is important to note that no additional development has been proposed in the The MUA equates to roughly 50% of the Service Towns and Villages (and therefore there population in the borough. Taking growth away is no resultant increase in travel etc.), all sites from Doncaster and distributing it to lower order were already proposed allocations prior to the settlements increases the need to travel and is a modification which would deliver the amount of departure from the evidence base which supported housing specified by 2035. The percentages the draft plan. reflect that.

By lowering the growth in the MUA and increasing growth elsewhere the MUA cannot be described as the main focus of growth.

20 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number

The percentage of growth in the MUA should be retained at 50%. Environment 0014 MM24 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Miller Homes 05288 MM24 There are inaccuracies within the Site Assessment These comments do not directly relate to MM24 Methodology (SAM) on two points: which are consequential to ensure the Plan is 1. Flood zone – the SAM has not taken the internally consistent following modifications to Grange Farm layout into account – FZ3 Policy 2 (now Policy 1). This is an omission site. has been excluded from the net Grange Farm (site 239) was discussed at the developable area in the Vision document. hearings. The site is in Armthorpe and is not an All the potential Development Sites involve allocation in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan – development on flood zones. This raises allocations in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan concerns over the robustness of the SAM are reflected in the Local Plan. 2. Green Belt/Exceptional Circumstances – maintain concerns that Green Belt sites adjacent to the MUA are being released before non-Green Belt sites e.g. Alverley Lane, Balby (site 115) and Sheffield Road, Warmsworth (site 033).

The SAM should be updated to ensure accuracy and consistency. The Strategic Land 04210 MM26 Maintain the objection to Auckley and Hayfield This matter was discussed at the hearings and Group Green being treated as a single settlement. the Council maintain it is appropriate to define Although it is a matter of planning judgement, that Auckley – Hayfield Green as one settlement. judgement must be consistently applied. “Auckley MM26 does not relate therefore to a change to – Hayfield Green” shares no similarities with the the grouping of Auckley-Hayfield Green as this other dual settlements identified; however there was not a modification identified as being are a great number of similarities with other necessary. settlements which have been treated as distinct and separate.

21 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Miller Homes 05288 MM26 There are a number of sites where the evidence This matter was discussed in the hearings and on their inclusion and trajectory figures are the Council have set out their assumptions for insufficient. The sites are: build out and delivery of sites. Grange Farm is an  Manor Farm (site 843) where DMBC say omission site and is in Armthorpe and not an capacity of 965 and Savils say 620 allocation in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan. dwellings will be delivered;  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings will be delivered;  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) where DMBC say capacity of 137 and Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered.

There is therefore a reduction in supply of at least c.1,205 dwellings. Grange Farm should be considered to help with the overall housing supply. DMBC should revise their housing supply figures with respect to deliverability and allocate Grange Farm. KCS 05319 MM26 Support amendment to remove the identified There has been no reduction in the plan period, Developments range as well as the 5% uplift in designating 15% which remains from 2015 – 2035, however it is Limited of the borough’s housing distribution across the acknowledged that the first 3 years have been service villages. accounted for. Calculations no longer factor in oversupply in the first 3 years so the annual Concerns that a reduction in the plan period requirement has grown increased from the draft leaves limited flexibility for housing delivery as Plan’s residual 882dpa to 920 dp/a minimum and MM14 says ‘in the remainder of the plan period’ in actual terms, whilst the requirement for 2018 – which reduces the housing period by three years 2035 is 15,640, the actual number of dwellings to cover 2018 – 2035. This equates to a reduction identified as per Table 9 is 19,492. of 2,760 units over the plan period (previously 18,400 reduced to 15,640). Object to the plan A thorough Green Belt assessment has been period being shortened by 3 years. carried out and the matter was discussed throughout the examination. Allocations have The Local Plan failed to complete a thorough been identified to more than meet the Green Belt Assessment and therefore some settlement’s plan period requirement and there is settlements (such as Skellow) have sites adjacent likely to be additional windfall supply on non- to the settlement boundary which are in Green Belt Green Belt sites over the plan period. Part of the and are unable to provide the required windfall Potential Development Site (ref: 398) at the allowance. settlement now already has planning permission

22 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number too which was also highlighted at the Hearings as a source of additional supply to the allocations. JVH Town 03259, MM26 The modification for housing numbers in tables H2 Support welcomed. Capacity has been derived Planning 03453, a-q being indicative is supported as the housing and benchmarked as part of the plan preparation 05187 numbers in the tables are not based on sound process and evidence and are considered technical work. justified for the purposes of plan-making stage. Agree the planning application stage may derive Table 4 and any other relevant table with housing differing figures and the Council considers this numbers should make it clear that the numbers point is made clear in Policy 5 already. are indicative and that final site numbers could be higher. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM26 Table 4 should make it clear that the figures are This point is made clear in Policy 2. South Yorkshire indicative minimums in line with Modification 14 and Appendix 2. Metacre 05173, MM26 Table 4 should make it clear that the figures are This point is made clear in Policy 2. 05174 indicative minimums in line with Modification 14 and Appendix 2. Avant Homes 05208 MM26 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the plan sound. The development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the SA 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being The proposed distribution should as a minimum be not significant and necessary to provide clarity consistent with the strategy set out in the and consistency in approach. The Council submission Plan. maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an appropriate strategy and there is no justification Green Lane, Scawthorpe should be allocated to or exceptional circumstances to release further support the delivery of an appropriate strategy. Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement. Strata Homes 02073 MM26 The Modifications seek a reduction in the MUA This matter was discussed at the hearings and from at least 50% to at least 45% and a the Council consider the main modification is corresponding increase in the level of necessary to make the Plan sound. The

23 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number development in lower order settlements from 10% Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (February to 15%. This is more akin to Option 3 of the SA 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall which has been rejected as being less sustainable distribution of new homes to each settlement and than Options 1, 2 and the Hybrid Option. It is concluded they were marginally different to the inappropriate to adjust the strategy through the Publication Plan and the supporting SA, and Modification process. therefore not significant. The Modifications proposed for this policy were identified as being The proposed distribution should as a minimum be not significant and necessary to provide clarity consistent with the strategy set out in the and consistency in approach. The Council submission Plan. maintains the Local Plan’s approach is an appropriate strategy and there is no justification Broad Axe, Scawthorpe should be allocated to or exceptional circumstances to release further support the delivery of an appropriate strategy Green Belt sites at the Doncaster Main Urban Area noting the Plan’s overall housing supply for the Borough far exceeds the ambitious requirement. Peel Land and 04288, MM32 Support Support noted and welcomed. Property Group 04427, Management 04428, 05201, 05202 Harworth Group 05647 MM33 Maintain a strong objection to the allocation of Site The role of flood risk in the site selection process ref 001 Thorne North – it is not consistent with (and specifically in relation to Site 001 and national policy with particular regard to flood risk comparable sites) was discussed extensively and access and should be deleted (as per during the examination. MM33 relates to changes previous representations). to ensure the policy is consistent with the changes to the Use Classes Order post There is a need for a Level 2 SFRA as there is Publication of the Plan. This is an omission site. insufficient information with regards to flood risk to The absence of a Level 2 SFRA were discussed be able to undertake a Sequential Test. The at length through the hearings. Additional work Inspector has not some to a conclusion on this was undertaken as part of the Examination with matter. It is recognised that this will delay the plan support from the EA based on the latest and making process. consistently available published information for a sequential site comparison exercise. Policy 57 However the alternative is incomplete as the commits the Council to commission a Level 2 sequential test comparison table (EA and DMBC) SFRA when the EA modelling is available. does not reflect the latest data.

24 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Three plans are now included with the representation which have been prepared and supplied by the Environment Agency which corroborate the flood information submitted to the EiP on behalf of Harworth. They show the flood extents relative to the Bradholme site from the River Trent model as well as the predicted flood extents on the South Soak Derain and Brierholme Carr Drain as extracted from the latest River Torne model. It supports the Harworth Group’s current Flood Zone Challenge and that Site 160 is sequentially preferable to Thorne North (site 001).

There is available evidence to show that Thorne North has significant residual flood risk and the site should be deleted.

A Level 2 SFRA should be prepared. Parkinson, Don 05293 MM34 NPPF para 162 confirms that where sites are Believe the wording referred to is as per MM35 Parkinson; identified in the development plan through the and the explanatory text at paragraph 4.53. NPPF Parkinson, Kim sequential test, there is no requirement to subject para 162 exact wording states “Where planning and Wilton such proposals to the sequential test at the applications come forward on sites allocated in (Thorne) Ltd) planning application stage. This Modification the development plan through the sequential test, contradicts this approach as it states that applicants need not apply the sequential test employment uses “will be approved where the again”. The Policy designates the Potential flood risk sequential test, as well as any other Development Site and is clear any development development requirements can be satisfactorily will be additional to the allocated supply. On this addressed”. Instead the Modification should state basis, the Council considered this designation as in para 4.58 that the Potential Development Site not being an allocation for the purposes of NPPF accords with the requirements of the flood risk para 162 and hence the test remains to be sequential test. passed at application stage. Blue Anchor 05197 MM34 A large part of the employment land supply will be The proposed site allocations, plus additional Leisure exhausted at the point of adoption and there is capacity on those sites, and the ‘buffer’ sites insufficient flexibility to allow for a rapid response account for more than enough land to fulfil the to a change in economic circumstances. Carcroft overall identified employment land requirement. Common has been given reserve status without The 12 Ha proposed at site 441 (Carcroft wider consideration of whether there is a case for Common) accounts for only 2% of the overall further reserve sites for employment. Reserve allocation and was phased towards the very end sites were not on the agenda for the hearings. The of the plan period. There is a statutory

25 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number modification is not sound until there is a more requirement to review the Local Plan at least comprehensive debate as to whether there is a once every 5 years including employment land case for additional reserve employment sites. supply. This issue was discussed during the There is a compelling case for such sites. examination. The employment land supply is calculated for the period 2015 to 2035 based on If Carcroft Common is no longer considered a the forecast requirement. Sufficient land to meet developable allocation, then it no longer makes a the requirement has been proposed for allocation contribution to the employment supply in Table 5. including significant ‘additionally’. The take up The area to be developed is reduced by 12.32 ha. rate for the period 2015 to 2018 is noted however However the supply of allocated employment land the overall forecast requirement to 2035 remains has not been increased to offset this loss. the same and is not re-calculated. Therefore no additional land is required. The shortfall is made worse by two further factors: 1. The plan fails to provide a 15 year employment supply on adoption contrary to NPPF para 22; 2. Over the past 3 years, 120 ha of the stated employment supply has been taken. Therefore there is insufficient land available to meet needs over the plan period.

The proposed allocation at West Moor Park East is a reasonable alternative, so there is a compelling case to include it with in the Plan. Parkinson, Don; 05293 MM35 NPPF para 162 confirms that where sites are NPPF para 162 exact wording states “Where Parkinson, Kim identified in the development plan through the planning applications come forward on sites and Wilton sequential test, there is no requirement to subject allocated in the development plan through the (Thorne) Ltd such proposals to the sequential test at the sequential test, applicants need not apply the planning application stage. This Modification sequential test again”. The Policy designates the contradicts this approach as it states that Potential Development Site and is clear any employment uses “will be approved where the development will be additional to the allocated flood risk sequential test, as well as any other supply. On this basis, the Council considered this development requirements can be satisfactorily designation as not being an allocation for the addressed”. Instead the Modification should state purposes of NPPF para 162 and hence the test in para 4.58 that the Potential Development Site remains to be passed at application stage. accords with the requirements of the flood risk sequential test.

26 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Harworth Group 05647 MM35 Support the Modification to identify Carcroft Support noted and welcomed Common as a potential development site. Harworth Group 05647 MM36 Support the Modification to identify Carcroft Support noted and welcomed Common as a potential development site. Blue Anchor 05197 MM37 By the time the Local Plan is adopted the available This issue was discussed during the examination. Leisure supply of employment land will be more than 3 The employment land supply is calculated for the years out of date. Since 2018 there has been period 2015 to 2035 based on the forecast increased demand for employment land. Attached requirement. Sufficient land to meet that information is included concerning employment requirement has been proposed for allocation land supply information. Land developed for including significant ‘additionally’. employment since 2015 amounts to 238 ha which shows that by adoption 50% of the land supply will Recent years take up rates are noted however have been exhausted. The land available for the the overall forecast requirement from 2015 to remainder of the plan period will be 82 ha of land 2035 remains the same and is not re-calculated. with planning permission and 152 ha of land Therefore no additional land is required. allocated (taking account of Carcroft Common no longer contributing).

The evidence base that supports the employment land availability will be out of date by the time the plan is adopted as the take up rates have been high over recent years. Table 7 gives a misleading and optimistic impression of available land to meet needs over the plan period. Table 7 and Tables E1 to E8 should be updated to at least 2020 to provide an up to date picture of land availability at the adoption of the plan. Further allocations should then be provided. JVH Town 03259, MM45 Tables such as H2L, H2N, H2A should be This is made clear in Policy 5 Planning 03453, amended to make it clear that housing numbers 05187 are indicative and not a limit. Miller Homes 05288 MM47 There are a number of sites where the evidence This matter was discussed in the hearings and on their inclusion and trajectory figures are the Council have set out their assumptions for insufficient. The sites are: build out and delivery is of sites. Grange Farm  Manor Farm (site 843) where DMBC say (Ref: 239) is an omission site and is in Armthorpe capacity of 965 and Savils say 620 and not an allocation in the Armthorpe dwellings will be delivered; Neighbourhood Plan.

27 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings will be delivered;  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) where DMBC say capacity of 137 and Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered.

28 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings will be delivered;  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) where DMBC say capacity of 137 and Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered.

29 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Miller Homes 05288 MM52 There are a number of sites where the evidence This matter was discussed in the hearings and on their inclusion and trajectory figures are the Council have set out their assumptions for insufficient. The sites are: build out and delivery is of sites. Grange Farm  Manor Farm (site 843) where DMBC say (Ref: 239) is an omission site and is in Armthorpe capacity of 965 and Savils say 620 and not an allocation in the Armthorpe dwellings will be delivered; Neighbourhood Plan.  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings will be delivered;  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) where DMBC say capacity of 137 and Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered.

30 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Miller Homes 05288 MM54 It is unclear where the Potential Development The Main Modification was not with respect to Sites’ have been chosen given the significant how these sites have been identified or why, but concerns around developability (all within Flood to make sure they are labelled clearly to reflect Zone 2/3). Those within the HS2 Safeguarded land what they are i.e. they are not ‘reserve sites’ are also queried. which would be released following monitoring of housing supply. The modification was to ensure The Potential Development Sites should be the Plan is justified and effective and this remains revisited regarding deliverability and developability the Council’s position. The Potential Development and sites outside of flood zone 2/3 and the HS2 Sites represent sites where development would safeguarding routes should be allocated e.g. be supported subject to constraints being Grange Farm. overcome. There is no need to allocate Grange Farm, nor is it supported in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan. The Strategic Land 04210 MM55 Object to new text stating that any shortfall in Having reviewed the modification again, and as Group housing supply will be spread across the pointed out by the representation, PPG is clear remainder of the plan period. The consequence of that shortfall should be made good within the 5- this approach is that homes which should already year period as opposed to the plan period. If the have been delivered will be delayed by a decade Inspector is agreeable, the Council would like to or more. This is contrary to national policy to suggest a further modification is required as significantly boost the supply of new homes and is follows to remedy this (‘new’ changes identified clearly inappropriate Any shortfall should be made by the red text). up over the next five years (often referred to as the “Sedgefield method.”) The Council will maintain a 5-yYear dDeliverable hHousing lLand sSupply throughout the plan period with the requirement being based on the plan period’s 15,640 net new dwellings Local Housing Need for Doncaster calculated using the Standard Methodology, and taking into account any shortfall or over supply against the plan period requirement from the start of the plan period in 20185. Any oversupply since 2018 will be taken off the requirement for the remainder of the plan period and the five-year supply calculated from that residual requirement. Any shortfall since 2018 that needs to be made good will be added to the requirement for the next five years spread across the remainder of the plan period (i.e. using the ‘LiverpoolSedgefield’ method).

31 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number KCS 05319 MM55 Object to the approach to make up any shortfall in Having reviewed the modification again, and as Developments the 5 year housing supply across the remaining pointed out by the representation, PPG is clear Limited plan period (Liverpool Method). This is unsound that shortfall should be made good within the 5- and not consistent with the NPPF para 59 or PPG year period as opposed to the plan period. If the (ref: 031 Reference ID: 68-031-20190722 revision Inspector is agreeable, the Council would like to date: 22 July 2019). There is no justification to suggest a further modification is required as deviate from the national policy approach. The follows to remedy this (‘new’ changes identified Plan should allocate sufficient land and allow for by the red text). delivery in line with the Sedgefield approach. The Council will maintain a 5-yYear dDeliverable hHousing lLand sSupply throughout the plan period with the requirement being based on the plan period’s 15,640 net new dwellings Local Housing Need for Doncaster calculated using the Standard Methodology, and taking into account any shortfall or over supply against the plan period requirement from the start of the plan period in 20185. Any oversupply since 2018 will be taken off the requirement for the remainder of the plan period and the five-year supply calculated from that residual requirement. Any shortfall since 2018 that needs to be made good will be added to the requirement for the next five years spread across the remainder of the plan period (i.e. using the ‘LiverpoolSedgefield’ method). Home Builders 0129 MM55 It is not appropriate to use the Liverpool Method as Having reviewed the modification again, and as Federation it is consistent with national policy. Any shortfall pointed out by the representation, PPG is clear should be addressed through the Sedgefield that shortfall should be made good within the 5- Method. year period as opposed to the plan period. If the Inspector is agreeable, the Council would like to suggest a further modification is required as follows to remedy this (‘new’ changes identified by the red text).

The Council will maintain a 5-yYear dDeliverable hHousing lLand sSupply throughout the plan period with the requirement being based on the plan period’s 15,640 net new

32 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number dwellings Local Housing Need for Doncaster calculated using the Standard Methodology, and taking into account any shortfall or over supply against the plan period requirement from the start of the plan period in 20185. Any oversupply since 2018 will be taken off the requirement for the remainder of the plan period and the five-year supply calculated from that residual requirement. Any shortfall since 2018 that needs to be made good will be added to the requirement for the next five years spread across the remainder of the plan period (i.e. using the ‘LiverpoolSedgefield’ method). Persimmon Homes 05352 MM55 It is unclear what justification there is to apply the Having reviewed the modification again, and as South Yorkshire ‘Liverpool’ method to any shortfall. This element pointed out by the representation, PPG is clear should be removed as it is contrary to national that shortfall should be made good within the 5- policy. year period as opposed to the plan period. If the Inspector is agreeable, the Council would like to suggest a further modification is required as follows to remedy this (‘new’ changes identified by the red text).

33 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number across the remainder of the plan period (i.e. using the ‘LiverpoolSedgefield’ method). Metacre 05173, MM55 It is unclear what justification there is to apply the Having reviewed the modification again, and as 05174 ‘Liverpool’ method to any shortfall. This element pointed out by the representation, PPG is clear should be removed as it is contrary to national that shortfall should be made good within the 5- policy. year period as opposed to the plan period. If the Inspector is agreeable, the Council would like to suggest a further modification is required as follows to remedy this (‘new’ changes identified by the red text).

The Council will maintain a 5-yYear dDeliverable hHousing lLand sSupply throughout the plan period with the requirement being based on the plan period’s 15,640 net new dwellings Local Housing Need for Doncaster calculated using the Standard Methodology, and taking into account any shortfall or over supply against the plan period requirement from the start of the plan period in 20185. Any oversupply since 2018 will be taken off the requirement for the remainder of the plan period and the five-year supply calculated from that residual requirement. Any shortfall since 2018 that needs to be made good will be added to the requirement for the next five years spread across the remainder of the plan period (i.e. using the ‘LiverpoolSedgefield’ method). Miller Homes 05288 MM57 There are a number of sites where the evidence The Main Modification was not with respect to on their inclusion and trajectory figures are how these sites have been identified or why, but insufficient. The sites are: to make sure they are labelled clearly to reflect  Manor Farm (site 843) where DMBC say what they are i.e. they are not ‘reserve sites’ capacity of 965 and Savills say 620 which would be released following monitoring of dwellings will be delivered; housing supply. The modification was to ensure  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say the Plan is justified and effective and this remains capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings the Council’s position. The Potential Development will be delivered; Sites represent sites where development would be supported subject to constraints being overcome. There is no need to allocate Grange

34 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) Farm, nor is it supported in the Armthorpe where DMBC say capacity of 137 and Neighbourhood Plan. Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered.

There is therefore a reduction in supply of at least c.1,205 dwellings. Grange Farm should be considered to help with the overall housing supply. DMBC should revise their housing supply figures with respect to deliverability and allocate Grange Farm. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM57 The figures should be clarified as being indicative This is made clear in Policy 5 South Yorkshire minimums. Metacre 05173, MM57 The figures should be clarified as being indicative This is made clear in Policy 5 05174 minimums. Miller Homes 05288 MM58 There are a number of sites where the evidence The Main Modification was not with respect to on their inclusion and trajectory figures are how these sites have been identified or why, but insufficient. The sites are: to make sure they are labelled clearly to reflect  Manor Farm (site 843) where DMBC say what they are i.e. they are not ‘reserve sites’ capacity of 965 and Savils say 620 which would be released following monitoring of dwellings will be delivered; housing supply. The modification was to ensure  Carr Lodge (site 836) where DMBC say the Plan is justified and effective and this remains capacity of 1131 Savills say 408 dwellings the Council’s position. The Potential Development will be delivered; Sites represent sites where development would  Land at Cross Bank, Balby (site 1046) be supported subject to constraints being where DMBC say capacity of 137 and overcome. There is no need to allocate Grange Savills say 0 dwellings will be delivered. Farm, nor is it supported in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan. There is therefore a reduction in supply of at least c.1,205 dwellings. Grange Farm should be considered to help with the overall housing supply. DMBC should revise their housing supply figures with respect to deliverability and allocate Grange Farm. Miller Homes 05288 MM58 It is unclear where the Potential Development The Main Modification was not with respect to Sites’ have been chosen given the significant how these sites have been identified or why, but concerns around developability (all within Flood to make sure they are labelled clearly to reflect Zone 2/3). Those within the HS2 Safeguarded land what they are i.e. they are not ‘reserve sites’ are also queried. which would be released following monitoring of housing supply. The modification was to ensure

35 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number The Potential Development Sites should be the Plan is justified and effective and this remains revisited regarding deliverability and developability the Council’s position. The Potential Development and sites outside of flood zone 2/3 and the HS2 Sites represent sites where development would safeguarding routes should be allocated e.g. be supported subject to constraints being Grange Farm. overcome. There is no need to allocate Grange Farm, nor is it supported in the Armthorpe Neighbourhood Plan. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM58 Support. However there is still an objection to the Response noted, however this was addressed South Yorkshire figure of 920 dwellings per annum. through the hearings process and no Modification was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM58 Support. However there is still an objection to the Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 figure of 920 dwellings per annum. through the hearings process and no Modification was suggested. Chapter 5: Doncaster Sheffield Airport Peel Land and 04288, MM60 up Support Modifications to Policy 6 explanatory text, Response noted and welcomed. Property Group 04427, to and including the airport policy area, plaza clarification, Management 04428, including base date of 2018 clarification, and Lincoln line During the hearings, the Inspector asked the 05201, MM95 protection as well as associated text relating to the Council to redraft the policy and Appendix 3 to 05202 ECML. incorporate a 2018 base date as opposed to a 2020 one. A number of amendments related to this have been noted by DMBC in reviewing the Main Modifications which are proposed as modifications below:

Policy 7, footnote 8. – now Policy 6, footnote 9.:

“As at Local Plan adoption The base date for Policy 6 is 2018”

Policy 7 Part F) 2.- now Policy 6 part G) 2. as modified:

“…be annualised out across the 17 year plan period (2018 – 2035…”

Appendix 3, paragraph 2 as modified:

“…land adjacent to the Airport.” (spelling correction)

36 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number

Appendix 3, paragraph 6, bullet point no. 2 as modified:

“The base date for this policy is 2018. The Local Plan period runs is 2018 to 2035, which is 17 years from 2018.”

Appendix 3, paragraph 6, bullet point no. 3 part a) as modified:

“a) the level off airport related jobs existing at the point of adoption in 2018 has been maintained, and”

Appendix 3, paragraph 7 (formula) as modified:

“No. of existing airport related jobs at adoption 2018”

“150 x No. of years since the Local Plan was adopted 2018”

Appendix 3, table beneath paragraph 8, column C as modified:

“Jobs in lieu (since Plan Adoption 2018 x 150)

Appendix 3, paragraph 9 as modified:

“…or in other words, since the policy base date of 2018, 1,500 new jobs have been delivered in addition to the agreed number of existing jobs at Local Plan adoption as at 2018.” Anglian Water 0031 MM62 Several changes are proposed to Policy 7 which Response noted include setting out the range of employment uses which are expected to come forward on allocated site 517. This site appears to be located within the area currently served by Anglian Water for

37 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number wastewater services. Currently the quantum of employment development envisaged is not specified as such we would expect to comment on the implications of any employment proposals on this site for our existing water recycling infrastructure at planning application stage. Anglian Water 0031 MM63 Several changes are proposed to Policy 7 which Response noted include setting out the range of employment uses which are expected to come forward on allocated site 517. This site appears to be located within the area currently served by Anglian Water for wastewater services. Currently the quantum of employment development envisaged is not specified as such we would expect to comment on the implications of any employment proposals on this site for our existing water recycling infrastructure at planning application stage. Firsure Ltd 05215 MM65 The Plan’s approach to new development at the The rationale for the approach to development at Airport is inconsistent and the Modification does the Airport was discussed throughout the not clarify the nature of the development proposed. examination, including at the hearings. It is Given the recognition of the status of the retail unclear how housing at Rossington would assist development as a new ‘town centre’ and the with the aims of Policy 6, nor is it considered that acknowledgment that the development at the there are exceptional circumstances to remove Airport does not constitute mixed use urban Green Belt around Rossington to facilitate extension then it must either constitute a ‘new housing growth. settlement’ or housing in the open countryside. The new settlement options was rejected though the SA process.

The Local Plan should focus more growth and regeneration in the MUA and Main Towns and be appropriate to the economic needs and aspirations of the locality.

The allocation of additional housing at the Airport is now not considered an urban extension due to the wording of the Modification. Therefore Rossington is well placed to the Airport to make it well placed to accommodate further residential

38 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number growth of the Airport. Sites at Rossington lie within the Green Belt but the principle of reviewing the Green Belt has been accepted through the hearings as the iPort has been removed from it.

The approach to the development at the Airport should be reviewed to consider the reasonable alternatives to delivering the proposed Airport development including at Rossington. Lund, Oliver 05286 MM65 The approach to the SA process has significant This matter has been discussed throughout the issues: examination. The SA Addendum (February 2021  The SA process states it is brownfield but DMBC30) has re-assessed this omission site may become greenfield in the future – it is (Ref: 446 – East of Hurst Lane, Auckley) as not the place of the SA to speculate. Brownfield at the time of the re-appraisal. Green  It is surprising that the benefit of allocating Belt release is necessary to meet the spatial a previously developed site has not been strategy and has been considered throughout considered in the context of a Plan which iterations of the SA. The approach to the Airport claims exceptional circumstances exist to and the allocations there were also discussed release land from the Green Belt. throughout the examination and the policy  The NPPF requirement is to make as much thoroughly explains the approach. There is no use as possible of suitable brownfield sites need for additional allocations to support this. The and underutilised land before releasing Plan is clear that the supply in line with this policy Green Belt. The SA does not meet the does not contribute towards the allocated requirement of PPG para 18 which says requirement so sufficient sites have been "the sustainability appraisal needs to identified with flexibility to ensure the plan period consider and compare all reasonable requirement will be met. alternatives as the plan evolves, including the preferred approach"

The past and present failings in the SA have resulted in the site not being adequately assessed. The SA needs to be re-run so to re-appraise the release of Green Belt land in the Plan as a result of the availability of the site. The site should come forward as part of the airport related development permitted by Policy 6. The airport site has a number of constraints so h is likely to be a need for additional land for development.

39 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM72 Pleased to see the inclusion of the requirement for MM72 relates to changes identified as being Trust masterplan design and the incorporation for green necessary to make sure the policy is effective i.e. infrastructure. However this could be strengthened clarity as to where on the ground the policy to ensure the GI meets national guidance and applies and the introduction of a ‘new’ Airport standards by being multifunctional, creating Policy Area designation. The representation does connective habitat for wildlife and integrated not relate to this modification therefore. SUDS. The application of Building with Nature standards will be the most effective way to achieve this. Also wish to see the commitment to % biodiversity net gain in line with Policy 31. Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM79 Would be encouraged by the inclusion of Building MM79 relates to changes identified as being Trust with Nature standards in this development. necessary to make sure the policy is effective i.e. Building with Nature provides developers with a clarity with relation to the masterplan ‘exercise’. possible mechanism to deliver local and national The representation does not relate to this policies/guidance relating to biodiversity, SUDS modification . and community wellbeing. Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM83 There should be a clear commitment to 10% net MM83 does not directly relate to these comments. Trust gain on site as a whole and individual phases in All relevant policies in the Plan will apply to line with Policy 31 ad BS 8683. planning applications and the Council has previously stressed why we have taken this Previous comments to highlight the importance of approach i.e. in the interests of avoiding protection and enhancement of Local Wildlife Sites duplication and longer policies/Plan. (LWS) and habitat connectivity have not been incorporated into the Policy. This is imperative due to the lack of statutory protection afforded to this sites. Firsure Ltd 05215 MM88 The Plan’s approach to new development at the The rationale for the approach to development at Airport is inconsistent and the Modification does the Airport was discussed throughout the not clarify the nature of the development proposed. examination, including at the hearings. It is Given the recognition of the status of the retail unclear how housing at Rossington would assist development as a new ‘town centre’ and the with the aims of Policy 6. acknowledgment that the development at the Airport does not constitute mixed use urban extension then it must either constitute a ‘new settlement’ or housing in the open countryside. The new settlement options was rejected though the SA process.

40 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number The Local Plan should focus more growth and regeneration in the MUA and Main Towns and be appropriate to the economic needs and aspirations of the locality.

The allocation of additional housing at the airport is now not considered an urban extension due to the wording of the Modification. Therefore Rossington is well placed to the Airport to make it well placed to accommodate further residential growth of the airport. Sites at Rossington lie within the Green Belt but the principle of reviewing the Green Belt has been accepted through the hearings as the iPort has been removed from it.

The approach to the development at the airport should be reviewed to consider the reasonable alternatives to delivering the proposed airport development including at Rossington. DMBC Note Remove the final line of paragraph 5.37 (as Amend Policy 6, paragraph 5.37. as follows: amended): “Access improvements are required from the Airport to the M18 to ensure network Access improvements are required from the capacity to support growth aspirations.” This Airport to the M18 to ensure network capacity reflects the fact this was removed from both Policy to support growth aspirations. 6 and 12 during the examination hearings and should have subsequently been removed from the supporting text. Chapter 6: Meeting the Need for New Homes Persimmon Homes 05352 MM96 Support Response noted and welcomed South Yorkshire Metacre 05173, MM96 The inclusion of “…having regard to the Council’s Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 Housing Needs Study….” is a welcome addition. through the hearings process and no Modification was suggested. The Council maintains policies However the policy should be applied flexibly as are viable and will not result in site specific per our matter 6 hearing statement. negotiations on a regular basis. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Metroland 05216 MM96 Support. Support noted and welcomed.

41 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Avant Homes 05208 MM96 Support removing of reference to price in Part A of Support for modification to remove ‘price’ is Policy 7, but remain concerned that there is welcomed. The matter of whole plan viability was insufficient evidence to support an affordable covered at length through the examination, housing target of 23%. It is unrealistic to negotiate including discussion at the hearing sessions. The on every site on a one by one basis. Council maintains policies are viable and will not result in site specific negotiations on a regular basis. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Strata Homes 02073 MM96 Support removing of reference to price in Part A of Support for modification to remove ‘price’ is Policy 7, but remain concerned that there is welcomed. The matter of whole plan viability was insufficient evidence to support an affordable covered at length through the examination, housing target of 23%. It is unrealistic to negotiate including discussion at the hearing sessions. The on every site on a one by one basis. Council maintains policies are viable and will not result in site specific negotiations on a regular basis. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM97 Recommend that further amendments are Not clear why further amendments to include the South Yorkshire necessary: word ‘normally’ is necessary, nor is it considered “Of this, there should normally be a tenure split of that it would make the policy any more effective around 75% affordable homes for rent (including than the wording as per the current modification. social rent) and 25% intermediate low-cost home The matter of whole plan viability was covered at ownership.” length through the examination, including discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council Still a concern that the Council’s own evidence maintains policies are viable and will not result in identifies that the viability of the 15% requirement site specific negotiations on a regular basis. is unviable. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Metacre 05173, MM97 Recommend that further amendments are Not clear why further amendments to include the 05174 necessary: word ‘normally’ is necessary, nor is it considered “Of this, there should normally be a tenure split of that it would make the policy any more effective around 75% affordable homes for rent (including than the wording as per the current modification. social rent) and 25% intermediate low-cost home The matter of whole plan viability was covered at ownership.” length through the examination, including

42 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council Still a concern that the Council’s own evidence maintains policies are viable and will not result in identifies that the viability of the 15% requirement site specific negotiations on a regular basis. is unviable. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Metroland 05216 MM97 Object as it fails to address fundamental concerns The matter of whole plan viability was covered at relating to the affordable housing requirement length through the examination, including established within the Policy. discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council maintains policies are viable and will not result in Still concerned that there is insufficient evidence to site specific negotiations on a regular basis. support an affordable housing target of 15% in low NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in value areas. It is unrealistic to negotiate every site Local Plans that have been tested for viability on a one by one basis. should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. The NPPF 10% home ownership The Modification is not consistent with national was also discussed at the hearings and the policy NPPF para 64) which states that at least Council maintains the policy reflects the Housing 10% of homes on major developments should be Needs Study which suggests a more modest level available for affordable home ownership unless of affordable home ownership is required to meet this would exceed the level of affordable housing affordable housing need and the policy is justified. required in an area. The Modification should be NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’. deleted or further explanatory text should be included to confirm the circumstances in which national policy is considered to significantly prejudice the ability to meet identified affordable housing needs.

A Modification is required to address the affordable housing targets in low and medium value areas and should be supported by additional evidence. Avant Homes 05208 MM97 The Modification is not consistent with national The matter of whole plan viability was covered at policy NPPF para 64) which states that at least length through the examination, including 10% of homes on major developments should be discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council available for affordable home ownership unless maintains policies are viable and will not result in this would exceed the level of affordable housing site specific negotiations on a regular basis. required in an area. The Modification should be NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in deleted or further explanatory test should be Local Plans that have been tested for viability

43 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number included to confirm the circumstances in which should be complied with except in exceptional national policy is considered to significantly circumstances. The NPPF 10% home ownership prejudice the ability to meet identified affordable was also discussed at the hearings and the housing needs. Council maintains the policy reflects the Housing Needs Study which suggests a more modest level A Modification is required to address the of affordable home ownership is required to meet affordable housing targets in low and medium affordable housing need and the policy is justified. value areas and should be supported by additional NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’. evidence. Strata Homes 02073 MM97 The Modification is not consistent with national The matter of whole plan viability was covered at policy NPPF para 64 which states that at least length through the examination, including 10% of homes on major developments should be discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council available for affordable home ownership unless maintains policies are viable and will not result in this would exceed the level of affordable housing site specific negotiations on a regular basis. required in an area. The Modification should be NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in deleted or further explanatory text should be Local Plans that have been tested for viability included to confirm the circumstances in which should be complied with except in exceptional national policy is considered to significantly circumstances. The NPPF 10% home ownership prejudice the ability to meet identified affordable was also discussed at the hearings and the housing needs. Council maintains the policy reflects the Housing Needs Study which suggests a more modest level A Modification is required to address the of affordable home ownership is required to meet affordable housing targets in low and medium affordable housing need and the policy is justified. value areas and should be supported by additional NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’. evidence. Metroland 05216 MM98 Object as it fails to address fundamental concerns The matter of whole plan viability was covered at relating to the affordable housing requirement length through the examination, including established within the Policy. discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council maintains policies are viable and will not result in Still concerned that there is insufficient evidence to site specific negotiations on a regular basis. support an affordable housing target of 15% in low NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in value areas. It is unrealistic to negotiate every site Local Plans that have been tested for viability on a one by one basis. should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. The NPPF 10% home ownership The Modification is not consistent with national was also discussed at the hearings and the policy NPPF para 64 which states that at least Council maintains the policy reflects the Housing 10% of homes on major developments should be Needs Study which suggests a more modest level available for affordable home ownership unless of affordable home ownership is required to meet

44 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number this would exceed the level of affordable housing affordable housing need and the policy is justified. required in an area. NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’. Avant Homes 05208 MM98 The Modification is not consistent with national The NPPF 10% home ownership was also policy NPPF para 64 which states that at least discussed at the hearings and the Council 10% of homes on major developments should be maintains the policy reflects the Housing Needs available for affordable home ownership unless Study which suggests a more modest level of this would exceed the level of affordable housing affordable home ownership is required to meet required in an area. The Modification should be affordable housing need and the policy is justified. deleted or further explanatory text should be NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’. included to confirm the circumstances in which national policy is considered to significantly prejudice the ability to meet identified affordable housing needs.

A Modification is required to address the affordable housing targets in low and medium value areas and should be supported by additional evidence. Strata Homes 02073 MM98 The Modification is not consistent with national The NPPF 10% home ownership was also policy NPPF para 64 which states that at least discussed at the hearings and the Council 10% of homes on major developments should be maintains the policy reflects the Housing Needs available for affordable home ownership unless Study which suggests a more modest level of this would exceed the level of affordable housing affordable home ownership is required to meet required in an area. The Modification should be affordable housing need and the policy is justified. deleted or further explanatory text should be NPPF states ‘should’ and not ‘will’ included to confirm the circumstances in which national policy is considered to significantly The matter of whole plan viability was covered at prejudice the ability to meet identified affordable length through the examination, including housing needs. discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council maintains policies are viable and will not result in A Modification is required to address the site specific negotiations on a regular basis. affordable housing targets in low and medium NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in value areas and should be supported by additional Local Plans that have been tested for viability evidence. should be complied with except in exceptional circumstances. Environment 0014 MM102 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Environment 0014 MM106 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency

45 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number DMBC Note Noted that Policy 11 F). 3). reads: Amend Policy 11 F). 3). As follows:

the proposal meets the requirements of D) (where “the proposal meets the requirements of D) appropriate) and D 1), 2), 3) and 6). (where appropriate) and D 1), 2), 3) and 6).”

The inclusion of “D) (where appropriate) and” is a hangover from a previous draft of the policy where a section was removed but the numbering only partially updated. Suggest that “D) (where appropriate) and” is removed from the policy, so it now reads “the proposal meets the requirements of D 1). 2). 3). and 6).” Parts D) 4) and 5) relate to site requirements for permanent sites which are not deemed to apply to transit sites given their temporary and transient nature. Chapter 7: Transport, Access and Infrastructure Highways England 03631 MM114 The removal of the scheme does not materially Response noted and welcomed alter the impact of the allocations on the SRN therefore there is no need to comment. Peel Land and 04288, MM114 Support removal of ‘improved access to Doncaster Support noted and welcomed. Property Group 04427, Sheffield Airport from the M18’. Management 04428, 05201, 05202 Canal and River 03089 MM116 Welcome the additional text to paragraph 7.8. Will Response noted and welcomed Trust make the Local Plan more effective in meeting the aims of paragraph 102 of the MPPF. Highways England 03631 MM117 The improvements to M18 Junction 3 and M18 Discussion has taken place with Highways Junction 2 are only necessary to accommodate England and the following wording has been Local Plan traffic. agreed to replace the wording given in the Main Modification: ‘Capacity improvements Regarding M18 Junction 2, it states that ‘capacity associated with the A1 Doncaster to improvements are subject to Highways England Darrington pipeline scheme, as set out within funding’. The impact of the Local Plan would be the Road Investment Strategy 2 published in unacceptable without mitigation. Should the March 2020, are currently being developed. scheme not come forward, it would need to be Pipeline projects may be considered by delivered through alternative funding bids or government for funding and delivery in future developer contributions. Road Investment Strategies.’

46 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number The wording identifying Highways England funding the improvements should be questioned. Highways England 03631 MM118 The improvements to M18 Junction 3 and M18 Discussion has taken place with Highways Junction 2 are only necessary to accommodate England and the following wording has been Local Plan traffic. agreed to replace the wording given in the Main Modification: ‘Capacity improvements Regarding M18 Junction 2, it states that ‘capacity associated with the A1 Doncaster to improvements are subject to Highways England Darrington pipeline scheme, as set out within finding’. The impact of the Local Plan would be the Road Investment Strategy 2 published in unacceptable without mitigation. Should the March 2020, are currently being developed. scheme not come forward, it would need to be Pipeline projects may be considered by delivered through alternative funding bids or government for funding and delivery in future developer contributions. Road Investment Strategies.’

The wording identifying Highways England funding the improvements should be questioned. Highways England 03631 MM119 The improvements to M18 Junction 3 and M18 Discussion has taken place with Highways Junction 2 are only necessary to accommodate England and the following wording has been Local Plan traffic. agreed to replace the wording given in the Main Modification: ‘Capacity improvements Regarding M18 Junction 2, it states that ‘capacity associated with the A1 Doncaster to improvements are subject to Highways England Darrington pipeline scheme, as set out within finding’. The impact of the Local Plan would be the Road Investment Strategy 2 published in unacceptable without mitigation. Should the March 2020, are currently being developed. scheme not come forward, it would need to be Pipeline projects may be considered by delivered through alternative funding bids or government for funding and delivery in future developer contributions. Road Investment Strategies.’

The wording identifying Highways England funding the improvements should be questioned. Peel Land and 04288, MM120 Support modification but also suggest adding the Support welcomed. The Council considers that Property Group 04427, following words at the end of the paragraph to this is already sufficiently acknowledged at Management 04428, ensure consistently with Modifications 92 – 94: paragraph 1.11 and bullet point 2 of the Local 05201, Should plans for the East Coast Mainline Plan – ‘Looking Further Ahead’ 05202 connection and station be realised, relevant sections of the Local Plan related to this will be reviewed in light of the potential significance of this proposal.

47 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Chapter 8 No comments Chapter 9 No comments Chapter 10: Green Infrastructure Metroland 05216 MM150 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM150 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM150 Support Response noted and welcomed Metroland 05216 MM152 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM152 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM152 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM155 Support Response noted and welcomed Peel Land and 04288, MM158 The requirement for 15% on site provision has not Whole Plan Viability was discussed at length Property Group 04427, been modelled within the WPVT and the proposed throughout the examination and the Council Management 04428, requirement will impact upon the gross:net site maintains the policies are viable and no further 05201, area calculation and therefore on the achievable modifications are required. The £2k allowance 05202 development density. assumed for POS in the evidence is considered reasonable. Reductions in development density will have an untested negative impact on scheme viability. It is requested that this is minimised by amending the onsite (and off site) requirements to the lower end of the range that was proposed in the Draft Plan, at 10% of the site area.

The requirement to assess off site contributions in line with a percentage of site value holds significant potential for disagreement between all parties. A high level of certainty should be available. Based on the land values that were adopted in the Council’s viability assessment, a 10% off site contribution would equate to £706 per dwelling and it is requested that the contribution is adopted at this level. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM158 Modification does not overcome clients concerns. Whole Plan Viability was discussed at length South Yorkshire The policy bears no resemblance to the viability throughout the examination and the Council evidence which uses an assumption of £2,000 per maintains the policies are viable and no further plot to cover costs. No guarantee that this is an modifications are required. The £2k allowance accurate reflection of actual costs. The policy

48 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number assumes that 15% of the land is worth 15% of the assumed for POS in the evidence is considered market land value of the whole site. This is not reasonable. necessarily the case. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM158 Modification does not overcome clients concerns. Whole Plan Viability was discussed at length South Yorkshire The policy bears no resemblance to the viability throughout the examination and the Council evidence which uses an assumption of £2,000 per maintains the policies are viable and no further plot to cover costs. No guarantee that this is an modifications are required. The £2k allowance accurate reflection of actual costs. The policy assumed for POS in the evidence is considered assumes that 15% of the land is worth 15% of the reasonable. market land value of the whole site. This is not necessarily the case. Metroland 05216 MM158 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B The level of commuted sum should be reduced – National planning policy states access to high and further justification should be provided. quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes an important contribution to Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B the health and well-being. The policy wording is should be amended (along with the explanatory positively prepared in line with national policy test) to include flexibility and encourage rather requirements. than require. Avant Homes 05208 MM158 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a

49 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Strata Homes 02073 MM158 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were to be taken derived through consideration of specific local consideration of as part of a development deficiencies in open space provision. The level of proposal over half a development site would be commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para turned over to open space or a commuted sum 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could requirement would be in the region of 50%, which undermine the deliverability of the plan. is unacceptable. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B The level of commuted sum should be reduced – National planning policy states access to high and further justification should be provided. quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes an important contribution to Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B the health and well-being. The policy wording is should be amended (along with the explanatory positively prepared in line with national policy test) to include flexibility and encourage rather requirements. than require. Metroland 05216 MM160 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered

50 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Avant Homes 05208 MM160 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is positively prepared in line with national policy Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B requirements. should be amended (along with the explanatory test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Strata Homes 02073 MM160 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was

51 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B The level of commuted sum should be reduced – National planning policy states access to high and further justification should be provided. quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Metroland 05216 MM161 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B The level of commuted sum should be reduced – National planning policy states access to high and further justification should be provided. quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Avant Homes 05208 MM161 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the

52 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Strata Homes 02073 MM161 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Metroland 05216 MM162 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings.

53 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM162 There is no mention of discussion with the It was explained at the hearings that the Council South Yorkshire developer/agent to identify an agreed value. This have qualified in-house property surveyors who should be made clear in the supporting text. can provide land values to Development Management for the determination of land values and commuted sum estimates. This is then agreed as part of the S106 discussions with the developer. Metacre 05173, MM162 There is no mention of discussion with the It was explained at the hearings that the Council 05174 developer/agent to identify an agreed value. This have qualified in-house property surveyors who should be made clear in the supporting text. can provide land values to Development Current wording suggests that the Council’s Management for the determination of land values decision is final. and commuted sum estimates. This is then agreed as part of the S106 discussions with the developer. Avant Homes 05208 MM162 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered

54 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 38 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Strata Homes 02073 MM162 The Modification does not respond to the issue The 15% open space requirement and associated raised in Action Point 28. It removes any commuted sum was discussed at the hearings. uncertainty over whether the requirement is 10% The standard used is a hybrid based around the or 15% but does not provide justification for the numerous different standards proposed by requirement of 15% of the site, or a commuted different open space organisations. It was sum of 15% of market value of a site. The explained that if all the open space standards commuted sum is excessive and should be from the different organisations were considered derived through consideration of specific local as part of a development proposal over half a deficiencies in open space provision. The level of development site would be turned over to open commuted sum is not consistent with NPPF para space or a commuted sum requirement would be 56 or the tests of planning obligations as it could in the region of 50%, which is unacceptable. undermine the deliverability of the plan. Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B – National planning policy states access to high The level of commuted sum should be reduced quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and further justification should be provided. and recreation makes an important contribution to the health and well-being. The policy wording is Policy 28 (29 of Submission Plan) Parts A and B positively prepared in line with national policy should be amended (along with the explanatory requirements. test) to include flexibility and encourage rather than require. Metroland 05216 MM163 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM163 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM163 Support Response noted and welcomed Metroland 05216 MM164 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM164 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM164 Support Response noted and welcomed

55 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Environment 0014 MM167 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency Owen, Christopher 05059 MM167 The proposed wording for criteria A is worded in Comment noted. If the Inspector is minded to such a way that the mitigation is only required to agree, then the Council suggests revised part A be “considered”. The wording allows the hierarchy of the policy is amended to read: to be ignored as long as it can be “considered”. This has weakened the policy and the wording “All proposals shall apply be considered in light should be strengthened to say “In accordance of the mitigation hierarchy in accordance with with National Policy, the mitigation hierarchy National Policy.” shall be applied and taken into account in all proposals.”. This matter was discussed at the hearings. The Doncaster’s declaration of a Climate and Local Plan was prepared in line with the evidence Biodiversity Emergency should be reflected in the base available at the time and has fulfilled its requirements of the Local Plan. It is suggested that responsibilities with respect to climate change. the following modification is included: in Part A1 of The suggested wording is considered as being Policy 31: “All proposals shall take into account vague and generic and simply cross references to the recommendations and requirements set a 70 page document. The report was published out in the Final Report to Team Doncaster by after the Local Plan hearings and will be the Doncaster Climate and Biodiversity considered further as part of a future review. Commission dated December 2020.” Natural England 03820 MM167 The policy should be clear that net gain should not The proposed change to the Policy has not be used to weaken existing planning policy changed the weight that is given to Local Sites protection for Local Sites but can currently be used but if considered clearer to clarify that all as an approach to deliver more robust mitigation proposals will be subject to the mitigation and compensation when development does occur hierarchy set out in national policy. No further within or near to Local Sites. change is considered necessary (beyond that suggested in response to 05059 re MM167 above). See also response to 01546 re MM167 below Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM167 It is not appropriate for harm to LWS to be Comments noted, however the policy was Trust mitigated/compensated through the use of a discussed at the hearings and no Modification biodiversity metric. The Policy is not in accordance was suggested to exclude use of the Defra metric with Natural England guidance and fails to account in compensating for impacts on LWSs. The for the mitigation hierarchy. Development should mitigation hierarchy in national policy is clear that only occur on local sites when there are over riding compensation is the last resort. This means the reasons of public interest and avoidance has been use of the metric to compensate for losses of clearly demonstrated as not possible. LWSs will only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that avoidance is not possible and

56 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number The metric is a proxy for habitats based on in accordance with bullet 4 of part B that the need national considerations, and it cannot consider for a proposal outweighs the features to be lost. those site of local value appropriately. This section This will be difficult bar to meet and where the of the policy needs to be reconsidered to bring it in quality of LWSs can be shown to be very high. line with national guidance on the application of the biodiversity metric produced by Natural England. Recommend that it states the requirement for 10% net gain to be achieved on all development sites and secure a minimum of 30 years in line with British Standard 8683. All impacts to LWS, LGS, protected species and priority species/habitats should be avoided wherever possible and only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Environment 0014 MM168 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM168 This should include consideration for SSSI’s and Response noted, however protection for LWS is Trust local designated sites, including LWS. covered within Part B bullet point 4. The policy was discussed at the hearings process and no Modification was suggested to include reference to LWS here as well. Environment 0014 MM169 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM169 PPG clearly states that the metric is the most Response noted and welcomed Trust pragmatic way of assessing measurable biodiversity net gain. Environment 0014 MM170 Support Response noted and welcomed Agency Chapter 11: The Historic Environment Historic England 0016 MM173 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM174 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM175 Welcome the clarification offered by the On reflection, the proposed wording from the modification but suggest a small change to the representation provides greater clarity to the text wording: without altering the meaning. If the Inspector is Development proposals affecting buildings that agreeable, then the Council is amenable to a meet the criteria of buildings of local historic further modification to the text as per the wording interest, identified either as part of a local list or suggested. as during part of the planning application

57 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number process, will be assessed against the following principles:

Historic England 0016 MM176 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM177 Support Response noted and welcomed Chapter 12: Design and the Built Environment Persimmon Homes 05352 MM178 Proposed deletions are supported. However the The Council maintains the modification reflects South Yorkshire policy has a negative bias against ‘standardised’ the discussion at the hearings and satisfies the designs. Inspector’s request through Action Point 24 and is now ‘sound’ as drafted. Part B adds unnecessary additional requirements which do not go to the heart of good design and local distinctiveness so should be deleted. Metacre 05173, MM178 Proposed deletions are supported. However the The Council maintains the modification reflects 05174 policy has a negative bias against ‘standardised’ the discussion at the hearings and satisfies the designs. Inspector’s request through Action Point 24 and is now ‘sound’ as drafted. Part B adds unnecessary additional requirements which do not go to the heart of good design and local distinctiveness so should be deleted. Home Builders 0129 MM182 Concerned by the requirement for all new The matter of whole plan viability was covered at Federation residential development to comply with the NDSS length through the examination, including and considers it to be another potential viability discussion at the hearing sessions. The Council burden. The introduction of the M4(2) standard maintains policies are viable and will not result in has not been sufficiently evidenced. The policy site specific negotiations on a regular basis. should be deleted. NPPF and PPG are clear up-to-date policies in Local Plans that have been tested for viability If the policy is retained, support is given to the should be complied with except in exceptional inclusion of additional text in relation to circumstances. The Council maintains the vulnerability of flooding, site topography or step modification reflects the discussion at the free access. hearings and satisfies the Inspector’s request through Action Point 25 and is now ‘sound’ as drafted. Support for the modifications to the explanatory text is welcomed.

58 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Persimmon Homes 05352 MM182 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed South Yorkshire not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM182 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM183 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed South Yorkshire not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM183 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metroland 05216 MM183 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM183 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM183 Support Response noted and welcomed Persimmon Homes 05352 MM184 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed South Yorkshire not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM184 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metroland 05216 MM184 Support Response noted and welcomed Avant Homes 05208 MM184 Support Response noted and welcomed Strata Homes 02073 MM184 Support Response noted and welcomed Persimmon Homes 05352 MM185 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed South Yorkshire not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Metacre 05173, MM185 Modification is supported but the amendments do Response noted, however this was addressed 05174 not address fundamental concerns as per Matter 6 through the hearings process and no Modification hearing statement. was suggested. Persimmon Homes 05352 MM186 The requirement for lift access to all properties Response noted. The Council maintains the South Yorkshire above ground floor level will not be achievable in modifications as drafted are sufficient and no all instances due to viability issues. This should be need for further changes. recognised in the supporting text. Metacre 05173, MM186 The requirement for lift access to all properties Response noted. The Council maintains the 05174 above ground floor level will not be achievable in modifications as drafted are sufficient and no all instances due to viability issues. This should be need for further changes. recognised in the supporting text.

59 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Chapter 13: Health, Wellbeing and Our Communities NHS Property 05351 MM189 Support Response noted and welcomed Services Mason, Gillian 03661 MM189 The allocation of Thorne North (ref 001) does not Accessibility has been considered through the meet the criteria of “Such sites should also be site assessment and selection process, including accessible via a range of transport modes”. the SA which is a pre-mitigation appraisal. Comments regarding the planning application are There are unresolved issues with the planning noted, however this is a separate process. application including access and air quality. The site is not well connected/safe for people travelling on foot/cycle. The Council has a duty of care to protect and keep users safe. There has been a number of accidents on the roads. The site is also contrary to flood risk advice given in the NPPF. Environment 0014 MM192 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Yorkshire Wildlife 01546 MM192 Pleased to see previous recommendations have Support noted for change via MM192 to Policy 55 Trust been included, but disappointed that no (Pollution). amendments have been made to provide additional explanation, as previously requested, to MM197 proposes the insertion of a new accompany the change to Part E, to consider how paragraph to accompany the change to Part E via lighting can be designed to minimise impacts to MM192. No further change is considered protected species and notable habitats. necessary. However, the instructions for its location were incorrect in the Schedule of Suggested Main Modifications (DMBC28). The Inspector is requested to note that the instructions should have read “New paragraph at end of explanatory text to Policy 55: Pollution” Chapter 14: Climate Change, Mineral Resources & Energy Environment 0014 MM195 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency The Coal Authority 01223 MM195 No objections to Modification. Response noted and welcomed Environment 0014 MM196 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Environment 0014 MM198 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Environment 0014 MM199 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency

60 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Environment 0014 MM202 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency Natural England 03820 MM202 Broadly concur with conclusions of the Habitats It is agreed that further explanatory text be Regulations Assessment Addendum but consider included to guide the remit of Habitats that Policy 60 should be strengthened further to Regulations Assessment for relevant proposals, reflect the increased risk to nightjars as a result of as follows: the expansion of the Area of Search for Wind Energy Developments. The Policy should be Insert the following into paragraph 14.22 to follow updated to be clear that wind turbine development the text inserted via MM204 that refers to in proximity to Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special appropriate assessment: Protection Area (SPA), Tore, Crowle and Goole Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) and This assessment should consider factors Hatfield Moor SSI should include a Habitats such as the following, both in terms of Regulations Assessment which considers the collision risk and displacement: following:  potential for direct impacts on nightjar within  Potential for direct impacts on nightjar the designated sites boundary; within the designated sites boundary  impacts on feeding habitat outside the  Impacts on feeding habitat outside the designated site; designated site  impacts on flight paths between the designated  Impacts on flight paths between the site and feeding habitats; and designated site and feeding habitats; and  impacts on migration routes  Impacts on migration routes

This should be considered in terms of both In view of the requirement to undertake an collision risk and displacement. Where impacts on appropriate assessment within 3km of the Thorne nightjar cannot be ruled out proposals should not and Hatfield Moors SPA (as introduced via be supported by the plan. MM202 and MM204) it is not considered necessary to introduce a further buffer, or Recommend that a buffer is included around inclusion of wording referring to exceptional Thorne and Hatfield designated sites in order to circumstances, as is being suggested by Natural avoid direct impacts on nightjar within designated England. boundaries. Failing this, wording should be included in the policy or supporting text which says The Habitats Regulation Assessment Addendum that proposals in close proximity to these has been updated to reflect the discussions with designations will only be permissible in exceptional Natural England in responding to 03820 and the circumstances where it can be demonstrated that inclusion of additional text within the supporting impacts on nightjar can be avoided. text of Policy 60 as discussed above.

61 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Natural England 03820 MM203 Broadly concur with conclusions of the Habitats See response to 03820 regarding MM202 Regulations Assessment Addendum but consider (MM203 is a consequential amendment to the that Policy 60 should be strengthened further to supporting text as a result of MM202). reflect the increased risk to nightjars as a result of the expansion of the Area of Search for Wind Energy Developments. The Policy should be updated to be clear that wind turbine development in proximity to Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special Protection Area (SPA), Tore, Crowle and Goole Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) and Hatfield Moor SSI should include a Habitats Regulations Assessment which considers the following:  potential for direct impacts on nightjar within the designated sites boundary;  impacts on feeding habitat outside the designated site;  impacts on flight paths between the designated site and feeding habitats; and  impacts on migration routes

This should be considered in terms of both collision risk and displacement. Where impacts on nightjar cannot be ruled out proposals should not be supported by the plan.

62 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number the expansion of the Area of Search for Wind Energy Developments. The Policy should be updated to be clear that wind turbine development in proximity to Thorne and Hatfield Moors Special Protection Area (SPA), Tore, Crowle and Goole Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) and Hatfield Moor SSI should include a Habitats Regulations Assessment which considers the following:  potential for direct impacts on nightjar within the designated sites boundary;  impacts on feeding habitat outside the designated site;  impacts on flight paths between the designated site and feeding habitats; and  impacts on migration routes

This should be considered in terms of both collision risk and displacement. Where impacts on nightjar cannot be ruled out proposals should not be supported by the plan.

63 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Protection Area (SPA), Tore, Crowle and Goole Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) and Hatfield Moor SSI should include a Habitats Regulations Assessment which considers the following:  potential for direct impacts on nightjar within the designated sites boundary;  impacts on feeding habitat outside the designated site;  impacts on flight paths between the designated site and feeding habitats; and  impacts on migration routes

This should be considered in terms of both collision risk and displacement. Where impacts on nightjar cannot be ruled out proposals should not be supported by the plan.

Recommend that a buffer is included around Thorne and Hatfield designated sites in order to avoid direct impacts on nightjar within designated boundaries. Failing this, wording should be included in the policy or supporting text which says that proposals in close proximity to these designations will only be permissible in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that impacts on nightjar can be avoided. RWE Renewables 05350 MM205 Support the old Figure 13: Area of Search for Wind Response noted and support welcomed UK Developments Energy Developments being replaced Ltd with new Figure 13 as per MM205. Anglian Water 0031 MM207 Proposed modification is supported. Supportive of Support welcomed. The modified policy was increased water efficiency as part of development identified as being necessary through the proposals but considers that to be effective the examination and reflects wording which the EA requirement for applicants need to be clearly set have confirmed as being ‘sound’ and effective. out in the Local Plan. The term ‘Water efficiency The Council noted at the hearings that Anglian Water only serves a very small inset around measures’ which are intended to apply to all new Finningley with the majority of the Borough being development proposals is not defined in Policy 61 served by Yorkshire Water which is not identified (as amended) or the related supporting text. As as being an area of serious water stress. The

64 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number such it is unclear whether a specific water Council maintains the modified policy is sound as efficiency standard is to be met for housing, drafted. employment or other uses or that specific water efficiency measures within buildings are expected to be provided so that a development would be approved by the Council.

We supply water to part of Doncaster Borough (in Finningley Parish). Where more than one water company serve the area (as in the case of Doncaster) the Council should consider specific wording for the respective boundaries. The Anglian Water company area is recognised nationally as an area of serious water stress. We sought the inclusion of the optional higher water efficiency standard for residential development as set out in our previous comments on the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

Policy 61 should be amended to set out a specific water efficiency standard which is to be met for new development proposals both residential and non-residential uses. As part of which the optional higher water efficiency standard (110 litres/per person/per day) should apply to the residential development within the part of the borough served by Anglian Water. Environment 0014 MM207 Welcome and support Response noted and welcomed Agency The Coal Authority 01223 MM208 No objections to Modification Response noted and welcomed The Coal Authority 01223 MM209 No objections to Modification Response noted and welcomed The Coal Authority 01223 MM210 No objections to Modification Response noted and welcomed Peel Land and 04288, MM211 Support Response noted and welcomed Property Group 04427, Management 04428, 05201, 05202

65 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Peel Land and 04288, MM222 Support Response noted and welcomed Property Group 04427, Management 04428, 05201, 05202 Chapter 15: Implementation and Monitoring Metroland 05216 MM231 Support need for developer contributions but This matter has been discussed throughout the concerned about the approach to review Examination. The Council maintains the policy as mechanisms as established in Part B. modified is justified and will be effective. This approach is The use of trigger points should add further clearly supported by the PPG which states there burdens to any developer who will need to should be a clear reproduce viability assessments at a potentially agreement on how policy compliance can be regular basis particularly in low and borderline achieved over the longer medium value areas. This policy causes term where it has been necessary to reduce unnecessary uncertainty and additional risk for contributions. developers. The Modification does not provide sufficient certainty - it could compromise the deliverability of larger sites.

Part B should be removed or amended to provide greater clarity in relation to the scale of development where mechanisms are likely to be supported. Avant Homes 05208 MM231 Support need for developer contributions but This matter has been discussed throughout the concerned about the approach to review Examination. The Council maintains the policy as mechanisms as established in Part B. modified is justified and will be effective. This approach is The use of trigger points should add further clearly supported by the PPG which states there burdens to any developer who will need to should be a clear agreement on how policy reproduce viability assessments at a potentially compliance can be achieved over the longer term regular basis particularly in low and borderline where it has been necessary to reduce medium value areas. This policy causes contributions. unnecessary uncertainty and additional risk for developers.. The Modification does not provide sufficient certainty - it could compromise the deliverability of larger sites.

66 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Part B should be removed or amended to provide greater clarity in relation to the scale of development where mechanisms are likely to be supported. Strata Homes 02073 MM231 Support need for developer contributions but This matter has been discussed throughout the concerned about the approach to review Examination. The Council maintains the policy as mechanisms as established in Part B. modified is justified and will be effective. This approach is The use of trigger points should add further clearly supported by the PPG which states there burdens to any developer who will need to should be a clear agreement on how policy reproduce viability assessments at a potentially compliance can be achieved over the longer term regular basis particularly in low and borderline where it has been necessary to reduce medium value areas. This policy causes contributions. unnecessary uncertainty and additional risk for developers.. The Modification does not provide sufficient certainty - it could compromise the deliverability of larger sites.

Part B should be removed or amended to provide greater clarity in relation to the scale of development where mechanisms are likely to be supported. Chapter 16: Spatial Proposals Canal and River 03089 MM238 Welcome the added wording ‘where feasible’ to Response noted and welcomed Trust the text of Policy 69. Historic England 0016 MM257 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM273 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM274 Support Response noted and welcomed Historic England 0016 MM275 Support Response noted and welcomed Highways England 03631 MM268 Due to the site already having planning Response noted permission, Highways England do not need to comment. Troy Veridon 05177 MM268 Strongly support Response noted and welcomed Abernant Homes 1013 MM273 The site has been given too low a density. The site Modification reflects the outcomes of discussions suits residential and retail development. between the Council and Historic England, who raised concerns about the proposed density, and originally sought for the allocation to be deleted entirely. Policy 5 allows for schemes of higher/lower density where they result in a better

67 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number design solution. The site promoter is also suggesting an element of retail may be desirable on the site which would also support a lower indicative housing figure for the purposes of its allocation in the Plan KCS 05319 MM276 Support the uplift in housing to be redistributed This matter was dealt with through the Developments across the service villages but object to the examination process. Limited proposed allocations in Skellow and ask the Inspector to re-look at comments submitted as part of the Examination process. KCS 05319 MM297 Land West of Ings Lane is the most sustainable Does not relate to a Main Modification. The Developments site in Skellow with significant local support in reasons why site 165/185 has been allocated in Limited addition to the removed issue of flood risk. this settlement has been well documented and also discussed throughout the examination. Tomlinson, 04557 MM297 The Carcroft-Skellow housing requirement is 250 Does not relate to a Main Modification. This point Stephen to meet a baseline requirement of 16 – it has the has been raised and answered throughout the largest housing requirement in the Service Towns examination. The Council have explained the and Villages tier yet the population has remained approach and how the housing numbers were static between 2011 and 2019. A proposed derived both prior to and during the examination. population growth of 1.2% is realistic meaning that 84 houses would be sufficient. There is no proven case of an additional 300 houses in the Green Belt. Site ref 398 has the capacity for 93 houses – it has no agricultural use and is adjacent to a school and facilities. Site 165/186 is adjacent to A1 which causes an unacceptable level of noise/pollution. KCS 05319 MM300 Land West of Ings Lane is the most sustainable Representation does not directly relate to the Developments site in Skellow with significant local support in Main Modification Limited) addition to the removed issue of flood risk. Tomlinson, 04557 MM300 The Carcroft-Skellow housing requirement is 250 Does not relate to a Main Modification. This point Stephen to meet a baseline requirement of 16 – it has the has been raised and answered throughout the largest housing requirement in the Service Towns examination. The Council have explained the and Villages tier yet the population has remained approach and how the housing numbers were static between 2011 and 2019. A proposed derived both prior to and during the examination. population growth of 1.2% is realistic meaning that 84 houses would be sufficient. There is no proven case of an additional 300 houses in the Green Belt. Site ref 398 has the capacity for 93 houses –

68 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number it has no agricultural use and is adjacent to a school and facilities. Site 165/186 is adjacent to A1 which causes an unacceptable level of noise/pollution. Tomlinson, 04557 MM301 The Carcroft-Skellow housing requirement is 250 Does not relate to a Main Modification. This point Stephen to meet a baseline requirement of 16 – it has the has been raised and answered throughout the largest housing retirement in the Service Towns examination. The Council have explained the and Villages tier yet the population has remained approach and how the housing numbers were static between 2011 and 2019. A proposed derived both prior to and during the examination. population growth of 1.2% is realistic meaning that 84 houses would be sufficient. There is no proven case of an additional 300 houses in the Green Belt. Site ref 398 has the capacity for 93 houses – it has no agricultural use and is adjacent to a school and facilities. Site 165/186 is adjacent to A1 which causes an unacceptable level of noise/pollution. Polypipe Building 05285, MM307 Support Support noted and welcomed Products 05311 Sandbeck Estate 03568, MM314 The strategic growth for Tickhill is not being The reasons for the inability of Tickhill to deliver 03569, addressed through the proposed housing 165 dwellings has been discussed and explained 03570, allocations. This is not in accordance with NPPF throughout the examination. The Council consider 03571, para 11. Tickhill has a housing requirement of 165 the main modification is necessary to make the 04705 units. There are no planning permission and a lack Plan sound. of suitable sites. This 165 figure is proposed to be addressed by allocating a single site at Sunderland Street for 74 units. Object to the Modification as it removes all test/reference relating to the need. This deletion is unjustified and deletes the strategic context for the key policies of the Plan.

69 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Consideration needs to be given to ensure that housing need in Tickhill is met. Do not support this Modification. Sandbeck Estate 03568, MM315 The strategic growth for Tickhill is not being The reasons for the inability of Tickhill to deliver 03569, addressed through the proposed housing 165 dwellings has been discussed and explained 03570, allocations. This is not in accordance with NPPF throughout the examination. The Council consider 03571, para 11. Tickhill has a housing requirement of 165 the main modification is necessary to make the 04705 units. There are no planning permission and a lack Plan sound. of suitable sites. This 165 figure is proposed to be addressed by allocating a single site at Sunderland Street for 74 units. Object to the Modification as it removes all test/reference relating to the need. This deletion is unjustified and deletes the strategic context for the key policies of the Plan.

Consideration needs to be given to ensure that housing need in Tickhill is met. Do not support this Modification. Appendix 1: Glossary United Kingdom 05014 MM318 Support modification to the definition of hydraulic Response noted and welcomed Onshore Oil and fracturing and support the definition of Gas unconventional hydrocarbons resource Historic England 0016 MM318 Support Response noted and welcomed Appendix 2 – Development Requirements Metroland 05216 MM322 Site 115 – Alverley Lane – support need for This matter was discussed at the hearings, the development requirements for sites that are Council consider the modification is necessary to proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. The make the Plan sound and believe the modification compensatory measures should be proportionate is sufficiently clear and flexible to deliver suitable to the scale of the scheme, and should be fairly Green Belt improvements when the site comes and reasonable related in scale, having regard to forward. the nature of the site, consistent with NPPF and national guidance. The modified policy lacks clarity and create uncertainty. There is insufficient detail

70 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number to understand what the specific compensatory improvements will be, how they will be secured and on what terms and therefore the implications on delivery.

The advocacy report for the site includes an illustrative masterplan. This includes potential compensatory measures.

Greater clarity should be provided regarding the scale and nature and delivery mechanisms for the compensatory Green Belt improvements or, additional wording should be introduced to ensure that compensatory measures will be proportionate, fair and reasonable. Historic England 0016 MM323 Support Response noted and welcomed Abernant Homes 1013 MM323 Nothing to support the statement that “the potential The modification does not relate to the for the survival of any previously unrecorded archaeological section of the developer buried archaeology is considered to be moderate requirements but to the conservation/ heritage to high". Instead, SYAS consider that "the and design entries. This matter was discussed at archaeological potential is negligible and no further the hearings and the Council consider the main archaeological investigation is warranted" (2015). modification is necessary to make the Plan More recent work has also said the same. sound. SYAS would be consulted on any application for development and would take into The development of the site will have to take into account any recent work, however, this does not account that it covers three land registry title areas relate to the main modification. and has interactions with at least three more.

The draft plan includes detail on access, boundary treatment and such like which has been complied without any knowledge of what is possible. These matters are best left to the planning application stage.

The 29m wide strip is not needed due to the site’s boundaries (residential and trees). A green wedge is not compatible with a constrained town centre. This is the best site in Thorne.

71 Consultee Customer Main Mod Summary of Main issues raised Brief Council response ref no number Canal and River 03089 MM325 Welcome the text to stating the final design and Response noted and welcomed Trust layout for site 155 shall incorporate measures to prevent any increase in risk to land instability caused by loading onto existing canal related retaining structures. Metacre 05173, MM326 Ref site 165/186 – modification is supported. It is The Council are satisfied that the modification as 05174 recommended that the modification can be proposed is sufficiently clear and flexible enough amended in order to provide greater certainty and to deliver appropriate Green Belt improvements clarity: when the site comes forward. “As the site allocation results in the loss of Green Belt land, this must be compensated for by providing a proportionate contribution to improving the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land within the vicinity of the site. Details of specific sites and projects will be established in discussion with the Council”. Tomlinson, 04557 MM326 The proposed modification does not comply with The Council are satisfied that the modification as Stephen section 138 of the NPPF which requires the proposed is sufficiently clear and flexible enough authority to set out the ways in which removing to deliver appropriate Green Belt improvements Green Belt can be offset by improving when the site comes forward. The modification environmental sustainability and improving access ensures the Plan is consistent with NPPF para. to the remaining Green Belt. The Modification 138. These will form part of the planning should provide full details of proposed application for housing, the details of which the compensatory arrangements. It is currently open public will be able to comment on. to interpretation and abuse by DMBC and developers and gives local residents no say. The Local Plan should include a plan for improved access to all 8 sites which are proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. Appendix 3: Doncaster Sheffield Airport Policy Area Peel Land and 04288, MM338 Support Response noted and welcomed Property Group 04427, Management 04428, 05201, 05202

72 Table B Policies Map

Consultee Customer ref no Main Modification Summary of Main Issues Brief Council response number Raised Troy Verdion 05177 PM03 Support and agree with Response noted and proposed boundary welcomed Peel Land and Property Group 04288, 04427, 04428, PM07 Support Response noted and Management 05201, 05202 welcomed RWE Renewables UK 05350 PM18 Support Response noted and Developments Ltd welcomed Polypipe Building Products 05285, 05311 PM20 Support Response noted and welcomed

Table C Minor Modifications

Consultee Customer Minor Summary of Main Issues Brief Council response ref no Modification Raised Owen, 05059 Para 10.17 It should read “…. identified This typo was in the Main Modifications Schedule as the representation Christopher on the Policies Map” (not points out, but was correct in the Modified version of the Plan so noted, ‘Polices’). but no need to change the Local Plan document.

Table D Habitats Regulations Assessment Addendum

Consultee Customer Summary of Main Issues Raised Brief Council ref no response Natural 03820 Broadly welcome the HRA Addendum but advise that as of 01 January 2021, the Conservation of Comments England Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats noted and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) have both been amended now that the UK has left the EU.

Table E Sustainability Appraisal Addendum

Consultee Customer Summary of Main Issues Raised Brief Council response ref no Natural 03820 Advise that the references to EU directives should be Noted England amended to reflect post transition period legislation. Blue Anchor 05197 The SA incorrectly fails to properly address the sequential test This issue was discussed in depth at the hearings. Flood Leisure by awarding all sites with 20% or more within Flood Zone 3 the risk was part of the wider site assessment and selection same score i.e. West Moor Park East score the same as process. Additional assessment was undertaken and Thorne North. The SA Addendum does not propose to provided at the hearings with support from the Environment address these concerns regarding the sequential test. This is a Agency. The conclusion from that being the allocation at

73 flawed approach as the Plan does not seek to prioritise land in Thorne North (Ref: 001) was as sequentially preferable as lower zones of flood risk before using Zone 3. The Plan is the reasonable alternatives and justified as an allocation. legally flawed. Firsure Ltd 05215 The Plan’s approach to new development at the Airport is The rationale for the approach to development at the inconsistent and the Modification does not clarify the nature of Airport and the distribution of housing was discussed the development proposed. Given the recognition of the status throughout the examination, including at the hearings. The of the retail development as a new ‘town centre’ and the Council maintains, in the context of the aims and rationale acknowledgment that the development at the Airport does not of Policy 6, that ‘alternatives’ in settlements such as constitute mixed use urban extension then it must either Rossington would clearly not support the objectives of the constitute a ‘new settlement’ or housing in the open Policy. countryside. The new settlement option was rejected though the SA process.

The Local Plan should focus more growth and regeneration in the MUA and Main Towns and be appropriate to the economic needs and aspirations of the locality.

The SA addendum considers MM65 as not significant and is a technical change. Consider that this is of significance for the SA as MM65 confirms that development is not an urban extension or a new settlement or development in the countryside.

The SA should be reviewed and Policy 6 as amended by MM65 should be assessed as a new settlement with consideration of the reasonable alternatives, including urban extensions at Rossington. Avant 05208 Concerned that the proposed spatial strategy (as set out This matter was discussed at the hearings and the Council Homes through modified Policy 1 and the text) have not been fully consider the main modification is necessary to make the considered through the Sustainability Appraisal process and plan sound. The Sustainability Appraisal Addendum that the distribution proposed through the Modifications is (February 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall contrary to the SA process. This is due to the Modifications distribution of new homes to each settlement and seeking a reduction in the level of development in the MUA concluded the uplift in proposed dwellings and the changes from at least 50% to at least 45% and an increase in the level in distribution amongst the settlement hierarchy were of development in lower order settlements from 10% to 15%. considered to be marginal (<1.5% for any affected settlement) and therefore not The SA process should be reviewed and the Spatial Strategy significant for the purposes of SA. See section 3.3 of the should be assessed against reasonable alternatives, reflecting SA Addendum. that the spatial strategy is now more reflective of growth strategy Option 3 and no longer the Hybrid Strategy.

74 Strata 02073 Concerned that the proposed spatial strategy (as set out This matter was discussed at the hearings and the Council Homes through modified Policy 1 and the text) have not been fully consider the main modification is necessary to make the considered through the Sustainability Appraisal process and Plan sound. The Sustainability Appraisal Addendum that the distribution proposed through the Modifications is (February 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall contrary to the SA process. This is due to the Modifications distribution of new homes to each settlement and seeking a reduction in the level of development in the MUA concluded the uplift in proposed dwellings and the changes from at least 50% to at least 45% and an increase in the level in distribution amongst the settlement hierarchy were of development in lower order settlements from 10% to 15%. considered to be marginal (<1.5% for any affected settlement) and therefore not The SA process should be reviewed and the Spatial Strategy significant for the purposes of SA. See section 3.3 of the should be assessed against reasonable alternatives, reflecting SA Addendum. that the spatial strategy is now more reflective of growth strategy Option 3 and no longer the Hybrid Strategy. Harworth 05647 Concerned with the approach to the Modifications including This matter was discussed at the hearings and the Council Group the approach to the SA Addendum. Concerns have been consider the main modification is necessary to make the identified previously in relation to the SA process in particular Plan sound. The Sustainability Appraisal Addendum the SA scoring framework. The inconsistencies wit national (February 2021 – DMBC30) considered the revised overall policy with particular regard to flood risk and access and been distribution of new homes to each settlement and set out in the Hearing Statement for Matter 1 and the SA has concluded the uplift in proposed dwellings and the changes misinformed the Plan and the site selection process. in distribution amongst the settlement hierarchy were considered to be marginal (<1.5% for any affected The SA addendum does not seek to address or respond to settlement) and therefore not these concerns. It is remiss not to undertake a review of the significant for the purposes of SA. See section 3.3 of the scoring framework in response to concerns. SA Addendum.

The SA scoring framework with respect to access and flood risk should be reviewed so to ensure consistency with the NPPF

TABLES F1 to F3 – Summary of other representations received

The Local Plan Inspector’s instructions in respect of this consultation (DONC INP22 MM consult) state the following: “This consultation will only be about the proposed main modifications and changes to the policies map, not about other aspects of the Plan or “omission sites”. The tables below show a number of representations which were received regarding objections to Site 165/186 – Land Off Crabgate Lane, Skellow. The representations are not directly related to the Main Modifications (which generally seeks to address Green Belt compensation) but instead object to the site as an allocation. As they do not directly relate to the Modifications, no response has been prepared.

The representations are ordered into three groups: a standard letter; those similar to the standard letter but have small variations or emphasis; and those which contain similar arguments to the standard letters but in the representors own words.

75 A total of 222 standard letters were received from the following representors. These are shown in Table F1 below. A copy of the Standard Letter can be viewed on the Council’s Main Modifications page on the website at: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan.

The standard letter highlights the following issues: loss of Green Belt; an increase of traffic on already busy roads; creation of pollution; lack of local infrastructure; antisocial behaviour; increase in flood risk, inadequate access to A1; the need for a link road. Table F1 – Standard letters for Site 165/186 – Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow

Name and reference number Adams, Brian - 05569 Ambler, Geoffrey - 05477 Atkin, A, Mr and C, Mrs - 05604 Atkinson-Hayward, D, Ms - 05558 Austin, Elizabeth - 05578 Austin, Julie and Andrew - 05483 Baird, Barbara - 05568 Ball, Ann-Marie, Mrs - 05512 Ball, Richard, Mr - 05511 Batho, Sharon - 05432 Bell, Simon and Kay, Suzie - 05552 Bennett, Jeanette Anne - 05462 Bird, P D - 05544 Blay, Allison - 05444 Boddy, Charles - 05457 Bodle, H and V - 05478 Booth, Kate - 05494 Booth, T - 04675 Bouse, Terrence and Ann - 05645 Brackenbury, Mark - 05509 Bradley, Mr and Mrs - 05525 Brandreth, Gwyneth - 05585 Brandreth, Kenneth - 05595 Bromilow, Brenda - 05539 Brookes, Susan, Mrs - 05634 Bryant, V M, Mrs - 05622

76 Burns, G H, Mr - 05613 Burt, Claire - 05452 Burt, Matt - 05453 Cassey, S U - 05642 Casson, Joan - 05557 Casson, L - 05596 Casson, R - 05640 Chappell, J A - 05356 Chappell, P M - 05357 Clark, Lindsay - 05417 Collingwood, Mr and Mrs - 05371 Cooper, Julie - 04571 Copley, Terence and Joan - 05636 Curry, Natalie - 05463 Dainty, Alma - 05620 Darbyshire, Steph and David - 05644 Dennis, Paul, Mr - 05615 Dhaliwah, K, Mrs - 05629 Dickson, J - 05590 Duffield, Sarah - 05643 Ellery, Ann - 05447 Ellery, Bethany - 05451 Elliott, M P, Mr - 05614 Ellis, C and R L - 05572 Ellison, Ian - 05482 Evans, Linden - 04655 and Evans, Phillip - 04656 Farmer, Catherine - 05385 Fisher, Stephen and Kim - 05537 Forsythe, Hilary, Mrs - 05627 Forsythe, Robert, Mr - 05616 Foweather, Ann and Henry - 05565 Fox, Victoria - 05435 Francis, John And Bestwick, Claire - 05527 Frater, Camilla - 05573

77 Gascoyne, Anthony - 05449 Gaskell, Ann - 05566 Gaskell, Gary - 05583 Gilling, Carol-Lyn And Robert David - 04884 Grainger, Mr and Mrs - 05606 Gray, C and AR - 05571 Green, Garrick - 05475 Green, K, Mr and Mrs - 05609 Green, Lisa - 05501 Green, Peter - 05502 Guy, P and R - 05543 Hall, M, Mr and Mrs - 05513 Halsall, M, Mrs - 05390 Hammerton, M R and S R - 05532 Hardacre, Abbie Marie - 05440 Hardacre, Brian - 05441 Hardacre, Christina - 05575 Hardacre, Jack - 05442 Hardy, Diane - 05461 Harris, Amanda - 05445 Harris, J A - 05589 Harris, Steve - 05553 Healy, Lynn and Unreadable Name - 05465 Heaslip, Desmond - 05398 Hellier-Woods, B and Garrett-Woods, E L - 05450 Hibbert, Mr and Mrs - 05608 Hicks, Thomas J - 05646 Higham, D - 05576 Holmes (uncertain name), G - 05561 Holmes, C G, Mrs - 05358 Holmes, Joyce - 05593 Housley, John - 05408 Howell, H - 05586 Huckerby, Lorraine And Ivan - 05498

78 Hudson, Barry, Mr - 05533 Hutton, Clive - 05458 Hutton, Ellen - 05471 Hutton, Jenna - 05487 Hutton, Keifer - 05495 Hutton, Kelsey - 05496 Hutton, Kia - 05497 James, C, Mr - 05517 James, S A - 05559 Jameson, Jackie, Mrs - 05518 Jameson, R M - 05519 Jansen, Glenn - 05584 Jansen, Margaret - 05601 Jarvis, Amanda - 05362 Johnson, A, Mrs - 05618 Johnson, Melanie - 05515 Johnson, Royce Barre, Mr - 05514 Johnson, Wendy, Mrs - 05516 Judge, Brenda And Phil - 05531 Kenyon, Eric James - 05580 Knifton, Kelly - 05414 Langham, Donald And Joyce - 05605 Lawson, J, Mrs - 05628 Laycock, J - 05591 Laycock, M - 05599 Limb, Michael - 05522 Lindley, A - 05438 Lindley, G - 05473 Lindley, M - 05507 Liversidge, Rebecca - 05548 Lomas, A, Mrs - 05538 Macey, K, Mr and Mrs - 05602 Mantouani, Neil - 05639 Mantovani, Jane - 05484

79 Marr, T, Mrs - 05467 Maxey, C, Mr and Mrs - 05528 McAllister, Catherine - 05574 McCombe, Carolyn - 05456 McCombe, Tommie - 05555 McCormack, William - 05556 Meeaghan, Bernadette, Mrs - 05466 Meenaghan, Mary Jo - 05520 Miller, Wendy, Mrs - 05635 Moorhouse, KP, Mr and JA, Mrs - 05621 Morgan, Robert and Melody - 05549 Murray, Julia - 05490 Muscroft, M, Mr and Mrs - 05603 Newman, Joanne, Miss - 05523 Newsome, D - 05459 Nicholls, H, Mrs - 05540 Nicholls, Sarah - 05551 No Name - 05542 No Name 2 - 05562 No Name 3 - 05563 No Name 4 - 05564 Oldroyd, Jean, K - 05486 Owens, Alistair - 05443 Owens, Florence - 05472 Parker, Gail - 05474 Payne, G - 05581 Pell, M, Mrs - 05632 Pickering, S and P - 05560 Pickles, David, Mr - 05534 Pinder, Chris - 05386 Poole, Andrew - 05446 Price, Eric, Mr - 05612 Price, Mary, Mrs - 05633 Randall, Karen, Mrs - 05630

80 Raybould, Joan - 05592 Reasbeck, Helen - 05481 Redfern, John - 05500 Redfern, Jonathan - 05464 Redfern, Linda - 05499 Roper, Neil and Jannine - 05468 Rose, K - 05594 Rudkin, S - 05550 Shaw, K, Mr - 05535 Shawcroft, M A, Mrs - 05631 Sheldon, Audrey, Mrs - 05619 Shepherd, Jane - 05485 Sheppard, Hilary - 05377 (1) Sheppard, Hilary - 05377 (2) Shew, Mary - 05521 Shipman, H - 05479 Slatter, G J - 05582 Smith, Theresa - 05554 Stanley, Patricia Anne - 05546 Staton, G, Mrs - 05626 Stevenson, Alastair J - 05437 Stevenson, E - 05470 Stevenson, K - 05492 Stevenson, M A - 05493 Stirling, Andrew - 05368 Stirling, Trudi - 05369 Stones, B J, Mr And Mrs - 05524 Straw, CK, Mr and S, Mrs - 05610 Stubbins, S A, Mr - 05617 Szymczyk, Carol - 05455 Szymczyk, Lisa - 05503 Szymczyk, Wayne - 05504 Tate, David - 05154 Tatham, Lynne, Mrs - 05115

81 Taylor, A P, Mr - 05526 Taylor, Elizabeth - 05399 Taylor, M R, Dr and Mrs - 05469 Thorhuus, JM and S - 05488 Timms, A - 05439 Torr, Louise - 05505 Trenon, S - 05641 Trussell, D, Mrs - 05624 Trussell, Malcolm - 05600 Unreadable Name, A - 05448 Unreadable Name, K - 05491 Unreadable Name, M - 05597 Vaughan, S, Mr and Brannan, L, Mrs - 05536 Walker, R - 05547 Ward, Sue - 05370 Webster, Hannah - 05480 White, Gary - 05476 Whiteley, Michael and Alice A - 05598 Wilcox, Vicki - 05434 Wilson, Joshua - 05410 Wood, Andrew and Carla - 05363 Woodhouse, Ann, Mrs - 05623 Woods, Vincent, Mr - 05267 and Woods, Jeanette, Mrs - 05269 Wrampling, John - 05489 Wriglesworth, P - 05545 Yates, Gordon Carolyn And Lauren - 05529

A total of 18 letters were received which were similar to the standard letter but have small variations or emphasis, particularly regarding personal opinion; more information on schools; traffic and such like. The representors are listed below in Table F2. A copy of the variation of the standard letter can be viewed on the Council’s Main Modifications page on the website at: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan

Table F2 – Variation to the Standard letter for Site 165/186 – Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow

82 Name and reference number Brown, Eric D - 05579 Bushell, Sue - 05436 D R Evans, D R - 05460 Damms, Amy - 04610 Fisher, Lian - 05416 Hunter, Thomas John - 05638 Job, Jessica - 05407 Langfield, Clive R, Mr - 05510 Logan, Lesley and John - 05415 Longworth, B - 05567 M Sanderson, M - 05508 Mosley, Sue - 04098 Offermanns, H, Mr and Mrs - 05607 Sanderson, D - 05577 Sheppard, Ben - 05376 Suceric, H - 05587 Unreadable Name, Lynn - 05506 Warne, Barrie - 05375

A total of 83 letters were received which contain similar objections to the standard letter but use the representors own wording. The representors are listed in Table F3 below. A copy of the other letters received can be viewed on the Council’s Main Modifications page on the website at: www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan.

Table F3 – Other letters objecting to Site 165/186 – Land off Crabgate Lane, Skellow

Name and reference number Allen, David - 05394 Allen, Jennifer - 05161 Allen, Stephen - 05396 Aston, Marjorie, Mrs - 05426 Atack, Michael, Mr and Atack, Eileen, Mrs - 05611

83 Atkin, Dennis A - 05353 Atkin, Melanie - 05419 Ball, C A - 05570 Beastall, M, Mrs - 05418 Beck, Ian and Lorraine - 04533 Booth, Terry - 04675 Bowers, Judy - 05411 Briggs, Alison - 04581 Burghwallis Parish Council - 0738 Bushell, D J - 05393 Cannell, Anthony - 04560 Collier, Audrey - 05372 Collingwood, L, Mrs and Collingwood, M J, Mr - 05371 Cooper, Andrew and Julie - 04570 Critchley, Peter - 05428 Day, Jane - 05405 Dennis, Sharon - 05433 Dixon, M, Mr and Mrs - 05421 Dixon, R N - 05637 Drumm, S, Mr and Mrs - 05422 Evans, David and Maureen - 05395 Exley, C - 05383 Farrington, Carol - 05384 Finnegan, Pauline - 05427 Grimes, Brenda and Robert - 03817 Guy, Anne, Mr and Mrs - 04947 Higginbottom, Tom and Robinson, Diana - 05360 Hizzett, Jennifer - 05406 Hudson, Barbara - 05373 Hudson, David - 05374 J and B Nicholls, J and B - 05588 Janet Bradshaw, Janet - 05111 Jarvis, Ann, Mrs - 05412 Jarvis, Rebecca, Amanda And Jennifer - 05354

84 Johnson, R B - 05430 Lomas, Robert - 05431 Longfellow, Emma - 05400 Maskrey, Marie - 05413 McPherson, John - 05409 Mitchell, Linda and Ian - 05258 Mitchell, Linda, Mrs - 05258 Murray, John - 05359 Newton, Christopher S - 05387 Newton, Jacqueline G - 05388 Newton, Tom - 05389 O'Haire, James - 05404 Ousby, E, Mrs - 05625 Overton, Philip, Mr - 04676 Oxley, David - 05397 Parker, Alan - 05365 Parker, Alex - 05366 Parker, Nicola - 04536 Pemberton, Erica - 05401 Robertshaw, Alan - 05367 Rudd, Betty and Peter - 05378 Sables, Claire - 05391 Shaw, Brian - 05379 Shaw, Eileen - 05380 Shaw, Jane - 05381 Shaw, Maureen - 05382 Skeet, Gordon and Pamela - 05402 Spence, Adele - 05364 Spencer, R and K - 05429 Summers, Mary - 05030 Tate, David - 05154 Townsend, Graham and Lorraine - 05403 Treanor, Rowena - 05424 Treanor, S J, Mr - 05423

85 Treanor, Tim - 05425 Waddoups, Paul - 04566 Wagstaff, Melvyn - 05420 Ward, Andrew - 04651 Ward, Pamela - 05155 (1) Ward, Pamela - 05155 (2) Webster, Claire - 05355 White, Carol and Gary - 05454 Woodhouse, Colin - 05392 Woods, Jeanette - 05269