Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Sheffield City Council Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Assessment Phase 2 Settlements Final Report Copyright Jacobs U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs U.K. Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs U.K. Limited. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs U.K. Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this report. No liability is accepted by Jacobs U.K. Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Jacobs U.K. Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs U.K. Limited has been made. May 2005 Jacobs Babtie: 1 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9DX Tel: 0113 242 6771 Fax: 0113 389 1389 Issue Record Sheet Report Number Issue Date Authors Checker Authorised for Comment No issue by Project Director 1 05 Sept, Martin White, Interim draft issued to 2004 Alan Mitchell of RMBC 2 04 Martin White, 1st Draft Issued to Alan October, Nathan Smith, Mitchell (RMBC), Bob 2004 Nicole Roche Wallens (DMBC) and Peter Rainford (SCC) 3 October 1st Draft Issued to DTZ, 2004 Costas Georgiou of the South Yorkshire Partnership and Wendy Strutt of RMBC 4 16 Nov 2nd Draft Report Issued 2004 to Bob Wallens (DMBC), Alan Mitchell (RMBC), Peter Rainford (SCC), Peter o Brien (Transform). 5 February Martin Final Draft Report 14th,2005 White/Nicole Issued to Bob Wallens, Roche/Nathan Alan Mitchell and Peter Smith Rainford: 6 14 April Final Report Issued on 2005 CD. 7 17 May Nathan Smith Final Report reissued 2005 on CD incorporating DMBC final comments Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Report Check List Job No: 0010705 Date: 17 May, 2005 Author(s):Nicole Roche, Nathan Smith, Leanne Checker: David Pendlebury Higgins, Martin White, Ben Ramsden (Plans) Check points Author Checker 1. Is this a draft (D), interim (I) or final (F) report? F 2. Does this report fulfil its purpose? (Y or N) y 3. Are conclusions/recommendations clear and acceptable? (Y or N) y 4. Have drawings been approved? (Y or N) n-text only 5. Have calculations been checked? (Y or N) n/a 6. Have parameters been clearly recorded and correctly used? (Y or n/a N) 7. Have assumed parameters been clearly recorded and are they n/a reasonable? (Y or N) 8. Does the report appear to be factually correct? (Y or N) 9. Is the report to a satisfactory presentational standard? (Y or N) y 10. Has the report been correctly compiled? (Y or N) y Contents page correct and complete Page and paragraph numbers correct References complete Appendices complete SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS Author: ….……………………....……………..........................….…..........…...Date................................. Checker: ..……………………......................……………….........……....……..Date................................. Approved by Project Director: …............................................................….Date.................................. NOTES This sheet to be filed with the report and submitted to the Project Director for approval. The Checker shall be a staff member with sufficient experience in the subject to be able to review the documentation properly. The Checker and Project Director may be the same person, however the Author and Checker may not. Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 1 2.0 South Yorkshire Settlements in Context Page 5 3.0 Methodology for Phase II Page 13 4.0 Defining Settlements/Neighbourhoods and Strategic Areas Page 17 5.0 Data Collection to Assess the Sustainability of Settlements Page 32 6.0 Doncaster Assessment Page 35 7.0 Rotherham Assessment Page 92 8.0 Sheffield Assessment Page 157 9.0 Potential Policy Issues for South Yorkshire Page 218 10.0 Comparative Review With Place Typologies Page 231 11.0 Key Conclusions Page 252 Tables Table 1.1: Purpose of the Study Table 1.2: Study Requirements Table 2.1: Core Objectives of the Sustainable Communities Programme Table 4.1: Strategic Areas Table 5.1: Data Sources Table 6.1: Doncaster Settlement Scoring of Settlement Capital and Planned Improvements Table 6.2: Summary of Planned Improvements in Doncaster Table 6.3: Accessibility and Function Table 6.4: Categories of Change Table 6.5: Potential Benefits of Change Table 6.6: Areas of Zone 3 Flood Risk Table 6.7: Areas of Zone 2 Flood Risk Table 6.8: Other Environmental Constraints Table 6.9: Potential Qualitatative Intervention in Outlying Settlements Table 6.10: Settlements with Vacant Land/Buildings and Constraints within Settlement Table 6.11: Overall Scores for Doncaster Settlements Table 6.12: Settlements Identified for Intervention and/or Plan led change Table 6.13: Settlements Identified for Minor Change Only Table 7.1: Rotherham Scoring of Settlement Capital and Planned Improvements Table 7.2: Planned Improvements in Rotherham Table 7.3: Accessibility and Function in Rotherham Table 7.4: Catergories of Change Table 7.5: Potential Benefits of Change Table 7.6: Overall Scores for Rotherham Settlements Table 7.7: Rotherham Settlements Idnentified for Intervention and Plan Led Change Table 7.8: Rotherham Settlements Indentified for No Change or Minor Change Table 8.1: Urban Capacity of Sheffield Settlements/Neighbourhoods Table 8.2: Sheffield Summary of Neighbourhood Characteristics Table 8.3: Sheffield Settlement Sieving Table 8.4: Sheffield Scoring of Settlement Capital and Planned Interventions Table 8.5: Service Classification of Sheffield Settlements/Neighbourhoods Table 8.6: Planned Improvements in Sheffield Table 8.7: Categories of Change Table 8.8: Potential Benefits of Change in Sheffield Settlements/Neighbourhoods Table 8.9: Overall Scores for Sheffield Settlements Table 8.10: Settlement/Neighbourhoods Identified for Intervention and Plan-Led Change Table 8.11: Settlements/Neighbourhoods Which Are Only Suitable for Small-Scale Change Table 9.1: Settlements/Neighbourhoods Assessed Table 10.1: Summary of RPG Spatial Guidance and Typologies Table 10.2: Classifcation of Coalfield/Market Towns based on RPG Typologies Table 10.3: Regional Settlement Study Place Typologies Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Table 10.4: Comparison of South Yorkshire Settlement Assessment with the Regional Settlement Study Table 10.5: Consideration of Settlements against HMR/Dearne Valley Place Typologies Table 10.6: Consideration of Urban Neighbourhoods against Urban Centre Typologies Table 10.7: Centres identified in UDP’s Table 10.8: Potential South Yorkshire Service Centre Alignment Figures Figure 3.1: Methodology Flow Chart used for Phase II Figure 4.1: Doncaster Urban Area Figure 4.2: Rotherham Urban Area Figure 4.3: Sheffield Stage 1-Identifying UDP Boundary’s Figure 4.4: Sheffield Stage 2-Add Housing Market Renewal Boundary Figure 4.5: Sheffield Stage 3-Identify Strategic Regeneration Areas Figure 4.6: Add District and Regional Shopping Centres Figure 4.7: Final Sheffield Neighbourhood Boundary’s Figure 4.8: Settlement Boundary and Strategic Areas. Figure 5.1: South Yorkshire Settlement Capital Figure 6.1: Doncaster Outlying Settlement Functional Hierarchy Figure 6.2: Suggested Doncaster Settlement StrategyOutside HMR/DVDZ Figure 6.3: Suggested Doncaster Settlemetn Strategy within the HMR Figure 7.1: Rotherham Functional Hierarchy Figire 7.2: Suggested Rotherham Settlement Strategy Figure 8.1: Functional Classification of Sheffield Neighbourhoods/Settlements Figure 8.2: Sheffield Suggested Neighbourhood/Settlement Strategy Figure 11.1: Suggested South Yorkshire Settlement Strategy Figure 11.2: Spatial illustration of overall South Yorkshire Settlement Strategy. Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Technical Appendices Main Report Appendix 1: Strategic Conclusions from the Study of Policy Alignment in South Yorkshire Appendix 2: Phase I Methodology Review Appendix 3: Sheffield Methodology Appendix 4: Scoring Definitions Appendix 5: Doncaster Settlement/Neighbourhood Scores Appendix 6: Rotherham Settlement/Neighbourhood Scores Appendix 7: Sheffield Settlement/Neighbourhood Scores Appendix 8: Dearne Settlement Scores from Phase 1 ALSO SEE BARNSLEY, DONCASTER, ROTHERHAM AND SHEFFIELD TECHNICAL APPENDICES Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Rotherham MBC, Doncaster MBC, Sheffield City Council and Transform South Yorkshire South Yorkshire Settlement Study: Phase II Final Report Disclaimers These data must not be reproduced without permission of Rotherham Partnership Neighbourhood Statistics Team, and the above reference and logo must always be displayed